First, let’s take a look at what the Bible says in general about capital punishment, using this lecture featuring eminent theologian Wayne Grudem.
About Wayne Grudem:
Grudem holds a BA from Harvard University, a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. In 2001, Grudem became Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Prior to that, he had taught for 20 years at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he was chairman of the department of Biblical and Systematic Theology.
Grudem served on the committee overseeing the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and in 1999 he was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He is a co-founder and past president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He is the author of, among other books, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, which advocates a Calvinistic soteriology, the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the body-soul dichotomy in the nature of man, and the complementarian (rather than egalitarian) view of gender equality.
I am tempted to say that this is the best podcast I have ever heard on the Unbelievable show. Do anything you have to do in order to listen to this podcast.
Details:
Prof Robert Gagnon has become a well-known voice advocating the traditional biblical view on sexuality. In a highly charged show he debates the scriptural issues on sexuality with Jayne Ozanne, the director of Accepting Evangelicals who came out as gay earlier this year.
If you can only listen for 15 minutes, then start at 49 minutes in and listen from there.
The following summary is rated MUP for made-up paraphrase. Reader discretion is advised.
Summary:
Intro:
Speaker introductions
Gagnon: scholars who support gay marriage agree that the Bible doesn’t support it
Gagnon: scholars who support gay marriage agree Jesus taught male-female marriage
Ozanne: I went to the hospital because I was sick from trying to suppress my gay desires
Ozanne: Doctors told me that I would die if I didn’t act on my gay desires
Ozanne: I decided to reinterpret the Bible to fit with my gay desires
Ozanne: According to my new interpretation, Jesus actually supports my gay desires
Segment 1: Genesis
Ozanne: In Genesis the Bible says that Adam needs a woman to complete him
Ozanne: I reinterpret this to mean that Adam needed a “complementarian human being”
Ozanne: Genesis doesn’t say whether Eve was complemented by Adam in that chapter
Ozanne: It’s not critical that men are complemented by women, a man could complement a man
Ozanne: Genesis 2 doesn’t talk about children, it’s all about adult needs from a relationship
Gagnon: Genesis 2 has never been interpreted that way in all of history
Gagnon: Genesis 2 language specifically implies a human being who is opposite/different
Gagnon: Genesis 2 language translates to complement or counterpart
Gagnon: Genesis as a whole teaches that the sexuality is for male and female natures
Gagnon: The extraction of something from the man that is given to the woman is complementarian
Ozanne: I think that people can be complementary outside of male-female Genesis language
Ozanne: I don’t want to discuss specific words and texts and Greek meanings
Gagnon: the text has always been read and interpreted to support male/female complementarity
Gagnon: the male-female nature argument is made because the two natures are complementary
Ozanne: the text was interpreted by patriarchal males who treated women like property, it’s biased
Ozanne: what is important to me is how Christ interprets Genesis (?? how does she know that?)
Ozanne: I am passionate about my interpretation of Scripture which supports my gay desires
Gagnon: just because a person is passionate about their interpretation it doesn’t make it right
Gagnon: I am not arguing for the male-female view based on passion, but on scholarship, evidence and history
Ozanne: both sides are equally passionate about their interpretations (?? so both are equally warranted?)
Ozanne: the real question is why God “allowed” two different interpretations of Scripture
Segment 2: Is homosexuality a sin?
Gagnon: Jesus affirmed traditional sexual morality, which forbids homosexuality
Gagnon: Jesus teaches that marriage is male-female, and limited to two people
Gagnon: No one in history has interpreted the Bible to say that homosexuality was not immoral
Ozanne: Jesus came to bring life, and that means he supports homosexuality
Ozanne: I was dying, and embracing my gay desires allowed me to live, so Jesus approves of me
Ozanne: God says “I am who I am” and that means he approves of me doing whatever I want
Ozanne: There is an imperative to be who I am, and that means embracing my gay desires
Gagnon: Jesus argued that the twoness of the sexual bond is based on the twoness of the sexes
Gagnon: Jesus did not come to gratify people’s innate desires, he called people to repent of sin
Gagnon: Jesus did reach out to sinners but he never condoned the sins they committed
Gagnon: Jesus’ outreach to tax collectors collecting too much and sexual sinners is the same: STOP SINNING
Ozanne: I don’t think that Romans 1 is talking about homosexuality
Ozanne: I think it’s talking about sexual addiction, not loving, committed gay relationships
Ozanne: Paul was condemning pederasty in Romans 1, not loving, long-term, consensual sexual relationships between gay adults
Gagnon: nothing in the passage limits the condemnation to pederasty
Gagnon: the passage was never interpreted to be limited to pederasty in history
Gagnon: rabbis and church fathers knew about committed two-adult same-sex relationships, and said they were wrong
Gagnon: the argument for marriage is based on the broad two-nature argument, with no exceptions
Gagnon: the condemnation is not limited to exploitative / coercive / lustful / uncommitted relationships
Gagnon: even pro-gay scholars agree the passage cannot be interpreted Ozanne’s way (he names two)
Segment 3: The showdown (49:00)
Ozanne: I don’t care how many pages people have written on this
Ozanne: God says that “the wisdom of the wise I will frustrate” so you can’t use scholars, even pro-gay scholars, to argue against my passionate interpretation
Ozanne: I am not interested in the text or history or scholarship or even pro-gay scholars who agree with you
Ozanne: what decides the issue for me is my mystical feelings about God’s love which makes my sexual desires moral
Ozanne: you are certain that this is wrong, but your view does not “give life” to people
Ozanne: your scholarship and historical analysis is “a message of death” that causes teenagers to commit suicide (= you are evil and a meany, Robert)
Ozanne: “I pray for you and your soul” (= opposing me will land you in Hell) and “I hope that listeners will listen with their hearts” (?? instead of their minds?)
