I love this version of a living will! (It’s been modified from this original.)

If I wind up severely brain damaged you will perform all the tests. You will not rely on the word of some clown who’s too lazy or stupid to do a proper examination, you will do an MRI and a PET. Poking me with car keys does not constitute a proper test to determine my mental acuity. A slap to the forehead is not a valid measure of my pain threshold. Forty-five minutes is not enough time to make a diagnosis that will get me killed. Do it right, with a real doctor who has no connection to the Hemlock Society. I hate those creeps.

You will engage me in conversation. You will stimulate what remains of my mind. I will be taken outside for daily walks, given dogs and cats to pet (as well as I am able), and otherwise involved in the world. You will not keep me locked up away from the world, the better to expedite deterioration and death.

I will have rehabilitation. If there is even the slightest chance I can improve you will encourage that improvement.

Anyone who has no knowledge of my case who claims that I am in a persistent vegetative state shall be taken to court for defamation. The money gained from such suits will go to my support. The same applies to those who do examine me, and then lie about my condition. Especially if they have ever had any connection to the Hemlock Society, or Planned Parenthood, or the NEA (either NEA—I’m not choosy) (I would also include the ACLU in this list. -Ed). If it turns out they have had such associations, then sue those groups too. They have lots of money that would be better used making me well.

If I need a feeding tube any attempt to remove said feeding tube shall be considered attempted homicide and prosecuted accordingly. In addition, if said action was ordered by a court of law the judge presiding is to be charged on civil rights grounds and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Any pundit of any stripe who states that I would not want to be in such a state is to be stripped naked, his skin rubbed raw with scrubbing pads, salt placed on the wounds, and then tossed into a vat of carrion beetles. After being given drugs that heighten sensation. This action will be taped and distributed on the internet.

If provided with a guardian and said guardian petitions to have me killed, that guardian is to be charged with attempted murder and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. See above paragraph for hints of my other wishes involving said guardian.

I’ll die when I die. You will not rush matters. You will leave well enough alone. Death happens soon enough for us all, don’t be so damn eager to hurry it up.

Doggon! I wish I had written this. It’s just sooooo good!

It used to be that you needed a living will to tell the doctors, family and courts when to stop trying to keep us alive when we were dying. How the heck has our country gone a full 180 to the point where we need a living will to tell those same people (especially the courts!) to not murder us if we become disabled?

Here are some more excellent articles on Terri’s situation:

• Fearfully and Wonderfully Made from Agent Tim. An interview with a disabled woman.
• Bloggers’ Best for Terri Schiavo, Part Eight from Wittenberg Gate
• FOCUS: Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo Excellent!
• Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder
• Religious Bigotry in Action from Imago Dei
• Meet Judge Greer’s pastor from WorldNetDaily
• Jeb Bush is courting dereliction of duty by Alan Keyes

Update: Added two more articles to the list.

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post recently participated in an online chat. He was pressed about why he considered Terri Schiavo’s situation to be similar to the death of Tom DeLay’s father:

Evansville, Ind.: You said, “As I wrote last week, there have been many, many cases like this (including, we now know, that of Tom DeLay’s father), that didn’t rate a paragraph in the paper.” But DeLay’s father’s had a brain hemorrhage and broken ribs; he needed a tracheotomy and ventilator to assist his breathing; and his body was full of infections. Terri Schiavo’s vital functions are working perfectly well; she simply needs a feeding tube because she cannot swallow on her own.

Unlike Terri Schiavo, he was in a state of steady deterioration and at death’s imminent doorstep within days of his accident. Unlike the Schiavo case, there was a family consensus among the DeLays and no dispute over what the father would have wanted. Moreover, DeLay was not the primary decision-maker in the family’s choice to withhold heroic treatment. That role fell to his mother and another brother and sister.

Why say they’re similar?

Howard Kurtz: Similar in this respect: The family had to make a decision on whether to end the life of a seriously ill person with no realistic hope of recovery. Obviously the medical details of every case are different, and in some cases family members are in agreement and in others they’re not. But the question, which the Schiavo case has underscored, is whether family members, in consultation with doctors, get to make the decision, or whether government gets to intervene.

There is one very vital difference between Terri Schiavo’s case and that of Mr. DeLay which Mr. Kurtz and his ilk are glossing over. Mr. DeLay was about to die within a number of days in spite of any efforts to the contrary. Terri Schiavo was in no danger of dying as long as her basic needs for food, water and air were met; needs shared by every human being on this planet.

Anyone who attempts to downplay this difference is either woefully ignorant, completely lacking in critical thinking skills, or they have an agenda. Those who are ignorant or thickheaded can be pitied. It’s those with an agenda who are dangerous. Their underhanded attempts to create a so-called “Right To Die” for those who are not actually dying is nothing more than demanding the power to have the weak and disabled “put out of our their misery for our their own good.”

There is a vast difference between ceasing to struggle when a battle has already been lost and actively killing someone who is not engaged in a battle for their life.

When death cannot be stopped, continuing treatment can only cause harm. That is the premise of a legitimate right to die. For example, a patient suffering from incurable cancer cannot be saved by doing chemotherapy. If they’re given chemo anyway, not only is the patient still dying, they’re also made more miserable by chemotherapy’s side effects.

When death is not near, as in Terri’s case, having a doctor stop food and water violates the cardinal rule of medicine: “First do no harm.” Without this rule in place, we set the practice of medicine back 2,400 years to the time before the Hippocratic Oath; a time when doctors might not have the patient’s best interests at heart.

Without a solid prohibition against taking life, it is one small step to move from a “Right To Die for the Living“ to a “Duty To Die” and society killing the unwanted and defenseless without regard for their “wishes.” This mistake has been made in the past with devastating consequences. I pray that our country realizes the danger of this path before we also reenter the meat grinder of history because we ignored its lessons.

(Also be sure to read this article on euthanasia.)

(HT: Michelle Malkin)

For Easter Sunday, I decided to post a story I wrote a few years ago. I also thought it would be cool to see what else other bloggers posted for the most important celebration in Christianity. What I found ranges from light reading through heavy articles on the historical evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

• What the Resurrection Means for Believers from Rebecca Writes
• He Is Risen by Revenge of Mr Dumpling
• The Greatest News Ever Heard by Billy Graham
• One Sunday morning long ago by Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping
• Easter Challenge by Tod Bolsinger of It Takes A Church…
• The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Fact by Benjamin B. Warfield
• The Risen Jesus by Benjamin B. Warfield
• The Resurrection of Christ by J. Gresham Machen
• Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?
• The Resurrection of Christ and the Reality of the Gospel by Albert Mohler

The Incredibles is a fabulous movie. So when Michelle Malkin pointed to a quiz which asks “Which Incredibles character are you?” I just had to go check it out. My result?

Which Incredibles Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

I like that. (As long as my wife agrees!)  

A Texas rancher was bragging to the owner of a small farm in Illinois.

“I can get in my car at six in the morning, drive for six hours, spend an hour eating lunch, drive another six hours, and I still wouldn’t have reached the end of my property.”

“Yeah,” the farmer replied, nodding sympathetically. “I had a car like that once, too.”

The Commander was shouting as he burst in. “My Lord! My Lord! They have arrested your son!”

“I knew they would.” came the calm reply.

“But my Lord,” protested the Commander, “he has never done anything wrong!”

“I know.” The reply was as calm as before. “When I sent him among them, I knew that most of them would not want to hear what he had to say. This was their response.”

“If you knew this was going to happen, then why did you send him?”

“I sent him for those who would receive him.”

“But there are so few!” protested the Commander.

“They are enough. They are a beginning.” replied the Lord.

“Then your son’s mission is finished, my Lord. Let me go rescue him.”

“NO!” The answer was swift and final. “His mission is not yet finished. You are to return and watch. No more.”

The Commander saluted. “As you wish, my Lord.” Then with a bow he was gone.

A short while later he was back, even more agitated than before.

“Yes, Commander?” asked the Lord.

“They’ve held a trial, my Lord. He has been condemned to death!” The Commander was almost visibly shaking.

“So he has.” replied the Lord.

“But my Lord,” cried the Commander. “It was not even a fair trial! They held it in the middle of the night. They had false witnesses who told lies about him. And even though your son told the truth, they would not believe him. In fact, they based their sentencing on his own words! This was not justice, my Lord. This was…”

“Condemning him for their own faults.” interrupted the Lord.

“Yes, my Lord.” said the Commander.

“This was also part of his mission.”

“I, I don’t understand my Lord,” the Commander stammered.

“Then return and watch, Commander. That is your mission; to watch and learn.”

“As you wish, my Lord.” And once again, the Commander was gone.

“A murderer!” the Commander shouted.

“Excuse me, Commander?”

The Commander was almost beside himself. “A murderer, I said. They chose a murderer over your son!”

“Please elaborate, Commander.”

“After the trial, they took your son to the local governor for execution. After talking with your son, he realized that your son did not deserve to be put to death. So he decided to offer a choice to the crowd that was watching. He let them choose between freeing your son or the most rotten murderer in his prison. I was sure they would choose to free your son. But they chose to free the murderer instead. Please, my Lord, please let me rescue him!”

“No, Commander. That cannot be.”

“But why, my Lord?”

“His mission is still not finished, Commander. There is more for him to do.”

“How, my Lord? How can he complete his mission in the midst of such obvious hostility? Some of those people that called for his death were the same people that welcomed him into the city only one week ago! It’s almost as if…”

“As if they too want to blame him for their own faults and failures.”

“Yes, my Lord,” replied the Commander. “Is this also part of his misson?”

“It is, Commander. Now it is time for you to return and watch.”

“As you wish, my Lord. But I still do not understand.”

“You will, Commander. You will.”

The Commander was back. This time, the agitation was gone.

“Yes, Commander?” asked the Lord.

The Commander’s voice was shaking. “It’s over, my Lord. Your son is dead.”

“I know, Commander. I know.” The softness of the reply startled the Commander.

“My Lord, you’ve been crying!”

“Yes, Commander.”

“Did you know this would happen, my Lord?”

“Yes, Commander.”

“Then why did you send your son?”

“Because there was no other way, Commander. I sent my son to bring the people back to me.”

“But my Lord, how can he bring anyone back to you if he is dead?”

“Return and watch, Commander. Then you will understand.”

Three days later, the Commander finally understood.

Peggy Noonan struggles to understand those who want to see Terri dead in “In Love With Death”

I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement? Is it because they are compassionate, and their hearts bleed at the thought that Mrs. Schiavo suffers? But throughout this case no one has testified that she is in persistent pain, as those with terminal cancer are.

Curtis of a-sdf does an “If - Then” analysis of the fight over Terri.

WorldNetDaily reports that Judge Greer has received campaign contributions from several lawyers involved on Michael’s behalf, a clear violation of Florida’s rules of judicial conduct.

In this post American Digest discusses how money may still be a motivating factor for Michael even if all the settlement money is gone.

WorldNetDaily is reporting that investigations by the DCF into allegations of abuse have been summarily shut down with no explanation.

Terri’s attorney and sister have decided to enter official testimony (subject to perjury penalties if they lie) that Terri tried to say “I want to live” when she learned that the feeding tube was to be removed. The inevitable argument by skeptics is that this testimony was just made up as a last ditch attempt to save her. However, WorldNetDaily (among others) reported on the incident hours after it occurred.

According to reports (here and here) Governor Jeb Bush did send law enforcement agents to take Terri into protective custody. But he recalled them when it became apparent that the sheriff would not back down. It seems to me that Governor Bush realized two things. First, such a confrontation could very well have lead to law enforcement actually shooting at each other. Second, according to our system of government, the sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority within his county, superseding both state and federal law enforcement.

What can be learned from someone in Terri’s condition? Marianne Jennings is faced with two family members who need such care. She shares what she has learned in “Sandwiched between feeding tubes: The lessons”

But those of us who live with and care for these magnificent souls question the analyses hurled about as cherished life hangs in the balance. I offer my lessons from a decade of exposure to the “vegetative state.”

Just go read it. Now.

Over the last couple of days I’ve collected quite a number of facts about Terri’s case. Here is what I’ve found (in no particular order).

Myths vs. Facts

It’s clear that many people are unclear Terri Schiavo’s situation. TerrisFight has a page which discusses various myths vs. facts about Terri’s situation.

The Full Report

Dr. William Hammesfahr is a neurologist who has spent more time evaluating Terri than any other neurologist involved in the case. (10 hours vs. 45 minutes total for the doctors who want her dead.) Here is his complete report from September 2002. Here is a summary of some of the information from the report:

The patient is not in coma.

She is alert and responsive to her environment.  She responds to specific people best.

She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.  

She responds negatively to poor tone of voice. 

She responds to music. 

She differentiates sounds from voices. 

She differentiates specific people’s voices from others.

She differentiates music from stray sound. 

She attempts to verbalize.

She has voluntary control over multiple extremities

She can swallow.

She is partially blind

She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.

She can feel pain.

The patient can clearly swallow, and is able to swallow approximately 2 liters of water per day (the daily amount of saliva generated).  Water is one of the most difficult things for people to swallow.  It is unlikely that she currently needs the feeding tube.

Diagnosing PVS

I spent a fair amount of time searching the internet for what the medical standards are for diagnosing PVS. What I found is that PVS is incredibly difficult for the medical establishment to define, let alone accurately diagnose. Here are the most authoritative references I could find without having to pay money:

This article was reprinted from Issues in Law and Medicine. It discusses a consensus statement on PVS which was hammered out by a group of professional neurology associations. This review of the article highlights just how difficult it is to even define just what PVS is. From the conclusions:

It is possible to argue that people who have been diagnosed as having PVS might indeed be better off dead. The difficulty is that the Multi-Society Task Force is not willing to admit to the public - are perhaps not prepared to admit to themselves - that these benefits may have attached costs. They would seem to believe, perhaps rightly, that if they concede any considerable degree of uncertainty in the situation of PVS patients they will not be permitted to bring these benefits about. This means that any such gains - the reassurance of families, the status of physicians, the arguments of ethicists, the reform of hospital budgeting - are effective only because they are founded on lies. The truth is that none of these benefits can be obtained without taking a high risk that some people who are or will become conscious and aware will be treated as if they were irretrevably insentient.

(Note: I had not found the original article in the New England Journal of Medicine until just now, so I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. You can find it here. And here is part 2.)

I have seen numerous references to a study which showed that 43% of patients who had been diagnosed as PVS were incorrectly diagnosed. The study results are here. The quick summary is 40 patients transferred to a nursing home with a diagnosis of PVS were studied. 17 of them (43%) were found to have been misdiagnosed. Here is the study’s conclusion:

The vegetative state needs considerable skill to diagnose, requiring assessment over a period of time; diagnosis cannot be made, even by the most experienced clinician, from a bedside assessment. Accurate diagnosis is possible but requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team experienced in the management of people with complex disabilities. Recognition of awareness is essential if an optimal quality of life is to be achieved and to avoid inappropriate approaches to the courts for a declaration for withdrawal of tube feeding.

Remember, the doctors who testified that Terri is PVS spent a total of 45 minutes with her.

I found the end results of the study even more fascinating than the 43% number. Of the remaining 23 patients who were accurately diagnosed, only 10 of them remained in a PVS by the end of the study. In other words, more than half of the patients who were accurately diagnosed regained consciousness. So out of the original 40, only 25% of the patients stayed that way.

I also found this article (a PDF file) which was printed in the Journal of the American Medical Association in January 1990. It makes several very interesting points including a very strong recommendation that a PET scan should be used, a statement that an EEG is essentially worthless (or worse) and one statement about diagnosis which was directly addressed by one of the videos.

First the PET recommendation and comparison to EEGs:

The greatest difficulty lies in deciding if the various sounds and movements occasionally encountered in a totally demented, speechless person reflect cognitive responses to internal or external stimuli or, rather, merely have a reflex or instinctive origin emanating from deep undamaged cortical structures. A less difficult problem, but one that has arisen in some legal disputes over decisions to remove life support, consists of distinguishing PVS from the “locked-in” syndrome or de-efferented state. … Positron Emission Tomography studies in such patients indicate that cerebral energy metabolism is only moderately reduced below normal in contrast to the profound disturbances observed in PVS. EEGs do not distinguish between vegetative and locked-in patients, since vegetative persons can have near normal EEGs, and abnormal EEG-blocking responses have been found in persons awake and self-aware but totally paralyzed from peripheral neuropathy.

But Dr. Cranford — who Judge Greer found to more credible than the rest of the AMA — wrote this when he replied to the article in the National Review:

A PET scan was never done in this case because it was never needed. The classic clinical signs on examination, the CT scans, and the flat EEG’s were more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty,

It’s obvious that Dr. Cranford’s idea of “medical certainty” is far different from the AMA’s standards.

And finally, I found this statement on diagnosis extremely interesting:

PVS patients neither fixate upon nor consistently follow moving objects with the eyes,

Just by itself, this statement, plus this video (RealMedia) of Terri tracking a balloon makes it clear that the only medical certainty in Terri’s case is that she is not in a PVS.

When I watched the video, I made an interesting observation. As Terri’s eyes are tracking the balloon, it was apparently moved to where she had to look up. As she did so, she also moved her eyebrows up so she could see higher. That is a coordinated muscle movement which only makes sense if she is actually looking at something. (Remember, a PVS patient cannot look at anything.) She did it twice.

If you don’t believe me, try this experiment. Look as high as you can without moving your head. Now notice what you did with your eyebrows. You lifted them up because otherwise they blocked your field of view. Now close your eyes and look up. More than likely, you did not life up your eyebrows because they weren’t in the way. (As a variation of this experiment, try looking at your eyebrows.) Coordinating those two different muscle actions requires a functioning brain!

A Dissenting Opinion

Media Culpa reports on the dissenting opinion in the appeal to the Federal Appeals Court. Judge Wilson had a lot of excellent things to say, including this gem:

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the issuance of an injunction is essential to preserve the federal courts’ ability to “bring the litigation to a natural conclusion.” Klay, 376 F.3d at 1102. By failing to issue an injunction requiring the reinsertion of Theresa Schiavo’s feeding tube, we virtually guarantee that the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims will never be litigated in federal court. That outcome would not only result in manifest injustice, but it would thwart Congress’s clearly expressed command that Plaintiffs’ claims be given de novo review by a federal court.

(Note: A de novo review is a reexamination of the facts. Appeals courts normally assume the original judge got the facts correct. Therefore they typically rule only on procedural errors.)

Looking At Dr. Cranford

WorldNetDaily takes a look a Michael Schiavo’s favorite expert witness: Dr. Ronald Cranford. While he may not have earned the nickname “Dr. Death,” he certainly seems interested in claiming it. In fact, Dr. Cranford’s record reminds me of this bit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts a body on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Body: Here’s one.
The Dead Collector: That’ll be ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Body: Nothing. There’s your ninepence.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not dead.
The Dead Collector: ‘Ere, he says he’s not dead.
Large Man with Dead Body: Yes he is.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m not.
The Dead Collector: He isn’t.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I’m getting better.
Large Man with Dead Body: No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I don’t want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, don’t be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can’t take him.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Body: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can’t.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won’t be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I’d be at the Robinsons’. They’ve lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Body: Well, when’s your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I think I’ll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Body: You’re not fooling anyone, you know. Isn’t there anything you could do?
The Dead Body That Claims It Isn’t: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Body with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Body: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Body: Right.

This bit of satire is incredibly funny precisely because it’s so unthinkable. But it’s profoundly disturbing to realize that it is almost exactly what seems to be happening in Terri’s case.

DCF’s Neurologist Reports

K.J. Lopez quotes from and links to the report by Dr. William Cheshire in several posts at the NRO Corner. Dr. Cheshire is a neurologist who is working with Florida’s Department of Children and Families. He reviewed her case this month.

From his affidavit:

There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3, 2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turn Terri onto her right side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a comfortable position, he says to her parents, “So, we’re going to have to roll her over….” Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying sound, “Ugh, ha, ha, ha,” presses her eyebrows together, and sadly grimmaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr’s comment and signals her anticipation of pain. This response suggests some degree of language processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be explained by simple reflex withdrawal.

The Hanging Judge

WorldNetDaily reports on another “right-to-die” case handled by Judge Greer. In this case, he ruled against the man’s wife and in favor of the man’s children. The man suffered a heart attack and was on a ventilator. He also had a living will stipulating that he was to be removed from life support if there was “no reasonable expectation” of recovery. Judge Greer ruled that the man was to be removed from life support. So far, that seems to be the correct ruling.

It’s when I look at the dates that more questions of Judge Greer’s prejudices appear. The man had his heart attack on September 9th, 2000. Judge Greer handed down his decision on October 24th of the same year — just barely over one and a half months later! Even without some of the information I’ve been learning about brain damage, that seemed to be an awfully short period of time. In the various literature I’ve looked at, three months seems to be the minimum amount of time needed to determine a patient’s prognosis with 12 months being appropriate in some cases.

So once again, Judge Greer was in a hurry to have someone die, this time ruling against the principle of “the spouse is always right.” While 2 cases is hardly enough to establish a pattern — especially when details of this other case are sketchy — it’s starting to look more and more like Greer is a hanging judge. The only problem is that the people he is having put to death are the one’s he is supposed to be protecting!

Miscellaneous Stuff

Over this past weekend, ABC news ran a poll which purports to show that most Americans favor removing Terri’s feeding tube. As Captain’s Quarters shows, the poll used completely biased questions and misstatements of facts.

Lance Salyers is a prosecuting attorney who runs Ragged Edges. He has written a fabulous and detailed post on why he doesn’t trust Michael Schiavo.

Here is an excellent interview with Robert George, the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, among other things. I found what he had to say fascinating.

Dr. Boyle of CodeBlueBlog is an experience radiologist. He takes a look at Terri’s CT scan and draws some very interesting conclusions. Be sure to read the comments too.

Here is a link to various legal documents related to Terri’s case.

WorldNetDaily has posted an overview of Terri’s case.

Harriet Johnson has posted an excellent article about Terri’s case.

Kim du Toit, a man I both respect and sometimes strongly disagree with has finally posted his opinion on the case of Terri Schiavo. His opinion is that Terri is already brain dead and should be “allowed to die.” (Food and water is not medical intervention. If you think it is, try claiming your grocery bill as medical expenses on your next tax return!) Even more importantly, he thinks it’s a constitutional crisis and that Congress is shredding the Constitution to protect Terri.

I agree that it is a constitutional crisis, but I think he is dead wrong on everything else.

Persistent Vegetative State

First, let’s start with one basic fact. Judge Greer has ruled that Terri Schiavo is in a Persistent Vegetative State from which she will not recover. In other words, she is brain dead and nature must be allowed to take its course. That ruling is the centerpiece of the firestorm raging all over the internet and in the comments in response to Kim’s piece.

So what is a Persistent Vegetative State? When I started researching the definition, most of what I found was appallingly vague. It almost seemed like Jakie (say the J like a “ch”) and Amos were taking a break in the back 40 one day discussing PVS. “Vell, it’s almost lak a coma, but not quat, don’cha know. Dare eyes sorta open but dey don’ see nothin’.” “Yeah, da laghts iz on but no one’s home, okay?” The most concise definition I found was from this page from the Medical College of Wisconsin.

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead. However, that description is not completely accurate. In persistent vegetative state the individual loses the higher cerebral powers of the brain, but the functions of the brainstem, such as respiration (breathing) and circulation, remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli, but the patient does not speak or obey commands. Patients in a vegetative state may appear somewhat normal. They may occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh.

In short, a person is not in PVS if they speak or try to speak, swallow, or otherwise respond to their environment beyond simple reflex. There is significant evidence that Terri is actually in fact, not brain dead and that the PVS ruling is not factually correct, including video, evidence from a neurologist who spent 14 hours examining her over a two week period (note: the doctors who claim PVS spent a total of 45 minutes with her, including one who promotes killing Alzheimer’s patients), and sworn affadavits from numerous nurses and aids. Not only is Terri able to interact with her environment, she is also capable of limited speech.

