Josiah Concept Ministries

I have consolidated, edited, and updated the preceding three parts of this series here. Since it has been a while in posting (mostly due to serious computer issues that have crippled my Internet access) it may help to familiarize yourself with what has come before this so that you will be up to date. As sometimes happens, in writing and researching this piece I have changed my mind about the necessity of no physical death prior to the Fall, I now believe that it is possible the Fall only brought on spiritual death. However, I am not at all convinced that God merely breathed a soul into Adam, who prior to that had evolved from the ground up (so to speak). I have made some changes in the articles to reflect this new conviction.

The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.

There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic. Read more »

James White notes:

Roman Catholic apologists across the board have repeated the “sola scriptura leads to anarchy, look at the 23,000, 25,000, 27,000, 30,000, 33,000 denominations it has spawned” line. But is there any merit to this argument? Or is it a wonderful example of just how shallow and untruthful Rome’s arguments are? To that topic I turn in my next blog entry. (source)

I would just like to point out that Dr. White is in no way exaggerating.  I’ve been an apologist for just over a year now, and those numbers that he crossed off are just for this past year alone!  A year ago, I was quoted 23,000 denominations on Jimmy Akin’s blog.  A few months later, another poster was quoted 27,000.  Now, Steve Ray and others are quoting 33,000 Protestant denominations.  Like Dr. White, I was going to examine this claim, but instead I’ll move on to other topics and let Dr. White’s refutation stand for itself.

I thought I’d link to this for more than one reason.  Commenter Brian Westley and I have been arguing over interpretations of Scripture in the comments section of this post.  Paul Pruett points out:

When you [Brian] say that Christians don’t agree on morality, I would have to agree with you if you simply include every person who calls themselves a “Christian.” This would include cultists, liberal Christians, and nominal Christians, among others. Once you begin to narrow it down to those who take the Bible seriously, accept the historic creeds (like the Nicene), and are actually committed to applying and living out their faith, then many of the differences flee.

While this comes dangerously close to being dismissed by use of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy that gets thrown in my face each time I try to refute Fred Phelps to atheists, Paul is shrewdly observing that there is, in fact, an orthodoxy that exists in Biblical interpretation.  Sola scriptura never means that we read in a complete vacuum, never looking to historical Christianity for an answer to a difficult passage.

It is easy for the Christian to see that the Crusades and the Inquisitions were aberrations, they were not called for in the Bible and they would never have been condoned by Jesus were He here on earth.  They were motivated by human desires, not by divine mandate.  If these aberrations, these dark marks on the history of Christianity, are easy for the Christian to spot, why does it become so difficult for the atheist to discern?  They, after all, claim intellectual superiority.

I thought that Brian could see that others see as Paul and I do: that there is an orthodox interpretation of Biblical passages.  Dr. White, in his essay, echoes the main points that Paul and I have tried to explain to Matt:

If a Christian believes the Scriptures a sufficient rule of faith, how does it follow that an abuse of such a sufficient source is an argument against its sufficiency? Such simply does not follow. The Scriptures can be perfectly suited to their purpose, but men are still sinners. Men are still imperfect. Men are still ignorant. And, most importantly, men still have their traditions.

. . . [A] large number of non-Catholic churches embrace all sorts of concepts that violate sola scriptura, so how can the principle be blamed for the actions of those who do not even believe in it? Obviously, it can’t be. In reality, those churches that specifically seek to profess, confess, and apply sola scriptura are significantly more united in their theology than those churches that look to some external, inspired/guided source of either interpretation or revelation.

See, Matt? We’re not the only ones who say this stuff!

I was scanning the blogosphere this morning and found this gem from The Atheocracy:

Why would sexuality seemingly be the one preference in human existence where there’s just one right choice, and it’s black or white? Humans are complex creatures. Our preferences for foods, drinks, friends, TV shows, movies and even, yes, blogs are pretty fluid. They change over time; they aren’t usually extreme (”That new Ben Affleck movie sucked, but it didn’t suck quite as much as his previous movie”). Our minds don’t tend to think of preferences in black/white terms. It’s all shades of constant grays.

