The Bible – Our Presupposition

Oil painting of a young John Calvin. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The following was partly quoted and referenced from John Calvin – full reference below quote. Note: There is no talk of probabilities here. And neither should we.

From John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion

5. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.73 Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,” (Isa. 43:10).

Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of the Lord,” (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30:12, 14). God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1). If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, I. VII. 5.

Referenced in a Kindle sample of Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Part One: Presuppositional Apologetics Positively Stated, Chapter 1, God in the Dock, Section: By What Standard.

Well worth reading the sample, and it’s free!

Read Full Post »

Brian Cox demonstrates non-neutral presuppositions

English: Professor Brian cox at Science Foo camp (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s quite a spread in this weeks (26th Jan – 1st Feb) Radio Times (Weekly TV & Radio Schedule magazine) on Professor Brian Cox AKA to celebrate his new BBC series ‘Wonders of Life’. A few paragraphs below from the article show how anyone can be blind to their own presuppositions. Brian Cox demonstrates non-neutral presuppositions, and he does it so well it was worth a Blog post all on it’s own.

‘Creationists will almost certainly say his new series is rubbish, but Cox sees little point in even trying to engage with them. “If you don’t accept evidence then there’s no real point in having a discussion. Because what am I going to say? I’m just going to say, ‘Well, first of all, you have to learn to accept evidence.’ I don’t see any issue with religious scientists; I don’t share their view myself, but it’s not logically inconsistent.” The notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago, on the other hand – “that’s just absolute drivel at every level”.

Which are more bonkers, does he think – creationists or astrologists? “In a way, astrology is less annoying, because I see it as part of the entertainment business and therefore it’s not particularly problematic. But the sensible answer is they’re both equally so. It’s the ability to dismiss evidence that I get irritated about, against my better judgment, because I’d rather not. I mean, obviously there are people who think crazy things. But it does annoy me.”

Any letters of complaint from viewers who don’t believe in evolution will “go straight in the bin”. If the rest of us love Wonders of Life, though, he will take almost no personal credit, instead putting his popularity down to the role of public service broadcasting. It’s a positively Reithian argument, of which I’m pretty sure Attenborough himself would approve.’

Once again an Atheist just assumes his own bias is the correct one. Creationists (belief in a Creator) I know that are scientists examine the evidence but come to a different interpretation of that evidence. He just throws out the phrase but it has so much poured into it – as he tries to take the evidential high ground. But the high ground is already occupied by the Creator.

There’s so much wrong with the above paragraphs that it almost impossible to engage with them in the limited time I have available. I mean, unless he can accept his own presuppositions on how he uses and interprets evidence there’s ’little point in even trying to engage with’ him.

For the record I struggle with the age of the earth and do find it difficult to reconcile what is observable with a young earth. I find there are problems with both young and old earth (Creationists) creation accounts. But what I would expect to find is unanimity on the special creation of Adam & Eve and that God did in fact create the ‘Heavens and the Earth’ even though there are differences over the mechanism He used. I would also expect to find agreement with several other Christian doctrines such as The Trinity, The Fall, Jesus, The Resurrection of Jesus, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the reality of Heaven and of Hell, of Final Judgement, of Original Sin and the doctrine of Total Depravity, Justification by Faith Alone and many others. Given this list what does Brian mean by ‘religious’. I’m sure he will not mean any of these. What I suspect he will mean is some fairly insipid wet version, if at all of Christianity that he can easily dismiss and control – which is not Christian at all!

One problem with the article is that we just don’t know how many revisions it has gone through and how much is left of what the good doctor actually said. I do grant this.

And why doesn’t Brian ever say where it all came from. He talks about the wonders of the stars, how we are all made of star-dust but never once have I heard him say where it all came from. How did it all start Brian. I suppose it must have come from nothing and we all know that’s impossible. Given his own materialistic worldview how exactly does he explain the origin of life. If there was a spark where did the spark come from? Where did the primordial soup come from and who is the cook? Atheists can’t answer these questions but instead try to dismiss the God of the bible with a dismissive ‘show me your evidence’.

The Bible has a thing to say about evidence. And it’s found in the New Testament, Chapter 1 of Romans:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

In other words God has made it EVIDENT. But people choose in their rebellion against God to suppress that evidence. So we bring evidence on the basis of what God has said. And the only comeback from an atheist when boiled right down is ‘I disagree’ I prefer my own opinion. And that’s it. It’s not science in the end no matter how it’s presented. it’s a conflict of worldviews, a conflict of authority.