That this single central question is so heavily debated, even among experts, clearly shows that we cannot assume that the issue is settled enough to irreversibly end someone’s life. In fact, as I agrue below, the government (including the federal government) has a duty to err on the side of preserving life.

The Constitutional Side

Why do we even bother with the problems caused by governments? The Declaration of Independence gives us the answer:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Kim (and others) have complained that the government has no right to step in here because it interferes in a marriage. But it doesn’t take a genius to realize that spouses often do violate each others’ most basic human rights. That’s why we have domestic violence laws. It’s also obvious that we don’t look the other way when a spouse commits murder. In fact, I think that it’s a given that whenever there is a murder, the spouse is automatically at the top of the suspect list until they are cleared.

Marriage is not a carte blanche for one spouse to do anything they want to another. In fact, The Mrs. (who has also weighed in in the comments) has often written with great eloquence on the problems of domestic violence and the need for women to escape the abusive relationship. (BTW, I’ve agreed with those articles wholeheartedly.) While society recognizes that a marriage relationship is crucial and therefore allows more benefit of the doubt when one spouse appears to be mistreating the other, such leeway is not absolute.

As the Declaration points out, the only reason for the existence of the government — as dangerous as it can become — is to protect the rights of its citizens. In situations where the life of a spouse is being threatened, not only does the government have the right to step in, it has a duty to step in. If the government has no such duty, then we should abolish it immediately and save ourselves a lot of trouble.

Has Michael Schiavo abused Terri? Did he even try to kill her? There have been allegations that he abused her and that there are xrays showing the abuse, that he stalked her, and that he stalked another girlfriend he had after Terri’s injury. There have been reports that he denied her even the most basic of care (refusing to allow brushing her teeth and antibiotics to treat an infection). There have been allegations that she was injected with insulin in an attempt to kill her. It’s obvious that he has not stayed true to his marriage vows in spite of his sworn testimony supporting those vows during the malpractice suit. He has also broken the laws of Florida which require him to make sure Terri gets therapy.

It also seems that Michael may not be motivated solely by the money. Offers of millions of dollars if he just divorces her and returns her care to her parents and offers of absolution from the parents have all been ignored. It is clear that Michael wants her to die. Is it because he is truly certain that Terri wants to die? Or is it possible that he was the cause of Terri’s injury and he’s terrified that she will recover and get him put away for attempted murder? I don’t know for certain which is the case. We do not condemn criminals to death if there is reasonable doubt, why condemn the innocent to death when there is such doubt?

Even if there is no fire there is definitely plenty of smoke. No legitimate fireman would fail to investigate smoke which could indicate a fire. Neither should a legitimate government shirk its duty to investigate questionable circumstances. To my knowledge, no such investigation has taken place. As long as such doubt remains, the government has a duty to protect the life of its only material witness about whether or not Michael may have abused her: Terri Shiavo.

Activist Judges

Here is where I’m really surprised about Kim’s post because he misses the true constitutional crisis. The problem is not the intervention of the federal government, it’s the complete lack of accountability of judges which is the real crisis.

Both the legislature and the executive branches of the Florida state government have opposed the rulings of Judge Greer. Yet, his will has prevailed so far. Why? Because judges have been assumed to have final authority. In what was supposed to be a government system of checks and balances, there is no check or balance on the judge, not even the law. (Here is a petition of impeachment listing 38 specific charges of either violating or failing to uphold very specific laws. Update: More on broken laws.)

Kim himself has railed time and again against activist judges violating the Constitution, violating laws, and creating their own laws in violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. The principle behind those rants is sound. Judges are empowered only to judge whether or not a law was broken and set the penalties when they are. That principle must be held even when a judge’s ruling supports a personal preference.

When judges ignore the laws they are sworn to upheld, they must be held accountable and punished for their actions. The appropriate avenue for such punishment is impeachment. It is the responsibility of the legislature to impeach a judge when he violates duly established laws. While such a move should never be taken lightly, to fail to do so produces tyranny — a tyranny of the men in the black robes who answer to no one, not even the supreme laws of this country. Judges who are not held to the simple and practical standards of obeying the laws and the separation of powers eventually become a law unto themselves, trampling our system of government and the rights of everyone under their power. When that happens, we are forced to turn once again to the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I certainly do not want to engage in such a duty. And for all his cussing and spitting on the topic, I sincerely doubt Kim is any more anxious to engage in a shooting war than I am. Yet by choosing the side of the activist judge in this case — rather than smacking him down as Kim usually does — I’m afraid Kim is helping to push us closer to just such a convulsion.

Well, it’s started. The legal system has begun the muder of Terri Marie Shiavo by order of Judge Greer. Early this afternoon the parents of Terri Shiavo were ordered out of her room so her starvation could begin.

If you are unaware of the facts of the case, here are a some links you must visit to understand why I call this atrocity murder:

• A few facts about Terri
• Starving for a Fair Diagnosis
• Video of Terri Shiavo
• Terri Schiavo’s documented vocabulary
• Terri Schiavo, Judge George Greer, and The Persistent Vegetative State: What Judge Greer Doesn’t Want You To Know
• Terri Shiavo’s Nurse Speaks Out
• It’s murder … that’s the ugly truth
• Judge “death to the disabled” Greer Breaks Law to Ensure Terri Schiavo’s Death
• Petition to Impeach Judge Greer
• ‘Don’t Kick It’
• Why Do Michael Schiavo, George Felos And Judge Greer Want Terri Schiavo Starved To Death?
• George Felos’ book, “Litigation as Spiritual Practice,” reveals the sick and diabolical thought process of the attorney who is killing Terri Schiavo
• BlogsforTerri

Over at the evangelical outpost, Joe Carter posted his own take on judges playing god. I was unsurprised but profoundly disturbed to see the depth of willful ignorance of the facts displayed by the liberals who posted comments. They cheerfully agree with the actions of Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer who appear to be on a hell-bent-for-leather push to put an end to Terri’s life as soon as absolutely possible.

That attitude reminded me of a passage in the Bible. (Many things do. That’s what happens when you study scripture for years!)

My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, “Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We shall find all kinds of precious wealth, We shall fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,” My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed blood.

(Prov. 1:10-16, NASB)

There is a rush on. It’s a rush to shed the blood of Terri Shiavo and others like her before they can be stopped. And what crime has she committed? If you compare how judge Greer is treating her compared to death row inmates, she has committed the ultimate crime: she has allowed herself to become disabled.

So now we have the inmates on death row who get so many appeals that some die of old age. But when someone commits the “crime” of becoming inconvenient or disabled, then our legal system practically falls all over itself in its rush to kill the suspect patient. This is the direct opposite of God’s commands.

The Bible teaches that we are to care for those who are weak:

This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

(James 1:27, NASB)

On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

(1Cor. 12:22-26, NIV)

“Then they themselves also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ “Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Matt. 25:44-46, NASB)

When I recalled these scriptures I finally realized exactly why I’ve been in a rage all afternoon. The judge (charged by the Bible with upholding the righteous and punished the wicked (Leviticus 19:15, Romans 13:3-4)) and the husband (changed by the Bible with protecting “the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7) who is his wife and giving up his life for her (Eph. 5:25-29)) have both violated their most sacred trusts and have rushed to commit an act of pure evil. There are even those who are cheering them on while willfully ignoring all evidence that killing Terri is an act of evil.

If you have not done so yet, check out the action items on terrisfight.org and BlogsforTerri and take action. Remember, all that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Update: Here is a timeline of events in the case.

Over at the thread on The Panda’s Thumb, Dan S. posted a long response to my comments. Since my response is even longer, and this particular debate is off topic for that particular post, I’ve decided to post my response here.

Dan S. wrote:

“If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality. There is only what we can get away with.”
While this is straying wildly off topic (*WARNING*), the view you express is one that I deeply dislike.  It may be an accurate description of your beliefs, or even your situation.  Objectively, it’s poppycock.  Balderdash. Bunkum.

That’s our basic disagreement in a nutshell. Is there an “objective” source for moral standards? My contention is that evolution disallows any such objective standard.

Dan S. wrote:

I think one of the problems (for many people expressing this view, at least I dunno ‘bout you) is that, imagining science to be opposed to religion, they assume it’s a mirror -image opposition.

First of all, I should point out that I make a distinction between honest science (searching for the truth) and junk science (the appearance of honest science but distorted to support a previously chosen conclusion). I have absolutely no problem with honest science. In fact, I’ve been working on a post for my blog which shows that the Bible encourages honest science. I would point you to it, but it’s not finished yet. On the other hand, I contend that evolution is not honest science because evidence which shows that evolution could not have happened is routinely ignored, distorted, discarded and attacked.

Second, it is illogical for a religion to say one thing about certain facts and science to say something different about those same facts. In other words, a statement like this would be illogical:

A = B and B = C and A ≠ C.

(In case it doesn’t work for some reason, that last equation is A is not equal to C.)

In logic, this statement violates the Law of Noncontradiction. Quite simply, it means that two conflicting statements cannot both be true. Period.

In the case of evolution and Christianity, the Bible says that God exists and that He created everything in six literal days, (the language used is very explict about the 6 days being six 24 hour days) and evolution says that we appeared by mere chance without the intervention or action of any God. Obviously both cannot be objectively true.

Admittedly, creation is a single point in the Bible. It’s the ramifications of what it means if the Bible is wrong that makes this disagreement such a big issue.

The first ramification is quite simply whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. It is supposedly God’s communication with us about who He is, what exists beyond the physical world that we can touch and examine, and what He demands of us. If the Bible is inaccurate it leads to two possibilities: 1) God lied and is untrustworthy, or 2) the Bible is mistaken and cannot be trusted to be accurate in any point. Either way, the Bible becomes nothing more than a smorgasbord of ideas from which we can pick and choose what we want to believe and disbelieve because it’s no longer even possible for someone to accept it all, nevermind being required to accept it all. That leads right back to each person choosing their own moral standards—just like under godlessness.

The second ramification is that almost everything the Bible teaches is based on the dual concepts that God exists and that He created everything. Removing everything based on God’s existence, creation and similarities to creation (supernatural events) from the Bible would leave it in tatters, removing the majority of the Bible’s content; something Thomas Jefferson supposedly did.

Dan S. wrote:

People  who believe evolution is true have *other* sources of morality, *including* for many, belief in God.  (For many people the two are entirely consistent.

As I said, without an absolute standard, a North Star of morality, each person can choose their own moral values and no one else has a right to tell that person they’re wrong. This holds true even if someone’s chosen morality says they need to destroy all other humans for some reason.

Can you name any religions (other than humanism) which does not conflict with the theory of evolution?

Dan S. wrote:

Individual experience:  I believe in evolution.  Many of the people posting on this site believe in evolution! There are people all around you that believe in evolution!!!  Nevertheless, I’ve never thought the things you imagine to logically follow from this belief.  I doubt most of them have either. Nor do I act in this fashion.  In fact I deeply care about all these things, and try to act accordingly, as do many other evolutionists.

Yes, most people (at least in this country) tend to share fairly similar moral values. But what is your logical, objective basis for those values? It’s safe to say that you and I agree that murder is wrong. I can state the logical underpinnings of why I’m certain that it’s wrong. Can you?

You expressed outrage at the idea that anything and everything is permissable if there is no objective basis for morality. Have you considered why? I think it’s probably because that idea justifies actions you consider reprehensible. Yet if you cannot state a logical, objective reason why your personally chosen moral code should apply to every single person on the planet, then you allow the possibility that the person committing the reprehensible act is legitimately free to choose a moral code which disagrees with yours; one which allows such acts.

Dan S. wrote:

You seem to say that belief in evolution -> disbelief in God and Meaning ->without a Higher Purpose (and afterlife w/rewards&punishment?) people will have no morals, and we will all revert to a savage and lawless ‘every person for themselves and only the strong survive!’ existence.

Not quite. I’m not saying that godlessness automatically leads to a complete lack of morality. What I am saying is that it allows a complete lack of morality. The two are vastly different.

Dan S. wrote:

Regardless of the answer to that old question - are people naturally good or bad or what? - I don’t know, but we mostly seem to be wired/raised to function within a moral system involving others.

That’s what the Bible says:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

(Rom. 2:14-15, NIV)

Dan S. wrote:

As an atheist, I don’t believe in God or Higher Purposes, etc.  But this *is* the only life I have! Why wouldn’t I want to make the best of it?  Expecting memory to vanish after death (along with consciousness) such selfish pleasures are merely fleeting; my only hope for ‘survival’ (of a sort) after death is in the good I’ve done, and in the memories of friends and loved ones.

That idea is the basis of my questions. If this life is all there is; if your consciousness simply evaporates when you die; if your body is destined to be nothing more than worm food; what do you gain by being fondly remembered after you die? The answer: Not a blasted thing! You’re gone! You don’t get the warm fuzzies whenever someone says “Dan was a great guy.” You don’t get a residual check every time someone thinks of your name. You get nothing, a big, fat zero.

In fact, if you sacrifice your life, you may get praised more by those who are still alive, but you yourself have taken a sucker’s deal. You’ve given up absolutely everything and gained… well… total destruction.

If this life truly is all there is, then isn’t it logical to maximize what you get (“He who dies with the most toys wins.” “If it feels good, do it.”) by any means possible? If you don’t then you’re just frittering your life away by letting a self-imposed moral code get in the way.

Dan S. wrote:

C.S. Lewis has written, awesomely, of the sheer wonder of living in a world (as he believed) where our friends, lovers, co-workers, folks we pass in the street, are all immortals with unbelieveable potential for good or evil.
…
There are things with value in themselves (at least as experienced): sunrises and kittens and sloths and asters and friends and love and and and …

Frankly, it has always seemed to me a rather joyless and despairing view that can’t even imagine any sufficient positive value to such things as truth/beauty/goodness in and of themselves

It’s obvious that you’ve read C. S. Lewis’ “The Weight of Glory”. It’s just as obvious that you’ve completely missed the point.

Christianity does not deny the value, joy and beauty of those things you’ve listed. Just because they come from God does not make them any less valuable. To be honest, I simply cannot conceive how the idea that something beautiful came from God could in any way reduce the value of what was given. If anything, it increases the value.

Let’s assume for a moment that you’re into hot rods. Let’s also assume that you don’t have the mechanical skills to build one. So you go to a shop and have them build one for you. After many months (and a severe drain on your checking account) you have your new toy. It’s very valuable and you get a lot of pleasure from driving it around and generally doing what you like with it. You’ve received pleasure and joy from owning a very cool car. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Now imagine that you get a call from a close friend telling you that you need to visit his house right away. When you arrive, your friend takes you out to the garage and shows you the hot rod he has secretly been building for the past three years. Then he hands you the keys and tells you that it’s yours. He built it just for you.

Which hot rod will be more valuable to you? (For the sake of this illustration, assume both rods are identical.) The one built by your friend should be more precious. It represents endless hours of work done for no other reason than to give it to you. Not only would you get the same joy from it as the one you had built, you would also be reminded of your friend’s generous love for you at the same time.

That’s how it is for Christians. Not only do we enjoy the beauty we see around us, we also see the love and care of God which prompted that beauty. Furthermore, God has promised that the beauty we see in this world is merely a reflection of even greater beauty to come. The joy you experience in watching a kitten play with a piece of string is merely a down payment on even greater joys that God has planned. The quiet conversation with a friend over a cup of coffee which tends to linger on in golden tinged memory is a promise of future conversions. Imagine talking with a friend without pressures such as the need to rush off to work or bed, or painful subjects cropping up to destroy your peace of mind.

That’s what C. S. Lewis was trying to describe: not that the beauty of nature is worthless, but rather that nature’s beauty has great worth, yet it only scratches the surface of what is in store.

Throughout this response, I’ve asked four basic questions. To summarize, those questions are:

1. Is there an “objective” source for moral standards?
2. Can you name any religions (other than humanism) which does not conflict with the theory of evolution?
3. Most people tend to share fairly similar moral values. What is your logical, objective basis for those values?
4. If this life truly is all there is, then isn’t it logical to maximize what you get by any means possible?

Dan, what is your answer to these questions?

Vox Apologia IX is now up at RazorsKiss. This week’s topic is “Glory to Man in the Highest: Humanism’s Dangerous Lie”, a very important topic.

Someone posted a link to Vox Apologia VII in the comments of a post about the debate over Intellegent Design and the Dover School District at The Panda’s Thumb, a pro evolution blog. The resulting debate has been quite a bit of fun. (I’m having some trouble keeping up with all the posts.) Head on over and join in!

Allthings2all has put together a Science and Christianity Showcase of posts from various blogs which explore the intersection of science and Christianity. The topic of evolution was excluded for this round because it was covered recently in Vox Apologia VII. Go read up on how Christianity and science relate to each other.

The topic of skydiving recently came up on one of the mailing lists I subscribe to. The following exchange was part of that thread:

I never understood why anyone would want to jump out of a perfectly good plane.

Nearly all airline crashes occur when the plane hits the ground. Leaving the plane while still airborne, greatly reduces ones chance of being involved in an airline crash.

[The trick is to know WHEN to leave….]

Reposted with permission

I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did!  

Vox Apologia VIII is now up at Amy’s Humble Musings. This week’s topic is “The Least of These.”

I haven’t had time to read all the entries yet (as you may have guess by my lack of posting lately) but the few I’ve read so far have been very interesting. Go check them out!

I just have to rant here.

Today, for the second time in as many months, I’ve almost been involved in an accident because some idiot decided to cut me off from behind! In both cases, it was on an access road which provides access to and from the main highway.

In today’s incident, I made a right turn onto the road. To get to the highway you need to immediately move left across two lanes to the third lane. As I was doing this (using somewhere around 2/3 to 3/4 of my car’s acceleration to get up to highway speed), the woman who was behind me (she also turned onto the access road) went around me on my left, right where I was going! If I had not noticed her action, she would have either hit me, the concrete barrier or both!

In the previous incident, I was getting off the highway and I needed to move one lane to the right. I only had about 50 yards to do so due to traffic backed up at the bottom of the ramp. As I had my turn signal on and was already starting to make my move some guy doing roughly 80 dove around me on my right. (I was still doing about 40.)

In both cases, the only reason why there wasn’t the sound of metal being crushed and lives changed or destroyed was because I was observant enough to see their idiocy in time. Why are some people acting so stupid? Why is saving 5 seconds worth taking an action which will most likely cause an accident? Are they trying to cause an accident?

If the driver in my position had been someone who doesn’t routinely check the mirrors as I do, or if they were distracted for some reason, there would have been tangled metal. Period.

Drivers who take such unwarranted risks not only put themselves in danger, they also put me and my family in danger. And when someone puts those I love in danger, the ‘d’ is dropped, and ‘anger’ is the result.

If you drive like this, stop now before you get someone killed! If someone you know drives like this, please pass the message along.

Jollyblogger on Chronicles of Narnia

Jollyblogger takes a look at issues surrounding Disney’s production of The Chronicles of Narnia.

Dan Rather Quotes

Dan Rather reports the news in a “fair balanced fasion,” or does he?

31 Days of Wisdom

Tim Challies has started a series he calls “31 Days of Wisdom (2005)”. On each of the 31 days in March he plans to study one chapter of Proverbs.

GodBlogCon 2005

A Christian Blogging Conference is planned for October 13–15 in California. More details can be found here.

Extreme Christianity

Swap Blog ponders the concept of Extreme Christianity as a lifestyle.

IMHO, the recent Vox Apologia VII on whether the debate over evolution vs. creation has been a big success. There were even a few late entries which I’ve since added. The list is now up to 12 entries, so if you missed any, be sure to go read them. In fact, the comments on some of the posts make revisiting the contributions worthwhile.

One of the more interesting aspects of this VA has been the related followup posts. For example, Matt of Wheat and Chaff had a very interesting followup thought.

Myopic Zeal makes a very important observation in “Know Your Personal Bias”.

Revenge of Mr Dumpling (What a name!) had pointed to a series on “Evolution and Scripture” by A Physicist’s Perspective.

Shannon Love, while apparently rejecting creation outright, has an interesting take on how leftists tend to ignore the logical implications of evolution when they become inconvenient.

John Shroder of Blogotional follows up his earlier post with “It Just Doesn’t Matter…”

It’s apparent that there is still much to discuss on this topic. (I know I have more to say!) If you have a response to any of the posts, either through your own blog or via comments, please take time to do a trackback or post a comment here so others can follow the discussion.

Update: Evolutionists are now taking notice of this Vox Apologia. More here: Vox Apologia VII and The Panda’s Thumb

The results for Vox Apologia VII are in! The topic at hand is “Evolution vs. Creation: So What?” This was apparently a popular topic, producing 12 excellent posts. (Or 11 plus my own. ) So without further ado, on to the posts:

Does The Creation/Evolution Debate Really Matter? by Jeff Smith of Proverbs Daily

After an examination of two worlds: one full of only Evolutionists and the other only Creationists, the answer to the question “does the Creation/Evolution debate really matter?” comes into focus.

Intelligent Design…Time to Wade In by John Schroeder of Blogotional

Faith should not be dependent on science and science has nothing to say about faith.

The Problem of Death Before the Fall by Dory of Wittenberg Gate

Dory encourages Christians not to compromise the foundations of our Faith because of the uncertain claims of popular science.

The Inescapable God by Dave Ulrick of The (In)Scrutable Observer

The debate over evolution vs. creation is vitally important, but not so much on scientific as on theological grounds, because it implies the vitally important question, “Is there a God and, if so, what is he like?” In my article, I strive to demonstrate that science is incapable of answering this question, and that the worldview we adopt, whether it be Biblical Christianity or atheism, will be based on the faith-based presuppositions we make regarding God and the Bible rather than on scientific inquiry.

C v E - What’s the Fuss? by Ron Stewart of Northernburbsblog

While not the most important priority we should have as Christians, we cannot abandon the discussion. Those who seek truth need both sides engaged. And for those who seek meaning, the debate can provide some possible answers.

Naturalist - Naturalism by Scott of Christian Naturalist

I explain why I am a naturalist but don’t believe in naturalism.

Vox Apologia VII - Evolution vs. Creation: So What? by Janet Lee of Newton’s 1st Law of Motion

Denial of creation - indeed, denial of a literal interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis - necessarily results in the denial of essential Christian doctrine. Hence, the creation - evolution debate is of paramount importance to the believer.

The Image of God vs. The Image of Progress by Joshua of RazorsKiss

Despite the philosophical dexterity accompanying the devaluation of man, while simultaneously exalting his attributes - we should take it as a warning. If we exalt the natural - we dethrone the supernatural - we dethrone God - and take His place as the pinnacle. When we take over the pinnacle - we set ourselves up as God.

Does Evolution vs. Creation Matter? by Ed “What the” Heckman of The Greatest Pursuits

This is my own thoughts on the matter. I explore four areas of life where the different assumptions produced by evolution and creation each lead to diametrically opposed conclusions. I am convinced that the search for objective truth always matters.

A Purpose Driven Life? by Dave of Revenge of Mr Dumpling

I believe that if we follow the assertions of the Theory of Evolution to their logical conclusions, we will find that they are incompatible with Scriptural truth, and therefore Christian belief. In this post I have picked two of the most glaring to illustrate my point.

Evolution vs. Creation, again. Why does it matter? by Matt Powell of Wheat and Chaff

Matt points out that most people choose what they want to believe because they like the story rather than because of any real knowledge of the facts.

