Liberty and Ability of the Will in the Westminster Confession of Faith

One common criticism leveled against Calvinism is that its teaching of predestination and original sin undermines human freedom and responsibility. A two-fold response is required to set aside this deeply entrenched misconception. First, we are mindful that the best apologetic is a rigorous dogmatics. In this regard, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) is more than able in defending itself. Chapter 9 of the WCF, β€œFree Will”, comprises a series of affirmations which together presents a dynamic and coherent view of freedom and human nature in its fourfold state (Pre-Fall innocence, Post-Fall depravity, Regenerate man, Glorified man). A closer reading this chapter clearly shows that the criticism against Calvinism is misguided as it is based on an inadequate, one-dimensional and static concept of human freedom. Second, we need to demonstrate that the Reformed teaching of freedom is coherent (cf. Michael Preciado and Guillaume Bignon on compatibilism) and that predestination (rightly understood) does not undermine human responsibility (cf. John Martin Fisher-Mark Ravizza on responsibility and control). [We will post expositions of the works of these thinkers if the discussion subsequent to this post requires it]. But let us begin with a simple explanation of the Reformed understanding of freedom in layman’s terms.

The Westminster Confession of Faith: CHAPTER 9 Continue reading “Liberty and Ability of the Will in the Westminster Confession of Faith”

Knowing God With the Heart of Love

π•Ύπ–”π–’π–Š π–™π–π–Šπ–”π–—π–Žπ–Šπ–˜ π–†π–—π–Š π–˜π–•π–‘π–Šπ–“π–‰π–Žπ–‰ 𝖆𝖓𝖉 π–˜π–”π–•π–π–Žπ–˜π–™π–Žπ–ˆπ–†π–™π–Šπ–‰ π–‡π–šπ–™ π–˜π–” π–”π–‡π–›π–Žπ–”π–šπ–˜π–‘π–ž π–”π–šπ–™ 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–”π–šπ–ˆπ– π–œπ–Žπ–™π– π–—π–Šπ–†π–‘π–Žπ–™π–ž 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖙 π–”π–“π–‘π–ž π–ˆπ–‘π–Šπ–›π–Šπ–— π–•π–Šπ–”π–•π–‘π–Š π–ˆπ–†π–“ π–‡π–Šπ–‘π–Žπ–Šπ–›π–Š π–Žπ–“ π–™π–π–Šπ–’. β€œπ•Ώπ–π–Š π–Šπ–žπ–Š 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–Š π–œπ–Žπ–˜π–Š 𝖒𝖆𝖓 π–˜π–Šπ–Šπ–˜ π–œπ–π–†π–™ π–Žπ–˜ π–™π–π–Šπ–—π–Š, π–‡π–šπ–™ π–™π–π–Š π–’π–Žπ–“π–‰ 𝖔𝖋 π–™π–π–Š π–ˆπ–”π–“π–ˆπ–Šπ–Žπ–™π–Šπ–‰ π–ˆπ–”π–’π–•π–”π–˜π–Šπ–˜ π–π–žπ–•π–”π–™π–π–Šπ–˜π–Šπ–˜.” 𝕡𝖔𝖍𝖆𝖓𝖓 π•Ώπ–”π–‡π–Žπ–†π–˜ π•­π–Šπ–ˆπ– (πŸπŸ–πŸŽπŸ’-πŸπŸ–πŸ•πŸ–)

β€œLove must first open the door of the heart so that it may be persuaded of the truth of God’s grace and glory.”

Mine is just a feeble echo of a much wiser, spirited & courageous man – β€œIt is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” ― Antoine de Saint-ExupΓ©ry, 𝑻𝒉𝒆 π‘³π’Šπ’•π’•π’π’† π‘·π’“π’Šπ’π’„π’† Continue reading “Knowing God With the Heart of Love”

Did Albert Camus finally become a Christian?

As the conversations continue, Camus begins to read the Bible, sometimes he confesses not to have done before. In fact he does not even own one; so Mumma gets one for him, and Camus starts with Genesis. This raises the issue whether the Bible is to be taken literally, especially the story of Adam and Eve. When Mumma interprets it as a parable of the origin of the conscience, in short, a tale putting the origin ofΒ  evil in the attempt of human beings to make themselves gods, Camus find the story to ring true.

While Mumma’s answers are broadly speaking neo-orthodox, not quite those of an evangelical would likely give, the theology is traditional at heart, and it is in line with Camus’ own understanding of human nature.

Source: Camus the Christian? A pastor describes how the great existentialist atheist asked him late in life, Do you perform baptisms?
by James W. Sire 23 Oct 2000

Often times we find God in our distinctive ways, some intellectually, some emotionally, some through insights of wisdom, some through hard lessons of life and some even find God in ‘silly’ ways. Conversely, maybe it is more accurate to say that God reaches out to us wherever we are and touches us where it matters most. He will then take us further on from there.

