Pete's Blog

A really, really amateur review. And it's long. Be warned. (At least I had fun writing it.)

Mona Lisa Smile (2003), directed by Mike Newell, with Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and others, acting in it.

I want to write something about this movie, because it really made me think. But first off, what motivated me to watch it: When it came out back in 2003 (before I was a Christian), I thought that it had such a long cast of well known actresses that it must be worth watching. But I never got around to it. Then, this week it appeared as one of the 99¢ rentals of the week on iTunes. So I decided to not miss the opportunity.

I can't make any analysis of the acting. There have been many times in the past where I've heard that someone's acting was terrible, and I thought it was fine (e.g., Hayden Christensen in Attack of the Clones), and other times where I've heard that someone's acting was fantastic and again, I thought it was (just) fine (e.g., Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind). The only time that I am confident in my evaluation of some acting, is when I think it's bad. If I think it's bad, it's definitely bad. Suffice it to say, the acting in Mona Lisa Smile was fine.

As a brief synopsis, Katherine Ann Watson (played by Julia Roberts) moved from California to Massachusetts (I think it was never explicitly stated that it was in Massachusetts, but there was a reference that made it seem to me that Harvard was nearby, but I could be completely wrong on this whole parenthetical note) to teach at a women's college named Wellesley. It's a school that was designed to enable women to be able to get a degree while they wait to get married and become house wives. Wellesley was highly traditional and tremendously scared to be challenged on its convictions.

Miss Watson moved to Massachusetts (I'm going to take for granted from now on that it is Massachusetts, but feel free to correct me) to teach history of art at the school. When she got there, though, she started challenging the status quo of all the students expecting to get married and give up any independence in order to serve their husbands.

That's it for the synopsis. Sorry for not being a better storyteller. Watch the movie if you're curious.

I'm going to start with the bad stuff because I want to get it over with and get to the good stuff. The fact that I am stating some bad things about the movie does not mean I disliked it. On the contrary, the movie had me nearly going to pull my hair out a few times, but mostly I felt really entrenched in thought (that's a good thing, in my mind).

The bad: The movie has this feel to it that sex is okay, regardless of relationship status, as long as two people consent, and that the only people who save sex for marriage are prudes.

Second, the liberal/progressive Katherine Watson's philosophy was challenged at every turn by Betty Warren (eventually Betty Jones when she marries Spencer Jones; she was played by Kirsten Dunst). What was bad about this was that it was not a good counterpoint. Miss Warren's arguments were always weaker than they could have been. It felt like the movie was setting up a straw man in Betty Warren to make it appear balanced.

That's it for the bad. Now for the good.

The movie challenged misogyny. Men are not women's rulers. Men do not have a right to cheat on their wives, much less to cheat on them and then cover it up with no consequence. I was happy that Miss Watson fought for women's rights.

Next: One of my two favourite scenes in the movie happened when Betty Warren was viciously attacking Giselle Levy (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal), calling her a prostitute in a variety of ways. (Miss Levy was very promiscuous in the movie and Betty Warren, for whatever reason, held it against her.) As this verbal assault progressed, Giselle approached Betty. Everything, from our past experience, to the look on Giselle's face, to the pace of the music, suggested that Giselle was going to hit Betty for causing her so much pain. But the most unexpected thing happens: grace.

Instead of slapping, punching, kicking or hair pulling, Giselle embraces Betty in a sisterly hug. Giselle had the wisdom to see that Betty was acting so harshly out of pain (Betty was typically harsh, but in this scene it appeared she wanted to cause pain in another). It was amazing. It was like grace was something you could touch. It was something to aspire to. Giselle did the exact opposite of what Betty deserved. It was God-like. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rm. 5:8).

The other fantastic scene was a dialogue between Joan Brandwyn (played by Julia Stiles) and Miss Watson. Miss Watson had tried to convince Miss Brandwyn to go to law school, but instead, the latter decided to become a stay-at-home wife. This dialogue takes place shortly after Miss Watson's discovery of this decision. It's worth quoting the whole dialogue here:

Katherine Watson: There are seven law schools within 45 minutes of Philadelphia. You can study and get dinner on the table by 5:00.
Joan Brandwyn: It's too late.
Katherine Watson: No, some of them accept late admissions! Now, I was upset at first, I can tell you that. When Tommy came to me at the dance and told me he was accepted to Penn, I thought, 'Oh God, her fate is sealed! She's worked so hard, how can she throw it all away?' But then I realized you won't have to! You can bake your cake and eat it too! It's just wonderful!
Joan Brandwyn: We're married. We eloped over the weekend. Turned out he was petrified of a bit ceremony, so we did a sort of spur-of-the-moment thing. Very romantic.
[Katherine is stunned]
Joan Brandwyn: It was my choice, not to go. He would have supported it.
Katherine Watson: But you don't have to choose!
Joan Brandwyn: No, I have to. I want a home, I want a family! That's not something I'll sacrifice.
Katherine Watson: No one's asking you to sacrifice that, Joan. I just want you to understand that you can do both.
Joan Brandwyn: Do you think I'll wake up one morning and regret not being a lawyer?
Katherine Watson: Yes, I'm afraid that you will.
Joan Brandwyn: Not as much as I'd regret not having a family, not being there to raise them. I know exactly what I'm doing and it doesn't make me any less smart. This must seem terrible to you.
Katherine Watson: I didn't say that.
Joan Brandwyn: Sure you did. You always do. You stand in class and tell us to look beyond the image, but you don't. To you a housewife is someone who sold her soul for a center hall colonial. She has no depth, no intellect, no interests. You're the one who said I could do anything I wanted. This is what I want.

Miss Brandwyn's comments here were very important (as this dialogue evidences, she was married at this point, so she was technically Mrs. Donegal, but throughout the majority of the movie she was yet unmarried, so she remains with the name "Miss Brandwyn" in my review). Miss Watson's feminism was far more extreme than I think is healthy by biblical standards. Yet, I don't hold this against the movie because of this dialogue. Miss Brandwyn does a fantastic job of pointing out just how patronizing Miss Watson really was.

The whole movie Watson was trying to say that it was bad for women to be expected to be house wives. But Miss Brandwyn boldly stated that there was nothing wrong with a woman desiring to stay at home and manage her household. I appreciated that she showed how Miss Watson was trying to get other women to live her vision of womanhood, instead of fighting genuinely for women's freedom.

I appreciated that the movie did not portray Katherine Watson as perfect. It made her more real. If she had been perfect, she would have been easier to attack.

For example, at the beginning of the movie, Bill Dunbar (played by Dominic West) is hitting on her and when he finds out that she has a boyfriend he says that if he were her boyfriend, he'd never have let her get away. Her response was that he wouldn't have a say in the matter. When I heard that I began questioning what sort of relationship she was in. As I understand it, a relationship should develop with each invested party taking the other into consideration. Anyway, I thought that Katherine Watson's lifestyle was what the movie was suggesting was right for women to live by, but she wasn't perfect, so I can't conclude decisively that she was the filmmakers' model woman.

[Spoiler in the following paragraph.]

Upon further consideration of this, there were many different women seeking different lifestyles throughout the movie. There was a lesbian (I haven't talked about her in this review), a smart, competent woman who chose to be a stay-at-home wife (i.e., Miss Brandwyn), a woman who got a divorce (i.e., Miss Warren), and, of course, a progressive liberal feminist (i.e., Miss Watson). Given this array, I need to conclude that the filmmakers' thesis was to genuinely endorse any decision an individual woman makes, and that she shouldn't feel pressure from anyone to fit into a specific mould.

Obviously to a certain extent I take issue with this thesis. Namely, I do not condone divorce or homosexuality or the putting off of marriage. That said, I certainly agree with the thesis that all people (yes, I'm extending the thesis to all women and men) should make their own decisions (but here I'm going to modify the given thesis)—within the framework of biblical principles, of course—and not necessarily do what is expected of them.

At the very least, the movie will get you thinking about these things. Very interesting. Do I think everyone should watch it? No. But it's worth watching, nonetheless.

