Wednesday, May 28
A Facebook meme insinuating that salvation is not determined by whether or not one places faith in Jesus Christ but rather if one submits to Calvin’s soteriological ruminations reads “Preaching predestination is like preaching in a cemetery…there are a lot of folks around…but no one is listening.” Technically, is this hermeneutic is the correct one, that is nobody’s fault but God if the individual has no choice in the matter.
Tuesday, May 27
Monday, May 26
Are Critics Of Intelligent Design As Intelligent As They Propagandize?
The caption beneath the illustration reads, “The Intelligent Design God is something of an underachiever.” He apparently also has a high tolerance for guff as very few have poked as much fun at the venerated spokesman of a particular world religion with a fetish for explosives and flying jetliners into skyscrapers.
In all seriousness, the cartoon is a jab directed at the work of biochemist Michael Behe who popularized the flagellum in “Darwin's Black Box”. It was the likes of the Darwinists and the naturalists who first categorized the single cell and assorted microscopic organisms as “simple” in comparison to other biological, geological, and astronomical phenomena considered to be complex.
With the concept of irreducible complexity, pioneers of the Intelligent Design movement such as Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson popularized the concept how these simple cells and organisms were anything but with their entire systems breaking down unless all of the components work in tandem and likely worthless without the others. Likewise, these functions are of a magnitude so beyond the sum total of the constituted parts that it is unlikely that they would have arisen on their own over time through the minuscule accumulation of random genetic modifications.
It is not that the proponents of Intelligent Design have totally ignored these other scientific curiosities such as stars, galaxies, and other mind boggling wonders of the physical universe. In fact, a number of these are presented in a marvelous manner that can be appreciated by the scientist and understood by the enthusiastic non-technician alike in “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler.
Adherents of the worldviews of naturalism and scientism often stand behind their lecterns before their blackboards clicking their tongues how religious faith and its corollaries of intelligent design or some kind of creation theory cannot be categorized as true science because it is doubtful that the faithful believer would ever renounce their preferred theology no matter how overwhelming the evidence arrayed against traditional revelation and dogma. However, the subtitle of the organization's own newsletter is “Defending The Teaching Of Evolution And Climate Science”.
Just what evidence will adherents of these perspectives accept before themselves surrendering to the epistemological or paradigmatic inevitable?
For example, the newsletter's Dec 2013 cover might spoof the Intelligent Design movement's flagellum fetish. But haven't the Darwinists been harping their finches, fruit flies, and peppered moths even longer?
At the end of the day, no matter how much these creatures might change over the generations, they pretty much remain fruit flies, finches, or peppered moths begetting other fruit flies, finches, or peppered moths respectively not that dramatically different on the genetic or molecular level where it counts from the original. So should geneticists dig deep enough that it is discovered that, despite the considerable material similarities between the species, it is impossible for a chimp to make the leap to human being, will multitudes of academics come forward to renounce many of Physical Anthropology's cherished foundations?
The second area of focus in the mission statement is defending the teaching of climate science. There is hardly a Christian out there walking free this side of the funny farm fence that condemns meteorological forecasting. Even if they don't catch the segment on the 11 PM news or fiddle around with Doppler radar and satellite imagery, even the Amish probably consult their own methods to get some kind of idea what the weather will be like the next day.
The National Center For Science might go out of its way to position itself as one of Feurbach's cultured despisers of religion. However, what this organization really means by the term “climate science” is instead the faith of global warming and environmental extremeism.
And as in the case of the most diehard adherent of traditional theism, there will be nothing to dissuade these zealots that man (especially of the White industrialized variety) isn't the cause of climate change.
Had a warmer than usual winter? It's global warming's fault.
Had a colder than normal winter? That's global warming's fault also.
Had a summer or winter where the weather was for the most part within the range of what one should expect for that particular season? Surely, it was the fault of global warming.
Like any good revivalist, the goal of the ideologues at the National Center for Science Education is not so much to dispassionately impart a set of objective facts for the recipient to then make up their own minds as to whether they will accept them into their existential epistemic framework and then determine how these should be applied to life and policy. For example, it is doubtful the newsletter publishes articles detailing how the world really hasn't warmed for over a decade and how, when changes take place, they are more the fault of solar activity than the failure of the American people to willingly embrace a lifestyle virtually indistinguishable from that of Third World squalor.
