On the Certainty of Christianity

On Certainty

Recently an article at Triablogue got me thinking about certainty. The article was not new, the original date is nearly two years old. The issue however is an important one and one that I would like to consider here.

The issue seems to be this: 1)Do we have certainty about our beliefs? 1a)In apologetic/evangelistic confrontation should we as reformed believers leave open the possibility that we are mistaken,misled, or worse delusional about the very basic tenets of our worldview?

I am approaching this question from a distinct perspective. I would consider myself primarily a presuppositionalist utilizing a mostly Van Tillian approach to apologetics. Although I think very highly of Dr. Gordon Clark, I am not sure how scripturalism *works* in practical application. This will have to be a discussion for another day.

So setting aside an embrace of Dr. Clark’s scripturalism for a time, let’s focus on Van Til’s presuppositional approach. The author of the Triablogue article admittedly has a more erudite understanding of Dr. Van Til. I will gladly acknowledge this fact and also acknowledge the fact that he has for practical purposes debated more atheists [formally, perhaps not informally]than I.

Apparently after careful consideration of the what the author calls the *strong* modal claim of Van Til [hereafter VT] he has come to the conclusion that this claim lets call it SMC suffers from a lack of philosophical justification. He says that VT’s assertion that the Christian Worldview provides the preconditions of intelligibilty lacks warrant and/or justification. The author quips that believing X to be the case is different than being able to demonstrate that X is the case.

By way of analogy he seeks to prove that the Christian Worldview [hereafter CWV] is not the only possible worldview that can provide the preconditions for knowledge. He kindly accuses Dr. Van Til of failing to demonstrate that the SMC on its own merits provides the sort of certainty that VT claimed. In VT’s own words he writes:

We must therefore give our opponents better treatment than they give us. We must point out to them that univocal reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we must meet our enemy on their own ground. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions.
Van Til, Cornelius ; Sigward, Eric H.: The Works of Cornelius Van Til, 1895-1987. electronic ed. New York : Labels Army Co., 1997

VT here writes that univocal reasoning leads necessarily to self-contradiction. Univocal reasoning is that reasoning that has only one meaning and therefore is self-contradictory. The Triablogue author {hereafter TA} indicates that we should jettison the SMC for a moderate one. Apparently this is the technique employed by other presuppositionalists e.g. Dr. John Frame.

The argument is thus: Claiming that the Christian worldview uniquely offers the preconditions of intelligibility is not demonstrable.

There *could* be a worldview that offers the same preconditions. Any number of hypothetical scenarios could be offered that would refute the SMC by employing a similiar SMC. In a possible worlds scenario, the comparison of the preconditions of knowledge between adherent X and the Christian apologist are nothing more than a shell game. This has led some Presuppositionalist to say that using the SMC is improper because of the issue of possible worlds.

Intuitively the premise that some world may exist that contains a quadinity or a four-in-one God that satisfies the preconditions of intelligibilty seems wrong. As it stands VT was dealing with propositions that exist in the real world. They are propositions that are actual in the sense that they have some ontological status in the real world. They are not simply contingent or possible propositions. The impossibility of the contrary is not grounded in the truth of the SMC, rather its truth or falsity is grounded in the self-attestation of the Son of God. The SMC entails all of the propositions pertaining to Jesus himself. Jesus is the Son of God in all possible worlds so the truth of SMC is grounded in the character and nature of the Deity not in the fact that a hypothetical worldview could account for the preconditions in a possible world.

In the real world competing worldviews must avoid univocal reasoning. In other words for a competing worldview {Hinduism for example} to offer the preconditions of intelligibility the worldview must account for unity-in-diversity. Ultimately if the worldview proves to be monistic, then it is irrational to suppose that the worldview can provide the aforementioned preconditions of knowledge. To reiterate VT, the contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory on its own assumptions. To use our example above, Hinduism cannot account for unity-diversity therefore according to its own assumptions it is self-contradictory.

Furthermore, it seems to strain credulity that such wide berth should be afforded to worldviews that only exist modally. By way of analogy suppose I have created a train. The train speeds across the tracks at 300mph and is powered by solar energy. Suppose I am approached by an Amtrak representative who inquires about the nature of my train. I argue that my train is the only one capable of taking passengers from Indinanapolis to Cincinatti in 15 minutes [please bear with the equation it is only an analogy]. At the same time another designer comes along and argues that his train will do exactly as my train. I challenge the competing train designer to demonstrate his train’s features head-to-head with mine. He objects to my challenge by stating that his train has yet to be built. He has designed this possible train to function in the same way as mine by employing similar engineering etc. The difficulty is *his* train and *my* train may function similarly but my train is actual and his is only possible. Surely the evaluation of what is actually true and what is possibly true is different in some sense.

I would argue that this is the case with the SMC of VT’s apologetic. He argues that the contrary is impossible because propositionally we are dealing with things in the real world. Personally, I will continue to employ the SMC that the contrary [worldview]is impossible based on the claims of the self-attesting Christ of scripture. As Francis Schaeffer once said, Christianity is true for all reality. Perhaps he had modality in view here perhaps he did not. We can and should be certain about what we believe because the contrary is impossible and self-contradictory.

Dangerous Doctrines of Dake

This week you can attend a special chart teaching that will teach you about the Pre-Adamic world, the material planet called Heaven on which God dwells, the fact that each member of the Trinity has a body, soul, and a spirit and many more fun facts. Often Dake’s followers will amaze and befuddle Christians by bringing up little known facts about the bible; Did you know there is also “another” Noah in the bible? Supposedly the fact that there was a female Noah is supposed to legitimize the many  exegetical errors that are present in the Dake Bible. Yep, all these theological gems and more are being expounded right here in Central Indiana. Here’s a picture of the church that will be teaching these heretical tidbits.

