Lux Lucet

 I think that if the data is overwhelming in favor, in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that’s not really interacting with the real world – Bruce Waltke

I admit to being asleep at the wheel as far as the Bruce Waltke/ evolution controversy goes.  In fact, it was just yesterday that I received an email from a friend about this issue.  After getting myself up to speed by reading a transcript of Waltke’s comments here and what others had written about his comments here and here, I was struck by how this purported conservative Evangelical scholar was tripped up by his low view of the Scriptures. 

Waltke’s association with the NIV and TNIV mis-translations indicate a low view of Scripture.  Commenting in his article on Waltke, Paul Eliott wrote,

Waltke’s attitude toward the Bible itself belies orthodoxy. Waltke served on the translation committee of the New International Version of the Bible, and later on the translation committee of the gender-inclusive Today’s New International Version. In 2007, Waltke delivered the W. H. Griffith Thomas Memorial Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary. He said that all Bible translations (the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation excepted) “are faithful and adequate.” He clarified this by saying that “all translations lead their audience to faith in Jesus Christ, into sound doctrine, and never into heresy.” He then stated that he thinks the best available English translation is Today’s New International Version! A more sensible commentator once accurately described TNIV as a “bastard child of political correctness.”     

Had Waltke a proper Biblical understanding of the doctrine of Scripture, he would have had nothing to do with the NIV or TNIV.  Neither of these translations is based on a sound Greek New Testament text, and neither employs sound translation principles.

Apart from the issue of translations, there is another problem with Waltke’s understanding of the doctrine of Scripture: he fails to understand that the Bible alone is truth.  The opinions of scientists are not truth.  The opinions of historians are not truth.  The views of secular philosophers are not truth.  The Bible calls these things “foolishness” and “empty deceit.” But Waltke makes the mistake of thinking that these things are true, that the [scientific] data for evolution is such that it cannot be denied.  But Christ tells us where we may find truth.  He said, “Your word is truth” (Jn.17:17).  And God’s word tells us how he made the world: out of nothing, in the space of six literal days, and all very good.  

We do not judge the veracity of the Bible by what scientists say, we judge the veracity of what the scientists say by the Bible.  If scientists do not speak according to Scripture, we know their science is wrong.  Or as Isaiah would put it, “there is no light in them.” God’s truth is all truth.  There is no other.

Here’s the April 16, 2010 ABC News account of the Waltke controversy.

By the way, it’s true that in the wake of his leaving Reformed Seminary Orlando, Dr. Waltke has a new job:  giving prosepctive seminary students another good reason to avoid Knox Theological Seminary.

Read Full Post »

Capitalism:  A Love Story.  Michael Moore director.  2 hours and 6 minutes. Rated R for strong language.

Michael Moore wants you to know two things about Capitalism:  1) it’s evil and 2) he hates it.  Moore makes both points abundantly clear in his latest, ironically titled film Capitalism: A Love Story.  That Moore would disapprove of capitalism came as no surprise to me; I expected as much.  But the degree of blatant anti-capitalist hostility manifested in this film left me shocked.  In a way, that’s to Moore’s credit.  He’s willing to clearly speak his mind on the subject, and I can respect that.  This is preferable by far to listening to men who would bore us with ambiguous words designed to hide their true beliefs.  But for all that, in this film Moore also shows himself to be a deeply confused man. He seems not to have a clear idea of what capitalism is, and being unsure of his target, he ends up savaging capitalism for sins properly attributed to socialism, and praising socialism for benefits brought by capitalism. 

Moore’s position on capitalism is evident from the film’s opening, where he presents the viewer with a collection of still photos of bank robberies.  What could such pictures possible have to do with capitalism?  Really, it’s not hard to figure out.  You see, in Moore’s world, capitalism is robbery, or as he states later in the film, “capitalism is a system of giving and taking, mostly taking.” Capitalism, Moore believes, is theft and thoroughly corrupt at the ethical level.  This notion he defends, not by presenting a coherent argument, but through anecdotes such as: families losing their homes to foreclosure, an outrageously sleazy real estate agent buying condos on the cheap, teenagers who were thrown in juvenile detention to make money for a private prison contractor, a  sit-down strike at a Chicago window factory, and the little known corporate practice of buying life insurance policies on rank and file workers, also known as dead peasant insurance.  Of course, none of these anecdotes prove capitalism evil, but they can sway many people by appealing to their emotions. (more…)

Read Full Post »

It’s because of  interviews like this that investor Jim Rogers is a capitalist hero.  To the stunned disbelief others on the panel and against all consensus opinion, he makes the case that the US government acted properly last September in allowing Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt.  Furthermore, he argues, the Feds should have allowed market forces to take down all of Wall Street’s incompetent financial  institutions. 

