God. Real. Right.

“Once-saved-always-saved,” the doctrine of eternal security, is a hard pill for some people to swallow. A caller to my radio program is witness to just such. He claimed that since the letters to the churches in the Revelation were written to believers, and that God said to them that if they did not repent He would blot them out of His book, that it is obvious that some believers can lose their salvation. As I struggled to figure out what passage he could have in mind, it became apparent that his well-intentioned argument was based, as is often the case, on something not quite the same as the actual content of the passage of scripture so casually referenced.

To be precise, the caller’s claim was, “If the believers do not repent, God will blot them out of His book.” For perfect clarity, that statement could be symbolized as
~ R –> B
where “~” means “not”, “R” means “that believers repent”, and “B” means “that they will be blotted out.” The arrow, “–>”, represents implication, the “if-then” relationship in this case.

However, as it turns out, the only passage in the chapters he mentioned even vaguely similar to the caller’s reference is Revelation 3:5, which actually Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

This post is the next in the line of reasoning I employ to explain (1) why it is challenging to understand how there could be a free will, but (2) that it is much more theologically, philosophically, and ethically crippling to reject its possibility, (3) that it is possible that there is a free will, and finally (4) that commitment to the reality of free will renews access to essentials of a Christian worldview, including teleology. This is the final post in the second section. Posts to date are compiled here.

2.2.3 As determinism eliminates or reduces real moral responsibility, then either motivation for good behavior declines or deception becomes society’s ally.

Suppose it is true that the less personal freedom individuals understand to be theirs, the less assertive they become in addressing their weaknesses, overcoming their limitations, or in plunging into matters formerly considered insurmountable. (This supposition does cut both ways. Freedom also precipitates evil. But that admission is no loss at all to the libertarian position. It follows and fits naturally with the idea of responsibility.) This supposition is at least in some measure phenomenologically accurate. Hard determinism produces a kind of malaise concerning personal activity and motivation. Since things cannot be other than what they are and will be, why get all into a dither about affecting them? Then it turns to the determinist’s advantage (in the interest of society) to maintain a sense of freedom and responsibility for individuals, not as a claim of correspondent truth, but as a stimulus to beneficial behavior. In fact, the only practical alternative to such a deception is the wholesale purchase of Skinner’s suggestion to go Beyond Freedom and Dignity altogether, recognizing that the ideals of freedom and dignity only hamper the development of a technology of behavior which would allow presumably benevolent social authorities not only to train people to do what is beneficial, but also to want what is beneficial, making objection absurd. The latter world is so contemptible that it will require a few more decades before most people will be sold on its viability. The former, however—the one in which people are told they are free even though the more informed among them understand they really are not—is already present. Certainly high-minded, particularly theological determinists would condemn using any such utilitarian deception. But they would condemn themselves in so doing. For the soft determinism—the compatiblism—many of them embrace is precisely the deceptive form of hard determinism suggested above. For what exactly does soft determinism do? It allows its adherents to continue to take advantage of terms identified with freedom, including freedom itself, while maintaining every tenet of hard determinism un-impinged.

Share on Facebook

Previously, Dr. Everett Berry addressed a listener’s claim that John 6’s statements about eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood are about the Eucharist, a common belief among Catholics and others who hold the doctrine of transubstantiation—not my view, of course. Here are the follow-up emails regarding that interchange. Obviously, I agree with Dr. Berry, and find his comments sufficient to make the point.

Here’s Gene-the-Catholic’s reply to Dr. Berry’s first explanation:

Dr. Everett, thanks for responding to Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

Dr. Everett Berry (Ph.D. Theology, Southern Seminary) is a frequent guest on “Live from Criswell”. His presence allows me to address more significant theological issues. He is a theologian, after all!

Here’s a follow-up e-mail he received after mentioning John 6’s comments about “eating my flesh” and such, followed by his reply to the email.

Dr. Berry, I heard you on Dr. Creamer’s radio show. I have a question for you. Why should we take John 6 verses 50-69 as symbolic? Why not take Him literally as Catholics do?
Thank you, Gene

And here is Dr. Berry’s reply:

Gene,

Thanks for the question. Briefly, when we deal with John 6, verses 50-69 are a part of the larger discourse that Jesus is having with the crowds, the Jews and his disciples. He begins by saying that the people are following him because they have eaten “literal” food. But they should rather seek the food which is eternal (6:27). He then interprets the eating of that food in several ways; as believing in the Father who sent him (6:29), as coming to him and believing (6:35), and as beholding and believing in the him (6:40). This being said then, when Jesus claims that the one who eats his flesh and drinks his blood will be raised on the last day (6:54), the point is that the one who has eternal life is the one who believes he is the bread from heaven who gives his flesh for his people. Furthermore, Jesus tells the disciples that the flesh profits nothing but his words are of the Spirit and so they give life (6:63). Those who eat them have eternal life but still there are those who do not (6:64). Also, just as a practical question, how does it make sense to interpret this passage as referring to the Eucharist when this ordinance has not been established yet. This would seem to be anachronistic.

