Dealing with the Skeptic: WHI audios

As many of you know, I listen to the WHI weekly on their webcast.  These last two weeks have been absolutely brilliant for a particular audience.  If you have reasons to be a skeptic, particularly a scientific world view, these two programs are outstanding.  The first program is an interview by Mike Horton of Michael Shermer.  The second program is an evaluation of the interview by Greg Koukl in a conversation with Mike Horton.

I have recommended Greg Koukl's book Tactics in the past, and this is a great opportunity to do this again.  Greg's skill as an apologist are the best that I have heard.  His formula for addressing objections is simple, effective and reproducible, all wonderful attributes of a good scientific paradigm, by the way.

The target audience for these two programs is any person who believes that science is at odds with Biblical truth.  Mike and Greg demonstrate how the two should be used together, and how to prevent the diabolical dialogue of discrediting the Creator with His creation.  Click on the Program Audio button to listen.

WHI-1050 | An Interview with Skeptic Michael Shermer - White Horse Inn Blog

WHI-1051 | The Implications of Skepticism - White Horse Inn Blog

There are a couple of assumptions that you will have to have to understand this better.  First, the base theology of Mike and Greg concerning creation is called Framework, and I've posted a lengthy article on this in the past by Meredith Klein.  Second, these guys are Covenant Theology proponents, and Calvinists.  The fact that all of this works together so well is why it so appealing to me.  There are so many tangent discussions that come from this that we can talk for months.

Please, if you are a regular reader of this blog, take the hour or so to listen to both of these podcasts.  It is well worth the time.

--Troll--

Context, Context, Context

On some days, Ogre just sits in awe wondering how undisciplined God’s creatures can be in the discernment of His Word.  The distraction and distortion of the Word is the favorite tool of the unholy one.  We hear the Words of the Lord from Scripture and rip them from context, applying new meaning to suit the ends of the perpetrator of lies.

A case in point follows.  We will look at two passages recently quoted.  Ogre will replace these passages in their proper context and demonstrate the value of context. The first passage is Ephesians 6:10-12.  The second is 2 Corinthians 10:3-5.  What is interesting to me is that we just studied both of these in Bible study last month.  In a room full of fairly learned men, a half dozen of whom are ordained, from backgrounds as diverse as orthodox reformed such as Ogre to Protestant Liberals such as Methodists and modern Anglicans, no one came up with the mysticism that I read recently concerning these passages.

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Spiritual warfare.  What is it?  Although the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places is only one line item in this list, it was the one lifted from this passage.  Before we discuss the pertinent passage from the Old Testament, let’s go back through this whole passage, and the whole section of the epistle.  The Armor of God consists of three parts, according to Paul.  The model for his imagery is Roman armor.  There is a Breast plate, a Shield and a Weapon.  Notice the whole paragraph.   There is reference made in metaphoric terms to each of these parts.  The armor consists of truth, righteousness and faith.  The shield is faith and the weapon is the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.  Therefore, knowledge of the Word of God is the cornerstone of this armor.  Truth, righteousness, faith, salvation and the Word of God are our weapons.

Who are we fighting with these weapons?  Let’s go back to the antecedent clause in the letter, Ephesians 4:11-16, but particularly verse 14.  So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.  So, it seems bad doctrine is the problem.  We need these weapons of truth, righteousness and faith, along with salvation and the Word of God to battle bad doctrine.  The irony is just crashing down around me.

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.

This passage is about knowledge and arguments, reasoning.  In every interior reference of this passage, the weapons are, again, truth and the Word of God.  The power is in the Word of God, truth and righteousness.  And most importantly, these things are from the Triune God. 

Finally, some eschatology for a Lord’s Day.  Genesis 3:15; Psalm 41:9; John 13:18;Jeremiah 23:19, 30:23; Ezekiel 10:9; Habakkuk 3:13; Revelation 13:3 

Genesis 3:15 talks about the spiritual battle.  The head of the serpent will be bruised by the heel of the Son of Man.  But the heel of the Son of Man will in turn also be bruised.  This imagery is present throughout scripture.  I’ve highlighted a very few of the pertinent passages.  The bottom line is this: the outcome of the battle between good and evil has already been decided.  Jesus triumphed over death.  We live in the time between the Ascension and the Second Coming in Judgment.  This present evil age remains while the Age to Come is breaking in upon us in the Word and Sacraments, through which we receive God’s Grace.  The battle is over the Word.

