The Average Canaanite

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’m going to take the time now to return to my look at presuppositionalism. Mainly, the claim that one has to affirm the God of Christianity if they are going to be able to coherently affirm anything at all. To do that, I’d like to take a look at your typical Joe Canaanite in the ancient world around the time of Abraham.

This is a man who does not have a Bible yet at all. After all, Moses has not been born so he has no way of reading the book of Genesis, or any other book, save maybe Job. He does not have a personal prophet to him although one could say that in a limited sense, he has the traditions of his fathers that have passed down. However, he has no way of archaeologically confirming a flood or that even YHWH was the one who revealed himself to Noah.

What is it that he is to be told? He is to be told that he knows the truth of the God of Scripture and that he is denying it. Now I do agree that Romans 1 makes a strong case that one is aware of God by looking at creation. In many polytheistic cultures even if not all, there is belief in one high god who is supreme over all the little gods.

The problem is that Joe Canaanite cannot point to a Scripture that he is denying and he certainly can’t make statements like “God is triune” at this point. This is important since the presuppositional approach makes a constant appeal to the self-attesting triune God of Scripture. The same is also said of Christ, but what is it that this person can know of Christ really?

Now the question I have to ask is “Does Joe Canaanite know anything?” I see no reason to think otherwise. I think he can know who his parents are, where he lives, what his name is, what he had for breakfast, how to hunt wild animals, the names of the pagan deities that he worships, etc. All of these are knowledge claims that can be held by him.

Now does that mean that God is unrelated to knowledge? Not at all. If there was no God, there would be no knowledge. It is agreed by Christians that God’s ontological existence is necessary to explain reality, but having knowledge of God is what is disputed. Does one have to know God as a Trinity who revealed Himself in Christ in order to have knowledge? This would be a much more difficult claim to defend.

Joe Canaanite presents a problem. How could he have knowledge of the Trinity and Christ at the time he lives? Does he have some knowledge of God available to him? Yes he does. This is only a basic rudimentary knowledge however and likely it’s to be filled with errors. Your average Canaanite would not have the philosophical acumen to reason like Aristotle. (For that matter, your average and even above-average modern doesn’t either!)

Does Joe Canaanite still need to repent? Yes. Why? Because he has the moral law that he can have knowledge that he’s violated. The moral law consists of truths that we simply can’t not know. If you need an argument to convince you that murder is wrong for instance, it is quite likely you need more than an argument. You need a good therapist and I need to do the best I can to avoid you.

What about his salvation? I cannot answer definitively on that except to say that the judge of all the Earth will do right. For the time being, I can say that I have no reason to think Joe Canaanite can make no claims to knowledge and that he can have zero knowledge of God. How this happens will be worked out in future blogs.

Eschatological Sanity

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Back on May 4th, I wrote on the supposed Judgment Day being today. Interestingly, I haven’t been able to connect to the Family Radio web site of Harold Camping since last night and it’s going to be interesting to see what happens when he’s shown to be wrong yet again.

Now we have all laughed about matters some. There has been no major earthquake in New Zealand that has started moving across the planet. I have no doubt that I’ll be sleeping next to my wife in my bed tonight. If you post on Facebook, you see a lot of people having a good laugh over that and I honestly understand that. We’ve told our own jokes on the matter in our household.

At the same time when we pray at night, we pray about the people who have been hurt by this. My wife will ask me “What’s going to happen to the people who spent their life savings?” I don’t know. I can’t know. I do know that they will be hurt however. They would have placed all their trust in a man and found that that man was not reliable. The sad reality is many of them will transfer that over to the Bible. After all, if the Bible guaranteed it and that which it guaranteed was false, then the Bible must be false.

Many of us have seen people like this. They become very angry apostates a lot of times. The same mentality is there unfortunately. It is the cult thought entirely. These people have been hurt. What the solution is for now is us to develop some eschatological sanity. After all, most of us will be just fine when the sun rises on May 22nd, but some people won’t be.

Starting off, know the Scriptures. If you have a view of eschatology, be able to defend it. If you’re a dispensationalist, be ready to defend that. If you’re a preterist, be ready to defend that. However, realize there are extremes. For the preterist, to be a hyper-preterist as they are called is to go into the heresy of denying the bodily resurrection. For the dispensationalist, teaching like that of Camping can be the problem.

That anyone took Camping seriously is a problem. These people are counting on someone else to be their interpreter of Scripture. I have no problem with going to other teachers and getting their opinion on matters. Many of you read this blog for that reason. When the day comes however that someone takes what is in this blog as infallible then I will have a problem. Please check out what I say elsewhere.