"Susan, Eve's Daughter," said Father Christmas. "These are for you," and he handed her a bow and a quiver full of arrows and a little ivory horn. "You must use the bow only in great need," he said, "for I do not mean you to fight in the battle. It does not easily miss. And when you put this horn to your lips and blow it, then, wherever you are, I think help of some kind will come to you."

Last of all he said, "Lucy, Eve's Daughter," and Lucy came forward. He gave her a little bottle of what looked like glass (but people said afterwards that it was made of diamond) and a small dagger. "In this bottle," he said, "there is a cordial made of the juice of one of the fire-flowers that grow in the mountains of the sun. If you or any of your friends is hurt, a few drops of this restore them. And the dagger is to defend yourself at a great need. For you also are not to be in the battle."

"Why, sir?" said Lucy. "I think—I don't know—but I think I could be brave enough."

"That's not the point," he said. "But battles are ugly when women fight. . . ."

-C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, p. 160. This is a single volume of all seven books, published by Harper Collins. It is from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, chapter 10.

I don't really have any comment on this one. I do find it interesting that he included this bit (which is not to say at all that I disagree with the sentiment). I wonder whether Great Britain in the Second World War had some controversy going on over women going into combat.

There isn't a Bible verse to point to that explicitly says that only men are to go into battle. But when you read the OT, it's only men who are sent to fight.

On this subject, Mohler has written,

From a Christian perspective, the concern about women in combat goes far beyond the pollsters' questions. If we truly believe that God created men and women for different but complementary roles and shows his glory in the faithfulness of men as primary protectors and women as primary nurturers, the entry of women into combat roles is an open rejection of God's purpose. As military historians document, every society throughout history has normalized the military service of men. Though women have known combat in isolated cases throughout history, the fact that such cases are rare is the exception that proves the rule. This wisdom is part of general revelation and thus the moral wisdom shared by virtually all cultures.

When women are injected into combat, the dignity of women is undermined. In the extreme conditions of combat, women are exposed to the very worst that human beings can do and a physical violence that exceeds the imagination. There is no shortage of arguments against this practice. Biological arguments document differences of physical strength and stamina. Psychological arguments consider not only the psychological profile of women in combat but the difference the presence of women makes on men fighting alongside them. Sociological arguments and economic considerations focus on the costs of women in combat roles. These arguments are important, but not ultimate.

It's neat that when I was public school kid, we had to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Hopefully that'll keep happening and kids will keep being exposed to Lewis' Christian worldview.

--

I do concede that Jael found herself in combat engaged (Jd. 4), but she wasn't sent into battle. Are there any other examples of women in combat in the Bible?

On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." When he saw them he said to them, "Go and show yourselves to the priests." And as they went they were cleansed. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" And he said to him, "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well." (Lk. 17:11-19)

I would be so bold as to guess that all the readers of my blog have heard this story before (and if not all then certainly most). It's always nice seeing new things in the Bible that you didn't notice before. I wish that I were smart enough or observant enough to have come up with this on my own, but I make no claim of originality for the following thought:

After the one leper returns (v. 15) he bows down to Jesus (v. 16). When I imagine a scene where a subject goes to his king, he bows down, then the king immediately invites him to rise. Jesus didn't in this case. While the cleansed-leper was bowing Jesus pondered, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" Only after pondering this out loud did Jesus then invite the man to rise.

I heard this in a lecture by Dr. Daniel Doriani, former professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (he's now a pastor), in his course on the gospels, which can be found on iTunes U. Dr. Doriani's point was that Jesus had no problem being bowed down to. He was comfortable with it. He truly thought He was worthy of worship.

My warm thanks go out to Kibonge for his help with this entry.

As most readers of this blog probably know, I'm traditional. My default is to keep the way we've always done something unless there's a reason to do otherwise, as opposed to defaulting to do something new unless there's a reason to keep the old ways.

Having this default, now that most Christians seem to be disillusioned with the word "religion" it got me thinking about why that is, considering that, in itself, it's a perfectly good word.

To begin with, I recognize that people aren't throwing out the perfectly good word "religion" in its original meaning, but are actually throwing out the word that our society associates with other meanings. Here are the two ways that I hear "religion" used in a negative way:

1. Ritualism and legalism. (Kibonge was really helpful with this. I hadn't identified the association between religion and ritualism before, but as soon as he mentioned it, I was in complete agreement. Very insightful.) In doing evangelism I've heard loads of people say that they're spiritual but not religious. Interesting. I think they're saying that they're not going through the rituals of an organized religion in order to practice their spirituality. When John MacArthur criticises "religious people" in his sermons, he's talking about Mormons, Catholics and pew warmers who think that going to a weekly worship service will help them get into a good afterlife.
   
2. Pharisaism. (In my experience, people have often used the word "legalism" where I think they mean "pharisaism.") In the gospels, the Pharisees were adding rules to the Law. In fact, they were breaking the Law in doing so, "You shall not add to the word that I command you" (Dt. 4:2). When I hear someone like Mark Driscoll use the word "religion," or more often, "religious people," he's talking about people who add unbiblical rules to people's lives. An example of who Driscoll would be talking about would be American fundamentalists. They have rules like you're not allowed to dance, smoke, go to movies, play cards, listen to John Piper sermons, etc.
   

Finally, I'd like to talk about good religion. The origin of the word "religion" etymologically comes from the Latin word "religio." That word breaks into two components: "re" which means again and "lig" which means to bind or to tie. So "religion" means to reconnect (i.e., with God). That's exactly what Christianity is. Humanity is fallen, and through Jesus, we're reconnected with God.

Also, in defense of the word "religion" being good, consider that James uses it in such a way that implies that religion is good. "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (Jm. 1:26, 27).

This is not to say that either Mac or Driscoll are wrong in their usages. Language evolves. For example, consider the expression, "used to," as in, "It used to be summer." If you use the original meanings of each of these words' original meanings, the sentence is nonsensical. But it's come into our language. Likewise, the word "religion" has evolved in its meaning.

But, I think as Christians we should remember the original meaning. If for no other reason, because James does, and we don't have a better word for it yet in English.

--

I'm not done posting on Narnia yet. I really shouldn't make promises on my blog.

Anyway, I think this little quote can't hurt this post, even though it's unrelated:

"That's the worst of girls," said Edmund to Peter and the Dwarf. "They never carry a map in their heads."

"That's because our heads have something inside them," said Lucy.

-C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, p. 370. This is a single volume of all seven books, published by Harper Collins. It is from Prince Caspian, chapter 9.

"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. . . ."

-C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, p. 131. Emphasis added. This is a single volume of all seven books, published by Harper Collins. It is from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, chapter 5.

Its logic is identical to Lewis' argument for the deity of Christ. It goes something like this: In the gospels, Christ claimed to be God. (E.g., in John 8:58 Jesus implied He was the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, He received worship without rebuke [e.g., Mt. 28:9], He forgave sins [e.g., Mk. 2:5, cf. vv. 6-12], He had authority to state that Old Testament law was fulfilled [e.g., Mt. 19:8, 9; Mk. 7:15-19].) This leaves only three options: either He's a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord of heaven. (Skeptics pushed back against this argument saying that these aren't the only three options. They claim that a fourth option may be posited: that Jesus' claim to divinity, or His existence itself, were legendary. I agree with them, but it doesn't help their case.)

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came out in 1950, where Mere
Christianity came out in 1952. That caught my interest at first, thinking, I wonder whether Lewis first formed the Lord, Lunatic, Liar argument in Wardrobe and then flushed it out more completely in Mere Christianity. Then I remembered that Mere Christianity was based on a radio series he did.

I love the Chronicles of Narnia. I've never found any book (or books) such a page turner. Highly recommended.

Over the next week I'm going to post at least twice more on little passages in the books. Stay tuned.

