That Just Won't Do
I can remember listening to R.C Sproule [Bible teacher] a few years back.
He was telling of a time when he was in seminary. One of his professors asked the class to defend the Christian faith against a Mormon. The Mormon doesn't believe that God is Spirit but instead has a physical body. The class sat quietly...then the teacher points at Sproule and volunteers him.
Sproule says he began at John 4:24 that says God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. At this the teacher replies "no, no, no, that won't do."
Then Sproule and the rest of the class began to go through a detailed Scriptural argument showing that God is eternally Spirit. At each point in the argument the teacher just shook his head and said "no, no, no, that just won't do".
Finally...exasperated...the class gave in.
They then turned to the teacher and asked him how he would defend the Christian position.
The teacher started off at John 4:24 and then proceeded to give the exact argument the class gave moments earlier.
The class began to shout "thats what we said"!
And to this the old teacher just laughed and said..."yes, and you let me beat your strong Scriptural argument by just saying, "no, no, no, that just won't do."
The Transcendental Argument for God's existence is Nuclear in its strength!
This argument says that the Triune God of Scripture [and His revelation to man] is the "precondition for all intelligibility".
Because God is the Creator and Govenor of all things then all things only make sense when viewed by His revelation.
Just because the unbeliever doesn't throw in his hat doesn't mean that the argument is lacking in its powerful.
It just shows the unbelievers rebellion.
Sin and unbelief are not rational!
When the Holy Spirit enlightens a man then our preaching and evangelizing brings unbelievers into the kingdom of Christ.
A few points to remember:
Never assume neutrality.
Never allow the unbeliever to subtly draw you into his unbelieving circle of thought.
When you do step into his circle, do so consciously to show that it is inconsistent with itself, and arbitrary.
The unbeliever will want you to answer to his standards [he even has the never to demand that God stand before his [the unbeliever's] bar of justice...but he can't even give a concrete reason for why he has standards.
Never be ashamed of God's word...it is the foundation for all truth.
The unbeliever really knows this...but he is holding down God's clearly revealed truth, in both the world and Word.
Cling to Christ [The Word of God] He is the truth, the Way, the Life.
God the Father and Jesus Christ are the source of all wisdom and knowledge.
posted by Dale Callahan at 10:44 AM
16 Comments:
I agree with the title at least - That Just Won't Do as an argument.
Just exactly on what basis to you assert that the Triune God of Scripture is the "precondition for all intelligibility"? I could understand an assertion that God is the creator of human intelligence, but that's obviously not what you mean.
In point of fact, most our our knowledge of things originated with individuals who did not believe in the God of the Bible. The foundation of Western knowledge is from the ancient Greeks, not from believers in the "Triune God of Scripture". (P.S. The doctrine of the trinity was formulated many decades AFTER the last books of the New Testament were written, so it is not accurate to speak of a Triune God of Scripture.)
Say, DL, if men learned how to articulate the law of gravity at a particular point in history, does that mean that there was no law of gravity before that point?
Same with the Trinity. God was, is, and always will be, triune. Independent of the fact that we never learned how to say it till later in the church. If you think it is something that somebody made up to keep the masses in subjection, it doesn't change the reality of things. And that reality, I dare say, stares you in the face every day. If you would bow the knee, you could see it.
Gravity can be proven and that's why it was discovered. The Trinity was not discovered, it was imagined. As the early church argued over whether there were 3 Gods or one and how one God could have a Son that was other than himself, etc., etc., they invented the doctrine of the trinity to "explain" their dilemma. Of course it didn't explain anything and didn't resolve anything. It was the authority of the Roman Empire that imposed a solution.
For an excellent scholarly review of the origins of the church and its doctrines, read The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman. I think you'll find it enlightening on this subject and others. I dare say that if you would get up off your knees, you would gain a better grasp of reality.
Of course, we all know that DL wants us to stand for just long enough to change our position and then bend our knee to his gods and scholars alongside him. And those gods, many and varied, fall on their hand-carved faces over and over throughout history before the Triune God.
The idea that those who do not believe as you do about God are idolators is part of your belief system, not a fact based in reality.
I don't really care whether you or Jamie believe in God or not, what I care about is the callous, arrogant attitude you and your co-religionists have toward those who disagree. You have decided what to believe regardless of whether it has a factual basis and then set out to belittle and/or demonize those who have actually examined their faith and decided your system is wrong.
Idolatry implies belief in an erroneous concept. Before you accuse others, you need to examine your own faith to insure it is not based on erroneous concepts.
