Josiah Concept Ministries

Jeff Haws, the proprietor of The Atheocracy, is always a pleasure to answer for several reasons. First, he’s much friendlier than his counterparts. He is nothing but professional and polite. Second, he’s a journalist. He’s doing what I want to do for a living, so I can take a page out of his book of how to write–not how to believe. We’re obviously on opposite sides of the spectrum. Third, he takes good-natured jabs in the humor with which they were meant and doesn’t blow things out of proportion. He knows when I’m just joking. Finally, he makes the same theological mistakes repeatedly, no matter how many times that he’s corrected, so it is easy to answer him. Just cut and paste.

Jeff has been on hiatus from blogging for the past few months.  He’s started again recently. In one of his first new posts, Jeff offers us his own theodicy:

. . . think about how Christians make it a habit to attribute any good in their lives to God while dismissing any misfortune as “That’s life” or “The Lord works in mysterious ways” or “S-word happens (no, Christians would never use bad language).” Why is that? Couldn’t God have been even more helpful to this guy if he had, ya know, prevented the painful divorce, bouts of depression, money problems and other assorted problems in the first place? Of course, then, God might not have gotten the credit. We do know from Christians that God craves our acceptance, belief and worship. If we don’t give it to him, we’re doomed to an eternity of suffering and Savannah-in-July-type weather. So maybe God either causes these problems for Christians or at least allows them to happen so he can swoop in and save the day, thus receiving praise for his heroic actions.

St. Augustine wisely observed, “God had one son on earth without sin, but never one without suffering.” Jesus said that a servant is not greater than his master (Jn 15:20). We should expect suffering in our lives. After all, if Jesus, our Lord and Master, had to suffer, why should we expect a life of wine and roses? Jeff’s theodicy isn’t consistent with Biblical teaching.

Instead, the Bible teaches that we will share in Christ’s suffering (c.f. Rom 5:3-5; 2 Cor 1:5; Phil 1:29). We are to endure suffering (2 Tim 4:5; Jms 5:10-11). To what purpose? God brings good from evil. Rather than prevent it, God uses it (see the story of Joseph in Genesis; esp. 50:20).

God doesn’t crave our attention or worship; He commands it.  He created life, the universe, and everything–that makes Him deserving of our worship.  But it isn’t merely the rejection of God that condemns a person to hell.  This is the error that Jeff–and many other atheists–repeatedly make.  Rejection of God, though itself a sin, is only part of the reason why a person is condemned for all eternity in hell.  Apart from that, everyone commits many sins on a daily basis that would condemn them.

Jeff also acts as if condemnation is something that we earn.  Condemnation is something that we deserve.  Sin is within our very nature, part of the radical corruption that pervades all of creation following the Fall.

Jeff concludes this post by asking if God is a narcissist.  I think that God has earned the right to be a narcissist because of everything that He has done for humanity.  He allows suffering, but is always there as a source of comfort.  To know Him is to know unequaled peace.  Everything is for God’s glory, and that is by God’s design.

It seems as though the audience favorite was Dinesh D’souza tonight.  The lanky scholar received thunderous applause after his speech on New Atheism.  D’souza had several tough acts to follow, including a very enlightening speech on the bodily Resurrection of Christ from Dr. William Lane Craig and a lecture on inerrancy of Scripture from Dr. Norman Geisler.

I have only one regret for this conference.  I probably won’t ever get the chance to do it again.  After all, how often do I run into William Lane Craig?

I wish I had challenged Dr. Craig’s view of Calvinism.  Dr. Craig fell into exactly the same trap that I describe in my post on predestination, only he runs into it with God’s sovereignty.  Dr. Craig assumes that the Calvinist and hyper-Calvinist views of human freedom are one in the same.  Dr. Craig affirms the Molinist view of God’s middle knowledge while attacking the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty as deterministic.  While Dr. Craig affirms that Molinism and Calvinism are compatible, he does not do the compatibility any justice.

