Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 19

In Chapter 19, Isaac Troki accuses Christians of violating the Mosaic law, believing that it is now null and void, having been superseded by Jesus. Troki quotes Matthew 5:17-20 which states:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:17-20 ESV)


The apostles of Jesus were circumcised, including Timothy. The Sabbath was observed on Saturday until one of the Popes instituted it on the first day of the week about 500 years after Jesus.

God gave Moses a double portion of Manna on Friday in order to show that God himself sanctified the Sabbath. As a result, says Troki, the Sabbath cannot ever be abrogated. Paul did not believe that the Law was totally dead. Did not Paul order the death of one who marries his father's wife?

    It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
(1 Corinthians 5:1-2 ESV)


Christians seem to have abandoned the foundation of the law. Jesus seems to have abrogated omse laws and enacted others, such as the prohibition of divorce.Malachi 4 states:

    “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rules that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. 
(Malachi 4:4 ESV)


While Jesus kept the Sabbath, he kept it in a way differently than did the Pharisees. Jesus allowed his disciples to pluck heads of grain on the Sabbath. He also healed people of non-life-threatening illnesses, such as a withered hand on the Sabbath as well. This was in violation of Rabbinical prohibitions.

Daniel Boyarin thinks differently. In his book The Jewish Gospels he makes the case that Jesus was not trying to reform the Pharisaic law, but that the Pharisees were the innovators who were trying to alter the Mosaic laws. He believes that the Pharisaic movement was one that came from the Babylonian exile. During that period, the Pharisees developed the traditions of the Elders, which is a systems to which they were trying to convert Israelite Jews. The justification for these reforms is that God passed down an oral tradition, and would have been offensive to Jews who had lived in the land during the period of the exile. Jesus' Judaism was a conservative reaction against that.

The followers of Jesus did observe the Saturday sabbath, but they also observed the Lord's Day on Sunday as well. Since the Sabbath is meant for Israel and her children only.

    You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
(Exodus 31:14-17 ESV)


The Sabbath was meant for Israelites only. The Lord's Day was meant for followers of Jesus. Jewish followers of Jesus observed both. Gentiles need not observe the Saturday Sabbath.

    On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight.
(Acts 20:7 ESV)


If God could end his covenant with national Israel for any reason, he can do it with the church as well. There can be no biblical case that the church is the new Israel or new Jerusalem.

Ignatius recognized that Gentile Christians observe the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath.  "No longer keeping the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's Day, in which too our life sprang up by Him and His death."

The reason that Christian Jews need not follow the Rabbinical Law is that this law is an apostate and twisted interpretation of Moses. Secondly, the law of faith, if kept, prevents one from being subject to the curses of God.

An example of Rabbinical perversion is the practice of Prosbul undermines the very intent of Deuteronomy 15. It violates the plain sense of Scripture and is simply a man-made invention to get out of the freedom that comes at the seventh year.

    “At the end of every seven years you shall grant a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor shall release what he has lent to his neighbor. He shall not exact it of his neighbor, his brother, because the LORD's release has been proclaimed. Of a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever of yours is with your brother your hand shall release.
(Deuteronomy 15:1-3 ESV)


    Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
(Romans 3:27-31 ESV)

Monday, January 28, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 18

In Chapter 18, Troki responds to a Christian objection that the Mosaic code does not address life after death, but delivers earthly rewards and punishments. Troki notes that humanity is not material, but composed of matter and spirit. He also argues that the bodies of the righteous will be free of disease, indicating life after death. He quotes Leviticus 18:5, 26:11-12, Genesis 17:7-8, and Genesis 28:21.

     You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.
(Leviticus 18:5 ESV)


     I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people.
(Leviticus 26:11-12 ESV)


    And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
(Genesis 17:7-8 ESV)


     so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God,
(Genesis 28:21 ESV)


The excision of the soul to which Troki refers may refer to spiritual death under Karaite tradition. I will admit that I do not know Karaism well enough to say one way or the other. The Rabbis have a technical term for this excision of the soul called karet. Rabbinical Jewish law explains karet as premature death (Sifra, Emor, 14:4).  There are traditions that include post-mortem punishment as part of karet, but this is controversial, even within Rabbinical Judaism.

Troki also argues that Christians believe that the threat that God gave to Adam "you will surely die" meant spiritual death. Troki takes issue with this, as do I. The same term is used in 1 Kings 2.

    Then the king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and dwell there, and do not go out from there to any place whatever. For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head.”
(1 Kings 2:36-37 ESV)


Shimei did not die that day. As Nachmanides writes, that term is generally used to indicate when someone will incur the death penalty, not when they will actually die.

Paul affirms this in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

Just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death. So death spread to all men, because of which all sinned.
(Romans 5:12, my translation)

Some may think this is spiritual death, but it ignores Paul's use of the term in his earlier letter to the Corinthians.

    But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1 Corinthians 15:20-22 ESV)


Here, the context is resurrection of the body, which parallels the death of the body. Spiritual death and spiritual life are not part of the context of 1 Corinthians 15.

