Is ethical egoism internally coherent? We should hasten to add that in asking such a question we are not asking whether ethical egoism is good or correct. The latter is a legitimate and important question in its own right, but it is quite distinct from the former, and the answer to that question exceeds the scope of this current examination in any event.

In asking whether ethical egoism is internally coherent, we are interested in learning whether it is able to offer a consistent moral vision, which has a substantial bearing on its viability to function as a norm for moral conduct.¹

Before we can begin to answer the question of whether ethical egoism can (coherently and plausibly) serve as an ultimate moral norm, however, we must first define our terms.
(Continue Reading…)

1. Throughout this post, the terms “ethical” and “moral” are used interchangeably and synonymously with one another.↩

Carl Trueman is making the fat lady sing over at Reformation21 by pounding hard on Wittenberg’s door (and Wheaton’s).

In his latest review of Mark Noll’s book Is the Reformation Over? Trueman answers that it may well be (given the current state of evangelicalism) but also that it ought not be over if evangelicals returned to the roots of the matter.

Trueman argues that the thesis of Noll’s book does not hold up because it attempts to define the relationship between two entities that are quite different - the institutional Roman Catholic Church and a fuzzy and undefined entity called “evangelicalism” which is unsure about its own identity. Along these lines, Trueman remarks:

The major problem with the book, and one which significantly skews some of the analysis, is the central place it accords to the relationship between Catholicism and evangelicalism. Thus, at the outset, we have an institutional church, with clearly defined authority structures, creeds, and an identifiable history – in other words, a self-conscious identity – being discussed in relation to a movement which lacks all of these things and is really only unified by a somewhat nebulous and ill-defined field of family resemblances – and family resemblances which have, over the years, become increasingly vague.

(Continue Reading…)

Here’s an interesting article from First Things with regard to religion and the internet.

The article broadly surveys the internet’s religious landscape - and it is a diverse survey indeed. John MacArthur’s church web site is cited in the article, while Protestant-turned-Catholic [and fundamentalist] e-pologist Steve Ray even catches the attention of the author:

A more personal strain of consumerism leads people such as Stephen Ray to hawk their wares on the web. Ray, the author of several religious books, runs a website called Defenders of the Catholic Faith. On it he features a photo album of his family and his travels, conversion testimonials from readers, and even his own blog. But the primary mission of Defenders of the Catholic Faith is to move product. Books, audio tapes, videos, DVDs—it’s all there, mingled with explanations of “Why I’m Catholic” and lessons about St. Mark. There’s also a press kit describing Ray, showing his upcoming speaking schedule, and telling you how to book him at your event for a mere $600, plus expenses. (That’s for local talks; overnight events are $1,800, plus expenses and, as his site explains, “Steve rarely travels without his wife Janet.”)

Forgive me, but that is really funny (and I’m sure my friend James White would appreciate it as well).

HT: Carl Trueman

“Foundationalism, allied as it was with metaphysical realism and the correspondence view of truth, was undeniably the epistemological king of the Enlightenment era.”¹

Thus quotes Millard Erickson the late Stanley Grenz, concerned that as foundationalism goes and as the correspondence view of truth goes, so goes the concept of truth altogether. “Although neither [Grenz] nor John Franke overtly reject the correspondence view, it is so closely allied with foundationalism that their rejection of the latter seems to entail the negation of the former as well.” (Continue Reading…)

1. Stanley J. Grenz, Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era Baker Academic, 2000), 190.↩

Secularization has been a topic of increasing discussion over the last few years. The political climate and the rise of fundamentalist Islam have brought discussions of public life and religion to the fore. I thought it would be an interesting point of discussion to look into developing a Biblical worldview and to examine whether such a worldview should allow for secularization.

As we seek to develop a Christian worldview, should we incorporate room for the secular? Should there be a mixture of church and state? Should all Christian musicians seek to write and perform worship music exclusively? These questions are all relevant to the believer as he/she interacts with the culture around him/her.
(Continue Reading…)

Peter Leithart is posting on Postfoundationalism with reference to John Franke’s recent ETS lecture on the same topic. There is not much to disagree with in respect to Leithart’s critique of Franke. However, why is it that the default mode of Christian thinking on epistemology is foundationalist? “Moderate” foundationalist, to be sure, but foundationalist nonetheless.
(Continue Reading…)

Tim Challies conducted a rather interesting interview recently of Christian song artist Derek Webb.

You need to read this rather provocative [initial] analysis of that interview by Frank Turk.

We have been examining the vexing question of the relationship between James and Paul and their respective views with regard to justification by works. James has historically been understood as advancing justification by works (cf. James 2:21, 24), while Paul has been understood as denying such a position (cf. Rom 4:2, 5).

Thus far in our series, we have introduced the subject (Part I), laid out the various proposals (Part II), surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common (Part III), and most recently, we scrutinized the immediate and more distant textual context of James 2:14-24 (Part IV).

As a result of the preceding analyses, we have arrived at the following preliminary conclusions: (1) the Greek word that is generally translated “justify” (dikaioō) exhibits a semantic range, and as a result the term can appropriately be glossed either as “declare [someone] to be just or right” or “prove [someone] to be just or right.”²⁹ (2) Key to James’ polemic in Chapter 2 is the function of works – they demonstrate faith to be real (cf. James 2:18). (3) Along these lines, James appeals to Abraham (James 2:21) as one who is “justified by works” as a result of the Akedah (cf. Gen 12:1-12). Furthermore, it is clear from this narrative that Abraham is neither made or declared righteous at this point, but rather he is proven to be righteous (cf. Gen 22:12). Therefore, the “justification of Abraham” refers to his [universal] vindication as a truly righteous man. (4) James continues this line of argumentation in 2:24 when he argues that a man is justified (i.e. proven to be righteous) by works and not by faith only.

We now turn our attention to an analysis of the historical & cultural situation that underlies the composition of the Epistle of James.
(Continue Reading…)

The differences between Paul and James with respect to justification have stimulated considerable debate throughout church history. Are these differences contradictory or are they complementary? If the authors are not in conflict, in what way do they complement each other?

Thus far in our continuing series, we have introduced the subject (Part I), laid out the various proposals (Part II), and we have surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common (Part III).

We have seen that the word commonly translated “to justify” (dikaioō) displays a semantic range and that it can carry either a declarative or a demonstrative force. It may either mean to declare [someone] to be right or just (cf. Rom 8:33-34)²² or it may mean to demonstrate [someone] to be right or just (cf. Luke 16:15; 1 Tim 3:16).

In light of the range exhibited by this and other terms, the immediate textual context must critically inform interpretive decisions made by later readers with regard to which meaning the author had in mind concerning specific terms.

Our series continues now with an examination of the immediate and more distance textual context of James 2:14-24.
(Continue Reading…)

In case you missed it, there was some interesting interaction between Al Mohler and former US President Jimmy Carter with regard to Mohler’s review of Carter’s book, Our Endangered Values, America’s Moral Crisis.

Mohler’s original review can be found here, while Carter’s response is here.

HT: Ligon Duncan from the Alliance blog.

Second, here’s an article that discusses recent anti-aging research that I also found to be quite interesting - perhaps you will as well.