By Living Waters

 Here’s something to listen to and seriously ponder.

• NPR.org, March 22, 2007 · Climate change is big news these days, from melting mountain glaciers to warming seas. But is the buildup of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere leading to a crisis?
• That was the question at the core of a recent Oxford-style debate called Intelligence Squared U.S. The series is based on the Intelligence Squared program that began in London in 2002. Three experts argue in favor of a motion; three others argue against it.
• In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

Do be sure to listen to the debate in full (available at the linked site) rather than the excerpted versions (which seemed a bit too selective to me). Cheers!

(Originally published online 3 October 2005.)

Download a PDF version here.

In many recent discussions of the “new perspective on Paul” (NPP), we are recommended to read one or more of a handful of critiques of the “new perspectivists.”* Since the NPP is as much a reading of Paul (and the rest of the New Testament) as it is a reading of the literature of Second Temple Judaism, it is not surprising to see recommended the cumbersomely-entitled, though excellent, collection, Justification and Variegated Nomism, Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, edited by D.A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid (WUNT 2/140; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck/Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).

But that’s not what interests me.

What I find interesting is how some rather vocal anti-”new perspectivists” suggest that one acquire the volume (either by purchase or through a library), but then quickly note that the volume likely will be too long and too difficult to read. No worries, though, since one should simply turn to the final chapter by D.A. Carson and thus access the essential thrust of the volume. What is so interesting about this advice is that Carson’s closing summary chapter is a tendentious casting of the overall findings and tone of the actual contributions. Indeed, it so discolors the actual import of most of the other authors that a reader unaware of the contributions themselves would not gain an accurate sense of the the contributions that comprise this fine volume (not that all contributions strike the identical tone, mind you). In fact, Carson’s concluding summary so mischaracterizes the actual content of the volume that reviewers time and again have noted the same. Here is a healthy and diverse selection of such reviewers. (more…)

Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath recently had it out at Oxford University. The audio of the debate can be had at TimesOnline.

Update: Lest I forget, Alvin Plantinga recently weighed in on Dawkin’s recent book. You may access and read it here.

A few years ago I wrote an exploratory piece on a pseudepigraphal work called, The Testament of Abraham. When I first approached the text, I did so with a clean slate. I had absolutely no idea what to expect. No preconceptions. But I wanted to try my hand at understanding a piece of ancient literature apart from any prior knowledge. I spent quite some time simply reading and rereading the text. Then I tried my hand at an outline. Then I read some short essays on TestAb. Finally I sifted through a number of books on my shelves to see if and how people were interacting with and “using” TestAb. What I encountered was rather disappointing. Seldom was the piece referenced; but when it was referenced, it was both misread and misused. I engaged the work of Simon Gathercole and A. Andrew Das at some length. I blogged my original work and that material was linked on The Paul Page (something of a clearinghouse on all things pro- and con-NPP). Subsequently, I received a number of notes of appreciation for my work. Someday I would like to go through the same process of a couple dozen other pseudepigraphal and apocryphal works.

Periodically I run across references to TestAb, including some of the verses that I addressed at some length. Seldom do I find anyone who has carefully read TestAb, rather than simply raiding it for proof texts supporting this or that proposal. Most recently I noticed that in his most recent work, The Saving Righteousness of God, Michael Bird references TestAb 10:13 (“…Abraham has not sinned…”) in support of the proposition that, “There are instances in second-temple Jewish literature which either demand or assume that law-keeping perfection is attainable” (p.162). He proposes that Paul is counters such a perspective in, say, Romans 3:23 (“for all have sinned…”). (more…)

(Originally published online 24 June 2004.)

It is increasingly common to hear of Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) as being “just another denomination.” But I would suggest that this is a misperception. One very clear difference between Mormonism and Christianity resides in their respective views of the fall of Adam and Eve.Biblically speaking, the actions of Adam and Eve, in partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, can in now way be understood as virtuous. Not only did they act contrary to the expressed will of God (Genesis 2:17; cf. 3:3), later biblical authors describe Adam’s action as “sin” and “transgression” (Romans 5:12ff). They also describe Eve’s actions as resulting from a deception (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; 1 Timothy 2:14). The action of God in exiling Adam and Eve from his presence in the garden illustrates divine disapproval in no uncertain terms.

But even given this biblical portrait of the fall of Adam and Eve, as resulting from actions of disobedience, Mormonism promotes Adam and Eve as exemplars of virtue. This strange perspective on the fall is illustrated in two works commonly available to Mormons; and both of these works bear some official sanction by the Church. (more…)

(Originally published online 5 July 2004. Now there is a self-serving site named, Abortion Is Prolife. At that site you may listen to a brief lecture by Dr. Peikoff claimed to be “the best 10 minute argument for abortion on the internet.” None of his arguments there succeeds any better than those I addressed in the piece below, though his prejudices, rhetoric and fallacious arguments are more pronounced, so to speak, in the lecture.)

Abortion Rights Are NOT Pro-Life:
A Response to Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s editorial,
“Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life”
Kevin James Bywater

“Abortion rights are pro-life. They give a woman the right to control her own body, which is part of her right to her own freedom and life. An embryo, in contrast, is pre-human, only potential, not actual, life. As such, it cannot possess any rights.” —original summary of Leonard Peikoff’s editorial

Dr. Leonard Peikoff—the self-proclaimed “foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand”—has written an editorial entitled, “Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life.” He argues that fetuses are potential human beings, whereas women are actual human beings; thus women have rights, while fetuses do not. The pre-born, being pre-human, have no right to life, according to Peikoff. Little in his editorial is unique. This should not surprise us, given the volume of material available on all sides of the abortion debate. Our hope in interacting with Dr. Peikoff’s editorial is that readers will gain a greater understanding of the rational and scientific issues involved in the issue of abortion. (more…)

(Originally published online 19 June 2006)

It is a well-known fact (or at least it should be) that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter “LDS”; a.k.a., “Mormonism,” as in The Mormon Tabernacle Choir) is a pseudo-Christian religion. Many features of LDS theology exhibit this fact beyond reasonable doubt. But one feature of LDS theology, particularly as expressed in the words of the founder of that faith, has always struck me as quite telling: how the Trinity was denied by Joseph Smith, the founder and first prophet of the LDS Church, and continues to be rejected by Mormons. This quote illustrates the point:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow — three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization… All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God — he would be a giant or a monster. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372)

(more…)

Dr. Michael F. Bird (New Testament Lecturer at Highland Theological College) has just published an engaging monograph, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies in Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007). In the US, it is available through Wipf & Stock Publishers and Amazon.com, and for a much better price than in the UK. To get something of a preview of Bird’s approach to these topics, you can download an earlier version of the fourth chapter that was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, “Incorporated into Righteousness: A Response to Recent Evangelical Discussion Concerning the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness in Justification” (a pdf file for download; JETS 47.2 [2002]: 253-75). Michael also has an informative and engaging weblog, Euangelion. (more…)

As you can see, I’m in the process of recreating my website. I’ve been really busy lately researching and writing my PhD thesis, which explains why my blog has been down for so long. Of course, this is no promise that I’ll be blogging much. I still have a lot of work to do right now. On top of that, we’re expecting the birth of our baby (this time a boy!) within a couple of weeks. So, a lot of things to think about and do right now. Cheers!