Emotion: A Short Introduction

 

Photo by Peter Conlan on Unsplash

It is somewhat paradoxical that emotion is one of the most beloved and one of the most underappreciated aspects of our nature. In popular culture emotion is appealed to in order to move us to action. Churches often foster an environment where emotion motivates you to repent or worship. Advertisements leverage emotion in order to move you buy something. Popular talent shows explicitly tell their singing contestants that their emotional involvement in the performance is as important if not more important than technical accuracy.

However, while popular culture regularly encourages us to have emotions and follow our passions, it doesn’t do much to help us understand what emotions are or how they are appropriately employed. We rarely hear questions like: What are emotions? Are emotional responses morally praiseworthy or blameworthy? Do emotions hinder reason? How do we become emotionally mature? Should we repress our emotions? What role do emotions play in the formation of moral beliefs?

Until we start looking at questions like this, our understanding of emotion will remain superficial. And a superficial understanding of our selves inevitably leads to practical problems.

Aristotle's Lasting Influcence

 

In his book Process and Reality, philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” To be sure, the west is indebted to Plato for his momentous intellectual achievements. But the western emphasis on systematic empirical observation and interpretation comes from Plato’s disciple. Like the brilliant Sir Isaac Newton, Plato’s student Aristotle didn’t just learn various disciplines, he created them. Aristotle invented the disciplines of logic, biology, and ethics and he was considered the expert on these topics well into the middle ages.

Aristotle was born in Stagira Macedonia in 384 BC and was sent to Plato’s academy in Athens around the age of seventeen. After the death of Plato, Aristotle went to Assos for roughly 3 years and then moved again to the island of Lesbos. During this period, it is thought that Aristotle developed biology, with a focus on marine biology. His biological notes were so detailed that some of his observations were not confirmed until the development of higher-powered magnification. In 343 BC the king of Macedon asked Aristotle to tutor his son. Thus, Aristotle became the tutor of one of the most famous men in the ancient world – Alexander the Great.

Does that Bible Teach That We Have Free Will?

Photo by William White on Unsplash

The Bible has lot of things to say about lots of topics. It doesn't speak specifically about how much screen time kids in middle school should have, but it speaks to what we should put our time and energy into. Sometimes the Bible implies certain things about a topic. For example, when it says that we shouldn't murder, we can infer that if something is murder, we shouldn't do it (i.e. abortion).

Other times the Bible assumes that you already have some prerequisite  knowledge that doesn't need to be elaborated on. It's assumed that you have enough understanding to sufficiently grasp the main teaching point of the text.

I think the nature of free will is something like the last option. The Biblical authors assume that you have some concept of free will that you are bringing with you when you read the text. That's not to say that the Scriptures can't set the parameters for your view of free will. It just means that the Bible doesn't offer a treatise on the subject. So when we try to determine "what the Bible says about free will" we shouldn't expect it to directly address contemporary philosophical debates on the subject.

Resources For Those New To Apologetics

This post is for the purpose of giving people who are new to apologetics resources for developing their skill in apologetics. I'll probably add to this list as I have time.

In general, I don't like giving people popular level books. Part of it is because if people aren't willing to read the more scholarly articles, I think they probably need to not be doing apologetics. The other part is that many popular level books / articles on apologetics can be confusing. Here are some articles / sites / books that I recommend to get started in apologetics. I am including resources that are not specifically apologetics books because the task of apologetics requires you to have knowledge of a variety of topics.

Here are some apologists to avoid:

Alex McFarland
Josh McDowell
Ken Ham
Kent Hovind
Hank Hanegraaff
Ray Comfort

Books

Developing the Christian Mind

Love Your God with All Your Mind - Introduction to the Christian life of the mind. I recommend if this if you don't know how the life of the mind fits into your Christian life.

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind - Exploration of the roots of evangelical anti-intellectualism and response.