With what does Satan tempt Jesus?  He twists scripture.  He knows that he can’t lie directly to Jesus.  His only hope is to twist scripture to suit his ends.  Of course, twisting scripture to its author is also hopeless.  But this is the nature of the Devil’s temptations.  The battle is over the Word.  Good Doctrine is the battle.  It says this in the scripture.  Do not deny the scripture or allow it to be twisted to evil.

--Ogre--

Doctrine is defined as the substance of the faith or teachings

This gives me great pain, but enough is enough.  I have grown weary of being vilified by a person who should know better.  I’ve tried being more circumspect, but today was over the top.  This is a direct quote.

We must remember that we are called into a relationship with a Person, not a doctrine. Heb. 1:3. Jesus was the exact representation of God while here on earth. When you look at the life of Jesus, the way He treated people, you see nothing but love, kindness, and mercy. The only hard words Jesus had for anyone were for the religious leaders, who were turning people away from God. ~ Dr. James B. Richards

Thanks *** for this!  I know too many people that need to be reminded of this!!!

First, do not be mislead that this quote has anything to do with Hebrews 1:3.  Here is that verse. 

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

I will await anyone at any time showing me one verse from any place in the Bible that says, “we are called into a relationship with a Person, not a doctrine.” Any time and any place you can find this verse, email me, text me or be as openly tactless as this post.  This verse does not exist in the Bible.

So, what about Dr. Richards?  He thinks that Jesus never treated anyone except for religious leaders with anything but love, kindness and mercy.  Two things can be stated with confidence based upon this assertion.  First, Dr. Richards has never heard of the Law and Gospel distinction, has never read Martin Luther, and has no clue about the content of the Council of Trent.  Secondly, Dr. Richards believes that because he asserts something, everyone will accept it as the truth, because his word is equal to that of Jesus and His prophets and His Apostles.  What do I mean?  Let’s see.

Jesus was the exact representation of God while here on earth.  I’m not sure what Dr. Richards means by this.  I thought Jesus actually was God while here on earth, as He was before and He is now.  Jesus was also wholly human.  This statement of Dr. Richards almost sounds like docetism.  But let’s move on in this statement.  In other ways, it is in error.  Let’s talk about what Jesus actually said.

Matthew 5 is commonly talked about in terms of the Beatitudes.  The second half of the chapter is the rest of the Law.  Jesus is doing what God does in Matthew 5.  He is dispensing blessings and curses.  This is what God does, and His audience in that time knew this.  He was treading on dangerous ground.  Jesus wasn’t killed because He did miracles.  He was killed because He forgave sins, openly, publicly and in no one’s name but His own.  The Jews viewed this as blasphemy.  Look at Matthew 5:48.  You must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  Thanks, much, Jesus.  Under the Law, in order to have salvation, we must be perfect.  This is what he told people.  That is not mercy; that is justice.  Move on to John 6:60-70.  He tells His disciples that no comes to Him unless it is granted them by the Father.  Many leave Him at that moment.  Then He invites the twelve to leave as well.  Those are very hard Words in most people’s opinion.  Was the rich young ruler just a parable or did that really happen?  Were not those Words spoken to that young man very hard?  And so another comment says that the difference was that Jesus was "in relationship" with his disciples!  Really?  First, where does the Bible say that???  Second, what kind of a relationship it is when so many disciples left Him that day???  Please, please, please, read first.  Learn.  Assertion without the knowledge to back it up is just plain dangerous.  It is the tool of the enemy.

Were the Jewish leaders turning people away from God?  This is a tough question to be sure.  The answer is both yes and no.  They attempted to turn people away from Jesus, but towards the Father.  In a technical sense, I would agree with Dr. Richards on this point.  The Triune God is NOT the same god as the God of Israel that does not contain all three Persons of the Trinity.  But I wonder if Dr. Richards means the Triune God?  After his statements, is it fair to assume that his meaning of god is the same as the Biblical meaning of God?  I’m not sure.

