Can People Be Good Without God?

To get us started off on the right philosophical foot, watch the following short film by Brian Godawa:



"Can People Be Good Without God?"

This is a question usually posed by secularists to religious believers. Of course, secularists don't really think they need to ask the question of themselves because their answer to it is already obvious by the fact that they are the ones asking the question. However, it is an interesting question, if not for the sole fact that it exposes secularist ethics as totally arbitrary, as we'll see below.

This question was suggested as the topic for a debate that I was originally going to participate in with representatives of a local atheist group. I reneged on that opportunity because I wanted to spend some time with my family and focus on pastoral ministry for a while. However, it doesn't take a two hour formal debate to answer this question because the answer to it can be given in two ways, depending upon what the assumed starting point for all of your thinking is. Thus, I want to briefly address both answers below.

In the Secularist Corner

Assuming secularist ethics as the ultimate criterion for what constitutes determining right from wrong, the answer is yes. Secularist ethics assume that mankind is autonomous, i.e., he is a law to himself and that there is no higher authority that people can appeal to to determine right from wrong. Thus, the highest legislative authority for people are their own self-imposed rules created through what is known as a "social contract". This community-agreed upon contract provides the basis for citizenship in that society since all those who want to experience peace, harmony, citizenship, and protection in that society have to submit to the rules that that society has created. These self-imposed rules are both formally and informally legislated via the laws of the land and by what is deemed by the majority as "socially acceptable behavior". Thus, people who abide by those mutually agreed upon rules are viewed as "law-abiding citizens" and "morally upstanding people", i.e., what most people would call "good".

According to the social contract theory, if some men violate the rules that the society has created, then they will eventually suffer consequences from those who uphold the laws of the land (i.e., parking tickets or prison sentences) or from those who don't like socially unacceptable standards of behavior (i.e., girlfriend breaks up with you because she caught you cheating on her).

In the Christian Corner

Assuming the law of Christ as contained in the New Testament, the answer is clearly no. Paul says it best,

as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; 12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." (Rom 3:10-12 NAU)

The moral standard for determining who or what is good and evil isn't our fellow man and his laws, but Jesus Christ and His laws. Since Christ is the perfect standard of what is good, and no mere man can meet Christ's perfect standard of goodness, then it follows that there are no good people. People cannot be good when measured by the standard of Christ because of both the inherent depravity they are born with (Psalm 58:3) and the sins that they willingly commit. Because people apart from Christ are not good and have committed crimes against their Creator, people will get what they deserve, which is perfect justice from the Creator. Those who are reconciled to God on the basis of repentance and faith in Christ not only have their sins forgiven by virtue of Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice, but they also are given new dispositions of will (i.e., the "new heart" - Ezek. 36:26) whereby they no longer desire to live in sin but instead, they read and heed Christ's law. Because they love Jesus more than anything else, He is their new Master, and they no longer live according to the desires of their old master, which was their sinful disposition. They not only love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength but they also love their neighbors as themselves because they have had their "hearts" changed by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 22:37-40). The way that they relate to their fellow man is directly proportional to their relationship to God. The more that they grow in their love for Him the more they will grow in their love for their neighbor. That's why Christians historically have led the way in ministries of mercy such as orphanages, care of widows, care of the sick and wounded via founding of hospitals, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, etc. This also affects the way that they vote and if working in the political sphere, how they make legislative decisions.

When true, born-again Christians become a large aggregate in society they begin to legislate in accordance with their new hearts. They will seek justice, righteousness, peace, and societal tranquility according to basic New Testament Christian standards rather than their own autonomous reasoning. If the New Testament doesn't directly address an issue that consistent Christian voters and legislators are faced with in their time (i.e., whether or not to increase county taxes to build a new park), they will vote in accordance with their understanding of what is best for the community at large. Sometimes, a vote like this may be the same as a non-believer's vote since non-believers are made in the image of God and they too usually seek to vote in accord with what's best for the community. Such moral principles for determining what is "best" for a community (or anything else) in the heart of the unbeliever are the result of the principle of law that is written on the heart of the unbeliever (Rom. 2:14-15). Obviously, born-again Christians will not vote for or support legislation that runs directly at cross-purposes to the morality of the New Testament (i.e., abortion, homosexuality, genocide, etc.). Thus, while the New Testament does not mandate a theocracy like the Old Testament Mosaic Law did; it stands to reason that any society that consists primarily of believers will have a positive effect on the culture at large and such will be evident not only in the private sphere, but also in the public spheres.

Secularist Morality Is Arbitrary

Two key intellectual "sins" are arbitrariness and inconsistency. When someone does or believes something in an arbitrary way, it means that they have no good reason or grounds for doing what they do or believing what they believe. Because their decision to behave or believe in a particular way is arbitrary, they could just as easily have chosen the exact opposite and it wouldn't have been inconsistent or morally objectionable for them to do so. This is the problem with the commonly held version of secular ethics described earlier known as the social contract theory. Let me explain.

