An Encouraging Word Concerning Jason L. Petersen’s Apologetics Ministry!

JLPetersenLogoIf you’ve been following my blog for a while now, you’ll know that I wrote an article about a year ago warning people about the apologetics ministry of Jason L. Petersen. At the time, Jason had an article up on his website in which he stated that he did not think the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) was biblical. The article saddened me, and it gave me concern for those who perhaps thought he fully affirmed PSA.

Moving forward in time, I was asked if there were any problems with Jason’s ministry. I voiced my concern, but a friend of Jason’s told me that Jason no longer affirmed that PSA was unbiblical. He said that Jason had some issues with forms of PSA in which Jesus literally (i.e. ontologically) becomes a sinner on Calvary – a version of PSA that I believe all sound Christians reject – but the at that time, when I looked the original article up, it was still there.

Now, fast-forward to the present month. Jason personally messaged me and clarified that he doesn’t object to the doctrine of PSA, as his friend informed me some months ago, but objects to the versions of it that make Jesus into an actual sinner. Jason says that he believes, rather, that Jesus’ death was substitutionary and does not object to the label of PSA, if by that we don’t mean that Jesus actually became an actual sinner (ontologically) but only that bore the punishment due to actual sinners (i.e. he became legally guilty as opposed to ontologically guilty).

I’m glad to hear that Jason has clarified where he stands on this issue, seeing as it is of utmost importance not simply for the sake of one’s ministry, but for the sake of one’s eternal salvation. If you know anyone who is curious about Jason’s beliefs in this matter, please pass this article along to them.

Soli Deo Gloria
-h.

Advertisements

What is a “Philosophical” Argument?

Avoiding the Inexorable Consequences of One’s Beliefs

Since the debate a few weeks ago, I’ve been talking to annihilationists about the foundations on which they build their doctrine. The result has not been very fruitful, as there has been much misunderstanding from the annihilationist camp about the various critiques I have been offering. In the course of our interactions, the accusation arose that we (myself and Michael Burgos from grassrootsapologetics.org) were making “philosophical” arguments and not “Biblical” arguments. The statement bugged me because it is, well, worthless in terms of refuting any singular point that one’s opponent raises in a given discussion. What is worse, however, is the fact that the assertion wrongly identifies logic as philosophy, which are two different things.  Logic is the science of necessary inference; philosophy is a branch of study that involves the study of knowledge (i.e. epistemology), the study of first principles (i.e. metaphysics), the study of being/s (i.e. ontology), and the study of ethics. Logic is prerequisite to all cognition. Philosophy is the fruit of such cognition.

So the accusation that a person is making a “philosophical” argument, as opposed to a Biblical one, is a meaningless assertion. What I’ve noticed, however, is that the accusation occurs when prooftexting is not involved in the argument that one is making, but deduction from a given set of premises (whether Biblical or extrabiblical). Yet this still does not give one grounds to identify the argument as a “philosophical” argument. Why then is this meaningless assertion used? Because it is a way to avoid dealing with the inexorable consequences of one’s beliefs. For instance, if a Romanist’s simultaneous belief in the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary leads us to conclude that if Mary was perpetually a virgin, then Joseph was perpetually subject to sexual temptation, Mary was willfully neglecting her duty to be physically intimate with Joseph and, therefore, guilty of sin and could not have been born without the taint and stain of original sin, will he concede the point? Not at all. Rather, the focus will be shifted. The one who draws out the logical consequences of the Romanist’s idolatry will be shunned as rationalistic, or his arguments will be said to be the fruit of philosophical speculation, or something of that sort. “Mary’s perpetual virginity and immaculate conception,” they will retort, “are a mystery that you must accept, even if you think it is irrational.”

Regarding the annihilationists I mentioned above, a similar course of action was taken. Arguments that work deductively, were identified as “philosophical” and not logical. The one making the assertion had the advantage, because he was then in a position to state that he wa arguing biblically and not philosophically. This move can only be made in one of two ways: (1.)abject ignorance of what philosophy, logic, and theology are, or (2.)a good understanding of the differences between philosophy, logic, and theology, and yet the unwillingness of the one who knows these things to follow his beliefs to their inexorable conclusions.

This is not Christian thinking, but cultic reasoning. And as such, it is completely unfit for all who profess the name of Christ.

I have written some more on this, but I will post it over @ Grassroots Apologetics.

Soli.

Deo.

Gloria.

-h.