tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-347498392024-03-07T13:21:21.914-05:00Covenant Theology"Worshipping in Spirit AND TRUTH" (John 4:23)Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-4242793769516460192016-09-20T07:05:00.000-04:002016-09-21T14:51:20.495-04:00A False DichotomyA
friend recently put up a short post on Facebook in which he
dichotomises faith and science:<br />
<div style="line-height: 0.5cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 1;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.5cm; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 1;">
<i>'There
are 2 ways of looking at the World: faith & superstition, or the
rigours of logic, observation & finally evidence. Reason & a
respect for evidence are the only sources of human progress, they
also provide a safeguard against fundamentalists & those who
profit from obscuring the truth.'</i></div>
<br />
It
is the standard stuff we see from atheists, the usual
quasi-scientific piety that collapses upon inspection. The quote is
worth reproducing here since this view (in some or other variation)
is so common among atheists and accepted as being self-evidently
true.
<br />
<br />
<i>'There
are 2 ways of looking at the World: faith & superstition, or the
rigours of logic, observation & finally evidence.'</i>
<br />
<br />
1.
As is all too common, the dichotomy is set up. Faith and superstition
on one side, logic, observation and evidence on the other, with no
sense of compulsion to <i>argue</i> for such a dichotomy. It is an
<i>un</i><i>questioned</i><i> assumption</i> and it is extremely
simplistic and problematic.<br />
<br />
2.
Faith and superstition are put side by side with the negative
connotation that they are necessarily in the same backward category,
while science, of course, is free from all and any type of faith.<br />
<br />
3.
'Faith' is thrown out with the intention of being derogatory, with no
thought given to the term and how it can hold different levels of
meaning in different contexts.<br />
<br />
4.
Biblical faith is <i>multifaceted</i>,<i> </i>and is very much an
<i>evidence-based </i>faith, and not <i>blind faith </i>on a level
with superstition, as the quote wants to suggest.<br />
<br />
5.
The quote fails to understand that certain scientific theories must
be taken by faith. Take the standard and widely accepted Darwinian
'theory' of origins. The hypothesis of common descent and
transformation is a hypothesis which has not been derived from the
observational sciences, and is therefore a hypothesis that must
largely be accepted on faith.<br />
<br />
6.
The atheist presupposes that the origin of the universe and all of
life arose by purely naturalistic means. This is not a scientific
position but rather a philosophical position, and it is a position
that requires, one might say, an astonishing level of faith.<br />
<br />
7.
<i>Atheism</i> itself, from which these grandiose statements find
their basis and confidence, is a belief which ultimately requires
faith. Atheism is not some default position that is true unless
proven otherwise; atheism shoulders a <i>tremendous </i>burden of
responsibility, yet it is taken as a given by a vast number of its
adherents.<br />
<br />
<i>'Reason
& a respect for evidence are the only sources of human
progress...'</i><br />
<br />
1. Again,
this sounds very grand, very noble. Trouble is, it is fundamentally
flawed as, again, it presupposes reason and evidence are <i>opposed
</i><i>to</i> and <i>separate </i><i>from</i> faith.<br />
<br />
2.
On a naturalistic scheme of things, how can one be sure that one's
reasoning faculties are accurately corresponding with the world
around them? If one believes that one's sense organs developed from
blind, physical, non-purposeful natural forces, then how can one be
sure that these sense organs provide accurate information about the
world <i>beyond themselves</i> rather than simply <i>inferred </i>from
them? The atheist must take by <i>faith </i>that their reasoning
faculties<i> </i>are giving them accurate information about the world
<i>beyond </i>those reasoning faculties.<br />
<br />
3.
Moreover, how can the atheist justify the validity of their reasoning
faculties without <i>appealing to </i>their reasoning faculties, thus
engaging in viciously circular argumentation? Again, the atheist must
take by <i>faith </i>the validity of their reasoning faculties.<br />
<br />
4.
On atheism, what is human progress? To propagate one's genes,
perhaps? But given evolutionary assumptions, whence lies the
<i>imperative </i>to propagate one's genes? Why <i>ought </i>the
human species keep on moving?<br />
<br />
5.
On Christianity, <i>human progress </i>can encompass a number of
meaningful aspects, for example by cultivating right and wrong and
moral and ethical norms in ourselves and in our young; by bringing
ourselves and our young closer to the creator by studying His word
and keeping His precepts; by loving our neighbour and impressing upon
them that we are all image bearers of God with intrinsic value,
purpose and significance to our lives; by sharing the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, and aiming for the <i>ultimate </i>in human progress by means
of the Spirit bringing the unbeliever out of bondage and into eternal
salvation. It is the <i>Christian </i>who can rightly and without
contradiction speak of human progress.<br />
<i><br /></i>
'.<i>..they
also provide a safeguard against fundamentalists & those who
profit from obscuring the truth.'</i><br />
<br />
1.
Again, this is a mere rhetorical device that doesn't really mean
anything.<br />
<br />
2.
Are there 'fundamentalists' (typically, 'fundamentalists' here is
being applied to all believers, with a complete misunderstanding of,
and thus narrow, derogatory use of, the term) who wish to profit from
their output, no matter how accurate that output? Sure. Richard
Dawkins, I believe, in his <i>The God Delusion</i>, would qualify as
one such wild-eyed, unthinking fundamentalist (properly applying the
derogatory usage here). So what? Are all atheists unthinking,
swivel-eyed, humanist manifesto-thumping fundamentalists?<br />
<br />
3.
Traditionally, of course, a Christian fundamentalist would be one who
holds to the <i>fundamentals of the Christian faith. </i>Unfortunately,
the term has taken on a life of its own, with many an atheist showing
no willingness to apply the term – and thus represent the Christian
– accurately<br />
<br />
Interestingly,
we must conclude that the claim,<br />
<br />
<i>'There
are 2 ways of looking at the World: faith & superstition, or the
rigours of logic, observation & finally evidence. Reason & a
respect for evidence are the only sources of human progress...'</i><br />
<br />
is
itself a claim that cannot withstand the scrutiny of logic and
reason.<br />
<br />
Soli
Deo Gloria
Dannyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-32924572602504750112016-07-19T07:01:00.000-04:002016-07-20T05:45:56.950-04:00The Euthyphro Dilemma<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Put simply, the modern version of the
Euthyphro Dilemma is usually presented something like this:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>Are morally good acts good by virtue
of their own nature, or are morally good acts good because God says
they are good? </i>
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The first horn of the 'dilemma' implies
that the good is external to, and thus independent of, God. The
second horn implies God's commands would, therefore, be arbitrary.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There are multiple problems with this.
We'll list a few.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
1. The Euthyphro Dilemma assumes a very low
view of God. It assumes a non-specific God who hands down to a
disconnected creation laws which He is either subject to by virtue of
their already existing outside of Himself, or to which He is loosely
related through His arbitrarily revealing them to the creation.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is important to point out that God's
commands, or divine laws, flow from His very nature, which is
<i>essentially good</i>. Being
the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, God is beholden to <i>no-one</i>
and <i>nothing </i>outside of
Himself. As
<i>necessary Being</i>, we
can say, No God, no good!
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
2. The God of Christianity is Triune.
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit relate to one another
<i>necessarily </i>and <i>eternall</i><i>y</i>.
This interrelationship
provides the very foundation of morality. The
Persons of the Trinity are
not beholden to any external law, nor
are they subject to the
arbitrary commands of one or
the other. Rather, they are in co-relation out of perfect and uniform
love for one another. God's
commands, or
laws,
are
a reflection
of His very character and
nature, not the result of whimsical
arbitrariness or
impulsiveness, nor are
they the result of laws
external to God to which He is beholden.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Once
we take this
into account, along with
some of the essential attributes<i> </i>of
God, like the <i>supremacy </i>of
God, the <i>sovereignty </i>of
God, the <i>immutability</i>,
or <i>unchanging
nature</i><i> </i>of God, the <i>self-sufficiency</i> of God,
and the <i>goodness</i> of
God, we begin to
understand that God's
character and nature is the very
standard of all that is good,
and the objections
posed by the Euthyphro Dilemma
vanish. God loves morally good acts because He <i>is </i>good,
and therefore His commands <i>reflect </i>His
<i>essential </i><i>goodness</i>. God is entirely self-sufficient, and is in need of nothing outside of Himself.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
3. In
some sense it is true that God loves morally good acts because they
are morally good,
and in another sense it is true that morally good acts are that
which God commands. But this
is a mere
tautology.
A necessary truth. It
does not<i> </i>entail
that there is a
standard outside of God, nor that God's standard is arbitrary, and
to argue such is to offer
an incomplete analysis.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We have an <i>innate</i> awareness of
God's divine commands, or laws. (Romans 2:15), thus <i>moral obligations </i>are divine laws. There is a necessary relationship between
God's moral law and our moral obligations. Duty-related
properties depend on God's commands,
but evaluative properties, such as goodness, do not.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It is true that an
action is morally obligatory since God has commanded it, but the
<i>goodness</i><i> </i>of an action does <i>not</i> depend on God's
commanding it; the goodness itself flows from God's <i>essentially
good </i>nature.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The proponent of
the Euthyphro Dilemma usually fails to take into account this distinction.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Now, a standard objection will look like this (or some variation
thereof):</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
'So
God
could have commanded that rape is good?'</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
No. God's very character and nature would prevent Him from doing so.
See the non-arbitrariness of God's commands above.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
1.
To repeat, this
simply
ignores the rational and
valid explanation given by
the Christian, and is a
rather transparent
attempt to save the dilemma. God's
very character and nature would prevent Him from declaring
rape a morally good act. (see
above.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
2.
The objection shows that
the objector is aware that rape is
in fact <i>not</i>
a
morally good
act.
The
contrast is clear. The
objector attempts to communicate that God <i>'could'
</i>have
commanded something <i>bad
</i>to
be <i>good</i>,
hence the objector, in the very objection, demonstrates that they
have an
innate knowledge
of what is good and bad. The
objection demonstrates they are acutely aware of the absurdity of
declaring rape to be a morally good act. And
if <i>they </i>are
aware of this, how much more God?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Soli
Deo Gloria</div>
Dannyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03954530962872661952noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-39094818575866578142014-03-25T13:38:00.000-04:002014-03-27T15:19:49.052-04:00Another GospelHow are we commanded to preach the gospel? What do we tell the unbeliever? For much of modern evangelism, preaching the way of salvation involves telling the unbeliever that 'Jesus died for<u> <strong>your</strong> </u>sins,' or 'God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.' <br />
<br />
<br />
There is no Scripture that says Jesus died for<u> <strong>your</strong></u> sins; no one can have assurance of this until they have been saved. The biblical command is to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour (Ac. 26:20; Lk 24:47). Suddenly aware of our sinful state, our complete and utter helplessness, we throw ourselves upon His mercy. <br />
<br />
<br />
You may have heard the catchy call to 'Decide for Christ,' and perhaps the encouragement to 'Go and tell somebody what you have done here today.' Not what God has done, but what <strong><u>you</u></strong> have done. Having attended both a Pentecostal and a High Anglican church, I regularly witnessed this kind of talk. But is it the case that the unregenerate can just 'decide' to come to Christ, practically on a whim, or impulse? Do these promptings in any way resemble the apostolic proclamation we find in the Bible? But it gets worse. Not only do we have preachers giving this supposed 'gospel message' to unbelievers, but they also fail to convict the unbelievers of their sinful nature and their standing before a holy and righteous God. Where's the conviction of men's hearts before God? Sure, we might, if we're lucky, hear the preacher refer to his audience (and himself) as sinners, and we may hear of repentance, and 'choosing' Christ. We will even hear him speak of the need for Christ... There is only so much of the message you can actually leave out. But these limp-wristed 'acknowledgements' are hardly worthy of the name. The message is so stripped of its punch as to be practically unrecognisable to the one true gospel.<br />
<br />
<br />
This modern message carries with it some faulty presuppositions. To name but two:<br />
<br />
<br />
1. The unregenerate are capable of repenting and believing<br />
2. The proclamation that Christ died for <strong><u>your </u></strong>sins, i.e., the sins of every man head for head<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span lang="EN">Re: 1. Repentance is a moral act since it requires one to change one's mind and hate one's sin. <i>Metanoia</i> means a total change of heart. One must be regenerated in order to have this change of heart. The truly penitent cannot be unregenerate. <br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him</span></em> (Romans 8:8-9 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
Since repentance is a moral act which is pleasing to God, then it follows that one cannot repent unless one has the Spirit of God. <br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned</span></em> (1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
It is crystal clear from sacred Scripture that those without the Spirit of God cannot <em>understand </em>the things of God, and therefore cannot <em>do </em>that which is pleasing to Him. <br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."</span></em> (John 3:3-6 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
Unregenerate man must be born again before he can repent and believe. Until then, he can do nothing to please God. <br />
<br /><br />
Until then he is dead in his sins:<br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">1<span style="background-color: blue;"> And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved</span></span></em> (Ephesians 2:1-5 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
The inspired apostle Paul contrasts the old life with the new, how we once carried out the desires of the body and mind, living by the passions of the flesh. This is precisely the state of the unregenerate. But God made us alive. The Greek here for dead - <em>nekros - </em>means<em> </em>'deceased', 'lifeless'. Spiritually speaking, when we preach to the unregenerate we are preaching to <strong><u>corpses</u></strong>. There is nothing in man that can move him spiritually apart from the work of God. We must tell the unbeliever of his standing as a rebel in relation to God, his wholesale rebellion and the need for the grace of God and for <em>His </em>granting of repentance. <br />
<br /><br />
Re: 2. The presupposition that Christ died for the sins of all men everywhere who ever lived simply cannot be supported from Scripture. <br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep...24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."</span> </em>(John 10:14-15, 24-27 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
Jesus is talking about His sheep. Those whom the Father has given Him. Christ plainly tells the hostile Jews the reason they do not believe is because <u><strong>they are not of His flock</strong></u>. To those Christians blind to their own (or others') traditions, this sounds too radical! They want to change the meaning of Jesus' words to something like, <em>"...but you are not of my flock because you do not (yet) believe." </em>But this is to turn Christ's words on their head! <br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not of God."</span></em> (John 8:42-47 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
Again, as with so many places in Scripture, we see particularity in our Saviour's very own words. The unbelieving Jews are deaf to Jesus' words. Why? Because they are not of God. They are of their father the devil, and they are content that way. <br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I have said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."</span></em> (John 6:35-37 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
Christ is making clear that those who have seen Him and do not believe <em>cannot</em> have been given Him by the Father. Right after telling these unbelievers that they have seen and yet do not believe, Christ tells them that those whom the Father gives Him <em>will</em> come to Him, <em>will </em>believe! <br />
<br /><br />
Modern evangelism needs to rid itself of the unbiblical message, 'Christ died for you', and return to something resembling the urgency of the apostolic message. Are we living in less urgent times? Is the gospel less important today than it was in the day of the apostles? We are to convict the rebel of his standing before a righteous and holy God. Nothing less will do. We are to preach <em><u>the gospel</u></em>. The rest is up to God.<br />
<br /><br />
We end with a glorious truth:<br />
<br /><br />
<em><span style="background-color: blue;">No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.</span></em> (John 6:44 ESV)<br />
<br /><br />
Soli Deo Gloria<br />
</span><dir><span lang="EN"><span class="text Eph-2-5"> </span></span></dir><dir><span class="text Eph-2-5"><br /></span></dir><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com29tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-26889238760426560002013-04-11T11:08:00.001-04:002013-04-11T11:11:50.115-04:00Amputees and GodFollowing a debate with unbelievers, a 'drive-by' left this link: <a href="http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm">http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm</a><br />
<br />
It seems the crusaders at this site are still under the impression they have a knockout blow to Christianity on their hands. Navigating the forums, it becomes quite clear that the 'importance' of this question has more to do with confirming their unbelief than God intervening on behalf of amputees. One gets a sense that this is the 'feather in the cap' for these rebels. There is no real desire to seek God, just a poor attempt at one-upmanship. <br />
<br />