Vox Apologia VII (7) by Andrew of Weapons of Warfare

I was really hoping Andrew would weigh in, and he didn’t disappoint. He explains that while it is unscientific to claim God as the cause for phenomenon which are simply not understood, it is just as unscientific to discount real evidence because it actually does point to God. The result is an argument based entirely in philosophy even when dressed up in the language of science.

Update: I’m tracking some of the followup postings on this subject here.

Several months ago, I was involved in an online debate over evolution vs. creation. The debate went pretty much as expected. Then as the debate was winding down, an interesting question was asked. In essence, the question was this: “Why bother debating over evolution vs. creation. That was a long time ago. What’s the point?” This is my answer to that question.

Rodney had been distracted for weeks when one of his friends cornered him and demanded an explanation for his behavior. When he admitted that he had been pondering the meaning of life, his friend suggested he visit the local wise man.

After climbing for hours, he finally reached the cave where the old hermit lived. Before approaching the cave, he rested for a bit to tend to his sore muscles, scrapes and bruises. Finally, gathering his courage he approached the cave and asked the old man, “Why am I here?”

“You are here,” the old man replied, “to get me a cold beer. Now get moving. I’m thirsty!”

The debate over the theory of evolution vs. creation is ultimately a debate over the meaning of life. Our view of the origin of humanity essentially determines our view of the world we encounter in our daily lives.

At some point in their lives, most people ponder the same question as Rodney. Getting a beer for a senile old coot is a pretty poor excuse for a meaningful life. Yet the answer evolution gives is even worse: “There is no meaning. You are merely an accident.” On the other hand, the answer creation gives is that every person was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) for a reason; there are no accidents.

To see the impact of the debate over evolution vs. creation, I’m going to look at how these worldviews affect a person’s thinking in four specific areas: human rights, marriage, the rule of law and the reliability of the Bible.

Human Rights

One of the core theories of evolution is that of natural selection. Natural selection says that the weak perish while the strong survive and thrive, passing on their genes to the next generation. Those who survive overcome competition from weaker organisms around them, including those of their own species. The only rule is survival over others and producing as many offspring as possible.

By this rule, there is nothing wrong with the stronger taking resources from the weaker, even their lives. Whether taking resources is cheating someone out of their money — including a fair wage — enslavement, or even killing them (yes, I’m talking about murder), it’s all fair game under the survival of the fittest. Those who are most successful at eliminating competition without creating new competition and are able to gather strong allies are the most likely to survive to produce children. The exact methods of achieving success doesn’t matter to evolution, though I suspect quick and permanent removal of competition (i.e. fatal) would tend to trump more uncertain methods such as negotiation.

The theory of natural selection also requires the removal of the weak and infirm in order to move evolution along and remove “unnecessary” burdens on the healthy. Thus the elderly, the handicapped, and those with other “undesirable” physical traits would need to be removed from the gene pool in order to allow humanity to advance. In the effort to create a “super race” Nazi Germany instituted sterilization in 1934 and “euthenasia” in 1939. (See here and here.) And Germany was not the only country to institute such programs. Other countries, including the United States, have instituted forced sterilization and sometimes euthanasia programs in an attempt to “improve the human race” by preventing those with “defects” from reproducing. (Also see the first paragraph of this article by Margart Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League which eventually merged with similar organizations to became Planned Parenthood.)

By contrast, the Bible teaches that humans are created in the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), that God knows and celebrates every human life (Psalm 139:13-16), and that we are to always act in each others’ best interests as much as in our own (Matthew 22:39) even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44), and take care of the weakest members of society (James 1:27).

The most famous passage in America’s founding documents is the beginning of the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Under the theory of evolution, this sentence is meaningless because there is no creator, there is no equality, there is no such thing as unalienable Rights because there is no higher authority which establishes those rights; there is only stronger and weaker.

Marriage

A successful species by evolutionary standards is one which produces many successful offspring. Therefore, what matters is reproduction, not love; impregnation, not marriage. As long as many children are produced, it doesn’t matter what else occurs.

Such a standard not only allows for multiple partners, it encourages them, especially for men. By Darwinian standards, the man who fathers hundreds of children is significantly more successful than a man who fathers only 1 or 2. It should also be obvious that marriage is not necessary in order to father children. Rather, it is actually an impediment to evolutionary success.

In fact, this logical extension of evolution’s theory can, and has, been used to justify rape as a means of reproduction. (See “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion” by Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer. I will not link to this book from my site. It can be found on Amazon.) Of course, because evolution is based only on natural laws and has no moral laws, there is no built in impediments to non-heterosexual behavior, such as homosexuality, bestiality, etc.

By contrast, the Bible says that humans were designed to live in a lifelong exclusive marriage relationship consisting of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6) where each meets various needs of the other.

The Rule of Law

As I’ve mentioned before, the theory of evolution is based upon the idea that only the strong survive. Another way of putting this is the “rule of claw,” where power is the only fact that matters. Or as Mao Tse-Tung put it, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Under evolution, the only laws which exist are natural laws and consequences. While it would not be possible for a man to deny or break the law of gravity, there are no inherent moral restrictions. For example, lying would be okay as long as you could get away with it. Stealing would be okay as long as you didn’t get caught. Heck, even murder would be okay as long as the consequences — such as someone else seeking revenge — can be avoided.

In fact, under evolutionary theory, all laws are merely human inventions. They can be created, changed and abolished or ignored at a whim by those with the right kind of power. So instead of laws being based on eternal principles, they become a means for one group to impose its will on another.

One hard-core atheist I debated accused Christians of attempting to impose their morality on others. What made it so hard for me to swallow was that his statement was in response to links to studies showing why the behavior under discussion was a really bad move. It wasn’t until I thought through this principle that I finally understood why he sees it that way. The logic works like this:

1. Evolution means that there is no God. (Or at least that there isn’t a “god” powerful enough to matter.)
2. Therefore, all religions/gods are made up by men.
3. Therefore, all moral rules taught by those religions are also made up by men.
4. Therefore, attempting to impose those rules for any reason is an attempt by one group to impose their will on another. In this case, the method of imposition just happens to be religion.

By contrast, if creation is actually true, then there truly is a God who has the authority (the creation belongs to the creator, lock, stock and barrel) and the power to impose and enforce moral laws. There is a standard of moral laws which supersedes all human authority. It is absolute and inviolable with no escape from consequences for even the smallest infraction. Attempting to live outside those laws becomes like playing russian roulette; you may escape the consequences for a little while, but not forever.

In fact, the concept of forever comes into play here. Under evolution, this life is all there is. Once you die, that’s it. There is no reward, no punishment. “He who dies with the most toys wins” and “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” become valid lifestyle choices. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain become all there is to life.

But under creation, this life is no longer all there is. It is merely a training and testing ground. This life is merely a temporary flash in the pan where any rewards received or pain endured are mere sparks which are gone in an instant. (Romans 8:18) Even if justice is not done in this lifetime, it is perfectly carried out in the next.

Reliability of the Bible

In the book of Genesis, the Bible clearly states that God created all life in 6 literal days. When He was finished, He had created a perfect earth with two perfect humans. Those humans made a choice which resulted in death and destruction entering the world.

Thousands of years later, according to the Bible, a man who was “God In The Flesh” walked the earth using the name Jesus. He lived a perfect, sinless life and was crucified for His trouble. Three days later, He returned to life on His own.

Both incidents are equally difficult to believe. And both depend on each other. Without the creation, there was no perfection and no fall to be rescued from, thus no reason for Jesus to die in the first place. Without the ability to create life in the first place, there is no power to return to life after death.

The theory of evolution strikes at the very reliability of the Bilical narrative. If the incident of creation didn’t actually happen, then the Bible either lied about what happened, or it is mistaken. Either way, the Bible cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything — including Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. And if Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead as an objective fact, then Christianity is a fraud.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

(1Cor. 15:12-19, NIV)

By contrast, if the Biblical account of creation is true then it becomes obvious that God can do anything and the entire Biblical account is trustworthy.

Objective Truth

Ultimately, the debate over evolution and creation is the debate over objective truth. There can be only One. There is only one reality which we all share. Either we accurately recognize what that reality is and act accordingly, or that reality will grind us to dust without even slowing down if we try to oppose it. Recognizing objective truth is accurately recognizing reality. That is what science is supposed to be — the search for objective truth. Yet the “science” of evolution has become anything but the search for truth.

Even as evolution science has made claims of being “objective” it has been defined as only accepting naturalistic answers. Any possible conclusion of design or creation in the debate over origins is automatically deemed as “unscientific,” even if that is where the evidence leads.

It’s as if a math teacher was giving problem sets to her students. As she hands out the papers, she tells the students that ‘4’ is never a correct answer. In fact, if she sees the answer ‘4’ anywhere on the paper, that paper will be given an ‘F’ grade. Among the problems, the students find these: ‘2 + 2 =’ and ‘5 - 1 =’. What will the students write as their answers? It won’t be ‘4’ even if that is the correct answer. (Unless, of course, a student is as stubborn about truth as I am.)

If you think I’m overstating the case, just consider this section from Nancy Peacey’s excellent book, “Total Truth”:

Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin gave the game away in a highly revealing article in the New York Review of Books a few years ago. Lewontin starts out by admitting the darker side of science (it makes extravagant claims, causes environmental problems, and so on). And yet, he quickly adds, we must still prefer science to any form of supernaturalism. Why? Because, “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
…
“It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation” of the world, Lewontin explains. “On the contrary,” he says, “we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations.” Translation: We first accepted materialism as a philosophy, and then refashioned science into a machine for cranking out strictly materialistic theories.

Finally, he warns that this materialism must be “absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” That final phrase points to what’s really at stake in the evolution controversy. Why does Lewontin urge us to define science as applied materialism? Because otherwise we might let a “divine foot in the door.” And we all know what happens then: When a salesman gets his foot in the door, pretty soon his brooms and brushes are all over your living room. If a “divine foot” ever got in the door of science, that would provide the groundwork for the entire Christian worldview, with its theology and biblical morality. That’s what sends a shiver of fear up the spine of many secularists.

Let’s face it, the Bible claims to be objective truth. It says that God “created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) It says that God’s handiwork is displayed all around us. (Psalm 19:1-2) It says that Jesus actually came to earth “in the flesh.” (1 John 4:2) In other words, it claims to be an accurate historical record of actual events. Therefore, it’s entirely reasonable for honest science (without the naturalistic biases) to agree with the Bible.

That is why the debate over evolution and creationism matters. It is a debate over objective truth. It is a debate over whether the Bible is factually accurate; and that is a debate Christians must be willing to engage in. If we do not, we automatically concede “objective truth” status to those who refuse to accept even the possibility of God’s existence. And in so doing, we abandon many who are searching for the honest objective truth to eternity in hell.

Exercise: I discussed four areas where the starting assumptions about evolution and creation create diametrically opposed approaches to the issues. Can you think of any other areas where a person’s preference for evolution or creation produces vast differences and what those differences are? Some possibilities include: self-esteem, the role of government, charity, health care, biotechnology, the environment, etc.

The Inerrancy Of Scripture

Now that Tim Challies of Challies.com has recovered from his cold, he has begun to address the inerrancy of scripture. This is yet another must read by Tim.

The Religious Life Of Teens

A book to be released next week gives the results of a 4 year study which shows that religion matters to more teens than ever, but their knowledge of God is sorely lacking. You can read more about it here.

Update On Terri Shiavo

Terri has been granted another temporary reprieve on the attempts to take her life. Make sure to keep up with the latest developments at BlogsForTerri. The web site has also just added the ability to make donations via PayPal to cover advertising to spread the truth about Terri’s situation.

Last week I started a parallel series to my series on Romanism and Ales Rarus. In this series, I’m comparing what the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church” (CCC) says about Mary to what the Bible says about her.

A Reply From Anonymous

Before I get back to the comparison, Ales Rarus has posted a reply from an anonymous writer.

1. Ed’s first point is that Mary cannot be the most perfect example of human faithfulness because: a) she’s no more faithful than Abraham; and b) she seems to have had doubts over the course of Christ’s life.

That’s a fair summary, with one exception…

In response, I would note that: a) Before God asked Abraham to be faithful, He promised Abraham a number of rewards for faithfulness. See Gen. 17.

Yes, God did make promises to Abraham. But Abraham did not live to see them fulfilled.

All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

(Heb. 11:13, NASB)

In fact, in the biggest test of his life, God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac — which would have ended the promised descendents via Isaac — without giving him any new promises.

Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” And He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

(Gen. 22:1-2, NASB)

Yet Abraham’s faith was so strong that he obeyed God without question.

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

(Heb. 11:17-19, NIV)

Anonymous continued with:

But He promised nothing to Mary directly, yet she was nevertheless willing to do his will.

On the contrary, Mary received a promise very similar to the one Abraham received in Genesis 17:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.”

(Luke 1:31-33, NASB)

In general, I think Anonymous missed the main point. The CCC teaches that Mary’s faith is superior to Abraham’s. Yet the Bible praises Abraham’s faith as being superior (Hebrews 11:11–19) but says very little about Mary’s faith.

Success? Or Failure?

And b) the doubts that Mary had were not, as Ed claims, evidence of a weak faith; they were tests of faith that Mary passed. Simeon warned Mary that “you yourself a sword will pierce,” Luke 2:35, and his prophecy came true in each of the instances Ed cites.

What are doubts, if not weak faith?

And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.

(Mark 16:14, NASB)

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

(Mark 16:14, NIV)

In some translations, “unbelief” is translated as “lack of faith” because the greek word απιστια (apistia) means both. From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

2. want of faith, unbelief: shown in withholding belief in the divine power, Mark 16:14, or in the power and promises of God, Rom. 4:20; Heb. 3:19; in the divine mission of Jesus, Matt. 13:58; Mark 6:6; by opposition to the gospel, 1 Tim. 1:13; with the added notion of obstinacy, Rom. 11:20, 23; Heb. 3:12. contextually, weakness of faith: Matt. 17:20 (where L T Tr WH oligopistian); Mark 9:24. (In Greek writings from Hesiod and Herodotus down.)*

Emphasis mine

If I had acted as Mary did — going with Jesus’ brothers to help bring Him home because they thought he was out of His mind — I would not consider that a high point of faith in my life especially when Jesus said, in essence, that they were not His mother and brothers because they were not doing “God’s Will.” Remember, this woman was told by an angel that Jesus was the “Son of the Most High” yet she at least entertained enough doubts about that fact to go help bring Jesus home. The Bible doesn’t say whether Mary also thought Jesus was out of His mind, but it is possible that she may have thought so as well. One thing is for certain, she did not oppose Jesus’ brothers, therefore her faith in Jesus was lacking.

As for a sword piercing Mary’s soul, yes, the scriptures do indicate that Mary would be tested. Compare that phrase in its context with Hebrews 4:12.

And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed — and a sword will pierce even your own soul — to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”

(Luke 2:34-35, NASB)

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

(Heb. 4:12, NASB)

I had thought that the image of a sword piercing Mary’s soul was merely referring to the mental anguish she would suffer when Jesus was tortured and crucified, and that appears to be part of what Simeon was saying. Yet the word order of the NASB translation (which is the word order of the original Greek) indicates that Mary’s thoughts and intentions would also be tested. However, there is no indication or promise that she would always pass. And in the two instances I’ve cited, if (or more accurately, when) I’ve reacted to God as Mary did, my lack of faith in God are failures, not successes.

“Sinless New Eve”

And as for Mary being a “sinless New Eve”, Anonymous wrote:

2. Ed’s second point is that Mary cannot rightly be considered a sinless “New Eve” because: a) she calls God her Savior in Luke 1, and the sinless do not need a savior; and b) there is no explicit scriptural support for Mary as a sinless “New Eve.”

In response, I would note that: a) you can “save” people in two ways: getting them out of trouble, or keeping them from getting into it in the first place. Knocking someone out of the path of a speeding car saves that person just as much as providing medical care in the event that he is hit. God saved Mary from sin by keeping her from it; he saves us from sin by getting us out of it.

But what about the scripture passages that say all have sinned and the ones which state that only Jesus was without sin?

And b) Ed is right that there is no explicit scriptural support for calling Mary a sinless “New Eve.” But this is not a problem for Catholics, who don’t demand explicit scriptural support in the way that Protestants do. Catholics believe that the Church came before the Bible in that it preached before the Bible was written, and it chose the Books that were to become part of the Bible (choosing the synoptic Gospels over the gnostic ones, etc.). For this reason, the Church can proclaim a doctrine without explicit scripural support, for the Bible is a creature of the Church, and not the other way round.

Emphasis mine

This is the heart of the matter. Is it legitimate for “the church” to proclaim a doctrine which has no scriptural support or not? The answer to that question is where I am headed with both this series and “Romanism and Ales Rarus”. But I am not yet ready to provide the answer. That will require its own post. For now, I am content to point out that the RCC teachings about Mary do not have “explicit scriptural support.”

Doggone it! This was just supposed to be a quick response before returning to the CCC. But, seeing as this post is already exceedingly long, that will have to wait for Part 3.

To be continued…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1

More On Is The TNIV Good News?

Yesterday I noted that Mark D. Roberts had a six part series on the TNIV controversy. I was wrong. At this point the series is now up to 8 posts with more to come. So far, he hasn’t significantly touched on the TNIV translation itself. Rather he has been discussing the wide variety of translations available and difficulties which are inherent in translating from Greek and Hebrew to English.

Christian Carnival

Wallo World is hosting this week’s Christian Carnival which highlights some truly fine writing.

Welcome to Vox Apologia VII!

This week’s topic is “Evolution vs. Creation: So What?”

No other field of scientific debate generates more conflict than that of evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design. In one recent debate, I was asked if this question really matters. What is your answer? Is the debate between evolution and creationism truly important? If so, why?

To submit your entry, send an email to:

Please include the following information:

• The name of your post
• The URL of your post
• Your blog’s name
• Your blog’s URL
• Your name optional
• A summary of your post optional (If you don’t include a summary, I will have to write one.)

Please have your entry in by Midnight, February 27th.

Update: Here is a link to the Vox Apologia FAQ.

Note: This post will remain at the top of The Greatest Pursuits until the entries are posted. Scroll down for my current posts.

Vox Apologia VI: Biotechnology

Every Though Captive has posted the results of the latest Vox Apologia. This week’s topic is on biotechnology. I must admit that I expected a wide variety of posts ranging from bioethics to how biotech confirms the creation account. Even though the official “deadline” has passed, Phil might still be willing to add links to relevant posts if you have one.

Screwtape Speaks Again

Joshua at RazorsKiss borrows the character of Screwtape from C. S. Lewis to write this excellent scathing response to a “good is evil/evil is good” comment posted on the evangelical outpost. In “The Screwtape Letters” by C. S. Lewis, the character of Screwtape is a demon who writes letters to his nephew Wormwood on the art and techniques of deceiving humans to separate them from God. Joshua has done an excellent job of using the style. But I think his best work related to the post appears in the comments where he responds to mumon:

If you think that subjectivism is “true” Christianity - you are gravely, gravely, mistaken. Christianity is dyed-in-the-wool objectivism - which believes in absolute, proposition truth as given by the Triune God through the Word of God, the Bible. Any deviation from that Word is error.
So, please tell me where I’m “straying” from historical, biblical, foundational, fundamental Christianity?

By denying and denigrating the subjective, they deny and denigrate the very authority - theirs- to accept the premise of Christianity.

No, by denying and denigrating any breath of subjectivism within the Church, we defend and support what the Bible says is the only Truth. There is no subjective moral truth. All moral Truth is given from God, and there is no other.

(The original comment by DarkSyd is located here.)

Is The TNIV Good News?

Mark D. Roberts takes a look at the controversy generated by the new TNIV translation in a six part series. Along the way, he discusses the difficulties of doing a good translation. His explanation about translating makes the series a worthwhile read even if the TNIV controversy doesn’t interest you.

The History Of The English Bible

Bible.org has an excellent 4 part series on the history of English translations of the Bible.

I found the following quote from the last paragraph to be particularly ironic given the Screwtape post mentioned above:

The enemy of the gospel now is not religious hierarchy but moral anarchy, not tradition but entertainment. The enemy of the gospel is Protestantism run amock; it is an anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge, feel-good faith that has no content and no convictions. Part of the communal repentance that is needed is a repentance about the text. And even more importantly, there must be a repentance with regard to Christ our Lord. Just as the Bible has been marginalized, Jesus Christ has been ‘buddy-ized.’ His transcendence and majesty are only winked at, as we turn him into the genie in the bottle, beseeching God for more conveniences, more luxury, less hassle, and a life without worries or lack of comfort. He no longer wears the face that the apostles recognized.

More Defense of Intelligent Design

Witt continues his excellent explanations of Intelligent Design in response to John Derbyshire over at Evolution News & Views with “Darwin, Derbyshire and the Dogma of the Gaps” and “Derbyshire VI: Behe’s Bacterial Flagellum—Still Stirring Up Trouble for Darwin’s Defenders”.

Joe Carter Has A New Job

Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost has taken on a new job for The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. Very cool!

Examining The Qur’an

Weapons Of Warfare has started a series analyzing the Qur’an, as has James White at Alpha & Omega Ministries.

The Basis For Human Rights

Imago Dei takes at look at which worldview provides the best basis for human rights in “Human Rights: Are They Best Grounded by Theism or Humanism?”

A Response To Bill Maher

Doug Powers applies Bill Maher’s “logic” to atheism in ‘Bless me, Father, for I have a neurological disorder’

Most Underreported Stories Of 2004

WorldNetDaily has posted their roundup of “The year’s 10 most underreported stories”.

What Place For God In Europe?

The Christian Science Monitor is exploring the state of religion in Europe in this 3 part series.

Top Ten Moral Issues In America

Chuck Colson has a list of the top 10 moral issues facing America.

The “Men In Black” have once again stolen the legitimate authority of lawmakers. This time, they’ve legalized the murder of Terri Schiavo. That drawn out, cold blooded murder via the legal system begins today. I simply cannot express the rage and powerlessness I feel over the callous disregard for the most precious and priceless treasure in the universe: a single human life.

• BlogsForTerri
• The wonderful world of legal murder
• Terri Schiavo wants to live
• ProLifeBlogs.com
• Pro-Life Postings About Terri Schiavo
• Terri Schiavo’s Estranged Husband Plans Feeding Tube Removal Tuesday
• Tsk Tsk…Maya Bell & Orlando Sentinel
• BlogsForTerri Attack Plan
• BlogsForTerri Pledge Form - Pledge your support for an ad to expose the truth about Terri’s situation
• Video of a conversation with Terri
• Jeb Bush Could Save Terri Schiavo’s Life…If He Wanted
• A Test of Patience
• Bloggers’ Best for Terri Schiavo
• Beyond The Gate

If the “Men In Black” can do this to Terri, they can do it to anyone. Who will be next? One of your parents? One of your children? You?

WorldNetDaily is reporting that a judge has dropped the charges against the 4 adults of the “Philly 5”. They were charged with crimes for protesting at a homosexual pride “Outfest” event held in Philadelphia this past October.

The teenage girl is being tried separately as a juvenile. Her case is still pending.

In what is being hailed as a victory for free speech, a judge in Philadelphia today dismissed all criminal charges against four Christians who were arrested for evangelizing at an outdoor homosexual event.
…
“We are pleased and relieved for our clients that justice has finally been done in the criminal system, and though it is apparently slow and rusty, the system still works,” Fahling said in a statement.

But that is not the end of the story. Consider this:

“This ends only the first chapter in the ‘Philadelphia 11’ saga. The next chapter is federal action against the officers and city of Philadelphia. We are still calling for the Department of Justice to investigate the corruption and profound abuse of power that we have seen in Philadelphia.”

Amen! The “Philly 11” should never have been arrested in the first place. Just that action alone violated their right of free speech. Such abuses of power must not be permitted to happen again.