"You see friends," he said, "that before the new, clean world I gave you is seven hours old, a force of evil, has entered it; waked and brought hither by this son of Adam." The beasts, even Strawberry, all turned their eyes on Digory till he felt he wished the ground would swallow him up. "But do not be cast down," said Aslan, still speaking to the Beasts. "Evil will come of that evil, but it is still a long way off, and I will see to it that the worst falls upon myself. In the meantime, let us take such order that for many hundred years yet this shall be a merry land in a merry world. And as Adam's race has done the harm, Adam's race shall help to heal it. Draw near you other two."

-C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, p. 80. Emphasis added. This is a single volume of all seven books, published by Harper Collins. As you might guess, given how early in the volume this passage falls, it is from The Magician's Nephew, chapter 11.

It's been a real joy reading this book. I forgot how interesting fiction can be to read.

Oh, memories :)

So come and talk to me

On my computer screen

The best years of our lives

Aren't as easy as they seem

To get the girl and make the grade

It's all a show, it's all a game

And I would lose it if I played

But anyway

You go out on Friday night

I'll stay in but that's alright

Cause I have found a clique

To call my own.

The first few are kind of boring, but it does a good job of being fair; criticing Republicans and Democrats. I like that it shows Vice President Biden’s stereotyping, and President Obama’s lack of knowledge of the United States. (Obama’s last one kind of reminded me of a Palin slip.)

In one previous blog entry, I introduced the category of biblical types. This morning I finished reading through Ezra. In 9:1, 2 Ezra describes how the Jews were sinning severely against God by practicing racial intermarriage. So Ezra called all the people together to address them on the issue (10:7, 8). Here's what followed:

Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, "It is so; we must do as you have said. But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. Let our officials stand for the whole assembly. Let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, until the fierce wrath of our God over this matter is turned away from us." Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite supported them. (Ez. 10:9-15)

Let me start by saying that I don't completely understand what's going on here. Ezra's just commanded them to "Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives," yet the Jews respond that they can't do it themselves because it's raining. I guess that when Ezra commanded them to "make confession to the LORD," he meant do it corporately.

That aside, it's so interesting that the people said, "Let our officials stand for the whole assembly." It reminded me of Israel asking Moses to intercede for them:

Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off and said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die." (Ex. 20:18, 19)

And then there were priests who were ministers on behalf of the people before the Lord:

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "If anyone sins and commits a breach of faith against the LORD by deceiving his neighbor . . . and has realized his guilt and will restore what he took by robbery or what he got by oppression or the deposit that was committed to him or the lost thing that he found or anything about which he has sworn falsely, he shall restore it in full and shall add a fifth to it, and give it to him to whom it belongs on the day he realizes his guilt. And he shall bring to the priest as his compensation to the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent for a guilt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty." (Le. 6:1-2, 4-7)

As I read the Old Testament, in light of the New Testament's revelation of Christ's role as mediator (1Ti. 2:5), I realize that the idea of one party going between two other parties (in the above examples) is a strong OT type that Jesus eventually would come and put Himself between His people and God.

The reason evangelism's so difficult is because it's impossible for a Christian to tear a nonchristian from their idols. As John Calvin said, the human heart is "a perpetual factory of idols." Without knowing it, nonchristians love their sin. (Fortunately, God is able to crush a man's idols and reveal Himself as the true God to be worshiped: "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ" [2Co. 4:6].)

Atheists, deep, deep down realize that if God exists, He's their Creator, and Creators always have sovereign rights over their creatures, so the only way to submit to their own idols (themselves) is to deny His very existence.

"[Men] by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (v. 18). "[A]lthough they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (v. 21).

A young British mother says her prematurely born son was left to die last October by doctors because he fell two days short of the minimum requirement for care.

 

Sarah Capewell's son, Jayden, was born 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy, but physicians said he needed to be at 22 weeks gestation in order to be treated, she told The Daily Mail in a Sept. 9 article. He lived for nearly two hours without medical assistance. She is seeking a review of the guidelines followed by National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in such cases.

 

Jayden, who was born at an NHS hospital in Norfolk, was breathing without help, had a strong heart rate and was moving his arms and legs after his birth, said Capewell, 23.

 

She told The Daily Mail she pleaded with a pediatrician, saying, "You have got to help." The doctor said, "No we don't"

 

While she was having contractions, a chaplain visited her to make plans for a funeral for her yet-to-be-born son, Capewell said. "I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead," she said, according to the newspaper.

The other day I was listening to an informal debate between a nonchristian and a Christian over alleged contradictions in the Bible. In it, the atheist said that if Matthew really was an eyewitness of Jesus, he wouldn't have needed Mark's account of Christ in order to write his own.

This assumes Markan priority, that is that Mark's was the first of the three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) written, and that Matthew and Luke base their gospels on Mark.

Suppose it's true (and it might be, see below). Put yourself in Matthew's shoes. He has Mark's gospel, which was written for Gentiles in Rome, in his hands, and he wants to write something to tell the Jews in Palestine about Jesus. They probably haven't read Mark's gospel (otherwise he wouldn't have needed to write his own), so he starts with the first gospel and adds to it. Matthew was an eye witness of Jesus so he knew that the material in Mark was authentic. Why re-invent the wheel?

Indulge yourself in an illustration. Suppose you are a student in a campus ministry. You've been on a summer project before, and you think you'll go again. You know, though, that one of your friends already sends his supporters a somewhat regular update email.

Much to your excitement, you and he just saw someone come to faith and get baptized. In your excitement, you really want to tell everyone. And you see that your friend's already sent out and update email relating the story to his network. You ask his permission to share it with your network, and he has no problem with it. So you keep his part, and add how you felt throughout the entire event of explaining the Gospel to this new Christian, maybe leaving out of few of the personal details your friend put in his update email. You're more observant than your friend, so you actually add 70% percent more content to the email than what your friend had originally included. You then send it out.

This is pretty similar to what I think happened with Matthew and Mark.

A valid question the skeptic could have asked would be why God included so much redundant material by including three synoptic gospels instead of just one. Why did God inspire His Word this way? It's an interesting question, that's for sure, but it has zero impact on the credibility of either Matthew or Luke.

I don't have any hypotheses as to why God inspired the gospel accounts in this way. But I also don't know why He ordained history in the way it is currently unfolding, and I think He has just as much authorship over the history of the world as He does in the Bible. The point is that there is indeed mystery in the Christian faith, but mystery doesn't invalidate the authenticity of the faith.

--

I hold to Markan priority as well. There was a time when I desired for Matthew to be the first synoptic gospel (i.e., Matthean priority), but that was when I was uncomfortable with the Q-hypothesis.

It's been a few years since I abandoned this view, so I don't completely remember how I came to be uncomfortable with the Q-hypothesis. I'll explain what I can remember soon enough, but I'll first explain the Q-hypothesis.

Once you start with Markan priority you need to explain why there is so much overlap in Matthew and Luke that is absent in Mark. You can't really explain this by saying Matthew used Luke or vice versa because they're too dissimilar and there's too much in Matthew that's not in Luke, and there's too much in Luke that's not in Matthew. So you introduce the possibility that there was another source that the two of them relied upon. Called it Q, short for Quelle, German for source. Q can contain more than the overlap in Matthew and Luke that's not in Mark, but it contains at least that much.

So, in summary, Mark wrote a gospel. And someone wrote a document that was a collection of sayings that today we call Q. Matthew and Luke, each writing independently of one another, used both Mark and Q to write their gospels.

I once found this unappealing because I thought that any reliance on an outside document weakened the authenticity of the gospels we have. I don't know where I came up with this thought. It was certainly unjustified.

So, rejecting the Q-hypothesis (again, irrationally), I thought that it was a nifty idea to say that Mark relied on Matthew, and then Luke had access to both. However (not to imply I know Greek), scholars say that Mark has the poorest Greek of the three (maybe of the New Testament) so it's not likely that he relied on either of the others.

Like I said, though, I don't know Greek. So I would need to hear that argument from a scholar.

A friend once told me that he thought it seemed implausible to hold to Matthean priority because you'd expect someone to add to an account, not reduce the account. That made me seriously begin to question whether I could legitimately hold to it.