I'm going to take their two fundamental claims and show them to be fallacious, and therefore the 'question' incoherent. This will not be exhaustive, so feel free to chime in with any additional criticisms.<br />
<br />
<em>'Clearly, if God is real, limbs should regenerate through prayer. In reality, they do not.'</em><br />
<br />
1. There is an assumption that, if God exists, He must heal amputees. This is an <em>unargued </em>assumption, and it is a patently false assumption.<br />
<br />
2. There is an assumption that, if God exists, His purpose and plan must involve healing amputees. Again this is a false assumption. <br />
<br />
3. There is an assumption that, if God exists, He must heal amputees, regardless of His purpose and plan, in order to appease sinners, thus elevating the 'plans of men' above His own plan in creation. False assumption. <br />
<br />
4. There is an assumption that, if God exists, He does not heal amputees; yet without possessing knowledge of all amputees everywhere, past and present, they are relying on an inductive process in order to make the general claim (embedded in the assertion and main question) that God does not (and <em>will not</em>) heal amputees. Thus the question, 'Why won't God heal amputees?', is completely fallacious, and at best incoherent! Technically, we could dismiss the whole thing out of hand based on this alone!<br />
<br />
5. There is a presupposition that the healing of amputees would be <strong><em>good</em></strong>; but whose standard of <strong><em>good </em></strong>are they applying here? Their own? What if their standard of <strong><em>good </em></strong>differs from mine? Without a consistent, objective standard of <strong><em>good</em></strong>, the 'objection' carries no significance whatsoever. <br />
<br />
Christians have the ultimate standard of <strong><em>good</em></strong>, a just and righteous God. This does not make us any 'better' than unbelievers; we all deserve hell according to God's standard of <strong><em>good</em></strong>. <br />
<br />
<em>'The bible clearly promises that God answers prayers.'</em><br />
<br />
It's always amusing watching unbelievers trying to 'exegete' the Scripture... I'd like to see just one rebel let the Scriptures speak for themselves...<br />
<br />
While the Bible says that God will answer prayers, these prayers are to be in accordance with His will, that is to say, in accordance with God's purpose and plan in creation:<br />
<br />
<span class="text 1John-5-14" id="en-ESVUK-30622"><sup class="versenum">14 </sup>And this is <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30622A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>the confidence that we have towards him, that <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30622B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup>if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.</span> <br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15" id="en-ESVUK-30623"><sup class="versenum"></sup></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><sup class="versenum">15 </sup>And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.</span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15">(1 John 5:14-15 ESV)</span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15">This is what Jesus means when He says,</span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-13" id="en-ESVUK-26670"><span class="woj"><sup class="versenum">13 </sup><sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-26670A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-26670B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup>the Father may be glorified in the Son.</span></span> </span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14" id="en-ESVUK-26671"><span class="woj"><sup class="versenum"></sup></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><sup class="versenum">14 </sup><sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-26671C" title="See cross-reference C">C</a>)"></sup>If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj">(John 14:13-14 ESV)</span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23" id="en-ESVUK-26738"><span class="woj"><sup class="versenum">23 </sup><sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-26738A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>In that day you will <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-26738B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup>ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-26738C" title="See cross-reference C">C</a>)"></sup>whatever you ask of the Father in my name, <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-26738D" title="See cross-reference D">D</a>)"></sup>he will give it to you.</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj">(John 16:23 ESV)</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj">Jesus is not giving us <span id="pagetitle">carte blanche to just ask for any old thing in His name. </span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj">We are to ask in faith:</span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"><span class="text Jas-1-6" id="en-ESVUK-30256"><sup class="versenum">6 </sup>But <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30256A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>let him ask in faith, <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30256B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup>with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30256C" title="See cross-reference C">C</a>)"></sup>a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.</span> </span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"><span class="text Jas-1-7" id="en-ESVUK-30257"><sup class="versenum">7 </sup>For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord;</span> <span class="text Jas-1-8" id="en-ESVUK-30258"><sup class="versenum"></sup></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"><span class="text Jas-1-8"><sup class="versenum"></sup></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"><span class="text Jas-1-8"><sup class="versenum">8 </sup><sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30258D" title="See cross-reference D">D</a>)"></sup>he is a double-minded man, <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30258E" title="See cross-reference E">E</a>)"></sup>unstable in all his ways.</span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text 1John-5-15"><span class="text John-14-14"><span class="woj"><span class="text John-16-23"><span class="woj"><span class="text Jas-1-8"></span></span></span></span></span></span>(James 1:6-8 ESV)<br />
<br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3" id="en-ESVUK-30324"><sup class="versenum">3 </sup>You ask and do not receive, because you ask <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-30324A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>wrongly, to spend it on your passions.</span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3">(James 4:3 ESV)</span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26" id="en-ESVUK-28127"><sup class="versenum">26 </sup>Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28127A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28127B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup>the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.</span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26">(Romans 8:26 ESV)</span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"></span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26">Is 'testing' God demonstrating faith? </span></span><span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26">Can we truly pray apart from the Spirit? </span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"></span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26">And God works all things for the good of His people:</span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"></span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"><span class="text Rom-8-26" id="en-ESVUK-28127"><sup class="versenum">26 </sup>Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28127A" title="See cross-reference A">A</a>)"></sup>we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28127B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></sup>the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.</span> <span class="text Rom-8-27" id="en-ESVUK-28128"><sup class="versenum"></sup></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"><span class="text Rom-8-27"><sup class="versenum"></sup></span></span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"><span class="text Rom-8-27"><sup class="versenum">27 </sup>And <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28128C" title="See cross-reference C">C</a>)"></sup>he who searches hearts knows what is <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28128D" title="See cross-reference D">D</a>)"></sup>the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28128E" title="See cross-reference E">E</a>)"></sup>intercedes for the saints <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28128F" title="See cross-reference F">F</a>)"></sup>according to the will of God.</span> </span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"></span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"><span class="text Rom-8-28" id="en-ESVUK-28129"><sup class="versenum">28 </sup>And we know that for those who love God all things work together <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28129G" title="See cross-reference G">G</a>)"></sup>for good, for <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESVUK-28129H" title="See cross-reference H">H</a>)"></sup>those who are called according to his purpose.</span></span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26">(Romans 8:26-28 ESV)</span></span><br />
<span class="text Jas-4-3"><span class="text Rom-8-26"></span></span><br />
So to sum up, yet again we see the unbelievers' 'knock-down' arguments for what they are, having more holes than a second-hand dart board. Rational thought seems to just fly out of the window with these guys (if it was ever there in the first place). And yet again we witness a <span id="pagetitle">lackadaisical attempt at Biblical exegesis that would make a Sunday school child shudder. </span><br />
<br />
Soli Deo Gloria<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-68555165242880503192013-04-01T18:13:00.000-04:002013-04-01T13:22:47.281-04:002013 Walk For Life<div class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">My
monthly solicitation For Comfortcare: Please consider a tax deductible
contribution to Anika's Walk For Life Page. She has reached her
personal goal, but more contributions are always needed. The walk is
just over a month away. It does make a difference:<br /> <br /> Sobering Statistics:<br /><span class="text_exposed_show"> <br /> 205 - the number of abortions performed on residents of our service area in 2011<br /> <br /> 43 - the number of babies at risk of abortion given life through ComfortCare services in 2012<br /> <br /> 378 - the number of fetal development brochures given out to ComfortCare patients in 2012</span></span></span></div>
Please visit the link below and consider a tax deductible contribution of any amount.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ministrysync.com/event/website/?m=1250351">Anika's Walk For Life Page</a>Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-12225007627232594292013-03-15T11:41:00.000-04:002013-03-15T17:00:43.042-04:00Science And Wisdom Part V<b>Worldviews, The Scientific Method, and Logic</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"For the children of the Calvinistic Reformation, there should be no question of wasting time in long scholastic discussions about whether science and philosophy also pertain to the kingdom of Jesus Christ or whether they belong instead to a domain of natural reason. This discussion need not go on, because, as we have shown, there is no natural reason that is independent of the religious driving force which controls the heart of human existence." (<u>Herman Dooyeweerd - THE SECULARIZATION OF SCIENCE</u>)</blockquote>
<br />
Is science neutral when it comes to metaphysics? If not, then what kind of worldview does science require?<br />
<br />
It is no accident that modern science has it's origins in Western culture. This is not to say that other cultures, both past and present, have never dabbled in science. Indeed, they have done so in limited fashion despite the fact that their worldviews not conducive to science. In Eastern philosophies, the physical universe is considered to be "maya", or illusion, and the ultimate goal in these belief systems is to escape that illusion through enlightenment. Thus any serious study of nature is bound to be limited as a result. Pagan cultures tend to deify nature. Therefore, any natural phenomenon can be simply written off as a non-transcendental act performed by an independent spirit, separate from other independent spirits. Thus there are no real "laws of nature" to be studied, only spirits to be appeased.<br />
<br />
Despite the modern efforts to push science into secularism, there are several major obstacles to science when is approached from a strict materialist point of view, many of which we have already encountered. It is the Christian worldview that provides the necessary preconditions that make scientific enterprise possible. Among the most foundational of these preconditions are the doctrines of Creation (justification that the physical universe is real) and Providence (justification for the uniformity of nature and inductive reasoning). These presuppositions can be more readily seen as we examine the scientific method itself.<br />
<br />
Here is a rundown, more or less, of what is referred to as the scientific method. <br />
<br />
1.) Define the question.<br />
2.) Gather information and resources. <br />
3.) Form hypothesis.<br />
4.) Perform experiment and collect data.<br />
5.) Analyze data.<br />
6.) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis.<br />
7.) Publish results <br />
8.) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)<br />
<br />
Before one can even begin the scientific method as an approach to examining truth claims, certain metaphysical assumptions must be made that a non-believer has no right to make. The very first step, defining the question, requires a certain bias from the very outset, already precluding certain possibilities. Other metaphysical requirements necessary to engage in any science discipline are as follows:<br />
<br />
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr><th colspan="2">The Christian Metaphysical Requirements For Science</th>
</tr>
</tbody><tbody>
<tr></tr>
<tr>
<td>Existence</td>
<td><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40%3A26&version=ESV">Isaiah 40:26</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Reality</td>
<td><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:28&version=ESV">Acts 17:28</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Knowledge</td>
<td><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202:3&version=ESV">Colossians 2:3</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Order</td>
<td><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2033:25,%2051:15&version=ESV">Jeremiah 33:25, 51:15</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Uniformity</td>
<td><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:3&version=ESV">Hebrews 1:3</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In addition to the metaphysical obstacles to strict materialism, the attempts to establish the scientific method as an authoritative truth in and of itself presents another problem. The fact is that the scientific method cannot possibly tell us anything true about a hypothesis. Rather, it is built upon the logical fallacy of Asserting The Consequence; ("If P then Q, Q therefore P" is not a valid logical argument), ie.<br />
<br />
<b>P1: </b>If Jean Dixon is psychic, then she can predict the winner of a presidential election.<br />
<b>P2: </b>She predicted the winner of a presidential election.<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b>Therefore, Jean Dixon is psychic.<br />
<br />
<b>P1: </b>If President Obama was born in Hawaii, then he is an American citizen.<br />
<b>P2: </b>He is an American citizen.<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b>Therefore, President Obama was born in Hawaii.<br />
<br />
<b>P1: </b>If Rover is a man, then he is mortal.<br />
<b>P2: </b>Rover is mortal.<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b>Therefore, Rover is a man.<br />
<br />
<b>P1: </b>If the law of gravity is true, then the ball will fall to earth at 9.8 m/s<sup>2</sup><br />
<b>P2: </b>The ball falls.<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b>Therefore, the law of gravity is true.<br />
<br />
<b>P1: </b>If humans and chimps have a common ancestor, then we should observe retroviruses at common points in their DNA structure.<br />
<b>P2: </b>Humans and chimps have similar DNA structure.<br />
<b>Conclusion: </b>Therefore, humans and chimps have a common ancestor.<br />
<br />
None of the above arguments are logically sound, yet scientific method itself (hypothesis, experiment, drawing conclusions) is based upon this fallacy. Even if all of the other metaphysical issues surrounding science were to be either answered or ignored, materialists are faced with this discomforting fact: A scientific hypothesis can never be proven to be true. The best case one can hope for is that the scientific method can show that any given hypothesis is a valid possibility.<br />
<br />
Finally, when we remove the Christian foundation for Science, not only do we make the scientific method irrational, but we rob Science of any real explanatory value. Science, in a purely secular world, cannot provide a valid explanation for the simplest things, but can only provide:<br />
<br />
1.) Definitions – mere tautologies with no explanatory value<br />
2.) Matters of observation – with no reason to believe that these observations have any relationship to reality, much less any justification for the universal and unchangeable “lawlike” character of laws.<br />
<br />
Only in a Christian Worldview can we justify the leap from Empiricism to Induction, and rationally exclude anomalies. Only in a Christian worldview can we justify having science operate within the “normal science” paradigm. Only in a Christian Worldview can we justify universal, invariant laws. Without God’s Providence and unchangeable character, we have no way to define what “normal science” should be. Science, far from being a Tarshish for modern Jonah’s to flee to, is a discipline firmly established in the Kingdom of God, and cannot make any sense of our world apart from God. Therefore, we can once again prove God’s existence by the following declaration:<br />
<br />
<b>P1:</b> If the laws of nature exists, then God exists, since God is the precondition of the laws of nature.<br />
<br />
<b>P2:</b> The laws of nature exists.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion:</b> God exists.<br />
<br />
Unbelieving scientists live in God's universe, and like anyone else, must acknowledge Him in order to even function, though they may suppress the truth in unrighteousness.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-3042079587378623292013-03-11T17:27:00.000-04:002013-03-11T17:44:56.407-04:00Science And Wisdom Part IV<b>Expressions Of Law: "Discovered" or "Selected"?</b><br />
<br />
How does one actually go about discovering a scientific law? When science expresses laws as mathematical formulas, how do these expressions relate to the reality of these laws? Are they true? Are they unchangeable? Are the "discovered" or "selected"?<br />
<br />