One of the greatest gifts parents and educators can bestow upon a child is to cultivate an awareness of the assorted charlatans that will attempt to take advantage of the weak-willed and simpleminded. A considerable number will appear wearing the cloaks of a great many religions. However, just as dangerous are those wearing lab coasts that instead attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting by rattling off numbers presented as statistics and obtuse obscure verbal formulations masquerading as facts.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, May 23
Episcopal Hierarchs Blame The First Amendment For Income Inequality & Unemployment
Critics Of Transhumanism Denounced As Not Christian
Similar to the logic where the early Christians were persecuted for being atheists.
Click On The Headline
Lessons In Apologetics #10: Naturalism & The Supernatural
In the chapter "Naturalism & The Supernatural", Geisler examines the argument against acts of God classified as miracles. The basic argument, presented in its textbook form by David Hume, is stated in the following manner: "(1) A miracle by definition is a violation of (or exception to) a law of nature. (2) But the laws of nature are built upon the highest degree of probability. (3) Hence, a miracle by definition (as an exception) is based on the lowest degree of probability. (4) Now the wise man should always base his belief on the highest degree of probability. (5) Therefore, the wise man should never believe in miracles (266)."
The variations of this argument that have been developed over the decades and centuries since the time of Hume share a number of assumptions. The first is the assumption that the universe operates in accord with repeatable norms which we refer to as natural law. The Christian also shares this belief as God has chosen these to imbue the physical creation with what we perceive as order and what causes events contradicting these principles to stand out as events worthy of special attention.
However, it is beyond this point that the Christian and those that believe God does not intervene in the creation must part company. The naturalist essentially pursues two lines of reasoning that the Christian cannot endorse.
One principle basically eliminates miracles by definition. This is accomplished by postulating that whatever occurs in the natural world is a natural event. We as finite individuals might not be able to explain or understand why something happened in the way it did, but that does not mean there is not some kind of reason within a closed system to account for the phenomena in question without having to appeal to an interdiction by an outside higher source.
The other major assumption underlying arguments against the miraculous is that miracles do not occur because such events would be a violation of the probabilities natural laws are derived from. While natural laws are descriptions of what transpire in most instances, the sincere researcher aspiring to the distinction of scientist must study the events that actually take place and not sweep away those that do not conform to preconceived notions as to what is and is not possible. It is only by carefully scrutinizing these instances out of the ordinary that the researcher is able to uncover either explanations that fit within the normal operation of natural systems or rather the intervention of an intelligence beyond that which mortal minds are not generally accustomed to interacting with.
Even though the Christian must accept and defend the notion that natural laws as we understand them are not so inviolable, neither should the Christian go to the other extreme and herald every unexplainable occurrence as an undeniably direct intervention by the hand of God. As Geisler deliberately points out, there is a set of criteria an event should be evaluated by before the Christian accepts it as a miracle (280-282).
Foremost, the investigator seeking to determine the nature of an event contradicting normality must ascertain if its origin is possibly Satanic. Scripture warns that in later times there will be deceitful signs and wonders that would deceive the very elect if that were possible. The Christian must always let God’s revealed message rather than experience be the final court of arbitration.
Secondly, the Christian must be careful to distinguish between miracles and anomalies. For example, if someone appears to die on the operating table, is hauled off to the morgue, and seemingly comes back to life several hours later, though there would be reason to rejoice and look to this as a gift from God, there still might not be sufficient grounds to declare this a miracle. This is because such an occurrence could very well be an anomaly firstly because the event may have a cause which may be naturally explainable but at the time beyond the boundaries of our scientific understanding. And secondly, there is not necessarily any moral or theological claims connected to the unexpected healing.
To help the believer through this confusion, Geisler provides a number of guidelines an alleged miracle must measure up to in order to be categorized as such: (1) A miracle must be an exception to the normal pattern of events. (2) A miracle involves some kind of theological truth claim as an act of God would not contradict what God has revealed about Himself. (3) A miracle must also have good moral impact as God would not violate his standards. (4) And lastly, miracles suspend normal patterns rather than violate natural processes (282).
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, May 22
A California Christian school finds itself in a heated legal quandary. The question at hand is whether or not the civil rights of educators were violated when they were terminated from their positions for being Roman Catholic. The school claims students should only be exposed to teaching in compliance with the sponsoring church’s doctrinal statement. The fired teachers insist that they did not attempt to manipulate students into embracing Roman Catholic peculiarities. In all fairness, unless the teachers were deceptive about their denominational allegiances or switched teams mid game, the school ought to be punished for extending an offer of employment only to snatch it back once revivalistic fanaticism sweeps through the institution.