So why would we think sexuality is different? It’s one of a very few acts that connects us with our most distant ancestors. Every human who has ever lived past the age of about 8 has experienced some sort of sexual desire (And some earlier than that … shout out to my Kindergarten girlfriend, Melissa. Rawr!). I believe these desires are just as fluid and gray as any others. The ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality are created by humans in a society that would prefer to label people in this manner. In the human mind, those labels don’t exist. It’s all situational. It’s all genetics. Even Christians can’t seriously claim humans should have sex only for procreation. (source)

I actually agree with Jeff right up to this point.  However, he concludes that “. . . if there are other reasons for sex, there is no reason to restrict which consenting adults can have sex with each other.”  Huh?  Now that sounds like Jeff has just concluded what a person with an evolutionary mindset would conclude.

Let me explain.  Starting from the premise that we are nothing more than animals–highly evolved ones, but animals nonetheless–we look at how the other animals handle sex and monogamy.  Well, except for certain birds, monogamy is all but unheard of.  Sex is had wherever, whenever, and with whomever it is desired.  Now, since we evolved from animals and are really animals ourselves, then there is no reason to obey any sort of etiquette about sex–especially when it’s derived from a 4000 year old book.  We’re so much smarter now.

So much smarter, in fact, that we are removing restrictions placed on which consenting adults can have sex, and thus stepping backwards to behavior found in lower forms of life?

Interesting.

I talked about Steve Ray’s blog post on the Assumption of Mary in a previous post, and I found out from Kevin Johnson’s blog that Kevin’s comments had been deleted.  So I went to the page in question, and found this in place of my pingback:

Comment Deleted: I don’t want this trash on my site. If I had infinite hours in a day to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic I would leave these all up to refute them. But I just don’t have that luxury any more and don’t want trash up here that might advsersely [sic] effect someone not fully educated in the faith. Some will huff and puff that I am censuring them. You bet! It is my board. Many people don’t want honest discussion but only to rant and rave and cause trouble. I notice most of them don’t have their “Comments” open to the public so they avoid having to answer longwinded diatribes at a moment’s notice.

My “Blog Comments” are open to honest and helpful discourse — not diatribes against the Catholic Church. For now I now have “Comments” set so I will approve them before they are posted. If anyone doubts my ability to confront and refute, just view the hundreds and hundreds of pages I used to write when I had the time. But I am not going subject myself or my readers to “bullies” who want to dictate what I do with my time — nor will they pollute my blog with their endless debate for the sake of debate.

If trolls and anti-Catholics want to discuss on my website, they can take their chances on my Discussion Forum which IS open to long-winded debates and discussion. This blog was never set up to be that. If you want to take your chances with Siggy on my Message Board, visit http://forums.catholicconvert.com.

I will post a general response to much of the criticism of Mary and the Church, but I will do it in my own time.

Fun stuff.

First of all, my comments section is open, Mr. Ray.  You are more than welcome to engage me on any issue I have raised, I will be happy to defend myself.

Second of all, with a daughter due in two months, a full-time job, a blogging ministry, and three different forums I try to frequent, I know well the constrains of time.  I have responded to you, I have responded to Jimmy Akin, I have responded to J.P. Holding.  I do not expect any of you “famous” apologists to respond to anything that I have to say, least of all, at a moment’s notice.  But, at least one of you “famous” apologists have taken the time to read my little old blog, and did leave a comment.  And that guy, a nemesis of yours to be sure, has just as little time on his hands as you do!  The point is that if it is important to you, you will make the time.  Other blog posts you have made it abundantly clear that you do not care to respond to the likes of James White, and Kevin Johnson you waved off and dismissed as another typical Protestant.

When you post a logical argument with little in the way of logic, you should expect your blog comments to reflect that.  You should expect knowledgeable folks like James White and Kevin Johnson to take you to task on it.  If you make a claim, you should expect to be called to back it up at some point.

