Horace Mann, the father of compulsory education, made this remark:
“The common school [public school] is the institution which can receive and train up children in the elements of all good knowledge and of virtue before they are subjected to the alienating competitions of life. This institution is the greatest discovery ever made by man: we repeat it, the common school is the greatest discovery ever made by man. In two grand , characteristic attributes, it is supereminent over all others: first in its universality, for it is capacious enough to receive and cherish in its paternal bosom every child that comes into the world: and second, in the timeliness of the aid it proffers, - its early, seasonable supplies of counsel and guidance making security antedate danger. Other social organizations are curative and remedial: this is a preventative and an antidote. They come to deal diseases and wounds; this, to make the physical and moral frame invulnerable to them. Let the common school be expanded to its capabilities, let it be worked with the efficiency of which it is susceptible, and nine-tenths of the crimes in the penal code would become obsolete; the long catalogue of human ills would be abridged; men would walk more safely by day; every pillow would be more inviolable by night; property, life, and character held by stronger tenure; all rational hopes respecting the future brightened. [Common School Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, Jan., 1841, p. 15.].”
This quote comes from a brief article written by Randy Booth, discussing the fact that public schools are not religiously neutral. It is no wonder that 80 – 90% of young adults leave the Church, which they spent three hours a week of their childhood at, after at least 12 years of 36 hours a week being taught a religion antithetical to our holy Confession. Parents must wake up to the fact that they are merely fostering children for Caesar by allowing them to be nutured in his “paternal bosom" with a false gospel!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS A DETERRENT IS “UNBIBLICAL”?!?
On yesterday’s broadcast of Walk in the Word (which can be heard here), James McDonald, senior pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel, was continuing his series on what the Bible says about capital punishment.
McDonald has come down on the right conclusion: capital punishment is affirmed and prescribed by God in his Word. Many of McDonald’s lesser conclusions were correct. And his cursory answers to common objections were as sharp as they were salient.
Nevertheless, he came to the topic of capital punishment serving as a deterrent and the government’s teleological use of it for that end and said that such was both “immoral” and “unbiblical.” With his stylistic admixture of “Dude” and affirmative “Way!,” in response to an anticipated “No way!” from listeners, I found this statement perfectly incredible.
McDonald, in his sweeping survey of the biblical data concerning this issue, must have simply overlooked the number of cases that flatly contradict his ideas about the deterring and distractive purpose of capital punishment on the larger social matrix. Before stating his negative answer to this question, McDonald first cited multiple studies that found that capital punishment has a decisive psychological effect on every strata of society, serving to dissuade others from crimes liable to execution. Practically speaking, then, whether or not McDonald believes this effect is moral and/or biblical, it is a fact.
But is it really unbiblical? Once this answer is established, then it would be redundant to attach further moral judgments on the issue, since the Bible is the authoritative basis for morality. So, is it...?
We needn’t go beyond the book of Deuteronomy to determine that McDonald is plainly mistaken at this point. There is in Deuteronomy a refrain that presents us with the Divine two-fold purpose for the execution of evildoers: 1) “So you shall purge the evil person from your midst,” and 2) “All Israel shall hear and fear and never again do...” crimes of similar nature. Let’s consider four crystal instances from Deuteronomy.
1. Deut 13:5, 11: “So you shall purge the evil from your midst...And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.”
2. Deut 17:12—13: “So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again.”
3. Deut 19:19—20: “So you shall purge the evil person from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and never again commit any such evil among you.”
4. Deut 21:21: “So you shall purge the evil from you midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
In each of these cases, justice is meted out on the perpetrator, which McDonald rightly deems “biblical,” and the Lord intends the consequential effect of the event serving as a deterrent to the rest of society, who “hears and fears,” which McDonald considers “unbiblical.” However, “Clearly punishment—especially capital punishment—is a deterrent to crime” (Earl Kalland, “Deuteronomy” in EBC).
McDonald has come down on the right conclusion: capital punishment is affirmed and prescribed by God in his Word. Many of McDonald’s lesser conclusions were correct. And his cursory answers to common objections were as sharp as they were salient.
Nevertheless, he came to the topic of capital punishment serving as a deterrent and the government’s teleological use of it for that end and said that such was both “immoral” and “unbiblical.” With his stylistic admixture of “Dude” and affirmative “Way!,” in response to an anticipated “No way!” from listeners, I found this statement perfectly incredible.
McDonald, in his sweeping survey of the biblical data concerning this issue, must have simply overlooked the number of cases that flatly contradict his ideas about the deterring and distractive purpose of capital punishment on the larger social matrix. Before stating his negative answer to this question, McDonald first cited multiple studies that found that capital punishment has a decisive psychological effect on every strata of society, serving to dissuade others from crimes liable to execution. Practically speaking, then, whether or not McDonald believes this effect is moral and/or biblical, it is a fact.
But is it really unbiblical? Once this answer is established, then it would be redundant to attach further moral judgments on the issue, since the Bible is the authoritative basis for morality. So, is it...?
We needn’t go beyond the book of Deuteronomy to determine that McDonald is plainly mistaken at this point. There is in Deuteronomy a refrain that presents us with the Divine two-fold purpose for the execution of evildoers: 1) “So you shall purge the evil person from your midst,” and 2) “All Israel shall hear and fear and never again do...” crimes of similar nature. Let’s consider four crystal instances from Deuteronomy.
1. Deut 13:5, 11: “So you shall purge the evil from your midst...And all Israel shall hear and fear and never again do any such wickedness as this among you.”
2. Deut 17:12—13: “So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again.”
3. Deut 19:19—20: “So you shall purge the evil person from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and never again commit any such evil among you.”
4. Deut 21:21: “So you shall purge the evil from you midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”
In each of these cases, justice is meted out on the perpetrator, which McDonald rightly deems “biblical,” and the Lord intends the consequential effect of the event serving as a deterrent to the rest of society, who “hears and fears,” which McDonald considers “unbiblical.” However, “Clearly punishment—especially capital punishment—is a deterrent to crime” (Earl Kalland, “Deuteronomy” in EBC).
Friday, February 26, 2010
Presuppositionalism Applied II
McLoughlin's madness seems to have no stops. After six or so months of silence without McLoughlin attacking the Faith in the Bedford Bulletin, he struck again this week with the following letter to the Editor. My response follows.
Mark Twain said “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Maybe that’s why at least one billion people have no belief in a god. These non-believers come from the safest, healthiest, most educated, most charitable, most technologically advanced and most crime-free nations on earth, according to the research of Zuckerman. Countries with high percentages of unbelievers include global bright spots like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada and France. These people are not the world’s idiots.
Also, scientists as a group fail to see these “obvious” gods whom believers keep talking about. Despite the fact that the U. S. is a highly religious society, almost all elite American scientists are non-believers. Researchers Larson and Witham found that only 1 percentof the National Academy of Sciences members were believers. To many of them, reliance on faith is a complete surrender of the mind or at least a stubborn reluctance to think. Why, for example, shouldn’t a person who defends her god on faith, not defend the existence of the thousands of other gods? Maybe, as Dawkins says, everyone is an atheist except for their god. If a Christian were born in Iraq rather than the US, he/she would surely have been a Muslim. What does this say about the uniqueness of the Christian God?
It’s clear that arguments based on reason and reality are not likely to have much of an impact on a concept that has nothing to do with either. Further, faith doesn’t lose debates because it doesn’t play by the rules. Dawkins says, “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”
Many thousands of excavations have been conducted all over the world and not one artifact has been found that provides direct evidence of even one god, one miracle, one angel, one genie, or one demon. The shroud of Turin is but one example of the many frauds that have been perpetrated. So where is the scientific evidence for a god? Charles Darwin said, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” Maybe Lucretius was right, “Fear was the first thing on earth to make gods.” Or maybe Mark Twain was right, “it ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bothers me, it is the parts that I do understand.” Or maybe Aristotle was right, “Prayers and sacrifices are of no avail” and “men created gods after their own image.” Xenophanes speculated that "if horses had gods, those gods would be horses.”
Many will use Hitler as an example of the horrors of unbelief, but he is the wrong choice for atheism’s poster boy. Hitler was not an atheist, at least not according to his own written and spoken words. He was raised a Christian and as an adult quoted the Bible and drew upon religion for inspiration. From Mein Kampf: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Even more significant, virtually all of his enthusiastic supporters were believers too, from his generals right down to the Third Reich’s privates. It wasn’t atheists delivering Jews to death camps. It was believers. Without a doubt, future generations will shake their heads and wonder how this could have happened. They do today.
David McLoughlin, Feb. 24, 2010
The Faith of Unbelief
As Christian philosopher C. S. Lewis said, “Good philosophy exists if for no other reason than to answer bad philosophy.” Few examples better typify the latter like David McLoughlin’s last letter, “No belief in a god” (02/24). It teemed with sophomoric desperation and demonstrated that McLoughlin can plainly understand the nature of neither faith nor the debate.
McLoughlin owned Richard Dawkin’s comment, “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.” This invokes three concepts: Faith, morality and rationality. These are interrelated.
First, Christians happily confess that faith in the absolute-personal God of the Bible provides the necessary grounding for our experience and interpretation of morality and rationality. McLoughlin must also answer the grounding question from his atheistic perspective.
McLoughlin’s quote speaks of “evil.” Within an atheistic worldview, what in the world is evil? Apart from the Christian God, what ultimate reference point is there that can serve as a universal, absolute standard for making judgments about human behavior? All atheistic answers to this question are reducible to crass relativism. Relativism says that “morals” are the emotive responses of mere personal tastes. Accordingly, McLoughlin—in logical keeping with his atheism—is only imposing his personal tastes on everyone else, when he says that your and my commitment to Christ is “evil.” Driven to consistency, there isn’t a principled difference between what McLoughlin has attempted with this remark and saying that the group of people who favor chocolate over vanilla ice-cream are committing “evil” in their commitment. In short, what philosophical right does any atheist have to call anything objectively “evil”? We’ve yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question.
Closely related is the “is-to-ought” problem that atheists must face. Unmistakably, McLoughlin contrasts us “common people who gladly hear Jesus” (Mark 12:37) with the “most educated,” “elite” atheistic scientists. Scientists, however, are restricted to empirical or physical observations for their conclusions. Therefore, as David Hume concluded, there is no rational justification, per atheistic science, for moving from the observable “what is the case,” describing human behavior, to “what ought to be the case,” prescribing human behavior and conduct. Granting McLoughlin’s outlook, then, we’re left with the atheists’ strong-armed “Might makes right” brand of ethics—what’s commonly called tyranny.
Secondly, regarding rationality. From the foregoing, it’s obvious that McLouglin has no standard, as do Christians, which could morally obligate all people everywhere to regiment their thinking in a rational and coherent manner. Additionally, his atheism “brooks no argument” for the why and the how of human reasoning, as many of my past letters have demonstrated. However, the problems don’t stop here. McLoughlin is far from faith-neutral; he has his faith commitments as well, despite how much he deplores the fact. His outlook additionally suffers from what’s called the problem of criterion.
McLoughlin speaks authoritatively about “reality,” presuming to pronounce what is and isn’t possible. How, though, does he know that God is not a reality? Because, “scientists fail to see” God. That notwithstanding, what criterion of rationality have these scientists adopted for their investigation of reality but purely empirical methods. We may now ask, How do they know that an empirical-only method is the proper criterion for evaluating and investigating reality? There is only one answer to this question in terms of McLoughlin’s position.
