Spiritual Deadness: Backsliding Part 5 of 7

5. Spiritual and intellectual ignorance of the truth leads to the fatal plague of spiritual deadness in the church. God’s people must begin with themselves. What happened to the times when people were often weekly moved, shaken, and convicted by the Lord? Should they not confess today, "Oh, that it could happen once a month or once a year"? Where are the active, current exercises of spiritual life? "Oh," they confess, "It is so dead! And the rest is all spoiled manna."

What should be yearned for here is not some sort of spirituality, or appearance of it. What should be yearned for is not a emotional outburst or over welling of joy. Indeed, as Dan Phillips has pointed out, being spiritually alive may not always be accompanied by feelings or emotion. In fact, when our yearnings are for feelings of "spirituality", or emotions of joy, or emotions of being "on fire for Christ", then what we are actually desiring is satiation of desires of the flesh. That is not to say that God does not often bless us in those ways, it merely means being truly alive spiritually results in yearning for our minds to be set on the things of the Spirit and not to be set upon satifying our desires. In a time when our churches have shunned worship in exchange for "celebrations", it is clear that we are seeking to meet the fleshly desires of those that should be worshipping rather than the commands of THE ONE worthy of worship. We honor Him with our lips, but are hearts [and minds] are far from Him. We worship Him in vain and our teachings are just rules taught by men.

Romans 8:5-8 (ESV)
⁵For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. ⁶To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. ⁸Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

What the spiritually alive yearn for is God's truth, to be humbled and awed by His majesty, to be afraid of His justice, to have our minds set upon His will and not our own, and to have our minds set upon His desires and not our own. The spiritually alive yearn to submit themselves to Him, not just as a pheasant would before a nobleman or fuedal leader (read as "Lord"), but as a slave before a master... completely owned. Completely owned...

Is this the view of the people in the church today or do most rebel against His Lordship... His Mastery of our lives? We need to "start with ourselves," wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, [r]emember what we received and heard, keep it, and repent.

Pastor Phil Newton of Southwoods Baptist Church in Memphis, TN points to the Church of Sardis in a sermon [text] [mp3] on Revelation 3:1-6 as the Biblical example of a spiritually dying church. He not only draws out the traits of a church under a "deathwatch", but also gives a prescription for dealing with spiritual deadness in the church.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Ignorance, the companion of Indifference: Backsliding Part 4 of 7

We interrupt the regularly scheduled programming to attempt to tie together several concepts floating around out there in the blogosphere. Those concepts are the Lordship of Christ and the role of emotion and feelings in the Christian life.

I believe that the proper balance of mind and heart is what Dan Phillips is straining to describe when he says:

“You see, I envision another category besides hollow, rote, ritualistic going-through-the-motions on the one hand, and surfing in absolute thralldom to waves of emotion, on the other. There's the category of attitude, of mindset, of frame of mind. There's living from conviction. It may overlap the realm of the emotional, it may cut straight across that realm. It isn't chained to it. It survives it, it goes on -- you go on -- when emotions ebb. And when they ebb, you don't seek them, you seek God.”

To understand the context of what Dan is describing MUST require a proper understanding of Christ’s Lordship.

Os Guinness in Fit Bodies Fat Minds draws the parallel well:

The first influence that helped to undermine what was left of the Puritan mind and leave its mark on evangelicalism is the polarization of truth, in the sense of a false antagonism between heart and mind…

Some tension between mind and heart, intellect and emotions, is a recurring theme of Christian history. Yet despite this condition, a hallmark of the Puritan mind was its commitment to the unity of truth and thus to the integration of faith and life, worship and discipleship, faith and learning. All of these things were under the lordship of Christ. Each was a part of its own sphere and calling. None was to be isolated or treated as a favored part of truth.

This feature was not unique to the Puritans – various periods and schools of Catholic thinking have had the same high aim. But for the early American Puritans it was a direct legacy of the Calvinist wing of the Reformation as it passionately endeavored to return to the New Testament requirements of the lordship of Christ. As the great Calvinist prime minister and pastor Abraham Kuyper was to express it later in Holland, “There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Jesus Christ does not cry out, ‘This is mine! This belongs to me!’ “

By the early eighteenth century and the time of the later Puritans, however, this passion was cooling and the old false antagonisms were developing – between faith and learning, learning and experience, formality and fervor, a sharp mind and a warm heart. Then when the First Great Awakening occurred, many people emphasized one of the two poles at the expense of the other – faith, with it warm heart, experience, and fervor usually being favored at the expense of learning and a sharp mind.

Hmmmm…. it seems that perhaps this interruption of regularly scheduled programming has provided the perfect segue into the forth stage down the slippery slope:

4. Indifference produces its close companion on the road of backsliding: ignorance. When we look back to Edwards, Whitefield, Owen, Bunyan, and dozens more of our forefathers and consider that their sermons were understood by the common people, we must fear that what the Lord said of Israel is also true of the church today: “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)

As Os Guinness put it, [These types of errors] “have been widely justified but deadly – such as the only-in-America notion that it is legitimate to separate an acceptance of Christ as Savoir from an acceptance of Christ as Lord (a sorry case of testimony overruling theology.) He goes on:

All reveal a critical, two-hundred-year flaw in the evangelical mind. As Charles Malik warned in his address at the Billy Graham Center, “The problem is not only to win souls but to save minds. If you win the whole world and lose the mind of the world, you will soon discover you have not won the world. Indeed it may turn out you have actually lost the world.” [Deathrow would like to point out that in reality, what probably occurred is that the world actually won you.]

Until this flaw is addressed, the antagonisms are overcome, and evangelicals hold to a vision of Christian truth that displays wholeness and integration, evangelical thinking can be faithful neither to the lordship of Christ nor to the intellectually challenges of today’s world.

Amen! and Amen!

Hardened Indifference: Backsliding Part 3 of 7

This is part three in a series of seven, the material is taken from the Free Grace Broadcaster distributed by Mt. Zion Online. I have added additional commentary on the topic from Spurgeon that helps demonstrate the slippery slope of backsliding churches and the similarity to the current Emergent movement.

3. Unbelief leads the church to backslide further into a hardened condition of indifference. It leads us to lose all concern for truth. How many are truly concerned to hear true doctrine from the pulpit, to hear about death in Adam and life of Christ? Are we concerned about guarding the foundational doctrines of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility? Do we delight to hear of them preached fully as they flow out of the biblical text being expounded?

   We should desire to hear all the rich doctrines of Scripture preached in their fullness, all of which are grounded in the heart of the Gospel, Jesus Christ and Him crucified, as spokes are ground in the hub of the wheel. Are we interested in the doctrines of God’s never-ending love and full redemption through the blood of Christ? Do we care to understand the necessity of the Holy Spirit, justification, sanctification, and perseverance?

   We need to cherish experimental doctrine rather than being indifferent to it. Does it concern us whether we hear about the necessity of saving grace, the fullness of it, and its fruit?

   Finally, we must not be indifferent to hearing about the marks of grace – marks that separate the work of God from the work of man, saving faith from temporary faith, true trembling (Phi 2:12) from devilish trembling (Jam 2:19), and abiding convictions from common convictions.

   We live in a fearfully indifferent and careless time. We must acknowledge that true doctrine is fading more and more in our world and in our hearts. Concern for the truth is disappearing, and most of the distinctions mentioned above are becoming increasingly unknown, even in the minds of church members….Some can no longer see the difference between biblically experiential and outwardly historical marks of grace. They do not take the time to read the works of our forefathers and study the differences; they hear not differences, being indifferent.

   By nature, we care for none of these things. We live on the same level as beasts. Our lives seem to be little more than work, eating, sleeping, and dying. We are bent toward backsliding for our own names’ sake and our own lives. We place self above true doctrine, and this is why we can go on living unconverted.

