Category: Uncategorized

Kenneth Gentry

I like a lot of Kenneth Gentry’s work on preterism and on the book of Revelation, its dating and the way that it refers to first century events in a way that some people miss.

I didn’t know he had said anything about the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the annihilationist viewpoint in particular, until tonight. I’ll never know exactly what he has to say, except that he thinks annihilationism is bad. Apparently he once gave a one hour lecture on the subject and you can listen to it for nine bucks. He’s pretty sure that he did a good job, because the lecture is called “Annihilationism Annihilated.” Here’s the description:

In this two hour lecture given at Christ College, Gentry sets out the annihilationist objections to eternal hell, then analyzes the annihilationist argument exposing its superficial nature.

Given that, as far as I know (and yes this could just be my ignorance at work), the man has no reputation as an expert on the subject (and I say that as someone who makes a habit of trying to stay on top of “who’s who” in the field), I am somewhat surprised to see this – for sale at least – and I was surprised to see it called “Important critique of the resurging annihilationist view.” I had never even heard of the critique until now. I think it’s a tactical mistake, but one that works in my favour, both because of the way the confidence is presented in a form that closely resembles flippancy, and also because it is very obviously marketed to those who share Dr Gentry’s view. Annihilationism would be helped if all of its critics worked this way: preaching over-confident sermons to the choir.

No serious, fair assessment of annihilationism will yield the conclusion that the arguments in its favour are “superficial.” And unlike Dr Gentry, I have self consciously titled and marketed (for free) my materials on the subject in a way that is genuine about not merely impressing those who share my view, but reaching out and explaining the reasons for that view to those who are hostile to it.

So here’s a reminder to those who haven’t encountered it before: For not a single penny, you can listen to my three part series on the doctrine of eternal punishment where I outline and defend the claim that annihilationism is biblical and then one by one address the arguments against annihilationism in an effort to show that those who use them have engaged in either fallacious reasoning or poor hermeneutics of Scripture.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Also over in the Theology Articles at my site, you can check out my published response to the work of Robert Peterson, the most vocal evangelical opponent of annihilationism. You can see his reply to that article, and my follow up, where I explain why his response is ineffective.

Whether or not it’s an “important” critique is something that you can decide that for yourself, but it won’t cost you a bean.

Glenn Peoples

When we can, we should support food production and supply that has as little impact on the environment as possible. But does this always mean favouring local made food over imported food? Foodie knows various recipes and their taste.

In that bastion of interventionism and state-molded markets, the UK, there has been much talk about the environmental unfriendliness of imported food. This is because, so the argument goes, food that has to be transported longer distances requires more greenhouse gasses to be emitted in getting it to its final destination due to additional transportation energy that is consumed in the process. As everyone knows, CO2 is the devil and global warming is about to kill us all, so importing food is a bad idea for the planet. Right? And so the answer is put artificial pressure on the market by introducing what is effectively a tariff – an imported food tax to discourage people from buying better or more affordable in the interests of buying domestic products. The Richardsons Smoke House provide the best food and drinks for you.

I’m not even going to touch the global warming/climate change issue here or even the issue of tariffs in general, I’m just bringing this subject up at all because of a piece I saw today in a fish and chip shop’s copy of the University of Otago magazine. Fish and chip shops being what they are, it’s not a recent issue – October 2007. The story is by Dr Niven Winchester (pictured) of the University’s Department of Economics. I would suggest you to check Saab Bio Power to know information related with climate change & global warming.

Obviously with a fairly geographically isolated country like New Zealand, which depends as heavily as it does on exports, the prospect of other countries making it harder for our products to be sold there is a troubling one for our economy. But what if this tough talk on imports just amounted to economic redneckery (I claim ownership of that word) dressed up as genuine scientific concern, riding a wave of environmental hysteria?

What Dr Winchester points out is as follows:

Researchers at Lincoln University have … found that, having accounted for CO2 emissions from production and transportation, New Zealand lamb and dairy products supplied to UK supermarkets generate, respectively, around one fourth and one half of the CO2 generated by the supply of UK alternatives.

