Apologetics

The Joys of Prayer, Justification and Evangelism: How They are Linked

May 11, 2013 By Mike Robinson Leave a Comment

Prayer is the slender nerve that moves the muscle of omnipotence (Charles H. Spurgeon).

Faith, and hope, and patience and all the strong, beautiful, vital forces of piety are withered and dead in a prayerless life. The life of the individual believer, his personal salvation, and personal Christian graces have their being, bloom, and fruitage in prayer. (E.M. Bounds).

Prayer has never been a mere option, it is a joyful duty. Prayer is a must for this nation and all its citizens. My prayer is that God will bring many multitudes to know Jesus Christ and serve Him.

Recall the story of Nebuchadnezzer. He had a dream, but he forgot it, so he commanded his impotent sorcerers and astrologers to ascertain what the content of his dream was: They couldn’t do it. Daniel prayed and prayed and God revealed the king’s dream and interpretation to him. Notice the manner in which Daniel praises God: “Daniel answered and said: ‘Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, for wisdom and might are His’” (Daniel 2:20).

• Who removes kings? God.

• Who raises kings? God.

Scripture teaches that God Almighty controls a king’s heart like water.

• God is in control.

The doctrine of God’s Providence was of utmost importance in the birth of the United States of America. All historical events are under God’s providential hand as He acts through human agencies. Laws alone will not change our society. Society will change when hearts change first. By God’s grace only Jesus Christ and His gospel can change people.

On July 4th 1776, The Declaration of Independence proclaimed: “We hold these truths… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… Appealing to the supreme judge of the world… and for the support of this declaration, with reliance on the protection of divine providence.”

No matter how much effort makes the life of a man a pleasanter and richer thing, there lives in mankind a sense that all such progress and civilization does not satisfy for the deepest human needs nor rescue them from their worst distress (Herman Bavinck).

Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). Thus, the largest institution on the planet is the church. The kingdom that contains the most citizens is the church. The association with most men is the church of Jesus Christ. Not any one denomination, but the collective body that professes Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior in America. A recent Gallup Poll found the percentage of people confessing to be Born-again Christians is 46 percent. That is way up from 33 percent from the early 1990′s. That is about 135 million people proclaiming salvation in Jesus Christ as Savior.

Justification: Declared Righteous

Clouds and darkness surround Him: righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne (Psalms 97:2).

Mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13).

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. … For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him (Romans 5:1-9).

Justification is a doctrinal term. The doctrine is laid out in the books of Romans and 1 Corinthians, among others (Genesis 15; Psalm 32; Galatians; Titus). Justification, as a doctrine, is unique to Christianity. The doctrine of justification holds that the believer is declared righteous, his sins are removed, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed unto him by faith in and the grace of Christ alone. No other religious system has a means by which to erase our record of iniquity and grant us a righteous record, so that we can enter a perfect Heaven. Justification is a legal, forensic term that implies prior condemnation and results in pardon.

The holy God demands a formal, forensic righteousness, not because He is capriciously harsh but because He is completely righteous. God is not arbitrary; He is holy and perfect. Heaven is pristinely perfect and for one to enter within one must have all their sins removed and have a perfect righteousness. One must be righteous to live with God in Heaven. Every man has broken God’s holy law; the solution for man’s sin and depravity is a formal, legal justification through Christ by grace through faith.

But to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5).

Most Christians understand that because Christ died on the Cross, their sins are forgiven and rinsed away; this is what is called the negative aspect of justification. Something is subtracted, namely our sins. The positive aspect of justification is usually overlooked by the average modern Christian. The positive element of justification states that God imputes into the believer’s account the righteousness of Christ. Jesus not only died for us; He lived for us. His perfect, holy, and righteous life was given to those who trust in Him. Christians know that Jesus atoned for their sins and disobedience on the Cross, but His work was not merely negative and passive.

During His life of thirty-three years, Jesus lived in perfect accord with God’s law, fulfilling all righteousness on our behalf. Saved believers stand perfectly righteous before the Holy God. They are not just guiltless and sinless, but they are actually declared righteous on account of Christ. All that Jesus did on the earth is imputed into the believer’s account. We are justified before God through the active and passive obedience of Jesus. We are saved by His life and His death; that is good news. Only Christianity can bestow justification. All the world’s additional religions are based upon the religionist’s good deeds and personal merit. The problem is that Heaven is perfect, God is holy, and nothing unholy and unrighteous will enter God’s Heaven. Biblical justification is the only solution to man’s sin and Adam’s disobedience.

The Positive Aspect of Justification: Imputation

And he believed in the LORD; and He accounted it to him for righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1).

For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of My people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace (Jeremiah 8:11).

By God’s grace through faith justification forensically renders the believer righteous and gives him peace with Heaven. Without justification, the unbeliever has no peace with God. We must never assert that there is peace when there is no peace between the ungodly and God. Without justification by grace alone, there can be no real peace. “Imputation” is the Biblical term for the positive element of justification. Through God’s grace by faith, the believer is declared righteous.

Christ preached: “Be perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). The law demands perfect obedience—a perfection equal to the Father’s perfection. Nobody except Christ has accomplished this, so we need a perfect righteousness that is not our own. We need to be justified by the works and righteousness of another. Justification is a forensic term which speaks of the Christian’s legal position before God. The believer is declared righteous despite his unrighteous deeds. The justified are given an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is not their own but is imputed unto them by faith. Not having a righteousness of our own ensures that God gets all the glory.

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men (Titus 3:4-8, italics mine).

As Thomas Boston put it, “We cry down the law when it comes to our justification, but we set it up when it comes to our sanctification. The Law drives us to the Gospel that we are justified, then sends us to the Law again to show us our duty now that we are justified.” Hence, because God has saved us by His mercy, we now strive to maintain good works because we are grateful.

A Christian is not a man who never goes wrong, but a man who is enabled to repent (C.S. Lewis).

Give Away What You Have Received

He who continually goes forth weeping, bearing seed for sowing, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him

(Psalms 126:6).

In 1940 a butterfly collector was in Utah trying to enlarge his collection of bugs. At dusk he returned from his excursion and shared with his companion that he had heard a loud moaning and a cry for help. Someone was calling for assistance down the stream. His friend asked him whether he stopped and looked for the man who was in trouble. He said, “No, I had to get a particular butterfly.” The next morning the corpse of a gold prospector was discovered in what later was named Dead Man’s Gulch. Are we like the indolent butterfly collector? People are all around us, dying in their sins, and we are too busy or too dull to reach out to help. Is your life a spiritual Dead Man’s Gulch or is it a lifesaving station?

I want to care like George Whitefield cared when he pleaded, “Weep out, if possible, every argument, and compel them to cry, ‘Behold, how He loves us.’”

“Go and preach the Gospel…” (Jesus Christ; Matthew 28:19)

Check out my eBook that will inspire as it provides biblical tools to help you evangelize Can I Get a Witness? How to Engage in Biblical Evangelism HERE

Plato’s Forms and Atheism: an Implausible Union

May 8, 2013 By Mike Robinson 1 Comment

The Theory of Forms and Non-theism Appear to Be a Difficult Marriage

By Mike Robinson, Granbury, Texas

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1).

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Jesus Christ: Revelation 1:7-8).

Behind this unreliable world of appearances is a world of … “Forms” or “Ideas” (eidos/idea in Greek). But what is a Platonic Form or Idea? Take for example a perfect triangle… This would be a description of the Form or Idea of (a) Triangle. Plato says such Forms exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their own realm. Considering this Idea of a perfect triangle, we might also be tempted to take pencil and paper and draw it. Our attempts will of course fall short. Plato would say that peoples’ attempts to recreate the Form will end up being a pale facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect representation of its perfect Form. The Forms are not limited to geometry. According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a corresponding Form, a perfect example of that thing or property. The list is almost inexhaustible. Tree, House, Mountain, Man, Woman, Ship, Cloud, Horse, Dog, Table and Chair, would all be examples of putatively independently-existing abstract perfect Ideas.[1]

The thinking Christian knows that God is the foundation for the laws of logic and other immaterial truths. Pressing this actuality is a potent way to refute materialistic atheism (see my post Here). Most atheists are materialists and even strict materialists (physicalists). Nonetheless, there is a small minority of atheists who affirm the reality or possibility of immaterial things such as the laws of logic, selected universals, and Forms.[2] Sundry schools affirm immaterial Platonic Forms[3] of one sort or another. Yet what in an atheist world could produce or ground such immutable universals? The human mind and the material cosmos both lack immutability and universal reign. God is immutable and has universal reign and thus the ontological capacity to ground immutable universals such as selected Forms, ideas, and the laws of logic.

Problems with the Theory of Ungrounded Forms

Various problems appear when one attempts to ground any immutable universal outside God. Selected queries that should be asked regarding ungrounded & impersonal Forms:

1. Plato’s Forms look as if they are arbitrary as well as incomplete. Are all variety of things Forms such as mud, urine, and skin?

2. When and who decides when a Form is not one particular Form but another? When is a large stream Form a creek and not a stream? And when is a large creek a river? Or a large lake Form actually a small sea Form? When is a large hill form actually a mountain Form. Plato’s Forms look, under scrutiny, to be more than a bit problematic.

Who is the world’s shortest giant or the tallest midget?

3. Are Plato’s Forms something definite and if so, where do they reside? What is the ontological makeup of Plato’s Forms? Are they transcendent or immanent? Or both?

4. If one suggests that Plato’s Forms are transcendent, how do they effect the land of the living—the non-transcendent? If they are merely a Form, they do not possess causal powers, so how do they affect the material world? By what power do they achieve their rule?

5. Are the Forms atemporal and aspatial? –if they are, how do they effect the temporal and spatial realm?– by what means do they bridge the gap? Forms are impersonal so they lack will and the power to act and determine things, so how does any non-theistic Form rule as God rules? God is a divine person so He acts, wills, and has the power to effect the non-transcendent.

6. If one denies theism, I cannot apprehend any evidence that a Form or Forms exist anywhere. But there seems to be counterevidence against the possibility of ungrounded Forms, since Forms cannot avoid an infinite regress of negative Forms. Is a Form of a bear also a Form of “not-deer,” and “not-car,” and “not-tree,” and “not-planet,” and “not-number 2” and ad infintum? I cannot see how a Form avoids such. The concept of ungrounded Forms falls into an infinite regress.

A Theory of Forms fails to explain most of reality. It appears that such theories lack the ability to explain change? Additionally, a Theory of Forms may have trouble explaining particulars, love, and the moral ought?

God Has the Explanatory Capacity to Explain Material and Immaterial Truths

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

God is the beginning, middle, and end of all. He is the supreme mind or reason, the effectual cause of all things, eternal, unchangeable…[4]

The Christian worldview has the explanatory power to explain all things–it appears that the Theory of Ungrounded Forms falls infinitely short in accounting for things it’s designed to enlighten.

In your light do we see light (Psalm 36:9).

The distinctiveness of the Platonic philosophy is precisely this direction toward the supersensuous world, it seeks the elevation of consciousness into the realm of spirit. The Christian religion also has set up this high principle, that the interior spiritual essence of man is his true essence, and has made it the universal principle.[5]

A dualism[6] that manifests in the Theory of Forms might be compatible with minority schools of atheism, but it appears to be an awkward amalgamation. The Theory of Forms advances the existence of mental constituents such as ideas, minds, and souls. These immaterial elements can intrude causally in the physical world of change. Similarly, God is a non-material Person—a Spiritual being that ordains and interposes His will on the material world. Most atheists believe the notion that an immaterial thing can intrude causally in the physical world is incongruent; to consent to the reality that immaterial mental elements exist seems to eliminate a major objection to the existence of God.