A good friend of mine wrote that Camping’s problem with dating is extreme hubris on his part, and I agree. It can seem that with eschatology, so many of us are so busy trying to figure out when it is that we don’t live like we ought to. Peter told us in 2 Peter 3 that since the end is coming, we ought to live holy and godly lives. Are we doing that?

In many ways, we ought to be living like the end could come today. We ought to be living as if our Lord could come back and surprise us at any moment. Do we want to be caught unaware? However, we are not told that we can KNOW when that time will be. The house owner does not know when a thief is coming, but if he KNOWS one is coming, he will be preparing himself.

Folks. There’s been a 100% failure rate with prophecy predictions by doomsayers on when the end is coming. This is nothing new. Let me state what we are 100% certain of. Jesus will physically return one day. We will have our loved ones rise up and if we are dead, we ourselves will rise. Now we can talk about signs and such and think the end is near, and some do that, but Christ did not set dates and neither should we.

Pray for the people who have been hurt by this and pray for Camping as well. He too is in the image of God. Let us hope he repents also and that those who have been hurt can somehow be compensated.

Thoughts on Love Wins

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’d like to write today on my thoughts on “Love Wins.” I finally got around to reading this book that has created a firestorm of controversy and I have listened to a debate Bell did on the Unbelievable radio program.

This book is very readable. I happen to enjoy Bell’s writing style and I have heard him speak through some of his NOOMA programs and I did enjoy a lot of what he said. Bell however is more pastoral than theological and there were times that I believed in the book that the pastor’s heart was overruling the theologian’s mind. I believe the two should work in tandem, but it seems that Bell wants one to overrule the other and if it’s the head or heart, it’s going to be the heart. What you prefer to be true is what is true.

On a practical level, Bell does have some good points. Bell writes of how we can make Heaven or Hell here on Earth right now. Some Christians can be so focused on the future life that they miss the reality that is going on now. If we are cutting ourselves off from the things of God, we are creating our own private Hell. If we are getting closer to the goodness of God, we are preparing ourselves for Heaven.

Bell is also right when he talks about how most Christians view Heaven as if it was another dimension or a physical realm somewhere else out there. I am of the belief that Heaven is physical, but it’s defined by being the place where God’s presence is made manifest. A new Heaven and a new Earth mean that creation will be reborn and filled with the manifest presence of God. Bell writes in one point of how some pastors have said Heaven would be like a church service that never ends, to which I do agree, that could often sound like Hell to most of us.

What got Bell started on this work also is important. It was a presentation at church about what it means to be a peacemaker and a woman included a note from Gandhi to which someone had put on there in reply, “Reality check: He’s in Hell.”

Now when I heard that I wondered what on Earth would make someone think they needed to write that. What does that have to do with the truth of Gandhi’s principles? Would we want to reject the theory of relativity if we said “Reality check: Einstein’s in Hell” or would we want to reject the Declaration of Independence if we were told “Reality check: Jefferson’s in Hell.”?

Bell asks how we know that Gandhi is. I say it’s completely irrelevant to the truth of what he’s saying, but I understand the kind of attitude Bell is writing against. He is opposed to the turn and burn message people usually give. I oppose the way it’s often used today as well. However, before commenting on that, I’d like to state other points I agree with Bell on.

Bell does say that to many Christians, all that matters is if you’re going to Heaven. This is a common attitude and it is one we need to stop. What matters is if one is becoming like Christ. In our day and age, we have too many cases of signing on the bottom line to become a Christian and then that’s it. There’s conversion without discipling.

It’s also relieving to hear Bell write about how many people say that the most important aspect is to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus. Bell says that the problem is that this does not show up in the Bible. In our modern age this kind of thinking is everywhere and I was pleased to hear someone else say it.

Bell is also correct when he criticizes people who say they can’t believe in a God who judges. Bell contends that we all want a God who judges, particularly when someone does something evil to us. We want God to give them what they deserve. We want God to make things right again.

In speaking about how we live, Bell I think makes some good points. He brings out how we need to change our attitudes. For instance, in speaking about a racist, Bell says that a racist would be miserable in Heaven since he would be up there in Heaven with all of “those people.” There are attitudes we need to remove from each of us to be ready for the presence of God.

A great line on page 46 is that Bell says “our eschatology shapes our ethics. Eschatology is about last things. Ethics are about how you live.” Now eschatology is not about morality, but it does influence morality. If you believe that you will live in the presence of God, you will live accordingly. If you believe there’s no Heaven to gain or Hell to shun, you will also behave accordingly.

Now on to points I disagree with.

To begin with, Bell is a pastor and he does not interact with those who disagree. You do not find the classical defenses of the doctrine of Hell in this book. There are no references to Christian apologetics where the doctrine of Hell is defended. It could be Bell for the sake of argument is entirely right in what he says, but he needs to show it by interaction with the other side.