Finally, what is doctrine?  What does the word mean?  Let’s go to wiki:  Doctrine is the set of what is taught by the Bible; doctrine is the statement of the Christian faith.  There are 28 specific references to sound doctrine in the New Testament epistles.  Perhaps this is a little more important than a relationship.  Perhaps this relationship of which you speak, that has absolutely NO references in the Bible, should stand far behind sound doctrine.  Perhaps this spiritual warfare of which you speak should be reexamined.  If your weapons do not include truth, righteousness, faith, salvation and the Word of God, then either you are not using the correct weapons, or you are fighting the wrong side of the fight.  If the target of your fight isn't bad doctrine, perhaps you need to reread Ephesians, particularly chapter 4.

I am indeed weary.  Luckily, the true sacrament of Communion through which Grace will be given me, I will once again receive in two days time.   

To deny doctrine is to deny the Bible.  To deny doctrine is to deny God.  What we are taught by the Word is called doctrine.  Doctrine is the content of the faith.  That is the definition of doctrine.  If you deny the things that Jesus, His prophets and His apostles teach, then you deny Jesus.  How much more plain can this be?

--Ogre--

Mechan on Christian Scholarship

Another fine argument, though lengthy, from J. Gresham Mechan.

Continuing our mission to get Christians to think about Christ, instead of, as CS Lewis says in The Screwtape Letters, the Gospel and....  He meant that we always want to add something of ourselves to the Gospel.  The problem of his day, Protestant Liberalism, is the problem of our day in the form of Liberalism in the Evangelical and Pentecostal world.  The shame is that the path to atheism that the Protestant Liberals took and about which they are now warning the Evangelicals, is the same path the Evangelicals and Pentecostals are Hell bent to follow.

CS Lewis also said that there would be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day, both ways.  That is our greatest fear for the Church in America.  Even Evangelicals are starting to see the problem, but they lack the direction to alter the course.  Fortunately, the confessional churches have written this stuff down for us and organized Biblical thought to assist in righting the ship, resetting the path.  It is up to us to keep hauling on the sheets until we can turn the sails and take the church on the proper tack.

And so here is another lengthy argument from Mechan concerning Christian scholarship.  It was said in a comment to me in the past concerning Mechan, from Mechan's biographical notes on my own link to the right, that Mechan was thrown out of his own denomination.  The rest of the story is that his own denomination had become infested by Liberalism.  The Liberals did through him out, at least from his position at his seminary.  He and others founded a confessional church based upon the Presbyterian tradition of good Biblical scholarship that had been abandoned by the Liberals.  Luther was excommunicated by Rome, as were all of the sixteenth century Reformers.  A Modern Reformation is what is so desperately needed today.  

That is why Ogre sounds so offensive to some ears.  The Gospel is offensive.  It is from outside of us.  It tells us that the Law sets a standard before us that is not of our making.  Worse, it tells us that the Law sets a standard before us that we can never attain.  Without understanding of the absolute desperation of our plight, there is no understanding of the absolutely Amazing Grace that we received as a gift.  The Gospel is not about us.  The Gospel is about Jesus and what He did for His people.

--Ogre-- 

God in a Box

This is the old reliable nonsense retort hurled towards the reformed, or any confessional church for that matter.  You can’t put God in a box.  What they really mean is that there has to be room for me in that box.  That is what is behind all of these protestations.  If God is in a box, there  must be room for me and my input.  What do I mean?  Let’s see.

Arius thought that Jesus wasn’t wholly God.  This was just inconceivable.  He just couldn’t wrap his mind around the idea.  If he couldn’t conceive of the thing, then the thing couldn’t be true.  His views needed room in the box.

Pelagius thought that all that Original Sin stuff was rubbish.  Adam was a bad example and Jesus was a good example.  We get to choose which example we follow.  We had to have the power over our own salvation.  Our free will needed room in the box.

Arminius thought that our salvation was based upon grace, if we would just accept the offer of grace.  God will take 99 steps if we will just take one.  He needed room in the box for his one step.

