Okay, well, maybe not all Americans like the guy. He's so darn controversial! But I'm talking about French Reformer John Calvin. And today is his 500th birthday. These are some of my theological notes on his system of thought. Enjoy.

... when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.'"

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." And as Isaiah predicted,

"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah."

- Romans 9:10-29

Nowadays in these evangelical churches (and Roman Catholic churches) if you use the word "John Calvin" it's like yelling an expletive in a conservative crowd. For what it's worth, no Christian group but the Calvinists have shown me that theology is an academic field that should be taken seriously. Having visited churches labeled "Reformed" they set aside the touchy-feelie Gospel encouraged in today's sensational-driven churches, and deal with theology in a serious and scholarly manner. (Figures, since Calvin studied to be a lawyer - and you can see that influence in how well argued and thought out his works are.) Of course, I'm sure there are churches who go beyond emotional nuances with Biblical doctrine, but you can't beat the Reformers at it.  John Calvin has been underestimated far too many times. Of course, he's not perfect, but he's a kick-ass theologian. Despite being 5 centuries old, he's still controversial today.  Possibly, the most controversial aspect of John Calvin is his relationship with Servetus and how he had him executed. As I found out this wasn't true (9 min. audio clip):

..





According to Dr. Curt Daniel's dissertation (good luck trying to find that book, but his doctoral dissertation was on the "History and Theology of Calvinism"):

Biography.

...

B. John Calvin was born July 10, 1509 in Noyon in Picardy, 60 miles northeast of Paris. Upon reaching his teenage years, he began formal studies towards becoming a Roman Catholic priest. He studied theology at Paris from 1523 to 1528, and did quite well. But he became increasingly disillusioned with the corrupt Catholicism of the day, and decided to study law instead. So he transferred to Orleans and Bourges for studies towards becoming a lawyer (1528 to 1532), Soon after finishing formal studies he wrote his first book, -a detailed commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia. In effect this was his doctoral dissertation.

C.  But his heart was still restless, until at last it found its rest in God through true conversion in 1533. He left Roman Catholicism forever. But these were dangerous days for those who left Rome. Heavy persecution dogged the French Protestants, and Calvin himself was imprisoned for a short time from 1534 to 1535. So he decided to leave France.

D.  His goal was to move to Basel, Switzerland, and take up a quiet and secluded life of study and writing. It ---never to be. Passing through Geneva, he met the leader of, the Swiss French Reformation, Guiilaume Farel, who was immediately so impressed with young Calvin that he cautioned him with God’s punishment if he did not stay in Geneva to preach and teach. Calvin stayed.

E.  In 1536 Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was immediately hailed throughout Europe as the finest systematic theology by a Protestant Reformer. It was to be his literary masterpiece as he later edited and expanded it several times through his lifetime....

F.  Calvin and Farel immediately began the reformation of the church in Geneva. They proposed a Confession and oath for the city and its citizenry. All citizens were required to take the oath of faith or leave Geneva. Virtually all Genevans accepted/But when in 1538 Calvin called for the church to have authority to fence the Lord’s Table by excommunicating all those living in public sin, both he and Farel were exiled by the City Council.

G.  So Calvin went to Strassbourg in southern Germany near France. There he pastored the French-speaking congregation and lectured in the theological academy. He became a close friend of Martin Bucer, who would have a profound influence on Calvin’s theology. Calvin would stay in Strassbourg for 3 years until the Geneva City Council changed its mind and agreed that Calvin and Farel were right after all. Yet it would be nearly 20 years until the church formally had the right to excommunicate citizens living in known sin.

H.  It was in Strassbourg that Calvin met his wife. Actually, Bucer and Farel had twice tried to match Calvin with a prospective wife, unsuccessfully. A certain Anabaptist had converted to Reformed thinking under Calvin’s theology, but he soon caught and died of the Plague. Some time later, his widow would become Mrs. John Calvin. Her name was Idelette de Bure. She brought 2 children with her, a teenage boy and a young girl. John and Idelette had only one child themselves, but he died shortly afterwards. Idelette herself was constantly in ill health herself, and she died in 1549 after only 9 years of marriage. Calvin never remarried. And he too was in continual ill health.

I.  From 1541 Calvin spent almost all of his life in Geneva. In addition to his preaching and teaching duties he organized a school system for the children of Geneva, a system of charity for the poor and elderly; Calvin even designed the public sewer system of Geneva when the City Council couldn’t agree on a plan.

J.  One of his main goals was a truly godly society. He viewed the Church and State on equal levels - separate in some areas, related in others. Before Calvin, Geneva was notorious throughout Europe for its profligacy; after Calvin, it became one of the godliest cities the world has ever known. Calvin’s theology of the godly society gave rise to the modern ideas of the democratic republic, the Free Enterprise economic system popularly called Capitalism, and the Protestant Work Ethic.  They were put into practice in Geneva. The plan worked.

K.  In 1555, Geneva became the refuge of Protestant refugees from all around Europe, particularly Great Britain. These English and Scottish leaders sat under Calvin’s teaching and brought that theology back with them when they returned to solidify the English and Scottish Reformations. Another major milestone in Calvin’s life was the establishment of the Academy of Geneva in 1559, which later became the University of Geneva. But for all this, his main calling was pastor-theologian.

Calvin and Luther.

A.  Calvin in Switzerland and Luther in Germany were the 2 main forces in the Reformation. If one were to assembly a ‘Reformation menagerie, Luther would be a bull and Calvin would be an owl. Luther was forceful and outgoing; Calvin was introverted and pensive. They complemented each other’s personalities. Calvin’s personality was more like that of Phillip Melanchthon.

B.  Yet they never met face to face. You must remember, Luther was 25 years older than Calvin - old enough to be his father. In fact, Calvin was only 8 years old when Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517. In some respects, Melancthon was the go-between. We know of only one letter between them. In 1545, the year before Luther’s death, Calvin wrote to him and began: “To the very excellent pastor of the Christian Church, Dr. Martin Luther, my much respected father.” He concluded, “Adieu, most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ, and my ever-honored father.”