Ozanne: you can prove anything you want with research, even two mutually exclusive conclusions, so you shouldn’t rely on scholarship and research since it could be used to prove my view as well
Ozanne: instead of relying on research, you should rely on your heart and your feelings about God’s love to decide what the Bible teaches about sexual morality
Gagnon: you are distorting the gospel in order to make your case
Gagnon: attacking my “certainty” is an ad hominem attack to cover your dismissmal of the scholarship and history
Gagnon: you distort the gospel to make it seem like Christ just wants us to get what we want, when we want it, with who we want it with
Gagnon: Christ calls us to take up our cross, to lose our lives and to deny ourselves
Gagnon: you have a notion of what “fullness of life” is, but it’s not reflective of the gospel
Gagnon: Paul’s life was much more troubling than yours, mine or anyone else around here
Gagnon: Paul was beaten, whipped, stoned, poorly sheltered, poorly clothed, poorly fed, shipwrecked, and anxious for his churches
Gagnon: on your view, he should have been miserable and angry with God all the time
Gagnon: but instead Paul was constantly thankful and rejoicing to be able to suffer with Jesus and look forward to the resurrection
Gagnon: I have suffered too, but the suffering we go through never provides us with a license to violate the commandments of God
Ozanne: “the ultimate thing is what people feel God has called them to”
Ozanne: My goal right now is to tell young people that homosexuality is fine so they don’t commit suicide
Ozanne: the view that homosexuality is wrong is “evil and misguided”
Gagnon: the greater rates of harm in the gay community are intrinsic to homosexual unions, not caused by external disapproval of homosexuality
Segment 4: Concluding statements
Gagnon: gay male relationships on average have more sex partners and more STDs
Gagnon: female relationships on average have shorter-length relationships and more mental issues
Gagnon: the greater rates of harm are because there is no complementarity / balance in the relationships
Gagnon: everyone has some disappointment or suffering in their lives that hurts them, and that they are tempted to break the rules to fix, but we should not break the rules in order to be happy
Ozanne: both sides are passionate, so no one can be right, and evidence proves nothing
Ozanne: only feelings about “what God is doing” can allow us to decide what counts as sin or not
Ozanne: the main thing that is at stake here is to make people like us, not to decide what the Bible says about sin
Ozanne: my message to people is to do whatever you want, and ignore mean people who don’t affirm you
Ozanne: we should be more opposed to mean people who make non-Christians feel unloved than about doing what the Bible says
British Spitfire and German Messerschmitt Me 109 locked in a dogfight
You might remember Peter Millican from the debate he had with William Lane Craig. I ranked that debate as one of the 3 best I have ever seen, along with the first Craig vs Dacey debate and the second Craig vs Sinnott-Armstrong debate.
Details:
Science has revealed that the fundamental constants and forces of the cosmos appear to be exquisitely fine-tuned to allow a universe in which life can develop. Is God the best explanation of the incredibly improbable odds of the universe we live in being a life-permitting one?
Robin Collins is a Christian philosopher and a leading advocate of the argument for God from cosmic design. Peter Millican is an atheist philosopher at Oxford University. They debate the issues.
From ‘Unbelievable?’ on ‘Premier Christian Radio’, Saturday 19th March 2016.
The debate:
As usual when the atheist is an expert, there is no snark or paraphrasing in the summary.
Summary
Brierley: What is the fine-tuning argument?
Collins: the fine-tuning is structure of the universe is extremely precisely set to allow the existing of conscious, embodied agents who are capable of moral behavior. There are 3 kinds of fine-tuning: 1) the laws of nature (mathematical formulas), 2) the constants of physics (numbers that are plugged into the equations), 3) the initial conditions of the universe. The fine-tuning exists not just because there are lots of possibilities, but there is something special about the actual state of affairs that we see. Every set of laws, parameters and initial conditions is equally improbable, but the vast majority of permutations do not permit life. The possible explanations: theism or the multiverse.
Brierley: How improbable are the numbers?