Troki also argues that the law will be in force forever. Immanuel Schochet  takes issue with this:
Also, when I was with the Orthodox, one Modern Orthodox Rabbi with a Harvard PhD in Jewish history complained quite a bit about this "reward in the hereafter" business.  Artscroll Judaism heavily emphasizes life after death as authentically Jewish. Generally, the Modern Orthodox, and especially the followers of Maimonedes, heavily de-emphasize or eliminate this aspect. Following the mitzvot is supposed to give reward and punishment in this life. To emphasize reward and punishment in the afterlife is to Christianize Judaism.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 17

Some Christians have said that the curses in Leviticus 26:42 relate to the first temple. The curses in Deuteronomy 28 refer to the second temple, and claim that Israel is to have no restoration from exile.

Troki argues first that this is false, a claim with which I agree. He also argues that the inferiority of the second temple can be judged by teh lack of the ark, mercy seat, cherubim, urim and thummim, and the glory of God.

He also argues that the evil consequences of the original captivity still exist to this day. Israel had never been fully released from its original captivity.

I am not even sure exactly how to respond. I believe that Israel is to have restoration from exile. To this day, the secular state of Israel shows that God is ready to fulfill his prophecies. The people of Israel need only believe in Jesus for the Messianic age to become fully manifest.

Troki is mistaken about the second temple being inferior.

    The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’”
(Haggai 2:9 ESV)

The Talmud confirms this in Bava Batra 3a. The second temple was supposed to be greater. This is difficult for the rabbis to explain, but easy for Christians to explain. The second temple was greater because Jesus himself stood in it. God visited the temple in person.

Troki's objection that Numbers 24, Obadiah 21, Ezekiel 25:14, and Joel 3:19 refer to the destruction of Christianity and Islam. Edom may have meant Rome in Rabbinical literature, but it is anachronistic to push this definition into the Bible. There is no literal mention of either group in these passages, as they are declarations of destruction for those who disobey God. However, this is hardly an argument against Christianity, since it assumes the falsehood of these religions in order to establish their falsehood. This is circular reasoning, and Troki should have known as much.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 16

    “‘Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’
(Deuteronomy 27:26 ESV)

Troki himself admits that it is literally impossible to fulfill all commandments. He denies that Jews are cursed for failing to practice these commandments, however. Troki argues that King David violated the covenant with the judicial murder or Uriah the Hittite, yet was not cursed. He then gives two more verses in support of his position.

    “Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.
(Jeremiah 33:20-21 ESV)

    For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.”
(Isaiah 37:35 ESV)

Instead, Troki argues that it is the people who refuse to believe in the will of God that are cursed. It does not curse people who merely neglect to fulfill every single commandment. Troki believes that the commandments exist in order to increase our claim of divine reward and to shape the human soul for heavenly bliss.

Troki argues that Moses wanted to enter the Holy Land in order to fulfill the commandments and obtain merit in the sight of God. The curses of Deuteronomy 27 are for secret sins, not for public sins, which are dealt with by human tribunal.

The issue here is that some of the sins in Deuteronomy 27 are secret, and some open. Misleading a blind man down the road, for example, cannot be done in secret. it is an open offense. Paul's interpretation of this passage.

    For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
(Galatians 3:10 ESV)

Paul adds "all" because Deuteronomy 6:25 and 28:1 imply it.

    And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.’
(Deuteronomy 6:25 ESV)

    “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.
(Deuteronomy 28:1 ESV)

The Rabbis have an opposite idea of the Law, seeing it as an opportunity to win merit points with God, rather than as a source for cursing. Paul sees things differently.

    I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
(Romans 7:9 ESV)

Paul's interpretation also has support from the Psalms.

    If you, O LORD, should mark iniquities,
        O Lord, who could stand?
(Psalm 130:3 ESV)

    Enter not into judgment with your servant,
        for no one living is righteous before you.
(Psalm 143:2 ESV)

But also, Paul's interpretation best fits the context of the passage. The entire passage lists a whole bunch of sins, one by one, and pronounces a curse after each one. The last one wraps up the whole passage, and concludes that one who fails any one of these commandments, or any commandment, is under a curse.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 15

"You shall not eat any abomination."
(Deuteronomy 14:3)

Troki uses this verse to attack Matthew 15:11 "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."

Troki argues that Christians must consider themselves unholy and unclean for eating of non-kosher foods. If the founders of Christianity wanted to abolish all food laws, why did they prohibit Gentile Christians from eating meat from strangled animals, and from foods like blood sausage. Adam incurred the wrath of God for eating forbidden food once. How much more do Christians defile themselves by eating of forbidden food over and over again. Zechariah 9:7 speaks of the age of Messiah, where even Gentiles will avoid non-kosher foods.

    I will take away its blood from its mouth,
        and its abominations from between its teeth;
    it too shall be a remnant for our God;
        it shall be like a clan in Judah,
        and Ekron shall be like the Jebusites.
(Zechariah 9:7 ESV)


First, the Seventh-Day Adventists do follow basically the same dietary restrictions as the Karaites. This argument, therefore, cannot apply to them.

