Stephen W. Hiemstra's Blog, page 262

Fools for Christ

“We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands. When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure” (1 Cor. 4:10-12 ESV)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Where is your identity?

The Apostle Paul talked about being a fool for Christ. Why? Paul lived the life of an itinerant evangelist, much like Jesus himself. He traveled from place to place preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As far as we know it, he was never married or had any children. Being highly educated, Paul gave up a priestly or academic life to pursue his calling as an evangelist to the Gentiles.

Can you image attending your 30th anniversary of receiving your doctorate [1] and telling your fellow graduates:

“I am talking like a madman– with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.” (2 Cor. 11:23-28)

Doubtlessly, Paul’s classmates were synagogue leaders, high priests, government officials, and college professors. Do you suppose that he hungered and thirsted for righteousness sake? Paul treated his hunger and thirst like his resume as an evangelist—he even refused a salary from the Corinthian church to maintain his integrity as an evangelist [2].

Yet, Paul’s life of service no doubt also put him in tension with God. Paul talked about his thorn in the flesh and struggling with God in prayer (2 Cor. 12:7-8). And he must have anguished over God’s answer to his prayer: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Who brags about weaknesses? Paul did (2 Cor. 12:9). Still, you can bet that Paul struggled and anguished over God’s object lesson!

If our identity is in Christ, then we are reminded of our identity through the sacraments which both focus on objects of hunger (bread) and thirst (water/wine). Jesus’ first miracle was to turn water into wine (John 2:1-10). Another important miracle involved multiplying bread and fish (John 6:11). Yet, after Jesus’ longest recorded discourse with the Samaritan women about living water, Jesus refers to the word of God as food (John 4:32) [3].  Clearly, our identity is in Christ and not in the sacraments or in the physical objects of hunger and thirst. When tempted by Satan to turn a stone into bread, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 8:3: “Man shall not live by bread alone.” (Luke 4:4)

Out of our identity, we act.

The New Testament provides numerous examples of ministering out of our identity in Christ with food and water, including:

“Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?” (Matt. 25:37)
“if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” (Rom. 12:20)
“And he said to me, It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.” (Rev. 21:6)

If the first sin of the bible was to lust after an apple (Gen 6), then it is only fitting that the mark of the disciple would be the sharing of food and drink (Matt 25:37)—modeling after the behavior of Christ himself (Rev 21:6).

 

[1] My 30th anniversary is December 13, 2015.

[2] “Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel to you free of charge?” (2 Cor. 11:7)  Also: “Do we not have the right to eat and drink?” (1 Cor. 9:4)

[3] “Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might he increases strength. Even youths shall faint and be weary, and young men shall fall exhausted; but they who wait for the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.” (Isa. 40:28-31)

Ortberg Sharpens and Freshens Jesus

John Ortberg.  2012.  Who Is This Man?  Unpredictable Impact of an Inescapable Jesus.  Grand Rapids:  Zondervan.

Review by Stephen W. Hiemstra

John Ortberg’s new book, Who Is This Man?, is a biography focused on the unexpected influence Jesus has on the many spheres of our lives. Ortberg writes:

“After his disappearance from earth, the days of his unusual influence began.  That influence is what this book is about…Normally when someone dies, their impact on the world immediately begins to recede…Jesus’ impact was greater a hundred years after his death than during his life…after two thousand years he has more followers in more places than ever.” (11).

Talk about influence. Most of us would be happy if our parents and/or kids listened to us.

Ortberg has an eye for details and for things contrary to expectations, either today or in ancient times. For example, in evaluating Jesus as a leader, he outlines his strategy for influencing people.  Paraphrasing a pep talk by Jesus for the disciples, he writes:

“Here’s our strategy. We have no money, no clout, no status, no buildings, no soldiers…We will tell  them [Jewish and Romans leaders, Zealots, collaborators, Essenes] all that they are on the wrong track…When they hate us—and a lot of them will…we won’t fight back, we won’t run away, and we won’t give in.  We will just keep loving them…That’s my strategy.” (107)

Huh?  Who would have thought that a group using this strategy would even survive the first century, let alone influence anyone.

