3rd "report" today. There are 5 of these that I'm planning on posting here.

I don't have a lot of time these days to work on my book. It's weird for me to say that here, because the very fact that I'm blogging may make it seem like I have time for this.... but what I have is a few minutes here and a few minutes there, and the work I'm doing on this book requires at least an hour of focus (I think), to make reasonable progress on it, because I'm synthesizing a lot of information in it.

For several weeks I had 2 hours per week to work on it, during my son's art class. That has been shortened to 1 hour, and I have another tentatively scheduled hour during mommy&me swim for my wife and daughter. The split hours are doubtlessly less effective as far as my focus is concerned, but at the same time, I've been put in the way of some excellent insights between work sessions, which have impacted the project in exciting ways. So, I count the whole situation, including my lack of time, as a blessing.

A few notes about this report before I post it:

I have a lot to say in the way of criticizing this work, but to Burnside's credit, he actually gave me a copy of the book to help me along (I sent him a request via email, because this book is very expensive). Also, in the intro to the report, I mention a quote that I posted in #Memes -- this is a reference to a channel in the forum. Here is the relevant post from the #Memes channel:

---------------------------------------

Preview of Burnside's work in Research Handbook on Natural Law Theory... how he reasons that Psalm 19:1-6 describes accessibility of Natural Law:

The closing description of the sun encapsulates the theme of verses 1–6, namely, God’s glory displayed universally in the cosmos. The sun is strongly associated with justice and order in the Ancient Near East (ANE). As a result, biblical commentators frequently cast the psalmist’s use of the sun in purely judicial terms. ... the association can be strengthened, in my view, to refer more specifically to kingship. Kings were, of course, responsible for administering justice in the ANE, and ANE texts frequently draw a parallel between the sun and the king ruling in judgment. For example, the Prologue to the Laws of Hammurabi describes Hammurabi ...[saying he will]... "rise like the sun-god Shamash over all humankind"... Here, Hammurabi’s judicial activity, which evokes the sun-god, is clearly linked to sovereignty. I suggest that the sun image in Psalm 19 is a metaphor, not simply of judicial activity, but of sovereignty which includes ruling in justice.

P1. Psalm 19:4-6 talks about the sun.

P2. Hammurabi, a king, was compared with a sun-god.

P3. Kings do justice.

C. Psalm 19:4-6 is saying that nature reveals justice.

[He also says]

...the enlightening Torah, like the enlightening sun, brings light and joy...

...this does not seem to be spotted by scholarship on Psalm 19...

At least he's equating the law to the Torah

---------------------------------------

One user took issue with the dismissive attitude I took toward this, posting it in #memes. This is how I attempted to justify myself in the forum:

---------------------------------------

i thought it was funny.

I don't really put much stock in interpretations which draw out meaning from the Bible on the basis of ANE/archaeological finds.

Like, if he wants to prove that the Bible is concerned with justice, the Bible says it plainly. I don't need to draw analogies to dead pagan religions, or the way their holy texts treated their kings, in order to find out what the Bible thinks about the law. His treatment of Psalm 19 has all the marks of well written academic literature, but his train of reasoning is convoluted and unnecessary. I wouldn't classify it as a useful commentary (as far as the specific quote I posted is concerned) 

I still haven't read the rest of it. I'll be posting another review-type thing when I'm done

---------------------------------------

Without further ado, this is the "report":

Book Report: Burnside's Natural law and biblical law in Research Handbook on Natural Law Theory

I really like several of Burnside's conclusions, but I have to state up-front: the hermeneutics affecting his reading of Psalm 19 are generally objectionable to me. For example: in the quote I already posted in Memes, he justifies his understanding that Psalm 19:1-6 concerns the law by first going to an outside source -- a pagan religious text -- for the implication that the sun has to do with justice, and then he came back to the Bible to say that the Bible is using the sun in reference to justice. It's not an interpretation of the Bible, but an interpretation of Hammurabi, and then an imposition of Hammurabi onto the Bible. 

Another example: 

> In reconnecting nature and ethics, Psalm 19 is making a point that is foundational to the very idea of natural law. Torah asserts the very philosophical foundation of natural law theory, namely, a relationship of harmony between the natural and the ethical.

This is a very abstract conclusion from this text. At length, the surrounding text from Burnside aims to show that, since Psalm 19 juxtaposes commentary on nature and law, it is treating nature and Torah as a sort of unified substrate for activity. I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that the law and nature treat and describe one another, (etc.), but it is just as easy (without reference to Rabbinic or pagan commentary) to read Psalm 19 as simply extolling God by reference first to natural and then to special revelation, telling by a holistic portrait of creation how the real attributes of both kinds of revelation teach the excellence of the same God. 

All that said, I agree with many of his conclusions. For example:

> ...Torah in verses 7–11 is distinctly covenantal, putting it in an overtly creational framework has the effect of universalising its message. ... the Psalm presents God as ‘both Creator … and teacher of mankind through His Torah’. ... Torah is intelligible and communicable to the surrounding nations...

Torah, the law given to Israel, is universalizable. Very good.

> As Levering writes, affirming the existence of natural law in the Bible ‘does not … adduce universal norms that make the biblical narrative unnecessary’. I certainly agree ... This much is clear from the reference to Deuteronomy 4:5–8 ... Torah has a message that can be commended to the nations. ... Even more challengingly, it is addressed to nations some of whom are in conflict with Israel herself.

