I think we could all do with a nice dose of Emil Brunner right about now. And his little book Eternal Hope is just the thing. And you can read it free. Enjoy.
Atheists generated widespread anxieties between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. In response to such anxieties a distinct genre of religious apologetics emerged in England between 1580 and 1720. By examining the form and the content of the confutation of atheism, Anti-Atheism in Early Modern England demonstrates the prevalence of patterned assumptions and arguments about who an atheist was and what an atheist was supposed to believe, outlines and analyzes the major arguments against atheists, and traces the important changes and challenges to this apologetic discourse in the early Enlightenment.
The author describes the work thusly:
This book is primarily an exposition and analysis of the defence of the Christian religion against alleged atheists through the technique of confutation between the Reformation and the Enlightenment in England. It focuses on the period between 1580 and 1720 because of the number and the significance of anti-atheist arguments expressed within religious texts in this period, and because anti-atheist apologists consistently utilized a rhetorically distinctive form of discourse derived from classical antiquity to do so: confutatio.
This study examines the discourse of anti-atheist confutation by studying responses to the challenges which derived especially from the recovery of ancient Greek and Roman texts during the European Renaissance, from the religious divisions within European Christendom during the Reformation, from the implications of the scientific revolution, and from shifting understandings of the relationship between church and state.
Of the historical period in focus, then,
This highly flexible and capacious genre thrived between 1580 and 1720 when many dozens of texts were written specifically to combat the perceived progress of atheism.
And when it comes to the volume’s understanding of the term ‘atheism’, we read these lines:
To the men and women living through the religious crises of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, atheism was much more than an intellectual denial of God’s existence. It included any deviation from the practices of the Christian religion which necessarily implied a denial of the true God, the true religion, and the personal, social, and political order in which these truths were inscribed.
Nonetheless the sort of atheism with which we are familiar today wasn’t the only sort, or even the primary sort, that the English had in mind:
Hypocritical atheists believed one thing internally and said or did another publicly, so that the fool who denied God in Psalm 14:1 was synonymous with the practical atheist. As Allestree put it in the Decay of Christian Piety, the hypocrite was “Davids Atheist.”
‘Christian atheism’, odd as that may seem to modern ears, was the most ridiculous sort of atheism in the England of old. Because
To early modern religious apologists speculative atheism was so absurd as to be incomprehensible.
Atheism, then, as counterpart to Christian faith was the object of both scorn and contempt. The present volume is a brilliantly written historical examination of the phenomenon of atheism but even more importantly it is a witness to the response of Christianity to the threat of unbelief in one particular kingdom during one fairly brief historical period. It is a snapshot of the Church versus unbelief and as such is deserving of the attention of historians and theologians.
The book is finely illustrated with plates and prints and copiously annotated. I enjoyed it thoroughly and it is my conviction that many others will as well. At the very least, it provides ample grist for the thought mill. And hopefull it will provoke further research into the topic extending to other areas and eras.
Exciting news for the Hexaplarists…
Four months from now the Society of Biblical Literature will meet in Boston. Several papers pertain to research on the Hexapla, with a whole session of the IOSCS devoted to the subject. In that section, several members of the Hexapla Institute are giving papers. This a good year for hexaplaric research.
4:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Room: Room TBD – Hotel TBD
Leonard Greenspoon, Creighton University, Presiding
Andrew McClurg, Grand Canyon University
Origen’s Role as Editor of the Fifth Column of the Hexapla (30 min)
Peter J. Gentry, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Colophons in Princeton University Library, Scheide Library M150 (30 min)
Pete Myers, University of Cambridge
The Hexaplaric Corrector of 2 Esdras in Sinaiticus (30 min)
Benjamin Kantor, University of Texas at Austin
The Second Column of Origen’s Hexpla in the Quotations of Church Fathers and in the Notes of LXX Manuscripts in Comparison with the…
View original post 207 more words
The Philippines’ fiery President Rodrigo Duterte has lashed out at Oxford University as a “school for stupid people” after it published a study claiming he had paid for a cyber army to increase his popularity on social media.
The study, “Troops, Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation”, looked at the strategies used by political parties and candidates in 28 different countries to spread their party messaging and inflate social media engagement numbers.
It claims that Duterte’s camp paid $200,000 (£150,000) in 2016, the year he was elected, for a social media campaign that used citizens and groups to promote and defend him online.
The dumbest person at Oxford is 10,000 times smarter than Duterte. And that includes the support staff.
Additionally, Duterte isn’t just stupid, he’s murderous. So anyone who believes his analysis of Oxford, or anywhere else, has to be a bucket low.
Men are undoubtedly more in danger from prosperity than from adversity.—John Calvin
Read this week’s essay here.
Here’s an entry worth your time.
Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55) represents the one of the most sustained assertions of YHWH as creator in the Hebrew Bible. As a theme, creation periodically appears throughout Second Isaiah from 40:12 to 54:16, thus almost the entire span of the work. I argue that the manner in which this text uses the theme of creation is an instance of double influence: first, of deliberate, negative influence in relation to Babylonian creation, and second, of a deliberate (though perhaps subconscious), positive influence in relation to Achaemenid creation (Silverman 2010: 2–3, 6). To substantiate this claim, I will briefly describe creation as it appears in Second Isaiah, creation as it appears in the prologues to the Royal Old Persian inscriptions, contrast these with the wider Ancient Near Eastern Context, and argue for the significant of the Persian context. Thus instead of older arguments over “monotheism” and “dualism,” I argue that the locus for interaction is in the concept of creation.
He uses the word ‘locus’. And there’s more to like!
There is a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue – John Bunyan