Reason To Stand

Faith strengthened through evidence.

Mar 01

Appearance of age

doctrine, general, musings, philosophy, science No Comments »

While debating with a fellow Brother in Christ¹ whether Darwinian evolution could be reconciled with the creation account of Genesis I was recently asked whether it’s plausible the earth could have been created with the appearance of age. Here’s my response:

The short answer is: no.

Simply put; it is impossible for God to lie according to Hebrews 6:18 and deliberate deception surely falls into that category.

That said, I do agree with you that the earth is, in all likelihood, far older than 10,000 years and animals did probably live and die long before the Genesis account of creation.

I hold to a modified version of the gap theory and have no problems with long time frames or the notion of micro-evolution or change within a species.

However, when it comes to humans, we are told that mankind began with a literal Adam and a literal Eve. Jesus himself also confirms that life began with a literal Adam and Eve in the New Testament, and if he was mistaken then we have much bigger problems (of the theological nature) to deal with.

I wholly agree that there is much we don’t know. But there are things we do know (especially things that have been revealed to us by an omniscient being) and we should strive to keep our beliefs between the lines (so to speak) of what has been clearly revealed. Speculation on the rest (like why God created the mosquito) is all well and good.

However, since science has been proven faulty far more than God has (not that the two are inherently at odds) so I suggest that a wise approach would be to not allow our scientific findings to color our theology. Mostly because it generally leads to the unfortunate consequence of revising our theology every time scientists change their minds/interpretations.

As far as I can tell anyway. [↩]

Tagged with: appearance of age • cosmology • creation • genesis • origins • universe • young earth

Feb 26

How ought brothers in Christ disagree?

apologetics, doctrine, general, musings No Comments »

I was asked a couple of questions recently regarding unity and how I believe we ought to pursue it in regards to the Church of Christ. Since these questions cut to the heart of many of the struggles that occur in the body of Christ (unfortunately, often in the name of Christ) I figured I’d share them here. Enjoy!

“Do you affirm that unity is not to come at the expense of truth?”

I think this is a red herring as people can disagree on various theological points and still remain united by their commitment to Christ. Further, I find the very question here to be an implicit concession of my point above regarding the Calvinist tendency to treat the ideological position as of primary importance (something, I might add, which is also carried over into too many Churches) rather than our common commitment to Christ.

In other words, you are not a sum of your ideas and your value is not derived by adding up all of your ideas and subtracting the bad ones.

Our commitment to Christ and each other IN Christ is not predicated on our possession of right doctrine.

“Do you affirm that we can disagree and yet have unity?”

Are you asking if we can disagree and still remained united in our commitment to Christ? If so the sure, I don’t see why not. That is, as long as you DO place your commitment to our common Lord and Saviour as of primary importance.

Before you stroke out at my above statements or attempt to reply with the oft-used but seldom-understood refrain of “postmodernist!” let me hasten to add that I’m not saying that objective truth doesn’t exist or matter or that we ought not to vigorously state and defend our respective theologies.

All I’m saying is that past the very basic confessional creed laid out in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (also captured in the ΙΧΘΥΣ acrostic) we have no reason to attempt and throw others out of a body and bride that is not our own.

In regard to camps, I try very hard not to have one so I find your question regarding “my camp” to be pretty spurious at best. If you are asking if there are non-calvinists who have acted poorly, then my answer would have to be yes. Even I have failed to attain to the ideal of unity Christ commanded us to uphold. However the beauty of the Christian message is redemption so my continued hope (no matter how dismal or unattainable it may seem at times) is that we would stop stabbing each other in the back (which includes trying to throw each other out of the Body of Christ) and work towards what Jesus told us would be a sign to the nations that He was sent into the world (what Schaeffer called “the final apologetic”).

In our search for unity, we need to give up the common refrain of “well you are coming from a philosophical position whereas I am coming from a _Biblical_ position” argument. If we can agree to forgo such infantile arguments or lines of thought then, and only then, will our conversations and debates become more fruitful than a mud slinging competition.

