A Christian Inferiority Complex

Some churchmen have always had an inferiority complex about Christianity and have sought to reconcile Christ and the world of pagan thought. But as someone has said, the theology that weds itself to the philosophy of the present age will soon find itself a widow. Secular philosophies come and go, but the Word of God remains the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

-John W. Robbins-

Intelligent Design is not Science

I recently heard an argument against the intelligent design theory that states that intelligent design is not science. The reasoning for this claim is as follows. Intelligent design cannot be science because when a scientist finds something that is irreducibly complex, such as the flagellum motor, they simply state that a natural cause cannot account for it and point to something supernatural. A true scientist would continue looking for the natural explanation, and to stop doing so is to stop doing science, because when we move to the realm of the supernatural we are now arguing for something that cannot be empirically proven and is unfalsifiable.

But does this really put it outside the realm of science? If it does, then I am going to argue that the naturalist, including the person making this argument is operating outside the realm of science also. This is because they are operating from a presupposition that cannot be empirically proven and is unfalsifiable. The presupposition that they are holding to is that everything does have a natural cause and a true scientist should seek to find it.

The problem is the presupposition that "everything has a natural explanation" has not been empirically proven. In fact, it would be impossible to prove because in order to do so, the scientist would have to explain everything in the universe. And this would be impossible to prove because every effect in which they explain its naturalistic cause, the cause they found would end up being an effect of a previous cause they would have to explain and so on. This would then turn into an infinite regress which could never be proven because it would take an infinite amount of time. The only way they could finish the job would be to come to some natural thing that would be the first cause that would have no naturalistic cause, which would then defeat their position. So until that is done, a true scientist would have to say that they don’t know if everything has a natural explanation.

This presupposition is also unfalsifiable because it cannot be proven false. Every time a scientist finds something that does not seem to have a naturalistic cause, the naturalist will argue that it must, and you should keep looking. And if it actually does not have a naturalistic cause then we will be looking forever for something that cannot be found, therefore it would be impossible to falsify the naturalist presupposition.

The bottom line is this, if appealing to something that cannot be empirically proven and is unfalsifiable cannot be included in the realm of science, then so be it, but that would mean that the naturalist is also working outside the realm of science.

-Doug Eaton-

Intelligent Design is not Science (video)

The Origins of Islam

If anyone is interested in watching some strange guy (me) stand in his garage and give a brief history of Muhammad and the origins of Islam. Here is the link.







Islam's Origins

God Bless,


Doug

Gordon Clark's Argument for the Existence of God from Truth.

Gordon Clark being a presuppositionalist normally did not argue for the existence of God, but in this case he thought it was valuable. Taking his cue from Augustine, he developed this argument. This argument is also given by Alvin Plantinga in a slightly different way. The following is Ronald Nash’s explanation of Clark’s argument.

Gordon Clark’s account of the argument from truth utilizes six steps:

1. Truth Exists
2. Truth is immutable
3. Truth is eternal
4. Truth is mental
5. Truth is superior to the human mind
6. Truth is God

1. “Truth exists.” Clark establishes this point by reminding us of the self-defeating nature of any attempt to deny the existence of truth. Since skepticism is false, there must be knowledge; and if there is knowledge, there must exist the object of knowledge, namely truth.

2. “Truth is immutable.” It is impossible for truth to change. As Clark says, “Truth must be unchangeable. What is true today always has been and always will be true.” For Clark, all true propositions are eternal and immutable truths. He has no use for pragmatic views of truth that imply that what is true today may be false tomorrow. If truth changes, then pragmatism will be false tomorrow-if, indeed, it could ever be true. Truth itself is unaffected by the fact that sentences like “I am now typing” are sometimes true and usually false. Since I’ll present a rather long argument in defense of this claim later in this chapter, I’ll assume that this possible problem can be answered and move on to Clark’s next point.

3. “Truth is eternal.” It would be self-contradictory to deny the eternity of truth. If the world will never cease to exist, it is true that the world will never cease to exist. If the world will someday perish, then that is true. But truth itself will abide even though every created thing should perish. But suppose someone asks, “what if truth itself should perish?” Then it would still be true that truth had perished. Any denial of the eternity of truth turns out to be an affirmation of its eternity.