Not all Jewish authorities agree with Troki's arguments as well. Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 146:7 states "The LORD looses the prisoners or the forbidden. What is this? Some say that every beast which was made unclean in this world the LORD, blessed be He, makes clean in the world to come."
Midrash Kohelet on Ecclesiastes 11:8 states :"The Law which man learns in this world is vanity compared with the Law of Messiah."

Hence, Rabbinical Judaism does allow for the law to change in different eras. This is similar to the Christian notion of dispensationalism. When Messiah comes, the laws will be either changed or reinterpreted.

Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet even agrees with this:


 The objection only works if Jesus is not Messiah. But since that's the case, this verse cannot be uses to establish that Jesus is not Messiah, for that would be circular reasoning.

 Secondly, most Christians are Gentiles, and are therefore not bound by the Laws of Moses in any case. Troki objects to Jesus and his statement of food not defiling a man. I will get to that objection later. Probably the best response is from Daniel Boyarin. In ancient Judaism, clean does not equal kosher. The difference between permitted vs prohibited food is kosher vs. treif. Jesus was not talking about that. He wast talking about ritually clean vs. ritually unclean, or tahor vs. tamei. Jesus declared all foods tahor, overriding rabbinical, but not biblical, prohibitions.

Zechariah 9:7 states not that Gentiles will keep kosher, but that they will cease from observing pagan festivals.

The issue with the injunction against eating blood in Acts 15 does not imply that Gentile Christians are bound by the Mosaic Law. This injunction is more like a rabbinical restriction, where the apostles lay out these rules to keep the peace in the early church.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 14

    The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
        nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
    until tribute comes to him;
        and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
(Genesis 49:10 ESV)

Troki argues against the idea that this is a reference to Jesus. He says that this verse, if it did apply to Jesus, would be impossible to reconcile with the fact that Judah lost its kingship with the second exile, and Herod was of low blood.

In his interpretation, Troki argues that the verse gives Judah supremacy over the other tribes through David and to Zedekiah. There were princes during the second temple period through Zerubbabel. Even during the time of Saul, Judah still had the scepter, since it was David who conducted Israel to battle. The scepter indicates that Judah will always have a place among the leadership, not necessarily that there will always be a king of Judah on the throne.

Instead, the lawgivers will not depart until Shiloh comes. Shiloh indicates the youngest child, the Messiah. The verse, according to Troki, does not mean that the scepter will depart after the coming of Messiah, but instead that the scepter will never depart from Judah.

Indeed, the following verse (49:11) is considered a messianic passage in Berachot 57a of the Talmud. Also, Targum Onkelos translates Shiloh as Messiah, as does Pseudo-Jonathan, as does the translation in Sanhedrin 98b.

But this is not a problem for the Christian worldview. It is a problem for unbelieving Jews. Any sovereignty that Judah had was obliterated by the year 135, when Jews were finally kicked out of the land. While there were kings over Judah in the late second temple period, and Judeans were in power during that time, Israel lost the right to capital punishment in the year 6, when it became a province of Rome. At that point, there was no sovereign state of Israel, and there were no Judeans in charge.

Israel then lost the Temple during the year 70, and was scattered after the failed Bar Kochba revolt of 135. After that point, there definitely were no kings and the scepter was nowhere to be found. The nation was decimated and scattered into communities, none of which had sovereignty, and therefore there was no Judean ruler. The year 135 is our cutoff point for the coming of Messiah. If Messiah did not come by then, your faith is in vain.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 13

And in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you [Abraham] have obeyed my voice.
(Genesis 22:18)

Troki believes that this cannot refer to Jesus, since Troki takes the term "seed" as a collective term which cannot apply to any individual. Troki gives numerous prooftexts for this, including Genesis 28:14, 18:18, and 12:3. God raised the patriarchs to spiritual bliss for their obedience, and will do so to the children of Israel as well. I completely agree did appoint the reward of bliss to the children of Israel for following the commands of God. That is the whole point of Deuteronomy 28.

Troki says "Christians generally argue in favor of their religion from detached portions of the prophecies, without going deeply into the sacred subject and studying the context." This is one of my many points of agreement with Troki. Modern Christianity often engages in bad prooftexting, plucking verses out of context and stringing them together. An example is arguments for the pre-tribulation rapture. Proponents will do a word search for phrases like "day of the Lord" and simply assume that all verses that include the term speak of the same event. This is far from obvious.

Troki then goes on to commit the exact same error for which he chastizes [sic] modern Christians. 

It is true that the plain literal meaning of the verse is that it refers to Abraham's offspring generally. Rabbinical Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Karaite Judaism have failed to make any significant impact on the non-Jewish world. While the Jewish people themselves have done a great deal of good for the world, these religious denominations have done next to nothing to spread the knowledge of God to the Gentiles.

Instead, it has been Christian Jews, and later, Gentile Christians who have systematically spread the knowledge of the God of Israel to the whole world.