C.  Luther rarely mentions Calvin in his writings. When Calvin refers to Luther, it is almost always with a high degree of respect. Luther tended to look down on Calvin, suspicious of his ties with the deceased Zwingli, In a letter to a friend, Calvin wrote that, in spite of his admiration for Luther, he felt that the German has a certain weakness: “You have reason to be offended that Luther retracts nothing, palliates nothing, but stubbornly maintains all his opinions.”

Misconceptions About Calvin.

A. One popular misconception is this: “Calvin was a dour old Stoic, secluded like Scrooge in an ivory tower.” This is incorrect. True, Calvin preferred solitude (“I am by nature timid, mild and cowardly), but he never found the solitude, which many think he had. Even after Idelette died, he lived most of his life with relatives and their children. He certainly was no Scrooge, for he had very few possessions and declined raises in pay. And he definitely was not a cold Stoic he enjoyed a kind of bowling every Sunday afternoon and a certain game involving the throwing of keys; in a letter he wrote “I shall soon come to visit you, and then we can have a good laugh together”; and he confessed to weeping long and hard after the deaths of Idelette, their son, and several friends.

B. Another misconception: “Calvin was a superstitious reactionary and the Pope of Switzerland.” Well, he certainly was not superstitious, for he opposed many of the superstitions of Romanism. Reactionary? Hardly, Calvin was one of the intellectual giants of his day. A Pope? That overlooks Calvin’s estimation of Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Vermigli as his equals, not inferiors. Moreover, the Libertine party of Geneva succeeded in having him kicked out of town more than once, and he never was formally on the City Council. He was so unpopular in some quarters that some people named their dogs after him to show their contempt. No, Calvin was not a Pope or folk-hero.

...

Calvin’s Writings.

A.  Calvin usually preached in French and wrote in Latin. His literary career lasted only 33 years, but he remains one of the three most prolific Christian writers of all time (with Luther and Spurgeon). On average, he wrote about 1,000 pages a year. This is astounding when one considers that he did not write simple religious pabulum but only solid and scholarly theology. And before the typewriter and word processor were invented, too. He wrote more than we read in a year.

B.  Moreover, only about two-thirds of his writing were ever published. Geneva still has thousands of unpublished sermon manuscripts. And there are others that have never been translated into English. Thankfully, there are international teams working to publish the manuscripts and to translate all that was never translated.

C.  His massive Commentary on the Bible was his largest undertaking. In fact, it is one of the largest Bible commentaries ever written by a single man - 45 large volumes of over 400 pages each. They were usually based on his lectures. They have been translated and reprinted several times, and scholars of all stripes consult them. Calvin managed to write commentaries on every book of the Bible except Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation - 75% of the Bible was covered. Romans was first and he never finished Ezekiel. (He also published sermons on Job and 1 Samuel, but no comments).

D.  Calvin’s first book, as we said, was a commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, a Stoic treatise on civil clemency. He also wrote over 4,000 letters - usually of a theological nature, not the “Wish you were here” kind. He wrote these to the other Reformers, kings and dukes, the Catholic hierarchy, friends, and even to some Protestant women imprisoned in Paris for their faith. 686 have been translated.

E.  Then there were dozens of theological treatises. Some were against the Libertines and Anabaptists, such as his first one entitled Psychopannychia, refuting the Anabaptist notion of soul-sleep between death and resurrection. Then there were several important treatises on the Reformation of the Church: church-state relations, whether Roman Catholicism could be salvaged, Catholic relics, a refutation of the Council of Trent’s decrees, etc. Calvin also wrote several pieces on the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, avoiding Rome and Lutheranism’s excessive literalism on the one hand and the Zwinglian and Anabaptist mere symbolism on the other.

F.  He wrote some treatises on predestination as well: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God (1552) and A Defense of the Secret Providence of 6od~Tl558). These have both been translated into English in the aptly named volume, Calvin’s Calvinism. Calvin also authored the Genevan Catechism, a couple of short confessions of faith, the Gallic Confession (the main confession for the French Reformed Church), the Consensus TigurinusTwith Bullinger, thus uniting the 2branches of the Swiss Reformation), and others. But lest one think that he wrote only advanced theology, one should read the delightful little devotional The Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life. He also wrote a hymn, a poem, and several paraphrases of the Psalms to be sung in worship.

G.  Thousands-of his sermons were taken down and published. Calvin preached an average of 5 times a week, plus lectures. His sermons are masterpieces of exposition. The sermons of some preachers are timely; Calvin’s are timeless. He stayed close to the text, preached consecutive series in French in a slow voice without notes. Among the many series that have been translated and are currently in print: Deuteronomy (200 sermons), the Pastoral Epistles (134), Ephesians (48), the Saving Work of Christ (20 selections).

The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

A.  The Institutes was Calvin’s masterpiece. It is the most important book to come out of the Reformation. It is a sort of systematic theology, though not coldly organized like a dictionary. It flows. It is personal. The theme is the true knowledge of God through the gracious salvation of Christ, whereby we now truly know ourselves and glorify God. The overall structure is Trinitarian, and Calvin expounds the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles Creed, and also covers the sacraments, church government and church-state relations.

B.  One thing that is especially amazing is that Calvin published the first edition when he was only 26 years old - meaning he began work on it when only 24! He continued to expand it in 5 other editions, so the last £1559) is five times the size of the first (1536). Both editions have been translated into English.

No study of Calvin, Calvinism or the Reformation is complete without reading the Institutes.

...

Conclusion.