Second, Bell is not really clear where he falls. For instance, at the end of the chapter “Does God get what God wants?” Bell says that if we want Heaven, we will get Heaven, and if we want Hell, we will get Hell. He says that love can’t be forced, manipulated, or coerced. We will get what we want because love wins.

However, at other places, he asks if God will really punish someone forever for sins committed in such a short lifetime. Bell states on page 175 that if God will do that, nothing will disguise that one true, glaring, untenable, unacceptable, and awful reality. Bell asks if God becomes a God of wrath once someone dies while a God of love while they’re alive.

The answer is that he’s always both to us. Romans 1 tells us that the wrath of God is being revealed. The wrath of God is a present reality. However, the love of God is also present. It is not God that changes when we die, but rather we cement ourselves in the position we were in relation to Him before death.

If Bell wants to be a universalist, and there are definitely universalist tendencies in this book, I would prefer that he’d just come right out and say it. Bell seems to be unable to state a clear view on the matter. It is as if Bell wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be able to speak universalist without having the label.

While Bell has interesting looks at Luke 15 and 16, he too often leaves questions unanswered that could lead to doubt, such as how it is that we are saved. Is it by believing the right things or doing good? The answer is by believing the right things, we do good, thereby showing that we are saved. Bell often presents views as being against each other when they can really work together.

Bell also uses loaded language. Often when he writes about Hell, he talks about people being tortured. For Bell, there’s no distinction made between a literal fiery Hell and a Hell that is more of an eternal quarantine. There are no degrees of suffering in Hell. Bell would give the impression that it’s an all or nothing idea.

Bell also says the only verses relevant to Hell are those that specifically mention Hell. This is simply false. For instance, I recall no place where Bell really interacts with Revelation 14 where it talks about the smoke of the torment going up forever and ever for those who oppose the Lamb. Bell tells us that the Old Testament does not say much about Hell, but for that matter nor does it say much about Heaven. Most of the people then were concentrated enough on just making it by on day-to-day living.

Bell says Jesus did not use Hell to try to convert pagans and heathens. However, it’s important to note that Jesus also didn’t interact with pagans and heathens. He spent his time in Israel and in that area, he was interacting with Jews and was using ideas that the Jews would have already known.

Bell is also problematic about saying Jesus is bigger than one religion. Bell says Jesus will transcend any label put on him, especially the one called “Christianity.” Is Bell opening the door for pluralism here? His viewpoint is unclear as Bell seems to be continually riding the fence.

Having heard him on Unbelievable answering questions about the after-death with saying that he did not know, my thoughts were “If you do not know, you have no basis writing on the topic.” Bell does have some good points on how we live and interesting looks at Luke 15 and 16.

I also write wanting to understand seeing as my wife has been a fan of Bell in the past and how this controversy has been hard on her. No one is asking Bell to become a “turn or burn” preacher, but rather to be willing to admit the reality of what he believes. If he is a universalist, come out and say it. If he is not, come out and deny it. Be sure to define what you mean by those terms. If he believes some people will spend forever in Hell, come out and say it. If not, come out and say it.

Bell does have a good gift for speaking and writing and it is my hope that he can use it for good. It would start with affirming the reality of the conditions of the after-death, the way that Jesus did.

Temple of the Future on Morality

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’d like today to write on something that Justin Brierley presented on the Unbelievable Facebook page. It’s an article on a site called “Temple of the Future” concerning morality and biblical truth. It can be found here.

Temple starts off with discussing recent programs of Unbelievable. To be fair, I have not got to listen to the most recent one yet on women in ministry. However, does the first one mentioned of a look at Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” really have much to do with morality? It’s quite likely that most evangelicals would agree with Bell on several moral issues. My opinion on “Love Wins” is coming sometime soon, but regardless of whether Bell is right or wrong, the question is not about whether an action is right or wrong. Bell could be a universalist or not be a universalist and still believe murder is wrong.

What of the program on the true face of Islam? It’s a wonder that this is being seen as something on the Bible when this is really something on the Koran if anything. An atheist could have been a guest on the show and could have stated that Bin Laden was or wasn’t the true face of Islam. If he knew what the teachings were in the Koran or Hadith, then he could have presented what he believed to be an accurate argument for whatever position he held. Again, whether Bin Laden was or wasn’t the true face of Islam doesn’t matter to me at this point.

The last one is the closest one we have to a moral issue, but is it really so much a moral issue? Does anyone really believe someone would go to Hell, for instance, for having a female minister? Augustine dealt with a question similar to this back with the Donatist teaching. What if someone was baptized by someone who was a heretic? Does that mean their salvation is null and void? Augustine said no.

