This is the follow up to “A Decree to Rebuild.”
I read a lot of Bruce Charlton’s writings and frequently quote his work. He’s very good at getting at the root of problems, rather than dealing with the surface-level distractions. I apologize in advance for this lengthy quote, but it is important:
In other words; once you have accepted a coherent set of theological premises; you can use these as an effective basis to attack any other religion, denomination – or no religion.
So long as you stick to your own premises, and refuse to acknowledge these premises as being metaphysical assumptions that you-yourself have chosen to adopt — you can easily impress yourselfat the rigour and vigour of your own deadly dialectic!
You can even convince yourself that effective argument from your chosen-but-denied-assumed premises is a validation of these premises; meaning they must be true (i.e. necessarily true for all Men, at all times and places).
You can impress and convince yourself, perhaps; but it does not impress other people; because they do not share your chosen-premises, and they can see your baseline assumptions for what they are.
So, this kind of Trad Christian may be smug and confident; but to anyone else outside the assumptions he will appear a deluded fanatic: someone who attacks all the time because he must; and he must always attack because has no effective defence.
Citation: Bruce G. Charlton, “‘Trad’ Christians“
The point is straightforward: your axioms or metaphysical assumptions are more important than the arguments you make. This is, for example, why I have “derailed” discussions at Sigma Frame with my discussions about the underlying assumptions, rather than the explicit topics.
I’ve been following along with Ed Hurst’s teaching series on Eschatology, and he shared this questionnaire by Dr. Michael S. Heiser that aims to get at one’s “End Times” assumptions. It’s an excellent idea, so I’m going to take the quiz. Let’s see how informed (or uniformed I am). You may not find this interesting, so feel free to skip this post.
The two (Israel and the Church) are distinct, but closely related through Christ. The first[1] Covenant was with Israel—the people as a nation—and the second covenant was with Israel—those who are Jesus’ people. The former (Israel) is ‘replaced’ by the latter (the Church of Christ).
Read more in the threads here. I’ve drafted a detailed multi-part series on the Olivet Discourse, but it has never been published. One day I hope to complete it, when I’m satisfied with it. In the meantime, that’s the best argument I have, albeit an incomplete one.
Unconditional.
Did you notice that I put ‘replaced’ in scare quotes above? That’s because Israel was never actually replaced. Only Israel as a nation ceased to exist. Israel still exists because Jesus was a Jew in the line of David. As Israel’s rightful and currently reigning king, his subjects are also Israel by definition. What we call the modern “Israel” politically and culturally is a completely different entity that has no relevance to the discussion, despite the same name being used.
Notice how the difference between conditional and unconditional here is really just one of semantics. You could easily describe my position as being “conditional” because the nation of Israel is so different from the church, such that even calling them both “Israel” is itself implicitly conditional. Frankly, I agree. I don’t think the “conditional vs. unconditional” distinction matters all that much in the way that I understand it, nor do I think it constrains my eschatology as much as Heiser seems to suggest.[2]
For example, I don’t understand Heiser’s claim that “a descendant of David MUST sit on the literal throne.” I think what he is saying is that Christ must sit on a literal earthly throne rather than a literal heavenly throne. Whether you think it is just one or perhaps both of these, believing that the promises of God are unconditional doesn’t mean that you are tied to one particular explanation on Christ’s (or the church’s) rule.[3]
In fact, the reason I think the seat of the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church is not the throne of Israel has nothing to do with whether or not the covenants are conditional or unconditional (nor whether or not the papacy is the implementation of David’s throne for that matter).
I believe this is a bigger problem for other types of eschatology that depend on taking strong stances on these (somewhat speculative) arguments for their validity. As mine do not rely on these, my eschatology is thus less intellectually strained by this issue.
I’ve never thought about this question. I don’t see how it has any impact one-way-or-another on the eschatological viewpoints that I hold. Perhaps this creates a contradiction in some viewpoint that I hold, but I’m not aware of it. If anyone knows, please let me know.
No, there is no biblical proof. It is an inductive inference, not a matter of scriptural deduction.