Calvin died on May 27, 1564 at the age of 55 in the arms of his successor, Theodore Beza. As per his request, there was no gravestone or monument. Though often ill, it is more accurate to say he worked himself to death and burned out for God. The greatest theologian since the Apostles was once mocked because he had no children. His reply: “God gave me a little son and took him away; but I have myriads of children in the whole Christian world.” How true.

Calvin had hundreds of points, but the most popular are 5 of them. Dr. John M. Frame explains them:

(1) Total Depravity: Although fallen persons are capable of externally good acts (acts that are good for society), they cannot do anything really good, i.e., pleasing to God (Rom. 8:8). God, however, looks on the heart. And from his ultimate standpoint, fallen man has no goodness, in thought, word, or deed. He is therefore incapable of contributing anything to his salvation.

(2) Unconditional Election: When God elects (chooses) people for salvation, therefore, he does not choose them because of anything in them. He doesn’t choose them because of their own goodness, or even because he foresees they will believe, but simply out of his totally unmerited favor — out of grace (Eph. 2:8,9).

(3) Limited Atonement: This is the most controversial of the five, because of Bible passages apparently teaching that Christ died for every individual. See, for example, 2 Corinthians 5:15, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2. There are “universal” dimensions of the atonement: (a) it is for all nations; (b) it is a recreation of the entire human race; (c) it is universally offered; (d) it is the only means for anyone to be saved and thus the only salvation for all people; (e) its value is sufficient for all. Nevertheless, Christ was not the substitute for the sins of every person; else, everybody would be saved. For the atonement is powerful, efficacious. It does not merely make salvation possible; rather it actually saves. When Christ “dies for” somebody, that person is saved. One of the apparent “universal atonement texts,” 2 Cor. 5:15, makes that point very clearly. Thus he died only for those who are actually saved. The biblical concern here is more with the efficacy of the atonement than with its “limitation”; perhaps we should call it “efficacious atonement” rather than “limited atonement,” and, having then lost the TULIP, develop through genetic engineering a flower we could call the TUEIP. But of course efficacy does imply limitation, so limitation is an important aspect of this doctrine.

(4) Irresistible Grace: Grace is not like a box of candy that you can send back if you don’t want it. Grace is divine favor, an attitude of God’s own heart. We cannot stop him from loving us, if he chooses to do so. Nor can we stop him from giving us blessings of salvation: regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification. His purpose in us will certainly be fulfilled (Phil. 1:6, Eph. 1:11).

(5) Perseverance of the Saints: If you are born again by the Spirit of God, justified, adopted into God’s family, you cannot lose your salvation. God will keep you (John 10:27-30; Rom. 8:28-29). Perseverance does not mean that once you profess Christ you may sin all you please and still be saved. Many people have professed Christ hypocritically and have later renounced the Christian life. Those who apostatize, and do not return to embrace Christ from the heart, die in their sins. But if you have confessed Christ from the heart, you will certainly persevere, for you will not be dominated by sin (Rom. 6:14)

Mark Driscoll explains the difference between the 5 points of Calvinism and Arminianism:





I've heard it said that Calvin was not a Calvinist. That is to say he wasn't a full 5-point Calvinist (although, technically, you can still be a Calvinist and NOT accept all 5 points - don't ask), because he allegedly disagrees with the concept of "limited atonement" (at least this was claimed by Dr. Norman Geisler and more famously by R. T. Kendall).  It was none other than Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor in Geneva) who distorted Calvin's writings and made it look like he believed the doctrine - so goes the theory.  Look, I actually read the writings of John Calvin and read most of Institutes of the Christian Religion.  There's no way Calvin disagreed with limited atonement. He fully embraced it.  Here's proof in his writings:

Hence it is that the whole world no longer belongs to its Creator, except in so far as grace rescues from malediction, divine wrath, and eternal death, some, not many, who would otherwise perish, while he leaves the world to the destruction to which it is doomed. Meanwhile, though Christ interpose as a Mediator, yet he claims the right of electing in common with the Father, "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen" (John 13:18). If it is asked whence he has chosen them, he answers in another passages "Out of the world;" which he excludes from his prayers when he commits his disciples to the Father (John 15:19). We must, indeed hold, when he affirms that he knows whom he has chosen, first, that some individuals of the human race are denoted; and, secondly, that they are not distinguished by the quality of their virtues, but by a heavenly decree. [source]

And:

But it is by Isaiah he more clearly demonstrates how he destines the promises of salvation specially to the elect (Isa. 8:16); for he declares that his disciples would consist of them only, and not indiscriminately of the whole human race. Whence it is evident that the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be set apart for the sons of the Church only, is abused when it is represented as effectually available to all. [source]

That is but a taste.  And I don't know how much more clear or obvious that can be. Dr. Paul Helm writes more about this controversy here, and Dr. Roger Nicole tackles this issue here.

Without question Calvin's views on the atonement of Christ may very well be the most controversial view. Super duper fundamentalist Jerry Falwell identifies "limited atonement" as heresy:



People don't like the idea of a loving God who especially loves the elect.  The common reply by Calvinist would be that God has mercy on whomever He wants.  As God said in Romans 9:15:

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

RC Sproul actually gave a lecture on limited atonement. Given this controversial nature.  I think it's worth listening to:



Dr. Greg Bahnsen on "limited atonement" here and here.



First, what Calvinism is not. From Dr. Curt Daniel's dissertation:

Among the popular but incorrect definitions or descriptions of it are these:

(1) It is the teaching that God won’t save a man if he isn’t one of the elect, even if he repents and believes the same as one who is elect.
(2) It teaches that Christians should not evangelize the lost ("Calvinism is against missions!").
(3) It teaches that God is an unloving tyrant and the author and approver of sin.
(4) It teaches infant baptism and therefore salvation by water rather than by Christ’s blood.
(5) It is a certain form of church government, namely Presbyterianism.
(6) It was the theological excuse for the Puritans’ witch hunts.

So, what's Calvinism then? Again, by Dr. Daniels:

The Definition of Calvinism.