All of these teachings come from a man named Finis Dake.  For more information about Mr. Dake see the article below. Again this man’s teaching is being propogated by a church right here in Central Indiana. They are hosting a week-long teaching that systematically lays out the theological presuppositions of Mr. Dake and his annotated bible. 

 

I. Finis J. Dake

Background: The Dake Annotated Bible with its 35,000 commentary notes, 500,000 scripture references and 8,000 sermon outlines is an impressive work. The notes compiled by Pentecostal preacher Finis J. Dake reportedly took him 100,000 hours of bible study and spanned nearly 5 decades.

About the author: Mr. Dake tells of his conversion to Christianity happening when he was seventeen years old. He tells of his hunger for God and the subsequent blessing he received from God.

“With all sins and bad habits renounced and all worldly pleasures rejected I spent hours in prayer and worship seeking God. My soul with all its feelings, emotions and desires became centered upon God and I was occupied in an ever-deepening consecration to Him and His will. At the end of three months of whole-hearted surrender to God and seeking his to be filled with the Holy Spirit, my answer came and I received a great anointing of the Spirit in my life. It happened about two o’clock one morning as I was in prayer. It was May, 1920. Suddenly and without previous warning there came over my being a cool and rushing wind. It seemed I could hear the fluttering of the wings of a dove settling down upon my body”.[1]

He goes on to say that he received a measure of what the disciples received on the day of Pentecost. In fact he says that during this experience he realized that he now had an ability that he had not had before this night.

“I could now quote Scriptures, hundreds of them and that without any effort to memorize them. I just quoted “as the Spirit gave utterance” and also noticed a quickening of the Spirit in my mind to know and tell what chapters and books various verses were found in.” [2]

Mr. Dake states that up to this time he had spent very little time reading, in fact he says that before his conversion he had not even read a complete chapter of the bible. The ability to quote scripture without memorization earned him a reputation as the “Walking Bible”. (Emphasis added)

Mr. Dake’s primary works are the Dake Annotated Bible and God’s plan for man (the notes from the Dake Bible compiled in lesson form). His other works include: Revelation Expounded, Heavenly Host, and Another Time, Another Place, Another Man. All of Mr. Dake’s works follow his rule of “taking the bible literally where it is at all possible”.

This essay is not intended to be exhaustive. The intent is to merely provide an overview of Mr. Dake’s teaching on various Christian doctrine as understood from an orthodox perspective.

II. The Doctrines of Dake

God’s plan for Man begins with these words;

“the study of “God’s Plan for Man” is the most important subject of human existence, if one wants to know the Bible and be saved in eternity. It may be called the “The Backbone of the Bible,” for it takes in all ages and dispensations, and all the important subjects of the Bible, from eternity past, to eternity future”. [3]

The reader is told from the very beginning that the most important thing they can do is to study “God’s Plan for Man”. Before one begins to question whether the author is talking about God’s plan for man i.e. salvation through Jesus Christ, or God’s Plan for Man meaning his book, the author removes all doubt with this statement;

“We cannot overemphasize the importance of these lessons, which are based on a correct understanding of the Bible itself”.[4]

The reader is even told that this book (God’s Plan for Man) will show you how to correctly use the scriptures in your daily life. In fact, the proper use of these tools ensures healing, health, prosperity, and happiness here and now. (Emphasis added)

On page two we find out that even though numerous scripture references are given for each teaching it is not necessary to take the time to look up the references in order to get the truth.

II a.The Pre-Adamite world

Mr. Dake subscribes to the idea that the earth was created the first time (Genesis 1:1) destroyed by God sometime between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. The space of time between verse 1 and 2 is known to some as the Gap theory. The Dake bible argues on page 54 that “The command for Adam to replenish the earth (fill it again) not plenish it, proves that the earth had been filled before this (Genesis 1:28)”. [5]

This is in spite of the fact that the Hebrew word according to Strong’s means to fill. The gap theory is a simple “human” way to reconcile creation and evolution by allotting and unknown amount of time to the literal six days of creation as outlined in the first verses of Genesis. This is dangerous in light of the fact that a very convincing argument can be made for a young earth.

Mr. Dake asserts that Jesus himself taught about the Pre-Adamite world in the context of Matthew 13:35. Mr. Dake claims that the expression from the “foundation of the world” should be translated “from the overthrow of the world” meaning literally the overthrow of the Pre-Adamic race. The proof text for this teaching according to Mr. Dake is the usage of this same Greek word in 2 Corinthians 4:9 where it used in this context “ Persecuted but not forsaken, cast down but not destroyed”. In this author’s opinion the usage of the word “cast down” has the implication of casting down stone or brick as to build a foundation. Using one word to build an entire race of Pre-Adamites is risky at best.

II b.The Material Planet called Heaven

According to God’s plan for man page 57 we find this quote “God dwells in a mansion and in a city located on a material planet called Heaven”. The proof text for this strange doctrine is John 14:1-3.

Dake contends that God goes from place to place in a body just like anyone else. Further, he states that while God is omni-present (meaning to Dake that God’s presence can be felt everywhere) God is not omni-body. Mr. Dake believed that God has a “body” that contains a soul and a spirit. Page 58 of God’s Plan for man says this; “He is a real Being with a body, soul, and spirit”. [6]

The following scriptures prove that Dake’s theology is incorrect:

God is invisible: Job 23:8,9; John 1:18; 5:37; Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17

If God is invisible than it is unthinkable to claim that God goes from place to place in a physical body.