Aside from the fact that any scientific experiment faces <a href="http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-knowledge-of-god-part-iii.html">the same obstacles that empiricism in general faces</a>, additional issues arise when trying to draw conclusions from a given set of obtained data. Take, for example, an experiment used to validate Newton's Second Law of Motion. According to Newton's second law, a body will accelerate in the direction of any unbalanced force, and the magnitude of this acceleration will directly proportional to the magnitude of that unbalanced force. The validity of this law may be tested by tying one end of a string to a known mass (20 g) and the other end to a glider. The glider can be placed on a Stull-Ealing linear air track as shown below, reducing the friction of the glider on the track to a negligible value.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMyAIcgLaX1k71-smtKPsqjACMMyavVDvUs-bAndz-lV_K5JeFczgXsImNY-ReRA7GYYalSh0SqghC3En-G4VrQ4LhA-c5jkQC8B44FgnofxPH1ESAYuWtEF1gMvWC9gKMxnCS/s1600/2ndlaw.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMyAIcgLaX1k71-smtKPsqjACMMyavVDvUs-bAndz-lV_K5JeFczgXsImNY-ReRA7GYYalSh0SqghC3En-G4VrQ4LhA-c5jkQC8B44FgnofxPH1ESAYuWtEF1gMvWC9gKMxnCS/s400/2ndlaw.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDQ-w1CEp0WVGDgP10efgq3MAe4cHbmiMF2aYEl-cP62rKaKCbjtHkgS1U3D4v2e_D0MQRaaHJ8Fe62J1miILDCVeSgn4bNKUtuFABpffuHPYkIufGhmz8lp2BivY8THZQEbtN/s1600/Stull+Ealing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDQ-w1CEp0WVGDgP10efgq3MAe4cHbmiMF2aYEl-cP62rKaKCbjtHkgS1U3D4v2e_D0MQRaaHJ8Fe62J1miILDCVeSgn4bNKUtuFABpffuHPYkIufGhmz8lp2BivY8THZQEbtN/s320/Stull+Ealing.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The time value can be measured with a power source which sparks every 1/60 of a second. A wired is attached to the glider which fires onto the spark tape. The mass of the glider in this particular experiment was 504.6 grams. Thus we can arrive at a theoretical value as follows:<br />
<br />
∑F = ma<br />
W = (m+M)a<br />
mg = (m+M)a<br />
a = mg/(m+M)<br />
a = (20.0 g)(980 cm/s<sup>2</sup>)/(20.0g + 504.6g)<br />
a = 37.4 cm/s<sup>2</sup><br />
<br />
Let's suppose that the experiment, repeated a few times, yielded the following results:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Displacement (x)</td>
<td>time (t)</td>
<td>acceleration (a=2x/t<sup>2</sup>)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5.0 cm</td>
<td>0.5 s </td>
<td>40.0 cm/s<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>13.0 cm </td>
<td>0.8 s </td>
<td>40.6 cm/s<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>55.0 cm </td>
<td>1.4 s </td>
<td>56.1 cm/s<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>60.0 cm</td>
<td>1.7 s</td>
<td>41.5 cm/s<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>100.0 cm</td>
<td>2.2 s </td>
<td>41.3 cm/s<sup>2</sup></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Obviously, there is a notable difference between the actual a theoretical values. Perhaps the forces of friction on the air track and the pulley weren't negligible after all. Perhaps the air flowing out of the track exhibited an additional unbalanced force, however slight, upon the glider. Perhaps the timed power source was inaccurate, or certain marks did not record properly onto the spark tape. In any case, most scientists would feel that Newton's second law has been validated by the results of this experiment.<br />
<br />
What do we make of the third measurement, which yields a result containing an error rate of 40%. While the honest scientist would include this result in his reporting, it would be discarded as an anomaly for all practical purposes. This is a problem in what Thomas Kuhn refers to a "normal" science. Experiments are expected to yield certain results, and those that don't must be either explained away or ignored. Thus we must conclude that science is not "unbiased". Indeed, biases are necessary in science in order to have any progress or ability to build upon previous discoveries.<br />
<br />
But the scientist is faced with yet another problem in trying to analyze the results of his data. Typically, the scientist would plot his data representing points on a graph, as shown below. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYbuj9lMpP8OxlJ1sXiJh1cyvQvAPysBUAdIG6GO0_jki_vPvu6A4ZlXvA84K6R8rqyp6zxyGmYA72wA4HB5uLrCYt-QHY6Ov95X93e4Eokef4VphMgPCUF_1v-OBHJGYSJyQs/s1600/Fig+1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYbuj9lMpP8OxlJ1sXiJh1cyvQvAPysBUAdIG6GO0_jki_vPvu6A4ZlXvA84K6R8rqyp6zxyGmYA72wA4HB5uLrCYt-QHY6Ov95X93e4Eokef4VphMgPCUF_1v-OBHJGYSJyQs/s400/Fig+1.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
By connecting the points with a curve, the scientist would validate the law he was testing. However, we can see that the curve does not pass through all of the "points" plotted. This is due to variable errors on X-Y axis, which if taken seriously, would prohibit an experimenter from plotting data as points in the first place. Instead, each plot would have to be a rectangle in order to account for errors in both the X and Y units, as follows.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGEBhGkQmgwoPPp6yZ50qOaE76xrFNFvn7kmqgvqfKG_e310DF7MHXebvzsLBcv0aZjPmg_eVhvkGUSIWc_g6lrlWJ8zc1AbtBLN5mWze15vo8iZveWrVkGIbz84DCBl1z5Nki/s1600/Fig+2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGEBhGkQmgwoPPp6yZ50qOaE76xrFNFvn7kmqgvqfKG_e310DF7MHXebvzsLBcv0aZjPmg_eVhvkGUSIWc_g6lrlWJ8zc1AbtBLN5mWze15vo8iZveWrVkGIbz84DCBl1z5Nki/s400/Fig+2.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Granted, there are ways to get more accurate measurements than can be obtained by the crude setup shown above, but that would only result in smaller rectangles. Since an infinite number of curves can be drawn through the proposed rectangular data, the chance of choosing the correct "law of motion" is 1/∞, or zero. So when we see Newton's second law of motion expressed in the form ∑F = ma, we can conclude that the law, however useful, is false.<br />
<br />
The role that scientific paradigms play in expressing scientific laws can be further understood by realizing that ∑F = ma is no longer the accepted expression of Newton's second law. Instead, it is:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi64uGWNzIS5elqOJ0Qq0NbnuI3fqj7l_31wYzRp_gmAMHN8UdPZsxuY3-Yc0VdNyZTqoW2Ouaje_k-uRBiEqD4M7F1uGOdyIlbxAu-o5S5-2yEglTGu0gARZAtcacp0O119ztF/s1600/newton+relativity.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="46" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi64uGWNzIS5elqOJ0Qq0NbnuI3fqj7l_31wYzRp_gmAMHN8UdPZsxuY3-Yc0VdNyZTqoW2Ouaje_k-uRBiEqD4M7F1uGOdyIlbxAu-o5S5-2yEglTGu0gARZAtcacp0O119ztF/s320/newton+relativity.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
...at least until the next scientific revolution. Certainly the law itself hasn't changed (or else it would not be a law). Gordon Clark explains:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It may be a fact that gold is heavier than water, but it is not a scientific fact; it may be a fact that the longer and the farther a body falls, the faster it goes, but Galileo was not interested in this type of fact. The scientist wants mathematical accuracy; and when he cannot discover it, he makes it. Since he chooses his law from among an infinite number of equally possible laws, the probability that he has chosen the "true" law is one over infinity, i.e. zero; or, in plain English, the scientist has no chance of hitting upon the "real" laws of nature. No one doubts that scientific laws are useful: By them the atomic bomb was invented. The point of all this argument is that scientific laws are not discovered but are chosen." (<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/The%20Trinity%20Review%200018a%20ScienceandTruth.pdf">Gordon H. Clark, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Science and Truth,</i> The Trinity Review; May, June 1981</a>)</span></blockquote>
<br />
This does not in any way undermine the importance of science, but only to show what it can and cannot tell us. Science is useful, but can never be validated as truth.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-22948946935437312822013-02-21T17:09:00.004-05:002013-05-02T12:47:57.941-04:00Science And Wisdom Part III<b>Natural Law: Providence Or Brute Fact?</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"...he upholds the universe by the word of his power..."</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1%3A3&version=ESV">Hebrews 1:3</a>)</blockquote>
The "laws of nature" seem to be so consistent and universal that we tend to take them for granted. When driving our vehicles, we don't stop and wonder if the laws of fluid dynamics and friction that caused our brakes to slow down and stop our cars in the past will still operate in the same manner the next time we need to stop. Due to our oblivious approach to nature and our consideration of it's laws as merely brute fact, we seldom reflect upon the basis for such laws, or in the manner in which they are "discovered". In addition, the idea of a miraculous event in which one of these laws could be changed or suspended goes against the tide of everyday observation. Consider David Hume's objection to miraculous events.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as could possibly be imagined."</i> (<u>David Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Of Miracles, Part I, 12</u>)</blockquote>
This is the next point in which there is a considerable metaphysical distinction between the Christian and the Naturalistic worldview. Naturalism not only tends to view the laws of nature as purely mechanical, but as brute facts that existed before and outside of the created order.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Ignorance of nature’s ways led people in ancient times to invent gods to lord it over every aspect of human life....with Thales of Miletus (ca. 624 BC– ca. 546 BC) about 2,600 years ago, that began to change. The idea arose that nature follows consistent principles that could be deciphered. And so began the long process of replacing the notion of the reign of gods with the concept of a universe that is governed by laws of nature, and created according to a blueprint we could someday learn to read."</i> (<u>Stephen Hawking - "The Grand Design", pp.86-92</u>)</blockquote>
Hawking never explores the underlying basis for the "consistent principles" that nature follows, nor does he seek to explain how they "could be deciphered" given his view of the nature and origins of the human mind. For the naturalist, these types of questions don't seem to matter. Metaphysical discussions are to be avoided in science at all costs. Yet these are very the points that Albert Einstein, himself no friend of Christianity, referred to as the <i>"weakness of positivists and professional atheists"</i>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"You may find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be in any way grasped through thought... The kind of order created, for example, by Newton's theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree, which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge." </i>(<u>Albert Einstein, 1956, Lettres a Maurice Solovine</u>).</blockquote>
Oddly enough, it was Hume himself who undermined any sort of inductive reasoning by concluding that <i>"causes and effects are discoverable, not by reason but by experience"</i>, since we have no way of proving that the future will be like the past.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“...all the laws of nature, and all the operations of bodies without exception, are known only by experience… The mind can never possibly find the effect in the supposed cause, by the most accurate scrutiny and examination. For the effect is totally different from the cause, and consequently can never be discovered in it… Why then should we give the preference to one [effect], which is no more consistent or conceivable than the rest? All our reasonings a priori will never be able to show us any foundation for this preference. In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary. And even after it is suggested, the conjunction of it with the cause must appear equally arbitrary; since there are always many other effects, which, to reason, must seem fully as consistent and natural. In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.”</i> (<u>David Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: Sceptical Doubts Concerning the Operations of the Understanding, Part I, 9</u>)</blockquote>
This is an insurmountable obstacle for the naturalist, since induction is an <i>a priori</i> requirement for the establishment of any universal law, and induction assumes nature to be uniform. But on what basis will an atheist make such an assumption? Empiricism cannot account for inference, since any establishment of a universal law in an empiricist’s worldview would require universal sense experience. Omniscience can only be attributed to God, and our understanding of inference can only be revealed to us by an omniscient and omnipotent God. Without God’s creative attributes and his providence, natural laws would be impossible, not to mention the ability of the human mind to comprehend such laws. Thus we must conclude that materialism has no basis for proving a natural law to be valid, much less provide a rational argument against miracles. The fact that scientists use inference without hesitation is proof that they know God and his attributes.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created. And he established them forever and ever; he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away. Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps, fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!"</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20148:3-8&version=ESV">Psalm 148:3-8</a>).</blockquote>
All to often, Christians tend to view the laws of nature in the same way, as an independent mechanism set up by God in which He occasionally intervenes in order to perform a "miracle". Such a view establishes a false dualism between the natural and supernatural worlds. Scripture teaches no such distinction between the natural and supernatural worlds, nor does it allow for any part of the created order to operate outside of God's Providence. God establishes <i>"ordinances of the heavens"</i> and <i>"rule on the earth"</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:33&version=ESV">Job 38:33</a>), and upholds the universe by the word of his power. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:3&version=ESV">Hebrews 1:3</a>). He decrees seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%208:22&version=ESV">Genesis 8:22</a>; <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%2031:35-36&version=ESV">Jeremiah 31:35-36</a>; <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2074:16-17&version=ESV">Psalm 74:16-17</a>), makes his sun rise and sends rain (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:45&version=ESV">Matthew 5:45</a>). He makes Himself clearly known by the created order (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:20&version=ESV">Romans 1:20</a>). God sovereignly rules over the visible and invisible realms of creation as <i>"...he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth;"</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%204:35&version=ESV">Daniel 4:35</a>). <i>"...In him we live and move and have our being”</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:28&version=ESV">Acts 17:28</a>).<br /><br />It is God's creative attributes and Providence that give the laws of nature their law-like character. The laws of nature are not simply mechanistic forces that operate outside of God's domain, but are an outworking of His sovereign rule. Thus a miracle is merely an act of God which differs normal human experience, but is no more irrational than the laws of nature themselves. Physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies offers this observation:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science faded. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature – the laws of physics – are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview."</i></blockquote>
The laws of nature, and thus science itself, are dependent upon the creative attribute and Providence of the Christian God.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-25408813233887908932013-02-11T15:30:00.000-05:002013-02-11T15:30:54.953-05:00Science and Wisdom Part II<b>Natural Revelation<br /></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of
God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Psalm+19.1/">Psalms 19:1</a>)</blockquote>
<br />
Natural revelation is the way in which God has made himself known to all men, without exception. As was established earlier, all men know God. This is proven as a matter of common observation. All men live and breathe and have their being in God's universe (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Acts+17%3A28/">Acts 17:28</a>), and as such, cannot even function without acknowledging Him in some way. God's invisible attributes and eternal power are clearly seen in the created order (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+1%3A20/">Romans 1:20</a>).<br />
<br />
Natural revelation serves two purposes. For the saint, it serves to build faith and produce an attitude of worship. Who can miss the wonder of a sunset over a watery horizon, the vastness of the universe, or the intricate design of the human body? For the nonbeliever, however, natural revelation renders men to be "without excuse", and that is essentially all that it does. Man, in his fallen state, is unable to acquire sufficient knowledge of God unto salvation through natural revelation.<br />
<br />
The metaphysical conflicts between the Christian and the non-Christian worldviews begin with this fundamental disagreement concerning man's natural state. Regardless of what version of unbelief one may adopt, it will be based on the assumption that the human mind is autonomous, that it can function outside the creative attributes and providence of God, and that man is basically OK in his current condition. The Christian, on the other hand, sees man as a fallen creature, and sees the world, his mind, and everything that exists as being totally dependent on God. This has obvious bearings upon how science is approached, as well as how one deals with "evidence". The fact that science itself is dependent on God's natural revelation cannot be dismissed, and thus the approach to science will be contingent upon one's metaphysical worldview.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the naturalistic worldview has become the default for many scientists today, even for those who profess Christ. God is often seen as another hypothesis by which our infallible minds may or may not justify. Indeed, there is something attractive about using "scientific apologetics" to defend the faith. Just a cursory glance at the natural world shows overwhelming evidence for design. Consider the impressive display of order in the human body, the solar system, the cell, etc.<br />
<br />
As obvious as this is without even digging into science, it becomes even more impressive when we do. There is an astounding amount of scientific evidence that the universe that we live in was purposed for human life. Physicists refer to this as The Strong Anthropic Principle. Volumes of material have been written, and continue to be written, on the amazing precision to which so many properties of our universe have been fined tuned, such that even the minutest deviation in any of these properties would make the universe uninhabitable for life as we know it. (See "<a href="http://www.reasons.org/articles/design-and-the-anthropic-principle">Design And The Anthropic Principle</a>").<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics". - <u>physicist Paul Davies (cited in David Berlinski’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374">The Devil’s Delusion</a>).</u></blockquote>
<br />
As impressive as this evidence is, it is a mistake to assume that unbelief is the result of a lack of information about the natural world. In fact, the unbeliever has the same evidence for God as the believer has. Per <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374">Romans 1:18</a>, the unbeliever suppresses the truth, not in ignorance, but in unrighteousness. His problem is not intellectual, it is ethical. In rebellion against God, the unbeliever has adopted a position of intellectual autonomy, and needs to acquire a new way of thinking, subjecting himself to the commandment to love God with his mind (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Luke10%3A27/">Luke10:27</a>) through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. In short, science, particularly in a materialistic worldview, cannot provide any useful knowledge of God unto salvation.<br />