   God’s people love preaching that is searching, experimental, and discriminatory, no matter how difficult or stressful it may be. By nature, we prefer a false assurance or a presumptuous claim, but God’s people would rather be killed than deceived. They know by experience that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9). They know, too, that it is far easier to be deceived than to know truth. Therefore, no flood of tears, no nights of prayer along with God, and not counterfeit message (no matter how close it is to the genuine) will satisfy them. God’s people need more than tears, prayers, repentance, unworthiness, and humility. They need something and someone outside of themselves. The need Christ. The need Christ and His real doctrine burned into their souls by the Holy Spirit. God’s people can never experience it enough. They cry, “Lord, seal it home with Thy Divine stamp of approval that I may know it is Thy doctrine inscribed on the walls of my soul, not my own doctrine – not my own inscriptions, tears, and works.”

   Their lives are characterized by seeking more and more doctrine worked by the Spirit, experienced by the soul, and blessed by heaven. The yearn for the truth that will set them free and drive away doubt with its overwhelming power – a truth that will soften and bless their souls. Such truth comes down from God and leads back up to Him. Is this your desire also, or is your religion nothing but tradition mixed with the common convictions now and then? Does a little religion, a little knowledge, satisfy your conscience, and then do you set your soul aside? Are you content with the scaffolding of religion without knowledge of the heart?

   If you honestly must answer yes, then you are backsliding further every day, every sermon, every Sabbath. It is a hard but real truth: by nature, we are asking the Lord for the shortest way to condemnation. We are bent toward backsliding ourselves directly into hell. May the Lord open our eyes before it is too late!

[Note: The quotes from Spurgeon that follow were put together at least a week before Phil Johnson over at PyroManiacs stole my thunder with his "Weekly Dose of Spurgeon" post, ...the Danger of an Uncertain Trumpet. Oh well, what am I gonna' do? Phil always hogs the best Spurgeon quotes.]

I have little to add that Spurgeon has not already said far more eloquently and impactfully, therefore here are his words:

[Referring to Zephaniah 3:16-18] The solemn assembly had fallen under reproach. The solemn assemblies of Israel were her glory: her great days of festival and sacrifice were the gladness of the land. To the faithful their holy days were their holidays. But a reproach had fallen upon the solemn assembly, and I believe it is so now at this present moment. It is a sad affliction when in our solemn assemblies the brilliance of the gospel light is dimmed by error. The clearness of the testimony is spoiled when doubtful voices are scattered among the people, and those who ought to preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, are telling out for doctrines the imaginations of men, and the inventions of the age. Instead of revelation, we have philosophy, falsely so-called; instead of divine infallibility, we have surmises and larger hopes. The gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, is taught as the production of progress, a growth, a thing to be amended and corrected year by year. It is an ill day, both for the church and the world, when the trumpet does not give a certain sound; for who shall prepare himself for the battle?

If added to this we should see creeping over the solemn assembly of the church a lifelessness, an indifference, and a lack of spiritual power, it is painful to a high degree. When the vitality of religion is despised, and gatherings for prayer are neglected, what are we coming to? The present period of church history is well portrayed by the church of Laodicea, which was neither cold nor hot, and therefore to be spewed out of Christ's mouth. That church gloried that she was rich and increased in goods, and had need of nothing, while all the while her Lord was outside, knocking at the door, a door closed against him. That passage is constantly applied to the unconverted, with whom it has nothing to do: it has to do with a lukewarm church, with a church that thought itself to be in an eminently prosperous condition, while her living Lord, in the doctrine of his atoning sacrifice, was denied an entrance. Oh, if he had found admission— and he was eager to find it— she would soon have flung away her imaginary wealth, and he would have given her gold tried in the furnace, and white raiment with which she might be clothed. Alas! she is content without her Lord, for she has education, oratory, science, and a thousand other baubles. Zion's solemn assembly is under a cloud indeed, when the teaching of Jesus and hisapostles is of small account with her. (1887 - MTP)

There is no room for indifference where the gospel is concerned--it is either the most astounding of impostures, or the most amazing of revelations; no man can safely remain undecided about it, it is too weighty, too solemn to be snuffed at as a matter of no concern. (1866 - MTP)

Hardening Unbelief: Backsliding Part 2 of 7

Acts 19:8-9
⁸And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. ⁹But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus.

2 Thessalonians 2:13
¹³But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits[a] to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

     The Matthew Henry Commentary has this to say, "When we hear of the apostasy of many, it is a great comfort and joy, that there is a remnant according to the election of grace, which does and shall persevere; especially we should rejoice, if we have reason to hope that we are of that number. The preservation of the saints is because God loved them with an everlasting love, from the beginning of the world. The end and the means must not be separated. Faith and holiness must be joined together as well as holiness and happiness. The outward call of God is by the gospel; and this is rendered effectual by the inward working of the Spirit. The belief of the truth brings the sinner to rely on Christ, and so to love and obey him; it is sealed by the Holy Spirit upon his heart. We have no certain proof of any thing having been delivered by the apostles, more than what we find contained in the Holy Scriptures. Let us then stand fast in the doctrines taught by the apostles, and reject all additions, and vain traditions."

We cannot be more sure of anything than the TRUTH contained in the Holy Scriptures.

     2. Worldliness bends the church towards further backsliding and into a hardening condition of unbelief. Jesus Himself complained of His generation. “But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented” (Matt 11:16-17).

     Is this not a picture of the church today? If the funeral tune of the Law is preached, how many sinners are mourning? If the wedding tune of the Gospel is proclaimed, how many mourning sinners are brought to rejoicing? In general, we can say that the Law no longer seems to cause trembling, and the Gospel no longer seems to provoke jealousy….Could we confess, “I have become hardened to the Law and to the Gospel – I fear even to hell itself”?

     Even the preaching of hellish damnation is making less and less impression. And heaven? By nature, we do not what that either. An atheist once said, “You can keep your heaven and your hell. Only give me this earth.” We may not dare to voice that, but do we live it with our lives? Unbelief makes us practical atheist. Hell is no longer hell, heaven is no longer heaven, grace is no longer grace, sin is no longer sin, Christ is no longer Christ, God is no longer God, an the Bible is no longer the everlasting Word of God.

     Unbelief also makes us hardened to the truth. We may know the truth in our minds, but it will burn us eternally if it does not become engrafted into our hearts…

"Unbelief" at this stage starts out rather subtlety, but almost always begins by discounting the truth of the scriptures or by denying truth itself. To be a scriptural Christian, how can we deny that there is truth or deny that it can be known, if we are called to and responsible for knowing and believing it? Especially the truth of the scripture... It seems that part of our salvation, the consequences of election, is belief in the truth.

The Emergent Church very clearly stepped upon a slippery slope at worldliness and quickly and predictably "backslid" down the slippery slope to unbelief. After all, belief in uncertainty is really just unbelief all dressed up. It is just a "smile on a dog."

Increasing Worldliness: Backsliding Part 1 of 7

Worldliness seeps into a church and begins it's backslide because the PURPOSE of the church is forgotten or ignored. Somehow we have gotten the mistaken idea that the purpose of the church is a place where cravings can be met, deviancies accepted, and boredom can be entertained instead of a place where God is exalted, man humbled, doctrine taught, others served, and the body of Christ strenthened by every saint serving somewhere. The difference, as Al Mohler has put it, is clear that when you ask if you are building a church, or are you building a crowd. Satan can easily build a crowd, and does so with regularity. Only God and His elect build a church.

   1. When the church begins to backslide, the first visible sign is usually an increase in worldliness. In everyday lives, in conversation, an even in dress and fashion, the spirit of the world begins to infest church circles. What crept ashamedly into the church before begins to walk freely, often covered or overlooked instead of exposed and admonished. The black and white line separating godliness and worldliness becomes increasingly grayer.

   Instead of walking in opposite directions, the world and the church begin to have more in common with each other, much to the church’s detriment. Some of its members begin going to worldly places, taking part in its entertainment, and befriending its people. Some take all kinds of modern media into their homes without even considering what controls they should exercise; consequently, the quickly become addicted to today’s worldly mentality.

   Worldly people, worldly entertainment, worldly customs, worldly places – is this not what Hosea warned against when the Spirit directed him to write, “Ephraim hath mixed himself among the people” (Hosea 7:8)? The sin of increasing worldliness is the church’s first downward and tragic step in the spiral of backsliding.

