the acts 15 narrative

Posted on December 4, 2013 by christopher fisher

In my previous post, I asked some very straightforward questions about the text of Acts 15. Those who believe that Paul was teaching the exact same thing as the 12 disciples will, predictably, struggle with these questions. This is because the questions try to explore the actual events in Acts 15, and it is hard to fit the events into a “covenant theology” mindset. Because the covenant theologian teaches that all individuals throughout the entire Bible had the exact same ministry (and meant the exact same thing by “gospel” or “saved” or “faith“) it is hard for them to deal with theological struggles among the leadership in the church. Their strategy is to paint the detractors as heretics, but it just doesn’t fit the text.

Instead, here is a fitting narrative of the events in Acts 15:

Acts 14 ends with Paul’s ministry to Galatia (specifically the city of Antioch). In Antioch there was a fairly large church consisting of both Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles, but mainly Gentiles. The Gentiles had converted because Paul taught something that was very appealing to them (not getting circumcised yet being considered equal with the Jews). Things are going fine until there arrived disciples (v 24) of Peter and James from Judea.

These disciples see that the Gentiles are considering themselves equal with Jews yet not keeping the commandments of Moses. In the Old Testament, God almost killed Moses for not circumcising. This was important to the Jews.

Claiming the authority of Peter and James, they start to preach against Paul’s circumcision-less gospel. They claim that not only must Gentiles be circumcised but that Gentiles much also follow the whole law. The Christian Gentiles start to listen to them. After all, Peter was a direct disciple of Jesus, and James was Jesus’ own brother. Contrast this to Paul; whose primary claim to fame is that he once persecuted Christians. Paul was an upstart with no direct connection to Jesus. Paul did not walk and talk to Jesus, much less even meet Jesus. The disciples of James and Peter discredit Paul on these grounds.

Paul debates vigorously with the disciples of James and Peter. But after no headway, everyone decides it would be best to ask James and Peter directly. To solve this dispute, a committee is formed and sent to Jerusalem.

On the way to Jerusalem, Paul takes it upon himself to stir up goodwill towards the Gentiles and starts proclaiming the good things that has happened due to his own unique ministry. If Galatians 2 describes the same events as Acts 15 (and I think they do), we also learn that Paul secretly met with Peter, James and John to further secure favor before any controversy would erupt.

After arriving at Jerusalem, news of Paul’s ministry spreads. A new contingent of Christian Jews arise that proclaim the exact same thing as those in Galatia. They say explicitly that the Gentiles need to keep the laws of Moses. The revelations about Paul’s ministries stir up such a commotion that the elders (including the 12 disciples) had to convene a special session to consider the matter. Until this point (and afterwards as described in Acts 21), the 12 disciples were still preaching the law.

The debate was furious. The Christian Jews were wedded to the law. Acts 21 states they were “zealous for the law”. Peter (the peacemaker) then decides to break up the intense discussion and recounts his own experience with Gentiles. He states that Gentiles can still be saved, but don’t have to convert to Judaism.

This pause in the debates also allows Paul to proclaim all the good that his ministry is accomplishing among the Gentiles. No one can dispute the good things that Paul uses as evidence. There is brief silence.

James takes this opportunity to declare a compromise. The Jews should not trouble the Gentiles anymore. Although the Gentiles have to follow a couple of commands, they did not have to fulfill the most burdensome aspects of the law. James states that only basic Jewish law is applicable (not eating strangled animals or blood, not worshiping idols, and not engaging in sexual immorality). Otherwise, the Gentiles were free.

They decide to advertise this compromise with a letter. The letter is addressed only to Gentiles and reassures the Gentiles that the previous disciples were never commanded to teach circumcision to the Gentiles. To re-enforce this letter, they send direct representatives back to Galatia (so that people don’t think Paul is just making things up).

The icing on the cake is that sometime thereafter, Paul is caught teaching that even Jews did not have to follow the law. When Paul returns to Jerusalem, a riot ensues. Before the riot, James recollects about the previous decree they made (applicable only to Gentiles) and then commands Paul to engage in activity to prove that Paul does not (DOES NOT!) preach that Jews do not have to keep the law. James literally recounts that their previous letter was only to the Gentiles, and that they teach no such thing to the Jews.