<br />
This is due to the fact that natural revelation has built in limitations when it comes to persuading fallen men. Well meaning scientific apologists often fail to understand the supernatural basis for salvation. Unbelievers already know God through natural revelation (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+1%3A18-22/">Romans 1:18-22</a>), and yet do not have a knowledge of God sufficient for conversion (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Corinthians+2%3A14/">1 Corinthians 2:14</a>). By adopting a naturalistic worldview, the evidential apologist implicitly denies the Lordship of Christ over the human mind. This approach is disobedient to God's commandment for apologists to <i>"in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy"</i> (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Peter+3%3A15/">1 Peter 3:15</a>), even if one were to somehow vindicate God in the process. The man-made construct of "science" simply has no authority to rule on the subject of God.<br />
<br />
Finally, appealing to "science" in order to prove God’s existence to the unbeliever results in the inability to prove anything. Instead, we are left with what unbelievers refer to as the“God of the Gaps” fallacy – ie., using God as a stop gap for what we otherwise cannot explain given strict materialistic presuppositions. Dietrich Bonheoffer pointed out the biggest problem with the “God of the Gaps” approach to apologetics:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.“ (<u>Dietrich Bonheoffer - <i>Letters and papers from Prison</i> 1997, p. 311</u>)</blockquote>
<br />
What then, is the correct approach to the scientifically literate unbeliever? Instead of trying to justify God via science, we need to point out that science cannot be justified apart from God, who is the ultimate standard of truth and knowledge.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-42648115757970329972013-02-03T21:30:00.000-05:002013-05-02T12:51:28.305-04:00Science And Wisdom Part I<b>Introduction</b><br /><br />The role of science and technology in modern life, particularly in western culture, cannot be slighted. Science has changed (and keeps changing) virtually every facet of our lives, from entertainment to national defense. Even the way we "socialize" today has been altered, be it for good or for bad, by technological advances brought about by science. It should come as no surprise that science has earned highest regard among the disciplines, even by those who have little knowledge of or care about science themselves, but would rather just reap the benefits. <br />
<br />Science is the one discipline today that seems to be seen as a safe-haven for unbelief. Due to the advances brought about by science, it is tempting for many to demand a blind adherence to a strictly materialistic worldview. After all, if science has the answers to how the universe operates, what need is there of any other discipline? Would we not expect science to to provide an answer to any conceivable issue? Some materialists have suggested such.<br /><br />Bertrand Russell stated that, <i>“Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attainable by scientific methods, and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.”</i> Oxford Professor Peter Atkins reiterates Russell's point. <i>“There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.”</i> Atkins adds, <i>“There is certainly no justification for asserting that the powers of science are circumscribed and that beyond the boundary the only recourse to comprehension is God.”</i> (<u>Chemistry and Industry - January 20 1997</u>). Not to be outdone, mathematician Karl Pearson explains that <i>"...modern science does much more than demand that it shall be left in undisturbed possession of what the theologian and metaphysician please to term its 'legitimate field'. It claims that the whole range of phenomena, mental as well as physical-the entire universe-is its field. It asserts that the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge."</i> (<u>The Grammar of Science (1892), 29-30</u>.)<br /><br />The case is clear. Advocates of materialism want more than just to have science be a useful tool to tell us about the world we live in. For them, science is absolute in its authority and unlimited in its scope. It is the "sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge" and any challenge to strict materialism must be impugned and placed in the category of mythology. There can be no room for Divine Revelation. One of the most brazen admissions concerning the metaphysical commitment to materialism can be found in this statement by Biologist Richard Lewontin.<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (<u>Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31.</u>)</blockquote>
<br />Of all the criticisms leveled against Christendom today, the charge of being "unscientific" seems to invoke more dread than any other. Does science have the absolute final word to all truth claims? If one were, for the sake of argument, accept materialistic presuppositions, a hosts of questions naturally arise. A brief glance at the history of science shows that a variety of scientific paradigms have existed in past ages. If science demands absolute authority, we need to decide which paradigm should be granted such authority. Would it be Aristotle's Dynamics, Newton's Mechanism, Einstein's Relativity, Modern Quantum Theory, or the next scientific revolution that is sure to take place within the next 200 years? In attempting to answer that question, we are faced with what is referred to as the Demarcation Problem. What do we accept as scientific truth, and what is myth?<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If these out-of-date beliefs are to be called myths, then myths can be produced by the same sorts of methods and held for the same sorts of reasons that now lead to scientific knowledge. If, on the other hand, they are to be called science, then science has included bodies of belief quite incompatible with the ones we hold today." (<u>Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 2</u>)</blockquote>
<br />If the scientific method can produce either myth or contradictory beliefs, then what are we to make of this "sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge"? One may object to this problem by suggesting that science is "self-correcting", but not only does that not solve the problem, it introduces a whole new set of problems. For one, how can one verify that something is "self-correcting" without some standard of truth by which to compare it? Moreover, something that is constantly "self-correcting" must needs also be constantly false. That which is true needs no correction.<br /><br />In addition to the fact that science seems to change paradigms quite often, more foundational issues arise. Can science operate in any type of worldview? If not, what are the metaphysical requirements needed for science to function? Can science itself be justified among those who demand human autonomy in terms of natural reason or materialism? What exactly are the laws of nature? Are they universal? Are scientific laws "discovered" or are they "selected"? What type of role, if any, does science plays in establishing truth? And what of the scientific method itself? Is it really "the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge", or merely a useful tool? Can it really prove anything as being objectively true? And most important of all, what, if anything, does science have to say about God?Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com161tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-85612584708706775592012-11-02T15:14:00.001-04:002012-11-02T15:16:38.752-04:00The Knowledge of God Part VII<b>Revelation: The Basis for Knowledge</b>
<br />
<blockquote>
"It is idle to talks always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a skeptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young skeptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.“” (<a href="http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/3640/nm/Orthodoxy/?utm_source=skessler&utm_medium=skessler">G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 2006 Relevant Media Group, p. 23</a>)</blockquote>
After examining the theories of knowledge espoused by secularists, we must conclude 1.) that there is absolute truth and objectivity in knowledge, and 2.) that the main categories of secular epistemology fail to justify knowledge. How, then, can we rightly claim to know anything? Do we have any standard by which we may justify any truth claim as valid?<br />
<br />
The Christian theory of knowledge is accurately referred to as Revelational epistemology. Christianity is a <i>"revealed"</i> religion, and that "revealed" knowledge is not limited only to religious truths. All knowledge is possible because God has created and providentially governs the human mind, and gives it a connection with the material and immaterial universe.
<br />
<blockquote>
“For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.” (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Colossians+2.1-4%3BColossians+2.8/">Colossians 2:1-4</a>)</blockquote>
Paul tells us that ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, whether it be about God, nature, biochemistry, astrophysics, how to hit a golf ball, or how to write a letter. Why does Paul tell us this? <i>“…in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.”</i> In other words, the unbeliever cannot even create an argument against God without acknowledging His Lordship in some way. For the Christian, this passage is adequate proof for our Revelational Epistemology. However, in some ways the unbeliever also knows this to be true.<br />
<br />
The ultimate proof for God’s existence is that the denial of Him leads to irrationality. Having examined the unbelieving epistemologies and found them to be inadequate as a foundation for knowledge, we may conclude that the unbeliever, by holding that man is the measure of all things, has no basis for claiming that he knows anything at all. Therefore, we may prove the existence of God by the following declarative:
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>P1:</b> If man can obtain meaningful knowledge, then God exists, since God is the precondition of human knowledge.<br />
<br />
<b>P2:</b> Man can obtain knowledge.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion:</b> God exists.<br />
<br />
The beauty of this proof is that it immediately put the unbeliever's worldview on trial for its most basic and necessary foundation, knowledge. Any argument that comes against the Christian God must assume that the human mind is capable of meaningful thought and sense experience outside the creative attributes and providence of God, and thus the unbeliever needs to justify that assumption. As we have established, the unbeliever will reach a dead end regardless of which road he may take. Truly, God has <i>"made foolish the wisdom of the world"</i>. (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Corinthians+1%3A20/">1 Corinthians 1:20</a>).<br />
<br />
Cornelius Van Til once compared atheists who constantly battle against the knowledge of God to a toddler sitting on her father’s knee while constantly slapping his face. Yet she would be unable to do so without the foundation that her father gives to her. So the unbeliever, in order to get his argument off the ground, must use “borrowed capital” in epistemology from the Christian worldview, thus acknowledging its truth in order to argue against it.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-78751051505293178832012-10-23T17:49:00.004-04:002012-10-23T18:06:15.876-04:00The Knowledge Of God Part VI<b>Relativism - Truth in the mind of the beholder</b>
<br />
<blockquote>
“There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” (<u>Friedrich Nietzsche</u>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"...Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”" (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+18%3A38/">John 18:38</a>)</blockquote>
Many secularists, particularly post-moderns, have all but given up on the idea of justifying absolute truth, and thus find a home in Relativism. Like other epistemologies, Relativism takes many forms, but all share a common belief that there are no absolute truths. Everyone believes what is the case.
Relativism is the ultimate result of other secular theories of knowledge like Empiricism, which cannot objectively experience the sense experiences of other people; Idealism, which cannot objectively ascertain the perception in the minds of other people; and Realism, which holds that knowledge is simply the result of impersonal material laws.
Protagoras epitomizes the Relativistic worldview when he asserts that:
<br />
<blockquote>
"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not". (<u>Protagoras in Plato's Theaetetus</u>, <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Theaet.+152a&redirect=true">152a</a>)</blockquote>
Socrates countered Protagoras with what has been dubbed the “recoil arguments”, which shows the following problems with relativism.<br />
<br />
1.) Relativism is self-defeating: The statement <i>"there are no objective truths"</i> cannot possibly be true.<br />
<br />
2.) A relativist must acknowledge the equal validity of those who deny relativism. In other words, if everyone believes what is the case, then those who deny that everyone believes what is the case also believe what is the case. Clearly this violates the logical law of non-contradiction.<br />
<br />
3.) Truth becomes meaningless, subject to the whims of each individual. Any truth claim becomes tantamount to shooting an arrow into a barn door and then painting the bull's eye around it. Such actions do not make one a skilled archer, but rather makes the shot meaningless.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, no one truly lives according to the ideals of relativism. Relativism reduces all truth claims to mere belief, and really satisfies no one, including relativists. We all live our lives as if there were absolute truths, though secular worldviews either deny such truths, or show themselves unable to justify such truths.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-13254381211314263042012-10-12T17:38:00.001-04:002012-10-12T22:11:04.221-04:00The Knowledge Of God Part V<strong>Realism: A Mind Enslaved By Natural Forces </strong><br />
<blockquote>
"...there is the in-group bias, in which we place more value on the beliefs of those whom we perceive to be fellow members of our group and less on the beliefs of those from different groups. <strong><em><u>This is a result of our evolved tribal brains</u></em></strong> leading us not only to place such value judgment on beliefs but also to demonize and dismiss them as nonsense or evil, or both." (<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-believing-brain">Michael Shermer - Scientific American, July 5, 2011</a>)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Colossians+1.16/">Colossians 1:16</a>)</blockquote>
The epistemology known as Realism holds that the human mind, being part of the material world, is limited to and completely in subjection to that world. The human mind is simply part of the real universe, and thus knowledge reflects only the reality of that universe. Proponents of Realism often refer to themselves as "free thinkers", but nothing could be further from the truth. Their minds are enslaved by a naturalistic worldview, and cannot possibly fathom anything beyond that view. Of course, this fits in very well with their foundational beliefs concerning knowledge. However. naturalistic realism, with its evolutionary view of the origins of the human mind and the laws that govern that process, faces a quandary in that knowledge itself (not to mention personhood, free will, ethics, etc.) must be reduced to a material nature. Thus, aside from the failure to establish the connection between the mind and the physical universe (without resorting to alternative epistemologies), Realism also makes such ideas meaningless, leaving us with the following issues: <br />
<br />
1. Genetic and Epistemological Determinism. (We are what our genes say we are, and we think what our neurons tell us to think). If knowledge is simply part of the material universe, then it is governed by the laws of physics and biochemistry. In such cases, free thought, rationality, or meaningful inquiry, do not exist. Every thought and action that we undertake occur in an impersonal, meaningless universe, being at mercy to the laws of physics at every point of our existence. <br />
<br />
2. Relativism - The ideas of right and wrong, fact or fiction, are useless, since both are simply the results of impersonal material laws. Whose to say that one result is preferable to the other? <br />
<br />
3. If knowledge is material in nature, then forgetfulness would be impossible, since matter cannot be destroyed. But people do forget, so while it’s reasonable to think that human consciousness is part of reality, there must be something about knowledge and reality that transcends mere matter. <br />
<br />
C.S. Lewis accurately expresses the quandary for unbelievers, particularity Realists, concerning knowledge. <br />
<blockquote>
"If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on bio-chemistry, and bio-chemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees..." (<u>C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper - London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962, 164-165.</u>)</blockquote>
Because we are all <em>"in the world"</em> (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/John+17%3A14-18/">John 17:14-18</a>), we are inevitable affected by the physical universe. But all men have an innate understanding that personhood transcends the physical universe. Naturalistic Realists like Carl Sagan may try to convince us that <em>"the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be"</em>, but they simply don't live that way. They do believe in the value of personhood, knowledge, right and wrong, free will, etc. In the end, the brute fact of the existence of the physical universe cannot account for true knowledge.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-18209988559681293162012-10-01T18:23:00.000-04:002012-10-01T18:32:33.078-04:00The Knowledge Of God Part IV<b>Idealism - The Epistemology of Autonomy
</b><br />
<blockquote>
<i>"esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived")</i> - <u>George
Berkley</u>.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>"And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."</i> (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew+22%3A37/">Matthew
22:37</a>)</blockquote>
A popular and recent epistemology that has made inroads in the secular
world is Idealism, the theory that reality is the product of the human
mind, and that nothing can be known that is independent of the mind. Such
a basis for knowledge is the height of autonomy, and although some
Christians are drawn into some strands of Idealism, one has to wonder if
these can maintain an Orthodox view of Creation. There are several
subcategories of Idealism, but all of them have in common the belief that
reality is dependent solely on the preception of the mind.
<br /><br />The human mind is indeed an awe-inspiring entity. Indeed, the most
challenging study that the mind can undertake seems to be the study of
itself. Seeing as how we know so little about the mind, on what authority
would anyone claim that it can be the basis for reality? Idealist Immanuel Kant asserts:
<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"...if I remove the thinking subject, the whole material world
must at once vanish because it is nothing but a phenomenal appearance in
the sensibility of ourselves as a subject, and a manner or species of
representation."</i> - <u>Critique of Pure Reason A383</u></blockquote>
However, it does not follow that, because the preception of an object
exists in the mind, that existence of that same object is dependent upon
the mind. Idealists assume, without any justification, that the essense
of any object is only in it's perception, thus equating the separation of
mind from matter with the separation of perception from existence.