If society gets to determine moral standards apart from reference to an objective, transcendent moral standard that holds all human societies accountable for their actions, then morality is relative and changeable depending upon the preferences of the majority of any given society. A society could just as easily adopt the principle that it is morally permissible to eat their neighbor rather than love them. Morality would be reduced to mere preferences, like choosing flavors of ice cream. Either way would be totally acceptable given the starting assumption of this ethic, which is that autonomous man gets to make up his own moral standards. My friend Sye TenBruggencate over at his site sums up the problem quite well,

If you truly believed that there was no such thing as absolute morality then there would be no 'right' or 'wrong,' just things that you or your society happen not to like. Rape and child molestation would not be wrong, they would just become manmade objections. The question then becomes: 'If man is the measure of all things - which man? - which society? If someone with enough power happened to like rape and molestation, what right would we have to impose our morality on him? What would be wrong with the person, or society, with the power imposing their morality on you? Why do we condemn the Nazi society for following their self-imposed morals? Why did the Nazi society not have the right to break from the tradition of morality in western civilizations?

There is no question that societies have different interpretations of morality but if you examine the following sentence you will see the illogic of thinking that societies determine morality. "The majority of the people in our society participated in that evil deed." If morality was up to society, that sentence would never make sense, but we know that morality is beyond societies and such a proposition is possible.

You have denied that absolute moral laws exist but you appeal to them all the time. You say that rape IS wrong because you know that it IS wrong and not just against your personal preference. Unless you reconsider your stand on this matter, your road to this site's proof that God exists ends here. It is my prayer that you come to understand how inconsistent and irrational this line of thinking is and return to seek the truth.

Thus, when the unbeliever appeals to secular group-think to determine what moral standards should be, they are reduced to absurdity since their arbitrariness leads them to admit (if they are consistent) that such atrocities as rape, torturing children for fun, and other evil actions would be morally acceptable as long as the particular society in question approves of it. Here's an example from a recent YouTube exchange that I had with a person who advocated the social contract theory,

Unbeliever: "I conclude value is subjective. What's inconsistent about that? Second, just because I agree that humanity creates morality, does not mean that every morale code that mankind makes will match up with my morale code. My standard is the basis for my criticism of others standards. Next, you bring up the social contract. You ask what compels you to commit to this contract. Force? Well, what if there is an absence of force? What then, is there that makes killing wrong? My subjective morality is what allows me to conclude it as wrong. I know what it is like to suffer. As such, I do not force suffering upon another or wish it upon them. That stems from my darwinian survival instincts, as the less people around me suffering, the less likely I am to suffer. Same goes with killing! The more people who commit to the contract means the less likely I am to get killed.

Me: You said, "That stems from my darwinian survival instincts, as the less people around me suffering, the less likely I am to suffer. Same goes with killing! The more people who commit to the contract means the less likely I am to get killed."

Statistical averages do not tell us whether suffering or killing are *wrong*. What is the case doesn't necessarily tell us what ought to be the case.

Unbeliever: "Sure, but that's not my point. My point was that morality is subjective and tends to be devised to increase human survival. In this case, committing to the social contract increases survival for the individual. The individual wishes for others to commit to the same contract not because he cares necessarily for their survival, but because their commitment increases his chances of survival more. That's how I explain the basis for my *subjective* morality."

Me: Again, statistical averages don't tell us what is *wrong*, they only tell us what is. All you are giving me is your subjective *preference* based upon statistics. But statistics are irrelevant in determining how people *ought* to behave. Assuming your arbitrary standard in a different context, I could just as easily *subjectively* argue that all people in a society that have the words "Anonymous" in their nick are to be immediately exterminated in a gas chamber by order of der Furher.

Unbeliever: "Of course I am giving you my subjective preference. Again, morality is nothing more than that; subjective preference. You could easily rig your morale standard up to believe everyone with the words 'Anonymous' in their nick should be exterminated. Is it objectively right or wrong? Neither. But, it conflicts with the basis of my morale standard, which fortunately, most people happen to follow as well. So, that won't be happening any time soon. (p.s. Godwin's Law)"

Me: "If morality is nothing more than subjective preference then I can eat my neighbors instead of loving them and torture and rape little girls for fun as long as I don't get caught and/or my society makes it legal. Those things would certainly promote 'survival value'"

Unbeliever: "That standard would definitely benefit your survival, but it would be short-lived and irrational, as your chances of being retaliated against would greatly scale in proportionate to how destructive you are, as more people deem you an increasing threat to their own survival. The social contract is the most sustainable standard there is. We all live in moderation in the contract to ensure our selfish well-being. We only wish to see a peaceful world for our own individual survival."

Me: "But I don't plan to get caught."

Unbeliever: "You don't suffer retaliation only from external sources after the fact. You suffer the increased retaliation from those you exploit too. You increase the likelihood of being harmed or killed by those you initiate force against, increasingly and increasingly. You can argue all you want from a hypothetical about not getting caught, but it's highly unlikely in actual practice. Your best bet is still the social contract; appealing to the cooperative standard to ensure sustainability."

Me: [repeating the same statement I made last time.] "But I don't plan to get caught."

Unbeliever: "What's your point? Are pests not a detriment to my garden even if I am ignorant of their effects? People who are overly destructive have an effect on the human experience whether we realize it or not. I can conclude that all people that are potentially coercing against others breaks the balance of the social contract, regardless of whether or not I observe their effects, because I do not create the standard as a response to them. I create the standard out of the potential for them."

Me: [repeating the same statement I made last time to drive the point home and because the guy is obviously too blind to see the problem with his ethical theory or doesn't care.] "But I don't plan to get caught."

Unbeliever: "Good luck with that.

Me: "Jack the Ripper had pretty good luck with it." [Jack the Ripper was a 19th century serial killer that brutally raped and murdered many women. He was never apprehended.]