Then I came across Dan Wallace's work. I'd already been reading his blog (he's an occasional contributor to Parchment and Pen), and I came to respect him because he took a strong stand on the unscriptural nature of John 7:53-8:11, where it seemed like some were giving stances, without defending them, and others weren't talking about it. Since then, he's been super helpful in me forming my views about what the Bible is and how it came into existence. Specifically, his article on the Synoptic Problem was what made me finally decide that I was okay with the existence of Q. I highly recommend the article.

The following are the first ten terms of a sequence:

1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 12, 22, 37, 58, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

If it hasn't been solved by Thursday I'll give a hint. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (5, 7, 13, 19, 31, 43, 61, 73, 103, 109, . . .) was the greater of a pair of consecutive odd numbers that are both prime. E.g., 101 and 103 are consecutive odd numbers, and they're both prime. The latter, 103, is the greater, so it is in the sequence. E.g., 5 and 7 are consecutive odd numbers, and they're both prime. The greater, 7, is in the sequence. (The lesser, 5, is also in the sequence because it and 3 are consecutive odd numbers that are both prime, and 3 is less than 5.)

Greg Gilbert on the 9Marks (Mark Dever's ministry) blog recently wrote an article about the trend of the absence of penal substitutionary atonement in modern Christian books. He would know. As he describes in the introduction of the article, he is one of the main book critics for 9Marks.

Here's part of the conclusion:

At the end of the day, and really in the face of all the comments to the contrary, Scripture makes it clear that the cross—that is, the death of Jesus in the place of sinners, taking the punishment they deserved—must remain at the center of the gospel. We cannot move it to the side, we cannot replace it with any other truth, and we cannot reimagine it as something less offensive than it really is. Otherwise, we present the world with something that is not saving, and that is therefore not good news at all.

I've already shared it in Google Reader, but it's so good that I wanted to try to give it a bit more of an audience, small result as that might be on my part.

When you're sitting by yourself in a public place, say a cafeteria or at a conference, and someone you like whose company you enjoy sees you but does not sit next to you, instead of feeling rejected, consider it a compliment. He considers sitting next to you a place of honour.

"[D]o not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, 'Give your place to this person,' and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place." (Lk. 14:8-10)

Of course, if you consider it in this manner, your next course of action must be to go to that person and insist he sit with you, in the place of honour.

"[W]hen your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher.'" (Lk. 14:10)

Update: I struck the word "like" at the beginning of the entry in favour of a more explicit mean. Since "like" in English can carry the meaning of romantic interest (though it hadn't occurred to me when I first wrote the post), I decided, when I did realize how it sounded, to change it.

The following are the first ten terms of a sequence:

5, 7, 13, 19, 31, 43, 61, 73, 103, 109, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

If it hasn't been solved by Thursday I'll give a hint. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (0, 4, 9, 8, 25, 13, 49, 12, 18, 29, . . .) was the sum of the squares of the prime divisors of the index (with multiplicity). E.g., 1 has no prime divisors so a(1)=0. E.g., 10 has prime divisors 2 and 5 so a(10)=2²+5²=29. E.g., 24 has prime divisors 2 (with multiplicity 3) and 3 so a(24)=3(2²)+3²=21.

Isaiah 9:6: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

The four titles we get here for Jesus list, again, as

1. Wonderful Counselor,
   
2. Mighty God,
   
3. Everlasting Father, and
   
4. Prince of Peace.
   

First, I'd like to admit that I've wondered before what it means for Jesus to be the "Everlasting Father." If I were a modalist (i.e., someone who denies that God is simultaneously three distinct persons [not one at a time]), I'd jump all over this verse. The Trinity is not fully revealed in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament. So, given that the Old Testament is types and shadows of New Testament realities, I'm willing to be satisfied in saying that Isaiah was describing this future man as a father of sorts, without confusing Him with God the Father.

Anyway, here I'm musing over titles 2 and 4. It's interesting that Isaiah calls Jesus "Mighty God," only later to say that He's a prince. What does every prince have? A king! So the natural reading of this verse has Trinitarian overtones.

When I say "natural reading," I say that recognizing it's possible that in the Jewish literature of Isaiah's day, to be a prince might have meant that person was the primary leader, not the king. But until shown otherwise, a prince is a son of the king.

If you know me, it might shock you that a post with the word "Vatican" in the title isn't critiquing Roman Catholicism.

In the first interview of Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus he's talking to a (Canadian) expert on alleged alternative gospels (Dr. Craig A. Evans). The six documents they deal with are The
Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The
Gospel of Mary, The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Jesus Papers,
and The Gospel of Judas. Pretty interesting.

There was an interesting quote about conspiracies, but it's not funny if it's out of context, so I'm going to try to give enough background.

From Wikipedia:

The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History is a book released in 2006 by author Michael Baigent. He explores the detailed history of Jesus' life and crucifixion; using papers that, according to Baigent, were covered up. The work documents the political context of Jesus' birth, and then goes on to examine the history of the migration of the family of Jesus, the chronicles of his teachings, and his death.

And here's how Dr. Evans explains it:

"Baigent describes how he went into a walk-in safe of an antiquities collector and saw the papyri under glass. He couldn't take a picture of them, of course. He has admitted that he doesn't read Aramaic and said the [coauthor of The Jesus Papers] doesn't either—so how does he know what they say? He's assured that two well-known archaeologists, Yigael Yadin and Nahman Avigad, have confirmed it. Oh, but did I mention that Yadin and Avigad are dead?

"So we have an author with dubious credibility in the first place; an antiquities dealer who can't be identified; documents that Baigent can't read or produce and for which we have no translation or verification; and two archaeologists who are dead. This is just the dumbest thing." (p. 53, "International Trade Paper Edition")

But he's made loads of money off the book that is exposing the information in these documents. How does he explain the absence of the documents? Conspiracy, of course. This is how Evans describes it:

"He's playing on the ignorance of people as well as the desire for a titillating tale of conspiracy, intrigue, and hiding the truth. And it's always the Vatican getting involved—buying off people or pressuring people into silence. Baigent says Pope John XXIII asked the archaeologists to destroy these incriminating documents, but they refused."

Evans's sarcasm hit full stride. "It's astonishing for as active and energetic as the Vatican is when it comes to bribing people and destroying documents that they are never able to cover their tracks," he said, smiling. "Baigent can always find out." (Author's emphasis, pp. 53-54)

Strobel had actually started the discussion on The Jesus Papers criticizing Baigent's reliability: The second sentence reads, "Scholars uniformly scoff at Baigent's conspiracy theories and poorly supported allegations, which sound convincing to those untrained in ancient history but which quickly collapse upon examination by experts" (p. 52).

Maybe this isn't as funny as I think it is. It's a good thing, for Baigent's sake, that there exists a denomination with a centralized church government, whose power spans over each of the populated continents, so that he has someone to accuse of the conspiracies that put his scholarship in such hot water. With that in mind, I'm very satisfied with my independent, congregationalist polity, thank-you-very-much.

--

The book's worth reading. Some of it seems to be repeating some of the information from The Case for Christ, but some of it is new. My interest in it rests in two of the discussions, the one above on alleged alternative gospels, and one on the accusation that the Jesus story was taken from pagan myths pre-dating Christianity.

Sorry for not posting the hint last week. I was busy, and thus forgot, focusing on things that actually matter.

The following are the first ten terms of a sequence:

0, 4, 9, 8, 25, 13, 49, 12, 18, 29, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

If it hasn't been solved by Thursday (and if I remember), I'll give a hint. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, . . .) was a recursive sequence. First, define a(1)=1. Next, for i=1, 2, 3, . . ., if a(i) is a composite integer (i.e., non-prime), then a(i+1)= a(i)+1, and if a(i) is prime, then a(i+1)= a(i)+2. Pretty easy; no examples.

Update: Hint: It's related to the prime divisors of the terms.

In passing, Dr. Mohler on his radio program yesterday made reference to Graham Crackers having an origin that you wouldn't expect. Finding the reference interesting, I looked it up on Wikipedia.