Gnostics and mystics believe in all sorts of things.  God does this and god does that and no limits are possible.  All we have to do is ask god, and like the cosmic butler or a genie in a bottle, he will do those things because he knows us deep inside.  He might send a spirit that they will call “holy” to do some of these things for them.  They need room in the box for all of their supplications and all of their extra things they expect a god to do.

I have a box.  God fits into it nicely, because He says He fits into it.  He hasn’t told me about any parts that don’t fit.  So, I just concern myself with the parts that do fit.  Those are the only parts that I know about.  Those are the only parts He has told me about.  Someday, after I die, perhaps I’ll learn about a larger box, perhaps about more parts, if that is a part of my inheritance.

Oh, by the way, here is a picture of my box:

Everything we know about God is found here.  Everything that He has revealed about Himself is found here.  If it isn’t found here, well, it isn’t God, is it?

--Ogre--

Horton on the truth of the resurrection

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Pet. 3:15)

It seems my version is slightly different, but the meaning is the same.  Here is an article from Mike Horton that appears in Modern Reformation.  It concerns the topic that we have been discussing and cites many of the same sources.

--Ogre--

A Physician's Journey to Faith: Part 3, the rational

In part one, I told the background to my story.  In part two, I introduced the frame upon which I built my faith.  In this post, I will discuss each of the individual pieces and how they fit together.

As physicians, we are trained to think critically.  We are trained to read journals with an eye to bias and error.  We have a scientific method that demands reproducibility and testability of hypotheses.  The rest of academia has the eighteenth century German philosophers and the nineteenth century Second Great Awakening that has influenced critical thinking to the present day.  Modernity and Post Modernism are the offspring of this thinking and these paradigms have infiltrated Christian theology as well.  John Wesley and Charles Finney have done great harm to the Reformation ideas that are our Protestant heritage.  We must never give into the idea of Kierkegaard that religion is in the realm of the irrational, while science is in the realm of the rational.

1 Corinthians 15 is a vital Pauline text for this discussion.  In this chapter, Paul lays out the historical facts upon which our faith is based.  He goes so far as to say that if these facts can be proved false, then Christianity crumbles like a house of cards.  Uniquely, our faith is not just an endorphin driven religion of experience.  Our faith is based upon historical events that happened external to us, and regardless of how we feel about them.  Our reaction to these facts are independent of the facts themselves.  This is what is at the core of the uniqueness of Christianity.

At the end of the last post, I gave a list of terms:  Covenant theology, Calvinism, Amillennialism, the Five Solas of the Reformation and Framework theory.  Let's look at each of these and see what they are and how they influence our thinking.  Remember, this is always going to be about thinking.  As R.C. Sproul points out, Romans 12:2 is good mantra for all Christians, but particularly for us scientists.

Covenant theology is a system of looking at the Bible as a series of Covenants.  There are eternal Covenants that you might read about and there are specific Historical Biblical Covenants.  We are talking more about the latter group.  Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation.  It is the application of rules or presuppositions to a text to assist in interpretation.  The basic hermeneutic of Covenant theology is that the whole Bible is about Jesus and the redemptive history of God from Genesis to Revelations.  This may sound obvious, but we must review what we think about the Old Testament in this light.  This is essentially what it is thought that Paul was doing in his three year sabbatical.  After applying this basic hermeneutic, we can then evaluate the various covenants of the Bible.  The most important Covenants are the Adamic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant of Grace through Jesus.  An excellent reference for this topic is Michael Horton's Introducing Covenant Theology.

Calvinism has evolved beyond the writings of Calvin to a more complete system.  Often you will read about five point Calvinism.  The acronym TULIP is used as a mnemonic to assist in recall.  I have recently written about this and I will link to those posts as I list the five points.  T is for Total Depravity, which is original sin.  U is for Unconditional election, which means that it is all about God and not about us.  This is where the discussion of predestination comes into play.  L is for Limited Atonement, which is the idea that while the resurrection was sufficient for the whole world, it was actually efficacious only for Christ's elect.  I is for Irresistible Grace, which means that you can run, but you can't hide.  Christ, through the Holy Spirit, will succeed in gathering in the elect to Himself.  P is for the Perseverance of the Saints, which means that you cannot loose your salvation if you were truly justified by faith.  This whole system is about justification and sanctification.