Phil Johnson in the "Weekly Dose of Spurgeon" on the PyroManiacs blog highlighted Spurgeon's thoughts on how The church should be separate from the world. It is worthy of repeating:

Great attempts have been made of late to make the church receive the world, and wherever it has succeeded it has come to this result, the world has swallowed up the church. It must be so. The greater is sure to swamp the less.

They say, "Do not let us draw any hard-and-fast lines. A great many good people attend our services who may not be quite decided, but still their opinion should be consulted, and their vote should be taken upon the choice of a minister, and there should be entertainments and amusements, in which they can assist."

The theory seems to be, that it is well to have a broad gangway from the church to the world: if this be carried out, the result will be that the nominal church will use that gangway to go over to the world, but it will not be used in the other direction.

Click HERE for more resources on worldliness.

Backsliding Down the Slippery Slope

There are a number of small periodicals that I consistently look forward to and have made an integral part of my personal devotions. Among these are Table Talk, The Founders Journal, and a quarterly jewel that seems to regularly meet and exceed their stated purpose. "To humble the pride of man, to exalt the grace of God in salvation, and to promote real holiness in heart and life."   I am talking about the Free Grace Broadcaster.

     When this issue of the FGB arrived, still fresh in my mind was the discussion of about slippery slopes and a statement that Centuri0n made in the comments. He said, "My point in posting both kinds of slippery slopes (valid and invalid) is that you can make the slippery slope argument if your cause-and-effect chain is solid." I had been mulling those thoughts over and wondered how it applied to the "Emergent Church" debate.

     The theme of the Fall 2006 issue of FGB is "Backsliding" and one of the articles (written by Joel R. Beeke and taking from his book Backsliding: Its Disease and Cure) was titled "Signs of Backsliding Churches". It seems to me that this article very clearly lays out a solid chain of cause-and-effect that bolsters a valid slippery slope argument against the "Emergent Church."

     The content of the article will be posted in a seven part series. See if you agree that "Emergent" doesn’t start to seem an awful lot like "Backsliding." - Isaiah 5:20

SIGNS OF BACKSLIDING CHURCHES

And my people are bent to backsliding from me - Hosea 11:7

     IS THE PRESENT-DAY CHURCH following the Word and ways of the Lord and abhorring all that is otherwise? Is the fear of God, the love for truth and for God’s glory, and the desire to walk according to all God’s commandments prospering among God’s church? Before God and men, we must confess that, honestly, the answer is no. True, there may still be some outward truth, outward growth, and even outward spiritual privileges to an extent that the church of former ages scarcely possessed. But Israel could claim the same things- outward truth, outward growth, outward privileges- and yet they were backsliding...

     A church tends to slide from a strong foundation. Therefore, God calls His church to be aware of how backsliding begins, how it thrives, and how it ends. We must be acquainted with Satan’s devices and methodical plans to bring the church into an abominable, backsliding condition. Under the light of the Holy Spirit, the history of Israel and the church reveals a clear pattern of step-by-step backsliding, a pattern we will consider in closer detail.

1. When the church begins to backslide, the first visible sign is usually an increase in worldliness.

2. Worldliness bend the church towards further backsliding and into a hardening condition of unbelief.

3. Unbelief leads the church to backslide further into a hardened condition of indifference.

4. Indifference produces its close companion on the road of backsliding: ignorance.

5. Spiritual and intellectual ignorance of the truth leads to the fatal plague of spiritual deadness in the church.

6. Spiritual deadness bends backsliding into man-centeredness.

7. This brings us to the last step of a backsliding church: man-centeredness yields the fruits of an unholy or no holy expectation from God.

Introspection

I have been on the inactive reserve list for sometime, hence the dearth of posts on this website. I have been experiencing some major changes in my life lately, all of which are potentially positive, if I keep my mind right about the situations and trust in the Lord. These changes are all legitimate excuses to have neglected posting upon a weblog, especially when you consider that as limited human beings we have to set priorities. I am happy that I prioritized my family above my blog. Nonetheless, I desperately suffer from a lack of contentment. Am I being all that I can be? Am I fulfilling my calling and fully utilizing God’s gifts? My wife jokingly calls it a mid-life crisis. My pastor’s wife says it is a spiritual crisis. In many ways, I guess they are both right. My pastor sort of smiles understandingly when I talk to him and seems behave as if he thinks the Lord is leading me on a path that only HE can, and mostly just quotes Bible verses that I need to reflect upon without providing much explanation or help beyond that. The verses he quotes end up giving me the eerie feeling that he (my pastor, who is only slightly older than I am) has been where I am now… and is also satisfied that the Lord has me right where HE wants me.

In light today’s post by Dan Phillips over at the Pyromaniacs Blog, I guess that it is not so bad that I feel “trapped” by Him. I have indeed been “brought low” and cry out to the Lord, “Do anything, but don't leave me to myself!"

As Christians, perhaps we should not be in a perpetual state of discontentment. But, righteous lack of contentment may very well be one of God’s tools to bring about progressive sanctification.

Paradoxically, I feel like every fiber of my being screams out, “HERE I AM LORD! SEND ME!” and yet HE still has not said GO.

If you are familiar with the book Pilgrim’s Progress, then you will understand what I mean when I say that I feel like I am trapped in the Interpreter’s House sitting between the children “Passion” and “Patience.”

Pray that I find the wisdom I need to develop the patience required while waiting upon the Lord.

DRB

The Irony of the Intelligent Believer

Although I believe Vox Day is profoundly uninformed (very uncharacteristic of Vox) about the inerrancy of Scripture, I regularly enjoy his commentary on WorldNetDaily and find him to usually be quite knowledgeable and entertaining. Perhaps it is because he is something of a kindred spirit. After all, how many Christian libertarians, who are both members of a Southern Baptist church and Mensa, can there be out there?

[On the very unlikely chance that Vox happens by this blog, I have provided further explanation of my disagreement with him below]

Getting on with the topic of this post, I would like to point out one commentary that I found to be particularly insightful. He answers questions that I, too, have been often asked and was sadly inept at answering.

Excerpts from Vox's article The Irony of the Intelligent Believer:

How can you – an intelligent individual with an expensive education – possibly take seriously what is at best archaic mythology? How can someone who is otherwise considered to be smart subscribe to what amounts to nothing more than fairytales dressed up as history? And how can anyone who is clearly cognizant of Science ever declare allegiance to its great antithesis, Superstition?

The first, and most obvious, answer is that one obviously can because others of historically remarkable intelligence have. There is no shortage of devout Christians on the list of mankind's most legendary geniuses – many of whom are still rightly revered by atheists and agnostics today.

The second answer is a utilitarian one. Science is a whore. Her very essence precludes certainty, which is both a genuine strength and a grave weakness. It is a strength because the scientific method of testing hypotheses encourages a continual seeking after the truth, to which no one who lives by a book that declares "seek and ye shall find" should object. It is a weakness because the inherent mutability of science is at odds with the human desire for objective guidelines by which to live. This conflict tends to repeatedly create faux-sciences, which, however outmoded, are clung to with all the diehard fervor of the religious fanatic.

As for the secular humanists who are second to none in waving the black-and-white flag of Science, the ongoing demographic collapse of their cherished equalitarian societies in every Western nation is proving their theory of religion's deleterious effect on society to be as errant and intellectually bankrupt as Freud's is with regard to the individual. Theirs is a rotten fruit indeed.

[Third] From a utilitarian perspective, then, it makes a tremendous amount of sense for an individual or a society to live by the precepts of the Bible, even if one does so sans belief. This is, I would argue, the most purely rational position, and indeed, famous non-believers such as Voltaire and the 18th-century deists so beloved by modern atheists – as long as they stay safely buried in the 1700s – would agree.

The fourth answer is reciprocal action. Newton's third law states that all forces occur in pairs, and that paired forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Even when I was an agnostic, I marveled at the hatred and energy expended on Christians by non-Christians. I could not understand the cognitive dissonance demonstrated by the so-called experts in their rabid attempts to discredit all things even nominally related to Christianity – the nominally Jewish Anti-Defamation League's attack on the Ten Commandments being only the most ironic example of late – as well as their ready willingness to distort and even fabricate history.