God fills heaven and earth: 1Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:24

Is it possible that God clearly fills heaven and earth but at the same time is limited to a physical planet and to a physical body?

II c. The Trinity

On Page 51 of God’s Plan for Man we find the following description of the Trinity.

“TRINITY. This means the union of three persons, the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit in one (unified) Godhead or divinity, so that all three persons are one in unity and eternal substance, but three separate and distinct persons as to individuality” [7]

God’s plan for man goes further to state that modern writers of doctrine books about God assert that no man has ever seen God and that God has no body with parts and passions to be seen. Further the book states that the modern trend is to make God too mystical to be understood. That is of course unless you understand the Trinity to consist of three separate and distinct individuals who share unity of purpose.

Mr. Dake asserts that there can be no such thing as three persons in one person. He even goes so far as to say that God himself could not comprehend it or explain it in this way for this is not the way He has explained it, nor is this the way He asks us to understand it. Simply put the Dake Bible plainly states that God has a physical body.

Additionally, Mr. Dake calls the Triune Godhead ridiculous and unscriptural and states that the only way that God can be three and one simultaneously is that God is Three distinct persons and that the oneness of God refers only to unity of purpose. Apparently Mr. Dake would also consider any mention of water also ridiculous and unscriptural, because water most definitely does exist in three separate forms; solid, liquid and gas. Using Mr. Dake’s logical I suppose we could say that water is only one according to its unity of purpose? Or could we? You see as a liquid water is a solvent, as a vapor water is no longer a solvent but can be used for other purpose such as power, and as a solid water in the form of ice can be used for cooling hence water has no unity of purpose only unity of essence. This same unity of essence is found within the Godhead.

This concept of Three in unity of purpose is not only polytheistic it is also heretical and in the words of Mr. Dake unscriptural. Jews and Christians have continuously reaffirmed a monotheistic triune Godhead. If God, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit all have physical bodies, spirits, and souls wouldn’t all of these be examples of the unity in essence that Mr. Dake argues against? And further would not all of these elements be wholly God? The argument then is easily made for Godhead of nine deities as opposed to three?

We find that Word of Faith teacher and self-proclaimed healing evangelist Benny Hinn has taken the Dake Bible teaching on the subject of the Trinity to it’s logical conclusion. Consider this quote from Christianity in Crisis:

“Man, I feel revelation knowledge already coming on me here. Lift up your hands. Something new is going to happen here today. I felt it just as I walked down here. Holy Spirit, take over in the name of Jesus…God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person; and He is a triune being by Himself separate from the Son and the Holy Ghost. Say, what did you say? Hear it, hear it, hear it. See, God the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person. But each one of them is a triune being by Himself. If I can shock you-and maybe I should-there’s nine of them. Huh, what did you say? Let me explain: God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with his own personal spirit, with his own personal soul, and his own personal spirit-body. You say, Huh I never heard that. Well you think you’re in this church to hear things you’ve heard for the last 50 years? You can’t argue with the Word, can you? It’s all in the Word.”[8]

Benny Hinn later admitted that he had read this concept somewhere. The somewhere is clear; Mr. Hinn read this in God’s Plan for Man. On page 51 we find this statement;

“ BODY,SOUL, AND SPIRIT. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, each angel and man, and every separate person in the universe has a personal body, soul, and spirit, which are separate and distinct from all others”.

II d. The Eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ

Finnis Dake denies Jesus’ eternal sonship, in this quote Mr. Dake makes the following statement: “..that the person we now know as the Son of God and Mary was not always God’s Son and Mary’s Son, that He was always God and a separate person along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that He became man and the Son of both God and Mary over nineteen hundred years ago for the purpose of redemption, that it was in God’s plan that one of the three persons of the Godhead should become man and the Son of the one who became Father by the power of the Holy Ghost, and that it did not become a reality until it actually took place in Mary about nineteen hundred years ago.” [9]

Mr. Dake goes into great depth explaining why Jesus could not have been God’s son prior to the incarnation because in the words of Mr. Dake that would have made Jesus begotten twice. The above view is a mixture of Pantheism, Mormonism, and Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, but in all fairness I will refute each of the above claims from the bible.

The eternal sonship of Christ is clear from scripture, passages such as John 1:1 that clearly indicates that the Word (Jesus Christ) was present in the beginning. The doctrine that Mr. Dake would have us believe is that Jesus Christ was a “begotten” God that he was not in a position of sonship until the Immaculate Conception. This doctrine is clearly Russelism revisited, and is outside orthodox understanding of scripture. Jesus as demonstrated by Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 1:17 was present as the first and the last, this cannot mean that Jesus was the first only after the incarnation.

II e. Health and Wealth

God’s Plan for Man states that when someone is sick, he is not living up to his duty to society, and he glorifies Satan more than he does God.
“God can get glory only in healing and delivering men from the works of the devil, not in permitting the devil to have the victory over those whom Christ died to liberate.” [10]

On the previous page Mr. Dake asserts that it is the right of every believer in Christ to have perfect health and freedom from the works of the devil. If this is the case why then do believers die? If Mr. Dake is correct then true believers should have “perfect” health and if I understand the word perfect correctly then believers should never experience physical sickness or the subsequent death of the body. The wages of sin is death according to Romans 6:23 and sickness is a symptom of this disease.