In my experience, critics of the Bible have no idea what they are talking about. They find two sentences that appear to contradict and cite them without even considering the context in which they were written. This is not how reading comprehension works. If you were taking an SAT and forced to answer a multiple choice question after reading a short passage, you’d have to take the whole passage into consideration. This is how communication works. The hypothetical objection above isn’t to be taken seriously, because it isn’t a serious objection.
I don’t see the contradictions that Heiser is raising here, so from my perspective there is nothing to split or join.
Here is my assumption: Jesus was not a liar. Consequently, I look to the Bible and try to apply the Principle of Charity. This is, I suppose, a type of harmonizing, except the motivation for doing so is different: I’m seeking to find the most rationally consistent explanation, not the ‘correct’ one. So I guess I’m a joiner if you forced me to choose a box, not because I think it is true, and not because I have a preconceived eschatological stance. Indeed, the eschatology that I had held for decades changed because of this.
If that is all a bit vague, here is a quote from my drafted article:
The attempt to rationalize away the failure of the prediction screams of special pleading. Had Jesus’ prediction not (allegedly) failed to take place, no one would have thought his reference to generation was anything but the current generation. This is a fairly obvious case of post hoc rationalization.
Consider what the Revised English Bible commentary says:
The best explanation is that Jesus got it wrong!? At least it is an honest explanation. They don’t try to twist the language to say something that it doesn’t say. But, of course, missing from this entire discussion is the much better explanation: that it all came to pass within a single generation and that, for whatever reason, Christians don’t want to accept that.
The Olivet Discourse has led to some rejecting Christianity because Jesus’ prophecy (supposedly) did not come true, having proven that Jesus was a false prophet.
In other words, I don’t consider any of the competing efforts to explain the Olivet Discourse to be anything but weak, speculative, or fallacious reasoning. Once the bad arguments are removed, there really are not many competing explanations left over. It’s not really a matter of choosing between splitting and joining if logic compels you to a single ‘choice’.
Before.
This is a major assumption. If I’m wrong about this, then a lot (most?) of what I promote is wrong.
My reasoning goes like this: scripture itself testifies what must be, and if Revelation were written after 70AD, then scripture cannot be harmonized and this leads to many logical contradictions (like Jesus being wrong about his promises). Heiser thinks that all viewponts sound good if you assume their assumptions, but I’ve not found this to be the case. I don’t think most viewpoints based on a post-70AD Revelation are internally consistent, let alone externally.
Frankly, if Revelation is written after 70AD, then I’d probably just abandon eschatology entirely as false. I’d probably suggest that Revelation is fraudulent and not scripture. I don’t think I’d subscribe to one of the alternative viewpoints of eschatology, because I’m not impressed with the logic of those approaches.
This betrays my other assumption. I tend to reject any explanation that is largely arbitrary. It’s fine if a few points are not explained, but if the explanation that you do have is arbitrary, in particular if an explanation relies on something arbitrary, then it isn’t worth anything. I wrote this series on non-arbitrary eschatology.
Ancient Near East writings are not (ever?) purely linear and chronological. That’s a modern anachronism. Whether or not the book repeats the same several events in cycles begs-the-question however. There is no literary reason that one must take the book as linear or “recapitulating” and I don’t assume either must be the case.
The irony here is that though I reject the book as linear, I don’t object to a literal kingdom. Take that, Heiser’s logic! 😉
I don’t agree that scripture must have a strictly literal fulfillment (whatever that ambiguous term “literal” means), so this mostly doesn’t apply to me.
As for Amos 9:10-12 and Acts 15, I didn’t find anything there that I didn’t agree with. None of it challenges my eschatology.
Hold up. This is simply false, and I won’t stand for it as it questions my intellectual honesty. Here is precisely what my assumptions were for my four part series on Eschatology, which I stated up-front:
That’s my bias. If you are a Roman Catholic, you’ll have a different set of assumptions (i.e. tradition is permitted). But I told you up-front what my assumptions were.
In part 3 I have a detailed discussion in at the end where I explicitly discuss the issue of dating the book of Revelation, one of the supposed hidden assumptions that Heiser asked about. I’m very clear what my assumption is.