Troki indirectly attacks Paul's interpretation of the promise in Galatians 3:16. "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, 'And to seeds,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your seed,' who is Christ."
  
Jews who give this objection forget that Rabbinical interpretations of the Scriptures take greater creative liberties than this. Sanhedrin 37a where Tana Kama states that the term "bloods" in Genesis 4:10 has a special and different meaning and therefore refers to the blood of Cain's descendants. Did the rabbis not know that the term "bloods" is used all the time to indicate blood shed by violence?

Or what about Ketubot 37a? In this passage, the rabbis make the same kind of argument that Paul makes in Galatians. They make an inference from the fact that the term "wickedness" is used in Deuteronomy 25:2, rather than "wickednesses" even though "wickedness" does not have a plural in ancient Hebrew.
http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7564.htm

Or how about the Mishnah Sabbath 9.3 which states:

"How do we know of a garden bed, six handbreadths square that five different kinds of seed may be sown into it, four on the sides and one in the middle?
Since it says 'For as the earth brings forth her bud and as the garden causes seeds sown in it to spring forth.' Its seed is not said, but seeds."

Paul's homiletic use of the term "seed" is no different than that of the rabbis, who had a literal interpretation of the verses, but also recognized that verses could be interpreted homiletically to make additional points.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 12

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
(Genesis 3:15, ESV)

Troki argues that this "protoevangelion" is not a type of Jesus crushing the head of Satan, since how can Satan bruise the heel of Jesus if Satan's head has already been crushed? Satan seems to play a role in the entire New Testament, even up to Revelation.

This objection is pretty easy to refute.

    Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
(Revelation 20:1-2 ESV)

    And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
(Revelation 20:7-10 ESV)

It is here that Satan is completely destroyed. As for the death and resurrection of Jesus, that is the time where Jesus first crushed the head of the Serpent, yet no Christian tradition states that the crushing of Satan's head meant that Satan would die. Satan bruies the heel of Jesus due to the crucifixion, but Jesus triumphed over Satan through his resurrection, bringing hope of forgiveness and eternal life to all of humanity.

To say that Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy that people will hate snakes is to misunderstand the social context of the book of Genesis. In ancient religions, particularly in the near east, there was not an effort to explain human relations to animals. Instead, the animals in those stories represented spiritual forces. These were not like, nor were they related to, the "just-so" stories of other mythological traditions.

A second interpretation is that humanity and sin would be at war with one another. with this interpretation, though, one can include Jesus as the focus of the prophecy. Indeed, he is the one who ultimately pays the price for our sins and defeats sin. Jesus, as our representative, will plant his foot on the head of sin, and crush it.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 11

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Troki notes the standard Christian prooftexing of this verse. Christian authorities argue that Adam's sin damned Adam to eternity in hell, and also damned all of Adam's descendants. Troki responds that in this verse, God only meant that Adam would die physically. However, Adam did not die physically on that day. Troki brings up 1 Kings 2:37 "For on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die. Your blood shall be on your own head." Shimei was not punished with death on that exact day. Hence, Genesis 2:17 means that Adam would only be subject to death, not that he would be damned. Death, therefore, refers to the state of the body, not of the soul.

Troki also objects to the idea that Jesus, through his own death, saved the souls of others from damnation in hell. Troki quotes Leviticus 18:5 "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord." He then argues that this verse shows that by keeping God's commandments, people can earn everlasting life. Troki then quotes Luke 16:19 to argue that the beggar Lazarus was at Abraham's side after his death. Lazarus was not in hell.

Troki says that the commandments are a tree of life for those who take hold of it, implying that life means salvation. On the other hand, Sheol often means grave and not damnation.

 Troki's assertion that the people who died before Jesus must have gone to hell is refuted by Romans 3.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(Romans 3:23-26 ESV)


God had withheld judgment from his followers during the times before Jesus. Their faith was counted to them as righteousness, and their faith in the God of Israel and in the sacrifices was counted to them as faith in Jesus. This withholding of judgment does not apply to Jews today, who, unlike their ancestors, explicitly reject Jesus.

 Troki also forgets that an act which is a sin for those who commit it can also be a glorious act of self-sacrifice and redemption for the sufferer. Otherwise, there would be no merit attached to the suffering of the Jews, or the suffering of the Rebbes. The sin of executing Jesus cannot remove the nobility of his death.

 The claim that the Torah is a tree of life is from Proverbs. The full context is as follows.

    Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
        and the one who gets understanding,
    for the gain from her is better than gain from silver
        and her profit better than gold.
    She is more precious than jewels,
        and nothing you desire can compare with her.
    Long life is in her right hand;
        in her left hand are riches and honor.
    Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
        and all her paths are peace.
    She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;
        those who hold her fast are called blessed.
(Proverbs 3:13-18 ESV)


It is more than a stretch to think that the Torah is God's means of salvation from this passage. It addresses wisdom, giving a poetic account of the benefits of this personified wisdom.