Wednesday, May 21
Lessons In Apologetics #9: Theism
However, Geisler does not leave readers dangling by requiring them to embrace Theism simply for the lack of another viable alternative. Instead, Geisler provides an argument more positive in its orientation incorporating analytical and evidential components.
The argument is stated as such: "(1) Some things undeniably exist. (2) My nonexistence is possible. (3) Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another. (4) There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence. (5) Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists. (6) This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all powerful, all knowing, and all perfect. (7) This infinitely perfect being is called "God". (8) Therefore, God exists. (9) This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures. (10) Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists."
Borrowing from Descartes' conclusion "cogito ergo sum", Geisler posits that, in order to deny that one exists, one must exist in order to do so. From reflections upon the nature of our own existence, one concludes that our nonexistence is possible. For even though we do not like to admit it, there was a time when the world was at least able to hobble along crippled without us in it.
We know that whatever has the possibility of not existing is currently caused to exist by another. Each of us resulted from the physical union of the genetic material of our respective parents who in turn came from the union of their parents, etc, etc. However, physical laws such as those of thermodynamics point out that this chain must have a cause that does not need to be caused. To accomplish this, the uncaused cause would need to be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all perfect. Anything less would be unable to be this uncaused cause.
It is appropriate to call this cause "God" since it possesses the attributes traditionally assigned to divinity. Therefore, God exists.
Geisler further argues that the God affirmed by this proof is the God described in the Bible because there can only be one infinitely perfect and changeless eternal being. However, at this point in the apologetic task Geisler is careful to point out that, "This does not mean that everything the Bible claims that this God said or did, he actually said or did. Whether or not what the Bible says about this God is another question. What we conclude here is ... the God described in the Bible exists; second, whatever the Bible claims for this God that is not inconsistent with his nature, it is possible that he did indeed do and say (250)."
Having reached this conceptual plateau, the apologist can rest for just a moment before he must begin the sectarian and denominational wrangling to make the case that the Christian path into fellowship with God is indeed the correct one.
by Frederick Meekins
Insufficiently Brainwashed Bob Jones University Students Placed On "Character Probation"
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, May 20
It was claimed that there is no quicker way to clear out a church than to preach election and predestination because doing so supposedly separates the sheep from the goats. Within that statement is also the assumption that non-Calvinists are going to Hell. However, why is someone obligated to remain in a congregation that will do little more than create mental despair and emotional depression? Because in such congregations, not only is one constantly berated and belittled for the least little offense but are constantly beaten over the head that God created you for no other reason that to let you fall into the Hellfires of eternal damnation.
Monday, May 19
Spiritual Preparation: Standing On God's Word
Saturday, May 17
Pecksniffs Of Providence
Part of this disdain usually stems from certain misunderstandings as to the nature of the Christian religion.
One common complaint often arises when Christians in media are required to present and disseminate information regarding less than pleasant realities or discuss the implications of said events and ideas.
Christians in mass communications, as a result, are accused of fostering a negative tone. They are then admonished to take a "distinctively Christian approach to the news" or "work to supply ... a uniquely Christian news flow."
Usually this means either mimicking the spin taken by more traditional secular news sources or confining one's coverage to more acceptable religious fair such as bakesales, choir robes, and sermons so inoffensive in nature as to be devoid of any real theological content.
Employing such a standard, the Bible itself would have to be tossed out with the other offending publications.
John 8:32 says, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Biblical figures did not embrace this notion in some abstract sense without any bearing on everyday life.
The prophet Nathan did not hide behind the false distinction between the public and private lives of government officials when criticizing King David's shortcomings with Bathsheba. Paul did not back down from the Athenians on the Acropolis or the Jews on the Sanhedrin.
It may come as surprise, but not all criticism of rigorous Christian and Conservative media stems from the leftwing of the theological and ideological spectrum. A great deal is in fact generated by those classifying themselves as Fundamentalists.
Even though he does not usually address issues considered distinctively religious in nature, Rush Limbaugh's social and political philosophies are close enough to those regularly found among civically engaged Evangelicals that many of the criticisms leveled against this particular radio personality by Fundamentalist researcher David Cloud in his O'Timothy magazine and website readily apply to Christian mass communicators who address issues of the day in their publications and broadcasts.
David Cloud argues that Rush Limbaugh is in violation of Scripture by disrespecting and stirring up discontent against divinely appointed rulers.