---

Vox’s “theory” on Biblical inerrancy is uncomfortably similar to “implied Docetism” discussed by John H. Gerstner in his work titled “Biblical Inerrancy. Recognizing Vox’s lingual objections, a better theory for him to hold is as follows:

The Bible is without error in all that it teaches, on every subject, in the original manuscripts. The original Hebrew and Greek autograph copies of the Bible were inerrant. Certainly the copies of copies which have come down to us contain errors common to the craft of the copyist as do all English versions. However, with diligent study, we can ascertain the original words of the inspired writers. Consequently, the doctrine of inerrancy applies to the biblical text in our day as well -- insofar as the Bible has been accurately translated.

I would expect Vox would eminently enjoy the intellectual treatments of this topic, as do I, by the “Old Princeton” scholars, particularly B.B. Warfield’s The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. (Generally recognized as on of the best studies ever done on the subject.)

Oh, and Vox … while I’m at it … be more classy and treat a lady (Michelle) with a little more chivalry … a bit of humility wouldn’t hurt you none either! ;-D

The Dying Nothing Monster

Many scientists have a problem with the EVIDENCE they have discovered as it relates to the Big Bang, and therefore have ventured into the metaphysical arena that they claim to reject. Most often they claim that an eternal nothing suddenly and without cause went BANG!

By ascribing "eternal" characteristics to the universe, they do not escape the logical necessity for a FIRST CAUSE to the current manifestation of the universe. Furthermore, you only push the debate back into a time (as it were) where there are no observable or calculable EVIDENCES. Without evidence, you are now left with nothing more than BELIEF. Add this to the scientific fact that for order to arise from chaos, it is necessary to determine the reason why this order came to be and persists contrary to known entropic laws of the universe.

Just to make sure everyone understands this completely. The best argument scientists have against ID (cosmological, not biological) is that they have a BELIEF that is without EVIDENCE of an ETERNAL universe (eternality, by the way is an attribute of God) -- that without cause or volition – initiated the Big Bang. Wow! And I thought I was the one with a FAITH-based metaphysic!

It is clear that many scientists have closed-mindedly accepted an atheistic religious dogma that is LOGICALLY inconsistent with their own understanding of the universe and which allows them to attempt to undermine, without merit, the possibility of the existence of God. Instead, they would rather say, “Nothing Did It!” Many scientists currently worship a “Dying Nothing Monster” rolling dice with no spots.

I never really intended for my blog to become so overwhelmingly Intelligent Design centric and would rather explore some other areas, particularly politics in the future. I will continue to post on ID from time to time [I currently have a post or two in the works], but mostly intend to explore other interests in the coming months.

No Dots, No Dice, No Sense, No Chance

Intelligent Design has been criticized in comments on this blog for claiming that “God did it.” This is a straw-man fallacy about what the Christian proponents of ID also believe rather than what the essence of what ID is. (There are a large number of non-Christian and even non-theistic proponents of ID with whom I share a common cause.) It has been suggested that we ask, “What did it?” I believe what the person asking really meant was “What, other than God, did it?” In other words, their mind is closed to any solution in which God is part of the answer. While I am willing to debate upon the level playing field that God may or may not be part of origins, I will not concede that God was not involved in origins because I see overwhelming evidence and reason for the contrary. Therefore, why don’t we see if we can know what did NOT do it.

Most scientists believe that “something other than God did it,” referring to origins, and they believe that “something” is CHANCE.

R.C. Sproul has the following to say in his book titled, Not a Chance:

We begin by asking the simple but critically important question, What is chance? Because this question is so critical, however, I think it important to first to explain why the definition of chance is so crucial.

Words are capable of more than one meaning in their usage. Such words are highly susceptible to the unconscious or unintentional commissions of the fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation occurs when a word changes its meaning (usually subtly) in the course of an argument. We illustrate via the classic “cat with nine tails” argument.

Premise A. No cat has eight tails.
Premise B. One cat has one more tail than no cat.
Conclusion: One cat has nine tails.

We see in this “syllogism” that the word cat subtly changes its meaning. In Premise A “no cat” signifies a negation about cats. It is a universal negative. In Premise B “no cat” is suddenly given a positive status as if it represented a group of comparative realities. Premise B assumes already that cats have one tail per cat. If we had two boxes, with one box empty and the second containing a single cat, we would expect to find one more cat in that box than in the empty one. If cats normally have one tail, we would expect one more cat’s tail in one box than the other.

The conclusion of this syllogism rests on the shift from negative to positive in the phrase no cat. The conclusion rests upon equivocation in the first premise. “No cat” is understood to mean a class of cats (positively) that actually possesses eight tails.

Such equivocation frequently occurs with the use of the word chance. We find this in the writings of philosophers, theologians, scientists – indeed pervasively. Here’s how it works.

On the one hand the word chance refers to mathematical possibilities. Here chance is merely a formal word with no material content. It is a pure abstraction. For example, if we calculate the odds of a coin-flip, we speak of the chances of the coin’s being turned up heads or tails. Given that the coin doesn’t stand on its edge, what are the chances that it will turn up heads or tails? The answer, of course, is 100%. There are only two options: heads and tails. It is 100% certain that one of the two will prevail. This is a bona fide either/or situation, with no tertium quid possible.

If we state the question in a different manner, we get different odds or chances. If we ask, “What are the chances that the coin will turn heads?” then our answer will be “Fifty-fifty.”

Suppose we complicate the matter by including a series of circumstances and ask, “What are the odds that the coin will turn up heads ten times in a row?” The mathematicians and odds-makers can figure that out. In the unlikely event that the coin turns up heads nine consecutive times, what are the odds that it will turn up heads the tenth time? In terms of the series, I don’t know. [1 in 1024 attempts of 10 consecutive flips] In terms of the single event, however, the odds are still fifty-fifty.

Our next question is crucial. How much influence or effect does chance have on the coin’s turning up heads? My answer is categorically, “None whatsoever.” I say that emphatically because there is no possibility, real or imagined, that chance can have any influence on the outcome of the coin-toss.

Why not? Because chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent. Again, I must justify my dogmatism on this point. I say that chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It has no power because it has no being.

I’ve just ventured into the realm of ontology, into metaphysics, if you please. Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no “is-ness.” I was technically incorrect even to say that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not.

What are the chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance to do something than nothing has to do something.

Dr. Sproul does a magnificent job at explaining the ridiculousness of change having causative power in origins. With this in mind, consider this if you will:

You have a completely empty room, there is NOTHING in it. What are the chances that in a room with nothing in it, there is a pair of dice showing seven? Okay, so you will concede, for whatever reason, that the room is not completely empty (how it is empty and not-empty at the same time or how it got that way doesn’t matter for the sake of argument you say) and it has an infinite number of monkeys in it, but it is empty you say. You will also concede, for whatever reason, that this empty room that is full of monkeys has been that way from all eternity. Furthermore, you concede that those monkeys have been rolling spotless dice that entire time. Even after all those illogical concessions (which Christians have been apt to make) the possibility of ever rolling a seven with dice that have no dots is still zero and becomes even more absurd with each unreasonable concession that is removed.

Why have we allowed the world to push us to such absurd limits? Why have Christians allowed the world, modern science, to bully us into such absurd leaps of illogic and abandonment of common sense? It all makes about as much sense as throwing dice without dots and expecting to get seven dots showing.

To the whole ridiculous absurdity I say, “No Dice!” Obviously, when scientist make the claim that “chance did it”, what they are really saying is that “Nothing did it!” Next “something” please…

I will hug it and squeeze it and call it George!

Some Christian bloggers may not look at it this way, but I consider it immensely flattering to have my very own atheist troll hanging around my blog. It confirms that what I am writing is relevant and impactful enough to elicit another person to spend their precious time attempting to refute what I have to write about. Furthermore, the troll’s input has provided with me with enough ideas for future blog posts to last at least a year or more. Even better, my troll seem to be blog-house broken and doesn’t go around messing up the blog-carpet with senseless profanity. It [my troll] generally just sticks to caustic insults but occasionally asks a tough question that deserves an answer. Not just a flippant unconsidered response, but a truly researched and intellectual answer. I intend to attempt do so.