A. Consistent Christianity. Some Reformed writers contend that Calvinism is “nothing more and nothing less than the Gospel, or the essentials of true Christianity. Others say “Calvinism is Paulineism”. These assessments are not precisely correct. They insinuate that unless one is a Calvinist, he is not a Christian. It is better to say that it is Consistent Christianity. This raises several problems and rejoiners:

(1) Some non-Calvinists contend that Calvinism is unbiblical because the terms “Calvinism” and “Reformed” are not found in Scripture. I would remind them that neither are the terms “Rapture” and “Trinity” found in the Bible. The truths of these, however, are found quite often.
(2) Other critics say, “I follow Christ, not Calvin”, sometimes appealingto I Cor. 1. They have a good point. But we would refer them to I Cor.11:1. We follow Calvin only as far as he follows Christ. We worship Christ, not Calvin. Andrew Fuller said, “I do not believe everything that Calvin taught, nor any thing because he taught it; but I reckon strict Calvinism to be my own system” because it was truest to Scripture.
(3) By the same standard, we need to be careful lest we make the doctrines of Calvinism more important than the Gospel. Spurgeon noted: “Calvinism to some is of more importance than Scripture.”
(4) Still others say, “Just study the Bible.” This neglects the Biblical teaching that God raises up teachers (Eph. 4:11) and that Biblical theology has a certain form or system to it (Rom. 6:17, 2 Tim. 1:13). We study Reformed theology only that we may better understand Scripture.

B.  The Five Points of Calvinism. One of the most popular ways of defining Calvinism is in terms of the Five Points, viz: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (= TULIP). Since these were explicitly formulated at Dort at a critical time in the development of Calvinism, they must be taken into account in any definition of Reformed theology. However, one problem is with point #3. Many Calvinists have moderated or rejected limited atonement; whether they are true or inconsistent is debated, but they are nevertheless Calvinists. The 5 do not stand and fall together, but the 4 certainly do. (More on this later).

C.  Predestination. When one thinks of “Calvinism”, the word “predestination”immediately comes to mind - and that is no coincidence [pardon the theological pun], Calvinism certainly gives more prominence to predestination and election than any other system. But one should not define Calvinism solely in terms of election or other soteriological truths, vital as they are.

D.  Sovereign Grace. This is closer to the truth. Reformed theology has a distinctive doctrine of the sovereignty of grace, both in its source and its end. One good thumbnail definition would be the title of the excellent book by Tom Nettles: By His Grace and For His Glory.

E.  The Sovereignty of God. This is the root of the TULIP. Understand it and the TULIP grows logically and naturally out of it; reject it and one cannot accept TULIP or be considered a Calvinist. It is the final sine qua non. To be precise, it is not sovereignty per se, nor even the Reformed view of it as a distinct attribute of God that is determinative. Rather, it is the way in which Calvinists describe it in relationship to the other attributes of God. Other systems either minimalize or deny this attribute, while Calvinists give it the proper place - both in relation to the other attributes and Man as creation and sinner.

Key chapters in defining Calvinism are Eph. 1 and 2, Rom. 8 and 9, John 6 and 10. But the key verse which sums up Calvinism best is Rom. 11:36, “For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to Whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.” Reformed theology alone teaches a God-centered theology - that God is absolutely sovereign in creation, redemption and glorification. That in a nutshell is Calvinism. The rest of this series will be merely elaborating on it as relates to its history, related doctrines and varieties.

I'm sure this brings up a host of questions. Personally, I'm a little perplexed myself, but these are just my notes.



This is a tough one. And there are different views. But to be brief there is what theologians call the doctrine of concurrence.  Dr. Wayne Grudem says it's the "fact that God cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do" (p. 317). Craig R. Brown explains:

With this understanding, it is possible to affirm that, in every event, both God's sovereign will and man's human will are operative. God brings His will to pass, no by canceling the will of the creature, but by working through the will of the creature. God's will is the "primary cause"; He works behind the scenes from the beginning of time to plan and initiate everything that happens. Man's will is the "secondary cause"; it carries out events in a manner consistent with God's will.

For example, when God wishes to save a sinner, He does not strike the individual with "divine lightning." Rather, He uses a godly man to witness to that individual. Man, the "secondary cause," appears to be the only cause, but in reality God is the "primary cause," for He works in the evangelist's heart to give him the desire to witness and in the recipient's heart to allow him to accept the truth he is receiving.

Grudem adds:

==============================

God's providential direction as an unseen, behind-the-scenes "primary cause," should not lead us to deny the reality of our choices and actions. Again and again Scripture affirms that we really do cause events to happen. We are significant and we are responsible. We do have choices, and these are real choices that bring about real results....

God causes all things that hapen, but... he does so in such a way that he somehow upholds our ability to make willing, responsible choices that have real and eternal results, and for which we are held accountable.  Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture does not explain to us. But rather than deny one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all of Scripture.

==============================

One of the clearest examples of concurrence in Scripture occurs in the story of Jonah. The author of this biblical book tells us that the men on the ship threw Jonah into the sea and simultaneously affirms that it was God who threw him overboard. God's providential direction of events did not coerce the sailors to act against their wills. They were unaware that He was influencing their behavior and actually prayed for His forgiveness. God chose to act through the choices of these real human beings, men who were morally accountable for their actions, in order to bring about His plan for the salvation of Nineveh. He caused them to choose to do what they did, but they did it willingly with no knowledge of His influence. (p. 47-49).

Greg Koukl on Free-Will and Calvinism here and here and here. Also a debate between James White and George Bryson here and here.