Here is the text:

Act 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;
Act 21:21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
Act 21:22 What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come.
Act 21:23 Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow.
Act 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.
Act 21:25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

The next thing that happens is a riot involving Jewish Christians against Paul. Paul was even warned of this before he came to Jerusalem. Paul was in danger of being killed by both Christian and Judaic Jews for his teaching!

This is the narrative that fits the text. Alternative narratives should at least address the questions posted in my previous blog post.

Posted in Bible, Church History, Dispensationalism, History, Morality, Theology | 6 Comments

basic questions on acts 15

Posted on December 3, 2013 by christopher fisher

When watching movies with my wife, she tends to intuitively identify bad plot writing. She will turn to me and say: “Why did xyz character do xyz action?” I will respond often with “because the movie has a terrible plot writer”. When watching movies, people place themselves into the shoes of the fictional characters. They try to feel what those characters feel and then use those motivations to predict behavior.

When reading history, there is no such thing as a bad script writer. The Bible is replete with stories in both the Old and New Testament involving complicated relational dynamics. It is our job to try to place ourselves into the setting and figure out historical events in context. Again, there is no such thing as a “bad script writer” in real life. If the characters’ motivations and actions seem to not make sense, there is a definite problem either with us or the text.

Recently I have been engaging in a conversation on my blog post False Brethren in Acts 15 and Galatians 2. In an effort to get the individual to start focusing on the actual text of Acts 15, I started writing out some fairly simple questions about the events described. My goal was to focus the individual on the text, to make the individual put himself into the events. That way he could actually figure out motives and relational dynamics in this very short chapter.

Here are my questions. If any reader (who is familiar with Acts 15) cannot quickly answer them, that is good indication that they are probably reading the Bible wrong. We need to be trying to understand the events. Our goal is to let the text dictate our theology, not our theology the text:

