Biblical Inequality

Is there such a thing? Indeed there is, and it was an assumed truth until only recent centuries. Seriously, some of the most beloved early and medieval fathers would even make modern Complementarians blush, and yet the latter are supposedly the last bastions against absolute equality (more on that below). And if you're an Egalitarian with heart problems, please, for your own safety, do not read "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women" by John Knox.

But before I continue, if you have no idea what "Complementarian(ism)" and "Egalitarian(ism)" mean, get yourself acquainted before reading on. This is the Danvers Statement, a founding document of the Complementarian movement, written by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), the preeminent Complementarian organisation. And this is the mission and faith statement of the Christians for Biblical Equality, the preeminent organisation for Christian Egalitarianism. Also read their "Statement on Men, Women, and Biblical Equality". These opposing doctrines are a necessary background to what I will be arguing, because they comprise almost all Protestant/Evangelical believers today, and in this and the coming posts, I am attacking a core assumption of both doctrines (although Egalitarianism is far more harmed, for obvious reasons).

The Zondervan Quran

You didn't have a stroke, that title is real, and that image is real.

Zondervan Academic - one of the largest publishers of Christian academic works - is releasing its own translation of the Quran with full commentary and supplementary essays [1]. 

I first got the news from Disrn [2], a Christian media site that gives short rundowns of the major stories around the world and in Christianity. As I expected (and I will admit, I shared this reaction for the first minute), many commentors on their Facebook post raised concerns of Chrislam, an unholy marriage of Christian and Islamic doctrine by spineless 'Christians'.

But reading the product description, I'm slightly excited to get my hands on one of these. Apart from the socially necessary (and submissively toned) platitude to Muslims ("Factual, respectful of Muslims"), this looks solid. The work is aimed at Christian professors, students, pastors, and missionaries in teaching the contents of Islam and interacting with Muslims. It is written for Christians by Christians.

Right now, I am a high school teacher in training, and one of my subject qualifications will be Studies of Religion. I really only intend to teach Christian truth, as in Biblical Studies classes that independent Christian schools run. But interaction with other religions is inevitable, so this book may well become my one stop shop for equipping students in the spiritual war against Islam. Well, that and David Wood's ministry. Both of these resources will become my mains.

How about you, fellow Christians? Are you comfortable with a Christian publisher releasing a heathen text, though it comes with a Christian commentary? Do you fear Chrislamic ideas will be pushed, or will the conflicts between Christianity and Islam be duly acknowledged?

~~~

[1] - "The Quran with Christian Commentary - A Guide to Understanding the Scriptures of Islam" https://zondervanacademic.com/products/the-quran-with-christian-commentary

[2] - https://disrn.com/news/zondervan-publishes-quran-with-christian-commentary-as-ministry-resource

Blaspheming the Symbol

A question was posted in a 'Christian' Facebook group asking for the weirdest replacements for bread and wine people have partaken in communion with. Plenty of laugh reacts and friend tags were had, with only a minority challenging this sacrilegious trend. I gave my own comment, and many reacted positively do it. Hopefully it gives some good perspective to undecided Prots and Prots who think this practice is licit:

"If private revelations agree with scripture, they are needless"

Pentecostals involved in theological discussion with other denoms will have or inevitably will encounter this cessationist quip, often attributed to John Owen and his critique of the Quakers, but actually from J.I. Packer's summary of John Owen's argument:

"... if their 'private revelations' agree with scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false." [1]

This quote and its simple(istic) argument is a go to, slam dunk reply by cessationists. I can almost smell their sense of victory whenever they use it. But being totally honest, it baffles me to no end how anyone can unironically accept such a non-sequitur.

And to be clear, the second half is obviously correct. The first half is the non-sequitur. Now, I haven't studied the Quakers and their claims of private revelation, so don't take me as critiquing John Owen's supposed argument necessarily, but its use today against Pentecostals and Charismatics.

With that understood here is my entire refutation:

"If private revelations agree with scripture, they are needless."

Why?

...

...

...

Okay I lied, my arguments are almost never shorter than a college essay. But that is the essence of my argument; why? On what basis? How does this follow?

I can only see this somewhat working if we happy clappies actually believed in revelation that revealed new doctrine; if scripture is needed to confirm this new doctrine, then it's not a new doctrine, but old doctrine with a new gift wrap. But we don't believe this, bar any fringe movements, which are irrelevant in critiques of a mainstream movement. This may well be a source of confusion by cessationists.

To us, prophecy clarifies direction and edifies the faithful. God comes to ordinary people and says "Do this" or "Fear not", among other things. No new doctrine is being presented, but new direction, or redirection, serves to correct the faithful's path.

So knowing this, then, how does the above argument follow at all? It doesn't, and it fails spectacularly. Private revelation is not needless if it agree with scripture because doctrinal needs are not the only needs.

But I love taking my opponent's assumptions for granted and turning it into their own defeater, so let's just cede their entire argument. Okay, if private revelations that agree with scripture are thus useless, then:

If 'divine revelations' from Yahweh agree with the Torah, they are needless.

Are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and all the other prophets consistent with the Torah? Of course they are! So I guess they're not needed then; out of the Canon they go! 

When is the Cessationist Refined Version coming into print? I wouldn't mind a thinner, easy to carry Bible.