Documentary Hypothesis

Introduction

A careful reading of the first five books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch) reveals peculiar literary, stylistic, and ideological characteristics. Some of these characteristics are more immediately noticeable, while others require some knowledge of the Hebrew language. More importantly, a large number of biblical scholars claim that the Pentateuch contains diverging literary, stylistic, and ideological characteristics which, they claim, imply different source material throughout the Pentateuch. In modern times, these “divergences” are taken as evidence that the books of Moses were written long after the death of Moses. The theory that adheres to multiple non-Mosaic authors of the Pentateuch is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.

The Potter's Freedom: The Vital Issue

Prior to starting my studies at Southern Evangelical Seminary, I read a book by Norman Geisler titled "Chosen but Free". I was intrigued by the book as it purported to be a balanced view of the doctrine of election.  At that time I was debating the topic quite regularly with my friends and this book was one of the few books available on the topic from a non-Calvinist perspective.

Not long after CBF came out, the reformed apologist James White wrote a book titled "The Potter's Freedom". This book echoed some of the more widely held criticisms of Geisler's position and capitalized on the "strangeness" of the views presented in CBF.  In this series of blog posts, I will not be responding to Geisler.  This is not because I necessarily agree with him on every point; it's simply that I want to focus on White's work.

In this blog post, I want to focus on what White calls "The Vital Issue."  According to White, there is a criterion that serves to delineate between the "supernatural religion of Christianity" and the "man-centered religions that surround us." This delineation has to do with whether or not you think the work of salvation is "perfectly accomplished by God for His own glory" or it "is dependent upon man's cooperation and assistance."

In short, the delineation is between monergism and synergism along with "The truth of predestination (God's freedom) and man's depravity (his will in bondage)."  White claims that you cannot truly be reformed apart from upholding sola fide AND the truth of God's absolute freedom AND man's bondage in sin. He spends a good deal of time juxtaposing Calvinism with what he calls man centered religions. The implication here is that Geisler's position (along with pretty much anyone who is not in line with his brand of Calvinism) is not truly Calvinistic and is therefore a man-centered religion.

Christianity and Mythology with Allan Di Donato

Wanted to post a really great lecture by Allan Di Donato on the topic of Christianity and Mythology. In this lecture he talks about what myth is and has some really interesting conclusions. I especially like his appeal to Jungian psychology as a possible explanation for common mythological themes.

Allan Di Donato is an instructor at Central Piedmont Community College where he teaches the classics. Please check out this lecture and comment!

2011-04-03 EH (Missions - Week 8) from Community Fellowship Church on Vimeo.

A defense of the cessation of the apostolic sign gifts - sort of...

Introduction

While I don't agree that the case for the cessation of the apostolic sign gifts is air tight, I do find it helpful to set forth the case for the position in order to make sure the position is adequately understood.  In this article, I hope to put forward the case in a meaningful and charitable way.

Before Jesus Christ went to be with the Father, He spoke of the coming of the promised Holy Spirit. To His apostles He said, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Acts 1:8). When Jesus came, He “drew heaven with Him.”  When He went back to heaven, He did not leave His apostles to their own natural abilities. Rather, He graciously sent the Holy Spirit to give them supernatural gifts for the purpose of establishing the church.

In this article it will be argued that certain gifts of the Spirit have ceased with the passing of the original apostolic church. This article will give most of its attention to the connection between the apostles and the sign gifts. First, a general introduction to the gifts of the Spirit will be given. Next, a connection between the sign gifts and the apostles will be made. Possible objections to the connection between the apostles and the sign gifts will be discussed during the course of the article. After this, a summary of an argument for Cessationism will be given. Finally, some practical implications will be drawn.

You’re Just Being Judgmental

I am not entirely sure what most people, especially liberals, are thinking when they say that you are being judgmental.  Perhaps they mean that you are looking upon another human being with disdain.  Or perhaps they mean that you are calling someone’s actions morally reprehensible.  That kind of a claim is often accompanied by a negative emotion aimed at the person you are condemning.

The most puzzling use of the term “judgmental” is when it is used to describe a person who is simply affirming something as true.  For example, if I simply say “I think Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven” I find it mind boggling that I would be called judgmental for simply stating my position.  In these cases, “judgmental” simply means, “you disagree with me, thus you are judgmental”.  If that was a legitimate use of the term “judgmental” then everyone is judgmental about something as we all disagree about lots of things.