Acts 15:
1. Who are these false brethren?
2. From where are they coming?
3. What do they believe?
4. Are they considered Christians?
5. Do they accept the authority of the twelve?
5a. If not, why do Christians accept their teachings?
5b. And also why is this mater upchanneled to the twelve for a final word?
5c. If the false brethren did accept the authority of the twelve, were the false brethren teaching what the twelve taught?
5d. Did they think that they were teaching what the twelve taught?
5e. Are the false brethren teaching that the twelve endorse their message?
5f. Do the people that they are teaching believe that the twelve endorse the message?
6. Do the Christians of Galatia already know the twelve’s answer on the issue?
6a. If not, why not?
7. Who disputes with Paul?
7a. Do the disputers accept the authority of the twelve?
7b. If the disputers are not the false brethren, then what became of the false brethren?
7b1. And if so, why didn’t Paul directly dispute with the false brethren?
8. What is the dispute about?
9. What is the resolution?
10. Who goes with Paul to find the answer?
10a. If not the false brethren, then whatever happened to the false brethren?
11. What is the purpose of bringing this mater to Jerusalem?
11a. Will the declaration of the twelve silence the false brethren?
11b. If the false brethren did not accept the teaching of the twelve then why would the people (who were influenced by the false brethren) accept the twelve’s declaration about the issue?
12. On the way to Jerusalem, what does Paul declare?
12a. Do the existing Christians see this as new and exciting news?
12b. If so, why? If not, why does the text record this message? What is the purpose?
13. What happens when Paul reaches Jerusalem?
14. The new contingent of “believers” advocating circumcision, are they Christians?
15. Are they teaching the same things or different things than the false brethren?
16. Do these “believers” accept the authority of the twelve?
16a. If not, why are they mentioned?
16b. If so, why are they teaching that people “keep the commandments of Moses”?
17. Do these “believers” have influence in the church?
18. If the teaching of the twelve is clear, why are the elders assembling to consider the matter?
19. Are the “believers” part of the heavy dispute described in verse 7?
20. Why does Peter stand up to remind people about his outreach to the Gentiles?
20a. Was Peter still actively ministering Gentiles?
20b. Does this suggest the question is being debated only in the context of Gentile believers?
21. Do verses 7-9 suggest a recent change in position regarding the Gentiles?
21a. Does the text imply widespread acceptance or rejection of this change?
22. To whom is this monologue being directed?
22a. Are they Christians?
22b. Are they debating directly against Peter and James (implying considerable sway)?
22c. What position are they taking?
22d. Do Peter and James consider them heretics?
22e. Do they ever accept the position of Peter and James?
22f. Does that acceptance cover only Gentile requirements or Jews as well?
23. In verse 12, why does Paul have to talk about the Gentiles to the “masses”?
23a. Does this suggest that the Gentiles are being widely excluded from fellowship by early Jewish Christians?
24. When James stands up to speak, who is he convincing and what is he convincing them about?
25. In verse 19, why is James declaring that his people should “trouble them not”?
25a. Is this a declaration that James’ people will do their thing and let the Gentiles do their own?
26. Why does James’ add to abstaining from idols, fornication, and blood?
27. How are the apostles and elders “pleased” by this?
27a. If the pronouncement is against circumcision, and this topic was highly debated, why would a pronouncement against circumcision please the critics?
27b. Was this pronouncement about only the Gentiles or the Jews also?
27b1. If not, then why is the resulting letter written only to the Gentiles (verse 23)?
28. Why is the resulting letter not written to the Jews of Galatia?
29. Does the letter suggest that the twelve did not command people to teach circumcision “to the Gentiles” or does it suggest the twelve did not command people to teach circumcision “to anyone”?
30. Why do the apostles send chosen men with Paul?
30a. Do the people in Galatia accept the teaching of the twelve?
30b. Do the people see the teaching of the twelve as authoritative over the false brethren? Why?
30c. Is the teaching of the false brethren strong enough to warrant sending direct representatives of the twelve?
30d. What does this suggest about questions 1 through 6?
31. Why does the letter list a few “burdens” that are “necessary”?
31a. Are these part of the twelve’s normal teaching?
31b. Does the text suggest the normal teaching by the twelve is even more burdensome?
32. What does verse 31 suggest about all the previous questions?
32a. Why do they “rejoice”? What is their mindset that encourages rejoicing at this news?
33. What does the final resolution imply about Paul’s relation to the twelve in terms of apostolic authority in Galatia?

Posted in Bible, Dispensationalism, Textual Criticism, Theology | 2 Comments

walter brueggemann on a literal reading of the Bible

Posted on December 3, 2013 by christopher fisher

From Walter Brueggemann’s Theology of the Old Testament:

Israel’s testimony, however, is not to be understood as a claim subject to historical explication or to philosophical understanding. It is rather an utterance that proposes that this particular past be construed according to this utterance. For our large purposes we should note, moreover, that such testimonial utterance in Israel is characteristically quite concrete, and only on the basis of many such concrete evidence does Israel dare to generalize.

Brueggemann is here saying what any reader of the Old Testament should naturally see. The text is written in a straightforward manner. The testimony was meant to be taken at face value, not to be reinterpreted away. Furthermore, the generalizations about God are deduced from multiple specifics (e.g. we can say God is faithful because we see multiple instances of His faithfulness, and we can say God is powerful because He parted the Red Sea and saved Israel). This is in deep contrast to the Augustinian view of God: that contemplated characteristics should trump the Biblical text (e.g. if we see God using deceit that we use a “truthfulness” characteristic to try to reinterpret the text out of existence).

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Open Theism, Textual Criticism, Theology | Leave a comment

the natural man

Posted on December 1, 2013 by christopher fisher

A Facebook post from Michael Faber (reprinted with his permission):

The biggest problem I have with Calvinism is that it does not rest on a solid exegetical foundation of Scripture. Too many of the texts that Calvinists use just don’t mean what Calvinists claim they do.

The most obvious (to me) is 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, “14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.”

