Michael: I would point out the following:

1) Jesus says that words spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven.
2) Jesus says that, in contrast, words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgive.
2a) the words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgiven “in this age.”
2b) the words spoken against the Spirit will not be forgiven “in the age to come”

The clear implication is that words spoken against the Son of Man will be forgiven both “in this age” and “in the age to come.”

Now there are a lot of ways to take “age,” of course, and I would probably rather support “the age to come” as having an eschatological sense, but if one accepts that the “age to come” is understood in the sense of “when this life is over, and we are in the afterlife,” or even “when we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and living in the final fulfillment of the Kingdom,” then at least some sins will be forgiven in the afterlife. It makes sense, therefore, that they would have to be forgiven either they are not forgiven in this life, which would only occur because they were not repented of in this life.

There’s considerable maneuvering room there too, because the understanding of what constitutes “repentance” comes into the discussion.

I probably don’t absolutely agree with any of the Catholic understandings of any of the terms in question, and I’ll admit that I’m completely stumped as to what constitutes the difference between “a word against the Son of Man” and “a word against the Holy Spirit.” But I’ve come to the conclusion that since the only reason anyone will be separated from God in the afterlife is their own will to be so separated, it is entirely within the character of God to believe that His offer to restore the relationship and remove that separation is something that He extends eternally.

Of course, it’s Wednesday, so I’m a Universalist. I expect effigies of me will be burned shortly.

Matthew: Look here.

Look, I’m as Catholic-friendly as the next guy (and the next guy is sleeping with a Catholic, so that’s pretty friendly¹) but this whole discussion is driving me crazy. And believe me, if you don’t like me when I’m drunk, you really won’t like me when I’m crazy.

I find the insinuation that sex and human reproduction are somehow intrinsically impure and unholy – which is what’s behind the whole line of reasoning that says that Mary was somehow too worthy to conceive and deliver a child by a human father after having Jesus – to be highly offensive and insulting. These ideas are far more offensive, at their root, than words like “f—-” or “s—-” or “a———-,” and it astounds me entirely that that anyone would threaten to quit the tavern over the later and completely ignore the former. What the hell have we become here? Where the hell are the cat pictures when we need them?

I’ve been reduced to extreme measures before. I’m prepared to use the “nuclear option.” I still have Church Dogmatics handy, and I also now have all of have Dooyweerd’s New Critique and Woody Allen’s Without Feathers just itching to be posted, so change the subject, please, or I’ll change it for us. More »« Less

Paul said, there can be nothing more important than talking about God

When people talk about God, by and large it’s hubris.¹

Given the choice, it’s better to listen to what God has to say about man than to listen to what men have to say about God.

¹ By “hubris” is an ancient Greek theatrical term that means “horses**t.”

Michael said, I can’t think of an example (at least not quickly) where a man is exerting spiritual leadership where his wife opposes some segment of that leadership.

The reason you can’t think of an example is simple: women who disagree with their husbands on substantive issues simply don’t remain married to them, in my experience. There’s a word for marriages where that happens. The word is “over.”

I’d like to answer the question, “what does male spiritual leadership mean”, but I’ve never had any experience with it. The church is so tolerant of the spirit of Jezebel these days that we might as well pray in that name instead of Jesus.

I am, at this point, opposed in principle to marriage on any grounds. I believe it is wrong to marry, and anyone who does risks God’s wrath.

On an unrelated topic, for those of you keeping track of such things, the newly elected Holy Father has four children, and no surgical augmentation. And we’re just friends.

I like the Toilet Tank analogy, but I think we need to press it further:

A person’s life fills up with s**t. At some point, the lever is pushed, the bottom drops out, and everything ends up in the sewer. Then God steps in, and fills the tank with water again.

And to answer Kent’s question: The hand on the lever is God’s, not mine.

Bill said, I’ve long thought that one can’t really decide to believe something.