From the section on the History:

Graham crackers were originally conceived of as a health food as part of the Graham Diet, a regimen to suppress what he considered unhealthy carnal urges, the source of many maladies according to Graham. Reverend Graham would often lecture about the adverse effects of masturbation, or "self-abuse" as he called it. One of his many theories was that one could curb one's sexual appetite by eating bland foods. Another man who held this belief was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the inventor of the corn flakes cereal.

Reading more into the article you'd soon discover that originally Graham Crackers would be made out of a sort of whole wheat flour, namely, Graham Flour, not white flour as they are today. Furthermore, they had much less sugar back in the day.

Anyway, I find random facts interesting. Maybe this will be of interest for others.

Second Peter 2:4 reads, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment."

And Jude writes, "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day" (v. 6).

From Grudem's Systematic Theology:

They are removed from the glory of God's presence and their activity is restricted (metaphorically, they are in "eternal chains"), but the text [Jude 6] does not imply either that the influence of demons has been removed from the world or that some demons are kept in a place of punishment apart from the world while others are able to influence it. (p. 413)

He then argues in a note for this statement,

2 Peter 2:4 does not say, "God did not spare some of the angels when they sinned," or, "God cast some of the sinning angels into hell," but it speaks generally of "the angels" when they sinned, implying all of them who sinned. Similarly, Jude 6 speaks of "the angels that did not keep their own position," implying all who sinned. Therefore, these verses must say something that is true of all demons. Their current home, their dwelling place, is "hell" and "pits of nether gloom" [RSV] although they can range from there to influence people in the world. (p. 413n2)

So, from out of hell Satan and his demons are still able to impact worldly events, even to such a great extent that John writes, "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1J. 5:19).

I'd never thought about this before until I read it in Grudem. For example, consider Job 1 and 2: "The LORD said to Satan, 'From where have you come?' Satan answered the LORD and said, 'From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it'" (Jb. 1:7; 2:2). Or in 1 Peter, where the apostle writes, "the devil prowls around like a roaring lion" (5:8). From these verses it appears that Satan has freedom. But Jude says that he along with all the demons are in chains.

I guess that somehow they're being punished at the same time as they keep doing their evil work. Counter-intuitive. I'm not sure how else to describe it.

The following are the first fifty terms of a sequence:

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

If it hasn't been solved by Thursday, I'll give a hint. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (1, 7, 10, 13, 19, 23, 28, 31, 32, 44, . . .) was the list of numbers whose iteration of the sum of the square of their digits converged to 1. E.g., 1²=1, so 1 is in the sequence. E.g., 2→2²=4→4²=16→1²+6²=37→3²+7²=58→5²+8²=89→8²+9²=145→1²+4²+5²=42→4²+2²=20→2²+0²=4 and from here the iteration loops infinitely through the cycle 4, 16, 37, 58, 89, 145, 42, 20, thus never reaching 1. So, 2 is not in the sequence. E.g., 13→1²+3²=10→1²+0²=1. So 13 is in the sequence. It was not solved.

Al Mohler recently commented on the attention the media's given to Jimmy Carter's relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention. Though his column has now been making the rounds of the net for a few days, perhaps it's not too late to refer you to it. It's not a significant issue; Jimmy Carter is old news, and, as much as I love the Southern Baptists, the SBC is still insignificant in our Canadian lives. That said, I thought Mohler made a funny observation in it against Jimmy Carter: "[President Carter] straightforwardly rejects what he admits some texts of the Bible teach. Then, he opens and closes his article by citing as his main authority the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948" (emphasis added). I found it a funny read, even if it's irrelevant to most of us, because Dr. Mohler points out a number of strange things in the way the story's recently been covered.

--

The story of Numbers 13-14, where the twelve Israelites go to spy out Canaan and see if it's conquerable (though God's already promised the land to them) and the reaction of Israel to the spies' report, this, is summarized by Dan Phillips (in passing—this is not what his post was primarily about) as:

God said "Go"

They said "No"

So God said "No go"

They said "Woe!"

(Some tried...

...they died)

--

Unborn babies can learn and use their memories in the womb!

--

In Harry Potter V: The Order of the Phoenix, the Minister of Magic (the highest ranking official in the magical world), Cornelius Fudge, is paranoid that Dumbledore is fabricating the return of Voldemort. Interestingly, Rowling (the author) paralleled Fudge's paranoia to an historical figure, concerning the rise of the Nazis. She said, "My model of the world after Voldemort's return was, directly, the government of Neville Chamberlain in Great Britain during the Second World War, when he tried to minimize the menace of the Nazi regime for political convenience."

--

Frank Leahy: "Egotism is the anaesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity."

--

Aaron Menikoff at 9 Marks: "Yes, the Gospel is offensive and we can't think we have to 'earn' the right to share it. But our evangelism should be robust enough that our lives really are overlapping with non-Christians. We really should be getting to know them." After having read the title of the entry, A Challenge to Evangelism, it took me a while while reading the entry to realize he meant "challenge" in the C4C way.

--

Taken from The Amateur Etymologist:

Awhile is an adverb used after a verb. Its definition is "after a short period of time". Example:

After the heavy lunch, Roger snuck into the bedroom and slept awhile before resuming his chores.

A while, on the other hand, is a construction meaning "an indefinite period of time". Example:

• The family settled in Shanghai for a while.
  
• After a while, the car drove off.
  

--

One friend recently said he wasn't sure how to interpret 1 Timothy 2:15, "Yet [a woman] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." So I figured I'd make reference to a good blog entry by Dr. Andreas Kostenberger on the verse.

Here's the conclusion: "In v. 15, Paul addresses the question, 'How can women today avoid the mistake made by Eve?' The answer: By adhering to their God-given boundaries and tending to their God-given responsibilities."

What's really valuable about this entry is that afterwards there is dialogue between Dr. Kostenberger and Dr. Ben Witherington in the comments section. Dr. Witherington is a staunch egalitarian. In fact, he said that he really liked the ESV Study Bible except for the lack of female and ethnic scholars among the contributors. (They're complementarian, so in this case, the editors decided to allow men to fulfill this role of teaching. As for the charge of too many white guys, my guess, though I can't substantiate this, is that they're not conceding to affirmative action. They probably took the best men in each of the fields, and each of those men happened to be white.)

Despite all the literature out there on this verse, I'm still not sure why Paul goes from the third person singular feminine ("she will be saved . . .") to the third person plural ("if they continue . . .").

--

In Isaiah 43:6 God calls Himself the "King of Israel": "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.'" I wonder whether this was the main reason why the Jews didn't want Pilate to put the inscription above Jesus' head on the cross that He was King of the Jews in John 19:19-21. Of course, they may simply have wanted to deny that He the rightful inheritor of the throne of David.

Also, there's more evidence in the Isaiah verse of the deity of Christ: God calls Himself "the first and the last." Given that the book of Revelation is loaded to the brim with Old Testament allusions and quotations (e.g., Revelation 12:9 and 20:2, "ancient serpent" compared with Genesis 3's serpent, or Revelation 14:14, "behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man," compared with Daniel 7:13, "behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man"), John probably wasn't ignorant of Isaiah's language when he recorded Jesus saying of Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (Revelation 22:13, refer to v. 16 to see that it is Jesus making this statement).

--

Is it possible for a legitimately democratic government (as opposed to the ancient monarchies, and the current communist regimes and Islamic theocracies) to steal from its people?

--

Mohler's a "Mac guy" (as opposed to a PC, I'm not talking about MacArthur) (00:47).

The following are the first fifty terms of a sequence:

1, 7, 10, 13, 19, 23, 28, 31, 32, 44, 49, 68, 70, 79, 82, 86, 91, 94, 97, 100, 103, 109, 129, 130, 133, 139, 167, 176, 188, 190, 192, 193, 203, 208, 219, 226, 230, 236, 239, 262, 263, 280, 291, 293, 301, 302, 310, 313, 319, 320, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

On Wednesday, if it hasn't been solved yet, I'll give a hint (yes, earlier than usual). This one is very tough. I don't know how helpful the hint I'm planning on offering is going to be, so if it's not enough, on Friday I'll post a big hint which will be enough to get it solved.