Troki needs to make up his mind as to whether "life" means spiritual life or not. If so, then one can make a case that Adam's sin brought spiritual death. If not, then the appeal to Leviticus 18:5 is fallacious. I agree that the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin is unbiblical and false. We do not inherit Adam's guilt, nor do we inherit a sin nature. Instead, we all sin, and are damned for it. 

God is so perfect that he can have no sin in his presence. One sin, and you are damned. The sin has to be removed somehow, and it is through the offer of Jesus to take our place that we can repent and believe. As King David said:

     Enter not into judgment with your servant,
        for no one living is righteous before you.
(Psalm 143:2 ESV)


And Paul responds in his letter to the Romans.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Romans 10:9-13 ESV)  

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Presuppositionalism Under the Microscope

Introduction
While most Christians will agree that there is a need to defend the faith, many will not realize that there is a debate regarding methodologies. This paper will address the various apologetics methods, and then analyze before critiquing the relatively new method of presuppositionalism. While this method has a lot to offer from a practical apologetics standpoint, it cannot be held rationally as a worldview. This paper will give seven reasons why this is the case.
Brief Overview of Apologetic Methodologies
            Before addressing presuppositionalism, an introduction to other apologetic methodologies is in order. The main form of apologetics used historically is called Classical Apologetics. Under this method, the apologist gives arguments for the existence of God, and then proceeds to develop Christian evidences for the Christian worldview. Arguments like the moral argument, and other reason-based argumentation tend to dominate this method.
            If classical apologetics is a two-step method, evidentialism is a one-step method. The evidentialist will usually forego rationalistic argumentation and will simply bring out evidences for the Christian worldview. The method of Gary Habermas is an example of evidentialism.
            Those methods as well as presuppositionalism are the main methods of apologetics. There are others as well, such as fideism, which tells people to just believe without argument. Polemical apologetics seeks to attack other worldviews. There are cumulative case methods of apologetics, where two worldviews face off for which one better answers life’s deepest questions. There is also eclectic apologetics, which seeks to borrow methods from other schools of apologetics depending on the need.
This brings the discussion to presuppositionalism, which seeks to examine the underlying assumptions of any worldview. In short, presuppositionalism states that one’s foundational views are the only truly relevant factor in discussing worldviews. The founder of modern presuppositionalism is Cornelius van Til.
Van Til
            Cornelius Van Til was one of the founding members of Westminster Theological Seminary, and a staunch Calvinist. Van Til had a holistic view of knowledge, whereby people cannot disagree regarding their most fundamental assumptions about reality while agreeing upon everything else. He saw as flawed the classical approach to apologetics where the apologist builds his case based upon pieces of evidence. This is like building a house brick by brick. Van Til believed, based on his holistic view of knowledge, that all truths depend upon Scripture, as does our knowledge of it. As a result, his apologetic methodology sought to import the entire Christian worldview wholesale before defending it. This is more like importing an entire pre-built house.
            Van Til’s thinking can be illustrated in terms of scientific models. Under the geocentric solar system, the idea that everything revolves around the Earth is the core foundational assumption. The Ptolemaic model drove all research into the motion of heavenly bodies. All discoveries presupposed the doctrine of geocentrism.
After Copernicus developed the heliocentric model, astronomers began conducting research based on the assumption that everything revolves around the Sun. The same observations were made between the geocentric school and the heliocentric school. However, it became difficult for the two views to dialogue. Both had the same sense data, and yet had wildly different conclusions. The geocentrist could only fully understand the teachings of the heliocentrists by climbing into their assumptions and seeing the solar system from that perspective.
According to Van Til, those who are not regenerate are like the geocentrists. Because their fundamental assumptions are wrong, their research as a whole is ultimately unreliable. Van Til equates unbelief with geocentrism. Those who do not have a  Bible-centered worldview have the wrong foundational assumptions, and therefore produce knowledge which as a whole is suspect. Van Ti writes:
Is there something in which believers in Christianity and disbelievers agree? Is there an area known by both, from which, as a starting point, we may go on to that which is known to believers but unknown to unbelievers? And is there a common method of knowing this “known area” that need only be applied to what the unbeliever does not know in order to convince him of its existence and its truth? It will not do to assume at the outset that these questions must be answered in the affirmative. For the knower himself needs interpretation as well as the things he knows. The human mind, it is now commonly recognized, as the knowing subject, makes its contribution to the knowledge it obtains. It would be quite impossible then, to find a common area of knowledge between believers and unbelievers unless there is an agreement between them as to the nature of man himself. But there is no such agreement.[1]
According to Van Til, there is no point of contact between believers and unbelievers, and therefore no common ground. Our views of reality are too different.
Van Til’s Successors
Greg Bahnsen’s beliefs are more nuanced. He affirms that there is common ground between believers and unbelievers.[2]The difference is that in Bahnsen’s view, all people subconsciously believe in God. Bahnen writes “[I]t is utterly impossible that ther should be any neutral ground, any territory or facet of reality where man is not confronted with the claims of God, any area of knowledge where the theological issue is inconsequential.”[3] In chapter 10, titled “Common Ground Which Is Not Neutral” Bahnsen writes “The foregoing considerations not only establish tha there is no neutral ground between the believers and unbelievers, but that there is also ever present common ground between the believer and the unbeliever.”[4]All of their beliefs presuppose him, and therefore, it is the job of the apologist merely to show that this is the case.[5]John Frame sides with Bahnsen on this issue. Frame argues that unbelievers can know many things, and that this knowledge is considered common knowledge. The reason, according to Frame, that believers and unbelievers have common knowledge is that unbelievers know God and base their belief systems upon that knowledge. Unbelievers, however, suppress their knowledge of God, who nevertheless, is still the foundation of their belief systems.[6]
Frame also talks about the noetic effects of sin and of conversion. In short, the noetic effects of sin prevent unbelievers from reaching God through a search that begins with human reason. Instead, unbelievers suppress the truth and require conversion to undo this effect. While unbelievers have possessed a rational view of some parts of the world, all systems of unbelief will never be able to produce a fully coherent picture of reality.[7]According to Frame, the difference between the unbeliever and the believer is not one of degree but of direction. The result of conversion, according to Frame, is a complete paradigm shift.[8]