I have had personal experience with someone who has decided to misunderstand another person. I’m not say that they simply misunderstood the other person; this was a case where there was a conscious decision to not understand. I think that we have a great deal of volition over our beliefs. The problem is, what we believe gets wrapped up in how we feel about the objects of our beliefs, and things get messy. But if we can’t actually decide to believe something, it would be pointless for the gospels to record the father’s plea, “I believe, Lord. Help my unbelief.”

Um, I almost hesitate to ask this, but is there some reason why people aren’t updating their own bios on the bios page? That’s what I do when my life story changes. Like today.

(EDIT: In light of Joel’s comment, I should make this a little more clear than my post implies. David, this is not aimed at you specifically. Though I am coming at the from a non-RCC perspective, I’m throwing out a general observation on Church authority that we all seem to be poking at without addressing squarely.)

Appeals to our individual Magesteriums, Councils, Conferences, Confessions, etc. as authority are all well and good, but I have yet to be convinced from the scriptures that any of these man made councils have any legitimate claim to global authority. If we take a trip in our time machine and look at the earliest churches, then sure, they were all lead by the authority of the apostles, and it is from them that the churches received their doctrine. And where do we get the authority of the apostles today? Is it from bishops, priests, pastors, denominational hierarchies, etc.? No. It is from the scriptures themselves.

The New Testament canon is the record of the teaching of the apostles to which believers devote themselves. (Acts 2:42) While the apostles were alive, we could appeal to them. At some point, I’ll grant that we do need leaders ,who are real live people today, to read, understand, and interpret these texts, then teach us also to read, interpret, and obey them. This in itself, however, does not authorize any of the above mentioned authority structures to assume an unaccountable position of leadership. All of us are a priesthood of believers, all of us who belong to the Kingdom of God have the indwelling Holy Spirit, and all of us at one time or another may be called upon to raise the BS flag if someone else teaches a false doctrine. Does it work that way in practice today? Of course not, but I blame that on laziness.

Any one of us can appeal to the authority of our individual denominations, and we often do. But from the scriptures, and this will probably point at David’s church more than anyone else’s, but I aim this at us all, it makes more sense to see the ultimate guidance of the Church residing with God, given to us today by the third person of the Trinity. Below that, whether you look at independent churches, confessionally organized denominations, or hierarchies of bishops, priests, and deacons, I can go as far as councils of leaders praying and studying through issues together. If you like, I could even see one or a few top leaders being regarded as first(s) among equals. But what I do not see, and have never been convinced of, is the idea that one man (save Jesus Christ himself) has any claim to authority over the global Church.

There are parts of Art Sippo’s argument that hold so little weight that they are now floating in orbit. I’ll pick the low hanging fruit, and leave the rest for wiser men in the bar.

“In summary, the 16th Century Protestants apostatized and left the Catholic Church and have invented thousands of separate cults which not only contradict the Catholic Church but each other on serious points of doctrine. The Catholic Church has not changed any of her teachings since before there were Protestants. Consequently it is the Protestants who must now admit that we who have remained in the Catholic Church are true Christians and that we are entitled to our own interpretation of Scripture.”

Bold assertion, yet lacking in necessary fact to back it up. The same assertion could be made from the other side.

Ahem … At the time of the reformation, true believers, ordained as ministers of the gospel, were kicked out of the church by corrupt and apostate leaders who would not be corrected by men or by scripture. Having been removed from the organization masquerading as the true church, they acted in the only way they could. The conducted worship, shared the gospel, administered the sacraments, etc. as a new entity. Better to let the Church function from within a new organization, or let go of the notion of the organization altogether, than to be enslaved by a corrupt system that follows its own superstitions above the teaching of the Apostles as revealed in scripture.

Just as bold, and could be picked apart just as easy. Thanks for playing, though, Mr. Sippo.

As a first item on the agenda for our meeting, Jack and I looked into the question of whether women have souls. While we decided that the scripture is essentially silent on the topic, it’s apparent that women have certain other parts that, while they may not have the same function as a soul, are extremely useful and highly attractive.

