Blog Archives
Hit From Both Sides
Normally, I don’t discuss politics on this blog. But I can’t resist mentioning the controversy that has surrounded President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to include Dr. Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life and The Purpose of Christmas, in the inaugural ceremonies this January 20th. Obama is rapidly losing support of the atheist community for including Warren, as Warren stands against abortion (innocently called “reproductive rights” by those who don’t see it as murder) and gay marriage.
Oddly, Obama is in support of both gay marriage and abortion rights, two planks that won him little support among conservative Christians. This leads to the other side of this controversy: now conservative Christians are bashing Rick Warren for participating in the inaugural ceremonies! It seems that no one can win for losing in this debacle.
Personally, I think that this is a situation where people should put their politics aside. Rick Warren appearing at the Inauguration is not an endorsement of Obama’s position on abortion. Nor is Obama’s decision to include Warren meant to be a slap in the fact to the gay community. Why can’t we put aside these issues that divide us for a day and pray together for the new President as he embarks on a difficult new journey?
Religious Illiteracy
I’ve been reading the book Religious Literacy by Stephen Prothero. It is truly an eye-opener. It has made me realize how much I don’t know about the world religions. I’m ignorant of even our closest neighbor, Judaism.
With a ministry such as mine, I should understand more about other world religions. It will help me deal with questions from people of other faiths.
So I thought I would start with Judaism. To this end, I have obtained two books, The Jewish Approach to God by Rabbi Neil Gillman and An Introduction to Judaism by Nicholas de Lange.
Gillman’s book, as well as other exchanges recently, have started me thinking about Reformed theology. In the introduction to The Jewish Approach to God, Gillman says:
In Christian thinking, that human failure is inherent in human nature, one of the results of human sin, Adam’s rebellion against God in the Garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 3. That blemish is transmitted from one generation to another to all of humanity through the sexual act. Jesus’ vicarious death on the Cross then represents God’s gracious gift, which erases original sin and grants salvation to the believer who accepts Jesus’ saving act.
But in Jewish sources, the very fact that the prophets urge the people of Israel to unblock their hearts, to open their eyes, to remove the obstacles that get in the way of their relation to God suggests that this is more a matter of will, not at all inherent in human nature. The Jewish claim, then, is that their is no inherent epistemological obstacle to recognizing God’s presence in the world. [p. x]
Since Christianity originated from the Jewish religion, Jewish thought plays a prominent role in early Christian philosophy and theology. The very reason that I started with Judaism was that, as our forerunner, I thought that Jewish theology would help me understand where the New Testament writers were coming from. If Gillman is correct in his assertion here, then that means that the New Testament writers were never teaching original sin, and that my recent opponent was correct in stating original sin is false doctrine.
However, I already know the answer to this dilemma. Scripture contains progressive revelation, which means that the New supersedes the Old. Original sin is taught in the New Testament, especially in Romans 5. That, then, takes the place of the Jewish philosophy of sin in someone’s life being a matter of will rather than a matter of nature.
In any case, I pray that God use this book to bring me to a closer understanding of him. As I learn more, I’ll post some additional thoughts.
Wafergate
I’ve been reading the response to PZ Myers’s unfortunate blog post. It has been dubbed many things, but the one I like is “Wafergate,” which is what I will stick to in this post. I think that this issue is getting far more attention than it deserves, as PZ Myers is little more than a bitter and sour little man with an insanely popular blog. I can’t understand his popularity, even with atheists, because each of his virulent posts reveals nothing but hatred for religion. Such focused and intense hatred isn’t good for a person.
For the benefit of those of you that have no idea what is going on, let me start from the beginning. Webster Cook, a University of Florida student, palmed a Eucharist at a Catholic Mass instead of eating it. He took it out of the chapel and held it hostage for several days. Read the rest of this entry
Faith Healing
Regular readers will note that I have been following the case of Madeline “Kara” Neumann, an 11-year old girl who died as a result of parental negligence. Her parents refused to seek medical attention for their daughter, instead relying on prayer to heal her. It appears to have happened again, this time in Oregon to a 16-year old boy. No cause of death is ruled yet; an autopsy is planned and the parents are being investigated for negligence.
They are connected to a church that calls itself Followers of Christ, which isn’t linked to any mainstream denomination.