** This is a Retro post taken from my Facebook (4 April 2020) which will be closed in due time.

Did Adam and Eve Live Recently? William Lane Craig + Joshua Swamidass

This is a most stimulating & instructive discussion between Joshua Swamidass and William Craig that tries to integrate the latest scientific and paleoanthropology findings, biblical hermeneutics, philosophical and theological anthropology.

Some challenging questions that arise from the discussion include the following:

1) What criteria would a scientific-theological model of human origins need to fulfill before it can be accepted as scientifically plausible and hermeneutically consistent with divinely revealed scripture? Continue reading “Did Adam and Eve Live Recently? William Lane Craig + Joshua Swamidass”

It’s Someone Else’s Fault! Thank you, Freud

I went to my psychiatrist to be psychoanalyzed,
To find out why I killed the cat and blacked my wifie’s eyes.
He laid me on a comfy couch to see what he could find,
And this is what he dredged up out of my unconscious mind.
When I was one my mommy locked my dolly in the trunk,
And so it follows naturally I am always drunk.
When I was two, I saw my father kissed the maid one day,
And that is why I suffer now from klep-to-ma-nia.
At three I was ambivalent toward my younger brothers,
And that’s the reason why, to date, I’ve poisoned all my lovers.
And I’m so glad since I have learned the lesson I’ve been taught,
That everything I do that is wrong is someone else’s fault.

Actually, we can appeal to a more ancient and venerable authority to justify our blame game. Re: Genesis 3:12-13 – The man said, β€œThe woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, β€œWhat is this that you have done?” The woman said, β€œThe serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Continue reading “It’s Someone Else’s Fault! Thank you, Freud”

Who Was Adam? Scientific and Theological Perspectives: Preview

A monkey in the zoo was heard asking the question, β€œAm I my keeper’s brother?” The theory of evolution answers the question with an unambiguous β€œYES!”Apes and humans share a common descent. Given below are several evolutionary interpretations of the relationship between humans (hominin) and apes (hominid) based on an unproven assumption – that any … Continue reading “Who Was Adam? Scientific and Theological Perspectives: Preview”

A monkey in the zoo was heard asking the question, β€œAm I my keeper’s brother?” The theory of evolution answers the question with an unambiguous β€œYES!”Apes and humans share a common descent.

Given below are several evolutionary interpretations of the relationship between humans (hominin) and apes (hominid) based on an unproven assumption – that any similarities found between them is due to a common ancestor. Continue reading “Who Was Adam? Scientific and Theological Perspectives: Preview”

Original Sin (Part 3/3): Romans 5:12 – An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology

It is common for young seminarians to entertain the strange notion that biblical studies is superior to theology because biblical scholars build their interpretation on objective exegesis while theologians spin theories out of thin air. The notion is misguided as sound interpretation of the Bible requires both exegesis based on rigorous linguistics studies and theological … Continue reading “Original Sin (Part 3/3): Romans 5:12 – An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology”

It is common for young seminarians to entertain the strange notion that biblical studies is superior to theology because biblical scholars build their interpretation on objective exegesis while theologians spin theories out of thin air. The notion is misguided as sound interpretation of the Bible requires both exegesis based on rigorous linguistics studies and theological analysis that is logically coherent and informed by insights gained from historical theology.

It is arguable that the lack of theological depth is characteristic of much contemporary biblical scholarship, and that this lack is a serious impediment to good exegesis. A similar criticism may be leveled at theological analysis that is not founded on solid exegetical groundwork.

The analysis of Rom. 5:12 given below provides a excellent model of well-rounded and nuanced interpretation based on robust exegesis and coherent theological analysis.

Romans 5:12 – An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology Continue reading “Original Sin (Part 3/3): Romans 5:12 – An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology”

Original Sin (Part 2/3): Death in Adam, Life in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21)

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned Διὰ τοῦτο α½₯σπΡρ διʼ αΌ‘Ξ½α½ΈΟ‚ αΌ€Ξ½ΞΈΟΟŽΟ€ΞΏΟ… αΌ‘ ἁμαρτία Ξ΅αΌ°Ο‚ Ο„α½ΈΞ½ ΞΊΟŒΟƒΞΌΞΏΞ½ ΡἰσῆλθΡν ΞΊΞ±α½Ά διὰ Ο„αΏ†Ο‚ ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, ΞΊΞ±α½Ά οὕτως Ξ΅αΌ°Ο‚ πάντας αΌ€Ξ½ΞΈΟΟŽΟ€ΞΏΟ…Ο‚ ὁ θάνατος διῆλθΡν, ἐφʼ αΎ§ πάντΡς αΌ₯μαρτον. … Continue reading “Original Sin (Part 2/3): Death in Adam, Life in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21)”