Mr. Dake also says that believers are giving Satan glory when they allow him to rob them of the material blessings that God has for them. At this point there is ample documentation on the fallacy of the prosperity gospel. Suffice it to say that while E.W. Kenyon retains primary acknowledgement for the doctrines of the faith movement, the Dake Annotated Bible embraces similar teaching. In fact many of the who’s who of the Name-it, claim-it crowd give their stamp of approval on the Dake bible. Consider the following quotes from well-known Word of Faith practitioners:

“I believe the Dake Bible is one of the greatest literary works ever made available for….believers.” Rod Parsley

“…The Dake Bible helped me build a solid foundation in the Word.”  Creflo Dollar

“ To this day my husband and I both feel that the Dake Bible is the Best study and reference bible you can get.” Marilyn Hickey

Additionally, Word Faith preachers such as Dr. Jerry Savelle, Joyce Meyers, and Rita Bennett also give the Dake Bible a rousing endorsement.

During Mr. Dake’s ministry he succumbed to a fairly significant moral failure. This moral failure is documented on Marilyn Hickey’s website. A large number of the notes for the Dake Annotated Bible were compiled while Mr. Dake was serving a prison sentence for violating the Mann Act. The Dake Bible is indeed an impressive work however in many cases the position held by Dake and his followers is different than those of an orthodox theology. Again this is not an exhaustive apologetic on the Dake Annotated Bible, only a synopsis of several key Christian doctrines. Additional information may be found at www.apologeticsindex.com

——————————————————————————–

[1] The Dake Annotated Bible “Owner’s Manual” Lawrenceville, GA

[2] The Dake Annotated Bible “Owner’s Manual” Lawrenceville, GA

[3] God’s Plan for Man, pg. 1, Dake Publising Lawrenceville, GA

[4] ibid

[5] Dake Annotated Bible pg. 54 Dake Publishing Lawrenceville, GA

[6] God’s Plan for Man pg. 58 Dake Publishing Lawrenceville, GA

[7] ibid

[8] Christiainity in Crisis pg.154 Harvest House Publishers, Hank Hanegraaff

[9] God’s Plan for Man Page 324 Dake Publishing Lawrenceville, GA

[10] God’s Plan for Man pg. 146 Dake Publishing Lawrenceville, GA

Response to Doulos Christou: Arminian Apologetics reconsidered

Doulos Christou dropped by and left some comments on an earlier post. He made some very good points and I wanted to address them as a post. This is for the sake of clarity and makes it more conversational.

(The original comments are located on this blog; the only change is the inclusion of the initials DC.and the color highlighting DC’s comments are in blue)

DC: Perhaps you meant this as a joke (based upon your early admission that parts of it were a farce) but I’m still confused at what you are trying to say. You use the word apologetics which is the practice of defending doctrines. It appears from your usage that you meant to use the word theology or doctrine or even, belief. Regardless of what word you choose, your case doesn’t stand up to scrutiny or the scriptures.

BBG: Yes, in a way this is a bit of a joke. There are some statements that I would stand behind and plan on substantiating with scripture. When I use the word apologetics, I specifically mean the defense of the faith as a function of evangelism. I suppose you could say that it is pre-evangelism. Presently, I would agree that *some* of what I said would prove difficult to develop from scripture. Nonetheless, this was primarily a rhetorical device designed to illustrate an extreme position and stress the antithesis that often exists within apologetics.

DC: You said that no Arminian apologetic has ever saved a soul and with that I agree. You will agree with me that no Calvinist apologetic has ever saved a soul either, won’t you? Jesus and His merciful grace is the only salvation. Jean and James have little to do with it.

BBG: Agreed Arminius and Calvin never saved a single solitary soul. We can whole-heartedly agree on that premise! I suppose the question that you and I should grapple with is, does Jesus and His merciful grace raise a dead sinner (Ephesians 2:1) or does the sinner cooperate with His grace? 

DC: You say “Militant atheism demands a more robust apologetic than the Arminian can muster.” but as opposed to what? Are you suggesting that there is a stronger, better framework with which to debate the atheist? The atheist argues against every theological system over and against the evidence for God because he or she desires to remain in their rebellion. Certainly, you aren’t suggesting that a Calvinist, determinist, supralapsarian theological argument would automatically win over an atheist, are you? Based on what?

 BBG: Yes and no. First, no I am not suggesting that any sort of arguments would *automatically* win anyone over. But also yes, I am suggesting that the Reformed, determinist, supralapsarian apologetic is superior. I find it quite interesting that you correctly identify me as a supralapsarian. Did you see this in another post of mine (not to flatter myself that you looked at any other post than this one) or was this simply a correct assumption based on your experience with *my* type? You aptly asked me to provide the basis for this assertion. I will gladly comply with your request.

1)      Scripture: cf. Romans 1:18-25, Proverbs 21:1, Isaiah 45:5-6, Exodus 4:21

2)      Personal experience: I loathe subjectivity as a proof for anything although in this case it bears upon the argument I am attempting to make. For every weekend over the last 6 years with little exception, I have by God’s grace been able to participate in a street ministry in the city in which I live. The area that we evangelize in is a bar district that is quite secular and is populated by modern day hippy types. While there are a high number of people that embrace a neo-deism there are also a number of atheists. I have had an on-going friendship with one of them for over three years. When I began participating in this ministry I was for all intents and purposes an Arminian (grew up in a United Methodist Church) and was studying Apologetics and Philosophy at an Arminian Bible College.

