gdp's Comments

Reformed and Reforming : John Piper's Concerns with the New Calvinist

Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:54:43 +0000

Hey Ted, thanks for commenting and thanks for the kind remarks. Yea, I thought the picture of John was intense. I guess so. My intent was just to share his primary points in response to the question and to leave readers with the link for the rest. Cheers, Jesse

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:39:43 +0000

“You cannot go from the claim that a work was transmitted with 99.5% accuracy to the conclusion that it is historically reliable (as you seem to do in the paragraph starting with \\\"in the end....\\\").” David, I’m beginning to think that you don’t actually read my comments. What I said to Brandon was this, “To determine the legitimacy of any historical document, experts generally use a process called The Bibliographic Test. Basically, experts determine the reliability of any given document by considering the number of manuscripts and the time elapsed between them and the originals.” Brandon and I have been talking specifically about the reliability or unreliability of the Bible itself as a piece of literature in history; not the historical accuracy of its contents. Please be more careful when reading comments and attributing misinformation to what was or was not said. Thanks for understanding, Jesse.

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:09:24 +0000

“Thanks for the link! I had began to read that some time ago, but did not complete it for one reason or another. Just finished it.” No problem buddy. Thanks for taking the time to read through it. “I simply ask the question as to how we know these particular writings are in-fact reliable to their originals. Seeing as though we do not possess any originals, it seems an impossibility to state that the texts we read today are reliable to the originals…As a blanket statement, I can agree that there are many manuscripts that point to, what some believe as, the validity of happenings in the NT. However, among those 25,000 manuscripts, how many errors and variations do they contain? Scholars have documented some 200,000+ errors (intentional or otherwise) within those 25,000 manuscripts.” Great question and I see the hang-up. To determine the legitimacy of any historical document, experts generally use a process called The Bibliographic Test (see C. Sanders). This is the test employed on any work of antiquity that does not have an original existing copy. Basically, experts determine the reliability of any given document by considering the number of manuscripts and the time elapsed between them and the originals. First, as we’ve already touched on, there are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. With so many manuscripts available, there are actually no other works in history that come close to the New Testament . Not only do we have a trunk full of Greek manuscripts, there are over 9,000 manuscripts in Arabic, Syriac, Latin, etc…, that add further support (see my link from before). Second, the New Testament manuscripts are within 25 years of their original counterparts. Again, no historical documents can compare. Now, in one sense, the 200,000 figure you allude to is correct. However, these are not errors, these are variances. Huge difference. Here are how variances are determined: “These [variances] are spread throughout more than 5,300 manuscripts, so that a variant spelling of one letter of one word in one verse in 2,000 manuscripts is counted as 2,000 [variances]” (Geisler, 532). Bruce Metzger – someone you should read on this topic – estimated that the New Testament as we have it today is 99.5% accurate based upon the Bibliographical Test. And again, if you were to juxtapose other historical documents you would see that this level of accuracy is unmatched. What is more, of these variances not one of them affect in any shape, way, fashion, or form a single doctrine from the Bible. This is why I don’t think there is any reason to pause in your response. In the end, to dismiss the Bible as a historically unreliable and untrustworthy document would be the same as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, we might as well do away with any other historical piece of literature because none of them are as validated as the New Testament. Maybe I just need to let you treat me to a cup of coffee to finish this conversation? Cheers, Jesse.

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:06:26 +0000

“I never said the Book of Revelations was written by the apostle John.” You must not have read my comment, again. I didn’t say you attributed authorship to John. I said your example is offensive and inappropriate. “And you\\\'re ignoring the substance of my comments.” No I’m not. I’m just choosing not to engage in a discourteous conversation Cheers, Jesse.

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:06:04 +0000

“You can\\\'t substantiate a claim that the Bible is infallible with an unsubstantiated claim that Jesus rose from the dead.” The funny thing is you’ll never be able to prove your own claims since you’ll never find His body = P Besides, there’s more than enough extra-Biblical material evidence that says otherwise. See my link in my response to Brandon for additional information. Cheers, Jesse

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:35:27 +0000

David, again, you have developed a boat load of claims that you're not substantiating in any way. I'll respect you and your opinion, but your comments are uncalled for in regards to the Apostle John. You'll need to refrain from such elementary statements in the future.