Molinism, in brief, states that God has three levels of knowledge.  God’s natural knowledge, stage one, is encompasses every world that is possible.  At stage 2, God’s middle knowledge, He knows all of the worlds that are plausible.  In other words, at this stage, God knows what His creatures will do when given a set of circumstances.  God’s free knowledge, at stage three, is the actual world that God chooses to create from the middle knowledge He has at stage 2.  In this way, His creatures are still free to choose but God has chosen their world for them, so He already knows what the choice is going to be.

Hyper-Calivinism, which Dr. Craig views incorrectly as orthodox Calvinism, views reprobation as a positive action on God’s part rather than a negative action.  Orthodox Calvinism says that God allows reprobates to suffer His wrath (as all of humanity deserves), while positively pursuing the elect with His irresistible grace.  Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, has God purposely bringing sin into the lives of the reprobates so that they will suffer eternal damnation.

Chapter IX of the Westminster Confession of Faith details human free will, which clearly states that human will is libertarian (as Dr. Craig affirms) and “. . . is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil” (WCF, IX:I).  But chapter IX:III takes into account Scriptural teaching that man’s free will is tainted with sin to such a degree that “a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself [for salvation]. . . .”

This sort of free will is exactly the view that Molinists have.  But Dr. Craig is no monergist when it comes to salvation, and that is his error.  He wishes to retain a synergistic view of salvation, so he has adopted a view that allows for synergism while retaining some of the vestiges of monergism.

Bottom line, it is still Pelagian in nature.

Dr. Craig really disagrees not with God’s sovereignty in election, but with total depravity.  Though he later stated that he affirmed it, I have my doubts that he affirms it in the way a proper Calvinist would.  He still believes that man can come to God apart from the unconditional election.  Dr. Craig believes in a logically untenable universal atonement, and rejects both irresistible grace and eternal security.  As I’ve stated before, all of these doctrines flow from the first point of Calvinism, Total Depravity.  Dr. Craig does not accept total depravity despite his statement to the contrary.  Total depravity simply does not allow for a synergistic view of salvation.

All that said, Unshakable Faith 2008 was a great event that I encourage readers to attend next year if they can.  The planners are already working tirelessly to put something even better together for next year.  My prayers will certainly be with them in their endeavors.

The high point of the first half of day 2 of Unshakable Faith was Dr. William Lane Craig’s presentation of Leibniz’s argument for the existence of God.  It goes like this:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause, either as an intrinsic necessity or from some external source.
2. If the universe has a cause, it must be God.
3. The universe exists.
4. The universe must have a cause.
5. Therefore, God is the cause of the universe.

The solidity of this logic, Craig argues, is very powerful.  It is impossible to deny it starting at point 3, so points 4 and 5 flow necessarily and are therefore irrefutable.  The atheist must deny points 1 or 2 in order to shake this argument, but they will have much difficulty in doing so.  In a future post, I hope to elaborate on the difficulty of denying points 1 and 2, and therefore begin to build a more cohesive case for the existence of God.

The first presentation of the day has convinced me by evident reason that the foundation of any Biblical worldview must reject the evolutionary idea of millions of years.  Dr. Terry Mortensen of the Creation Museum presented a case against millions of years, followed with a breakout session on Flood Geology.  All-in-all, he presented a convincing exegetical case for a 6,000 year old earth.  Time permitting, I hope to elaborate somewhat on that point, standing on the shoulders of the giants of creation science who work at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and Creation Ministries International.

For now, suffice to say that I have renewed my position that a 6,000 year old earth with no death or destruction prior to the Fall is exegetically necessary for a Christian worldview.  I am a Young Earth Creationist, no longer am I a Young Earth Agnostic as I have stated in a previous post.  I have taken it on faith that God will show me the truth or falsity of that position in His time.

So far, this convention has been an amazing experience for me.  I look forward to more after lunch.

It is day one of the Unshakable Faith Conference put on at Landmark Cincinnati.  The pastors hope that this will become an annual event, but they don’t think that they can top this first year.  I’m inclined to agree.