John Ortberg is the pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, California which is part of the Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians (ECO), a new denomination formed in 2012.  According to the foreword written Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State, this book started out as sermon series.  The book is written in 15 chapters, including:

The Man Who Won’t Go Away,
The Collapse of Dignity,
A Revolution in Humanity,
What Does a Woman Want?
An Undistinguished Visiting Scholar,
Jesus Was Not a Great Man,
Help Your Friends, Punish Your Enemies,
There Are Things That Are Not Caesar’s,
The Good Life Versus The Good Person,
Why It’s a Small World After All,
The Truly Old-Fashioned Marriage,
Without Parallel in the Entire History of Art,
Friday,
Saturday, and
Sunday (5).

These chapters are preceded by a foreword and acknowledgments, and followed by an epilogue and references.  I was first exposed this this material in a men’s group discussion where we viewed the DVD.  There is also a separate study guide.

Ortberg is surprisingly well read drawing on details from a range of resources ancient and modern.  For example, describing a bit of his own background from a psychologist’s perspective he writes:

“The quickest and most basic mental health assessment checks to see if people are ‘oriented times three’:  whether they know who they are, where they are, and what day it is.  I was given the name of Jesus’ friend John; I live in the Bay area named for Jesus’ friend Francis; I was born 1,957 years after Jesus. How could orientation depend so heavily on one life?” (11)

He observes that each of his 3 orientations (who, where, and when) were influenced directly by Jesus.  Pretty good influence for someone who lived 2,000 years ago!

One of the chapters that impressed me the most was the chapter called: Saturday.  Saturday after Good Friday and before Easter is starting to be celebrated as a religious holiday in itself—I often wondered why. Ortberg describes these 3 days as a typical 3-day story with a specific form: day 1 starts with trouble; day 2 there is nothing; and day 3 comes deliverance. The problem with day 2 is that you do not know if day 3 is coming—faith is required. Saturday is the only day in 2,000 years when not a single person on earth believed that Jesus was alive. It’s only on the third day that you know you are in a 3-day story! (175-177) Next year I think that I will look for a Saturday service to attend.

John Ortberg’s book, Who Is This Man?, offers a fresh description of Jesus, his thinking, and his life. Most Christians today have heard too many bland accounts of Jesus for our own good—so much so that we have trouble hearing God’s voice in these accounts. Ortberg’s insights come in explaining Jesus’ context so artfully that Jesus’ radical contribution is more obvious—Jesus steps out of the picture frame into the room with us. This is the kind of book that, after reading a couple chapters, you will want to buy copies for your family and friends.  In other words, drop what you are doing and read this book.

 

http://www.JohnOrtberg.com

http://mppc.org

http://eco-pres.org

As a writer and publisher, I immediately picked up on the absence of footnotes in this book.  References are given in the back of the book sequenced by chapter.  However, there are no footnotes or endnotes indicated in the text itself. Actually, I liked this style of referencing because the text flows more naturally with fewer distractions.

Plantinga Defends Merits of Confessional Faith, Part 3

Alvin Plantinga. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief.  New York:  Oxford University Press. (Goto Part 1; Goto Part 2)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Alvin Plantinga begins his rebuttal of atheistic critiques citing the Apostle Paul’s words:

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20 ESV)

This is an interesting place to start because Paul goes on to share what is essentially the God’s curse for rejecting salvation under the new covenant in Christ. The curse is that the disbeliever is “given over to” (become a slave of) the desires of their own heart which has, of course, been corrupted by original sin. Paul’s assessment here is that disbelievers have specifically fallen into the sin of idolatry.  This curse is not a random rant, as is often alleged.

Plantinga recaps the atheologian’s complaint with these words:

“What we saw is that this complaint is really the claim that Christian and other theistic belief is irrational in the sense that it originates in cognitive malfunction (Marx) or in cognitive proper function that is aimed at something other than the truth (Freud).” (167)

Behind modern atheism is a similar problem of idolatry where the idolatry is focused on technologies to manipulate creation physically (science) and other  techniques (social, political, and psychological) to manipulate fellow human beings. It is interesting that only  the church and faith could stand in the way of such Faustian manipulation.