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:33:06 +0000

"credible evidence" See, unlike Joseph Smith and Muhammad, Jesus Christ substantiated His claims by rising from the dead. Now, if you're going to make an extraordinary amount of loaded statements, you should pay the same respect that you ask of me in actually verifying them. Cheers, Jesse

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:36:15 +0000

Hey Brandon. Good to hear from you. Hope you’re doing well. While we’re chatting about this, here is a link to a post that I wrote on different facets of validating the historical validity of the Bible. It’s not exhaustive, but I’m assuming this in my response: http://reformedandreforming.org/2009/10/01/for-th... “This argument starts with the premis that the Bible is in-fact a trustworthy collection of works. How does one prove this collection of works is reliable, trustworthy, and/or even authoritative?” Yes, the Classical Method does assume the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible as you presuppose its incredibility in your own position. Strictly speaking as a piece of literature, you would determine the validity of the Bible the same way you would any piece of literature. To discredit the historicity of the Bible would be to discredit the historocity of history itself (Whoa that was redundant). For me, I learned that we do not have the ability to casually disregard the Bible as an old, antiquated book, for to do so would require us to disregard all other books written as the same. “In my personal studies, I have found that many textual critics would agree that what we have come to know as the Bible is not the same as the originally penned words. They would also submit that because we have, with 100 percent accuracy, none of the original documents, but copies of copies of copies of documents, it is extremely difficult to say for certain that the copies which we have today are unaltered from the originals.” First off, I hope the sources you look too are more reliable than the ones you used in understanding the oral tradition of the Ancient Near East : p Those are really lofty claims. What source(s) are you relying upon to justify your position that the sources we have are so unreliable? What you’ll see from the link I provided above, there is much more evidence to prove the validity of the Bible than other ancient documents. For me Brandon, it takes more faith in a lesser god not to be in the validity of the Bible. In the end, its reliability and trustworthiness are rooted within God Himself. I like what Martin Kahler once said, “We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible, but we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.”

Reformed and Reforming : 1 Way to Defend the Authority and Trustworthiness of the Bible: The Classical Method

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:35:54 +0000

Dave, I’m sorry, but your example doesn’t follow the premises above, namely Premise C. The historicity of a document does not validate its authority, but its legitimacy.

Reformed and Reforming : Wayne Grudem on Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:38:49 +0000

Thanks for sharing a little about yourself. I appreciate the gesture. “Don\\\'t complain that I point out that your definitions don\\\'t fit your claims. Perhaps, instead of dictionary definitions, you should simply explain what you mean by them in your own words. That is, after all, what I asked you----what you have in mind when using those words.” You must have glossed over what I commented. “But religious humanism isn\\\'t being taught/endorsed in our (American) schools. Nor is secular humanism. If you think otherwise I\\\'d be interested in seeing evidence to that effect. As for an example of evidence pointing the opposite direction\\\" I don’t have access to my materials at the moment, but in the meantime, here are some articles that tackle this issue: http://www.contenderministries.org/humanism/human... http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.ht... http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/newageed.h... “And am happy to debate and discuss those values (and others not mentioned for the sake of brevity) any time another may disagree with them.” If you’ve read my about page, I imagine you realize I disagree with the foundation you’re working from. I would love the opportunity to talk more about it, but due to my obligations with family, work, and school, time does not permit me too. I’ll do my best to respond to your comments. \\\"What sort of society, with what sort of values, is it sensible to want to live in\\\" I have no qualms with a plurality of positions within the democratic process, so I would welcome your viewpoint when determining the future of our country. My only misgiving in this process is the exclusion of exclusive religious presuppositions, such as Christianity. In my opinion, this defies the First Amendment.

Reformed and Reforming : Wayne Grudem on Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:48:10 +0000

David, listen, I don’t mind to chat with you about these things, but my lack of time requires me to assume you know what I’m talking about when referring to humanism and secularism. This is why I simply provided a general, non-conclusive definition from Dictionary.Com. With this said, I simply ask that you respect my time with this being a hobby among many things. For a further elaboration on humanism as a religion, then read the Humanist Manifesto I and II. Secularism is not an ideology that is objectively neutral from any influence. In other words, it is not an isolated island oasis. A great example of this can be found in the work of Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo in “The Future of Religion,” especially pages 14 and 33 (I believe you can read this via Google Books). There are varying opinions as to the meaning of secularism, which is due in large part to the multiple expressions that exist. In its purest form, this is merely an expression of naturalism and humanism. For additional information and varying approaches in understanding the ideological underpinnings of this word, then read Jean Paul Sartre, Karl Marx, John Dewey, B.F. Skinner, and Julian Huxley. Besides, if there were such a thing as a purely secular state, how then does a Secularist go about addressing moral issues? Cheers, Jesse BTW: You\\\'ve never identified yourself? Who is the infamous \\\"David E.?\\\"

Reformed and Reforming : Wayne Grudem on Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:58:27 +0000

From Dictionary.com Religion: 1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. Humanism: Any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. Secularism: Exclusion of religion from public affairs

Reformed and Reforming : 5 Things You May Not Have Known About Healthcare Reform

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:12:59 +0000

"It's interesting to me how little concern is expressed for the poor in the attitudes of most Christians in discussions I've seen of health care." Good point. This was not a post on the implications of Christianity in heatlhcare, but rather a relating of points that are typically glossed over in the media and unbeknownst to many. "Given how much Jesus was focused on the poor in the Gospels it sees the attitudes of so many American Christians seem, frankly, just bizarre" WWJD doesn’t work in discussions of Christianity and Government. The Gospels do not contain an elaboration on Christianity and Government and do no not limit Christians to developing beliefs solely based upon them. This is why I would believe that it would be impossible to use WWJD in regards to healthcare reform.

