An exceeding number of evangelical Christians have long crusaded against Evolution Theory solely because it discredits Abrahamic teaching. But is this really the most appropriate doctrinal or theological battleground? It occurs to me today—and I hope to explore the idea in a future post—that Evolution Theory is a greater doctrinal threat to the premise of salvation than it is to scriptural inerrancy. Continue Reading
On Judgment and Experience
Good judgment comes from experience which mostly comes from bad judgment. Jason Statham as Arthur Bishop in The Mechanic
On Ugly Truth
Nothing has an uglier look to us than reason, when it’s not on our side. George Savile
ALMOST….
Vox has nearly returned to civilization, with more than a few hand-written posts to push out, but there are also thousands and thousands of email to be parsed first.
Science, the New Polytheism
Throughout the coronavirus hysteria of 2020, policymakers and their designees spoke incessantly of “following the science.” The word science comes from Latin, ‘scire,’ meaning ‘knowledge.’ When academics speak of ‘science’ they usually intend it to mean “scientific method” which is the use of empirical (i.e. “observable”) evidence to confirm or refute a hypothesis. However, being that COVID-19 was the first-ever global epidemic, there was nothing upon which or by which to assess the efficacy of countermeasures. As invoked, “follow the science” meant “trust the experts” which, in turn, conveyed an expectation to have faith in the speculative opinions of credentialed humans.
“Receive the Holy Spirit”
On the evening after his resurrection, Jesus “breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the holy spirit’.” (Jn 20:22). How, then, is it possible to become filled with the Holy Spirit seven weeks later on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) if the disciples already received the Holy Spirit?
On Introspection
People do not deeply examine that which they deeply disdain.
Kellyanne Conway on The Daily
Climate Reparation Fallout
Small, second-world nations will band together in coalition(s?) for climate-change reparations and will exert tremendous demand-side economic pain until they get it. As wealth flows downward, first- and upper second-world nations will coalesce to sanction the former for their actions and cut them off from specific products. the former will then attack the later.
In Jesus’s Name (Part 1)
Perhaps because Scripture says that “in my name” they will perform signs and miracles (Mk 16:17-18), Christians of all flavors, and almost without exception, conclude prayers for miraculous interventions with “In Jesus’ name…”. Pentecostals are quick to invoke “in Jesus’s name” to command something to transpire. The thing is, that’s not what “name” meant in the Jewish cultural context of Jesus’s day. As Timothy Keller frequently explains, “name” connoted “personhood,” like when a son handles his father’s business affairs while the father is away, or when an ambassador exercises abroad the authority of her nation, or when mayors express the sentiments of their cities.
Second Amendment Restrictions
Americans might be more willing to accept goon/anno restrictions if it were applied equally to the militarization-thirsty (and qualifiedly-immune) police. The second amendment is substantively a repudiation and protection from the one law for me, another law for thee conduct of state actors. Let them lead by example by demilitarizing themselves before they ask citizens to demilitarize. Then there would truly be no need for such gear.
Judas and Caiaphas
Speaking to Pilate, Jesus said in John 19:11, “he who delivered me over to you the greater sin.” Most readers assume that Jesus implicated Judas, but it is more probable that Jesus had Caiaphas in mind for “it was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people” (John 18:14). “They therefore led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Prtorium” (John 18:28) complaining to Pilate that “it [was] not lawful for us to put anyone to death” (John 18:31). Therefore, it would appear that Jesus indicated that it was Caiaphas who “had the greater sin” for delivering Jesus to Pilate for the purpose of dying. For his part, it appears that Judas had no foreknowledge of Caiaphas’s intentions because when he “saw that Jesus was condemned, he felt remorse […] saying, ‘I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent blood” (Matthew 27:3-4).
A New Take on Peter’s Denial
Everyone knows that Peter adamantly denied his association with Jesus, but no one examines why or how Peter found himself in his predicament. There was another disciple in the courtyard so why wasn’t denial an issue for him?Continue Reading
On Trusting God
I don’t understand this, but I understand you. Vox