Unfortunately, the proper care and feeding of my troll requires more time than I rightly have to devote to it without neglecting more important matters like family and career. I have set as a reasonable goal for myself to create one major post every other week but no more than one per week. I might respond to a comment about my posts if I feel strongly about it, or I can respond quickly with little effort, or if I have a little extra time at the moment. More than likely, I will research the topic and provide a major response in a future blog post.

I have to give a heartfelt thank you to all my blog friends who have taken the time to troll-sit for me! I sincerely appreciate your contribution and improvement to this ministry. I will attempt to compensate you for your trouble with a link to your blog.

Here are some guidelines I hope to maintain on the Deathrow Bodine Blog. These guidelines are quite free right now and I hope that I am able to keep it that way.

• Be nice to MY troll and Pecadillo will not kick YOUR cat.
  
• Only Pyromaniac and Centuri0n are permitted to go about starting fires, it’s expected of them so what am I to do?
  
• Please try to keep comments on topic and be systematic about your responses. (That is directed at my nice troll, but applies to all.)
  
• Profanity, including abbreviations and coded profanity, is not required for intellectual debate. It will result in your entire post being deleted. If you repeatedly violate this rule, then any subsequent posts will be deleted regardless of content or lack of profanity.
  
• While I highly value spelling and grammar, this hillbilly is not very good at either. As long as someone’s post is legible, don’t post comments about their intellectual competence based upon misspellings and grammar mistakes. I will likely delete these regardless of the rest of the posts value.
  
• Anonymous posts are allow for now, if and only if, you use some form of signature at the bottom of your post to let us know when we are talking to the same person. Thanks go to my troll for using “DC” at the bottom of its posts.
  
• Try to keep your comments relatively short. If you have a large amount to say, then post it on your blog and feel free to place a link in the comments here. Gratuitous links that are not on topic will be deleted. I will leave a lot of leeway here, but don’t complain if I delete yours. If the post would not fit the “theme” of your blog, then feel free to go ahead and leave a long post here. Don’t abuse this privilege.
  
• Posts with links of others who I find in anyway disagreeable will be deleted. I leave plenty of leeway for you to disagree with me here, including limited quoting others in your post.

Please let me know if you think I am being unreasonable with these guidelines. If you have tips for how to make this a better blog, I am certainly willing to listen to good advice.

Sincerely,

Deathrow Bodine

Head On A Platter

The recent “Brouhaha” has caused me to add my two-cents, perhaps unwisely. A more general look related but not on this topic can be found on JollyBlogger discussing Frame’s paper, Machen’s Warrior Children

I first come to “know” Phil many years ago. (although he doesn’t know me from spit) I spent quite a few hours lurking on IRC (circa 1993 and later) watching him and David Ponter logically disassemble challengers’ arguments. At that time, although I had regularly attended a typical Southern Baptist church all of my life, I had never, and I mean NEVER, considered that Christianity may be intellectually stimulating. I was quite new to the whole idea of the Doctrines of Grace and in no small measure ignorant of any kind of systematic theology. Inevitably this led me to repeatedly and unwisely break from the lurking, pop my head up to disagree; only to have it unceremoniously handed back to me on a platter. Were they gentle? No! Were polite? No! Was I as mad as a hornet? Yup! Were they correct? Well…let me put it this way… in my quest to learn enough to prove them wrong (a quest consuming years), I was usually persuaded to most of their views in my searching of the Scriptures.

What have I learned from this? How should we contend for those things that we believe? How do we properly respond to correction from other Christians?

1. First and foremost, submit to the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Do not persist in defending you position for pride’s sake when you know you are wrong.
   
2. If you are clearly academically outclassed, you would be best served to spend some time studying the scriptures. It is pointless to debate from a position of ignorance unless it is an exercise for learning with an elder or a mentor who you are being discipled by.
   
3. Don’t be a candy-britches that can’t cope with a little contention. Our culture has so feminized itself that a good wrestling match among brothers is viewed as “violence” rather than iron sharpening iron. Skip the pop-psychology teachings of conflict avoidance/resolution and concentrate on the Biblical concept of constructive controlled expression, while avoiding unbridled passion. See my post on Christian Anger
   
4. Over the years you will find, in your searching of the scriptures, that certain individuals, authors, and teachers will demonstrate themselves to be exceptionally trustworthy in understanding Scripture; deviate from their path with extreme caution, especially if you have not mastered the subject at least as well as they have.
   
5. If you are forced because of time or inability to rely upon another’s scholarship that you have found trustworthy, do not do your cause a disservice by engaging opponents that you are clearly not equipped to debate.
   
6. Our pride and our actions are not worthy of contentious defense. Scriptural truths are. If you find yourself defending yourself rather than Scriptural truths, humility is probably the best course of action. Often conceding offense and making an apology for ones actions is preferred, even if you had not acted inappropriately.
   
7. If a brother’s behavior or actions are unjustly maligned, be quick to defend him so that he does not have to. If he is being justly accused, your silence will speak volumes. If the brother is particularly close, work for his restoration.
   
8. Naturally, we have an affinity for and seek to defend those who have mentored or discipled us in a powerful way. What we all too often forget is that “the master” can take care of himself, and we end up doing more harm than good.
   
9. When we find ourselves in a debate with someone who has mentored or discipled large numbers of people over and extended period of years (i.e. James White), they will necessarily have less spiritually mature disciples who will seek to defend them. Remember, they are not your target or concern. Convince “the master” and his disciples will follow. You are unlikely to “convert” them by direct confrontation and it takes your emphasis away from the task at hand. Rest assured that they are closely following the debate between you and their mentor.
   
10. And finally, correct those you mentor if they become too rancorous.
    

I realize that Phil Johnson is only at the periphery of this “Brouhaha” and this post is not intended as a commentary on his actions or anyone’s in particular. I am using this post to demonstrate that through contentious debate, in spite of the immediate tension, that fruit of the spirit is produced. I am using my experience with Phil as an example of how, even though I was as mad as the bloody blue blazes at him, Christian contention is a refiner’s fire. It may make us uncomfortable and temporarily separate us, but over the long run God is using it to grow the church, of this we can be sure.

I am sure that Phil has no idea of the lives he has touched. He probably doesn’t get to hear very often that the Lord extends the work He does through him beyond his wildest imagination. Even though I am sure that Phil would/will unceremoniously hand me my head on a platter in the future, I feel greatly indebted to him for all that he has unknowingly taught me. For better or worse, I guess you could call me one of Pyromaniac’s Warrior Children…

IDiots and the Flying Spaghetti Monster

The biggest smirks in society today are on the faces of participants in the rhetoric of ridicule known as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." We should not let this dishearten us; it is something from which we should gain encouragement and confidence. The very fact that the most popular and influential defense of the naturalistic theory of origins is a pop culture fad reminiscent of juvenile schoolyard taunts is evidence of which side of the debate will likely have the last laugh.

As further evidence for encouragement, even when the an attempt is made to intellectually defend naturalistic origins (cosmological and biological) it is done in such a shrill, mean, hateful manner that the argument is obscured by the explosive behavior from the Darwinian Jihad. The tenor of Darwinian Fundamentalists has become so rancorous that many are beginning to doubt the credibility of the priests of the Darwinian religion. In fact, the childishness, overt deceptions, and intentional mischaracterizations, and lack of intellectual dialogue have been so commonplace that elements of pop culture have even noticed. For example: Scott Adams, who specifically said he is not a believer in Intelligent Design, said over at the DilbertBlog:

I’ve been doing lots of reading on the subject, trying to gather comic fodder. I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the media paints it. I had no reason to believe otherwise. The truth is a lot more interesting. Allow me to set you straight.

Dean Esmay, a self avowed atheist and science geek over at Dean’s World, said:

Adams, who appears to be about as religious as a bowl of Cheerios, recently committed the crime of being less than absolutely condemning of the idea of Intelligent Design, and, even worse, of suggesting that maybe they raised some valid points worth considering. He was, predictably, avalanched with ugly criticism.