Just food for thought. No pun intended.
Blessings,
Everett Berry

And my comment? I think the pun was intended.

There is more on this interchange here.

Share on Facebook

Click on the image for the Dallas Morning News’ photo-journalistic telling of this compelling story about the beauty, significance, and value of life. TK and Deidrea Laux plan to be in studio for “Live from Criswell” on Thursday, October 15. It should be a remarkable opportunity to reevaluate the gift of life.

Share on Facebook

Here is a circumspect letter from a Catholic listener about a doctrine we’ve covered for the last couple of days on the radio, sola scriptura, i.e., that scripture is the sole final authority for Christian faith and practice.

Dr. Creamer, I am Catholic and I listen to your program everyday and I enjoy it even though I disagree with most of your theology. I am not able to call in to your show but I want to address sola scriptura.

But before I ask my question I must take issue with several comments. First the Catholic Church does not and never has believed in ongoing revelation.

From the Catechism # 66 There will be no futher revelation: …no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit, it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries”

Example: About ten years ago Pope John Paul II spoke from Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

Here’s the Baptist Press story I mentioned on the air yesterday.

In U.K., care denied for premature baby

Posted on Sep 18, 2009 | by Staff
WASHINGTON (BP)–A young British mother says her prematurely born son was left to die last October by doctors because he fell two days short of the minimum requirement for care.

Sarah Capewell’s son, Jayden, was born 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy, but physicians said he needed to be at 22 weeks gestation in order to be treated, she told The Daily Mail in a Sept. 9 article. He lived for nearly two hours without medical assistance. She is seeking a review of the guidelines followed by National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in such cases.

Jayden, who was born at an NHS hospital in Norfolk, was breathing without help, had a strong heart rate and was moving his arms and legs after his birth, said Capewell, 23.

She told The Daily Mail she pleaded with a pediatrician, saying, “You have got to help.” The doctor said, “No we don’t”

While she was having contractions, a chaplain visited her to make plans for a funeral for her yet-to-be-born son, Capewell said. “I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn’t even born yet, let alone dead,” she said, according to the newspaper.

Compiled by Baptist Press Washington bureau chief Tom Strode.

Here’s the well-informed listener e-mail I received in response to what I said on air:

I enjoy listening to your show almost daily as I drive home from work and I appreicate the topics you discuss. I generally agree with most of what you say. However on this subject from Oct 6, 2009, I think you were not well informed and Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

Michael Moore certainly knows how to make a spiel entertaining. But no amount of entertainment, and for that matter, rhetoric, can make a claim true. Michael Moore does more than make a claim. Instead, he makes an argument—a series of statements intended to establish another statement, as Monty Python so eloquently stated decades ago. Arguments come in many forms. But regardless of form, some are sound and some are not. Unsound arguments are fallacious by definition. But fallacies also come in many forms. For instance, some are formal (committing at least one error in how the argument is structured, regardless of content) while others are material (making factual claims which are false). Fortunately, Mr. Moore’s fallacies are of both kinds.
It would be a herculean and soul-deadening task to address every falsehood presented in the latest of Moore’s documentaries, Capitalism: A Love Story. So, instead, let’s focus only on Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

A weakness in my personal study of texts, biblical and otherwise, has always been my reluctance to rely on secondary sources for interpretation. I’m not sure whether my motive is noble in the sense of relying on self-discipline or arrogant in the sense of rejecting any reading other than my own. But either way, or more likely somewhere in between, there my commitment has lain.

And either as a result of that commitment or in spite of it, I have been blessed to learn from texts some interesting things apparently often overlooked.

As a high-schooler, my argument for my approach was simply that it was not my responsibility to find out what everyone else thought—that it was my responsibility actually to think. My experiences and personal characteristics would create a unique intersection with each text I encountered. Why, I reasoned, would it be worth existing just to think other people’s thoughts? (My vocabulary was not the same then, but my argument was.)

The only serious problem with that line of reasoning is that it presumes there Read the rest of this entry »

Share on Facebook

Our last day in Israel was spent at places of importance surrounding the crucifixion. We descended from the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane to the Kidron Valley. We visited Caiaphas’ house and the Pool of Bethesda. We stood in the pit where Jesus was kept the night of his arrest. And we saw the best candidate for Golgotha and the Garden Tomb. Best moment: reading Psalm 88 while standing in the pit mentioned above. Worst moment (or at least the oddest): a stranger in the Arab quarter grabbing Dr. Wooddell by the arm and declaring, “I love you; I want to kill you.” Hmm.
The greatest impact of the trip overall is realizing how incarnate Christianity is—not myths caricaturing theories but facts applying truths.
The worst impact of the trip overall is realizing how poorly instantiated the reality of Christianity is in me. We’ll just have to work on that.

Share on Facebook