Plantinga builds a conceptual model on the foundation articulated by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin (A/C) based on Paul’s own words.  The claim is offered that “there is a kind of natural knowledge of God.” (170).  Calvin calls this knowledge sensus divinitatis which is:

“A disposition or set of dispositions to form theistic beliefs in various circumstances, in response to the sorts of conditions or stimuli that trigger the working of this sense of divinity.” (171)

Plantinga offers 6 characteristics of this sensus divinitatis model:

“ According to the A/C model, this natural knowledge of God is not arrived at by inference or argument…but in a more immediate way…In this regard, the sensus divinitatis resembles perception, memory, and a priori belief…”
“Proper Basicality with Respect to Justification. On the A/C model, then, theistic belief as produced by the sensus divinitatis is basic…As I argued above…it is really pretty obvious that a believer in God is or can be deontologically justified.”
“Proper Basicality with Respect to Warrant…Perceptual beliefs are properly basic in this sense: such beliefs are typically accepted in a basic way, and they often have warrant.”
“Natural Knowledge of God. This capacity for knowledge of God is part of our original cognitive equipment, part of the fundamental epistemic establishment with which we have been created by God.”
“Perceptual or Experiential Knowledge…knowledge of God ordinarily comes not through inference from other things one believes, but from a sensus divinitatis…To the believer, the presence of God is often palpable.”
“Sin and Natural Knowledge of God…this natural knowledge of God has been compromised, weakened, reduced, smothered, overlaid, or impeded by sin and its consequences.” (175-184)

Plantinga summarizes with these words:

“a belief enjoys warrant when it is formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties in a congenial epistemic environment according to a design plan successfully aimed at truth—which includes…the avoidance of error.” (184)

In a nutshell, God made us to accept belief in a natural, sober way and when we respond in faith our belief cannot be ridiculed as dysfunctional or in any way in error.

Plantinga then turns back to the atheological critics.  For example, with respect to Freud, he writes:

“…according to the Heidelberg Catechism, the first thing [on coming to faith] I have to know is my sins and miseries. This isn’t precisely a fulfillment of one’s wildest dreams.” (195)

Obviously, sin is a problem for those who, like Freud, believe that faith is some kind of projection of desire onto God.  Plantinga offers an interesting insight into sin’s pervasive and devastating impact on fallen humanity:

“Original sin involves both intellect and will, it is both cognitive and affective. On the one hand, it carries with it a sort of blindness, a sort of imperceptiveness, dullness, stupidity. This is a cognitive limitation that first of all prevents its victim from proper knowledge of God and his beauty, glory, and love; it also prevents him from seeing what is worth loving and what worth hating…But sin is also and perhaps primarily an affective disorder or malfunction. Our affections are skewed, directed to the wrong objects; we love and hate the wrong things.” (207-208).

Let me end my summary at this point.

Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief provides the reader with an interesting rebuttal to the main complaints of the modern atheists—Marx, Freud, and, to a lesser extent, Nietzsche—about faith. None appeal to scientific knowledge in their complaints; in fact, they offer little real evidence for their characterizations of faith. Religious faith is justified and immune from slander when approached soberly and in full knowledge of alternatives.  While a typical reader would probably enjoy a thumbnail sketch of these arguments, Plantinga’s thoroughness offers comfort for those afflicted by the apologetic passions.

Plantinga’s work has one implication that deserves thought.  If the modern critique of the Christian faith washes out ultimately as nothing more than unsophisticated slander, then philosophies and actions predicated on that slander are themselves without warrant—nothing more than rabbit-hole and, in some cases, a nightmare.   What fruit has come of it that deserves saving and what fruit should be discarded? (Luke 76:43-44)

Having crawled out of the rabbit-hole and dusted ourselves off, what would hitting the reset button look like?

 

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” (Rom. 1:22-25 ESV)  That is, by giving them over to their own desires, they receive the pagan’s curse.

Prayer Day 30: A Christian Guide to Spirituality by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Available on Amazon.com

Almighty Father, beloved Son, Holy Spirit. Bless us so that we will take your laws into our hearts and follow them in our daily lives. May sin and evil not attract us. May our friends practice righteousness and may we follow their example. Guide us with songs of righteousness and holy prayers (Ps 1:1–2). Let us honor your holy boundaries and remove the sin from our lives. To you and you alone be the glory. Amen.