What all three authors have in common is the belief that sin affects the human ability to obtain knowledge. Because of original sin, humanity is totally unable to have an awareness of the human knowledge of God. As a result, regeneration is necessary for man to have a saving faith in God. Evidential apologetics seeks to start with common beliefs, and then build a case for God from those beliefs. Presuppositionalism states that all facts presuppose God as their foundation. Hence, all arguments for and against the existence of God presuppose the existence of God. Therefore, apologists need to help the unbeliever realize this inconsistency in non-Christian worldviews.
Problems
            In order to critique presuppositionalism, one must differentiate between presuppositionalism as a method and presuppositionalism as a worldview. The former is simply a practical way of defending the faith. This paper will not go into detail about this aspect, since the utility of the method is somewhat subjective. Presuppositionalism as a worldview seeks to define human knowledge in such a way as to deny the existence of neutral facts and neutral criteria. Under the worldview interpretation, presuppositional apologetics is not merely a useful tool in the apologist’s toolbox; it is the only legitimate tool.
Presuppositionalism as a method has much going for it. It delivers a refreshing change in methodology by placing the burden of proof back on the unbeliever. In addition, it takes the psychology of unbelief seriously. Many unbelievers admit that their real reason for unbelief is due to factors other than the intellectual plausibility of the existence of God. Bahnsen also stumbled upon a very powerful argument against unbelief. By employing David Hume’s arguments against unbelief, Bahnsen was able to show that metaphysical naturalism has a very difficult time attempting to explain how human beings can know anything.
The problems with presuppositionalism do not stem from its methodology, but from the worldview behind the methodology. If presuppositionalism were merely a pragmatic form of apologetics, there would be no reason to criticize it. Apologists, after all, are free to use whatever method works. The problem is that many presuppositionalists, such as Van Til, base their method on a flawed model of human understanding. This flawed model harms not only their theology, but also causes them to reject arguments and methods which might otherwise be helpful.
            The first issue with presuppositionalism is that it is a textbook case of circular reasoning. There is no need to get into detail about it here, since most of its proponents are happy to oblige that their method is a form of circular reasoning. Cornelius Van Til writes “To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning.”[9] In a footnote, the editor explains that against charges of circular reaoning, Van Til states that such reasoning is appropriate. John Frame concurs with Van Til. “The point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion, whether Scripture, the Koran, human reason, sensation, or whatever, one must use criteria compatible with that conclusion. If that is circularity, then everybody is guilty of circularity.”[10] Frame goes on to argue that there are no neutral facts or neutral criteria.[11]
What they do not appear to realize is that circular reasoning is itself fallacious. It is indistinguishable from bare assertion. If I argue that miracles are impossible because they never happen, I might be asked to give a reason for why one should think that miracles never happen. If I then argue that miracles never happen because they are impossible, it would make the argument circular. Such an argument would be fallacious because in such a situation, I would be just as well off by pounding the table and asserting that miracles are impossible. At the very least, such an approach would be more honest. Because circular argumentation collapses into bare assertion, it follows that circular arguments are not really arguments at all, but cleverly disguised assertions.
If all argumentation were ultimately circular, it would follow that all argumentation is no different than bare assertion. Any argument one could give to claim that all argumentation is circular would itself either be circular or not. If it is not circular, then the argument for the circularity of all arguments is self-refuting. If such an argument were circular, however, then it would be nothing more than a bare assertion, and hence not a true argument. This fact that argumentation is not ultimately circular is also in no way undercut by one’s inability to explain how argumentation is not circular. That is a completely different question for a completely different paper. Even if no one could ever explain how it is that we have non-circular argumentation, such would only prove our own lack of research into the subject, but could never provide justification for the notion that all argumentation is circular for the same reason that no argument could provide justification into denying the law of non-contradiction.
Second, presuppositionalism underestimates the power of common grace. Even the Calvinist theology textbooks recognize that God gives grace not only to the elect, but also to all of humanity. Specifically, common grace is the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation. As John 19:9 states “the true light enlightens every man.” Common grace allows unbelievers to distinguish truth from error. All science and technology carried out by unbelievers is the result of common grace. But wait. If common grace is this powerful, then why wouldn’t it be strong enough for us to do classical apologetics? Presuppositionalists cannot give a good answer to this question.
Third, presuppositionalism confuses ontological priority with epistemic priority. Ontological priority means that something has to exist in order for something else to exist. Epistemic priority means that you have to know one thing in order to know another thing. Consider the two statements: “If God does not exist, then our intuitions about reality are not justified” (a claim about ontological priority) with: “If you do not believe in God, your intuitions about reality are not justified” (a claim about epistemic priority). These are completely different claims. I agree that God needs to exist in order to justify our intuitions about what is and is not moral. However, it does not follow that we need to believe in God in order to act morally.
Fourth, presuppositionalism presupposes a highly controversial theory of knowledge. Remember that Cornelius Van Til said that we can have no common beliefs with unbelievers because we do not share the same foundation for those beliefs. This presupposes a theory of knowledge that I will call Narrow Foundationalism. This method seeks to build an entire system of knowledge on a very narrow foundation. However, there are numerous other epistemologies that may be viable as well. An example is Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology. In this system, Plantinga argues that our beliefs are not like bricks in a skyscraper, where a small foundation holds up a massive structure.
Rene Descartes tried to build his entire system of knowledge on a small foundation of indubitable beliefs. The project was ultimately a failure. Today, epistemologists who hold to a foundationalist system will try to base their beliefs on a more modest foundation, coming up with criteria such as incorrigibility as criteria for being the foundation. This too, may be too restrictive. In fact, most of the beliefs we hold are not based upon a foundation of other beliefs. My belief that I am seeing a light is not based on some pre-existing belief, nor is it based on any sort of an argument. The belief pretty much forms automatically. Plantinga argued that most of our beliefs are like this. They can be held prima facie unless they are undercut by a defeater. They are not like bricks in a skyscraper, but like bricks scattered throughout a parking lot. Most beliefs are basic, and a small percentage of them are built upon other beliefs. If this system of knowledge, or something like it turns out to be true, then the entire foundational belief of Van Til comes crashing to the ground.