The Calvinist wishes to say that the “Natural man” is unregenerate, and thus cannot understand the gospel until they are “spiritual”, and this is why regeneration must precede faith. And just reading these verses, I can see why one might think this is the case.

But Exegesis demands that we read more than these verses, but see what the context tells us.

The first thing to keep in mind is that Paul is addressing immaturity among the Corinthians, who are seeking to be superior to others by which disciple they follow (Peter, Apollos, etc.). Their error comes from how non-Christians around them interacted with the philosophers and philosophies that were so prominent in Corinth. One would follow this philosopher and this philosophy, and have a reason why his philosopher was superior to others. Another would have follow another philosopher and claim the same thing.

Well, the Corinthians were bringing this into the Church and doing the same thing, and Paul is calling them out, showing that the gospel is foolish to the world, and thus wouldn’t work like the world’s philosophy.

And Paul points out in 2:1 that he didn’t come with wisdom and fancy words, but preaching Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Then, in verse 6, Paul says that there is a “wisdom spoken of among the mature.” The verse starts with the Greek word “de”, which is a weak conjunction that often is translated “but” or “yet.” It can introduce contrast, and in this case it does. The gospel was preached without wisdom, but what is spoken of among the mature IS spoken in wisdom. Thus, it would appear the we are talking about something other than the gospel. This is our first clue that this may be the case.

Paul then goes into a discussion of this wisdom spoken of among the mature, saying that it comes from the deep things of God and such, and then we come to the verses in question.

So, we have to ask what are these “things of the Spirit of God” that the “Natural man” cannot receive, but that the spiritual an is able to appraise?

It would appear that Paul is speaking of this “wisdom spoken of among the mature”, and thus the “natural man” would be one who is immature, not one who is unsaved.

Fortunately, Paul goes on to make this very clear in chapter 3:

“3 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,”

Notice first that Paul could not address the Corinthians as “spiritual people.” They were not yet able to appraise all things.

And then Paul goes into an analogy, saying that the Corinthians were “infants in Christ.” (“In Christ” is important, here, as they were saved, and Paul is addressing saved people.) Paul then begins to speak about “milk” and “solid food.” So, what is apparent is that Paul is distinguishing between two things that he has taught. We have this distinguished for us in 2:1 and 2:6, the “milk” being the gospel, preached without wisdom, and the “solid food” being the “wisdom spoken of among the mature.”

It makes sense that when Paul was there previously, that they would be able to receive the milk (gospel), but not the solid food (wisdom spoken of among the mature), but then Paul shocks the Corinthians by telling them that they are STILL NOT ABLE to receive the solid food.

These are clearly saved Corinthians, and yet they are unable to receive the things spoken of in 2:14, and clearly were unable to appraise all things from 2:15. So, we first must conclude that the “things of the Spirit” in 2:14 cannot include the gospel, as the saved Corinthians (who obviously received the gospel) could not receive those things.

And we could even discuss whether Paul is identifying the Corinthians as “natural men”, having called them “carnal”, and stating that they are unable to receive what the “natural men” cannot receive. This point isn’t necessary to show that 2:14 cannot include the gospel, but would further support the idea that the “things of the Spirit of God” from 2:14 cannot include the gospel.

Thus, we must conclude that the Calvinist cannot use 1 Cor 2:14-15 to claim that regeneration is necessary before one can receive the gospel.

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, Human Nature, Theology | 1 Comment

calvinist underpants gnomes

Posted on November 28, 2013 by christopher fisher

There is a particular episode of South Park which mocks the leftist understanding of how profits work. The entire episode revolves around two stories. One story is of Starbucks moving into town to compete against the local coffee shop. The second story revolves around Gnomes who go around stealing underwear. The gnomes explain their plan:

The first step is collecting the underpants. The second step is unknown. The third step is profiting. The entire point of the episode is that Step 2 is often left out of the critique by those who criticize large companies. The only way to make money, other than using coercion or theft, is to engage in mutually beneficial transactions. Starbucks only wins out because customers prefer it over the competition. Mises.org explains in detail.