Tagged with: body of christ • brotherhood • family • unity

Feb 19

Is it ok for Christians to own and use firearms for self-defense?

apologetics, doctrine, general, musings, polemics 1 Comment »

A friend of mine recently posed an interesting question:

Over the years the question of gun ownership by Christians comes up. I hear many sincere believers make the following statement “A real Christian wouldn’t own a gun. They would trust God to protect them”.

Does owning a firearm for protection or defense mean I don’t trust God to protect me or mean I am in sin?

If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. Exodus 22:2-3

It’s certainly better if the person who meant to cause you harm were to live, recognize the error of their ways, repent, and be reconciled both to you and to society. However, I think the above passage in Exodus makes it fairly plain that we are permitted to defend ourselves if our lives or the lives of those we love are in imminent danger.

As for why Jesus told Peter to sell his cloak and buy a sword in Luke 22:35-38.. backtracking to verse 31 we see that Jesus warned Peter against Satan’s desire to “sift you as wheat”. Going back again to verse 29 we see that Jesus commissioned his disciples as stewards of his kingdom (which is not of this world per John 18:36) which leads me to believe that Jesus’s statement to Peter about buying a sword has to do with the defense of the kingdom he was recently put in charge of.

So Peter was (and, by extension us as well as citizens of this kingdom), in essence, put in charge of guarding God’s house much in the same way we are told to be on guard against anyone who would break in and steal, kill and destroy (John 10:10).

Are Christians permitted to own firearms and use them in self-defense? Absolutely! Not only are we permitted to use them in self-defense but we’ve been given weapons that are not of this world (2 Corinthians 10:4) which are more potent than any firearm for the express purpose of waging war on satan and his army.

Tagged with: firearms • pacifist • self-defense • sword

Feb 12

Attending a local church

apologetics, doctrine, general, musings, polemics No Comments »

Much is made of “the local church” today but I wonder, do we really know what the term means. More importantly, do we know what that term meant to the early Christians?

In an excellent post by Alan Knox, he writes:

..“church” in the NT (when not used of the “universal” church), always designates a geographical group of people. (UPDATE: When I say “a geographical group of people,” I mean a group of people in the same geographical area. HT: Lew) For example, there is the church in Jerusalem, the church in Antioch, the church in Ephesus, etc. Yes, there are churches based in homes. But there is no indication that these churches were removed (separate) from the geographical church in the respective city.

However, today we use the term “local church” differently. We do not use “church” to specify a “geographical locale”, but instead we use the term to differentiate based on structure, organization, theology, etc. For example, the people in the houses around me attend four different “churches”. In fact, even though we are all brothers and sisters in Christ (in theory), we rarely interact. And, this is considered normal.

I think Alan is on to something here and it makes me wonder; Why do institutional churches tend to downplay this clear teaching in Scripture? Could it be that we love our sects more than God?

Tagged with: church • ekklesia • family • geography • local church • tradition

Feb 05

Are women ever “asking” to be raped?

general, musings 4 Comments »

I recently ran across a poll on Facebook which posed the question, “Is a woman ever “asking” for rape?”

This question intrigued me so I thought about it and came up with the following in reply:

This is a misleading question meant to elicit an emotional response as opposed to a rational one. A woman is not guilty for rape, which is wholly the fault of the rapist, but her poor choices and irresponsibility can certainly put her in greater danger she wouldn’t have otherwise have faced.

Here is a study which shows that the assertion that rapes are under-reported is not only not true, but is categorically false. The truth is that they are not under-reported but over-reported primarily because many women do not want to face the responsibility of their actions. Studies also show that drug-facilitated rape is also largely a myth as most of these incidents are, again, women refusing to face the consequences of their own inebriated and wholly consensual decisions.

Sorry, but while I do believe there are legitimate cases of random acts of evil (rape), I do not think we pay enough attention to the individual responsibility of people not to place themselves in positions where they are at greater risk.

I liken this to a person who eats at McDonalds every day and doesn’t work out. The heart attack they will likely have eventually is not less tragic but is even more so precisely because it is easily preventable.

The same concept stands for most of these cases of “rape” like with the stripper who tried to claim she was raped by the Duke lacross team.

At this point, a friend of mine brought up the topic of suggestive clothing and whether we could really make a judgement on whether anyone’s clothing was really suggestive or whether it’s all in the viewer’s mind (leaving the woman blameless regardless of her clothing).