To give you a starting point, this is a list of numbers that meet a criterion. So considering the absent numbers is as important as considering the present terms. The criterion involves the sum of the squares of the digits of the positive numbers. I don't expect this to be particularly helpful, though. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 1, . . .) was the sum of the squares of the digits. E.g., a(18)=1²+8²=1+64=65. KWTsui solved it.

Update: First Hint: The criterion is one of convergence. And this convergence is related to the sum of the square of the digits of the positive numbers.

Update: Second Hint: Iterate the process of finding the sum of the squares of the digits of the numbers. Do it first for the first few terms of this sequence until you think you see what happens, then do the same iteration process for the positive integers absent from this sequence and confirm that is why they are absent.

The following are the first fifty terms of a sequence:

1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 1, 2, 5, 10, 17, 26, 37, 50, 65, 82, 4, 5, 8, 13, 20, 29, 40, 53, 68, 85, 9, 10, 13, 18, 25, 34, 45, 58, 73, 90, 16, 17, 20, 25, 32, 41, 52, 65, 80, 97, 25, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

If it hasn't been solved by Thursday, I'll give a hint. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (3, 11, 21, 33, 47, 63, 81, 101, 123, 147, . . .) was defined explicitly a(n)=n²+5n-3. KWTsui solved it.

The following are the first ten terms of a sequence:

3, 11, 21, 33, 47, 63, 81, 101, 123, 147, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

If it hasn't been solved by Thursday, I'll give a hint. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, . . .) was the list of all integers that are the sum of a nonnegative integer plus the integer with its digits reversed. E.g., 71+17=88. E.g., 100+001=101. E.g., 2+2=4. It was not solved.

In an interview Mark Dever did with John Piper, Dr. Dever suggested two books to defend the doctrine of Limited Atonement, Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray and The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God by D. A. Carson. So when I saw that it was free online I downloaded it right away.

It's not heavy on the argument for the scope of the atonement (which I was fine with). It was a great little read (at only 95 pages from cover to cover). Dr. Carson is a very gifted writer.

One of the benefits of reading a PDF was that it's very easy to quote. Surprisingly, I didn't find it anymore difficult to read than a paperback, and much easier to hold. So, here are some excerpts:

To begin with, I chose the title for this blog entry based on this excerpt: "[I]s the biblical teaching on the love of God maintaining its shape when the meaning of 'God' dissolves in mist?" (p. 12). Saying that "God is love" (1J. 4:8, 16) is meaningless if you don't have the One, True, Living God in mind. It would be like saying, "My breakfast cereal is love."

I've heard many people talk about John 3:16 and the implications it has on God's election. Read how Dr. Carson deals with the verse: "[W]orld in John does not so much refer to bigness as to badness. In John's vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God's love in sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired not because it is extended to so big a thing as the world, but to so bad a thing; not to so many people, as to such wicked people" (p. 17).

When I read the following quote, I finally realized why so many Arminians have difficulty accepting Limited Atonement. "We have already reflected a little on attempts to strip God's love of affective content and make it no more than willed commitment to the other's good" (p. 46). No Christian can deny that God loves everyone (Mt. 5:45). So if you think that the definition of love is working exclusively for the receiver's good, and since God loves everyone, in the atonement, He must have been working for everyone's good in an equal way.

But God's love varies person to person. Carson argues that God's love manifests in at least five ways (pp. 16-19). (This list is probably the most profitable portion of the book.) I'm not saying that all Arminians make this mistake, but I think that if you're arguing for a universal atonement theologically (as opposed to biblically), you either need to believe one size of love fits all, or you need to believe in an atonement with a limited scope of intended effectiveness.

One of the texts those defending a universal atonement would refer to is 1 John 2:2. Dr. Carson has done much scholarship on the Johannine corpus, so he has some helpful thoughts to bear on this verse:

As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing thought of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received.2 But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like "potentially for all without distinction" rather than "effectively for all without exception"—for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place. (pp. 76-77)

For the last quote dealing with the extent of the atonement, Dr. Carson cautions that belief in a universal atonement may lead to boasting: "[T]o preserve the notion of particular redemption proves pastorally important for many reasons. If Christ died for all people with exactly the same intent, as measured on any axis, then it is surely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the ultimate distinguishing mark between those who are saved and those who are not is their own decision, their own will. That is surely ground for boasting" (pp. 78-79).

Anyway, going back to the discussion of what love means, where some people think that loving someone involves working only for their good, Carson gives a practical example where loving someone doesn't necessarily end with the expected results:

If for no good reason my teenagers do not get home by the time I have prescribed, the least they will experience is a bawling out, and they may come under some restrictive sanctions. There is no use reminding them that I am doing this because I love them. That is true, but the manifestation of my love for them when I ground them and when I take them out for a meal or attend one of their concerts or take my son fishing or my daughter on an excursion of some sort is rather different in the two cases. Only the latter will feel much more like remaining in my love than falling under my wrath. (p. 20)

I've recorded two quotes demonstrating Dr. Carson's humour. Here's the first one, and I save the second one for last:

Jesus says, "You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you" (15:14-15).

Observe that Jesus makes a distinction between slaves (douvloi; not "servants") and friends. But the distinction initially surprises us. We are Jesus' friends if we do what he commands. This sounds rather like a definition of a slave. (p. 41)

Often times when I think about the nature of God I over anthropomorphize Him (I make Him out to be too much like a human). For example, I try to understand how it's possible that I have my own decision making mind, that is completely responsible for its action, while at the same time, God ordains all things. It's possible with God because He's not man. Another apparent contradiction I get confused about sometimes is wondering how it's possible for God to be unchanging, yet create something, interact with those creatures, and even have one person of His essence take on a temporal body (i.e., the Incarnation, Jesus). If God sometimes talks, and sometimes doesn't talk, it sounds like He's changing. Somehow it's possible with God.

Anyway, reading Carson, it was helpful to be remind that, "[I]n certain respects God's love does not function exactly like ours. How could it? God's love emanates from an infinite Being whose perfections are immutable [unchanging]. But this way of wording things guards the most important values in impassibility [in humans, dispassionate, in God, more like not driven by unbalanced emotions] and still insists that God's love is real love, of the same genus as the best of love displayed by God's image-bearers" (p. 61). It's refreshing to be reminded not to think narrowly in the categories assigned to God.

This is great for showing how God is different from us: "God does not 'fall in love' with the elect; he does not 'fall in love' with us; he sets his affection on us. He does not predestine us out of some stern whimsy; rather, in love he predestines us to be adopted as his sons (Eph. 1:4-5). The texts themselves tie the love of God to other perfections in God" (emphasis Carson's, p. 61).

This time, how we are supposed to love like God:

John's point in 1 John 4, "God is love," is that those who really do know God come to love that way too. Doubtless we do not do it very well, but aren't Christians supposed to love the unlovable—even our enemies? Because we have been transformed by the Gospel, our love is to be self-originating, not elicited by the loveliness of the loved. For that is the way it is with God. He loves because love is one of his perfections, in perfect harmony with all his other perfections. (pp. 63-64)

Second last. Here, Dr. Carson talks about the unpopular notion of God hating people: "A difference must be maintained between God's view of sin and his view of the sinner. Nevertheless the cliché (God hates the sin but loves the sinner) is false on the face of it and should be abandoned. Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone, we are told that God hates the sinner, his wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible, the wrath of God rests both on the sin (Rom. 1:18ff.) and on the sinner (John 3:36)" (p. 69).

Lastly, a blunt funny one:

Picture Charles and Susan walking down a beach hand in hand at the end of the academic year. The pressure of the semester has dissipated in the warm evening breeze. They have kicked off their sandals, and the wet sand squishes between their toes. Charles turns to Susan, gazes deeply into her large, hazel eyes, and says, "Susan, I love you. I really do."

What does he mean?

Well, in this day and age he may mean nothing more than that he feels like testosterone on legs and wants to go to bed with her forthwith. . . .