An empirical-only criterion would be rational if, and only if, atheistic scientists begin with the presupposition that reality is material-only. That is, McLoughlin and his gods (i.e., ultimate authorities) begin with the deep faith commitment that reality is such that nothing immaterial can exist, and that well before they select their method or criterion for exploring reality. They begin with faith, plain and simple, that reality is Godless, and upon that faith they adopt a criterion that would preclude any detection of such a Being (since “God is spirit,” John 4:24). Then, in perfect accord with their controlling faith commitment to the non-existence of God, they interpret, or rather sift, the evidence round about them in perfect harmony with their controlling presupposition of a Godless reality.
Of course, McLoughlin and his sort find the idea of faith repugnant. But there’s no way around it. We all must begin somewhere and with some final authority, which has Crown-rights over all our thinking—that is faith. For Christians, this trust is placed in the Self-attesting, Creator-Redeemer Christ speaking in the Scriptures; for atheists, like McLoughlin, it’s something in creation (Romans 1:18—32). And this is the good news, that Jesus Christ died in such a way that the ungodly like you, me, and McLoughlin could be redeemed from our cosmic treason and rebellion; our de-Godding of God; or, our “bad philosophy,” as C. S. Lewis put it.
Kevin Stevenson, Year of our Lord, Feb. 25, 2010
No belief in a god
Mark Twain said “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Maybe that’s why at least one billion people have no belief in a god. These non-believers come from the safest, healthiest, most educated, most charitable, most technologically advanced and most crime-free nations on earth, according to the research of Zuckerman. Countries with high percentages of unbelievers include global bright spots like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada and France. These people are not the world’s idiots.
Also, scientists as a group fail to see these “obvious” gods whom believers keep talking about. Despite the fact that the U. S. is a highly religious society, almost all elite American scientists are non-believers. Researchers Larson and Witham found that only 1 percentof the National Academy of Sciences members were believers. To many of them, reliance on faith is a complete surrender of the mind or at least a stubborn reluctance to think. Why, for example, shouldn’t a person who defends her god on faith, not defend the existence of the thousands of other gods? Maybe, as Dawkins says, everyone is an atheist except for their god. If a Christian were born in Iraq rather than the US, he/she would surely have been a Muslim. What does this say about the uniqueness of the Christian God?
It’s clear that arguments based on reason and reality are not likely to have much of an impact on a concept that has nothing to do with either. Further, faith doesn’t lose debates because it doesn’t play by the rules. Dawkins says, “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”
Many thousands of excavations have been conducted all over the world and not one artifact has been found that provides direct evidence of even one god, one miracle, one angel, one genie, or one demon. The shroud of Turin is but one example of the many frauds that have been perpetrated. So where is the scientific evidence for a god? Charles Darwin said, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” Maybe Lucretius was right, “Fear was the first thing on earth to make gods.” Or maybe Mark Twain was right, “it ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bothers me, it is the parts that I do understand.” Or maybe Aristotle was right, “Prayers and sacrifices are of no avail” and “men created gods after their own image.” Xenophanes speculated that "if horses had gods, those gods would be horses.”
Many will use Hitler as an example of the horrors of unbelief, but he is the wrong choice for atheism’s poster boy. Hitler was not an atheist, at least not according to his own written and spoken words. He was raised a Christian and as an adult quoted the Bible and drew upon religion for inspiration. From Mein Kampf: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Even more significant, virtually all of his enthusiastic supporters were believers too, from his generals right down to the Third Reich’s privates. It wasn’t atheists delivering Jews to death camps. It was believers. Without a doubt, future generations will shake their heads and wonder how this could have happened. They do today.
David McLoughlin, Feb. 24, 2010
The Faith of Unbelief
As Christian philosopher C. S. Lewis said, “Good philosophy exists if for no other reason than to answer bad philosophy.” Few examples better typify the latter like David McLoughlin’s last letter, “No belief in a god” (02/24). It teemed with sophomoric desperation and demonstrated that McLoughlin can plainly understand the nature of neither faith nor the debate.
McLoughlin owned Richard Dawkin’s comment, “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.” This invokes three concepts: Faith, morality and rationality. These are interrelated.
First, Christians happily confess that faith in the absolute-personal God of the Bible provides the necessary grounding for our experience and interpretation of morality and rationality. McLoughlin must also answer the grounding question from his atheistic perspective.
McLoughlin’s quote speaks of “evil.” Within an atheistic worldview, what in the world is evil? Apart from the Christian God, what ultimate reference point is there that can serve as a universal, absolute standard for making judgments about human behavior? All atheistic answers to this question are reducible to crass relativism. Relativism says that “morals” are the emotive responses of mere personal tastes. Accordingly, McLoughlin—in logical keeping with his atheism—is only imposing his personal tastes on everyone else, when he says that your and my commitment to Christ is “evil.” Driven to consistency, there isn’t a principled difference between what McLoughlin has attempted with this remark and saying that the group of people who favor chocolate over vanilla ice-cream are committing “evil” in their commitment. In short, what philosophical right does any atheist have to call anything objectively “evil”? We’ve yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question.
Closely related is the “is-to-ought” problem that atheists must face. Unmistakably, McLoughlin contrasts us “common people who gladly hear Jesus” (Mark 12:37) with the “most educated,” “elite” atheistic scientists. Scientists, however, are restricted to empirical or physical observations for their conclusions. Therefore, as David Hume concluded, there is no rational justification, per atheistic science, for moving from the observable “what is the case,” describing human behavior, to “what ought to be the case,” prescribing human behavior and conduct. Granting McLoughlin’s outlook, then, we’re left with the atheists’ strong-armed “Might makes right” brand of ethics—what’s commonly called tyranny.
Secondly, regarding rationality. From the foregoing, it’s obvious that McLouglin has no standard, as do Christians, which could morally obligate all people everywhere to regiment their thinking in a rational and coherent manner. Additionally, his atheism “brooks no argument” for the why and the how of human reasoning, as many of my past letters have demonstrated. However, the problems don’t stop here. McLoughlin is far from faith-neutral; he has his faith commitments as well, despite how much he deplores the fact. His outlook additionally suffers from what’s called the problem of criterion.
McLoughlin speaks authoritatively about “reality,” presuming to pronounce what is and isn’t possible. How, though, does he know that God is not a reality? Because, “scientists fail to see” God. That notwithstanding, what criterion of rationality have these scientists adopted for their investigation of reality but purely empirical methods. We may now ask, How do they know that an empirical-only method is the proper criterion for evaluating and investigating reality? There is only one answer to this question in terms of McLoughlin’s position.
An empirical-only criterion would be rational if, and only if, atheistic scientists begin with the presupposition that reality is material-only. That is, McLoughlin and his gods (i.e., ultimate authorities) begin with the deep faith commitment that reality is such that nothing immaterial can exist, and that well before they select their method or criterion for exploring reality. They begin with faith, plain and simple, that reality is Godless, and upon that faith they adopt a criterion that would preclude any detection of such a Being (since “God is spirit,” John 4:24). Then, in perfect accord with their controlling faith commitment to the non-existence of God, they interpret, or rather sift, the evidence round about them in perfect harmony with their controlling presupposition of a Godless reality.
Of course, McLoughlin and his sort find the idea of faith repugnant. But there’s no way around it. We all must begin somewhere and with some final authority, which has Crown-rights over all our thinking—that is faith. For Christians, this trust is placed in the Self-attesting, Creator-Redeemer Christ speaking in the Scriptures; for atheists, like McLoughlin, it’s something in creation (Romans 1:18—32). And this is the good news, that Jesus Christ died in such a way that the ungodly like you, me, and McLoughlin could be redeemed from our cosmic treason and rebellion; our de-Godding of God; or, our “bad philosophy,” as C. S. Lewis put it.
Kevin Stevenson, Year of our Lord, Feb. 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The EPC's Perspective on Abortion
I paid a recent visit to our denomination’s website, The Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I was struck by the clarity, cogency and compassion of our official positional paper regarding abortion. I couldn’t agree more, so thought it was well worth sharing. It reads as follows.
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is convinced that the Bible strongly affirms the dignity and value of every human life.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"My frame was hidden from Thee when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." (Psalm 139:15)
"Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He named me." (Isaiah 49:1)
"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)
"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:41)
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, a confessional statement shared by most Reformed churches, forbids the taking of life while demanding the preservation of life:
"The Sixth Commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others." (Question 68)
"The Sixth Commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." (Question 69)
Scripture teaches that we are not merely to avoid involvement in injustice. God's people are called upon to speak for the oppressed and defenseless. The Scripture passages cited above are evidence that God accords human value and dignity to the unborn child.
The 6th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms that the Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. It attributes human personhood to the unborn child.
Because we hold these convictions concerning unborn children, we urge the promotion of legislation that brings our judicial and legal systems into line with the scriptural view on protecting the poor and weak.
Christians are called to be good citizens by impacting the state in positive ways. All citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike, must have freedom of conscience on all private moral and ethical issues, since God alone is Lord of the conscience. But the issue of equal protection of life under the laws of the state is not a private but a public matter.
The Bible teaches that all persons and nations are responsible before God for their ethical decisions, including those which relate to the preservation of human life.
In addition to prayers and general assistance, the General Assembly urges that the following steps be implemented by individuals, congregations, and judicatories in an effort to provide substantial support for those impacted by problem pregnancies:
1. Women facing problem or unwanted pregnancies should receive support, love, acceptance and counsel from pastors, counselors, physicians and Christian friends both during and after the decisions they face. The Church must provide compassionate biblical and spiritual guidance to these persons.
2. The men involved who respond with indifference must be confronted with their responsibilities and role in such crises.
3. The Church must support and nurture women who decide to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.
4. The Church must seek ways to support and care for all children who result from unwanted pregnancies.
5. The Church must serve as a therapeutic community to those who have experienced physical, emotional, or spiritual wounds from abortion or giving up a child for adoption.
6. Both individual Christians and the Church should oppose abortion and do everything in their power to provide supportive communities and alternatives to abortion.
7. The Church should declare to the world and teach its members that abortion must never be used as a convenience or a means of birth control.
The purpose of this statement is pastoral. It is best proclaimed by those who are profoundly aware of their continuous need for the mercy and forgiveness of God. The Church must always follow the compassionate example of Christ who said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
Adopted by the 6th General Assembly
June 1986
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is convinced that the Bible strongly affirms the dignity and value of every human life.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"My frame was hidden from Thee when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." (Psalm 139:15)
"Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother He named me." (Isaiah 49:1)
"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15)
"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:41)
The Westminster Shorter Catechism, a confessional statement shared by most Reformed churches, forbids the taking of life while demanding the preservation of life:
"The Sixth Commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others." (Question 68)
"The Sixth Commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto." (Question 69)
Scripture teaches that we are not merely to avoid involvement in injustice. God's people are called upon to speak for the oppressed and defenseless. The Scripture passages cited above are evidence that God accords human value and dignity to the unborn child.
The 6th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms that the Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. It attributes human personhood to the unborn child.
Because we hold these convictions concerning unborn children, we urge the promotion of legislation that brings our judicial and legal systems into line with the scriptural view on protecting the poor and weak.
Christians are called to be good citizens by impacting the state in positive ways. All citizens, Christians and non-Christians alike, must have freedom of conscience on all private moral and ethical issues, since God alone is Lord of the conscience. But the issue of equal protection of life under the laws of the state is not a private but a public matter.
The Bible teaches that all persons and nations are responsible before God for their ethical decisions, including those which relate to the preservation of human life.
In addition to prayers and general assistance, the General Assembly urges that the following steps be implemented by individuals, congregations, and judicatories in an effort to provide substantial support for those impacted by problem pregnancies:
1. Women facing problem or unwanted pregnancies should receive support, love, acceptance and counsel from pastors, counselors, physicians and Christian friends both during and after the decisions they face. The Church must provide compassionate biblical and spiritual guidance to these persons.