My assumption of the Principle of Charity is something that I mention regularly. It is no secret.
The point is that not all of us hide our assumptions. I try very hard to make them explicit. In fact I don’t believe that any of my answers to the questions revealed anything that I had not already disclosed as an assumption (where relevant).
Footnotes
[1] Heiser distinguishes between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. One could also add the Adamic covenant. For the purposes of articulating my position here, it is not necessary to differentiate between them, so I collectively call them the “first.” If you prefer “Old Covenant” as the umbrella term, you can go with that instead.
[2] Heiser writes: “For now, let’s talk about the conditional (C) vs. unconditional (UC) problem. The short answer to my question is “yes” – the covenants are BOTH C and UC.”
[3] Heiser writes: “Does anyone really want to deny that Jesus is king NOW? Is Jesus on the throne now? According to Hebrews 8:1 and 12:2 he is. He is “seated at the right hand of God.” But that isn’t enough for many Christians. They want the literal reign. Fine.”
> So, this kind of Trad Christian may be smug and confident; but to anyone else outside the assumptions he will appear a deluded fanatic: someone who attacks all the time because he must; and he must always attack because has no effective defence.
When I ran into a “baptism feast” being held on a public beach, I encountered the typical ritual of candidates being forced to “witness” before getting plunged into the lake. One of them was young man with stereotypical nerd glasses talking with an extremely high-pitched voice. Once he started singing his “baptism song” with his self-written lyrics without hitting a single note, my first gut response was: “What a sad example of religious trauma.”
The thing I realized at this moment: All this was looking totally fine for their pastor and all their invited guests. Only for bystanders who happen to attend more or less involuntarily they looked like deluded fanatics.
Here a certain ”saint” has wisdom that pertains also to certain ”MEN” in the sphere too.
thedeti says:
17 July, 2024 at 3:21 pm
Regarding women hating each other:
Mrs. deti just turned 60. She is fit and trim, with an athletic build. She has the figure of a dancer or a distance runner, both of which she has done in her youth and still does. (Evidence for the proposition that starting young with fitness has long term benefit.) Her figure looks better than many women half her age.
She often gets negative reactions from other women. She observes that other women are polite to her but keep her at arm’s length. She says she has a difficult time making new friends or moving through social groups and situations, even ones which we’ve been part of for years.
Mrs. deti says it’s because she feels socially awkward and uncomfortable. And that could be part of it. But part of it is other women’s envy at her physical appearance. Mrs deti does not believe this. She claims it is just because of her social awkwardness and discomfort, and because of other people’s discomfort with her. In my view, a huge part of this is other women’s envy at her appearance and the status her appearance gives her. Women get jealous of “hot” women, especially as women get older, heavier, more out of shape, and less able to attract the attention of men with their bodies.
That’s your Red Pill for the day.”
” genius” chump ”leaders” such as ”Jack” and ”Sparkly” didn’t like being around their glorious appearances,” felt” inferior( & rightly so TBH) beside them & envious towards the fact that MOSES, JESUS & THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN had entered the ‘sphere & was getting more page hits & spotlight than they combined had ever had in it since their barely noticeable debuts in 2017 and ’18 since their in truth mostly redundant generic ”redpillers” to begin with!
Also:
”Once he started singing his “baptism song” with his self-written lyrics without hitting a single note, my first gut response was: “What a sad example of religious trauma.”
The thing I realized at this moment: All this was looking totally fine for their pastor and all their invited guests. Only for bystanders who happen to attend more or less involuntarily they looked like deluded fanatics.”
Have you ever seen those ridiculous and absolutely ”unbiblical” ”rapture practices” that first got ”mainstream,” sanctified” & popular” in the ’80s brah!?
> Have you ever seen those ridiculous and absolutely ”unbiblical” ”rapture practices” that first got ”mainstream,” sanctified” & popular” in the ’80s brah!?