4. “Truth is Mental.” The existence of truth presupposes the existence of minds. “Without a mind, truth could not exist. The object of knowledge is a proposition, a meaning, a significance; it is a thought.” For Clark, the existence of truth is incompatible with any materialistic view of man. If the materialist admits the existence of consciousness at all, he regards it as an effect and not a cause. For a materialist, thoughts are always the result of bodily changes. This materialism implies that all thinking, including logical reasoning, is merely the result of mechanical necessity. But bodily changes can be neither true nor false. One set of physical motions cannot be truer than another. Therefore, if there is no mind, there can be no truth; and if there is no truth, materialism cannot be true. Likewise, if there is no mind, there can be no such thing as logical reasoning from which it follows that no materialist can possible provide a valid argument for his position. No reason can possible be given to justify an acceptance of materialism. Hence, for Clark, any denial of the mental nature of truth is self-stultifying. In Clarks words,

“If a truth, a proposition, or a thought were some physical motion in the brain, no two persons could have the same thought. A physical motion is a fleeting event numerically distinct from every other. Two persons cannot have the same motion, nor can one person have it twice. If this is what thought were, memory and communication would be impossible…It is a peculiarity of mind and not of body that the past can be made present. Accordingly, if one may thing the same thought twice, truth must be mental or spiritual. Not only does [truth] defy time; it defies space as well, for if communication is to be possible, the identical truth must be in two minds at once. If, in opposition, anyone wished to deny that an immaterial idea can exist in two minds at once, his denial must be conceived to exist in his own mind only; and since it has not registered in any other mind, it does not occur to us to refute it.”

To summarize Clark’s argument thus far, truth exists and is both eternal and immutable. Furthermore, truth can exist only in some mind.

5. “Truth is superior to the human mind.” By this, Clark means that by its very nature, truth cannot be subjective and individualistic. Humans know certain truths that are not only necessary but universal. While these truths are immutable, the human mind is changeable. Even though beliefs vary from one person to another, truth itself cannot change. Moreover, the human mind does not stand in judgment of truth: rather truth judges our reason. While we often judge other human minds (as when we say, for example, that someone’s mind is not a keen as it should be), we do not judge truth. If truth and the human mind were equal, truth could not be eternal and immutable since the human mind is finite, mutable, and subject to error. Therefore, truth must transcend human reason; truth must be superior to any individual human mind as well as to the sum total of human minds. From this it follows that there must be a mind higher than the human mind in which truth resides.

6. “Truth is God.” There must be an ontological ground for truth. But the ground of truth cannot be anything perishable or contingent. Since truth is eternal and immutable, it must exist in an eternal Mind. And since only God possesses these attributes, God must be truth.

“Is all this any more than the assertion that there is an eternal, immutable Mind, as Supreme Reason, a personal, living God? The truths or propositions that may be known are the thoughts of God, the eternal thoughts of God. And insofar as man knows anything he is in contact with God’s mind. Since further, God’s mind is God, we may… say, we have a vision of God."

Therefore, When human beings know truth, we also know something of God’s nature. There is a sinse in which all knowledge is a knowledge of God.

-Ronald Nash – Faith and Reason - p. 161

The Problem of Induction

Problem of Induction

A major problem for any non-theistic worldview!!!

God Bless,

Doug

The Covenant of Redemption - Spurgeon

The covenant of redemption is the theological term for the agreement that was made between the God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in how they were going to redeem for themselves the elect. This covenant is not mentioned by name in scripture but it is clearly implied that an agreement had been made between the Godhead. Much like the term Trinity does not apear in scripture but is clearly seen.

Below is a transcript from a Spurgeon sermon where he describes this covenant and then wonders what it would have been like to be to hear this covenant being made.

“Now, in this covenant of grace, we must first of all observe the high contracting parties between whom it was made. The covenant of grace was made before the foundation of the world between God the Father, and God the Son; or to put it in a yet more scriptural light, it was made mutually between the three divine persons of the adorable Trinity.”