Torah is countercultural and addressed to nations both in and outside Israel. Also lovely, but what need to ask Hammurabi and the Rabbinic commentaries first before concluding it? These conclusions are easily reached by more direct Biblical routes outside Psalm 19.

He is right to note:

> Since Psalm 19 does not say everything we might want to say about natural law in the Bible, what other texts might be relevant, and why, and what might they suggest regarding the relationship between natural law and the Bible?

The Psalm doesn't tell everything he wishes it would tell about Natural Law. (I appreciate this transparency, but I am confused by it, since he was willing to impute the words of Hammurabi to the Psalm earlier. The implications of that hermeneutic seem potentially limitless). The question "what other texts" is a foreshadowing of the next point.

He suggests that an interface between philosophy and Biblical exegesis is necessary to reach the conclusions he aims for:

> ...dialogue between biblical exegesis and philosophy (as well as theology) can enrich our understanding of natural law in the Bible... in our pre-interpretative stage of asking whether there is natural law in the Bible, we cannot assume that it all boils down to a single idea (e.g. ‘law according to nature’ or ‘universal law’) and then ask whether this idea is present in the biblical materials. This may not do justice to the complexity of the task.

This is, as far as I can tell, a suggestion to own the the very thing most criticized about Christian Natural Law theory; that it depends on the importation of aristotelian categories alongside Biblical exegesis. Only, Burnside's explanation goes a step further -- he wants to find Natural Law in scripture. The effect is that Burnside is doing motivated exegesis: realizing scripture doesn't motivate the conclusions he wants to reach, and telling us that he needs to confer with Pagan sources prior to reading the Bible, and then seek out corroboration of their ideas in the Bible in order to conclude that the Bible agrees with them.

But what things, exactly, does he hope to find out, which Psalm 19 isn't saying clearly enough? Well, the very item which I was searching for when I began to read his work: 

> ...one way of thinking about natural law is to see it as asserting continuity between, on the one hand, acts of human lawmaking and legal judgment and, on the other, that which is required of human beings...

That natural law asserts "continuity between" morality ("that which is required of human beings") and human lawmaking. That is, that natural law theory requires that human lawmaking is morally permissible.

Burnside concludes by suggesting that, since the Bible doesn't teach Natural Law, we may be able to find it in the Bible anyway by looking for Natural Law-adjacent themes in scripture.

> This means that if we wanted to think about various ways in which natural law might exist in the Bible ... we might start by looking for a connection between divine activity and human activity in the realm of normativity. This could be one way in which we might bring the biblical material into dialogue with the philosophical tradition of natural law. ... Thus, I suggest we could be looking for a number of different things, including the following: ...[list of suggestions]... These themes can all be seen as different manifestations of natural law in the Bible...

And, after that, he gives brief attention to each of the suggestions on his list. His conclusions from the list are:

- Creation is designed to flourish, therefore Torah is teleologically aimed toward human flourishing.

- Morally-linked human behaviors have an effect on the wellbeing of humans, therefore nature/law are connected.

- God judges non-Israelite and pre-Mosaic people by reference to Torah, so they must have known it.

- Since all of God's revealed commands are coherent with one another, and reflective of his own acts of judgment, all issuances of divine commands in the Bible are drawn from one and the same law.

Since Burnside doesn't present these as proofs of a scriptural motivation for Natural Law theory, (I am grateful to Burnside for saying so more plainly than others), they amount to the use of references to nature in scripture as confirmation of Natural Law theory. He presents them as corroboration, not as proof, and he's right about that. Beyond that, I've already discussed each of these at length elsewhere.

TLDR

Burnside is, for the most part, clear about where his conclusions are motivated by scripture, and where they are motivated by sources outside scripture. He acknowledges that the Bible doesn't motivate the jurisprudential implications of natural law theory, but expresses repeatedly that he is comfortable with bringing prior philosophical conclusions to the text giving philosophy a voice in dialog with scripture. In the end, Burnside suggests that the means of finding Natural Law in scripture is likely to be: a motivated search for evidence of agreement with natural law theory, hidden inside themes found broadly across scripture. He acknowledges critics of this point at the end of his work:

> despite the views of my critics, I persist in the view that looking for these sorts of continuities in biblical texts is a way of revitalising the topic of natural law in the Bible.

Round 2 today of "book reports". 

I may as well update the void concerning my family before posting. Things are generally going very well. My wife and I are very, very busy, but we try hard to here-and-there make time to sit and unwind with one another.

My son is excelling at everything he does. He finishes a new Redwall book every week, and I require book reports before I will purchase the next one. His math skills outpaced his handwriting, so I've had to slow down on math until I can get his writing under better control. He is very active with his peers, engaging in frequent play dates with the participants of his two or more homeschool groups. He excels at soccer, swim, and Tae Kwon Do, and I am the recipient of much praise from his teachers in serious tones to avoid his hearing. He is able to sight read basic guitar music (not only chords, but he is being trained classically, and plays sheets of individual notes), and his drum teacher has told me he is the most talented student he has ever had. He loves to climb trees, tell stories, and play board games with me. I am concerned that we put too much on his plate, and I think he would benefit from more time at home being bored or doing chores -- it is important to spend time at home doing more than just winding down after a busy day, and also to make room to accustom oneself to finding joy in mundane tasks, and to be skilled in all manner of home upkeep. I also worry he is flowing from one predefined, high-engagement activity to another without time to learn to moderate his mind and think independently. At any rate, we have not yet seen his limit, as he absorbs whatever content we provide faster than we are able to provide it.