Related articles

• SUN professor Brian Cox inspires so many to study physics at university where he teaches it’s forced to lift entry requirements (thesun.co.uk)
• Brian Cox interview: stars in his eyes – Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Is Christianity Probable?

Over the past months I’ve been listening to a number of discussions / debates between believers and non-believers and have been quite struck by the almost apologetic nature of the Christian in these discussions. I certainly do not believe we should be rude or abrasive in our discussions – but we ought to be firm and not let those that disagree with us so easily off the hook. Sometimes there just isn’t the time to get into a debate. But anyway, by apologetic in this instance I do not mean as a defense of the faith (apologetics) but in the ‘I really don’t want to be dogmatic about this, so I can’t tell you Christianity is absolutely true’ sense.

This is in direct contrast to a phrase Michael Robinson uses in his book ‘God does exist‘. He writes: ‘The believer is not to defend the faith with Probabilities’ (p. 92). It strikes me that this is exactly what many Christian apologists are doing, defending the faith with probabilities! Whether this is a deliberate charm offensive to win over the non-Christian or a particular methodology I’m not 100% sure. However, the obvious question to ask is this: why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.

In fact one person I greatly admire gave what was (IMHO) the completely wrong answer. I couldn’t believe it, when the non-Christian said  ’ but you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove!’. My first thought was ‘did he really say that?’ Greg Bahnsen uses the very same phrase to show how to completely disarm the unbeliever. Funny isn’t it, I never imagined anyone would actually use that phrase!! But they did. I was on the edge of my seat as it were in anticipation of the answer, but to my disappointment it didn’t come.

The answer that should have come was ‘of course, that’s right. If Jesus and the Word of God is my final authority then I will have to assume the thing I’m trying to prove or it wouldn’t be my final authority. And you do the same’ In fact as Bahnsen has said if I didn’t assume the thing I’m trying to prove something else would be my final authority.

The unbeliever assumes what he’s trying to prove as well. He assumes there is no God and ends up proving it. What a surprise! If he were to assume anything else he would be a believer. So all this talk of neutrality and intellectual credibility is just sheer nonsense. It’s a fiction, a facade or a lie, at best self-deception. Atheists seek to take the high ground supposedly of reason and neutrality but actually do neither. They use reason but can’t tell us how it’s grounded. They play the neutrality card but are anything but. What would be nice is some intellectual honesty.

So is Christianity probable? Absolutely not! Christianity is certain – it’s true. As I already said, why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.

Have popular scientists committed to a probability – no they haven’t. See the enthusiasm in their presentations. Is there really any suggestion they might be wrong? No. They have given themselves wholesale to rebellion against God and against His Christ. But thanks be unto God He still saves rebels. This is why Jesus came into the world, to save sinners and rebels.

Read Full Post »

BBC Question Time

Once again we see so clearly demonstrated the bias of the BBC on Question Time last evening. As usual Peter Hitchens is the lone voice ‘crying in the wilderness’ for the rest of the panel to ‘tut tut’ at. There are a lot of us out here that really do appreciate his public stand on these issues – and I think they know it. He’s not so alone as the BBC and other overbearing commentators like to make out. One example on this is the EU – where’s the Referendum I was promised! The Government would lose and so we can’t have a vote!

I slightly disagreed with Peter’s view on the status of the Gay Marriage issue – though it’s not really about that it’s about authority. It’s either our own ‘autonomous authority’ as superbly demonstrated by Will Self or God’s. Gay Marriage is a huge issue because it represents a quickly growing and already very powerful anti-Christian mindset. This is what we have seen in the US. But beware, there’s always a trade off. Once Christian standards have gone what will be left?

Will Self last night seemed to be saying that it doesn’t matter what you believe, so on his own worldview it’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with him. But when you do disagree he doesn’t like it. Yet he doesn’t have a leg to stand on and neither did any of the others whose whole ethos is summed up by being ‘nice’ yet actually believing in nothing.

I can’t understand how Will Self can be professor of ‘Contemporary Thought’ at Brunel University – well actually I can. Contemporary thought is to just call anyone that disagrees with you as either  Homophobic or Racist, but usually both. Maybe a Bigot as well. All three if you are a Christian. This is what Will Self so blatantly did last night to Peter within the space of about 10 minutes called him a ‘Homophobe’ and a ‘Racist’ and not a complaint from anyone on the totally ‘balanced’ panel or from the esteemed Dimbleby.

