Josiah Concept Ministries

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.

Christian, the keeper of the blog Free Thinking Joy, has accused me of contradicting Jesus:

In my remarks about the Ten Commandments, I have come to the conclusion that their real content can be summarized as “Treat others as you would like to be treated by them”, also known as the Golden Rule. Jesus, as quoted in Matthew 7:12, has put it like this: “Always treat others as you would like them to treat you, this is the law and the prophets.” By the way, “law and prophets” means not only the Ten Commandments but all the holy scriptures of the Jews at that time.

Surprise, surprise. Was Jesus a freethinker? In the eyes of the Pharisees, he certainly was. Now compare his “law and prophets” statement with Cory’s claim of the Ten Commandments as God’s absolute rules that have to be followed word by word. He seems to contradict his own master in this respect. (source)

I have not contradicted Jesus.  Christian has changed his assumptions.  I thought that we were dealing specifically with the Ten Commandments.  In that regard, they are Commandments, not suggestions, to be followed to the letter.

In the broader Christian theology, we are in an age of grace–we have considerable latitude in applying these practices to our lives.  Righteousness is not obtained by works of law, but by faith.  In that sense, the Ten Commandments can become the Ten Suggestions.  We follow God’s law to show Him honor, not because we are compelled to in order win favor.  Following the Commandments is the right thing to do.

The ironically named Christian, proprietor of Free Thinking Joy, asserts that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism. It is absurd on its face to think that any of the first four commandments, which center on man’s relationship to God, could be followed or even understood by atheists. Christian’s analysis is flawed, as I have shown in my first post.

The second six commandments give rules for relating to fellow humans. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that any atheist is capable of both understanding these rules and living them out on a day-to-day basis. I haven’t heard of any notable atheists that live otherwise.

The only problem is that the atheist views breaking these commandments as torts rather than crimes. This becomes especially noticeable for the commandments dealing with adultery and murder. A violation of these commandments is absolute, not situational.

5. Honor your father and mother.

Agreed–”Because, once you are a parent, you like to be respected by your own children.”

6. You shall not commit murder.

Christian says, “There have been many violations against the Sixth Commandment in the name of God.” However, there have also been violations by atheists. As I’ve stated in my previous post, the actions of one group have nothing to do with the other group. Since the claim of the post is that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism, merely pointing to another group that violates the commandment doesn’t belong here.

Philosophically, this isn’t 100% compatible with atheism. Natural selection, a component of philosophic naturalism, wants the weak and the sick culled out. This means that murder in some forms, such as euthanasia and abortion, is perfectly acceptable given the right set of circumstances. The general theistic view respects the dignity and right to life of all human beings, regardless of status, sickness, or number of cells. The atheist version makes us little better than animals.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

Christian returns to flawed reasoning with this commandment:

The wording is not quite how a secular humanist with a modern sexual ethic would put it. There are modern forms of ménage à trois, and they may work in some cases. But if you do not like your sex partner to have partners besides you, you should keep the same rule for yourself.

This is fine, if one subscribes to situation ethics. The commandments, however, were not designed with that in mind. They were designed to be absolute rules, hence their pronouncement as “commandments.” Very few would argue that they should be called the Ten Suggestions.

That said, Christian’s view grows out of the mistaken assumption that adultery is a tort committed against a spouse or significant other rather than a crime against God. The entire Holiness Code given to Israel is essentially God’s equivalent to a revised criminal code. Adultery isn’t just an offense against one’s spouse; it is a crime committed against God.

These “ménage à trois” that “work in some cases” might be perfectly fine with a spouse. But that doesn’t mean that God will be fine with them; in fact, the Bible teaches the opposite. Adultery, according to Jesus, is committed the moment you look upon someone with lust. With that in mind, we can hardly assume that God would condone the act even if the spouse does.

8. You shall not steal.

Agreed–”you do not want to be a victim of theft.”

9. You shall not lie.

Agreed–”Because you do not want him to do it to you.”

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s property.

Agreed–”Because it is easier to prevent a conflict than solve it later.”