“I cannot tell you it in the glorious celestial tongue in which it was written: I am fain to bring it down to the speech which suiteth to the ear of flesh, and to the heart of the mortal. Thus, I say, run the covenant, in ones like these:”

"I, the Most High Jehovah, do hereby give unto my only begotten and well-beloved Son, a people, countless beyond the number of stars, who shall be by him washed from sin, by him preserved, and kept, and led, and by him, at last, presented before my throne, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. I covenant by oath, and swear by myself, because I can swear by no greater, that these whom I now give to Christ shall be for ever the objects of my eternal love. Them I will forgive through the merit of the blood. To these will I give a perfect righteousness; these will I adopt and make my sons and daughters, and these shall reign with me through Christ eternally." Thus run that glorious side of the covenant. The Holy Spirit also, as one of the high contracting parties on this side of the covenant, gave his declaration, "I hereby covenant," saith he, "that all whom the Father giveth to the Son, I will in due time quicken. I will show them their need of redemption; I will cut off from them all groundless hope, and destroy their refuges of lies. I will bring them to the blood of sprinkling; I will give them faith whereby this blood shall be applied to them, I will work in them every grace; I will keep their faith alive; I will cleanse them and drive out all depravity from them, and they shall be presented at last spotless and faultless." This was the one side of the covenant, which is at this very day being fulfilled and scrupulously kept. As for the other side of the covenant this was the part of it, engaged and covenanted by Christ. He thus declared, and covenanted with his Father: "My Father, on my part I covenant that in the fullness of time I will become man. I will take upon myself the form and nature of the fallen race. I will live in their wretched world, and for my people I will keep the law perfectly. I will work out a spotless righteousness, which shall be acceptable to the demands of thy just and holy law. In due time I will bear the sins of all my people. Thou shalt exact their debts on me; the chastisement of their peace I will endure, and by my stripes they shall be healed. My Father, I covenant and promise that I will be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. I will magnify thy law, and make it honourable. I will suffer all they ought to have suffered. I will endure the curse of thy law, and all the vials of thy wrath shall be emptied and spent upon my head. I will then rise again; I will ascend into heaven; I will intercede for them at thy right hand; and I will make myself responsible for every one of them, that not one of those whom thou hast given me shall ever be lost, but I will bring all my sheep of whom, by thy blood, thou hast constituted me the shepherd—I will bring every one safe to thee at last."

-Charles Spurgeon-

Imagine, that for all who believe, our names were written in the Lamb’s book of life since before the foundations of the world. The Triune God has covenanted to save us, and who can stay His hand. This is eternal security,

God Bless,

Doug

Christian vs. Christ Follower - Which is better

If you haven’t yet seen the new Christian parody of the Mac vs. PC commercials, you can see all four of them here, here, here and here. In the commercial you have a somewhat strange fundamentalist with his bumper stickers collection and suit who is called “Christian” and then you have the laid back, hip, even a bit witty “Christ-follower.”

At first glance the video seem to strike a cord because we have all run into that “Christian” guy or girl who was just a little off. It is true that sometimes Christians can get carried away with strange little things, dare I mention the Test-a-Mints if you need to have your breath freshened. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with poking a little fun at ourselves and the strange things Christians do, but these videos are doing more than that. They have a message which comes into play at the end of each video that says “Christian no more.”

Though it is not completely spelled out, the message is this. Let’s not call our selves Christians anymore, and instead let’s call ourselves Christ-followers. The reason for this change is that the term Christian carries with it too much baggage. Which ends up being a stumbling block for anyone trying to reach out to the world. Thus, the answer to this dilemma is to call ourselves Christ-followers instead because it is more precise and hasn't been misused as much.

Is the solution really that simple? The way to get people to stop making Jesus look bad is to simply change what we call ourselves. I am going to argue no. At best this is a shallow answer to the problem. Here are three reasons why.

1. Even the term Christ-follower carries baggage with it and it will only end up getting more baggage as more people start to use the term. There are some who are in the emergent church (notice I didn’t say all), who are pushing this change who are so bitter against the local church and the flavor of their lives puts a negative spin on the term Christ-follower. Making the term already some-what embarrassing to wear. And do we think that the world will really buy the name change? Doesn’t scripture teach us that the name of Christ is a stumbling block to many? And which Christ are we following, the Christ of the Christians that have lived in the entire history of the Church? You know, the ones Peter calls Christians in 1 Peter.