Peter painted a gloomy picture of where this country is heading with regards to the persecution of Christians to cackles and laughter of both panel and the majority of the audience. There was one brave lady in the audience that presented an opposing Christian perspective and I was surprised by the clapping of the audience but there was no support for her from the panel (apart from Peter). It’s the Establishment that want the perception of morality without the objective standards that only the Bible can bring.

Peter also demonstrated why voting Conservative now is no longer an option. I think we have a good MP but he belongs to a party that has seriously lost its way.

Read Full Post »

Women Bishops – Intended Consequences?

If you listen to the news, Prime Ministers Question Time, ‘BBC’s Question Time’ & ‘BBC’s Any Questions’ (haven’t listened to ‘Any Answers’ on this yet) you will quickly realise the decision has not gone down well. You will realise the poverty of Gospel input. There is next to no mention of God, certainly no mention of sin in the Gospel sense and no mention of the Bible. Obviously many of the comments are cherry picked to suit particular biases and interviews are mediated through the gatekeepers. We are told ‘the people’ are outraged by this. I’d like to know how they know that – I’m a people and I’ve never been asked! But we do know some surprising views. On Any Question one Rosie Harper said she would like those that are opposed to Women Priests to be ‘thrown out’. Now that wasn’t edited. I’ve been to an Any Questions broadcast and it isn’t edited – apart from a 7 second loop maybe. I’m guessing that view is not uncommon. The problem with the Anglican Church is its connection to the State. It’s the State Church and the State now wants its pound of flesh! In other words, agree politically or we’ll make you agree. What The State wants – whatever it tells you – is a church it can control.

A very good summary report was on the dreaded ‘Sunday:Religious News’ programme this morning. From what I can tell the piece does tell us where the Cof E is at on this topic. If you can get it on iTunes or via the BBC  iPlayer the relevant segment starts at 25m 10s till the end. For those outside the UK I’ll try and edit the segment out and post it up here for you to have a listen.

Now here’s why the title of this post is ‘Intended Consequences’. We all know about the law of unintended consequences but in this case in view of other debates and further decisions ‘coming down the pike’ it really is – I think – intended consequences.

The decisions to be made concern Homosexuals (LGB&T) in the church. Get women priests through first and it should be a formality to get the Homosexual issue sorted. In fact, not getting the women priests vote through actually helps the case. How so? Make the country so sick of all the debates and turn the ‘Traditionalists’ into a pariah and the outcry at the possibility of Homosexuals being barred in any way will be so strong the church will have no other way to go. Why? Because they are more concerned – or even only concerned – at what ‘the people’ think and not what God thinks. You will hear of how the church needs to come into the 21st or even into the 20th Century and at how the decision is not democratic. Well, if it’s a question of what ‘people’ think the church is not concerned about what people think ultimately.

The Bible – that’s God – says unless a person will repent of their sins and call upon Jesus Christ for Salvation they will be turned into hell forever. Now democracy will not solve that! Except you repent says Jesus, you will perish.

In many ways these debates are really about something else. The issue is really about the place and authority of God’s Word. ‘The People’ do not want the Bible and do not want King Jesus to rule over them. ‘The People’ want to rule themselves, to be in charge of their own destiny but it’s a lie. God is in control and His rule is not a democracy. All people will bow the knee to King Jesus one day either as Saviour & Lord or as Judge. That’s the real issue. And finally, in my view, Evangelicals, Reformed and Bible believing Christians should come out of the Anglican Church and get on with proclaiming the Gospel of the Grace of God. After all isn’t this reason for the Church of Jesus Christ?

Read Full Post »

Minority Report

Just an observation:

Apparently the current Archbishop is a champion of minorities – as are several other outspoken Bishops and MP’s

Yet, when a minority blocks the appointment of women Bishops they are classed as outdated, sect like and not going with what the majority want.

There are several ways to describe this – speaking with forked tongue, speaking out of two sides of the mouth or just plain lying. They only support a minority when it furthers their own view and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Bible teaching or Truth.

The Reformed and Evangelicals should come out – but they won’t. The policy is keep the CoE together at all costs!

Tony Baldry MP said ”A broad church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds.” Well Tony, it’s a narrow way.

Read Full Post »

Definition of ‘Anti-Christ’

 

Mao at Stalin’s side on a ceremony arranged for Stalin’s 70th birthday in Moscow in December 1949.