Reformed and Reforming : Wayne Grudem on Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:36:56 +0000

"A rather bizarre claim in a nation where no candidate for high office has a chance of winning an election if he does not at least appear to be religious (and Christian, in most places)." I disagree that this is a bizarre claim. For politicians to express their belief in a particular religion for political expediency compared to the actual practice of the government are two different matters. Secularism/humanism is as much of religion as Christianity, Hinduism, and New Age Spirituality. My main point of contention with this religion and the state is that it has obviously been endorsed and favored within our public school system which is a violation of the First Amendment. To favor secularism/humanism and anti-religion in the public square is misguided and wrong. Historically the First Amendment never espoused such a notion. If it did, then much of our history would have to be revised. Oh wait, I think it already is ;) Cheers, Jesse

Reformed and Reforming : Wayne Grudem on Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 02:24:08 +0000

Succinct article. I'm glad the child was allowed to continue wearing his hair long for his religious beliefs. Thanks for sharing

Reformed and Reforming : Wayne Grudem on Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Sun, 11 Jul 2010 21:18:00 +0000

"If one values religious pluralism, as the writers of the website you linked to claim to, then one should be FOR separation of church and state (including keeping religion out of public schools)--- not against it." For me, this is when it begins to get tricky. You bring up a lot of great points that need to be taken into consideration when determining how this works out in practice. I can't say that this is an issue that I have dwelt upon extensively, but if I do have questions I usually refer to the links above or other resources that stem from a similar position. I don't believe that religious neutrality actually exists, so this is why I would lean towards the options suggested by the links above. Especially the last point they made: The Center for Public Justice advocates equitable public funding for all children, allowing parents to choose the means of education that is best for their children. A school-choice system of this kind does justice to parental responsibility for children, to the diversity of publicly approved schools, and to the religious freedom of all citizens, ensuring a just and proper relationship between government and society’s diverse families and schools. If anything, I see that secularism/humanism has become the endorsed religion of the state at the expense of all others.

Reformed and Reforming : 7 Fatal Flaws of Relativism

Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:45:10 +0000

The contradiction lies within the internal framework of a relativist. In quoting the further elaboration of this point by the authors: "The entire objection [similar to what you voiced above] hinges on the observation that true evil exists. The only way one can have this complaint about God is if evil is 'out there' as an objective feature of the world. Evil can't be real if morals are relative to the subject." The go on to say, "If relativism is true, the objection against God based on evil vanishes. There is no true evil to discuss, only differing opinions about what is pleasant or unpleasant, desired or not desired" (pg. 63).

Reformed and Reforming : Wayne Grudem on Why Christians Should be Involved in Politics

Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:39:50 +0000

Hey David. Although I don't disagree with Dr. Grudem, those were actually his words, not mine. You're question and illustration are off topic. Dr. Grudem is speaking about the influence of secularism and how the trajectory of certain policies will inevitably inhibit the freedom of speech and religion. If you're lingering around for the sake of simply disagreeing, then I'm going to encourage you to read http://reformedandreforming.org/2010/05/20/6-keys... I'm not sure about Dr. Grudem, but I lean towards a principled pluralist position in responding to your question. Since you've been somewhat of a good sport, I'll at least refer you to the Center of Public Justice. http://www.cpjustice.org/content/religious-freedo... \\ http://www.cpjustice.org/content/education Cheers, Jesse

Reformed and Reforming : 7 Fatal Flaws of Relativism

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:31:08 +0000

"He doesn't need to in order to employ the version of the POE I presented as one compatible with moral relativism" A consistent relativist could not employ your argument above. It would be internally inconsistent for them to do so. I would like to know what self-identified relativist employs this argument?

Reformed and Reforming : 7 Fatal Flaws of Relativism

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:06:05 +0000

What you're failing to explain is how a relativist can explain the problem evil. All you have done is made ontological arguments against theism. That's not the topic. Back to your original point: "This is a formulation of the POE that does not involve passing moral judgments on the part of the one employing it nor on assuming the existence of moral truths. Therefore your claim that moral relativists cannot consistently employ the POE as an argument against theism is mistaken." You're using an ontological argument (study of God) as a means of justifying knowledge (epistemology) and evil. Besides, the argument you use doesn't work because the relativist would have to admit there is sufferiing in the world, and based upon their worldview, that's not possible beyond personal preference.