Christian concludes:

I have shown that it may be easier for an atheist than for observant Jews and Christians to keep the first three commandments. The big part of the rest has nothing to do with God, therefore atheists and believers are equally fit to keep it or violate it. The only instance where atheist will lag behind is the Fourth Commandment, but this may not be the most important one.

I disagree that Christian has shown that it is easier for atheists to follow any of the commandments, let alone the first three. The atheist is equipped to keep Christian’s version of the commandments, but that is a false understanding of them. He is dead wrong to think that the rest of the commandments have nothing to do with God, for the commandments are crimes against Him, not torts against humanity. Finally, I agree that the atheist will lag behind on the Sabbath day, for he will not esteem any day above any other. But Christian’s response is to minimize the commandment, which is fallacious. All of the commandments are important or they wouldn’t be on the list.

“I guess that most atheists may not be aware of the fact that they observe the Ten Commandments better than many observant Jews and Christians,” says Christian, keeper of Free Thinking Joy. Let’s examine his post and see if that is true or if Christian is blowing smoke.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Christian says:

The observant Jew will certainly fulfill this commandment. The observant Muslim, too. The observant Christian, too. But most certainly of all, any atheist will fulfill it perfectly. He is the only one who can be certain. All others must ask themselves whether they really might worship the wrong god, and who the big Me really is.

This is silly. Christian thinks that by worshiping no gods at all, that he is fulfilling this commandment. He wishes. The Ten Commandments set the stage for the Jewish holiness code, the Greatest Commandment of which is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and might” (Deut 6:5). Not loving God at all isn’t fulfilling this commandment–it is grossly violating this commandment.

2. You shall not make yourself an idol.

Christian’s take:

Observant Jews (and Muslims) will fulfill this commandment in the real world, but not in their mental imagination. Observant Roman Catholics violate it grossly, making crucifixes and Mother of God statues, even praying to them. Observant Orthodox Christians violate it grossly, making icons and kissing them in prayer. Only atheists will fulfill the Second Commandment perfectly, in the real world as well as in their imagination.

Christian assumes that an idol is only a statue or an image. John Calvin, however, rightly recognizes that idolatry can be much more subtle than that. Calvin writes:

Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God - how many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of chance?

. . . Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole world is overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is not wonderful, not only that each nation has adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his own god. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:11-12)

Calvin asserts that fashioning your own god is idolatry. Put another way, an idol need not be a statue, a picture, or other physical entity–it can be anything that takes the place of the One True God. In the case of many atheists, that is science or other mental reasoning. They worship it and make it inviolate the way that a Christian worships God and makes Him inviolate.

Because Christian misunderstands what an idol truly is, he fails to realize that atheists are actually the worst violators of this commandment.

3. You shall not use the name of the Lord in vain.

Christian says:

Observant Jews have taken the Third Commandment very seriously. They considered every use of the name of God as wrongful and therefore avoided even to pronounce it. This position comes very close to atheism. Any atheist may be ready to share this view, stating that there are really great things behind our visible world, things that we never will be able to fully understand, and that we should not use the name of a god to denominate them. Devout, fundamentalistic Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims. Only atheists can be a hundred percent sure that they never will violate the Third Commandment.

First, I don’t see how the Jewish prohibition on pronouncing the name of God comes close to atheism. The Jews still believe in God, and they hold a special reverence for His name. Second, Christian asserts without backing himself up that “Devout, fundamentalistic (sic) Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims.” I can’t respond since I have no idea what he’s talking about. From these premises, however, it doesn’t follow that atheists can be 100% sure that they will never violate this commandment.

The excellent Parchment and Pen theology blog has defined the third commandment here as making a pronouncement in the name of God that did not come from God. Perhaps Christian is following that premise, in which case I can agree that the atheist is less likely than a theist to make a false pronouncement in the name of God.

Traditionally, Christians have understood this commandment as forbidding the use of God’s name for all but reverent and prayerful uses. In other words, God’s name shouldn’t be used as a swear word. While I agree with C. Michael Patton’s definition linked above, I also firmly believe that God’s name shouldn’t be used as or with vulgarity. In that respect, the atheist isn’t safe from violating this commandment.