In the last post I used the term ‘Anti-Christ’ and thought rather than just leave its interpretation a matter for speculation it seemed like a good idea to very briefly supply a definition.

This is probably one of those doctrines that continues to generate large amounts of heat. So if you are looking for someone to debate your take on the issue you will be disappointed. Leave a comment by all means but don’t expect a reply as I’m not getting into a never-ending debate about dates and signs of the end.

So for those that are sitting on the edge of your seats – here it is:

My simple understanding is that when the machinery of the State is used to persecute Christians – there you have the Anti-Christ. We don’t see it as the early Church did with the Emperor Nero, or Stalin, or Chairman Mao: but we do see the beginnings of it albeit in many cases more subtly expressed but in a sense no less powerful. Remember the purpose is to destroy the Church, and if the Church can be made to look ridiculous, or bigoted, unloving, or just fundamentalist nut-jobs it’s perhaps even more successful.

So it’s in the above sense that I use the term Anti-Christ and see no reason for the term not to be used of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, their cronies and of this Parliament.

To counter the spirit of Ant-Christ however, we have the word of the Lord Jesus where He said ‘I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:18). Perhaps our Government will have a short-lived success but in the end it will be the Lord Jesus that will prevail – Praise God!

 

Read Full Post »

Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 2

Continued from Part 1. I begin with the final quote from Stephen’s lecture manuscript.

And so, late in 1660 “Foreseeing clouds to gather blackness over these nations and the Lord in the way of his Providence to threaten his churches and interest with a flood of trouble and persecution, both Mr Ashwood with the rest, endeavoured to incorporate themselves into one body before the storm did fall”.

English: Nick Clegg and other MPs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The point I would wish to make – and did discuss with Stephen after the lecture – is the fact we are seeing a very similar set of circumstances evolve before our eyes.

We have been told by the Prime Minister that Churches need not fear. But, we should not forget that David Cameron is first and foremost a politician and an opponent of the Gospel of Christ. He has no interest in Evangelical Doctrine except where it will further his interests. And, let’s also remind ourselves that just like Charles II Cameron will have ‘to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his’ Election as PM. This of course includes the Liberal Democrats led by the ungodly opposer of all that is sacred, Nick Clegg.

And so we find the following story:

A local councillor for the Green Party in Brighton is facing disciplinary action for refusing to vote in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ in a local council meeting last week.

Christina Summers, a committed Christian, has been the target of abusive emails since making her view known, some suggesting she is mentally ill or describing her as a fascist.

She has made it clear she is “accountable to God above any political party” but Green Party members are looking for her to be expelled.

Go HERE for full story and media links. So much for Freedom of Speech there then!

And just the other day David Cameron not unexpectedly has said about Homosexuality, that ‘CAMERON ACCUSES THE CHURCH OF ‘LOCKING OUT’ GAYS, AND SAYS HE’S FOLLOWING BLAIR’S LEAD‘. I’d like to point out that the true Church does not lock out gays and never has. In fact we want them to come in and call upon God in faith and repentance just like any other sinner.

And again from Cameron – with encouragement from Nick Clegg no doubt – this story:  David Cameron “absolutely determined” to introduce ‘gay marriage’ by 2015. Go HERE for full story and media links. Here’s the fist two paragraphs:

David Cameron announced last night that he is determined to legislate for ‘same-sex marriage’ by 2015 and directly attacked the mainstream churches’ position on the issue.

Meanwhile, in a separate development, the Scottish Government this morning (25 JULY) announced that it intends to bring forward a bill introducing same-sex marriage in spite of strong opposition to the plans expressed in a recent consultation on the issue.

As Evangelical Christians we should prepare ourselves for the coming storm. It’s a time to Trust God as the dark clouds gather and ungodly policies are forced through the legal system. They have no justification for these ungodly policies other than that – they are ungodly and anti-Christ. They are the anti-Christ. If they were seekers after truth they wold not be able propagate their anti-Biblical, anti-Christ policies since without the Christian God there is no truth at all!

The conclusion of the above is – and we shouldn’t be surprised at this – the Government cannot be trusted just as it was back in 1660!

The days are upon us when Freedom of Speech is tottering over the Abyss. Why God has brought this upon I cannot say – but now is the time to ‘quit you like men’ and trust in God.