First on the menu this evening was Dr. Norman Geisler presenting a talk that the program title “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.”  However, it should have been titled “Atheism is Dead.”  Geisler effectively deconstructed many of the arguments in favor of philosophical unbelief, instead concluding that atheists are atheists not for philosophical reasons but for personal reasons.  Those reasons inevitably point back to the fact that a holy God rejects human sin.  We, as fallen beings, love our sins and wish to remain in them.  Therefore, we reject God.

Two breakaway sessions ran simultaneously.  The first was on the concept of millions of years in regard to the age of the earth and where it came from.  I, however, opted to attend the primer on cults with Dr. Alex McFarland.  Dr. McFarland presented three questions to ask any cultist, after earning their trust and friendship:

1. Can we agree that orthodox Christianity and your church teach different things?
2. Can we agree that your beliefs originated from a definite person?
3. What do you think of that in light of Galatians 1:6-10?

Then, we finished the evening off with a talk from one of my personal heroes, Dr. William Lane Craig.  Dr. Craig spoke not only on the reasonableness of faith in God and on Jesus being the Son of God, but he also spoke of his own personal conversion experience in a powerful and moving speech.  He then asked for anyone so moved to give their lives to the Lord, which I can only pray that some folks did just that.

I got to shake hands with Norman Geisler and sit in the front row of a William Lane Craig lecture.  This is how normal people get around sports stars!  I’ll have more to report tomorrow as the conference closes.  I thank the Lord for blessing me with the time and the ability to attend this amazing event, and I pray that my report touches the life of someone reading it.

As a father and a Christian, I would never leave my daughter’s health up to fate.  Look at that sweet face, beautiful eyes, and that smile that can melt your heart!  She is one gorgeous baby, that is certain.  I couldn’t look into the face of this child who trusts me implicitly with her very life and give her anything less than the finest medical treatment that my insurance can pay for when she is sick.

Yet that is exactly what the parents of Madeline Neumann did.  They left their daughter’s health to the power of prayer.  I believe that prayer is powerful when used correctly–as a tool of communication between the created and the Creator.  Prayer is not a gumball machine.  We can’t just pop in a quarter and get everything that our hearts desire.

Rightly, the parents of Madeline Neumann, nicknamed Kara, stand before a judge, answering to charges of murder.

I had expected the charges to be negligent homicide, but the authorities went one better than that: the charge against Kara’s parents is reckless homicide.

Powerful as prayer is, the law doesn’t recognize it as a substitute for medicine.

I’ve posted much on the topic of predestination lately. I have posted a general definition here, on its definite nature according to the counsel of God’s will here, and finally on the two-edged sword of double predestination here. The two primary objections to predestination are the hyper-Calvinist error of double predestination, and the modernist error of assuming our free will is greater than God’s will.

I have already considered the hyper-Calvinist error in my post on double predestination. Briefly, it assumes that God actively chooses to send one group of people to heaven and one group to hell. It sees God’s as taking a positive action on both sides of the coin–that He actively works sin in the reprobate’s life in order to send that person to hell while actively working good things in the elect’s life to send that person to heaven. No such action is necessary. God merely “passes over” the nonelect and takes no further action in that person’s life. That person will condemn himself to hell. Reprobation, therefore, is a negative action on God’s part.

The other error with predestination is more of a modern error. Modern theologies tend to place a greater emphasis on the human free will than the divine free will. This type of error assumes that our free will decisions can somehow limit God’s actions. Viewed correctly, we derive our free will from God’s decree. We are free, to be sure, but God is more free than we are.

The Westminster Confession of Faith spends a chapter on human free will. Chapter IX, paragraph 1 states “God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” Paragraph 2 expounds on this will: “Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.”

Paragraph 3 reads:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (emphasis added)

It is important to remember that, according to the confession, man “has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (Rom 5:6, 8:7; cf. Jn 15:5). It is in this statement that we find no contradiction with John 3:16 or similar passages:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (emphasis added)

Put together with “Man . . . has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation,” we understand, finally, that apart from God’s grace, no one is going to believe in Him. This highlights our total dependence on God, which is something that modern theologies either downplay or forget altogether. Modern theologies would have God dependent upon man.