4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Christian admits that this would be hard for an atheist to follow, but then asserts (again without evidence) that Christians don’t pay this commandment any mind either. Amazingly, the actions of one group of people bears little relevance on another group of people. The commandment is still grossly violated by atheists; whether or not theists are following or ignoring it is completely irrelevant.

The remaining commandments are covered in the next post.

Illinois Representative Monique Davis, whose Christian witness has been forever tainted by misplaced remarks about atheists and atheism, has done what a Christian should do in her shoes–she apologized. Instead of a public apology, Representative Davis apologized directly to the one she offended.

Personally, I think that this shows great humility on Davis’s part. It shows that she knows that she was in the wrong.

But the apology isn’t enough for the atheists. VJack, bitter proprietor of Atheist Revolution, led the charge in the blogosphere:

Initially, I thought I could join Rob Sherman in agreeing to forgive Rep. Davis. I have certainly said things I later regretted when under periods of great stress. Then again, I would expect to face consequences for public expressions of bigotry, regardless of how much stress I was experiencing at the time. Like others, I am able to control my impulses and exercise reasonable judgment, even in periods of distress. Rep. Davis can believe what she wants, but even if her expression was a stress-related lapse in judgment, I’m not sure how this excuses it.

The American Humanist Association says:

“As far as we know, the only source for this alleged April 9 apology is the Web site of the immediate victim. It hasn’t been corroborated or confirmed,” declared Mel Lipman, president of the American Humanist Association. “Moreover, even if confirmed, the apology was only private. That just isn’t good enough.” (source)

So, let me get this straight: even though Representative Davis has done what no atheist thought she would do and apologized for her tirade, this isn’t good enough for them? I have to wonder what they really want here.

I’m forced to think that Davis’s resignation is the only thing that would really please the atheist crowd. Even so, I have to wonder if they still wouldn’t find some fault with even her resignation.

The recent comments made by Illinois State Representative Monique Davis reveal an unfortunate deep-seated fear that many Christians have regarding atheists.  Representative Davis berated an atheist and told him that he had no right to testify due to his lack of belief in God.  She even called the philosophy of atheism “dangerous” and said that it was dangerous for children to even know that the philosophy exists.

The fear revealed by Representative Davis is unnecessary, and her actions only serve the cause of atheism in ways she probably can’t imagine.  There is no need to fear atheism, or atheists.  I have personally interacted with many avowed atheists, and have found them to be the same as anyone–they are people first and foremost.  They do not recognize their creator, nor do they feel that their rights as humans were first derived from God.

Because there is no derivation of rights first from God in the mind of an atheist, it is therefore society–majority rules–that decides objective morality.  This makes said morality subjective rather than objective.  No objective morality can exist with such a system.  But that is a different subject for another time.  Atheists still believe in the objective morality outlined in the Bible, and many of them follow it much more closely than even the most deeply religious that I know.

Atheists are not the immoral hate-mongers that Representative Davis fears.  Her comments are absolutely appalling.  I’m very glad that she apologized for her comments, and I’m glad that it was done directly to the person whom she offended.

Her Christian witness will be tainted by her comments, but in apologizing she did the right thing.  I’m appalled by her comments, but I applaud her humility in apologizing for her unwarranted outburst.

The truth is that we, as Christians, have nothing to fear from the atheist philosophy.  It is unfortunate that atheists are viewed in the light that Representative Davis has now personified.  I pray that she takes the time to learn more about atheists before she tries to speak out against them again.

Why be moral if there is no punishment in the afterlife?  Daren Jaques, of Just Atheists, answers the question like this:

Well, there are lots of reasons. 1) I will not be as successful in life if others cannot trust me, and if all I ever do is look after myself, then people will not trust me. This applies to lying, stealing, and harming others generally. 2) I do not believe that I can be “absolved” of my wrongdoing through either a shaman’s magic (confession) nor through the ritual drinking of human/god blood (communion). That means I need to try and be as good and kind as possible every time I act because there are no do-overs. (source)

Daren is right that he will not be as successful in life as he could be since no one around him will have any reason to trust him if he is very self-serving.  But he is also correct in saying that confession and ritual drinking of blood will not absolve him of his sins.  There are no do-overs–you get a choice one time in life, and it is best to do the moral thing then and there.  You will never get another chance.