I don’t plan on fully disclosing my system of apologetics other than to say that I believe presuppositional apologetics does what evidential apologetics (be they Arminian or Calvinistic) cannot and will never accomplish. As you mentioned yourself, the atheist desires to remain in his or her rebellion. Arguing evidentially then will bear no fruit and leaves the apologete in the unhappy position of having an atheist put God to the test.

Addressing the atheists’ presuppositions will demonstrate the epistemological failure of atheism. Incidentally, this can only be done from a Calvinistic, determinist, supralapsarian position (at least if one wants to be logically and biblically consistent). The weakness of evidential apologetics is accentuated in an Arminian context as the Arminian has to argue persuasively enough to affect the atheist’s volitions.

DC:You also argue that “Arminians do not argue the whole counsel of God” and that they “eviscerate the Word of God”. Perhaps, when you attempt an accusation such as that you would exhibit some Christian maturity and offer proof of such. God needs no protection from Arminians as they accept God as He has revealed Himself rather than relying on ‘hidden decrees’ of which there is no scriptural proof. It is this decretal belief system in which double-predestination causes God to continue to create human beings simply for the purpose of condemning them to Hell that would cause one to pause and think about offering security. Or, do you have some insight into this ‘determinate election’ that you can offer? Texts? Your final aside “we have millions of autonomous indeterminate individuals exercising their wills” is actually biblically accurate and you should be commended for including it amongst the other statements.

BBG: You are correct, an explanation is in order. You say that Arminians accept God as He has revealed himself, fair enough. The next part of your statement however is intriguing. You seem to indicate that there is no scriptural support for the *hidden* decrees of God. I would offer this scripture in response:

and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ; so that now to the rulers and powers in the heavenlies might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord;

(Eph 3:9-11)

The purpose of election and reprobation is that God’s eternal purpose in Christ would be fulfilled. This is the mystery which from eternity was hidden in God that has now been revealed to us. Suppose for a moment that the number of elect is known to God, as is the number of reprobates. Does it not follow logically that all of those who God determined (predestinated) as vessels of honor and dishonor would come to being? Furthermore, Arminianism would have us to believe that not only all of the reprobates will go to hell, but potentially every single person head-for-head could go to hell. How is this notion superior to election and reprobation?

Please provide scriptural support for your statement that there are in fact millions of autonomous indeterminate individuals exercising their wills? Before you answer though, let me ask this question: Are these wills free? If so, from what are they free? Are wills subject to antecedent causes? In other words can someone’s will be determined by an antecedent cause? If so, how do you define free?

DC: Your final paragraph is once again a pejorative rant without substance. Other than in disregard, stating that Arminians have themselves rather than the glory of God in mind in the structure of their theology or apologetic is simply beneath Christian conversation. When you propose something as demeaning as this you have a responsibility to offer a supporting argument other than your own feelings. So, what can you offer to prove your slur? It appears that you haven’t considered the fact that Arminians speak to one’s final decision because the Bible itself clearly emphasizes the importance of that decision

BBG: Fair enough, perhaps my pejorative rant is beneath Christian conversation. That is for the reader to decide. Perhaps this is only inductively true. I believe my assertion follows from the premises of Arminianism. Would you agree that Arminianism teaches universal atonement? If so, then the task of Arminian apologetics is clear away the intellectual bushes so that man can make the correct eternal decision. Man then is the center of the evangelistic impetus of Arminian apologetics. Man has the ability to make the correct choice therefore God’s glory is necessarily trumped by man’s glory in correctly deciding for Jesus. The fact that salvation is not predicated upon man’s ability to choose is what is truly clear from scripture (John 1:10-13. 6:37, 17:9, Ephesians 1:4-5)

I would stand by my assertion that Arminian apologetics have certain inherent weaknesses and suffers from scriptural anemia. However, I agree with my brother in Christ that some of my statements were pejorative and lacking in Christian charity. I am thankful for DC and his taking time to write me. I hope that he and I will continue to dialogue on this important subject.

Yours in Christ,

~BBG

The Reason?

Last year I was asked to lead a small group study of Dr. Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God the first few chapters contained a few areas of nominal concern. I will admit this is likely due to the fact that I am nitpicky so this prima facie was of little cause for concern. What follows is the correspondence I had with my pastor discussing the book. As always the reader should read the chapter in question to ensure that the author of this post has not taken the quotes out of context. 

1. First paragraph pg. 52. Keller asserts that the behavior of Christians (loving, wise) as well as Churches (devout in belief yet civic-minded) effects the intellectual case for Christianity. He specifically uses the word *plausible*.  My concern is that this posits a *pragmatic* test for the truthfulness of Christianity. Christianity is true because the self-attesting Christ says that it is true not because I am or am not a schmuck. (I am most of the time). 

2. The second paragraph on the same page Keller sets up a false dichotomy. He says: 

“If Christianity is true, why are so many non-Christians living better lives than the Christians?”  

This is fallacious reasoning, he would first have to demonstrate that Christians are indeed living *worse* lives than non-believers. This is out of accord with Jesus teaching on the subject, and *almost* seems to foster a false humility. Why do we have to accept Keller’s premise? 

3. His *treatment* of fanaticism is lacking the sort of precision that such a matter deserves. He offers men like William Wilberforce as an example of turning the tide of injustice in Jesus name. The problem is that a man like Wilberforce was considered a fanatic in his day. His idea of fanaticism would categorically include a large number of people in our congregation.