~~~

[1] - J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life, 1994. P.g. 86.

Biblical languages ought to be learned, not dissected

As with most Bible students who pursued the Biblical languages, I learned Koine Greek and Classical Hebrew at my Bible college (aka seminary) through reading a fat textbook and brute memorizing paradigms. This is the normal method of learning the Biblical languages; they are codes to be cracked with algorithms and keys, rather than languages to be internalized and understood.

When I discussed this with one of my Classical Hebrew lecturers, he replied that the point of learning Biblical languages is to understand the complexities of grammar and syntax issues in order to best interpret the scriptures, not to speak them like a living language. I replied that one best understands the nuances of meaning in a language when they internalize, when they know it.

Consider this; you are a United Nations official searching for a Russian to English translator. Vladimir Putin is about to give a world changing speech, so proper and accurate translation is absolutely critical. You have two candidates for translator; a man who has studied advanced Russian grammar but cannot speak it or understand it by ear, or a man who has done decent Russian grammar study (though not as advanced as the former guy), but can speak and write fluent Russian and immediately understand any text and speech (including Russian idioms and cultural ideas).

Who do you hire? Who is in a better position to understand Putin?

I believe there are colossal implications for how the Biblical languages are taught. Imagine having entire Bible studies and sermons straight from the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic text with minimal to know references to the English because everyone present knows the language(s). Imagine reading the source material, Biblical and extra-Biblical, as it was written and with its intended meaning.

Now imagine reading John 1:1; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
After 'reading' it, the normal Bible student will head back to the beginning and say "Hmm okay, Ἐν means in, and ἀρχῇ means beginning. There is no definite article, but so it makes sense in English, I'll put in 'the', so, 'In the beginning'" and so on and so forth, taking maybe an hour+ to translate a chapter he could have read and understood in English in barely 3 minutes.
But then the student who knows Koine Greek will read this same passage and say "Okay, nice".

I think my point is clear enough; we should be learning Biblical languages as real languages. It is both more efficient and more immersive. And there is good news; material for this is already available, mainly for Koine Greek. I direct any and all interested persons to these sites; explore them yourself, and perhaps even start learning:

Biblical Language Center (https://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/): Online courses and physical books are available right now here, and they teach Biblical Greek and Hebrew as living languages. They also host occasional webcam lessons where students learn to communicate with each other in the languages. I can vouch for their Living Koine Greek part 1 beta online course, which has improved my Greek reading ability by orders of magnitude. And a new, superior online Koine curriculum is in the works right now, so look out for that.

KoineGreek.com (https://www.koinegreek.com/): A website that works with the Biblical Language Center, but provides many other materials for internalising Koine Greek, such as many Greek scriptures read out in the language in audio recordings.

Gagnon against cessationism

Of all the scholars I admire in theological wars, Robert Gagnon is easily in my top 5. He really carries the team in the battle against homosexualist apologetics.

So I was especially excited when I saw a write up of his against cessationism by pure accident (for the uninitiated, I am a Pentecostal). Read it and enjoy it:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/02/gagnon-on-cessationism-expanded.html

Abortion is not the pre-eminent issue

Traditional Catholic organisations like Church Militant do well in exposing the corruption of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. I was reminded of their attacks on Bishops who state abortion is not the pre-eminent issue in the US, chiefly Cardinal Blase Cupich and Bishop Robert McElroy (I cannot remember the exact video in which this happened, but their posture towards such Bishops is easily seen in their content, especially here). And these criticisms are more than noble, because countless within the Hierarchy are pumping the Vatican with progressive heresies, even from a Protestant perspective.

But what if I said that, on its own, the statement "abortion is not the pre-eminent issue" is actually correct?