Fifth, presuppositionalism often forgets that Christianity is, at least in principle, falsifiable. Christianity makes claims that can be tested historically. As Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
The skeptic John Loftus is absolutely right about presuppositional apologetics. Christianity makes a lot of claims about what did and did not happen in history. This includes miracles, such as the resurrection of Jesus, as well as ordinary historical events, such as the mass exodus from Egypt by the Israelites, the kingdom of Solomon and the building of the temple, the exile to Babylon, the return from exile. In the New Testament it contains names of real life cities such as Capernaum, Antioch, Jerusalem, Bethsaida. It contains the life of Jesus and the life of Paul. All of these events are subject to historical investigation.
Presuppositionalism undermines historical investigation because it seeks to presuppose a lot more than the existence of God. While using a presuppositional approach regarding the existence of God is arguable viable, presupposing the whole Christian worldview is not. Christianity is saturated with historical claims which can be investigated. One can simply take these historical claims on faith, but to do so is to abandon apologetics and embrace fideism. One can simply bite the bullet and claim that the presuppositionalist must believe a priori all historical truths in the Bible in order to know anything, but this seems obviously false. The historical claims of Christianity were not always true. In the Old Testament period for example, no one knew or would have guessed that Messiah would have been God in the flesh, and who would have undergone crucifixion for our sins. However, these Old Testament saints presumably did have real knowledge even though they could not possibly have presupposed the core historical claims of the Christian faith. You cannot presuppose disputable historical events prior to investigating whether or not those events took place and expect to be taken seriously as an apologist.
Sixth, Van Til’s apologetic might not even be Christian, but may be merely theistic. John Johnson gives a devastating critique as to why Van Til’s system is wholly inadequate when addressing other faiths, such as Islam. Van Til argues from Romans 1:18-21 that non-Christians suppress the truth, and that a presuppositional technique is necessary. However, this section of the Bible deals with knowledge of God, but not theological issues about the Trinity, Jesus, salvation by grace through faith alone, etc. [12]Instead, it only says that unbelievers are without excuse for denying monotheism. Paul reinforces this in Acts 17, when he talks about the statue to an unknown God. Paul deals with the Athenians on their own ground.
A more practical example is what I call Artscroll Judaism. This is a fundamentalist sect of Orthodox Judaism, with its own think tanks which can give you an answer to anything. Anyone who is willing to take the leap into the system will find it every bit as coherent as one would find the Reformed Christian view.
            John Warwick Montgomery gives a fable about a conversation between two presuppositionalists from two different religions: the Shadok religion, and the Gibi religion.
Shadok: You will never discover the truth, for instead of subordinating yourself to revelational truth (The Shadok Bible) you sinfully insist on maintaining the autonomy of your fallen intellect.
Gibi: Quite the contrary. [He repeats the same assertion substituting the Gibi Bible for the Shadok Bible.] And I say this not on the basis of my sinful ego but because I have been elected by the Gibi God.
Shadok: Wrong again! [He repeats the exact same claim, substituting Shadok Election for Gibi Election.] Moreover, the sovereign election of which I am the unworthy recipient has been the very work of God the Shadok Holy Spirit. And all of this is clearly taught in the self-validating Scripture of our people, which, I should not have to reiterate, derives from the true God and not from sinful, alledgedly autonomous man.
Gibi: How dare you invert everything. [He laboriously repeats the preceding argument, substituting Gibi election, the Gibi Holy Spirit, and the Gibi Bible.]
Shadok: Absurd! This is the inevitable result of your colored glasses.
Gibi: It is you who have the glasses cemented to your face. Mine have been transparent through sovereign grace and Gibi election, as proclaimed by the Gibi God’s word.
Shadok: Your religion is but the inevitable byproduct of sin—a tragic effort at self-justification through idolatry. Let’s see what the Shadok God really says about his word.
Gibi: I will not listen to your alleged “facts.” Unless you start with the truth, you have no business interpreting facts at all. Let me help you by interpreting facts revelationally.
Shadok: Of course you will not listen to the proper interpretation of facts. Blinded by your sin, you catch each fact as you would a ball—and then you throw it into a bottomless pit.
Gibi: That’s what you do with what I say—a clear proof of your hopeless, pseudo-autonomous condition. May the Gibi God help you.
Shadok: May the Shadok God help you![13]
As Montgomery notes, this encounter is hopeless, since neither side can appeal to neutral facts to solve the dispute. Both sides are reduced to chest-thumping, loud assertion, and empty fideism.
Furthermore, to use a criterion like consistency to evaluate one religious system against another, as James White is so famous for doing, is to deny the heart of presuppositionalism. This is because presuppositionalism, by its very nature, denies the existence of neutral facts and that of neutral criteria with which to evaluate these facts.
Seventh, and perhaps the most damning of all, is a problem called incommensurability, which is parallel to a problem found in Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. This argument is thanks to my colleague Donald Dicks, who brought this to my attention. Kuhn sought to explain the history of science revolves around paradigms. The paradigm is the foundational set of assumptions that any scientific system has. All scientific facts, according to Kuhn, are paradigm-determined. When scientific revolutions occur, the paradigm changes and all the data have to be reinterpreted. This is exemplified in the scientific switch from geocentrism to heliocentrism. The change, according to Kuhn, is like a religious conversion experience, where the world remakes itself before the eyes of the scientists. These are not forced by logic and reason, and dry neutral facts. The battle cannot be resolved by proofs. There is no neutral language to state either theory. The reasons that scientists accept new theories are not necessarily logical or rational, because each scientific model contains not just the paradigm in which scientists interpret the facts, but also the criteria by which scientists would be able to evaluate one system against another. This view has fallen greatly out of favor in the mainstream philosophy of science. The philosopher of science Imre Lakatos explains why.
In Kuhn’s view there can be no logic, but only psychology of discovery. For instance, in Kuhn’s conception, anomalies, inconsistencies, always abound in science, but in normal periods the dominant paradigm secures a pattern of growth which his eventually overthrown by a crisis. There is no particular rational cause for the appearance of a Kuhnian crisis. Crisis is a psychological concept; it is a contagious panic. Then a new paradigm emerges, incommensurable with its predecessor. There are no rational standards for their comparison. Each paradigm contains its own standards. The crisis sweeps away not only the old theories and rules but also the standards which made us respect them. The new paradigm brings totally new rationality. There are no super-paradigmatic standards. The change is a bandwagon effect. Thus in Kuhn’s view, scientific revolution is isrrational, a matter for mob psychology.[14]