Finally, I am neither a troll nor an anti-Catholic.  But you have already said that you will not take the time to read and respond to viewpoints you don’t consider important.  But if you are unwilling to listen to what an honest person is trying to say to you, wouldn’t that make you the troll?

Just something to consider.

Most people would be thrilled beyond words if, for example, they got a baseball signed by their favorite pitcher.  They would display it proudly, buy a special glass case for it, or show it off to all of their friends.  In this day and age, they would probably post pictures of it on Photobucket or MySpace or Facebook so that all of their online buddies would see it, too.

Well, I have just had the equivalent of this autographed baseball happen right here on my blog.  I’ve looked up to James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries from my earliest days of answering God’s call to apologetics.  I have bought two of his books (I was actually reading Pulpit Crimes last night!) and read his blog everyday.  In fact, it was his blog that gave me the inspiration to start an apologetics blog of my own.  From the first time I saw Tekton Apologetics Ministries, I knew I wanted to be an apologist, but it wasn’t until I discovered Dr. White’s blog that I had any inkling of how I should start.  I owe quite a bit of thanks to both Dr. White and J.P. Holding for the direction of this ministry, for I patterned it after their own.

I think that my wife is tired of hearing “James White says…” at the beginnings of my sentences.  I tend to over-quote him.  Not on the blog, just in real life.  In fact, when I discovered that he debated here in Toledo in the early 90s, I was sorry I had missed out.  Who knows if he’ll be back?

But I’m just trying to set the stage for what I’m about to say.  The equivalent of that autograph that I’m proudly displaying for all to see is that Dr. James White has left a comment on this blog!!  And it was complimentary to the work I’m doing.

God Himself, being an invisible God, won’t come down and stand in front of me and say, “Good job.”  But He orchestrated the next best thing: having the apologist I admire most do just that.

Now it’s my turn to feel warm and fuzzy.

Paul Pruett from Pensées, another apologetic blog, had this thought in a recent entry:

In all my interactions with atheists I have noticed a curious thing: they are very keen to be thought of as “good” people and insist that it does not require a deity in order to seek to act morally. Indeed, they claim that it is nobler to be good for its own sake than to be good for the sake of rewards gained or punishments avoided, which they believe theism entails. (source)

This is true, and I have had several interactions with atheists–most notable in my mind PariahJane from the RRS–on that topic.  Jane reported that she was quick to do “the right thing” for her friends or acquaintances, whatever it may be in that situation.  If memory serves, the specific situation was giving a friend some money which she never expected to be paid back, and she does things like that frequently.  Jane believes her actions to be much more “moral” than a Christian faced with a similar situation who would do the same thing, simply because she expects annihilation after death while the Christian simply expects a reward after death for the good he did in this life.

It is true that we, as Christians, are going to be rewarded after death.  But that shouldn’t be the motivation behind doing “the right thing” in this life.  God knows our hearts and is not impressed by outward shows of salvation when our hearts are only after a perceived reward (cf. Mat 7:21-23).  God is impressed by a sincere desire to please Him.  Only a part of that is doing “the right thing.”

What we come back to, once again, is how exactly Jane can claim to know what morality is.  On what authority is something deemed “good” or something else considered “evil?”  Is good merely someone’s point of view, as Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (a wholly evil character, by the way!) contends in Revenge of the Sith?

I’ve seen some atheists contend that evolution gives us our sense of morality.  That morality has evolved on its own accord throughout the many societies that have existed on this planet.   But if evolution gave birth to this morality and it has evolved based on human need, Pruett observes:

The only universally descriptive axiom regarding human behavior is, “Nobody’s perfect.” Such a statement only begins to make sense if there is some “perfection” to which humans fail to conform. But if humans define the standard, and all humans fail it, from whence comes the impossible scale? (source)

If I do another post in this current series, I promise to think of another title.  But, let’s face it, it really was a clever title, and coming up with titles is my weakest area as a writer.