Before I get into this reply, I would like to note that Ales Rarus has won a Warnie award. Congratulations Funky!

After my last posting on Mary, Funky Dung posted a brief reply noting my essay and posting two articles from his archives. Neither article was a direct response, and no additional discussion took place in comments, so I can’t really identify where we might agree or disagree on what I last wrote.

The first posting from his archive discussed the issue of praying to the dead as a justification for praying to Mary. Since such a topic encompasses more than just Mary, I’m going to set that discussion aside for another day so I can focus on the Roman Catholic Church’s (RCC) view of Mary.

Not only did Funky post the two articles, he also posted a link to an online version of the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church” (CCC) — the official teachings of the RCC. Because the entire point of this discussion is the teachings of Romanism in comparison to the Bible, I’ve decided to go right to the source.

The CCC is a very long and scholarly document. It consists of 2,865 numbered paragraphs. Most paragraphs include multiple footnotes detailing the source of each teaching. So let’s take a look at what Romanism teaches about Mary and the source of those teachings.

Mary’s Faith

The first mention of Mary (based on the subject index) is paragraph 144:

144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. The Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.

This paragraph is actually a summary statement containing no footnotes. The detailed explanation of Mary’s faith is offered in paragraphs 148-149:

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that “with God nothing will be impossible” and so giving her assent: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.”12 Elizabeth greeted her: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary’s faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God’s word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.

12 Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.
13 Lk 1:45.
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.

For the most part, these teachings match scripture. But there are differences. The idea that Mary’s faith never wavered doesn’t match Mark 3:21, 31-35.

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
…

Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

(Mark 3:21,31-35, NIV)

Notice that Mark specifies that his family went to collect Jesus because they thought He had lost it. But when they — including Mary — arrived to take Jesus home, He refused because they were opposing “God’s will.”

Furthermore, to claim that Mary’s faith was better than Abraham’s is severely overstating the case. If her faith truly was superior, then it should have been mentioned at least once in the theological books of the New Testament when faith is discussed. But after the book of Acts mentions that Mary and her sons were praying with the apostles in the upper room on the day of Pentacost, she is never mentioned again. If her faith was superior/perfect, then she should certainly have at least been mentioned with other heros of faith in Hebrews chapter 11.

On the contrary, Jesus himself caused her anxiety and confusion by obeying God’s will when He was 12 years old. (See the entire story in Luke 2:41-52.)

And when they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You.” And He said to them, “Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father’s house?” And they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

(Luke 2:48-50, NASB)

Notice that Mary forgot that God was Jesus’ father and that Jesus’ rebuke went over her head. And anxiety is a sign of weak faith:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.

(Phil. 4:6, NASB)

In short, the Bible never states that Mary’s faith was superior, perfect or unwavering. On the other hand, it definitely shows that Mary worried that Jesus was doing the wrong thing in at least two instances.

New Eve

Mary is next mentioned in paragraph 411:

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.306

305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20.
306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.

Take a look at the footnotes again. The description of Jesus as the “New Adam” is well supported by scripture. However there is no scriptural support for calling Mary a “New Eve.” That doctrine is a pure invention of the RCC. It also places Mary on the same level as Jesus Christ as having some part in our salvation.

Not only that, the claim is made here that Mary was sinless for her entire life. Quite simply, the Bible never says that! In fact, it says the opposite:

And Mary said:
“My soul exalts the Lord,
And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

(Luke 1:46-47, NASB)

The sinless do not need a savior.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

(Rom. 3:23, NASB) Emphasis mine

as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;”

(Rom. 3:10, NASB) Emphasis mine

If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

(1John 1:10, NASB)

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

(Rom. 5:19, NASB) Emphasis mine

Did you catch that? One not Two.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

(2Cor. 5:21, NASB)

Again, Jesus is the only (singular) one without sin.

For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth;

(1Pet. 2:21-22, NASB)

And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.

(1John 3:5, NASB)

As you can see, there is plenty of scriptural support for Jesus being sinless. (This sampling only scratched the surface.) There is also plenty of scriptural support for all of humanity being sinners. (Again, I only scratched the surface.) There is a reference where Mary calls God her savior. And there is absolutely no scriptural support for the idea that Mary never sinned.

I’ve also already discussed that it was necessary for Mary to have a sin nature in Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply.

Without scriptural support, raising Mary (or anyone) to equivalence with Jesus amounts to blasphemy. It’s possible that later portions of the CCC may offer scriptural support. But the lack of such references right next to solid references for Jesus’ position makes such a possibility highly unlikely.

More To Come

Obviously, the CCC has much more to say about Mary. My copy of the CCC has 13 tabs marking spots which discuss Mary. I’ve only hit the first four.

To be continued…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

There have been quite a few links to excellent posts accumulating in my list over the past couple of days. As a result, this Starting Lines is oversized. Sorry ‘bout that! There were just too many excellent posts which shouldn’t be ignored!

Vox Apologia: Three Governments

Wittenberg Gate has posted the results of this week’s Vox Apologia. The theme was “Three Governments: Family, Church and State”

Like A Tree Or Chaff?

The Upward Call ruminates on what Psalm 1 means when it describes the wicked as chaff in “Parched”.

A Response To Abortion Arguments

Jivin’ Jehoshaphat does an excellent job of responding to arguments for legal abortion.

Studying “The Great Evangelical Disaster”

Joshua of RazorsKiss is doing a series on Francis Schaeffer’s book, “The Great Evangelical Disaster”. He is maintaining a index to each posting in the series here.

Persecution By The “Evolution Priesthood”

Richard Sternberg, former editor of the Smithonian’s “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington” journal, has filed a harassment complaint over his dismissal.

Of Bones And Beads

Witt of Evolution News & Views has posted an excellent explanation of why the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil records we’ve recovered shows that Darwin’s theory is not good science.

“Self-Defense Against Sexual Sin”

Hello Infidels! recently finished posting a sermon by John MacArthur on “Self-Defense Against Sexual Sin”. The sermon is posted in 4 parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

If you never encountered one (or more) of the crackpot conspiracy theories which claim our own government either caused or was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, consider yourself fortunate. Those wild-eyed theorists invented, distorted or outright ignored evidence in order to promote their baseless speculations. Popular Mechanics worked with more than 300 experts and organizations to examine and debunk the 16 most persistant conspiracy theory myths about the 9/11 attacks.

Philadelpha: More Garbage

I have had the unfortunate joy of watching Philadelphia’s leadership — always a strange and questionable bunch — take a dramatic turn towards bizarre extreme leftistism in recent months by trampling free speech in their rush to support “gay pride” and now, welcoming supporters of cold blooded cop killer Abu Jamal into the mayor’s office and giving them gifts of Liberty Bells! That’s right, the birthplace of The United States of America is now openly embracing lovers of lawlessness! It seems apparent that some sort of brain eating pathogen is infecting the city. Citizens of Philly, get out while you still can!

“Rapture” Rapture

John Hinderaker explores how the false idea that Christians want to destroy the environment has developed out of absolutely nothing in “‘Rapture’ Rapture”.

Defending C.S. Lewis

Jollyblogger finds it necessary to defend C. S. Lewis.

Invalid Reasons For Believing Something

Over at Coffee Swirls, Doug McHone discusses three invalid reasons for holding a belief. Do you know why you believe the things you do?

Well, well, well. It seems that Eason Jordan, an executive with CNN, has officially resigned over comments he made at a panel discussion in Switzerland. (Much more here, here, here, here, and heck, just about any blog you visit.) It’s pretty clear that the powerful blog storm which resulted from his ill-advised (some would say treasonous) remarks is the direct cause of his resignation.

It has become abundantly clear over the last year that the blogosphere and similar web sites now wield incredible power. The Swift Vets and POWs For Truth campaign was organized around their web site and was the single largest factor which prevented John Kerry from winning the election. The blog storm over the 60 Minutes story based around fabricated memos not only exposed the memos as frauds, but also destroyed and overshadowed the original story. It also lead to firings at CBS and a loss of influence for Dan Rather. Similar effects are being felt in newspapers offices around the country and in the halls of government as the internet allows nearly instantaneous dissemination of information and coordination on a national scale.

These results are entirely commendable because they are based on the pursuit of truth. Those who have been brought low claimed to be proclaiming the truth, but the light of the blogosphere exposed their claims for the lies that they are.

For nearly a century, the mainstream media — newspaper conglomerates, radio and more recently, television — has held a virtual monopoly on the dissemination of information. The resulting attitudes, sloppiness and shallowness has made the media giants easy targets for the quicker, more diversified, less centralized, more interactive and vocal internet based media. I am sure that bloggers everywhere are feeling flush with power and success. I’ve already been reading statements pondering which journalist will be taken down next.

But is attacking journalists all there is? Is merely exposing lies enough? Heck, are we even exposing all the lies being spread? I don’t think so.

One of the internet’s biggest strengths is to go into depth on a topic. To dig beyond the surface appearance and sound bites of a story. To dig down to the “story behind the story” to where the truth lies. To provide easy access to original sources which can confirm or deny the validity of a statement. And to do so with more breadth and authority than any form of communications in history.

I am concerned that this strength is being frittered away on a mere show of strength against the mainstream media. The blogosphere has been flogging the Eason Jordan story hard for the past week. It was nearly all I saw on various news and politics oriented blogs while other issues went almost completely ignored.

There is one example which has been bugging me. Just before the Easongate story started making the rounds of the blogs, the media attack on Dr. Dobson was the hot topic. I am aware of exactly one blogger, David Huntwork, who immediately went to the We Are Family Foundation website and honestly checked on Dr. Dobson’s actual concerns. Shortly after his article appeared, the pages which demonstrated the truth of Dr. Dobson’s concerns began to disappear from the WAFF website.

Mere days before Eason stuck his foot in his mouth, Dr. Dobson released a lengthy response to the controversy detailing his concerns. But by that time, the proof that his concerns were legitimate had disappeared from the WAFF web site. A good number of bloggers reproduced or commented on Dr. Dobson’s statement. However, as far as I am aware, only two bloggers actually bothered to do the research to find what had been removed from the WAFF site: Emily E. and myself. (Emily had better success than I did.) I’m aware of only two christian/conservative bloggers who had been critical of Dr. Dobson who even posted a retraction. For the most part, evidence that Dr. Dobson was telling the truth was largely ignored by the blogosphere. I think this was largely due to the Eason Jordon story which was just starting to gather strength.

The result is that the media’s sliming of Dr. Dobson appears to have been a raging success, just as Dr. John Mark Reynolds warned us it would be. The slander about him was widespread, the evidence of his integrity was not.

So in the last two weeks, the score is Mainstream Media: 1, Blogosphere: 1. If all the blogosphere does is destroy people, then we are doing nothing but creating a vacuum; one which may not be filled with a truth-teller, especially if we allow them to go down in flames due to our lack of support.

“Now when the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came’; and when it comes, it finds it unoccupied, swept, and put in order. Then it goes, and takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.”

(Matt. 12:43-45, NASB)

The MSM is currently an easy target because their lies are easily exposed. But unless we make the truth known, the lies we expose will only be replaced with more lies which are harder to expose. (Imagine forged documents from the ‘70’s without a superscripted ‘th’.) We must make the truth known or we will eventually be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of lies that can be told.

So is the blogosphere as a whole interesting in pursuing Truth with a capital ‘T’? Or are we more interested in Power, the ability to attack enemies? From this chair, it appears to be the latter.

Here is my challenge to bloggers: Focus more on promoting truth than on exposing lies. If you find someone promoting the truth, you do not necessarily have to make a comment. Simply pointing to someone who tells the truth in an excellent fashion is far better than ignoring the truth completely because you don’t have time to comment. If the blogosphere is to surpass the mass media and be a positive influence on the world, we must take advantage if our ability to bring breadth and depth to bear while maintaining a slavish devotion to truth and integrity. If we do not maintain our integrity, then we will be no better than those very journalists we condemn.

Update: Rony Abovitz, the man who first posted the Eason Jordon story, expresses similar concerns.

A Thought For Today…

Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that, when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is.

(1 John 3:2, NASB)

And now, from C.S. Lewis’ essay, “The Weight Of Glory”:

Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her. When all the suns and nebulae have passed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol; but it is the symbol Scripture invites me to use. We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects.

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you [saw] it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilisations — these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit — immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.

Emphasis in original. One typo fixed. British spellings retained.

From “The Weight Of Glory” by C.S. Lewis. Every christian should read this essay. Period.

Every person you meet today is either going to spend eternity with God or in torment. Does your conduct reflect that reality?

“More Human Than We Imagined”

Media Culpa reports on an article detailing a study done on “minimally conscious” patients in “More Human Than We Imagined”.

From the original New York Times article:

Thousands of brain-damaged people who are treated as if they are almost completely unaware may in fact hear and register what is going on around them but be unable to respond, a new brain-imaging study suggests.

In a measure of overall brain activity, the two groups were vastly different: the two minimally conscious men showed less than half the activity of the others.

But the researchers also recorded an audiotape for each of the nine subjects in which a relative or loved one reminisced, telling familiar stories and recalling shared experiences. In each of the brain-damaged patients, the sound of the voice prompted a pattern of brain activity similar to that of the healthy participants.

More On Those Who Haven’t Heard The Gospel

Revenge of Mr. Dumpling has posted a truly outstanding piece on the question of what happens to those who never had a chance to hear the gospel. It’s a must read.

A Bill To Remove ‘Sexual Orientation’ From PA’s Hate Crime Law

AgapePress is reporting that a bill is being introduced to strip ‘sexual orientation’ from Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law. The original law — which was passed over objections that it would be used to suppress the right of free speech — is being used against the “Philly 5” for protesting at an “Outfest” event in October 2004.

Two weeks ago Rand of a pattern of sound words wrote a short piece slamming Roman Catholicism. Understandably miffed, Funky Dung of Ales Rarus posted this response. I think it’s important to discuss the issues involved. Therefore, I started a response which has expanded into a full blown series.

Faith And Works

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus saves men by a combination of faith and works of righteousness.
Biblical Christianity - Jesus saves men by faith alone (Ephesians 2: 8-9).

Funky Dung’s response:
“What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. “ - James 2:14-26

It’s no wonder some of the reformers wanted to expunge James from the canon of Scripture. It doesn’t fit with their theology.

First of all, James does meet the criteria of being scripture. I don’t know about some reformers wanting to remove James, but as a Bible Believing Christian, I accept it as part of the cannon of scripture. Therefore, the relationship between both the passage in James which Funky Dung quoted and Ephesians 2 must be clearly understood. In fact, all the scriptures dealing with salvation must be considered.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

(2Tim. 3:16, NASB)

Let‘s start with Ephesians:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

(Eph. 2:8-9, NASB)

Okay, we have an apparent conflict here between James 2:14-26 where works is mentioned as part of salvation and Ephesians 2:8-9 where works have nothing to do with salvation.

The best short explanation I’ve heard of this comparison goes like this, “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone.” In other words, it’s only our faith in the work of Christ on the cross which gives us salvation. That faith, in turn, compels us to act differently than we would have without that faith. Jesus put it more simply when he said:

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”

(John 14:15, NASB)

The Bible often compares our relationship with God with that of a husband and wife. A strong marriage is based on the love between a husband and wife. You might say that love is the foundation of the marriage. It’s that love which prompts a husband to crawl out of bed three AM to take of the baby so his wife can sleep. It’s her love for her husband that prompts a wife to prepare his lunch each morning. These and thousands of other small, selfless acts of love are not the basis for the marriage. They are the result of the love on which the marriage is based.

Now some loveless marriages do survive, with spouses going through the motions and performing those acts of love. The same is true of those who claim to be Christians. So what is Christ’s response to those who perform religious works without the faith?

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”

(Matt. 7:21-23, NASB)

Quite simply, doing good works by themselves will not get anyone into heaven. On the other hand, there are numerous passages which show that faith is the key to salvation:

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

(John 6:40, NASB)

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die.”

(John 11:25-26a, NASB)

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

(Rom. 10:9-10, NASB)

“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

(Acts 4:12, NASB)

Notice that it’s the name of Christ which produces salvation, not the works done in Christ’s name.

In Acts 15, there was a group that started teaching that Christians must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses in order to be saved. Here is Peter’s answer to this false teaching:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.  Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

(Acts 15:7-11, NASB)

In short, the law was a burden which men could not bear in the past and through which salvation could not be acheived. Nothing about living under the law has changed. Instead, salvation comes through the grace of Jesus.

Once again, Romans 5:12-21 and Galations 3-4 are appropriate passages. Pay special attention to these verses in Galations:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” — in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

(Gal. 3:10-14, NASB)

In other words, if a person is attempting to gain God’s favor by following the law (works), they have placed themselves under the curse of the law and are required to fulfill every single requirement in order to achieve salvation. On the other hand, Christ’s redemption from the curse is available only through faith.

Finally, in 1 Corinthians, Paul also raises the issue of works.

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

(1Cor. 3:11-15, NASB)

We’re now back down to the Foundation again. Jesus Christ is to be the foundation of our relationship with God. As long as we have the foundation, we “shall be saved.” Form that point on, what we do in response to that salvation will either be excellent work (gold, silver, precious stones) or shoddy work (wood, hay, straw). The work we build on that foundation will be tested and the results will matter; I just have no idea what the reward will be. Knowing God, it will be AWESOME!

In any such discussion, I would be remiss to not point out Hebrews chapter 11, which is often called “The Faith Chapter.” In this chapter, the author points out that Old Testament heroes all obtained justification through faith. Even more interesting in the context of this discussion is how their faith prompted their actions. For example:

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.

(Heb. 11:7-8, NASB)

It was Noah’s faith in God which prompted him to build the ark. It was Abraham’s faith in God which prompted him to pack up and leave his country when God told him to. And faith even made all the difference in purely “religious” activities. Consider the story of Cain and Abel as discussed in Hebrews 11:

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

(Heb. 11:4, NASB)

Both Cain and Abel made offerings. Abel’s was accepted while Cain’s was rejected. The key difference was Abel’s faith vs. Cain’s lack of faith.

As the author of Hebrews is wrapping up his point, he starts his final sentence of the chapter like this:

And all these, having gained approval through their faith,

(Heb. 11:39a, NASB)

All the Old Testment heroes mentioned performed tremendous feats in God’s name, ranging from overcoming their enemies against impossible to bearing their sufferings with perseverance as true servants of God. Yet those works are not what brought them God’s approval. It was their faith in God which earned His approval, faith which prompted the feats for which they are famous.

There is more to come in part 4…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

Update: 2005 EU Blog Winners

The winners of the first annual 2005 Evangelistic Underground Blog Awards have been announced. Congratulations to all the winners! 

Vox Apologia IV

firstPete315 has posted the results of this week’s Vox Apologia. The question of the week is “What happens to those who have never heard the gospel?”

What Is Truth?

The question, “What is truth?” has been on my ‘posts to write’ list since before I launched The Greatest Pursuits. Hello Infidels! has posted a truly excellent article which answers that question. This one is a must read!

Answering Bill Moyers

On January 30th, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a wild-eyed screed by Bill Moyers which falsely claimed that Bible believing Christians are trying to destroy the environment in an attempt to hasten the tribulation and Jesus’ return. As his central evidence he claimed a quote supposedly made by James Watts during congressional testimony. Powerline has the whole story on how Moyers’ “evidence” was simply fabricated and proof that Watts’ actual position was the exact opposite of what Moyers claims: “Bill Moyers Smears a Better Man Than Himself”

Gerald Schroeder: Science And The Bible

Gerald Schroeder, author of the book “The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth” has a web site where he describes various aspects of how science agrees with the Bible. I will definitely be spending some time reading his articles.

(HT to much (of a which of a) wind for the link.  much (of a which of a) wind is another site worth exploring.)

I had just finished explaining the good news about Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection. After thinking for a moment, the person I was talking to said, “Well yeah. That’s nice and easy. But what about those who haven’t heard about this? What happens to them?”

Anyone who has ever tried to tell someone about Jesus has probably encountered this question. I’m lousy at speaking up in face-to-face encounters — and I do mean horrible — yet I’ve run into this question more than once.

The Answer

The question itself isn’t really that hard to answer. God has made himself known to every person in the world through what theologians call “General Revelation.” In other words, if you look at the world around you, God’s existence — though not specific details such as Jesus’ death and resurrection — is made known through nature and the law written on every man’s heart. As Psalm 19 puts it:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

(Psa. 19:1-2, NASB)

When you look at nature, it’s impossible to miss the intricate balance and interdependence of plants and animals. Flowers cannot be pollinated without bees and other insects. Plants use carbon-dioxide and produce oxygen while animals use oxygen and carbon-dioxide. Even pagan religions recognize this overall balance in what they call “the circle of life.” The delicate beauty of flowers, the sensual beauty of various fruits and vegetables, the warm softness of an animal’s fur and the symphonic chorus of birds and insects all demonstrate God’s artistry in all the senses.

God’s beauty and logic are also shown in the inorganic world. The intricate balance of the planets and other celestial bodies in their gravitational dance show God’s skills as a master machinist. The beauty of a sunrise, sunset or rainbow demonstrate more of God’s visual spectacle. The grand spendor of an ocean shore, the delicate babbling of a brook and the incredible variety of snowflakes all demonstrate God’s ability to create a wide variety of beauty out of a simple substance.

It’s not just nature which shows God’s workmanship. God’s law is written on human hearts. As Paul wrote to the Romans:

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

(Rom. 2:14-16, NASB)

Consider the Declaration of Independence. The second paragraph begins with these famous words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson is describing God’s law within every person’s heart. He considers the existence of such laws as obvious to anyone who gives the matter any thought. We may not know why we know it, but we know that there are absolute Rights and Wrongs, even if we disagree on the details. In his classic book Mere Christianity (a book which every Christian should read multiple times), C. S. Lewis describes God’s law like this:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations (sic) and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

As Paul points out in the passage I quoted from in Romans, God will judge those who haven’t heard the gospel based on their actions in relation to those parts of God’s law they did recognize.

What Is The Reason For The Question?

Now that I’ve made your eyes glaze over with an incredibly long answer to a simple question, it’s time to heap even more abuse upon your poor tired eyes.

It has been my experience that whenever this question is asked, it’s not out of concern for those who haven’t heard the gospel. Nor is it really the question that the person you’re talking to really wants answered. Both the skeptic and the person seeking the truth are addressing the same core issue.

The real question is, “Is God actually just and trustworthy?”

The skeptic is convinced that God is not trustworthy because, in his mind, only those who have heard the good news of the cross can escape punishment. Therefore those who haven’t heard the gospel are forced to go to hell, proving that God is actually unjust.

The person who is actually looking for the truth is still unsure of the truth of the gospel. They are unsure if God can be trusted. Like the skeptic, they are aware that those who haven’t heard of Jesus cannot be saved by calling on His name. And as with the skeptic, it seems unjust.

I do not have a good knock’em dead, one size fits all answer to this question. (If anyone knows one, please let me know.) As I pointed out above, God does recognize the difference between those who have heard the gospel and those who have not. He has promised to treat them appropriately. But even so, just exactly what that means is not something I have a good answer to. All I know is that God has proven Himself to be absolutely just and absolutely trustworthy in hundreds of other areas and that gives me a reason to believe that He knows what He is doing with those who haven’t heard the gospel.

On the other hand, I am sure of the status the person I’m talking to. They have heard the good news. They know about Jesus and His sacrifice to save us. They know they will face God and He will ask the question, “What did you do about my son, Jesus?” They will not be able to ask, “Who?” Any excuse of ignorance is gone. They only have the choice of accepting or rejecting His gift.

When you are telling another person about Jesus, what are your motives? Are you trying to show them the way to freedom for their sake, or are you trying to put another notch in your belt? Are you confident that God truly is who the Bible says He is? Are you confident that God is truly just and worthy of your trust? Answering those questions for yourself will go a long way in your ability to answer those questions for others.