With all of my talk about parents rightly being charged for praying only and not seeking outside medical attention, readers must think that I have no respect for the power of prayer. That just isn’t true–I have nothing but the utmost respect for the power of prayer, but I’m realistic enough to know that in most cases, prayer has zero statistical effect on the outcome of illness. With this empirical data in front of me, I have no choice but to face the possibility that prayer is not meant for medical conditions. Prayer, therefore, is for our own consolation in accepting God’s will for a given situation. Prayer is meant to change us, not change God.
This isn’t a dreadful conclusion; rather, this is liberating. It means that we can seek medical help and it isn’t a sin. It means that God works his healing powers through secondary causes, the doctors and nurses involved in patient care.
What about all of the promises to answer prayer? Well, simply put: none of it promises an affirmative answer. None of it promises to deliver our wants. God promises to hear us–and hear us only. He promises to take care of our needs, not our wants. We only receive what we want in accordance with his will.
Prayer should never go by itself. Prayer should always be associated with action on our part. For example, if I pray for a new job, a new job will not drop onto my lap unless I read want ads and apply for jobs. Same goes for healing–unless you seek medical attention, odds are worse illness will beset the victim, and then, perhaps, death.
Charge Against Neumanns Survives Motion to Dismiss
The charge against Madeline Neumann’s parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, survived a motion to dismiss on Tuesday. A judge has ordered that they will stand trial, ruling that sufficient evidence exists for the charges to stick and for the couple to mount a defense.
Dale and Leilani Neumann have been charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11-year old daughter Madeline (Kara). Kara’s condition, a treatable form of diabetes, deteriorated over the course of a month until she was unable to speak or eat within the last 48 hours of her life. Her parents stayed by and prayed instead of seeking medical attention.
Prayer has worked miracles, to be sure, but usually in conjunction with medical attention. It is my sincere prayer that this tragedy is used by God to bring some good into the lives of everyone touched by it.
Brian Sapient Punched Out
There are several rumors circulating that Brian Sapient, co-founder of the Rational Response Squad, has been brutally attacked at the American Humanist Association’s conference by Greydon Square, another member of the RRS. Apparently, the two had a disagreement over the way Sapient was handling Square’s CD sales, and Square beat Sapient. An ambulance had to be called.
There is no official word, as yet, from the RRS. Hambydammit, a core member, would neither confirm nor deny it to an interested party on the RRS forums, instead Hamby repeatedly told the inquirer to mind his own business.
Whatever my personal differences with Brian Sapient, he didn’t deserve to be attacked by Greydon Square. Square has legal methods to work out business disputes if he was unhappy with Sapient handling his affairs. Square acted like a spoiled little child. He needs to do some serious growing up.
Meanwhile, my prayers are with Sapient and Kelly this evening. Hopefully Brian has a speedy recovery. Pray also that the Lord has bigger plans for Brian Sapient than atheist activist.
UPDATE: This attack has been confirmed by Brian Sapient here in this thread at the RRS discussion board.
UPDATE: Fixed the broken link in this tread.
Wisconsin Law Might Excuse Madeline Neumann’s Parents
If my little girl is sick, she goes to the doctor. I pray for God to use the doctor to heal my daughter.
I don’t pray and hope it all gets better.
But that’s exactly what the parents of Madeline Neumann did, and now they are charged with reckless homicide.
There may be a sang, however. Wisconsin has a law on the books that says a caregiver cannot be charged with a crime if they select prayer as the basis of treatment.
The way I’m reading that law, however, is that prayer must be the basis of treatment, not the only thing that you do. Therefore, the parents are still liable for the death. Though the law may not apply at all in homicide cases, according to District Attorney Jill Falstad.
It will be interesting to hear the judges’ rulings on the law.
Day 2b: Unshakable Faith
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.
Day 2a: Unshakable Faith Conference
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:
- Everything that exists must have a cause, either as an intrinsic necessity or from some external source.
- If the universe has a cause, it must be God.
- The universe exists.
- The universe must have a cause.
- 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.
Day 1: Unshakable Faith
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:
- Can we agree that orthodox Christianity and your church teach different things?
- Can we agree that your beliefs originated from a definite person?
- 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.
Back Rome Again 