Clement of Rome

Life (approximate): AD 30 - 100
Bishop of Rome (approximate): AD 90 / 91 - 100
Writings: Letter to the Corinthians

Early Sources Concerning Clement of Rome: (not a comprehensive list)
Paul - Philippians 4:3 (Eusebius claims that Paul is speaking about Clement here)
Irenaeus - Against Heresies: Book 3, Chapter 3
Eusebius - Church History: Book 3
Tertullian - Prescription Against Heretics

Timeline with Roman Emperors:

Introduction:

Clement of Rome, who according to the Roman Church is the fourth pope, is grouped among what are called the Apostolic Fathers.  Apostolic church fathers are early church fathers who had dealings with the apostles.  In the case of Clement, he is said to have been ordained by the Apostle Peter.  There isn't a single book that tells about his life and thought, rather we have glimpses of the man through various sources.  The only legitimate letter we have from him is his letter to the Corinthians which was read in many churches along with Scripture for several centuries.

"There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness." -Eusebius: Church History

My Elevating Experience

I began my search for the church that best exemplifies the life and teaching of Jesus Christ at Elevation Church in Charlotte, NC.  Elevation is one of the largest churches in the Charlotte area and is supposedly one of the fastest growing churches in the country.  When I arrived this morning, I was asked "How did you hear about Elevation?"  My answer: "You can't live in Charlotte without knowing about Elevation".  I can be in any part of the city or surrounding area and I will see an Elevation bumper sticker.  If I do a Google search that includes the word "church", Elevation is the first site that pops up.

So I decided to check out this mega-church to see what it was like.  To be completely honest, I am not a big fan of mega-churches.  I tend to lump them all together into the category of "seeker-sensitive churches that have lots of people but very little depth".  Be that as it may, I did my best to set aside my prejudices so that I could learn what this church was about.  In my search, I want to do my best to see the good in each church that I attend.  To be sure, I will be noting things that I disagree with or that I find problematic, but these things will not constitute the substance of my blog posts.  At this point, I am more concerned about what it is that draws people to one church or another.

Classical Arminianism and Total Depravity

In this post, I would like to explore similarities and differences in how classical Arminians and Calvinists view the doctrine of total depravity.  I say "classical Arminianism" because many people who claim to be Arminian do not understand Arminianism as it was stated by Arminius himself.  For example, the following website does NOT speak for the classical Arminian:

http://thegracecommunity.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/what-is-arminianism/

Free-will or human ability. ...Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists in his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation. (emphasis mine)

I understand why Calvinists react so strongly to these portrayals of Arminian theology.  Contrary to the quote above Arminius did not believe that faith is the sinner's gift to God.  Nor did he maintain that man's will, in his fallen state, is free from enslavement to sin.  In his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, Roger Olson writes the following:

Arminius could not have made clearer his belief that human beings are utterly helpless and totally dependent on grace for their salvation.

Roger E. Olson. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (p. 142). Kindle Edition. 

Introduction to Robert C. Roberts View of Emotions

Robert C. Roberts is a philosopher who engages in the contemporary discussion concerning the nature of emotions. His scholarly work defending his position may be found in his book Emotions: An Essay in Aid of Moral Psychology. He has also written a work titled Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues which elaborates on how his view of emotions assists the Christian in his or her spiritual walk. In this post, I simply want to offer a sketch of his view. However, before I sketch his view I want to give a little background on the way in which Roberts approaches the study of emotions.

In ancient and medieval philosophy, emotions were usually spoken of within the context of a broader philosophical anthropology. Aquinas, for example, differentiates the various types of souls into the natural (vegetative) soul, the sensitive soul, and the rational soul. Rational souls have the powers of the lower sensitive and natural soul; however, in addition to those powers the rational soul also has the power of reason. Aquinas locates emotions in the sensitive part of the soul. In particular, he situates them in the sensitive appetite. (Note: At this point, I do not think that the modern term “emotions” is the equivalent of Aquinas’ terms “passiones” or “affectiones”.)