Moreover, how did these immaterial elements and ideas come into being through unguided evolutionary progression?

A dualism that exhibits itself in a Theory of Forms might be united with marginal schools of atheism but seems to be an uncomfortable unification. It would be easier to press Sasquatch’s feet into Dorothy’s ruby slippers than a Theory of Forms into atheism.

See my new Apologetics eBook Reality and the Folly of Atheism HERE

——————————————————————————————————————————–

David Macintos. http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Plato_A_Theory_of_Forms
Forms: I capitalize the word “Form” in order to help the unfamiliar reader correctly identify the usage.
The importance of Plato for the history of philosophy is evident… For Plato to understand anything … is to relate it to its class concept [Form or Idea]… Greg Bahnsen: Van Til’s Apologetic, p. 318.
Plato, Republic. 716 A.
Hegel. History of Philosophy, Vol. 2.
Plato believed that the same point could be made with regard to many other abstract concepts: even though we perceive only their imperfect instances, we have genuine knowledge of truth, goodness, and beauty no less than of equality. Things of this sort are the Platonic Forms, abstract entities that exist independently of the sensible world. Ordinary objects are imperfect and changeable, but they faintly copy the perfect and immutable Forms. Thus, all of the information we acquire about sensible objects (like knowing what the high and low temperatures were yesterday) is temporary, insignificant, and unreliable, while genuine knowledge of the Forms themselves (like knowing that 93 – 67 = 26) perfectly certain forever. Since we really do have knowledge of these supra-sensible realities, knowledge that we cannot possibly have obtained through any bodily experience, Plato argued, it follows that this knowledge must be a Form of recollection and that our souls must have been acquainted with the Forms prior to our births. But in that case, the existence of our mortal bodies cannot be essential to the existence of our souls—before birth or after death—and we are therefore immortal. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2f.htm

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: bahnsen plato, God plato's forms, presuppositional apologetics plato forms, theism plato forms, van til plato forms

Sye Ten Bruggencate’s New Apologetics Video: A Review

May 5, 2013 By Mike Robinson 5 Comments

Ten Bruggencate’s How to Answer the Fool

review by Mike Robinson

When I joined the staff of Collegiate Action Mission as an evangelist in 1982, the group, and the apologetics’ movement itself, was a fusion of different methodologies (evidentialism, C.S. Lewis’ work, Francis Schaeffer’s apologetics, and classical).

But then came Bahnsen. And suddenly, on the one side, there were ultimately only two apologetic approaches. One group was composed of evidential and classical approaches–people that anybody following contemporary apologetics would be familiar with. They spent a lot of time learning about all the evidences and proofs for the Christian faith. They upheld proof as their highest apologetic value. They admired Josh McDowell, R.C. Sproul, and Norman Geisler. In apologetic encounters, they worried that without presenting the evidence the unbeliever may not be convinced of the truth of Christianity.

But there was another sort of apologist, who is less familiar. This was the Bahnsenian presuppositionalist—biblical and intellectual heir to Augustine, Calvin, and Van til. This sort of apologist didn’t see evidence as a battleground between men and truth. Instead, the presuppositionalist wanted to preserve the biblical revelation of God–that which functioned as the epistemic starting point, in which the different ontic layers were nestled upon each other and all reposed upon God and scripture. Deny God, and in principle, one can know nothing at all.

Because they were biblical, they tended to believe that reason, proof, and evidence should be interpreted through biblical presuppositions. They believed that people should repent and come to Christ, but doubted that autonomous individuals have the ability to do this alone, unaided by revelation and the Holy Spirit. So they were intensely interested in creating the sort of apologetic that would press people to acknowledge that the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”

Recently many diverse apologists have taken the presuppositional approach seriously and place it as one more arrow among others in their apologetic quiver. This kind of apologetic diversity Sye Ten Bruggencate will have nothing to do with. For him: God is, all men know it, and an apologist must press the absurdity of those worldviews that reject Christianity. It is best to be guided by scripture and honor God above the wishes of men.

And in Ten Bruggencate’s new apologetic video How to Answer the Fool one sees the presuppositional approach deployed on the front lines. Sye and other apologists take the Van Tilian method to universities, radio stations, debates, and the streets. Herein the viewer can watch a formidable debater take on all challengers as he uncompromisingly defends the truth of God in Christ.

This is an enjoyable and educational video.
Sye discusses with various people the arguments for the existence of God. The scenes and arguments are short, concise, clear, and convincing. Some tough philosophical arguments are presented in simple ways with numerous analogies and illustrations to help the viewer understand the truth.

If you are:

1. Wearing the glasses of rigid atheism:

Then you need to watch this video. Nonetheless, it may disrupt your sleeping patterns until you repent and come to Christ—on God’s terms.

2. Open to see what’s up with presuppositional apologetics:

Then watch it—and you may actually come to learn more about apologetics and the power of truth.

3. A believer:

Then watch this video—it will build-up your faith.

As a teaching tool and as something to watch for enjoyment, this DVD is a delight. It is professionally produced and edited. All in all, this is a great DVD for quick information about important aspects of presuppositional apologetics and it is a fine tool that all budding apologists should purchase. I recommend this video for students and study groups as well as pastors.

You may purchase the American Vision video HERE

—————————————————————————–

Review by Mike Robinson author 24 presuppositional books and eBooks including Reality and the Folly of Atheism. Purchase the eBook Here

Filed Under: Apologetics, Covenantal Apologetics, Presuppositional Epistemology Tagged With: How to Answer the Fool video, presuppositional apologetics evidence, presuppositional video, sye Ten Bruggencate video, Ten Bruggencate

Objective Moral Values or Mere Preferences?

May 5, 2013 By Mike Robinson 2 Comments

Objective Moral Values Require God

By Mike Robinson, Granbury, Texas

Introduction

One can avoid moral skepticism by depending upon an unchanging, infinite, infallible, and exhaustive moral authority. God has these necessary qualities. In accounting for objective moral values, God is mandatory since He is unchanging, universal in knowledge, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. Harmoniously, objective moral values are unchanging, universal, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. God has the necessary attributes to account for objective moral values.

———————————————————————————————————

You’re thinking in black and white. Think in shades of gray.[1]

[When I was an atheist], My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But, how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?[2]

Let us change the rule we have hitherto adopted for the judging what is good. We took our own will as rule; let us now take the will of God.[3]

Objective moral values are not determined by the opinions, preferences, or psychological dispositions of an individual man or groups of men. It is a moral value “independently of whether anyone believes it or not” (William Lane Craig). The moral view which is based on one’s personal preference is a type of ethical subjectivism. Ultimately, it is based on preferences similar to one liking clam chowder over chicken soup. It is a descriptive form of ethics that leaves one without an ultimate arbitrator to settle moral disagreements among men with different preferences.

One can prefer torturing babies for fun over forbidding such behavior in the same way one prefers the chowder over the soup; it is a matter of personal taste and choice. In principle, if one observes a greasy old man ready to torture an innocent little baby, your repugnance is no more morally justified than one who is a bit queasy over a friend sipping his clam chowder. Under this sort of subjectivism, formally, it makes no sense to claim that the man torturing the baby for fun is morally wrong. He prefers it and you do not. You have no principled justification to attempt to stop the baby torturer from preferring his behavior any more than you may stop a friend from enjoying clam chowder. Nonetheless, torturing babies for fun is objectively and immutably wrong. It cannot be morally right to engage in such behavior. The subjectivist lacks the foundation to declare that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong. There are no behavior directing moral laws; morality is merely a matter of one’s preferences. Of course most atheists know such actions are morally wrong. Nevertheless I contend that it’s not a matter of knowing right from wrong—atheists can know (epistemological realm) right from wrong (Romans chapters 1 & 2)—I argue that atheists cannot account for the truth that there are objective moral values (right & wrong exist; ontological realm).

If there is no God, everything is permitted.[4]

Regeneration Required

If man is to change ethically, he must be converted.[5]

Jesus taught that for men to change, their heart must change; men must be born again (John 3:3-8). If one dresses up a wolf to look like a lamb, one still has an animal that can viciously attack humans if hungry or alarmed. For the animal to become sheep-like, the wolf needs a miracle: regeneration into a lamb (or a huge genetic swap). The wolf needs a complete change. And that’s what God’s grace does to men by the power of the Gospel. By grace through faith men are born again by the Spirit (regenerated) and after regeneration they have a changed heart that leads them to grow in moral goodness.

Biblical Law

Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long (Psalms 119:97).

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).

But about the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever… You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness” (Hebrews 1:8-9).

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! … So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good… We know that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:7-14).

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him (John 14:15 & 21).

The moral commandments of Scripture found in the Ten Commandments must be the standard for normative ethics. Biblical ethics are proscriptive (what one ought not to do) as well as prescriptive (what one ought to do) of normative human conduct—the general equity of the Decalogue—should be the ground for our rule of law: deontological. Deontological is obligatory inasmuch as it is the moral will of God in real-life situations: explicit actions that are based on its broad principals. Thus all persons are obligated to affirm and embrace the commandments of God in establishing laws and in living their lives.

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands (2 John 6).

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).

Morality and Unguided Evolution

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines morality as: “An informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, having the lessening of evil or harm as its goal, and including what are commonly known as the moral rules, moral ideals, and moral virtues.”[6] The word “ethics” is given the following definition by the same dictionary: “The philosophical study of morality. The word is commonly used interchangeably with morality … and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual.”[7] Theologian Norman Geisler states: “Moral law is morality for conduct… Law is a moral rule by which we are led to act or are withheld from action… God’s purpose for law is to regulate human activity.”[8]

The theory of unguided evolution offers no ontological basis for fixed moral values. Many people have fallen for the bamboozlement of the ages, the theory of unguided evolution. This theory, along with selected features of Nietzsche’s philosophy, has accomplished a lot. What has been accomplished by this misreading, this hoax, this fallacy, this misapprehension? This theory has given many of the world’s despots and dictators aspects of their ideological systems for carrying out the atrocities they had ordered. Stalin, Mao, and the Khmer Rouge butchered over fifty million people in the twentieth century under the influence of communism, atheism, and evolution. Unguided evolution not only gives no fundamental basis for morals; it, in principle, disallows essential features of benevolent ethics. The evolutionist’s creed is “survival of the fittest.” This doctrine helps hoist the proposition that “might makes right.” When one applies this to reality, the strong should take everything they can through force. Under that view, they should go through the country raping, trampling the weak, and killing the handicapped. Strict Darwinism undermines selected altruistic endeavors and charitable ethics as it gives men reason to be selfish, inhumane, wicked, murderous, and destructive.

All power grows from the barrel of a gun (atheist Mao Zedong).

In atheistic evolution, ultimately, the only thing that is important is promoting the survival of one’s own genes to the next generation. Turning the other cheek or doing good to the physically and mentally challenged only weakens the gene pool, so charity and benevolence should be rejected. The strong should step on anyone they can to promote their own genetic success. In contrast, I agree with the way Martin Luther King put it in his homily upon receiving his Nobel Peace Prize: “I refuse to believe the notion that man is mere flotsam and jetsam … unable to respond to the eternal oughtness that forever confronts him.”