From Jason Robertson (M. Div. New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary):

Amyraldianism "Low" Calvinism - Decree to Create Man, Decree to Allow Fall, Decree Atonement for all men, Decree Election and Reprobation

Infralapsarianism "Moderate" Calvinism - Decree to Create Man, Decree to Allow Fall, Decree Election and Reprobation, Decree Atonement for Elect

Supralapsarianism "High" Calvinism ["Hyper" Calvinism would count as Supra; although not all Supras are "Hyper" Calvinists - Eddie] - Decree Election and Reprobation, Decree to Allow Fall, Decree Atonement for Elect, Decree to Create Man

Note: Infra means after. Supra means before. Lapsus means fall.

Fact: Amyraldian is named after a French Calvinist named Moyse Amyraut (1596-1664).

Amyraldist or “Low” Calvinists believe that God decreed for Christ to die for all of mankind and then God chose who would be saved. Thus “Low” Calvinist can be called “Hypothetical Universalist” because they believe that it is hypothetically possible for all men to be saved, but since they will not choose Christ, God elected some to be saved. The greatest weakness in this view is that Christ died for the unelect but the atonement was of no effect, actually wasted. It is sometimes called “4-Point Calvinism” because of the universal atonement discrepancy. In other words, the “Low Calvinist” does not believe in Limited Atonement.  Nevertheless, this view still believes that only the elect get saved.

Supralapsarianist or “High” Calvinists believe that God chose to have an elect and thus decreed that which would make it happen, thus holding to the harshest form of double predestination. Homer Hoeksema, a High Calvinist, noted that according to this theory history unfolded exactly opposite of the order of God’s decrees, because God’s first decree (the elect) is His ultimate goal. There are two logical weaknesses with this view. One weakness in this is how can God elect out of that which doesn’t necessarily or potentially exist yet. High Calvinists have no answer for this.  The second weakness is how could God choose to elect and reprobate out of a non-fallen human race. But the High Calvinist appeal to Romans 9:11, noting that Jacob and Esau “had not done anything good or bad.” Also, the High Calvinist appeal to a purpose of giving the greatest glory to God by teaching that election and reprobation are based on nothing but bare sovereignty. Not all “High” Calvinist are hyper-Calvinist (anti-missionism, reject “Duty Faith”, and deny common grace), but all hyper-Calvinist are Supralapsarian. By the way, J.R. Rice and Norman Geisler were harmfully incorrect in claiming that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist.

Infralapsarianist or “Moderate” Calvinists believe God chose His elect from among Fallen mankind prior to the atonement decree, thus Christ only died for the elect. They appeal to John 15:19, “I chose you out of the world.” Also, they point out that the lump of clay in Romans 9 is obviously a “fallen” lump of clay. And they point out that if God had elected from an unfallen mass of humanity as the High Calvinist propose then that would not be grace, and the decree of reprobation from an unfallen mankind would not be just. All major Reformation Creeds are infralapsarian.

Remember: All Calvinists agree that whatever the logical order of God’s decrees, they were in etenity past by a sovereign God. That seperates Calvinist as Particularistic as opposed to Universalistic (Lutheran, Weslyan, Universalist), Sacerdotal (Anglican, Roman, Orthodox Greek), and Naturalistic (Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian).

Approximately only 5% of Calvinist are Supralapsarian. Most Calvinist are Infralapsarian (Moderate). Many Calvinist are Amyraldian. In fact, many Southern Baptist that I have met are Amyraldian even though they do not realize and would never consider themselves Calvinist.  And that is because most of them believe that there is only one kind of Calvinist and that is the Supralapsarian kind.  Of course, that is ironic since the Supra’s are the fewest, but since the Supra’s have among them the “hyper-Calvinists” they get most of the attention and “bad press.”

I truly believe that most of the debate that rages in the SBC over Calvinism is because most of the Amyraldians don’t even know that they are Calvinist, and they believe that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist. But in all my years as a Calvinist, I don’t know if I have ever met more than a couple of Supralapsarians… and even they were not hyper-Calvinist!

Say what you will about John Calvin, I think he was a rather interesting theologian who had a whole lotta guts!  Calvin's testicular fortitude makes you proud to be a man.  There's a story between him and a Libertine by the name of Philibert Berthelier who was ex-communicated from the church because of his adulterous affairs.  He wanted to take communion but Calvin wouldn't allow it.  Naturally, this pissed Berthelier off.  So, he had his political friends overturn the church's decision. Calvin still wouldn't allow his communion.  Finally, Berthelier came to the church with a group wielding swords to force Calvin to give them communion. Historian Dr. Steven J. Lawson described what happened next:

“Calvin descended from the pulpit, stood in front of the Communion table, and said, ‘These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned and dishonor the table of my God.’ Berthelier and the Libertines withdrew, no match for such unflinching convictions.” (p. 16)

Lawson briefly describes Calvin's life and ministry:




Addendum:

Dr. Robert W. Godfrey's lectures on Calvin's life and theology:

part 1:
..

part 2:
..

Dr. James White is probably one of the most popular Calvinists today, having written a book in response to Calvin-critic Norman Geisler; and debated George Bryson and Dave Hunt. Here, White responds to a lecture by Dr. William Lane Craig (a molinist).  He also briefly mentions the Protestant Reformation and Calvin's place in history:

Part 1:
..

Part 2:
..

A panel discussion on John Calvin here.

RC Sproul's lectures on predestination and free-will here.

Calvinism vs Arminianism: a debate with the Triabloguers; and Doug Wilson (Calvinist) vs Steve Gregg (Arminian):

1st Debate:
..

..

2nd Debate:
..

..

3rd Debate:

At the Expo - just a few pictures...



If I ever live in a retirement home I hope nurses are this hot:



Kelly's eyes are really this blue:



The Anime Expo was a disappointment. (It wasn't nearly as good as last year's.) For one, they had the AX Idol in the middle of the day without showcasing it at the Nokia Theater. Furthermore, the dance hall was 8 blocks away from the LA Convention Center! To top it off, I didn't enjoy the masquerade. I don't think I ever would have anyway. The skits are all lip-synced and the costume design presentations were awkwardly short. Anyway, maybe I'll go to the Comic Con to make up for a bad experience at the Anime Expo.