We plan to meet again tomorrow night to elect a new Pope. One of us will post to let you know what color smoke is visible. In the meantime, our instructions to the rest of you is as follows: you should all be baptized again. Especially Bill.

Oh, and by the way, I love Arizona. Carnally.

Sharon, so you’re saying that women do have souls?

I’ve a question. If Papal infallibility only became doctrine in the RCC wit Vatican I, where did Catholics place the magisterium before that? Also, Did the Pope become infallible at a particular moment? or was it a case of retroactive infallibility (kind of like the “retroactive inspiration” approach we Protestants take to scripture)?

1) Bingo.
2) Unmarried homosexual priests giving advice to married lay people.
3) Mafia money behind the building fund.
4) Baby boys put in white dresses for baptism.
5) Dashboard Jesus
6) Never being sure who you’re supposed to pray to
7) Mel Gibson
8) Snide, demeaning comments from Protestant former friends.
9) Guilt.
0) Pointy hats and incense, unless you were episcopalian.

leif: I didn’t comment on the trailer because I thought it was for a documentary on the BHT: people with shocked or scared looks, cowering in fright; priests running away, shaking their heads; guns, knives and blood-curling screams. That pretty much sums up this place. The only thing is, I didn’t know we had an elevator.

Michael: Frankly, I think a lot of the fur flying over Driscoll’s comments is just plain jealousy; a lot of people are mad because he apparently is getting action every day, and they aren’t.

There is a large segment within the contemporary evangelical church that has bought just enough of the Oprah agenda of pop psychology and feminism to find the ammo they need to resist gaining an honest, human, biblical perspective on their husbands’ sexuality, desires and needs. “Mutual submission” is just new-speak for “She doesn’t have to put out.” Anyone who talks about headship or submission in the context of marital intimacy – treacherous ground on which to tread anyway, to be sure – is lambasted as a misogynist (or worse, as a closet bondage freak.) The rest of us tolerate this nonsense, and then march out for the hand-wringing ceremony over dirty pictures on the Internet. John had words for where that will take the church – cf. Revelation 2:18f.

I’m well past 20, and while I’m currently celibate, sex once a day strikes me as by no means excessive; Were the appropriate partner available, I’d do it for the obvious physiological benefits (sex is excellent exercise; it also relieves tension, evens out the testosterone cycle, and it promotes a healthy prostate), If that’s offensive to Christians, perhaps we take Paul’s better-to-marry-than-burn argument to its logical conclusion, and admit that for some men, the best situation would be to allow for Islamic-style committed polygamous marriages (which require financial arrangements and conjugal rights at parity for each wife), rather than giving our de-facto endorsement to the serial polygamy that no-fault divorce legislation has given us.

(I can’t wait to read the mail I get from this one…)

It’s not covered in “The Parables of the Kingdom”, and I don’t have his other parables books yet, so could someone post or email me a brief summary of Capon’s take on the parable of the Shrewd Manager (Luke 16)?

Pirate’s addendum reminds me of one last observation before I shut up, hopefully forever, on this topic.

The “high/low,” “fine/folk,” “classical/pop,” and “traditional/contemporary” categories are all misguided for definitional purposes. And irrespective of which end one takes of the distinctions as the “better” one, one inevitably invites some form of snobbery. For different reasons, the “text/tune” distinction is also unhelpful. I can think of two examples that work in a different direction than the one I’m used to complaining about.

More »« Less

You can argue about the old hymns until you’re blue in the face, and in the end all you will be is a stuffy cultural crypto-conservative with a blue face. Music’s role in contemporary culture is entirely different than it was in the 1500s; the churches’ place (its actual place rather than its intended, to be sure) in that culture is also entirely different.

Whether aesthetics exist is irrelevant, because the vast majority of people arguing either side of the question, when you boil it down, are saying, “I like X, but I don’t like Y.” It’s kind of like wine: if the $5 bottle tastes better to you than the $200 bottle, and you still buy the $200 bottle, you’re not enjoying wine the way its makers intended; you’re a pretentious snob who’s out $195, and that makes you an asshole.