2. The men involved who respond with indifference must be confronted with their responsibilities and role in such crises.
3. The Church must support and nurture women who decide to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term.
4. The Church must seek ways to support and care for all children who result from unwanted pregnancies.
5. The Church must serve as a therapeutic community to those who have experienced physical, emotional, or spiritual wounds from abortion or giving up a child for adoption.
6. Both individual Christians and the Church should oppose abortion and do everything in their power to provide supportive communities and alternatives to abortion.
7. The Church should declare to the world and teach its members that abortion must never be used as a convenience or a means of birth control.
The purpose of this statement is pastoral. It is best proclaimed by those who are profoundly aware of their continuous need for the mercy and forgiveness of God. The Church must always follow the compassionate example of Christ who said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
Adopted by the 6th General Assembly
June 1986
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Election
Steve Galt has published a short but great post on “Objections to the Doctrine of Election.” The following is a paragraph that I found to be quite insightful.
“Many people object to the idea of election. Some object that election is fatalistic. In this they fail to understand the difference between fatalism and determinism. Fatalism is deterministic, but determinism does not have to be fatalistic. The reason for this is that fatalism is inherently meaningless. Determinism need not be meaningless. God’s election is purposeful, not capricious. God is understood to have sovereignly decreed all that will come to pass. This includes the election of some to salvation. But this is not something that is without meaning. God’s purpose in this is His own glory.”
I recommend reading the rest. Steve follows this post up with another great survey of various views of the atonement of Christ’s cross-work.
“Many people object to the idea of election. Some object that election is fatalistic. In this they fail to understand the difference between fatalism and determinism. Fatalism is deterministic, but determinism does not have to be fatalistic. The reason for this is that fatalism is inherently meaningless. Determinism need not be meaningless. God’s election is purposeful, not capricious. God is understood to have sovereignly decreed all that will come to pass. This includes the election of some to salvation. But this is not something that is without meaning. God’s purpose in this is His own glory.”
I recommend reading the rest. Steve follows this post up with another great survey of various views of the atonement of Christ’s cross-work.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Should Christians Study Philosophy?
Here is one (and I believe the right) answer to that question. The article is by Dr. Greg Bahnsen, whose life was sufficient proof that one can have an encyclopedic understanding of the history and practice of philosophy while maintaining utter fidelity to the Wisdom of God, Christ Jesus. In fact, Dr. Bahnsen would argue, that the history of philosophy provided some of the strongest evidence for the necessary existence of God. This was not because of the philosophers’ successes, but their striking failure to provide, apart from the biblical God, the necessary precondition for knowledge and meaning.
Some Prophetic Insights from Robert Lewis Dabney
Of the Theocentric nature of human knowledge:
“Every line of true knowledge must find its completeness as it converges on God, just as every beam of day-light leads the eye to the sun. If [Christian] religion in excluded from our study, every process of thought will be arrested before it reaches its proper goal. The structure of thought must remain a truncated cone, with its proper apex lacking.”
Of the philosophical/religious neutrality pretentiously posed by secular educationalists:
“The instructor has to teach history, cosmogony, psychology, ethics, the laws of nations. How can he do it without saying anything favorable or unfavorable about the beliefs of evangelical Christians, Catholics, Socinians, Deists, pantheists, materialists or fetish worshippers, who all claim equal rights under American institutions? His teaching will indeed be ‘the play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted.”
On Secular Education, pp. 16—17
“Every line of true knowledge must find its completeness as it converges on God, just as every beam of day-light leads the eye to the sun. If [Christian] religion in excluded from our study, every process of thought will be arrested before it reaches its proper goal. The structure of thought must remain a truncated cone, with its proper apex lacking.”
Of the philosophical/religious neutrality pretentiously posed by secular educationalists:
“The instructor has to teach history, cosmogony, psychology, ethics, the laws of nations. How can he do it without saying anything favorable or unfavorable about the beliefs of evangelical Christians, Catholics, Socinians, Deists, pantheists, materialists or fetish worshippers, who all claim equal rights under American institutions? His teaching will indeed be ‘the play of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet omitted.”
On Secular Education, pp. 16—17
Sunday, February 14, 2010
"Be Ye Imitators of God," Feed the Birds
“Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Matt 6:26).
Although Jesus was obviously not an ornithologist in the narrow sense, he often invoked birds in his teaching and enjoined his disciples to learn well from their own observations of them, saying, “Look at the birds...”
Granting the great snowstorm that has blanketed our area of late, we’ve been given some time to consider the birds fluttering around and through the yard, seeking a meager sustenance. We’ve been interested in birding for around 12 years, but I don’t think Jesus is talking about chasing all over a region for a sneak-peak at some rare warbler or any such thing. Rather, he’s commanding us to take our otherwise mundane perceptions of the avian world around us and bring those perceptions “captive” (2 Cor 10:5) to God speaking and revealing himself in Christ and the Scriptures. With such a reference point, we cannot only learn about the birds, but much more importantly also about God, the world and ourselves—and God’s mission to redeem all of it in Christ.
Here, then, are a few observations that came to me today as I “looked at the birds” in our snow-covered yard.
1) Especially in the early morning, viewing the birds against a snowy backdrop is best done looking through the steam of a hot cup of coffee.
2) In the above text, we’re immediately struck with the absolute Kingship of God’s reign over all of creation, even to the least of details. In conjunction with Matt 10:31, which reads, “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father,” Jesus is teaching us that God, our Father, sovereignly and providentially governs all things.
Our environment, the world around us, is not stumbling through time and space blindly, under the direction of mere impersonal natural forces. No. This is a personal universe; this is our Father’s world. Even the death of sparrows is part of his glorious eternal, redemptive plan and purpose for his creation. And any science, ornithological or otherwise, that fails to bring every minutia of the natural world in reference with the revealed plan of God is not science at all.
Is there an obvious regularity in the world around us? One that is available to all regardless of their relationship to God? Of course, by common grace and their irreducible capacity as God’s image bearers, all men not only get to enjoy our Father’s world, study it, draw helpful and true inferences from and about it, but even in their rebellion and hatred toward him, he responds by superintending things so that it operates for their good and health (Matt 5:45f; Acts 14:17). Nevertheless, the very regularity unbelievers recognize in nature, by which they go on to use to argue God’s existence away, is there only by means of the God they hate. As Van Til would say, “They must sit on God’s lap in order to reach to slap his face...Antitheism presupposes theism”
3) Jesus’ point in the above verse is primarily meant to eradicate worry (not work!) in us, his often anxious disciples. He argues a fortiori with the following rhetorical question: “Are you not of more value than they?” (Matt 6:26). “Of course!” is the assumed answer. If this God, who Jesus declares is a Father to those whom he has adopted by grace, is Who and What Jesus says he is—and he is—then it is truly as irrational as it is faithless to spend time frivolously worrying about even our most basic necessities.
Tertullian echoes this conclusion in To His Wife, IV: “Far be all this from believers, who have no care about maintenance [of mundane life], unless it be that we distrust the promises of God, and his care and providence...who, without any labor on their part, feeds the fowls of the heavens.” Origen infers likewise from our text, saying, “And the words of the Gospel...teaching us not to be disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living in plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the providence of God” (Against Celsus, XXIV).
“Do not be anxious” is nearly synonymous with the most frequent command on Jesus lips: “Do not fear!” Of course, our salvation entails all manner of future glories, however, how often do we consider our blood-bought freedom from the bondage of anxiety and fear in this age? “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore” (Gal 5:1). We are set free from seeking, even desiring, those things which bring the whole world into bondage through their insatiable search of fleeting pleasures. Nevertheless, this freedom results in another search and an all-consuming priority. “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (6:33). It is not, therefore, that we must blindly abandon all concern for the simple, most basic things of life, but come to realize that we, as elect children of our Father, will find them satisfyingly as we press into the Kingdom prepared for us by our Father.
4) Again, we must remember that it is worry we’re saved from, not work. “Therefore,” Jesus concludes, “do not be anxious” (6:31). John Piper, remarking on this verse, says, “[T]he all-providing fatherly care of God is one of Jesus’ sweetest and most persuasive teachings” (What Jesus Demands From The World, 95). Elsewhere, he reminds us that, “What we see when we look at the birds is not a lesson in laziness. They dig their worms and snatch their bugs and pad their nests with stings and leaves. But Jesus says it is God who feeds them. Birds don’t anxiously hoard things as though God will not do the same tomorrow. They go about their work—and we should go about our work—as though, when the sun comes up tomorrow, God will still be God” (Ibid. 116). [Birder’s Note: Piper’s generalization about birds not “hoarding things” is true, as far as the generalization goes. However, this hoarding behavior is a distinguishing characteristic of the Acorn Woodpecker, which bores small holes in select trees, holes that are exactly designed to receive acorns. These acorns then provide the bird sustenance through the lean winter months.]
5) One night last week, Fanny left the office of her place of work with some co-workers to find three little, emaciated Carolina Wrens lying together, dead on the snow. Carolina Wrens are not exactly gregarious, but they do oft-times feed in small, loose groups. In this context, especially with the extreme weather, disease can spread rather easily. In spite of the snow, our temperatures have not been uncommonly low. So, the best-case answer would appear to be that the little dickybirds died from starvation.
This brings me to another point. We are made in the image of God, and thus are to imitate his omni-benevolent character. “Be ye imitators of God,” so Paul commands us (Gen 1 – 2; Eph 5:1). It follows therefore that in feeding the birds, especially in the winter, we are imitating our heavenly Father “who feeds them.” In even this, we find ourselves, in God’s providential government, a means to his sovereign end—to care for the seemingly insignificant details of his creation.
What is it about our Father that we reflect when we feed the birds? We reflect God’s omnipotence, though in a creaturely sense, when we provide the life-giving sustenance to the needy birds of winter. We are doing for them what they find impossible for themselves. Likewise, for the salvation of his people, God provides the Bread of Life, that thereby they might flourish when they find and feed on the life-giving sustenance of Christ the Lord.
6) Furthermore, we are doing for the birds something for which they are powerless to return. The idea of keeping an account or exacting usury from our subjects, the birds, is an unnatural thought at best. But what is perfectly natural is to enjoy the beauty of the plumes, and the chorus of thanks that the birds provide us, once they have been satisfied with that which we offer up for their good. Just so, we are impotent to match or return the inestimable gift of the Savior slain on our behalf and the power of his resurrection. As natural as the bird-song, though, do we then, having partook of the fullness of God in Christ, plume ourselves in the righteousness of Christ, putting on the new man, and shine like stars in the kingdom of our Father; we adorn the courtyard of our God in all the earth. We sing a new song unto our God; we offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving, rejoicing in his truth in the inward parts of our being. We become all-satisfied singers, having once been feed with the all-satisfying Savior.
What, then, do we learn about ourselves in this? We learn, having tasted and seen that the Lord is good, to utterly rely on the promises of God in the gospel; that he will never fail us. Birds use bodies of water as markers in their migratory journeys. But we have also experienced identifiable individual birds return to our feeders year after year, knowing that they will find plenty to meet their needs for the pilgrimage that still lies ahead of them. The typical notion that God provides us with eternal salvation in Jesus and then from there we go on to figure out how to live up to that is not gospel; that’s not grace. The gospel is eternal salvation, which begins the moment God turns our heart to Christ, and then every succeeding moment after that, God the Holy Spirit applies Jesus’ finished work to our lives. This is power for the pilgrimage; this is whole-gospel life: living every day on the blood-bought mercies of God in Christ and his ever-presence by through the Spirit.