Of course, having the human mind as the ultimate source of reality poses
several problems:<br />
<br />
1. Idealism cannot consistently distinguish between, hallucinations,
dreams and reality.<br />
<br />
2. Idealism can neither allow for not account for mistakes in "perception",
mistaken identity, optical illusions, the sounds of the ocean inside of a
seashell, etc. since reality is based upon perception. There is nothing
outside of the mind by which we may validate the accuracy of our ideas,
including other people's ideas.<br />
<br />
3. Idealism cannot justify any objective truth claim, but rather results in Subjectivism in
both Epistemology and Ethics (Whose mind contains actual knowledge of
these things? What about minds that disagree with each other?)<br />
<br />
As amazing as the mind is, it is not autonomous. God is sovereign over
the mind (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Deuteronomy+28%3A28/">Deuteronomy
28:28</a>, <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Kings+3%3A9/">1 Kings
3:9</a>, <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/2+Thessalonians+2%3A11/">2
Thessalonians 2:11</a>). The mind itself cannot exist unless it is
created by God, and can only reason and think as a reflection of what God
thinks and reasons. As fallen creatures, our minds are by nature at
enmity with God (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+8%3A6-7/">Romans 8:6-7</a>),
and thus need to be renewed (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+12%3A2/">Romans 12:2</a>).
While the mind is an important means by which knowledge may be obtained,
it cannot be, in and of itself, the basis for either knowledge or reality.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-58015623739418590522012-08-25T19:06:00.000-04:002012-08-26T17:28:19.627-04:00The Knowledge Of God Part III<b>The Failure of Empiricism </b><br />
<blockquote>
“Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+20%3A24-25&version=ESV">John 20:24-25</a>) </blockquote>
<blockquote>
“To be radical, an empiricism must neither admit into its constructions any element that is not directly experienced, nor exclude from them any element that is directly experienced.” <u>- William James response to Empiricist William Clifford</u></blockquote>
As we have seen so far, Christianity is a revealed religion. All knowledge that men may obtain, whether it be about God, or about the natural world, is based in some way on revelation. This is not to say that all of man’s knowledge is a direct revelation from God, for then man’s knowledge would be infallible. But without Divine revelation, man has no real basis for claiming to know anything. In rejecting the necessity of Divine revelation as the basis for knowledge, secularists have offered a few alternative epistemologies. The first and most popular of these is Empiricism, the idea that all truth claims must be validated by sense experience (See Thomas above). Most scientists fall into this category, though they cannot consistently do so and adequately perform their jobs. <br />
<br />
Now Empiricism is a valuable tool that God has given us. We do use sense experience to validate truth claims. In fact, God uses Empiricism to give us faith, which comes by “hearing” (sense experience) the Word of God (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:17&version=ESV">Romans 10:17</a>). However, according to radical Empiricism (Empiricism as the basis of knowledge) as held by William Clifford, nothing can be considered true unless it is validated by sense experience. <em>"It is wrong always"</em>, Clifford asserts, <em>"everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient [empirical] evidence."</em> This leads to all sorts of difficulties in attempting to justify truth claims.<br />
<br />
1.) Empiricism is self defeating: The statement <em>“all truth claims must be validated by sense experience”</em> cannot be validated by sense experience, and therefore cannot be a valid truth claim.<br />
<br />
2.) Empiricism cannot objectively experience the sense experience of other people, and thus leads to Relativism. In that same line of though, it must be noted that the radical Empiricist will arbitrarily accept the sense experience of his peers that share his naturalistic worldview, but will reject the sense experiences of Isaiah (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%206:1-13&version=ESV">Isaiah 6:1-13</a>) or the Apostles (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:32&version=ESV">Acts 2:32</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%203:15&version=ESV">Acts 3:15</a>).<br />
<br />
3.) Empiricism cannot justify inference or any type of inductive reasoning. God’s providence is the only rational basis for belief in the uniformity of nature (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:3&version=ESV">Hebrews 1:3</a>), and thus Induction. In Empiricism, however, we are limited to knowing only that which we can experience, and therefore cannot establish any universal law or truth, since that would require universal sense experience.<br />
<br />
4.) Empiricism cannot justify past or future truth claims. For example, a consistent Empiricist cannot claim to know that George Washington was the first president of the United States, since he has no way to justify that claim through sense experience. He must resort to the historical record. Now many Empiricists would claim that relying on written historical records does fall within the realm of Empiricism. But while Empiricism may accept such truth claims, they cannot consistently justify them by the same standard which they will justify everything else. Thus they will arbitrarily attempt to delineate between “myth” and “history”, the latter being that which agrees with their naturalistic worldview. (i.e. They will accept the historical account of George Washington’s presidency while rejecting the historical account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.)<br />
<br />
While Empiricism is a valuable God-given tool for us to obtain knowledge, it fails by itself to be a valid basis for knowledge, since it requires an a priori knowledge of the validity of sense experience. Thus Empiricism cannot function as a stand-alone epistemology. Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-4635953757315706142012-06-30T21:15:00.000-04:002012-10-23T17:51:59.453-04:00The Futility Of Liberalism"The fundamental fault of the modern (liberal) church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task - she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible - especially in the life of Jesus - something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is also very futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than He." - (<a href="http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/6341/nm/Christianity+and+Liberalism+%28Revised+Edition%29+%28Paperback%29/?utm_source=skessler&utm_medium=skessler">J. Gresham Machen "Christianity and Liberalism”, p. 68</a>)Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-55784744917742185682012-03-12T21:05:00.000-04:002012-03-12T21:05:46.131-04:00The Knowledge Of God Part II<strong>Introduction To Epistemology</strong><br />
<br />
In order to exhibit how all men know God, we need to look closer at Epistemology, the study of knowledge. In doing so, we will contrast the biblical view of knowledge with the world's view. The Bible tells us that there are two kinds of knowledge. <br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%203:13-17&version=ESV">James 3:13-17</a>)</blockquote><br />
<table border="1"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="2">Godly Wisdom vs. Worldly Wisdom – James 3</td></tr>
<tr><th>Godly Wisdom</th><th>Worldly Wisdom</th></tr>
<tr><td>Good Conduct</td><td>Bitter Jealousy</td></tr>
<tr><td>Meakness Of Wisdom</td><td>Selfish Ambition</td></tr>
<tr><td>Pure</td><td>Boastful</td></tr>
<tr><td>Peaceable</td><td>False To The Truth</td></tr>
<tr><td>Gentle</td><td>Disorderly</td></tr>
<tr><td>Open To Reason</td><td>Every Vile Practice</td></tr>
<tr><td>Full Of Mercy And Good Fruits</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Impartial</td><td></td></tr>
<tr><td>Sincere</td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
James doesn’t chastise people for having wisdom, but he does draw a hard line between the wisdom that comes down from above, and the wisdom that is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:20-24&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 1:20-24</a>)</blockquote><br />
We see again that the true wisdom, the wisdom of God, is contrasted with the wisdom of this world. It is important to understand that the world cannot know God sufficiently through worldly wisdom. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:21&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 1:21</a>) As a Christian Apologist, it is a mistake to think that unbelief is caused by a lack of information. Natural revelation fails as the basis for apologetics because the unbeliever already knows God through natural revelation (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:19&version=ESV">Romans 1:19</a>). This knowledge makes the unbeliever to be without excuse, and that is essentially all that it does.<br />
<br />
The Greeks in particular, were known for their pursuit of wisdom. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:22&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 1:22</a>). What does this kind of wisdom offer?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"I said in my heart, "I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge." And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201:16-18&version=ESV">Ecclesiastes 1:16-18</a>)</blockquote><br />
It’s amazing how little has really changed since then. Like the Greeks, modern men seem to worship wisdom. Just ask any academic or politician what he thinks solutions are to war, poverty, hunger, AIDS, racism, or any number of ills you can imagine. There solution is almost always the same, "education". If we just become more educated, they say, or if we can just “create a smarter planet”, then we can solve all of the worlds problems and create Utopia. <br />
<br />
But Solomon found just the opposite to be true. <em>“For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.”</em> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201:18&version=ESV">Ecclesiastes 1:18</a>) The more we know about our world and our present condition, the less hope we have in the temporal life, which is what Solomon means by the phrase “under the sun”.<br />
<br />
This, of course, is not a plea for anti-intellectualism, for wisdom does have temporal benefits.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Then I saw that there is more gain in wisdom than in folly, as there is more gain in light than in darkness. The wise person has his eyes in his head, but the fool walks in darkness. And yet I perceived that the same event happens to all of them. Then I said in my heart, "What happens to the fool will happen to me also. Why then have I been so very wise?" And I said in my heart that this also is vanity. For of the wise as of the fool there is no enduring remembrance, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How the wise dies just like the fool!" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%202:13-16&version=ESV">Ecclesiastes 2:13-16</a>)</blockquote><br />
There is a benefit to wisdom. We become better at our jobs. We can know more about the world around us and be better prepared to deal with it. So education has it’s place. However, in the end, Solomon tells us that education “under the sun” is vanity and striving after the wind. <em>How dies the wise man? Even as the fool.</em><br />
<br />
May we be transformed by the renewing of our minds, and learn to love the Lord with all of our minds, for this is the wisdom from above, without which we cannot truly know anything.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-58263210790228080632012-02-13T14:45:00.000-05:002012-03-12T16:37:53.295-04:00The Sovereign Rule of GodWe’ve all heard the concept. Calvinism renders God the author of sin and evil. This is simply a necessary consequence of the Calvinistic belief system. If God’s decrees, as taught by Calvinism, are true, then man has no ‘free will’.<br />
<br />
Well…quite.<br />
<br />
Of course, no true Christian can make a coherent claim for an absolute, unfettered free will. “Free agency” as advocated by Calvinists is ignored, and the charge of “determinism” is laid at our door. But what is actually meant by this is that, on Calvinism, we are reduced to nothing more than machines, controlled from above by the grand puppeteer. The biggest charge of all emanating from the incoherent mess that is Arminianism is the charge that Calvinism makes God the “author of sin”. Murmurs about “logic” can be heard, but they are rarely (if ever) substantiated. We will address this later.<br />
<br />
God did not create the world on a whim, and He did not create man in order to then leave him to his own devices. God has His own reasons and purposes for creating, and He governs the world accordingly:<br />
<br />
<strong>Isaiah 46:9-10</strong><br />
<br />
<em>for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,</em><br />
<br />
<em>10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Proverbs 19:21</strong><br />
<br />
<em>Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD<br />that will stand.</em><br />
<br />
God didn’t create the world in order for human beings to dictate His plans. The counsel of God is immutable. And His counsel stands forever:<br />
<br />
<strong>Isaiah 14:24,27</strong><br />
<br />
<em>The LORD of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I<br />have purposed, so shall it stand,</em><br />
<br />
<em>27 For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is<br />stretched out, and who will turn it back?</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Psalm 33:10-11</strong><br />
<br />
<em>The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the<br />plans of the peoples.</em><br />
<br />
<em>11 The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the plans of his heart to all generations.</em><br />
<br />
God’s purpose in creating the world is for His own glory and good pleasure:<br />
<br />
<strong>Proverbs 16:4</strong><br />
<br />
<em>The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of<br />trouble.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Revelation 4:11</strong><br />
<br />
<em>“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for<br />you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”</em><br />
<br />
God does not stand idle in the Church age:<br />
<br />
<strong>Ephesians 1:11</strong><br />
<br />
<em>In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to<br />the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his<br />will</em><br />
<br />
<strong>Philippians 2:13</strong><br />
<br />
<em>for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good<br />pleasure.</em><br />
<br />
And all temporal blessings depend upon the providence of God: <br />
<br />
<strong>Matthew 6:26</strong><br />
<br />
<em>Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into<br />barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than<br />they?</em><br />
<br />
<strong>James 1:17</strong><br />
<br />
<em>Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the<br />Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to<br />change.</em><br />
<em><br /></em><br />
So where does this leave the agent‘s ‘free will’? Unfortunately, any notion of a libertarian free will was left behind at the fall. “Libertarian free will” must be considered a fad. And it is entirely unbiblical.<br />
<br />
<strong>John 8:34-36</strong><br />
<br />
<em>Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is<br />a slave to sin.</em><br />
<br />
<em>35 The slave does not remain in the house for ever; the son remains for ever.</em><br />
<br />
<em>36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.</em><br />
<br />
Freedom, as defined by the bible, is a freedom from the bondage of sin, the freedom to do what is pleasing to God. As Hendryx notes, “When Jesus says He will set people free, He does not say they are now free to choose good or evil but He will set them free from the bondage of sin. And where there is bondage, by definition there is no freedom.”<br />
<br />
Of course, we affirm free agency, and man is certainly free to act and choose according to his greatest inclinations and desires. But the desires of man are in bondage to corruption.<br />
<br />
<strong>Romans 6:16-18</strong><br />
<br />
<em>Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,<br />you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or<br />of obedience, which leads to righteousness?</em><br />
<br />
<em>17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become<br />obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,</em><br />
<br />
<em>18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of<br />righteousness.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>2 Corinthians 3:17-18</strong><br />
<br />
<em>Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is<br />freedom.</em><br />
<br />
<em>18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being<br />transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this<br />comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.</em><br />
<br />
Only God can grant us freedom from the bondage of sin, and until He does, men are enslaved to a different master:<br />
<br />
<strong>Ephesians 2:1-3</strong><br />
<br />
<em>And you were dead in the trespasses and sins</em><br />
<br />
<em>2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the<br />prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of<br />disobedience-</em><br />
<br />
<em>3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the<br />desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the<br />rest of mankind.</em><br />
<br />
The proponent of libertarian free will would have us believe than man can act contrary to his desires and free from the determination of his own nature. This immediately leads one to ask: On this view, can man act contrary to his sinful nature and come to Christ without the prior work of the Holy spirit?<br />
<br />
<strong>1 Corinthians 2:14</strong><br />
<br />
<em>The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they<br />are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are<br />spiritually discerned.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>2 Timothy 2:25-26</strong><br />
<br />
<em>correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may<br />perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,</em><br />
<br />
<em>26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil,<br />after being captured by him to do his will.</em><br />
<br />
It is God who allows man to come to a saving faith:<br />
<br />
<strong>John 6:44</strong><br />
<br />
<em>No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will<br />raise him up on the last day.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>John 6:63</strong><br />
<br />
<em>It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>John 8:42-47</strong><br />
<em>Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love<br />me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent<br />me. </em><br />
<br />
<em>43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I<br />say. </em><br />
<br />
<em>44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your<br />father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth,<br />for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for<br />he is a liar and the father of lies. </em><br />
<br />
<em>45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! </em><br />
<br />
<em>46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why<br />don't you believe me? </em><br />
<br />
<em>47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is<br />that you do not belong to God.</em><br />
<br />
So much for libertarian free will.<br />
<br />