I’m writing in response to Jeff Haws, webmaster of The Atheocracy, self-described “irreverent journalist, atheist, political junkie, golfer, outdoors lover, sports fan, beer drinker and movie/music snob, along with many other things.”  Hmmm.  I’m not a professional journalist, but I’m surely irreverent.  I’m not an atheist.  I hate politics.  My dad is a golfer, and I love the outdoors, sports, beer, and movies.  It seems Jeff and I are just the sort of people who could get into a very interesting debate.  Jeff commented on a recent post, and I thought I’d take a look at what he has to say.

You’re absolutely right that, without the Bible, morality is left in some part up to the individual. But that’s not what you said in your earlier post. You asked (and this is a paraphrase because I’m, typically, too lazy to go back and get the exact quote) “Without God, what reason would you have to be moral?” Why not just say, “Without God, your life is largely up to you” instead of inferring that Atheists have no reason to be good people? I think this was what caught my eye in your post.

What Jeff has demonstrated here–entirely without realizing it–is the real objection to theism from atheists.  He draws an a distinction where I never intended one: between the statements that without God, morality is up to the individual and that without God there is no reason to be moral.  I believe both statements are true, but I also believe that they are related to one another.  I suppose that is why I fail to make a clear distinction between the two.

From my perspective, the real objection to theism from atheists has nothing to do with rational disproofs of God’s existence, nor with rejection of traditional history, but with the obedience component that necessarily flows from being a created being.  In fact, atheists want to live their lives their way with no “invisible daddy” hovering over them and telling them how to live.

There is no argument in this paragraph, so I will leave what I have said thus far alone for now, perhaps expounding on it in a future article.  Suffice it to say, I will draw a clearer distinction between the prospects of individualistic morality vs. reasons for morality in future writing.  This is why I pay attention to honest critiques:  to become a better and clearer writer.

The question that comes up with a lot of this “morality” is who decides it’s wrong. You’re making an invisible man the authority on what you should and shouldn’t do. Why? Why do we need a consistent set of morals across a society? We certainly have laws to regulate much of what you might consider in that realm (no alcohol on Sundays in Georgia, no gay marriage, no beastiality, etc.).

Were you a Christian, you would accept the authority of God to define morality for His creation.  So the question of “who decides” isn’t a question at all for the Christian, only for the atheist who rejects God’s authority indirectly by rejecting the very idea that God exists.

Asking why we need a consistent set of morals underpins the point I made above: you want to live life your way, not God’s way.  If you want to cheat on your wife, a consistent set of Christian morals says that that is not the right thing to do.  If you aren’t attracted to your wife anymore, and want nothing further to do with your kids, the Christian ethic would be to swallow your selfishness and realize that life ain’t always about you.

But, on Planet Relativistic Morality, it’s okay to cheat on your wife and abandon your kids because your wife put on too much weight, your daughter won’t listen to you about the convicted felon she’s dating, and your son just came out of the closet and his boyfriend is coming over for dinner on Friday to meet the family.  Forget denying your selfish impulses and dealing with your family crisis; on Planet Relativistic Morality, you need a break from all of that in the arms of a young and slender redhead who “understands you.”

On the flip side of this issue, I’m not saying that the Christian in that situation wouldn’t sleep with the redhead.  But the Christian would have the words of the Apostle Paul to guide him:

[H]usbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.  (Eph 5:28-32)

If that were your guide, an affair is out of the question.

Those laws Jeff mentions, by the way, were written when this country did subscribe to the Bible.

And when I said “I don’t know” what’s considered sexually immoral, I meant I don’t know what he meant as sexually immoral. I know what it means to me, but I have no way of knowing what it means to him without him telling me.

Exactly!  You don’t know what he considers sexually immoral, he doesn’t know what you consider sexually immoral.  If you’re married, what does your wife consider sexually immoral?  Now, the Bible is clear on what matters are moral and immoral.  If that is your guide, you eliminate the need to even ask the question.

Thanks again for commenting on my post, Cory. Feel free to visit my site any time. It’s always good to receive some counterpoints rather than it being a big Atheist Hugfest. Have a great weekend.

I’ve subscribed to your feed.  The only way to write contrary to something is to understand its positions, which is why I participate on the RRS boards and why I read atheist blogs.  I desire to understand atheism, not necessarily to refute it or to convert its adherents, but to further the goals of this ministry in providing reasonable counterpoints to what is out there.