Temple says it is foolish to let the questions of morality become exercises in literary criticism.

However, what is actually meant by literary criticism? Here are the main issues that we can raise.

Is the text that we have what we had then? This would be textual criticism. Whether what the text says is true or not does not really matter. Even if all that say, Paul wrote in Romans, is wrong, does that mean we don’t have what he originally wrote? All we want to know is if we have what he wrote.

What style is the writing in? Are we going to take Revelation in a literal sense? When Jesus says “Pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin” is he to be taken literally? At the same time, when he says “Love your neighbor as yourself” is that to be taken literally, and how do we know when to take the text literally and when not? This is part of hermeneutics, that is, the art of interpretation of a text.

Finally, we come to the questions of “What does the text mean?” and then for our personal application “What does it mean to us personally today?” The first question is the most important one although we usually skip to the second. What does the text mean? This can also be a difficult one, but it’s not just with the biblical text. It’s with any text. We wonder what the text means in Plato, the Upanishads, the Koran, Nietzsche, government laws, or just ordinary conversation. ALL texts must be interpreted and some interpretations are right and some are wrong.

Turning to the program on church leaders, Temple simply says this is a dumb question to be asking. Why? Because it’s not the way most people in the 21st century think. So what? If someone wants to remain faithful to a text, it’s an important question to ask if there’s debate on what the text means. Granted, it’s not the most fascinating topic to the secular man, but again, so what? Are Christians forced to have debates and define debates in the way that the secular person prefers?

Temple sees this as discrimination when we don’t allow women to be in ministry. To begin with, it is discrimination, but that assumes all discrimination is wrong. My work place is discriminatory. They only allow men to go into the men’s room and they only allow women to go into the women’s room.

The Boy scouts are discriminatory. You have to be a boy to participate. Places that give senior citizen discounts are discriminatory as you have to be at least 65 to get one. Restaurants that say kids eat free are discriminatory since you have to be a kid in order to eat for free.

The question is “What is the basis for the discrimination.” Does the Bible say women should not be in ministry because they are inferior? It would be good to see such a text. The closest Temple points to is Ephesians 2:22-24. Nowhere mentioned however is that the man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church which is hardly a dominating theme. As a married man, it calls me to constant self-sacrifice for my wife. Now do some people misuse this text? Of course. People can misuse any text, but does Temple want us to think the text has no meaning and is open to any interpretation. If so, then can he really say that the text teaches the inferiority of women? Can I not say “That’s just your interpretation.”?

Temple writes about two scholars of Shakespeare’s works and how they disagree over the meaning of what Shakespeare said and asks if we could ever come to a conclusion on what Shakespeare meant. Temple tells us that of course we couldn’t. Temple tells us that like any complete text, it’s open to interpretation.

Okay. Agreed. It is open to interpretation.

Then he says multiple valid interpretations.

Is this really the case? He would have to demonstrate this. Is he saying that supposing Paul wrote Ephesians that Paul believed in the inferiority of women and didn’t believe in the inferiority of women both? How could this be? If Paul puts the meaning into the text, then the text can only mean one thing. It could be difficult or even impossible for us to find out what he meant, but that does not mean that there is no meaning.

Furthermore, why should I believe that we could never reach a conclusion on what Shakespeare meant? Who knows what the future will hold. I’m certainly open to the possibility that we could someday. Temple just takes it as a foregone conclusion that we won’t. Where does this knowledge of the future come from?

Temple says to build our morality on the Bible is to be build it on sinking sand.

We’ve seen this song and dance before. One would think that Temple would have some familiarity with Natural Law thinking. Does he not read any Christian ethicists who argue not from Scripture but from the basis of Natural Law? Does he read someone like Budziszewski in a work such as “The Line Through The Heart”?

Of course, in the comments, he does present the Euthyphro dilemma as if this is something embarrassing to Christians. Granted, most don’t know how to answer it, but the answer is to ask what goodness is and if it can be defined apart from God. I believe it can just like Aristotle did and when we define goodness, which is that at which all things aim according to Aristotle, we eventually realize that God is that which is goodness in being being itself. Temple could read Aquinas in the Summa Theologica for information on goodness and the goodness of God.

The point is that this is the same idea we’ve seen over and over. So many today arguing against morality believe that Christians use the Bible and only the Bible, not realizing the Bible itself argues against such a claim in passages like Romans 2. Are we to think when the Israelites got the Ten Commandments that they had no idea murder was wrong before that? Of course not. Moses himself made sure, though not doing a good job of it apparently, to make sure no one was watching when he killed an Egyptian.

Hopefully atheists and others will soon stop making this argument and start actually interacting with Christian positions.