The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes (Psalms 19:8).

Today, many people assert that there are no moral absolutes. Yet arguing against unchanging moral truths is self-stupefying. What the anti-moralist asserts stifles itself on its own grounds. If he objects to you pointing this out, he also stultifies himself. To state that he rigidly objects to any moral notion is to appear to assume a moral absolute. Hence, his objection is duplicitous. Just ask the non-absolutist, “Do you think that it is always ‘wrong’ to affirm moral absolutes?” If he answers “No,” at that point he has contradicted himself and indirectly affirms moral absolutes. If he answers “Yes,” you point out that this objection is a moral truth; a truth he seems to want you take as an absolute.

Universal Binding Laws Presuppose God

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14-15).

The moral law was written on the human conscience by nature. This writing has been defaced, but not obliterated. A clear and correct knowledge of the moral law requires the republication of the commandments, summarized in the Decalogue as the permanent and unalterable rule of man’s duty on earth.[9]

Moral laws are immaterial immutable realities that presuppose an immaterial immutable God who has the wisdom and authority to decree and enact them. Without God, as the moral lawgiver, there cannot be invariant moral laws. A holy, wise, and good God is the essential truth condition for true, invariant, immaterial, and irreducible realities called moral laws. The Decalogue provides apodictic (established by God as immutable commandments) moral duties since they are universal and unconditional; they are laws for all cultures and people in all time periods. A distinction is made regarding case law. Case laws are specific applications for particular people and definite applications of these apodictic commandments.

Materialistic atheism cannot account for irreducible immaterial invariant entities that are to govern human behavior. Without an omnipotent sovereign God, issuing laws that are based on His perfect character, one has no motivation to obey the law simply because obedience is morally good. Leave God out of the picture and one only obeys the law because of the fear of possible penal sanction and civil punishment from an earthly government. When the civil authorities aren’t looking, one can steal, lie, cheat, and rape with impunity. There must be a sovereign God, as the sufficient and universal condition, to obey out of gratitude and love. We have strong motivation to follow laws, when no one is looking, if the laws are intrinsically good, and come from a good all-seeing God. A God one loves, who commands humanity to love Him by obeying His commandments. When you take away the character and authority of God to enact law, one is not obliged to obey them out of mere love and gratitude.

Without postulating the existence of God it would be impossible to link the moral order to the natural order: the two realms would remain separate. How could the moral laws confront me with the kind of demands they do, how could they come to me with the kind of force they do, unless they have their source in a Being who exists objectively that is, independently of me and is essentially good? … There is something in every man, it may seem, that demands God as a postulate.[10]

Placing No Value on Objective Moral Absolutes

The denial of moral absolutes is a self-diminishing exertion because the denial of moral absolutes presupposes a moral view: it is morally permissible to absolutely deny absolute moral values. So in a sense, the attempt to deny absolute moral values affirms that they exist. To deny fixed moral values is self-deflating; the denial, in the end, leads to the removal of a standard that obligates others to communicate the denial absolutely. If you ask them if they absolutely believe that there are no absolutes; they may say no. Then you just ask them if they absolutely believe their answer of no. At some point they must stand on an absolute or they fall into idiocy.

Conclusion

It is a divine doctrine which teaches what is right and pleasing unto God and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will (The Book of Concord).

Fearing the Lord is the beginning of moral knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7, NET).

The best way to avert moral skepticism is to have an unchanging, infinite, infallible, and exhaustive authority. The God of the Bible has these attributes. God is required because He is unchanging, universal in knowledge, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. Correspondingly, objective moral values are unchanging, universal, timeless, transcendent, and immaterial. God has the required attributes to account for objective moral values.

Additionally, the way to avoid eternal condemnation is to turn from your ways and trust in Jesus Christ: the One who died for His people and rose again on the third day. He’s wonderful and full of excellencies that will thrill your heart.

Check out my new Apologetics eBook The Sure Existence of Moral Absolutes HERE

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

NOTES

1. Craig Boldman, Every Excuse in the Book: 714 Ways to Say it’s not My Fault (New York: MJF Books, 1998), p. 94.

2. C.S. Lewis: Martindale and Root, Editors, The Quotable Lewis (Wheaton, Il: Tyndale House, 1989), p. 59.

3. Thomas Morris, Making Sense of It All (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman, 1992), p. 211.

4. Fyodor Dostoevsky: The Brothers Karamazov, Bantam Classics. Many impute this line to Dostoevsky, but it nowhere appears in the volume. Perhaps it is a summary of a position of one of the characters within the text.

5. P. Andrew Sandlin, We Must Create A New Kind of Christian (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Publication, 2000), p. 16.

6. Robert Audi, General Editor, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Press 1999), p. 586.

7. Ibid., Audi, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 284.

8. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 414-416.

9. Carl Henry, Editor, Wycliff Dictionary of Ethics (Peabody, MA: 2000), p. 432.

10.Geddees McGregor, Introduction to Religious Philosophy (Boston, MA: Mifflin, 1959), pp. 117-119.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics, Covenantal Apologetics Tagged With: atheism objective moral values, greg bahnsen ethics, jp moreland moral absolutes, presuppositional ethics, van til ethics, william craig moral values, william lane craig moral argument

The Bible or the Qur’an part I by Mike Robinson

April 24, 2013 By Mike Robinson 3 Comments

The Authentic Holy Book: The Bible or the Qur’an part I

By Mike Robinson

Introduction

A crucial reason one should esteem Christianity over Islam is that the Bible predates the Qur’an by many hundreds of years and there is not one passage in the Qur’an that explicitly and plainly claims that the Bible is unreliable, changed or corrupted. There are numerous verses in the Qur’an that reckon the Bible as true and that it is the word of God. Islam’s holy book esteems the Bible as God’s word and the Bible was written before the Qur’an. Moreover, the two books disagree on God’s nature and the path of salvation. Clearly one should take the Bible over the Qur’an.

———————————————————————–

1. The Bible ascribes a different nature for God, and a completely dissimilar way and means to salvation than Islam.

2. The Qur’an affirms the Bible (Muhammad directed Christians to follow the Bible they had in the seventh century in Qur’an verses: 2:40-42, 89,126; 3:3,71, 93; 4:47; 5:47-51, 69-72; 6:91; 7:157; 29:45,46; 35:31).

3. The Bible is correct on the nature of God and salvation, not the Qur’an.

Many Muslims will deny premise two and will refer you to some Quranic or Haddith passages that suggest the corruption and undependability of the Bible. Yet, in light of the affirmative verses, that suggestion appears to lead to incongruity.

Precious Promises

As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust (2 Peter 1:3-4).

Islam, along with every non-Christian religion, has one basic miscalculation in touching salvation: Its followers are trying to reach God, find God, and please God through their good works, sacraments, and rituals.

Christianity is God reaching down to man. Christianity claims that Christians have not found God, but that God found them. God decreed the directive for the Son of God to descend from Heaven to live and then die on the cross to pardon His people. Man-centered religion cringes at this thought. It insists that we try to be good enough to earn divine acceptance. It tries to put its followers on religious treadmills. Nonetheless, laboring to do those proper religious works and to clean up one’s soul is no real solution.

There are some who trouble you, and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:7-9).

Every false religion lacks the capacity to expiate one’s spiritual record of sin. Only Jesus can, that is why Jesus came to earth, to love and to die. Self-centered religion tries to conform and reform to earn salvation. Jesus Christ transforms through real forgiveness and empowerment by the Holy Spirit. False deities cannot provide complete forgiveness and eternal hope.

God is a Self-contained Being: Aseity

Some non-Christian systems (as the polytheistic religions and modern philosophical “personalisms”) posit personal gods of one kind or another, but those gods are not absolute in the sense of being self-contained. Other non-Christian systems accept absolute realties of various kinds, but those absolutes are not personal. Only in the biblical teaching are absoluteness and personality combined in the Supreme being.” [1]

First and foremost among the attributes, we, therefore, mention the independence or self-existence of God. … He is self-contained rationality.[2]

Allah leads astray whomsoever He wills (Sura 14:4).

Allah is the best of deceivers (Sura 3:54).

Yahweh is a “self-individuated Spirit.”[3] The Triune God is “self-contained fullness”[4] and “absolute personality.”[5] Christian theism assents to a deity who is self-contained and personal. Islam teaches that their deity changes his mind, deceives, and he can lie. Additionally, he lacks immutability, and thus is deficient of aseity. The biblical God has aseity. This means that God has self-existence, self-sufficiency, and He’s not dependent or contingent upon anyone or anything. The power of His being is within Himself. “God is self-sufficient or self-contained in his being.”[6]

Allah is not a personal being or a thing since he is “not like anything.” Thus he cannot be personal. Furthermore, he is inscrutably arbitrary in his decrees. In some ways the Islamic god seems fickle and capricious. This notion yields inconsistency and change; for Allah can do anything, including lie. He can deceive and mislead. He cannot ground changeless things for he is not bound to a nature. Changeless things, such as mathematics, logic, and moral law, exist and these require that which cannot change and cannot lie: the changeless biblical God.

The Sufficiency of the Triune God

The sovereign God is not someone who is beyond reach or beyond knowing.[7]

Van Til stressed the interlinking of God’s attributes in that the “immutability of God is involved in his aseity.” Since God is self-sufficient, He does not need to change like the Muslim deity. There must be a foundation, somewhere, that is unchanging and has aseity. Van Til illuminates this: “We must rather reason that unless God exists as ultimate, as self-subsistent, we could not know anything, we could not even reason that God does not exist, nor could we even ask a question about God.”[8] There must be a certain, absolute, self-sufficient, and unchanging basis for the intelligibility of our world: Yahweh. He must exist to account for the unchanging and transcendent laws of logic. Allah cannot supply the required pre-necessities for absolute and unchanging realities. Only the Lord God can. Even if Allah could account for the laws of logic, there is no basis for using such laws (since Allah is arbitrary and deceptive) to understand and interpret the world. Such laws simply would not apply. The true God alone has the ability and character to provide that which is necessary to make sense out of reality.

Van Til remarked that “God is absolute. He is autonomous.”[9] Man cannot be autonomous (not subject to the rule or authority of another) and the Muslim doctrine of Allah implies that Allah cannot be autonomous. For strict autonomy one must have true personality (Allah is not a person and lacks personality), aseity, self-rule, and supreme sovereignty which only the true God has.

God as Truth is Yahweh

That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie. … This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast… (Hebrews 6:18-19).

For I am the LORD (Yahweh), I do not change (Malachi 3:6).

I know that that Yahweh, dissimilarity to Allah, provides all a priori essentials for the necessary epistemic elements utilized in all thoughts, knowledge, and achievements. The God of the Bible has genuine ontic attributes of omniscience, immutability, omnipotence as well as aseity (He has universal authority & reach) thus He has the ontological capacity (His nature) to be the ground for general principles, immutable laws, universal operational aspects of human thinking and understanding. In Christian theism God can be known (John 17:1-3; Romans 1). Moreover, a position that denies Yahweh as the epistemic (knowledge) foundation cannot be true, thus whatever evidence or proof one ascertains, must be discerned and processed with the rational equipment that arises from Christian theism and the worldview that is sourced by the Triune God.