My own pastor has been teaching against predestination for several Sunday school sessions.  Regrettably, I have been unable to attend.  This past Sunday, he used 2 Peter 3:9 as the bullet proof text against predestination.  This verse reads:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The problem is that, based on the teaching that man’s will is now wholly unable to will and do any good, no one is going to reach that repentance that God desires us to reach.

In sum, it is easy to attack predestination when it is isolated from the rest of what Calvinism teaches.  But when one considers that systematic theology as a whole (the way that it is meant to be considered), it is much harder to put a hole in it.  At one point, it is easy.  But when considering all five points of Calvinism, the system becomes a unified theology that is the best way to understand Scripture.

I wish I could take credit for this thought, but I can’t.  It originated with John Crane from The Daily Detour.  It is a deep thought, and one worthy of consideration by everyone on each side of the abortion debate.

Why is it that when an outside party causes the death of unborn children, it is considered murder whereas if the mother causes the death of the unborn child it is considered a choice?

Here’s the situation: a pregnant teller was shot during a bank robbery.  She was pregnant with twins and she lost both babies.  The shooter is no longer considered a bank robber–he is now a murderer.  He rightfully should be!  He caused the death of two innocent children.

But what if the mother had decided to terminate the pregnancy?  Well, that wouldn’t be murder for some reason in the eyes of the law.  It would be considered a choice.

The children have the same rights as a full-blown human in the first scenario.  They have no rights–they are simply fetuses in the second scenario.

Why?

Fifteen thousand people attended the Mass this morning that exposed the remains of Padre Pio for public veneration.

I think that this is disgusting, personally. Already 750,000 people have made reservations to venerate the remains of the most popular saint of the twentieth century.

More than a million people are expected to file past a glass casket holding his restored corpse between now and the end of the year. Catholic practices allow for the remains of saints to be exhumed, checked for their state of deterioration, and put on display as relics for veneration. (source)

What are they venerating? Old flesh and dried bones. This is the object of their veneration. Jesus has said that the flesh is no help to us (Jn 6:63). It is His Spirit that gives us life. Jesus, therefore, should be the object of worship–not flesh and bone that can do nothing for us.

Recently, reports have circulated that actor Jason Beghe, a former Scientologist, has denounced his religion.  Beghe is reported as saying that “Scientology is destructive and a rip off.”  He goes on to say “[Scientology is] very, very dangerous for your spiritual, psychological, mental, emotional health and evolution. I think it stunts your evolution. If Scientology is real, then something’s f——ed up.”

The video in which Beghe criticizes Scientology has been removed from YouTube, along with two other prominent anti-Scientology accounts owned by Tory Christman and Mark Bunker.  YouTube issued the following statement to Times Online regarding the account suspensions:

YouTube takes these issues very seriously but we don’t comment on individual videos. Our general approach is simple: we have clear content policies about what videos are allowed on the site. For example we prohibit clips that infringe copyright or show extreme violence. Videos that breach these rules are removed and we disable all accounts belonging to repeat offenders.

I scarcely have to point out that this is a non-answer.  It says a lot about why accounts in general are suspended, but nothing about why the individual accounts were suspended.  Neither Christman nor Bunker received any information from YouTube as to why their accounts were suspended, though Christman’s account is back up.  No word yet on when or if Bunker’s will be reactivated.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, I think that the church of Scientology has everything to do with this.  It is the policy of their church to target critics, whom they call Suppressives (or SPs).  The critics are considered “fair game” to do whatever it takes to destroy their character and stop them from criticizing Scientology.  This policy of dead agenting is one component of Scientology’s long standing policy of hate to its critics.

In a world that hates the truth, in a world that love its sin, I can see the need for a firm defense of the truth.  But truth doesn’t require bullying, fear-mongering, and hatred.  Morally, we can all see these things for evil.  If Scientology is true, then it has nothing to fear from critics.  However, if it isn’t true, and its upper ranks know that it isn’t true, then the need for “fair game” and “dead agenting” becomes very clear.