Notice in the exchange above that our unbelieving friend argued for morality based upon a societal consensus that is designed to promote the survival of individual members of the group. I pointed out that what promotes survival value doesn't tell me whether an action is right or not by using examples of obviously evil behavior that can promote survival value. He tried to answer by saying that I'll be punished by the society and my response was three-fold:

1. Society can legislate obviously evil behavior [i.e., Nazi Germany and "The Holocaust"].
2. How people are behaving doesn't tell us how they should behave. To ground ethics in what the majority of people are doing is to commit a logical fallacy known as the naturalistic fallacy. Stated in layman's terms, this fallacy says that what is the case doesn't necessarily tell us what ought to be the case.
3. As long as I don't get caught I'm still considered "good". After all, if there is no God to answer to on Judgment Day and if nobody in the society knows that I did it, then I'm still "good" according to their standards. On secular ethics, I get to have my cake and eat it too!
   

The Most Important Problem: Secular Morality Leads to Hell

Most Christians would say, "No duh dude!" However, how many of us work hard expose unbelief for what it is yet leave unbelievers without the hope of the gospel? The biggest problem the secularist has isn't his arbitrary and inconsistent beliefs, but the fact that he is headed for eternal Hellfire (Rev. 14:9-11). God judgment bears down on him like a train raging full speed at an unwary, drunken vagabond standing on the tracks. The vagabond's drunken eyes and ears are deaf and dumb to his impending doom. So it is with the secularist. He has drunk his fill of the world's philosophy and empty deception, but he is a stranger to Christ's teachings because He is unable to hear them (Col. 2:8). He can't see that "truth is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21) and that its in Christ him whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:4). He needs his ears unstopped and his eyes treated with spiritual "eye-salve" (Rev. 3:18). This only happens through regeneration, i.e., being "born-again" (John 3:3-8). When a man is regenerated, he repents and believes on Christ and this internal renovation of being causes him to swear allegiance to Christ's way rather than the world's way. He ditches the world's grand opportunities and the poisoned chalices filled to the brim with lies, and rather stands upon Christ's word. He does so because he has been changed forever by the power of the Holy Spirit and as he grows in his faith, he gives more and more glory to God alone for this great truth.

IN CONCLUSION, given the social contract theory's assumed starting point of man's autonomous reasoning, one cannot dogmatically tell me that torturing little girls for fun is inherently evil since any given society might legislate that it's okay to do so in the future, or that being a serial killer is morally wrong in and of itself. All you can do is tell me that it doesn't line up with societal preferences and that I might get punished for it, but you can't tell me that those actions are inherently wrong in and of themselves in any cosmic sense. So, by making man's law the standard instead of Christ's law, you are not only left with a secular ethic that is arbitrary, inconsistent, and self-refuting; but you prove that you are a man headed straight to eternal hellfire lest you embrace Christ's gospel.

Handel's Messiah Canadian Mob

Since this video is going viral on the net, I figured I'd increase the e-virulence factor:



As I watched these talented people sing this glorious song, I couldn't help but get a little choked up. I then wondered how many of them really believed what they were singing.

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

HT: SermonAudio

Evolution Undermining Evolutionists

A few questions for my atheistic evolutionist friends:

• Please explain how the laws of logic can exist in a universe only made of matter. In other words, how do you account for the existence of immaterial, abstract, and unchanging laws in a universe made only of matter?

• If the laws of logic as defined above do exist, why am I morally obligated to be logical and rational assuming that naturalism and evolution is true?

• Assuming Darwinism, please explain to me why we should trust our thoughts? After all, Darwin himself said,
  

With me, the horrid doubt always arises, whether the convictions of a man's mind, which have been developed from the minds of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Why would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there were any convictions in such a mind? [Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.]

Richard Vitzhum, who wrote "Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition" also commented similarly,

A revised and modernized materialism concludes from all of this [i.e., what he was arguing for in his book], that all human thought and feeling is the product of a series of unthinking and unfeeling processes originating in the Big Bang. [pp. 218-219]

• So, given naturalism, evolutionary theory, and the conjunction between the two, what basis do you have to believe that your thoughts are reliable given naturalism and evolution?

In conclusion, let's recap my questions for my naturalistic evolutionary friends. (1) If all that exists is matter in motion, where do you get immaterial, abstract, unchanging laws from? (2) If naturalism and evolution are true, how can you know that they are true since the reliability of the very thought processes that you use to argue for them are called into question by the same naturalistic processes that they supposedly arose from?

Does Our DNA Show That We Came from Apes?

It is commonly asserted by evolutionists that our DNA is approximately 97-98% similar to that of chimpanzees. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International shows that not only does that claim not prove that we came from ape-like ancestors but that genetic similarity can be just as easily explained by a common designer.



The common argument used by evolutionists about similarity proving evolution usually goes something like this:

P1 - If neo-Darwinian evolution happened, then we should observe similarity in organisms.

P2 - We observe similarity in organisms.

C - Therefore, Neo-Darwinian evolution happened.

The problem with this argument is that it commits the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. This common evolutionary argument proves nothing; for as already noted above, similarity in organisms can just as easily be explained via a common designer. However, it does show that the reigning philosophical paradigm utilized by the scientist doing origins research ultimately determines the results of that research.