Amillennialism is actually the second oldest view of redemptive history.  The most common view held in the US is still Dispensationism, which is a type of Premillennialism.  Amillennialism is closely related to Two Kingdom distinctions that you will often read on my blog.  In this system, there is no rapture and no Christianization of culture required prior to the Second Coming.  Good references on this topic are these two books from Kim Riddlebarger: A Case for Amillennialism and The Man of Sin.

The Five Solas of the Reformation are a statement about justification that are in direct opposition to positions held by Rome.  In addition, each of these solas is specifically rejected by Rome at the Council of Trent.  Therefore, these are the issues that make us Protestants.  We should not discard them lightly.  The full formula of justification using the five solas looks like this.  We are justified by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone as testified in Scripture Alone.  They are usually written in Latin, ironically enough.  I have written on these intermingled with other topics, but I will likely go through them in more detail in the near future.

Framework theory is a view of Genesis 1-2 that treats this section of that book as a separate type of literary genre called creation genre.  The basic idea is that Genesis is not a science book, but an explanation or laying out of the order of the Two Kingdoms.  Meredith Klein has written an excellent piece on this that I have sited by a separate post in the past and I will do so again here.  What he calls the two registers is what I will call the Two Kingdoms.  The Framework model is a newer name for this discussion and does not appear in this article.  This discussion actually dates back to Augustine, but has been supplanted in the US by Genesis literalists as the predominant viewpoint.  Framework allows scientists to be scientists and Christians to be Christians and me to be both.  This was the great final piece that made it all fit together for me.

In summary, hold fast to logic and reason.  Christians do not need to retreat to the irrational realm with other religions.  We alone among the religions of the world base our faith upon historical, public events, particularly those that we remember this week.  Application of systematic theology is essential for a scientific mind to be convinced of the truth of scripture.  I believe the set of structured thought that I have outlined above represents a great starting point for having an understanding of scripture that leads to true faith.  Many Protestant denominations have supported most of these tenets, including the Anglican Church.  I hope that by following this line of thought, you will have the opportunity to have a revitalization of your faith in the same manner that I have.

Maranatha!

--Ogre--

A Physician's Journey to Faith: Part 2, the frame

In the first part, I tried to lay the background of my journey on the table.  In this section, I going to reveal the framework that I needed to start putting the pieces together.  The last post ended with the word dispensationalism.  This post will begin with the word eschatology.

Eschatology is the study of the redemptive history of God from Genesis to Revelations.  Most people think that eschatology is all about end times, if they know the word at all.  But like any story, you can't have an end without having a beginning and a middle.  Dispensationalism was the Eschatological system espoused by John MacArthur.  It has a lot of momentum in the church, particularly from Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind series.  But it asks a lot of a scientist, too much.  I knew I didn't like it, but I didn't know why.  I heard Tim LaHaye speak about three years ago and I was struck about how defensive he was toward his positions on eschatology.  He was talking to a roomful of his fans, and yet he was busy defending his view from an unseen detractor.  I needed to know who this unseen antagonist was, and what was he saying that so upset LaHaye.

It was OK that I was upset by the Gospel.  I had already learned that the Gospel was offensive to man, external to him.  But I was really surprised to see Tim LaHaye so spooked by some unmentioned theologians.  My answers came from out in left field.  I don't believe in karma or fortune.  But I do believe that the Holy Spirit works to reveal the gospel to the elect.  My son graduated from high school two years ago.  His godfather, who he had not seen maybe ever, sent him a graduation gift.  The gift was a study bible and the recommendation of a radio program in Austin, where my son was to matriculate in the fall.  As any good parent, I decided I needed to know what was recommended to my child.  I found the website that was affiliated with the show and looked into it.  There were a series of podcasts for first time visitors.  I listened.