The true God is the elemental requirement for knowledge, proof, evidence, and logic. He is the a priori truth condition for the intelligibility of reality. This is the case inasmuch as the immaterial, transcendent, and immutable Triune God supplies the necessary pre-environment for the use of immaterial, transcendent, universal, and immutable laws of logic utilized in all knowledge pursuits. Christian theism is the pre-essential truth condition for the grounding and understanding of knowledge. Christianity is true not only because it seems more probable than its antithesis, but because it supplies the basis for knowledge.

Muslims presuppose the rational necessities that the Christian worldview underwrites while they verbally deny it. What are the compulsory conditions that make thought possible? Yahweh supplies those truth conditions to establish the rational parquet for intelligibility. Van Til called this “method of implication into the truth of God a transcendental method. That is, we must seek to determine what presuppositions are necessary to any object of knowledge in order that it may be intelligible to us.”

Christian Theism and Salvation

As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us (Psalms 103:12).

Christianity supplies salvation certainty. The truth that Christ provides salvation freely and keeps those He saves is guaranteed. Through the cross, God removes the believer’s sins as far as the east is from the west. If one lived in San Diego and wanted to travel as far west as possible, where would he go? When he started out west he could land in Hawaii, but the Philippines are still west of that, from the Philippines he could go west to China, and from there France, and then further west to New York and back to San Diego. How far west must he travel to reach the east? It is immeasurable and infinite. And so are his transgressions removed as he trusts in Christ. His transgressions are infinitely eliminated by the infinite atonement through the cross. That is good news that the Muslim faith and all other religions cannot deliver.

Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness (Romans 4:5).

Allah loves not transgressors (Sura 2:190).

All people require a spiritual cleansing. Only Jesus Christ and His death on the cross can wash away all their sins. Jesus died and rose again. No one else has done that for sinners. Van Til presses: “If God was to continue communication with His creature, it was either to be by condemnation or by atonement.” God through His mercy provided a perfect and effectual atonement through the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Believe on Him and you will be saved.

Allah loves not those who do wrong (Sura 3:57).

He loves not creatures ungrateful or wicked (Sura 2:276).

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs, according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).

Access to God

The curtain in the temple was torn from top to bottom. We have the access to our Father that no one else can have. We come to God’s throne spotless, redeemed. … In Him, we have become the righteousness of God.[10]

The Qur’an says, “To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward” (Sura 5:9). Ask the Muslim if he is doing enough good deeds to receive salvation on Judgment Day. Remind him that his repentance must be perfectly sincere for the Qur’an says, “O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance!” (66:8). Only if the man, who is sincere, may receive forgiveness. Without faith in Christ, how can one know that one is sincere enough to be forgiven of God? The real solution is Jesus who paid for our sins on the cross, once for all. Thus Christians are safe and filled with hope in Him and do not have to fret about doing enough good works to be accepted (Romans 4:5). Christians do good works for the sake of love and gratitude.

Jesus vs. Muhammad in the Qur’an

Considering that Islam claims that Muhammad is the last and greatest prophet, it appears inconsistent that the Qur’an asserts the following concerning Jesus Christ in contrast to Muhammad:

Jesus was born of a virgin (Sura 19:16-35): not Muhammad.
Jesus is a Spirit from God (Sura 4:171): not Muhammad.
Jesus is the Word of God (Sura 4:171): not Muhammad.
Jesus was sinless (Sura 19:19): not Muhammad.
Jesus gave life to the dead (Sura 3:49 and 22:73): not Muhammad.
Jesus is coming back again as a sign of the hour of judgment (Sura 43:61): not Muhammad.
Jesus performed many miracles (Sura 3:49 and 100:110): not Muhammad (Sura 29:47-51).
Jesus is the Messiah (Sura 4:171): not Muhammad.

There is something exceptional about Jesus Christ; even the Qur’an avows such. No other prophet or false prophet has His divine nature and accomplished what He did and taught what He taught (John 1:1, 10:30, 5:18, 8:24, 8:58, 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:16; Col. 1:16-17, 2:9; Matt. 22:42-45; Mark 14:64). Buddha, Joseph Smith, Krishna, Sun Yung Moon, and Muhammad never did what Jesus Christ did. Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the third day. He performed many miracles. He claimed to be God and demonstrated His deity.

Growth through Love and Truth

Jesus promised that His Church would grow from a small mustard seed to a worldwide movement and it has: from eleven followers to billions of Christians in every country in the world. The movement of Jesus, Christianity, grew large and fast by the power of love, truth, peace, and self-sacrifice. Islam generally grew by the sword. Muhammad and his followers killed many Jews, Christians, and Pagans as they plundered their towns. Islam advanced by the use of force: Christianity through love and hope.

Jesus is the Messiah: the Christ. We can examine a pre-Christian and pre-Islamic source (not the New Testament or the Qur’an) to find the definition of the Messiah: the Old Testament. It, including the Torah, proclaims, asserts, and implies that the Messiah would be God (Psalms 110; Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, 43:10-11; Genesis 1:26, 3:22; Zechariah 10:12,12:10; Daniel 7:13-14; etc.). Jesus is the Messiah (John 4), so Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah as well as God (also see Revelation 1:7-8; 22:7 and 13; Hebrews 1).

Jesus: The Truth

Prediction is hard, especially when it’s about the future (Yogi Berra).

The Qur’an instructs “Seek knowledge, in China, if necessary” (Sura 39:12). One should go where the evidence leads. There were 333 Prophecies about the coming Messiah written in the Old Testament before the birth of Christ. All these came true in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. No other religious leader or prophet ever had massive predictive material written about their life before their birth. Jesus had countless fulfilled predictions about His life to attest to His claims as the Son of God. His virgin birth was predicted several hundred years before He was born. Islam attempts to use about a half-dozen Scriptures in an attempt to verify Muhammad’s claims. The Mormons attempt to misinterpret five or six Scriptures for the same reason in regard to Joseph Smith. Jesus did not have five or six; He had hundreds of clear and unambiguous prophecies that predicted events in His life before they occurred, even hundreds of years before His birth.

If a claimant comes and announces that He’s a god or the way to God, he should provide some evidence. Jesus Christ came and provided a posteriori proof by fulfilling numerous predictions. Powerful evidence would be for a man to claim that he is from God, and before he arrived, there were preexisting documents written before he was born, which contained hundreds of details that were forecast about his future life. Later, these specific facts were fulfilled in his life. If a cache of predictive material is easy to produce, why hasn’t anyone else started a religion, which provided hundreds of fulfilled predictions to demonstrate divine prescience? The reason is obvious; no one has the ability but the True God.

The prophet Micah foretold that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem; Isaiah foretold the type of birth that He was to have (Isaiah 7:14); Psalms 22 predicted His death on the cross, as did Isaiah 53. The prophet Daniel, in chapter nine, predicted the day that Christ arrived in Jerusalem. Many more events, people, places, and times were prearranged by Yahweh and made known to men and documented before the events occurred. Christ’s coming: the place, date, type of events were predicted on copies of the Old Testament dated centuries before Christ arrived with extra-biblical sources verifying much of the details of His life and death. Noteworthy is the fact that Jesus could not prearrange the self-fulfilling of many of these prophecies unless He was the sovereign God.

Only Christ is Risen

Frank Morrison, a lawyer, disdained Christianity so much that he set out to write a book disproving the resurrection of Christ. After months of research, digging, studying, reading, examining the evidence, he fell on his knees and trusted Jesus Christ as Lord. For the evidence, contrary to his stated goals, was overwhelming. He discovered that the proof for Christ was unassailable. He did write a book, titled Who Moved the Stone? and subtitled, The Book that Refused to be Written. Harvard law professor, Simon Greenleaf, wrote the text book on legal evidence, which was used for over a hundred years in American law schools. His tome taught the proper manner in which one ought to measure and discern evidence in court. Greenleaf was a skeptic and unremittingly blasted Christianity in his law classroom. One day, a student challenged him to investigate the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He searched the evidence, examined it, investigated it, and became a Christian. The evidence for the Messiah was overwhelming to the expert on evidence. The founders of the multitudes of religions, once deceased, remain deceased, including Muhammad. Unlike any other, Jesus Christ rose from the grave.

Islam’s main motif for denying the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ is to claim that Jesus never died. Since he did not die, He never rose from the grave. That notion goes against all the eyewitness testimony. Even Christ’s contemporary enemies did not dispute His death.

Crucifixion and a Resurrection

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness … “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin” (Romans 4)

The true and living God is just and righteous. Only through Christ’s death on the cross can mercy as well as justice be satisfied. An eternal Messiah paying the price for our sins against an eternal God is the only solution for sin and depravity.

A six-pointed star, a crescent moon, a lotus—symbol or other religious symbols suggest beauty and light. The symbol of Christianity is an instrument of death. It suggests hope.[11]

A simple framework to share with non-Christians is: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude.

Guilt: All men sin and are guilty before God.
Grace: God extends His grace to men by sending His Son to die a vicarious death on the cross.
Gratitude: The one who trusts in Christ is forgiven of all of his guilt and sin and now serves God out of gratitude for saving him.

Faithful witnessing to Muslims involves the believer heralding the judgment of the law on the lost, and then offering the grace of the gospel to those without Christ. An almighty sovereign God, full of awe and righteousness, is not what the world wants. But He is the God all people need. The Bible reveals that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10). Christians should press God’s truth on the Muslim with compassion and patience. We are not to dazzle them with rhetoric or blast them with an uncaring scolding. One must with compassion warn them. We should sincerely care for the state of their souls through the graceful preaching of truth and the gospel.

Conclusion

The critical reader should honor Christianity over Islam since the Bible predates the Qur’an by many centuries and there are numerous passages in the Qur’an that proclaim that the Bible is the word of God. The Qur’an names the Bible as God’s word and the Bible was revealed prior to the Qur’an. Moreover, the two books disagree on the nature of God and the way of salvation. Undoubtedly one should believe the Bible over the Qur’an.

see my Apologetics eBook that uses a unique approach to refute Islam Christian Philosophy Critiques Islam: Christian Theism and Presuppositions Refute The Muslim Concept of Allah HERE

1. Frame, Cornelius Van Til, p. 58.

2. Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, (P & R, Phillipsburg: NJ, 1974), p. 206.

3. Ibid.,Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 233.

4. Van Til, Defense of the Faith, p. 42.

5. Ibid., p. 42.

6. Van Til, Christian Apologetics, (P & R, Phillipsburg: NJ, 1976), p. 7.

7. K. Scott Oliphint, The Battle Belongs to the Lord, (P & R, Phillipsburg: NJ, 2003), p. 161

8. Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 102.

9. Van Til, Christian Apologetics, p. 7.

10. Keith Green, Make My Life a Prayer, (Harvest House, Eugene: OR, 2001), p. 141

11. Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking, (Harper, San Francisco: CA, 1993), p. 21.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Presuppositional Epistemology, World Religions Tagged With: answering islam, answering muslims, apologetics to muslims, bible or koran, david wood, james white islam, james white Qur’an, presuppositional apologetics islam, presuppositional apologetics muslims, robert morey islam, robert spencer islam, The Bible or the Qur’an

God or Godless? by John Loftus & Randal Rauser: A Book Review

April 23, 2013 By Mike Robinson 2 Comments

God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions.