As it turns out, if food was carbon taxed, imported food from New Zealand would still be cheaper, and a move to restrict imports and towards food produced int he UK, CO2 emissions would increase and not decrease. Oh dear, our UK greenie friends. Maybe free trade is your friend after all…

Glenn Peoples

A few episodes ago in my podcast I made a reference to the fact that Helen Clarke’s Labour Government was seriously talking about the possibility of allowing accused people to be re-tried for the same offense. I used it as an example of how extremely totalitarian the views of our Prime Minister really are. I would never have thought – at the time – that such a sinister move would ever find wide support. I noted an extraordinary outlandish point of view, and moved on.

Today I confess to being somewhat gobsmacked. As my friend Madeleine over at M and M has noted, this is now a reality in New Zealand. Somehow the label “Communist Re-trial” didn’t appeal, so it has been called the “Criminal Procedure Bill.” And it’s not just the Left that supported it. It gained enough support in parliament to be passed last night.

As Madeleine explains, given the normal practice of one accusation, one trial:

So we are left having to accept that once a court has heard a case, weighed the evidence and ruled, that’s that. Allowing the state to keep having a go because despite the court’s assessment, the state “know” this person is guilty (or worse because of trial by media, the public “know”) is to give the state far too much power and to give society far too much uncertainty in the justice system. Whilst it may succeed in increasing the chances of nailing the guilty it equally runs the risk of allowing the state to run trial after trial after trial with its vast resources against the innocent.

Labour undid hundreds of years of jurisprudence on human rights formulated by far greater legal and ethical minds than any of them possess in one sitting last night. Just remember that next time you decide that someone guilty got off after listening to the 8 second soundbite on the news or reading the 600 word article in the Herald; if a judge and 12 of your peers who heard all of the evidence, got to see the body-language and hear the tone of voice of the witnesses ruled the other way, maybe they were in a better position to assess the case. If the police failed to build their case then tough. If anything, knowing they can have a second crack will encourage them proceed with a lower standard of evidence.

Well said.

The Bill, which will become law soon, also allows a guilty verdict to be reached by only 11 of the 12-person jury.

Seig Helen.

A while back I posted on the fact that the median income earning household in New Zealand literally cannot afford the median priced house.

Well, it gets better. In today’s newspaper (Otago Daily Times) we read that NZ homes have now become literally the least affordable in the entire world, based on NZ incomes.

The findings come from a survey of the world’s six most expensive housing markets.

Demographia, the international survey business run by Hugh Pavletich, of Christchurch, and Wendell Cox, of the United States, released its fourth annual report showing New Zealand had slipped drastically on an international scale.

The United States, Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada and New Zealand were studied and the results revealed house hunters here are in the most hopeless position, earning so little, yet facing astronomical property prices.

Wages are so low and house prices are so excessive that it takes 18 years and six months of a household’s entire annual income to afford a home before food and living expenses, Demographia found.

That’s 18 years and six months of not eating or having electricity, telephone or running water, pouring every single cent of income into paying for a house. How does that compare with the other five most expensive countries? Like this (these figures are from the front page of the print edition): If you are looking for houses in affordable price then do visit AquaLib .

New Zealand: 18 years, 6 months

Australia: 17 years, 9 months

Britain: 14 years, 1 month

Ireland: 9 years, 6 months

USA: 8 years, 3 months (This is where we plan on moving to)

Canada: 7 years, 9 months

We can’t wait to get out.

So let’s say you decide to get qualified. All the way to the top – you decide you’re going to get a PhD. Why stop halfway? That’s a very long time as a student, during which you won’t have a proper income to save up for a house. But hey, with a PhD your income will be well above average, which will compensate for the time lost, right? Wrong – because during that time, house prices double, even triple in some cases. When you get your prized degree, it occurs to you that there are only six Universities in the whole country (well, six real ones, and a handful of training colleges of various kinds), and the chances of you landing a job at one of them with your new degree in hand are virtually nil. So let’s forget the compensation of a higher income in NZ because of your degree.

So let’s see, now you’ve spent many years getting a degree in New Zealand that won’t get you a higher income in New Zealand because the taxpayer funded mafia control and own the education racket (no competition there!), the same mafia which, coincidentally implemented very hefty regulation that deliberately and severely restricted the availability and hugely increased the cost of land for urban housing meaning that once you got your degree, not only was it worthless in regard to your income, but now you’ve not a snowball’s chance in hell of ever buying a home in this country. Simply click for more info about real estate agent in mooloolaba.