It is an amazing thing when the pieces start to fall into place.  I learned how the Calvinism framework worked.  I learned about a new (to me) eschatology system called Amillennialism and how it dovetailed with a systematic theology called Covenant Theology.  I now had to reread everything.  Everything had to be redigested in this new context.  I had found new teachers.

The moment of revelation where you know that you have found guys who have the information that you want is tremendous.  The URL for that website is the top link on the right when I'm not under the bridge.  I have been learning at a rapid pace since.  But there was still the question of Genesis.  I was OK with Genesis 3 and 15, but the rest of the book was still problematic.  I decided to go listen to a couple of the guys on the White Horse Inn speak.  I was listening to Mike Horton talk about his 2009 book.  I decided to ask him about Genesis 1 and 2.  I don't even remember how I made the question relevant to the discussion.  He taught me another term: Framework theory.

Now my personal theological framework was complete.  I had Covenant Theology, Calvinism, Amillennialism, the Five Solas of the Reformation and now framework theory.  In the final post of this series, I'll lay out these terms and talk about their interconnection.

--Ogre--

A Physician's Journey to Faith: Part 1, the issues

One of the very real issues that faces scientists of all stripes is the notion that Christianity is necessarily contrary to modern science.  The lay press is full of examples of this.  Al Mohler and others seem to be taking these battles personally, and I am grateful for their efforts for the integrity of scripture.  What follows in this brief series is the story of my own personal reconciliation of these two seemingly divergent positions.  Shelve your sneers, dear long time reader, as I tell my story.  I will stay out of those types of stories that so irritate me.

If you read my blog, you will know that I am currently following the progress on BioLogos of a discussion of Genesis 1-2 in terms of Calvinism.  The discussion is long and convoluted, but quite interesting.  I hopefully will be able to start my rebuttal soon, when their series comes to a close.  But that is jumping to the end.  The beginning is my departure from the Episcopal church over Gene Robinson.

I am currently not proud of the reasons for which I left the Episcopal Church USA.  I believe today that the issues are of second order.  The first order issues came later, but in the beginning, there was my reading of Paul that was colored by my modern American Evangelical influences.  What happened next is important for me, but perhaps not a description of your own path.  I went to a different church.

I never felt comfortable in the style and practice of "worship" in a Pentecostal church, and the style of topical preaching always seemed skewed.  I thought that it was interesting that a group of people who sneered at Episcopalian knowledge of the Bible received almost no actual Biblical preaching.  Lists for moral or ethical improvement filled our "messages" with proof texting being the technique for grounding the messages in scripture.  The ability to quote verses by the laity was staggering.  But the ability to discuss theology was staggeringly absent.

I became aware of two truths that would need to be addressed if I were to get any clarity in this arena.  The first truth is that I knew this was important.  My understanding of this truth I would frame differently today, but at that time, I knew that I needed answers to reconcile my scientific vocation with my spritual journey.  The second truth is that the stereotype of Biblical illiteracy was true.  But it was also more true in the rest of the Christian world than they were willing to admit.  Therefore, I was at a loss for how to go about the task of filling this void.

The Bible is a daunting task.  Reading it straight through is rough work, even for a motivated man.  I felt that if I could find some guidance or framework for inquiry, I would end up reading the whole thing eventually.  I put my first toe into the blogosphere...and then I fell into it.  There is much to learn and much to read.  At the end of all of this, my best advice is use the links on a site.  If you don't like where they go, you probably won't like where they start.  Those sorts of dead ends are many, but it is surprisingly easy to get a good start.

The key words that first struck me were arguments between Calvinists and Arminians.  I had heard of John Calvin, but I had no idea why an ethnic church would be his theological opponent.  I had not heard of Jacobus Arminius at that point.  Pelagius and Arius were yet to be discovered.  The Council of Trent was unknown.  And so I started reading about John Calvin.

It is a strange thing to think you have an idea about what something is or isn't and then discover that you didn't even know the issues.  As I started to read about Calvinism, I discovered my first set of good teachers.  The Pyromaniacs blog was my first home.  I learned a lot from Phil, Dan and Frank.  I bought and read books by their mentor, John MacArthur.  And then I learned my next critical word: dispensationalism.