[Paperback] by John Loftus & Randal Rauser

Review by Mike Robinson

Is it necessary to bring in William Lane Craig (debate victor over numerous atheists)? Nope! As he has proved on his blog, and proves once again in a new book, God or Godless? Randal Rauser (MCS, Regent College; PhD, King’s College London; professor theology at Taylor Seminary) is one of those scholars who merit a dedicated readership. As a professor and blogger, he brings along that uncommon but still uncanny ability to make even the most tedious philosophical notions sound both attention-grabbing and comprehensible, while making an inherently difficult, incredibly unreceptive interlocutor seem somehow cordial (in contrast to Loftus’ well-earned reputation).

Unfortunately, what John Loftus (founder of the blog Debunking Christianity and author of Why I Became an Atheist) seems to be proving is that he’s not up to writing reasoned and sound responses to a scholar of Rauser’s education. What few blows Loftus lands represent a triumph of unremarkable skill over formatting space in a book that is more intellectual than his development permits (although Rauser in an interview said, “John does a good job presenting a deflationary picture of atheism”). Nonetheless, the mini-debates are not dull or trivial. Loftus’ words of bluster and pugnacity are often amusing and fun to read for both atheist and theist.

Each writer chose ten issues to present in the affirmative and his interlocutor responds in a counterpoint. A brief comeback is then offered in the affirmative followed by an even shorter reply. Every chapter ends with a petite conclusion. This makes for some gratifying reading. Never mind topics found in the most profound corridors of philosophy, the two combatants swing punch after punch—including some roundhouses—from its potent topics to its readable style God or Godless? reads like a discussion between two disagreeing associates. And no part of that comparison is meant as a slight. The short fluid chapters are engaging and easy to comprehend. The ten subjects from each writer (20 total) are written in clear text and this helps make God or Godless? unique among debate books—it covers a very extensive range of questions regarding the existence of God. This is one reason that it is great for the busy apologist or the atheistic non-specialist.
In this inventive volume, theistic philosopher Randal Rauser and self-styled atheist John Loftus participate in twenty brief debates including subjects such as:

Christianity and Redemption
Slavery
Epistemology
Science
Women and the Bible
Faith
Miracles
The Resurrection of Christ
Moral Values
The existence of God
Significance and Purpose
And more

Early on Rauser presses Loftus on the problem of arbitrary moral principles: “Interestingly, John’s own comments confirm this worry for he writes, ‘In every society we come up with the moral rules just as we do when it comes to speed limits on our highways [or] regulations for food preparation.’ So our moral principles are selected with the same arbitrariness as highway speed limits or modes of food preparation? ‘Sixty miles per hour on this stretch, oh, and no gang rape or murder for the next hundred miles please.’ Really? That’s it? John may not like divine command theory (though given his criticisms, I have to wonder how well he understands it), but he surely needs some transcendent source of moral valuation to avoid the moral relativism that even now is wrapping its tentacles around his oblivious appendages. … I believe moral values are objective and rooted in the necessity of the divine nature. John believes they are rooted in our subjective whims—whatever gets you through the night, it’s all right. On that point John and our retiring serial killer are in hearty agreement. Spot of tea anyone?” (pp. 30-34). Here Rauser straightforwardly rebuts Loftus’ position on moral principles, yet the reader can also enjoy a sense of humor which the combatants comingle with their argumentation throughout the pages.

Due to his own engrained precommitments Loftus offers a response that appears to miss the heart of Rauser’s argument: “Christians use this canard so often it’s nauseating. It seems self-evident to them, that is until they come to disbelieve. Then they will see things differently. The claim of Randal’s in this chapter presupposes that a supernatural being is doing the permitting. But which one? There are other conceptions of gods with their own moralities. And how does this being communicate to us what is permitted? Isn’t it evident that the Christian God has not effectively done so, given the biblical record and the history of the church? There is no evidence that a Christian God is needed for morality since many non-Christian cultures have done very well for themselves in their own time periods with no Christian influence at all, such as Greece during the Golden Age, the Roman Empire, China, and Japan. This is nothing but a parochial, narrow-minded, and uniformed claim. I think all a believer has to do is travel the globe to see this” (p. 31-32).

In contrast to Rauser’s perdurable reasons for theistic morality Loftus often posits rough assertions with little reasoned justification. Typical of his forceful assertions is the following: “…morality evolves. That’s what we know. That’s what we see in the Bible and the church too” (p. 34-35). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I would have liked a bit more systematic discourse from the atheist side.

Both contestants offer numerous illustrations to support their positions. This will help the reader understand and remember the arguments. Rauser observes: “I once heard of a women who was so enamored with her Harley Davidson that she decided to marry it. Unfortunately, while a motorcycle provides a great mode of transportation, it was never intended to serve as a marital partner. I think of that as I consider secularists who have become so enamored with science that they have elevated it to be the source of transcendent meaning and purpose. While science provides a great mode of enquiry into the natural world, it was never intended to provide transcendent meaning and purpose. … Of course, John doesn’t think these secularists are worshiping science or the natural world because he defines worship as ‘an act of religious devotion directed to one or more deities.’ But worship doesn’t require a deity. Worship is simply honor or deference paid to anything one regards as sacred, worthy of veneration, or one’s ultimate concern. As a result, while God can be the object of worship, so can the scientific method, the natural world, or even super-aliens. Needless to say, the fact that you can worship the universe doesn’t mean you should any more than the willingness of a magistrate to officiate at unconventional weddings means you should ride your Harley Fat Boy down the aisle” (pp. 50-51).

Rauser then offers this challenge: “Does John disagree with Wilson and Raymo’s panegyrics to science and the natural world? Does he eschew Sagan’s existential longing for little green men? He doesn’t say. John is right; worship is directed to something specific. And Wilson, Raymo, and Sagan all have very specific objects to which they ascribe maximal worth-ship” (p. 52).

The atheist responds: “Randal is playing a meaningless language game over the word worship, but it changes nothing. We don’t build cathedrals for people to congregate for prayer to long-dead scientists, nor are their words authoritative unless we can verify them. Nor do we do this for the universe science has discovered” (p. 52). I’m not sure if Loftus fully understood the main thrust of Rauser’s argument, but the exchange is worth reading more than once.

In one of my favorite sections the theist offers the following word-picture to help the reader firmly grasp an argument from causation: “If you spend any time listening to golden oldies radio, you’ve probably heard Tony Orlando’s seventies hit, ‘Knock Three Times.’ The song is sung from the perspective of a lonely fellow who hears a knocking sound on the water wipes in his wall. Most of us, if we hear a knocking sound on our pipes, will probably assume that it is just produced by the changing temperature of hot water running through the pipes. But when this lonely fellow hears the knocking, he concludes that it is produced by the pretty girl living in the apartment below, presumably as some sort of flirtatious Morse code. Emboldened by this belief, the lonely fellow sings back to the girl to knock three times if she’d like him to come down and visit. Gosh, I hope for his sake that it wasn’t just the hot water. In addition to being a fine introduction to the creepy side of seventies pop music ‘Knock Three Times’ is also a great way to introduce two kinds of causation much discussed by philosophers:

Event causation: the process in which one event causally contributes to another event.

Agent causation: the process in which an agent undertakes to cause an event and this undertaking does cause that event.”

Rauser then proceeds to his detailed supposition vis-à-vis agent causation: “Interestingly, these definitions are sufficiently broad that every event can be explained as the result of one or the other. That is, it was either caused by another event or by an agent. If we heard those pipes knocking, we’d probably conclude that a mere event cause (e.g., hot water) was at play. But our lonely fellow believes that an agent cause (i.e., the pretty girl) created the knock as a way to say hello. Note the reference to undertaking in the definition of agent causation. This signals a key difference between event and agent causes. If you attribute something to an event, then it begs the question of a prior cause for that event. For example, if you explain the knocking pipes with recourse to the hot water flow, then you require another cause to explain the hot water flow. This may lead you back to the boiler, but then you need yet another cause to explain the boilers function, and so on. Agent causes are different since the explanation for their effects is rooted not in the prior event cause but rather in a reason, intention or desired outcome. Thus agents can act to initiate new events without any prior determining event cause: they can choose to act. And in that sense they act as a sui generis cause. Given the exhaustive nature of these two explanations, any particular event is the result either of a prior event or an agent. In the same way that we inquire about the cause of particular events in the universe like the knocking of pipes, so we can inquire about that truly stupendous event that happened 13.7 billion years ago when, according to the cosmologists, the universe sprang into existence out of nothing. As we seek cause to explain events in our experience, so we reasonably seek a cause to understand this grandest of all events. But which type of cause is the most plausible? The prospects of appealing to an event cause to explain the universe’s origin are bleak for the reason already noted: event causes beg the question of prior causes. As a result, if we appeal to an event then we have to explain all the events prior to that event, and this leads to an infinite regress of causes that ultimately explains nothing. In addition, it is wholly ad hoc since we have no experience of infinite casual regresses. Finally, it offers no explanation of what caused this mysterious, infinite, casual series, and thus it is really a pseudo-explanation. This dilemma recalls the father who explains to his son that the earth rests on a turtle (an event cause). Then when his son asks what the turtle rests on, the father replies that it is turtles all the way down. Even if appealing to an infinite series of event causes manages to satisfy the curiosity of a child, it is not adequate as a metaphysical explanation of the universe” (pp. 61-63).

Regarding agent causation he concludes: “This leaves us with one remaining option: an agent cause who can simply act out of will to bring about a novel event. This is exactly the kind of causation we require to explain the universe, one that is sui generis and thus can avoid the fatal infinite regress. Once we recognize that the only viable causal explanation is an agent, we can inquire about its identity. Not surprisingly, when the event to be explained is the absolute origination of the material universe (the whole shebang) there is only one viable agent cause, and that is God” (p. 61-63). For the Christian, this segment of the book is particularly helpful.

Loftus of course rejects God as the agent of causation. The theist replies to Loftus’ abjuration: “John thinks we should wait for science to explain the universe’s origin. He suggests, for example, that the ‘concept of inertia’ (that is, Newton’s first law of motion) does away with the need for an ‘unmoved mover’ (that is, an agent cause). But this reflects a fundamental failure to understand the problem. The entire universe including all its energy and matter—Newton’s first law of motion—and even time itself sprang into existence out of nothing 13.7 billion years ago. Science can study the universe once it exists, but it can never explain what brought it into existence. To do that you reason not from a gap of ignorance but rather from the only type of cause known to be capable of producing the observed effect: an agent of great power. If that looks a lot like God, then so be it” (p. 66).

Loftus then offers a heart-felt denial: “With Randal’s God explanation there is no reason to investigate why the universe exists, since he says science can’t do this. This is the standard theistic response to the unsolved mysteries of the past. Why keeping betting on faith to solve them when it has solved nothing so far?”

God or Godless? discusses various philosophical notions, but the two authors also explore many concrete and evidential disputes as well. Concerning the historical claims of the New Testament Rauser offers some judicious thoughts: “Any testimony that is embarrassing to one’s cause is more likely to be true because it would not have been included otherwise. So it seems highly unlikely that the general incredulity of the brothers of Jesus toward his teaching and ministry would have been included if it had not been true. As a result, the evidence supports the fact that James was not a disciple of Jesus during his brother’s life and ministry. This makes it all the more incredible that after the death of Jesus, James emerged as the de facto leader of the Jerusalem Christians (see Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12). This testimony is confirmed in Jewish historian Josephus’ work Antiquities where he observes that James was martyred in Jerusalem in AD 62. But how did this happen? How did an intelligent man (you don’t become a leader of the Jerusalem Christians without being intelligent) become persuaded that his crucified brother was the Messiah? Deuteronomy 21:23 teaches that ‘anyone hung on a tree is under God’s course’ (NRSV). If anything, James would have viewed the crucifixion as a confirmation of his suspicions. And yet inexplicably, he became a leader of the Christians.”