HT: Creationclips

On Circular Reasoning and Question Begging

A Word of Introduction

One of my Christian brothers and fellow apologists has accused me of circular reasoning. His statement was:

I keep harping on the question begging because there is no "vicious" or "gracious" logical fallacy, it's just a fallacy. I don't think your example of the law of noncontradiction works because that's a different animal. That's a first principle, and in regards to the order of knowing, we can't look to anything beyond first principles in order to prove them. They're self-evident, as you know. To deny them is to affirm them.

That's not the case with the Bible. It's not a logical contradiction to say the Bible isn't true or is not the Word of God. That's a false statement of course, but it's not illogical. If it's not illogical, or it's not self-defeating, then we need to look at other evidences to see if it is or isn't the Word of God. To presuppose that it is is to in fact beg the question, which is a logical fallacy know matter how you color it. So I stand by my statement that the ambassador of Christ need not commit logical fallacies in order to share the Gospel with a lost and dying the world. Thanks brother!

Thus, I have decided to take the time to respond to my dear brother in some detail below.

It should be pointed out from the beginning that I have never suggested that anyone should commit the logical fallacy of begging the question in the sense of arguing like this: “The Bible is true because the Bible is true.” While that statement is true, it would indeed be strange and outright fallacious to argue in such a way. In reality, I have frequently called attention to the failure of such arguments in my interactions with atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and cultists. It is true that I, as well as other Christian apologists have spoken positively of “circular reasoning” in some sense, but I and they have something other than the logical fallacy of begging the question in mind when doing so. When in the thick of discussions like these, I am not talking so much about argumentation wherein I am setting down a convincing case that leads to a conclusion via deductive or inductive argumentation. I certainly have no problem with deductive or inductive reasoning per se, but when I have spoken of using circularity in apologetics, I have always done so with the realization that all human beings are involved in utilizing an inescapable process by which their finite minds can attain to knowledge by first beginning with some foundational starting point that informs the rest of their thinking.

Thus, I have held that all human reasoning is involved in a finite process of circular, or more accurately spiral, learning. We grasp a measure of truth, then we reason from that to other truths, and these new truths in turn enhance our understanding of that first truth. There is no logical fallacy in this whatsoever. Instead, it is merely the reality of human apprehension and reflection. For example, this is the basic process of scientific induction. As we move from one fact to another, the latter illumines the former. It is similar to the procedure that we frequently use in Biblical interpretation. The second and third verses we read help us understand the first verse we read due to contextual clues. We do not begin with an idea and never return to it. Logical inferences constantly inform our understanding of the notions that started us thinking in a particular direction.

This kind of reciprocity in reasoning is ultimately unavoidable and inescapable. For example, suppose you want to defend the idea that the senses are basically reliable. It would be fallacious to argue, “I believe in the reliability of the senses because I believe in the reliability of the senses.” That is begging the question. Nevertheless, we should all realize that it is absolutely impossible to argue for the basic reliability of sense perception without relying implicitly on sense perception. How do we argue for the reliability of our senses? We accumulate examples of times when our senses gave us true knowledge of the world. Again, this is a simple example of what is considered to be a perfectly sound method of inductive learning. But how did we know that our examples even took place? How did we know our senses gave us true knowledge at these times? The answer is obvious: through sense perception! In what other way could one possibly demonstrate the reliability of the senses, except by relying on the senses? And so, it should be pointed out to our unbelieving and believing friends that to level the charge of circularity at us is to ignore the fact that this is the kind of circularity or spiraling that exists in all human reasoning, regardless of one’s worldview. It has nothing to do with begging the question. It has everything to do with the fact that all people must start somewhere in their chain of reasoning.

Now, consider the law of non-contradiction. How can it be logically justified without first assuming the truthfulness thereof? Of course, no one should say, “The law of non-contradiction is true because the law of non-contradiction is true.” That is begging the question. We may say that the law is self-evident, but that is an assertion, not an argument. And so, every linear argument we create in support of the law of non-contradiction at least implicitly relies on that selfsame law. Sometimes, we argue for the law of non-contradiction by saying that its denial leads to absurdity. But to recognize absurdity we have implicitly to use the law of non-contradiction! At other times, we argue for the law by pointing out that every attempt to deny it requires the implicit use of the law. Once again, we rely implicitly on the principle to support the principle. Because the law of non-contradiction holds as a universal principle for all human reasoning, we can never reason properly without it, even as we defend its necessity. If it is indeed necessary for human thought, we then use it all the time, even when discussing the law itself. To acknowledge this is not to beg the question, it is merely to acknowledge the reality of how we come to know things.

Now consider the whole system of beliefs (read = worldview) that we hold as Christians. The teaching of Scripture is enormous, entailing not only ideas about God, but a host of teachings about the world (an orderly universe, etc.) and humanity (sinful, rational, etc.) as well. Suppose we want to argue for this world and life view by focusing on one claim of the Bible — say, the existence of God. We would not want to beg the question by arguing, “I believe God exists because God exists.” Instead, we would demonstrate that to deny such belief is to contradict what all people intuitively know, regardless of their claims to the contrary (Rom. 1:19-21) and to undermine the very preconditions of rationality (Pro. 26:4-5). But once we touch on these ideas (or for that matter, any other true concept), we have argued with ideas derived from the Christian world and life view, an outlook that is based on the fact that God exists.