In support of his case, Cloud quotes verses such as Titus 3:1-2 among others which says, "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work. To speak evil of no man..." As well as from I Peter 2:13 which says, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake; whether it be the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for punishment of evildoers."
To utilize these verses in condemnation of Conservative media is to misunderstand the nature of the current American political system.
Those opposed to Christian social and political engagement often point out that these passages were written at the time of the Roman Empire. But in all due respect, what of it?
The United States is a completely different political animal. In the Roman Empire, power and authority were vested in the Emperor. In the United States, the people have assented to place final authority in the Constitution. The President, members of Congress, judges, and an increasing array of public officials manning the bureaucracy are merely servants under the Constitution and answerable to the American people through the Constitution, a major clause of which guarantees the citizen the right of free speech.
Rush Limbaugh and his fellow conservative media personalities are in no sense undermining authority duly constituted in the American context.
According to Marvin Olasky in Telling the Truth: How to Revitalize Christian Journalism, such writers are practicing a craft that can be traced in this country back to the days of the Puritan forefathers.
One early American commentator steeped in the Judeo-Christian worldview Olasky quotes sounds strikingly similar to one of the many cogent conservative voices one might find along the radio dial or on the editorial page in our own day. William Leggett wrote in the New York Evening Post during the 1830's regarding government redistribution schemes, "A government administered on such a policy may be called a Government of Equal rights, but it is in its nature and essence a disguised despotism."
It has been said that one ought not unnecessarily discover the sins of others. However, it becomes one's obligation to expose these transgressions when they hit one's pocket book or come to impact the physical and/or moral well-being of one's family or country.
If anything, the actions of mass communicators taking these kinds of stands are more in compliance with the moral order than those taken by government officials who transcend the bounds of their delineated authority in the pursuit of individual aggrandizement or the imposition of freedom-curtailing ideologies.
If Conservative and Evangelical mass communicators are to refrain from criticizing government leaders since to do so would be speaking evil in violation of I Peter 2, then by what right does a pastor have to chastise the shortcomings of the congregation? Like the pastor calling for a return to righteous living, the commentator is simply admonishing wayward officials to return to the principles of just leadership.
Critics of Evangelical cultural involvement have also failed in understanding the multifaceted threat faced by Christianity for the soul of America. David Cloud asserts in the O' Timothy article, "Limbaugh does not understand the root problems with America's ills, which are spiritual and moral rather than political."
The assessment of the nature of the problem is correct, but it fails to account for the fact that the nature of totalitarianism is to infect and smother all areas of existence. Under this system of social organization, those involved with the administration of political affairs take it upon themselves to exert control over those aspects of existence considered more spiritual in nature.
Limbaugh and others like him do not necessarily advocate political answers to nonpolitical problems. What they do insist upon is for political leaders to disentangle themselves from other social spheres and to return to America's founding principles.
David Cloud continues, "The Christian's primary business is to preach the Word of God to the ends of the earth and to be ready for Christ's return." He also adds that what we need are preachers and not radio entertainers.
Such statements reveal the kind of ignorance regarding the nature of Christian and Conservative media and mass communications alluded to earlier. It also exhibits a serious failure in realizing that not everyone is called to promote God's message in the same way.
Ephesians 4:11 says, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers."
While it is the duty of every Christian to promote the saving message of Jesus in their own way, not everyone is to do it in the same way. Broadcast personalities and print correspondents can address topics and issues not necessarily appropriate coming from behind a pulpit such as the threats posed by terrorism or the intricacies of education policy but that do have bearing on the implications of God's will for man in the world.
Even though Christ's return is imminent in that it can occur at any time, there is a world to occupy and evil to hold at bay in the meantime. Certain Christians excuse their social quietism on the grounds that prophecy predicts conditions will grow increasingly more evil. Did they ever stop to think such foretold apostasy was the result of Evangelicals abandoning the culture willy-nilly to the forces of the adversary without a fight?
This self-imposed dichotomy between the sacred and the profane advocated by certain brands of fundamentalism was not the position taken by the Protestant Reformers who saw all of creation and culture as part of God's handiwork to be enjoyed by His children.
Therefore, all labor undertaken in His honor was to be as equally important. Be it as a farmer behind the plow or as a preacher in the pulpit. Somewhere along this spectrum there must be room for Christian commentators, broadcasters, and journalists who look to both the concrete realities of this earthly life as well as to the eternal principles by which the affairs of the universe are governed.
by Frederick Meekins