7) Finally, imitating God by feeding the birds has a deeper lesson: Imitating God’s general love for all humanity; not only for those, like the birds, who cannot repay (Lk 6:33), but also for those who will not love but will hate in return (Matt 5:46; 5:11). If we are to keep the command of the Master, “You therefore be perfect, and your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48), then we must extend the love of God to both the “evil and good...the just and the unjust” (5:45). Like the birds, for the “evil...and unjust” there is not within them the power to return the love we must show them. To image God’s love one must first be impressed with God’s love. To the unregenerate, God’s love is repugnant, so impossible for them to reflect. Nevertheless, as sure as the Father sends the sun and rain upon the earth for the benefit of his enemies, we too must cast the seeds of his love on all, indiscriminately and without partiality. Of how much more value are men than birds?
Although Jesus was obviously not an ornithologist in the narrow sense, he often invoked birds in his teaching and enjoined his disciples to learn well from their own observations of them, saying, “Look at the birds...”
Granting the great snowstorm that has blanketed our area of late, we’ve been given some time to consider the birds fluttering around and through the yard, seeking a meager sustenance. We’ve been interested in birding for around 12 years, but I don’t think Jesus is talking about chasing all over a region for a sneak-peak at some rare warbler or any such thing. Rather, he’s commanding us to take our otherwise mundane perceptions of the avian world around us and bring those perceptions “captive” (2 Cor 10:5) to God speaking and revealing himself in Christ and the Scriptures. With such a reference point, we cannot only learn about the birds, but much more importantly also about God, the world and ourselves—and God’s mission to redeem all of it in Christ.
Here, then, are a few observations that came to me today as I “looked at the birds” in our snow-covered yard.
1) Especially in the early morning, viewing the birds against a snowy backdrop is best done looking through the steam of a hot cup of coffee.
2) In the above text, we’re immediately struck with the absolute Kingship of God’s reign over all of creation, even to the least of details. In conjunction with Matt 10:31, which reads, “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father,” Jesus is teaching us that God, our Father, sovereignly and providentially governs all things.
Our environment, the world around us, is not stumbling through time and space blindly, under the direction of mere impersonal natural forces. No. This is a personal universe; this is our Father’s world. Even the death of sparrows is part of his glorious eternal, redemptive plan and purpose for his creation. And any science, ornithological or otherwise, that fails to bring every minutia of the natural world in reference with the revealed plan of God is not science at all.
Is there an obvious regularity in the world around us? One that is available to all regardless of their relationship to God? Of course, by common grace and their irreducible capacity as God’s image bearers, all men not only get to enjoy our Father’s world, study it, draw helpful and true inferences from and about it, but even in their rebellion and hatred toward him, he responds by superintending things so that it operates for their good and health (Matt 5:45f; Acts 14:17). Nevertheless, the very regularity unbelievers recognize in nature, by which they go on to use to argue God’s existence away, is there only by means of the God they hate. As Van Til would say, “They must sit on God’s lap in order to reach to slap his face...Antitheism presupposes theism”
3) Jesus’ point in the above verse is primarily meant to eradicate worry (not work!) in us, his often anxious disciples. He argues a fortiori with the following rhetorical question: “Are you not of more value than they?” (Matt 6:26). “Of course!” is the assumed answer. If this God, who Jesus declares is a Father to those whom he has adopted by grace, is Who and What Jesus says he is—and he is—then it is truly as irrational as it is faithless to spend time frivolously worrying about even our most basic necessities.
Tertullian echoes this conclusion in To His Wife, IV: “Far be all this from believers, who have no care about maintenance [of mundane life], unless it be that we distrust the promises of God, and his care and providence...who, without any labor on their part, feeds the fowls of the heavens.” Origen infers likewise from our text, saying, “And the words of the Gospel...teaching us not to be disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living in plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the providence of God” (Against Celsus, XXIV).
“Do not be anxious” is nearly synonymous with the most frequent command on Jesus lips: “Do not fear!” Of course, our salvation entails all manner of future glories, however, how often do we consider our blood-bought freedom from the bondage of anxiety and fear in this age? “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore” (Gal 5:1). We are set free from seeking, even desiring, those things which bring the whole world into bondage through their insatiable search of fleeting pleasures. Nevertheless, this freedom results in another search and an all-consuming priority. “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (6:33). It is not, therefore, that we must blindly abandon all concern for the simple, most basic things of life, but come to realize that we, as elect children of our Father, will find them satisfyingly as we press into the Kingdom prepared for us by our Father.
4) Again, we must remember that it is worry we’re saved from, not work. “Therefore,” Jesus concludes, “do not be anxious” (6:31). John Piper, remarking on this verse, says, “[T]he all-providing fatherly care of God is one of Jesus’ sweetest and most persuasive teachings” (What Jesus Demands From The World, 95). Elsewhere, he reminds us that, “What we see when we look at the birds is not a lesson in laziness. They dig their worms and snatch their bugs and pad their nests with stings and leaves. But Jesus says it is God who feeds them. Birds don’t anxiously hoard things as though God will not do the same tomorrow. They go about their work—and we should go about our work—as though, when the sun comes up tomorrow, God will still be God” (Ibid. 116). [Birder’s Note: Piper’s generalization about birds not “hoarding things” is true, as far as the generalization goes. However, this hoarding behavior is a distinguishing characteristic of the Acorn Woodpecker, which bores small holes in select trees, holes that are exactly designed to receive acorns. These acorns then provide the bird sustenance through the lean winter months.]
5) One night last week, Fanny left the office of her place of work with some co-workers to find three little, emaciated Carolina Wrens lying together, dead on the snow. Carolina Wrens are not exactly gregarious, but they do oft-times feed in small, loose groups. In this context, especially with the extreme weather, disease can spread rather easily. In spite of the snow, our temperatures have not been uncommonly low. So, the best-case answer would appear to be that the little dickybirds died from starvation.
This brings me to another point. We are made in the image of God, and thus are to imitate his omni-benevolent character. “Be ye imitators of God,” so Paul commands us (Gen 1 – 2; Eph 5:1). It follows therefore that in feeding the birds, especially in the winter, we are imitating our heavenly Father “who feeds them.” In even this, we find ourselves, in God’s providential government, a means to his sovereign end—to care for the seemingly insignificant details of his creation.
What is it about our Father that we reflect when we feed the birds? We reflect God’s omnipotence, though in a creaturely sense, when we provide the life-giving sustenance to the needy birds of winter. We are doing for them what they find impossible for themselves. Likewise, for the salvation of his people, God provides the Bread of Life, that thereby they might flourish when they find and feed on the life-giving sustenance of Christ the Lord.
6) Furthermore, we are doing for the birds something for which they are powerless to return. The idea of keeping an account or exacting usury from our subjects, the birds, is an unnatural thought at best. But what is perfectly natural is to enjoy the beauty of the plumes, and the chorus of thanks that the birds provide us, once they have been satisfied with that which we offer up for their good. Just so, we are impotent to match or return the inestimable gift of the Savior slain on our behalf and the power of his resurrection. As natural as the bird-song, though, do we then, having partook of the fullness of God in Christ, plume ourselves in the righteousness of Christ, putting on the new man, and shine like stars in the kingdom of our Father; we adorn the courtyard of our God in all the earth. We sing a new song unto our God; we offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving, rejoicing in his truth in the inward parts of our being. We become all-satisfied singers, having once been feed with the all-satisfying Savior.
What, then, do we learn about ourselves in this? We learn, having tasted and seen that the Lord is good, to utterly rely on the promises of God in the gospel; that he will never fail us. Birds use bodies of water as markers in their migratory journeys. But we have also experienced identifiable individual birds return to our feeders year after year, knowing that they will find plenty to meet their needs for the pilgrimage that still lies ahead of them. The typical notion that God provides us with eternal salvation in Jesus and then from there we go on to figure out how to live up to that is not gospel; that’s not grace. The gospel is eternal salvation, which begins the moment God turns our heart to Christ, and then every succeeding moment after that, God the Holy Spirit applies Jesus’ finished work to our lives. This is power for the pilgrimage; this is whole-gospel life: living every day on the blood-bought mercies of God in Christ and his ever-presence by through the Spirit.
7) Finally, imitating God by feeding the birds has a deeper lesson: Imitating God’s general love for all humanity; not only for those, like the birds, who cannot repay (Lk 6:33), but also for those who will not love but will hate in return (Matt 5:46; 5:11). If we are to keep the command of the Master, “You therefore be perfect, and your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:48), then we must extend the love of God to both the “evil and good...the just and the unjust” (5:45). Like the birds, for the “evil...and unjust” there is not within them the power to return the love we must show them. To image God’s love one must first be impressed with God’s love. To the unregenerate, God’s love is repugnant, so impossible for them to reflect. Nevertheless, as sure as the Father sends the sun and rain upon the earth for the benefit of his enemies, we too must cast the seeds of his love on all, indiscriminately and without partiality. Of how much more value are men than birds?
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Revelational Epistemology in Clement of Alexandria
Although the Patristic fathers, most notably the Easterners, had a penchant for compromising with Greek philosophy, at points unmistakable Gospel-consistent epistemological nuggets shine through. Early on, I cited a brilliant passage from Justin on the epistemological ultimacy of the Word of God (see here). With this post, I’m offering this nice piece from Clement of Alexandria (late second century).
What’s noteworthy about it is that herein he recognizes the three ultimate epistemological authorities: empiricism, rationalism and revelation. He is decidedly a revelationist. He , like Justin, further notes the impossibility of demonstrating one’s final epistemic authority, what he calls the “first principle.” Thus, regardless of one’s choice of epistemological authority, ultimately circular reasoning is inevitable. As Christians, we should go back to the future and with Justin, Clement, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, and Van Til and Bahnsen of our own time, come to grips with this fact. Honestly and faithfully admit that we indeed reason from (not to) and because (not in spite of) of God’s Self-revelation.
Clement says,
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.
There are certain criteria common to men, as the senses (i.e., empiricism)[1]; and others that belong to those who have employed their wills and energies in what is true,--the methods which are pursued by the mind and reason, to distinguish between true and false propositions (i.e., rationalism)....
And let him who once received the Gospel, even in the very hour in which he has come to the knowledge of salvation, “not turn back, like Lot’s wife,” as is said; and let him not go back either to his former life, which adheres to things of sense, or to heresies....
For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, “in divers manners and at sundry times,” leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.[2]
He, then, who of himself[3] believes the Scripture and the voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly regarded faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle (i.e., Scripture), and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.”
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, VII:XVI
[1] All parentheses are mine.
[2] Here, with “origin,” Clement is referring to a final epistemological authority—a final first principle.
[3] This phrase may suggest the sad thread of synergism in Clement’s thought.
What’s noteworthy about it is that herein he recognizes the three ultimate epistemological authorities: empiricism, rationalism and revelation. He is decidedly a revelationist. He , like Justin, further notes the impossibility of demonstrating one’s final epistemic authority, what he calls the “first principle.” Thus, regardless of one’s choice of epistemological authority, ultimately circular reasoning is inevitable. As Christians, we should go back to the future and with Justin, Clement, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, and Van Til and Bahnsen of our own time, come to grips with this fact. Honestly and faithfully admit that we indeed reason from (not to) and because (not in spite of) of God’s Self-revelation.
Clement says,
“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.
There are certain criteria common to men, as the senses (i.e., empiricism)[1]; and others that belong to those who have employed their wills and energies in what is true,--the methods which are pursued by the mind and reason, to distinguish between true and false propositions (i.e., rationalism)....