Rauser lingers as he defends the reliability of the Resurrection witnesses: “Paul explains why in 1 Corinthians 15 (written ca. AD 50-51), where he recounts a teaching he had received from others: ‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance’ (1 Cor. 15:3). This is technical, rabbinic phrasing. One does not innovate or embellish rabbinic teaching but instead passes in on faithfully. What was it that Paul received? He explains: Christ died, was buried, and was raised. And ‘raised’ here is clearly a bodily resurrection, which is made abundantly clear in the rest of the chapter (as well as in the background Jewish worldview of the time). Next, Paul lists in this teaching several names of those who witnessed the risen Jesus and thereby became converts to him, including James, the brother of Jesus.”

Rauser continues to press his resurrection apologia: “What is the best explanation for James’ belief that he had seen his brother raised? Obviously legend is not a plausible explanation. There simply is no time for a legend to develop here, and James’ own leadership in the church and martyrdom attests to his belief. One may think that James saw a vision, but remember, he believed his brother died under God’s curse. Visions come within a climate of background expectation. A hypnotist or magician doesn’t call the scowling skeptic in the audience up on stage. He chooses the fawning fan on the edge of her seat, ready to be manipulated. So James was definitely not susceptible to seeing a vision. So then what? Did James get pulled into an elaborate conspiracy? To what end? So that he could be martyred? The historian who seeks to reconstruct past events based on available evidence needs something to work with here. If you want to posit a non-miraculous reconstruction of the events you can do so, but it has to work with all the available data and be plausible. For those not closed a priori to the invocation of miraculous causes, the bodily resurrection of Jesus remains the most plausible explanation for the transformation of James. Consider it this way: My brother is a fine chap. But to believe he’s the Messiah? That would take nothing short of a miracle” (p. 158-159).

As the volume nears an end Rauser offers this challenge: “Live as if Christianity is true. Begin exploring the rich intellectual and spiritual resources of the Christian tradition. Find a community of Christians with whom you can relate openly and honestly by sharing your beliefs and your doubts. Seek to live out the faith you do not yet fully possess through works of mercy and righteousness as you study, reflect, and learn. And then just see what happens. Most of all, never give up your tireless pursuit of that which none greater can be conceived” (p. 177).

Loftus pushes his conclusion with force in the following entreaty: “If they refuse to do this [critical religious self-examination], I merely ask them why the double standard? Why treat other religions differently than you do your own? Believers should be skeptical of what they were taught to accept given the proliferation of so many other religions and sects separated into distinct regions on the planet who learned their religion in the same way—on their mama’s knee” (p. 182). Not me. I was raised irreligious. I came to Christ when I was nineteen. I gave my whole life to Jesus after I researched and studied countless religions and atheism. I found that Christianity alone was true inasmuch as it had substantial quantities of evidence. Moreover, by God’s grace I discovered that Jesus is not only merciful, He’s wonderful.

It’s obvious that this reviewer is biased and holds robust Christian presuppositions. I do not apologize for this since Christianity is true and atheism is false. Furthermore, I owe it to my readers to offer my opinion on this important volume and not merely furnish a dry arcane review. During a memorable scene in the movie Quiz Show, a character queries, “If you look around the table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.” That flick was about the scandal surrounding a long-forgotten game show. Might as well make a flick about the militant atheists of the 2000s. Sometimes people are suckers. Despite the beauty of the transcendent, objective moral values, the grace and mercy of Christ, there remains a pervasive threat from professional skeptics and e-atheists. And many of their followers not only miss the hope and glory, they get suckered into anti-theism. I hope this book assists numerous people—people who may have been hoodwinked into antitheism and after reading this volume seek the truth found in Christ.

Because Loftus makes up for his lack of sound argumentation with stimulating rhetoric, firm bravado, and undiminished confidence neo-atheists will enjoy much of what he stipulates and the style of his presentation. This, together with Rauser’s well-reasoned and often witty argumentation, makes for an enjoyable read.

This volume is not without flaws. Sometimes it teeters close to an oversimplification of perplexing theoretical and theological issues (due to space limitations and Loftus’ lack of philosophical gravitas). Though not consummately trained, Loftus roams happily in unfamiliar fields—amid the erudition and epistemic nimbleness of a skilled academic. But the honesty of the exchanges, the significance of the topics and Rauser’s ability to convey the truth of God in Christ overshadow those inconsequential elements. Even though I maintain a different apologetic methodology and a dissimilar theological approach than Rauser, I truly enjoyed this book. God or Godless? is a work I recommend to apologists and atheists.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Book Reviews, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: Christian atheist debate book, God or Godless Rauser, God or Godless?: One Atheist. One Christian. Twenty Controversial Questions, randal rauser, refute atheism, village atheist

God: The Ground and Source of Knowledge

April 14, 2013 By Mike Robinson 7 Comments

The Light, The Foundation, and the Necessary Upoluposis: God (part I)

Mike Robinson

Granbury, Texas

Introduction

The truth of Christianity is understood and proved by way of truth and presupposition. The Christian must uphold Scripture as the ultimate source of light and knowledge—all light and knowledge stem from God. The assured proof of Christian theism: except a man build upon its ontic ground as he presupposes the truth that flows from God, in principle, there is no proof of anything. Christian theism is proved as the ontological ground of the very notion of evidence and proof.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

In your light do we see light (Psalm 36:9)

Give me a place to stand on, and I will move the Earth: δῶς μοι πᾶ στῶ καὶ τὰν γᾶν κινάσω (Archimedes of Syracuse: Greek mathematician).[1]

According to Pappus, Archimedes exclaimed in relation to the ability of the lever: “Give to me a place where I may stand and I will move the earth.” He only needed a place to set the lever’s fulcrum and it would be possible to move anything, including the earth. And this is the case when it comes to knowledge— including mathematics and science. The Archimedean locus of reference is an ontological truth required to rest one’s knowledge (epistemological) pursuits. What is needed is a first principle that has the ontological endowment to not only ground knowledge, but to account for it and its preconditions.

The Fall and Its Epistemic Effect

The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery. … The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.[2]

The fall of man recorded in Genesis plunged men into a state of moral corruption, depravity, and hopelessness. The noetic effects of sin affected man’s thinking which resulted in futility of mind and darkness of heart (Ephesians 4:17-18; Romans 1). Because of this futile mindset, men attempt to build their knowledge enterprise without an ontological ground that has the capacity to carry the required epistemic load. The loss of the immovable point of reference, in principle, leaves the ungodly devoid of a resource necessary to construct the knowledge enterprise. Without God, one cannot hoist the necessary a priori operation features of knowledge.

God is the Necessary Upoluposis

God … knows all things (1 John 3:20).

All things are properly said to be … supernaturally through infinite power (as from the terminus a quo and by the way of creation).[3]

The argument for Christianity must therefore be that of presupposition. With Augustine it must be maintained that God’s revelation is the sun from which all other light derives. The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself.[4]

The Christian worldview supplies the fixed ontic platform as the sufficient truth condition that can justify induction, immutable universals, and the uniformity of the physical world. But materialistic atheism lacks such a fixed ontic platform and necessary truth condition. Consequently, it fails to provide the sufficient ground required to justify science and the investigation of the natural world. The true and living God subsists and accounts for the intricate and distinct interconnection of the particulars in the united cosmos. That is the reason many theologians have mused, “I believe in order that I may understand.” Van Til uses this illustration:

“We cannot prove the existence of the beams underneath the floor if by proof you mean that they must be ascertainable in a way that we can see the chairs and the tables of the room. But the very idea of the floor as a support for the tables and chairs requires the idea of beams underneath. But there would be no floor if no beams were underneath. Thus there is absolute certain proof for the existence of God… Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christianity to account for their own accomplishments.”[5]

Atheism is impossible. When anyone attempts to escape the truth that God exists, he falls in a trap he cannot escape. This point is well made in Van Til’s fantastic illustration of a man made of water, who is trying to climb out of the watery ocean by means of a ladder made of water. He cannot get out of the water for he has nothing to stand on. Without God, one cannot make sense of anything. The atheist has nothing to stand on (a rational Archimedean locus of reference) and he lacks a rational apparatus to scale; an epistemic ladder that would allow him to view reality with clarity.

Only divine revelation has the epistemic authority to “trump” our natural intuitions about what is metaphysically possible and what is not.[6]

Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.[7]

Since God is the truth condition who has the ontological heft to carry the knowledge freight (knowledge and all the multitudinous tacit conditions it requires) the fear of the Lord paves the way for understanding epistemic issues and rights. The Lord is our ultimate commitment and the explanation of the method is governed by the assurance the God lives and is revealed by Christ. Yes, human depravity has made humanity’s autonomous reason incapable of anchoring its knowledge claims to anything immutable and objectively true. One needs God. God is the objective being with immutability and universal reach as attributes.

Bible is God’s Word

The conception of God is necessary for the intelligible interpretation of any fact.[8]

God’s revelation of Himself in the 66 books of the Bible is the only valid escape from the skepticism that would otherwise logically result from the necessary, interdependence of metaphysics with epistemology. God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture provides not only ultimate epistemic grounding, but also gives the necessary metaphysical content for the foundation of all of man’s intellectual and spiritual pursuits.[9]

Hundreds of actual incidents of prophetic fulfillment support the claim that the Bible is the Word of God (Isaiah 41:22-27; 42:8-9;44:7-8,24-28; 45:18-21; 46:10-11; 48:3-7). Only God has all the necessary attributes that give Him the infallible ability to forecast the future and to bring His forecasts to fulfillment. Christ Himself fulfilled over three hundred distinct Old Testament predictions including: His virgin birth in Bethlehem (Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:3), His ministry as the Son of God in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1-10), His entrance in Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9), His crucifixion (Psalm 22:16; Isaiah 53), and hundreds of additional predictions that were fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Beyond the concrete proof that fulfilled prophecy provides is the truth that all proof—proof of anything—requires God. It is more than difficult to prove anything, apart from Christian presuppositions, including the notion that there is a material world. Non-theists must attempt to prove such obvious truths apart from Christian presuppositions in order to make their case, but this leaves them without the required immutable universals. This is a problem that continuously appears when one attempts to prove anything without the necessary universal operational features of reason that only Christian theism provides. Such atheistic pursuits are not merely exceedingly difficult, but impossible within atheistic materialism.

The Bible is the Word of God.
It is impossible to prove that it is not the Word of God.
There is proof that God revealed Himself in the Bible.
Therefore, the Bible is the Word of God.

God and His revealed word supply men their only possible ground with the explanatory clout needed to account for human experience. The ontological barrenness of atheistic materialism is just one reason the Christian should never grant the natural man the right to determine the criteria for testing truth claims— atheistic materialism lacks an ontology with even a shard of explanatory power. Thus the Christian is to press the atheistic materialist’s failing and then drive him to the cross through the holy chastisements of the Law of God. God in Christ, through the power of the cross and resurrection, is the answer for everything men need.

For more see my innovative Apologetics eBook Truth and the Reason for God HERE

Part II coming soon.