What he most certainly does not mean is something like this: "Susan, quite frankly you have such a bad case of halitosis it would embarrass a herd of unwashed, garlic-eating elephants. Your nose is so bulbous you belong in the cartoons. Your hair is so greasy it could lubricate an eighteen-wheeler. Your knees are so disjointed you make a camel look elegant. Your personality makes Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan look like wimps. But I love you!" (pp. 61-62)

It was a really good book and I recommend it for all, even if my review was poorly written.

The following are the first forty terms of a sequence:

0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 33, 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, 99, 101, 110, 121, 132, 141, 143, 154, 161, 165, 176, 181, 187, 198, 201, 202, 221, 222, 241, 242, 261, 262, 281, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

If it hasn't been solved by Thursday, I'll give a hint. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Update: Hint: This is a list, so the sequence is not dependent on the index. Now, for positive integer i there exist nonnegative integers c_i and d_i (c_i greater than or equal to d_i) such that a(i)=c_i+d_i. Obviously, there are ½a(i)+1 choices for the pair (c_i, d_i) if a(i) is even, and ½(a(i)+1) choices for the pair (c_i, d_i) if a(i) is odd, but to be more specific, for a certain pair dependent on a(i) (and for full disclosure, even this pair might not be unique), there is an almost one-to-one relationship between c_i and d_i, that is to say, if you choose the correct c_i you get d_i, and most of the time if you have the correct d_i
you get c_i. An instance where knowing d_i will not give you c_i is for a(19); if you have c_i you get d_i
but if you have d_i
there are an infinite number of choices for c_i. To give some substance to this hint, think mirror for the relationship between the two elements of the pair. (This is a very strong hint, provided you don't over extend the properties of a mirror relationship.)

Update: I've added twenty more terms to the sequence. This is not to denote difficulty. Something worth noting happens at a(33) so I decided to list to the nearest multiple of ten that was greater than 33. (A similar thing happened at a(11).)

Last week's sequence (5, 13, 17, 25, 29, 37, 41, 53, 61, 65, . . .) was the set of hypotenuses of primitive Pythagorean Triples. Suppose you have integers a, b and c. They form a primitive Pythagorean Triple if 1. a²+b²=c², and 2. a and b are coprime (i.e., they share no prime factors, i.e., their greatest common denominator is 1). For the triple a, b and c that satisfies the previous equation, we say that c is the hypotenuse because it is the longest side, and it is opposite the right angle. E.g., 5 is in the sequence because 5²=3²+4², and 3 and 4 share no prime factors. E.g., 37²=12²+35², and 12 and 35 share no prime factors.

Alternatively, last week's sequence is the list of terms from the sequence two weeks ago (0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, . . .) with some excluded. Suppose we have a term from two weeks ago, say a(i) for some i=1, 2, 3, . . ., where a(i)= c²+d² for some integers c and d. Then a(i) is excluded from last week's sequence if and only if c and d share a prime factor or c and d are both odd or one of c and d is 0. I mentioned in the hint last week that Euclid's formula generates these terms. Suppose you have odd integer c and even integer d who share no prime factor. These generate the primitive Pythagorean Triple 2cd, |c²-d²| and c²+d². E.g., 0=0²+0², c=d=0. But 0 and 0 share an infinite number of prime factors, so 0 was not in last week's sequence.

Practically speaking, the exclusion statements in the previous paragraph exclude three categories of terms in the sequence from two weeks ago (this is not an exhaustive list):

1. The term is a square, say k² for some integer k. Then k²=k²+0². Obviously 0's in this construction, so all terms that are squares are excluded.
   
2. The term is a square doubled, say 2k² for some k=2, 3, 4, . . . . Then 2k²=k²+k². Obviously k shares at least one prime factor with itself so all the double squares are excluded.
   
3. The term is an hypotenuse of a Pythagorean Triple, but it is not of a primitive Pythagorean Triple. A Pythagorean Triple has the form (ma) ²+(mb) ²=(mc) ² where a, b and c are integers greater than 1, and a and b share no prime factors. The primitive case is for m=1. (An example of a Pythagorean Triple than is not primitive is 45. 45²=27²+36². But 27 and 36 share the prime factor 3, so 45 is a Pythagorean Triple, but is not primitive.) These are the toughest to identify for the purposes of excluding.
   

So, e.g., exclude 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, the rest of the squares, as they fit in the first category.

E.g, exclude 8, 18, 32, 50, the rest of the double squares, as they fit in the second category.

E.g., exclude 10, 20, 26, 34 the rest of the non-primitive Pythagorean Triples, as they fit in the third category.

Real examples: E.g., 2=1²+1². Obviously 1 and 1 are both odd, so 2 is excluded. E.g., 5=1²+2². Considering 1 and 2, they share no prime factors, 2 is even so they're not both odd, and neither number is 0, so there's no reason to exclude 5. Thus, 5 is the first candidate to go into last week's sequence. E.g., 13=2²+3². Considering 2 and 3, they share no prime factors, 2 is even so they're not both odd, and neither number is 0, so there's no reason to exclude 13. It is the second candidate to go into last week's sequence.

It was not solved.

I've noticed something recently about God's behaviour that I'm going to try to remember when I pray. Specifically, it has to do with the way God changes people's minds. Let me start with two biblical examples:

Acts 9:1-18 relates the story of Paul's conversion. I find it interesting that God doesn't treat Paul like a robot, flick a switch and cause him to believe in Jesus, but Jesus confronts Paul, proving that He is indeed resurrected (cf. 1Co. 15:8, "he appeared also to me"). God chose to work through Paul's reason to convert him. I'm not saying that it was purely natural. I'm certain God supernaturally opened Paul's heart to receive the Truth, but that aside, God worked through a normal means to change Paul's mind.

(The miraculous is never guaranteed to convince people of Truth. The Ten Plagues in Egypt is such a good example. But Jesus said it well Himself, "'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" [Lk. 16:31].)

The second example comes from Genesis 20. Position yourself in this story as though you're one of the people serving Abimelech, the king of Gerar. He takes in Sarah as his wife, and then soon after that, gives her to Abraham.

(I read this passage as implying that it was a quick turn around between the time Sarah was taken away from Abraham to when he got her back. I suspect this because Abimelech and her hadn't consummated their marriage yet. Yes, God did say that He prevented it from happening, but He did it in such a way that Abimelech took credit for it, where, I think if it had been a lot of time, even more than a few days, Abimelech would have known it wasn't his own doing.)

If I were one of the servants, I'd wonder what changed his mind. But God again didn't unilaterally cause Abimelech to reject Sarah, but He reasoned with Abimelech, "This is Abraham's wife." Somehow Abimelech knew that it was God speaking, and he knew that God was trustworthy, so he decided not to keep Sarah as his wife.

The application I'm going to make after observing this is that when I'm praying for another person's decision (e.g., for so-and-so to like me back, or for Obama to change his mind on abortion, or for my father to consider the veracity of the Gospel) I'm going to pray that God highlights things in their minds that they already know (e.g., "Emphasize for him that the Bible is reliable," "Remind President Obama that the only differences between a baby in the womb and a born baby are arbitrary for determining personhood").

I'm not in anyway going back on my Calvinism, I'm see more clearly now, though, that God works through means, and that I want to pray for Him to act in ways that He's acted before.

--

I only made this connection today, but I really wanted to share it. I spent some time trying to figure out whether there were examples where God did, figuratively speaking, flick a switch and cause a person to change his mind. I couldn't think of any examples.

That said, I don't think it's wrong to pray for someone to make a 180˚ decision without praying for a means to work through. I know that God can still create ex-nihilo ("out of nothing," typically associated with our doctrine of creation), and that He can cause someone to change his mind or make a decision in a certain direction.