My daughter is a happy baby, and very insistent on being included in everything the family does. If we sit on the couch, she must be on the couch with us. When we pray, she must be near, clasping her hands and waiting quietly until all are done. When we eat, even if she is not hungry, she must be in her high chair. When the family has a discussion, she makes clear her desire to have a turn to babble her opinions. And, if we do things she cannot join, she protests. But, she is always happy to see each of us, readily returns a laugh, and absolutely loves to dialogue (though she only knows 2 or 3 words that we can distinguish, and those are not totally certain). She also very much enjoys dancing, and I take advantage of every opportunity I can find to put on some music and pick her up for a dance. 

I can't say enough good things about my kids! I'm very proud of them, and thankful to God for raising them as he has, because every good thing is from God.

Anyway, the report!

Haines and Fulford. "Natural Law: A Brief Introduction and Biblical Defense"

This book is in two halves, written by separate authors. Haines wrote from a Philosophical perspective, and Fulford wrote the Biblical defense. I'm only really interested in the Fulford-half of the book for my purposes. Here's my summary:

This book did well to establish the idea that God's law is coherent with the natural order, and that natural arguments can be made in favor of moral principles. That is, the book demonstrates this as a strict possibility, but Fulford states up-front that he won't be giving any attention to noetics:

> One could also discuss how sin and the Fall affect the human ability to know natural law. We will not be discussing these questions here, but in the rest of this guide we will seek to show that natural law is not only philosophically coherent, and founded upon Being itself, but that natural law is also biblical.

Obviously, since a big part of his work aims to prove that humans are capable of discerning just laws in nature, noetics is a big deal, but his neglect for them is merely disappointing. I've got a few long excerpts which I think form the meat of the book, insofar as it pertains to my interests. I'll discuss them below.

> To see the Bible as supporting natural law means that the unique civilization that two-kingdoms Protestantism contributed to is not undermined by Scripture. The precisianists and Anabaptists were wrong to deny that any just political order could be founded that did not submit to their private and special revelation, since justice can be known from the wisdom in God’s good creation. Natural law also frees up the civil magistrate to carry out his office apart from subordination to the clergy, since he is equipped to reason justly, thus making sense out of those biblical passages like Romans 13:1-7.

[emphasis mine]

This is the key conclusion he draws from Natural Law theory: he thinks passages like Romans 13:1-7 don't make sense unless humans are "equipped to reason justly", which means they are able and morally permitted to legislate just laws independently, by reference to nature. He argues that this is a freeing component of the New Covenant. This is from his last concluding paragraph in the book:

> For, apart from a few commands, the “law” of the New Covenant is nothing other than the law of love, which is just to will good for others, where “good” is defined by the structure of their being. In other words, almost the entirety of God’s demand for New Covenant believers is simply to obey the law of their own being, their own flourishing. And this is really like being under no law at all...

[emphasis mine]

The above is the practical outcome of his conclusions -- that the moral requirement on New Covenant believers (outside the sacraments) is to pursue material flourishing.

He reasons to these conclusions, more or less, in the following manner:

> On the other hand, as we have noted, the apostle Paul and others do seem to apply some Old Testament laws to Christians, for example in the realm of sexual ethics. But sexual immorality clearly does defy the natural purpose of the sexes, and harms human beings as such.[175] In light of these things, is it possible that, aside from a handful of commands that require ritual acts of Christians (e.g., Baptism and the Eucharist),[176] the rest of New Testament “law” is simply expressing what natural law and prudence already demand?[177] If so, we may be able to get a new handle on the logic of NT ethics as a whole, without trying to treat it as casuistry based on a positive law code somehow vaguely different from an OT positive law code.

The alternative to Natural Law theory (for jurisprudence), he thinks, is to see New Covenant ethics as "casuistry based on a positive law code somehow vaguely different from an OT positive law code". I get that my perspective is out-of-view of his rhetorical goals, but I think that his line of reasoning here betrays a perspective where the Mosaic Law lacks continuity for reasons he admits he simply doesn't know -- he's speculating.

> Realizing that the Bible assumes knowledge of the natural law may also help us in exegetical quandaries that continue to puzzle Bible scholars to this day. More specifically: how do we explain the logic of Jesus and Paul, when they declare some parts of the Torah no longer binding on Christians (e.g., Sabbath and Kosher laws), but other parts still in force (e.g., laws against sexual immorality)? Natural law may provide the key here, in that the former examples are clearly “socially constructed” (even if divinely so), and the writers of Scripture explicitly note this.

He continues speculating -- and (afaict) continued revealing confusion about why we don't have to obey certain Mosaic Laws anymore, and then just suggested that NL might have an answer.

This is why I emphasize that the mode of abrogation for any Old Testament laws which we say no longer apply to us is very important. If the Bible said directly that "New Testament 'law' is simply expressing what natural law and prudence already demand" (Fulford), then he wouldn't need to ask the above questions. He speculates because he doesn't know how/why the laws were abrogated. But the Bible does say directly that the reason we don't worry about the law against eating unclean foods is that Jesus made all foods clean, so we don't actually need to speculate about whether anything more abstract or mysterious is what made our practical obedience change. 