The government will do what the government will do, but will I have the freedom to disagree and call their policies ungodly. That’s the question. So far though, I do have the freedom to cast my vote with whichever party I choose – or none, At the moment it will be none, but definitely not one of the three main parties of the Greens.

Read Full Post »

Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 1

Back in March the relevance of one of the History Lectures is just too much to pass over. Here’s a direct lesson for us from the history of our own country. I’m very grateful to Stephen Rees for permission to quote from his lecture manuscript. I’ve edited it very slightly and the emphases in bold italics and brackets are mine, but here are a few quotations from the lecture to set the context:

…. Cromwell didn’t remove the concept of a state church.  What he did was to insist the state church must be as flexible as possible – he wanted there to be room for almost any group of truly evangelical Christians to worship within the state church according to their own convictions.  The way it worked was this.  He appointed a committee of 38 men known as the Triers.  A church – or any group of believers could put forward a man as a candidate to be recognised as the local minister.   And the Triers tried him – they assessed his suitability.  The only qualifications were that the candidate must be evangelical in doctrine and show evidence of a godly life.  It didn’t matter if he were a presbyterian or an independent, or a baptist or a fifth-monarchy man.  He could be appointed as minister of the local parish church – the local Church of England – he could be supported by public taxes, and he could lead the congregation according to his own convictions (My note: ‘his own convictions’ means according to the Bible).  Many Anglican ministers were ejected from their churches by local committees, because of their ungodly lives or non-evangelical doctrine – and evangelical men were installed by the Triers in their places.

(My Note: This system of appointed ‘Triers’ presupposed a disposition not only towards the truth of the Word of God (The Bible) but also to the belief that such a thing as The Truth existed. This is not so today. And nowhere is this seen so clearly than in our National leaders. What’s on show in the State Church and in Politicians is sheer unadulterated relativism.)

And this was the way that Bartholomew Ashwood, at the age of 38 came to Axminster.  Though he was operating within the state church, he had freedom for a little while to lead the church according to thoroughly Puritan, evangelical principles and to conduct worship according to his convictions.

But he knew that that freedom couldn’t last very long.  Why not?  Because in 1658 – since Ashwood had been admitted by the Triers, Cromwell had died.  Now the country was on the point of calling Charles II back from exile.  And Charles came from the line of the Stuarts who had persecuted consistent Puritans in England through two reigns.  Before he was brought back from exile, Charles II promised that he would allow religious freedom – “liberty to tender consciences”.  But men like Ashwood had no confidence at all in that sort of promise.  He was very well aware that freedom might be very short-lived.  Apart from anything else, whatever he promised, Charles would have very little freedom himself.  He (Charles) had to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his return.

Ashwood and his friends were convinced independents, believing that each church should be a company of believers, governed by its members under the Word (The Bible).  Whether they were separatists, I think is unclear.  It may be that if Ashwood had been free to build such an independent church “according to gospel rule and the pure institution of the Lord Jesus” yet remain within the overall structure of the state church, he would have chosen that option.  But in any case he knew that that option was going to cease to exist.

This post is getting a bit long – So I’ll end it here. Link to Part 2.

Read Full Post »

The Olympic Ideal = Completely Vacuous

Friday evening saw the opening of the 2012 Olympics in London. Over here the journey of the Olympic flame has been reported quite religiously since starting it’s journey in Greece. As it traveled round the UK I was very disappointed to find that much of its journey took place via some form of non-athletic transportation. Just a s well it wasn’t public transport as it might not have made it! I was probably a bit naive to think that it would be carried by hand for the full journey – but whatever happened to the Olympic Spirit (whatever that is)!

The Olympic Flame!

The flame, with torch and carrier passed close by to where I live (see pic) so I thought I’d better go take a look. And what a spectacle it was. Along came the lone runner – I say alone in the sense just one person was carrying it – complete with huge entourage. I thought the bus following with a group of torch carriers on board looked like a bunch of zoo exhibits.

And so to the opening ceremony. To be honest I missed the first part, saw a few of the countries marching / ambling in, saw some other intermittent bits  and then watched the last hour. How glad am I to have missed most of it.

It didn’t finish till nearly one (01.00) in the morning, complete with fireworks. As a point to note – the Tennis (Wimbledon has to finish by Eleven (23.00) – but I guess the Olympics trumps them all and you’ll see why shortly.

I must admit to seeing shades of the ridiculous Eurovision Song Contest. You probably have to be a Brit to get that one!