————————————————————————————————————————-

Pappus of Alexandria, Collection, Book VIII, Google Books.
Westminster Shorter Catechism: Answers 17-18.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, P & R.
Cornelius Van Til: The Defense of the Faith, P & R.
Ibid.
James Anderson: Paradox in Christian Theology. Paternoster.
Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John Tractate XXIX on John 7:14-18, 6. A Select Library of the Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church Volume VII by St. Augustine, chapter VII (1888) trans. Philip Schaff.
Greg Bahnsen: Van Til’s Apologetic, P & R.
Steve Hays: Triablogue 6/30/20.

—————————————————————————————————–

Bibliography

• Archimedes of Syracuse (1999). Archimedes of Syracuse. The MacTutor History of Mathematics.
• Bahnsen, Greg (1996). Always Ready, Covenant Media.

• Bahnsen (1998). Van Til’s Apologetic, P & R.
• Charnock, Stephen. ([1684], 2000), The Existence and Attributes of God, Baker Books.

• Engel, S. Morris (1994). With Good Reason, St. Martins.

• Frame, John (1987). The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, P & R.

• Garson, James (2006). Modal Logic for Philosophers. Cambridge.

• Girle, Rod (2000). Modal Logic and Philosophy, McGill.

• Goble, Lou (2001). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, Blackwell.

• Hays, Steve (2011). Common Objections to Christianity, Monergism.

• Hughes, G.E. (1995). A new Introduction to Modal Logic, Routledge.

• Hunter, Geoffrey (1973). Metalogic, Campus.

• Lambert, Karel (1991). Philosophical Applications of Free Logic, Oxford.

• Lewis, C.I. (1946). An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation., Open Court..

• Lonergan, Bernard (1970). Insight, Philosophical Library.

• Plantinga, Alvin (2000). Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford Univ. Press.

• Poythress, Vern (1976). Philosophy, Science, and the Sovereignty of God, P & R.

• Quine, W.V.O. (1993). Pursuit of Truth, Harvard University Press.

• Stern, Robert (2000). Transcendental Arguments and Skepticism, Oxford University Press.

• Strawson, P.F. (1966). The Bounds of Sense, Methuen & Co.

• Stroud, Barry (1968). Transcendental Arguments, Journal of Philosophy 65.

• Tarski, Alfred (1961). Introduction to Logic. Dover.

• Turretin, Francis (1992). Institutes of Elenctic Theology. P & R.

• Van Til, (1980). Survey of Christian Epistemology, P & R.

• Van Til, (2007). Introduction to Systematic Theology, P & R.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Presuppositional Epistemology Tagged With: archimedes epistemology, archimedes lever, christian apologetics, God epistemology, God foundation epistemology, mike robinson granbury texas, new apologetics, presuppositional epistemology, village atheist

Interview with Greg West – The founder of the Apologetics blog: The Poached Egg

April 14, 2013 By Mike Robinson 1 Comment

Christian apologist Greg West is the founder and director of the influential Apologetics blog: The Poached Egg

interview by Mike Robinson

On the Poached Egg’s thought-provoking site Greg offers apologetics and biblical truth for the glory of God. Information on his ministry and outreach are posted below the interview.

The Poached Egg Network is where Christian apologetics, history, philosophy, science, theology, and pop culture collide. Their goal is to help guide believers, seekers, and skeptics alike to the Ultimate Source of Truth and a better understanding of the Christian worldview.

I URGE YOU TO CONTEND FOR THE FAITH THAT WAS ONCE FOR ALL ENTRUSTED TO THE SAINTS. JUDE 3

Interview Questions

Greg, greetings and welcome to our site. What part of the country are you originally from and where do now you call home?

Thanks for having me, Mike. It’s a real honor. I was born and raised in Southwest Missouri, where I still call home today. Although I don’t consider myself ‘well traveled’, I have been around much of the U.S. and served a year overseas in Korea back in my army days.

Were you raised in a Christian home?

Yes, as a matter of fact I was. My dad is an ordained deacon and serves as a volunteer chaplain at a local hospital. He and my mom have been married for over 50 years. We were in church whenever the doors were open. I remember that we often went to church where ever we were–even when we were on vacation.

How did you come to faith in Jesus Christ?

I’m not sure exactly how old I was—around six or seven—but I remember sitting through a sermon in Vacation Bible School and realizing that I was a sinner in need of a Savior and responding to an alter call.

What is your favorite book of the Bible and why?

That’s a tough call. It’s really hard for me to pick a favorite, but if I had to, I’d probably choose the book of John because it paints such an intimate portrayal of Jesus, the Trinity, and Jesus as God incarnate and Savior. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is John 18:37–where Jesus tells Pilate that the reason he came into the world was to bear witness to the truth. That verse is also found on one of the oldest known fragments of NT manuscripts—dating back to the early 2^nd century.

What drove you or prompted you to pursue Christian apologetics?

As a young man in my twenties I turned my back on God and Christianity because I had begun to doubt that it was the “one true religion.” I spent many years as a professed agnostic before the “problem of evil” began to make me realize that Christianity was really the only worldview that lined up with what I knew of reality. I became a recommitted follower of Christ in my mid-thirties and decided that if I was going to be a Christian—and I sincerely wanted to know if its truth claims could stand up to the closest scrutiny. I began studying apologetics before I even really knew what apologetics was. I ran across Lee Strobel’s, The Case for Christ, and after that I was hooked and read everything apologetics related that I could get my hands on. I’ve been studying apologetics ever since.

The Poached Egg has posted countless resources about various topics concerning atheism, cults, and false religions; additionally, you have an avid interest in confronting secularism. What are some of the reasons for your apologetic attention regarding worldview issues?

Like I said earlier, I believe that Christianity is the only worldview that provides sufficient answers to worldview questions—such as, “Why are we here?” “Where did we come from?’” and “Where are we going?” As far as secularism goes, I think that it’s a worldview ultimately driven by selfishness, and when is selfishness ever a good thing?

Why do you believe so passionately in absolute truth?

First, because Jesus seemed to hold truth in such high regard that as I mentioned before he gave it as the reason why he came—he even claimed to be the embodiment of truth itself. And second, if there is no absolute truth then absolutely nothing matters—and if nothing matters—well, that’s a recipe that leads to anarchy, chaos… this list could go on, but ultimately to utter despair.

What are the most troubling religions that require greater Christian apologetic outreach?

I really don’t think I can single out any particular one because while some may have more followers than others, I think that any religion that is false needs to be exposed as so.

Do Christians, Mormons, and Muslims worship the same God?

No. This is the case because any religion that does not express God as he truly is in reality is presenting a false god, or a “manmade” god. That’s one thing I appreciate about Christianity—as C.S. Lewis observed: “It’s not one that anyone could or would make up.” Our God is a God of perfect righteousness and judgment. Who wants that? But he’s also a God who is perfect in mercy and grace. No god of any other religion has all the attributes of the God of the Bible.

What are some things the anti-religious misunderstand about apologetics? And Evangelicals?

I could go on for a while on this one, but I’ll just stick with what jumps out at me the most: that we’re out to rain on everyone’s parade or that we have some kind of political agenda to turn the world into a theocracy. I have no delusions about the latter until Christ returns. The fact that we’re motivated by love (in sharing the Gospel) seems to go over many people’s head, but that doesn’t mean that I’m not going to let my values determine how I vote—which is just as true of any person of any religion or no religion.

What are some ideas, arguments, or topics a Christian might want to explore when witnessing to false religionists?

I would first ask how they came to believe that their religion is true—is it because they just accepted what something or someone said, or because they’ve investigated how their beliefs line up with what we know of reality. Christianity is the only religion that claims to have multiple eyewitnesses from start to finish; most other religions can only claim one and others just simply accepted what they said as being true.

What is the proper tone or attitude Christians should have when witnessing to cultists?

We should realize that we were once deceived just as they are and that God wants them to know the truth just as much as he does us. We should always remember that it’s not about proving that we’re right or winning arguments: it’s about sharing Christ.

Please name any leading-edge apologetic advances, evidence, and arguments that help the apologist reveal the weakness of the secular worldview.

I think the argument from moral absolutes is irrefutable. That along with the various versions of the cosmological argument, the case for the resurrection, and the historical reliability of the Bible makes a cumulative case that Christianity is true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why hyper-skeptics continue to make logic defying arguments that Jesus never even existed as an historical person. Do away with Jesus and there’s no need to worry about the rest.

The fact that the Bible is a collection of 66 books written over a period of 1500 or so years by around 40 different authors from many different regions and from all walks of life—from shepherds to prophets and kings, and that it is one grand story is remarkable in itself. No other book, religious or secular, fiction or non-fiction, can even come close to making that claim. Furthermore, we keep discovering manuscripts older than we had previously—and they continue to confirm that what we have today is what was written back then.

What do you recommend for a budding apologist who is considering focusing his ministry on apologetics?

First of all, study the Bible. Read it from start to finish then read it again. Read different versions—study its historical context and dig into challenging passages. You’ll be amazed at what you learn. Second, read, read, read, and never stop reading. Read things that are in opposition to your own beliefs. Start with introductory books and then work your way up to higher levels of difficulty and understanding. Pick one to three main subjects of interest and focus mainly on those, remember, you’re never going to learn everything or be an expert at everything. It’s better to learn a lot about a little as opposed to a little about a lot. Third, you don’t have to be William Lane Craig or even need to have a degree to be an effective apologist (although I would like to see more students pursuing degrees in apologetics). The church needs laypeople to volunteer to teach apologetics at their churches and make themselves available to people who have questions. If you want to be an apologist as a career, there are more options today than ever. Ratio Christi will likely never run out of positions for full time and tent-maker apologists—and it won’t break your bank or take years of college to become trained and certified to fill these positions.

With the rise of the militant atheists, are you concerned about the aggression and the influence of the New Atheists and combative Online-atheism?

I’m actually thankful for the New Atheists. It’s partly thanks to them that apologetics is experiencing a resurgence like never before in recent history. What disturbs me is when people who are experiencing doubt will see something online as awful as the Zeitgeist movie and take it on complete faith that the information given is true without looking into their claims and then think of themselves as being “intellectually enlightened.” Most of the attacks made against Christianity are either arguments from emotion, ignorance, or a combination of both. I think there are very few true atheists. Most of them are really just misotheists (God haters) trying to pass themselves off as atheists.

What do you think are some of the best ways to minister and reply to them?

If you’re not spending as much time praying for them (specific people you are reaching out to) as you are presenting your arguments, you’re not going to get very far. We have to pray that God will send his Spirit to prepare them to be open to what we have to say. The mistake many young apologists to be make is to think that it’s all about winning arguments or proving yourself right. If that’s your approach, then please just stop doing apologetics because you’re only hindering the Gospel and not helping anyone.

How essential is defending Christian truth against Islamic claims?

I’m so thankful that there are apologists who specialize in reaching out to Muslims, Mormons, JWs, and many other particular religions. I think that it’s essential to be able to reach out to everyone, regardless of their worldview or religion. Islam, being the 2^nd largest religion in the world, might require more people to step up and specialize in reaching out to them—especially former Muslims.

With all the innovation and the rise of technology, what do you see as some of the biggest challenges for the Christian apologist in the coming years?

I think some of the biggest challenges lie in Christians learning how to utilize that technology for the cause of Christ. Christians always seem to be a more than a few steps behind on this… but I think that’s beginning to change. I think another challenge is in the area of bioethics. It seems we are slow to learn from the past. Most people will condemn Hitler as a moral monster without reservation, but we (as a society) seem to be committing the sins of the past with barely a second thought. Today we have advocates for sex selective abortions and getting rid of the “imperfect” or “unwanted.” We need moral apologists to help defend the defenseless.