Daren says that it is not the threat of eternal punishment that motivates him to do good deeds, it is the mutual benefit of all.  There are two problems with this statement.  First, Daren has admitted that an objective good and evil exist, which is part of the theist worldview, not the atheist.  The atheist view does not allow for such things to exist–things can only be what they are.

Second, in his preceding statement, Daren lists success and winning trust as his primary motivation, not altruism.  Daren wishes to be successful in this life and win the praise of others.  Jesus points this out in Matthew 6:1-18 that this is the mark of a hypocrite.  Daren isn’t being moral for the sake of being moral.  He’s doing it for the sake of being noticed positively by other people.

Daren states that the theist is only moral to avoid eternal punishment.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Only the Christian, committed to Christ, is truly free to will and do good for its own sake.  Those not in Christ may do good, but it is always for their own ends.  In his attempt to prove otherwise, Daren has proven the truth of that statement.

Brian J. Sabel from Just Atheists wrote a post that caught my attention.  Since my grandma died, I’ve been thinking about death quite a bit for obvious reasons.  Obviously, my view of death is that we who place faith in Christ go on to eternal reward, while the rest do not.  “[I]t is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment . . .” (Heb 9:27).

I believe that my grandma has gone on to that eternal reward.  Not because I want to believe that since it is a comforting thought for me, but because my grandma placed her faith in Christ.  At the funeral, I could see the fruits of the Spirit in her lives through the stories people told of the lives she touched.  I had no idea how much time she donated freely to good causes.  Even though she was sick, she still donated time and crafts to other sick people.  She was an Eucharistic Minister and traveled to the sick and infirm at homes and hospitals to share the Lord’s Supper with them, and to talk and pray with them.

I could easily get into the debate about faith vs. works here, but suffice it to say that I believe her actions proceeded from her faith and that faith is what saved her, not what she did in this life.  That isn’t the point of my post.  The point is that Brian from Just Atheists believes that this life is all that there is and that view of life elevates life on earth above the religious view.

Many faithful see this as a very bleak way to view our lives. Without the rewards of the afterlife, they say, our lives on earth have no value or meaning. They often view my rejection of a belief in an afterlife as a cynical and nihilistic view which robs humankind of our best qualities. They could not be more wrong. And, in fact, I feel that my view elevates the value of human life beyond the capacity of a religious view.

The finite nature of our lives compels me to believe that each life is unique, valuable, and irreplaceable. When a person dies she is gone and we will never get her back. The consequence of this belief is that I love the people around me very deeply because I recognize how precious they are and how fortunate I am to experience their lives - they could be gone from me so quickly. (source)

Brian actually has a point.  His view elevates the view of this life above how religious often view it.  But the Bible doesn’t teach us to view this life as one of much importance.  The Bible calls this life a “mist” (Jms 4:14).  Like Brian’s astute observation, the Bible affirms that this life can be taken from us at any moment.  Unlike Brian, the Bible states we must build our treasure in heaven (Mt 6:19-20).

Does this mean that the religious should place no importance on this life whatsoever?  Of course not!  There is certainly wisdom in the expression “We don’t inherit this planet from our parents, we borrow it from our children.”  With all of the comparisons to God as the landowner and humans as His stewards in Jesus’ parables, can anyone ever really conclude that we aren’t called to be stewards of this planet?  God commanded us to “be fruitful and multiply,” and in order to do that effectively, we must be good stewards of the resources on this planet.

So there is some importance in this life.  But, unlike the atheist viewpoint, this life is not all that there is.  There is more out there, there is eternal life to be spent in perfect communion with our Creator, and with those that have gone before us in Christ.

Meanwhile, let’s be good stewards of this planet.  When God returns to earth, we’ll have to give an account for it.