Who’s Afraid of the Fetus?

Planned Parenthood, that’s who.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

(Is. 5:20, NASB)

And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

(John 1:5, NASB)

And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light.

(Eph. 5:11-13, NASB)

This reminds me of a joke: Q. How many cockroaches does it take to screw in a light bulb? A. You can’t tell. As soon as the light goes on, they all scatter!

Weapons of Warfare on Purgatory

Weapons of Warfare points out that the doctrine of purgatory is not supported by scripture.

Vox Apologia IV

firstPete315 will be hosting Vox Apologia IV. This week’s topic is, “What happens to those who have never heard the Gospel?”

Update: Funky Dung has posted a brief reply.

Over at Ales Rarus, Funky Dung posted a brief portion of my response from Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1. The resulting discussion in the comments (over there) has been intelligent, respectful, fascinating and thought provoking. The thoughts triggered by that discussion just won’t let me go, so it’s time to do some more exploring of the topic.

Intimate Contact With Mary

Tom Smith started things off by writing:

Christ’s intimate contact with Mary in the womb was far deeper than the contact He had with any of the disciples—Christ wasn’t physically attached via a placenta to any of them. Along that same vein, if Christ took up a human nature alongside His divine nature (contra-Monophysitism), which most agree on, He would have taken it from Mary. If Christ’s human nature (via Mary) was sinful, it would have been in conflict with His divine nature, and He would’ve either been two persons, or one will would’ve taken over (monophysitism, condemned virulently by Athanasius at Nicea).

Yes, it is true that Christ’s contact was more intimate with Mary than with others. It’s also an interesting and somewhat logical thought that if Jesus was going to have such intimate contact with woman that she should be pure. However, only God can institute such a requirement, no matter how cool the idea may seem to us. So did He state such a requirement in scripture? I am not aware that He has done so.

Also, if Christ was floating around in Mary’s womb for nine months while she was sinning, would Christ not be somehow complicit in Mary’s sins?

In a word, no.

“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”

(Ezek. 18:20, NASB)

In this passage, Ezekial is delivering a word for word message from the Lord. In fact, God’s exposition on this point is much more thorough than the snippet I’ve posted here. Read all of Ezekial 18 for the full impact of God’s point. Put succinctly, each person is responsible only for their own sins, not the sins of others.

What exactly is meant by “under the law?” While I’m not intimately familiar with the theology regarding the new and old covenants, I’d say that, since Christ had not yet fulfilled the law, all were bound to follow it, regardless of what sins had been committed by believers.

As I said in my comment, Paul explains this concept more fully throughout Galatians chapters 3 and 4 and Romans 5:12-21, but I think Tom has the gist of it.

What Is “Sin Nature?”

The conversation then quickly moved into discussing what the sin nature actually is and Jesus’ relationship to it. There are a lot more good thoughts than I have room to post here, so I’ll try to pick out the highlights.

Andrew wrote:

Two thoughts:

1. The sin nature is descended through Adam, through the man. Hence the whole point of the virgin birth in the first place—-Christ would not have receieved the sin nature.

2. Christ’s human nature, got from Mary, had to be capable of sinning, had to be temptable, since otherwise Christ would not have been “tempted in every way” just as we are.

There’s every reason to believe that Christ was sinless and without the sin nature, since he had no human father, but Mary, who had a human father, must have had the sin nature.

Christ in his divine nature was not capable of sinning, in his human nature was capable of sinning, and there lies his mystery. But he emphatically did not have a sin nature, since in that case he could not help but sin.

Funky Dung responded with:

I’d point out, however, that there are two kinds of sin - original and actual. To be totally sinless is to be without both. Original sin is the “stain” upon humanity because of the fall that objectively keeps us out of heaven … Actual sin is the sin that is attributed to each individual as the result of his actions. Though Jesus’ human nature was not stained by original sin, He could have (at least in theory) still sinned, though to do so would conflict with His divine will and a logical impossibility.

Tom Smith then asked:

First off, we should probably start by agreeing exactly what is meant by “sin nature.” Do you mean concupiscence, the inordinate attachment to sin (not to be confused with simple temptation), or original sin, the lack of sanctifying grace? Where does the notion that the fallen state passes seminally come from?

Jerry chimed in with this insightful post:

To supplement Tom’s comments: one thing that the Orthodox find irritating about original sin is that Catholics seem to imply that original sin or concupiscence is some inheritable trait or stain that we pass on to the next generation. This seems to be a stumbling block with Protestants as well.

A clarification of the doctrine of original sin that I prefer is that original sin is just a state of being apart from God’s grace. Because of Adam’s sin, we are by default at a certain remove from God’s grace, and thus vulnerable to sin, which drives us further yet. Thus, original sin is not a physical thing (which does sound rather Manichean), but rather a pervasive lack of grace, or distance from God.

My Thoughts on Sin Nature

“And that’s where I got stuck, your honor.” The rest of this post (including the last two sections) were written quite quickly. At this point, I was all set to tie my understanding of sin nature based on Galations and Romans back to the ideas which were being discussed here. It seemed like we were just using different language for the same ideas. But the more I read through Romans and Galations, the more I searched for a single verse or two to highlight and the more I thought about it, the less well my understanding of the ideas discussed here cleanly matched up with what I was reading in scripture. Two days later, I’m finally ready to continue.

That’s not to say that all the ideas discussed are off track. In fact, Jerry has nailed our position in respect to God. We are either under the law or under grace. The two are mutually exclusive. (Though the law highlights why grace is necessary.)

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.”

(Rom. 7:5, NASB)

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

(Rom. 6:14, NASB)

Sometimes when the landmarks get confused, it’s time to go back to familiar territory and retrace your steps. So that’s what I’ll do to explain my understanding of what the Bible says about our sin nature. In this case, it means going back to the beginning; to Genesis, chapter 1.

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

(Gen. 1:27, NASB)

And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

(Gen. 1:31a, NASB) Emphasis mine.

When I think of God’s standards, there is one word that stands out: perfection. In order for God to think of something as “very good” it had to be perfect. Adam and Eve weren’t just physically perfect, they also had to be morally perfect. The tree they weren’t to eat from was “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which suggests they didn’t even know what evil is. When I think of a perfect person (as God measures perfection) I think of someone who is not even capable of sinning, which means they would also not be capable of conceiving of what sin is.

God only told them there was one thing they could not do. Does that mean that it was okay for them to do things which we now know as sins? Let’s say… murder? Not bloody likely!

Imagine with me that you are a professional reporter. You have been given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to go back in time to interview Adam. You’ve been sitting in the garden talking with this perfect specimen of a human being. He has the rippling muscles, perfect proportions, chiseled good looks, a brain that can run circles around today’s geniuses, the works.

Adam has been telling about life in the garden. How the fruit on the trees is always perfectly ripe. How beautiful the flowers are. About his gorgeous wife who is just as brainy as he is. He even tells you how wonderful it is to walk with God through the garden each evening discussing the day’s events.

Then you ask a question you think your readers back home might be able to relate to. “Adam, the Bible tells us that your second born son, Cain, will murder your first born son, Abel. How does that make you feel?”

Adam’s face, which has been so animated for your entire interview changes to a blank stare. After a few uncomfortable moments he asks, “What is murder?”

When Adam & Eve ate the fruit, three basic things happened. First, they were separated from God (they hid when they heard God walking in the garden), experiencing spiritual death. (Gensis 3:8) Second, they became capable of suffering physical death. (Genesis 5:5) Third, they gained the ability to know — and therefore commit — evil, otherwise known as the ability to sin. (Genesis 3:7 and the entire rest of the Bible)

The word “sin” is literally an archery term which means “to miss the mark.” The law is like the rings and other markings on an archery target. Hitting the mark means living up to the requirements of the law. Missing the mark means that we have stepped outside the lines. That’s what it means to be under the law. The law itself gives the yay or nay verdict.

Inheriting Mary’s Traits

Sixty two generations later, God physically returns to earth in the form of baby Jesus. Only instead of being incorruptible God, he is now “under the law” in that it is possible for Him to sin, He knows what evil is (though I suspect that was always true) and He is capable of dying. The big difference between Him and us is that He was also capable of obeying not just the law, but His Father’s will in exacting detail.

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

(Heb. 4:15, NASB)

So what traits did Mary share with Adam and Eve in regard to sin?

• She was capable of sinning. If she was not capable of sinning, she could not have passed that capability to Jesus. That would certainly not be a trait He could receive from God the Father.
• She was capable of dying. I know I’m stating the obvious, but Mary was certainly not immortal. Again, Jesus needed to be able to die so His blood could pay the price for our sins. God is immortal and incapable of dying, so Jesus had to inherit this trait from Mary.
• She was separated from God. This one is essentially impossible to quantify. Was Jesus just as separated from God when He walked this earth as we are now? I don’t really know. His prayer life — our primary relationship with God — certainly exceeded that of every human in history, with the possible exception of Adam before the fall. What we do know for sure, is that he was fully separated from God the Father upon His death. We also know that the apostles were capable of performing many of the same miracles which Jesus did, and they certainly started with as much separation from God as we do today.

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

(Matt. 27:46, NASB)

Conclusions

Tom Smith stated his conclusion about Mary like this:

I’m not saying he and Mary weren’t temptable; I’m saying they didn’t have concupiscence. There is a difference.

Jerry agreed, stating:

Mary, however, being “full of grace” avoided concupiscence, which brings us back to Tom’s point that while Mary could sin, being blessed by God, she avoided it, thus being a pure tabernacle for the Christ Child.

I have to disagree with these conclusions on these grounds:

• Mary had to be capable of sinning so that Jesus would be capable of sinning.
• Mary had to be capable of dying so that Jesus would be able to die.
• Mary had to be able to be fully separated from God so Jesus could also be separated.
• As shown in Ezekial 18:20, each person is responsible for their own sins. Mary could sin without her sins being charged to Jesus.
• There is no scripture (which I am aware of) which states outright — or even implies — that Jesus’ mother had to be sinless.

If you know of scriptures which actually show otherwise, by all means, point them out to me. My goal is to draw nearer to God with the aid of the authority of scripture. If I’m wrong, I need to know it. But without scriptural support, the idea that Mary was sinless — no matter how marvelous that idea may seem to us — is flatly wrong.
(I’m reluctant to use the word heresy, but the definition seems to fit.)

Who Were Mary’s Ancestors?

Along the way, the question of who Mary’s ancestors was raised. This is just a side issue, but I know the answer. Both Mary and Joseph were descended from King David. The genealogy in Matthew is for Joseph and the one in Luke is for Mary. In 1 Kings 9:4-5, God promises Solomon that if he stayed faithful to God, his throne would be established “forever” which would be fulfilled in Jesus. 1 Kings 11:9-11 records that Solomon failed to hold up his end of the bargin. Therefore, Mary was a descendent of King David, but not Solomon.

And a Little Humor

Tom Smith also tossed in a joke that I have got to remember!

Christ was drawing a line in the sand before the adulterous woman. He said, “May he has not sinned throw the first stone.” Christ then sees a little rock whizzing through the air over his head, hitting the adulterous woman. “MO-OMMM!!!” he shouted.

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

Evangelical Underground is current running the 1st Annual Evangelical Blog Awards. Many excellent evangelical blogs have been nominated. It’s definitely worthwhile to visit those sites.

Of course, if you feel it’s also appropriate to nominate The Greatest Pursuits, I won’t complain. 

Nominations end today.

Emily E. has done her own SpongeBob Cache Diving. In the process, she managed to locate some pages which I had not. (See my original entry on SpongeBob Cache Diving to see what I found.)

Emily managed to find a list of allies of WAFF which is still on their web site. (My cached copy of this page is here*.) Here are some of their allies:

• Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) — “The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.” (From here)
• Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) — “GLSEN envisions a world in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”
• Human Rights Campaign — “Working for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights.
• National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — “Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation (the Task Force) was the first national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights and advocacy organization…” “The Task Force is the organization that builds grassroots political power of the LGBT community in order to attain complete equality.” (from here and here)
• Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians & Gays — “PFLAG promotes the health and well-being of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons, their families and friends through: support, to cope with an adverse society; education, to enlighten an ill-informed public; and advocacy, to end discrimination and to secure equal civil rights.” (from here)

Even better, Emily managed to track down the actual PDF files which used to available from the Writing For Change pages on the WAFF site. She found them on tolerance.org where they have their own section devoted to the Writing For Change program. (The index page is cached here*.) I’ve added those files to the cache on my own site:

• “1.4 Talking About Being ‘Out’”
  Here are some of the questions asked in this section:
  • Do you know of any people in your school whose sexual orientation differs from yours?
  • What are some factors that might encourage or discourage a person about being “out” as homosexual or bisexual in this class or your school?
  • What are, or what do you think would be, the consequences of a person being “out” as homosexual or bisexual in this class or your school?
  • Variation
    Answer the above questions in regard to people in your class or school who consider themselves atheist. [The implications of this variation are fascinating!]

• “1.5 Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation”
  Here is a shortened list of what’s discussed:
  • Objectives: Introduce the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality. Analyze and discuss the effects these forces exert in students’ lives.
  • Instructor Directions: Ask your students to study the definitions of the terms “homophobia” and “compulsory heterosexuality” and identify ways in which these forces are at work in their lives.
  • Definitions:
  • Homophobia: Toughts, feelings, or actions based on fear, dislike, judgment, or hatred of gay men and lesbians/of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex.
  • Compulsory heterosexuality: The assumption that women are “naturally” or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women; the view that heterosexuality is the “norm” for all sexual relationships. The institutionalization of heterosexuality in all aspects of society includes the idealization of heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage.
  • Variation: Racism: The systematic mistreatment of people of color based on the belief in the inherent superiority of one race and thereby the right to dominance. [Equating opposition to homosexual behavior with racism has become a common tactic in forcing the acceptance of such behavior.]
  • Find some examples of compulsory heterosexuality in your daily life. What assumptions and values do these venues represent?
  • Do the same with examples of homophobia.
  • How are you affected by compulsory heterosexuality?
  • How are you affected by homophobia?
  • How would you be affected if your sexual orientation were different than it is now?
  • How would others you know — friends, family members, classmates, members in your clubs or organizations — be affected?
  • How will understanding these definitions change your thinking about compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia?

The “We Are Family” video is intended to be a gateway which introduces young children to the organizations which teach this stuff. Do you still think it’s all just harmless fun? Now contrast this with Jesus’ teachings about little children:

“And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

(Matt. 18:5-6, NASB)

Great job, Emily!

(* Files marked with an asterisk have had a <base href> tag added so images and links will work. No other modifications have been made to the HTML code.)

Religion of Peace?

So, Islam is the “religion of peace,” is it? Not!

• “Source: Slayings resembled Islamist executions”
• A Hate Crime In Jersey City Heights—Horrid New Details
• “Christians stalked on Islamic website
• Islamists Tracking Christians Online

Jihad Watch is tracking these stories as well as many others related to Islam’s efforts to take over the world.

And in case you’ve forgotten, now is a good time to review some of Jesus’s instructions from the last supper:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. He who hates Me hates My Father also. If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’

“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness of Me, and you will bear witness also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.

“These things I have spoken to you, that you may be kept from stumbling. They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. And these things they will do, because they have not known the Father, or Me.”

(John 15:18-16:3, NASB)

And He said to them, “When I sent you out without purse and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” And they said, “No, nothing.” And He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one. For I tell you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered with transgressors’;for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.”

(Luke 22:35-37, NASB)

Update: Kim du Toit points to an article about Islamic literature being distributed and adds his two cents in his own inimitable style. That article by Daniel Pipes can be found here. He provides a link to the actual study (a PDF file).

On Love And Knowledge

Bob at Mr. Standfast has written two very interesting and thoughtful posts examining what Paul meant when he wrote:

And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment,

(Phil. 1:9, NASB)

• “Love & Knowledge”
• “More on Love & Knowledge”

Update: Mark at Stones Cry Out also looks at this subject in “Facilitating the Growth of the Evangelical Mind”.

Christianity Today has posted an article titled “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience” which examines polling data on how well evangelical christians compare to the rest of the world. The author, Ronald Sider, writes:

Scandalous behavior is rapidly destroying American Christianity. By their daily activity, most “Christians” regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate allegiance to money, sex, and self-fulfillment.

“American Christianity has largely failed since the middle of the twentieth century,” Barna concludes, “because Jesus’ modern-day disciples do not act like Jesus.” This scandalous behavior mocks Christ, undermines evangelism, and destroys Christian credibility.

You should go read this article Right Now! Don’t worry, I’ll wait for you to return.

The Bible is not just some “spiritual” book offering fire insurance for those who just want to avoid hell. It is the true story of God’s creation of a perfect earth, the entry of sin and death into the world and the lengths He has gone to in order to rescue humanity and restore us to the perfection He intended. He (rightly) demands our love and obedience.

When a Pharisee asked Jesus which commandment was the greatest, Jesus’ reply was very direct:

And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment.”

(Matt. 22:37-38, NASB)

How well are you obeying this “Prime Directive” as well as its natural result?

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.”

(John 14:15, NASB)

People around us are dying, and not just in a physical sense. Many of them would find themselves in eternal torment if they died right now. And many of them might be saved if only we allow our lives to truly reflect Jesus.

Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

(Acts 4:13, NASB)

Are those around you marvelling at the difference in your life because of your relationship with Jesus? Or are they laughing at “just another hypocrite” because we’re too lazy or selfish or self-centered to actually pursue God? If it’s the latter, then we are allowing those people we love to spend eternity in hell because of our complacency.

Look at the people around you. How do you actually see them? Are they just another warm body taking up space? Do you see them as someone who deserves eternal punishment? Or do you see them as God does; someone he has designed with perfection in mind? Someone who, though broken and battered now, was designed to be the very image of God, sharing his attributes of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control? What are you going to do about it? Are you going to let your own sin get in their way?

Now if you will excuse me, I need to go speak to my Lord about a logectomy.

(HT to as kingfishers catch fire for the link.)

In Part 1, I started to respond to a discussion on Romanism vs. Biblical Christianity taking place between Rand of a pattern of sound words and Funky Dung of Ales Rarus.

Continuing on…

Jesus’ Brothers And Sisters

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus did not have half-brothers and half-sisters.
Biblical Christianity - Mary and Joseph had sons and daughters after the birth of Christ (Luke 8:20).

Funky Dung’s response:
The Hebrew and Aramaic words for “brother” and “sister” have broader meaning than most modern languages. There are frequent uses of those words to mean “cousin”, “uncle/aunt”, or even the incredibly vague “relative”. There are frequent uses of the imprecise meanings of those words in the Old Testament. I don’t know them off the top of my head. Perhaps one of my readers can help out. You may ask, though, “Since the New Testament was written in Greek, shouldn’t the Greek forms of those words mean precisely what they say?” It is not uncommon for a speaker/writer of a second language to use idiomatic expressions and/or words meanings from his primary language. There are examples of this phenomenon as well, but I must again appeal to my readers for references.

This strikes me as “reading into the text” a meaning which is desired. There are many passages where the Bible mentions Jesus having brothers and sisters. For example:

While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.

(Matt. 12:46, NASB)

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.

(Mark 6:3, NASB)

After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.

(John 2:12, NASB)

But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

(Gal. 1:19, NASB)

Both accounts of Jesus’ birth also imply that Jesus was not an only child:

and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

(Matt. 1:25, NASB)

I.e., Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born.

And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

(Luke 2:7, NASB)

Note that “first-born” is specified. Such a designation is only meaningful if there is also at least a “second-born”.

And finally, from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

αδελφως (adelphos) (from a copulative and delfus, from the same womb; cf. agastoœr) (from Homer down);

1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matt. 1:2; 4:18, and often. That ‘the brethren of Jesus,’ Matt. 12:46,47 (but WH only in marginal reading); 13:55f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19f; John 2:12; 7:3; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N.T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i.e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot’s Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which adelfos like the Hebrew [it looks like ‘ah] denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Gen. 14:16; 1 Sam. 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chr. 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matt. 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of huion proœtotokon, the expression huion monogeneœ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord’s brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Iakoœbos, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word Brother; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N.T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matt. 13:55.)

Jesus’ Hairstyle

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus was a long-haired, bearded, skinny guy.
Biblical Christianity - Jesus knew that it was shameful for a man to have long hair, so he had short hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).

Funky Dung’s response:
Now this is just silly. First century Jewish culture and 21st century American or European culture bear little resemblance to each other. In Jesus’ time, it was not uncommon for men to wear their hair to their shoulders. That was still considered short because women often had hair to their buttocks or lower. Besides, if you’re going anathematize Roman Catholics for depicting Jesus with “long hair”, etc, then you’re going to have to send a whole lot of Protestants packing with them. Granted, I’m not fond of seeing Jesus looking less like a 1st century Jew from Nazareth and more like a Caucasian hippy, but it’s hardly an issue to be damned over.

Simple question for Rand: Why does this matter? (Remember Samson?)

More to come in Part 3…

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 1
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

Update: Emily E. has located more important information which I had missed. I’ve organized and archived those files in SpongeBob Cache Diving, Redux.

Update: Dr. John Mark Reynolds has posted a truly excellent article on why the lies being spread about Dr. Dobson are harmful to all Christians. That is why they must be opposed. Of course, the best antidote to lies is the truth. Do you know what the truth is?

Dr. James Dobson has posted a lengthy response to the controversy over his statements about the “We Are Family” video. It’s a must read for anyone who cares about the truth.

But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being “gay.” Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group.  In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight.

I want to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation — the organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has since endeavored to hide that fact (more on this later), but my concerns are as legitimate today as they were when I first expressed them in January.

When the controversy first broke out, David Huntwork of Men’s News Daily immediately weighed in with “Bait and Switch: Feminist/Gay Axis Using SpongeBob to Fight ‘Compulsory Hetrosexuality’” where he documented some of the pro-homosexual agenda which has since been removed from the We Are Family Foundation’s web site. He concludes with:

This entire debacle of Leftist psycho babble indoctrination can be viewed at http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org. I encourage you to hold your nose, jump into the deep end of the culture wars and give it a visit. The PC police are on the march this spring and, using cartoon characters as their cover, they are coming to an elementary school near you.

Serge at Imago Dei has also covered Dr. Dobson’s statement, noting:

Alan accused the WAFF website taking down a number of links that promoted a pro-homosexuality agenda (not mere tolerance), and it appears that he was correct.

I can already see the response by those who don’t want to believe Dr. Dobson’s claims about the We Are Family Foundation. They’ll claim that there is no evidence and that Dobson is lying. In fact, mumon, a regular skeptic in the comments section of the evangelical outpost, wrote this in the comments at HobbsOnline:

Dobson’s full of it, and it’s not holiness.

I’ve documented Dobson’s lies elsewhere, and the letter you’ve quoted above is another instance of Dobson’s patholical dishonesty: notice that not a single media outlet was quoted!

Moreover, note that specific charges that had been levelled against him go unrefuted!

The bottom line charges laid down by Dr. Dobson is that the We Are Family Foundation is promoting (among other things) a pro-homosexual agenda. Furthermore, there IS proof.

Let’s start with pages which are still available on the WAFF web site. The first is an article about Miss America 2004. (If the article disappears, I have cached a copy of the article here*.) The article is much more about “diversity” and “tolerance” than it is about Ericka Dunlap. As Dr. Dobson points out:

I’m sure you can see, now, why I expressed great concern about the intention of the We Are Family Foundation in using SpongeBob and company to promote the theme of “tolerance and diversity,” which are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy.