Collins: Once case is the cosmological constant (dark energy density), with is 1 part in (10 raised to 120th power). If larger, the universe expands too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form after the Big Bang. If smaller, the universe collapses in on itself before life could form. Another case is the initial distribution of mass energy to give us the low entropy we have that is necessary for life. The fine-tuning there is 1 part in (10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power).
Brierley: What do you think of the argument?
Millican: The argument is worth taking very seriously. I am a fan of the argument. The other arguments for God’s existence such as the ontological and cosmological arguments are very weak. But the fine-tuning argument has the right structure to deliver the conclusion that theists want. And it is different from the traditional design argument tended to focus on biological nature, which is not a strong argument. But the fine-tuning argument is strong because it precedes any sort of biological evolution. Although the design is present at the beginning of the universe, it is not visible until much later. The argument points to at least deism, and possibly theism. The argument is not based on ignorance, it is rooted in “the latest results from the frontiers of science” (his phrase).
Brierley: Is this the best argument from natural theology?
Collins: The cosmological argument makes theism viable intuitively, but there are some things that are puzzling, like the concept of the necessary being. But the fine-tuning argument is decisive.
Brierley: What’s are some objections to the fine-tuning argument?
Millican: The argument is based on recent physics, so we should be cautious because we maybe we will discover a natural explanation.
Brierley: Respond to that.
Collins: The cosmological constant has been around since 1980. But the direction that physics is moving in is that there are more constants and quantities being discovered that need to be fine-tuned, not less. Even if you had a grand unified theory, that would have to be have the fine-tuning pushed into it.
(BREAK)
Millican: Since we have no experience of other laws and values from other universes, we don’t know whether these values can be other than they are. Psychologically, humans are prone to seeing purpose and patterns where there is none, so maybe that’s happening here.
Brierley: Respond to that.
Collins: It is possible to determine probabilities on a single universe case, for example using multiple ways of calculating Avogadro’s number all converging on the same number makes it more probable.
Millican: Yes, I willing to accept that these constants can take on other values, (“principle of indifference”). But maybe this principle be applied if the improbability were pushed up into the theory?
Collins: Even if you had a grand theory, selecting the grand theory from others would retain the improbability.
Brierley: What about the multiverse?
Millican: What if there are many, many different universes, and we happen to be in the one that is finely-tuned, then we should not be surprised to observe fine-tuning. Maybe a multiverse theory will be discovered in the future that would allow us to have these many universes with randomized constants and quantities. “I do think that it is a little bit of a promissary note”. I don’t think physics is pointing to this right now.
Brierley: Respond to that.
Collins: I agree it’s a promissary note. This is the strongest objection to the fine-tuning argument. But there are objections to the multiverse: 1) the fine-tuning is kicked back up to the multiverse generator has to be set just right to produce universes with different constants, 2) the multiverse is more likely to produce a small universe with Boltzmann brains that pop into existence and then out again, rather than a universe that contains conscious, embodied intelligent agents. I am working on a third response now that would show that the same constants that allow complex, embodied life ALSO allow the universe to be discoverable. This would negate the observer-selection effect required by the multiverse objection.
Brierley: Respond to that.
Millican: I don’t see why the multiverse generator has to be fine-tuned, since we don’t know what the multiverse generator is. I’m not impressed by the Boltzmann brains, but won’t discuss. We should be cautious about inferring design because maybe this is a case where we are seeing purpose and design where there is none.
Brierley: Can you negate the discoverability of the universe by saying that it might be psychological?
Collins: These things are not psychological. The selected value for the cosmic microwave background radiation is fine-tuned for life and for discoverability. It’s not merely a discoverability selection effect, it’s optimal for discoverability. If baryon-photon value were much smaller, we would have known that it was not optimal. So that judgment cannot be explained by
Millican: That’s a very interesting new twist.
Brierley: Give us your best objection.
Millican: I have two. 1) Even if you admit to the fine-tuning, this doesn’t show a being who is omnipotent and omnisicient. What the fine-tuning shows is that the designer is doing the best it can given the constraints from nature. If I were God, I would not have made the universe so big, and I wouldn’t have made it last 14 billion years, just to make one small area that supports life. An all-powerful God would have made the universe much smaller, and much younger. 2) The fine-tuning allows life to exist in other solar systems in other galaxies. What does this alien life elsewhere mean for traditional Christian theology? The existence of other alien civilizations argues against the truth of any one religion.
Brierley: Respond to those.
Collins: First objection: with a finite Creator, you run into the problem of having to push the design of that creature up one level, so you don’t really solve the fine-tuning problem. An unlimited being (non-material, not composed of parts) does not require fine-tuning. The fine-tuning is more compatible with theism than atheism. Second objection: I actually do think that it is likely that are other universes, and life in other galaxies and stars, and the doctrine of the Incarnation is easily adaptable to that, because God can take on multiple natures to appear to different alien civilizations.
WINTERY KNIGHT 