Click here for More Fallout from Scott Adams’ ID Post

The failure to recognize the Intelligent Design proponents as serious intellectual challengers will only serve to inhibit the humanistic evolutionists from mounting an intellectual response. The use of the rhetoric of ridicule and the law as a bludgeon has had its short term successes in shaping political debate; don't knock the mock. Nonetheless, it always fails to “move armies or pull down empires. Intelligent design is already more than a simple matter of academic speculation, it has matured well past being a mere scientific hypothesis and is well on its way (if not already) a genuine scientific theory.

On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that Scott Adams also directed his statements at the proponents of Intelligent Design. Even if he is “just a comic strip artist,” we have to take heed of what he says because most of what he says is correct. He says:

To me, the most fascinating aspect of the debate over Darwinism versus Intelligent Design is that neither side understands the other side’s argument. Better yet, no one seems to understand their own side’s argument. But that doesn’t stop anyone from having a passionate opinion.

Here is some direction that I would like to leave you with. It is what I believe we should understand about this topic and some of how we need to precede to be relevant and creditable.

Now we Reformed Christians are wholly in earnest about the Bible. We are people of the Word; Sola Scriptura is our cry; we take Scripture to be a special revelation from God himself, demanding our absolute trust and allegiance. But we are equally enthusiastic about reason, a God-given power by virtue of which we have knowledge of ourselves, our world, our past, logic and mathematics, right and wrong, and God himself; reason is one of the chief features of the image of God in us. And if we are enthusiastic about reason, we must also be enthusiastic about contemporary natural science, which is a powerful and vastly impressive manifestation of reason.

To think about it properly, one must obviously know a great deal of science. On the other hand, the question crucially involves both philosophy and theology: one must have a serious and penetrating grasp of the relevant theological and philosophical issues. And who among us can fill a bill like that? Certainly I can't. The scientists among us don't ordinarily have a sufficient grasp of the relevant philosophy and theology; the philosophers and theologians don't know enough science; consequently, hardly anyone is qualified to speak here with real authority. This must be one of those areas where fools rush in and angels fear to tread. Whether or not it is an area where angels fear to tread, it is obviously an area where fools rush in. - Alvin Plantinga

We need for our theologians and philosophers to more diligently pursue the study of science. We need for our scientist to more diligently study philosophy and especially theology. We need to learn not only how to construct an argument, but the purposes, responsibilities, and consequences of engaging in one. Ours should be a rhetoric of logic, humbly applied to an area where we cannot foolishly rush in, even if we are reasonably well informed.

Finally, as a simple hillbilly southern boy (actually more redneck than hillbilly), I know full well the power of being underestimated and the ridicule that comes with it. My advice is to own it, enjoy it, and use it.

Viva la FSM!

A Nonrational Fantasy World of Experience

Atheism (a=lack of or negation, theism=belief in God/gods) is a lack of belief in a God or gods.

The atheist either denies that there is a God or gods (strong atheism), or denies that there is a ground for theism (weak atheism).

Atheism is not about knowledge, but about belief. The strong atheist simply believes that it is impossible for there to be a god. The weak atheist believes that unless theism can be proved in some way then atheism is the preferred position. Weak atheism is sometimes confused with agnosticism; this is a natural conclusion because in application and practice there is little difference. The word agnosticism is derived from the Greek a- (negation) and -gnosis (knowledge). Simply put, an agnostic is one who says: "I don't know".

Both weak atheism and agnosticism are victims of the logical fallacy called “Appeal to Ignorance.” An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

The atheist will sometimes try to wiggle out of this difficulty by claiming that it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false.. Likewise, sometimes the atheist will try reason from premises about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. Clearly, both of these arguments quickly degenerate into circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Usually, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side. In this case, “what one would know if God exists.”

Another tactic the atheist will use is to claim an omniscient completeness of information or make the assumption of reasonably complete information. This is often called the "closed world assumption". Obviously, the claim of omniscient completeness is without merit because claiming omniscience presupposes oneself to be a god. However, when it is reasonable to accept the “closed world assumption”, it may not be a fallacy of appeal to ignorance to reason this way. But when is it reasonable to accept the “closed world assumption?” This assumption can only be validly made when the boundaries of the system or “world” being observed can be clearly delineated and external factors isolated. Certainly, it is difficult if not impossible to clearly delineate, without presupposing the thesis, the boundaries of the universe or isolate it from external factors, i.e. God. As weak as this tactic is, the methodological naturalist understands it is the most stable sand upon which he can build his foundation and place his faith in.

In the words of Paul Draper, naturalism is “the hypothesis that the physical universe is a ‘closed system’ in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it. So naturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic God.”

If upon this sand is where the methodological naturalist wishes to build his religious home, then upon it they must stand to face the storms of conflicts, paradox, and dilemmas that accompany it.

Van Wylen and Sonntag, in the college textbook Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics say:

The final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of the increase of entropy have philosophical implications. Does the second law of thermodynamics apply to the universe as a whole? Are there processes unknown to us that occur somewhere in the universe, such as “continual creation,” that have a decrease in entropy associated with them, and thus, offset the continual increase in entropy that is associated with the natural processes that are known to us? If the second law is valid for the universe (we of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system), how did it get in the state of low entropy? On the other end of the scale, if all processes known to us have an increase in entropy associated with them, what is the future of the natural world as we know it?

Quite obviously it is impossible to give conclusive answers to these questions on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics alone. However, we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe.

Of course, as stridently as many modern scientists claim to hold fast to that shifting sand, they know, and all of society unconsciously knows, that they have lost their logical moorings. The only escape is an escape from reason and that is what they have done. Francis Schaeffer explains this best in the book Escape from Reason:

Man is dead. God is dead. Life has become meaningless existence, man a cog in a machine. The only way of escape lies in a nonrational fantasy world of experience, drugs, absurdity, pornography, an elusive "final experience," madness...

A million so-called scientists can in irrational rage continue to ridicule and claim with authority that Intelligent Design is not science, but that does nothing to justify their own religion of self worship.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." [Galileo Galilei]

Is Christianity Rational?

There are two incorrect ways to look at Christian doctrine. One is to take an anti-intellectual approach; the other is to take an overly rigid rational approach

Unfortunately, too many modern Christians have made it all too easy for "evangelical humanists" to level the charge against Christianity of being irrational. I addressed this problem in a previous post called Battling Evangelical Anti-Intellectualism

Anti-Intellectualism has become the scandal of evangelicalism. Over the course of two hundred years, it has gradually become part and parcel of our evangelical identity. Yet today the failure to love God with our minds as well as our hearts is not only a sin - it’s a crippling cultural handicap in an age when ideas have greater consequences than ever.- Os Guiness

Fortunately, it has not always been this way. The Puritans in the early period of America were renowned for their impeccable logic and a scholastic emphasis that permeated to every person in society. They considered religion a very complex, subtle, and highly intellectual affair, and their leaders (both Civil and Religious) thus were highly trained scholars.

In fact, the most educated and best-informed scientists in history have been humble believers in the Scriptures (e.g., Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Kepler, Thomas Bayes, and others). For these great thinkers, the search for the laws of nature and understanding a rational order was an act of devotion that would reveal the glory and grandeur of God’s work. This is the paradigm for the great majority of all scientific discovery, even today.

However, the overly rigid rational approach is not a proper Christian perspective either. It is wrong and intellectually arrogant to think that we can explain every aspect of Christian doctrine. There are some things that are simply beyond our finite, human ability to grasp or understand, to speak nothing of our fallen nature which has corrupted our ability to always possess perfect reason. That is not to say that we can or should accept paradox, but we must, at times recognize those things which are a mystery. In a previous article I have stated that two ways to gain knowledge are through reason and experience, a third method is from the Bible. God reveals himself in us, being created in his image (a priori). He reveals himself in nature which we can search out via objective scientific observation/evidence (a posteriori). And finally he reveals himself in the Holy Scripture, the truth of which he confirms to us directly by the Holy Spirit.