There are a lot of really awful things you can hear in contemporary worship service. And there are a lot of really awful traditional hymns. Some people just prefer their heretical incantations with a beat.

Count me happy about the decision of the Supreme Court today. Sanity is hanging on by a thread!

Call me narrow-minded if you like, but reading Obama’s response to the decision has convinced me that he does not look at the world or right and wrong as I do, and I would not consider voting for him. This issue is a default issue for me. For instance, if I was wife-shopping, and was told to pick one from a large group, right off the top I would eliminate the ones who obviously had poor personal hygiene. There wouldn’t be any need for me to get to know them to see if we had a lot of things in common or had a great connection. Poor hygiene would eliminate them by default. The same goes for Obama, Hillary, and Edwards – each bowing to the sacred idol of “a women’s right to choose”. Bye bye. Oh well, looks like I’ll be voting Republican again.

Please join me in congratulating Joseph Okello for the successful defense of his dissertation. Congratulations!

Let me set forth in beer points below why cultural warriors are full of it:

• This bestowal of a Ph.D. in philosophy occurred at a “secular,” state university.


• The successfully defended dissertation was written by a theologically conservative Christian


• Moreover, this individual is an ordained Methodist pastor


• The philosophy department at said “secular” institution knew all about these biographical facts


• Two-thirds of the philosophical faculty on his committee did not share his theistic presuppositions


• His dissertation topic was a criticism of methodological naturalism, the default non-theistic position for philosophical thought about science, history, and ethics


• So, to sum up: a professing Christian wrote a dissertation attacking the normal nontheistic presupposition, submitted it to a predominantly atheistic faculty, defended it, and now he is properly known as Dr. Okello.

Side point: Joseph is a kind and gentle man. He is not combative (though he defends his views vigorously). Christian thinkers: get in the arena and stop making excuses that the mean old secularists have an agenda to thwart your vocation. Tell the culture warriors to stop projecting their own hostility onto the world and mischaracterizing the “agenda” of the “secularists.” The email message at the top is not a fake. It really happened today.

MOD: Amen. Great post.

I’m sitting in the living room with the tin foil hat on. It fits well.

Here’s the thing about “Battlebots” or whatever they fancy themselves. There are at least two errors one could make in the attempt to interpret the significance (or lack thereof) of this movement:

1. The Cynicism error. Our friend at areopagitica closes his post with this: “It looks to me as though the 45-year-old Luce (...) has found a way to crank up the money machine and make a living as a professional, paranoia-stoking, emotionally arrested youth pastor.” Now, our friend may be correct about Luce’s motivations. And it surely is The American Way. However, charismatic leaders breed True Believer generals and Eager-to-Prove-Themselves lieutenants. Luce’s internal life is one thing, but this kind of populist, anti-intellectual hatred has bigger causes than the leader’s psyche, as history shows. People are known for acting on what is obviously the logical conclusion of “we ought to be awakened to the alarming influence of today’s culture terrorists. They are wealthy, they are smart, and they are real.” It hardly needs to be said: Yeah, and what do you do to “terrorists,” soldier?

2. The Isolated Example error. It would be tempting to interpret this phenomenon as an irrepresentative sample that commentators like Sharlet, Hedges, et al, seize upon for their own agenda to be “anti-religion” (which I don’t think Sharlet is at all). This interpretation says that Battlebots is an unusual manifestation of conservative evangelicalism and shouldn’t be considered typical. To which I say: wrong. It is not an isolated example. It is an extreme version of a very common refrain one hears within conservative evangelicalism. There are many events, practices and products that socially reinforce the same kind of militant and violent attitudes on display in Luce’s program, even if submerged a bit further beneath the surface. You should see some of the literature I get on “worldview” events. o_O

Battlebots is not an isolated example; it is one dark blotch in a constellation of socio-political engagements defined by resentment, barely suppressed vengeance, and bunker-tude.

Maybe Wright and the Pope are pen pals?

Another successful experiment. Hahahaha.