One thing I read and found interesting while at the Expo is the fact the US Manga Market has dropped 17%. This was even before the Economic Crisis of 2008.  As of 2009, it looks like Manga sells aren't doing any better. Some have speculated it's due to the easily accessible and cheaper use of the internet and the wild popularity of webcomics. If someone has an iPhone they can merely visit a website to find their favorite comic series and download it. Europe and Japan are using the webcomic phenomenon and America has yet to deal with it even more. I think we're in store for some pretty radical stuff with webcomics. They're already doing Eisner awards for them.

Overall, I was very satisfied with what transpired during the reading (and all thanks to Sal Romeo for setting it all up - sir, you are one in a million). It was quite a learning experience. I'm used to reading my play to myself, and so when I actually heard it read out loud by actors it gave me a whole new perspective. In some ways, it was kind of embarrassing.  Johnny Depp once said he felt "devastated" to see his own performance on screen (at 7:54). I think I can relate to that in my own way. It wasn't because I felt some scenes could have been written better, but I think it's because I felt so much exposure of myself on stage. The characters aren't like me, but they came from my own experience. And to see it exposed on stage left me abashed.

I was very happy with the actors (there were two Caucasian actors who were wonderful with their parts and exceeded my expectations - I love it when that happens).  I hope they'll be the faces for the future of Asian American acting. Some of them are already.  They're a talented lot.  And it was an honor working with them.  When I wrote my play I knew my dialog can easily be translated into a solid performance. I made some of my dialogues and monologues complex, mind you; because I wanted the actors to observe human behavior in these characters. Luckily, they got it, and they said their lines with ease.

Some lessons learned:

If you ever do a table read for  your play have someone read the descriptions and actions of the play. Unless you have that, guests who listen to the read may not get what's happening in the scene. This happened during the table read. When we started I realized we didn't have anybody to read the character descriptions and stage actions (I took it for granted that everybody would know what would be happening in the play anyway). Consequently, this may have made the scenes confused or incomplete.

There's no director to tell you how the scene should be done - As a result, some actors may take a scene, or say a line, in a different context.

"Relax, it's just a table read!" - this is something I failed at. I was so nervous that day. Ugh! But virtually all plays you've seen had had a table read. However, this was a learning experience, and, boy, did it help!

Thanks to all who participated.

I just bought Elmore Leonard's new novel Road Dogs. But I've decided to read its prequel first (Out of Sight) before I got to it.

Leonard just did a video interview (transcript) with Charlie Rose. One thing I found interesting about the interview is that Leonard has a research assistant.  I always thought he did his own research. I remember reading Mr. Paradise. There was a section where the characters talked about the world of Hip-Hop music.  My own impression was, wow, how'd this 80-year-old white man know so much about rap music?  Well, I suspect his assistant helps him with that information; unless, of course, he actually does listen to Hip-Hop music.

Leonard has an incredible cast of characters in his books and their dialogue is darn near perfect.  To me, three people stick out most when it comes to writing kick-ass dialogue in the crime novel genre: George V. Higgins, Richard Price, and Elmore Leonard. Of course, there's more like Dennis Lehane, Robert B. Parker, Donald E. Westlake, etc. I'm probably missing a few dozen more, but you get the picture.  However, when it comes to "great dialogue" and "crime fiction", I don't think any name comes up more than Elmore Leonard's.

Here's Mr. Leonard's writing process:

Elmore Leonard's Ten Rules of Writing

Easy on the Adverbs, Exclamation Points and Especially Hooptedoodle

from the New York Times, Writers on Writing Series.

By ELMORE LEONARD

These are rules I’ve picked up along the way to help me remain invisible when I’m writing a book, to help me show rather than tell what’s taking place in the story. If you have a facility for language and imagery and the sound of your voice pleases you, invisibility is not what you are after, and you can skip the rules. Still, you might look them over.

1. Never open a book with weather. If it’s only to create atmosphere, and not a character’s reaction to the weather, you don’t want to go on too long. The reader is apt to leaf ahead looking for people. There are exceptions. If you happen to be Barry Lopez, who has more ways to describe ice and snow than an Eskimo, you can do all the weather reporting you want.

2. Avoid prologues.

They can be annoying, especially a prologue following an introduction that comes after a foreword. But these are ordinarily found in nonfiction. A prologue in a novel is backstory, and you can drop it in anywhere you want.

There is a prologue in John Steinbeck’s “Sweet Thursday,” but it’s O.K. because a character in the book makes the point of what my rules are all about. He says: “I like a lot of talk in a book and I don’t like to have nobody tell me what the guy that’s talking looks like. I want to figure out what he looks like from the way he talks. . . . figure out what the guy’s thinking from what he says. I like some description but not too much of that. . . . Sometimes I want a book to break loose with a bunch of hooptedoodle. . . . Spin up some pretty words maybe or sing a little song with language. That’s nice. But I wish it was set aside so I don’t have to read it. I don’t want hooptedoodle to get mixed up with the story.”

3. Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue.

The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with “she asseverated,” and had to stop reading to get the dictionary.

4. Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said” . . .

. . . he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances “full of rape and adverbs.”

5. Keep your exclamation points under control.

You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose. If you have the knack of playing with exclaimers the way Tom Wolfe does, you can throw them in by the handful.

6. Never use the words “suddenly” or “all hell broke loose.”

This rule doesn’t require an explanation. I have noticed that writers who use “suddenly” tend to exercise less control in the application of exclamation points.

7. Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.

Once you start spelling words in dialogue phonetically and loading the page with apostrophes, you won’t be able to stop. Notice the way Annie Proulx captures the flavor of Wyoming voices in her book of short stories “Close Range.”

8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.

Which Steinbeck covered. In Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” what do the “American and the girl with him” look like? “She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.” That’s the only reference to a physical description in the story, and yet we see the couple and know them by their tones of voice, with not one adverb in sight.