TLDR: Most of the Biblical portion of the book really amounted to (I'm repeating myself) construing Biblical references to nature as confirmation of Natural Law theory. He does make some positive arguments against my ideas from certain passages in scripture, but incidentally I already included his arguments in the passage arguments I wrote and posted before. [Note for the blog: this is a reference to a rough draft of one of the chapters in my book I'm writing for my son, which I posted for feedback in the same forum where I originally posted these reports. Here is the document] 

Notably, he doesn't actually show Biblical proof that humans are morally permitted to write legislation (making this proof was not his aim); he only makes the case that we're able to see justice in nature, then states that our capability (assuming a moral permit to legislate) helps him make sense of certain difficult passages. He mentions the 2 Kingdoms idea again -- if his understanding of that doctrine is the same as what I read in my prior book, then it explains his assumptions. His final conclusion is that the New Covenant Law can be summarized by a word: that we should pursue human flourishing by means of human prudence. 

Now, I'm just being real here -- I don't see how that doesn't amount to either moral consequentialism or "vibes". But that's a separate argument, I guess. 

The bottom line is, this book was helpful, but it didn't quite build the kind of bridge I was looking for. I'm getting ahead of myself, but I might end up critiquing NLT by just saying that nothing about the Christian version of the theory as-it-stands necessitates or implies legislative permit. To be fair, I don't imagine past NL writers had SGE in mind for their rhetoric -- they all seem to be simply assuming it, because everybody knows that humans can and should legislate all the time -- so future NL writers might develop the theory better if they have some SGE material to react to. We'll have to wait to see if my arguments, or those of any other SGE advocate, survive.

 It's been a while since I posted here. I decided today I would begin putting up some book reports I wrote a while ago. These were written as part of my investigation into Christian Natural Law Theory, for the book I'm working on for my kids. I figured, if a theory is a "Christian Theory", then it should be motivated by distinctly Christian ideas -- that is to say, it should be traceable to scripture references. I started with Summa, and I was looking specifically for scriptural justifications for Natural Law Theory as a theory of jurisprudence. Most importantly, I wanted to know where they get the idea that humans have been given permission or authority from God to make laws.

All authority is from God. So, if we have not received a delegation of authority from God to do something, then we don't have authority to do it. This applies especially to government, since God expressly outlined a system of government and said "do not add or subtract from my laws". So, if we're going to say that God wants us to make up new styles of government, I hoped such a well developed theory would be able to provide some justification for the assumption.

In fact, it seems the thought never crossed the mind of Aquinas, nor of any of the other sources I initially read on the topic. In fact, on the topics of nearest relevancy, Aquinas and his sources (I read the chapters he cited from Augustine etc. as well) only a handful of verses are mentioned; and the whole verses are not used, but only a phrase from them; and the phrases are not used to motivate Aquinas's jurisprudence, but only to corroborate it. The most important verse appears to be from Romans 2, which I'll be giving some attention in my book.

At any rate, after much independent reading on the topic, I was dissatisfied, because this theory is advocated so boldly as Christian by Christians, both Protestant and Catholic alike. So, not knowing where else to look, I joined forums and asked AI for more informative sources, and I read what was recommended to me. For the benefit of the TQA forum, I wrote targeted "book reports" on a handful of books which were the most popularly recommended to me, both by AI, and by Catholic and Protestant Natural Law Theory advocates. These books were named as important independently by several of the groups I asked, and no other books came with comparable praise, so I think they must be the best. My reports focus on the chapters which were commended to me as relevant to my topic, but I also looked over the other chapters in the books in order to be more sure I didn't miss anything important. Truly, I don't know how I could be more fair to Aquinas's followers, except if I had written about them with less bias. But I do not intend to be an academic; I am a Christian and Biblicist first, and all the rest, I pray, is ministry.

So much for context. This is the first and shortest report I wrote.

Summary of VanDrunen "A Biblical Case for Natural Law"

First Chapter: "Human Nature" 

1. God is Moral as to his nature

2. Man is the image of God, which entails a moral character, implying knowledge of morals

3. Though sin clouds our minds, man still is in the image of God, so the knowledge of morals still persists.

On the basis of Romans 1, he argues that the knowledge of God's law which exists in man -- the naturally revealed law, or "natural law" -- is "practically comprehensive".

On the basis of Romans 2, he argues that "the requirements of this natural law are essentially the same as those of the law of Moses", and, "the Law [both natural and of Moses] judges people on the basis of their obedience to it, and 2:14-15 explains how this can be true even of those who do not have the law of Moses".

Commentary from me: So far, this is all well and good, and I don't necessarily disagree with the notion that we have a certain imperfect awareness of the law; only that it (as is very apparent even in legislation generated by Christians) doesn't enable us to reproduce the law of God in legislation, nor permit us to try. Chapters 2 and 3 are where the rubber meets the road. 

Second Chapter: "Two Kingdoms"

Basically, in Chapter 2, he bridges the gap between natural law and civil legislation by rejecting theonomy -- even WGE theonomy as I understand it. Here are some relevant excerpts:

> ...Furthermore, God never gave the church a civil code... 

> ...the Noahic covenant is for all people, the Abrahamic covenant is for some...

> Instead of mingling with unbelieving nations in cultural endeavors, God’s people were now commanded to exterminate the pagans within their nation’s borders (e.g., Deut. 7:1–5)... Yet, biblical revelation makes clear that this was a temporary, extraordinary situation that God established only for a certain time and place in order to accomplish specific purposes in his redemptive plan and to point ahead to the eternal, heavenly state.

> Solomon carried on a general commercial trade with nations all around ... The two kingdoms dynamic, therefore, again became operative for Israel when they were outside the bounds of the Promised Land. Only when abiding within the land, according to the theocratic principles of the Mosaic covenant, was the two kingdoms model temporarily set aside.