Clearing Up Grace

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Last time, I wrote on the need for the leadership of the PCUSA to repent. A faithful reader emailed me in response with some questions about what I had said about grace so I’d like to clear that up.

The first question was on what I had said about for grace to take place, there must be repentance from sin. Am I making repentance a way of earning grace? To be sure, I am speaking about salvific grace, in the grace that gives us forgiveness of sin. I do not consider repentance to be a work but rather an acknowledgment that you can do no works to earn grace but must rely solely on the blessing of the benefactor.

Do I believe confession comes first? Yes. If we say God forgives sin that is not confessed, then we might as well be universalists as that God does not require us to be in right relation with Him to enjoy His presence. However, if we are to enjoy the presence of God, we must be in right relation to Him as nothing unholy can be in His presence.

Now I did state that having grace for someone not doing something sinful would be like saying I need grace for loving my wife. There is a sense in which I need grace for loving her. I need grace in the case of common grace that I need the love of God to overcome my sinful nature. However, let us take an unforgiven non-Christian man. This man does love his wife. When he comes to Christ, does he need to say “God. Please forgive me for loving my wife.”?

No. Grace is there to forgive us when we fall short of the goal. You do not need to be forgiven for doing what God says. Forgiveness is the blessing given by God in His grace after all and He does not need to forgive a truly good act. Of course, if there is one evil act, the forgiveness of God is needed and in that case, God’s grace is needed.

Hence, when the PCUSA speaks about grace for people, if there is no sexual sin being committed, what exactly is the grace for? By the language, I do not think that they mean common grace and even if they do, exactly what about common grace is supposed to deal with sexual sin?

Finally, are grace and forgiveness interchangeable? No. They’re closely related however. Grace is a good disposition in God towards us and the result is that He grants us forgiveness. This is in the case of salvific grace of course. It does not apply in common grace as that kind of grace goes out to both believer and unbeliever.

I sincerely hope that this clears up any misconceptions anyone else might have had and keep in mind that I do want to hear such feedback from readers and if you think there’s something you’re misunderstanding or even that I’m wrong on something, by all means say so. Rest assured, I am not mocking grace, as one who hopes to give it to others and who has often received it himself from them and definitely from God.

Call For Repentance to the PCUSA

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I was planning on continuing our series on presuppositionalism, but a friend in the PCUSA has informed me about the denomination changing rules on sexual behavior. The story can be found here.

This has nothing to do with presuppositionalism also. It is no secret that presuppositionalists are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are presuppositionalists. A number of strong critics of the method there come from the Calvinist camp. What I say is something I want Arminians and Calvinists both to agree on. I do not say this to the PCUSA for their stance on Calvinism, but for their stance on morality, a stance that all Christians should reject.

The question under concern is if sexual fidelity really matters. We should thus start by asking why it is that sexual fidelity does matter. What is sex? is it just a bodily function like any other function? Do a man and a woman get together for a first date and eat a meal, which is a bodily function, and then go back to “her place” and have sex together which is a “bodily function.”?

The two functions are quite different. For one thing, eating is a necessity to life. No one can survive and not eat. People can survive however and not engage in sex. Of course, the species as a whole would die out if we never had sex, but having sex is not essential to any particular human surviving.

Sex is what brings about babies because the family unit is the unit to raise children in for the interaction of male and female. A child learns what a man is like and what a woman is like. Naturally, there are some people who cannot do this due to one spouse divorcing them or the death of another spouse. This does not mean the children are scarred for life, but they will be benefited by finding someone of the opposite sex to be a mentor figure to them.

The act of sex is something that brings about great trust. When a husband and wife have sex, they have to have total openness with one another as nothing is held back. As a married man, it is a great joy for me to know that my wife delights in my body and that I can delight in hers as well. I love the fact that I have someone I can be totally open with. I also love the fact that I have someone I can adore.

That great trust however is based on the covenant promise we made to one another. We promised one another to be faithful and indeed we have been. Neither one of us had any sexual partners prior to marriage and the only person we have each known sexually is the other. I know her in a way no one else does and she knows me in a way no one else does.

We often think about couples who do not have that commitment. In that case, sexual intercourse can be a test to see if someone is “worthy of marriage.” There is no total trust. What we have is that we can go to sleep next to each other every night and know we’re going to be there for each other. For me, it is a great wonder still to sleep next to a woman every night and know that we’re in a covenant together.

Sex with the opposite sex also means trust in what the other person is experiencing. I cannot know what my wife is feeling physically due to my not being a woman. She cannot know what I am feeling physically due to my being a man. We just have to have the trust with one another about what we do like and trust that the other person is getting that joy.