The words “sexual identity” in that last sentence hold the key to understanding what is going on here. They reveal a very clever and subtle intent lying below the water line. The stated purpose, as we have seen, is to teach children to respect each other and to accept those who are different. We are entirely supportive of that message. I have been teaching it for years. There appears to be another agenda operating here, however, that has serious implications for your kids. Quite simply, it is to desensitize very young children to homosexual and bisexual behavior.

In another page, titled “101 Ways To Combat Prejudice” (Cached here*) they list recommended actions, including this suggestion:

Meet with school and community librarians and local bookstores to discuss ways to highlight literature that is representative of all cultures and sexual orientations.

Okay, so “diversity” and “tolerance” can be taken many ways. That doesn’t actually prove that WAFF is changing their web site to hide from Dr. Dobson’s charges. Where’s the beef?

One of the truly interesting aspects of the internet is that if you put up a web page, the odds are that it will wind up stored on a hard drive somewhere and it can still be accessed even if that page is later changed or even removed entirely from the original web site. Two prime tools for such “cache diving” are The Wayback Machine and Google. So I decided to make use of these tools and see if they proved Dr. Dobson’s charges.

Here is Dr. Dobson’s discussion of one of those changes:

During my remarks in Washington, I shared my suspicion about children being coerced into signing this “Tolerance Pledge.” My critics quickly sought to marginalize my warning. Nile Rodgers exasperatingly explained to “FOX News’” Bill O’Reilly that, “Even on our Web site, we don’t ask people to sign the pledge.” Oh really? Prior to my speech, the pledge, as it appeared on the foundation’s Web site, concluded with the following paragraph:

“To fulfill my pledge, I __________________ will examine my own biases and work to overcome them, set a positive example for my family and friends, work for tolerance in my own community, speak out against hate and injustice. We share a world. For all our differences, we share one world. To be tolerant is to welcome the differences and delight in the sharing.”

Once the individual filled in his or her name, there was a “submit” button to the right of the pledge that would, ostensibly, officially record that “pledge” commitment. This portion of the pledge has also disappeared from the Web site.

The Wayback Machine shows that Dr. Dobson’s charge is, in fact, true and that Nile Rodgers of WAFF was lying. You can see their cached copy of this page here. (Just in case, you can find my cached copy here.)

One of WAFF‘s programs which has since been removed from their web site is a course titled “Writing For Change.” They state its purpose like this:

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we recognize the unique and paradoxical role of language in our lives. We use this powerful tool to shape our thoughts and experiences, yet patterns and structures in the language itself can shape us in return. In the words of one activist, “Our words create our world.”

If language creates reality, we decided our best hope of shaping the reality we would like to see is to examine the negative and harmful underpinnings of this powerful but often invisible tool, and refocus them to begin creating a language of equality and inclusion.

In other words, to focus is to change how children think by affecting how they use language. Of course, you will no longer see the page which includes this statement on their web site. It has been removed along with the rest of the pages pertaining to Writing For Change because an examination of the materials supports Dr. Dobson’s charge that WAFF is pushing a pro-homosexuality agenda.

So, you might ask, if those pages have been removed, how did I find them? Google also caches web pages for some period of time. By searching their cache, I was able to find a number of pages giving an overview of WFC. (The details are apparently in PDF files which Google does not cache.) Four of those pages expose the fact that WFC is intended to change how children think and that the lie that all ideas — including sexual practices — are equally acceptable. As with the other pages I’ve discussed, I’ve archived copies on my site.

(Note: These pages are copies of the page displayed by Google from their cache. The only change to these pages is renaming the files to treat them as HTML files. Google provided the URL to their cache in the header of the page, so you can compare my copies with Google’s cached version for as long as they last.)

Introduction (Google’s cached copy) This page was captured by Google on January 8, 2005.

Using This Guide (Google’s cached copy) This page was captured by Google on January 9, 2005.

Section 1 (Google’s cached copy) Notice the multiple activities discussing sexual orientation. This page was captured by Google on Januay 23, 2005.

Resources (Google’s cached copy) For a “writing course” WFC sure uses a lot of pro-homosexual books! This page was captured by Google on January 8, 2005.

So who is really lying here? Dr. James Dobson when he says that WAFF is pusing a pro-homosexual agenda? Or is it the We Are Family Foundation when they say they are not? The evidence says that Dr. Dobson is telling the truth and that WAFF is lying through their teeth.

(If you haven’t already, be sure to check out my previous post about the logical fallacies being used to attack Dr. Dobson.)

(* Files marked with an asterisk have had a <base href> tag added so images and links will work. No other modifications have been made to the HTML code.)

Iraqi Election Photo Essay

Brain Shavings has posted a fascinating photo essay of the Iraqi election. To add a unique twist of irony, he has interspersed quotes from those opposed to our goals in Iraq. Very cool…

The Argument From Evil

Joshua at RazorsKiss has posted an excellent response to an atheist’s claim that the existence of evil proves that God doesn’t exist.

Last week I posted an entry for the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project which covered all of Luke chapter 15. As part of his parable, Jesus used the story of the lost sheep. It was apparently a favorite story because Jesus also uses it in Matthew 18:

“What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? And if it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. Thus it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.”

(Matt. 18:12-14, NASB)

As with his use of this analogy in Luke 15:4-7, Jesus is making use of a fortiori reasoning. Unlike Luke 15, Jesus is not responding to hostile complaints from the religious leaders. This time, he is using it teach his disciples about the value of little children.

His disciples had come to him with one thing on their minds; how to become big shots in heaven. Jesus responds by having a small child stand with them while he explains that they need to become as humble as little children to even enter heaven. He then gives two explanations of how valuable little children are to God. The second is the story of the lost sheep.

The reasoning is simple. Men of New Testament times had a highly developed understanding of how important sheep were to them. (See the article on Luke 15 for more details.) By contrasting the value of a sheep with a little child — certainly more valuable than any sheep — Jesus was able to make it clear where God’s priorities lay.

This entry has been posted to the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project.

Last Wednesday, Rand of a pattern of sound words wrote a post comparing Romanism (normally known as Roman Catholocism) to Biblical Christianity. Funky Dung of Ales Rarus was (understandably) offended by Rand’s characterization of Romanism as “a wicked false religion.” So he weighed in with his response, saying several things which demand a reply.

Mary‘s Status

Rand wrote:
Romanism - Jesus was born of a sinless, perfect mother, who is declared the ‘Queen of Heaven’.

Biblical Christinity - Jesus was born of a kind, godly woman, but still a sinner by birth and choice (Luke 1:26-38).

Funky Dung’s response:
The best explanation I have ever heard for Mary’s sinless conception was from a Rabbi. The Ark of the Covenant was the seat of God on earth. It could only be safely approached and touched by ritually clean priests at certain times of the year. Mary was the ark of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:26-28). Her preservation from Original Sin, as well as actual sin, does not, as some suggest, imply that she did not need Christ’s saving grace, made possible by the cross. God is not bound by time. He created it. Thus, Mary received at her conception the saving grace of Christ’s sacrifice.

The idea that Mary had to be sinless in order to carry Jesus is an idea I had never really considered before. So it seems to me that the question is, “Did Mary have to be sinless in order to carry Jesus?”

To be honest, after considering it, I don’t see that it was a problem that Mary was imperfect. First of all, I don’t know of any verses which say that Mary had to be sinless. More importantly, if you compare the Old Testament to the New Testament, you will see a marked difference in how God interacts with humanity.

In the Old Testament, God always acted through an intermediary. Of all the Old Testament prophets, Moses was the closest to God, and even he — though he was in God’s presence several times — never actually saw God’s face.

But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

(Ex. 33:20-23, NASB)

Interaction with God was marked by infrequent contact and separation. The Levites were designated as intermediaries, engaging in rituals to make themselves as clean as possible and presenting offerings on behalf of the general populace. Only the Head Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that was only once a year. There were strict rules about contact with “unclean” objects and people.

In contrast, the ministry of Jesus is marked by his intimate contact with people. He hung out with the dregs of the earth.

“And it came about that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax-gatherers and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax-gatherers, they began saying to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax-gatherers and sinners?” And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

(Mark 2:15-17, NASB)

He spent significant amounts of time in crowds, teaching and healing the sick and “unclean.” He wasn’t afraid to touch lepers. Contact with such people did not make Jesus “unclean,” on the contrary, Jesus’ “super clean” nature made the “unclean” clean.

During Jesus’ time on earth, He was destroying the separation between God and man.

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, Show us the Father?”

(John 14:6-9, NASB)

At this point, Jesus was telling His disciples that they were face to face with God. They were intimates with God in a way that Moses never was. Yet the formal separation between God and man was still in place.

God marked the formal end of this separation in an extremely vivid manner:

And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

(Mark 15:37-38, NASB)

Is it unreasonable to think that if God/Jesus was in intimate contact with “sinners” before the formal end of that separation then there would be no problem with intimate contact with Mary in spite of her own sins?

If anything, the Bible implies that it was necessary for Mary to be a sinner. Consider this passage in Galations:

But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

(Gal. 4:4-5, NASB)

The entire passage containing these verses is instructive. In Galations 3-4, Paul is explaining how all men were cursed and living under the law, leading to sin and death, and how Christ rescued us from that curse. Notice that these two verses simply state that Christ had to be born “under the Law” as a prerequisite for Him to be able to redeem us. Romans 5:12-21 also strongly contrasts “under the law” against “under grace”.

Make sure you take time to study Galations 3-4 and Romans 5:12-21. I will be returning to them in part three.

See also:

• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 2
• Romanism and Ales Rarus, Part 3
• Romanism, Ales Rarus and Mary: A Reply
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 1
• Romanism, Mary and The Catechism, Part 2

The results from the third Vox Apologia have been posted. This time around the topic was “Euthenasia”. You can find links to the entries over at Revenge of Mr Dumpling.

Welcome to the new website design for The Greatest Pursuits. I hope you find it easier on the eyes than the old design.

Please let me know what you think of it by leaving a comment or sending me an email. (My name at the top of the sidebar is now an active link which can take you to your email application and open a new, preaddressed message.)

If you’re having problems with this design, you’re probably using Internet Explorer.    Just (mostly) kidding. If you are having problems, please let me know what the problem is and what browser you’re using; including the version number. I’ll do my best to fix it.

If you are using Internet Explorer I highly recommend that you try something else. Even the current version of IE contains significant security holes, doesn’t support current web standards worth a darn, and is buggy in what it does support. This site — and many others like it — was designed using current web standards which IE doesn’t support. Those using web browsers which do support current standards will see some small improvements which are not visible in IE.

If you are using an older web browser other than IE, you may find it worth your while to upgrade to the latest version. Newer versions tend to be faster, more stable and support more features than older versions.

Once again, welcome to my new weblog design. I hope you like it!

You may have noticed that I haven’t posted anything for the last two days. The reason is quite simple. I’ve been almost done with a new site design and I’ve been putting (more than) my available time into fixing that “one last thing” for the last two days. What is it that they say about development projects? The first 80% of the project takes 80% of the estimated time, and the last 20% takes the another 80% of the estimated time. Well I’ve been in that last 20% for a while now.

There is one thing I’ve learned from all this. Internet Explorer is complete garbage. Even the latest versions don’t fully support web standards such as CSS and they’re buggy about what they do support.

If you‘re using Internet Explorer, do everyone a favor and get a different web browser. Anything other than IE is an improvement. Not only will web designers everywhere thank you, you will also substantially improve the security of your machine. Firefox is currently a favorite on most platforms. Mac users also have even more choices than Windows users, with Safari and OmniWeb (my personal choice) in addition to Firefox.

Posting will resume Real Soon Now.

Vox Apologia II: Digital Salt

RazorsKiss has posted the results of the second Vox Apologia on the subject of “Digital Salt”. I was going to post a list of personal favorites, but they’re all so good that I couldn’t decide on just a few. Just go read them all.

Top Ten Reasons to Read Christian History

The archives of Christianity Today contain this excellent article on why it is critical for everyone to understand not just history, but also the Christian aspects of history.

Senator Rick Santorum on Evolution

Pennsylvania’s junior Senator, Rick Santorum, has written a very interesting article on the teaching of evolution in schools.

Charles Darwin wrote about his theory of evolution at a time when evidence was weak. In recent years, evidence of the complex circuits, miniature machines, sophisticated feedback loops, and digital information inside the cell has enabled scientists to poke holes in the principle evidence used to support evolution and therefore, more and more respected biologists are entering the debate as to the plausibility of evolution.

For these reasons, Darwin’s theory of evolution should not be taught as absolute fact in the science classroom. Instead, it should be taught as the leading and dominant scientific theory explaining the origin of species, but also as a theory subject to significant limitations, failed predictions and important criticisms.

(HT to The Black Kettle for the reference.)

More on Specter’s Schenanigans

According to this article, Senator Rick Santorum is now facing some fallout due to his support of Senator Spector instead of Representative Toomey in the Pennsylvania primaries. Now that Specter is once again showing his true (liberal) colors, conservatives are dissatisfied with Santorum’s support for a man who already had history of undermining conservative agendas and pushing liberal and statist agendas.

Personally, I’m not ready to throw Santorum out on his ear just over one mistake, even a whopper as big as this one. As long as he toes the line, he will still be better than any other candidates we are likely to see.

(HT to Hard Starbord for the link.)

It has been truly fascinating to watch the recent controversy over James Dobson’s complaints about the video being put out by the We Are Family Foundation. What makes it even more fascinating is that I’m currently working through a book with my kids on identifying logical fallacies called “The Fallacy Detective”. The counterattack against Dr. Dobson’s concerns has been impressively effective even though it’s based on two simple fallacies.

First, a straw man fallacy is set up to change Dr. Dobson’s concerns from “I’m concerned that they are pushing a pro-homosexual agenda” to “Dobson hates SpongeBob.” (Notice that they are not the same statement.) Then that straw man is being used as a red herring to drag the discussion away from the core issue, which is, “Is it really appropriate to be teaching six year olds that all kinds of behavior is acceptable?”

Serge at Imago Dei has an excellent take on why the video is so dangerous. He also has an excellent followup here where he posts an alternate “Tolerance Pledge” which is biblical:

Tolerance is a personal decision to value every individual based on the fact that every human being is made in the image of God (Imago Dei). I believe that our value does not come from our abilities, beliefs, cultures, race, or behaviors. Although some human beings may choose to behave in ways that are against their moral nature and divine design, I believe we should show them love and sensitively share with them the truth while respecting their value as human beings. 

Since marriage between a man and a woman fulfills God’s design and provides the best environment for human flourishing, I pledge for myself and to encourage others to restrict sexual activity to within the bounds of a covenant marriage. Not only will I tolerate others with a different point of view, I pledge to engage them in dialogue in order to respectfully speak the truth to them in love.

Go, Serge, Go!

Alan Levering added a comment pointing to this web page which discusses the pro-homosexual agenda of the We Are Family Foundation and their removal of content from their website in an attempt to cover up that agenda.

I will definitely have more to say on this subject in the future. Stay tuned…

The central tenant of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, He was crucified on a cross and rose again on the third day. In other words, it’s an actual historical event. As Paul said:

if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

(1Cor. 15:14-19, NASB)

If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an actual historical event, then the entire belief system of Christianity is a sham. This key fact is primary reason why the historical accuracy of the Bible is constantly attacked by skeptics.

Among the various pieces of historical narrative in the Bible is the story of King David, kingdom Israel at its peak and their conflict with Edom. Skeptics have claimed that Edom didn’t exist until 200 years after David lived and that Kind David himself was nothing more than a tribal chieftan.

Archeologists have confirmed that the Bible is actually historically accurate on this point. “Archeologist unearths biblical controversy”

Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton’s McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East — unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible’s vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.

Their findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.

Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament’s narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.

This last sentence is misleading because it implies that this is the first time any of the Bible’s historical narrative has been proven true, which is far from the case. I cannot run down a list of every detail which has been proven true because, quite frankly, I don’t know them all and at the moment I’m out of time to track down references.

One detail that I remember is that one of the nations mentioned in the Bible — I’m pretty sure it was the Hittites — was widely considered to be a “myth of the Bible” because there wasn’t any evidence that they had ever existed; that is, until sometime in the early to mid 1900’s when archeologists discovered proof that they actually did exist.

The existence of one of the rulers involved in Jesus’ crucifixion — I think it was Pontius Pilate — was also considered to be a myth, until a coin with his image on it was found.

The Bible is much more than a book of mere religious platitudes and “spiritual” beliefs. It is also a book describing actual historical events, and as such, the accuracy of its claims can be verified. For more on this subject, look here, here, here, and here.

(HT to The Black Kettle for the link to the main article.)

One of the most divisive issues in politics today is the question of whether or not we were justified in going to war against Iraq. Opinions on the subject range from “we should go to war anytime another country even looks at us crosseyed” to “there is never a good reason to fight a war.” Both extremes are unbiblical. Consider what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes:

There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven —

A time to give birth, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to uproot what is planted.
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to tear down, and a time to build up.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to throw stones, and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace, and a time to shun embracing.
A time to search, and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away.
A time to tear apart, and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent, and a time to speak.
A time to love, and a time to hate;
A time for war, and a time for peace.

(Eccl. 3:1-8, NASB)

So how do we identify when it is an appropriate time for peace and when war is call for? Jon Trainer at personal trainer has written an excellent article on the subject of Just War Theory.

Just War Theory (JWT) is a moderating position between these two extremes.  As a doctrine of war it has been developed over hundreds of years. Great Christian thinkers like Ambrose, Augustine, and Aquinas have influenced its formation. The purpose of JWT is to judge the appropriateness of going to war (just ad bellum), and to govern the conduct of forces in war (just in bellum). The first five of the following seven principles define the criteria for going to war, while the last two limit how such a war should be fought.

Michelle Malkin notes an article discussing prom dresses which look like they were designed for porn stars. Dory of Wittenberg Gate has an excellent biblical take on the story.

Modesty is that quality which flows from a humble, reverent, and chaste mind and heart, and manifests itself in speech, behavior, and dress that communicates a moderate estimation of one’s own worth and importance, and a high estimation of the beauty of purity in Christian marriage.

Lest we become too prudish about modesty, let us remember that women are told to adorn themselves with modesty, but they are not told not to adorn themselves. (1 Tim 2:9) Even the Proverbs 31 wife is described as being adorned in purple and scarlet. As in many things, we must walk that line between legalism or pietism on the one hand and licentiousness on the other. I think the best way to do that in regards to modesty is to ask the question, “What am I communicating?” and if we are to err, err on the side of caution.

From LinuxInsider comes this story about a man who tried to help his friend lower his Windows induced stress levels by pointing out viable alternatives.

And do you know what my efforts have gotten me so far? Right: I’m no longer his friend. Apparently I have an agenda here; some diabolical personal reason for wanting to him to buy a Mac. And it’s true, I do have a reason: He’d be a lot happier and more productive using a Mac because it would let him focus on the things he’s good at—an impressive list that doesn’t include Windows administration.

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to get there from where he is. Instead, I’m going to hear, someday soon, that the stress killed him, either directly or in traffic. That’s a bitter lesson, but one we all need to learn: Sometimes rationality and goodwill just aren’t enough, and you have to walk away because you can’t talk to the willfully deaf.

That situation sounds strangely familiar. Unfortunately, that is how some people respond to the good news of the cross. Paul lays out an appropriate response in 2nd Timothy, Chapter 3. This is only a small part of that excellent chapter on perseverance in the face of those who reject the truth:

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

(2 Tim. 3:14-15, NASB)

Be sure to read the entire chapter of 2nd Timothy 3.

The Smallest Minority is following a story about a school in Newton, Massachussetts which has been experiencing a precipitous decline in math scores in standardized testing since 2001. The school administrators claim to be mystified about why this is happening. He refers to this article which points out:

Between 1999 and 2001, under the direction of Superintendent Young and Assistant Superintendent Wyatt, the math curriculum was redesigned to emphasize “Newton’s commitment to active anti-racist education” for the elementary and middle schools. This meant that no longer were division, multiplication, fractions and decimals the first priority for teaching math. For that matter, the teaching of math was no longer the first priority for math teachers, as indicated by the new curriculum guidelines, called benchmarks, which function as the primary instructional guide for teaching math in the Newton Public Schools.

In 2001 Mr. Young, Mrs. Wyatt and an assortment of other well-paid school administrators, defined the new number-one priority for teaching mathematics, as documented in the curriculum benchmarks, “Respect for Human Differences - students will live out the system wide core of ‘Respect for Human Differences’ by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors.” It continues, “Students will: Consistently analyze their experiences and the curriculum for bias and discrimination; Take effective anti-bias action when bias or discrimination is identified; Work with people of different backgrounds and tell how the experience affected them; Demonstrate how their membership in different groups has advantages and disadvantages that affect how they see the world and the way they are perceived by others…” It goes on and on.

These are the most important priorities that the school department has determined for teaching math from grade one through eight, as documented in the Newton Public Schools Benchmarks.

Nowhere among the first priorities for the math curriculum guidelines is the actual teaching of math. That’s a distant second. To Superintendent Young and his School Committee, mathematical problem-solving is of secondary importance to anti-racist/anti-bias math.

If teaching mathematics is not the purpose of a mathematics class, then it should be blindingly obvious that the students won’t be learning mathematics! Apparently, the administrators have been closing their eyes to truth and logic — both of which were created by God — for so long that they have become blind to even the most basic of truths. The first chapter of Romans describes what happens when people reject God, especially in these two sections:

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”

(Rom. 1:21-22, NASB)

For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,

(Rom. 1:25a, NASB)

The subtitle of the article on The Smallest Minority is, “May I Beat Them With a ClueBat™?” As Spock would say, “Indeed.”

It’s late at night. The silent snow has been falling all day, blanketing the world in a thick blanket of glistening white snow. Before sleep arrives to end the day, the deep rumble of a snow plow’s engine breaks the silence. As it approaches, the deep scraping sound of the plow blade against the road and the rattle of chains adds to the cacophany heard as the snow is being cleared from the road. As the plow finally passes the window, one more noise is produced which cannot quite be heard over the rumble, scraping and rattles: the sound of cinders and salt being spread to ensure traction in spite of the remaining snow and ice.

When I saw that “Digital Salt” was the topic of Vox Apologia II my first thought was, “Oh boy! What the heck am I gonna do about that?” Should I joke about using a scanner, or better yet, a transporter to send salt through the internet? Should I discuss all the uses for salt? Its place in history? Its place in our language? Its chemical makeup? Those are all (mostly) good ideas, but I think I’ll leave them to someone else who will probably handle them with more aplomb than I.

In John 8:32 Jesus said, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” If knowing the truth sets a person free, then those who do not know the truth are not free. They’re in bondage. So how can Christians help others know the truth so that they can also be free?

The key to knowing what is true and what is false is quite simply the ability to distinguish one from the other — otherwise known as judgement. The key skill for reaching sound judgements is critical thinking, i.e., the ability to evaluate evidence and use reason to reach an appropriate conclusion.

Several days ago, I stated that postmodernism is the snow and ice of critical thinking. Postmodernism is the idea that there is no absolute truth. What a person believes is considered to be more important than what the facts are, therefore any evidence which contradicts a belief is discarded as “tainted,” “biased” or otherwise unreliable.

A car’s tires need to have contact with the road in order to push the car towards its destination. When there is snow and ice on the road, it becomes extremely difficult for a car to go from point A to point B. Just getting the car moving can be difficult. Stopping at appropriate points can be very difficult. And unless real care is taken, the car can slide into a ditch or worse.

Facts are the solid objects we need to have contact with in order to propel our thinking towards truth. If a fact is disregarded, a person’s thoughts can go sliding in the wrong direction, or may not begin moving at all. It’s also possible for a person to reach the correct conclusion, but without facts, that conclusion is based more on chance than reason, and they may find themselves sliding past the correct stopping point.