> New Testament Christians, therefore, live in two kingdoms, as Abraham and the patriarchs did before them. The social and cultural realm is a mixed realm, a common realm, whose magistrates hold legitimate authority apart from their religious convictions and where Christians and non-Christians may intermingle freely...The character of the civil kingdom as a common realm calls for a moral standard that is common to all human beings, and this is what natural law is.

[emphasis mine]

The argument in this chapter is, basically, since we're supposed to share government with pagans in the New Covenant, we can't argue for laws on the basis of scripture (although he never states "because they'd never agree to it" directly, I think it's strongly implied by what he wrote), instead we have to appeal to the natural law in them. 

And, to what end, he describes in chapter 3. Summarily:

> Moral goods such as peace and prosperity are to be cultivated (Jer. 29:7). Civil magistrates exist for the good of the people, and the people are to obey magistrates (Rom. 13:1– 7; 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Peter 2:13–17)....The appropriateness of natural law as the moral standard for the civil kingdom becomes all the more important in light of the fact that, in a certain sense, Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom. Scripture, of course, provides much relevant teaching for God’s people concerning their attitude toward the world at large and their conduct in it.

[emphasis mine]

Chapter 4 talks about how nature will be different in heaven, and basically talks about how references to nature in the Bible are evidence of natural law.

So, TLDR, his argument (as I read it) is: Mosaic law is mandatory for everyone -- except for the parts about not having a pagan society; those were temporary; now we work with pagans, because 2K -- but the pagans wouldn't obey any of it if we told them it was from the Bible, so we have to convince them to obey it by appealing to their awareness of natural law. 

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking this isn't exactly compatible with Westminster General Equity Theonomy (WGE). And, in either case, I don't think his construal of the two kingdoms is really defensible, or even a component of Natural Law theory on its own, so my takeaway is (if this were the only representative) that the idea of Natural Law results in permit for human legislation only after bringing in an additional theory. Moving on to the next book.

So lately I've been especially attentive to styles of argumentation, in hopes of elevating my own consistency. I notice I have a habit, and I am not sure what I am accomplishing by it. Is it a temptation, a set of barriers, a defense, intellectual laziness? Here is the phenomena:

I am presented with a debate topic. I begin with argument A. It is an argument that is short, pointed, easy to deliver, and witty. It is an argument which I love, but one which I know is wrong, but I have genuinely forgotten that it is wrong because of my love for it. In fact, it was refuted several times before, but in the heat of those moments, I did not take the time to acknowledge its refutation. I quickly moved onto another closely related argument B; substantively linked but formally distinct, requiring my opponent to shift gears in order to rebut me. My opponent did not even notice that I shifted gears; in fact, without careful observation, it may appear that A and B support one another.

Argument B is, maybe, a very good argument, but I do not have the time to substantiate it. I will never have the time to substantiate it. The topic at hand is important, but life is short, and I must choose my battles. A good argument on an important topic requires years of research to formulate. Why am I wasting time on this topic anyway? What am I doing in this debate? My opponent asks for substantiation, and I am instantly discouraged. I realize my error and shift to argument C.

Argument C involves expressing the realization that I'm totally unqualified to be engaged in this debate. But there's a problem; I'm not less qualified than the person I'm debating. Argument C is, therefore, a call to epistemic submission to the forces accessible to persons of our mutual qualifications. It dawns on me that we're both citing research articles we barely understand, but it's too late, because I've already submersed myself in the muck with my opponent, and the mode of dialogue is established beyond repair. 

Can you guess the topic that caused me to notice this? Evolution is where this comes up most often.

This debate strategy is surely a defense mechanism; witless, reflexive, and developed involuntarily. I am discarding it. Argument C is where I belong.

I'm recently engaged in a series of conversations which have cornered me. First, I defend the notion that Presuppositionalism doesn't pin me to a position of inability to learn from secular sources. Later, separately, with the same people, I defend the notion that YEC and OE sources are similarly scientific (this is argument B). My opponent states that YEC and OE are not on equal footing with regard to science because of the freedom of the experts to express themselves. Here are my options:

- Deny that experts have freedom to express themselves (scholarly papers don't permit YEC). But if I make this argument, I have to defend it, and I can't. It has conspiracy-theory-level backing. It may be true (I like conspiracy theories), but in its current form it can't bear the weight I'm putting on it.

- Deny that atheists are capable of intellectual honesty (something I can argue well from Presuppositionalism, but I have already rejected in principle)

Either I am being inconsistent, or I am failing to notice an important category. This will be on my mind all weekend.

"Happy Valentines Day"

Right now I have something (maybe very silly) weighing heavily on my mind and I want to tell someone a story, but I'm the only one awake, and this place is an old reliable fallback, prepare to be the emotional outlet.

I recently listened to one of kitboga's scammer conquest videos. In this one he convinced the scammer that he was an old couple with a few hundred big in the bank. The scammer told him to move the money to a secure account to safeguard the funds (the scammer's own account, of course). This went on for a day or two I think. At some point there was a break in the conversation, and post gap kitboga informed the scammer that he had moved the money to the account of his son in law. The scammer, a little emotional about it, asked if kitboga trusted his son in law with the money. Kit said yeah, it will be an inheritance later anyway. The scammer said he was a good dad. Kit asked if the scammer was a good dad. The scammer explained he tries to be a good dad. The conversation went on, his son wants to be just like him, but he doesn't want his son to be like him. Here the scammer was being vulnerable, and Kit began a severe moral bludgeoning. The scammer tried to hint that the call was being monitored so he couldn't confess to being a scammer, and eventually, reduced to tears, gave in, then hung up. 