Why is sex so different? Because it’s not just a function like any other function. It is a function based on the whole body. Every bit of my body is male and I function as a male just as my wife’s body is all female and she functions as a female. It is bodily, but it is not merely bodily.

In our day and age, many of us can be insecure with our bodies. News flash for you men out there. Looking in the mirror and flexing will not determine your masculinity. You can be built like a tank and not be what God really means by a man by virtue of lack of masculine character. I, for one, definitely do not have a strong build as I am underweight, but my wife would affirm my masculinity not because of my body, which she does love, but because of my attitude and the way I love her and treat her.

For you women, while I affirm I love my wife’s body, she is not her body and her femininity is not to be found in her body. I have nothing against my wife using make-up for instance, although I do have specific tastes there. I like her to go light and not have a color different from her natural color. However, I want it to be clear that her femininity does not lie in the make-up.

Masculinity and femininity are character traits of the soul as well. Are we men acting like men? Are women acting like women? More important than your body is your attitude. Of course, we must be careful and this brings us to another point. The danger with what is being said is that in Christianity, the body does matter and so does what you do with it.

One could say only character matters, but character is often expressed bodily. I realize for instance that I have not treated my body right for several years based on an attitude problem. That is my own fault. That does not have to define me however and I am working on changing that.

God came to redeem a world of matter however and matter is good. The Son took on a body and rose in a body because the body is good. We are not angels. We are meant to be unities of body and soul. Male attitudes need to be functioning with male bodies and the same with females.

It would have been good of the PCUSA to have provided actual Scripture to justify sexual immorality. Sexual morality has always been something important to Christians. It is not just a physical action, while it is that. It is a powerful joining together of two bodies meant to mirror Christ and the church and I would add the greatest physical pleasure we can have on Earth meant to remind us of the great love in the Holy Trinity.

When sexual behavior is seen as something that does not matter, we are getting to the point of the incarnation not mattering and the body not mattering. God came to redeem a fallen world and that is a material world. If he says sexuality matters, then we need to know it matters.

But what about grace? Oh I’m all for grace! However, for there to be grace there must be repentance from sin. For there to be repentance, there must be confession. For there to be confession, there has to be awareness. One must have a moral standard of sexuality to be aware of sexual sin. Destroy the concept of sexual sin and there is no grace there. It would be like saying I need God’s grace FOR loving my wife as I ought. I can say I need His grace to do that as a fallen human being, but I certainly do not need forgiveness for that which is no sin.

In closing, I call on the PCUSA to change this policy. Continue with the historic Christian church in affirming not just orthodoxy in belief, but orthopraxy in lifestyle.

Can We Study God Without Scripture?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve been looking at the topic of presuppositionalism lately and tonight, I’d like to look more at the topic of natural theology in this area and see if we can truly study God without special revelation.

Theology is the study of God. God can be studied either through special revelation or general revelation. Suppose you have a new neighbor move in. How can you know this person? You could know them by studying humanity in general and that would give you some information about the person, or you could get to know them simply by ringing the doorbell and letting them tell you about themselves.

Can we know God by only the first way? To an extent. You will get some true beliefs if you do natural theology right, but your certainty of them can be lacking and it will not be as efficient as God revealing Himself. However, let us not be too quick to throw out natural theology as useless.

The way we study God in natural theology involves what is called metaphysics. Now metaphysics is one of those terms that’s often tossed around in philosophical circles, but it is not really defined. However, if you use it, you can get the impression of being an intellectual and sound really cool while just using the term as a catch-all.

Let’s go ahead and explain metaphysics then. Metaphysics is the study of being as being. Physics is the study of material being in motion. Angelology is the study of angelic being. Zoology is the study of animal being. Botany is the study of plant being. You get the idea of where this is going.

Metaphysics has that contrast because while the other sciences study a particular type of being, this science studies being as it is. There is no doubt that a physicist could very well, and likely does know very well, more about matter in motion than the metaphysician, but the physicist likely will not know as much about that matter in motion as being. (Particularly if he’s a new atheist.)

Note that metaphysics is NOT the study of God. However, God is included in the subject of metaphysics. How? Let’s go back to your neighbor again. Studying anthropology will involve having your neighbor be a subject of that study, but your neighbor is not the particular object of that study. Anthropology does not exist to tell you about your neighbor in particular but your neighbor as a human being. Metaphysics tells you about God based on His relationship to being.

For Aquinas, God’s very essence IS being. Whatever it means to be is to be found in God and so studying being as being will give information about God. All being is true, good, and beautiful, for instance. From these, Aquinas did develop numerous doctrines of God, though of course not original with him. The main one after existence was simplicity. God’s existence IS his essence.