Calvinism reminds me of Underpants Gnomes. Here is one such Calvinist explaining the time Jesus “claimed to be omnipresent”. I turned it into a meme:

The Calvinist reads the Bible. But then the Calvinist misses Step 2, which would be where normal people would try to figure out what is being communicated. And then the Calvinist just jumps to Step 3: Calvinism. Proverbs says the “eyes of the Lord are in every place”; that must mean God inhabits every square inch of space in the universe (including hell, fecal matter, and child molesters). The bounds of logic are indescribable.

The only way to understand how a Calvinist’s mind works is to understand that Calvinism is a mindset. It comes to the Bible with predetermined theology, and tries to force its theology wherever it can (discarding all else).

It is because of this, Calvinists are Underpants Gnomes:

Posted in Bible, Calvinism, God, Humor, Omnipresence, Open Theism, Theology | Leave a comment

the evilness of the new deal

Posted on November 28, 2013 by christopher fisher

Bart Wilson reminds his readers why the New Deal was utterly evil. From The Grapes of Wrath:

The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit–and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains.

From the article:

…government officials and farmers had convinced themselves that they were doing the right thing when people were starving right in front of their very eyes. Somehow they reasoned aside their humanity with misguided intentions to jumpstart the economy. Their anger towards the starving blinded them from the immediate, gut-wrenching consequences of their actions.

Whenever the New Deal is glorified, remember this:

“There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success.” -The Grapes of Wrath

Grapes of Wrath is not just fiction. From Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics:

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, agricultural price support programs led to vast amounts of food being deliberately destroyed at a time when malnutrition was a serious problem in the United States and hunger marches were taking place in cities across the country. For example, the federal government bought 6 million hogs in 1933 alone and destroyed them. Huge amounts of farm produce were plowed under, in order to keep it off the market and maintain prices at the officially fixed level, and vast amounts of milk were poured down the sewers for the same reason. Meanwhile, many American children were suffering from diseases caused by malnutrition.

Posted in Economics, Goverment, History, People, Price Controls, Sowell | Leave a comment

caplan on the industrial revolution

Posted on November 28, 2013 by christopher fisher

In a recent post, Economist Bryan Caplan takes on a flawed history textbook. He proposes an alternative text about the Industrial Revolution:

Working conditions during the early Industrial Revolution were bad by modern standards, but a major improvement by the standards of the time. Factory work looked good to people raised on backbreaking farm labor – and it looked great to the many immigrants who flocked to the rising centers of industry from all over the world. This alliance of entrepreneurs, inventors, and workers peacefully kickstarted the modern world that we enjoy today.

He follows up with a quote on the efficiency of Unions:

And what of the “workers’ movement”? A halfway decent textbook would emphasize that it wasn’t quantitatively important. Few workers belonged, and they didn’t get much for their efforts. Indeed, “workers’ movement” is a misnomer; labor unions didn’t speak for most workers, and were often dominated by leftist intellectuals. A fully decent textbook would discuss the many possible negative side effects of labor market regulation and unionization – so students realize that the critics of economic populism were neither knaves nor fools.

Which calls to mind this Mises lecture. Major Episodes in American Labor History: An Austrian Reevaluation, Part II

Posted in Economics, History, Industrial Revolution | Leave a comment

always wear a helmet to protect from meteors

Posted on November 28, 2013 by christopher fisher

Not all risk aversion is worth the cost. We run into people all the time who tell us to change our lives to marginally decrease our risks. Examples would be telling pregnant women to not clean litter-boxes or to flip babies on their backsides to avoid SIDS. These proponents will never be able to give clear numbers for the benefits of their pet theories. But they will always say “better safe than sorry.”

To those who always say “better safe than sorry”, I often retort that they should dress their children in full riot gear because at any moment they can be hit by a meteor. The point is that not all risk is worth mitigating.

Well, it happens that a Florida child was struck by a meteor. Now I can add, “hey, because it has happened.”