It was really sad to hear. I love to see criminals get pwnd, but this was an instance where I was thinking along the lines of, "I take no pleasure in the suffering of the wicked". The scammer's son is the same age as my son, and he's impoverished, and his dad hates himself. It's terrible for him! Even though his immediate surroundings attempt to normalize dishonesty, his conscience is inescapable.

I used to get a lot of scam calls, and I would share the gospel with them. One time, the caller cried on the phone with me.  I told him that Jesus died so he wouldn't have to live that way anymore. He tried to stick to the script, so I told him, "come on man, your company is paying you to lie to people. You can do better than this."  He broke down and said "but I have no other choice. What else can I do?"  I told him to go find a church that teaches about Jesus, and that they would help him out. I sure hope and pray it worked out for him. I had a few conversations like that, and then they stopped calling me. 

It actually makes me pretty emotional to think about those guys and imagine their situation.  Am I just too tired right now to process it impassionately? Idk. I think it has been weighing heavily on me for a few days, and the weight has been increasing as I have been listening to a lot of kitboga lately. Some of his videos are genuinely hilarious, and some really show that nobody can escape their God given conscience "bearing witness against them". 

Ok well that's the end of the story. Idk if I feel better having typed it out or not. What is it in people that makes them need to tell these kinds of things? 

"A hero"

My second child, a daughter, was born on July 4th! We gave her a name that we hope will point her toward the importance of generosity, service, forgiveness, and God's covenant: Lydia Jubilee. "Lydia", after the gentile seller of purple cloth who opened her home to the service of the saints, and whose entire household was saved -- a cool picture of the covenant and regeneration. "Jubilee", the backbone of the Biblical economy, forgiveness of debt and a return of everyone to their permanent inheritance, and a picture of the gospel (thinking of Isaiah 61:1-3). I'll be calling her Jube for short.

The first week has been basically sleep deprivation and a tiny bit of chores. The house wasn't quite ready for her -- we got a lot of our baby gear at the last minute because the second-hand donations that we'd been receiving up until that point were mostly actually kinda gross, so it isn't quite organized yet. Well, so I'm doing my best to get things in shape, or at least keep them from getting worse. 

Chowon suffered some more-than-typical harm during the delivery, but she's slowly getting back on her feet. I'm doing all the diapers, any soothing, swaddling, etc, so that all Chowon has to worry about is nursing and self-care. Chowon can't be satisfied by that kind of inactivity, though, and has managed to fill her time by responding to congratulations on the phone, the result of which has been a ton of meal deliveries at our house, which is really awesome.

Isaac is taking it very well. He's been very positive about having a baby sister, and he's been playing alone very well, and making himself breakfast sometimes. I'm trying to prioritize playing with him in my spare time, which also reduces the chores I can do. But family cohesiveness is more important than cleanliness in the final analysis, and I think my priorities are in the right place. The house is messy, but it's not gross, and it is slowly improving.

I have a lot of paid paternity leave. I'm nervous about getting back to work at my job after all of this.

In my progress on the book that I'm working on for Isaac (and now for Jubilee too!), I've noticed that Paul is rebutting the Circumcision party in nearly all of his letters. He's really seriously campaigning against them. That realization, and my renewed understanding of Paul's journey, has painted a more human picture of Paul in my head. 

I'm often praying that God will guide me to write what's true in my book, and not just write what I want to be true. I've definitely changed my perspective about a lot of topics as a result of this study, so that's something -- I hope, an indicator of God's activity in guiding my mind to some truth. 

I'm often back-and-forth about whether or not I will give the finished work to the guys who said they want to publish it if I finish it. Maybe I'll just pay to get the pages durably bound, and then give a copy each to my son and daughter, and call that the end of it. The more I research, the more I realize I'm a layman doing layman's research. I'm an autodidact and it definitely shows. What am I doing pretending to have answers to all of these arguments I'm taking on in my book? Who am I to lay claim to any true knowledge pertaining to scripture? By teaching, if I say anything true, I've only done what's commanded and expected of me, but if I say what's false, I have sinned and caused my neighbor to sin! I can only hope that my son will filter out the failures I present to him, and follow the Holy Spirit toward Christlikeness, becoming himself a better man than me. 

But I have to say something! I certainly can't leave my children to the wolves. I'm not merely subject to the belief that these philosophies I'm arguing against in the book are complete garbage; they really are trash and my children would only injure themselves by giving serious consideration to some of these thinkers. There are a lot of things in these writings I'm compiling about which I am firmly convinced I can't be wrong. Combing my conclusions to draw up a detailed blueprint of the structure connecting them to those primary beliefs is perhaps the work of many lifetimes, so I have to prioritize what I put my effort toward and how I do it. I can't let myself take too long, because I will age and lose my zeal (and besides, I might die tomorrow!); I can't be too quick or I will miss the important details. 

I don't want my children to waste time evaluating pop philosophy. I know it's a very common idea that people eventually have to evaluate the religious landscape for themselves and establish a personal conviction for Jesus anew after leaving their parent's household (I certainly did that), but I don't think that the activity needs to include any time wasted critically examining bullshit ideas like atheism or islam. Like, how thoroughly do we need to refute that crap before it doesn't deserve our attention anymore? Think of all the progress we can make if we rather devoted our minds to the truth! 