Another featured guest, Julian Pendock, lamely argues that, while some banks needed to fail, we just couldn’t have allowed them to fail all at once.  How many banks should have failed, he doesn’t say.  Over how long a period these bankruptcies should have been allowed to occur, he doesn’t say.  What he does say is that what’s needed is more bank regulation. 

Rubbish. 

Capitalism is the economic system of the Bible.  And capitalism says that when somebody mismanages his assets, you let him fail,

Then he who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed.  And I was afraid, and went and his your talent in the ground.  Look, there you have what is yours.’  

and suffer the consequences of his actions,

But his lord answered and said to him, ‘You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed.  So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.  So take the talent from him,

 and give the assets those who act prudently,

and give it to him who has ten talents.  

This is God’s justice, both sure and swift,

For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.  And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. 

although it’s not appreciated by the guilty parties,

There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’  (Matt.25:24-30) 

Read Full Post »

The Bible has a monopoly on truth.  This holds not just for issues of salvation, but in all areas of life, including politics.  Therefore, immigration policy,  if it is to be sound, must be based on what the Scriptures have to say on the subject.  But acknowledgin the Bible’s authority in political matters is not enough in itself.  When searcing the Scriptures for answers, we must also be careful to interpret the Bible correctly, or our arguments will miss the mark.  And missing the mark is commonplace with writers who attempt to discuss what the Bible has to say about immigration.  

One way writers fall shortl in their discussions of the Bible and immigration mmigration is that they faile to include a definition of the relevant terms.  They’ll discuss the subject of immigration at great length, but the actual meaning of key words such as ‘immigration,’ ‘immigrant,’ and ‘immigrate’ is never brought up.  The authors seem to assume that everyone knows what these words mean.  But do they?  Do the authors themselves know?  Webster’s Seventh Collegiate Dictionary gives the definition for ‘immigrant’ as, “one that immigrates; a person who comes to a country for the purpose of permanent residence.”  The same dictionary says this about the verb immigrate, “to enter and usually become established; especiallyto come into a country of which one is not a native for permenent residence.” The word ‘immigration,’ though not defined by Wester’s, is simply the abstract noun used to describe the the act performed by one who immigrates.     

By failing to define their terms, writers leave themselves open to basic and embarrassing mistakes.  One such common mistake made in discussing the Bible’s position on immigration is the sojourner argument. This argument is often advanced as the Christian, biblical position on immigration and runs something like this,

Major Premise: Sojourners are welcomed based on the Mosaic law.

Minor Premise: All immigrants are sojourners.

Therefore: All immigranta are welcomed based on the Mosaic law.

Now while this is a formally valid argument, it is not a sound argument, for the minor premise is false.  Let’s look at it.

The most common Hebrew word translated ‘sojourner’ is ger.  Ger is defined by the Gesenius  hebrew Lexicon as, “1. a temporary dweller, new-comer; 2.  dwellers in Israel with certain conceded, not inherited rights.” The Zondervan Pictorial Dictonary of the Bible gives this definition of ger, “a resident alien, a non-citizen in a country where he resides more of less permanently, enjoying certain limited civic rights” (Vol.5, p.468). 

Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines sojourn (noun) in this way, “a temporary stay.” For sojourn as a verb it gives this, “to stay as a temporary resident.” A sojourner, therefore, is one who engages in the activity of sojourning.

Sojourner’ and ‘ger’ mean the same thing, making sojourner a good choice for translating ger, but neither one of these terms means the same thing as ‘immigrant.’  Ger/ sojourner mean temporary resident or resident alien; immigrant means one who comes to a country for permanent residence.  One who sojourns in a country is there on a temporary basis.  A immigrant intends to stay permanently.  These are significantly different situations.

I’ll conclude this brief word study by stating that, because ‘sojourner’ and ‘immigrant’ mean different things, it is fallacious to apply the commandments in the Mosaic law regarding sojourners to the ongoing American immigration debate.   We must look elsewhere to find a biblical answer to the immigration question.

Read Full Post »