Padre Todopoderoso, Hijo Amado, Espíritu Santo. Bendícenos para que podamos llevar a tus leyes en nuestros corazones y seguirlas en nuestros diario vivir. Que el pecado y la maldad no nos atraigan. Que nuestros amigos practiquen rectitud y que sigamos su ejemplo. Guíanos con cánticos de rectitud y oraciones santas (Sal. 1:1-2). Que podamos honrar tus limitaciones santas y quita el pecado de nuestras vidas. Para Tí y sólo a Tí sea la gloria, Amén.

Hunger and Thirst for God

“As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God? My tears have been my food day and night, while they say to me all the day long, Where is your God?” (Ps. 42:1-3 ESV)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

The great irony of faith is that we approach God out of our poverty, not riches. Babylon and Egypt were among the riches of nations in the Ancient Near East because of the benefits of irrigation, while Palestine was mostly poor and best known for its deserts. Yet, it is in the wilderness that we get to know God (Card 2005, 16).

What do the law and the prophets say about satisfying the hunger and thirst for righteousness?

The Law. Hunger and thirst were unknown in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis we read:

“And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.” (Gen. 2:8-10 ESV)

In the Garden of Eden was an abundance of food and water. Righteousness consisted of living in direct communion with God. Hunger and thirst arose when God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden on account of sin (Gen 3:23). Consequently, hungering and thirsting for righteousness can be seen as mourning over the sin that separates us from God.

We see this idea prominently displayed in the blessings associated with the Mosaic covenant. Seeking a renewed relationship with God is caste in terms of obeying the laws of the covenant. Moses writes:

“And if you will indeed obey my commandments that I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, that you may gather in your grain and your wine and your oil. And he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you shall eat and be full.” (Deut. 11:13-15 ESV)

If one obeys the law, God will send rain and you gather a full harvest and have plenty to eat—be satisfied. Likewise, if one reluctantly obeys the law or disobeys the law out of disrespect for God, then hunger and thirst follow:

“Because you did not serve the LORD your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, because of the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness, and lacking everything. And he will put a yoke of iron on your neck until he has destroyed you.” (Deut. 28:47-48 ESV) [1].

Consequently, it is fair to conclude that under the law one reaps what one sows in respect to one’s relationship with God! In fact, hungering and thirsting for mere physical things, not God, is subject to judgment (Exod 17:3) [2].

The Prophets. In the law, one reaps what one sows. In the prophets, the wise are clever and the foolish are ignorant of the ways of the world. For example, we read in Proverbs:

“If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you.” (Prov. 25:21-22 ESV)

Because God rules over both heaven and earth, understanding the ways of the world is an aspect of wisdom that God grants to the faithful. In this case, the wise feed their enemies and offer them drink because they will feel an obligation—will they perhaps become friends?

In the prophets, we also see hunger and thirst used in a more metaphorical way. For example, Jeremiah prophesies a new, more enlightened form of leadership:

“And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.” (Jer. 3:15 ESV)

The good shepherd is, of course, Jesus himself (John 10:11-16) but here we see hunger relieved through “knowledge and understanding” rather than through physical consumption. This metaphorical view of hunger and thirst clearly shows the influence of the creation accounts and pictures heaven as a return to Eden. In Isaiah, for example, we read:

“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food.” (Isa. 55:1-2 ESV)

Eden is, of course, a place where water and food are abundant. And when we hunger and thirst for God’s fellowship, heaven is not far off (Rev. 22:17).

[1] This theme is repeated over and over (e.g. Deut. 8:11-16).

[2] This is, in fact, the basis for the curse for not accepting the new covenant in Christ.  Paul writes:  “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” (Rom. 1:28 ESV)  To be given over to one’s passions is a curse and it leads to self-destruction because both the mind and the heart are corrupted by sin.

REFERENCES

Card, Michael. 2005. A Sacred Sorrow Experience Guide: Reaching Out to God in the Lost Language of Lament. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Plantinga Defends Merits of Confessional Faith, Part 2

Alvin Plantinga. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Alvin Plantinga sees two basic classes of objections to Christian faith since the Enlightenment:

The first objection he calls the de facto arguments—objections to the truth of Christian belief.
The second objective he calls de jure arguments—objections often harder to pin down—more like innuendo than like a serious philosophical critique.

He further breaks down the de jure objection into 3 categories: Christian belief is unjustified, irrational, and unwarranted (viii-x). Let me address each of these 4 arguments in turn.