Without neutral facts and without neutral criteria, there can be no evaluation of one worldview against another. If this assumption is applied to presuppositionalism itself, then there can be no argument which would set presuppositionalism as superior to evidentialism. To say that there is such an argument is to contradict the foundational assumptions of presuppositionalism. To admit that there is no such argument is to admit that the presuppositionalist cannot, even in principle, have any case for his worldview. To this I respond: amen. If we take the foundational assumptions of presuppositionalism to their logical conclusion, it becomes obvious that any argument that one can possibly give for presuppositionalism would be self-refuting. Hence, any presuppositionalist who advances any argument for his worldview has already contradicted the very foundational assumptions which he is trying to defend. To deny neutral facts is no different than denying the law of non-contradiction. The very attempt is in principle futile.


[1] Van Til. 84.
[2] Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (New York: Covenant Media Press, 1996), page 43.
[3] Bahnsen, 45.
[4] Bahnsen, 43.
[5] Ibid., 123.
[6] John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: an Introduction (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 1994), page 83.
[7] Steven B. Cowan, ed., Five Views On Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000), page 212.
[8] Cowen, 214.
[9] Van Til, 130.
[10] Frame 10.
[11] Frame, 12.
[12]Johnson, 266.

[13]Montgomery, 114-115.
[14]Lakatos, 178.