But does this reduce human beings to mere robots in the great scheme of God’s decrees? I think it would be appropriate to turn to the specific (though unsubstantiated) claims that Calvinism promotes fatalism and that, accordingly, mankind must be absolved from moral accountability. Fatalism holds that everything we do we do necessarily. The argument goes something like this:<br />
<br />
1. Necessarily, if God foreknows <em>x</em>, then <em>x</em> will happen.<br />
2. God foreknows <em>x</em>.<br />
3. Therefore, <em>x</em> will <em>necessarily</em> happen.<br />
<br />
This is fallacious because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fallacy is carrying the necessity from the premise over to the conclusion. The correct argument is as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Necessarily, if God foreknows <em>x</em>, then <em>x </em>will happen.<br />
2. God foreknows <em>x</em>.<br />
3 Therefore, <em>x</em> will happen.<br />
<br />
We can show the <em>unnecessary</em> transfer of the <em>necessity</em> over to the conclusion by way of a similar argument:<br />
<br />
1. Necessarily, if John is a bachelor, John is unmarried.<br />
2. John is a bachelor.<br />
3. Therefore, John is <em>necessarily</em> unmarried.<br />
<br />
Obviously John is by no means <em>necessarily</em> unmarried. It is not the case that John <em>must be</em> unmarried. John is unmarried yet perfectly free to be married. Again, the valid form of the argument is as follows:<br />
<br />
1. Necessarily, if John is a bachelor, John is unmarried<br />
2. John is a bachelor.<br />
3. Therefore, John is unmarried.<br />
<br />
So the valid form of this argument demonstrates that John is free to remain a bachelor or to be married. Just because God foreknows x, it does not follow that x <em>must </em>happen, only that it <em>will</em> happen.<br />
<br />
Agents are free to either act or refrain according to their greatest inclinations and desires; whichever the agent chooses, God will have foreknown that choice. That choice is certain for God. But the choice is not <em>necessary</em> for the agent; the agent has freely made the choice. The agent could have made a different choice. And God would have infallibly foreknown <em>that</em> choice in eternity. <br />
<br />
When the Calvinist speaks of God's decree, he is not necessarily always speaking of God’s active involvement. In many cases, God's "decretive will" may be expressed in His opting not to interfere with this or that choice, act or event, of which He had definite foreknowledge. And of course, without God’s foreordination no act or event could come to pass.<br />
<br />
In the case of sin, while God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, He didn't cause them to do so in an <em>active</em> sense. He merely opted not to prevent it and in doing so allowed sin to enter the world in order to bring about His purpose; God not only allowed the fall, He knew that in creating man in the first place He was rendering it a certainty. He did so in order to achieve His greater purpose.<br />
<br />
It is a gross misrepresentation to say Calvinism holds that God specifically acted to <em>bring about</em> sin or evil, rather than consciously <em>willing not to prevent it</em>. Those who present the caricature are either being wilfully dishonest or they’re failing to grasp the doctrines.<br />
<br />
Once we see that, on Calvinism, God’s sovereign decrees are in complete harmony with man’s free agency and his moral accountability, the Arminian is backed into a corner. Not only has he failed to substantiate the charge laid at Calvinism (and more to the point God!), but the Calvinist has refuted the charge. But by the Arminian’s own standards, he must by necessity be wide-open to the exact same charge.<br />
<br />
On the Arminian view, God creates a world in which many people will go to hell. No matter what He does to try and save them, they are going there, since God's knowledge of their destiny is infallible. There are no two ways about it; they are certain to spend eternity in hell. And yet He proceeds to create anyway. Why? Why create those people He knew for certain would spend eternity in hell? Why didn’t God just create those He knew would choose Christ? By creating them, God has effectively damned them for eternity. There’s no escaping it.<br />
<br />
On the Arminian interpretation of foreknowledge and predestination, before the foundation of the world, God knew that John Bloggs would make a free decision to come to Christ. God knew of John’s free decision long before he was born. His decision to come to Christ was inevitable. Why was it inevitable? Was it down to John’s free will, even though he had not yet been born? The Arminian must be forced to concede that John’s destiny is predetermined. It is fixed. John can do nothing but be saved.<br />
<br />
Here the Arminian is in all sorts of trouble. He has nowhere left to turn, since he has in no uncertain terms charged the sovereign God of scripture with being unjust, unfair, a monster, the author of sin, or whatever. The stick which he has chosen to throw at Calvinism has turned out to be a theological boomerang, a boomerang with dynamite attached to it, coming back at him and aiming straight between the eyes.<br />
<br />
The Arminian is left squirming in his own mess.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-46946540042109727742012-02-07T18:36:00.000-05:002012-02-07T18:36:21.476-05:00The Knowledge Of God Part I<blockquote>"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-23&version=ESV">Romans 1:18-23</a>)</blockquote><br />
All men have knowledge of God. This may seem like a strange statement to make in today's pluralistic, unbelieving society. Yet as a matter of common observation, all men live in God's universe, and cannot function apart from acknowledging Him in some way. The seeds of the Christian religion have been firmly planted in the minds of men, and God's handiwork has been made manifest to all (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019:1&version=ESV">Psalm 19:1</a>). All of men's endeavors rely on God's creative attributes and his Providence, without which knowledge as well as the ability to express that knowledge would be impossible. The myriad of false religions reveals that man has an innate knowledge of the divine, corrupted and incomplete though it may be. However, unless the mind is transformed by God Himself from it's depraved state, all ideas concerning God are, of necessity, based upon pure speculation. There is no shortage of idols that man may invent for himself in order to find a deity that will conform to the pleasures of his own deformed nature, even to the point of exchanging <em>"the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things".</em><br />
<br />
Yet the knowledge of the one true God is strong enough that failure to worship Him is inexcusable, placing both Jew and Gentile in the same dreadful mire, for according to verse 16, all men need the salvation which is revealed in the power of the gospel. <em>"The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men"</em>, being revealed to Jews through the law, as well as the gentiles by their reason. The fact that pagan nations had not the revealed law at their disposal did not excuse their sinfulness, because <em>"what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them".</em> The unbeliever may not proclaim ignorance of God or His laws, because he has an innate knowledge of both. Paul tells us that they <em>"suppress the truth"</em>, not out of ignorance, but rather <em>"by their unrighteousness"</em>. <br />
<br />
Man, in his very nature being unrighteous and rebellious, is bound to raise a multitude of objections to such knowledge. The atheist and the agnostic are bound by intellectual autonomy. They assume that a world governed by undesigned chance and blind fate may obtain enough order to allow for scientific inquiry, and that the natural laws of the universe can result in a mind capable of objectively realizing such order to obtain meaningful knowledge. While they often call themselves "free-thinkers", their minds are imprisoned by their metaphysical commitment to a material-only worldview from which it can find no escape.<br />
<br />
The relativist attempts to hide behind the limits of human knowledge. Nietzsche formulated the relativist mantra quite nicely. <em>"There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths"</em> (<a href="http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_human_all_too_human/sect1_of_first_and_last_things.htm">Human, All Too Human</a>). Obviously, this statement is self-defeating. There is no way that it can be true. Relativist "do-it-yourself" religion (Pluralism) relies on the frailty of the human mind in comparison to the immensity of God in order to deny God's revelation of Himself, (ie. “God is incomprehensible”). Yet oddly enough, the pluralist expects to be taken seriously when he or she expresses any facts about God.<br />
<br />
All of man's objections to his knowledge of the Divine have ethical ramifications at their root. Wicked men love darkness and hate the light, because their deeds are evil (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:19&version=ESV">John 3:19</a>). By either denying God or recreating Him in their own image, men seek to loose themselves from Divine Authority, thus enabling themselves to do what is <em>“right in his own eyes"</em> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2021:25&version=ESV">Judges 21:25</a>). For them, no thought is more comforting than the idea that their sins will die with them in the grave.<br />
<br />
There is an ethical element to how one uses his mind, for the failure to acknowledge God leads to a <em>"debased mind"</em> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:28&version=ESV">Romans 1:28</a>). We are commanded to love God with all of our minds (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:37&version=ESV">Matthew 22:37</a>), relinquishing all pretense of intellectual (and thus moral) autonomy and submitting to the One True and Living God. This autonomy may take many forms, from the Empiricism of William Clifford to the Relativism of Friedrich Nietzsche. Yet, as we shall see in this study, all forms of autonomy are built on the shifting sands of human wisdom and ultimately lead to an endless cycle of skepticism. The only option is for our minds to submit to the One who created it, the one who is Absolute Truth, in whom <em>"we live and move and have our being"</em>. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017:28&version=ESV">Acts 17:28</a>)Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-51119833348219636772012-01-22T14:30:00.000-05:002012-01-22T14:30:29.049-05:00Tools Of Theology<blockquote class="tr_bq">"For although no man will now, in the present ruin of the human race, perceive God to be either a father, or the author of salvation, or propitious in any respect, until Christ interpose to make our peace; still it is one thing to perceive that God our Maker supports us by his power, rules us by his providence, fosters us by his goodness, and visits us with all kinds of blessings, and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ." (<a href="http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/5307/nm/Institutes+of+the+Christian+Religion%2C+Beveridge+Translation+%28Hardcover%29+/?utm_source=skessler&utm_medium=skessler">John Calvin, Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Book I, Chapter II</a>)</blockquote>Calvin begins his systematic thelogy with the knowledge of God, distinguishing between the knowledge of God the Creator and the knowledge of God the Savior. As such, he presents us with both the problem of man's knowledge of God as well as the solution to that problem. How is man, a creature, able to ascertain any truths about God the Creator? How does the science of theology even get off the ground, and how to we know that the truths we arrive at are objective and not conventional? The answer is that God Himself must reveal truths about Himself. Indeed, in order to avoid any claim to ignorance, God has revealed himself to all men by His creative attributes, by the way he providentially governs His creation, and by the very fact that he creates and governs the minds of men, without which no knowledge would be possible in the first place. Just as any sort of knowledge must needs be rooted in divine evelation, so the knowledge of God himself requires such revelation.<br />
<br />
<strong>Natural Revelation</strong><br />
<br />
Man, by nature, is apprehensive to acknowledge anything higher than himself, yet in doing so, he proves that the knowledge of God is inescapable, <em>"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."</em> (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+1%3A20/">Romans 1:20</a>). The mulititudes of religions and deities testify to the fact that <em>"...what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them,"</em> (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+1%3A19/">Romans 1:19</a>). The knowledge of God the creator being innate in all men, there has been no shortage of constructs by which fallen men will attempt to relate to the divine. Much can be determined about the divine nature by way of his Creation. This knowledge is revealed, among many ways, in the natural world (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Job+12%3A7-9/">Job 12:7-9</a>, <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Psalm+19%3A1/">Psalm 19:1</a>), in the necessity of His Providence (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Acts+14%3A16-17/">Acts 14:16-17</a>, <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Acts+17.28/">Acts 17:28</a>, <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews+1%3A3/">Hebrews 1:3</a>), in the ability to obtain knowledge itself (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Job+38%3A36/">Job 38:36</a>, <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Colossians+2%3A3/">Colossians 2:3</a>), in the knowledge of moral absolutes (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Romans+2%3A14-15/">Romans 2:14-15</a>), and in the acknowledgement of human dignity (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Genesis+1%3A27/">Genesis 1:27</a>).<br />
<br />
Yet due to man's fallen nature, his innate knowledge of God has become corrupt. In this sense, natural revelation renders all men to be without excuse, and that is essentially all that it does.<br />
<br />
<strong>Special Revelation</strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">"If man were ever to be brought to salvation, it was`necessary for God reveal a way whereby he could become a partaker of it" (<a href="http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/6237/nm/The+Christian%27s+Reasonable+Service%2C+4+Vols.+%28Hardcover%29/?utm_source=skessler&utm_medium=skessler">Wilhelmus a'Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, Chapter 2, The Word of God</a>)</blockquote>Due to his deformed state, man may only attain to the merits of Christ's saving work if, and only if, God Himself would reveal these truths, both of his need for redemption, and the way by which he may obtain it. The revelation of these truth has been accomplished <em>"..at many times and in many ways"</em> as <em>"God spoke to our fathers by the prophets"</em> (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Hebrews+1%3A1/">Hebrews 1:1</a>). Today, God's special revelation is complete in the 66 books of the Holy Scriptures, <em>"... breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."</em> (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/2+Timothy+3%3A16-17/">2 Timothy 3:16-17</a>). These books contain the faith that has been once for all delivered to the saints (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Jude+1%3A3/">Jude 1:3</a>), to which nothing can be added or taken from without serious consequences (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Revelation+22%3A18-19/">Revelation 22:18-19</a>). In addition, it is the Holy Spirit Himself that makes these truths obvious in the minds and hearts of his people (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/Matthew+16%3A17/">Matthew 16:17</a>), in a manner without such revelation the things of God appear to be mere folly (<a href="http://www.esvbible.org/search/1+Corinthians+2%3A14/">1 Corinthians 2:14</a>). Thus the most important need for the study of God is God Himself, without whom we could understand nothing. As such, the Holy Scriptures are, of necessity, the only infallible rule of faith and life.<br />
<br />
Over the next few weeks, we will take an indepth look at both types of knowledge in an effort to properly apply them as well as to learn more about our Creator and our Savior. We will show how even the most adamantly unbeleiver relies on God's creation and Providence to even function in God's universe. We will also examine the Scriptures in terms of the basis for the Canon, its necessity, its self-attestation, and its self sufficiency.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-55674908334016715682011-12-27T22:26:00.001-05:002012-10-23T18:02:37.578-04:00Why Theology?<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><i>"But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." </i>(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:1&version=ESV">Titus 2:1</a><i>)<br /><br />"Bad theology will eventually hurt people and dishonor God in proportion to its badness." </i>- John Piper (<u>A Godward Life Volume Two</u>, pg. 377)</span>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><br />
Introduction</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
The subject of “Theology”, namely the study of God, was once regarded as the Queen of the Sciences (Aquinas). Today, the very mention of the subject among modern Christians is viewed as unimportant at best; divisive and “unspiritual” at worst. Objective truths about the nature and person of God have rapidly been shunned in favor of subjective spiritual experiences and personal exegesis. Just a quick glance through most “Christian” bookstores will yield a plethora of pragmatic books on successful living, non-redemptive approaches to a better life steeped in pop-psychology and behavioral modification methods, and the latest round pop-prophecy fiction novels whose main characters seem to change every 10 years or so in order to coincide with current events. Occasionally, one may find a rich theological treasure of books stowed away in a back corner shelf, but these are the exception.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
Like it or not, everyone has a theology. The question isn’t whether or not to have a theology, but whether or not you have a good theology or a bad theology. Everyone has a view of God. But is that view based on the objective truth that God himself has revealed?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b><br />
But Doctrine Divides…</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
At this point I will concern myself only with Christian doctrine, since Christianity is the only worldview that is objectively true (a statement that will be defended at a later time.) In an effort to maintain “unity” in the body of Christ, many Christians have adopted the mantra “doctrine isn’t important, just love Jesus”. Aside from the fact that this statement is itself a “doctrine”, we must eventually ask who is this Jesus, and why should we love him. Can we rightly love someone without seeking to know something about them? <i>“Acquaint thyself, I pray thee, with Him, and be at peace…”</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+22:21&version=YLT">Job 22:21</a>) Once we begin to answer any question about the nature and personhood of God, we are making statements of doctrine and are engaged in theology.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We are often told, "We should avoid controversial doctrines, because they cause division. We need to be unified in Christ." There is much to be said for unity among the saints. Paul urged the Ephesian church to <i>"walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:1-3&version=ESV">Ephesians 4:1-3</a>). This is because <i>"There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:4-6&version=ESV">Ephesians 4:4-6</a>).