De Facto Objections to Faith. The most widely known de facto objection to faith is based on suffering (viii), but Plantinga sees these arguments as well known and straightforward to address (ix).

One objection has to do with discussing God’s transcendence.  Citing Gordon Kaufman (1972, 8), for example, Plantinga writes:

“The central problem of theological discourse, not shared with any other ‘language game’ is the meaning of the term ‘God’. ‘God” raises special problems of meaning because it is a noun which by definition refers to a reality transcendent of, and thus not locatable within, experience.”

Plantinga turns this argument on its head asking—did Kaufman (or, for that matter, Kant who he is paraphrasing) show (or prove) that this critique has any real merit? (5; 31)  This same response to other objections phrased primarily as slander or innuendo aimed at believers or God himself.  Plantinga observes: ”If God is omnipotent, infinitely powerful, won’t he be able to manifest himself in our experience, bring it about that we experience him?” (34)

In another example, when Freud objects to Christian faith because it is likely wish fulfillment, Plantinga asks: what is the problem?  Are you saying faith is like to be false? (x) It is hard to rebut a poorly articulated criticism which takes more the form of an ad hominine attack than a philosophical claim about truth. It is like the television show that repeatedly (and disproportionally) pictures Christian pastors as unsophisticated or morally corrupt, but offers no information to support for the implied character assassination—repeating a claim does not strengthen its merits, but it does wear out those targeted.

The implication in Plantinga’s rebuttal is that Christians are frequently too polite to unmask unfair criticism designed primarily to intimidate or shame believers.  Perhaps, for this reason, Plantinga focuses more on the 3 de jure objections (63).

Christian Faith is Unjustified.  Plantinga notes that critics claim that is unreasonable or unjustified, but the precise nature of their objection is unclear—it lacks cogence.  What exactly is the question?

He observes that the 3 traditional proofs of God’s existence—the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments—provide a prima facia argument for God’s existence and basically rebut this criticism (68).

Plantinga explores the requirements of evidentialism, which argues: “that belief in God is rationally justifiable or acceptable only if there is good evidence for it. (70; 82)  He then observes that John Lock offers 4 kinds of knowledge:

“Perceiving the agreement or disagreement of our ideas.” [judgment?]
“…propositions about the contents of your own mind…”
“…knowledge of other things of external objects around you.”
“…demonstrative knowledge…know by a proportion by deducing it…” (75-77)

After a lengthy discussion of the classical requirements of evidentialism, Plantinga finds no de jure question to suggest that Christian faith is unjustified (107).

Christian Faith is Irrational. Plantinga asks: “what is it for a belief to be rational?” He observes these forms of rationality:

“Aristoltelian rationality, the sense in which, as Aristole said, Man is a rational animal…
Rationality as a proper function [not dysfunction or pathology 110];
Rationality as within or conforming to the deliverance of reason;
Means-ends rationality, where the question is whether a particular means someone chooses is , in fact, a good means to her ends; and
Deontological rationality [or justification].” (109)

In his review of these different definitions of rationality, he finds “not much of a leg to stand on.” (135) One point that would suggest a rational criticism is when someone loves another person or people group sacrificially. If I put myself at risk in becoming a missionary to a dangerous place or people group, then in a real sense I am acting sub-rationally and those disadvantaged by my actions may criticize my rationality (or my motives) in various ways.

Christian Faith is Unwarranted. Plantinga observes that atheologians (Freud, Marx, Nietzsche) have criticized Christian belief as irrational but not in the sense described above—Nietzsche, for example, referred to Christianity as a slave religion (136). Freud described Christianity as “wish-fulfillment” and as an illusion serving not a rational purpose, but serving psychological purposes (142). In Marx’s description of religion as “the opium of the people” suggests more a type of cognitive dysfunction (141).

Plantinga concludes:

“when Freud and Marx say that Christian belief or theistic belief or even perhaps religious belief in general is irrational, the basic idea is that belief of this sort is not among the proper deliverances of our rational faculties.” (151)

Plantinga accordingly concludes that the real criticism of “Christian belief, whether true or false, is at any rate without warrant.” (153; 163).  In this context, warrant means:

“…a belief has warrant only if it is produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly, subject to no disorder or dysfunction—construed as including absence of impedance as well as pathology.” (153-154)

Plantinga’s strategy in analyzing the atheologian complaints accordingly is to discuss what they are not saying—not complaining about evidence, not complaining about rationality in the usual sense, not offering evidence that God does not exist—to eliminate the non-issues. What remains as their complaint is a twist on rationality—actually more of a rant—you must be on drugs or out of your mind—which is not a serious philosophical complaint except for the fact that so many people repeat it. So Plantinga politely calls this complaint a charge of cognitive dysfunction.