The pre-tribulation “rapture” is an American evangelical novelty that was created out of an incorrect reading of 1 Thessalonians 4:17
There more I learn about American culture, the more alien and foreign it appears to me, despite Americans assuming by default that they are representative of “the West”. Nobody seriously “practices rapture” outside America. Haven’t ever seen that. Adult baptism involving “witnessing” goes back to 19th century holiness movements.
In the late 4th century, John Chrysostom seems to have understood it as referring to the Resurrection on the Final Day of Judgment. To hear him talk about those left behind…
What will be the state of their souls, when they see some indeed taken up, but themselves left behind? Will not these things be able to shake their souls more terribly than any hell?
Let us represent then in word that this is now present. For if sudden death, or earthquakes in cities, and threatenings thus terrify our souls; when we see the earth breaking up, and crowded with all these, when we hear the trumpets, and the voice of the Archangel louder than any trumpet, when we perceive the heaven shriveled up, and God the King of all himself coming near — what then will be our souls? Let us shudder, I beseech you, and be frightened as if these things were now taking place. Let us not comfort ourselves by the delay. For when it must certainly happen, the delay profits us nothing.
…their judgment is imminent. So too did Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory of Nazianzus.
The “Rapture” according to much of the early church was just the resurrection of the dead and living in Christ.
I find it interesting that John Chrysostom used the phrase “left behind” in a way that is incompatible with American Evangelicalism’s rapture.
“More people have left the church in the last twenty-five years than all the new people who became Christians from the First Great Awakening, Second Great Awakening, and Billy Graham crusades combined,” Davis and Graham write in their new book, “The Great Dechurching: Who’s Leaving, Why Are They Going, and What Will It Take to Bring Them Back?”
Conclusion: This kind of eschatology is dead.
“Institutions in America tend to work for people who are on a traditional American path,” he said. “And unfortunately, the church has become one of those American institutions.”
Or in other words: Being in church now equals being a GOP voter.
Part of their advice: Be patient. The Great Dechurching didn’t happen overnight and won’t be reversed quickly. Congregations will need what the authors call “relationship wisdom” and a “quiet, calm and curious demeanor” where leaders are quick to listen and slow to speak. “The path forward,” they write, “is not easy but it is simple.”
The American church is apocalyptic cult for the most part and its eschatology conceivably failed the masses.
Source: https://religionnews.com/2023/09/07/the-great-dechurching-explores-americas-religious-exodus/
“More people have left the church in the last twenty-five years than all the new people who became Christians from the First Great Awakening, Second Great Awakening, and Billy Graham crusades combined,” Davis and Graham write in their new book, “The Great Dechurching: Who’s Leaving, Why Are They Going, and What Will It Take to Bring Them Back?”
Conclusion: This kind of eschatology is dead.
“Institutions in America tend to work for people who are on a traditional American path,” he said. “And unfortunately, the church has become one of those American institutions.”
Or in other words: Being in church now equals being a GOP voter.
Part of their advice: Be patient. The Great Dechurching didn’t happen overnight and won’t be reversed quickly. Congregations will need what the authors call “relationship wisdom” and a “quiet, calm and curious demeanor” where leaders are quick to listen and slow to speak. “The path forward,” they write, “is not easy but it is simple.”
The American church is apocalyptic cult for the most part and its eschatology conceivably failed the masses.”
This David Murrow guy’s ’05 book ”Why Men Hate Going to Church” became a BIG thing in the ”Christian”- Roissyosphere around the Summer of 2012 and nothing has changed and it never will because those in power, as well as most of the people listening to them, don’t care about MOSES, JESUS nor the scriptures to begin with they just want to be told ”good boy” just listen to most ”RP””Christian” ”MEN” who say they were”twicked” by ”bluepilled” society, parents, churches & government A.K.A. ”I don’t want to pick myself up by my elrushboian boot straps and take ”personal responsibility” for my immense stupidity nor dispisement and hatred for MOSES, JESUS & THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdBANyx64Q8
That’s Murrow’s ”Church on Trial – Why men hate going to church – Speaker : David Murrow” video from 1o years ago in Sydney Australia-he even mentions at 10:45 that ”Christians” love small groups or cults in other words though.
Pingback: Positivism