However, what kind of unity does the Bible teach? Did Paul want the Ephesians to avoid controversial doctrines in order to maintain unity? May it never be said as such. Paul goes on to explain the role of apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:11&version=ESV">Ephesians 4:11</a>). There were <i>"to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" </i>(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:12&version=ESV">Ephesians 4:12</a>). This was necessary in order to <i>"attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God," </i>(<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:13&version=ESV">Ephesians 4:13</a>). The unity that Paul spoke of was obtained <i>"so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes"</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:14&version=ESV">Ephesians 4:14</a>). The Bible teaches unity through sound doctrine, not despite it. In fact, the Bible has much more to say about sound doctrine that it does unity. Any "unity" that ignores doctrine is really no unity at all.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.” (<u>JC Ryle, Warnings To The Churches</u>)</span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><br />
The Great Commission Demands Theological Study</b> </span> </div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
One of the ramifications to the modern approach to theology is that the Great Commission has been reduced to eliciting “decisions for Christ”. In fact, the successfulness of a ministry today is often measured by the number of “converts”. While evangelism is important, it is neither the sole focus of the Great Commission, nor the primary focus. Rather we are told to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to observe all things that Christ commanded us (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:18-20&version=ESV">Matthew 28:18-20</a>). Teaching requires theological study, and is done by those who labor in Word and in doctrine (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%205:17&version=ESV">1 Timothy 5:17</a>).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><br />
Subjective Doctrinal Importance</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
In an effort to maintain orthodox biblical truths while at the same time avoiding controversy, Christians commonly divide doctrine into “essential” vs. “non-essential” categories, the former being the basic beliefs of the Christian faith, while the later being those unimportant and controversial beliefs that divide Christians and create denominations. But by what standard will anyone make such a distinction? If we reduce the gospel to mere “fundamentals”, than what shall we do with the rest of Scripture? What portion of Scripture will we suggest that the Holy Spirit wasted his divine breath in giving us?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
The fact is that all Theological Doctrine is divisive to someone. Is there a God? What is He like? What is the way to heaven? What book is the true revelation of God? The answers to these questions are divisive among men today, and if the goal of the Christian is simply to avoid controversy, we will not be obedient to our Lord’s admonition to <i>"make disciples and to teach them to observe all things that he commanded us</i>"> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:19-20&version=ESV">Matthew 28:19-20</a>). To take any doctrinal stand on any issue is to invite controversy.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">"Are there any significant biblical teachings that have remained untainted by controversy? If you have any acquaintance with the history of the Christian church whatsoever, then your immediate answer will be 'of course not.' Whether we’re talking about the triune nature of the Godhead, or justification by faith alone, or the personhood of the Holy Spirit, or the deity of Jesus Christ, or the content of the canonical scriptures, as Christians we have never had the luxury of living in a world where the most nourishing of Biblical truths have existing without opposition. And so when someone expresses a sentiment such as the following: 'I don’t like to talk about a particular doctrine because it is controversial,' we’re not confronted at that point with an expression of great piety or godliness, but rather in most cases a display of Biblical laziness, and in all cases a manifestation of immaturity and ignorance. If your commitment is to feed your soul on only those spiritual truths that have been or are presently non-controversial, than you’ll find yourself staring at an empty plate." (Dr. Arturo G. Azurdia's, <u>Unconditional Election, part of the The Doctrines of Grace Series</u>.)</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><br />
Handling Disagreements</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
So does that mean that Christians will all agree on every single point of doctrine? Just a cursory glance over the religious landscape will clearly show otherwise. These disagreements are simply based in human fallibility, and though we seek to know as much objective truth concerning God as He has revealed to us, none of us are omniscient. When confronting a fellow saint who has a disagreement on a particular doctrine, avoiding controversy should not be the main goal, for <i>“Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her.”</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%203:13-15&version=ESV">Proverbs 3:13-15</a>). We should argue and debate with those who disagree with us, yet with gentleness and respect (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:15&version=ESV">1 Peter 3:15</a>). And we should be open to the idea of our own fallibility, having our own theology being corrected by others who love God’s word, as <i>“Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.”</i> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2027:17&version=ESV">Proverbs 27:17</a>)</span></div>
Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-76419061986854014432011-04-18T18:47:00.080-04:002011-04-18T18:47:00.054-04:00Revelational Gifts Part I<blockquote>"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:3&version=ESV">Jude 1:3</a>)</blockquote><ul><li><em>"Why do you despise Prophecy?"</em></li>
<li><em>"Why do you reject the works of the Holy Spirit today?"</em></li>
<li><em>"Why don't you want all that God has for you?"</em></li>
</ul>Such are the questions that are presented to those of us who do not accept the continuing revelatory gifts of the Holy Spirit (prophecy and tongues) as presented by today's Charismatics. As one who has spent most of his Christian life in the Charismatic movement, I can relate. Most of my family is Pentecostal even today, and I thank God that He placed me in a Christian household, where the Word of God was taught, revered, and lived. And yet while we are agreed on many things, there are clearly areas of doctrine that divide us since the time that God has reformed my faith.<br />
<br />
The topic of tongues and prophecy today is a controversial one, and there is no way to avoid the personal aspects to the debate. When those of the Reformed faith uphold the teachings of the Westminster Divines that <i>"those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people [are] now ceased" (<a href="http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html">Westminister Confession of Faith I:I</a>)</i>, we are doing more than just making an abstract doctrinal statement. We are calling into question some of the experiential aspects of worship that many Christians hold dear. As such, appeals to emotion and experience are common in this debate, but it is an area that must be discussed. For either we of the Reformed Faith are lacking true spirituality, having at best only a partial faith, or else those of the charismatic faith are actively participating in false prophecy. Furthermore, the debate must be settled by Scripture alone, not by subjective spiritual experiences which can likely be claimed by many different religions.<br />
<br />
Additionally at stake are two crucial principles. The first is <i>sola scriptura</i>. While most Pentecostals would claim to hold to sola scriptura, they deny it in both their practice and their theology of continuing prophetic revelation. Either the scriptures contain <i>"the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life" (<a href="http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html">Westminister Confession of Faith I:IV</a>)</i>, or else more is to be added through continuing special revelation. In many cases, some charismatics have implicitly accepted their own revelations (ie. being "led by the Spirit") as being superior to the Holy Scriptures. Consider this following quote from the introduction to a very popular work by a charismatic author from about a decade ago.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“A true God chaser is not happy with just past truth; he must have present truth. <strong><em><span style="color: red;">God chasers don’t want to just study from the moldy pages of what God has done</span></em></strong>; they’re anxious to see what God is doing.”</blockquote>While most Pentecostals won't go quite so far as to refer to the Bible as "moldy pages", it is quite often to hear them claim that new prophetic revelations not only continue today, but are actually necessary for true holiness, power, and effective evangelism. No matter how you slice it, any claim supporting the "necessity" for continuing "fresh" prophetic revelation is nothing less than an implicit denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. If we have the Scriptures properly expounded, we are in need of nothing else in term of revelation. The Bible IS the "full gospel".<br />
<br />
The second principle at stake is the office of Christ as the sole mediator of the New Covenant (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2012:24&version=ESV">Hebrews 12:24</a>). When a person claims to receive prophetic revelations today, that person is actually claiming to be a covenant mediator (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:19-20&version=ESV">Galatians 3:20</a>), standing between God and man. He is going to the mountaintop, receiving the Word, and bringing it back down to the rest of us. Thus it is necessary to discuss whether such a mediator may exist in the New Covenant among the sons and daughters of men (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:1&version=ESV">Hebrews 1:1</a>).<br />
<br />
Some Pentecostals, seeing the dilemma that continuing revelational gifts causes in these two areas, have sought to redefine prophecy in the New Covenant era. In this series, we will focus special attention to this issue, showing that: <br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<ul><li>Biblical (inspired) Prophecy is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. This is true in both Old (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2018:18-22&version=ESV">Deuteronomy 18:18-22</a>) and New (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21&version=ESV">2 Peter 1:21</a>) Testaments.</li>
<li>Biblical Tongues were a form of inspired prophecy. (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:16-18&version=ESV">Acts 2:16-18</a>)</li>
<li>Biblical Tongues were earthly human languages (or at the very least included human languages - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:5-11&version=ESV">Acts 2:5-11</a>).</li>
<li>The events of Pentecost were a sign of both New Covenant inauguration (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:16&version=ESV">Acts 4:16</a>) and Old Covenant Judgments (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2014:21-22&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 14:21-22</a>), both being fulfilled in that <em>"crooked generation"</em> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:40&version=ESV">Acts 2:40</a>). There is no biblical basis for a "personal pentecost".</li>
<li>All Christians have been Baptized In the Holy Spirit (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:9-11&version=ESV">Romans 8:9-11</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:38-39&version=ESV">Acts 2:38-39</a>). There is no division between "Spirit-filled" Christians as opposed to just "regular" Christians (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2012:13&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 12:13</a>).</li>
<li>The offices of Prophet (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:1&version=ESV">Hebrews 1:1</a>) and Apostle (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=ESV">Ephesians 2:20</a>) have ceased to exist.</li>
</ul>Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-60239716623518255062011-02-22T05:06:00.002-05:002011-02-22T05:06:00.798-05:00Faith: A Gift From God<blockquote>"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&version=ESV">Ephesians 2:8-9</a>)</blockquote><blockquote>"Scripture does not seem to support the idea that faith is a gift from God. The Bible simply calls upon people to believe." (<a href="http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/J12-94c.htm">Gregory Sapaugh - Is Faith A Gift?</a>)</blockquote>The question of where saving faith comes from and how it is obtained is a sticky issue, particularly among those who oppose the doctrines of sovereign grace. As pointed out in <a href="http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2011/02/christian-p-word.html">The Christian "P" Word</a>, the majority belief today is that God's "predestination" (for lack of a better word) is contingent upon His foreknowledge of a person's faith. Yet even if this were true (it's not), one still has to account for the faith that a person does have, since not all have faith (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:2&version=ESV">2 Thessalonians 3:2</a>).<br />
<br />
Thus it is no surprise that the most straightforward, clear meaning of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&version=ESV">Ephesians 2:8-9</a> has been challenged. For if it can be established that faith itself is a gift from God, then the opponents of sovereign grace are still stuck with Unconditional Election, since they would have God predestine people based upon something that God alone can give.<br />
<br />
The objection states that the word "faith" in the passage is not a suitable antecedent to the pronoun "that" (despite the fact that every translation of the Bible has it as such), because the term used for faith (πίστεως) in this passage is a feminine noun, while the pronoun “that” (τουτο) is a neuter demonstrative pronoun. However, as Robert Reymond states, <em>"It is permissible in Greek syntax for the neuter pronoun to refer antecedently to a feminine noun"</em>.<br />
<br />
That faith is a gift can be confirmed in this passage by examining the possible antecedents for "that" in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8&version=ESV">Ephesians 2:8</a>. They are as follows:<br />
<br />
1.) Faith.<br />
2.) Grace.<br />
3.) The concept of salvation by grace through faith.<br />
<br />
#2 is the weakest possibility. Not only does the term "grace" have the same feminine gender as "faith", but it would be quite silly and redundant for Paul to suggest that grace is <em>"not of yourselves, it is a gift of God".</em> #3 is the most popular interpretation among those seek some sort of human autonomy in salvation, but the concept of salvation does not appear as a noun in the passage, leaving us with no real antecedent for the pronoun. Yet, even if we were to allow this, it still leads to the conclusion that faith is a gift from God. One cannot allow for the concept of salvation by grace through faith to be <em>"not of yourselves"</em> while at the same time allow for any component of that salvation to be of ourselves. If, as <a href="http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1994i/J12-94c.htm">Gregory Sapaugh suggests</a>, <em>"Faith is not a divine gift from God"</em> but rather a <em>"personal conviction which a person exercises..."</em>, then <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&version=ESV">Ephesians 2:8-9</a> is incorrect, and we do have a right to boast.<br />
<blockquote>"However the text is exegeted, when all of its features are taken into account, the conclusion is unavoidable that faith in Jesus Christ is a gift of God." (<a href="http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/1381/nm/New+Systematic+Theology+of+the+Christian+Faith/?utm_source=skessler&utm_medium=skessler">Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 732</a>)</blockquote>Thanks be to Jesus Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-64619212500082871912011-02-10T14:58:00.002-05:002011-02-10T15:17:33.595-05:00The Knowledge Of God Part IV<strong>Ethics</strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't really get rid of it…Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later." (<u>C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity</u>)</blockquote><br />
In preparing for this series on the Knowledge of God, the approach concerning ethics has been the most difficult for me for a variety of reasons. For one, I’ve never been well read on the subject of secular ethical theory. To me, as a Christian, the very idea that a material world can produce moral obligation is absurd. In reviewing the current ethical theories that are currently being promoted, this absurdity is verified, proving that all men know God on some level, and one way that we know Him is by the moral standards that he has written on our hearts. We know that there are moral standards, and we also know that we have failed to live up to them.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.” (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202:14-15&version=ESV">Romans 2:14-15</a>)</blockquote><br />
When Paul tells us that the Gentiles <em>“by nature do what the law requires”</em>, he is not saying that all people are naturally obedient to God. Rather, he is saying that all societies, even those who haven’t been given the written law, are aware of God’s standards to the point of enacting rules to follow suit. For example, all societies view dishonesty as immoral, even though all men are clearly not honest. Even so, they know that, on some level, they are wrong because <em>“…their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”</em><br />
<br />
All people have moral standards (even those who deny that there is any standard), yet as with knowledge and science, unbelieving worldviews cannot account for these standards. In their attempt to ascend to the heavenly throne and establish their own kingdoms, secularists have sought to erect their own versions of morality.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Cultural Relativism</strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>"The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, "Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%202:2-3&version=ESV">Psalms 2:2-3</a>)</blockquote><br />
The Cultural Relativist argues that, since moral standards differ from culture to culture, there is no moral absolute by which one may judge cultural morality. Of course, even is the premise were true, the argument is a Non Sequitur. It does not follow that, because two cultures disagree, that there is no absolute moral standard. One could be right and one could be wrong, or both could be wrong. <br />
<br />
Cultural differences in moral standards aren't as widespread as the relativist would make them out to be. All cultures view dishonesty, murder, etc. as morally wrong. In addition, ethics themselves have little to do with many of the differences in behavior that cultural relativists point to. For example, cultural relativists like to point out that people will not kill or eat cattle in India, while beef is a mainstay of western diets. But the differences in this respect are not ethical, but metaphysical. Indians believe animals, especially cattle, to be divine, and possibly be reincarnate loved ones. Ethically speaking, we would be in full agreement that it is wrong to kill and eat ones ancestors.<br />
<br />
Consistent cultural relativism would result in individual societies being morally infallible (including Nazi Germany, etc.) Within those societies, morality would be reduced to a mere “societal norm” based on popular vote, while immorality would simply be defined as non-conformity. Yet another implication would be that the idea of "moral progress" would be a sheer myth and a useless endeavor.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Individual Subjectivism</strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>"In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2017:6&version=ESV">Judges 17:6</a>)</blockquote><br />
The various forms of subjectivism have a common thread, that ethics are a matter of personal taste rather than being a universal, objective standard. Simple Subjectivism argues that moral opinions are not fact, just feelings of personal approval or disapproval, and nothing more. Emotivism suggests that moral language itself is not "fact-stating" language, but rather behavior-influencing language. Regardless of the category, subjectivism results in a world where any and all actions would theoretically be beyond moral judgment. <br />