And let him who once received the Gospel, even in the very hour in which he has come to the knowledge of salvation, “not turn back, like Lot’s wife,” as is said; and let him not go back either to his former life, which adheres to things of sense, or to heresies....
For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, “in divers manners and at sundry times,” leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.[2]
He, then, who of himself[3] believes the Scripture and the voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly regarded faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle (i.e., Scripture), and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.”
Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, VII:XVI
[1] All parentheses are mine.
[2] Here, with “origin,” Clement is referring to a final epistemological authority—a final first principle.
[3] This phrase may suggest the sad thread of synergism in Clement’s thought.
Pro-Abortion Consistency--Making Murder Moral
What follows is an editorial from the 02/09 Roanoke Times. Its author is transparently an exponent of the functional-person view, thus parroting ethicists such as Peter Singer. The down side is that Roanoke allows its letter-writers only 200 words, including the Re: title! This makes things very difficult for those of us who have a tendency for verbosity. My letter is below, attempting to answer Miller within the confines of 200 words. My letter is still forthcoming at this point.
Inconsistency in the abortion debate
Harlan B. Miller
Miller, of Blacksburg, is a member of the Voices of the Valley panel.
In his column, "Now grant personhood to fetuses" (Jan. 27), Cal Thomas argued that the Supreme Court, having extended the rights of artificial corporate persons, should recognize the personhood of unborn humans.
The headline added to the column was a bit misleading, for Thomas' position appears to be that while the personhood of corporations is something granted, that of unborn humans is not granted but recognized. That is, that unborn humans are full-fledged persons from which legal recognition has been wrongly withheld.
The claim that the human conceptus/embryo/fetus is a person with a right to life is basic to the arguments of those who would ban abortion. Those who would permit abortion often avoid responding to it directly. But the claim shouldn't be left unchallenged, for it is false. Fetuses (I'll follow custom and use this term for all gestational stages) aren't persons.
The word "human" is sometimes used as a synonym for person, but this is unwise. On the one hand, we have a biological category, the species Homo sapiens. On the other hand, is a moral/political category: a person is one that can act, can be held responsible, has interests that are deserving of consideration, is aware of itself and so on.
Not all members of the species Homo sapiens are persons. Anecephalic neonates, the very very severely intellectually impaired, and those in true irreversible comas are members of the species, but they cannot and will not be able to function as persons. Probably there are persons who are not members of our species. Christians believe in a Trinity of three persons, at most one of whom is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Probably there are nonhuman persons on other planets, and perhaps on this one.
It is very easy to take human and person as equivalent, since (theological exceptions aside) all the persons you know are probably humans, and almost all the humans are persons. A human fetus is a potential person. That is, if all goes well, that organism will develop into a person. But a potential person is not therefore a person. Acorns are potential oak trees, but that does not make them oak trees.
In late stages of gestation, the fetus probably possesses at least some sort of awareness and can experience pain and some sort of pleasure. But no human fetus is as aware of its environment or itself as a steer or a hog. We slaughter these animals for no more important reason than our preference for certain tastes.
Abortions, in contrast, are undertaken only for very serious reasons in the lives of real, unquestioned persons. A consistent opponent of abortion should also be a strict vegetarian.
Of course few of us are consistent all the time. In fact most American opponents of abortion do not really believe that fetuses are full persons with a right to life as strong as yours or mine. It is generally agreed that a ban on abortion must have exceptions. Usually these exceptions are when abortion is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman and when conception is the result of rape or incest.
The first of these exceptions makes sense only if the right to life of the fetus is weaker than that of the woman, and the second and third make sense only if the fetus effectively has no such right at all. Obviously the fetus is not responsible for the circumstances of its conception. A great wrong has been done, but not by the fetus.
Suppose a gang of thugs invades your house, steals and destroys your goods and horribly brutalizes you. Then as they leave they deposit one of their earlier victims, battered and bleeding, on your living room floor. You are responsible neither for her condition nor for her being in your house. But you can't just toss her out in the street. She's a person and you have to help, at the very least by calling 911.
If, in the analogous rape case, you think it is permissible to abort the fetus, then you cannot really believe that fetuses are persons. Your opposition to abortion must -- consciously or unconsciously -- be based on something else, perhaps a belief that sex is sin and women -- but not men -- deserve punishment for it.
My consistency argument does not touch those who insist on a prohibition of abortion with absolutely no exceptions. They are consistent. And they are wrong. Fortunately, they are also a decided minority.
Absolute Arbitrariness in the Abortion Debate
Re: “Inconsistency in the abortion debate” (Harlan Miller, Editorial, 02/09)
Miller admitted that his central argument is impotent against those he defined as consistent pro-lifers. As one so defined, I appreciated his demand for consistency.
Philosophically speaking, however, Miller’s position was perfectly capricious. He aborted common moral sense, insisting that not all humans are persons. The consequence? Answer: It’s never inherently wrong to kill human beings per se. Not until a human achieves or performs certain intellectual and psychological objectives, can killing him/her be morally relevant.
Humanness is a mode of personhood, however, despite there being non-human persons. For being a person is a necessary precondition for functioning as one.
Miller offers some arbitrary criteria for judging which humans he would allow person-ship. Why not skin color? There’s no consensus. Neither over how developed each function must be. Furthermore, how might we empirically test which “interests...are deserving of consideration”?!? Ad nauseam.
If Miller’s correct, then it would be morally irrelevant if your surgeon intentionally killed you while under anesthesia—you’d be a non-person. No one’s safe from being defined out of personhood, and thus killable.
Even granting that “consistent pro-lifers” are “a minority,” thankfully, we far outnumber those like Miller!
Kevin Stevenson
Big Island
Inconsistency in the abortion debate
Harlan B. Miller
Miller, of Blacksburg, is a member of the Voices of the Valley panel.
In his column, "Now grant personhood to fetuses" (Jan. 27), Cal Thomas argued that the Supreme Court, having extended the rights of artificial corporate persons, should recognize the personhood of unborn humans.
The headline added to the column was a bit misleading, for Thomas' position appears to be that while the personhood of corporations is something granted, that of unborn humans is not granted but recognized. That is, that unborn humans are full-fledged persons from which legal recognition has been wrongly withheld.
The claim that the human conceptus/embryo/fetus is a person with a right to life is basic to the arguments of those who would ban abortion. Those who would permit abortion often avoid responding to it directly. But the claim shouldn't be left unchallenged, for it is false. Fetuses (I'll follow custom and use this term for all gestational stages) aren't persons.
The word "human" is sometimes used as a synonym for person, but this is unwise. On the one hand, we have a biological category, the species Homo sapiens. On the other hand, is a moral/political category: a person is one that can act, can be held responsible, has interests that are deserving of consideration, is aware of itself and so on.
Not all members of the species Homo sapiens are persons. Anecephalic neonates, the very very severely intellectually impaired, and those in true irreversible comas are members of the species, but they cannot and will not be able to function as persons. Probably there are persons who are not members of our species. Christians believe in a Trinity of three persons, at most one of whom is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Probably there are nonhuman persons on other planets, and perhaps on this one.
It is very easy to take human and person as equivalent, since (theological exceptions aside) all the persons you know are probably humans, and almost all the humans are persons. A human fetus is a potential person. That is, if all goes well, that organism will develop into a person. But a potential person is not therefore a person. Acorns are potential oak trees, but that does not make them oak trees.
In late stages of gestation, the fetus probably possesses at least some sort of awareness and can experience pain and some sort of pleasure. But no human fetus is as aware of its environment or itself as a steer or a hog. We slaughter these animals for no more important reason than our preference for certain tastes.
Abortions, in contrast, are undertaken only for very serious reasons in the lives of real, unquestioned persons. A consistent opponent of abortion should also be a strict vegetarian.
Of course few of us are consistent all the time. In fact most American opponents of abortion do not really believe that fetuses are full persons with a right to life as strong as yours or mine. It is generally agreed that a ban on abortion must have exceptions. Usually these exceptions are when abortion is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman and when conception is the result of rape or incest.
The first of these exceptions makes sense only if the right to life of the fetus is weaker than that of the woman, and the second and third make sense only if the fetus effectively has no such right at all. Obviously the fetus is not responsible for the circumstances of its conception. A great wrong has been done, but not by the fetus.
Suppose a gang of thugs invades your house, steals and destroys your goods and horribly brutalizes you. Then as they leave they deposit one of their earlier victims, battered and bleeding, on your living room floor. You are responsible neither for her condition nor for her being in your house. But you can't just toss her out in the street. She's a person and you have to help, at the very least by calling 911.
If, in the analogous rape case, you think it is permissible to abort the fetus, then you cannot really believe that fetuses are persons. Your opposition to abortion must -- consciously or unconsciously -- be based on something else, perhaps a belief that sex is sin and women -- but not men -- deserve punishment for it.
My consistency argument does not touch those who insist on a prohibition of abortion with absolutely no exceptions. They are consistent. And they are wrong. Fortunately, they are also a decided minority.
Absolute Arbitrariness in the Abortion Debate
Re: “Inconsistency in the abortion debate” (Harlan Miller, Editorial, 02/09)
Miller admitted that his central argument is impotent against those he defined as consistent pro-lifers. As one so defined, I appreciated his demand for consistency.
Philosophically speaking, however, Miller’s position was perfectly capricious. He aborted common moral sense, insisting that not all humans are persons. The consequence? Answer: It’s never inherently wrong to kill human beings per se. Not until a human achieves or performs certain intellectual and psychological objectives, can killing him/her be morally relevant.
Humanness is a mode of personhood, however, despite there being non-human persons. For being a person is a necessary precondition for functioning as one.
Miller offers some arbitrary criteria for judging which humans he would allow person-ship. Why not skin color? There’s no consensus. Neither over how developed each function must be. Furthermore, how might we empirically test which “interests...are deserving of consideration”?!? Ad nauseam.
If Miller’s correct, then it would be morally irrelevant if your surgeon intentionally killed you while under anesthesia—you’d be a non-person. No one’s safe from being defined out of personhood, and thus killable.
Even granting that “consistent pro-lifers” are “a minority,” thankfully, we far outnumber those like Miller!
Kevin Stevenson
Big Island
Monday, February 8, 2010
Naturalistic vs. Christian Theistic Views of History
Here is a letter by my editorial-adversary, David McLoughlin. He normally attacks the faith in the Bedford Bulletin, and keeps his political morosophy restricted to the Lynchburg, VA News & Advance. Last week, however, he stepped out side the box a bit and submitted this in Lynchburg. So, of course, I couldn’t allow the opportunity to pass. As of today, my response letter is still forthcoming.
History’s ‘what-ifs’
Letter writers frequently refer to the U.S. as a “Christian nation” or declare our “exceptionalism” — neither of which is true. Our heritage is as much the result of accident as it is of our own determination. Consider just a couple of the “what ifs” of history and think how fragile the outcomes were and what might have been.
After Muhammad’s establishment of Islam, it spread rapidly across North Africa resulting in the Moors ruling Spain for 700 years. In 1492, the Moors were finally defeated at Granada and ultimately driven out. What if the Moors had won at Granada?
Soon thereafter Spain began its exploration of the New World which included both North and South America. If the Muslims rather than Christians had been in control, Islam, not Christianity, may have dominated the Americas. The Spanish influence from Mexico south is still recognizable today. Our largest minority will soon be Hispanic. While my pure speculation may be of interest only to those who recognize the fragility and accidental character of history, it does suggest that we ought not to be so smug and certain of the reasons that provide the foundation of our characteristics today. We are as much an accident of history as any other nation and, as such, should accept that our destiny might have been much different. The Middle East is the result of the English drawing lines in the sand after World War I, and we are still living with that disaster.