At this point, Plantinga has defined the de jure criticism of atheologians in a manner which can now be properly evaluated in philosophical sense. The problem is not a problem per se with the existence of God (a metaphysical issue), but with the process of accepting a belief (an anthropological issue). This definition both clarifies and simplifies the development of a response.

In part 3 of this review, I will examine his response to this problem statement.

 

Taylor (2006, 113) writes:  “God’s existence can be explained by the fact that he is perfect in nature and therefore necessarily existent.”

Taylor (2006, 127) writes: “The traditional design argument focuses on things in nature that appear to be designed.”  Complexity in nature points to a grand designer the way that finding a watch on the beach points to the watch maker.

“Anselm defined God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived” which is the most common ontological argument for God’s existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument).

Plantinga notes that an illusion, in contrast to a delusion, is not necessarily false (139).

 

REFERENCES

Kaufman, Gordon.  1972.  God the Problem. Cambridge:  Harvard University Press.

Taylor, James W. 2006.  Introducing Apologetics:  Cultivating Christian Commitment.  Grand Rapids:  Baker Academic.

Plantinga Defends Merits of Confessional Faith, Part 1

Alvin Plantinga. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief.  New York:  Oxford University Press.

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Part 3 of my Longfield review ended with a rather frustrating assessment:

“The weakness in the evangelical position is philosophical:  very few PCUSA pastors and theologians today subscribe to Scottish Common Sense Realism.  If to be postmodern means to believe that scripture can only be interpreted correctly within its context, then we are all liberals in a Machen sense.  A strong, confessional position requires philosophical warrant—a philosophical problem requires a philosophical solution—which we can all agree upon.  In the absence of philosophical warrant and credibility, the confessions appear arbitrary—an act of faith.”

For most of the period since 1925, evangelicals have had a bit of a philosophical inferiority complex—having to take on faith that the confessional stance of the church since about the fourth century was not defensible in a rigorous philosophical sense.  It is at this point that Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief becomes both an important and interesting read.

The philosophical problem is more specifically found in epistemology—how do we know what we know?  Because Christianity is a religion based on truth claims, epistemology is not just nice to know—it is core tenant of the faith.  For example, Jesus said:

“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:31-32 ESV)

Being unable after 1925 to agree on the core confessions of the denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and evangelicals more general were placed on the defensive. Faith increasingly became private matter as more and more the denomination withdrew from public life, from active evangelism and missions, and from teaching about morality.  Later, unable to meet the modern challenge, the denomination came to be coopted by postmodern philosophies—if faith is simply a strongly held value, then it will crumble when confronted with more deeply held beliefs.

Into this crisis of faith, Plantinga defines his work in these terms:

“This book is about the intellectual or rational acceptability of Christian belief.  When I speak here of Christian belief, I mean what is common to the great creeds of the main branches of the Christian church.” (vii)

Notice that Plantinga has to both specify that he is writing about epistemology (theory of knowledge)—“intellectual or rational acceptability of Christian belief”— and specify what Christianity is—“what is common to the great creeds”.  Plantinga expands on this problem saying:

“Is the very idea of Christian belief coherent?…To accept Christian belief, I say, is to believe that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good person (a person without a body) who has created us and our world, who loves us and was willing to send his son into the world to undergo suffering, humiliation, and death in order to redeem us.” (3)

In other words, in his mind the measure of the depth of this crisis of faith extends to the very definition of the faith.

Alvin Plantinga wrote Warranted Christian Belief while working as the John A O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame [2].  He writes in 14 chapters divided into 4 parts:

Part 1: Is There a Question? (pages 1-66)

Kant
Kaufman and Hicks

Part 2: What is the Question? (67-166)

Justification and the Classical Picture
Rationality
Warrant and the Freud-and-Marx Compliant

Part 3: Warranted Christian Belief (167-356)

Warranted Belief in God
Sin and Its Cognitive Consequences
The Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model: Revealed in Our Minds
The Testimonial Model: Sealed in Our Hearts
Objections

Part 4: Defeaters (356-499)

 Defeaters and Defeat
 Two (or More) Kinds of Scripture Scholarship
 Postmodernism and Pluralism
 Suffering and Evil

Plantinga lays out his argument in a lengthy preface and follows his chapters with an index.