<br />
Of course, the most obvious problem is that no one lives this way. In the world of subjectivism, individuals are morally infallible. Yet subjectivists do make moral judgments, especially against people who make moral judgments. By suggesting that no one has a right to hold another person to a moral standard, they are establishing a moral standard. This is especially true of emotivism, where moral judgments are beyond reproach since they aren't really judgments, only expressions of attitudes.<br />
<br />
Subjectivism cannot account for disagreements in ethics, nor can it account for moral truth or falsehood. While attempting to honor the ethical standards of individuals who have various opinions in this matter, subjectivists must presume a moral obligation to honor such standards (or else you are being “judgmental”). Subjectivism is thus self-defeating, and cannot justify moral absolutes, since it denies that such an absolute exists.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Altruism</strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>"The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings." (<u>Do We Really Need Bad Reasons To Be Good? by Sam Harris / Boston Globe October 22, 2006</u>).</blockquote><br />
Altruism bases its ethical standard on what is deemed to be an impartial concern and benefit to other people. Indeed, those who show concern for other people are often held up as heroes in our society (especially when such concerns are made with the TV cameras rolling.)<br />
<br />
But eventually we must ask the question: What obligates one to be impartial or to have concern for the well-being of others? Where does this obligation come from? Altruism arbitrarily favors one group of people (others) over another (ourselves). Rather than being a “rational basis” for morality, Altruism begs the question by assuming that we have a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Pragmatic concern for others cannot produce an obligation to any duty, nor can it provide a rational basis for morality since it must presume a moral obligation to be concerned with others as a basis for itself.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Egoism</strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:7-8&version=ESV">Galatians 6:7-8</a>)</blockquote><blockquote>"The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose." (<u>Ayn Rand - The Virtue Of Selfishness 1961</u>)</blockquote><br />
Egoism is the idea that morality is based upon rational self-interest. It is suggested that all people, even altruists, act out of self-interest, doing what they want to do. While altruism, as a moral philosophy, degrades the value of the individual, egoism promotes it. Taken to its logical conclusion, unrestricted egoism would lead to hedonism, the desire to maximize individual pleasure. <br />
<br />
As to the charge that altruists do what they want to do, that may well be the case. However, no matter how one slices it, wanting to act with others in mind is contradictory to egoism. Even the egoists "peace of mind" can be rooted in the interests of others. In addition, egoism as a philosophy is self-defeating, ie. "It is everyone's best interest is to act out of self-interest".<br />
<br />
Egoism also cannot resolve conflicts of interest. If person A can benefit from murdering person B, yet person B clearly benefits from not being murdered, then what is the correct moral behavior? Faced with this dilemma, revisionist egoism calls for restraint based on self-interests in:<br />
<br />
• Duty not to harm others<br />
• Duty not to lie<br />
• Duty to keep promises<br />
<br />
Again, we would have to ask what the basis is for the above duties. Duty presumes obligation, and often the "duties" to not harm others, not lie, and keep promises conflict with self-interest. We often do things that we OUGHT to do instead of what we WANT to do.<br />
<br />
Egoism fails to account for the value that it places upon individuals, thus arbitrarily favors one group of people (ourselves) over another (others). Pragmatic self-interest cannot produce an obligation to any duty, nor can it provide a rational basis for morality since it must presume a moral obligation to self-interest as a basis for itself.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Utilitarianism</strong><br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." (<u>John Stuart Mill, On Liberty - 1859</u>)</blockquote><br />
Utilitarianism holds that morally is based upon whatever is required to promote the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. While many people have never heard the term “utilitarianism”, the effects of this philosophy are felt in nearly every corner of modern western society. Utilitarianism is heavily influential in the pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion, and animal rights movements. It is also the foundation of socialism. In modern democratic societies, any groups of people are clambering for all kinds of “rights” that are defined by whoever is speaking and whatever axe they are grinding.<br />
<br />
There are two types of utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism judges each individual act on its own merits as to whether or not this act has increased happiness as a whole. In doing so, it places impossible demands on people, and is often used to manipulate people through false guilt. Modern socialists try to push their “live simply” philosophy by blaming western consumption for poverty in parts of the world. Rule utilitarianism, rather then judge each individual act, seeks to establish a basic set of rules to follow.<br />
<br />
One area where utilitarian philosophy is quite apparent is out modern judicial system. Utilitarianism cannot allow for retribution or punishment for immoral behavior, since such punishment would increase misery in the world. Instead, the judicial system has taken on the label of “corrections” (even though they don’t “correct” anything). The Department of Justice has become the Department of Corrections. Prison guards are now called “corrections” officers. This radical change in how we treat criminals can be best spelled out by utilitarian philosopher Karl Menninger, (<u>cited in James Rachels; "The Elements of Moral Philosophy", 2007 McGraw-Hill, p. 135</u>).<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"We, the agents of society, must move to end the game of tit-for-tat and blow-for-blow in which the offender has foolishly engaged himself and us. We are not driven, as he is, to wild and impulsive actions. With knowledge comes power, and with power there is no need for the frightened vengeance of the old penology. In its place should go a quiet, dignified, therapeutic program for the rehabilitation of the disorganized one, if possible, the protection of society during the treatment period, and his guided return to useful citizenship, as soon as this can be effected.”</blockquote>What has been the result of this approach? Depending on the area, it appears that anywhere from 56% to 90% of violent crime in the United States is committed by repeat offenders. In its attempt to replace judicial penalty with rehabilitation, the utilitarian approach accomplishes neither. It assumes that man is basically good, while arbitrarily defining what “good” is (an increase in “happiness” as a whole.)<br />
<br />
Utilitarianism is at odds with justice in other ways. In order to be consistent, one would have to consider any act to be morally acceptable if it results in an increase in happiness. What about a thief who steals something that is never missed, or a peeping tom who is never noticed?<br />
<br />
Like any other secular ethical theory, utilitarianism cannot be a foundation for an ethical standard, since it must presume a standard a priori, that being the obligation to promote the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Where does such an obligation come from?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Kant's Categorical Imperative</b><br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (<u>Immanuel Kant, “The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” - 1785</u>)</blockquote><br />
Immanuel Kant suggested that morality should be based on human dignity and reason, sort of like the "Golden Rule", but without the Golden Rule Giver. From a practical perspective, the categorical imperative fails when trying to resolve two evil choices (ie., lying to save a life). From a secular standpoint, neither human dignity nor reason can be justified, thus the categorical imperative begs too many questions. Consider the following quote from atheist Richard Dawkins:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."</blockquote><br />
From a secular standpoint, human dignity and human reason must be accounted for before any moral standard can be build upon them. Finally, we must ask yet again, <br />
<br />
What obligates us to act “according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”? Like all other secular ethical theories, the categorical imperative cannot be a sound basis for ethics, since it must assume a moral standard in order to build rules by which we act.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Social Contract</b><br />
<br />
The “Social Contract” holds that humans, by virtue of being human, are contracted to obey ethics laws which are necessary for peaceful, cooperative, social order. <br />
<br />
Aside from the fact that what makes up a "peaceful, cooperative, social order" is subjective at best, the social contract does not justify ethical standards as much as it assumes them in advance. What obligates humans to be concerned about a peaceful, cooperative social order? Like relativism and subjectivism, the social contract reduces immorality to mere "non-conformity", thus has no objective meaning.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Moral Argument Revisited</b><br />
<br />
In dealing with the various secular theories of ethics, two questions immediately come to mind.<br />
<br />
1.) Why so many? If the secular worldview can justify morality, I would have expected there to be a predominant theory, with maybe one of two non-conforming theories. Instead, however, what this study shows is that there is no moral standard in a secular world.<br />
<br />
2.) All of these theories have in common the fact than none of them can account for moral obligation. Instead, they must assume their standard in order to promote their theory. <br />
<br />
As we have shown, not only are secular moral theories logically inconsistent, they are also unjustifiable. It is one thing to invent a moral theory, as many secularists have done. It is another thing to give a rational justification for that theory, and all secular moral theories have failed in this regard. The natural, materialistic worldview simply cannot justify obligation, “IS” cannot produce “OUGHT”. <br />
<br />
John Owen correctly observed:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.” <u>- John Owen</u></blockquote><br />
Therefore, we may conclude with yet another transcendental argument for God’s existence…<br />
<br />
<strong>P1:</strong> If Moral Absolutes exists, then God exists, since God is the precondition of Moral Absolutes.<br />
<br />
<strong>P2:</strong> Moral Absolutes exists.<br />
<br />
<strong>Conclusion:</strong> God exists.<br />
<br />
There are many transcendental proofs for God’s existence. We hit only three in the areas of knowledge, natural law, and ethics. But we could also include areas such as intelligible experience, free thought, free will, personal identity over time, etc. None of these things can rationally be justified in a godless worldview. Man may makes attempts at autonomy, but like Nimrod, he is doomed to failure. All men live in God’s universe, and cannot even function without acknowledging him in some way.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-58415807395371053312011-02-03T13:43:00.005-05:002011-02-03T15:12:45.865-05:00The Christian "P" Word<strong>Predestination:</strong> Just a cursory glance through the Scriptures will inevitably lead the reader to this word. Yet even the majority of those who view Scripture as the Word of God tend to dance around it. In their attempt to hold on to some semblance of human autonomy, the opponents of sovereign grace have cojured up several ideas in an attempt to redefine this term, or avoid it altogether:<br />
<br />
<strong>1.) Predestined according to foreknowledge of faith.</strong><br />
<br />
According to the system of doctrine know as Arminianism, God predestines individuals based on His ability to look ahead through the portals of time and see who would believe in Christ and who would not. Those who hold this view focus on the word "foreknowledge" and attempt to wrest the word from it's biblical context and redefine it as a "pre-known mental ascent". However, the word "foreknowledge" is Scripture has a much different meaning. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:23&version=ESV">Acts 2:23</a>, the word is used in conjunction with God's <em>"determinate counsel"</em>. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29&version=ESV">Romans 8:29</a>, it refers to the elect, <em>"predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"</em>. To view "foreknowledge" as mere mental ascent concerning the faith of a person does not work in this passage, since God also "foreknows" the reprobate in that sense as well. Rather, it can be defined more accurately defined as "divine favor". The same definition would apply to the term in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:2&version=ESV">Romans 11:2</a> and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:1-2&version=ESV">1 Peter 1:1-2</a>, referring in particular to the elect Israelites to whom God has granted salvation. <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%201:20-21&version=ESV">1 Peter 1:20-21</a>, like <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:23&version=ESV">Acts 2:23</a>, uses the term to refer to Christ and to define His preordained work as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2013:8&version=ESV">Revelation 13:8</a>).<br />
<br />
In contrast to the very popular interpretation, nothing is mentioned in Scripture about God predestining people based on a foreseen faith. In fact, by definition, this would not be predestination. It would be ratification, like a divine "stamp of approval" on the faith that we apparently must generate of our own resources. In scripture, God's foreknowledge always refers to people, never to their actions. God has determined who will believe (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:48&version=ESV">Acts 13:48</a>), not determined on the basis of who would believe. This view requires that God must learn something about his own creation before he acts accordingly, and makes salvation a reward for the faith we've obtained, rather than by grace alone.<br />
<br />
<strong>2.) Corporate predestination.</strong><br />
<br />
A newer, more covert theory suggests that God only predestines an abstract, impersonal entity of Christian believers, those who choose to be "in Christ" are the ones who are corporately predestined to salvation. According to this slick display of literary gymnastics, the phrase "in him" in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:4&version=ESV">Ephesians 1:4</a> does not refer to what Christ chose for us, but rather the position that we chose for ourselves in order to Christ to choose us. In other words, we choose to be in Christ, and based on that wise and nobel decision, God predestines us to that we should be holy and blameless before him.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:4-6&version=ESV">Ephesians 1:4-6</a>)</blockquote>However, it is quite clear from the Scriptures that God predestines individuals (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%202:19&version=ESV">2 Timothy 2:19</a>), not some abstract corporate entity. For, to what purpose was Christ death other than to provide actual atonement for His people, <em>"that he might be the firstborn among many brothers"</em> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29&version=ESV">Romans 8:29</a>)? This requires a particular and personal atonement, or else Christ could not have been assured of being the firstborn of many. In fact, it would have been quite possible for Christ to have died for nobody. The only possible answer would be to revert back to the "foreknowledge of faith" approach, which we have already shown to be both unbiblical and irrational.<br />
<br />
<strong>3.) Optimistic Predestination</strong><br />
<br />
This view is common among Pelagianism and, to some degree, Open Theism. In this view, God predestines everyone to eternal life. In contrast, Satan predestines everyone to damnation, and we humans are left with the deciding vote. Such a view is nothing short of a denial of God's Sovereignty, and actually teaches that Satan plus man can overcome God's eternal decrees.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases." (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20115:3&version=ESV">Psalms 115:3</a>)</blockquote><blockquote>"The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%2033:10-12&version=ESV">Psalms 33:10-12</a>)</blockquote><blockquote>"all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%204:35&version=ESV">Daniel 4:35</a>)</blockquote>According to Job, Satan himself cannot act outside of God's will, much less aid us in ascending to Christ's throne and overturning his immutable decrees. Once again, this is not predestination, by definition.<br />
<br />
<strong>4.) Just ignore it, it's not important. We can't understand it anyway.</strong><br />
<br />
For many who come face to face with the Biblical view of Predestination, this is the unfortunate option they go with. But one cannot be a herald of the whole counsel of God and ignore any part of Scripture, for it was given to us that we might have hope. If the Prophets and Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, thought that this doctrine was important enough to teach us over and over again, who are we to say otherwise? As for the second charge, is it that predestination is really that hard to understand, or is it that we understand it all too well, and just don't like it? Our depraved nature loves to have authority that it doesn't deserve. Charles Spurgeon illuminates the real reason why Christians run from this doctrine.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow him to be in his workshop to fashion worlds and to make stars. They will allow him to be in his almonry to dispense his alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends his throne, his creatures then gnash their teeth; and when we proclaim an enthroned God, and his right to do as he wills with his own, to dispose of his creatures as he thinks well, without consulting them in the matter, then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on his throne is not the God they love. They love him anywhere better than they do when he sits with his scepter in his hand and his crown upon his head. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach. It is God upon his throne whom we trust." – CHARLES SPURGEON</blockquote>The real reason why man rejects the idea of predestination is because our natures strive for autonomy. We want to be in control, and it grates our sensibilities to find out that we are not. <em>"...apart from me you can do nothing."</em> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:5&version=ESV">John 15:5</a>).<br />
<br />
So, having concluded that God predestines everything that happens without being contingent upon his own creation, the obvious question is, why do Christians pray and evangelize? After all, if God has already foreordained everything that comes to pass, wouldn't such exercises be an exercise in futility?<br />
<br />
This type of questioning focuses on the fact that God ordains the ends, but ignores the fact that God ordains the means. God has determined who will believe (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:48&version=ESV">Acts 13:48</a>), but He also has determined that these will be reached by the foolishness of preaching (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:21&version=ESV">1 Corinthians 1:21</a>). Likewise, prayer is the means by which we <em>"...may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,"</em> (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:9&version=ESV">Colossians 1:9</a>). In fact, it is the sovereignty of God that is the basis for the confidence we have in prayer. If God isn't absolutely sovereign, on what basis will we have such confidence? Maybe our prayers could be hindered by the "free will" of others. It is God's sovereignty that gives meaning to everything that happens in history, both good and evil, aside from which there could be no meaning at all.Puritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.com5