Most of what I saw was the most ridiculous vacuous nonsense I have seen in a long time. Franky, to me, it was an embarrassment, devoid of any substance and a complete load of old tripe.

Here’s my take on it and why the above is true. When a Nation, as the UK has done, perhaps far more than any country in the world, ceases to believe in anything at all it ends up in complete vacuity. It believes in nothing. And the Olympic Spirit exemplifies that spirit.  And if you don’t believe me check out the words to the Olympic Hymn.

The whole ceremony was an exercise in the totalitarian doctrines of diversity and tolerance – and for the true meaning of that you will need to read the reverse. And that means mainly intolerance especially for the true Christian Faith of which very little is seen. And where it is seen in the spirit of diversity and tolerance it is stamped upon and rooted out. And this is why in a secular and rationalist State like the UK now is: disparate ideologies may unite in opposition to Jesus Christ.

There were moments when it looked like – and I now think it was – a secularist service of worship. We can laugh about it, and make fun of it, but behind it all and especially now is an ideology opposed to Christ.

At best the UK is now at a tipping point – if it hasn’t already tipped over. Of which more to come in other posts. I’m not discouraged by this; though it is a little scary.

Read Full Post »

Chinese Abortion Apology – but no UK Apology

From Matt’s Blog at http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/the-roots-of-the-abortion-debate/

Reported on the BBC News over here is a forced abortion in China. Feng Jianmei was injected with a chemical forcing an abortion that took place 36 hours later.

It was kind of weird to hear the sense of shock and outrage by the BBC when their normal position is support for the Pro Choice lobby.

I’m tempted to ask ‘what’s the problem, it’s only a fetus’. We as a country support the taking – murder – of  thousands of unborn children every year. And yet, because China forces a woman to have an abortion there is outrage. We read of ‘shock over abortion photo’ yet where is the shock and outrage over thousands of children being murdered annually in the self-righteous West! Here in the UK!

There is a You Tube video of  Feng Jianmei but the picture of the aborted child is  blurred out. Why? To sanitize the full horror. We should be allowed to see the full horror of this horrible procedure. The picture above is from an excellent post by Matt at Well Spent Journey. Without the moral grounding of the Christian faith, a faith people do not want, a faith a secular State does not really want there is no problem whatsoever with murdering babies. Without a belief in God there is no such thing as Evil. There is no basis for the concept of evil without the Christian God.

See my previous post for more on this subject.

Related articles

• Apology for China abortion woman (bbc.co.uk)
• China suspends officials in forced abortion case (foxnews.com)
• China vows punishment over forced abortion at 7 months – Reuters (reuters.com)
• Shock at China ‘abortion photo’ (bbc.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Gay, No Gay, Ex Gay Bus Campaigns

Listening again to the tortuous BBC Radio 4 Sunday program where during the last item a lively discussion took place about the Gay / Ex Gay bus campaigns. As seems the norm these days Free Speech only seems to work one way – in opposition to Christianity. I can do no better than point you to Archbishop Cranmer for two excellent posts.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/christians-fight-back-on-stonewalls.html

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/stonewall-cries-bigotry-and-grabs-boris.html

If you can stomach it go to the BBC for more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17693947

Read Full Post »

An Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics

Cornelius Van Til (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Geoff Thomas kindly forwarded ‘An Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics’ by Ian Clary. It doesn’t go into an enormous amount of detail but is well worth a read to get a taste for the Presuppositional method.

After a brief introduction Clary outlines The Task of Apologetics as fourfold going on to briefly summarise the three schools of thought, Evidential, Classical and Presuppositional. On the apologetic task Clary writes:

John M. Frame explains that there are three aspects to apologetics. First, apologetics is proof; it presents a rational basis for the Christian faith and proves it be true (cf.  John 14:11). Second, apologetics is defense; it answers the challenges of unbelief (cf. Phil. 1:7). Third, apologetics is offense; it attacks the foolishness of unbelief (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16). In addition to this tripartite understanding of apologetics William Edgar adds that commending the faith is just as important as defending it. Therefore the command to evangelize is integral to apologetics. “Evangelism and apologetics are seamlessly linked and together function under the rubric of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).”

The bulk of the article considers Some Basic Tenets. There are four of these and I’ll briefly try to summarise them, using Clary’s order. It’s in the introduction to this section where we find ‘This list is not exhaustive, but will hopefully give an adequate basis for understanding what one writer has called “kung-fu” apologetics.”