The U.S. is important today as much because of the rich resources we inherited and the two oceans and two friendly countries on our borders as for our own efforts. While it’s true we are predominately Christian by numbers, thankfully we are a secular nation by our Constitution. Could it have been different if the Muslims had won at Granada? Sure. Most U.S. Christians might have been Muslim just like they would have been Hindu if born in India. Imagine a Muslim Liberty University.
My point, of course, is that we are the product of our history as fragile as that is, and a more worldly view, as opposed to an ethnocentric myopia, would serve us well as we participate in a multicultural world.
If people dislike the U.S., it’s not because of our wealth, but because of our attitudes and actions toward people of other nations.
DAVID McLOUGHLIN
Historical Whatnots?
I am compelled to identify the latent comic relief in David McLoughlin’s, “History’s ‘what-ifs’ (Letters to the Editor, Wednesday, 03/10). Although his premises and conclusions had serious intentions, attempting to wed these produces some slapstick philosophy. While McLoughlin admited his “pure speculation” would likely impress only those who share his outlook, he imposed his criticisms and conclusions upon everyone.
The undercurrent of this letter is what’s known as metaphysical determinism. That is, a view of final reality that starts with a blind, undirected universe, consisting of only physical stuffs—like humans and nations. These stuffs move through history, controlled purely by fixed natural laws. Prior physical stuffs, working in accord with these fixed natural laws produce “fragile...accidental” features with no unifying, purposive beginning, meaning or end.
Mindful of this, consider McLoughlin’s central what-if: “What if the Moors had won Granada?”
If peoples and nations are simply material stuffs, aimlessly determined by impersonal natural law, then one could rightly ask, What do you mean, “What-if”? Does he mean, ‘What if’ natural law was temporarily suspended in order to bring about an alternate product to that which all the historical and physical antecedent causes had predetermined (I owe kudos to Steve for this line of criticism)? This is ironically similar to C. S. Lewis’ definition of miracles. Natural miracles, Mr. McLoughlin? Hilarious.
Historical “what-ifs” make sense only if there is an absolute-personality Who, knowing all possible choices, deliberates and governs according to His plan and purposes. Thankfully, there is. “For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). McLoughlin’s “What-ifs” are intelligible only if the very Christianity he despises were true.
Secondly, he admitted that his observations were conjectural, but from these he goes on to insist, “we ought...we should.” These are moral terms. It is plain silliness to say that persons are the “accidental” outcome of blind historical and natural forces, and then speak of moral obligations. If McLoughlin’s correct, we may describe what “is” the case, but never prescribe what “ought” to be the case. Morality, Mr. McLoughlin? Uproarious.
Finally, McLoughlin presumes, on the one hand, that peoples’ choice of religion is sociologically determined. Nevertheless, even in making this claim, he, on the other hand, understands himself and his position free from such a morass, and thus culturally neutral. Sounds somewhat funny doesn’t it? Exactly.
McLoughlin, from his own culturally relative, predetermined social construct within a blind, impersonal historical flux, makes the moral demand that the rest of us, namely Christians, make the objective, personal, ethically meaningful choice to transcend our socially determined biases. Sidesplitting!
Only if Christianity is true, could McLoughlin’s request be performed.
KEVIN STEVENSON
Sunday, February 7, 2010
A POST HOC INTRODUCTION TO THE RIGHT REASONING SERIES
Here is an introductory excerpt from the logic curriculum that I wrote for Beaner last year. Chances are, we would have been better served to have it at the beginning of the series, you know, since it’s an introduction and all ;), but I thought it might equally serve well as a sort of epilogue. Please remember, this was originally written for a 13 year old girl. At any rate, I pray you find it edifying.
Jesus sums up the duties of his followers in what is know as the Great Command, from the Shema (Deut 6:4) and Lev 19:18, saying, “...’Hear O’ Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength’...’you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mk 12:29—31). When Jesus uses heart, soul, mind , and strength he is not attempting to divide the human person into distinct quadrants, for the command begins with God’s unity—“...the Lord is one”—rather he is insisting that his disciples are to love their Lord with their whole person, like God; as a unified being.
Another thing that is worth mentioning is that there is some degree of parallel in the terms used (and their structure) in the command. Have you ever considered this?
“...And you shall love the Lord your God with...
All your heart and with all your soul and with...
All your mind and with all your strength...”
Do you see the parallels between heart // mind and soul // strength? In the ancient Hebrew culture the term “mind” was similar to what we also think of mind being today. Heart, however, is a different story. Heart, in the ancients’ worldview had much less to do with feelings and more to do with wisdom and understanding; therefore it provided a great parallel for the term mind. Soul and strength speak of the intensity with which we are to love the Lord our God.
To sum up then, Jesus sees the heart // mind to be a central feature in Christian discipleship. This obviously means so much more than merely “learning stuff...getting doctrine right and in order” or even winning an argument, even though it might be in defense of the faith and truth. No, to love the Lord with one’s mind means much more than those things alone; as important as they are.
Loving the Lord with your mind is not a bottom-up procedure, but a top-down gift. Proverbs 1:7a helps to illustrate this: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” And 1:29 gives the negative expression of the nearly the same point: “Because they hated knowledge they did not choose the fear of the Lord.” And it is the “fool” that “despises wisdom and instruction” (1:7b). Therefore, Reasoning Rightly must begin with a conscious awareness and awe-filled honor of Christ’s Lordship over your heart and mind. This is the only way or path to true knowledge and wisdom, that is, to Reasoning Rightly.
Consider another angle. In Rom 12:1—2 Paul, after 11 full chapters of the most profound theological exposition of what the coming of Jesus means and what it means to the believer to be in union with him, he finishes his long argument with the following conclusion:
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world (lit. “age”), but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
How many times have you heard some one say, “I only wish I knew what God’s will for me was in this...”? Here Paul gives a means of being able to “discern what is the will of God.” Do you wonder that maybe the reason so many Christians struggle with this question is because they have failed to work at the “renewal of their mind”? Loving God with all your mind is, I believe, the most difficult part of our Christian pilgrimage. Thinking God’s thoughts after him is never easy, with our abiding sin and autonomy. But, of course, the good news is that it is not all our work, God does not leave us alone in this any more than any other area of our growth in Christ-likeness; this too is a gift of his glorious grace to the praise of his glory.
First, when we come to embrace Jesus as Lord, Paul says that “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). This is a gift of our being made “spiritual” by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (2:12), that we might understand all the many blessings we have in Christ, namely the wisdom and power of God in the gospel. Therefore, beginning to reason rightly, that is, Christianly, starts with the gift of God in our regeneration.
This is also seen in Col 3:10, which reads, “seeing that you have put off the old self (better, “man;” the old Adamic fallen nature) with its practices and have put on the new self (better, “man;” the nature of the Second Adam—Jesus), which is being renewed in knowledge (epignosis, “true, full-knowledge”) after the image of its creator” (cf. Eph 4:24 which includes true righteousness and holiness). The phrase “being renewed” is in what is called the passive voice, which simply means that the subject (i.e., the new nature) is receiving the action of the verb, “being renewed.” It is also a participle, meaning that it is something on going, progressive; sometimes faster than others. Although, there is no cooperation on our part in our being “born again,” or regenerated, that is wholly a one sided, sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit, we do have a great deal of responsibility in cultivating our on-going growth in Christ-likeness, not least of which in the area of our minds.
Because it is commanded that we are to love the Lord with all our minds, we are clearly responsible for much of that development. It is hard work! One of the Reformed distinctives in anthropology is that the Fall did not leave any one facet of our persons unscathed. The Fall is deeply epistemological in both its roots and fruits. Man was corrupted as much in mind as in morals (in fact, the latter follows from the former). As I like to say, “Think actively and act thoughtfully.” It is a fact of reality that we will not, indeed cannot, do the latter—act thoughtfully—until we first begin to do the former, think actively. Right actions proceed from Rightly Reasoning. Cultivating a Christ-like, God loving mind that is possessed with full knowledge and wisdom, that is in Christ (Col 2:3), is one of the main priorities in Christian discipleship and deserves to be sought under the most reverent, awe/joy filled fear of the Lord. This is our reasonable service to God in Christ. It’s hard work, but what on earth could be of higher value and worth?!?
Nevertheless, though much of the work is, by grace, ours to do; God will not do it for us, he, God in his Triune fullness, is the source of even the very beginning of the process. Reasoning rightly is a blood bought gift of Jesus to every one of his followers, to be used in the service of the Gospel of his Kingdom. Therefore, our ability to even have access to the wisdom of God in Christ comes full circle back to the doctrines of grace.
Have you looked at it like this? Why do we need our minds and thinking renewed in the first place? Well, because we are Totally Depraved. Our only hope of escaping the muck and mire of sinful, irrational thinking that is part of our total depravity is based solely in God’s Unconditional Election of sinners like us. But election alone cannot save us from the wrath of God; since he is infinitely holy, we need an atonement; thus, Limited Atonement. Now that Jesus has satisfied the righteous requirements of the Father’s wrath, how does that affect you and me nearly 2000 years after the event? Well, as we said earlier, it is the one-way working (i.e., monergistic) of God himself, in spite of our hard, rebellious hearts and minds. We call this...Irresistable Grace, right? Finally, glory be that God has done these unspeakably great deeds on our behalf, but then we are commanded to continue in that grace and begin a work with him to further nurture our new minds with on going effort, reaching for Christ-likeness in response to his graciously saving us. Hence, there is the Perseverance of the Saints.
What do the bold, italicized letters spell? TULIP! It is all about grace! God alone can enable us to fulfill the royal law of love, to love him with all our minds! So this fact, then, is enough to keep us in humble submission to him in gratitude for his enablement and gifts, as well as reminding us to maintain a humble boldness as we continue to grow in knowledge and wisdom. Thus, keeping our utter dependence and responsibility before us as we pursue sanctified reason and argumentation helps us to observe in our life the words of Paul to all those who would serve Christ:
“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduing evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. And they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:24—26).
Two of the greatest apologists of our time, men worthy of our imitation, epitomized this text in their own lives. Francis Schaffer taught that the greatest apologetic was not an argument, but love. Dr. Bahnsen, was at once the most subtle and ferocious Christian philosopher and the most generous, gracious spirit in his debates. Why? Both of these men had a right understanding of God and man, and most of all themselves; that it was by grace alone they could reason at all! So, let us go on and in the lessons that follow learn how to better love the Lord with our minds, honor our Lord Jesus, and the men who have went before us as examples of what it means to Reason Rightly!
Jesus sums up the duties of his followers in what is know as the Great Command, from the Shema (Deut 6:4) and Lev 19:18, saying, “...’Hear O’ Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength’...’you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mk 12:29—31). When Jesus uses heart, soul, mind , and strength he is not attempting to divide the human person into distinct quadrants, for the command begins with God’s unity—“...the Lord is one”—rather he is insisting that his disciples are to love their Lord with their whole person, like God; as a unified being.
Another thing that is worth mentioning is that there is some degree of parallel in the terms used (and their structure) in the command. Have you ever considered this?
“...And you shall love the Lord your God with...
All your heart and with all your soul and with...
All your mind and with all your strength...”
Do you see the parallels between heart // mind and soul // strength? In the ancient Hebrew culture the term “mind” was similar to what we also think of mind being today. Heart, however, is a different story. Heart, in the ancients’ worldview had much less to do with feelings and more to do with wisdom and understanding; therefore it provided a great parallel for the term mind. Soul and strength speak of the intensity with which we are to love the Lord our God.