Pirate first.

Caesaropapism was tied to an apolitical Christianity? I can safely say I have no clue what he is talking about.

That’s because you’ve ignored his claim #1 and misinterpreted his claim #s 4 and 8. If you don’t care what he’s talking about, it would be simpler to just say so or ignore it with an eye roll. If you think his claims are about as serious as a Monty Python sketch, then how about justifying your belief that they are absurd instead of just waving your hand. More »« Less

If there’s one thing we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is that there are no absolute standards for art and music. Philosophy may not be good for very much, but at least great philosophers are agreed about this: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. David Hume expressed this absolute truth very well in his Essays, Moral and Political: “Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them.” There is no single musical style that is inherently superior than any other. All aesthetic judgments are subjective. If I say something is beautiful, I’m not describing a real quality of the object, I’m saying something about how the object affects me in a pleasing or displeasing way, that it makes me feel good or bad. Benjamin Franklin agrees: “Beauty, like supreme dominion, is but supported by opinion.”

More »« Less

Father Matthew takes on “Left Behind Theology” in his latest video.

He makes a number of assertions that reveal his own biases, politically and theologically, so I don’t give it an unqualified recommendation, but I’m glad to see people openly calling out the kind of end-times thinking that is infecting evangelicalism. I really loved it when he refers to the beliefs being “nominally Christian.” I hope he knows that he opens himself up to the accusation of nominal Christianity by virtue of the denomination in which he is ordained, though from what I see in the videos I don’t doubt his faith in Christ.

Theological differences aside, I dig Father Matthew’s videos, so I’m glad to link another one.

For those who need to hear it, these are the words of Derek Webb’s “Wedding Dress”

Mr. Winn, your phone is ringing.

Story 1: Conservative bishop’s election invalidated by the Presiding Bishop.

Story 2A and 2B: Bishops reject Tanzania proposals.

Thank you, Michael, for causing irreversible damage to our eyes. Who allowed that “design” to come into existence? Blech.

Did anyone see the Mere Comments thread on the most annoying phrases in the English language? It should give you all a reason to smile today. My personal choice for worst phrase is “outside the box.”

We interrupt this discussion of eschatology to bring you Windows using podcast listeners a little tip that will save you some time.

I don’t know why it took me so long to notice this, but if you look at the menu, under Play, you will find a sub-menu called Play Speed. Selecting fast (as opposed to normal or slow) plays back the file in a way that sounds like the dead space is being stripped out. In a way, it sounds like the fast talking legal disclaimers at the end of commercials.

It’s not helpful when listening to music, but if you are listening to sermons and speeches, it cuts time time almost in half.

As for eschatology, I don’t really have a dog in that fight, other than to say that Jesus will return bodily, and that we will be raised from the dead to be with Him in the new heavens and earth.

Still, the more I look at dispensationalism, especially the variety that has a pre-mill, pre-trib rapture associated with it, the more creepy it is. I’m ok with historic pre-mill. I’m ok with a-mill. I don’t know that much yet about post-mill. Partial preterism is appealing, but full preterism just doesn’t work. I avoid these discussions whenever possible, because they often devolve into fruitless debates. And that’s all I have to say about that. 8-)

According to the Wikipedia article on postmillennialism: 

“Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” John Calvin’s exposition of that part of the Lord’s Prayer all but adopts the minority postmillennial position, but Calvin, and later Charles Haddon Spurgeon, were remarkably inconsistent on eschatological matters. Spurgeon delivered a sermon explicitly defending the form of absolute postmillennialism held by the minority camp today, but on other occasions he defended premillennialism.

While those words make Protestant advocates of any particular eschatological point of view squirm at their keyboard, they bring me great comfort and assurance. I find myself in good company. The thing that theological gnat-strainers will never understand is that inconsistency on matters of theological points of view is not necessarily due to ignorance or a lack of backbone. On the contrary, a lack of submission to a “system of theological thought” (which I believe was true of Christ, btw) demonstrates a dogged determination to humble oneself before the Word of God and let it speak. That’s why great preachers like Spurgeon are hard to nail down on the particulars – they understand their primary relationship to the living Word is submission, then proclamation. They stand in awe before the Word, refusing to demand that it fit into someone’s little theological box. On this thought I agree with the Eastern Orthodox: systematic theology is not of God.