“Suggestive” implies intent. So if a woman wears clothing with the express intention of arousing sexual desire (something that’s admittedly not hard to do with most men) then yes, she is at fault for intentionally putting herself in harms way.

Especially if you couple that with intoxication and other reckless lifestyle and relational choices such as yielding responsibility for yourself to a stranger who is either just as inebriated as you are or, worse, has nefarious intentions.

Sorry, but this is one of the reasons we teach our daughter that she needs to have shorts on under her dress. Not because we think she is intentionally trying to invite abuse but because we know that it discourages others and is more responsible than dressing her up like a slut and “tempting fate” so to speak.

And it’s not just rape that reckless living invites. Reckless lifestyles and choices invite a whole host of problems that could otherwise be mitigated or avoided altogether.

Tagged with: consequences • lifestyle • modesty • rape • reckless • responsibility

Jan 29

At night, the monsters come out.

apologetics, musings, theology 1 Comment »

Putting my daughter to bed the other night I listened as she whined in protest about not wanting to go to bed. I half-heartedly asked her why (as I was hurriedly stuffing her blankets, dolls, and other paraphernalia around her) and right as began to shut the door, giddy with the anticipation of a few hours of glorious silence (freedom!) I heard her whisper ever so quietly…

At night, the monsters come out.

Something about this struck me. Not wanting to miss a teachable moment, I stopped what I was doing, walked over to her bed and sat down next to her. The following conversation ensued about the monsters in her room that come out at night.

Me: Honey, you don’t need to be afraid of monsters. Want to know why?
Her: Why?
Me: Because Jesus is stronger than the monsters.
Her: Jesus?
Me: Yes, and do you know where he lives?
Her: Heaven?
Me: Yes, and He also lives in mommy and daddy. And you know what else?
Her: What?
Me: He owns this house.
Her: Really?
Me: Yes. So who can beat up the monsters?
Her (more confidently now): Jesus!
Me: Right, and where does he live?
Her: Mommy and daddy.
Me: Right
Her: and me too?
Me: Some day honey. But for now, you can rest assured in the protection provided by your father and mother through Jesus.

Since then, not only has my daughter “been brave” and faced the monsters with the knowledge that they aren’t stronger than Jesus. She has also begun to look forward to the day when she can accept Jesus into her heart.

Tagged with: bedtime stories • children • evil • monsters

Jan 21

On Pat Robertson’s thoughtless remarks about Haiti

apologetics, doctrine, general, musings 1 Comment »

Haiti was recently hit by the largest earthquake in nearly a hundred years.

Here’s what Pat Robertson had to say about it:

I’ve heard many atheists and anti-Christians take Pat’s comments above as reinforcements to support their belief that Christians are intolerant, bigoted, and wholly devoid of compassion. It’s this group of people I want to address..

There are many of us whose hearts do break for the pain, suffering, and evil that has been unleashed upon the people of Haiti. While we do maintain that God is wholly sovereign over the world we also vehemently deny assertions like the one made by Pat Robertson.

We don’t consider him to be unsaved or a devil in disguise. Since we are all members of a much larger family which includes those hurting in Haiti, we simply maintain that men like Pat are like the black sheep that run in all families.

Except, we also recognize that in this family we were all black sheep at one point in time.

Yes, we are all very much aware that there is a cancer in the body of Christ and we are desperately trying to fight it.

But where does that cancer come from? We know full well it comes from the hearts of sinful men who are still in need of a savior.

No, we aren’t perfect. We just know someone who is.

Tagged with: body of christ • disaster • grace • haiti • hope • love • problem of evil • suffering

Jan 18

How does a belief in causal determinism influence how one lives?

apologetics, musings, philosophy, polemics, theology 5 Comments »

A friend of mine recently asked what, if any, impact the belief in causal determinism (or lack thereof) has in practical day-to-day living. Here’s my answer:

Well, one example to the contrary¹ is this:

I never locked my doors.

This was because I believed that men had no free will and that not only were all things determined, but that they were causally and directly brought about by God. So that, if someone were to break into my house or steal my car, or even if I or someone I loved were to become ill, such an event or circumstance would be directly caused by God himself so that any interference² would be bad and wrong³.