To sum up then, Jesus sees the heart // mind to be a central feature in Christian discipleship. This obviously means so much more than merely “learning stuff...getting doctrine right and in order” or even winning an argument, even though it might be in defense of the faith and truth. No, to love the Lord with one’s mind means much more than those things alone; as important as they are.
Loving the Lord with your mind is not a bottom-up procedure, but a top-down gift. Proverbs 1:7a helps to illustrate this: “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” And 1:29 gives the negative expression of the nearly the same point: “Because they hated knowledge they did not choose the fear of the Lord.” And it is the “fool” that “despises wisdom and instruction” (1:7b). Therefore, Reasoning Rightly must begin with a conscious awareness and awe-filled honor of Christ’s Lordship over your heart and mind. This is the only way or path to true knowledge and wisdom, that is, to Reasoning Rightly.
Consider another angle. In Rom 12:1—2 Paul, after 11 full chapters of the most profound theological exposition of what the coming of Jesus means and what it means to the believer to be in union with him, he finishes his long argument with the following conclusion:
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world (lit. “age”), but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
How many times have you heard some one say, “I only wish I knew what God’s will for me was in this...”? Here Paul gives a means of being able to “discern what is the will of God.” Do you wonder that maybe the reason so many Christians struggle with this question is because they have failed to work at the “renewal of their mind”? Loving God with all your mind is, I believe, the most difficult part of our Christian pilgrimage. Thinking God’s thoughts after him is never easy, with our abiding sin and autonomy. But, of course, the good news is that it is not all our work, God does not leave us alone in this any more than any other area of our growth in Christ-likeness; this too is a gift of his glorious grace to the praise of his glory.
First, when we come to embrace Jesus as Lord, Paul says that “we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). This is a gift of our being made “spiritual” by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (2:12), that we might understand all the many blessings we have in Christ, namely the wisdom and power of God in the gospel. Therefore, beginning to reason rightly, that is, Christianly, starts with the gift of God in our regeneration.
This is also seen in Col 3:10, which reads, “seeing that you have put off the old self (better, “man;” the old Adamic fallen nature) with its practices and have put on the new self (better, “man;” the nature of the Second Adam—Jesus), which is being renewed in knowledge (epignosis, “true, full-knowledge”) after the image of its creator” (cf. Eph 4:24 which includes true righteousness and holiness). The phrase “being renewed” is in what is called the passive voice, which simply means that the subject (i.e., the new nature) is receiving the action of the verb, “being renewed.” It is also a participle, meaning that it is something on going, progressive; sometimes faster than others. Although, there is no cooperation on our part in our being “born again,” or regenerated, that is wholly a one sided, sovereign work of God the Holy Spirit, we do have a great deal of responsibility in cultivating our on-going growth in Christ-likeness, not least of which in the area of our minds.
Because it is commanded that we are to love the Lord with all our minds, we are clearly responsible for much of that development. It is hard work! One of the Reformed distinctives in anthropology is that the Fall did not leave any one facet of our persons unscathed. The Fall is deeply epistemological in both its roots and fruits. Man was corrupted as much in mind as in morals (in fact, the latter follows from the former). As I like to say, “Think actively and act thoughtfully.” It is a fact of reality that we will not, indeed cannot, do the latter—act thoughtfully—until we first begin to do the former, think actively. Right actions proceed from Rightly Reasoning. Cultivating a Christ-like, God loving mind that is possessed with full knowledge and wisdom, that is in Christ (Col 2:3), is one of the main priorities in Christian discipleship and deserves to be sought under the most reverent, awe/joy filled fear of the Lord. This is our reasonable service to God in Christ. It’s hard work, but what on earth could be of higher value and worth?!?
Nevertheless, though much of the work is, by grace, ours to do; God will not do it for us, he, God in his Triune fullness, is the source of even the very beginning of the process. Reasoning rightly is a blood bought gift of Jesus to every one of his followers, to be used in the service of the Gospel of his Kingdom. Therefore, our ability to even have access to the wisdom of God in Christ comes full circle back to the doctrines of grace.
Have you looked at it like this? Why do we need our minds and thinking renewed in the first place? Well, because we are Totally Depraved. Our only hope of escaping the muck and mire of sinful, irrational thinking that is part of our total depravity is based solely in God’s Unconditional Election of sinners like us. But election alone cannot save us from the wrath of God; since he is infinitely holy, we need an atonement; thus, Limited Atonement. Now that Jesus has satisfied the righteous requirements of the Father’s wrath, how does that affect you and me nearly 2000 years after the event? Well, as we said earlier, it is the one-way working (i.e., monergistic) of God himself, in spite of our hard, rebellious hearts and minds. We call this...Irresistable Grace, right? Finally, glory be that God has done these unspeakably great deeds on our behalf, but then we are commanded to continue in that grace and begin a work with him to further nurture our new minds with on going effort, reaching for Christ-likeness in response to his graciously saving us. Hence, there is the Perseverance of the Saints.
What do the bold, italicized letters spell? TULIP! It is all about grace! God alone can enable us to fulfill the royal law of love, to love him with all our minds! So this fact, then, is enough to keep us in humble submission to him in gratitude for his enablement and gifts, as well as reminding us to maintain a humble boldness as we continue to grow in knowledge and wisdom. Thus, keeping our utter dependence and responsibility before us as we pursue sanctified reason and argumentation helps us to observe in our life the words of Paul to all those who would serve Christ:
“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduing evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. And they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:24—26).
Two of the greatest apologists of our time, men worthy of our imitation, epitomized this text in their own lives. Francis Schaffer taught that the greatest apologetic was not an argument, but love. Dr. Bahnsen, was at once the most subtle and ferocious Christian philosopher and the most generous, gracious spirit in his debates. Why? Both of these men had a right understanding of God and man, and most of all themselves; that it was by grace alone they could reason at all! So, let us go on and in the lessons that follow learn how to better love the Lord with our minds, honor our Lord Jesus, and the men who have went before us as examples of what it means to Reason Rightly!
Right Reasoning, pt. VII, The Transcendental Argument
VII. The Transcendental Argument (TA hereafter)
A.1. Formally stated:
1. In order for phenomenon P to be the case, Q must also be the case, since Q is the necessary precondition of P.
2. P is the case.
3. Therefore, Q is necessarily the case.
A.2. Defined:
“[A TA is] an argument that elucidates the conditions for the possibility of some fundamental phenomenon whose existence is unchallenged or uncontroversial in the philosophical context in which the argument is propounded. Such an argument proceeds deductively, from a premise asserting the existence of some basic phenomenon (such as meaningful discourse, conceptualization of objective states of affairs, or the practice of making promises), to a conclusion asserting the existence of some interesting, substantive enabling conditions for that phenomenon” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 925).
“Transcendental arguments seek to answer scepticism by showing that the things doubted by the sceptic are in fact preconditions for the skepticism to make sense. Hence the skepticism is either meaningless or false. A transcendental argument works by finding the preconditions of meaningful thought or judgment. For example, scepticism about other minds suggests that only the thinker themselves might have sensations. A transcendental argument which answered this scepticism would show that a precondition for thinking oneself to have sensations is that others do so as well. Expressing the scepticism involves thinking oneself to have sensations; and the argument shows that if this thought is expressible, then it is also false” (Ross Harrison, “Transcendental Arguments,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 9:452).
A word on TAs and the Van Tilian presuppositional apologetic by Dr. Gregory Bahnsen:
“The term “transcendental” should not be confused with the similar sounding word “transcendent” (an adjective for whatever goes beyond human experience). Transcendental reasoning is concerned to discover what general conditions must be fulfilled for any particular instance of knowledge to be possible; it has been central to thinkers such as Aristotle and Kant, and it has become a matter of inquiry in contemporary, analytically minded philosophy. [Cornelius] Van Til asks what view of man, truth, language and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it. For him, the transcendental answer is supplied at the very first step of man’s reasoning—not by autonomous philosophical speculation, but by transcendent revelation from God” (Van Til’s Apologetic, 5—6, n10).
B. 1. Illustrated form the pedestrian example of necessary conditions—fire:
i. In order for this (P) house fire to have occurred, there necessarily had to have been (Q) an ignition source.
ii. (P) the house fire did occur.
iii. Therefore, (Q) there was necessarily an ignition source (as oxygen, fuel, and ignition are individually necessary conditions for fire; taken together, they provide the sufficient condition).
B. 2. Illustrated from Logic:
(Granting the mislogical atmosphere of the spirit of our age, this example, which dates back to Aristotle, is quite practical.)
i. In order for our (P) debate over the laws of logic to be possible, the (Q) law of non-contradiction, a most fundamental logical law, must necessarily exist, since its denial makes debate unintelligible.
ii. It is the case (P) that we are debating.
iii. Therefore, (Q) the law of non-contradiction, the precondition of debate, must also exist, and exist necessarily.
B. 3. Illustrated from the three-word heart of Van Til’s thought—“Antitheism presupposes theism”:
i. In order for (P) an objective, universal standard of morality to exist—one in which Christianity’s critics could use to judge the God’s dealings with the nations of Canaan—(Q) the God of Christian theism must exist necessarily, since he alone provides the precondition of objective, universal standard of morality.
ii. The antitheists insist upon (P) just such a standard of morality.
iii. In so doing, therefore, (Q) the God of Christian theism is presupposed as the necessary condition of the very criticisms that the antitheist would invoke to argue that God doesn’t exist.
This concludes our series on valid arguments. It is our prayer that you’ve been blessed by this cursory summary, and thereby you will be better equipped to serve, love and glorify God in Christ with all you mind!
Blessings on the you, the people of the living God!
A.1. Formally stated:
1. In order for phenomenon P to be the case, Q must also be the case, since Q is the necessary precondition of P.
2. P is the case.
3. Therefore, Q is necessarily the case.
A.2. Defined:
“[A TA is] an argument that elucidates the conditions for the possibility of some fundamental phenomenon whose existence is unchallenged or uncontroversial in the philosophical context in which the argument is propounded. Such an argument proceeds deductively, from a premise asserting the existence of some basic phenomenon (such as meaningful discourse, conceptualization of objective states of affairs, or the practice of making promises), to a conclusion asserting the existence of some interesting, substantive enabling conditions for that phenomenon” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 925).
“Transcendental arguments seek to answer scepticism by showing that the things doubted by the sceptic are in fact preconditions for the skepticism to make sense. Hence the skepticism is either meaningless or false. A transcendental argument works by finding the preconditions of meaningful thought or judgment. For example, scepticism about other minds suggests that only the thinker themselves might have sensations. A transcendental argument which answered this scepticism would show that a precondition for thinking oneself to have sensations is that others do so as well. Expressing the scepticism involves thinking oneself to have sensations; and the argument shows that if this thought is expressible, then it is also false” (Ross Harrison, “Transcendental Arguments,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 9:452).
A word on TAs and the Van Tilian presuppositional apologetic by Dr. Gregory Bahnsen:
“The term “transcendental” should not be confused with the similar sounding word “transcendent” (an adjective for whatever goes beyond human experience). Transcendental reasoning is concerned to discover what general conditions must be fulfilled for any particular instance of knowledge to be possible; it has been central to thinkers such as Aristotle and Kant, and it has become a matter of inquiry in contemporary, analytically minded philosophy. [Cornelius] Van Til asks what view of man, truth, language and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it. For him, the transcendental answer is supplied at the very first step of man’s reasoning—not by autonomous philosophical speculation, but by transcendent revelation from God” (Van Til’s Apologetic, 5—6, n10).