The situation in apologetics is similar to that which we face with sense perception and the law of non-contradiction. If the Christian belief system is an exhaustive world and life view, covering all matters, we can never argue for it or any part of it without using arguments that are implicitly dependent on it. We cannot support the truth of Christianity without implicitly relying on truths that Christianity teaches. In this sense, we should not attempt to use ideas outside of the Christian world and life view to argue for Christianity, unless we want to argue from lies to the truth. The same goes for non-Christian worldviews as well, for they too must argue for their own worldview by assuming parts of that selfsame worldview.

Providentially, people are made in God’s image (i.e., intellect, emotions, volition, etc.) and have the inescapable witness of general revelation. They often accept and assume (at least superficially) truths that we use in argumentation. For this reason, we do not always have to tell unbelievers that our arguments are distinctively Christian ideas. But remember, even the truths of general revelation that many unbelievers acknowledge (order of nature, existence of some type of deity, reliability of the senses, etc.) are part of our Christian world and life view, regardless whether they are epistemologically self-conscious of this fact or not. Therefore, all of this was said to say that to argue for Christian theism without at the same time implicitly depending on Christian theism is like trying to get out of your skin to reach out and touch yourself. Such a thought is silly and impossible.

This is what the Princeton-trained, Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til taught when he described all reasoning as ultimately “circular” in at least some sense. He did not for a moment suggest that Christians should commit the logical fallacy of begging the question. Far from it. Instead, he insisted that argumentation is always to be linear, regardless of whether it is deductive, adductive, inductive, or transcendental. Van Til simply insisted that there is no way for finite human beings to escape the implicit and inherent spiral of our learning and reasoning processes. Van Til himself said so in his own writings:

The charge is constantly made that if matters stand thus with Christianity, it has written its own death warrant as far as intelligent men are concerned. Who wishes to make such a simple blunder in elementary logic, as to say that we believe something to be true because it is in the Bible? Our answer to this is briefly that we prefer to reason in a circle to not reasoning at all. We hold it to be true that circular reasoning is the only reasoning that is possible to finite man. The method of implication as outlined above is circular reasoning. Or we may call it spiral reasoning. We must go round and round a thing to see more of its dimensions and to know more about it, in general, unless we are larger than that which we are investigating. Unless we are larger than God we cannot reason about Him by any other way, than by a transcendental or circular argument. The refusal to admit the necessity of circular reasoning is itself an evident token of Antitheism. Reasoning in a vicious circle is the only alternative to reasoning in a circle.[1]

To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another[2]

At the outset it ought to be clearly observed that every system of thought necessarily has a certain method of its own. Usually this fact is overlooked. It is taken for granted that everybody begins in the same way with an examination of the facts, and that the differences between systems come only as a result of such investigations. Yet this is not actually the case. It could not actually be the case. In the first place, this could not be the case with a Christian. His fundamental and determining fact is the fact of God’s existence. That is his final conclusion. But that must also be his starting point. If the Christian is right in his final conclusion about God, then he would not even get into touch with any fact unless it were through the medium of God. And since man has, through the fall in Adam, become a sinner, man cannot know and therefore love God except through Christ the Mediator . . .

If all things must be seen “in God” to be seen truly, one could look ever so long elsewhere without ever seeing a fact as it really is. If I must look through a telescope to see a distant star, I cannot first look at the star to see whether there is a telescope through which alone I could see it. If I must look through a microscope to see a germ, I cannot first look at the germ with the naked eye to see if there is a microscope through which alone I can see it. If it were a question of seeing something with the naked eye and seeing the same object more clearly through a telescope or a microscope, the matter would be different. We may see a landscape dimly with the naked eye and then turn to look at it through a telescope and see it more clearly. But such is not the case with the Christian position. According to it, nothing at all can be known truly of any fact unless it be known through and by way of man’s knowledge of God.[3]

So by way of conclusion, when in the midst of heated philosophical discussion and debate, all human beings assume certain parts of their worldview in order to argue for that same worldview. Some are just a little more epistemologically self-conscious about it than others.

---

[1] Greg Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, 518.

[2] Cornelius Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 118.

[3] Cornelius Van Til, Survey of Christian Epistemology, 4-5.

Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth - Interview with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

The following interview is an excellent, brief refutation of not only Richard Dawkins' new book, but of neo-Darwinian theory in general. Enjoy!

Part 1



Part 2



HT: Creation Ministries International

What Is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism?

GTCC Outreach Report 11-17-2010

Introduction: I don't have time to give specific details of individual encounters from today's outreach because I witnessed to so many people, but it was such a blessing seeing people respond to the simple presentation of the gospel. I had prayed that God would give the students a mind to listen to what I had to say, and He abundantly granted my heart's desire (Psalm 37:4). Several people literally teared up as I spoke to them concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. One silly group of people that were jokingly talking about recreational drugs and using profanity got very quiet when I walked up and boldly but kindly introduced myself to them and clearly explained why I was there and the message I was bringing. They immediately developed a serious disposition and listened intently to my words. Several people were visibly convicted as they heard the gospel and a few said something like, "Man, that really makes sense." In sum, their responses were truly supernatural.

Keeping Evangelism Simple

After I introduced myself and my purpose for being there, I asked this simple question, "What must a person do to be reconciled to God?" Some people didn't understand what "reconciled" meant, so I explained that and went on to discuss the fact that we will either get what we deserve from God (judgment) or mercy. I had no discussions about relativism, postmodernism, pluralism, normative ethics, world religions, New Age, etc. and purposefully avoided those discussions for two reasons (1) to keep the conversation simpler, and (2) to demonstrate that the gospel message and/or the Bible is sufficient to answer people's questions and objections [2 Tim. 3:16-17]. The response was amazing.