Oh, you think I’m exaggerating? Nope. It’s official. New Zealanders, as a rule, can’t afford to own a home.

According to the Fairfax Media home loan affordability index:

It now takes 80.0% of one median income to pay the mortgage on a median priced house purchased in September, down from August’s 80.6%. This index reached a high of 80.9% in June 2007.

No, that is not a typo. Eighty percent. Oh, and it gets better. “With house prices still high, the median income for a typical buyer is not high enough to buy a median priced house, even with a 20% deposit.” TWENTY percent. So if somehow you’d robbed a bank while you were getting those degrees and stashed away a twenty percent deposit, you still couldn’t do it.

[sarcasm]State control of education and property development. Gotta love it. It’s just so good for our future.[/sarcasm]

One guess whether or not PhD grads will be staying in New Zealand for long.

If you’re not a Calvinist, fine. If you think it’s not true or unbiblical, fine. I think you’re probably wrong, but fine. Even if you don’t believe it, and you haven’t really looked into the issue, fine. But what’s not fine is to substitute pointless and biased comparisons for intelligent reflection. Take this for example. Here’s a sample:

Pursuant to research I am doing for a project I was reading the Koran & found a striking similarity between Islam & Calvinism in the area of predestination and fatalism. The two theological systems have an almost identical view of God [emphasis added], which is clearly at odds with the Arminian & Judaic views. Muslims believe nothing happens unless God wills it — including sinful choices by humans (a mirror image of Calvin’s POV).

Obviously Calvinism is a system couched in Christianity & of course Islam is not. However, I find the similarities striking & noteworthy. I’m interested to hear the Calvinist perspective on this similarity.

For now – never mind the claim that Calvinism differs with Judaism (in particular, the Old Testament of the Christian Bible) on the issue of sovereignty. He’s wrong, but let’s ignore that for now. What the heck is the point of noting a similarity between Islam and Calvinism (assuming for now that there is one). Is it so that Christians will say “oooo, Calvinism is like Islam, that’s bad. Calvinism is bad”? The bias and transparently selective nature of this kind of pointless activity makes it intellectually worthless in my opinion. Here’s a beautiful example: You’ve all heard or read advocates of Open Theism say that other views – especially [spooky voice]Calvinism[/spooky voice] are just too influenced by “pagan Greek” philosophy, right? But those same people just don’t care that the same syngergism and openness is duplicated in the pagan Greek and Roman myths.

Never mind the fact that Mormonism and the Jehovah’s witnesses, along with plenty of non-Christian religions, are synergistic like Arminianism.

Hey, don’t debate – associate!

I’m back, and it is shortly after the turn of the clocks into New Year’s Day, 2007. Happy New Year!

Saddam Hussein = dead. I wanted to wait a day after his death before blogging on this, to see some of the reactions. As expected, they vary considerably. Here is a selection of comments from prominent individuals on the sentence.

The one that irks me the most is this, from Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI’s top prelate for justice issues:

Saddam’s execution punishes “a crime with another crime. … The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the state.”

So execution is a crime? I wonder if Cardinal Martino is aware of the role played by Cardinals in the Inquisition. Is he saying that his Church engaged in crimes?

But this for a Cardinal, is appalling. He knows that the Bible unequivocally institutes the death penalty for murder. He knows that the state is referred to as God’s agent, excercising wrath on His behalf. To what, or whom, does he think he is appealing?

Saddam’s death was horrible I’m sure. Death is. And he deserved it. Cardinal Martino, are you telling me that the office of the Holy Inquisition is justified in having a person executed for heresy, but Saddam ought not to have been executed for mass murder?

I recently made these comments over at Theologyweb (which is worth checking out if you haven’t already – see my links page). I thought some people might find them worthwhile here.

I’m a Protestant. That means many things. Some Protestants are more Protestant than others, but at very least, they have this in common: We aren’t Roman Catholic, and we aren’t part of the Orthodox Church – by which I mean the church of that name, I don’t mean that we’re “unorthodox,” although some might think we are. There are a lot of differences between Protestants and Catholics (and the Orthodox). I’m not going to say anything about most of those differences here, but that’s not because I think they’re minor. Different views on divine grace, on justification, on the sacraments and the nature of the church, on Mary the mother of Jesus, and a whole host of other things, are very important as far as I’m concerned. But here I’m going to talk about one thing (well, perhaps two): Authority and intellectual evasion.