B. 1. Illustrated form the pedestrian example of necessary conditions—fire:
i. In order for this (P) house fire to have occurred, there necessarily had to have been (Q) an ignition source.
ii. (P) the house fire did occur.
iii. Therefore, (Q) there was necessarily an ignition source (as oxygen, fuel, and ignition are individually necessary conditions for fire; taken together, they provide the sufficient condition).
B. 2. Illustrated from Logic:
(Granting the mislogical atmosphere of the spirit of our age, this example, which dates back to Aristotle, is quite practical.)
i. In order for our (P) debate over the laws of logic to be possible, the (Q) law of non-contradiction, a most fundamental logical law, must necessarily exist, since its denial makes debate unintelligible.
ii. It is the case (P) that we are debating.
iii. Therefore, (Q) the law of non-contradiction, the precondition of debate, must also exist, and exist necessarily.
B. 3. Illustrated from the three-word heart of Van Til’s thought—“Antitheism presupposes theism”:
i. In order for (P) an objective, universal standard of morality to exist—one in which Christianity’s critics could use to judge the God’s dealings with the nations of Canaan—(Q) the God of Christian theism must exist necessarily, since he alone provides the precondition of objective, universal standard of morality.
ii. The antitheists insist upon (P) just such a standard of morality.
iii. In so doing, therefore, (Q) the God of Christian theism is presupposed as the necessary condition of the very criticisms that the antitheist would invoke to argue that God doesn’t exist.
This concludes our series on valid arguments. It is our prayer that you’ve been blessed by this cursory summary, and thereby you will be better equipped to serve, love and glorify God in Christ with all you mind!
Blessings on the you, the people of the living God!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Right Reasoning, pt. VI, The Disjunctive Syllogism
A crucial form of argument for presuppositional apologetics...
VI. The Disjunctive Syllogism
A. 1. Formally stated:
i. Either P or Q
ii. not-Q
iii. Therefore, P
A. 2. Defined:
The disjunctive syllogism “is an argument in which the leading premise is a disjunction, the other premise being a denial of one of the alternatives, concluding to the remaining alternative” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, “Syllogism,” 894—96).
B. 1. Illustrated from life:
i. Either we’re having a (P) baby boy or a (Q) baby girl.
ii. The sonogram proved that we’re (not-P) not having a baby boy,
iii. therefore, (Q) we’re having a baby girl!
B. 2. a. Illustrated from the abortion debate:
i. Either that which is in the womb is (P) a human being or (Q) it is not.
ii. It is not the case that (not-Q) it is not a human being,
iii. therefore, (P) that which is in the womb is a human being.
B. 2. b. Again, Illustrated from the abortion debate:
i. The moral status and value of a human being is based on either (P) their essential being (what they are) or (Q) their social function (what they can do).
ii. The moral status and value of human beings (not-Q) are not based on social function (what they can do).
iii. Therefore, (P) the moral status and value of human beings are based on their essential being (what they are).
C. Fallacy factor:
Informally speaking, one risks setting up a false dilemma, which is defined here. And there’s also something to be said about the “or,” which elucidates whether or not one is constructing a false dilemma.
With a disjunctive syllogism the “or” may be either inclusive (making it a weak disjunctive) or exclusive (making it a strong disjunctive). The “or” may be inclusive and true provided not both alternatives (i.e., disjuncts) are false. For example, “Either I am typing this while on Mars or I am typing this on Jupiter,” obviously fails to meet the criterion. A more subtle example might be, “Either the Bible is the words of God or the words of men.” Neither alternative is true, as they stand. The orthodox view of inspiration holds to a careful admixture of these otherwise polarized concepts. Thus, both alternatives are false, as far as they go.
The “or” may be exclusive when exactly one alternative is true and exactly one false. “Either is will pass philosophy class or I will fail” would be an instance of an exclusive or strong disjunction.
You can see how this subtlety, which may seem tedious at first glance, is crucial for establishing the right argument.
VI. The Disjunctive Syllogism
A. 1. Formally stated:
i. Either P or Q
ii. not-Q
iii. Therefore, P
A. 2. Defined:
The disjunctive syllogism “is an argument in which the leading premise is a disjunction, the other premise being a denial of one of the alternatives, concluding to the remaining alternative” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, “Syllogism,” 894—96).
B. 1. Illustrated from life:
i. Either we’re having a (P) baby boy or a (Q) baby girl.
ii. The sonogram proved that we’re (not-P) not having a baby boy,
iii. therefore, (Q) we’re having a baby girl!
B. 2. a. Illustrated from the abortion debate:
i. Either that which is in the womb is (P) a human being or (Q) it is not.
ii. It is not the case that (not-Q) it is not a human being,
iii. therefore, (P) that which is in the womb is a human being.
B. 2. b. Again, Illustrated from the abortion debate:
i. The moral status and value of a human being is based on either (P) their essential being (what they are) or (Q) their social function (what they can do).
ii. The moral status and value of human beings (not-Q) are not based on social function (what they can do).
iii. Therefore, (P) the moral status and value of human beings are based on their essential being (what they are).
C. Fallacy factor:
Informally speaking, one risks setting up a false dilemma, which is defined here. And there’s also something to be said about the “or,” which elucidates whether or not one is constructing a false dilemma.
With a disjunctive syllogism the “or” may be either inclusive (making it a weak disjunctive) or exclusive (making it a strong disjunctive). The “or” may be inclusive and true provided not both alternatives (i.e., disjuncts) are false. For example, “Either I am typing this while on Mars or I am typing this on Jupiter,” obviously fails to meet the criterion. A more subtle example might be, “Either the Bible is the words of God or the words of men.” Neither alternative is true, as they stand. The orthodox view of inspiration holds to a careful admixture of these otherwise polarized concepts. Thus, both alternatives are false, as far as they go.
The “or” may be exclusive when exactly one alternative is true and exactly one false. “Either is will pass philosophy class or I will fail” would be an instance of an exclusive or strong disjunction.
You can see how this subtlety, which may seem tedious at first glance, is crucial for establishing the right argument.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Right Reasoning, pt. V, Reductio Ad Absurdum
We come now to a favorite of mine, the...
V. Reductio ad absurdum
A. Formally stated:
1. In order to prove P,
2. Presuppose, for argument’s sake, its contrary, not-P.
3. Argue that, in presupposing not-P, we’d have to conclude Q.
4. Demonstrate the absurdity and/or inviability of Q.
5. Conclude, P must be true.
B. 1. Illustrated from a pro-abortion argument:
i. In order to prove that, (P) women do not have the right to destroy the life within them,
ii. presuppose the opposite that, (not-P) women do have the right to destroy the life within them, since “women have a right over their own bodies” and that that “tissue” within them “is their own body.”
iii. However, if we presuppose this (not-P), then we must conclude that (Q) a. the aborted “tissue” (i.e., the child) has identical DNA to the woman, and b. that approximately half of women who have abortions also have penises (because approximately half of those aborted are boys).
iv. But both of these conclusions (Q) are utterly absurd.
v. Therefore, (P) it is not the case that women have the right to destroy the life within them.
B. 2. Illustrated from Scripture (Matt 12:24—26):
i. (P-assumed: I [Jesus] do not cast out demons by Beelzebul).
ii. Assume though that, (not-P) Satan casts out Satan
iii. If (not-P) Satan casts out Satan, then (Q) his kingdom is divided, ruined and cannot continue.
iv. But, since demonic activity is continuing, clearly (Q) is absurd.
v. Therefore, (P) I do not cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul.
B. 3. Again, Illustrated from Scripture (Matt 22:41ff):
i. (P-assumed: I [Jesus] am the Christ, more than merely David’s son)
ii. Assume (not-P), that I am merely David’s physical descendent (the Pharisees’ answer, see v. 42).
iii. If (not-P), then (Q) Jesus could not be David’s “Lord” (especially in first century near Eastern culture!!).
iv. But since David, writing “in the Spirit,” in Psalm 110:1, calls him “Lord,” (Q) is absurd.
v. Therefore, (P) I am the Christ, more than merely David’s son.
(NOTE: “And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more question” v. 46.)
Douglas Groothuis comments on this passage in this way:
“Jesus’ point was not to deny the Christ’s ancestral lineage to David, since Jesus himself is called ‘the son of David’ in the Gospels (Matthew 1:1), and since Jesus accepts the title without rebuke (Matthew 20:30—31). Rather, Jesus is denying that the Christ is merely the son of David; he is also Lord, and was so at the time of David. By using this reductio ad absurdum argument, Jesus attempts to expand his audience’s understanding of who the Christ is and that he himself is the Christ” (On Jesus, 34).
C. Fallacy factor:
Because the reductio is an indirect or negative argument, it is not as susceptible to particular fallacies. In essence, however, its just an expanded modus tollens. And since the modus tollens is subject to both informal fallacies and the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, review those pitfalls there.
V. Reductio ad absurdum
A. Formally stated:
1. In order to prove P,
2. Presuppose, for argument’s sake, its contrary, not-P.
3. Argue that, in presupposing not-P, we’d have to conclude Q.
4. Demonstrate the absurdity and/or inviability of Q.
5. Conclude, P must be true.
B. 1. Illustrated from a pro-abortion argument:
i. In order to prove that, (P) women do not have the right to destroy the life within them,
ii. presuppose the opposite that, (not-P) women do have the right to destroy the life within them, since “women have a right over their own bodies” and that that “tissue” within them “is their own body.”
iii. However, if we presuppose this (not-P), then we must conclude that (Q) a. the aborted “tissue” (i.e., the child) has identical DNA to the woman, and b. that approximately half of women who have abortions also have penises (because approximately half of those aborted are boys).
iv. But both of these conclusions (Q) are utterly absurd.
v. Therefore, (P) it is not the case that women have the right to destroy the life within them.
B. 2. Illustrated from Scripture (Matt 12:24—26):
i. (P-assumed: I [Jesus] do not cast out demons by Beelzebul).
ii. Assume though that, (not-P) Satan casts out Satan
iii. If (not-P) Satan casts out Satan, then (Q) his kingdom is divided, ruined and cannot continue.
iv. But, since demonic activity is continuing, clearly (Q) is absurd.
v. Therefore, (P) I do not cast out demons by the power of Beelzebul.
B. 3. Again, Illustrated from Scripture (Matt 22:41ff):
i. (P-assumed: I [Jesus] am the Christ, more than merely David’s son)
ii. Assume (not-P), that I am merely David’s physical descendent (the Pharisees’ answer, see v. 42).
iii. If (not-P), then (Q) Jesus could not be David’s “Lord” (especially in first century near Eastern culture!!).
iv. But since David, writing “in the Spirit,” in Psalm 110:1, calls him “Lord,” (Q) is absurd.
v. Therefore, (P) I am the Christ, more than merely David’s son.
(NOTE: “And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more question” v. 46.)
Douglas Groothuis comments on this passage in this way:
“Jesus’ point was not to deny the Christ’s ancestral lineage to David, since Jesus himself is called ‘the son of David’ in the Gospels (Matthew 1:1), and since Jesus accepts the title without rebuke (Matthew 20:30—31). Rather, Jesus is denying that the Christ is merely the son of David; he is also Lord, and was so at the time of David. By using this reductio ad absurdum argument, Jesus attempts to expand his audience’s understanding of who the Christ is and that he himself is the Christ” (On Jesus, 34).
C. Fallacy factor:
Because the reductio is an indirect or negative argument, it is not as susceptible to particular fallacies. In essence, however, its just an expanded modus tollens. And since the modus tollens is subject to both informal fallacies and the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, review those pitfalls there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)