 In fairness to Dr. Keller, I decided to ask him to clarify his statements in this chapter and wrote an email to Dr. Keller. Here is the body of that email:

Dear Dr. Keller,
 
I am writing to you in the hopes that you might answer a question. I will understand if your busy schedule will not allow time for a response, however I am willing to send this email with a sincere apology for the intrusion on your time.  I suppose a little background will help contextualize my question, I am a member of a _________________. Our pastor _____________, asked me to lead a small group discussion using your book. My particular burden is for evangelism and apologetics. I am particularly fond of Dr. Van Til’s methodology but am thankful that God has granted the PCA with a great number of very talented intellectuals, of which you are certainly numbered.
 
On the top of page 52 (first paragraph), you make a statement relating to the plausibility of Christianity. For the sake of brevity, I will not include the direct quote. I am certain you are familiar with the statement. I have read this over and over and it strikes me as an implicit validation of at least some premises of pragmatism. I am certain that I am missing something and would enjoy your response.
 
I sincerely appreciate all of your efforts to proclaim the gospel in Manhattan, may God continue to bless you and your family.
 
Best regards,

Needless to say I did not receive a response from Dr. Keller, although his assistant did send me a reply.  Her reply was in effect that Dr. Keller would be out of country and likely to busy to respond.  I somwehat expected this response however I was disappointed nonetheless. In the end, I believe the above critique is reasonable and I believe that Dr. Keller has opened the door to something that other Reformed Apologists would have found regrettable.

9 out 10 Atheists say Arminian Apologetics most likely to Fail

First, that is not a real statistic. It’s a farce.  The real statistic is 10 out of 10 atheist say that Arminian apologetics fail otherwise they would have exercised their freewill and became Christians. That was a bad attempt at a little humor. 

This begs the question, why do Arminian apologetics fail? I want to clarify this statement, this is not to say that Arminian apologetics always fail everytime but they do fail to be consistently supernatural in the sense that salvation is dependent solely on God’s grace. 

 I believe there are at least three good reasons why Arminian apologetics fail and ultimately will lead to the demise of the American Church (this follows necessarily from the premise that most churches are in fact Arminian)

1. Philosophically naive:  Militant atheism demands a more robust apologetic than the Arminian can muster. The Arminian must retreat the badlands of “moral free agency” to explain the issue of evil in the world.  Typically the Arminian apologete argues from within the supposed neutral zone of man’s will. As Van Til argued, this supposed neutrality is non-existent and offers both the apologete and his opponent a false pretense on which to formulate arguments. The antithesis between the atheistic worldview over against the Christian worldview is the only hope of exposing the epistemological shortcomings of anti-theistic thought.

2. Arminians do not argue the whole counsel of God: Rather they eviscerate the Word of God to remove all trappings of theological determinism. This “protects” God from being considered some sort of Cosmic meanie who elects and predestinates. Instead of God’s determinate will in matters of election we have millions of autonomous indeterminate individuals exercising their wills.

3. Arminian apologetics has the wrong end in mind: The contrast between Reformed (Calvinistic) apologetics and Arminian apologetics could not be any more stark then on this point. The Calvinist (even those evil evidentialists) engage in the task of apologetics for the Glory of God and more specifically for the glory of Christ. Christ deserves the honor and glory for what he did for his elect. Arminians on the other hand argue for the sake of man’s eternal decision. How the Arminian apologete avoids the charge of idolatry in this manner of apologetics and evangelism is a subject for another day.

 

 

I am hopeful that I am not alone is hating this expression. For one thing the expression  merely expresses a tautology. Of course it is what it is, what else could ‘it’ be? 

The development of this colloquialism is rather difficult to trace; suffice “it” to say that in some sense this is a repackaged way of saying x=x.  In fact each time I hear someone exclaim “it is what it is” I hear them saying: x=x.  I cannot express to you how annoying this is to me. We are afterall talking about something that could be called “common knowledge”  the Law of Identity (x=x) is presupposed by nearly everyone (at least in so far as someone is rational).

Take another look at this common idiom and you will find that the statement it is what it is is perfectly meaningless. First, it refers to nothing therefore whatever it is cannot refer to thing that supposedly ‘is’. Second, to make such a statement is to spout nonsense. Most people are simply trying to assert that their perception of reality corresponds with the way that reality really and truly is. Should we agree to such a notion? How do I know that their perception of a thing, in particular reality in some way corresponds to my apprehension of reality? If someone says well, it is what it is shouldn’t I ask them what “it” is before I agree to this assertion?

He is the head of the church

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence  (Colossians 1:18)

Jesus Christ is the supreme being, he is the head of every doctrine, he is the maxim that bears repeating. Christ is all glorious and all sufficient. One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. 

He alone is due worship, he alone reconciles men to the Father. He is our advocate, our friend, our teacher, our kindred-redeemer. He alone is magnificent.

.

Come lotus reason

 

In a previous post, I attempted to make the case that the *physical* exercise associated with Yoga cannot be seperated from the Hindu metaphysics that undergirds the practice.

Apparently, many articles written by other Christians agree with my premise.

See here , here, here, Psychology today agrees that there is more here than meets the eye see here. Even  the JW’s have figured out that yoga is not compatible with Christianity (although they completely redefine Christianity) they at least recognize what many Christians are seemingly clueless about, the great spiritual hazards of yoga.

But here’s a suprise the Emergent church  has missed the mark yet again by endorsing Christian yoga.

Wake me up before you yoga….

 

Christian Yoga?

 Recently I engaged in a discussion regarding Yoga. In the western world Yoga has been misunderstood. Furthermore the spiritual damage that can occur has been downplayed.

 First, what is Yoga?