This problem – and I really think it is a problem – was impressed upon me by a couple of recent discussions with Catholic and Orthodox believers on the subjects of the place of Mary the mother of Jesus, and the doctrine of the afterlife (from this point on I’ll use the term “Catholic” to refer to both Catholic and Orthodox, for convenience). The details of the arguments prior to this point don’t matter here, but – and I’m simplifying here – the arguments ended in much the same way. After I had given the historical and/or biblical reasons in each case for why I held my view, the responses were given, not in the form of the same kind of evidence, but rather in the form of “well, I accept that my view is the Apostolic view because my church teaches it – and my church is, after all, the Apostolic one.” In one case, involving questions about Catholic doctrines like the immaculate conception of Mary or the claim that she was bodily assumed into heaven and made “Queen of heaven,” this response (or one very much like it) came after I had repeatedly asked for evidence that the Apostles taught anything like this. None was ever given, apart from the claim that this man’s church was the repository of the Apostolic faith, and so what they taught was Apostolic, and that was that. In the other case, the final line was along the lines of “well, I prefer to believe the Apostolic Church,” by which the additional claim “my view is the Apostles’ view” was implied.

What is particularly frustrating about at least one of these responses is that it came after the issue has been debated in terms of actual Apostolic evidence, and when my partner in dialogue realised that the well was dry, this unbeatable reply came. So here’s the difference between Catholics and Protestants that I have had thrust into the foreground recently: When a Catholic seeks evidence that a belief is Apostolic, he looks to what his church currently teaches. He is then satisfied that the doctrine is an Apostolic one, since it is, after all, taught by the Apostolic Church. When a Protestant seeks evidence that a belief is Apostolic, he looks for evidence in the writings of the Apostles, or he looks for the claim that the Apostles taught it when that claim is made by someone who knew the Apostles. He then calls a belief Apostolic to the extent that it can be demonstrated that the Apostles taught it.

What follows from these two methods is fairly self-evident. If anyone believes that the Apostles taught something contrary to what the Catholic churches teach, then they are relying on their own opinion, while the Catholic believer needs no such unsafe foundation – he has the Apostles. But, how does he know that his view is the view of the Apostles? Because his church teaches it, and his church is the Apostolic one, which settles the matter. But how does he know that the view taught by his church really is Apostolic? Did the Apostles actually teach it? Well they must have, otherwise the Apostolic Church would never teach it! “But I can read the Apostles’ teaching, and there’s nowhere in their writing where they do teach that,” a Protestant might say. And he’d get a reply along the lines of “Oh, and who are you, Mr Johnny-come lately? I don’t care how much you think you know about the Apostles, it’s not the Apostolic view because it’s not taught by the Apostolic Church!” You can see how such a discussion is going to end. It isn’t.

All I’m doing is making the meek suggestion that the way to examine what the Apostles taught is to read what they wrote. It’s not like their writings were destroyed, and their teaching was passed on orally because there was no other way to keep the flame alive. Sure, if that were the case then we’d have to ask the heir of this knowledge what the Apostles taught. But the abundance in manuscript records of what the Apostles themselves taught is simply huge. Nobody can say that we don’t have access to the primary sources. Appealing to the Apostolicity of ones own church to settle an argument when the evidence is still readily available for all to say is like saying “Don’t bother watching that crystal clear security camera footage, shot from multiple angles which show the bank robber’s face in full colour and in close detail. My friend John said that his friend Cyril said that his friend Marty said that his friend Sam …. (insert a few hundred names here) … said that her friend Karen was at the bank, and she saw the face of the robber, so I am the only one who can tell you who did it!” Well Click here for securityinfo who install this kind of better security cameras and system as well which helped to caught robber’s face.

To my Catholic and Orthodox friends: I’m sure that not all of you do this. But if you are ever tempted to do so, please don’t. Opinions do not pop randomly into my head about what the Apostles taught. I have access to every single piece of historical textual evidence that you have. Neither one of us is in a privileged position in that regard. So here’s a suggestion: When you and I come to a disagreement about what the Apostles taught, don’t appeal to what you church says the Apostles taught. Appeal to the Apostles. Anything else would be a circular argument.

Glenn Peoples