Apologia

Bill Johnston's Anti-Calvinist Remarks

2006-10-26T00:10:00.000-07:00

In a post dated July 3 2006 in the Conversations In Calvinism blog, J. Matthew Cleary offered an example of what he referred to as "anti-Calvinism," which can be described as an antagonistic attitude or spirit of animosity toward Calvinism. There is certainly no denying this phenomenon; Dave Hunt, D. A. Waite, Ergun Caner, David Cloud and their ilk provide ample evidence of this egregious enmity in their published works, both online and in print, never mind the abundance of evidence provided by laymen on relevant message boards and such. I have certainly encountered it myself, any time I dare utter a word about the extent of man's sinful condition, the doctrines of grace or, especially, the nature and extent of Christ's atoning work on the cross. "The single most shameful fact in this," Cleary rightly comments, "is that the typical anti-Calvinist is a professing Christian" who, despite their profession of Christ, "will drop every standard of holiness, civility, and honesty" when addressing their fellow brothers in Christ. It is curious (although historically consistent) that the gospel of Christ and its related subjects arouse such heated tensions and create such sharp divisions. Yet Christ foretold that this should happen.

Nevertheless, the point of this brief article is an offering of what my response might have been toward some of the remarks reportedly made by one Bill Johnston. (I am responding to select remarks, not all of them. Cleary's response to Johnston was quite adequate and I would direct visitors there.)

No, you chose to believe God is unjust by providing salvation for some, but not for others. You've been lied to, pal!

It would seem Johnston feels that God is unjust if he provides salvation for some but not for others. You know, he is nearly right. But he seems to have it precisely backwards. God is not unjust because he provides salvation for some but not others. More accurately, God is unjust by providing salvation for some... period. If the whole world is fallen and enslaved to sin, and if therefore God would be just in condemning the whole world for its manifest sin, then the fact that God saves anyone at all is unjust! And this unjustice has a name: it is called mercy. Indeed we choose to believe that God is unspeakably merciful by providing salvation for some, when no one at all deserves it. To get what we deserve is just; ergo, our condemnation is a result of God being just. To get what we don't deserve is mercy; ergo, our salvation is a result of God being merciful—incredibly, awesomely, unutterably merciful.

It should be further noted that the gospel message is not—and has never been—that salvation is something that God makes possible. The mercy of God, to his glorious praise, is revealed in this: that salvation is something that God makes actual. To put the matter succinctly: God does not offer salvation; He saves. Period. Jesus said, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." And elsewhere he says, "For you granted [your Son] authority over all people, that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him." And again Jesus says, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."

But, I don't suppose you guys witness to anyone, since you don't know who is chosen and who isn't, right?

Cleary's response was adequate, a response I can only echo: We witness to everyone precisely because we do not know who is chosen and who isn't. But more than this, we witness to everyone because it is the Father's will and we love to do the will of the Father. The fact that we can serve as instruments in God's purposes and stewards of his blessings is at once both deeply humbling and incredibly exciting. We do it because it is the will of the Father. We do it because we love to, and we love to because we love him. We do it because the gospel of Christ is good news, the best news in the whole world, news which enflames our hearts with overflowing love and joy and we just cannot keep quiet about it. We do it out of profound love for God and Jesus Christ our Savior. The message of the gospel is our deepest conviction and greatest vocation.

That's always funny to me! Are there any in your group that have been chosen to go to hell?

I do not know who Johnston is referring to here by the term "your group." If this term refers to the elect, then his comment is nonsensical and blasphemous: it maligns God's most holy name to accuse him of being contradictory, to say that he would choose for salvation those he chose for damnation. Johnston forgets himself here; the character of God is most holy ground, upon which Johnston recklessly treads with shameful irreverence. Unless this term refers to Calvinists, in which case I would echo the statement Jerry Bridges once made: "There are thousands of professing Christians who think they have been justified, who think their sins are forgiven and that they are on their way to heaven, who show no evidence of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in their lives." This is just as true for Presbyterians as it is for Methodists, just as true for Reformed Baptists as it is for Roman Catholics. Not all Calvinists are necessarily of the elect. Nor are all the elect necessarily Calvinists; there very well may be some atheists who are of the elect but, obviously, not yet regenerate. Is it possible that some self-professed Calvinists could find themselves condemned to the fires of hell? Certainly, just as some self-professed Baptists could, or those of any other sect.

The Arminian typically has a problem with the idea that God could 'choose' to send anyone to hell, like Johnston who feels it is repulsive nonsense to say that "God created some people to go to hell," that therefore "it is God's will for some folks to burn forever." What the Arminian doesn't realize is that his own particular view carries the very same conclusion! They usually feel that God, from his transcendent frame of reference, looks upon the human theater and elects for salvation those he knows will believe in Christ. (We shall ignore the inherent problems that plague this view.) What the Arminian often fails to realize is that this means God also knows who will not believe in Christ—and allows for their existence anyway knowing full well that they will end up suffering the fires of hell! As Cleary so poignantly asked, "Can Bill explain why God created men who [he knew] had no hope of salvation?"

Since Johnston has a tendency to characterize Calvinism as an 'elitist' mindset, I'm going to close this article with a question asked by another Arminian regarding that same sentiment. It is hoped that the response I offered to such concerns will obviate any future condescending pejoratives.

- - -

Let's pretend for a moment that I am a Calvinist. If only a few elite are saved (according to my beliefs), isn't it gosh-darn convenient that I'm one of them? If I assume that there is a special elite branch of humanity—God's chosen people—how do I know that I am one of them? Is there some way to know if I am really one of God's chosen, or does joining the denomination known as "Calvinism" presuppose it?

In one sense your questions are rather difficult to address, mostly due to the proliferation of supercilious strawmen, gratuitous invectives, and distorted caricatures regarding the theology of the Protestant Reformation. There is very little in your posts that would be at all recognizable to those who adhere to the theology of the Reformers; I myself can scarcely identify with anything you've described.

First of all, there are no "elite" that are saved. As demonstrated in Scriptures, and affirmed in Reformed theology, all mankind share in the same common misery of sin and death, equally involved in ruin and who by nature are "neither better nor more deserving than others"; wherefore "God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin." There can be no elite when "all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto." (Unlike so many theological views today, Reformed theology continues to reject the heresy of Pelagius; cf. The Canons of the Council of Orange.) Out of this collective population of sinners, God chose to redeem many "to redemption in Christ," determining by the good pleasure of his will "to give [them] to Christ to be saved by Him," who was appointed as their "Mediator and Head . . . and the foundation of salvation," for the praise of the riches of His glorious grace. God's choice "was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended"; rather, it was out of God's "mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will." (All quotations were excerpted from The Canons of Dort, the historic document of the Dutch Reformers from which the mnemonic TULIP was eventually derived, and therefore accurately represents the Reformed position on these issues.)

There is, therefore, no "elite" among men recognized in Reformed theology, despite the persistent gross caricatures of its detractors. The only elite is God Most High, who alone is to be praised; those who are redeemed among men are a product of God's choice based upon God's unchangeable purpose, out of God's mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of God's own will. From start to finish, salvation is of God. No facet of salvation—election, faith, justification, sanctification, etc—is a result of any intrinsic quality in man himself; rather, every facet of salvation is founded upon and wrought by the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Christ Jesus. There is nothing naturally inherent in man himself that would move God to redeem him, "for all have sinned" and Scriptures are quite clear with respect to how God feels about sin. It is for this reason—a reason we have scarcely examined—that the Son of God had to come into the world to endure and accomplish all that he did. Ergo, there is none among men that are "elite."

Humans have a tendency to create a community where they can proclaim themselves better than everybody else.

To this I could only respond by saying: The only humans that do this are those who try to derive identity and meaning in relation to their peers. The Christian finds his identity and meaning in God, as the imago Dei—God is their source of life in all its dimensions, he is their ultimate source of identity insofar as they are created in God's image and are his children, he is their ultimate point of meaning insofar as the chief and highest end of man is to glorify God. Christians are not concerned about whether they are better than everybody else because God already informs the identity and meaning of their lives, freeing them to live charitably toward their fellow man, loving their neighbour, showing no favouritism, overall taking very seriously their stewardship duties toward the environment, their fellow man, and even their own personal lives.

If I assume that there is a special elite branch of humanity—God's chosen people—how do I know that I am one of them?

I think a responsible study of Scriptures will reveal that a Christian is never concerned about that sort of thing, because a Christian doesn't concern himself with salvation for what he'll get out of it; that is, he's not in it for the rewards. A Christian has a proper view of himself before God: utter and complete humility and a sense of undeservedness that results in deep repentance, profoundly humble thanksgiving, and never-ending praise for the glory of God and the unspeakable richness of his grace and the joy to be found therein. A Christian is fully convinced of God's justice and rendered awe-struck at God's mercy, recognizing that Christ Jesus alone is his refuge and the foundation of his salvation, that of himself he can offer God no worthy thing; that is, a Christian beats his breast and cries out, "Have mercy on me, a sinner!" I have personally said to others that even if I found out that, for some unique reason, I am not going to heaven, I would still continue ministering to others, teaching them about God and salvation, spreading the good news of the gospel, because I am fully convinced of my sin and fully convinced of God's justice. I don't think I deserve a damn thing; no one but Christ alone does. Therefore in Christ alone rests all my hope and all my faith. If I should discover that I will not be going to heaven, I will bow my head and confess to God, "You are wholly just." Am I one of the elect? I'm not concerned about it. My concern is for God's glory, not for any personal gains.

Since election is necessarily the sole jurisdiction of God, having taken place from eternity, antecedent to creation, who is and is not numbered among the elect is not our concern, for it is neither under our jurisdiction nor under our control. And this abdication of any concern about the identity of the elect is an expression of supreme faith and trust in the mercy, grace, and justice of God. Christians trust God absolutely, they praise him and give all glory to him alone. Christians do not question him, they do not audit his choices as though his purposes are subject to a higher court. And they certainly do not hold his purposes and choices accountable to man. If you want Christ in your life, pursue him with all your heart. If you truly want to follow his Word, then seek after it like a man starving for bread. If you want to be saved, cast yourself at the feet of the Lamb and cry out, "Have mercy on me, a sinner!" Pursue God through Christ Jesus our Savior like there is nothing more important in your life or all of the universe, because there really is nothing more important than that. And trust God's choices, absolutely and completely, never thinking to question his righteousness. Trust him to have made the best decision, for he is God and God is good.

"I contend we are both atheists..."

2006-10-24T00:31:00.000-07:00

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." (Stephen F. Roberts; link)

Not only the existence of this quote but especially its abundant popularity among atheists is simply additional evidence that the average atheist is compelled more by ill-thought slogans and rhetoric than consistent rationality and critical thinking. (We shall disregard the worst of them, who find themselves compelled by fallacious antitheistic censure and invectives, which results from a complete abdication of reason.)

Stephen Roberts was once an acquaintance of mine; I would not be so presumptuous as to think that we were friends but I can say that we were friendly, and we did enjoy conversing. At the time he was a channel operator in #Atheism on the Dalnet IRC network, a channel in which I had spent considerable time for three or four years. He was known as 'wubwub' then and I, as always, was known as 'Ryft' (my online name for the last sixteen years). I remember Stephen as a good-natured fellow with a fantastic sense of humour who seemed to enjoy debate, as long as it did not go too deep; whenever it did, he was more content to sit back and let the likes of Sastra or KonKan address the finer points. For this reason I cannot fault him too harshly for originating the quote. Even if someone were to examine its merits with Stephen, it is more likely that he would abandon the exercise than pursue it too deeply. Musings and ramblings were his foray, not philosophical precision. If it wasn't fun then he wasn't interested, it seemed. And that is his prerogative.

But I do fault any atheist that embraces this quote while passing himself off as a rational and critical thinker, because this quote simply does not hold up under scrutiny. It is delightful rhetoric as far as it goes, but rhetoric never goes very far in the intellectual arena. When we attempt to apply this proposition to the real world, it soon falls apart.

"I contend that we are both atheists; I simply believe in one god fewer than you." Although this first clause of the proposition per se is nearly acceptable, it nevertheless possesses a minor but obvious difficulty. The one making this statement is an atheist who rejects all gods, and the one to whom he is speaking rejects all gods but one. Please note: How can the latter be referred to as an atheist when he affirms a belief in one God? To affirm a belief in God contradicts the basic definition of 'atheist'. A commitment to sound reason necessitates that this first clause be deemed erroneous and nonsensical for contending that "we are both atheists" when the one to whom it is speaking affirms a belief in at least one God—the person to whom it is speaking is a 'theist', not an 'atheist'.

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This is embarrassingly false. In reality, when it is understood why I dismiss all other gods, the error of this clause becomes starkly evident. For example, one reason why I dismiss the god of pantheism as illegitimate is because, by the pantheist's own admission, his god is none other than the world in which we live. The god of pantheism is nothing more than 'nature', which is an entirely appropriate and suitable term already; to replace the term 'nature' with the term 'god' is superfluous and obfuscating outside the scope of sentimentality. Now, will Stephen claim that he rejects the God of Christianity because God is nothing more than 'nature'? I surely hope not, for by that he would commit the straw man fallacy.

But this clause is false on an even larger scale. Why do I reject all other possible gods? Because the Scriptures declare that "there is one God," that "besides [him] there is no god," that all other gods "by nature are not gods," and so forth. My commitment to the truth of Scriptures is ultimately my reason for rejecting all other possible gods. I think we can be quite certain that this is not Stephen's reason for rejecting the God of Christianity. When one understands the reason why I dismiss all other possible gods, we do not thereby find Stephen's reason for rejecting the God of Christianity after all. Both clauses of this proposition are, in reality, nonsense and false.

Linkography:

Stephen F. Roberts Home Page - http://www.wildlink.com (accessed 13-Oct-06)

The History of 'The Quote' - http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm (accessed 13-Oct-06)

It's Both Moral and Evil

2006-08-18T23:28:00.000-07:00

A blogger who, at this point, I know only as Aaron, wrote a brief piece about his lack of surprise that it might soon be politically incorrect to refer to Satan as evil, in response to professor Henry Ansgar Kelly's new book Satan: A Biography (Cambridge University Press). "No one is ever really bad," Aaron sardonically retorts. "They are simply 'misunderstood'." Kelly's book as a subject might be interesting in itself but what has me writing here tonight is the comments that attended Aaron's post. Of particular interest was the exchange between myself and an apparent atheist named Mark (who runs a blog that reviews films, and goes by the name 'Cineaste' online).

Satan, Mark insists, is nothing more than a fiction created by Christians, to give them something upon which they can lay blame for all the evil in the world. "Without Satan to blame everything bad on," he remarks, "Christians would have only God left to blame the ills of the world on. Christians can't have that; hence, they put Lucifer in the story. Satan has an important role to play in the Christian mythology." (We will ignore the fact that he conflates Satan and Lucifer, and his poisoning-the-well assertion that Christianity is mythology.) The part that really grabbed my attention, however, was where he said that people have a tendency to "confuse good and evil with morality." He feels that anything you "think of as 'evil', you are confusing [it] with what you think of as immoral." It grabbed Aaron's attention, too, and he said he found it curious that Mark thinks good and evil are not connected with morality. Mark reaffirmed his feeling that they are not connected, and then added his rejection of all supernatural beings. (With contradictory flair, he claims that if you remove man from the picture then 'nature' is all that's left—as though man were not himself a part of nature.)

I simply had to reply, of course. The following is the exchange between myself and Mark (click here).

Is God Responsible for Creating Evil?

2006-06-03T23:20:00.000-07:00

In two independent discussions with atheists Eric and Ryan, they each present what they feel are detrimental arguments against God with the presence of evil in the world. (It should be noted that they address moral evil, which is distinct from natural evil, e.g. earthquakes). I attempt to offer a response which shows that the light of criticism is really not shining quite as brightly as they might have thought.

Eric summarizes his position like this: "If nothing, ever, was without God, then God created evil as well as good. It is only logical. And God is ultimately responsible. This God is the creator and must be accountable. The greatest authority holds the greatest responsibility." Ryan follows the same line of thinking, adding further, "People, for some reason, choose not to believe that God is the creator of evil, finding every excuse in the book to let God off the hook. God is credited with creating everything in creation—except evil."

On the surface this might seem a decent enough argument but it is plagued with a crippling difficulty, and it is found at the point where they each essentially argue that, if God is the sovereign Creator of all things, "then God created evil as well as good." There is, of course, no disagreement between us over the premise that God is the sovereign Creator of all things—as a Christian, I'm going to enthusiastically endorse this premise. However, their argument does ultimately fail, and this failure is due to the fact that, although God is the Creator of all things, good and evil are not themselves 'things' capable of being created. Let's explore why.

'Good' and 'evil' are strictly moral terms. When we say that this thing is good or that thing is evil, we are making a moral pronouncement. And if God is our ultimate ground of moral order—and he is—then these terms become relational descriptions. What this means is, a thing is determined to be 'good' by the degree of its relationship to God's righteous nature, notably expressed prescriptively through his law, and 'evil' becomes a privative term expressing any want of conformity with such (inasmuch as cold is a privative description of heat).

Evil (or sin) is not some 'thing' that can be created; it describes a relationship between things but is not itself a thing, it's not any sort of entity itself. It is strictly a term which describes a privative relationship (i.e. consisting in the absence of something), whether it's a privation from an original state of righteousness in communion with God (a condition of being which we call "original sin") or a privation from God's holy law (acts of commission or omission which we call "actual sin"). Both original sin and actual sin discuss what is ultimately a relational privation of some form; in the scope of Christian theology, sin/evil is described in only these two forms. Therefore, to insist in the face of all this that sin/evil is itself a thing capable of being created is to construct a strawman argument—which is a form of faulty reasoning that regretfully fails the test of relevancy.

That these terms are relational descriptions is never escaped, for even if one's ground of moral order is something other than God, goodness or evilness is still determined by the degree of its relationship to that foundation. That is, no matter what one's worldview is, good and evil are not in themselves things capable of being created. Again, they describe a relationship between things but are not themselves things.

As far as God being held accountable, he isn't. If accountable means "liable to account for one's actions"—and it does—then God is not held accountable, for since he alone is the embodiment of Holiness, the supreme Law-giver and the sovereign Judge, there is no one to whom he must give an account. There is, by definition, no one above God to whom he is subject. We are God's creation—indeed, the whole of the universe is—so it is we who are subject to him. I suppose an atheist might object and insist that it is actually man who created God, but that would be a pretty silly objection: you see, a fictional character is even less liable to account for his actions, so the atheist would hardly make his case this way. That is the rich irony: whether by Christian or atheist philosophy, in either worldview there is none to whom God is liable to account for his actions.

I will submit, with ease, that God is the First Cause of evil's existence, in virtue of creating beings capable of relational privation through their natural free agency. This does not make God the author of evil, however. The distinct difference is that he is the author of beings who are capable of evil, but it is they who are the authors of evil in virtue of creating a breach between themselves and God Most Holy.

This put Ryan into quite a state: "First you submit with ease that God is the First Cause of evil's existance," he said, "then you point out that God cannot create evil. Then you say God is not accountable for anything that God does. Then you try to change and confuse the definition of evil into a non-existent relational term. You are talking in circles."

There is a lot to respond to, right there, so let's tackle it one at a time.

First of all, I submit easily enough that "God is the First Cause of evil's existence" only insofar as (1) all things are ultimately traced back to him as the sovereign First Cause, and (2) he created beings capable of relational privation (sin/evil), through endowing them with free agency. Given God's nature as eternal, sovereign, omniscient and so forth, he knew exactly what he was doing when he created those beings; ergo, he had a purpose in it. Sin/evil is a relational privation brought about by creatures whose actions create a breach between them and God and his law. Put as simply as possible, (1) God created man; (2) man fell; (3) this condition of being, and all actual transgressions which proceed from it, are both identified as sin (original and actual). In this way man is the author of sin, not God. God is the author of man. But since God already knew what would happen with this creation he was about to produce, he is the ultimate First Cause.

Secondly, I never pointed out "that God cannot create evil." I pointed out something completely different, which was that evil "is not some thing that can be created." This is a rather important distinction we must carefully note. You see, if we say that God cannot create a thing then we have said something about God, but if we say that evil cannot be created then we have said something about evil.

Third, it is unfortunate for Ryan's argument but Christianity has described sin/evil as a relational privation for millennia. That is, I've neither changed nor confused anything. Although it's possible that Ryan might be experiencing some confusion, the fact is I've presented a definition that is consistent with historical Christian theology. It is possible for me to cite thousands of years' worth of historical evidence to demonstrate this, but I'm not sure people would want to slog through that. Sin/evil has been described for thousands of years as "a privation from an original state of righteousness in communion with God (a condition of being which we call 'original sin') or a privation from God's holy law (acts of commission or omission which we call 'actual sin')."

Fourth, as the readers can see, I'm actually not talking in circles at all.

2005-11-19T21:34:00.000-08:00

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

The Self-Immolation of Dawson Bethrick

2005-11-16T02:27:00.000-08:00

I found a new toy.

That toy is Dawson Bethrick and, along with whatever other pursuits he enjoys, he maintains the Bahnsen Burner blog (a reference to the late Greg Bahnsen, Reformed Christian apologist), which serves as his platform from which he goes about "incinerating presuppositionalism"—at least that is how he describes his blog. Judging by the posts I had read, it seems he's still looking for a match.

His post "Can Reformed Christians Count?" (07-JUN-05) seems to be a fairly typical demonstration of the integrity of his arguments, and one I wanted to succinctly post a response to before heading to bed. Bethrick remarks that Reformed Christians

tell us that their one god is actually three in number. Then they say we're wrong when we point out that this belief of theirs amounts to a species of polytheism. So we ask: Do you worship one, or do you worship three? Typically, instead of clear answers, we get bad attitude, as if we were supposed to accept their tangled convolutions on their say so.

Yes we say that you are wrong on the charge of polytheism, and for a very good reason! If polytheism is defined as belief in and worship of a multiplicity of gods—and it is—then the charge is precisely false, for Christians believe in and worship God alone, who is one. Christianity does not teach that the one God "is actually three in number," if by that you mean three Gods. "Do you worship one, or do you worship three?" Bethrick wants to ask. There is only one response possible to this intellectually dishonest equivocation: "Do we worship one what, or three what?" Do we worship one God? Yes. Do we worship three Gods? No. Is God a person? No, God is three persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I suspect Bethrick's confusion stems from the idea that "God" implies "a person," yet such an idea fails to correspond with what Christianity affirms and proclaims. He might be tempted to accuse Christianity of affirming a logical contradiction on this point, but that would be the case if and only if Christianity affirmed God is a person and, at the same time and in the same sense, three persons. But this is not what Christianity affirms. And I should like to counter that if Bethrick persists in framing his response according to the idea that God is a person, despite an awareness that Christianity teaches that God is not a person but rather three persons, then his argument commits the Straw Man fallacy and is therefore bereft of both validity and intellectual integrity.

David Heddle and the Salvation "Offer"

2005-11-04T01:37:00.000-08:00

David Heddle (http://helives.blogspot.com) in a recent post was wrestling with the idea of hyper-Calvinism in the context of evangelism, with a personal interest in one particular "flavor" of hyper-Calvinism of which he has been accused: "the denial that the gospel is a 'sincere' offer of salvation made to all persons." He was wondering if it's possible to understand and articulate God's offer of salvation as authentically sincere. Specifically, he wants to know "whether God Himself makes a sincere offer of salvation to everyone." He received a variety of comments in response to this and it made me think, How would I respond?

I believe my answer would have been, "No, he doesn't." And I say this because I am convinced that God doesn't offer salvation to all in the first place, much less sincerely. He doesn't offer salvation to all persons; rather, he efficaciously saves his sheep. I don't particularly favour the practice of describing salvation as an "offer," mostly because it seems to suggest that Christ's atoning work only made salvation 'possible' and is therefore accessibly 'offered' to all, that the will of the sinner is the ultimate sine qua non of his salvation, that God's grace is only penultimate. It smacks of Arminianism (with its roots buried firmly in semi-Pelagianism). Since Christ died for all men without exception, the 'offer' of salvation goes out 'sincerely' to all persons and they should 'make a decision for Christ' and grab hold of that.

It's not that salvation is offered to all. This, I feel, is incorrect. Rather, it's that the gospel is proclaimed to all—and that quite sincerely! With passion, conviction, and boldness, we proclaim sincerely the good news of reconciliation for all who believe. We scatter the seed indiscriminately, but whether it takes solid root and grows is up to God and his most wise and righteous purposes (1 Cor 3:6-7; Act 13:48; 16:14). "I lay down my life," Jesus said, not for all persons but "for the sheep." There are some, like those Jews to whom he was speaking, who do not believe because they are not his sheep (Joh 10:26), nor do they hear the message of Christ because they do not belong to God (Joh 8:47). "All that the Father gives me will come to me," Jesus proclaimed. He came to do the will of the Father, which is "that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day" because the Father "granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him" (Joh 6:37-39; 17:2).

Salvation is not offered to all, sincerely or otherwise. However, the gospel of peace is indeed proclaimed to all, and very sincerely. The gospel is about salvation but is not itself salvation. 'Salvation' is a multi-faceted rubric of which the gospel is a part; other facets are sanctification, justification, regeneration, election, etc. Salvation is God's jurisdiction alone. Proclaiming the gospel, with sincerity to all persons, is our jurisdiction. It is in fact our great commission. And great joy.

Sorry

2005-10-18T11:42:00.000-07:00

My sincere apologies for my prolonged absence. I had left my computer connected to the Internet unattended for about three weeks and, upon returning, I discovered that it had been irrecoverably infested with BHO's and adware, etc. I couldn't even open a web browser or email program. But I now have a new computer and I am back once again (the other computer was a 333 mHz and not worth fixing). Those of you that had emailed me or left comments in my journal or certain communities, rest assured that I have received them all and intend to respond to all of them in due time.

Is It Just or Right That I Go to Hell?

2005-07-18T20:58:00.000-07:00

Although I was at work when this conversation took place and therefore could not participate, it nevertheless captured my interest and I wanted to offer what would have been my answers to these questions and ideas. The names of the individuals are fictions that I created in order to protect the identity of the actual participants, because I do not have their permission to publish the conversation. If either one of them happens upon my blog and recognizes their comments, simply keep quiet and say nothing because no one else in the world knows that it was you who said these things.

I have named the first person Ethan, and he is an atheist. The second person I named as Cathy, and she is a Roman Catholic.

ETHAN: Here's a question. I'm an atheist. And as such I can't bring myself to believe in God or that Jesus is my savior. I'm told by Christians that I can only be saved from oblivion or hell by accepting—which first requires that I believe—that Jesus is my savior. Now, in your view, does this mean that I deserve hell and damnation? I emphasize the word 'deserve' here. Is it right or just that I go to hell?

It is interesting to note how he expressed himself here, when he said that he cannot bring himself to believe in either God or Jesus as the Savior. And the way in which it is interesting is two-fold, one of which actually goes toward answering his question.

The first way in which it's interesting is that it echoes a statement made by the apostle Paul, who explained that the sinful mind "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom 8:7-8). How is this relevant? Notice something that John revealed in one of his epistles: "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ" (1 Joh 3:23; cf. Joh 6:28-29). Paul affirms that the sinful mind neither does nor can submit to God's law, and one of God's commandments is to believe in the name of his Son. We see that Ethan unwittingly confirms this by his remarkably honest choice of words.

The second way in which it's interesting is that this actually provides the reason for his condemnation, or how it is deserved. He wonders how it is just that someone would be condemned to hell for simply not believing in God or his Son. The simple answer is, "It is just because it is a violation of God's commandment" (cf. 1 Joh 3:4), and most people recognize that if you are guilty of breaking a law then it is just for the judge to sentence you upon conviction. However, there are multiple violations of God's law recorded on Ethan's account for which he is guilty, not just this one alone. However, a sentence is warranted whether I am convicted of one charge or twenty. This is how his condemnation is just.

However, notice how Cathy responds:

CATHY: As a Catholic Christian, I do not believe that all atheists automatically go to hell, but that God will judge you when you die. And, if you have done good in your life, we know the source of that good is God (whether you acknowledge it or not).

Two things need to be mentioned here, I feel—one of which this astute atheist picks up on, as we shall see.

First of all, it is true that all atheists do not automatically go to hell, because it is true that God will judge the atheists. It is not 'automatic'. God is just: there is a review of the charges against them, a conviction of guilt, then the sentencing. This is when, and why, all atheists go to hell. If they are not in Christ Jesus, whose atonement provided propitiation, then God's wrath remains on them. As scripture says, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him" (Joh 3:36). This is because the Son alone is the propitiation; the person who has not the Son bears God's wrath on himself. And earlier we see Jesus affirming that "whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (v. 18). There are many other passages from scripture which underscore this, but the point has been made.

Secondly, Cathy says that "if you [the atheist] have done good in your life," etc. And that's the sticking part, isn't it? If he has done good. The question immediately presents itself: what is 'good'? This is a moral question, is it not? What is the ground of our moral order? What is the final determinant and arbiter of moral order? Is it not God's authority, will, and law? I have said it before, and I will here say it again: "If anything is not informed and influenced by God's authority, will, and law, or grounded therein, it is sin. This is why even the apparent good that unbelievers do is nevertheless sin, because both their authority and motivation is something other than God." That "if" is a vastly empty hope, which is ultimately shipwrecked on God's righteous justice.

It's interesting to notice that Ethan picked up on this. Hear what he says:

ETHAN: Ah, that's refreshing to hear. But I'm puzzled, then, because more hardline Christians insist that I am doomed to hell because Jesus is 'the way, the truth and the light', and that no one enters the kingdom of heaven except through him. Now, that sounds pretty unequivocal.

Although Jesus is indeed the Light, the passage he's referring to actually says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (Joh 14:6). I think it was very astute of him to pick up on this point, even if it was only something he recalled other "hardline Christians" referencing. As Peter noted, "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Act 4:12), one of the most attested to and consistent themes running throughout scripture. Ethan is quite right on this.

Cathy responds, however:

CATHY: Those same [hardline] Christians are called to go forth and teach, not go forth and judge. It is my duty as a Christian to teach you about Christ, by my words, my life, etc. To say that one must accept Jesus in order to get into heaven damns a great many good people who never have heard of him. For me, to say that you are damned because you do not believe is wrong.

This, I confess, absolutely astonishes me.

First of all, the Christian would not be judging him. The Christian would simply be answering his question. He asked how God can be just in condemning him, and the Christian would simply be answering this by explaining the truths contained in God's Word, those which defend exactly how God is just in this. The Christian does not judge him by quoting and explaining scripture; it's the testimony of God's Word that is judging him.

Secondly, to say that one must accept Jesus in order to be saved is to quote scripture! I am the Way, scripture proclaims of Jesus! No one comes to the Father but through Me, scripture proclaims of Jesus! It is scripture which says that whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him! It is the Word of God which says that whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son! Scripture proclaims that there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved! It is God's Word which tells us that to believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ is God's commandment!

To say that one must accept Jesus in order to be saved does indeed damn a great many people, but who are you to say that they are good? How are they good? Integral to answering that question is the answer to this one: What is 'good'? "God alone is good," Jesus said, because morality is grounded in God's nature, his authority, will, and law. Whatever fails to conform to God's holy nature, whatever is not informed and influenced by God's authority, will, and law, or grounded therein, it is sin. If someone's moral authority and motivation is something other than God, if their life is want of conformity to God's righteous and holy nature, then they are absolutely not good! To suggest anything to the contrary is to suggest a moral order that is grounded, even if partially, in something other than God. And what could that possibly be?

Nothing, for it is emphatically false, by virtue of contravening the clear word of scripture.

Ethan goes on to say:

ETHAN: Good point. But my question isn't about whether they have a right to judge me or point fingers. My question is about whether or not I, in fact, deserve hell simply because I can't muster a belief that Jesus was God, died for my sins, rose from the dead, and that I can be saved by believing in him.

Hopefully I have at least began to answer this question here, and have done something to defend God's justice and righteousness.

Ethan had one other interesting question which I wanted to address, apart from the above issue.

He said, "My question is a principled one about the conditions for salvation. The specific question of who gets to decide this, or whether I or someone else gets into heaven, doesn't concern me. It's a question about the very notion of what merits salvation, not who."

Except it is precisely a question of who, not what. And that 'who' is Christ Jesus. He alone merits salvation. We do not. Salvation is not a matter of merit but of grace, which by definition is unmerited favour. Christ alone lived a sinless life of righteousness in God's sight, and when he was delivered over to death for our sins and raised to life for our justification, he reconciled those in him to God by virtue of these seven things: (1) he was their propitiation, turning aside God's wrath by suffering in his body the penalty due unto their sins; (2) he was also their expiator, having thereby removed the guilt of their sin with God having canceled the record that contained the charges against them, taking it and destroying it by nailing it to Christ's cross; (3) he imputes his righteousness to them in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in them, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit; (4) he is always in the presence of the Father, at his right hand, interceding for them; (5) he sanctifies them by the indwelling Holy Spirit, a sanctification which continually works to conform them to the image of the Son, a process he does not stop throughout their entire lives; (6) he empowers and edifies them with gifts of the Holy Spirit, to not only encourage and uplift one another but to also proclaim the gospel of salvation throughout the world with boldness and with the powerful conviction of the Spirit; (7) and in the end, those in Christ ultimately find themselves fully transformed into glorified bodies at his coming.

This is what merits salvation, and there is only one 'who': Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and one and only Son of the living God. There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.

Bridget and the Serpent

2005-05-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

A 23-year old young lady from Indiana, Bridget, has decided she's going to pretend to be a Christian for a while, because she wants to know what Christ can do for her. And if this is not the sort of attitude Arminian theology leads to—the prevailing theology of most Evangelical churches—then I don't know what is.

It is a fact, given in evidence, that prevailing Evangelical theology leads inevitably to the same attitude and behavior of Adam and Eve at the point of the Fall, that moment when sin first reared its ugly head on Earth and mankind was thrown into corruption by his own will. The difference between the message of scriptures and Arminian theology is striking: the former places its emphasis entirely on God's grace because of mankind's desperate condition of spiritual death, while the latter places its emphasis on mankind's free will, insisting that man is only spiritually sick—that his carnal nature has within itself a small germ of spiritual life by which, on his own accord, he can understand spiritual things and reach out to God. "But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die'."

Bridget, our young lady from Indiana, is going to serve as an example of this sort of attitude that the Arminian 'gospel' fosters in unbelievers.

She and a friend of hers were enjoying some coffee at a little place called The South Bend Chocolate Company and they were soon immersed in lengthy philosophical discussion, something they typically engaged in. Somehow the conversation had rolled around to an interplay of Christianity and scientific testability, and a thought occurred to Bridget: "Why not try and test Christianity?" she asked herself. Most religions and philosophies, she felt, cannot be tested scientifically, but "the interesting and unique thing about Christianity is that it does indeed claim to produce 'results'." She further reasoned,

If I understand it correctly, a Christian has two main objectives: (1) to open his or her heart to Jesus, and allow Him into his or her life, and (2) to do his or her best to lead a 'Christian' life—that is, to be faithful and obedient to the Lord. If one does these two things, then, as I understand it, God begins to go to work in that person's life and in their heart, literally changing this person.

This synergist idea is one of the hallmarks of Arminian theology—that faith (from man) both precedes and is the necessary condition for regeneration (from God)—and is heavily championed by most Evangelical churches, making it quite evident what theology influenced Bridget's thinking. She admitted that the idea of trying on Christianity like some kind of jacket and seeing how it fits had occurred to her before, but she was always skeptical about the outcome because she didn't feel she could properly distinguish whether something was a 'spiritual experience' or a product of her own imagination or some delusion (although she somehow feels that she can now because she is more skeptical and analytical than before; not sure how that works).

She then described the conditions and environment in which she would conduct this test—in other words, she laid out her presuppositions, those basic attitudes which for her are the non-negotiable starting points of enquiry. First, that she does not expect to ever actually learn "the" ultimate truth because, fundamentally, "it cannot be proven or disproven", and as "a good little scientist", she cannot be satisfied with anything less than absolute proof (while such an attitude has the appearance of modesty, it actually bears no relationship with the philosophy of science, which knows nothing of absolute proof). Second, she insists on presupposing that "we all live in some sort of delusion because we are human, and the true way of things is only as we each perceive it through [fallible human] eyes and ears," beings who (she maintains) are ultimately illogical. "So as a human, and because I am human," she says, "what matters the most is not so much the truth that is, but the truth that works for me, literally."

So that is what I think I am going to do. I shall declare myself an interim Christian and live my life accordingly for as long as I see fit, all the while monitoring its progress (if any) by measuring the sense of joy and fulfillment I have in my life.

What we see here is that Bridget has established her self as the ultimate arbiter of truth, purpose, and meaning, setting her desires and will as the ultimate foundation and her view of the world as the non-negotiable starting point to which God must conform himself if he wants to work with her. She holds her self as the arbiter of truth by virtue of having defined truth (into two categories, inaccessible ultimate truth and pragmatic what-works-for-me truth), and the arbiter of purpose and meaning by virtue of insisting that "what matters most" to her is what works for her, being an interim Christian for as long as she sees fit, determining the sense of joy and fulfillment she has in her life. After laying this foundation, she then contemplates 'opening her heart to Jesus'—which is a "thing" that she is not even sure exists! "How do you invite something into your life," she asks, "if you are not even sure, at your core, that this thing even exists? . . . All I can do is say, essentially, 'Okay Jesus, if you're there, I'm here.' Is that enough? Unless any of you have any other suggestions, it's gonna have to be."

What bearing does this have with Eve and the Fall? It ought to be clear.

When it came to eating from the forbidden tree, there existed a conflict of authority and will—God's versus Eve's. Her ultimate downfall was the sinful delusion of autonomy, her authority and will taking precedence over God's. "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate." Eve looked upon the fruit of the tree, discerning for her own self—without regard to God's authority—that the fruit of the tree was good for food, deciding by her self and for herself that nothing in the fruit of the tree showed it to be bad and unfit to be eaten, wondering by her own authority why it should be forbidden for food. She set her self as the final court of arbitration, her will taking precedence over God's. As William Law so aptly put it, "Nothing hath separated us from God but our own will, or rather our own will is our separation from God." This was mankind's fall into sin, this setting of our will above God's, a sin no less prevalent today—and no less prevalent than in Arminian theology, which establishes man's alleged free will as the sine qua non of salvation (that is, Christ's death saves no one, until they decide). With just such a focus on the importance of man's will, Bridget finds nothing amiss about setting her will as the foundation with which God must conform if he wants to work with her.

Do you suppose an 'experiment' of this nature is going to work? Do you suppose God will be so overcome with gratitude by Bridget's willingness to bend her will to consider God that he'll conform to her parameters and conditions? Did he conform to Eve's?

Agnosticism/Atheism -- IRC Discussion

2005-04-14T00:27:00.000-07:00

[The following is a brief but enjoyable discussion I had on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) this evening. I am sharing here in my blog because (1) I wanted to share with a larger audience my thoughts and ideas on the subject under discussion, and (2) because I have been so overwhelmed at work and putting in so many hours, six days per week, I've been too exhausted to write anything yet. My apologies for the lull in posting. All mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc., belong to the speaker that prefixes each comment]

[FrSam] Atheists like to say they lack beleif -- but this is simply a rhetorical trick to gain the high ground in a debate -- they actually do have a positive metaphysical beleif in the non-existence of gods, which they camouflage with persiflage.

[Ryft] Atheism is just a proposition with regard to deity/deities. What atheists actually believe, their actual belief system, varies greatly -- for most it is naturalism.

[Jewelz] Best to ask atheists what they believe

[Ryft] Jewelz: The answer wouldn't be "atheism."

[Jewelz] who, what and how atheist define themselves is the definition of atheism, not what Christians define it as

[Ryft] Jewelz: Atheism, as defined by atheists, still regards only the question of God(s). It is not a belief system; it is a statement about the lack of a particular one. When it comes to an atheist's belief system, the talk is usually about naturalism, evolution, etc. "Atheism" is simply a statement about one particular subject: God(s). An atheist is what someone is not -- a "theist." What he or she is, is a separate question.

[Jewelz] Ryft, atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Babies and children are atheists.

[Ryft] Jewelz: I reject the latter part of your statement; however, the former is what I said, yes.

[Jewelz] Reject, I don't know how you can reject it. Babies lack a belief in any gods.

[Ryft] "Atheism" is an informed position. One is an 'atheist' on consideration of the question of God's existence, the evidence (or lack) thereof, etc. After such consideration, they come to the informed position of atheism. Infants and babies are not informed of anything. They are non-theists, and also non-atheists.

[Prophet2PostModerns] Ryft don't atheists usually have reasons for why they are atheists that have to do with rational (heheh) thought processes and so on? Isn't that part of why they are atheists? and wouldn't that be part of their philosophy? and isn't a philosophy a system of beliefs (but not necessarily having to do with gods/God)?

[Jewelz] Prophet2PostModerns, makes perfect sense. My children are atheists. My children lack a belief in any gods, that like I lacked a belief in any gods up untill a few years ago.

[Prophet2PostModerns] Ryft well stated!

[Ryft] Prophet2PostModerns: Yes, atheists hold an informed position on the question of God(s). Correct. However, it regards only the question of God(s), nothing more. Jewelz, rather unflatteringly, would have it that atheism is a position of ignorance. I'm not sure many atheists would be quick to agree with her; I also know, in fact, several atheist philosophers who reject her position.

[Jewelz] Ryft, it can be a position of ignorance. Infact, from my point of view now, it is.

[Ryft] Jewelz: I see that. And that is quite unfortunate. Thankfully, the more scholarly atheists I have read of, and from, hold quite a different position on the matter, one far less unflattering. It's one reason -- rather, the primary reason -- atheist and skeptic Michael Shermer coined the term 'non-theist'. I know that if I were an atheist I would want people to understand it as an informed position I hold, one quite unlike the utter non-thought that goes on in the minds of incontinent infants.

[Jewelz] If there is a God, anyone who lacks belief in God would be ignorant about it.

[Ryft] That regards agnosticism, not atheism (see the Greek root 'gnosis'). Interesting note -- not all atheists are agnostic. One does run into the occasional atheist that knows there is no God(s).

[Jewelz] agnosticism doesnt specifically invovle religion or gods. It it includes a lack of knowledge in anything supernatural. Atheism is more specific in dealing with gods,

[Ryft] Jewelz: Correct, which was my point above. Agnosticism is not an alternative to theism or atheism. It is not as though agnosticism is a third option. Agnosticism is a subset of either theism or atheism -- you can have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

[PreacherLuke-KJV] how can you have an agnostic athiest?

[Ryft] PreacherLuke-KJV: An agnostic atheist is someone who (1) does not believe God exists, but (2) does not know whether God exists or not. Such a person admits God may or may not exist, but personally does not believe God does.

[PreacherLuke-KJV] so they are just agnostic then

[Ryft] PreacherLuke-KJV: No, they are at once both atheist and agnostic. For instance, agnostic atheism is also known as "implicit atheism" or "weak atheism." In contrast to this is "strong atheism" or "explicit atheism," adherents who know God does not exist, in addition to believing he does not. Again, see the Greek root 'gnosis' (to know, or knowledge).

[Jewelz] And it refers to much more than just gods

[Ryft] Jewelz: Agnosticism? Correct, yes. And to expand a little on my thoughts here, agnosticism and atheism regard two different but related spheres of human thought -- belief and knowledge. While belief is a necessary condition for knowledge (it is nonsensical to 'know' something that you do not 'believe'), knowledge is not a necessary condition for belief (it's possible to 'believe' something you do not 'know').

[OnEarthAsHeaven] Jewelz, why do atheists believe in life on other planets but not god.

[Ryft] OnEarthAsHeaven: They don't necessarily believe life on other planets exists. Their position on that issue is simply a probablistic statement.

[doppelganger] as an atheist, i do not believe that aliens have visited our planet, however it is entirely possible that life may exist on other planets...

[Ryft] OnEarthAsHeaven: Notice what doppelganger, as an atheist, just said. For him, the question of life on other planets is a probablistic issue (". . . it is entirely possible that life may exist on other planets.")

[doppelganger] ryft: for all we know, life elsewhere probably thrives in, say, five hundred degree temperatures...

[doppelganger] there may be some crystalline lifeforms on some other planets that completely defies our definition of life as we know it...

[Ryft] doppelganger: There is credulous speculation, and then there is knowledge. You can have the former, if you want it.

[doppelganger] ryft: im not saying there is, and im not saying there isnt. im saying there could be.

[doppelganger] for all we know.

[Ryft] doppelganger: Indeed. There may also be, on some other planet, purple winged pigs wearing Nike sneakers and selling flopsap.

[doppelganger] ryft: bah. they would be selling mepsipax :P

[Ryft] doppelganger: For all we know.

[StBruno] this might sound silly, but what on earth is flopsap?

[Ryft] StBruno: For all we know, it could be a breakfast cereal. I'm just underscoring the epistemic poverty of doppelganger speculations.

[doppelganger] poverty?

[Ryft] doppelganger: Probability is not knowledge; possibility is even less so.

[StBruno] lol

[doppelganger] ryft: good, now since we both agree that we dont know whether life exists on other planets or not, let's shake hands and move on.

* Ryft shakes

* doppelganger shakes

A Question of Prayer

2005-03-26T16:18:00.000-08:00

"When I pray, am I expecting to have a two way conversation or just me talking with pauses? I was involved in Christianity before and never really felt the power of prayer working. I felt then that I was just not good enough, a bit of an empty vessel."

I'm not sure what expectations you are holding, but I can relate to you how I understand prayer, religion, and God.

Harold Kushner, in his book Who Needs God, talked about how we tend to think that for religion to work, for our prayers to be answered, we should get what we ask for. "That is to say, we have confused God with Santa Claus," he writes. And isn't this quite right? For too long in my spiritual infancy I certainly treated God as a sort of cosmic supermarket and my prayers as a grocery list. Too many times I promised God that, if he would only do such-and-such, I would commit to this change in behavior or that course of action. Too often we think that prayer means giving God the list of things we want and assuring Him that we have been or will be good girls and boys and should we not then get them? And how many times do we run into disappointment? "When we pray sincerely and intensely for something," Kushner writes, "when we shower God with pleas and promises and still don't get what we prayed for, we are left wondering what went wrong. Is there something wrong with us? Were our prayers not fervent enough, our promised changes not enough of a sacrifice? Are we not good enough people for God to heed our prayers?"

He writes further:

There is nothing wrong with religion if we would only understand it properly, and neither is there anything so terrible about most of us that God should withhold from us the rewards of religion and prayer. What happens most of the time is that we are disappointed in religion because we are doing it wrong . . . God will not suffer Himself to be manipulated by our words or deeds. That is not religion. A century ago, Sir James Frazer, in The Golden Bough, suggested that this was the difference between religion and magic. Religion, he said, is the attempt to serve God. Magic is the effort to manipulate God. When we turn to religion as a way of getting God to give us what we want—be it health, love, riches, or whatever—we run the risk of being disappointed, not because we are unworthy of being loved or being rich, and not because God is stubborn or spiteful or incapable of helping us, but because that is not what religion does . . . Once we get over the Santa Claus mentality, prayer can be that kind of discipline; not an inventory of what we lack but a series of reminders of what we have, and what we might so easily take for granted and forget to be grateful for.

When we come to God in prayer, it's not for his benefit or instruction. God does not need our prayers; indeed, I'm not sure God "needs" anything. Nor does God rely on us to inform him of something he was not previously aware of. Does it not seem, if we think our prayers are to inform God of our wishes or needs, that we are stripping him of his divine nature? For instance, what information can we bring to an omniscient God who knows our needs before we even ask him (Matt. 6:8), and isn't such a notion a tacit denial of omniscience at any rate? And does it not seem that praying to God about our wants is self-centered rather than God-centered? Whose will are we seeking when we do such a thing—ours, or his?

Let me say this about prayer. It is one of the most fundamental and intimate moments in the life of the spiritual person, and one that, perhaps unwittingly, reveals the most about how we perceive God, our relationship to him, and how we approach religion. Prayer is about experiencing the presence of God—often, it need not even involve words. Prayer is that intersection where the human meets the divine, the finite meets the infinite, where we drop the shackles of the mundane and material and reach beyond ourselves to become immersed in the singular sense of God. It is meditation expressed in forms; the cares, worries, and distractions of the everyday world are set aside for a time while the one praying comes to encounter God. I should also think that, in a more tangible sense, prayer is a sort of reminder about our priorities. It keeps God and his will at the forefront of our mind, lest we should forsake him and pursue our own desire and will—which is its own form of idolatry—and reminds us to rely on him, to submit to him and his will, because we all know how easy it is to think that we're fine on our own. And as Kushner noted, it's also about keeping mindful of our blessings; rather than coming to God about what we lack and feel we want or should have, we come to God overwhelmed with gratitude for all that we already do have, thankful for God's gracious blessings, for his providence and mercy, and even grateful for his chastisements and disciplines (cf. Heb. 12:5-11).

Allowed to die? Part 2

2005-03-23T00:59:00.000-08:00

There are a number of things that bother me about the heartwrenching and complicated Terri Schindler-Schiavo case—and I am using "complicated" here in the verb form (not that it 'is complicated' so much as that things 'have complicated' it)—and although I could spend the next two hours writing about what these things that bother me are, I am going to restrict myself to the four things that bother me the most.

Now before anyone accuses me of becoming sympathetic with this case only because it has within the last year received pronounced media attention and that I have, consequently, fallen prey to the emotional rhetoric, not having examined the extensive facts of the case (there has been a lot of such accusations being thrown around various forums and blogs), please be advised that I have spent several, often consecutive hours poring over considerable amounts of history (as far back as February of 1990), court rulings, documents, and statements (going back to March of 2000), media editorials, et cetera, opinions and arguments that are sympathetic towards Terri Schindler-Schiavo and her parents, as well arguments and opinions that are sympathetic towards Michael Schiavo and Circuit Court Judge George Greer. Although I may not have informed myself enough to serve as an expert on any matter involving the case, I have informed myself enough to hold a legitimate opinion about it. You're free to disagree with me; you are not free to accuse me of ignorance.

One of the first things that bothers me is a prevailing opinion, originating with Michael Schiavo and affirmed by sympathizers of his view, that Terri should be "allowed to die," and I will tell you why this bothers me—Terri is not dying. By that I mean to say that she is not suffering from a terminal illness. She is not even on any sort of life support system—at least, not any "life support system" that differs from what any other human being is on, that is, food and water. Like some victims of Huntington's Disease, Terri cannot properly swallow. During my early twenties, I had the privelege of working in care homes for physically and mentally disabled adults and experienced, first-hand, people with this sort of problem. Yet not once did it ever occur to me nor did I ever hear anyone suggest that such people should be "allowed to die," and for good reason—they weren't dying. They suffered from neurologic conditions that impaired swallowing, but they had otherwise an intact, functional gastrointestinal tract. Like Terri. And like Terri, they too were not on any form of life support—their heart, like Terri's, beat on its own, their lungs functioned on their own, like Terri's. No one ever suggested that these people should be "allowed to die" because, like Terri, they were not dying. They were physically and mentally disabled, like Terri, one of them quite severly (the other workers always volunteered me to change his diapers; what fun), and certainly a great many of us able-bodied individuals are sure that we could not bear to live like that, but the point will be stressed once more here: neither they, nor others like them, nor Terri, are considered to be "dying." If Terri is not dying, it makes no sense to say that she should be "allowed to die."

Another thing that bothers me is the persistent expression of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) as "life support." It simply is not. This evening I had a nice pasta dish dressed in a cheese sauce with seasoned beef—all right, it was Kraft Dinner with ground beef stirred in—and a glass of milk. In a forensic sense, perhaps one could call this life support, for surely food and water go to support life. But who in their right mind would sincerely call meals a "life support system"? It is simply absurd, if you ask me. And yet the only difference between myself and Terri is that I swallowed my nutrients and hydration. Is that what makes the difference for these people? If you can swallow, it's food; if you cannot swallow, it's life support? What kind of logic is this? I encourage them, or anyone else, to inquire after the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, or any other physicians and surgeons with expertise in gastroenterology, and ask them, "Is a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy considered to be a life support system?"

I am also bothered by Michael's allegation, propagated by his sympathizers, that Terri expressed a desire to die, and that the removal of the PEG is nothing more than Michael deferring to Terri's wishes. This is not a tangential issue; it is, in fact, one of the very hubs of the entire controversy, as seen throughout most of the judicial proceedings. Had Terri never uttered a word about it, in any context or form, it seems quite likely that court rulings would have turned out very differently. Given that this question is so central to the entire issue, why has it been given the weight it has when it is established by nothing more compelling than hearsay? Did Terri say that, if she was ever in a situation were she would require a PEG, she would rather be allowed to just die? Pay very careful attention to this answer: "No." In fact, I'm fairly confident (and both her parents and Michael could affirm or deny this) that during the first 26 years of Terri's life, she never even heard of a PEG. Let me tell you what happened, according to the materials I've gone over. Michael alleges that Terri made a comment, after watching a movie (about Karen Quinlan), about how she wouldn't want to be on a life support system like that. Four things I want to say about this. First, it was a comment made after watching a movie! The idea that comments you make after watching a movie could one day decide whether you live or die would sure make you think more carefully about what you say when the credits roll, hmm? Second, Karen Quinlan was on a respirator; Terri is not. Third, Terri is not on any life support system at all, other than that which every one of us is on—food. Fourth, Karen was in a coma; Terri is not.

Related to this, I am bothered by Judge Greer's incompetent handling of this issue. When Diane Meyer, a friend of Terri's, testified in court about the 1982 comment Terri made after the movie, Greer said he thought Meyer's testimony was not credible because she described the conversation in the present tense. Pardon me? You are basing the decision whether to end someone's life on your confusion over verb tense? "The court is mystified as to how these present tense verbs would have been used some six years after the death of Karen Ann Quinlin [sic]," he wrote. First of all, it is not agreed that Michael's hearsay constitutes "clear and convincing evidence." Second of all, Greer's confusion over verb tense is not a justifiable basis to end Terri's life. Third, Greer's mystification over present tense verbs notwithstanding, it was highly appropriate for that conversation to have occurred in the present tense since Quinlan didn't die when they pulled the plug on her in 1976—she didn't die until 1985, three years after their conversation in 1982! And Greer has been informed of this. It is one of the many reasons Terri's parents want him to void his 2000 ruling. Even though that conversation did not occur "six years after" Quinlan's death but, rather, three years prior to it, Greer denied the motion. Furthermore, Michael's lead attorney, George Felos, told the Springfield Times that this point was insignificant and not worthy of revisiting. Excuse me? We are talking about starving Terri to death here, based on a 'comment she made after watching a movie; this makes Diane Meyer's testimony eminently significant!

Wesley J. Smith, an Attorney and Consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and a board member of The Center for Bioethics and Culture, recounted a very relevant and thought-provoking story that I am going to share here at this point. I want you to read this carefull, and consider the implications it has to Terri's fight [republished without edit]:

Many dehydration cases have involved such casual statements. The most disturbing of these was that of Marjorie Nighbert, which, ironically, also occurred in Florida. Marjorie was a successful Ohio businesswoman who was visiting her family in Alabama when she was felled by a stroke that left her disabled but not terminally ill. After being stabilized, she was moved to a nursing home in Florida where, it was hoped, she could be rehabilitated to relearn how to chew and swallow without danger of aspiration. To ensure she was nourished, she was provided a feeding tube.

This presented an excruciating quandary for her brother Maynard, who had a general power of attorney from Marjorie (not power of attorney for health care), as a consequence of which he became her surrogate medical decision-maker. Marjorie had once told her brother that she didn't want a feeding tube if she were terminally ill. Despite the fact that she was not dying, however, Maynard believed that if she were unable to be weaned off the tube, she would have wanted to die rather than live using the tube for nourishment. When she did not improve, he ordered the tube removed.

As she was slowly dehydrating to death, Marjorie began to ask the staff for food and water. In response to her pleas, members of the nursing staff surreptitiously gave her small amounts. One distraught staffer eventually blew the whistle, leading to a state investigation and a temporary restraining order requiring that Marjorie be nourished

Circuit Court Judge Jere Tolton received the case and appointed attorney William F. Stone to represent Nighbert and to conduct a 24-hour inquiry, the sole issue being whether Marjorie was competent to rescind her power of attorney and make her own decisions. After the rushed investigation, Stone was forced to report to the judge that she was not competent at that time. She had, after all been intentionally malnourished for several weeks. Stone particularly noted that he had been unable to determine whether she was competent when the dehydration commenced.

With Stone's report in hand, the judge ruled that the dehydration should be completed, apparently on the theory that Marjorie did not have the competence to request the medical treatment of food and water. Before an appalled Stone could appeal, Nighbert died on April 6, 1995.

Society's approach to the so-called "right to die" has become far too casual. None of us should be made to die because of statements made in casual conversations or due to misconstrued oral directives. The time has come for the best legal minds in the country to draft model legislation that will tighten existing laws so as to give every reasonable legal benefit of the doubt to life rather than, as too often happens now, to slow death by dehydration. [read]

As Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, "We can debate which level of governments, and which branch of governments offer Terri the most protection. But this we must not debate: the deliberate, public, and publicly sanctioned dehydration and starvation of a disabled woman is a profound affront to Americans' deepest values—and it must halt." [read]

Allowed to die? Part 1

2005-03-21T23:45:00.000-08:00

"The sick person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration, cleanliness, warmth, etc.) . . . I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory..." [read]
- Pope John Paul II

Dory at Wittenburg Gate wrote a very thought-provoke piece:

"No one has suggested that Terri should be 'allowed to die' because she is dying anyway. What is being suggested is that she should be caused to die because her life is not worth living. 'I wouldn't want to live that way,' people are fond of saying. Well, thanks for sharing, but that's not really the point, is it? What if I decided that I wouldn't want to live as a diabetic with all the challenges that disease presents. Does that then justify me killing a diabetic child or spouse? Dare I argue that to suggest otherwise is to interfere with 'a personal family decision'?" [read more]

My apologies for not having posted over the last couple days. I was really sick this weekend, laid out on the couch with a temperature and no energy to even get up and eat. It was pretty brutal. But thankfully today I was feeling considerably better (since I did have to go to work, after all) and I suspect I'll be feeling even better yet tomorrow. I have some things I want to post about, so I may get to that tomorrow. We'll see how I'm feeling.

Added some new blogs to the Blogroll. Check them out.

New Books

2005-03-18T23:32:00.000-08:00

So I bought two new books today:

White, James R. Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible's Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Needless to say, I will be devoting a great deal of time to reading, especially Grudem's monumental volume. But I am very pleased.

And tired, and heading to bed... *tips hat*

A Catholic on Election, Free Will, and Salvation

2005-03-14T23:12:00.000-08:00

The following was a forum post at ChristianForums.com and includes my response to this person. I am including it here because these questions are both common and important, and I desire to do all I can to publish these answers publically, spreading the Word of truth as far as I can, anticipating others who might harbour similar questions. This will become a fairly regular feature in this blog, wherein I will publish here the questions and concerns I encounter in my experiences on the Internet and in real life. As always, when my interlocutor is not a public figure, the questioner is left nameless.

I am what I consider a 'new Christian'. I was born Catholic, fell away from God in my late teens and twenties, and am now working to build my relationship back with God. A part of that is struggling with the various doctrines who all say their's is the correct path.

With Calvinism, if I understand correctly, one does not choose to be saved. God chooses you -- or elects you, basically. It is predetermined.

If this is true, then I have no control over my saving? It is already decided before I existed whether I would be saved nor not?

If that is true, how does this work with the idea of God giving us free will to choose Him or not?

If I want Christ in my life, and truly want to follow His Word, and want to be saved, and I take the actions of one that is saved, is this indication of me being predetermined? How does one know they are elected?

It seems to me that Calvinism does not coincide with the gift of free will to follow God or not. But yet, if God knows all, then I can understand how he knows who will and will not choose him-hence him predetermining you. So I can see both sides-which confuses me even more.

"With Calvinism, if I understand correctly, one does not choose to be saved. God chooses you-or elects you, basically. It is predetermined."

I would emphasize caution here over the important theological distinction between 'salvation' and 'election', to the effect that we must never conflate the two.

Concerning 'salvation' and your above statement I would say that, on the Reformed view, there is no conflict between the two ideas. In other words, both ideas are true: God chooses us, and we choose God. Salvation is a multifaceted rubric which, in at least some respects, involves interaction between God and man. The different facets of salvation are outlined under the Reformed ordo salutis (Lt. 'order of salvation'). However, although it is true that 'election' is one facet of salvation, it did not involve any interaction between God and man; 'election' is a different matter because this act took place in the divine singularity of God's eternal frame of reference, which is antecedent to and transcendent of the created order. Scriptures speak of 'election' occurring before any of the elect were born both explicitly (e.g Rom. 9:10-16) as well as implicitly, insofar as scriptures reveal election taking place before the world was even created (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Matt. 25:34 [cf. Psalm 32:1,2]; Rev. 13:8; etc.).

"If this is true, then I have no control over my saving? It is already decided before I existed whether I would be saved nor not?"

This will be one of the most notable differences you will discover between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrine. Reformed theology affirms and emphasizes the scriptural truth that no one has any control over their salvation—no one can save themselves apart from God, nor can anyone coerce God into saving them against his will. Reformed theology affirms and emphasizes the sovereignty of God as ultimate and supreme over all things; his nature, his character, his will, his purposes, his decrees, every facet of God's being is sovereign, subject to nothing external to him.

And this must be so if we are to contemplate God as God, not lacking anything prior to creation; to the degree that God is subject to anything external to himself, to that degree God was incomplete prior to creation. But scriptures do not proclaim God as a contingent existent; quite to the contrary, scriptures proclaim an absolute, sovereign, necessary, complete, self-existent God, and repudiates the notion of any reality that transcends God.

All of this is to say that, if anyone is saved, it can never be said to be independent of nor contrary to God's will. Scriptures proclaim that salvation is under the jurisdiction of the sovereign and righteous God, not the jurisdiction of mortal and sinful man. If we are saved, it is because God saved us. Never should a man think that he did, or even can, save himself.

Do I have any control over my salvation? No. Did God already decide from eternity whether or not I would be saved? Yes, and could such a decision be in any better hands? Would not such a decision be better left up to sinful man? God forbid.

Do I have any part to play in my salvation? Absolutely.

"If that is true, how does this work with the idea of God giving us free will to choose Him or not?"

Man does not have a 'free' will, and hasn't since the Garden of Eden. Man's will is subject to his nature. Surely it would be agreed that every decision of his will is a product of man's nature, every decision a concert of his desires, his passions, his intellect. But this nature is fallen. Man's will is not free, man does not have 'free' will. He does, however, have free agency, insofar as he is capable of making decisions, of making choices according to his greatest desires, but the will that directs this free agency is not itself free—it is corrupted by sin.

"If I want Christ in my life, and truly want to follow His Word, and want to be saved, and I take the actions of one that is saved, is this indication of me being predetermined? How does one know they are elected?"

Because election is necessarily the sole jurisdiction of God, since it took place from eternity, antecedent to creation, who is and who is not of the elect is not man's concern. It is not our jurisdiction, not under our control, not our concern. And this abdication of any concern about the identity of the elect is an expression of supreme faith and trust in the mercy, grace, and justice of God. We trust God absolutely, we praise him and give glory to him. We do not question him, we do not audit his choices, as though his purposes are subject to a higher court. And we certainly do not hold his purposes and choices accountable to man.

If you want Christ in your life, pursue him with all your heart. If you truly want to follow his Word, then seek after it like a man starving for bread. If you want to be saved, cast yourself at the feet of the Lamb and cry out, "Have mercy on me, a sinner!" Pursue God through Christ Jesus our Savior like there is nothing more important in your life or all of the universe, because there really is nothing more important than that.

And trust God's choices, absolutely and completely, never thinking to question his righteousness. Trust him to have made the best decision, for he is God and God is good.

"As Adelphia Goes, so Goes America?"

2005-03-14T17:55:00.000-08:00

This article was simply too good to not share. Originally published at The American Cause website, it has been subsequently cross-posted to several forums and communities, one of them being the Apologetics community at Livejournal, which is where I discovered it. The article as follows is unedited and properly credited and referenced. (NOTE: My posting of this article here neither does nor should be thought to constitute a broad personal endorsement of the views of The American Cause and/or Patrick Buchanan, nor Creators Syndicate Inc. and its columnists. My interest and applaus extend no further than this particular article).

As Adelphia goes, so goes America?

by Patrick J. Buchanan
February 14, 2005

In his second inaugural, George W. Bush used the words liberty and freedom 42 times. And, indeed, if America is about anything, she is about freedom. But freedom from what, and for what?

What brings the old question to mind is the decision by Adelphia Communications, the cable operator that has long refused to carry pornography, to offer triple-X rated programming for the first time in a major media market: Southern California. What is triple-X-rated programming?

Sallie Hofmeister of the Los Angeles Times explains: "Single-X-rated movies feature nudity, long-range or medium-range camera shots, simulated sex and sex between women." Her depiction of double-X- and triple-X-rated programming is best left to the imagination.

In short, this is the sort of squalid, grungy stuff that, not long ago, would have had the men who produced and distributed it sent to prison for years, after being denounced from the bench as perverts.

Why did Adelphia change its policy? Well, it seems that John Rigas, the 80-year-old founder who, on moral grounds, refused to carry "soft-porn," is on his way, along with his son, to a minimum-security facility for looting his company. Family values at work. And as Adelphia has filed for Chapter 11 and is on the block, its present managers wanted to make it as attractive a property as possible.

Spokeswoman Erica Stull, in what might well stand as the motto of modern capitalism, gave Adelphia's reason for reversing its policy: "People want it, so we are going to provide it." Erica gets it.

Adelphia's fall from grace would be a matter of little interest were it not for the trend it exposed, which Hofmeister details.

"Adelphia joins a marketplace already teeming with ways to procure hard-core sexual content," she writes. "The Internet has become a carnal cornucopia, with graphic images, videos and cartoons ... EchoStar Communications Corp., the nation's second-ranked satellite TV provider, has offered triple-X programming for several years on its Dish Network. Satellite leader DirecTV Group Inc., owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., peddles fare that falls just shy of triple-X."

Fifty percent of all hotel movies purchased are "adult."

"It's scary how much money is made on porn," proclaims Tim Connelly, editor and publisher of Adult Video News, the journal of the porn trade - although Connelly does not seem all that scared.

"I think they made a really smart business decision," Connelly told another reporter. "So, today Adelphia, tomorrow Wal-Mart."

Connelly estimates that when strip clubs, magazines, the Internet, television and DVDs are factored in, porn has become a $10 billion industry. "That's more than Hollywood makes at the box office," says Connelly. "And it just grows and grows and grows. It's mainstream now."

Yes, it is. And if Connelly is right, pornography grossed 30 times as much as "The Passion of the Christ," and 200 million citizens spend on average $50 a year each to keep the industry booming.

One need not have lived through Legion of Decency days, when its condemnation could kill a movie, to realize that America is still "defining deviancy down," in the late Sen. Pat Moynihan's phrase. We are in a worldwide race to the bottom, and America is winning.

Our popular culture - free and diverse, or polluted and poisonous, depending on your views and values - is a consequence of convergent forces. First, a Supreme Court, led by such worthies as William Douglas, brought pornography under the protection of the First Amendment.

At the same time, Christianity, as definer of standards of morality, was being displaced by the new religion that came out of the cultural revolution of the '60s, secular humanism. This belief system holds that all voluntary sexual acts between consenting adults are moral.

Then, the mighty engine of American capitalism, which, per Stull, is about "People want it, so we are going to provide it," went to work to meet the new market's demand. That demand comes from an affluent Weimar America whose children have been taught in their schools, and by their song-singers and films, that casual sex is good, hang-ups are bad and chastity is stupid.

November's landslide repudiation of gay marriage is regarded as a triumph by moral-values voters in Red State America. But history will likely record it as a defensive victory of one of the last citadels of traditional Christian morality, which eventually fell.

In "Witness," Whittaker Chambers writes of how, in a hospital, as he spoke with a priest friend about whether the West might be saved, he was brought up short by the priest's question: "What makes you think the West is worth saving?"

As the West advances from aborting its unborn to assisting the suicide of its sick, from euthanasia of its elderly to mercy-killing its disabled young in Europe, from its Christian roots to its post-Christian decadence, decline and death from a lack of births, the priest's question is being asked - and not only in the madrassas of the East.

© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Buchanan, Patrick J. "As Adelphia Goes, so Goes America?" The American Cause. 14 Feb. 2005. The American Cause.
14 Mar. 2005 [http://www.theamericancause.org/a-pjb-050214-adelphia.htm].

Creators Syndicate, Inc. (Richard S. Newcombe., President and CEO) [http://www.creators.com/index2.html].

A Response to 'Kevin' and 'puritan'

2005-03-13T21:59:00.000-08:00

At the risk of offending either 'Kevin' or 'puritan', I am going to respond to their posts out here on the main blog, primarily because I think these are essential matters with very important consequences and should be made readily available to readers. My purpose in doing this is not to engage in any sort of debate here on these points but, rather, to simply express my thoughts on them and allow the readers to consider the various points on their own. I think they both made some good points, and I have a couple of thoughts of my own I want to add to them. Since their comments were already a matter of public record, published on the Internet for anyone to see, I don't imagine there will be too much concern.

Kevin is right to point out the inherent contradiction possessed by the Arminian perspective, because even a "nominally moral act" is nevertheless a moral act, which the Arminian would have to concur with if he or she wants to retain a biblical understanding of 'moral'. Ergo, if God chooses his elect according to his prescience of who will accept Christ and believe (and to believe in his Son is a commandment of God), then man's self-determined choice becomes the sine qua non of salvation, not God's mercy (i.e. they are not saved, their salvation is not actualized, until they have 'decided' for it on their own), and grace is no longer grace because the 'favour' was consequently 'merited'. This does, and should, leave a bad taste in the Arminian's mouth, and violates a startling number of passages from scriptures. I spent a great many years as an Arminian myself and I can personally testify to the bad taste it left in my own mouth. Because of its manifest theological and scriptural problems, I dropped my Arminian perspective and began a search for a more biblically sound view. Although I didn't know yet what view is more biblically sound, I did know which view was not; I felt it was both my theological and philosophical responsibility to let go of a view I knew was demonstrably wrong, even if that meant I had to start over.

Kevin said that, back when he held an Arminian view, his interpretation might have been "God chose me because of what happened after He started giving me grace." He is right to call this "muddle-headed" thinking because it does not escape the problem: Why did God choose you for his gift of grace? There are additional questions, such as what is the nature of "grace" in this interpretation, what means does God use to give it, and can sinful man prevent God from accomplishing what he sets out to do—all the while keeping in mind that the Bible offers answers to these questions and, therefore, our answers must reflect the testimony of scriptures. Furthermore, such an interpretation would be tantamount to an Arminian offering a Reformed response—namely, that regeneration precedes faith—which is specifically problematic and generally ironic.

Kevin expressed how, in his view, most Christians "are just happy holding logically impossible premises in their heads" and, if I understood him correctly, he felt that this is "where a lot of frustration originates in theology." I disagree with that latter statement, personally. I think a lot of frustration in theology originates from the cognitive dissonance that results from taking what we uncritically learned by rote, applying it eisegetically to scriptures, and confronting a conflict between scriptures and what we were taught. Most Christians, in my experience, are not terribly Berean about the things they are taught, if at all. I know I wasn't, for many years, and this was to my shame. We must receive the message with great eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11-12).

Puritan felt that most Evangelicals would be in agreement with me, when it comes to "one-on-one witnessing" or "telling others about Christ and his atonement." But I don't think I am able to agree here, simply because, when it comes to spreading the gospel, we rarely, if ever, get into the finer points of theology like election. The message is about Christ and him crucified, whereas growing in the knowledge of Christ comes later in one's Christian walk, which is after conversion, which is after our hearing the gospel. When we spread the good news about Christ Jesus, "telling others about Christ and his atonement," we don't ever seem to get into things like the nature of God, predestination, election, the ordo salutis, etc., and I feel it is good not to—to employ a biblical analogy, the meat comes after the milk. So why do we bother with such finer points of theology at all? Because there comes a point in our learning and growing in the knowledge of Christ where we ought to leave the elementary teaching about Christ, pressing on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, etc.; and this we will do, if God permits (Heb. 6:1-3).

Puritan also reminds me, and perhaps our readers too, about the grace and gentleness extolled in 2 Tim. 2:24-26 and that perhaps most Arminians "do believe [that] salvation is by grace through faith," but that they are just "weak when it comes to understanding why that is true in relationship to all eternality and providence." For this I would thank Puritan; those are words to live by, and I certainly strive to.

Neither 'Kevin' nor 'puritan' should feel they need to respond to this (although they are welcomed to); the point of this was not to incite a debate. Again, I simply felt these are important issues and points, which I wanted to make more readily available to our readership and encourage them to consider these issues themselves.

Think about it. Question everything.

Christianity is the Right Religion for Me

2005-03-11T20:49:00.000-08:00

It's true. It's even official. See, I answered all the questions to one of those QuizFarm thingers, this one created by 'callalily19' and called "Which Religion is Right For You?" and it told me so. "You scored as Christianity," the results informed me. "Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian."

My views are "most similar to" those of Christianity, she said. Heh, right. Of course, I'm wondering why my views are not "exactly" those of Christianity, and simultaneously wondering how anyone can trust the theological judgments of someone named 'callalily' who is probably not much more than a high school kid with accounts at six different online journal services. "Do more research on Christianity," she says. Heheh. For those of you that know me personally, you can certainly appreciate the humour of that one. Now, I know these tests are generic at best, just some good tongue-in-cheek fun for those who take life a little less seriously, so understand that I am being entirely facetious here, having my own bit of fun.

But I do have a little concern about this test. I mean, have you seen some of the questions she asks in that quizlette? Amazing. Probably the most blatant example, and certainly my favourite, is Question 34: "Because I haven't made up my mind, I never rule out the possibility of God's existence." Now I am supposed to consider this question and answer either (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Undecided, (4) Agree, or (5) Strongly Agree.

Uh...

How do I answer that? Every single optional answer is wrong. "Strongly disagree," meaning I emphatically rule out the possibility of God's existence. Wrong. Okay, and obviously "Disagree" is likewise wrong. "Undecided"? No, I'm quite decided. All right, so then do I "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" that, because I haven't made up my mind, I never rule out the possibility of God's existence? Neither, because I have, in fact, made up my mind. So you tell me, dear reader, how do I answer this question? And maybe it's because of questions like this that the results show my views as being only "most similar to" those of Christianity. I chose "Undecided" because to move in any direction towards agreeing or disagreeing is even more inaccurate; therefore, because "I haven't made up my mind" about God's existence, my views don't quite align with Christianity.

Question 22 was interesting: "'Evil' as many religions see it does not exist; 'evil' is just imbalance and human mistakes." Well we have a problem here, don't we, if "evil" as a religion sees it is precisely imbalance and human mistakes. Like Christianity, for example. How do I answer this one? Man is said to be "fallen," there is an intrinsic imbalance not only in the human experience but also in man's relationship with God—we are alienated from God, which is why reconciliation is needed, a relational breach which lends to our concuspience that inescapably results in manifest human mistakes. There is "imbalance and human mistakes," certainly, but Christianity answers the question of why there is. And why it's evil. Question 29 states, "I have a strong belief and trust in myself over anything or one else." Yes, autonomy, or self-law. It was the first sin man committed, the whole reason we're in this mess, and it remains man's favourite sin that he still commits routinely to this very day.

"People are not inherently evil; they are just weak and have free will." What is meant here by "evil"? And it was a curious statement to make, ripe for exploration: "I'm not evil, I just have free will."

What about Question 11? "I am certain that no being higher than humans exists." What does "higher" mean here? What about, say, dolphins? What if someone felt that dolphins were a higher order of being than humans? I know what she meant, I think: this was an anti-supernatural statement, the rejection of the idea of beings that transcend the physical, spatio-temporal sphere of existence, from the idea that "if it has no extension or form in space then it does not really exist."

"God has chosen a race to follow him." Chosen. Interesting choice of words. I could have some theological fun with this one, by presenting an argument which attempted to show that the regenerated elect were a distinct race from the unregenerated non-elect—the latter being born of the flesh while the former being born of the Spirit. However, I had to Strongly Disagree because I think this question had in mind such groups as the Ku Klux Klan.

"Jesus died for our sins." Who is meant by "our" here? And what does "died for" mean, what did that accomplish?

Ah my. It was fun, at any rate.

They Found Me!

2005-03-10T03:15:00.000-08:00

Now how cool is this? Jared Wilson, from The Thinklings blog, stumbled across my personal blog; not only did he mention me by name (at least, my Internet name), he also said some very nice things about me (read Jared's post here). I am simultaneously humbled and delighted. Greetings to my brothers in Christ, and may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with them.

Muggeridge: Let's Be Honest

2005-03-10T01:52:00.000-08:00

"There is in each of us a hard core of pride or self-centeredness which corrupts our best achievements and blights our best experiences. It comes out in all sorts of ways—in the jealousy which spoils our friendships, in the vanity we feel when we have done something pretty good, in the easy conversion of love into lust, in the meanness which makes us depreciate the efforts of other people, in the distortion of our own judgment by our own self-interest, in our fondness for flattery and our resentment of blame, in our self-assertive profession of fine ideals which we never begin to practice."

—Malcolm Muggeridge

More on Election and Moral Worthiness

2005-03-09T21:42:00.000-08:00

You know, I find it very difficult to write while music is playing. At least, music with lyrics. I always have. I'm not sure why—maybe I struggle with splitting my attention—but nevertheless I need to turn this music off if I intend to write something coherent. I'm enjoying it, it's good music, but it's time to write now.

With a comforting mug of hot, steaming coffee set beside me, I shall begin.

In another post of mine, I was addressing someone's allegation that God's criteria for choosing his elect might be "morally arbitrary." I believe I've dealt with that allegation sufficiently enough, but in that post I had also said that, if our 'moral worthiness' of heaven is not part of his criteria for choosing his elect, then whatever happens to be God's criteria are indeed irrelevant—to our moral worthiness (but then I also noted that just because his criteria might be irrelevant in one context it does not follow that his criteria are therefore irrelevant per se; that is, in all contexts).

I wanted to stop on that note and perhaps expand a little bit on what I was saying there, because there is some potential for misunderstanding. I may be eloquent but that does not mean I am perspicuous. I want to explain what I meant when I said that God's criteria for choosing his elect are irrelevant to their moral worthiness because, on the surface, that might sound scandalous enough to raise some eyebrows (certainly the eyebrows of nearly every Evangelical reader).

Let me begin by stating what I do not mean. The criteria that God uses for choosing his elect might be irrelevant with regard to their moral worthiness, but this does not mean that their moral worthiness is irrelevant with regard to their entrance into heaven. It is actually quite relevant; there is no shortage of statements in the sacred scriptures which outline what sort of person will not enter heaven. So it would seem that their moral worthiness becomes an issue at some point. The careful distinction I am stressing right here is that God's sovereign election of his children neither equates with nor somehow results in their license to sin—the latter is quite a different matter from the former. Just because the criteria that God uses for choosing his elect might be irrelevant to their moral worthiness, it does not mean that they may behave and act any way they like and they'll still find entrance into heaven.

However, their entrance into heaven is eschatological, isn't it—something that they, here now alive, at least have yet experience. There is a process involved prior to that event, a process which begins first, obviously, with their birth. But did God wait until they were each individually born before electing them? No. God's choosing his elect occurred in the divine singularity of his eternal frame of reference, which is antecedent to and transcendent of the created order. His elect were chosen before they were even born, before they had done anything either good or bad, in order that God's purpose in election might stand, demonstrating that it depends neither on man's desire nor effort but on God's mercy (Rom. 9:10-16). In fact, his elect were chosen not only before they were born but before the world was even created. We read that "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4); we read that our salvation and holy calling was "granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim. 1:9); we read that the kingdom has been prepared "from the foundation of the world" for those blessed of the Father (Matt. 25:34; cf. Psalm 32:1,2); we read that the names of the elect have "been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life" (Rev. 13:8). If we said that their moral worthiness were a criterion of God's choosing his elect, then we would be saying that it is no longer a matter of grace but, rather, of obligation (that it is something God owes them). If it was "on the basis of works," then grace (being "unmerited favour") is no longer grace (Rom 11:6); but we know that God "saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace" (2 Tim. 1:9).

Might this not also begin to suggest, then, that if the criteria God uses for choosing his elect are irrelevant to their moral worthiness—if no one, in themselves, deserves to be permitted into heaven, whereby God is under obligation—then perhaps our moral worthiness is contingent upon God's act of electing (cf. Heb. 13:20-21; Phil. 1:6, 2:13; Rom. 8:29; etc)? That is, if no one in themselves deserves heaven, then all mankind would be lost if God had not intervened; both the salvation and the moral worthiness of those redeemed, then, are the result of God's intervention by grace—in our justification, sanctification, and glorification—and therefore to none other is praise and glory due. I would echo Matthew Henry's expression that all fulness dwells in Christ, "a fulness of merit and righteousness, of strength and grace for us," as well as John Gill who affirms that Christ is our sanctification, and we have "all [our] sins expiated by his sacrifice, and [our] persons washed and cleansed in his blood, and [our] hearts sanctified by his Spirit," which will be completed by the author of it.

Hebrews 13:20-21
"Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen."

Philippians 1:6; 2:13
"For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. ... for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

Romans 8:29
"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren."

"This encourages us to do our utmost," Matthew Henry writes, "because our labour shall not be in vain: we must still depend on the grace of God. The working of God's grace in us is to quicken and engage our endeavours. God's goodwill to us is the cause of his good work in us."

Change of Address

2005-03-06T19:43:00.000-08:00

NOTICE: I have changed the addresses of my blogs.

my Personal blog is now http://ryft.blogspot.com
the Apologia blog is now http://prosapologian.blogspot.com

Please update any links to these blogs or their respective articles to reflect these new addresses. Thank you, and my apologies for the inconvenience. A change of this order will not occur again in the future.

The Arrogance of Atheism -- Austin Cline 1

2005-03-06T16:46:00.000-08:00

On a quiet Monday evening (February 28th) I was working on the content of the meta data for my blog—altering the description, keywords, configuring the access and permissions of indexing robots, et cetera—and I wanted to check how, or if, things would appear in a Google search. So I typed in "ryft" and "blog" as my keywords in the first run and was quite surprised to discover an unexpected hit at About.com. Wait, what is this? I've never written anything for that website. Yet it was something about The Arrogance of Atheism, which is suspiciously identical to the title of an article I wrote.

Of course I clicked on the link and was taken to the Atheism/Agnosticism section of About.com, which ought to have been expected, edited by one Austin Reed Cline, Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism. There I discovered that Cline was critically reviewing precisely that article of mine. Evidently the influence of my writing has begun to expand into unexpected areas, and without my knowledge because he certainly made no effort to contact me, to either make me aware of his article or ask if I would like to respond.

Perhaps needless to say, I was nevertheless somewhat delighted. And as for a response to his article, that is exactly what I intend to do here.

It is unfortunate that Cline had so grossly misunderstood the context of my article, which could be attributed to both the briefness of my article and Cline's lack of interacting with me about it prior to publishing his. Yet the question which opens and sets the tone of his article demonstrates his misunderstanding rather succinctly, wherein he asks, "Are atheists arrogant for insisting that theists support their claims before accepting them as true? . . . It's a serious sign of weakness, I think, when someone starts whining about having to support their assertions" (para. 1). Disregarding Cline's gratuitous invective, this of course was not the arrogance I was speaking of; I was aiming at something significantly deeper than that. I was talking about how certain atheists "presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system. In other words, the Christian is expected to provide arguments in defense of Christian theism which accord with the atheist's epistemology in particular and world view in general." Another atheist elsewhere had responded in a similar fashion to Cline, wherein he had said the challenge "Prove that God exists" is a "perfectly logical argument" for someone to pose. My response to that atheist may help shed light on the context of my article and prove helpful for Cline:

Actually, it is not a perfectly logical argument. Even if it could be properly considered an 'argument' at all—and it certainly cannot be—we would say it is a perfectly empirical argument, for it is evidence that the speaker is demanding and, typically for claims of existence, those making the demand expect the nature of the evidence to have extension or form in space (i.e. be 'empirical', or apprehensible by sense perception). Additionally, this evidence, as defined by that person's philosophical commitments, usually must posses certain epistemic virtues—such as demonstrating (1) some relationship to the object in question, (2) an absence of internal and external conceptual problems, or (3) some scope of alethic realism—virtues which are likewise defined and whose acceptability is determined by that person's philosophical commitments. The further we explore this demand for proof (or rather, evidence), the more warrant my argument above receives because we expose, exponentially, the rather significant number of presuppositions undergirding the atheist's approach, which the Christian theist is expected to, first, uncritically allow and, second, conform to when meeting his demands. If the Christian theist should refuse to uncritically allow the atheist's presuppositions, his claims are summarily dismissed as 'irrational' (which begs the epistemic question) and the discussion is terminated.

It bears repeating: "If it is permissible for the atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, then it is also permissible for the inverse of that situation. Otherwise, the atheist would shoulder the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own."

A Christian young lady said about my article, "In all sentiments, true; although the [Christian's] challenge is to be as Paul was—all things to all men. That is to say, Christians must find a way to argue in the atheist paradigm." However, this underscores my very point. Christian theism cannot exist in "the atheist paradigm"—atheism, by design of its own presuppositions, is antithetical to theism of this nature. The only theism that "the atheist paradigm" will permit is the saccharine sentimentalism of pantheism, whose claims admittedly posses no alethic realism and, consequently, no threat to atheism qua atheism. I'm talking about a philosophical prejudice so pronounced that competing systems of thought are required to uncritically allow his presuppositions and conform their argumentation to those, and refusal or failure to do so is prejudicially demeaned as 'irrational'. I am talking about a form of bigotry, which G.K. Chesterton relevantly referred to as "an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition." Herbert Spencer noted wisely, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Cline writes, "Ryft doesn't like being held to the standard of having to provide evidence for his claims" (para. 3). In addition to the potential fallacy of poisoning the well, this statement is patently false and fails to reflect the intention of my article. What I actualy dislike is confronting philosophical prejudice that is anathema to free and critical thinking and having to unilaterly conform my arguments to the presuppositions thereof; that is,I dislike having to grant antecedently and uncritically the epistemological structure that undergirds my opponent's system of thought when he is not willing to permit the inverse of that situation, which "would shoulder the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own."

Cline writes, "Actually, though, I suspect that he only objects to being held to that standard when it comes to claims about his god [sic] —I'll bet that he is quite comfortable with that standard in every other situation" (para. 3). Cline would lose that bet for I do not, in fact, share his epistemology and philosophical precommitments. In my view, empirical standards regard only empirical claims; a claim which regards some state of affairs that has extension or form in space would require evidence of the same nature. But evidence need not be empirical to serve as evidence (cf. logic and necessary truths). Cline demonstrates this distinction when in the same paragraph he asks, "Would he, for example, object to scientists having to provide evidence for their scientific claims? Would he object to prosecutors having to provide evidence in support of murder charges brought against him? Unlikely." Correct. However, these claims are empirical in nature, are they not? Of course I am going to hold empirical claims to empirical standards.

Cline writes, "It's fair to question the nature of what evidence is expected in support of a claim, but trying to exempt one's own personal god-claims [sic] from a standard used pretty much all the rest of the time in other situations is an example of the Special Pleading fallacy" (para. 4) . . . "The whole thing strikes me as an admission that one's god-claims [sic] can't stand up to the same critical scrutiny that all other claims are expected to and, so, the only recourse is to try to deny that those standards should be employed. Convenient, eh?" (para. 5) It would be this fallacy if, and only if, one's own personal God-claims are empirical in nature. If one claimed that God was a contingent existent that had extension or form in space, then it would be Special Pleading to exempt said God from empirical standards. But if the God claimed exists transcendent of spatiality, then it would not be Special Pleading; it would, in fact, be appreciably avoiding a categorical mistake.

Cline writes, "If someone really thinks that some particular claim merits being exempt, they'll have to provide a sound logical argument in defense of that claim" (para. 4). Such arguments can be, and are, just so provided; there is centuries' worth of this material, more in the twentieth century than at any time before (I would especially recommend Alvin Plantinga's series on Warrant). There is certainly no shortage of it. However, one has to keep in mind the difference between a logical argument and an empirical one; it would not make sense to complain about the lack of empirical evidence for a logical argument.

Cline writes, "Of course, sound logical arguments is another one of those standards that atheists typically apply to god-claims [sic] —just the sort of thing Ryft is complaining about" (para. 4). As has been amply demonstrated, this is not the sort of thing I am "complaining" about at all.

* * *

[6-MAR-2005, 21:38] I wrote Austin Cline an email, making him aware of my response to his article and encouraging him to provide a link to it from his. The following is his email in its entirety:

Both of your pieces presuppose that there is such a thing as "the atheist paradigm" or "the atheist worldview" which is antithetical to theism. There is, however, no "the atheist paradigm" any more than there is "the theist paradigm." There perhaps as many [sic] atheist "paradigms" or "worldviews" as there are atheists.

This renders both of your pieces incoherent - the real arrogance is in the rash generalizations you make about all atheists. I used your piece as an example of poor reasoning and see no need to inflict yet another on my readers when the errors are all basically the same thing.
(Cline, Austin. "Re: The Arrogance of Atheism." E-mail to David Nesbitt. 6 MAR 2005)

Ignoring once again Cline's gratuitous invective (is this critical thinking skills being practiced?), in point of fact neither of my pieces "presuppose" that there is such a thing as "the atheist paradigm" or any "rash generalizations" of the sort, which is verifiable immediately upon reviewing both of my articles. It can be seen readily enough that I made no reference at all to anything like "the atheist paradigm" (although that Christian young woman did, whom I was quoting), and I confess that I have no idea what that could even be. Atheists are fairly diverse in their philosophies and worldviews and, on the more scholarly level, some even enjoy healthy debate on conflicting views. My articles regarded only a segment of the atheist population, those with a particular epistemology and worldview and notably the ones that enjoy debating against Christian theism. When I talked about how the "Christian is expected to provide arguments in defense of Christian theism which accord with the atheist's epistemology in particular and world view in general," no mention was made as to what worldview that was, nor was mentioning it even relevant to the point being made; insert whatever worldview is relevant at the time and place the discussion occurs. But would it not take quixotic mental gymnastics to interpret that as a generalization about all atheists or positing something like an atheist paradigm? And the end product of such an exercise would amount to a strawman caricature at any rate, so how would that even be productive? Simply put, it wouldn't be.

I leave it to you, the reader, to review his article and email, and my responses to both, and determine for yourself which of us evinces poor reasoning. And keep in mind also that he refuses to provide his readership the opportunity to review my response, whereas I am quite willing. In the final analysis, I believe I am finished with Mr. Cline on the issue of his article.

- - -

NOTE: A question just occured to me. If your opponent truly displayed "poor reasoning" skills, why wouldn't you want your readership to see it? Would that not be exactly what you would want your readership to see? "Look, when he attempted to respond to my article he only evinced poor reasoning skills further." Would not poor reasoning be exactly what you want your readership to witness in your opponent?

Cline, Austin. "Arrogance of Atheism." Agnosticism/Atheism Blog. 9 Feb. 2005. About.com.
28 Feb. 2005 <http://atheism.about.com/b/a/144721.htm?nl=1>.

Election as Morally Arbitrary

2005-03-05T02:44:00.000-08:00

This conversation is likewise excerpted from an interesting discussion on IRC, this time with an atheist who was arguing that God may have been morally arbitrary in his choosing his elect:

"Yes, he [God] could be doing that [choosing his elect by some criterion other than one's worthiness of heaven], but the problem then is that it concedes to the criticism that God is deciding that some go to heaven on criteria that are irrelevant. That IS arbitrary."

It does not concede to that, actually. One's 'worthiness' of heaven is not relevant to whatever happens to be God's criteria, this much is true. But it does not follow that somehow, therefore, whatever happens to be God's criteria is itself irrelevant.

"I'm not sure how that doesn't concede that the criteria God uses [for choosing his elect] are irrelevant. What are the criteria he uses? What criteria besides worthiness of heaven could even be relevant to who he lets into heaven? Presumably God is being fair here, not morally arbitrary. Now, if he's being fair, what are the criteria that make it fair to put person A in heaven and person B in hell? This isn't a question about how we know what his criteria are -- that might be beyond our ability to know -- it's a question of how it could ever be fair and morally non-arbitrary if none of us are deserving of heaven yet only some of us are permitted to go to heaven."

Three things I would note, here -- the first as sort of a brief but important interjection, the other two as a more direct response.

First, before there can be any agreement about God's criteria being judged as "irrelevant," some hidden assumptions need to be exposed -- that is, it needs to be understood what is being meant here. Irrelevant (or "not relevant") to what, exactly? Depending on how this is answered, it may very well be that God's criteria are indeed irrelevant. Consider the following. If our moral worthiness of heaven is not part of his criteria for choosing his elect, then whatever happens to be God's criteria are indeed irrelevant -- to our moral worthiness. But this does not then somehow mean that the sum of his criteria is irrelevant in itself.

Second, the need to know what God's criteria are in order to determine the morality thereof -- and the fairness of God -- is to implicitly suggest that God is or ought to be responsible to some moral order which is external to him. However, since my position is such that moral order is grounded in God's eternal nature, this response is not relevant to my position and therefore fails to address it.

Third, it is fair and morally non-arbitrary that, although none of us are deserving of heaven, some are permitted to go because it is God that is making that decision, and moral order is grounded in his eternal nature (i.e. it is not something external to him).

"See, the question is about moral relevance. It's not enough that God has some reason or other or some decision procedure. The question is whether his criteria are morally relevant. God could use 'eye color' as one criterion, for example. That wouldn't be arbitrary in the sense that it's random, but it would be morally arbitrary since he could just as easily decide that blue-eyed people get in instead of brown-eyed people (or vice versa). Simply having a criterion [for choosing his elect] doesn't imply that God's criterion is a morally relevant one. The problem isn't that God can't make up his mind but that he has no moral grounds for admitting some into heaven and not others if, by hypothesis, none of us deserve to be admitted at all."

In order to make an argument that his "simply having a criterion doesn't imply that God's criterion is a morally relevant one," one has to first presuppose that moral order is in some respect external to God, but simply presupposing your position is not an effective argument against mine. The argument works only if God is responsible to a moral order that is external to him (wherein it was asserted that "he has no moral grounds for..."), which my stated position rejects. Ergo, this response here is not relevant to my argument.

The Grounding of Ethics

2005-03-05T02:25:00.000-08:00

The following excerpts were taken from an interesting conversation on IRC between myself and an atheist who is very inquisitive about whether Christian theism is able to address perceived philosophical dilemmas. We pick up the conversation as it is shifting into higher gear:

"If God's eternal rightness always said that rape was 'good' then rape would have always been 'good.' Right? I think you have to put these examples in there, and I don't see how you can get around that with your argument."

Your argument is correct. However, you are using an example that has always been wrong, which only frustrates the issue and creates unnecessary problems in understanding. When the theist concedes this point of yours, you can smile to yourself and note, "Look, something that has always been bad, and has never been good, could be good." This is why it's a delicious example, makes the theist uncomfortable, and is generally a very poor example to use. To avoid a potential strawman, your examples would have to be something like charity or mercy. That is, if 'good' is grounded in God's eternal nature, then any example would have to be something that has always been good; to use an example of something that has always been bad in a hypothesis to argue what "could have been otherwise" would be to suggest that God's nature could have been otherwise, yet his nature is eternal.

"I think we're looking for the reason rape is wrong, Ryft. Is it wrong because God said so, or is it wrong by some other set of standards?"

The reason why "rape" is wrong is because it is contrary to the righteous holiness of God's eternal character and nature and, by extension, is want of conformity to his law and will. As Vincent Cheung put it, "To the degree that a person thinks and acts in accordance with God's nature and commands, he is moral ... since God has defined goodness for us by revealing his nature and commands, evil is thus defined as anything that is contrary to his nature and commands." (11). No thing is evil in itself, save for the consequence of its relationship with God's nature and commands. It's not wrong because God "decided" it would be wrong, as though he could have decided otherwise. The rightness and wrongness of a thing is as eternal as God is; ergo, it is impossible that a wrong thing "could have been otherwise." To put it as succinctly as I can, "God neither determined rightness nor follows rightness -- God is rightness."

"I can, however, still say that if God's eternal rightness said that rape was good, then rape would be good."

If "God's eternal rightness said that rape was good," rape would have always been good and will always be good. This is why it would be no different, yet certainly more proper, to use a more concordant example -- "If God's eternal rightness said that charity was good, then charity would be good" and would have always been good and will always be good. In fact, that is why I keep insisting that you use agreeably good things, like charity, because the rightness of the thing would be as eternal as God is and therefore could never have been otherwise. To hypothesize as possible that a 'wrong' thing could have been 'good' (like your 'rape' example) is to ignore the distinction being made and the nature of the word "eternal."

"Well, if it's just the 'eternal nature of God' that is the determining factor, how is that not arbitrary? If God were any other way, then 'good' would be different. Ryft, it has to be arbitrary."

In a somewhat similar (but potentially weak) analogy, it's the same as someone suggesting that your inability to sexually molest a small child is "arbitrary." It is completely against your very nature, isn't it? It's not an "arbitrary" inability that could be otherwise. It is simply against your nature, and has always been. This is why the very suggestion of God being "any other way" ignores the very nature of the word "eternal."

"Ryft, I do have to say that, if I don't molest children, it is indeed because I don't want to, that it's not in my nature. But I think that still has to be arbitrary because, were my nature different, it could be such that I thought it was a good thing. I'm not making the decision 'to molest' or 'not molest' on logical grounds, but arbitrarily, according to my nature. Does that make any sense?"

That's why it was an 'analogy', and not 'the same thing'. And as with all analogies, it was potentially weak -- all analogies will break down if you push them far enough.

"But doesn't the point still stand, then? The nature of God's morality would be different if God were different -- hence, this isn't a decision based on logic, but on the nature of God."

That is why the analogy was weak -- precisely because your nature could have been different. But God's cannot have.

"Why couldn't God's nature have been different?"

I think my answer to another one of your questions might also answer this one. You had said, "I don't see how it's 'more proper' to use the positive example than the negative one, though." Let me try restating my position in the hopes that it will present itself as an answer to this.

If 'good' is grounded in God's eternal nature, then any example would have to be something that has always been good. You see, to use an example of something that has always been bad within an hypothesis which contemplates it "could have been otherwise" would be to suggest that God's nature itself could have been otherwise, yet his nature is transcendent and eternal. The rightness of a thing is as eternal as God is; no wrong thing "could have been otherwise" any more than God could. To hypothesize as possible that a 'wrong' thing could have been 'good' (like your 'rape' example) is to ignore the distinction being made and the nature of the word "eternal." Also, as I said previously, "God neither determined rightness nor follows rightness -- God is rightness"; moreover, if 'good' is grounded in God's eternal nature, then it would be inaccurate to say that "God does what is right"; rather, God does what he is.

"I think I see. Because God has ALWAYS existed, there is no possibility his nature 'could have been different'."

Almost. It's not so much that God has always existed. More to the point, it's that his nature is transcendent and eternal.

"Doesn't 'eternal' mean 'has existed forever'?"

We are contingent existents that experience temporal succession, whereas God transcends space and time. Concepts and terms which regard spatiality or temporality (evolution, change, contingency) are inapplicable to a being which exists independent of the spatio-temporal created order. It is possible to conceive of a being that "has existed forever" experiencing temporal succession, hence the need to make this distinction here. God's nature is not X at t¹ and could be Y at t². God's nature is X at tⁿ.

"Okay, I think I understand. There is no T2, right? No possible T2; a T2 is impossible."

I don't even think t¹ is accurate. That's why I chose tⁿ.

Cheung, Vincent. The Problem of Evil. Boston: Reformation Ministries International, 2004.

Paedobaptism - The Beginnings

2005-02-22T00:46:00.000-08:00

A question that keeps raising itself around me with increased frequency these days is paedobaptism, more commonly understood as 'infant baptism'. I've had an increasing number of people ask me what my position is on the question of infant baptism and it's had me wondering if maybe this should be an area I research next. I already have a tentative position on it, but I haven't settled on either side of the fence yet because I haven't really looked into it. So I've decided to stop wondering and pursue the issue. For the next while (who can know how long any subject will take to research) I am going to be spending my time looking into this question and developing a position on it. And because this is my spiritual journal, I'll be discussing my findings here.

Ruckman...

2005-02-08T01:19:00.000-08:00

Peter S. Ruckman...

Ever heard of him? Most people haven't, and they should count their blessings. I had never heard of him either—until yesterday. And had I known then what I know now, I would have counted my blessings too. But now I can't, because now I am aware of him.

In the KJV Only camp, he is the pitbull of the cause. And this is an entirely fair simile for he is nothing short of a pitbull, demonstrating anything but the grace, gentleness, compassion and self-control Christians are exhorted to show one another in love. When I first began researching this individual, I came across no shortage of Christian articles and opinions that expressed sentiments ranging from sadness to disgust for the man. Practically everything I had read talked about the seething vitriol, uncouth style, and vehement animosity that he demonstrates to other Christian brothers and sisters, feelings about which I suspended for the time being because I had only just begun my research. But then I started to come across some of his own writings—some from his own pen held within his own hand in his own handwriting—and, as I read, I very soon realized why all these people had these sentiments about him: because that is precisely what he is like. I even found statements and opinions from other KJV Only advocates who desperately wanted to put as much distance as they could between themselves and Peter S. Ruckman, offering their own reproofs against him and imploring him to demonstrate more fruits of the Spirit.

Are you familiar with Donald Waite? He is another KJV Only advocate who presents "the four-fold superiority of the KJV" in his book Defending the King James Bible, which he identifies as (1) superior texts, (2) superior translators, (3) superior technique, and (4) superior theology (these issues are, of course, entirely debatable). Donald Waite is such a staunch advocate of the primacy of the KJV Bible that he is often thought to be a Ruckmanite. But oddly enough, Ruckman considers Waite to be an "apostate Fundamentalist" and a member of "the Alexandrian cult" who is full of "nonsense" and "hot air" (The Bible Believers Bulletin, Feb. 1989, pp. 4-6). Why is that? Waite is a staunch advocate for the primacy of the KJV Bible, its texts, its translators, its theology, etc., so why doesn't Ruckman consider Waite to be a true Bible believer, even though he holds all the same beliefs about the KJV that Ruckman does? For the simple fact that Dr. Waite rejects Ruckman. David Cloud, another strict KJV Only advocate, is likewise considered an apostate because, like Waite, Cloud rejects Ruckman's teachings.

I had also heard it claimed (from his very few but intensely loyal followers) that no one has ever dared to debate him on the KJV Only issue, that no one anywhere, ever, was bold enough because everyone knew how weak their position really is and knew how devastating Peter S. Ruckman's evidence and arguments are. Interesting claim. Obviously there was something to the claim, evidenced by its very existence. So I started looking around at this issue—and found out it was a complete falsehood. When James R. White published his book The King James Only Controversy, he sent Ruckman a package containing two copies of the book (because in the book White deals with Ruckman and his claims) and a letter which outlined what the book was about plus an invitation to publicly debate the issue. The sheer madness that ensued is simply unbelievable and, if your stomach can take Ruckman's vitriolic petulance and foul mouth, you should really have a look at the stark difference between White's correspondence and Ruckman's responses. No one is will dare to engage Ruckman in debate? You decide [here]. Incidentally, as the correspondence shows, Ruckman was ultimately unwilling to engage White in public debate. In a series of articles in his closed-forum The Bible Believers Bulletin, Ruckman attempted to address a number of the arguments White raised in his book—and on White's website he responded to Ruckman's every article. It is quickly evident why Ruckman would be unwilling to debate White [here].

Some of the names he's called people are "stupid," "jackass", "silly asses," "two-bit junkies," "egotistical jack legs," "conservative asses whose brains have gone to seed," "cheap, two-bit punks," "mush-mouthed sissy", "mealy-mouthed," and "stupid, little, Bible-rejecting apostates." In his letters to White, he referred to him as "apostate," "conceited ass," "sonny," "little wimp," "old liar," "slick," etc. Ruckman is like this for a reason—he's on a mission from God. Yes, he has managed to convince himself that this sort of unchristian behavior and horribly foul mouth are mandated directly from God Himself. In the December 1985 edition of The Bible Believers Bulletin, he said (the All Caps are his):

"God called me to sit at this typewriter and pour forth VINEGAR, ACID, VITRIOL, AND CLEANING FLUID on the leading conservative and fundamental scholars of 1900 through 1990. [...] God is in charge. He [...] destines me to sit at this typewriter and LAMBAST, SCALD AND RIDICULE these Bible rejecting fundamentalists who ‘believe the Bible is the Word of God,’ [...] I hereby dedicate myself anew to the task of DESTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND NEGATIVE BLASTING against every adversary of that Holy Book..."

What does the Bible say about vitriol, lambasting, scalding, ridiculing, insults and name-calling?

Proverbs 22:24-25, "Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go. Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul."

James 3:14-18, "But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

Colossians 3:8-17, "But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him..."

How does the Bible say we are to treat brothers and sisters in Christ?

1 John 4:20-21, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also."

Ephesians 4:26-32, "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. ... Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Ephesians 4:1-3, "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

Colossians 3:12-17, "Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."

"But," a Ruckman admirer might object, "Ruckman is only striving with and showing bitterness toward the enemies of the Bible." First of all, Ruckman considering 98% of Christians throughout the world as being "enemies of the Bible" is not only unfair but also extremely questionable—and I would be one of the first to boldly question it, if so many others hadn't already preceded me. Second of all, even if they truly were "enemies of the Bible," the Holy Spirit gave instructions in 2 Timothy 2:24-25 on how to deal with those who oppose the truth—and he said nothing about pouring vitriol and acid on them!

2 Timothy 2:24-25, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."

Some, despite this passage from the Holy Writ, might gesture towards Christ and how he wasn't always gentle unto all men (Matt. 23) or how Paul spoke severely about the false teachers (Acts 13), but there are a couple of points to be raised here also. First of all, there is a huge difference between the language used in the Bible and the language Peter S. Ruckman uses. Secondly, and far more importantly, there is a huge difference between how Christ deals with his disciples and how he deals with the Pharisees, how Paul approaches his erring brother in Christ, Peter, and how he speaks against false teachers in Acts 13. However, Ruckman makes no discrimination; not only does he speak about 'erring' Christian brothers in the same tone as Christ-denying sinners, but he even lumps the former in the same camp as the latter!

But, they might say, I've been to his sermons and I've seen the way he talks to the people in his church and his organization. He was gentle and quite a nice man. Yes, I expect he would be—these are his followers. The question to ask is, "How does he treat those that do not follow him?"

His horribly unchristian vitriol is matched only by his lunacy. In his various writings (see The Mark of the Beast, Black is Beautiful, The Unknown Bible, several selected editions of his The Bible Believer's Bulletin, etc.) we learn that Ruckman believes:

that Judas wasn't human

that Satan and Eve conceived a son together named Cain

that the Anti-Christ will be a ten-foot tall alien that disembarks from a 600-foot wide UFO landed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and will run around kissing the Mark of the Beast on everyone with these huge black lips

that angels are thirty-three year old males without wings

that all woman in the Church Age will receive thirty-three year old male bodies at the Rapture

that in eternity, God will call Christians to Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, etc., placing them down and saying, "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth"

that when the believer is born again, his soul is literally cut loose from the inside of his fleshly body

that sexual intercourse constitute marriage in God's sight

that Noah's flood was the SECOND global flood

For some, it may not be convincing. It might be convincing enough for me and perhaps a lot of other people out there, but what really drove the nail home into this coffin was learning that Peter S. Ruckman volunteered himself as a false prophet. In the May 1997 edition of The Bible Believers Bulletin, Ruckman prophesied what must "shortly come to pass" within "the next two or three years" (again, the All Caps are his):

"Certain law-abiding, patriotic males [e.g. Marrs and Ruckman] are targeted for destruction, and I KNOW WHO THEY ARE. I know who theyare because I know the News Media; what it's done, what it plans to do, what it is doing, what it intends to do, and what the BIBLE says it's going to do [p. 8] ... Now, the dykes and sex perverts in Washington have drawn up a hit list. The WEB and the Internet and the fax and the surveillance going on now is to define those targets and then remove them. If you want to know who those targets are, I can name them for you [...] you will see the sudden 'SUICIDE' of these targets or their 'HEART FAILURES' or their ACCIDENTAL death in a PLANE CRASH [...] all kinds of ACCIDENTS happen to people like this [...] They had the 'scope' on them. I KNOW WHO the targets are in the next TWO or THREE years. On this 'prophesy' I CAN'T MISS!" [p. 12] ... I know my destination. I am predestinated to stop a bullet or maybe a more subtle method, such as an accidental car wreck or accidental plane crash or logical looking 'suicide' or an ordinary 'heart attack.' The CIA has all kinds of ways of keeping a secret. And I know at least twenty of them" [pp. 14 and 17]

He had a list of five men which, he said, would find themselves all dead before May of 2000. On this list were Texe Marrs (who likewise said in his own April/May 1997 newsletter Flashlight that he was "targeted for destruction" and that "satanic forces" were "arrayed against us"), Jack Chick, Don McAlvaney, Tom Anders, and Peter S. Ruckman himself. Of course, May of 2000 came and went and all five men survived it. Robert S. Ruckman himself is alive and well today.

I'm not sure much more could be said about this man. He has said enough on his own. His unbiblical treatment of Christian brothers and sisters, especially his publicly viewable treatment of James White, his foul mouth and ungraceful behavior, and especially his false prophecy... he has accused himself. If after learning of all these things someone could still loyally defend and stand by Ruckman and his teachings...

Some Additional Thoughts

2005-02-05T19:50:00.000-08:00

I want to provide some additional thoughts and comments on my post from Tuesday.

First of all, while I am concerned and upset by our passion and commitment to divisive pracitices in Christianity, our penchant for labels and other barriers against ecumenism (the promotion of unity), let it be understood that I recognize the potential utility and function of these terms we use. It is easier to encapsulate a teaching, perspective, or doctrine within a handy rubric than having to always detail and explain them. I have no real aversion to terms like 'monergism' or 'dispensationalism' or 'annihilationism'. They help to convey a particular body of thought on the relevant subject. Rather, my contention is against sectarianism and denominationalism, our efforts towards promoting disunity within the body of Christ, as though stating that we are 'Baptist' or 'Presybeterian' is of more importance than recognizing we both are children of God and members of the same body of Christ. Surely the Baptist would not argue that the Presbyterian is not a member of the body of Christ. More important than the name of our particular communities of fellowship or the term which conveys a particular set of doctrines is whether or not the teachings and doctrines these communities and terms convey are derived from and consistent with God's Word. A pastor and friend of mine once said to me, and I've never forgotten it to this day: "What we believe is not nearly as important as why we believe it." And this is true, is it not?

Second of all, I wanted to comment on something that fellow had said (see Tuesday's post): "I'm just curious if you're coming from a TULIP perspective or if you're saying that the salvation of Christ is available to all, and some refuse to accept it." I wanted to bring this to the forefront because he implicitly suggests a dichotomy where none exists. Reformed theology itself teaches that "the salvation of Christ is available to all, and some refuse to accept it." Such a perspective is not denied in Reformed theology. In the Canons of Dordt (from which the acrostic TULIP is derived) we read that the "death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." It is also affirmed therein that "the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations and to all persons, promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel." From the TULIP perspective, as he put it, among the hosts of man there is none to whom the salvation of Christ is not available. His atonement is sufficient for and available to all, and some refuse to accept it.

Unity in the Body of Christ

2005-02-01T01:20:00.000-08:00

"I have never considered myself a Calvinist, nor called myself one. I wear the title, however, because it is imposed upon me without regard to my wishes or feelings. In fact, I have hardly read anything by Jean Calvin, except for selected quotes in this or that article. I've not read Calvin, nor do I follow his teachings (for I would have to have read his teachings to know what they are), so I cannot be a Calvinist. I wish people could consider me for what I am -- a Christian, a child of God, a follower of Christ."
— David

"I used to defend myself as a Baptist—believed it one hundred percent. Now I find myself distancing myself from that claim."
— Vicki

"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side."
— Tiberius Julius Celsus Polemaeanus

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas'; still another, 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? ... Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, 'I follow Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."
—The Apostle Paul

It has almost reached the point where I do not dare to utter what my beliefs are for concern of having someone quickly affix some label on me and either pronounce judgment on me or, on the other hand, embrace me and welcome me into their sectarian stronghold and commend me for coming into the truth. And it seems these people are too quick with their labels, itching to brand me if I utter anything that they might think is even remotely similar or otherwise related to this or that heresy.

For instance, I remember one evening mentioning how I agree with some particular thing Augustine had said and immediately I had some Catholic priest accuse me of being a Manichaean (a third century Persian religion that was something of a hybrid of Gnosticism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism, and whose teachings certainly lead me to wonder if Bahá'u'lláh was at all influenced by it). Even more recently I was discussing with a friend of mine the doctrine of 'propitiation' and the explicit consequences of affirming that Christ died for all mankind without exception, including the biblical contradictions it creates, and we welcomed some fellow into the conversation who wondered about me, "I'm just curious if you're coming from a TULIP perspective or if you're saying that the salvation of Christ is available to all, and some refuse to accept it" (TULIP being an acrostic unique to Calvinism which intends to summarize the Canons of Dordt). I replied that I was, and had been, restricting myself to strictly scriptural discussions. "I am coming at this from the Bible," I asserted, and welcomed anyone to indicate the moment I say anything unscriptural.

But isn't that something? I didn't even mention Reformed theology or Calvinism or any Reformed theologian or preacher or Calvinistic literature. I was discussing propitiation within the context of the extent of atonement, and I am viewed as Calvinist. "The way you describe how the wrath of God is still on the sinner," the fellow explained, "the language you use, it is similar to Limited Atonement, where Christ's death was only efficacious for an elect group."

"Except that was from John 3:36," I replied, "not any of Calvin's writings or the Canons of Dordt, etc. God, his wrath, sinners, propitiation, all these terms were derived from the scriptures."

"I know, and I don't question the biblical nature of what you're saying. But there is an apparent resemblance between the two ideas."

"Question for you, then," I said. "If all these terms are scripturally derived and scripturally consistent, why are they 'Calvinist' terms and not 'Christian' terms? Should they not be 'Christian' terms, and when we talk about these things, shouldn't we be viewed as 'Christian' rather than 'Calvinist'?"

What happens when we toss these labels around? We create divisions, barriers, disunity. Not only is it deplorable but it is also antithetical to the unity in the body of Christ we are commanded to strive for. We are supposed to contend for the truth and critically examine scriptural teachings and ideas but we expend far more energy battling sectarian distinctives and eponyms ("a name derived from the name of person"; e.g. Calvin) and church history with its schisms, creeds, heretics, reformations, and apostates. Celcus, while harsh, was not too far off the mark. If I happen to mention that my Bible studies have led me to contemplate whether or not Christ died for truly every person who has ever lived, hackles go up and people prejudicially groan about the glacial landscape of the Calvinist heresy and polemic proof-texts are loaded and cocked. No one says, "That's interesting. What biblical reading led your thinking this way?" No one says, "Let's have a look in the Bible at what you found." No one hears me say "Bible studies"; they hear "Calvinism" and all roads to communication are shut down in favour of polemic rebuttals. Unity is not sought; rather, barriers are erected. We do not in love examine the scriptures to discern the truth; rather, the person's views are assigned a label and a judgment and we prepare to fortify our position. Paul's reproach is as relevant today as ever and we ought to be completely ashamed of ourselves.

As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
— Ephesians 4:1-6

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
— Colossians 3:12-17

The Arrogance of Atheism

2005-01-27T22:33:00.000-08:00

The really frustrating thing about most atheists—at least those who enjoy debating against Christian theism—is that they presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system. In other words, the Christian is expected to provide arguments in defense of Christian theism which accord with the atheist's epistemology in particular and world view in general. This is implicitly demonstrated in challenges such as, "Provide evidence that God exists." The relevance of evidence, and even what constitutes evidence, are defined by his system of thought. However, if it is permissible for the atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, then it is also permissible for the inverse of that situation. Otherwise, the atheist would shoulder the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own—and I would not anticipate a rational argument for that.

Roger Ebert, the Philosopher

2004-11-16T22:14:00.000-08:00

Roger Ebert should stick to commenting on movies. In the 'Movie Answer Man' section of his web site, he was overheard saying, "The argument between Darwinians and Creationists is similar: Darwinians use science, Creationists use faith. 'Creationist science' is laughed at by reputable scientists because it tries to use its easily refuted 'science' to explain a belief that grows from and depends entirely on faith."

There are so many things wrong with his comment that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, Darwinians and Creationists both use science and faith. For theories which are empirically verifiable by attempting to explain phenomena that are directly observable, they both call upon science; for theories which are not empirically verifiable by attempting to explain phenomena that are not directly observable, they both call upon faith. Each system likewise begins with a set of presuppositions that are not subject to science, nor can they be (e.g. the problem of induction), but shouldn't that already be admitted by even the likes of Ebert?

When it comes to the primary approach to scientific methodolgy, both systems affirm accumulation and examination of empirical data through observation, repetition and analysis. And when it comes to demonstrating the positive empirical support for their system, they both rely on citation of empirical data. But now notice an interesting characteristic here: when it comes to the primary means of criticizing each other's system, Creationists call upon citation of empirical data, whereas Darwinians call upon an a priori rejection on the basis of their philosophical biases and presuppositions. A prime example of this is Roger Ebert himself. As Jorge A. Fernandez notes in his article (which carefully critiques the notorious Talk.Origins FAQ), "Few would argue with the notion that 'things change.' But to take the step from 'things change' to 'and therefore, that’s how it all got here' is a leap of blind, irrational faith that would send even the most fanatical snake worshipper reeling."

So much talk about "change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time" is featured in both the Darwinian and Creationist systems and is subject to science; in other words, "change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time"—science—is not the point of controversy. The point of controversy is, primarily, the clash of philosophical presuppositions (which is to be critiqued philosophically, not scientifically) and, subsequently, the facade of metaphysical naturalism being presented as 'science' because it strives to use scientific jargon. But as Michael Shermer ironically noted in his book Why People Believe Weird Things, "Dressing up a belief system in the trappings of science by using scientific language and jargon," he says, "means nothing without evidence, experimental testing, and corroboration. Because science has such a powerful mystique in our society, those who wish to gain respectability, but do not have evidence, try to do an end run around the missing evidence by looking and sounding 'scientific'."

Darwinians use science, yes, but they also use a great deal of faith. Creationists use faith, yes, but they also use a great deal of science. It is every bit as disingenuous to pit the science of Evolution against the faith of Creation as it is to pit the science of Creation against the faith of Evolution. When one is evaluating competing systems, one should compare apples with apples... don't you think so too, Mr. Ebert?

From God, Through God, and To God

2004-11-11T16:34:00.000-08:00

The following was posted on the Desiring God web site on March 28, 2004.

All Things are From God, Through God, and To God.
The Glory Is All His.
by John Piper

Romans 11:33-36

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Today we complete our six-year journey through Romans 1-11. We’ve seen the terribly sinful condition of our hearts—and the hearts of all humanity—in Romans 1-3:19; and the great work of Christ on the cross to provide a righteousness and a sacrifice so that we could be justified by faith alone apart from works of the law in Romans 3:20-5:21; and the mighty sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit to conquer sin and make us secure in the love of Christ in Romans 6-8; and then the great defense of the God’s sovereign grace and promise-keeping faithfulness in Romans 9-11, climaxing now with the stunning words in Romans 11:32, “God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”

Response of Praise for Romans 1-11

And in response to all this revelation of the ways and judgments of God, Paul breaks into explicit wonder and praise in Romans 11:33-36:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?’ 35 ‘Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?’ 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”

This is where God wants us to be when we have heard Romans 1-11. Amazed at mercy, and worshipping God through Jesus Christ. This is the response that will make us able to live out the practical moral demands of Romans 12-15.

Morality in the Christian life is not simply the willpower to do right things, because God has the authority to command them. Christian morality is the overflow of worshipping the sovereign, merciful God. Christian life is the fruit of a mind and heart transformed by seeing and savoring the all-sufficiency and sovereignty and mercy of God revealed in Jesus Christ. That will become plain as soon as we turn to chapter 12.

Lingering Over the Praises of Romans 11:33-36

But for now we linger one more time over the praises of Paul’s heart here at the end of chapter 11.

Verse 33a

We saw last time that the riches and wisdom and the knowledge of God are unfathomably deep (v. 33a). No matter how far down into God’s wealth or into God’s wisdom or into God’s knowledge you go, you never get beneath God. There is no explanation for anything beneath God. There is nothing beneath God. And there is nothing above God. And there is nothing decisive over against God between his depths and his heights.

Verse 36—Verse 35

And that is why Paul says in verse 36, “For from him and through him and to him are all things.” And this truth leads to the truth of verse 35, “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” Answer: Nobody. In other words, you can’t give to God anything that is not already his. If you could, he would owe you. But you can’t. So he doesn’t owe you anything. And never will. All things are from him and through him. He is absolutely free.

Verse 35—Verse 34

This also leads Paul to say in verse 34, “Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” Answer again: Nobody. In other words, not only can’t you give God a gift that he doesn’t already own; you can’t give him advice he doesn’t already know. For from him and through him are all things.

Verse 34—Verse 33b

Which leads Paul to say in verse 33b: “How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” In other words, since God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge are very deep, so that we can’t give him anything he doesn’t have, or tell him anything he doesn’t know, it is no wonder that we are often confounded, bewildered, perplexed, and amazed by the ways and the judgments of God.

Verses 33-35—Verse 36

The final design and effect of it all is at the end of verse 36: All things are not only from him and through, but also “to him.” Therefore, “To him be glory forever.” Our lives are to be lived willingly to the glory of God. Or we will serve his glory unwillingly in our damnation. We are created and called to make the beauty and greatness of God known in the world. Our reason for being is to make much of God, and bring all the nations to confess that Jesus is Lord “to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 4:11).

An Outline of This Message: Five Steps

So that is the outline of the message today:

Based on what we saw last time, that God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge are unfathomably deep; therefore:

all things are from him and through him; therefore
1. no one can give a gift to God so as to make him a debtor; and
2. no one can give any counsel to God about how he should do things; which is why
  1. his ways and judgments are unsearchable and inscrutable to our finite minds; so that, finally,
  2. we should give all glory to God, and be content with an utterly dependent Christ-exalting happiness in God.

Let’s take these five steps one at a time.

1. All Things Are From, Through, and To God

First, because God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge are unfathomably deep, verse 36 is true: “From him and through him . . . are all things.” I take this to mean that the ultimate origin or the ultimate cause or the ultimately decisive reason for everything is God. Everything is dependent for its existence on God—at its beginning and all the way along (from him and through him).

Ephesians 1:11 puts it like this: “[God] works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Romans 9:16 puts it like this: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion,but on God, who has mercy.” Proverbs 16:33 puts it like this, “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” “All things are from him and through him” means that there is no explanation for what is or what happens that is deeper or more decisive than God. This is what we mean when we say that God is absolutely sovereign.

The devil is not co-eternal with God, and he is not ultimately independent of God. His existence and all that comes from it—so much of the evil in the world—depends on God’s willing him to exist and allowing him moment by moment to do what he does. God sees it coming and he permits it to happen. And since he does nothing aimlessly or capriciously, there is always a purpose for what he causes to happen directly and what he permits to happen indirectly. So in that sense we can say that even the evil and the calamity of the world (e.g. Romans 11:7-10) are included in verse 36, “All things are from him and through him.”

But let’s not say more than we should here. There is another sense in which we must not say that all things are from God. For example, think of 1 John 2:15-16,

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.

Here John says that “the desires of the flesh” and “the desires of the eyes” and the “pride in possessions” is “not from God.” So in one sense “all things” are “from God.” But in another sense these evil things are not from God.

I take this to mean that sin does not come from God’s nature. That is, it’s not an extension or aspect of God’s nature or character. God is holy, and there is no unholiness in him. God is light, and in him is no darkness. The darkness and unholiness of sin do not arise as part of God’s nature or character. They don’t come from him in that sense. Sin can be from God and through God in the sense of ultimate and decisive cause, but not in the sense that sin comes from his nature or character. God wills that sin be, without himself sinning. It is not a sin when God, with infinite wisdom and holiness, ordains that sin exist. Sin is “from him” as the one who ordained it, but “not from him” as an expression of his nature.

Here’s an imperfect illustration of the difference. You can get a black eye in two ways. You can be hit in your eye with a white snowball, and your eye will turn black. Or you can be injected above your eye with a hypodermic needle full of black dye, and your eye will turn black. In the second case the darkness comes from the nature of the dye. In the first case the darkness does not come from any darkness in the snowball.

All I want you to see from that illustration is that there are two different ways to think about something being “from God.” All things are from God in the sense that he ordains all that comes to pass. But all sinful acts are not from God as an expression of his nature.

The practical upshot of this is that we are utterly dependent on God for all things and that we are utterly responsible and guilty for the evil in our hearts. The effect this should have is deep humility. 1 Corinthians 4:7, “What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” The fact that all things are from God and through God, excludes boasting.

2. No One Can Give a Gift to God so as to Make Him a Debtor

Second, this implies verse 35: “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” Answer: No one. Since all is from God and through God, he owns all things and we can never give him anything that is not already his. Which means that we can never put him in our debt. There is absolutely no negotiating with God. We have no bargaining position. We are utterly owned and we are squatters on his territory. Every breath we take is a gift. Every virtue we perform is grace. “God is not served by human hands as though he needed anything, for he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25).

3. No One Can Give Any Counsel to God About How He Should Do Things

Third, Paul gives one specific example of how we can’t give God anything to obligate him or enrich him. Verse 34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” Answer: Nobody has known his mind in such a way as to be his counselor. We know something of his mind because of revelation. Paul has given us 11 chapters of the mind of God. We are meant to understand it. But no one knows the mind of God in a way that can become his counselor.

So the specific thing you cannot give to God here is counsel. And this is the one thing that sinners presume most often to give God: counsel. They don’t offer love or delight or faith or hope. They offer counsel. They tell God outright or by implication: “I don’t like the way you run the world; I think you should do it like this.” The world is filled with God-advisers. The one thing Paul explicitly says we cannot give, and dare not give, is what proud sinners most often give: they tell God how he should run the world, and warn him that if he doesn’t run it their way they won’t believe in him. As if a diabetic child should say to his pediatrician: Don’t give me any more shots. And if you stick me with that insulin needle again, I’m never coming back. As if that were a threat to God!

Don’t advise. Don’t threaten God. Trust him. All else is suicide.

4. His Ways and Judgments Are Unsearchable and Inscrutable to Our Finite Minds

Fourth, since all is from God and through God so that we can’t give him what is not already his and can’t be his counselor, therefore (according to verse 33b), no wonder we are often confounded and perplexed by the ways and the judgments of God. “How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” This does not mean that God is totally unintelligible. The mysteries of God are being revealed in Scripture. And the Holy Spirit is given to us to illuminate our understanding (1 Corinthians 2:14-15). But “now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

5. To God Be the Glory Forever

Which leads us finally (fifth) to the conclusion of the whole matter—the paragraph and the 11 chapters. Not only are all things from God and through God, but, as verse 36b says, “To him are all things. To him be glory forever.”

Do you love the thought that you exist to make God look glorious? Do you love the thought that all creation exists to display the glory of God. Do you love the truth that all of history is designed by God to one day be a completed canvas that displays in the best way possible the greatness and beauty of God? Do you love the fact that Jesus Christ came into the world to vindicate the righteousness of God and repair the injury that we had done to the reputation of the glory of God? Do you love the truth you personally exist to make God look like what he really is—glorious? I ask again: Do you love the fact that your salvation is meant to put the glory of God’s grace on display? Do you love seeing and showing the glory of God?

This is why God created the universe. This is why he ordained history. This is why he sent his Son. This is why you exist. Forever to see and savor and show the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. The question at the end of Romans 1-11 is. Do you embrace this calling as your treasure and your joy?

----------
By John Piper. ©Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 888.346.4700.

John Gill - The Cause of Election

2004-11-10T21:03:00.000-08:00

These maxims are certainly true and indisputable: (1) That nothing in time can be the cause of what was done in eternity. To believe, to do good works, and persevere in them are acts in time, and so cannot be causes of election, which was done in eternity. And (2) That nothing out of God can be the cause of any decree or will in him. He is no passive Being, to be wrought upon by motives and inducements outside of himself. If his will is moved by anything outside of him, that must be superior to him, and his will must become dependent on that; which to say of God is to speak very unworthily of him. God wills things because it so pleases him. Predestination is according to the good pleasure of his will. Election is according to his foreknowledge, which is no other than his free favor and good will to men (Eph.1:5; 1 Pet. 1:2). No other reason can be given of God's will or decree to bestow grace and glory on men, for his own glory, and of his actual donation of them, but what our Lord gives: "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight" (Matt. 11:25-26).

Got Saved?

2004-11-10T17:26:00.000-08:00

"The fact that Jesus Christ died is more important than the fact that I shall die, and the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead is the sole ground of my hope that I, too, shall be raised on the Last Day. Our salvation is 'external to us'. I find no salvation in my life history, but only in the history of Jesus Christ."
-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

In The Thinklings weblog, Jared notes a question often asked amongst evangelical fundamentalists, "When did you get saved?" Aside from the context of the question itself, it is worth noting that the answer given to this question is nearly always some date within the person's lifetime—e.g. "About fifteen years ago, in college."—possibly followed by a personal testimony if the setting is appropriate. Perhaps it is always a date within the person's lifetime but I am saying "nearly always" so as to acknowledge any possible exceptions (should there be any). Why is the answer to this question worth noting?

Because it reveals a tremendous amount about the person—what sort of relationship with God they have, their soteriological perspective, their theology and what sort of harmony their beliefs have with Scriptures. When a person answers with a date that falls within his lifetime, he is telling you something about himself—his personal desire, his needs, how he reached out to God—and probably something about his conversion environment—his pastor, the church, the friend that ministered to him, et cetera. Maybe a friend of his invited and encouraged him to attend a special event being hosted by his church—for example, the Journey to the Cross performance hosted by Willow Park Church here in Kelowna every Easter weekend, which the church actively encourages its members to invite 'unchurched' friends or acquaintances to—and he was particularly moved by the experience and responded to the altar call. If someone were to later ask him, "When did you get saved?", he will recount this date and his experience, telling that person about the desire he felt, how he reached out to God, how the music and message spoke to him, about the sincerity of the pastor, how this all was made possible because that friend invited him to the church, et cetera.

What is so wrong with all this? One very central and key element is missing entirely from the typical answer to that question: any glory to God. The answer in its complete form is consistently anthropocentric, or man-centered. From start to finish and in all areas between, from the initial answer to the personal testimony which elaborates upon it, all consideration of the experience is given in terms centered upon the creatures involved and the environment in which it occurs.

Do you suppose this is acceptable, or do you suppose—as I do—that this should give cause for concern and reflection? Is not the chief end of man to glorify God? Surely it is written in Scriptures that "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God," so that "in all things God may be glorified" because "from him and through him and to him are all things; to him be the glory forever!" While the Catholic Church has influenced, by its own teachings, the popular perception of dividing life into 'sacred' versus 'secular', do not Scriptures declare that all of life is under the Lordship of Christ and that every activity of the Christian life is to be sanctified unto the glory of God? In Jesus Christ and the Essence of Christianity, Bonhoeffer notes with acute dismay, "We all know that Christ has, in effect, been eliminated from our lives. Of course, we build him a temple, but we live in our own houses. Christ has become a matter of the church or, rather, of the churchiness of a group, not a matter of life."

When asked the question, "When did you get saved?", why does the answer give consideration to the creatures and not the Creator? When Jared offered his answer he said, "Oh, about 2000 years ago, give or take." Is this not a far more accurate answer, and one which gives all glory to God? I should think this is an answer that Bonhoeffer might find more acceptable and in keeping with his passionate focus on Christ as the very core of his existence; it surely reflects the perspective and teachings of the apostles. But even with this answer I take issue and would suggest an answer even more correspondent with Scripture:

Q: When did you get saved?
A: Before the foundation of the world, before the beginning of time, so that God's purpose in election might stand.

Scriptures declare that God "chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves"; it is written that our salvation and calling to a holy life was on account of God's own purpose and grace alone, not on any merit of our own whatsoever, this grace being given to us in Christ before the beginning of time; we know Scriptures proclaim that "those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified" and that this election by God was before the foundation of the world, before the beginning of time, before anyone existed or had done anything good or bad, in order that his purpose in election might stand—"not by works but by him who calls"—to show that "it does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy". Scriptures tell us that to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—"who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It is by grace we have been saved, through faith—"and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."

If we are ever asked, "When did you get saved?", let not our answer reflect a man-centered perspective, let not our answer talk about the creature to the exclusion of the Creator. Let our answer give all glory to God.

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 'Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen."
-- Romans 11:33-36

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" Too Politically Incorrect

2004-11-09T18:08:00.000-08:00

WorldNetDaily reports that Dutch authorities determined "Thou shalt not kill" as too sensitive.
[link]

Dutch authorities have destroyed a piece of public art meant to memorialize slain filmmaker Theo van Gogh because it included the phrase "Thou shalt not kill."

According to Radio Netherlands, the Volkskrant newspaper reported a Dutch artist in Rotterdam wanted to express his emotions over the murder of van Gogh, who was allegedly killed by a Muslim extremist last week due to his criticism of Islam.

The artist's painting on a wall in his neighborhood included an ascending angel with the date and the familiar commandment from the Old Testament inscribed. Authorities were not impressed.

"In the year 2004, this commandment is considered too sensitive in our multicultural society," wrote the Volkskrant.

Officials ordered the immediate removal of the artwork from the public space, Radio Netherlands reported.

According to the newspaper, when a local television team showed up, the police ordered the crew to stop filming the painting and hand over the film. A reporter who tried to stop the destruction of the painting was jailed for three hours.

One city lawmaker quoted in the paper described the incident as "a fantastic example of the madness in which we live."

Yeah, to put it mildly. This is simply incredible.

Impotent Arguments About Omnipotence

2004-10-30T18:17:00.000-07:00

The Rock Too Heavy
by David G. Nesbitt

INITIAL REMARKS:

A fellow Christian was overheard saying, "A couple of my co-workers and I were talking about God and what He can and cannot do. One of my co-workers asked this question: 'Can God make a heavy rock that He can't pick-up?' I know it's kinda hard to understand but I don't really know how to phrase the question. My co-workers and I started talking and debating about this topic."

This objection is heard far too often, given its rather embarrassing weakness. Usually posed as a question, and usually raised by atheists, it is typically intended to demonstrate the inherent logical contradiction of the divine attribute of omnipotence. An interesting thing to notice is that, regardless of how you answer the question, only one answer can result: God cannot be omnipotent. There is a reason for this, and it ought to prove embarrassing to whoever proposes the question as a theological problem.

THE PROBLEM:

"Can an omnipotent God create a rock that he cannot lift?"

Unfortunately for the proponent, the Rock Too Heavy argument is fallacious (i.e. contains a fallacy) and consequently invalidates itself. The specific fallacy it commits is petitio principii (i.e. 'begging the question)', which is the fallacy of assuming the truth of the very thing yet to be proven. The argument therefore requires no response; one needs only to point to the fallacy, which renders the argument invalid. The fallacy is located in the "rock that he cannot lift" object. The argument is usually proposed as a defeater of the divine attribute of omnipotence by addressing whether God has the power to make such an object, but the "rock that he cannot lift" illegitimately begs the question—omnipotence is denied from obtaining before the argument even reaches the conclusion that omnipotence cannot obtain. In other words, by positing in advance the existence of a "rock that he cannot lift", the proponent of the argument has already assumed the truth of the conclusion before reaching the conclusion. Either God can create a rock he cannot lift, which would mean he is not omnipotent, or he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, which would mean he is not omnipotent. No matter how you answer the argument, the result is always that God cannot be omnipotent precisely because of that "rock that he cannot lift" object, which is fallacious.

This is a frequently encountered question/objection and I think it is because most people either misuse the theological distinctives of omnipotence—willfully or inadvertently—or they are just theologically uninformed—willfully or inadvertently. Most people, I would note, are likewise unfamiliar with critical thinking and sound reasoning skills; similarly, most are relatively ignorant of logical and rhetorical fallacies. Consider another example of this, from an agnostic fellow who argued, "Omnipotence is incompatible with omniscience: God lacks the power to learn something without forgetting anything first." By positing that God lacks the power to learn something, the arguer has promptly denied omniscience, which renders his question as no longer addressing the issue he needs it to. By way of explanation, let me point out that God does not lack the power to learn something (whatever this is supposed to mean); he does have the power to learn something. However, there is nothing for God to learn—because he is omniscient.

AN ALTERNATIVE PROBLEM:

Some have said that the question serves merely to show that omnipotence cannot actualize logically impossible states of affairs. With this the Christian can only agree and inform the person that omnipotence has never been said to regard that which is not an object of power. Logical impossibilities are not objects of power, which omnipotence regards (more on this below). How much power does it take to make a square circle? How much power does it take to make 1+1=5? How much power does it take to make an apple exist and, at the same time and in the same respect, not exist? The very question itself is absurd because, the moment any answer is proposed, the very existence of the answer denies that the object was ever impossible. Consider the following statement carefully: If the impossible could become possible or actual simply by applying power to it, then it was never impossible to begin with, but merely difficult—which is to deny that self-contradictions are necessarily impossible (which is to deny necessary truths).

THE SOLUTION:

Intrinsic impossibilities do not limit omnipotence at all. Self-contradictions, by virtue of being two mutually exclusive properties, carry their impossibility within themselves, and therefore it is intrinsically impossible for them to have occupancy in the same universe at the same time—under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents. "All agents" here includes God himself, Lewis notes in his book The Problem of Pain, explaining further that God's omnipotence

means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them to the two other words 'God can'. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but non-entities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creations to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God (Lewis 18; emphasis mine).

"It is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production," Aquinas noted, "than to say that God cannot produce it". Elsewhere he notes that a contradiction is not subject to omnipotence, "not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible." He elaborates further that whatever "does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is omnipotent. Whatever involves a contradiction is not within the scope of omnipotence because it cannot qualify for possibility."

Herein lies the key concept: omnipotence regards power, but self-contradictions have nothing to do with power. Omnipotence does not imply power to do that which is not an object of power—as, for example, that which is self-contradictory. If the impossible could become possible or actual simply by applying power to it, then it was never impossible to begin with, but merely difficult. That which is impossible remains impossible regardless of any power applied. If omnipotence regards the power of God to do all things which are objects of power, and if it means this power is never frustrated by an obstacle, and if self-contradictions, as non-entities, can be neither objects of power nor possible obstacles, then nonsensical self-contradictions are not subjects of omnipotence nor can they be—logical impossibilities are not things but non-entities.

CONCLUSION:

What does omnipotence actually mean? "God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power," said twelfth-century philosopher and theologian Hugh de St. Victor. In other words, God can do with power anything that power can do. "Omnipotence is maximal power," cites the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Omnipotence speaks in regards to the power of God to do all things which are objects of power. When we assert that God is omnipotent, we are talking about power. In all dictionaries, encyclopedias, and systematic theologies I have encountered, omnipotence is defined as: having unlimited or universal power; all-powerful; the state or quality of being all-powerful; the state of having unlimited power. Omnipotence does not mean, and has never meant, "can literally do anything," including bringing about a self-contradiction. Omnipotence speaks in regards to the power of God to do all things which are objects of power.

These repeated clarifications and refutations notwithstanding, it is guaranteed this question will raise its deformed head again and again. And when the last rational theist finally tires of endlessly addressing this same question over and over, the questioner will probably shout triumphantly, "See? This question unravels your theology!" because he too, like all those before him, blissfully ignored the abundance of responses to it that already exist.

* Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. New York: Macmillan, 1944.