How many housewives or busy dads reading this blog have become overwhelmed by all the methods of evangelism and apologetics that they have been taught through the years to the point that they simply give up and say, "I can't do it, I'm not a professional" or quit simply because they end up getting frustrated at all the questions that they can't answer? Here's a few reasons I think Christians get frustrated:

• The method of "evangelism" they are taught is nothing more than a bait-and-switch scam. This has hurt my efforts too because I have asked irrelevant and unnecessary questions or leading questions that make the person I'm talking to feel as if I'm trying to back them into a corner. Worse yet, we end up having a 15 minute debate over the existence of absolute truth (or some other such concept) when that time could have been spent speaking of the great and glorious things of the gospel. Also, people can sense when you're trying to scam them, and frankly, much of what goes by the name of "evangelism" today comes off as nothing more than a baptized scam job. If you've got a lick of sense about you, you can sense when people sense that you're trying to scam them. When you actually are doing it (even though well meaning), it makes you uncomfortable too and you dislike the discomfort and quit doing it. Frankly, I'm glad some evangelicals quit using lousy evangelism methods.
  
• They are taught an unbiblical standard of evangelism and apologetics. They are taught that in order to be an effective witness for Christ they must be able to defend on the spot the historicity, authenticity, and textual reliability of the Bible or the 10 major problems with neo-Darwinian theory or some other impossible task. Professional apologists, please listen carefully: What you do is much appreciated, but please understand that oftentimes the average Christian shuts down when you tell them that they have to know all kinds of intellectual kung-fu to reach sinners. They look at you and silently think, "I can't do it, I work 45 hours a week, have three kids, have to mow my yard, paint my house, prepare my Sunday school lesson, and read the Bible to my wife and kids. After each day is finished, I don't have the time or energy to do all of that." The older Christian who knows his Bible well thinks, "This information is great for discipleship, but why do I need to learn all of this stuff to preach the gospel, especially when Romans 1 says that all men already know that the Creator exists and that their problem is not a lack of knowledge but one of truth suppression? After all, doesn't Paul say that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation?" When you look in the New Testament, what do you see? Do you see Paul using the cosmological argument in Acts 14 or 17? No, he started with the proclamation of the Creator-God; assuming His existence as a given (regardless of what his hearers believed) and then moved on to preach the resurrected Christ. The apostle Peter's command to be ready to give an answer to every man that asks you of the reason of the hope that you have within you was written by a fisherman, not a philosopher (1 Peter 3:15). Peter meant that his readers must be able and willing and any time to tell people why they are willing to suffer for their faith, and you can be sure that it had nothing to do with modern analytic philosophy, but it had everything to do with the gospel of Christ. Please hear me well: I'm not saying that we shouldn't study Christian apologetics and Christian philosophy. Anyone who has kept up with this blog over the years knows better. I'm attacking the unbiblical notion that Christians need to know detailed information about philosophy and apologetics rather than the teachings of Scripture in order to reach sinners with the gospel. For more information, please see my article Apologetics that Brings Glory to Christ.
  

IN CONCLUSION, The simple, clear, direct, no-strings attached, no trying to "back me into a corner" type of presentation is well-received by most people. People prefer you to be direct and to the point with them rather than beat around the bush and taking forever to get to your point and arguing with them for what seems to them to be for no purpose whatsoever. Just coming out and giving them the truth has a ring of authenticity to it and in a strange sort of way, they appreciate your bold and direct, yet kind approach even though they don't embrace what you're saying.

Christian, learning more about the textual reliability of the Bible, the bogus claims of Darwinism, and other such things can be very beneficial for your own personal growth and discipleship, but when it comes to evangelism and apologetics, your all sufficient resource is the Scriptures and a simple, yet direct gospel presentation. Use your Bible, memorize your Bible, and wield the sword of the word accurately and effectively and trust the Holy Spirit to do the work of regeneration.

All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Making Mistakes and Learning from Them

Yesterday, I was reminded that Christian leaders sometimes make really silly mistakes. I received a phone call from a dear pastor friend who informed me that an annual pastor's conference sponsored by his church that was scheduled for this weekend had to be canceled because he couldn't get enough participants to attend. He explained that the reason for this was because of theological infighting over secondary issues occurring between two groups that normally attend this conference. This infighting is occurring over an issue dealing with ecclesiology (the nature and practice of the church).

Our church actually practices some of the things that one group is promoting yet we agree with many of the other group's critiques of the first group's practices. I explained to my pastor friend that this is the reason why we have distanced ourselves from the former group while continuing to choose to practice some of their teachings without condemning churches that don't "do it like we do it". What we have chosen to do is simply a freedom; a way of fulfilling the command of Christ but that way itself is not a command of Christ or His apostles. While exercising our freedom to do "church" this way has blessed our congregation greatly, we have chosen to avoid being associated with the group that promotes what we practice because we believe they go too far by implicitly or explicitly condemning other churches that don't "do it like they do it". After all, it is a secondary issue.