Plantinga’s book focuses on two main points which he describes as:

“An exercise in apologetics and philosophy of religion” where he answers a “range of objections to the Christian belief”; and


“An exercise in Christian philosophy…proposing an epistemological account of Christian belief from a Christian perspective.” (xiii)

In other words, Plantinga responds to objections the faith and lays out a model for understanding the philosophical acceptability of faith—an idea that he calls “warrant”.  Plantinga defines warrant as:

“warrant is intimately connected with proper function. More fully, a belief has warrant just it is produced by cognitive process or faculties that are functioning properly, in a cognitive environment that is propitious for the exercise of cognitive powers, according to a design plan that is successfully aimed at the production of true belief.” (xi)

The core discussion of warrant lays out what he refers to as the Aquinas/Calvin model of faith. He writes:  “Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin concur on the claim that there is a kind of natural knowledge of God.” (170). This innate knowledge of God given at birth he refers to as a “sensus divinitatis” which is triggered by external conditions or stimuli, such as a presentation of the Gospel (173).

Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief is an important contribution to epistemology because he meets the objections to faith head on and others a plausible explanation for why Christian faith is reasonable, believable, and true. Christians need to be aware of these arguments both to know that their faith is defensible and to share this defense when questions arise.

Part of this argument is that if the existence of God cannot be logically proven and cannot be logically disproven then it is pointless to talk about logical proofs—the modern challenge to faith is essentially vacuous—empty without philosophically based merit. Faith rests on what is more reasonable and more consistent with experience—what beliefs are warranted, not mathematical proofs. From Plantinga’s perspective, we accordingly do need not be defensive about our faith.

In this review, I have outlined Plantinga’s basic presentation.  In part 2, I will review the arguments against faith and, in part 3, I will look at Plantinga’s model of faith in greater depth.

 

Longfield Chronicles the Fundamentalist/Liberal Divide in the PCUSA, Part 3 (http://wp.me/p3Xeut-11i)

[2] http://philosophy.nd.edu/people/alvin....

Prayer Day 29: A Christian Guide to Spirituality by Stephen W. Hiemstra

Available on Amazon.com

Heavenly Father. Beloved Son. Holy Spirit. Thank you for teaching us to pray. Be with us as we take new steps in our journey of faith. Open our minds as you have opened our hearts. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

Padre Celestial, Hijo Amado, Espíritu Santo. Gracias por enseñarnos a orar. Se con nosotros mientras tomamos nuevos pasos en nuestro camino de fe. Abre nuestras mentes como has abierto nuestros corazones. En el nombre de Jesús oramos, Amén.

Jesus: Passionately Pursue the Kingdom of Heaven

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” (Matt. 5:6 ESV)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

With the fourth beatitude we move from tension with ourselves to tension with God. Beatitudes four, five, and six speak of God’s righteousness, mercy, and purity—which we can never fully attain. Our tension emanates from our finitude compared with an infinite God and our sinfulness compared with God’s holiness. Yet, we go on knowing that we are created in the image of God (Gen 1:28) and redeemed by His Son, Jesus Christ.

The fourth beatitude taps into deep physical and spiritual needs outlined in the words: “hunger and thirst for righteousness”.  Hunger in the Greek, πεινάω, means both “to feel the pangs of lack of food, hunger, be hungry” and “desire something. strongly, hunger for something” (BDAG 5758) which bridges both physical and spiritual needs (Matthew 5:6; Luke 6:21).  Likewise, thirst, διψάω, in the Greek means both “to have a desire for liquid, be thirsty, suffer from thirst” and “to have a strong desire to attain some goal, thirst, i.e. long for something” (BDAG 2051). Righteousness, δικαιοσύνη, means the: “quality or state of juridical correctness with focus on redemptive action, righteousness” (BDAG 2004(2))

The  Gospel of John expresses this symbolism best.  Jesus says:

“Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35 ESV)
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”  (John 7:37-39 ESV)

The theme of need runs deep in John’s Gospel.  Jesus first reveals himself to a couple of newlyweds in danger of being stigmatized for their poverty (not having enough wine; John 2:1-11). Our need is then contrasted with God’s super-abundant provision—of wine (John 2:1-11), bread (John 6:5-14), and fish (John 21:3-13).