Michael: an observation after reading the links you posted: If McArthur seriously believes that efforts to evangelize Jews will fail unless they appeal to some latent materialistic genetic predisposition on the part of Jews, he’s worse than “in error”; He’s a racist.  That’s just about the most offensive thing I’ve heard. I’m not certain he actually said it, but it seems like the gist of what both bloggers reported.

Pirate and Michael: good grief, I was basically agreeing with you that it is reasonable to be suspicious of Edwards given his past actions.

Or is the John Edwards running for president different from the money-grubbing lawyer who made his millions of BS ob-gyn malpractice suits?

I don’t know, and that’s why I A-G-R-E-E with you that it is legitimate to demand answers from him, straight answers, too. AFAIK, the big medical malpractice cases were all pre-1996. Shortly after his son Wade was killed, he won another huge case (not a medical one). Who on earth qualifies for the moral discussion with you guys? I’m no fan of trial lawyers, either, but I’m not convinced Edwards has committed such an unpardonable sin. Besides, I’m trying to give you guys hope that I will be wrong about my mid-2005 HRC prediction :)

My interest is very minimal: (1) he’s said enough early on in this campaign to distinguish himself as a true alternative to the pragmatists of both Dem and Rep flavors; (2) although he’s inviting cynical sneers from both the left and right, as Travis pointed out he’s correctly named the primary American idolatry and done so by explicitly appealing to Jesus. Only time will tell if the cynicism is deserved, but I fail to understand why, in the current political climate and the state of our nation, you aren’t willing to hear him out.

moderate Baptists tend to drool over Edwards as a better version of the Southern Christian liberal political hope.

Well, score one for the moderate Baptists then :)

Pirate: I too get a kick out of watching Reformed folks try to squirm their way through 2 Peter 2. My son attends an evangelical Christian school that normally tows the Reformed line – especially “once saved, always saved”. I encourage him to consider 2 Peter 2 and Hebrews 10 and throw it out there in class. I’m afraid he got shot down – going into battle unprepared – but at least he’s thinking outside the theological box into which most of his classmates are unknowingly stuffed.

Kent: Looks like you made it back home. How’s things with your mom?

Michael: For the life of me, I can’t see why you and Denise feel trapped. As others have said, you guys have tons to offer and I feel certain your options are endless. Just get a dart, say a prayer, chunk it at a U.S. (World?) map, pack up, and go. : )

I’ve been reading your conversation with Frank Turk. You really are a glutton for punishment. Is he an Arkansan? I no longer run in Baptist circles, but I can easily imagine a SBC pastor going to a RCC Ash Wed service being viewed as controversial and a cause for concern. Of course this depends on the individual church.

It seems to me that a major factor is the size of the town/church. The greatest cooperation between denominations seems to take place in smaller towns – where people are more likely to view their community as one big family. Plus, rural pastors are less likely to be egomaniacs – as the nature of their work indicates. My hunch is that the traditional southern city (big town to medium size city) where the SBC dominates like Little Rock, Huntsville, or even Memphis would be the most likely to have quite a few fiercely territorial SBC churches who would strongly resist their pastor attending a RCC Ash Wed service.

Michael: By the way, I noticed that Stetzer mentioned Reggie McNeal in his presentation. I really like McNeal’s book The Present Future (of which I have written a review, if you are interested). McNeal does a great job of taking the commonly held convictions within the broader emerging movement and applying them in the local church context in very practical ways. The book is very readable and easy to follow even for lay people.

Stetzer referred to McNeal as the “recent” director of leadership development for the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Do you know what he is doing now? After reading the book, I was a little surprised he still worked within the SBC. He’s definitely pushing the envelope.