Note that in looking at natural theology, Aquinas does not cover concepts like the Trinity, although he believes in them. These cannot be known through natural theology. Consider for a parallel studying history. By history, you could know that Jesus was crucified on a cross even without the New Testament. You need revelation however to know that Jesus died for the sins of the world. A simple study of history apart from the revelation of God being read directly or communicated through others would not reveal that.

So can God be studied without Scripture? Yes. Will it be as good? No. Still, it is important and we must remember our reason is not antithetical or opposed to Scripture, but a tool God gave to help us understand Him and His revelation better.

Bahnsen on Aquinas

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’d like to continue tonight examining the position of presuppositionalism. I have before me Greg Bahnsen’s book which I have read called “Van Til’s Apologetic.” In looking at natural theology, Bahnsen has a few criticisms of Aquinas, but upon looking at the criticisms, it seems that Bahnsen is not really familiar with the works of Aquinas. For one thing, not one of Aquinas’s writings is ever directly cited that I know of. That having been said, let’s look at those points to be examined.

On page 557, Bahnsen says that Aquinas and Joseph Butler, who I will not be talking about, both say a great deal about what man is and what reality is before discussing the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.

Really?

I simply ask anyone to go to the Summa Theologica. Here in order are the main sections.

Sacred Doctrine.

The One God.

The Blessed Trinity.

Creation.

The Angels (Spirit).

The Six Days (Matter).

Man (Spirit and Matter).

In fact, the very first question raised about man directly is question 75.

Yes. Aquinas obviously spent a great deal on man before getting to God. Had the Summa simply been picked up and looked through, this statement would not have been made.

Much of the condemnation of natural theology is the belief that man can know God as He is by reason alone. At least, that is what we are often accused of saying. However, let’s see what Aquinas himself really says about the importance of sacred doctrine in the very first question of the Summa.

I answer that, It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee” (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Note that God is seen as one who surpasses the grasp of the reason of man. Aquinas says that there are truths that exceed human reason which God Himself must have revealed if they are to be known.

Second, Aquinas does say there are truths about God that can be discovered by reason unaided by special revelation, however, these would only be found by a few, because only a few would be intellectually capable, it would be after much time, because it would take a long time to work out the doctrine, and it would contain many errors, due to the difficulty of the subject.

Third, the reason these were revealed was that it was necessary for our salvation. Note that Aquinas says that if all you have is reason, you will not reach salvation. This is a far cry from the way that traditionalism is usually presented as having a low view of Scripture.

On page 629, Bahnsen tells us that if Aquinas wants to say he knows God exists, he is obligated to tell us everything about God. Why? Note that Aquinas does say there are several aspects of the nature of God that can be known. However, there are several that cannot be known.

Bahnsen tells us on the same page that if Thomas the theologian hears that God created the universe out of nothing and tells this to Thomas the philosopher, that the philosopher will say that this cannot be known.

Bahnsen is not treating Aquinas fairly here again. Let’s see what Aquinas says in Question 46 of the Prima Pars of the Summa in the second article.

On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

Note here what Aquinas says. Aquinas does not say that the truth that God created the world cannot be known. He says it cannot be proven by demonstration. There is nothing wrong with such a statement. Consider what he says right after that:

I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (32, 1). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from “here” and “now”; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (Question 19, Article 3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

The very first sentence is of utmost importance. He states that the knowledge that the world was created cannot be known by reason alone much like the Trinity. Philosophy cannot prove that Christianity is true. If you disagree, use nothing but reason alone and prove that God is triune and that he sent his Son to die for our sins and that the Son rose on the third day.

At the end, Aquinas also says the reason that we do know that this happened is because of revelation. Aquinas does not downplay Scripture at all. He sees it as essential to having a more than just cognitive knowledge of God. It is essential to having a salvific knowledge of God.

Now what does that mean for philosophy. Is it totally useless? Far from it. Philosophy is the handmaiden to the knowledge of God. Philosophy cannot prove the Trinity or Christianity, but once we have had those truths revealed, they can be defended by philosophy. So, Thomas AS a theologian can know that God created the world, but Thomas AS a philosopher would say, “Using reason alone, I cannot demonstrate that God created the world.” Precisely.

You would think that for those who are making a deal about man supposedly following autonomous human reason that they would want to embrace such a position. It is one that admits that man by reason alone cannot reach to a saving knowledge of God. This is not the view usually presented and when listening to them or reading them, I urge the reader to consider checking on the people that they criticize in the traditionalist camp.

Now it could be Aquinas is wrong in all that he said. However, what is important tonight is that Bahnsen is wrong in what he says about Aquinas.