 

The word “Yoga” cannot be translated into English. In the Sanskrit, it derives from the root “Yuja,” which is to join or weld together. Just as two pieces of metal are welded together to become one, so in the philosophy of Yoga, the embodied spirit of the individual becomes one with the Universal Spirit through the regular practice of certain physical and mental exercises.[1]

 

Many Christians believe that Yoga or rather the physical exercises of Yoga can be separated from “exercise”. Sadly this misses the occult nature of Yoga.

 Yoga is the science of sciences, it is the way that leads to Godhood. “The Yoga we practice, is not for ourselves alone, but for humanity. Its object is not personal Mukti (liberation), although Mukti is a necessary condition of the Yoga, but the liberation of the human race.[2]

 

 Also of importance to note is that the word yoga is generic. There are several varieties of yoga, including Hatha yoga, Raja yoga, and Mantra yoga. There are also three groups of people that practice yoga. The first group is yogis who from childhood have practiced yoga. The second group is half-enlightened. They are still drawn to sense experiences but will come under the influence of a yogi and begin the practice of yoga. The final group is virtually hopeless however if they find a good yogi, they might through a committed effort achieve a limited amount of spiritual insight.

 

Those who find themselves among the third group would begin by practicing Hatha yoga. Aside from the rigid dietary restrictions and injunctions against various ways that Westerner’s live the new adherent to yoga is encouraged to follow the “rules”.

 

He should be a rigid vegetarian and abstain from all kinds of drinks that stimulate the system. He should never fill the stomach with a large quantity of food. He should observe the moral laws and practice absolute continence. He should learn to control his senses, keep his body clean, and purify his mind by arousing feelings of kindness and love towards all living creatures.[3]

The performance of asana or the postures of Hatha yoga are to be performed in order that the adherent develops the latent powers of the nerve centers. The most recognizable of postures is the lotus position. The Hindu god Shiva is often portrayed in the lotus position.

 

The postures are designed to assist us in perceiving the subtle forces at work within our bodies and the nerve currents that are moving in our body. According to Hinduism this gives us control of our bodies. The first step though is controlling one’s breathing. According to Hinduism prana is the life force that is within every human being and yama is how to control it.

 

The mind is also set in motion by the different nerve currents, bringing us to a state in which we have perfect control over body and mind, making both our servants. Knowledge is power, and to get this power we must begin at the beginning, the pranayama restraining the prana. [4]

 

Additionally the goal of pranayama is to awaken the coiled serpent called kundalini which is located in the muladhara chakra. Once the yogi has perfect control of prana he has infinite knowledge and infinite power. The control of prana and the release of kundalini or serpent lead to this change:

 

..The whole of nature will begin to change and the door of knowledge will open. No more will you need to go to book for knowledge; your own mind will have become your book, containing infinite knowledge. [5]

 

One thing that should be apparent at this point is that yoga is inherently religious and is a religious practice. The goal of which is to facilitate union with the impersonal ultimate reality or Brahman.

 

All this begs the question. Can you separate the physical exercise from the religious presuppositions that are implicit in yoga? The physical exercises of yoga have less to do with the gross body (i.e. the bones, muscles, and flesh) than it does with the subtle body. The subtle body is made up of the nadis or the invisible psychic channels. These channels have roughly seven connection points called chakras. The goal of the physical postures of yoga is to bring these points into alignment. The metaphysics of yoga cannot be separated from the physical postures of yoga.

 

How should the Christian respond to Yoga? For the sake of brevity the occult nature of yoga and the parallels with shamanism, witchcraft, and other forms of the occult cannot be fully developed. The goal of yoga along with the occult is to develop psychic powers and knowledge (gnosis) of the divine. In this case scripture should be our guide.

 

 

(1Co 10:20)  But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. (1Co 10:21)  Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s Table, and of the table of devils.

 

 

(2Ch 33:6)  And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

(2Ch 33:7)  And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever:

 

These scriptures and others (cf. Galatians 5:20) condemn divination and witchcraft. Yoga is in a real sense divination and therefore must be avoided by the Christian. Yoga is an affront to the holiness of God and provokes him to anger. I would urge the Christian practitioner of yoga to repent of his or her involvement in yoga.

 

 

---

[1] Liebers, Arthur. Relax with Yoga, (1960) http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rwy/rwy02.htm

[2] Gherwal, Rishi Singh. Kundalini The Mother of the Universe (1930) http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/kmu/kmu04.htm

[3] Abhedananda, Swami. How to be Yogi, (1902) http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/hby/index.htm

[4] Liebers, Arthur. Relax with Yoga, (1960) http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rwy/rwy02.htm

[5] Ankerberg, John, Encyclopedia of New Age Beliefs, Harvest House Publishers (1996) pg. 601

The Truth Project?

<p><a href="http://www.freedigitalphotos.net">Free Stock Photos</a> for websites - FreeDigitalPhotos.net</p>

Focus on the Family has a new program (relatively new) called the Truth Project. As my church will be offering this program in the form of a small group soon, I thought I would take a look at the website.

To begin with, I looked at the FAQ’s page. One of the questions intrigued me, here is the question (paraphrased)

How does the TP define “truth”?

And here is the response:

The Truth Project begins by defining truth as “that which conforms to reality.”  But it’s much deeper than that.  We want this study to serve as a catalyst for examining one’s  personal worldview, which we define as “the set of individual truth claims which I embrace so deeply that I believe they reflect what is really real – and therefore they drive what I think, how I act, and what I feel.” 