Next post: The Path to Covenant Theology

--Ogre--

Pity the Fool

It seems that I have failed once again to successfully communicate a point. Perhaps, Paul can help me out a bit. The Christian faith is based upon one historical event above all others: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can we agree on this point? I would put this on the short list of objects of the Christian faith. The discussion of what that His death and resurrection mean is important, to be sure, but the key is the historical resurrection. If Christ simply died and was not raised from the dead, would anyone revere Him as Lord? Really? Paul puts it this way (1 Corinthians 15.)

14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.  ...19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

It seems that Paul is saying this same thing. He even goes a step farther. If Christ wasn’t raised from the dead, we should be the most pitied of all people. That is indeed a heavy charge. And so I ask again, if the resurrection was not true, if the tomb was not empty, would you still be a Christian?

My answer is a resounding “No.” Without the resurrection, without Christ’s victory over death, there is no object of my faith, and it therefore crumbles. Is that a negative statement? Paul made it, not me. He ran around calling what he preached the Gospel, the Good News. I’ll side with Paul and with scripture.

--Ogre--

Talk me out of it? Yes or No?

This post is intended to be food for thought.  The scenario that created this question is the college professor who thinks he is going to be cute by asking if there are any Christians in the room, and then proceed to shred their faith for sport.  This never happened to me, but I watched it happen once and didn’t know how to defuse the problem.  The old adage is that the guy with the microphone always wins.  My response is not if he is speechless.  I have learned this from two sources, one cited here, in recent months and thought it was too good not to share.

There was an article that I posted elsewhere a few months ago that stated how the college and university system was so entrenched with liberals and atheists, that they are now not even coy or covert about their intention of subverting the religious training of our children.  This is why teaching apologetics, or the defense of the faith, is so important for us.  It is not enough to think your child knows all the right doctrine.  What happens when their faith is put in the cross-hairs of some smug idiot with a microphone, a subjective grading scale and an axe to grind?

I have seen and heard, either on tape or in review, interchanges between panelists that are typical of the fare seen on television these days.  The panel usually has an atheist, a Pentecostal, a Mormon, a scientist of some sort, and if we are lucky, a reformed person of some small skill.  The game is usually played like this.  The atheist dismissively insults the thoughts and feelings of the rest of the group, while the one person stays silent.  Finally, the moderator will ask what this last person thinks.  He will say that he agrees with the atheist about all of the others.  This is particularly disarming, as the others were not expecting to be run down by a Christian, and the atheist thinks he has a foolish ally.  Then, one simple question can change the conversation: what if the tomb was empty?  If the atheist is honest, he will have to admit that an empty tomb changes the conversation.

Now, back to the classroom, the professor one day asks if there are any Christians in the room.  Your child raises his hand.  Being exceptionally clever, the professor asks if there is anything that would cause your darling child to change his mind about his faith.  The knee jerk reaction is usually “no” upon which a tirade against the child ensues in which he is tossing questions of all types, all to be treated rhetorically by him, of variable quality, and then offering poorly constructed answers to those questions in a quest to destroy the child’s faith.  The child is helpless in the situation.  They have not been trained to deal with these sorts of frontal assaults.

Let’s look at the atheist’s dilemma again.  What made the atheist reconsider his position?  What if the tomb wasn’t empty?  If you knew that the tomb wasn’t really empty, would you still be a Christian?  That gets to the heart of the faith.  Our faith has an object.  It is not blind faith.  The object of that faith is the redeeming work of Christ Jesus on the cross and in His resurrection.  Get to the point.  What is it exactly that makes Christianity different?  Talk about the central event in redemptive history.

One last time, the professor one day asks if there are any Christians in the room.  Your child raises her hand.  Being exceptionally clever, the professor asks if there is anything that would cause your darling child to change her mind about her faith.  She responds, “Yes, of course.” The silence will be deafening.  Caught off guard, the professor will hand control of the conversation to your child and asks, “What would that be?” She answers, “Prove to me that the tomb wasn’t empty.  And by the way, all of the historical documents on the subject either testify to the empty tomb or are silent in the matter.  Let me know when you find His bones.” And you, dear parent, will be proud of that child.

--Ogre--