I discussed this issue with my fellow elder and he rightly said that we simply need to examine what we are doing from our Bibles using good Bible interpretation skills. Of course, both groups would claim to be doing just that. But when another trusted brother or group of brethren issue a loving critique of what we are doing, we ought to pay careful attention to their critique and examine it and our practices in light of what the Bible says. If we come away fully convinced in our own mind, then we must remain in disagreement with our brethren while continuing to share personal and even ecclesiastical fellowship until such a time as we can come together again and be convinced from the Scriptures that what we are doing is not Biblical. This is Proverbs 27:17 put into practice,

Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

However, what typically happens is that brethren cut off communication from one another and refuse to have any kind of fellowship whatsoever. The battle then gets nastier, and pride, fleshly motives, and a desire to "win" becomes more apparent than ever. Articles, booklets, and blog posts are written against one another, and the divide widens. Instead of further communication taking place with people seeking to sharpen one another with their Bibles, they separate from one another, churches are sometimes split, and people develop a "divide and conquer" mentality. This is not the way of Christ; nor does it exhibit the heart of one who is in the New Covenant.

Some suggestions for changing this type of division in the wider body of Christ include the following:

• ". . . examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good." 1 Thess. 5:21
• "See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people." 1 Thess. 5:15
• ". . . pray without ceasing." 1 Thess. 5:17
• "Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted 1us to the glory of God." Rom. 15:7
• "And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another." Rom. 15:14
  
• "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house [i.e., house church], and do not give him a greeting, for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." 2 John 9-11

Personal and ecclesiastical division should only take place over the person and work of Christ (i.e., Christ's nature, His gospel, etc.). If we get that wrong, one or both of us are hell-bound heretics. Apart from that, we certainly ought not divide from personal fellowship with one another lest we devour one another. We might annoy one another at times; but persistence in doctrinal unity around the word of God versus the teachings of men is a sure way to "preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph. 4:3) May God grant such unity in these last days and may God grant me the ability to recognize these things in myself before pointing out the failings of others.

Engaging JWs

Today, I saw the Jehovah's Witnesses walking around my neighborhood as I was coming back from getting an oil change. As I pulled up in my driveway, there were two men standing in the street in front of my house exchanging information. I carry photocopies of their old literature in my car where they predicted the end of the world five times (1914, 18, 25, 45, 75), and so I grabbed that lit. and my Greek NT, and walked out into the street to respectfully engage the man standing in front of my house.

I walked up, introduced myself, and asked him this question:

I have photocopies of your literature from the early to late 20th century, and in this literature your organization predicted the end of the world five times. Can you please explain to me why I should believe your organization's teachings about Christ when they can't get their prophecies right about the end of the world?

The man stammered a bit and then eventually told me that he knew about this information, yet it didn't affect his faith in what the Watchtower teaches. I then asked:

If the headquarters for your group can't get its dates right about the return of Christ, who's to say that they got it right about the nature of Christ?

He wanted to then get away from that as quickly as possible by throwing out some irrelevant issues (i.e., no man knows the day or the hour, JWs are unified in doctrine, etc.) and I calmly said,

Sir, all of that is irrelevant; the Mormons are unified too, but they worship a polytheistic idol. The issue is again, how can I trust your organization about Jesus' nature when they can't get the timing of his return right? Your New World Translation tells me in 1st John 4:1 to test the spirits to see whether they are from God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

At this point several JWs were walking down the street past us and the man I was speaking with asked another JW to come over to help in this conversation. After explaining my objections to him, this man said that the "society" has openly admitted that they were wrong. I then asked,

But have they ever repented of their false prophecy. There's a difference in apologizing and repenting. Apologizing is saying you're sorry. Repentance, in this context, is doing a complete turn around wherein you reject those the very doctrines or practices that led up to the false prophecy in the first place. Has the "society" ever done that?

This man didn't respond, but tried to redirect the conversation to issues about Christmas, Easter bunnies, and Halloween, and I redirected the conversation to why this issue is important:

Jesus said that you'd know a false prophet by the fruit that he bears, and the fruits that the Watchtower has borne are false prophecies rooted in a false Christ (Matt. 7:15-16).

They then what I believe about God and so I forthrightly confessed my Trinitarianism and commitment to salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. One of them then asked, "So when Jesus died on the cross, did God die" and I responded, "Sir, by making a statement like that, you show that you do not understand the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity." I then gave the following brief definition of the Trinity with subsequent Scriptural proofs:

Within the one being that we call God, there are three, distinct, co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Father is God (Eph. 1:3), the Son is God (John 20:28), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:4; 2 Cor. 3:17).

At this point I then said,

Look, the false prophecies I hold in my hand produced by your organization are only a fruit; a fruit of idolatry. The real issue is which God are you serving, the one True God, or an idol. Idols will lead to everlasting destruction (2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 21:8) whereas worshiping the one true God leads to eternal life (John 17:3).

The first gentlemen I talked to then said this, "In all my 50 years as a Jehovah's Witness, I've never ran into a guy like you. Why is that? Why aren't people that hold your doctrine knocking on my door" I said, "For starters, professing evangelicalism is apostatizing from the truth of the Scriptures, secondly, there are plenty of people around like me that can explain these things much better than I can because they are more qualified than I, but you aren't allowed to talk to them because your organization says that you are to avoid reading literature from 'opposers'. Finally, because of your doctrine of avoiding information from 'opposers', you are looking for guys like me about as much as a crook is looking for a cop."

With that last statement, the second gentleman said something like this, "If we could show you that you are mistaken about the false prophecies ruining the credibility of the Watchtower because they have apologized (viz., repented), would you become a Jehovah's Witness?"