Don't get me wrong, apologetics is good work, and having a defense against outside arguments is important for everyone as a necessary evil, but I don't think that's the same as having a "reason for the hope that is within us". My reason for believing in Jesus is entirely compelling to me, but it isn't an argument in the common sense of the term; it's becoming more and more a blend of relational, spiritual, experiential, and rational ideas that feels increasingly bound up in my very self-ontology.

I want to present my children with something that they can use as a foundation to build-on. We're homeschooling them so that I can, by going alongside them, fill the gaps and equip them for this. I want them to skip all the trash philosophers I read, (I'll give them a cursory understanding of the history of philosophy insofar as I can make it an interesting story), and I want them to make positive progress by so thoroughly immersing themselves in the truth that the answers to outside challenges become too obvious for care. "The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them."

I once read the argument that people need to have an experiential understanding of "darkness" in order to know what "light" is. For example, if they only ever saw the color "white" they would never know what white was until they first saw other colors. I don't buy it. They would only know what white was until they saw other colors, and then they would know the other colors. I think contrast is helpful to demonstrate magnitudes and to build a sense of relevance by way of application, which is helpful to expedite learning, but not necessary to know truth. I don't need to go worship another god in order to know that Jesus is the true God. Nobody in Israel needs to be proselytized toward false religion in order to understand God's covenant with them. Deut 13:6-11 permits no such proselytization in Israel, while elsewhere the Bible commands repeatedly that Israel take plenty of time to learn God's words, precisely because in-depth knowledge of false ideas is not necessary. 

There are infinite falsehoods out there, and only one truth; how can I invent a falsehood in order to contrast it with the truth in order to gain knowledge of the truth if I haven't already known both the truth and the falsehood in order to contrast them with one another so as to understand the falsehood I'm inventing? The idea that knowledge must be founded on dialectical contrasts is philosophically incoherent.

My kids don't need to read Nietzsche as a prerequisite in order to know that he's not worth reading. Nor do they need to critically examine the theory of evolution in order to know that God created mankind from the dust on the 6th day, nor do they need to dabble in other religions to gain deep insight into Christianity. I want them to build on the foundation that was laid for them in God's word, and skip the crap. If I can give them that much, then I've saved them years of time, and if God graciously sees fit to give me so much of a great blessing, he may place them among those in heaven who never bowed to a false god, and to retain a man for God's kingdom from among my children for future generations. Oh God, do not permit my family to go astray, and my generations to be struck from the book of life!

"My soul is crushed with longing for your judgments at all times."

ETA:

I've been thinking about what I wrote here, and maybe I'm being redundant by re-engaging with my self-doubt here... (I thought about making it a separate blog post, but it's too soon). I do want to clarify that I'm not going to completely leave my kids ignorant of things like OE/TOE or the various manners of approaching nihilism, so I'm not completely isolationist here, but I do intend to give thorough emphasis both in time and effort to teaching things I believe to be true (as every teacher does, right?)... but also, I'm concerned about myself. Am I deceiving myself by means of a false humility, whereas I'm actually unwilling to budge on issues about which there are legitimate challenges out there?

I won't say I am not concerned about the possibility. Indeed that's why I write here. But on the other hand, I'm not quite ready to yield to it.

One time I read a philosopher argue along these lines, "if your ideas are contradictory to mine, and aren't at least as well developed as mine; at least as thoroughly challenged and time-proved as mine; at least as comprehensive in their explanatory power as mine; at least as coherent as mine -- then I may be willing to engage with you concerning challenges you have to my own ideas, but I see no need to spend any time versing myself on your ideas.". I suppose that may seem a sort of philosophical hubris, but on the other hand, Christianity is truly the best established system in existence on all accounts. I may not be an expert in Christianity (or any other system for that matter), but I don't need to be an architect to know which building is tallest. And, let's face it: Christianity does engage in internal criticisms of outside philosophies, but it is also entirely consistent with Biblical Christianity to maintain an attitude of derision toward non-Christian perspectives. "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no god'.". "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Sure, "what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?", and so some analysis of the enemy is necessary when in battle. And Christianity is a conquering ideology, aimed at ideological warfare, "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete." But given limited time to build an awareness of the situation, whose troops should the king know better, his own or his enemy's? And should the king verse himself on armies which will not be involved in the current battle as thoroughly as on those who will? The most efficient use of my time as a teacher is to teach the truth, not to verse my kids on every untruth, nor even on those aspects of untruths which are easily refuted by things my students already know. 

If I am able to expand that category of prior knowledge effective to refute an enemy idea, so that it encompasses very much of the enemy's ideology, then there is little left for me to do by way of teaching on the enemy, except insofar as it expedites teaching the truth. Only: am I able? That is the prompt for my self-doubt. I'm not really all that worried about whether or not Christianity is subject to an undermining refutation, only whether I can prepare my kids sufficiently that they are not deceived by a weak refutation.

Trying to carefully parse the Bible, its premises and conclusions as it presents them, in order to gain a better understanding of God's law for the purpose of this book. Here's an excerpt from my notes concerning Romans 13. 

---------------------------

P1. v1. All authority is from God (no authority exists except this)

P2. v3-4. Rulers terrorize evil and promote good

P3. (implicit). Good and evil are defined by God's law, as well as the good means of terrorizing/promoting.

