The Chi Files

The Truth is Out There… John 17:17

Going Deeper on the Citizenship Analogy

By

I posted my rhetorical question on one’s citizenship being “in Christ” (or, the Kingdom of Heaven, properly speaking) in a Facebook group. This generated the following dialogue.

Howie Dyano:

Interesting analogy. A question, though: how do we distinguish apostates from those in the faith using the framework of your analogy?

Tom:

I’m not certain what you mean, so apologies if I don’t hit it dead on.

The etymology of “apostate” actually works hand-in-glove with this analogy. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/apostate

A Christian is one who simply remains in the Kingdom of Heaven that Christ the High King has called them into (the zip code they were baptized into). His work; we’re just the peasants who have the good fortune to be part of it.

An apostate is one who fils out a change of address form to transfer to a different zip (paganism, atheism, etc.). Their work.

Hence, you have monergism without double predestination.

Identifying apostates can be hard if they don’t wear it on their sleeves. But the distinction between them and Christians is easy: in Christ’s zip, or not.

Howie Dyano:

Tom… My question meant how does one know there zip code is in Christ? An apostate was baptized, too, after all. Is it possible one who shows desire to be in Christ and sincerely fears God is? I’m trying to distinguish how two people who were baptized can distinguish true faith without looking to themselves. Are you saying those who are apostate are only those who consciously confess something other than the Christian faith?

Tom:

“I’m trying to distinguish how two people who were baptized can distinguish true faith without looking to themselves.”

I’m not sure that goal can be endorsed by scripture. Matthew 7 is instructive here. Why would Jesus mention knowing false teachers by their works if looking at what people do is not an admissible indicator of their “residence” so to speak?

“Are you saying those who are apostate are only those who consciously confess something other than the Christian faith?”

No, and this gets at Matt 7 again with the many who will say “Lord, Lord.”

So here’s the rub, from the standpoint of my analogy:

I just gassed up and had to use my zip code. Suppose I had moved, but not changed my address on file with my bank – I’d still need to put in my old zip to complete the transaction.

Suppose further that I kept using my old zip on letters and shipping labels.

Over time, the disparity between my proclamation of a non-applicable zip and the reality of my living situation would start to become very noticeable.

Not getting bank statements. Not getting my Amazon packages. No one returning my letters.

I profess to live at zip code X, but when I park my car for the night it’s at zip code Y. (These people punch my zip code in with their fingers, but their domicile is far from me.)

This inconsistency, this “out of sync” situation that exists as a result of me professing one reality, but living according to something else, should tip me and anyone watching off to the fact that, no indeed, I don’t live in the zip code I profess to.

Hence, according to this example/analogy, I would be an apostate.

Thanks be to God that he’s still got the Keys to my old domicile in zip code: Christ, and I’m welcome to move back in even though I left the place pretty messy.

Long-Shot Theory on Narsil

By

Was Narsil, the sword of Elendil in the Lord of the Rings, an allusion to Christ?

Hear me out, and judge for yourself.

It must be admitted that, while Tolkien was a devout man, he hated allegorical fiction—which for many militates against the idea of any allusion to Christ showing up at all. That said, he went so far as to refer to LOTR as a “thoroughly Catholic work.” One infers this meant that his faith informed much of the categories he dealt with in writing, even if there is no “Aslan” as such.

For instance, I’ve heard it well argued that Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn reflect the trifold messianic office of Prophet, Priest, and King (HT Eric Brown and Michael J. Kruger).

So what about the sword?

I recently noticed that it’s often called “the sword that was broken.”

This type of construction (“was salvifically [and paradoxically so] made nothing”) is regularly applied to Christ in scripture.

That is, Christ is “the stone the builders rejected” or, even more of a parallel, “the lamb who was slain.”

The sword that worked salvation for men and elves against Sauron—by cutting the ring from his hand, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat—did so as an explicitly broken sword.

Which was then “resurrected” to doom (read: judge) the enemies of the Kingdom just before the Kingdom was inaugurated.

Is Narsil the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God?

I’m just saying…

Adam’s Natural Body

By

I’m going to put up a series of posts on topics surrounding my firm conviction that Adam had a “natural body” like our own. I think this is required by 1st Corinthians 15, along with simple logic (undergirded by the belief that Adam was a real historical person), but we’ll come to that.

For now, this video has a good bit of my thoughts on the subject.

More to come.

The Alleged “Appearance of Age”

By

I see the “what about the appearance of age?” argument come up a lot in debates over Old/Young Earth Creationism. Generally, the Old Earther wants to make the point that, if God created a 6,000-10,000 year old universe to look like it was millions of years old, He is a deceiver.

But, of course, Young Earth Creationists don’t think the universe looks millions of years old at all. In this, as in anything, starting assumptions dictate the conclusions.

To someone who believes that automobiles are the products of spontaneous magnetic fields attracting bits of iron into a functional arrangement over centuries, a car fresh off the assembly line has “the appearance of age.”

Depending upon your initial presuppositions about what something is caused by and what it should look like at any given stage, an ostensibly infinite number of ages could be assumed for something. The question thus turns on whether the starting assumptions can reliably predict and be justified by the observable data. 