Still, to “hunger and thirst for righteousness” speaks of extreme suffering:   the most basic of human needs have gone unmet. The laments in the Book of Psalms provide the backstory of this beatitude [1].  There we read: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Ps. 22:1 ESV) And “How long, O Lord? Will you hide yourself forever?” (Ps. 89:46 ESV)  [2]. It is ironic that we are able to experience God best when we wander in the desert.  As God tells Moses:  “And you shall say to him [Pharaoh], The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness.” (Exod. 7:16 ESV)  In other words, God was inviting the Israelite people to rediscover the God of their fathers through adversity—this idea must have blown Pharaoh’s mind! (Card 2005, 16)

The second beatitude affirms that the expectations of human needs will be met and exceeded.  Jesus reassures the disciples later in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Therefore do not be anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matt. 6:31-33 ESV)

Amidst our suffering and need, Jesus gives the disciples permission to pray for the simplest needs in life: “Give us this day our daily bread” (Matt. 6:11 ESV). Jesus’ God is one  who cares deeply about his people. Even in judgment God cares for his people: the righteous are separated from the wicked by their attitude about and care for those in need (Matt 25:31-46).

[1] Christian songwriter Michael Card (2005, 19 ) writes at length about lament.  A lament has two parts.  The first part is cathartic–we pour out our hearts to God emptying ourselves of the anger, fear, hatred, and other vile emotions that we harbor.  Once this catharsis is complete, then in part two are hearts are open to remember God grace and mercy to us in the past and we are able to praise God from the bottom of our hearts.

[2] Modern atheism feeds from this painful stream. Modern atheists question God’s provision and care: if God is all powerful and all good, then the existence of suffering and evil suggests that God is either not all powerful or not good or not both—he does not exist. In contrast, Jesus testifies that those who passionately seek righteousness will be satisfied. The Greek word here for satisfy, χορτάζω, means “to experience inward satisfaction in something be satisfied” (BDAG 7954). Far from deserting us, in life Jesus suffered alongside of us, on the cross paid our penalty for sin, and in resurrection became our guarantor.  “While some continue to argue that Auschwitz disproves the existence of God, many more would argue that it demonstrates the depths to which humanity, unrestrained by any thought or fear of God, will sink.” (McGrath 2004, 184).

REFERENCES

Bauer, Walter (BDAG). 2000. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. ed. de Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. .

Card, Michael. 2005. A Sacred Sorrow Experience Guide:  Reaching Out to God in the Lost Language of Lament. Colorado Springs:  NavPress.

McGrath, Alister. 2004. The Twilight of Atheism. New York: DoubleDay.

Invitation to Author Talk and Workshop on May 31, 2015 (Trailer)

Available on Amazon.com

Invitation to Author Talk and Workshop on May 31, 2015 (click to view trailer)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Have you ever been called a friend of God? James, the brother of Jesus, called Abraham a friend of God (James 2:23). In Genesis 12:1-3, God blessed Abraham with these words:

“Now the LORD said to Abram,Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Gen. 12:1-3 ESV)

The purpose of Christian spirituality is to live into God’s blessing and, in doing so, to bless those around us.

I would like to invite you to join me in discussing Christian spirituality on Sunday, May 31, 2015 from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. at First Presbyterian Church of Annandale, Virginia.

Please come a bit early so that we can start on time.

Refreshments will be served and I will have copies of my book, A Christian Guide to Spirituality, available. Afterwards, I will hang around to talk and sign books. A Christian Guide to Spirituality is also available online on Amazon.com.

If you have not previously visited First Presbyterian Church of Annandale, please check out the directions on their website. The church is located in a residential neighborhood so directions are necessary.

In closing, I hope that you can join us on May 31. Thank you for listening.

Check out video trailer (view)

First Presbyterian Church of Annandale

7610 Newcastle Drive

Annandale, VA 22003-5422

http://www.FPCAnnandale.org