What apologists or teachers have influenced your work the most?

Lee Strobel has been a huge influence on me. My pastor calls him “America’s Apologist” and rightly so. He was the first in quite some time to make apologetics accessible to the layman- to show that apologetics is for everyone and not just for academians—and others are following his lead. People like J. Warner Wallace, Greg Koukl, Paul Copan, Sean McDowell, and a growing list of others, are writing apologetics books, articles, and blogs that are equipping lay people (such as myself) to be more confident Christians. This helps make more confident evangelists. With today’s widespread skepticism and relativism—at least in spiritual matters—it’s nearly impossible to effectively witness to your average co-worker without knowing some basic apologetic arguments.

Do you think that there are any non-Christian scholars worth reading?

Absolutely! Today there are quite a few agnostics and even atheists who are writing books that are critical of the secular worldview or are at least asking good questions. One book I really like in particular is God and the Astronomers by the late astronomer, Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, who realized that the big bang and other recent discoveries in cosmology have huge implications and raises a lot of problems for atheism.

Describe your apologetic approach you most often employ.

I’m mainly an evidentialist, but I think that just about all approaches have their value. It all depends on what approach works best for the person you’re trying to reach. The presuppositional approach may work well for some, while with others, you may need to use a more historical or scientific approach.

Is there solid proof or powerful evidence for the existence of God? If so, what is it?

I think the Cosmological argument is a great argument for the existence of God, and some argue that can only get you to theism, but it just so happens that the Bible is the only holy book that describes a God with the necessary attributes to be the uncaused first cause. The more I ponder the cosmological argument, the more I see that it’s highly improbable for God not to exist. And again, the argument from the existence of moral absolutes is a huge problem for skeptics—although there are honest atheists out there who agree that without God there are no moral absolutes.

The Poached Egg recently has teamed-up the Ratio Christi—how has that changed the ministry? What are some of the benefits from this joint effort?

Well, as Ratio Christi operations manager, Blake Anderson put it, TPE and RC are two eggs from the same chicken! Alluding to the fact that we both share many common goals—the biggest of which is to make disciples, which, bottom line, is what apologetics is all about. I’d had a great working relationship with RC almost from the beginning of TPE. I was always eager and happy to promote what they’re doing, and they like what I’m doing. I was originally going to be a chapter director, but with the workload of TPE, it would be nearly impossible to do both and be effective at either and still maintain any kind of family life. The benefit of our partnership for them is that it gives them a larger platform to bang the drum for student apologetics on campuses, which is something I’ve always been passionate about. The main benefit for me (and my family) is that as an RC supported missionary, I’m able to raise funds to help expand TPE while providing for my family at the same time—without the headaches of trying to run TPE as a separate not for profit organization. It really hasn’t changed the ministry of TPE other than integrating it into the RC family and stepping up promotion of RC.

People will be noticing more of this in the near future as we continue to develop our focus and direction. It’s really a win-win situation for both parties and I’m so thankful to RC for enabling me to take TPE to the next level and beyond. Another thing which I’ve mentioned briefly already is that RC really opens a lot of doors for those who wish to pursue apologetics ministry as a career. RC president Rick Schenker calls it a grassroots movement and I wholeheartedly agree and I’m thrilled to be on board!

What are some of your future plans for your ministry? Do you have any projects underway?

I really want to bring a major apologetics conference to my area—that’s one goal I have and another reason that our partnership with RC is beneficial because they have a lot more experience in that area than I do. I’m also going to be traveling and speaking more. I have one local speaking engagement next month and later this month I’ll be a presenter for the Online Apologetics Conference. I’m very excited about that!

Many Christians are not able to be Christian apologists; they do not have the time or ability to devote many years to study. What would you recommend for these average Christians?

First, one could learn apologetics by spending a few minutes a day or week visiting TPE and reading the articles featured there. They might even run across some written by you!

Also, make an effort to read books like The Case for Christ or Cold-Case Christianity. It doesn’t have to take years to learn apologetics, although to be a specialist it does.

Another thing Christians can do is attend a weekend apologetics conference which are popping up everywhere with more frequency. Encourage the leadership at your church to offer apologetics related classes and small groups is another thing they can do.

Last and definitely not least, support apologetics ministries with prayer and financial support. I can’t begin to tell you how important this is!

Are there things, good or bad, that you wish you understood better before you began your apologetics ministry that you now know?

This is another question I could spend quite a bit of time on- but I’ll try to keep it brief. When I started out, I naively thought that all you had to do was just make good arguments and you would be making converts left and right. I know now that the best arguments in the world will not change most people’s minds… but as Greg Koukl puts it, the task of the apologist is to put a stone in someone’s shoe. You might speak to someone and never see them again, but what you say might open the door for them later on down the road. The fact that life is ultimately meaningless without God, and that without God there is no solution to the problem of evil, gnawed at me for quite some time before I came to the decision that it was with either all in or all out for Christ.

Are there any ways our readers can support your ministry?

Yes, help us spread the word about Ratio Christi: share TPE articles on their social networks—and please pray for me and my family as we continue to expand our reach. We also are in great need of financial support. As Hank Hanegraaff puts it, the Gospel is free but someone has to pay for the plumbing. To donate, one can go to the “donate” page on TPE to make a special or ongoing monthly donation online.

My readers and I thank you for your time and we pray for God’s blessing upon your work and outreach.

Mike, thank you so much for the opportunity to be interviewed here, and I thank you and pray for God’s blessing on your ministry as well!

_________________________________________

The Poached Egg Christian Worldview and Apologetics Journal is a website founded and edited by Greg West. Greg is passionately committed to the cause of Christian apologetics; providing an adequate and reasonable defense of the Christian faith. The Poached Egg is a large and continually expanding virtual library of articles and essays compiled from all over the World Wide Web. Noted apologists, biblical scholars, philosophers, scientists, historians, students, and laymen all come together under this one site.

The Poached Egg derives its name from the famous C.S. Lewis quote from, Mere Christianity. “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse.”

I encourage readers to support The Poached Egg’s apologetic ministry; they are ever-active resource providers and they boldly contend for the Christian Worldview against the errors of atheism, cults, Islam and false religions.

Donate HERE

Website Home is Here

Subscribe to their potent e-daily here

Follow them on Twitter here

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics, Evangelical Theology Tagged With: apologetics interview, greg west, greg west apologist, poached egg, Ratio Christi, Ratio Christi poached egg, the poached egg

Jackie Robinson’s Faith in God: Following Christ – WSJ

April 13, 2013 By Mike Robinson Leave a Comment

By CHRIS LAMB

Brooklyn Dodgers President Branch Rickey first met Jackie Robinson on Aug. 28, 1945. Rickey told Robinson that he wanted to sign the 26-year-old ballplayer and break the national pastime’s color barrier. But for him to succeed, Rickey said, Robinson couldn’t respond to the indignities that would be piled on him: “I’m looking for a ballplayer with guts enough not to fight back.”

Rickey then opened a book published in the 1920s, Giovanni Papini’s “Life of Christ,” and read Jesus’ words: “But whoever shall smite thee on the cheek, turn to him the other also.” Robinson knew the Gospel and knew what was required of him. He replied, “I have two cheeks, Mr. Rickey. Is that it?” This meeting between the two Methodists, Rickey and Robinson, ultimately transformed baseball and America itself.

The exchange is depicted in “42,” the biographical movie opening this weekend with Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson and Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey. But then the movie turns to the familiar, inspiring saga of Robinson’s courageous fight against racism in baseball and society.

What is often overlooked in accounts of Robinson’s life is that it is also a religious story. His faith in God, as he often attested, carried him through the torment and abuse of integrating the major leagues….

In a 1950 newspaper interview, he emphasized his faith in God and his nightly ritual of kneeling at bedside to pray. “It’s the best way to get closer to God,” Robinson said, and then the second baseman added with a smile, “and a hard-hit ground ball.”

After Robinson retired from baseball, he wrote newspaper columns for the New York Post and the Amsterdam News in New York. Many of the columns are collected in a new book, “Beyond Home Plate,” edited by Michael G. Long. Writing for the Post in 1960, Robinson compared his own experience with “turning the other cheek” with the nonviolent confrontation of the civil-rights movement espoused by his friend, Martin Luther King Jr….

Read full WSJ article HERE

————————————

see my new eBook that contends for Moral Absolutes and the Existence of God Here

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: jackie robinson Christian, jackie robinson God, jackie robinson religion, moral absolutes sports

Schrödinger’s Cat and Quantum Mechanics

April 13, 2013 By Mike Robinson Leave a Comment

Schrödinger’s Cat: Does the Moon Exist When I’m not Looking? WSJ

By Gino Segre

Schrödinger submitted to the prestigious journal Annalen der Physik the first of six articles he would write in six months—a series surpassed in influence perhaps only by Einstein’s miraculous output in 1905, which included the Special Theory of Relativity. Schrödinger in 1926 formulated a theory that removed the mysteries of the hydrogen atom, explained the atom’s behavior in electric and magnetic fields, and explained how to model its behavior over time. And all this was done with mathematical techniques that were familiar to most theoretical physicists, so the work was almost immediately both understood and acclaimed. The contents of these papers are still the basis for every physics student’s introduction to quantum mechanics; not a comma needs to be added. …

In 1927, Bohr had offered what came to be widely adopted as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. It maintains that, at the quantum scale, reality cannot be taken to exist independently of the act of measurement. Einstein rejected this view, semi-facetiously asking a friend, “Does the moon exist only when I look at it?” Also rejecting the Copenhagen Interpretation, Schrödinger offered the paradox of a cat placed in a sealed box with a device capable of ending its life. He proceeded to ask if we really believed that the cat was in a superposition of alive and dead states as long as the box wasn’t opened and a measurement taken. …

Nobody doubts the validity of quantum mechanics or the truth of its predictions. The question at stake is rather the theory’s underpinnings and what they mean about reality. The Copenhagen Interpretation remains one of the possible answers to these subtler questions, and its many adherents are unlikely to be ready to send it to history’s dustbin.

What is indisputable is that we are now, thanks to advances made in the past three decades by extraordinarily clever experimentalists, in the fortunate position of possibly distinguishing between interpretations and certainly of seeing even many of quantum mechanics’ spookiest predictions being proved true. …

Read the full WSJ article HERE

Filed Under: Apologetics, Book Reviews Tagged With: Schrödinger’s Cat and Quantum Mechanics, Schrödinger’s Cat apologeitcs

The Joys of Prayer, Justification and Evangelism: How They are Linked

Plato’s Forms and Atheism: an Implausible Union

Sye Ten Bruggencate’s New Apologetics Video: A Review

Objective Moral Values or Mere Preferences?

The Bible or the Qur’an part I by Mike Robinson

God or Godless? by John Loftus & Randal Rauser: A Book Review

God: The Ground and Source of Knowledge

Interview with Greg West – The founder of the Apologetics blog: The Poached Egg

Jackie Robinson’s Faith in God: Following Christ – WSJ

By CHRIS LAMB

Schrödinger’s Cat and Quantum Mechanics

Checkout

Featured Book

Purchase Apologetic E-books

Latest Blog Post

The Joys of Prayer, Justification and Evangelism: How They are Linked