By contrast, the contemporary debate makes use of neuroscience, experimental psychology, evolutionary biology, etc... Some researchers believe they have found interesting results as they study brain states and their corresponding emotional states. Others think that experimental psychology is more helpful in arriving at the nature of emotions. Anthropologists might draw their conclusions about emotion by comparing those emotions that seem to cross cultural boundaries with those that seem to be unique to a particular culture.

Aquinas on Impassibility: SCG (Q.89-90)

I have been meaning to read, and understand, Aquinas’ reasons for his doctrine of impassibility for a while now.  To that end, I want to offer my thoughts on questions 89 and 90 of book 1 of Aquinas’ work Summa Contra Gentiles.  I am aware that these are not the only passages that speak to this doctrine.  I am just biting off this small chuck for this post.

In SCG question 89, (sections 1 – 7) Aquinas argues that passions are excluded from God by reason of their genus.  Ultimately, passions are excluded because they are passive potencies.  Since God has no passive potency, it follows that God has no passions.

In that same question (sections 8 – 15) Aquinas argues that some passions are excluded, not merely because their genus, but on account of their species as well.  His first example is sorrow and pain.  They can’t be found in God because “its subject is the already present evil”.  So the nature of certain passions themselves implies some evil or some lack in the subject, which for Aquinas, means that they are not befitting the nature of God.

1 Corinthians 12 - Sermon

If you want to watch the video of this sermon, click here.

This morning, we will be looking at the book of 1 Corinthians.  In addition to being one of the most quoted books by the early church fathers, the book of 1 Corinthians also happens to be one of my favorite books in the New Testament.  This morning we will be focusing primarily on chapter 12.

Initially, I liked the book because it’s the largest available treatise on spiritual gifts.  Being raised in the Charismatic / Pentecostal church, I tended to focus almost entirely on chapters 12 through 14.  I remember being both delighted and frustrated at Paul’s comments that we should “desire spiritual gifts…”  After all, during that time of my life, one of the most important things for me was the obtaining of the gifts of the Spirit.  I wanted to be able to prophecy or perform miracles.  Many of you might find this desire to be odd; however, given my goals and circumstances, this desire was a natural one.

As a teenager, I remember having a very strong desire to be “the best Christian I can be”.  Since I, and those around me, thought that the pinnacle of one’s spiritual life is to obtain spiritual gifts, naturally I sought them so that I could be spiritually fulfilled.  The logic was simple

1. I desire to be as spiritual as possible.
2. Obtaining the gifts of the Spirit is the mark of someone who is advanced in his or her spirituality. 
3. Therefore, I desire to obtain the gifts of the Spirit.

Kant and the Theistic Arguments

Immanuel Kant thought that arguments for the existence of God fell into one of three categories. Logically speaking, all classical arguments could be reduced to a form of the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, or the teleological argument (physico-theological argument). His rejection of the first two arguments was primarily due to his rejection of the ontological argument. He maintained that the cosmological argument depended on the ontological argument, such that a destruction of the ontological argument entailed the destruction of the cosmological argument.

Kant’s refutation of the ontological argument stemmed primarily from a single criticism. He denied that existence added anything to the essence of a thing. In other words, the concept “exist” does not contribute to one’s knowledge of what that thing is. The defenders of the ontological argument thought that God must have all positive perfections, including the perfection of existence. Kant rejected this because he thought that what a thing is may be properly understood without illicitly adding the property of existence. This meant that, even if the idea of God necessarily entailed the possession of all positive perfections, existence itself could not be listed among those positive perfections.

The Kantian Synthesis

Like many of the modern philosophers, Immanuel Kant became disillusioned with the philosophers before him. During his early years he was very sympathetic to the Leibnizian school. Eventually he was exposed to the writings of David Hume, and this helped him to see the weaknesses of rationalism and the importance of the empirical approach to philosophy. Rather than accepting the skeptical conclusions of Hume, Kant sought to save science and philosophy. He did not want to see the entire modern philosophical and scientific projects demolished.