Many people today – unfortunately, most people – don’t seem to think that there is any universal standard of absolute truth.  But we believe differently.  The purpose of The Truth Project is to develop a biblical worldview: “A formal worldview based ultimately upon that nature, character, and being of God as it is expressed in His infallible Word [the Bible] and His creation.  It becomes the foundation for a life system that governs every area of existence.” 

For us, the “truth” is God’s truth, as set forth supremely and most definitively in the Bible – and we regard this truth to be absolute in the sense that it cannot be compromised and is not open to purely subjective interpretation.  Ultimately, we cannot dissect the truth; we can only proclaim it (http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=25113)

 

The intent of the Truth Project is to foster a *Christian* worldview, by this I take this to mean a *biblical* worldview as there is really no such thing as a *Christian* worldview  per se  but this is only ancillary to the  more involved and more interesting conclusion of the quote.  From the outset, I want to be clear that this is not a critique of the Truth Project, rather it is simply an observation on my part that perhaps TP has not applied the sort of precision necessary to define its own epistemology.  I would also assert with requisite confidence that one’s definition of truth begs for philosophical precision, given the apparent philosophical sophisitication of militant atheism.

A few reflections:

1.) The TP begins by defining truth. The definition they give is “that which conforms to reality“  

This is an unfortunate way to begin. Van Til saw the shortcoming of what is known as the Correspondence Theory of Truth when he penned his book on Christian Epistemology. Van Til writes that true knowledge of some “thing” is only possible with absolute knowledge.

True human knowledge corresponds to the knowledge which God has of himself and his world. Suppose that I am a scientist investigating the life and ways of a cow. What is this cow? I say it is an animal. But that only pushes the question back. What is an animal? To answer that question I must know what life is. But again, to know what life is I must know how it is related to the inorganic world. And so I may and must continue till I reach the borders of the universe. (http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/sce/cvt_sce_chap1.html)

Van Til utilizes the correspondence theory of truth, but offers an important distinction and clarification. Human knowledge will never rise to the level of God’s knowledge as his quote illustrates. However this is not to say that human knowledge results in utter skepticism rather human knowledge is true in so far as it correponds to God’s knowledge of an external object like a cow.  

 

1a.) The TP goes beyond this simple definition and then defines a “personal worldview”  as the set of individual truth claims which I embrace………

At some level there is ambiguity with this statement. Prima facie it appears that the TP is endorsing a subjectivist approach to truth, however after reading this a second time I do not believe that this is the intent. Rather, they are interested once again in correspondence. Does one’s personal worldview correspond with a biblical worldview. This is admirable and a goal that all Christians should have, i.e. conformity with God’s word.

  

2.) The TP asserts that many people today, in fact most people don’t seem to think that there is any universal standard of absolute truth.  

 Sadly this statement is problematic. I don’t agree that the disagreement is about a “universal standard” of absolute truth.  Fundamentally, I think the disagreement is about whether or not there is absolute truth. In other words, absolute truth is universal in nature while relative truth is subjective. Furthermore, this is a non-sequitar. The nature of truth is not determined by whether or not there is consensus for most people.  The statement [there is no absolute truth]  made by “most people” [whoever they are] is self-referentially incoherent. If there is no absolute truth, then the statement [there is no absolute truth] is not absolutely true therefore we can reject it. If there statement is false, then we can reject it because there is in fact absolute truth.

 

3.) The TP says: “For us” the truth is God’s truth.  

Wrong. The truth is the truth because it is God’s truth not because it is subjectively true for me or you. This follows the worn out slogan found on the bumper sticker “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”  This is wrong for the same reason the above statement by the Truth Project is wrong. God’s word is not waiting on subjective verification by a human being to validate the truth of any premise uttered by God. In other words, a biblical statement would be: God said it, that settles it.

3a.) As set forth …most definitively in the Bible.

Wrong again. This statement hides an important premise. The premise is that truth can exist in other sacred texts. This is an abhorrent and I dare say blasphemous thing to say. Categorically, all other religious texts are inspired by Satan as attempt to undermine God’s authority. The Word of God alone is truth, all other texts that claim the moniker “sacred” are wrought by the fiery printing presses of hell. My objection to this statement is visceral. The TP loses the battle for a biblical worldview from the very outset by inserting the word “most” in front of definitive.

3b.).. and we regard this truth to be absolute in the sense that it cannot be compromised

Nonsense.  The word of God is absolute because of the characteristics of God, he is immutable, omniscient, omnipresent, and utterly sovereign. Whether or not something can compromised only **again** makes it subjectively true at the most. The ground of the universal and absolute nature of truth is rooted and grounded in God’s being. You can compromise the word of God, but this is to your peril and is the negation of that which is true by definition. (cf. John 14:6) 

Is there a *sense* in which the truth of God’s word can be compromised thus making it only subjectively true? The lack of precision and the redefining of the nature of truth is quite alarming if we are indeed attempting to foster a biblical worldview.  Furthermore, the antecedent makes this statement only subjectively true, *we* regard this truth to be absolute, this misses the objective nature of God’s word.

3c.) Ultimately, we cannot dissect the truth…

According to 2 Timothy 2:15 we are to rightly divide the word of God. The Greek word used here is orthotomeo defined by Strong’s as 

to make a straight cut, that is, (figuratively) to dissect (expound) correctly (the divine message): – rightly divide.

All this is to say, the TP has an ill-conceived notion of the nature of truth, its objectivity, and the character of God.

 Let’s hope that the study exceeds my expectation given this faulty definition of absolute truth. I am all for encouraging assent to the bible and developing Christians with a biblical worldview. I can only hope that this most important of subjects is the only flaw in an otherwise brilliant series.~BBG