The following are the first fifty terms of a sequence:

5, 13, 17, 25, 29, 37, 41, 53, 61, 65, 73, 85, 89, 97, 101, 109, 113, 125, 137, 145, 149, 157, 169, 173, 181, 185, 193, 197, 205, 221, 229, 233, 241, 257, 265, 269, 277, 281, 289, 293, 305, 313, 317, 325, 337, 349, 353, 365, 373, 377, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

This is a tough one. So I'll start it off with a hint. You might have noticed this. This sequence is a subsequence of last week's sequence. Furthermore, for any i=1, 2, 3, . . ., [a(i)]² is in the sequence as well. The sequence is a list, not a function, so the index is not related to its corresponding term. Solving the pattern will involve saying why the absent terms from last week's sequence. Additionally, you might recognize the significance of this sequence, apart from figuring why there are fewer terms than last week's sequence. If that's the case, it's fine, just state the significance of the numbers and that counts as solving it.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, . . .) was the list of integers who are the sum of two squares. E.g., 10=1²+3². E.g., 16=0²+4². E.g., 25=3²+4². It was not solved.

Update: Hint: There are two ways of finding the pattern of the sequence as I said above. So I'll give hints for each direction. The first hint is for if you're trying to solve it by finding out why the members of last week's sequence are excluded: Denote last week's sequence {a(n)} and this week's sequence {b(m)}. For each i=1, 2, 3, . . ., a(i)=c²+d² for some nonnegative integers c and d. Whether or not a(i) is an element of {b(m)} is determined by how c and d relate to one another. (Don't let the case where c=1 fool you!)

From the other direction, if you're trying to find the pattern of the sequence by recognizing the significance of the terms: Euclid's formula generates these numbers. Another hint is to suggest to look at the properties of the square of each term in this sequence and the square of each term in last week's sequence that is not in this list. You might be able to identify that way what the significance is of these numbers.

In the Bible there are many times where dead people are made alive (e.g., the son of the widow of Zarephath [1K. 17:17, 19-22], Lazarus [Jn. 11], some saved Jews [Mt. 27:52, 53], Tabitha [Ac. 9:36-37, 40]). I wonder how they dealt with being taken from the presence of God. I wonder whether this has any implications on what is in the intermediate state before the Judgment.

On the bus yesterday I listened to a talk called The Pathway to Eldership: The Qualities and Making of a Leader, given by Richard Mayhue. He's the Dean of MacArthur's college and seminary, The Master's College and Seminary, respectively. I think he's an amazing speaker. Very talented.

I usually don't recommend talks or sermons that I can't link to, but this talk was so valuable that I will direct you to it even though I can't hyperlink you to it: Go to the "Media Vault" on the website of either of MacArthur's major conferences Resolved or The Shepherds' Conference. From there, if you search "Pathway to Eldership" it should be the first option. Otherwise, you can select in the first box "Shepherds' Conference," then in the second box, "Audio Downloads," "2001" in the third box, then finally "Seminar Sessions" in the fourth box. The tenth listed talk should be the one I'm pointing you to.

Listen to it. While listening to it, he started talking about how ministries get leaders who they later regret taking in. I've thought about this along similar lines before, namely, how easy it is to ask an administratively competent person who was spiritually weak to join leadership, only later to regret it later.

Dr. Mayhue in this talk addresses a different mistake that happens in calling leaders, though it's along a similar line as I have thought before. So, for those of you who will listen to the talk, maybe this will make you more interested in it. And for those who weren't going to listen to it, hopefully you'll find the following segment taken from the talk insightful, and take it as a good warning. The segment starts at 9:36.

And I asked the question, "How in the world did he ever get into the leadership at that church?" And some of you are asking the question, "How do I inherit the leaders that I have or leaders that I have had in the past?" The basic answer to that is that leadership was based on strong natural leadership rather than on strong spiritual leadership.

And if you read much leadership literature whether it's biblical or not for the most part you're reading about strong natural leadership, you're reading about men who are highly motivated, men who have all of the externals—their style, their sophistication, they're suave, . . . [he start's this list item with "they're" again, but I can't figure out what the word is, it sounds like "high why" or "high wide" but I don't know what word he's really referring to, if you download the talk and figure out the word, please comment and let me know], and handsome, they're very, very knowledgeable, they're very, very bright men, they're successful in their field, and they're immediately available to step in and solve whatever problems are there. And that's just what you've been looking for, right? . . . [I've cut out this part because I don't want you to think that I have hidden motives behind posting this section from the talk. If you're curious what I've cut, listen to the talk.]

But if you're the one selecting leadership and now have problems with them, there's a high probability that the mistake that you made was looking at his external successes rather than asking was he a spiritual or a godly man and qualified about who he was on the inside, rather than who he was on the outside.

The following are the first twenty-five terms of a sequence:

0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 45, 49, 50, . . .

Same idea as the other sequences. Describe the pattern of the sequence. If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments.

I'm not sure how tough this one will be. I'm running out of ideas for good ones to post. If it hasn't been solved by Thursday, I'll give a hint then. Also, if you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I'll post the solution on next week's sequence.

Last week's sequence (4, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 21, 25, 35, 49, . . .) was the list of composite numbers with two prime factors of equal digit length. E.g., a(7)=21, since 21=(3)(7), and each of 3 and 7 are only one digit long. That's why there's the gap between a(10)=49 and a(11)=121. KWTsui pretty-much solved it.

Update: Sorry for being so late in bringing you the hint. Hint: You'd come back again and again to this list when dealing with the Pythagorean Theorem.

Recently the Southern Baptist Convention's "Executive Committee voted to end cooperative relationship with Broadway [Baptist Church] over church's failure to clarify or correct stand." Dr. Mohler tweeted that he was in the meeting at 2:20 this afternoon, tweeted the announcement at 3:20.

Searching the Baptist Press (the Southern Baptists' newspaper), the earliest mention I could find of the issue was from December 4^th, 2007. Apparently their pastor (who'd started in April 2001) wanted to allow homosexual members to have a single picture of their couples to appear in the members' directory.

Reading a little later, another article came out March 6^th, 2008, stating that there was a vote on the issue (it is a Baptist church), and the vote passed (with less than a third of the membership voting—boo-urns). (Update: I misunderstood the vote. They took out any idea of having couples together. My current understanding is that they put pictures of the members doing ministry together, which might have the couple together, but not necessarily.) But this vote led to a petition for the pastor to be removed from the church. The vote was on March 9^th and the congregation voted to keep their pastor (although, you can hardly say that the congregation voted to keep their pastor if only half the membership voted).

The pastor ultimately resigned anyway to take a teaching post at a theological school in Georgia.

The Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee a year ago started considering what to do with Broadway since the denomination is confessionally opposed to homosexuality: "In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose . . . homosexuality." Finally they've decided. I think they made the right call.

You might find this boring since it doesn't really impact any of us. Still, I wanted to post it because the SBC's (Southern Baptist Convention) always had a special place in my heart. They started off strong, swung liberal, and then in the late 70s and 80s regained the orthodoxy the denomination was founded on. Also, they're real Baptists, honouring both credobaptism and congregationalism, plus they're complementarian. A few other things in the mix are the presence of Drs. Albert Mohler and Mark Dever, both are Southern Baptists, and the International Mission Board which works really hard to send anyone who has a desire and is qualified to go into the mission field. They really want to tell the world about Jesus. So I get pretty excited when I hear about them. Especially when it's news of them doing the right thing.

In a talk last year Dr. Mohler said that he was uncertain what direction the denomination was going to take when it came to congregations that were walking in a direction opposed to their confession. I wonder whether he had this issue in mind when he mentioned it. I'm glad to know that they had the courage to separate from people who were in clear opposition, not only to the confession, but to the Scriptures. It gives me hopes that this cooperative organization (when I called the SBC a denomination I say it in the very loosest sense of the word, since the SBC is committed to congregationalism and local church autonomy) might stand for some good years ahead.

Update: Read the Baptist Press'
article.

--

Another thing that interested me in the course of this process, was the number of members who participated in the votes, compared with the total membership. Membership inflation has been a problem in the SBC. For example, officially, there are 16.5 million members on their rolls. But Dr. Tom Ascol, pastor of an SBC church in Cape Coral Florida, said that of the 16.5 million members, only 6.1 million of them regularly attend a Sunday worship service. And we Baptists complain about the paedobaptists having unsaved members.