When we find ourselves confronted with a mystery, it is at those times that we must cling to the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura! Monergism List of Articles

Colossians 2 (ESV)
¹For 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, ²that 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, ³in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. ⁴I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments.

You see, the proper Christian view is a balanced one. It is humble and does not claim to "know-it-all." But the Christian faith is not irrational, nor is it anti-rational. It does not go against reason, but it does sometimes go beyond it.

Nonetheless, even without Scripture or the work of the Holy Spirit, the honest person must admit that while the there is more reason to believe in Christianity’s core doctrines than not to believe.

C.S. Lewis perhaps said it best: "the weight of the evidence" for mere Christianity--Christianity's core doctrines--is on the side of the Christian.

Bottom line: Christianity is overwhelmingly the most rational system of belief (or unbelief) in this world. Ours is a reasoned faith. It is not a blind faith but is, in fact, faith in based in reason, evidence, and revelation.

Next Post: The irrationality and the increasing irrationality of the post-modern scientific faith: methodological naturalism.

A Side Note From Yesterday's Topic: Abortion

In the epistemological discussion posted yesterday, there are some truths that arise that I wanted to post today as a side note:

As discussed yesterday, we know that rational knowledge exists before experience. Assuming that someone with no experience could exist, we still could not say that they had no knowledge. The possession of knowledge necessarily implies that the person has existence. Therefore, it cannot be said that just because an individual does not or has not yet experienced the world that the he is not a person, does not exist, or is not alive.

These truths are monumental when you consider abortion. It is with certainty that we can know that if a fetus reacts to his environment, then he is alive, because to react you must be able to perceive, and to perceive implies empirical experience.

Intelligent Design, Science, & Epistemology

Mankind has sought knowledge since the very beginning. Like never before in history, people seek to understand the world around them. Unlike ever before in history, many people simply seek to add to some segment of the 'body of knowledge' without seeking an overall understanding of it. To begin to understand, we must first ask: What is knowledge? What do we really know for sure? Can we ever know something to be absolutely true?

Knowledge based on reason, such as mathematical truths (e.g. 2+2=4) can be said to be absolutely true. They are true by definition or by epistemological necessity. Philosophers refer to these truths as rational or a priori truths, meaning that they are true prior to experience. These statements can take the form of two equal sides, like an equation, as in the statement "A bachelor is a male and unmarried". They may also take the form of describing properties of a definable or theoretic concept, such as 'all triangles have three sides'. The equation or logical construct itself is a form of knowledge which is necessary for the definition to make any sense at all.

Again, knowledge based upon correct reasoning is absolutely true and cannot be otherwise. It is significant that we could not say this of something we empirically observe in the world. We could not say 'All bachelors are bald' and know it to be true. Even if we could examine every living bachelor we could not say that the statement is true, because we cannot examine every bachelor that ever was or ever will be. Thus, because we can know rational truths without having to experience or empirically verify them in the world, then by definition, they give us a foundational structure to deal with the world as we experience it.

The source of rational knowledge is independent of experience and these truths remain equally true whether an individual is aware of them or not. However, we can learn by experience, and as such experience is another source of knowledge. However, experience is a less reliable teacher because there is always the possibility for statements from experience to be false. Philosophers call these statements empirical or a posteriori truths, meaning true after experience. Plato called them a "true belief" and did not even ascribe them the level of truth.

Rational knowledge provides the structure, empirical knowledge provides content. Knowing rational truths gives us reliability and certainty. We can expand rational truths and use them as tools, for example if we know A=B, and B=C, then we necessarily know that A=C. However, while these truths provide us with much general information, they provide very little precise information about the world in which we live. Because of this, the empiricist says that rational truths are of little relevance in day to day living. This ignores the fact that any empirical truth is foundationally based upon rational truths and how a person lives his life. If all a person wants to do is get through the day and does not care how he is blown about by the winds of every fad philosophy or manipulated by the authors of popular culture, then rational truth indeed matters little.

Experience allows us to survive, acquire skills and to hone those skills as we gain more and more experience in using them. However, whilst experience has great utility, it does not explain the scale of human knowledge compared to animals that experience the world.

Granted, there is relatively little that we can know based upon pure reason alone. As a source of knowledge the strength of rational statements lies in reliability and predictability, but not in breadth or applicability. However, when we look not just at single rational statements, but at rational arguments (premise + premise = conclusion) we can see that the logic/reason is immensely useful. For example, if the premises are not true then, even though the construct is rational and logical, the argument remains false. This methodology allows us to perform logical operations on our empirical knowledge and in doing so arrive at potentially new knowledge. Also, empirical experience allows us to test the truth of logical arguments.

Full knowledge comprises both rational and empirical knowledge and thus is not complete without both of its parts. While we can conclude that reason is the stronger/foundational source for knowledge, it must be stated that complete knowledge must come from both sources because they are inextricably linked in the acquisition, storing, manipulation, and use of additional knowledge. Therefore, by applying rational and logical methods to experience we can accelerate the acquisition of empirical knowledge.

This is the approach taken in science. The scientific method involves making a logical prediction based upon previous observations. We do not know that it is true, but we can test this hypothesis with further experience. In order to record and communicate this experience logical systems or mathematical models are used to describe the experience, for example by applying a mathematical formula to match the results of an experiment.

Intelligent design involves making a logical prediction for an intelligent designer of biological organisms based upon previous observations of manifestations of irreducible complexity and specified Shannon information (concept in information theory). The prediction that an intelligent designer is uniquely responsible for certain types of order found in complex systems can be and has been proven countless times with items all around us. Enough proofs that anyone should be able to legitimately call the hypothesis a "theory." Nonetheless, even a hypothesis is certainly a valid scientific concept that should be taught and scientifically considered. Clearly, the intelligent design approach is undeniably "science."

The honest scientist cannot dismiss ID by ridicule or the logical fallacy of authority. He must deal with the problem both rationally and empirically.

First, the methodological naturalist must deal with logical inconsistency of his own beliefs. He subscribes to a deterministic world-view in which the universe is nothing but a chain of meaningless events following one after another according to the law of cause and effect. This world-view gives rise to the logical inconsistency of the inability to posit a first cause. Furthermore, he rejects any form of metaphysical volition which undermines the ability to think or do anything other than that which physical and chemical processes determined anything he thinks or does. This logical inconsistency undermines rationality itself.

Second, Methodological naturalism lacks empirical foundations for an evolutionary progress emerging from undirected random events. Nowhere in nature can it be proven that specified and irreducible complexity has come about by anything other than direct influence by intelligence. In fact, the opposite is universally found. Without the influence of intelligent interaction, order naturally proceeds to disorder and a lower energy state. (I actually had a Ph.D. physicist say to me, the evolutionary process is directed by undirected random events.)

Third, the modern form of strictly empirical scientific investigation into nature is plagued by an inevitable confusion over a central philosophical issue, that of knowledge. By rejecting absolute truths derived from a priori rational knowledge, they necessarily reject the very foundations of the scientific method.

However, the Christian cannot be satisfied by simply demonstrating how "unscientific" that methodological naturalism is. We must test our hypothesis/theory. We must document, record, and communicate this experience with logical systems and mathematical models. We must demonstrate the validity and repeatability of our mathematical models by predicting the results of future experiments.

The price for our ignorance of these subjects will be more than cultural ridicule and irrelevance; it almost certainly means severe judgment from our Sovereign Lord, Himself. The Scriptures are very clear concerning the price of ignorance. The prophet Hosea said that God’s people perish for lack of knowledge.

Hosea 4:6

The Religion of Secular Humanism

Religion - A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Secular humanism as an organized philosophical system (a religion) is relatively new, but its foundations can be found in the ideas of classical Greek philosophers such as the Stoics and Epicureans as well as in Chinese Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. (all traditionally considered religions) These philosophical views looked to human beings rather than gods to solve human problems.

Secular humanism has its own organized belief system, publications and “preachers”. Like other religions, it also has a goal: the supplanting of all other religions with its own. It also receives a religious tax exemption.

While secular humanism may not have a mystical aspect, it is a religion nonetheless. It has a doctrine or statement of principles. The imposition of those principles without the equal imposition of contrary statements of principles is a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution.