Kinda speaks for itself, doesn’t it?

Regular readers of this blog know that I love James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. In addition to posting this beautiful graphic, he also made the following comments, which made me laugh really hard and really long:

In any case, it was what [Steve] Ray said in announcing his moderation of the combox that I found educational. Here is the graphic he posted with his announcement. Isn’t it…pretty? One thing is for sure: my graphics guys are pros. I pwn my opponents in that field, no question. (If that doesn’t make sense to you, ask someone who is under 25 and who plays video games and understands what “All your base are belong to us” means). (source, emphasis added)

Only James White would find a way to use “pwn” and reference the old “All your base are belong to us” line in the course of apologetics.

I said it in the title, I said in the opening paragraph, and I will close with it as well: I love James White.

It seems as though my writing has come to the attention of Jeff Haws, webmaster of the Atheocracy.  Jeff has used a quote from this article to highlight the mindset of Christians in regard to origins.  While I’m flattered that my writing would be used at all, I’m certainly not flattered that Jeff has represented the “typical Christian fundamentalist” mindset and has failed to interact with either the writing itself or my specific view of atheists.

Jeff says:

But this is how they [Christians] think of atheists, as amoral, selfish people because they either can’t fathom how someone could behave in a moral fashion without some supernatural being holding them accountable, or they want people to think they can’t fathom this. (source)

Some Christians, perhaps, think that.  I, however, do not.  And I would like to see where I have ever represented atheists as amoral and selfish.  Indeed, some atheists are more moral and far less selfish than Christians–and one in particular, who goes by PariahJane at the RRS boards, has done at least one good deed that I would never even consider.  Many atheists are more knowledgeable about the Bible than Christians, which I’ve seen proven time and again on the RRS discussion boards.

We can compare and contrast, but without God and without Scriptural authority, we are still left in a lurch as to who decides what is good and what is evil.  Before he became emperor, Palpatine described moral goodness as a “point of view.”  Is that what it is?  Or is moral goodness something objective, something that we can point to and recognize?  If the latter, then we are still left with the question, “Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?”

Jeff actually proves this point himself.  One commenter, HarveyOne, said that atheists lead less sexually moral lives than Christians.  Jeff responds first with this question:

I’m not sure about that, harvey. First, I think you have to determine what amounts to “sexually immoral.” I honestly don’t know. Having sex outside of marriage? Infidelity? Unprotected sex? Massive orgies? Beastiality? I don’t think it’s fair to judge non-Christians by Christian definitions of “immoral,” i.e. sex before marriage. (emphasis added)

Make no mistake: I’m not saying that atheists are immoral.  I really can’t make that assessment; I’m not claiming omnipotence.  All I’m saying is that without God, the definition of morality is left open to the individual.  And the postmodern mindset becomes a serious barrier: what is moral for me is not moral for you.  Now we’re in a mess.

Jeff shows his misunderstanding of Christian teachings later in the combox:

It’s just, while Christians’ consequences come in a theoretical “afterlife,” our consequences come in this one. There are major problems involved in basing your moral compass on what might happen to you after your death, chief among them that no one really knows what is involved in the afterlife, and even many Christians say “Heaven is whatever you want it to be.”

Atheists seem to think that we place more emphasis on the afterlife than the present life.  While we look forward to the afterlife, we certainly have much work to do in this present life.  The Bible places all of its emphasis on the here and now, and very little mind is paid to Heaven.  Although Hell is described pretty clearly as a place that is best avoided.

Maybe to a certain extent, Christians do place much emphasis on the afterlife.  But what is it about this present life that many of us want to ignore?  There really are severe consequences in this life should we ignore the moral precepts given us by God.  I think that Jeff says this better than any Christian writings on the topic: “This moment is all we’re guaranteed. Nothing more. Live it to its fullest.”  Beautiful sentiment, but it lacks definition: How do we live life to the fullest?  Are we back to defining all of this for ourselves, or is there an objective definition?