 = v5-6 =

Verse 6 must be read in light of verse 5. See how Paul chains together clauses using "for" and "therefore". 

In a phrase "A therefore B", A provides a basis for agreement with B.

In a phrase, "A for B", B provides a basis for agreement with A. 

Leading up to "we do it not only because of wrath, but because of conscience" in verse 5, we have a "therefore", which indicates that the prior verses form a unit which is now being used to support the idea that "we do it not only because of wrath, but because of conscience". After that, we have "for"s, indicating that verse 6a also supports verse 5, and verse 6b supports verse 6a,

So, recall, verses 1-4 can be summarized: "rulers terrorize evil and promote good because they are servants of God".

v5 "Therefore" (since they are servants of God), we obey not only because we don't want to be terrorized, but also because of our conscience, which demands that we likewise obey God. The "wrath" is something that he expects everyone to intuitively understand; his point here is that it's not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience, and so Paul's emphasis, the thing that is accomplished by his reasoning, is the additional clause, "because of conscience". 

v6. (6a) "for" it is because of "this" that you pay taxes, (6b) "for" they are servants of God. The "this" in v6a is "conscience" -- it is the emphasis of the passage, and is established again by repeating the justification from verses 1-4 in v6b.

Verse 6 reiterates that they are servants of God -- why? Remember the point of verses 1-5. "Them being servants of God" (v1-4) implies that "we should obey because of conscience" (v5). So, again, the emphasis here is that something is being done "because of conscience".

Now, isn't it remarkable that "for because of this you also pay taxes" begins with "for", indicating that it is given as a basis for agreement with the idea that we obey "not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience". We could reverse the argument: “we pay taxes for this reason [conscience], therefore we obey rulers not just because of wrath, but also because of conscience.”  So taxes are an example of something we do because of conscience, which Paul is using as support, to make the point that the rest of the law is obeyed because of conscience. 

If taxes are used as an example for support, then it is because he expects his audience to agree about them in advance. Arguments are supported by examples when the example contains common ground supporting the argument. So the reader is expected to have a prior understanding that taxes are paid because of conscience, which is so firmly rooted in their mind that Paul feels at liberty to use taxes as an example to support the idea that other laws should be obeyed "because of conscience", and not just because of wrath.

In order for the grammatical flow of this argument to make sense, the audience is expected to have had a prior inclination toward the idea that taxes are primarily paid on the basis of conscience as opposed to fear of penalty. It is no coincidence that the Old Testament law presents us with no civil penalty for failure to pay any of its taxes or tithes. Indeed, Paul's audience, on conversion, was given the gospel and the Old Testament, and they knew that their tributes to God were paid because of their conscience alone.

 = v7-8 =

This is supportable by verses 7 and 8. Pay taxes to whom taxes are due (v7). Don't owe anyone anything except love (v8). These two statements are not disconnected; verse 8 follows sequentially from verse 7, reiterates verse 7, and describes the consequence of obedience to verse 7. 

"Don't owe anyone anything except love" should not be interpreted to mean "don't pay taxes" -- Paul already said we pay taxes because of conscience. Now he frames that behavior as a debt of love. In this way, verse 8 transitions is discussion about the basis of obedience from conscience to love. Conscience and love are closely related, so that the next section (verses 9-10) is not disconnected from the prior section.

 = v8-10 =

How do we know that the point about conscience in the case of taxes (which is well established in the mind of his audience) can translate to the rest of the law, so that we should obey the rest of the law because of conscience, just like we do with taxes? Paul employs the link between conscience and love to show that it applies both ways because obedience to the law is loving, and love is a matter of conscience. Here he doubly supports his point about conscience and the law, framing the law as descriptive of love, and love as the embodiment of the law.

Applying the principle which we learned from the example of taxes to the rest of the law, Paul's point can be summarized:

"You already know that we pay taxes primarily because of [love / conscience]. In the same way, we should obey the rest of the law because of [love / conscience]."

 = e. =

So, in the final analysis: this passage does not support compulsory taxation. It doesn't say anything at all about compulsory taxation. It does not add any moral tolerability to an act of civil government to penalize nonpayment of taxes, nor to demand more taxes than what the law of Moses prescribes. It does not in any way establish compulsory taxation as a just or morally permissible behavior of government, nor establish additional taxes (not described by Moses) as morally permissible for civil government to take. 

Instead, this passage emphatically requires that the audience already know that taxes are given solely on the basis of conscience, and then uses that prerequisite understanding as common ground to build the case that the rest of God's law is also obeyed on the basis of conscience, in particular the rulers to whom God's law delegates authority, insofar as they act within the boundaries of that authority which is given to them by the law.

(Consider the way people interpret this passage without that understanding. All day long we hear the argument that this verse gives secular government blanket divine authority to terrorize evil however they want, as if the word “evil” could not describe any act of the government itself! It leads to moral contradictions and a complete overthrow of the rest of the biblical teachings on morality and justice. It’s as absurd as saying “sin is lawlessness, therefore we should make up some laws”, as though moral anarchists and degenerates were not governed by their own scruples that they just likewise made up.)

---------------------

Anyone who's read my writings on this in the past may notice that my perspective has shifted somewhat, but I think that this reading is better supported by the grammar of the passage, and I feel a better peace about verse 6 than I did prior to this particular parsing. I'll be reviewing this in the future to make sure I'm not messing anything up, as this is a particularly complex argument from Paul, but I am feeling pretty good about it.

"There were so many, I've lost count."