The first document describing the beliefs of a secular humanist, the Humanist Manifesto I -1933, refer to themselves in the very first principle as “religious.” It says, “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.” Furthermore, secular humanism described itself as being a religion again in the fifth, seventh, eighth, twelfth, thirteenth, and other sections of the Humanist Manifesto

Humanist Manifesto II – 1973 is slightly less emphatic in describing secular humanism as “religious. It was not until 1980 with the Secular Humanist Declaration did they begin to not call themselves religious. Why did they do so?

It is because the U.S. Supreme Court recognized it to be a religion in 1961 in the case Torkoso v. Watkins. They begin to find it very difficult to IMPOSE their BELIEFS using the FORCE of the government because of the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Interestingly the Humanist Manifesto II – 1973 still said that, “The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters.”

The secular humanist had a problem at this point because they held that the state should not “ESPOUSE A SINGLE IDEOLOGY…” Even those who incorrectly deny that secular humanism is a religion cannot deny that it is an ideology. Therefore, they had to purge any mention of this in their next “Manifesto.” Look up the Humanist Manifesto III.

Clearly, any open-minded and thoughtful observer would identify secular humanism as a religion. It is only those that would seek to deceive and oppress that would state otherwise. The shifting and convolutions of the Humanist Manifestos are clear indications that Secular Humanists are using deception and fraud to supplant all other religions with its own, not by the superiority of their ideas, but rather by the force and might of the government.

A Systematic Christian Political Philosophy - Part 2

Again, I find my self in need of taking another step backwards in order to move forward. It was recommended that I needed to explore the foundational purpose or function of government before determining the best form of government. This makes perfect sense. After all, doesn’t form follow function? Some would disagree, but I would prefer not to get into a debate about art and architecture. It is simply that I must acknowledge that my own way of thinking proceeds most naturally where function is foundationally considered prior to determining form, nonetheless I recognize that God has created certain forms to solve certain functions (a manifestation of natural law, if you will). [As an interesting diversion, click on the architecture link above and read the article by Douglas Jones in Credenda Agenda substituting the word government for the word architecture.]

What is human government in its most foundational form?

Government, in its essence, is force. Precisely, it is legal force. Government is endowed legally with the right to use legal force to compel its citizens to do certain things and not to do other things.

Where does government come from?

The original form of government is rested in the rule and authority of God himself. God is the Author and Creator of the universe and is ultimately vested with the authority over it. God has delegated some of that authority to mankind. That means that government is tasked, by God, with the obligation and authority to enforce the laws which are established by it.

Why is government necessary?

Augustine made the observation that government is a necessary evil. He said that in this world, among fallen creatures, you will never find a morally perfect government. Governments, and government itself, are/is evil, but a necessary evil. The reason it is necessary is because fallen humans are predisposed to evil and require restraint from acting evilly. The Christian acknowledgement of a foundational necessity of government therefore precludes anarchism from being a political form of government consistent with a Christian political philosophy.

What is the fundamental purpose of government?

Romans 13:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:12-14 not only confirm the ultimate source of and necessity of government, but also provides us with some insight into the fundamental purpose of government.

The primary purpose of government is to exercise restraint upon human evil. The primary purpose by which government was created was to exercise restraint upon human evil to preserve the very possibility of human existence.

The first task of government is to protect, support, and maintain human life. That is the ultimate reason for government, to protect human life from the destructive impulses of others human beings.

The second task of government is the protection of human property. This not only means the restraining theft; but also to regulate agreements, uphold contracts, and insure just weights and measures which prevent human beings from defrauding other human beings.

Third, the government is not only to protect humanity from other humans, but also to protect creation itself from fallen humanity. Government has the responsibility to regulate how we treat animals, manage the environment, and ultimately all of His creation.

What is not a purpose of the government?

Dr. Steve Cowan has pointed out to me, in other correspondence, that Jesus himself tells us that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36); and Paul tells us that our citizenship is in heaven; and Peter reminded us that in this world we are pilgrims and strangers. Dr. Cowan further points out that, in addition to these statements, it is a fact that we never see the apostles combating idolatry or seeking to promote the Christian religion through political means.

Therefore, all of these things warn us against requiring too much of the civil government with regard to religion. It would seem, from these points, that God requires of government a secular purpose, the establishing and maintaining of justice and social order, not the establishment and propagation of the Christian faith. Instead, that authority, duty, and responsibility rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Church and God’s providence. These premises seemingly eliminate theonomy from being a political form of government consistent with a Christian political philosophy, at least federally. Even if not, they so weaken its case as to require almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In the next post, I will explore what the United States founding fathers believed about the purpose of government. While not all were Christians, never before (nor since) has a government been established (formed) that was more influenced by Christianity and Biblical principles.

Toward A Systematic Christian Political Philosophy

I recently set out to find or formulate a consistent and systematic Christian political philosophy. I cannot even begin to describe what I discovered in my searching these last few weeks without making the understatement of the century, “Overwhelming!” The search and research has consumed my free time, my sleep, and nearly every free waking moment. Besides being tired, frustrated, and a lot better informed than I was a few weeks ago, I feel like I have accomplished little or nothing. This explains much of the reason why it has been such a long time since I last posted.

My methodology and guidelines were relatively simple. I would start out by evaluating existing political ideologies / philosophies and determine which best aligns with Scripture and attempt to discard those which were clearly not Christian. From there the problem snowballed, I found that there were so many systems and subsystems that overlapped and internally contradicted themselves logically that I was more confused than when I started.

Regrouping from the frustration it all, I then tried to determine if there were more basic questions that needed to be answered in order to break the problem down into a set of simpler problems.

What is the most Biblical “form” of government or political system? What spheres of life does government impact and what limit or extent is the Biblical role in each sphere? Are these spheres impacted differently by different levels of government? What is the Christian’s proper role or involvement in the political process? Over the coming weeks I hope to deal extensively with each of these topics. This is a learning process for me, please leave comments. I will start by trying to “narrow the field” to those forms of government that are the consistent with the Christian faith.

What is the most Biblical “form” of government or political system?

Does the Bible prescribe a preferred form of government? In seeking biblical wisdom on this topic I looked first in the Proverbs.

Consider Proverbs 28:
Reading Proverbs 28, there is no particular indication of what form of government is preferred in the teachings to the "ruler", it only deals with the “righteousness and holiness” of the ruler. This seems to be a consistent theme through the entire Bible. If God had an overwhelming preference for a particular form of government, it seems that He would have specifically prescribed it in scripture in some place. Even if you go searching for such a prescription for governmental systems in scripture, the closest you will find might be some sort of a benevolent monarchy. I certainly don’t believe that is the most Christian form of government (as you will see below), but it demonstrates my point.

Consider Colossians 1:15-18 (also 1 Peter 2:13-14)
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 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. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Again, it is obvious that God’s concern is not so much with the form of government, but rather that the leaders of whatever form of government that exists are subject to Him and holds Christ as preeminent. This fact in itself, while not prescriptive, does give us an idea about the form of government is best. It MUST be one in which the leader may hold Christ as preeminent. Clearly, any authoritarian religious based system (excepting a Christian Theocracy) would never allow the rulers to be subject to God and hold Christ as preeminent. [Note: While I do not favor a Christian Theocracy, it must be granted that it passes this test.] There are many forms of secular humanist authoritarian governments, which should be considered "religious based" and can be eliminated right along with Islamic and any other religious based authoritarian government.

Secondarily, any form of government that might be selected by Christians must consider the fundamental state of human nature. It is my belief that the founders of the United States established our form of government not based directly on some Biblical prescriptive, but rather upon a proper understanding of what the Bible says about the fallen nature of mankind. And since men have a fallen nature, they are inclined to preside over corrupt governments. They chose our system because it provided the checks and balances that minimizes the abuses of power that are inevitable of fallen men who are also in positions of power. Most governmental systems themselves are not inherently corrupt; it is the men that rule that are inherently corrupt.

What forms of government might satisfy both the primary and secondary tests I stated above? Are there any other Biblical tests that need to be applied?