My response: "Absolutely not, because you worship an idol rather than the One true God revealed in Scripture."

His response: "I'd like to continue this conversation in the future, but for now, we have to go since our group is waiting for us. It is clear that you are convinced of your position and we are comfortable with ours, so we probably aren't going to make any more headway today."

My final response: "With all due respect, that's your problem. You are 'comfortable' with your position, a position that will lead you to the very Hell that you deny. The ultimate issue is this: Who is God? The answer to that question matters forever and Jesus said that if you don't believe that He is the great 'I AM', you will die in your sins (John 8:24); that's what I'm concerned about for you and you ought to be concerned about it for yourself."

Conclusion: Bible-believing Christians need to be willing to do for the truth what the cults are willing to do for a lie. Why not give up some creature comforts and memorize some Scripture, do some study, and get equipped to engage these Hell-bound people rather than ignore them when they knock on your door?

UNCG Outreach Report 11-10-2010

Introduction: Today's outreach was a mix of open-air preaching and one-on-one evangelism. I walked around campus and had 10 minute conversations about the gospel with 5 people and then went to the public sidewalk at Spring Garden street where hundreds of students were milling about between a class change to preach open air for about 20 minutes. After walking the public sidewalks and having some conversation with a pluralist that balked at Jesus' exclusivity in sending people to Hell that never heard the gospel, made my way back to Spring Garden street with plans to do some more open-air.

After preaching, I walked up the sidewalk and handed some of our church lit. to a student named Brian. Brian described himself as an agnostic existentialist with a Jewish/Roman Catholic background. As we walked down the sidewalk talking about religion, philosophy, etc., Brian asked if I wanted to sit in the shade in front of Yum Yum Ice Cream & Hot Dogs to chat. We sat down, got comfy, and started talking about all manner of things. The conversation that ensued lasted about an hour and fifteen minutes with the highlights summarized below.

What Do You Have that You Did Not Receive? 1 Cor. 4:7

Brian had several beefs with Christianity, beginning with the false religion of Catholicism. He ranted (along with me) about the injustice that Rome has perpetuated against peasants, Protestants, and people in general. He especially was disgusted with the fact that Rome refused to blatantly condemn Nazism during WWII and that indulgences were used to build St. Peter's basilica. I started explaining to him the significant of the Protestant Reformation's recovery of the gospel and then he turned on the Prots (actually, the Anabaptists, but I forgave the historical goof). I explained a few things that were important for him to consider:

1. Don't ditch Jesus because of His so-called followers (Matt. 7:21-23).

2. Those who perpetuated such violence are directly contradicting the teachings of Jesus (John 13:35).

3. Christians don't go to the Old Covenant Law of Moses to get their morality, they are to appeal to the New Testament Law of Christ. This means they are to love their enemies, not kill them (Matt. 5:44-45).

He appreciated that info, but he went on to explain that his beloved mother died of cancer last year and that he couldn't see any good purpose in it and appealed to existentialism to explain it (i.e., I impute whatever meaning to the experience I want because the experience itself has no inherent meaning or purpose). He then went on to explain that morality is grounded in the same way. I retorted that if that's the case, then he can't provide any reason why Nazism is wrong other than personal preference. He admitted as much, and I explained that unless one begins with the God of Scripture, there is no ultimate reason to love other people instead of eating them. I explained that the Bible teaches that people will either submit to Christ's law or do what's right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25). Again, he admitted as much.

I then answered various questions related to predestination, God's purpose for which He made the world, and salvation. He then asked about the relationship between predestination and salvation, and so I explained to him the doctrines of grace and moreover, how everything is planned by God for God's good purposes, including the cancer of his mother (Romans 11:33-36). He admitted that if it were true, it all made sense, and I then explained the importance of him repenting and believing on Christ for eternal life. He then asked an interesting question:

So . . . I believe on Christ just to get out of Hell?

Excellent question. This kid had a good mind and I could tell he had already been thinking about some of this stuff for a while. I answered with something like this,

No. You have eternal life now and in the hereafter. You are given peace with God, taken out of the courtroom of God's divine justice and adopted into the family of God by virtue of what Christ has done in your stead. Your entire life changes because God's given you a new heart. You love people you once hated because you now love Jesus more than anything else. You have a new found joy that never grows old, and you have an unexplainable new desire to be pleasing to God, be around God's people, and serve God and His people by using your gifts to glorify Him instead of serve sin and self. That's hardly "just to get out of Hell" . . . that's a major transformation!

He appreciated our talk and thanked me. I asked him if he had a Bible and he affirmed as much. I told him to read the gospel of John and answer the question: "Who is Jesus Christ?" We shook hands, and were off.

IN CONCLUSION, it never fails to amaze me how the Bible is sufficient to answer people's questions (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Most just don't like the answers God gives. Moreover, I was reminded once again that we can talk till we're blue in the face, but if the Spirit doesn't resurrect dry and dusty bones, they won't come to life, no matter how hard you prophesy to them.

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones. 2 He caused me to pass among them round about, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley; and lo, they were very dry. 3 He said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord GOD, You know." 4 Again He said to me, "Prophesy over these bones and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.' 5 "Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones, 'Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. 6 'I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the LORD.'" (Ezek. 37:1-6 NAU)

"Life Meant Nothing to Me"

HT: Tim Challies

John MacArthur Exposes Joel Osteen

HT: Truth Source