DL, why does it seem to bother you when it is suggested that you are an idolater? Do you worship the true God, and are offended by the suggestion that you don't? Who is to say? If you or I are the final court of appeal, then ultimately, idolatry is just a word that means nothing. I think what I like, you think what you like.
But such is not the case. We believe the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible. He is the one who sets the standards for what constitutes idolatry. And it appears to me that you believe this too, or the suggestion wouldn't offend you. If I or Dale or Des were just making it up, then standing on our high horse making pompous declarations, I would think it would roll of your back a little more easily...
And how is it calloused and arrogant for me to measure what you say against the Trinity, but it is quite all right for you to measure me according to your anti-trinity?
If one is going to be "calloused and arrogant", it helps if one is right. Which we are. :-)
Jamie,
You say you "believe the God who has revealed Himself in the Bible". That's fine. I have no objection to your believing whatever you like. I do object to statements that indicate that those who do not share your beliefs are wrong, led by Satan, idolators, etc. I also object to defenses of your position using erroneous facts and unjustified assumptions.
I am not "measuring you" by your Trinitarian beliefs, only pointing out that your understanding of the doctrine's origin is mistaken. While there are scattered references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the New Testament, nowhere does it discuss a Triune God. The concept of the Trinity developed much later and even when Constantine imposed a solution on the bishops at Nicaea, that formulation did not receive widespread support. It's fair to say that the doctrine is a late 4th century creation driven by ecclesiastical and secular leaders interested in maintaining control over the new religion.
The idolators comment was in response to des jones who implied that those who employ reason and logic are idolatrous - that's simply ridiculous.
"I have no objection to your believing whatever you like. I do object to statements that indicate that those who do not share your beliefs are wrong..." DL, please explain what you are talking about. It sounds to me as though you are saying that you don't object to us believing what we want (which naturally excludes us believing what you want us to), but that you do object to us not believing what you want us to (which includes saying that other beliefs are wrong).
I am not much of an intellectual wrestling champion, and quite frankly, you have me stumped on this one. You are defying the very logic and reason that you appeal to us to employ.
Gee, I thought I was being clear. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't:
1. Advocate a position that interferes with the right of others to believe what they want, and live their lives without your interference; or
2. Display a callous, arrogant attitude toward those who disagree with you; or
3. Argue in circles.
You can believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus if you like, but when you claim that those who don't are irrational, deceptive, evil, and damned then you've gone too far.
Hey Des,
Unfortunately, many Christians have been sucked into the thinking that DL is trying to deal out.
It doesn't matter what you believe just don't push it on to others.
In other words...religious beliefs are ok just keep them out of the public sphere.
DL, Let me give you an example from our country.
Once upon a time, in our country, homosexual behavior was illegal.
If it could be proven, in a court of law that you practiced this abomination then you could be punished under the law.
[Do note, when your beliefs and behavior are punished by the civil government this not the government saying all beliefs are equal]
Next step, homosexual behavior slipped off the 10 most wanted list and moved from "illegal" to "immoral". Many people still viewed homosexual behavior as something worthy of God's wrath in eternity, but not something punishable by God's wrath, via the civil government [Romans 13].
Next step...much talk of toleration. Let's tolerate each other, be open to all beliefs.
Do notice while this talk is going on laws are still be enforced in the public sphere.
Now in our country there are "hate" laws. If a person speaks against homosexual behavior they can be punished by law. At this point in time there are clauses to protect the religious from this fate...but alas if God's judgment against us doesn't lift this too will be done away with.
So who's beliefs are to be the standard for making laws?
Those who don't even have an absolute standard, or God, who is the standard?
Dale,
Interesting example and quite a good one to illustrate the point. First of all, the government has absolutely no business enforcing proscribing behavior simply because that behavior is "an abomination" to some religious group.
The government should only interfere if the behavior infringes on the rights of others - not their religious sensibilities. In no way does tolerance of homosexuality, civil rights for homosexuals, or even extension of marital contracts to include homosexuals infringe on the rights of others. You may find these developments abhorrent, but you would be hard pressed to show you are harmed by them.
The standard for lawmaking is not religious belief, either yours or anothers. The standard for lawmaking is fairness, equal treatment, and protecting human rights. These are generally accepted standards in the Western world and have their origins primarily in the Greco-Roman world and the Enlightment - not in religion.
If you are being sexually harassed by a gay man or a heterosexual woman, that would be a proper matter for government intervention, because your rights were being violated. Allowing two individuals who love each other to marry, buy a home together, and make a loving home for adopted children does not in any way interfere with your rights.