Rook Hawkins makes this claim right off the bat:

Cory has written a very interesting blog article in response to my positions.  He has written to his reader’s satisfaction, and although he makes grandiose claims, he should be applauded by known apologists such as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel for the erudite quality of his response.  But did he really answer the problems or represent my position accurately?  I do not think he did, but that can only be shown after examining the article he has written.   (source, emphasis added)

It is the boldfaced portion that I will address first.  Before I do that, I would like to publicly thank Rook for his compliments and critique on my work.  I consider my writing my craft first, and take it very seriously.  He has also put me in company with men that I admire and thinks that they would appreciate my work.

I would also like to point out that Rook does the old manager’s trick of softening the blow with a compliment before the criticism.

Rook has taken some criticism as a writer from my fellow apologists (such as Frank Walton).  Rook, however, is the best of the RRS writers.  He sticks to his subject matter and he knows his history inside and out.  I can usually tell when people are faking it–a skill everyone who has been in management learns lest they receive an ugly demotion.  I don’t get the faking-it vibe when I read Rook’s writings.  He is someone as passionate about his beliefs as I am about mine.

As for the boldfaced portion of Rook’s opening paragraph, he is absolutely correct.  I will explain why.

When I first started doing apologetics, I had a “save the world” complex.  I believed with all of my heart that I would succeed where others had miserably failed–I would convert people like Rook Hawkins to Christianity with the power of my unflappable argumentation and my passion for the Lord.  Rook would see that and have no choice but to convert, even despite his doubts.

I could only ever see myself winning arguments with atheists, since I had truth and the Lord on my side.

Well, after a while that “save the world” complex faded and I realized a few important things.  First, mankind is truly dead in sin and wants nothing to do with God.  God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself–I can only pray that He will see my ministry fit to use for that purpose.  The point isn’t fatalism; the point is that, like the Bible clearly states, God will have mercy and whom He will and harden whom He will, and I can’t change that.  But I can be a part of His plan to draw the elect through this ministry and prayer.

What does any of this have to do with Rook Hawkins?  Well, the reason I write for my audience is that I’m probably not going to convert a hardened skeptic like Rook.  However,Rook’s writings may have planted a seed of doubt in an honest Christian or in someone considering the conversion to Christianity.  It is those hypothetical people that I plan to reach by dialog with Rook, not Rook himself.

Mind you, it isn’t that I don’t want to see Rook pledge his life to Christ.  I think that would be an amazing testament to the drawing power of God the Father, and we could use someone like Rook on the winning team.  It’s just that I think Rook is too firmly entrenched in his beliefs to ever convert.  At best, converting Rook is my “C” priority here.  It’s on the map, but I won’t be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.

I think that both Rook and I are guilty of writing only for our respective audiences, and I think that we have similar motivations–to sway the honest seeker who is still on the fence.  Rook and I both believe that one of our essays may just swing that person onto our side for good.  We’re not really writing for each other–which is unfortunately why we have, so far, talked past each other.

I admit to being out of my element with the historical aspects of the early church and with Hellenistic Greece.  I could use a Christian writer with Rook’s knowledge to help me out here.  But I’ve got a few online articles bookmarked on Hellenistic literature from Christian Think-Tank, and a book by a scholar that I believe Rook will respect (but not agree with) that I’m working through.  A full reply is forthcoming but will take a while.

Liberal scholarship has agreed on one point and one point alone: the Jesus of history is not the Jesus presented in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Rook Hawkins, co-founder and self-styled ancient texts expert of the Rational Response Squad, has utilized this as the starting point for his article, “Which Jesus: A Legend with a Multiple Personality Disorder?” The foundation of this article is a prior article in which Rook examines the genre of the gospels and concludes that they were never intended to be read as biographies. It is with that article that I will start, because if an argument is based on a faulty premise, then its conclusion is nothing more than fruit from a poisoned tree.

Are the gospels ancient biographies or not? Apologist J.P. Holding asserts the fact that they are is “beyond dispute.” Rook disagrees, with the following three objections: Read more »