As you know, this view didn’t serve me very well practically⁴ and the realization that we are commanded to take reasonable measures to secure what we are in charge of or responsible for (which includes people as well as possessions) led me to change my beliefs which, in turn, made me change my behavior.

I now lock my doors⁵ as religiously as I kept them unlocked because my belief in causal determinism vs. limited freedom changed.

When I did hold to a view of causal determinism as a result of my commitment to Calvinism. [↩]
I never did reconcile how all things could be causally determined and yet we still influence their outcomes. This lingering paradox also helped lead me to the abandonment of the belief in causal determinism. [↩]
I used to hear all the time how we ought to never “get ahead of God” or interfere with “God’s plan”. such notions sound nice, but upon further examination they are neither logical nor Biblically mandated. [↩]
My car was stolen, keys still in the ignition. This happened in the driveway next to our house, which also was not locked, which contained an infant and a 2 year old inside. Needless to say, this incident was a very clear catalyst to cause me to re-evaluate my beliefs on the matter. [↩]
I still maintain that all events are predetermined, just not causally so such that my actions do not matter. For more information on how these seemingly opposing views can be safely reconciled to the detriment of neither, see my previous post on Molinism. [↩]

Tagged with: calvinism • causal determinism • determinism • life • molinism

Jan 11

On the De-conversions of “True believers”

apologetics, general, musings, philosophy, polemics, theology 8 Comments »

I read a lot of blogs. Shocking, I know. However, you may be surprised to find a section on my reading list that is quite unlike the rest. This section I have labeled “Anti-theology” (yes, it comes right after the “Theology” section) and it’s filled with sites like exChristian.net, De-Conversion.com, and What God Has Made Crooked.

Why? Because I learned a long time ago that the people worth listening to the most are generally your harshest critics because their criticisms usually contain some bit of truth worth pondering.

However, one of the most recurring themes I’ve run across when listening to and reading “de-conversion testimonies” has been the notion that the person who “de-converted” was, at one time, a “true believer”.

I’ve heard this more times than I can count so, in an effort to consolidate an answer to this oft-used phrase I want to spend some time on the whole notion that someone could be a “true” or “devout” believer in Christ one day (after years, decades in some cases. I’ve even read many testimonies from former deacons, pastors, even apologists!) and a “died again” heathen the next.

So here’s my simple response to those who claim to have been true believers:

No you weren’t.

Lets back up a second and examine why you claim to have been a “true believer” in the first place.

My guess is that your beliefs weren’t based on intellectual conviction of facts. My guess is that they were shaped more by your environment and the influence of those around you more than they were by your sincere efforts to study and understand what Christianity teaches and what the alternatives are (such as the paradox of infinite regression).

Whatever it was, your beliefs probably weren’t based on facts, since facts are required for a belief to have warrant (among a few other factors). In short, this is simply an epistemological issue, not a theological one in the vein of the “no true Scotsman fallacy“.

Oh you can choose to accept or reject Christ all you want. You can even claim to have been a Christian at one point and not at another point. In fact, I claim to have been a proponent of several incompatible religious and philosophical systems at one point or another in my past. I am merely taking exception with your assertion that you were a “true believer” or that “true believers” require blind faith as opposed to evidence¹.

For example, you are obviously a “true believer” now in the theory of Darwinian evolution² and I imagine you base your belief on what you deem as credible facts and evidence, not blind faith.

Some people³ do base their beliefs on blind faith, however we wouldn’t call them “true believers” no matter what they claimed to believe. We may call them fanatics and passionate, but we all know that fanaticism and passion can only get you so far before you are forced to rationalize and harmonize your belief with the rest of your life.

“True belief” requires much more than intense feelings, a deep desire, encouragement from others, a conducive environment, etc. “True belief” can only come from evidence, argument, and clear reasoning on a subject. That’s why “true belief” endures even when everything else (environment, people, etc.) is against it.

Or, as John so eloquently put it:

They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. -1 John 2:19

now, whether that evidence is, itself, true is another story [↩]
Don’t get sidetracked with the mention of the topic of Darwinian evolution right now, I merely use it as an illustration. [↩]
Theist and atheist alike. [↩]