One of the properties of salt is its ability to lower the freezing point of water, thus allowing ice to melt. That property is why snow plows spread salt after they pass. By melting the remaining ice and snow, the salt allows the car tires to make contact with the road surface, gain traction, and accurately propel the car to its intended destination. If temperatures are too cold though, the salt has no more effect than simple stones.

As the “salt of the earth,” I believe Christians are given the ability to melt away the snow and ice coming between those who are lost or in bondage and the truth which can free them; but only up to a point. If we take the analogy of the snow plow further, we could say that God is the snow plow. He has to first plow the road, then put us where we can be effective. (Putting salt on an unplowed road is ineffective due to salt’s limits in how much frozen water it can effect.) And in some cases, we will encounter people who are too cold for the salt to cause any melting.

I think I’ve effectively beaten this particular salt analogy to death. Yet I haven’t even looked at the digital part of the topic yet. When I took a look at the passage where Jesus calls Christians salt, I was fascinated by the context:

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”

(Matt. 5:11-16, NIV)

It’s interesting that those Jesus calls “the salt of the earth” are facing opposition and persecution for following Christ. That is certainly happening on the internet. This seems like a thought worth exploring; perhaps some other time.

Jesus is still speaking to the same group of people as He continues on to call them “the light of the world.” The conclusion is that those who are “salty” are also to be working to spread the light of God’s love and truth as far as they can. Jesus doesn’t mention the means for spreading the light, merely that it should be broadcast far and wide.

The recent presidential election showed that the internet has become a powerful method of spreading the truth. (It’s also just as powerful at spreading deception.) Large numbers of low profile individuals with specific and varied skills are able to work together to determine the truth of a matter by examining evidence and applying critical thinking.

If we are to carry out our function as “the salt of the earth” and “light of the world,” it is necessary to make use of all the means of communication at our disposal. The Internet is only the most recent such tool. Fortunately, it can be highly effective, allowing the ability to delve into the details of facts and evidence necessary to identify the truth. This ability to dig into any topic far beyond any other communications medium is what accounts for its growing influence and popularity in today’s society.

What will people find as they look to the internet for information to base their lives on? More of the same godless worldview dominating today’s society? Certainly. If they are truly searching for the truth, they must also be able to find it online. As more and more people turn to the internet as their means of obtaining news and information we must become the salt and light of the digital world as well as the physical world, just as Jesus commands.

(Note: There is one missing idea from this essay. That is an exploration of how we can actually cause postmodernistic thinking to melt away. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please add them to the comments about this article.)

In chapter 15, Luke records Jesus’ answer to complaints about the kind of people he was spending time with:

Now all the tax-gatherers and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” And He told them this parable, saying, “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture, and go after the one which is lost, until he finds it?”

(Luke 15:1-4, NASB)

“Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?”

(Luke 15:8, NASB)

And He said, “A certain man had two sons; and the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ And he divided his wealth between them. “And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living.”

(Luke 15:11-13, NASB)

As this chapter opens, Jesus has been teaching a large crowd. The Pharisees notice that a bunch of unsavory characters have gotten close to Jesus so they can hear him better. It was common practice in those days for the “scum of the earth” to be shunned. No one reputable was to have anything to do with them, let alone eat with them. The Pharisees were the most “reputable” group of their day; kind of like Congressmen and Senators today.

So they begin to complain. “Look at him! He hangs out with prostitutes, IRS agents, homosexuals, child molesters, terrorist and even spammers! He even goes out to dinner with them! No reputable person would be caught dead even being seen with such reprobates, yet he encourages them! He must be scum too.” Okay, so it wasn’t those exact words or categories, but that’s the modern equivalent of their complaints. Their complaints were basically true. He did spend time with such people. Only their conclusion was wrong.

Jesus responds with a three part parable. Part 1 is the lost sheep. Part 2 is the woman with the lost coin. Part 3 is the story of the prodigal son. All three parts are an example of a fortiori reasoning.

In parts 1 and 2, Jesus begins by asking a question; an example of anthypophora reasoning. In each case, he is asking his listeners what they would do if they lost something which they considered valuable.

First he asked the men what they would do if they discovered that 1 of their 100 sheep was missing. To a shepherd of that time sheep were his livelihood. Without them, he would starve. Shepherds would also commonly watch sheep owned by other families in the region. He pointed out that any shepherd who was missing a sheep would leave the 99 who were safely penned up for the night. They would go out to the open pasture which was very dangerous at night due to wild animals, robbers and hazards such as cliffs and holes which were very difficult to see in the dark. In short, any shepherd would risk his life to find a missing sheep because only a fool would casually dismiss a missing sheep.

Then he asked the women about losing a silver coin. There were two basic reasons why losing such a coin would be disastrous to a woman.

First, a silver coin was the equivalent of one or two days’ wages. Imagine how hard you would search if you misplaced the cash equivalent of two days’ wages!

The second level of value to a woman is that in those days, a woman wasn’t given a ring when they married. Her husband would give her a string of 10 silver coins which she would wear in her hair. Losing one of those coins would be the equivalent of misplacing her wedding ring. Furthermore, it was the custom in those days for a man to temporarily take one or more of those coins from his wife if she displeased him — subject only to the husband’s discretion. (Burning a piece of toast was sufficient cause for some husbands to remove a woman’s marriage coin.) So losing a coin could subject a woman to ridicule and gossip from other women.

As in the first part, the woman in Jesus’s story also goes to a great deal of trouble and expense to find the coin. Houses of the time usually had dirt floors, making such a search very difficult. Furthermore, the oil used for lamps was very expensive, so the lamps would only be lit in an emergency.

Jesus then continues on to tell the story of the prodigal son. The father in this story has two sons. One son demands his inheritance, then wastes it all and puts his life into the toilet. After he realizes how stupid he has been, he returns to his father who promptly throws a huge party. When the faithful son complains, the father replies with:

“And he said to him, ‘My child, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

(Luke 15:31-32, NASB)

The clear a fortiori logic for these three parts is that if a person will make extreme efforts for a lesser item like a sheep or a coin, then lost people certainly deserve extreme efforts to rescue them — including spending extravagant amounts of time with them rather than sending them away. Meanwhile, those who are not lost do not need such efforts.

This entry has been posted to the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project.

I find the art of making movies fascinating. I’m one of those weird people who likes to watch the special features on how a movie was made; sometimes before I actually watch the movie itself! There are many different styles, skills and techniques involved. One of the most difficult types of movie to make well is hand drawn animation.

The animators of those movies spend hours and hours drawing characters one frame at a time. (One second of film requires 24 frames.)

The animators face many challenges in making the character “work” correctly. They’re drawing a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional character. Each frame must relate correctly to the previous frame to create the illusion of smooth motion. Mouth movements must match the timing of the actor’s pre-recorded voices. Facial expressions must match the character’s emotions. Body movements must appear relatively natural. Even character designs must bear some similarity to real life creatures they are supposed to represent.

When animation is done well, the viewing experience is almost magical for the audience, transporting them into the world of the story. But if done poorly, the animation can become a distraction from the story and can ruin the viewing experience.

Animators have developed a wide variety of techniques over the years to aid them in their quest for high quality animation. They look at and draw people of all shapes and sizes. If they’re drawing animals, they visit a zoo or some other place where they can actually see the animals and how they move. They video tape those animals and people. When a character is designed, the designers create a three dimensional model — called a maquette — of the character. It is common for actors to be video taped as they record their lines. When figuring out how a character’s body needs to move, animators often shoot video of themselves acting out the part.

At the animator’s desk, you will usually see the maquette sitting in a prominent location. You will also see a mirror which the animator uses to check his own expressions. As the animator is drawing you will see them flipping back and forth between the frame they’re drawing and the previous couple of frames; sometimes as often as two or three times for each frame.

All of these techniques share one thing in common. They are all references the animators look at extensively to make sure their drawings look right. They study those reference materials constantly, checking them if there is even the slightest question of how something should look. Though I don’t know for sure, when you consider the hours spent studying character designs, video tape, and test sketches it appears that animators actually spend significantly more time checking their references than actually drawing.

This was the image that came to mind after considering 2 Corinthians 3:18:

But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

(2Cor. 3:18, NASB)

The concept of the passage of scripture preceding this verse is that before we turn to the Lord, we unable to understand Him. But thanks to the sacrifice of Christ, that veil of misunderstanding is removed when we turn to Him. As Christians, we can now see and understand His character.

Just as those animators need to constantly refer back to their reference materials, we also have the opportunity and need to refer back to the ultimate in reference materials: God‘s image in the mirror of scripture. I wonder what this world would be like if those of us with “unveiled faces” spent as much time looking at the image of God as animators spend looking at their references.

German Attack On Homeschoolers Continues

Officials in Germany have been attempting to destroy the homeschooling movement, going so far as jailing parents and threatening to take their children away. “Germany continues targeting homeschoolers: Group of Baptist families face possible loss of children to state”

The ‘Philly 5’ Get a Win

Things seem to be looking up for the ‘Philly 5’. A judge hearing the case of the 4 adults arrested in Philadelphia for speaking out in favor of God’s laws at a pro-homosexual rally has lifted a bail restriction. Furthermore…

Besides ruling on the bail restriction, Dembe viewed the videotape of the OutFest protest and said she could not see any criminal activity being committed.

More here: “’Philly 5’ win 1 in court: Judge lifts bail restriction on Christians who protested homosexual event”

Why Practice Apologetics

Tim Challies has written yet another excellent article. This time he addresses good and bad reasons to engage in apologetics and debates. (No, my name is not Fan Boy.) There is another good reason to engage in apologetics which is not mentioned by Tim and James White: Taking the time to find answers to questions about christianity leads to personal growth. As Solomon said:

Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. She is more precious than rubies; nothing you desire can compare with her. Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed.

(Prov. 3:13-18, NIV)

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge; the ears of the wise seek it out.

(Prov. 18:15, NIV)

Lawyer Irony

Two founders of a group named American for Legal Reform were standing in line outside a courthouse. While they were waiting, they were amusing themselves by telling lawyer jokes. A particularly thin-skinned lawyer in the line had them arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, thus proving why lawyer jokes are so popular. Details here and here.

During the primaries in Pennsylvania, I posted a plea in this thread begging conservatives to ignore party politics and vote for Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter:

This particular race is producing incredibly strange results. Somehow Specter has managed to gain endorsements from every “official” Republican representative, in spite of the fact that he frequently votes against the interests of those very representatives. For example:

Specter is solidly pro-abortion. Yet the former county commissioner of Lancaster County, Jim Huber, recorded a radio spot supporting Specter; in spite of the fact that he sits on the board of a local pro-life organization.

It has been mentioned over and over again on this board that Supreme Court justices will be the big battleground over the next several years. If Specter is reelected, he will become the chairman of the Justice committee in charge of deciding who the Senate will even get to vote on. Since Specter lead the opposition against Robert Bork and voted in favor of Bill Clinton during his impeachment, it seems likely that Specter will oppose any Constitutionally sound judges who may be nominated by Bush; yet Bush is endorsing him anyway.

Yesterday I talked with a friend with close ties to a representative in Harrisburg. The representative’s opinion is that Rick Santorum would prefer to endorse Pat Toomey (Pat would almost certainly agree with Rick Santorum on almost every vote.) but that there is some reason why he is forced to endorse Specter.

This whole issue appears to be party politics of the worst sort. The man who is at best lukewarm to the positions espoused by the party—and is often an obstacle to those positions—is being supported wholeheartedly by that party for no apparent reason beyond the fact that he’s the incumbent and that he has power. Meanwhile, his opponent is also an incumbent, just in a different house of Congress, he has consistently held the party line, yet he is being given the cold shoulder by the same party he wholeheartedly supports.

Here’s a few things Specter has done:

- He voted against adding an AWB renewal to the Protection of Commerce Act; a good thing.

- He voted for the original AWB; a very bad (and illegal) thing.

- He was a member of the Warren Commission which investigated the JFK assassination and gave us the laughable “Magic Bullet” theory.

- He voted for the so called “Incumbent Protection Act.”

- Citizens Against Government Waste has named Specter Porker of the Year for 2003.

If you support our Constition at all—including the 2nd Amendment—and can vote in the Republican primary, please go out and vote for Pat Toomey. Our Constitutional Republic cannot survive many more years of men like Arlan Specter.

After Specter narrowly squeaked out a win in the primary due to those endorsements, I posted this message:

This is what you get when you vote for the guy who “can” win, not the guy who should win. We now have no chance of getting someone in the Senate who will confirm judges who obey the Constitution.

If Republican leaders had actually endorsed the candidate who most closely matched the party’s platforms instead of basing their endorsements on the cult of personality or seniority or power or whatever the heck it was, the most likely outcome would have been a complete landslide in favor of constitutional principles. Today our country has taken another major injury because Republican leaders put politics before principles. I am completely disgusted.

The general principle is that placing party politics above principles always produces damage. In his Farewell Address, George Washington wrote:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

“However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

As brilliant as he was, Washington’s writing style was incredibly dense. If you didn’t understand what he wrote the first time, go back and keep reading it until it makes sense.

And for those who don’t have that much patience, here’s an executive summary: “Party politics are incredibly dangerous because they place control of who can be elected into the hands of a few men who are leading the parties, undermining the ability of The People to vote for the best person for the job.”

(Note: These last two paragraphs and the quote from George Washington were originally posted here. Warning, that commentary thread contains vulgarity.)

To add to the executive summary; Washington points out that putting men into power in such a corrupt fasion inevitably leads to the destruction of the system of government which allows it to happen.

I really hate to say this, but I was right. (I would really have preferred to be proven wrong.)

First Ever “Warnie” Awards Winner Announced

Adrian Warnock has posted the winner of his first ever “Warnie” blogger awards for blogs he feels are worthy of special honor. The singular honor of being the first ever winner goes to Dr. John Mark Reynolds. Congratulations to Dr. Reynolds. And more fine reading for the rest of us.

Rolling Stone Spurns Zondervan

USA Today is reporting that Rolling Stone rejected an ad from Zondervan just before it was supposed to run. According to the article:

The rejected ad shows a serious young man, apparently pondering the problems of modern life. The text touts the TNIV as a source for “real truth” in a world of “endless media noise and political spin.” A blue Bible peeks up from the corner of the ad.

“God” isn’t mentioned in any of these, only in ads for Christian media such as Relevant, a Christian monthly magazine aimed at hip twentysomethings.

But every ad carries the slogan: “Timeless truth; Today’s language”

Apparently, the cultural mavens at Rolling Stone couldn’t handle the concept that the Bible could actually be true.

Bias? What bias?

(HT to Areopagitica for noting the article.)

VW: Protecting The World From Terrorists

Wizbang! has picked up a copy of a fake VW ad which is absolutely hilarious. It shows a terrorist suicide bomber’s attempt to destroy lives, only to be foiled by VW’s excellent engineering. I get a chuckle out of it every time I watch it. If only…

Proverbs Daily

One of the interesting things about starting a blog is finding out who is linking to it. I’ve started to make it a habit to visit those sites to see if I want to add them to my regular reading. Among today’s list of new links was one from Proverbs Daily.

Like most weblogs, Jeff Smith writes articles about current events. What makes Proverbs Daily unique is that he takes a verse or two from Proverbs and writes a short explanation of what it means. I am adding Proverbs Daily to my daily reading list. You may want to do the same.

(I noticed that Proverbs Daily is only 5 days older than The Greatest Pursuits. From one newbie to another: Welcome to the blogosphere, Jeff!)

My copy of Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcey finally arrived today. The first statement I read in this book is a quote from Francis Scheaffer:

Christianity is not a series of truths in the plural, but rather truth spelled with a capital “T.” Truth about total reality, not just about religious things.

Biblical Christianity is Truth concerning total reality — and the intellectual holding of that total Truth and then living in the light of that Truth.

Address at the University of Notre Dame, April 1981

The Introduction hits the ground running. Here are a few excerpts:

“The gospel is like a caged lion,” said the great Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon. “It does not need to be defended, it just needs to be let out of its cage.” Today the cage is our accommodation to the secular/sacred split that reduces Christianity to a matter of private personal belief. To unlock the cage, we need to become utterly convinced that, as Francis Schaeffer said, Christianity is not merely religious truth, it is total truth—truth about the whole of reality.

The first step in forming a Christian worldview is to overcome this sharp divide between “heart” and “brain.” We have to reject the division of life into a sacred realm, limited to things like worship and personal morality, over against a secular realm that includes science, politics, economics, and the rest of the public arena. This dichotomy in our own minds is the greatest barrier to liberating the power of the gospel across the whole of culture today.

Religion is not considered an objective truth to which we submit, but only a matter of personal taste which we choose. Because of this, the dichotomy is sometimes called the fact/value split.

The reason it’s so important for us to learn how to recognize this division is that it is the single most potent weapon for delegitimizing the biblical perspective in the public square today. Here’s how it works: Most secularists are too politically savvy to attack religion directly or to debunk it as false. So what do they do? They consign religion to the value sphere—which takes it out of the realm of true and false altogether. Secularists can then assure us that of course they “respect” religion, while at the same time denying that it has any relevance to the public realm.

As Phillip Johnson puts it, the fact/value split “allows the metaphysical naturalists to mollify the potentially troublesome religious people by assuring them that science does not rule out ‘religious belief’ (so long as it does not pretend to be knowledge).”

To recover a place at the table of public debate, then, Christians must find a way to overcome the dichotomy between public and private, fact and value, secular and sacred. We need to liberate the gospel from its cultural captivity, restoring it to the status of public truth. “The barred cage that forms the prison for the gospel in contemporary western culture is [the church’s] accommodation … to the fact-value dichotomy,” says Michael Goheen, a professor of worldview studies. Only by recovering a holistic view of total truth can we set the gospel free to become a redemptive force across all of life.

Genuine worldview thinking is far more than a mental strategy or a new spin on current events. At the core, it is a deepening of our spiritual character and the character of our lives. It begins with the submission of our minds to the Lord of the universe—a willingness to be taught by Him. The driving force in worldview studies should be a commitment to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind” (see Luke 10:27).

That’s why the crucial condition of intellectual growth is spiritual growth, asking God for the grace to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). God is not just the savior of souls, He is also the Lord of creation. One way we acknowledge His Lordship is by interpreting every aspect of creation in the light of His truth. God’s Word becomes a set of glasses offering a new perspective on all our thoughts and actions.

And that’s just part of the Introduction! This is gonna be good!

When my children were younger, it was often necessary to simply tell them not to do something such as playing in the road or touching a hot stove because they couldn’t understand the consequences of those actions. As they have matured, they have come to understand exactly why they shouldn’t touch a hot stove or play in the street. Yet there always seems to be some new area where they just don’t understand the why’s of avoiding, or the need for certain actions.

I have found that the Bible is full of similar “just do (or do not do) this until you understand why” commands. For example, quarantine was required for leprosy patients; we didn’t know why until the 1900’s. The commandment against coveting is another such instance where most adults still do not understand why coveting is a problem. (It leads to debt, adultery, arguments, etc.)

As a child learns the why’s of simple instructions we consider that to be a sign of growth towards maturity. If a child has trouble learning those why’s we consider them to have some sort of mental defect, leading to many expensive consultations with experts.

As adults we should also be continuing to mature and learn the why’s of more complicated subjects. The consequences of such actions are rarely as immediately obvious as touching a hot stove. Yet, when mature adults study such a topic, the why’s can usually be discovered.

For example, the Bible condemns homosexuality, but it doesn’t specify the why’s. That’s the topic Probe Ministries is addressing this week in their series of radio shorts. You can find their transcript here: “Same Sex Marriage: A Façade of Normalcy”. If you don’t know why God condemns same sex “marriage” or if you need a refresher, it’s definitely worth reading.

Some time ago I saw the following quote from “Million Dollar Habits” by Robert J. Ringer. I think it applies equally well to our walk with God.

The fact is that most people live in a totally UNREAL world. They create a world in their own minds based on the way they would LIKE the world to be, rather than the way it actually is…

…There is only one reality. What differs is each person’s PERCEPTION of reality. By perception, I am referring to the ability to interpret correctly the events that surround you, and to be able to grasp the difference between what is real and what is unreal, between fact and fiction, between what works and what doesn’t work. A faulty perception of reality is almost always destructive, sometimes fatal.

[Reality] is not the way you want things to be;
[Reality] is not the way things appear to be;
[Reality] is the way things actually ARE.

The Person who is unable to make this distinction finds it virtually impossible to make decisions that lead to positive results.

The reality is that God has created the world we live in. God has given us everything we need to know in order to find Him, become mature christians, and avoid unnecessary suffering. If we want positive results in our lives, we must face reality, pay attention to the Bible and apply it to every area of our lives.

(Note: I admit that I’m not entirely successful at following my own advice here. I am working on it.)

“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things (food, drink, clothing) shall be added to you.”

(Matt. 6:33, NASB) Ephasis and parenthetical statements mine.

Vox Apologia Results

Phil Steiger at Every Thought Captive has posted the results of the first Vox Apologia, a collection of articles by faith bloggers on a particular apologetics topic. The topic for this round was “What does apologetics mean to today’s Christian church?” It’s well worth spending the time read all the articles. (If you haven’t yet read my entry, you can find it here.) I found “How Apologetics Benefits Believers” at Wittenberg Gate, “Apologetics? What’s that?” at Brain Shavings, and “Purpose Driven Apologetics” at Revenge of Mr Dumpling especially interesting.

EO Blog Symposium Results

the evangelical outpost has posted the results of their first quarterly Blog Symposium. The topic was an article by David Gelernter which claimed that Americanism is actually a religion which has descended directly from Puritanism. He then went on to draw conclusions about Anti-Americanism based on this premise. (The original article about the symposium can be found here.) I haven’t read all the articles yet (there are 67 of them!), but the few that I have read have been fantastic; and they weren’t even the winners!

(A note for Those Who Care: Joe’s articles on blogging plus this symposium were the final catalysts to start this blog. I had intended to also write an article for the symposium. However, by the time I was able to launch The Greatest Pursuits, it was three hours until the entry deadline and I was totally fried. Thanks for the push over the edge, Joe!)

Gain Discernment in Five Easy Steps

Tim Challies has written yet another excellent article: “Gain Discernment In Five Easy Steps”

I am a subscriber to the Reformed Baptist Discussion List and yesterday a member of the list asked an interesting question. He is a pastor and a member of his congregation asked him how he could become a more critical thinker. The pastor pressed him a little and essentially the man was asking how he could gain the discernment he has seen in some other believers where they are able to know right from wrong, biblical from unbiblical at the early stages of contradicting the will of God. I thought I would provide some thoughts as response to that question.

Highly Recommended!

I love a good article which triggers serious thought! Aaron at The Wardrobe Door has written just such an article: “Evangelical Myth #2: Evangelical Christians are the same as Fundamentalist Christians”

He makes excellent points about the implications of each of the terms. But I think I have to disagree about “fundamentalist(s) hav(ing) an anti-intellectual streak.” It has been my experience that small, hard core fundamentalist churches — such as the one my father attends — are probably more intellectual than most churches, preferring intellectual rigor over emotionalism. (I think that is why they tend to be so stiff.)

It seems to me that the type of church services he describes as “fundamentalist” should be more accurately described as “formal.” Formalism is not the same thing as fundamentalism. I have experienced many such “formal” services in my lifetime where the content ranged from Bible free (or even anti-biblical) to the “solid food” described in Hebrews 5:14.

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

(Heb. 5:12-14, NASB)

The root word of “fundamentalism” is “fundamental,” meaning something that is an essential or necessary part of a system or object. So a “fundamentalist” is someone who focuses on — or pays attention to — the basics.

The runup to the SuperBowl at this time of year makes a sports analogy almost inevitable in a discussion like this. But sports provide the best analogy I have ever been able to come up with on why fundamentalism is not only appropriate for christians, it is a necessary part of spiritual growth.