Posted in Statistics | Leave a comment

remy videos

Posted on November 28, 2013 by christopher fisher

From the ever-amazing Remy:

And:

Not to mention cough drops:

And my favorite, Cap and Trade:

Posted in Humor, videos | Leave a comment

beware calvinism

Posted on November 24, 2013 by christopher fisher

Calvinism is simply defined as a theology that borrows divine attributes from Platonism. Platonism originated the idea of the Summum Bonum, the perfect good. To Plotinus, the “perfect good” was a timeless, unchanging, omnipresent, and omniscient being (all the negative attributes). In the centuries after Jesus, these attributes of God were adopted by many Christians including the most influential and prolific Church Father: Augustine. Augustine literally stated that he could not be a Christian until he found out that the Old Testament could be allegorized and he could accept the Summum Bonum described by Plotinus. In this sense, Calvinism, Platonism, and Augustinianism are all synonymous.

Calvinism can best be described as not a theology, but a mental condition (a mindset). Calvinism is not so much an overarching theology built from the Bible as it is an overarching theology forced onto the Bible. Calvinism starts with presuppositions (like God is timeless) and then tries to interpret the text of the Bible in light of this. For example, if the Bible says God is the “beginning and the end”, Calvinists see this as a claim to be timeless despite the text not even suggesting it. “Beginning and end” are two distinct points in time. If anything, this is evidence against “timelessness”.

To the Calvinist, the predominant question is not “what does the Bible say” but instead “what should God be like”; the Bible is secondary in their theology. This can be shown through how Calvinists handle various Bible verses. No matter what any text of the Bible declares if it does not fit the Calvinistic theology then it is discarded. Verses are spiritualized, allegorized, and ignored even when the text presents itself in a straightforward fashion. It is a dishonest way to treat the text.

Jeremiah 18 is an excellent example. Calvinists often turn to this chapter of the Bible and then proceed to make the exact opposite point than what the text is proclaiming!

In this text, God tells Jeremiah to go watch a potter at work. The potter (which is a substitute for God) attempts to make a good bowl, but the clay gets ruined in his hand. The potter sees this ruined clay and then uses it to build a lesser bowl. God next explains to Jeremiah that God is the potter: If God attempts to bless a good nation that if they repent and do evil then God will change his plans. If God attempts to destroy a bad nation that if they repent and do good then God will change his plans. God even uses the phrase that He will not do something He “though to do”. The entire point of Jeremiah 18 is an appeal from Jeremiah to Israel. Jeremiah is telling Israel that God responds to people. When people change then God changes. God will not bless an evil nation even if God had promised blessings in the past. And God will not destroy the repentant.

But this entire chapter is an anathema to Calvinists:

1. Calvinists do not believe that God has conversations with people. If so, then God would not be unchanging, outside of time, and sovereign.
2. Calvinists do not believe that God reacts to events as they happen. If so, then God would not be outside of time or know the future.
3. Calvinists do not believe that God thinks He will do something that does not actually happen. If so, then God would be believing something not true plus God would not be omniscient.

So how do Calvinists use this text? They want to have something that emphasizes God’s negative attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, immutability, timelessness, etc.). To do this, they focus on the clay-forming aspect! They say: “see, people are the clay and God does with us whatever He wills.” They do not mention that the potter never finished his original bowl and that the clay was the determining factor for the potter’s end product. Calvinists also do not know how to respond to God’s own explanation of the parable. In this instance, God actually explains the meaning directly after the text. God’s meaning was not “I do whatever I want”. God’s meaning was “I will change what I do based on the actions of people.” Calvinism ignores God’s own interpretation in favor of their own.

This is all not to mention that fatalism would defeat the entire point of this passage. Jeremiah is writing this to Israel in order to get them to change! That is the outside context of this book.

Calvinists use the same approach towards any verse in the Bible. Their overriding concern is not to understand what the original author was attempting to communicate to his original audience. Their concern is maintaining their presuppositional theology. Paul warns against this approach. Paul condemns what he calls “philosophy” (Col 2:8), and from the context of Colossians it is clear he is speaking about Platonism. Beware Calvinism.

Posted in Augustine, Bible, Calvinism, God, Open Theism, Textual Criticism, Theology | 5 Comments