The Royal Wedding And Christian Witness

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I started blogging recently on natural theology and presuppositionalism, but before returning to that, my mind has been pondering lately what I heard about the recent royal wedding. No. I didn’t bother watching. I was out of town and sick anyway. I have heard from some people however that based on a reading of Romans 12, that this wedding was to be a witness of the impact of Christianity on our culture.

On the contrary, I think it’s a witness of the impact of secularism on our culture.

Let’s take a look at some basic facts that will show this. To begin with, the prince and the now princess lived together before they were married. This is not in line with the Christian tradition of sexuality. Not only that, the bride was pregnant before the wedding and the honeymoon is even being put on hold.

But they read Romans 12 at the wedding!

That doesn’t demonstrate the importance of Christianity. In fact, I see it as looking at Christianity as a relic of a bygone era. It’s like doing the tradition that you do simply because it is the tradition. Religion is what we do for marriages, but on the way that we live our lives as a whole, it does not make a difference. It is Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA in some ways.

If we wanted a Christian witness, then we needed Christianity to be a part of not just the wedding, but also the dating, engagement, and the marriage itself. We in America and the West overall need to look at the way that our society is living and see if marriage is being treated as sacred. Are even Christians doing that?

Why have some looked at it so quickly as a witness. Could it be because we are lacking witness elsewhere? Now I am not against Christian films and TV shows and such, but are we often using the media to make a case for us? If we can take someone to see a movie like “The Passion of the Christ” well that will show them the importance of Christianity. No need for us to really study the Scriptures. We’ll just count on the media to do things for us. No need for us to form a witness to the world. We’ll just wait until Scripture is read in a major event televised around the world and claim that it was a witness.

I don’t doubt that some people were converted by movies like the Passion. Some of us however just weren’t impressed. I actually did not really care for it too much. For me, a movie like “Luther” was much more enjoyable. I own a copy of that film. My reason for not liking the Passion was because I did not see enough emphasis on the deity of Christ and too much stuff added in that was not Scriptural. If someone comes to Christ, great, but I hope they were discipled as well. If we count on someone to get an emotional response to a movie, TV show, song, etc., we could be setting ourselves up for failure as not all people will do that.

That Romans 12 was read is not going to have a major impact on non-Christians out there any more than hearing Christmas Carols that have religious themes will be impacting on them. I seriously doubt people the world over were talking to one another about the wedding and saying “I really loved that stuff from the Bible. I think it was Romans 12. Maybe I need to study Christianity more!”

Want a witness to the world? The best witness to the world is to BE the witness. Our jumping at any thing that we can shows not how seriously we take our faith, but rather that we fear our faith is being seen as antiquated in our modern world, and if it is, we ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves.

Presuppositionalism and Natural Theology

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve been doing some reading lately on the topic of presuppositionalism and seeing the kinds of arguments that are used by presuppositionalists. Much of the discussion centers around natural theology and before going on, I’d like to have a good blog on what exactly natural theology is.

Theology comes from the Greek and it refers to the study of God. There are two ways usually seen that God can reveal Himself. All Christians agree in special revelation. This is revelation that is specific, propositional, and is not immediately accessible by all. The two main ones are Scripture and Christ. Of course, one could say the Old Testament prophets were also giving special revelation in their time that was written down for us.

General revelation is more tricky. There are some Christians who deny it and it’s not just presuppositionalists. Karl Barth for instance denied any knowledge of God through general revelation. General revelation is non-specific, being general, it is not propositional, but it is accessible to everyone.

The main texts for a belief in general revelation in Scripture are Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:18-21. If any of these do teach general revelation, then we can say that Scripture affirms general revelation. Note that in saying this, the claim is not being made that general revelation is salvific.

Natural theology is the study of God based on general revelation alone. What can be known about God? Note that the object of study is the same. We are using our reason to study God and the main tools we are using are philosophical in nature. When a theologian studies God in Scripture, the subject is the same, but the means of study is different.

For instance, suppose you are studying man. You could study anatomy and get an understanding of the man’s body. You could study psychology and get an understanding of the man’s mind. You could study anthropology and get an understanding of man is in the category of human beings. All of these are studying man, but they are studying man using different means and in different ways.

Natural theology for our starting purposes could contradict Scripture hypothetically. I am not at the start assuming the truth of Scripture. However, let us keep in mind that it is important to us if natural theology does in fact agree with Scripture. The claim is that it is necessary that natural theology gives us a view of God that is like that of the one found in Scripture in that it does not contradict the God of Scripture, but it is not sufficient to establish that the God of Scripture is the true God.

So what all can be known through natural theology? What does the Bible really say about it? Is it really an important tool? These are questions that I plan to address as we continue our look at apologetic methodology and seeing if the classical approach is still valid or not.

We shall continue tomorrow.