The story of Vince Lombardi’s first practice as the new head coach of the Green Bay Packers is often repeated. As the story goes, Coach Lombardi had his players gather around, and as he held up a football, he said, “Gentlement, this is a football.” Some versions of the story have it that one player raised his hand and said, “Coach, you’re going too fast for me. Can you slow down a little?”

Vince Lombardi’s purpose in making such an obvious statement was to drive home the point that unless a team successfully executes the fundamentals, winning is impossible. A team could have incredible talent, perfect play calling, excellent teamwork, and more plays than Broadway; but unless the ball carrier can reach the goal line with the ball in his hands, none of it matters. Coach Lombardi fits the definition of a football fundamentalist.

The same is true of the christian life. A man could be in church every time the doors are open, give everything he has to the poor and needy, and memorize the entire Bible with perfect recall; yet unless he confesses that Jesus is Lord with his mouth and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9), he has not crossed the goal line into salvation.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”

(Matt. 7:21-23, NASB)

That is what fundamentalism is in a nutshell; learning, practicing and executing the basics. Yet fundamentalism and an evangelistic approach are not incompatible. In fact, I submit that both are necessary components of a fully mature christian life just as skills which go beyond the fundamentals are required for a football team to reach the SuperBowl.

Fundamentalism is primarily a function of a person’s internal life; their beliefs, knowledge, and thought patterns. An evangelistic approach is the application of that internal life to the outside world. Consider Jesus’ answer to the question, “Which is the greatest commandment?”

And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

(Matt. 22:37-40, NASB)

Notice that the first command is primarily internal, focusing on our relationship with God. The second focuses on our relationship with others, and as such is external.

James makes a similar comparison of the internal and external christian life:

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith, and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”

(James 2:17-18, NASB)

If a church is not reaching out into the community, they are not loving the people in the community no matter how excellent their theology is. A church which reaches out to those around them without sharing the fundamentals of the gospel is also not helping the people in the community. It is only when both sides of the equation are in place that a church is truly showing people the way into the kingdom of God.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;”

(Matt. 28:19-20a, NASB)

While it can be said that both labels can apply independently of each other, they are not mutually exclusive. I am proud to wear the label “fundamentalist,” proud to wear the label “evangelistic,” and proud to wear the label “christian.” I see them as being a badge of honor in God’s eyes, just as “SuperBowl champion” is a badge of honor to a football player.

These three passages all cover the same event with only minor variations in wording. Here is the incident as Luke recorded it:

And behold, some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in, and to set him down in front of Him. And not finding any way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, right in the center, in front of Jesus. And seeing their faith, He said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.” And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” But Jesus, aware of their reasonings, answered and said to them, “Why are you reasoning in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” — He said to the paralytic — “I say to you, rise, and take up your stretcher and go home.” And at once he rose up before them, and took up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.
(Luke 5:18-25, NASB)

Jesus’ logic in this passage is an example of the sorites logical form. (Sorites is multiple enthymeme arguments strung together to reach the same type of conclusion.)

Here is how Jesus’ reasoning works in this passage:

It’s also interesting to note that Jesus also used a bit of anthypophora logic in this incident. By starting with the statement that the man’s sins were forgiven, Jesus raises the initial question of whether or not he actually has the authority to forgive sins, and thus whether or not he is equal to God. Even though he didn’t ask the question to be answered, he made a statement which caused the scribe and Pharisees ask the question in their own minds.

(This article has been posted to the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project.)

Thomas Sowell has written an excellent article, “I beg to disagree”, on the declining art of handling disagreements using reason and facts and the rise of personal attacks. He begins with:

My assistant sorts the incoming mail into various categories, such as “critical mail,” “fan mail,” etc. But the so-called critical mail is seldom critical. It may be bombastic or vituperative or full of pop psychology, but it seldom presents a critical argument based on facts or logic.

Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin. You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

Disagreements are inevitable whenever there are human beings but we seem to be in an era when the art of disagreeing is vanishing. That is a huge loss because out of disagreements have often come deeper understandings than either side had before confronting each other’s arguments.

Thomas bemoans the rise of ad hominem attacks as a means of public discourse. He then goes on to point out that honest disagreements discussed rationally with facts and logic almost always leads to the betterment of everyone involved; even if the actual disagreement itself is never fully resolved. Proverbs 27:17 states, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Such “sharpening” can only occur if the primary goal in a disagreement is the pursuit of truth and not the destruction of the other party.

His article is especially timely, arriving just after the start of the ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project. As Douglas Groothius writes in Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist:

Our sampling of Jesus’ reasoning, however, brings into serious question the indictment that Jesus praised uncritical faith over rational arguments and that He had no truck with logical consistency. On the contrary, Jesus never demeaned the proper and rigorous functioning of our God-given minds. His teaching appealed to the whole person: the imagination (parables), the will, and reasoning abilities.

For all their honesty in reporting the foibles of the disciples, the Gospel writers never narrated a situation in which Jesus was intellectually stymied or bettered in an argument; neither did Jesus ever encourage an irrational or ill-informed faith on the part of His disciples. With Jesus as our example and Lord, the Holy Scriptures as our foundation (2 Tim. 3:15–17), and the Holy Spirit as our Teacher (John 16:12–15), we should gladly take up the biblical challenge to outthink the world for Christ and His kingdom (2 Cor. 10:3–5).

In other words, Jesus never resorted to “because I say so” when questioned about his teachings, even when those questions were asked by his enemies as a form of attack. Nor did he engage in any ad hominem attacks. He either explained his teachings based on the authority of scriptures and logic or demonstrated his authority through miracles. For example:

And getting into a boat, He crossed over, and came to His own city. And behold, they were bringing to Him a paralytic, lying on a bed; and Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Take courage, My son, your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This fellow blasphemes.” And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, and walk’? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — then He said to the paralytic — “Rise, take up your bed, and go home.” And he rose, and went home.

(Matt. 9:1-7, NASB)

Notice that Jesus didn’t simply claim the authority to forgive sins. He offered a logical proof known as modus ponens by Those Who Study Logic. His logic was fairly simple:

1. Only God can forgive sins. (Stated by the scribes) A = B
2. Only God could heal the paralytic.  B = C
3. Jesus did heal the paralytic, therefore he is God.  C = D
4. Therefore, he has the authority to forgive sins.  A = D

As christians, we are God’s representatives on this earth. “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.” (2 Cor. 5:20a, NIV) Just as Jesus was, we are also faced with those who question the authority of the Bible and the reality of God. Sometimes those questions are asked by someone who is genuinely searching for the truth, and sometimes by those who are attempting to attack the truth. Either way, answering such questions with “because I said so,” or “you just have to believe anyway,” simply won’t cut it. Just as Jesus did, we must “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (1Pet. 3:15-16, NIV)

There is only one way to be able to give a gentle, respectful and meaningful answer: to know what the answers are! The study of facts and logic to answer such such questions has been given a name by Those Who Like To Give Fancy Names: Apologetics. The term “apologetics” comes from the greek word “apologia” which literally means “defense,” “answer” and “account”. (Apparently, Those Who Like To Give Fancy Names are part of the group of Those Who Like Obscure Languages.)

We are all human, so it is impossible to know all the answers, just as it is impossible for us to actually be perfectly sinless. Yet God still expects us to make the effort. “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.” (Heb. 12:1, NIV) Just as we are to make every effort to get rid of sin in our lives, we are also to make every effort to study the Bible as well as the facts and evidence surrounding the Bible. Both tasks require constant effort.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

(Deut. 6:4-7, NIV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

(2 Tim. 2:15, NIV)

I believe the major cause of suffering in this world is the consequences of sin — failing to apply the word of God to our lives. Before anyone can apply the Bible to their life, and thus avoid sin, they must first know what it says. For those of us who are christians, this means that we must study the Bible so that we can learn what it says and what it means. And we cannot explain the good news of the Bible to those who do not understand it unless we first understand it ourselves.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

(1 Cor. 1:18, NIV)

When we as the body of Christ (the church) are unable to explain the “message of the cross” in a rational, logical and accurate manner to those who are dying all around us, then they continue to think of the message as foolishness. When that happens, we have failed in our mission and allowed someone to perish.

Our mission as a church is to share the good news of the gospel with anyone who is willing to listen. Our goal is to make it hard to go to hell because the path to God is so well marked that it is impossible to miss it. We are on a mission behind enemy lines to locate survivors and give them a map to safety. Apologetics — the knowledge and understanding of the Bible and why it is true — is that map. We cannot share that map unless we first possess it ourselves.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

(John 8:31-32, NIV)

(Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin for using Mr. Sowell’s article in discussing her struggles with ad hominem attacks due to her own pursuit of truth.)

(This article has been entered in the first Vox Apologia sponsored by RazorsKiss and Every Thought Captive.)

Blogging For Christ’s Sake

Tod Bolsinger has posted a pastor’s eye review of Hugh Hewitt’s book, Blog : Understanding the Information Reformation That’s Changing Your World. The two parts are “How Hugh’s Book Will Help You Get It: A review.” and “Blog, for Christ’s sake.” He believes that blogging is a natural extension of what a pastor already does. I’m not a pastor, so I can’t say for sure whether or not his ideas are good. They make sense to me, though!

Book Review: Total Truth

Tim Challies has posted a book review of Total Truth by Nancy Piercey. If you have haven’t signed up for the giveaway, make sure you do it now. The deadline is tomorrow.

Updates on the Philadelphia 11

If you’re not familiar with the Philadelphia 11 (sometimes called the Philadelphia 5 or Philadelphia 4), they are a group of Christians who showed up at a homosexual rally in Philadelphia to protest. They were immediately harrassed by a homosexual group known as the “Pink Angels”, hounded by the police and ultimately arrested 35 minutes after their arrival. (Video of what happened can be viewed here.) Five of them — one of them a 17 year old girl — have been charged with a number of felonies which could put each one of them in jail for 47 years!

Here are a number of articles on what is happening (most recent article first):

Hate-crimes law infringes on 1st Amendment?

Motion filed for Philadelphia protesters

‘Philadelphia 5’ arrests like ‘Christian Rodney King’

Homosexuals planned Christian harassment

17-year-old girl part of ‘Philadelphia 5’

U.S. attorneys complicit in arrest of Christians?

Philadelphia accused of ‘abuse of power’

Prosecutor: Bible is ‘fighting words’

City will prosecute Christian protesters

‘Philadelphia 11’ fighting back

11 Christians arrested at homosexual event

‘Jesus the Logician’ Main Index

The evangelical outpost has posted posted a index of entries in the ‘Jesus the Logician’ project

Blog Roll Entries

I’ve posted several links to excellent blogs and other resource sites in my Blog Roll. Be sure to check them out.

The Blogdom of God stands out for the service it provides: a listing and summary of recent entries in all the christian blogs on their list.

Hugh Hewitt has started a debate in the blogosphere by naming Dr. James Dobson as “the most influential individual not in government in America.” Josh Clayborn disagrees, saying that either Oprah or Bill Gates is more influential. Joe at the evangelical outpost disagrees with both of them, stating that Rick Warren deserves the honors.

I’m going to stick my neck out and disagree with all of them. Joe is absolutely correct about Oprah’s level of influence. Bill Gates’ biggest influence is how much swearing people do at their computers. Rick Warren is having a huge positive impact on evangelical christians who accept the authority of the Bible. But I believe his influence is largely limited to that subset of those who profess to be Christians. I believe that Dr. Dobson is probably the most influential of evangelicals among the general population, convincing both Christians and social and political conservatives to act.

Influence isn’t just being able to tell large groups of people what to do, or even what to think. It seems to me the most critical influence which can be asserted over people is in how to think, in other words the process a person uses to reach a conclusion.

The most rampant error in critical thinking today goes by the term postmodernism. This is the theory that there is no absolute truth. What one person believes is considered to be true for them, even if another person’s belief contracts them. In fact, both beliefs are considered to be “true and correct.” In short, there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Postmodernism is the snow and ice of critical thinking. This method of thinking does not care about evidence, logic or facts. Therefore, it becomes impossible to reach an accurate belief or conclusion because any evidence and facts which disagree with the chosen conclusion are summarily dismissed. As a result, such beliefs and conclusions are nothing more than castles in the air; little more than elaborate fantasies which cannot be corrected even when presented with the most obvious of evidence against those beliefs.

Postmodernism is the reason why Dan Rather at CBS could ignore the evidence that the Bush AWOL documents were fogeries and still say they were “unimpeachable” with a straight face, even after it was obvious that they were forgeries. It is also the reason Democratic strategist Flavia Colgan could be shown solid evidence of the lies and distortions in Fahrenheit 9/11 and still state, “Well, I don‘t think he is telling lies” and “It is such a credit to democracy and discourse” while still expecting to be taken seriously.

In short, postmodernism is giving priority to beliefs over truth, a distinct reversal of their appropriate priorities. A postmodernist lives by the phrase, “what does your heart tell you?”

If you recognized that phrase, you may already be aware of where I’m going with this. This philosophy can be found in most movies today; and nowhere is this error seen more often than in movies put out by the Disney companies led by Michael Eisner.

“What does your heart tell you?” began appearing in Disney movies shortly after Eisner took over as head of Walt Disney Studios. As a result, this phrase is being drummed into the heads of millions of impressionable children and unsuspecting adults who still see Disney movies as “safe family entertainment.” Even most Christians still think of Disney as providing good “clean” entertainment, and they have no problem plopping their children in front of the TV and stuffing a Disney movie into the VCR or DVD player.

Not only have Disney movies been teaching postmodernism, they have also been teaching wiccanism (Pocohantas), animism (Brother Bear), ancestral worship (Mulan), pantheism (Hercules), moral relativism (Pirates of the Carribean) and many other new age philosophies.

Michael Eisner hasn’t stopped there either. Under his guidance, Walt Disney Studios created Touchstone Pictures as well as making Miramax Films and Dimension Films part of the Disney holdings. All three companies are responsible for a huge percentage of the filthiest movies made in America today. Miramax Films in particular, is also the largest source of blatant propaganda films such as “The Cider House Rules” (pro-abortion), “Chocolat” (anti-morality), “Fahrenheit 9/11” (anti-Bush/War), and “The English Patient” (pro-suicide).

Now if Hugh Hewitt had said that Dr. Dobson is the most influential Christian private citizen or the private citizen with the most positive influence, I would probably agree with him. (Sorry, Joe.) However, I would have to say that the most influential private citizen period is Michael Eisner.

A friend of mine sent me these definitions which you won’t find in any dictionary. I hope you enjoy them as much as I did!

(If the definition doesn’t make sense right away, try saying the word out loud.)

Arbitrator: A cook that leaves Arby’s to work at McDonalds.

Avoidable: What a bullfighter tried to do.

Bernadette: The act of torching a mortgage.

Burglarize: What a crook sees with.

Control: A short, ugly inmate.

Counterfeiters: Workers who put together kitchen cabinets.

Eclipse: What an English barber does for a living.

Eyedropper: A clumsy ophthalmologist.

Heroes: What a guy in a boat does.

Leftbank: What the robber did when his bag was full of money.

Misty: How golfers create divots.

Paradox: Two physicians.

Parasites: What you see from the top of the Eiffel Tower.

Pharmacist: A helper on the farm.

Polarize: What penguins see with.

Primate: Removing your spouse from in front of the TV.

Relief: What trees do in the spring.

Rubberneck: What you do to relax your wife.

Selfish: What the owner of a seafood store does.

Sudafed: Brought litigation against a government official.

Justin Taylor of Beyond Two Worlds has pointed out another excellent article on Jesus’ use of logic. Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist (a PDF file) by Douglas Groothuis details what kind of logic and evidence Jesus used to silence his critics. Here are some excerpts:

I had to face the question of whether Jesus was a philosopher and apologist head-on when I was asked to write a book on Jesus for the Wadsworth Philosophers Series. I already knew that Jesus articulated a developed worldview and reasoned brilliantly with His opponents. As I studied the subject carefully, however, I came to appreciate Jesus, the philosopher, more than ever. When Jesus defended the crucial claims of Christianity — He was its founder, after all — He was engaging in apologetics, often with the best minds of first-century Judaism.

When we inspect Jesus’ mind in action in several familiar stories from the Gospels, we see that His thinking was sharp, clear, and cogent. Not only should we believe what He taught because He is our divine Master, but through hard work, prayer, and reliance on the Holy Spirit, we should also strive to emulate His intellectual virtues because we are called to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6).

Highly recommended!

If you’re reading this article it’s because you have taken advantage of an amazing device constructed of copper, silicon, plastics, aluminum, glass and other more exotic materials; otherwise known as a computer. The intricate blend of electronics, mechanics and software needed to construct functional computers and allow them to communicate around the world in fractions of a second required the combined efforts of thousands of engineers, technicians and researchers. Each one of these persons have a particular skill which is required for success in their chosen field; the ability to think logically. Because every core aspect of how a computer functions is based on the rules of logic, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that without the ability of those experts to think logically, it would simply not have been possible for them to create a functioning computer.

The very first words in the Bible are, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1, NASB) When we examine the functions of the universe — the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and other disciplines — we see an intricate weaving of those disciplines which make even the most advanced computers seem like a child’s mud sculpture by comparison. As the computer demonstrates the logical skills of its creators, so the universe demonstrates the logics skills of its creator; and in the process demonstrates the superiority of those skills over our own.

Furthermore, when we examine the various skills exhibited by humans, we see that one of the attributes exhibited by humans (to a greater or lessor degree) is the ability to think logically. Great thinkers such as Aristotle have even taken this attribute and developed it into a formal field of practice. In Genesis 1:27 the Bible states, “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” In other words, God created humans with all His attributes on a smaller scale; much like a precision model of a real car. Because our attributes are a reflection of his own, we can infer that, among his other attributes, he is also logical.

In John 10:30, Jesus made the claim, “I and the Father are one.” In short, Jesus claimed that he was God. So if God himself is logical and Jesus actually was God (a discussion which is beyond the scope of this article) then one of Jesus’ attributes is that he also possessed superior logical skills.

Jesus’ use of logic is the premise of Jesus the Logician by Dallas Willard. He writes:

Few today will have seen the words “Jesus” and “logician” put together to form a phrase or sentence, unless it would be to deny any connection between them at all. The phrase “Jesus the logician” is not ungrammatical, any more than is “Jesus the carpenter.” But it ‘feels’ upon first encounter to be something like a category mistake or error in logical type, such as “Purple is asleep,” or “More people live in the winter than in cities,” or “Do you walk to work or carry your lunch?”

There is in our culture an uneasy relation between Jesus and intelligence, and I have actually heard Christians respond to my statement that Jesus is the most intelligent man who ever lived by saying that it is an oxymoron. Today we automatically position him away from (or even in opposition to) the intellect and intellectual life. Almost no one would consider him to be a thinker, addressing the same issues as, say, Aristotle, Kant, Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and with the same logical method.

Now this fact has important implications for how we today view his relationship to our world and our life—especially if our work happens to be that of art, thought, research or scholarship. How could he fit into such a line of work, and lead us in it, if he were logically obtuse? How could we be his disciples at our work, take him seriously as our teacher there, if when we enter our fields of technical or professional competence we must leave him at the door? Obviously some repositioning is in order, and it may be helped along simply by observing his use of logic and his obvious powers of logical thinking as manifested in the Gospels of the New Testament.

He then goes on to offer multiple examples of how Jesus used superior logic to overcome the attacks of the most educated and intelligent men of his time.

Joe at the evangelistic outpost has been inspired by this article to develop a fascinating idea he calls The ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project. His goal is to create a comprehensive database of how Jesus used logic in all of his discourses by February 1st. To accomplish that goal, he is asking for the aid of christian bloggers to share the load. I assume he would also be willing to accept the work of non-bloggers as well if they can post their work to a blog somewhere.

So please visit The ‘Jesus the Logician’ Project, spread the word and get started. If you’re not a blogger, feel free to contact me about hosting your work.

RazorsKiss was kind enough to post links to the terms and definitions of formal logic on Joe’s site. If you need a refresher course, or even an introductory course in formal logic, please make use of these links.

Logical Fallacies

Informal Logic

Formal Logic

Now we all have a lot of reading to do. Until tomorrow then…

After writing about the book giveaway at Challies Dot Com, I started to do more exploring. The first article that caught my eye wasn’t just an article, it’s a partially completed series titled Five Things Every Christian Needs to Know. All I can say about it so far is wow! Wow! WOW!

If you are a christian, think you might be a christian, think you might ever become a christian, have ever warmed a pew in a church, heck, if you’ve ever even talked to a christian, stop what you’re doing and go read those articles RIGHT NOW. I’m not kidding! I really mean it! Why are you still here?

Five Things Every Christian Needs To Know

The First Thing Every Christian Needs To Know

The First Thing Every Christian Needs To Know (Part 2)

The Second Thing Every Christian Needs To Know

Excellent, excellent, excellent stuff!

In thinking long and hard about whether or not to start this blog, there has been one concept which has been driving my thinking more than any other; the pursuit of Truth. In nearly every serious debate I see on the internet and in the media there is always at least one side, and sometimes even all sides, where Belief is considered more important than Truth. Reversing these two concepts like this is a sure fire recipe for disaster. Over the past year the pursuit for truth and showing others the truth has become one of the driving passions of my life. The launch of “The Greatest Pursuits” is the result of that passion.

So imagine my delight when, only one day after the launch of this site, I learned that Tim Challies at Challies Dot Com is giving away two autographed copies of Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey. Just look at the description of this book:

Does God belong in the public arena of politics, business, law, and education? Or is religion a private matter only—personally comforting but publicly irrelevant?

In today’s cultural etiquette, it is not considered polite to mix public and private, or sacred and secular. This division is the single most potent force keeping Christianity contained in the private sphere—stripping it of its power to challenge and redeem the whole of culture.

In Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey offers a razor-sharp analysis of the public/private split, explaining how it hamstrings our efforts at both personal and cultural renewal. Ultimately it reflects a division in the concept of truth itself, which functions as a gatekeeper, ruling Christian principles out of bounds in the public arena.

How can we unify our fragmented lives and recover spiritual power? With examples from the lives of real people, past and present, Pearcey teaches readers how to liberate Christianity from its cultural captivity. She walks readers through practical, hands-on steps for crafting a full-orbed Christian worldview.

Finally, she makes a passionate case that Christianity is not just religious truth but truth about total reality. It is total truth.

Talk about throwing a strike right down the middle of the plate! Total Truth is perfectly in line with the primary goal of this site. I have already added Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity to my must read list. I highly recommend adding it to yours as well. (It can also be purchased directly from the publisher here.)

So go on over and sign up for the drawing. When you do, please use Referral ID 20240 to let him know that I sent you.

Kudos to Joe at the evangelical outpost for the heads up.

Welcome to my brand spankin’ new weblog. I’ve finally finished with the first draft configuration of this site. It’s certainly not what I have in mind yet. In fact, the current state of this site reminds me of a verse:

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.”
(1Cor. 13:12, NASB)

However, it’s good enough to get on with the core purpose of this site: writing about the reliability of the Bible and the impact it should have on our daily lives. So where shall I begin…

yaawwwnnnn

It’s how late? Okay then, tomorrow it will have to be.

In the mean time, feel free to hang around and marvel at the vast emptiness of this unpopulated template. While I have many ideas and half-written articles just waiting to burst forth, feel free to suggest topics you would like me to write about; especially if you already know me from elsewhere on the web.

I leave you now with two passages which relate to the title of this blog:

And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to Him, “Right, Teacher, You have truly stated that He is One; and there is no one else besides Him; and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And when Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
(Mark 12:28-34, NASB)

“He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My heart, who will do all My will.’”
(Acts 13:22, NASB)

Until tomorrow…