9. Don’t go into great detail describing places and things.

Unless you’re Margaret Atwood and can paint scenes with language or write landscapes in the style of Jim Harrison. But even if you’re good at it, you don’t want descriptions that bring the action, the flow of the story, to a standstill.

And finally:

10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he’s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character’s head, and the reader either knows what the guy’s thinking or doesn’t care. I’ll bet you don’t skip dialogue.

My most important rule is one that sums up the 10.

If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.

Or, if proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go. I can’t allow what we learned in English composition to disrupt the sound and rhythm of the narrative. It’s my attempt to remain invisible, not distract the reader from the story with obvious writing. (Joseph Conrad said something about words getting in the way of what you want to say.)

If I write in scenes and always from the point of view of a particular character—the one whose view best brings the scene to life—I’m able to concentrate on the voices of the characters telling you who they are and how they feel about what they see and what’s going on, and I’m nowhere in sight.

What Steinbeck did in “Sweet Thursday” was title his chapters as an indication, though obscure, of what they cover. “Whom the Gods Love They Drive Nuts” is one, “Lousy Wednesday” another. The third chapter is titled “Hooptedoodle 1” and the 38th chapter “Hooptedoodle 2” as warnings to the reader, as if Steinbeck is saying: “Here’s where you’ll see me taking flights of fancy with my writing, and it won’t get in the way of the story. Skip them if you want.”

“Sweet Thursday” came out in 1954, when I was just beginning to be published, and I’ve never forgotten that prologue.

Did I read the hooptedoodle chapters? Every word.

A short bio on Elmore Leonard:

While I was watering my backyard,
I noticed a lizard on the edge of the wall
that borders my house from the other.


For the fun of it,
I sprayed the creature.


It didn't move!
Heck,
it didn't even acknowledge me.


I sprayed some more,
but it wouldn't budge.


This little prick was pissing me off
so I added more pressure to the hose,
stood ten feet away,
aimed,
and fired.


It didn't flinch!


I had to hand it to the fella
it knows how to take a beating
and it wasn't scared of any human.


I wanted to congratulate the reptile
by keeping it as a pet.


As I grabbed for it
I noticed it had its ribs torn to shreds.
It was dead!
It looked like a cat may have bit it.


Its entrails were hanging out
and it stuck the lizard
to the wall
like glue.


Poor fella.


I gave it a proper burial
and threw it in the trash can.


Still,
I would have loved to kicked this lizard's ass
in a water fight.

Personally, I don't think physical matter as we know it has any subjective thinking process. For instance, my door knob doesn't think: "Dude, I'm a door knob!" But at the same time I think a physical state can influence mental states. Someone can become mentally retarded after a bad car accident after all; or someone can have amnesia if he gets struck in the head.

I found this quote from Paul Copan (professor of philosophy of religion):

Because consciousness or other mental activity belongs to the "non-matter" category, we have very good reason for thinking that humans are more than their bodies. No physics textbook defines matter using psychological, subjective, mental characteristics, but rather spatial location spatial extension, weight, texture, color, shape, size, density, mass, atomic, chemical composition. Brains have weight; thoughts don't. Brains can be dyed red or blue, not souls/minds. I can think about pain without being in pain. Beliefs can be true or false - matter can't be; it just is: "to talk about one bit of matter being true of another seems to me to be nonsense," Lewis wrote. Beliefs are more than just material brain states. Since brains have different properties than souls, they can't be identical to each other. Even if a correlation exists between brain functions and soulish capacities (e.g., a drug for the body may result in depression in one's soul), that doesn't entail the soul is nothing more than the brain. We should expect such correlations given the deep, organic connection between body and soul. But correlation doesn't equal reduction (the soul as "nothing more" tahn the brain).

Naturalists wonder how an immaterial soul and a physical body could interact. But just because we don't know how two things can interact, this doesn't mean they don't. Philosopher of science Bas van Fraasen asks, "Do concepts of the soul... baffle you? They pale beside the unimaginable otherness" of baffling phenomena in contemporary physics. Als, theists have ready examples of how an immaterial substance (God) can interact with the physical world; he creates and sustains it in existence. Ironically, materialists have their own "interaction problem." Jaegwon Kim wonders how an immaterial entity could influence even one molecule, yet he admits to "our seeming inability to understand the phenomenon of consciousness as part of a world that is essentially physical" and to not knowing how we would even achieve such an understanding. Now wonder naturalist Jerry Fodor remarks: "Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea of how anything material could be conscious."

Paul Copan, Loving Wisdom, 2007, p. 178-179

Still, I wonder if man is capable of making some type of physical brain so complex it can think for itself. Can the brain be a type of machine? If you're into anime (like me), you'll know all too well the fascination animators have with the mind-body problem (and we have the upcoming Terminator sequel that flirts with these type of themes - "Skynet becomes self-aware!"). Who can forget the scene in Ghost in the Shell: Innocence where the nature of a robot and the nature of a human being is in debate. Although Haraway thinks robots and humans are different, she still thinks they both have an emotional similarity, Togusa thinks that's ridiculous:



Nowadays, we hear of Japan building these robots that look human. The emotions of the robot is nothing more than non-living tissue moving about in an intricate way - I suppose it wouldn't be any different than epiphenomena of the brain that gives us the proper human emotions we see in ourselves as the materialist would argue. But Copan believes man is not just his brain (and I think he made a compelling case). Then if man has a soul/mind/consciousness, can that be created too? In regards of the current cloning debate it has me wondering.