The “what about the appearance of age” argument badly needs to be retired. It’s simply an example of begging the question. A non-starter.

The Leaven of Feminism

By

A month ago, I jumped into a Facebook exchange between a woman offering arguments exemplary of “Christian” feminism and her male interlocutors to observe the following:

The idea that “if the husband is fulfilling his role to love the wife then she will just naturally submit to his headship” is the ultimate escape clause for the feminist.

If we take this as axiomatic (which is the aim of “Christian” feminism), then ANY act of rebellion against the authority of the husband can be justified ad hoc. Simply assert that your rebellion is hubby’s fault for not loving you enough; boom, personal responsibility gone.

Be aware of this leaven.

***

(Dalrock wrote an excellent post on this concept, which he terms “Headship Sleight-of-Hand.” Go read it.)

***

The other thing you’ll see evidenced above is the feminist desire to have authority (autonomy/self authority at least, if not over the rest of the household) without responsibility.

That is, the wife doesn’t have a “boss” but if her autonomous actions get her into a mess then it’s the man’s job to clean it up. He has to sacrificially love her, after all, or he’s not keeping up his end of scripture’s mandate.

This frees up the woman to be a bad-actor without having to be accountable. Heads she wins, tails the man loses.

But in a Biblically-run household there is an order to things: the weight of responsibility lies squarely on the man’s shoulders, but, because his wife is ordered under him, he doesn’t have to worry about her subverting him and thus increasing his burden unnecessarily.

It’s like the first mate sinking the ship through insubordination and then demanding the captain still be the one to go down with it.

Poop or Get Off the Pot

By

My philosophy of apologetics has gone through further revisions and refinements over the years. One of the things that has become more pronounced is my impatience for rabbit trails, smokescreens, and red herrings.

When it comes to someone who wants to argue against the Christian faith, I want to get to the core of his argument immediately. What’s the real hold up? Let’s stop with the diversions, the random distractions, the pointless rhetorical skirmishes, and get to brass tacks.

In another recent Facebook dialogue, I advised someone who was debating an atheist along these lines. Here are the relevant sections of exchange, with names changed. Note, one participant has left Facebook, so part of this will appear one-sided.

Original Post by NewDebater:

So an atheist I was in a debate with unironically used this as an argument. So my question is how do I properly explain the trinity to them in a way they can understand???

Tom:

If you’re dealing with an atheist, the Trinity is the wrong place to start.

Start with the obvious and necessary fact of God’s existence. Obvious because of creation (ergo: needs for a Creator), necessary because only God provides the grounds for reasoning and morality at all.

Next, address original sin and our guilt before a self-definitionally Holy God. We have sinned and fallen short, now what?

Then, turn to Jesus Christ, the appointed propitiation for sins. Did he live, did he die, did he rise? Did he make claims to deity? Lord, liar, or lunatic?

Finally, ask: how is God with us now? (The Holy Spirit)

Until these matters have been addressed, refrain from talking about the Trinity. Even scripture uses a pattern of progressive revelation. If you don’t achieve agreement on each of the prior points (in order), then debating the Trinity is a waste of time. He’s just trying to derail you. One thing at a time.

NewDebater:

The problem is that they are the ones that started from the trinity itself so I do have to start there with them

Tom:

Lefty McGonerson, can you rephrase? What do you mean?

NewDebater: Not if you are the one asking the questions. Get off defense and go on offense: “how do you account for objective morality without God? How do you account for reason? For creation?”

Watch Jason Lisle’s “Ultimate Proof of Creation” (surely on YouTube) and take control of the conversation. If he wants answers, he should be prepared to give a few. Make him defend his own worldview.

Tom (to Lefty McGonerson):

I don’t agree with using questions that put the unbeliever in the place of God.

If you are asking me to put the progression I laid out above into questions, that would be a long list, and one with little utility outside of as an unwieldy reference. Any conversation on these topics can unfold naturally, and the questions will make themselves clear.

That said, asking the atheist how they account for reason, morality, and creation without God is a good place to start. It exposes their soft underbelly: they don’t have an answer, but you do. They are the real adherents to the “god of the gaps” as they don’t have answers but blindly trust in some mysterious, unknowable process to bring the cosmos into being. Showing them that their worldview is rationally bankrupt is a great opening move.

Again, Lisle’s presentation referenced above is great on this. See also Greg Koukl’s book “Tactics.”

Both of those resources should be required viewing/reading for all high school aged Christians. And, of course, older people unfortunate enough to not have been exposed to them sooner.

Tom (to Lefty McGonerson):

Respectful and effective are not mutually exclusive categories.

What I do not do is waste time chasing the atheist’s scattershot criticisms. Like whack-a-mole, you’ll never be able to smack em all down as quickly as they can Google more error to spout.

I’d rather unplug the whole apparatus with a few pointed questions that demonstrate that their worldview is not the “default setting” they believe it is, and atheism must defend its claims just as assuredly as must Christianity.