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

Διὰ τοῦτο α½₯σπΡρ διʼ αΌ‘Ξ½α½ΈΟ‚ αΌ€Ξ½ΞΈΟΟŽΟ€ΞΏΟ… αΌ‘ ἁμαρτία Ξ΅αΌ°Ο‚ Ο„α½ΈΞ½ ΞΊΟŒΟƒΞΌΞΏΞ½ ΡἰσῆλθΡν ΞΊΞ±α½Ά διὰ Ο„αΏ†Ο‚ ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, ΞΊΞ±α½Ά οὕτως Ξ΅αΌ°Ο‚ πάντας αΌ€Ξ½ΞΈΟΟŽΟ€ΞΏΟ…Ο‚ ὁ θάνατος διῆλθΡν, ἐφʼ αΎ§ πάντΡς αΌ₯μαρτον. (Rom. 5:12)

I. The Context of Romans 5:12-21
In verses 12–21 the apostle Paul outlines how Adam as the head of the present human race is analogical to that of Christ as the head of the new humanity. He uses the occasion of sin entering the world to compare the effects of Christ’s obedience which brings righteousness and life, with the effects of Adam’s disobedience which brings sin and death. The basis for the analogy is given in verse 14 where Adam is described as β€œthe type of the one to come.”/1/ Continue reading “Original Sin (Part 2/3): Death in Adam, Life in Christ (Rom. 5:12-21)”

Original Sin (Part 1/3): Introduction

A. Original Sin Defined Society is in a mess. Evil abounds. It’s manifestation ranges from cases of small time swindlers cheating gullible investors in Ponzi schemes to big corporations exploiting helpless workers. Evil is magnified when terrorists massacre defenseless villagers and the authorities abuse the law to punish innocent citizens. The list goes on. The … Continue reading “Original Sin (Part 1/3): Introduction”

A. Original Sin Defined
Society is in a mess. Evil abounds. It’s manifestation ranges from cases of small time swindlers cheating gullible investors in Ponzi schemes to big corporations exploiting helpless workers. Evil is magnified when terrorists massacre defenseless villagers and the authorities abuse the law to punish innocent citizens. The list goes on.

The Christian doctrine of Original Sin explains that evil entered human society during the Fall when Adam and Eve sinned and disobeyed God’s command at the Garden of Eden. The result is that every descendant of Adam has become morally corrupt and stands guilty before God. We are powerless to rehabilitate ourselves. Only God can rescue us from this moral quagmire.

The scope of the doctrine of Original Sin includes : 1) the guilt of the first sin in Adam, (2) the corruption of human nature resulting from the first sin, and (3) actual transgressions or sinful actions which result from corruption of human nature. Continue reading “Original Sin (Part 1/3): Introduction”

Co-Creator or Priestly Steward

Protagonists in current debates on biotechnology are conscious of the fact that technology has brought mixed blessings. How one should determine the appropriateness and limits of applying technology for human betterment is difficult precisely because the terms of reference used in the debate – like well-being, freedom, dignity and human nature – are essentially contestable. Some clarifications of these terms is necessary before we can determine the limits of applying biotechnology for the perfecting of man.

Co-Creator or Priestly Steward

Theological Perspectives on Biotechnology and the Perfectibility of Man

Ng Kam Weng

Related article: Creation Care and Renewal

This paper attempts to uncover the hidden warrants and moral assumptions utilized by theologians who support the case for biotechnology and genetic engineering. The concept of man as co-creator, which underlies these theologians’ positive reception of biotechnology, will be critiqued in the light of recent philosophical history of human agency and biblical teaching on the stewardship of creation.

* This paper was published in Beyond Determination and Reductionism: Genetic Science and the Person ed. Mark LYChan & Roland Chia. Adelaide: Australian Theological Forum 2003.

——————-

β€œThen nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them” Genesis 11:6
Man is neither angel nor beast. When he tries to live like an angel he acts like a beast – Pascal

Protagonists in current debates on biotechnology are conscious of the fact that technology has brought mixed blessings. How one should determine the appropriateness and limits of applying technology for human betterment is difficult precisely because the terms of reference used in the debate – like well-being, freedom, dignity and human nature – are essentially contestable. Some clarifications of these terms is necessary before we can determine the limits of applying biotechnology for the perfecting of man.

This paper attempts to uncover the hidden warrants and moral assumptions utilized by theologians who support the case for biotechnology and genetic engineering. The concept of man as co-creator, which underlies these theologians’ positive reception of biotechnology, will be critiqued in the light of recent philosophical history of human agency and biblical teaching on the stewardship of creation. Continue reading “Co-Creator or Priestly Steward”