Often I hear atheists are the quintessential smarty pants when it comes to science. As the film Angels and Demons opens this Friday I'm sure the subject of the war between science and religion will come up (you'll know what I mean if you read the book). But the atheist has problems with the religious who believe in miracles. It's my contention that some atheists actually believe in miracles, too. In listening to Dick's conversation with Dr. John Lennox, I can't get over the hypocrisy of Dawkins. Virtually the full discussion is about how one can call themselves a scientist yet believe that miracles are possible. The irony of this is that Dick argues that, say, if the statue of the virgin Mary waves at you, it's possible by sheer happenstance! If fact, he makes an argument for it:

In the case of the marble statue, molecules in solid marble are continuously jostling against one another in random directions. The jostlings of the different molecules cancel one another out, so the whole hand of the statue stays still. But if, by sheer coincidence, all the molecules just happened to move in the same direction at the same moment, the hand would move. If they then all reversed direction at the same moment the hand would move back. In this way it is possible for a marble statue to wave at us. It could happen. The odds against such a coincidence are unimaginably great but they are not incalculably great. A physicist colleague has kindly calculated them for me. The number is so large that the entire age of the universe so far is too short a time to write out all the noughts! It is theoretically possible for a cow to jump over the moon with something like the same improbability. The conclusion to this part of the argument is that we can calculate our way into regions of miraculous improbability far greater than we can imagine as plausible. [p. 159-160]

If you can follow this "sheer coincidence" argument, I don't see how Dick is one to complain about Christians believing in miraculous events, such as water turning into wine, or the dead coming back to life. I think this goes to show that scientists (unless trained in logic) tend to suck at philosophy. (Dick is certainly an example of this, and maybe he should just stick with the natural sciences). I can't even begin to tell you some of the most outlandish theories I've heard from scientists who have the temerity to think they have the upper-hand in logic, yet they assume extraordinary claims. (Case in point: the scientist Dr. Peter Atkins actually argued that we're literally nothing!) Yet all the while they deny their premise is a miraculous one. In fact, some atheists believe in miracles whether they think they do or not. For instance, atheist Michael Martin argued that something can come from nothing:

"First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, 'out of nothing.' Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible." [source]

Nothing is nothing. It certainly doesn't do anything. If I heard a loud bang, and someone asked where the noise came from, would the rational response be, "Well, it came from nowhere, stupid!" Atheist (and philosopher) Kai Nielsen knew the absurdity of this claim and gave a similar scenario,

"Suppose you hear a loud bang…and you ask me, 'What made that bang?' and I reply, 'Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that." - Kai Nielsen, Reason and practice;: A modern introduction to philosophy (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 48.

At least, non-scientist-yet-kick-ass-philosopher David Hume (an atheist) couldn't believe that nothing can cause something:

...I never asserted so absurd a Proposition, as that any thing might arise without a Cause: I only maintained, that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Source. - Letter to John Stewart

Is it irrational to believe in miracles though? Hume seems to think so. But I think C. S. Lewis refuted Hume and rightfully cites it's question-begging fallacy:

Now we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely “uniform experience” against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports to be false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In fact we are arguing in a circle.

C. S. Lewis goes further and states that miracles do not breech the laws of nature:

If God annihilates or creates or deflects a unit of matter, He has created a new situation at that point. Immediately all nature domiciles this new situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it. It finds itself conforming to all the laws. If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. We see every day that physical nature is not in the least incommoded by the daily inrush of events from biological nature or from psychological nature. If events ever come from beyond Nature altogether, she will be no more incommoded by them. Be sure she will rush to the point where she is invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a cut in our finger, and there hasten to accomodate the newcomer. The moment it enters her realm it obeys all her laws. Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption, miraculous bread will be digested. The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern. It does not violate the law's proviso, 'If A, then B': it says, 'But this time instead of A, A2,' and Nature, speaking through all her laws, replies "Then B2' and naturalises the immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an accomplished hostess. [p. 94-95]

This is an interesting way of seeing it. However, would this justification of miracles be any more rational than Dick's? I'll let you make that call, but it looks like it's either chance-did-it or God-did-it. I'm reminded of the scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent and Jules witnessed an event, and they argue whether it's a miracle or not. Jules seems to think God intervened, but Vincent says it's just a "freak occurrence":

..

But back to science and miracles - are miracles unscientific? Philosopher Peter Kreeft wrote about this topic in his book Socrates Meets Jesus (pages 59-76). I thought it was interesting.

Thewlis' brilliant performance as "Johnny" in Naked:

Just this past week I was in a store in Pasadena. The music they played was like a compilation of the 80s. Dude, the 80s so rock! Anyway, one song in particular that stuck out most was English Beat's "Save it for Later." Can't beat the British New Wave, dude:



Related: Compton and Watts

There are only 4 facts we can say about Jesus' resurrection. These facts are agreed upon by even the most skeptical non-Christian scholars and historians. Here they are:

1. Joseph of Arithamea buried Jesus.
2. Jesus' women followers found Jesus' tomb empty.
3. Groups of people and individuals saw Jesus (or someone who looked like Jesus) after his death.
4. Jesus' disciples believed in his resurrection.

None of these points are in dispute at all. And you don't have to accept the Gospels to know they are historical. But can we really conclude that Jesus resurrected based on these 4 simple (yet significant) facts? I guess if one were to believe in miraculous events they wouldn't have a tough time following them. Interestingly, one can argue that Jesus did not resurrect even by accepting the evidence. For instance, it's been said that Jesus had an unknown twin brother that appeared to his disciples post-mortem. And what of the empty tomb? Well, there were grave robbers during Jesus' time and so his body was stolen, giving his women disciples the illusion that he resurrected. This scenario is actually consistent with the 4 facts. A lot of theories like this have been thrown around (even the hallucination theory is consistent with the facts, and the swoon theory, too). But realize these naturalistic theories may take just as much faith as the supernatural theory - namely, that God supernaturalistically raised Jesus from the dead. So, the naturalist has his presupposition (miracles don't happen), and the Christian has his own (miracles can happen). So, who's right? And which theory is more rational? Enter Bayes Theorem; that goes like this: