Antinomianism is a disturbing trend in contemporary Christian circles. I don't think it's only those of us in the Reconstruction/theonomy/whatever camp who feel this way. In Evangelical circles, especially in the arts, I find there's a sort of disdain toward God's Law that, in my opinion, is wreaking havoc in our part of the Church.
We too easily look at God's commandments as simply that which no longer condemns us since we are in Christ. Being "freed from the Law," we pay no more attention to it. When someone brings it up as regards a particular issue (say sodomy since it's popular) we easily fall into the trap of the "shellfish fallacy." We for the most part dismiss the idea that the Law still has something to say about how we are to live. We're very concerned to not come across as Pharisaical legalists. We certainly don't want to be accused of guilt-by-association with whatever group of so-and-sos those on the other side of an issue want to lump us in with.
The attitude finds its way into our daily life. If we even read the Law we read the "offensive" commandments through lenses made of caveats, through the loophole if you will of our freedom from condemnation.
In certain circles lacking spiritual disciplines (such as Lent), I see at least a temptation to not deal with the idea that God has very definite ideas about what being like Him looks like and does not look like. In our concern to reach out to the lost we are afraid of confronting the idea that God really does despise certain things and requires certain others.
Are we too easily persuaded that it's kooky to look at, say, adultery in exactly the same way we look at murder? How about reviling parents?
Can we deal with the thought that those (to us) minor things which God considered on par with murder in His Law ought to be abhorred by us to the same extent, because that's what God is like?
It's worth trying on for size, just to see what you really think about it.
My Humble Suggestion:
Lent begins Wednesday. Over the days leading up to Easter, try reading Deuteronomy. Better yet, write it out into a notebook, maybe a chapter at a time. Read it with the attitude that these commandments are God's revelation of who He is, what He is like, and what He wants us to be like. When you hit something that sticks in your craw, don't simply quote Galatians at it. Think of it as the attitude you ought to have in your heart. Really try to believe it.
I promise you, when Good Friday comes around, you'll feel it. When Easter follows, your joy will be full.
You may or may not be persuaded toward the Theonomic position, but you will at least really know why.
P.S. I've already tried antimonianism and found it, shall we say, lacking.
Showing posts with label Antithesis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Antithesis. Show all posts
Koran Burning
I have some friends who were involved in the occult. Not the buying tarot cards from a hippie in a head shop kind, but the real and scary stuff, the kind that God says you should execute people for. Those brothers repented and got right with the Lord, and as an act of contrition burned their books of magic. They had to pray over them to get them to burn, but that's not important here. Burning as a valid method of idol disposal is.
A lot of folks are upset over a fundamentalist Church hosting a "burn a koran" day this September 11th. I think they could find better use of their time, but there is some overreaction to the extent of "Christians shouldn't burn korans." I can't agree with that; I can think of several situations in which it would be a wonderful thing to do.
Imagine a family or large group of former Moslems who have just been liberated by the Gospel. They gather around the fire and throw that wicked, twisted book into the flames, rejoicing with wine, kissing their newly unveiled wives, praising God.
Picture a modern day Boniface in a village somewhere picking up a koran and throwing it into the fire saying, "Let's see allah do something about that."
Who could argue with that?
Closer to the point, even burning a koran as an act of contempt is not sin, and is always a better thing than building a mosque anywhere.
Now. Burning a koran as either an act of provocation or rah-rah patriotism is more often than not not a desirable act, because it is giving the finger to people to whom one ought to be more concerned with preaching the Gospel. We are to be bold, challenging and confrontational, but our goal is never to seek to insult. And that's where this Church is getting it wrong.
A lot of folks are upset over a fundamentalist Church hosting a "burn a koran" day this September 11th. I think they could find better use of their time, but there is some overreaction to the extent of "Christians shouldn't burn korans." I can't agree with that; I can think of several situations in which it would be a wonderful thing to do.
Imagine a family or large group of former Moslems who have just been liberated by the Gospel. They gather around the fire and throw that wicked, twisted book into the flames, rejoicing with wine, kissing their newly unveiled wives, praising God.
Picture a modern day Boniface in a village somewhere picking up a koran and throwing it into the fire saying, "Let's see allah do something about that."
Who could argue with that?
Closer to the point, even burning a koran as an act of contempt is not sin, and is always a better thing than building a mosque anywhere.
Now. Burning a koran as either an act of provocation or rah-rah patriotism is more often than not not a desirable act, because it is giving the finger to people to whom one ought to be more concerned with preaching the Gospel. We are to be bold, challenging and confrontational, but our goal is never to seek to insult. And that's where this Church is getting it wrong.
The Mosque Thing
I'm back! I'll be posting more this week.
Let's talk about Cordoba House, shall we?
Of course, as a Christian man I am opposed to any house of idolatry being built anywhere in the nation. Why? Because the Lord hates it. It isn't that Cordoba is some kind of "bad" mosque; any mosque, temple, synagogue, or ashram is abominable to Christ. One must consistently believe what one believes.
Of course it is a finger in the eye to the nation and the victims of 9/11's families. This is not accidental. In fact, it is a dark funhouse-mirror version of what Christians have always done: build our Churches on top of former pagan temples, announcing that Jesus is Lord of that place now. The difference is that we evangelize and persuade the former worshipers themselves to tear down the pagan temples and their idols and build a Church.
Now, we have a problem here and it goes way back. Under our present polity, especially since the War Between the States, State and local governments do not enjoy the freedom they once did under the Constitution, strictly interpreted. "Congress shall make no law..." but New York City surely can.
They will not assert their rights because of the real problem, which is this: We are a polytheistic society. "Tolerance" and "pluralism" are simply wussy ways of saying what it really is. And we Christians have embraced that. Not content with the Biblical ideal of tolerance, we have embraced the twisted egalitarian interpretation. Contented to have Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior," we have not proclaimed Him as Lord of Manhattan and Everywhere Else.
And if that's who we're going to be, then let the Moslems build their mosque. It's not their fault they are taking the advantage we have handed them. To many it will stand as an insult to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but what it really stands as is a testimony to the spinelessness of the American Christian man.
Let's talk about Cordoba House, shall we?
Of course, as a Christian man I am opposed to any house of idolatry being built anywhere in the nation. Why? Because the Lord hates it. It isn't that Cordoba is some kind of "bad" mosque; any mosque, temple, synagogue, or ashram is abominable to Christ. One must consistently believe what one believes.
Of course it is a finger in the eye to the nation and the victims of 9/11's families. This is not accidental. In fact, it is a dark funhouse-mirror version of what Christians have always done: build our Churches on top of former pagan temples, announcing that Jesus is Lord of that place now. The difference is that we evangelize and persuade the former worshipers themselves to tear down the pagan temples and their idols and build a Church.
Now, we have a problem here and it goes way back. Under our present polity, especially since the War Between the States, State and local governments do not enjoy the freedom they once did under the Constitution, strictly interpreted. "Congress shall make no law..." but New York City surely can.
They will not assert their rights because of the real problem, which is this: We are a polytheistic society. "Tolerance" and "pluralism" are simply wussy ways of saying what it really is. And we Christians have embraced that. Not content with the Biblical ideal of tolerance, we have embraced the twisted egalitarian interpretation. Contented to have Jesus as our "personal Lord and Savior," we have not proclaimed Him as Lord of Manhattan and Everywhere Else.
And if that's who we're going to be, then let the Moslems build their mosque. It's not their fault they are taking the advantage we have handed them. To many it will stand as an insult to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but what it really stands as is a testimony to the spinelessness of the American Christian man.
"Engaging" Cutlure
It's cool among Christians to talk of engaging culture, engaging with culture, etc. I want to start looking at that.
I want to ask, "Are we at a place where we can?" while acknowledging that it really doesn't matter if we are, because it's something we have to do anyway.
But first, what do we mean? "Engaging" can mean "taking part in," or it can mean "taking on." Both are inescapable but in our day, the latter is to be primary. We live in a time in which the prevailing culture is flowing from from a cultus of paganism. Though we still ride the momentum of Christendom's wave, that is not what is driving society these days.
That means we are "engaging" in a struggle over who determines the direction of culture, because someone is going to.
Part of the reason I believe Christians in our land are not prepared for this fight is because we don't even all agree that there is a fight. Many do not believe that it is up to Christians to set the cultural course.
Part of what I see my life's work as is to do my small part to convince those in my small circle that we are called to exercise cultural dominion. Or, at the very least, begin to lay a foundation for a generation that can.
I want to ask, "Are we at a place where we can?" while acknowledging that it really doesn't matter if we are, because it's something we have to do anyway.
But first, what do we mean? "Engaging" can mean "taking part in," or it can mean "taking on." Both are inescapable but in our day, the latter is to be primary. We live in a time in which the prevailing culture is flowing from from a cultus of paganism. Though we still ride the momentum of Christendom's wave, that is not what is driving society these days.
That means we are "engaging" in a struggle over who determines the direction of culture, because someone is going to.
Part of the reason I believe Christians in our land are not prepared for this fight is because we don't even all agree that there is a fight. Many do not believe that it is up to Christians to set the cultural course.
Part of what I see my life's work as is to do my small part to convince those in my small circle that we are called to exercise cultural dominion. Or, at the very least, begin to lay a foundation for a generation that can.
Presuppositionalism Primer, pt. 7
Again, since it's been forever and a day, here are links to: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6.
We have seen how our approach to doing apologetics, presupposing the truth of God's Word, places us in direct opposition to not only the unbeliever's particular religious opinions, but to his entire view of the world and our relation to it. We have seen that on his own assumptions about the universe, the very conversation we are having with him would be impossible. We have considered a few of the many transcendentals necessary for reason and logic to operate in the world and noted that only the Bible's world-view can account for those things. We've pointed out a few examples of how this plays out in conversation.
The next step in our reasoning is to discern and point out what the unbeliever is forced to do, no matter what non-Christian philosophy or religion he professes, namely, act as if the world is what the Bible says that it is, even while he says otherwise.
Here's the thing: the world is God's world, and it only works His way. In order to make any sense of it one has to reason according to the laws He has provided, which can only exist because He does and that reflect His mind. In using them at all, one is acting on the fact that He is there, and that things work the way He has revealed them.
So, having pointed out to our friend how his reasoning does not line up with the way he claims the universe works, we then turn to show him how he's subconsciously taking our assumptions for granted and basing his thinking upon them.
For example, our agnostic friend who says there is no absolute truth, acts as if there is in thousands of ways. Or our atheist friend, who claims morality is subjective, turns around and calls something "immoral" as if that moral rule applies universally to everyone. Or our Hindu friend, who claims all is one, makes distinction between himself and us, or one word and another.
The popular way of phrasing this is "borrowed capital." It's actually stolen, but I digress. He's stealing from us only what he needs to make his argument, then denying everything that follows from what he's taken.
This highlights some things the Bible says about unbelieving man. He knows there's a God, and what He is like, but he suppresses what he knows so that he can try to be his own god. His failure is primarily ethical, not intellectual. Also, because he knows, we have a way to make contact with him on common ground. We all act as if the world is what the Lord has revealed it to be in the Bible. We can't do otherwise. His Word is the only way to make sense of it--It is a light to our path.
By showing all this to our friend, we then give him the call we've been waiting for, which I will explain next time.
We have seen how our approach to doing apologetics, presupposing the truth of God's Word, places us in direct opposition to not only the unbeliever's particular religious opinions, but to his entire view of the world and our relation to it. We have seen that on his own assumptions about the universe, the very conversation we are having with him would be impossible. We have considered a few of the many transcendentals necessary for reason and logic to operate in the world and noted that only the Bible's world-view can account for those things. We've pointed out a few examples of how this plays out in conversation.
The next step in our reasoning is to discern and point out what the unbeliever is forced to do, no matter what non-Christian philosophy or religion he professes, namely, act as if the world is what the Bible says that it is, even while he says otherwise.
Here's the thing: the world is God's world, and it only works His way. In order to make any sense of it one has to reason according to the laws He has provided, which can only exist because He does and that reflect His mind. In using them at all, one is acting on the fact that He is there, and that things work the way He has revealed them.
So, having pointed out to our friend how his reasoning does not line up with the way he claims the universe works, we then turn to show him how he's subconsciously taking our assumptions for granted and basing his thinking upon them.
For example, our agnostic friend who says there is no absolute truth, acts as if there is in thousands of ways. Or our atheist friend, who claims morality is subjective, turns around and calls something "immoral" as if that moral rule applies universally to everyone. Or our Hindu friend, who claims all is one, makes distinction between himself and us, or one word and another.
The popular way of phrasing this is "borrowed capital." It's actually stolen, but I digress. He's stealing from us only what he needs to make his argument, then denying everything that follows from what he's taken.
This highlights some things the Bible says about unbelieving man. He knows there's a God, and what He is like, but he suppresses what he knows so that he can try to be his own god. His failure is primarily ethical, not intellectual. Also, because he knows, we have a way to make contact with him on common ground. We all act as if the world is what the Lord has revealed it to be in the Bible. We can't do otherwise. His Word is the only way to make sense of it--It is a light to our path.
By showing all this to our friend, we then give him the call we've been waiting for, which I will explain next time.
Perception, Reality, etc.
Excellent interview with the excellent Derek Webb at Patrol's website.
One quote caught my eye, though, and I had a coupla thoughts about it:
Let me get all the annoyingly obligatory qualifications out of the way: I don't hate homosexuals ("gay people" is a stupid term IMO and one which we ought not adopt), I think the "God hates fags!" people are ridiculously uncharitable and ought to repent, and I hold that the Church needs to embrace homosexuals with the love of Christ and preach the Gospel that will save them, for such were some of you and all that.
Now.
Is it really an outrageous statistic? And why is the percentage so high? I take Derek to be drawing the conclusion that the reason the statistic is high is because Christians have not been kind enough to homosexuals, and that is the reason that "world we live in" has the perception of us that it does. But is that the reason? Surely it is to some degree.
But there are other possibilities. One is that homosexuality is simply one of the current main areas of conflict between humanism and Christianity, with all the homosexual marriage talk and all. In that conflict, humanists will always interpret any opposition to homosexuality as "hate." When Christians en masse fail to embrace the latest item on the humanist agenda, it is always portrayed as our hatred of whomever the supposed beneficiary is.
It's almost certain that the perception of the surveyed group is due to some extent both to Christians' lack of charity toward homosexuals and to the bristling of homosexuals and other antinomians at any disapproval of their perverse actions.
Christians need to be kind to any homosexuals they meet, and treat them with all the charity due to one made in the Lord's image. They must never be dismissively condemned, but rather told with gentleness and humility the whole counsel of the Lord: their sin is as detestable to Him as ours, and He has provided a way to be free of it.
My second line of thought is pretty brief. Who cares what the world's perception of us is? Seriously, who cares? What is Jesus' perception of us? That's all that matters. Chances are, if we're pleasing Him, the world will think we're a load of moralizing backwards weirdos who are a threat to the state. And they'll want us killed.
One quote caught my eye, though, and I had a coupla thoughts about it:
My main problem was, well, for example: a study done over the last few years identified a pretty outrageous statistic, with 15- to 35-year-olds who were asked, “What’s the main thing that comes to mind when you think of the word ‘Christian’?” 90-some-odd percent said, “Somebody who hates gay people.”
I have talked to a handful of people who, like you said, have told me “I’m a Christian, and I don’t hate gay people, and I think you’re exaggerating.” That all may be true, and I don’t doubt it—I know a lot of sensitive and nuanced, well meaning work that’s being done. What I’m concerned about is that perception about Christianity. In the world we live in, perception is as good as reality to some degree. So I think we need to work on that.
Let me get all the annoyingly obligatory qualifications out of the way: I don't hate homosexuals ("gay people" is a stupid term IMO and one which we ought not adopt), I think the "God hates fags!" people are ridiculously uncharitable and ought to repent, and I hold that the Church needs to embrace homosexuals with the love of Christ and preach the Gospel that will save them, for such were some of you and all that.
Now.
Is it really an outrageous statistic? And why is the percentage so high? I take Derek to be drawing the conclusion that the reason the statistic is high is because Christians have not been kind enough to homosexuals, and that is the reason that "world we live in" has the perception of us that it does. But is that the reason? Surely it is to some degree.
But there are other possibilities. One is that homosexuality is simply one of the current main areas of conflict between humanism and Christianity, with all the homosexual marriage talk and all. In that conflict, humanists will always interpret any opposition to homosexuality as "hate." When Christians en masse fail to embrace the latest item on the humanist agenda, it is always portrayed as our hatred of whomever the supposed beneficiary is.
It's almost certain that the perception of the surveyed group is due to some extent both to Christians' lack of charity toward homosexuals and to the bristling of homosexuals and other antinomians at any disapproval of their perverse actions.
Christians need to be kind to any homosexuals they meet, and treat them with all the charity due to one made in the Lord's image. They must never be dismissively condemned, but rather told with gentleness and humility the whole counsel of the Lord: their sin is as detestable to Him as ours, and He has provided a way to be free of it.
My second line of thought is pretty brief. Who cares what the world's perception of us is? Seriously, who cares? What is Jesus' perception of us? That's all that matters. Chances are, if we're pleasing Him, the world will think we're a load of moralizing backwards weirdos who are a threat to the state. And they'll want us killed.
Presuppositionalism Primer, pt. 5
Last posting I wrote of how the apologist cuts to the chase when answering an unbeliever by taking a transcendental approach in his argumentation. We question whether the universe the non-Christian believes he inhabits is one in which the reasoning he is trying to use is possible. We're asking if the conditions which are neccesary for us to have the conversation exist if the world is what he claims it to be.
I'd like to give some examples of those conditions. This is not a checklist to simply spew out in all our conversations, but it's some common issues that come up in the typical apologetic conversation. Most of the sorts of debates we find ourselves in in our society take the same relative shape, centering on science. logic, etc.
The first conditions are universality and predictability of the physical realm. It's taken for granted that the Universe is a uni-verse--physical laws operate the same everywhere. It's also assumed that they will continue to do so. The rules won't change overnight. Things are predictable and so we may connect what happens this instant to what will happen in the next. This allows us to reason from one instance to another--you see something fall to the ground and you can reasonably expect other things to fall to the ground all the time if they're dropped too. And this is true in every place where the gravity is the same.
The next set of conditions are the existence, universality and predictability of immaterial abstractions. By this we mean things like the laws of logic, math, physics, etc., things which have no material substance yet are real, universally applicable, and constant. They aren't mere conventions, but are true whether or not one denies them. If I choose not to believe the law of noncontradiction, I still can't be both Johnny and Not-Johnny at the same time. These factors allow us to categorize the things we observe.
The next assumption is that both individuality and universality have meaning. Singular things are really singular and corporate groups are really corporate. In philosophy this is called the "one" and the "many." Both concepts are assumed to have real meaning, which means that each must be ultimate, equally. You can't say that at bottom "all is One," because then many-ness isn't really true. And vice-versa. This allows us to speak of individual facts and broad categories.
Those are just a few things, but they're big things. Without these conditions, one couldn't connect any of the facts of one's experience together in a coherent way. Rational thought would be impossible.
So then, after asking, "What has to be true for the unbeliever's argument to fly?" the next step is to see if his point of view can account for those conditions. Next post we'll look at that.
I'd like to give some examples of those conditions. This is not a checklist to simply spew out in all our conversations, but it's some common issues that come up in the typical apologetic conversation. Most of the sorts of debates we find ourselves in in our society take the same relative shape, centering on science. logic, etc.
The first conditions are universality and predictability of the physical realm. It's taken for granted that the Universe is a uni-verse--physical laws operate the same everywhere. It's also assumed that they will continue to do so. The rules won't change overnight. Things are predictable and so we may connect what happens this instant to what will happen in the next. This allows us to reason from one instance to another--you see something fall to the ground and you can reasonably expect other things to fall to the ground all the time if they're dropped too. And this is true in every place where the gravity is the same.
The next set of conditions are the existence, universality and predictability of immaterial abstractions. By this we mean things like the laws of logic, math, physics, etc., things which have no material substance yet are real, universally applicable, and constant. They aren't mere conventions, but are true whether or not one denies them. If I choose not to believe the law of noncontradiction, I still can't be both Johnny and Not-Johnny at the same time. These factors allow us to categorize the things we observe.
The next assumption is that both individuality and universality have meaning. Singular things are really singular and corporate groups are really corporate. In philosophy this is called the "one" and the "many." Both concepts are assumed to have real meaning, which means that each must be ultimate, equally. You can't say that at bottom "all is One," because then many-ness isn't really true. And vice-versa. This allows us to speak of individual facts and broad categories.
Those are just a few things, but they're big things. Without these conditions, one couldn't connect any of the facts of one's experience together in a coherent way. Rational thought would be impossible.
So then, after asking, "What has to be true for the unbeliever's argument to fly?" the next step is to see if his point of view can account for those conditions. Next post we'll look at that.
Presuppositionalism Primer, pt.4
Last post I stated that the presuppositional defense of the Faith was an indirect or a transcendental argument. Let's take a look at what that is.
Direct argumentation is a presentation of evidences for the non-Christian to weigh against the evidences for his position. There are loads of books that take this approach--The Case for Christ, Faith on Trial, Evidence That Demands a Verdict...and the Lord has used these many times to convince those whom He has appointed to life. Even so, this method of argumentation is not the best method, because it assumes certain things that do not line up with the Biblical teaching.*
Evidentialist arguments assume that the non-Christian is capable of an objective evaluation of the facts. He isn't. He's got an ax to grind. Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, he has a worldview already skewed towards the rejection of God. He will interpret all evidences according to that view. He has a stake in ignoring the evidence.
Further, we encourage him in his disobedience if we grant his false presuppositions. When we argue as if the facts in question rest upon neutral ground, we affirm that there is a realm of brute facts that exist independent of God. When we attempt to convince him through logic and reason we concede that logic and reason are possible in a world such as the one he claims exists. In short, we lend to him what he needs to continue to deny the truth.
The Presuppositional approach cuts to the chase and asks, "Does this pagan worldview hang together on its own? What has to be true in order for it to do so? Is reason even possible in this world?" And most importantly, "Does the unbeliever reason in terms of his worldview, or ours?"
We argue by demonstrating how the unbelieving system contradicts its presuppositions. We examine the "givens" necessary for that system to function, and whether or not they are provided by the unbeliever's view. We point out where he has had to reason in terms of that which only the Biblical view can provide.
Our goal is nothing less than to show beyond any doubting that the Triune God speaking infallibly in His Word must be taken for granted in order to even have the conversation. And all men having the conversation do this no matter which side they are on, if only unconsciously.
More to come.
* I need to add that evidences are indeed useful, and will always validate the truth, but they are only interpreted correctly when God is presupposed.
Direct argumentation is a presentation of evidences for the non-Christian to weigh against the evidences for his position. There are loads of books that take this approach--The Case for Christ, Faith on Trial, Evidence That Demands a Verdict...and the Lord has used these many times to convince those whom He has appointed to life. Even so, this method of argumentation is not the best method, because it assumes certain things that do not line up with the Biblical teaching.*
Evidentialist arguments assume that the non-Christian is capable of an objective evaluation of the facts. He isn't. He's got an ax to grind. Suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, he has a worldview already skewed towards the rejection of God. He will interpret all evidences according to that view. He has a stake in ignoring the evidence.
Further, we encourage him in his disobedience if we grant his false presuppositions. When we argue as if the facts in question rest upon neutral ground, we affirm that there is a realm of brute facts that exist independent of God. When we attempt to convince him through logic and reason we concede that logic and reason are possible in a world such as the one he claims exists. In short, we lend to him what he needs to continue to deny the truth.
The Presuppositional approach cuts to the chase and asks, "Does this pagan worldview hang together on its own? What has to be true in order for it to do so? Is reason even possible in this world?" And most importantly, "Does the unbeliever reason in terms of his worldview, or ours?"
We argue by demonstrating how the unbelieving system contradicts its presuppositions. We examine the "givens" necessary for that system to function, and whether or not they are provided by the unbeliever's view. We point out where he has had to reason in terms of that which only the Biblical view can provide.
Our goal is nothing less than to show beyond any doubting that the Triune God speaking infallibly in His Word must be taken for granted in order to even have the conversation. And all men having the conversation do this no matter which side they are on, if only unconsciously.
More to come.
* I need to add that evidences are indeed useful, and will always validate the truth, but they are only interpreted correctly when God is presupposed.
'Cause That's Who Allah Is
Eating Indo-Pak with Frank last Saturday, a couple came in with their kid.
She was wearing a burka. A real, live, burka-lady in Houston, Texas. I was fascinated, horrified, and saddened.
This of course prompted some interesting conversation with my friend. We observed that the burka highlights the radical difference between consistent Islam and the Biblical faith. For the Mohammedan, the only possible relationship with their monad god is one of raw, authoritarian power. Allah dominates his people, and his favor is the affection of a tyrant. This plays out in how they treat their women. Complete subjugation. The Muslim way is to build a wall around the bride, not to protect her but to keep her beauty hidden. She is made plain, indistinct, unitarian.
But Jesus Christ loves His Bride. He labors to beautify Her. He rises in the gates and calls Her blessed. He washes Her in the water of His Word, making Her ever more beautiful. He puts a golden ring in Her nose and adorns Her with precious jewels. The yoke He places upon Her is easy and light.
And the Christian man labors to bestow beauty and glory on his woman. He proclaims to the world, "Many daughters have done well, but you exceed them all." And then he shows her off.
She was wearing a burka. A real, live, burka-lady in Houston, Texas. I was fascinated, horrified, and saddened.
This of course prompted some interesting conversation with my friend. We observed that the burka highlights the radical difference between consistent Islam and the Biblical faith. For the Mohammedan, the only possible relationship with their monad god is one of raw, authoritarian power. Allah dominates his people, and his favor is the affection of a tyrant. This plays out in how they treat their women. Complete subjugation. The Muslim way is to build a wall around the bride, not to protect her but to keep her beauty hidden. She is made plain, indistinct, unitarian.
But Jesus Christ loves His Bride. He labors to beautify Her. He rises in the gates and calls Her blessed. He washes Her in the water of His Word, making Her ever more beautiful. He puts a golden ring in Her nose and adorns Her with precious jewels. The yoke He places upon Her is easy and light.
And the Christian man labors to bestow beauty and glory on his woman. He proclaims to the world, "Many daughters have done well, but you exceed them all." And then he shows her off.
Presuppositionalism Primer, pt. 3
Last post, we looked at how, given the religious and philosophical presuppositions of believers and non-believers, there really is no such thing as "neutral ground" between their positions. All the facts in dispute are interpreted through a grid. The world is being interpreted either through eyes that see things in terms of dependence upon the God of Scripture or through those that see the world in terms of human autonomy. This includes all non-Christian religions, BTW, but we'll get to that later, D.V.
Keeping this in mind will determine our method of defending the Faith. We do not reason in terms of the way the non-Christian looks at the world. We do not act as if his interpretation is true. For example, he believes that his mind is perfectly adequate to weigh the "evidences" with which he is presented. But we believe we are fallen creatures with minds clouded by sin, who will suppress anything coming close to the truth if it will hold us accountable. Revelation is therefore necessary to true interpretation. So we cannot approach him as if he can objectively weigh the facts. Proverbs says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him." If we grant his presuppositions we are bound to the same intellectual problems to which they inevitably lead.
But the next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own conceit." We demonstrate how taking his position to its conclusion leads to intellectual disaster. We sort of walk into his worldview and look around, seeing if it hangs together.
What we're doing is arguing indirectly or transcendentally. We are setting the worldviews or sets of presuppositions side-by-side and seeing which one holds itself together. We aren't looking for neutral ground--we're looking for ground, period. We are showing that without the Biblical truth there is no foundation at all.
We will examine the method a little more closely next posting.
Keeping this in mind will determine our method of defending the Faith. We do not reason in terms of the way the non-Christian looks at the world. We do not act as if his interpretation is true. For example, he believes that his mind is perfectly adequate to weigh the "evidences" with which he is presented. But we believe we are fallen creatures with minds clouded by sin, who will suppress anything coming close to the truth if it will hold us accountable. Revelation is therefore necessary to true interpretation. So we cannot approach him as if he can objectively weigh the facts. Proverbs says, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him." If we grant his presuppositions we are bound to the same intellectual problems to which they inevitably lead.
But the next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own conceit." We demonstrate how taking his position to its conclusion leads to intellectual disaster. We sort of walk into his worldview and look around, seeing if it hangs together.
What we're doing is arguing indirectly or transcendentally. We are setting the worldviews or sets of presuppositions side-by-side and seeing which one holds itself together. We aren't looking for neutral ground--we're looking for ground, period. We are showing that without the Biblical truth there is no foundation at all.
We will examine the method a little more closely next posting.
Presuppositionalism Primer, pt. 2
"Presuppositional" apologetics gets its name from its emphasis on the presuppositions of both parties in an apologetic discussion. Everyone holds to certain assumptions which determine how they will interpret the facts being discussed. No one comes to these sorts of debates with a truly "open" mind. We all have a set of "givens" that we take for granted as we argue for or against a particular viewpoint.
Because of this, every line of reasoning is ultimately circular. Now, "circularity" is considered a logical fallacy, and when the circle is particularly tight, that's true. However, when you get to the ultimate things, the "transcendentals" which make an argument work (more on this next time), circularity is inescapable. This is because a matrix of presuppositions is held which sets the course of the argument. Take for example the issue of authority. An atheist may base his argument on "science" which means that empirical observation interpreted by his mind is his ultimate authority. He has no way to test the validity of this authority by the scientific method. He will nonetheless assume the ultimacy of his reason in all of his argumentation for the authority of his reason over against the Bible.
This demonstrates the fact that there is no "neutral ground" in this sort of conversation. There is no area of logic, science, math, or whatnot that the Christian and non-Christian see the same way. Our conflicting presuppositions oppose one another in the way we look at everything.
Further, there is no religiously neutral ground. The Biblical worldview declares that every fact of nature gives a clear revelation of God. Jesus says he who is not with Him is against Him. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Those who deny the Creator God of the Bible deny Him everywhere they turn, in every facet of life. Their suppression of the truth in unrighteousness creates a set of presuppositions which color every fact of the unbeliever's experience.
Next time, we will look at how the defender of the Faith uses this knowledge to demonstrate the rationality of the Christian religion.
Because of this, every line of reasoning is ultimately circular. Now, "circularity" is considered a logical fallacy, and when the circle is particularly tight, that's true. However, when you get to the ultimate things, the "transcendentals" which make an argument work (more on this next time), circularity is inescapable. This is because a matrix of presuppositions is held which sets the course of the argument. Take for example the issue of authority. An atheist may base his argument on "science" which means that empirical observation interpreted by his mind is his ultimate authority. He has no way to test the validity of this authority by the scientific method. He will nonetheless assume the ultimacy of his reason in all of his argumentation for the authority of his reason over against the Bible.
This demonstrates the fact that there is no "neutral ground" in this sort of conversation. There is no area of logic, science, math, or whatnot that the Christian and non-Christian see the same way. Our conflicting presuppositions oppose one another in the way we look at everything.
Further, there is no religiously neutral ground. The Biblical worldview declares that every fact of nature gives a clear revelation of God. Jesus says he who is not with Him is against Him. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Those who deny the Creator God of the Bible deny Him everywhere they turn, in every facet of life. Their suppression of the truth in unrighteousness creates a set of presuppositions which color every fact of the unbeliever's experience.
Next time, we will look at how the defender of the Faith uses this knowledge to demonstrate the rationality of the Christian religion.
Presuppositionalism Primer, pt.1
Simple definitions are the best way to begin, so let's start with the term "presuppositionalism." Presuppositional apologetics is a method of defending the Christian Faith developed by Dr. Cornelius Van Til. Van Til sought a consistently Biblical and Reformed way of approaching apologetics, one that stayed true to a Christian theistic philosophy and made no compromise with unbelieving thought. He believed that the so-called "traditional" or "classical" method, derived mainly from Aquinas, compromised the Christian worldview in intellectually destructive ways.
The Presuppositional method is characterized first, by an acknowledgement that both sides of an apologetic encounter hold to certain assumptions about ultimate reality which control how they will view the "facts" in question; second, by a self-conscious assumption on the part of the Christian that the Biblical worldview is true and a defense of the faith constructed only on that assumption (in other words, he does not set aside his Christianity in order to investigate with the unbeliever whether or not it is true); third, by an internal critique of the unbeliever's worldview--examining whether the things he claims to believe about reality make his reasoning intelligible or possible; and fourth, by the demonstration that only by "presupposing" the Triune God of the Bible can logic, reason, science, etc. be made intelligible at all.
So we'll begin with the first characteristic next time: the impossibility of religious neutrality, inescapable "circular" reasoning, and how no one comes to the table with an "open mind."
The Presuppositional method is characterized first, by an acknowledgement that both sides of an apologetic encounter hold to certain assumptions about ultimate reality which control how they will view the "facts" in question; second, by a self-conscious assumption on the part of the Christian that the Biblical worldview is true and a defense of the faith constructed only on that assumption (in other words, he does not set aside his Christianity in order to investigate with the unbeliever whether or not it is true); third, by an internal critique of the unbeliever's worldview--examining whether the things he claims to believe about reality make his reasoning intelligible or possible; and fourth, by the demonstration that only by "presupposing" the Triune God of the Bible can logic, reason, science, etc. be made intelligible at all.
So we'll begin with the first characteristic next time: the impossibility of religious neutrality, inescapable "circular" reasoning, and how no one comes to the table with an "open mind."
Superman and Serial
I'm going to be posting a series of posts covering two dear subjects: the presuppositional method of philosophy/apologetics and the theonomic approach to ethics and government. A lot of visitors to this blog are either not theology geeks or have been brought up in Church environments where this sort of thought is unheard of.
Teaching these things is important to me because they are an important part of how I try to live my life, and I see them as the best hope for an effective Evangelical and Reformed impact in society. I think the Church in the West is in desperate need of reform, and I think these ideas are crucial to the blueprint.
I'm going to take it really slowly with each subject, and probably will not get terribly deep. There's plenty to read should I succeed in whetting appetites.
Teaching these things is important to me because they are an important part of how I try to live my life, and I see them as the best hope for an effective Evangelical and Reformed impact in society. I think the Church in the West is in desperate need of reform, and I think these ideas are crucial to the blueprint.
I'm going to take it really slowly with each subject, and probably will not get terribly deep. There's plenty to read should I succeed in whetting appetites.
Squandering Their Inheritance
The news that the history of the Crusades will no longer be taught in British schools in order to avoid offending Moslems is the latest in a long line of European capitulations to Islamic immigrants, who are growing increasingly militant in the nature and scope of their demands.
Ironically, that against which the Crusaders claimed to be fighting is coming to pass in spades as their descendants lay down and surrender their nations.
Deus Vult? Probably. Europe sold its Christian birthright for humanist pottage a long time ago.
Ironically, that against which the Crusaders claimed to be fighting is coming to pass in spades as their descendants lay down and surrender their nations.
Deus Vult? Probably. Europe sold its Christian birthright for humanist pottage a long time ago.
The One and the Many, An Interesting Observation
Cornelius Van Til did brilliant and inspired work on examining how the philisophical problem of "the one and the many" may only be "solved" in God the Holy Trinity. All unbelieving systems absolutize either universals or particulars, and doing so destroys reason entirely. Following Van Til, R. J. Rushdoony wrote The One and the Many to examine the various ways in which that played out in different eras of philosophy.
The other day it occurred to me that there is a tendency for unbelieving systems to run headlong in the opposite direction from their absolute. I can't think of a philosophy that doesn't do this, or, I haven't thought of one yet.
For example, Hinduism sees all as one, Brahman. Distinctions are ultimately false. But what do they do? Worship over a million gods who are supposed avatars of this one. That's a lot of distinctions right there, I don't care who ya are.
Again, Moslems, with their absolute monad god, insert all kinds of intermediary angels or djinn into the equation.
In the other direction, humanistic materialists claim that all is ultimately many: billions of meaningless brute facts. It isn't until a bunch of apes evolve to the point of creating categories that there are any connections between things, and ultimately, those connections are meaningless. But what is the tendency of humanists? Totalitarian statism, or corporate monopoly, are some other kind of monolithic "one."
God made reality, and His One-ness and Three-ness are equally ultimate. His world inescapably reflects that. You can run, but you can't hide.
The other day it occurred to me that there is a tendency for unbelieving systems to run headlong in the opposite direction from their absolute. I can't think of a philosophy that doesn't do this, or, I haven't thought of one yet.
For example, Hinduism sees all as one, Brahman. Distinctions are ultimately false. But what do they do? Worship over a million gods who are supposed avatars of this one. That's a lot of distinctions right there, I don't care who ya are.
Again, Moslems, with their absolute monad god, insert all kinds of intermediary angels or djinn into the equation.
In the other direction, humanistic materialists claim that all is ultimately many: billions of meaningless brute facts. It isn't until a bunch of apes evolve to the point of creating categories that there are any connections between things, and ultimately, those connections are meaningless. But what is the tendency of humanists? Totalitarian statism, or corporate monopoly, are some other kind of monolithic "one."
God made reality, and His One-ness and Three-ness are equally ultimate. His world inescapably reflects that. You can run, but you can't hide.
Terri's Death
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Wisdom (personified in the Proverbs) says, "But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; All those who hate me love death." We see that played out now in the murder of Terri Schiavo. Having turned from the Living God to the worship of ourselves, we have lost wisdom. Professing to be wise, we have become fools. And so we have begun, in our degeneracy, to increasingly love death more and more. Not content to murder our children, we have begun to murder our infirm. The elderly are next.
The Church of Jesus Christ must repent and begin to recognize and spread the Lordship of Christ over every facet of human life. We must put away our self-serving worship lite, our silly pseudo-gnosticism and our reliance upon political activism, pull our heads out of our stupid end-times fantasies and begin to worship God as He is, in a manner that pleases Him first, and giving Him proper thanks. We must begin to realize and proclaim that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, without qualification, right now.
The Church of Jesus Christ must repent and begin to recognize and spread the Lordship of Christ over every facet of human life. We must put away our self-serving worship lite, our silly pseudo-gnosticism and our reliance upon political activism, pull our heads out of our stupid end-times fantasies and begin to worship God as He is, in a manner that pleases Him first, and giving Him proper thanks. We must begin to realize and proclaim that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, without qualification, right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)