2. It segregates the strange amongst us, instead of embracing and loving them. Instead of saying "don’t associate me with that person," we should own up to the fact that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ even if we don’t agree with everything they do or say. Even though both the term Christian and Christ-follower carries with it baggage that the world will not like, we should be willing to embrace both of them, because they actually mean the same thing. And even though I am in strong disagreement with some of those who are pushing for the name change, and I think they cause problems for the way the we relate to the non-Christ-followers, I must not be afraid to bear the name simply because of some of the problems I might face because of the attitudes of one of my brothers or sisters in Christ. Yes, they may be strange, but I still love them. In fact, the world will know we are His disciples by our love for each other. Even our love for those who persecute us and disagree with us within the Church.

3. It assumes a wrong soteriology or understanding of salvation. It paints a picture that the world is just waiting to accept Christ, but Christians and some of their strange antics are keeping them from coming in. The problem with this is that Scripture paints a completely contrary picture. The natural man is not waiting to accept Christ. Instead he is doing everything in his power to suppress that truth. In fact, the message of the cross and of Christ is foolishness to him. Now it is true that when Christians do stupid things we add fuel to their fire in the same way that riches can make it even harder for a man to comes to faith. But money is not the reason why the man won’t accept Christ. He won’t accept him because he is sinful, and riches only fuel that rebellion. But praise God all things are possible with Him.

So what is the solution to the problem set out by these videos if it is not a name change? It seems a call to clarity as to what it means to be a Christian is in order, and the place we will find out what it means is in Scripture. We must be people who study the Word and then live it in love. We must realize that the world will always hate us because it hated Him. But as we respond with the truth in Love, through the Holy Spirit’s work some will come to faith, because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

When a non-believer meets a Christian or Christ follower like this, much of the false baggage of the term “Christian” will begin to fall off, but don’t get your hopes up too much, because without the Holy Spirit working in their lives they will not accept Christ's message. In fact there have been many who loved there enemies and were so Christ-like that they were put to death.

Live the life of a Christian and a Christ-follower, since both terms mean the exact same thing. Proclaim the truth in love, contend for the faith, and live lives of Holiness, and you will be blessed, whether or not the world finds you foolish. And remember our goal is not to try and make the world like us. We are to live to please God and love the world whether they like us or not.

You can see my video response here.

God Bless,

Doug

Video on Godtube.com

Okay, so I've been playing around on www.godtube.com and decided to post a response to a non-Christian who was, in a gracious manner, seeking to dialogue with some Christians. This is my response to two of his questions.

God Bless,

Doug

P.S. Yes it is recorded in my garage. Hey the family was sleeping and I didn't want to wake them up :-)

My Kids Easter Presentation at Church

Here are my kids Christi and Mark doing their Easter presentation at church. As you can tell I am a proud Dad :-)

The Necessity of Christ's Death

Why did Jesus have to die? Many object to the fact that Christ had to be put to death and that blood had to be shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). They believe this is unbecoming of God. Others believe that if we as humans can forgive others without punishment and God cannot, then humans are more kind and forgiving than God.

These objection will be heard quite frequently, sometimes even coming from church pulpits. Besides their lack of understanding Scripture these arguments escape reason. They escape reason because the same people who make these arguments then go on to make distinctions between good and evil, and preach moral living. Why should man be moral? Why is it wrong to be immoral? These are the very questions Anselm raised when dealing with the necessity of Christ’s death. He went on to say; to remit sin without satisfaction or adjustment is not to punish it. And if sin needs no adjustment or punishment, then the one who sins is no different before God than the one who does not sin. And if there is no adjustment that needs to be made before God, then what needs to be forgiven? Following this logic there is no reason for forgiveness at all because to be unrighteous or righteous makes no difference before God. All of this is said to say that it is unbecoming of God not to punish sin because it would make evil and good equal in His sight. Since this cannot be the case, then God must punish sin.

The wages of sin is death according to scripture (Rom. 6:23). For God to offer forgiveness, the satisfaction of these wages must be met. This is what Good Friday is all about. Christ bearing upon Himself the sins of all those who come to Him through faith. It necessarily had to happen in order for God to be both just and the justifier of those who believe in Him (Rom. 3:26).

Every sin will be paid for, either we will pay for it ourselves or through faith we will accept His payment upon the cross.

Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

-Doug Eaton-