According to the Christian worldview homosexual behavior being accepted in the public square certainly does effect...and hurt society. Homosexual behavior is not only going to be punished by God on judgment day, it also is a sign that His judgment is on an individual or society already.
The very fact that our society is accepting homosexual behavior shows that God is judging us.
So people promoting behavior that encourages God's wrath "hurts" everyone in that culture.
This is from my view point.
From your view point... I don't know why you would want to encourage 'animals' that simply cannot reproduce [as long as they follow their desires].
Even if they adopted...their offspring could only reproduce as long as they didn't follow their parents choice of sexual perference.
Now, you said that lawmaking is not founded upon relgious belief but "The standard for lawmaking is fairness, equal treatment, and protecting human rights."
What is fair? What is the standard of fairness? Should a criminal be allowed equal treatment [in the realm of his freedom to go and do what he wants] as a person who hasn't broken the law? If not, then aren't we being unfair towards him and not giving him equal treatment?
According to an evolutionary view why should men treat each other with fairness and protect human rights?
You believe in millions of years of animals fighting for survival, killing each other...looking out for number 1.
Why should we change now?
You try to sound stable but your beliefs have no foundation...they are like whip cream...a bunch of fluffed up froth.
You may not like the Christians answer but at least he has justification for "universal" laws. Laws that are binding on everyone...but God created everyone...God makes the laws for everyone...and God will judge everyone.
All you have is a bunch of animals wandering aimlessly on some mud ball that is also wandering aimlessly through outer space...there are no laws...no order...no absolutes...no truth.
And yet you continue to use all these things.
Caught cha again...using God's world to try to deny God.
Is that the best you can do? Let me get it straight. Because you believe that God will punish an entire society because it "accepts" homosexual behavior, therefore you are exposed to "harm" from this vindictive God, so homosexuals should be denied equal rights? It's all in your head, Dale. You could just as easily escape this "judgment" by simply reading the Bible differently.
I know you have trouble believing that other people can have fixed moral beliefs without reference to your ideas about God, but that's also in your mind. There is no conflict or fluff in the Western structure of law. If a criminal persistenly violates the rights of others (by causing them actual harm, whether physical or theft of property, for example) then he/she should be removed from the general population. A just society will make an attempt to rehabilitate the criminal, but if that is unsuccessful and his/her crimes are serious enough, then releasing them back into society would be improper.
I know you believe that all morals and laws come from God, but history simply does not bear that out. You are simply arguing in circles. You assume that the world and morality are created by your God, then accuse me you using "God's world to deny God". It doesn't wash. Try reading history and looking at those governments that have formed an alliance with strict Christianity and you will find shocking examples of immoral and evil behavior: the Inquisition, the genocide of Native Americans by the Spanish in the name of Jesus, the horrors of thousands of tortures, burnings at the stake, and beheadings of those who did not believe properly.
The only way to preserve morality and justice is to clearly separate government from religion.
With all your talk...and you do have no problem with that...you haven't shown me how you can have a universal law...a law in which you do judge others by...especially fundamentalist
Christians.
In your universe why is any law binding on "all".
If you say that there isn't any universal or absolute then do us all a favor and keep your "opinion" to yourself...because in the end we each have a right to do what right in our own eyes.
You can speak your beliefs...you just can get along in this world by your professed beliefs...because in the end not even you believe in your professed beliefs.
Yes, we both have a right to do and say what we please -- as long as by so doing we do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.
You however, are not willing to extend those rights to homosexuals. No one is asking you to invite drag queens over to your home to babysit your kids. No one is asking you to participate in gay sex. What gay people are asking is the right to life where they want, do what they want and say what they want, just like you.
You have a problem with gays, blacks, Jews, or Muslims - fine. You are entitled to be a bigot. When you seek to deny others the same rights you possess, then you are causing them actual harm - not presumed harm in an fancicul afterlife presided over by a vengeful God, but in the actual, real, present, current, living, breathing, non-fictional life we are living here and now.
If I didn't want to hang out with a convicted bank robber, murderer or rapist [of women] then I guess I would also be a "bigot"
I believe that homosexuality is not only immoral...but that it should be illegal.
The only reason why you would be willing to deny a convicted rapist certain rights is because you agree with the law that it is illegal.
I guess you are a "bigot" as well aren't you DL, anyone who doesn't believe in what you hold as dear is given some nasty little name.
Why should anyone listen to you?
You have admitted not to hold to ultimate or universal standards...so this is more of your opinion I take?
Post a Comment
<< Home