Kant admired the certainty found in mathematics, but he also admired the scientific advances in physics (championed by Sir Isaac Newton). He realized that if he sided with the rationalists, he would have to minimize the importance of the physical sciences and hence the importance of the advancements made by recent scientists. If, on the other hand, he sided with the empiricists, he would have to give up certainty along with God and morality. Rather than siding with one school or the other, Kant created his own Copernican revolution in philosophy.

Psychology in the Spirit: A Book Review

This book review can be found in the "Christian Apologetics Journal" as well.

Psychology in the Spirit: Contours of a Transformational Psychology. Coe, John H., & Todd W. Hall. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2010. 446 pages. (Paperback), $30.00. ISBN 978-0-8308-2813-5.

I recall taking Psychology in the Spirit off of the shelf of our seminary library and thinking “Excellent, another work on psychology from Christian thinkers who are well-acquainted with psychology, theology, and philosophy!” I thought that it would be a book that lays out different theoretical models of how to integrate the above mentioned disciplines. Additionally, I expected to see a book that sketches the author’s theoretical ideas and how those ideas are practically worked out in a clinical setting. Psychology in the Spirit does these things, but it wasn’t as technical as I expected. On the contrary, it was surprisingly accessible.

While different views of integration are presented, an in-depth analysis of these models is not the primary thrust of the book. Rather than debating the fine points of each conceptual model, Dr. Coe and Dr. Hall present their breed of a “transformational psychology” in a holistic fashion, emphasizing the person, process, and product of their model of psychology.

Augustine on Lying - Sermon

If you would like to download the audio for this sermon, click here.

I would like to elaborate a bit on what a lie is, on whether or not is it always wrong to lie, and on whether or not we can lie to ourselves. Rather than just giving you my own immature thoughts on the subject, I want to draw on the thoughts of St. Augustine. I don’t know that I fully agree with Augustine, but I think he is a good place to start. Perhaps I can do another sermon where we look at Aquinas’ view, Newman’s view, and Kant’s view.

My interest in this topic was stirred up by a book called “Lying: An Augustinian Theology of Duplicity” by Paul J. Griffiths. The Holy Spirit had already been convicting me of my own tendency to be dishonest, but this book helped clarify and sharpen my vision so that I began to see more clearly just how deep and wide my dishonesty is.

All of us know that it is wrong to lie, but few of us see how easy it is to lie and how entrenched we are in our own lies. In fact, if you made it your life’s ambition to never lie, you would probably be one of the most socially awkward people around. Many of our “social graces” rely on our ability distort our true thoughts. Even if we think someone smells funny, we usually shy away from telling them this. Anyone who just blurted out his thoughts without any sort of filter would be considered rude.

Spinoza and Aquinas on the Divine Substance

In this article, two views concerning the nature of the Divine Substance will be explained and compared. First, some key points concerning Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza’s view will be given. After that, the classical view of God will be offered. As the classical view is explained, similarities and differences between the two views will be highlighted.

Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza’s View of Divine Substance

Substance as Self-Sufficient

In his book A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics, Jonathan Bennett outlines five aspects of Spinoza’s thinking that set the stage for his philosophy in general and his view of the Divine Substance in particular. Two of those five aspects will be mentioned here, as they are more pertinent to our discussion of the Divine Substance. The two aspects of his thinking which are relevant to our discussion are his implicit notions of “explanatory rationalism” and “causal rationalism”. Explanatory rationalism refers to the idea that, given a fact, an explanation may be given for that fact. Causal rationalism is an extension of explanatory rationalism. It makes causal relationships strong analogs to logical relationships.

According to Bennett, explanatory rationalism “is the refusal to admit brute facts”. In other words, the explanatory rationalist cannot offer ‘it just is the case’ as an explanation for any given fact. Everything, in principle, must be explainable. Causal rationalism is the refusal to allow a distinction between what is logically necessary and what is causally necessary. The causal rationalist thinks that logical necessity does not merely entail causal necessity; rather, to speak of logical necessity is simply another way of talking about causal necessity. As Bennett states, “When [Spinoza] speaks of ‘the reason or cause why Nature acts’… he thinks he is talking about one relation, not two.”