Finally, as pertaining to the “Christian Logic” meme above, this block has plenty of writings on the logic of the Trinity. I’ll leave interested parties with my one other post on this Facebook thread:

Worth noting: Dr. Michael Heiser’ s work on the ancient Jewish concept of the “two powers in heaven” (after Alan Segal). I’ll attach a short summary article, but may I say that googling “heiser two powers in heaven” will get you some must-watch YouTube material for anyone with a scintilla of interest in the early development of Trinitarian theology.

http://drmsh.com/the-naked-bible/two-powers-in-heaven/

The Curse of Childlessness (is now willingly incurred)

By

In ancient times, for your family line to be cut off rather than represent your house among future generations was considered among the height of curses. Ps 109:13, Mal 2:12.

Now, people are cutting off their family lines like it is nothing, whether by focusing on career and “Self-actualization” until they wake up to a day in which the opportunity to have a family is past, or by deciding against children from the get-go for one reason or another.

Infertility was treated as worth mourning in olden times, because of what that meant, not just to the childless individual, but to the family line as a whole.

The present generation of the west willingly curses itself, and thinks nothing of it.

This will end in tears.

Your great-great-great grandfather would have (and may have) killed someone to defend the honor (and right to continue to exist among the living) of that name you are signing on the consent form for that vasectomy.

Let that sink in before the knife does.

“…[Elijah] will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
– how Malachi ends.

If our nation’s (and our faithful’s) hearts are so far from their children that they will them not to be born, what will our destruction look like?

I’d suggest looking at the preceding verses in that chapter of Malachi for a clue.

Why I don’t believe in a literal six 24-hour day creation period

By

Because I’m a stinker who likes controversial headlines, sometimes.

And because of a technicality.

I’m partial to the idea that a day (defined as a complete revolution of the earth on its axis) was closer to about 24.35 hours at the time.

Why?

Back in 2011, after the Japanese tsunami that did such horrible damage to their nuclear reactor and gave our sea food extra heads (har har), I read this article. It describes the physics of how the length of an earth day had changed the length of a day be 1.8 microseconds due to the shift in the tectonic plates.

To quote at length:

“By changing the distribution of the Earth’s mass, the Japanese earthquake should have caused the Earth to rotate a bit faster, shortening the length of the day by about 1.8 microseconds,” [geophysicist Richard] Gross told SPACE.com in an e-mail. More refinements are possible as new information on the earthquake comes to light, he added.

The scenario is similar to that of a figure skater drawing her arms inward during a spin to turn faster on the ice. The closer the mass shift during an earthquake is to the equator, the more it will speed up the spinning Earth.

One Earth day is about 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds, long. Over the course of a year, its length varies by about one millisecond, or 1,000 microseconds, due to seasonal variations in the planet’s mass distribution such as the seasonal shift of the jet stream.

The initial data suggests Friday’s earthquake moved Japan’s main island about 8 feet, according to Kenneth Hudnut of the U.S. Geological Survey. The earthquake also shifted Earth’s figure axis by about 6 1/2 inches (17 centimeters), Gross added.

The Earth’s figure axis is not the same as its north-south axis in space, which it spins around once every day at a speed of about 1,000 mph (1,604 kph). The figure axis is the axis around which the Earth’s mass is balanced and the north-south axis by about 33 feet (10 meters).

“This shift in the position of the figure axis will cause the Earth to wobble a bit differently as it rotates, but will not cause a shift of the Earth’s axis in space – only external forces like the gravitational attraction of the sun, moon, and planets can do that,” Gross said.

This isn’t the first time a massive earthquake has changed the length of Earth’s day. Major temblors have shortened day length in the past.

The 8.8-magnitude earthquake in Chile last year also sped up the planet’s rotation and shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds. The 9.1 Sumatra earthquake in 2004 shortened the day by 6.8 microseconds.

This led me to speculate that the breaking up of Pangea at the time of the global flood would have had a similar—and degrees of magnitude greater—effect on the speed of earth’s rotation.

But why do I opt for a 24.35 hour day, specifically?

Because I favor a theory that the earth originally made one complete revolution around the sun every 360 days, with twelve 30-day lunar months. I would argue that, as the solar bodies were made “for times and for seasons,” regular intervals of whole-numbers makes sense for an ordered creation. Analogous to a clock.

As the speed at which the earth orbits the sun would not have appreciably changed (to my knowledge, I’m no astrophysicist) by this tectonic shift, and as there are ~8,766 hours in a year, simple math works as follows:

8,766 hours / 360 days (rather than 365.25) = 24.35

So there you have it.

Oh, and I have learned since originally musing about this that I’m not the only one to have this thought. See this article from CreationWiki, which also makes an interesting point about the fact that there are 360 degrees in a circle. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Edit:

I was asked on Twitter:

This is interesting. But why use 7 day weeks if everything else comes out even (besides just to reinforce day of rest)? The Hebrew calendar wobbles around the year. 7 day week does now and still would. Related?

My response:

I think the fact that the 7-day week is uneven is exactly the point. The Sun/Moon/Stars give an observable clocklike regularity to creation that even the pagans can order their activities by. The 7-day week does not come from creation, but from God. By observing it, we honor Him.