Not only can ‘Kung Fu’ be dangerous for an opponent but a little knowledge can be dangerous for the practitioner. So we need to be careful that we do not use this method inappropriately, or think we are some kind of Apologetics ‘Martial Artist’ only to get battered in our first encounter. The need for humility and graciousness is paramount.

Antithesis

This section is concerned with two diametrically opposed views. Here’s a section from the article that puts it well:

The notion of antithesis is reflected in Scripture, as seen in the 1 Corinthians 2:14 passage noted above. Paul could ask in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 what relation does righteousness have with lawlessness, or light with darkness? Here, Paul likely builds on the teaching of Jesus in Mark 9:40 who said, “For the one who is not against us is for us.” And of course, the antithesis can be traced all the way back to the garden of Eden after the fall where God said to Satan in Genesis 3:15 that he would put enmity between he and the woman, between his offspring and hers.

Point of Contact

I have heard people misrepresent PA by saying there is no point in evangelising and there is nothing in common with the unbeliever. On the contrary there are two very powerful points of contact. This is not talking about a common interest like DIY or stamp collecting but a theological ‘common ground’ a point of contact. These are two-fold and extremely powerful. Everyone lives in God’s world and the evidence for this confronts the unbeliever every moment of every day wherever they are. The Bible tells us quite explicitly that God has made it plain, His eternal power and divine nature are ‘clearly seen’ because God has made it so. Clary puts it this way,

Experientially, the non-Christian lives in God’s world and is confronted daily with general revelation. God’s revelation is clear whether an unbeliever observes creation from the farthest galaxy to the smallest cell. The apostle Paul makes this point in Romans 1:20 when he says that God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—are “clearly seen” in the created order.

The second point of contact is internal to each and every person as we are all made in the image of God. We have a conscience and there is a knowledge of God though suppressed in unrighteousness. Clary again,

Alongside revelation in the external world, the unbeliever internally has an experience of God: in conscience. Immediate knowledge of God, since conception, renders the unbeliever without excuse. This knowledge is a result of the unbeliever bearing the image of God and the implanted sensus deitatis. Paul says in Romans 1:21 that unbelievers “know God” but do not glorify him. Therefore every apologetic appeal is to something already known by the unbeliever. If by God’s grace that knowledge is brought to remembrance, then conversion occurs. However, if the unbeliever continues in hardness of heart, the apologist has still accomplished his or her task of showing the unbeliever that deep down inside, they truly know God. This only furthers unbelievers’ responsibility to believe.

Ultimate Commitment

This point is to do not just with authority, but with final authority. Once all the layers have been peeled away what is it we are standing on. One of the criticisms of PA and Van Til according to Clary is that of ‘circular reasoning’. We answer this by saying, doesn’t every one do that. I have posted on this before but this to me is the very power of the method. I must assume my conclusion because it’s my Ultimate Commitment or Final Authority – if I didn’t it wouldn’t be my final authority it would be something else. As a Christian surely my final authority, my ultimate commitment must be to Christ and His Word. Here’s a passage from Clary’s article,

The real issue comes down to justifying one’s starting point. Can the non-Christian substantiate their autonomous reason as a legitimate and rational epistemic foundation? To do so, he or she must first assume reason before it can be proven to be a justifiable authority. This is what Van Til called a “vicious circle.” He could also say, “To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.”

Transcendental Argument (TAG)

This is the one that is the most difficult to get my head around. I can see it, but have difficulty explaining it. So I obviously haven’t got a clear grasp of it – yet. So I’m not going to attempt an explanation at this point but to merely give some tasters from Clary and tempt you to check out the full article. And if you have a simple way of explaining this then I would love to hear it. Here’s a tempter from Clary,

Van Til once wrote, “At the outset it ought to be clearly observed that very system of thought necessarily has a certain method of its own.” For Van Til, the only cogent method of apologetics, from the Christian perspective, is the transcendental method. The most significant contribution that Van Til made to apologetics, what has been called a contribution of Copernican dimensions, is the “transcendental argument” for the existence of God.

Hope that helps someone that’s as new to this as I am. Come back to see if I am making progress.

You can find the full article at Apologetics Journal. There are a bunch of footnotes I have left out that you will be able to check out in the full article.

Read Full Post »

Rally for Reason

Cover of Faith and Reason

Taking a look at the Atheist Rally for Reason website makes one wonder if they really know what they are doing. The reason (there’s that word) I say this is because there are so many Christian books that encourage or use reason, so many in fact, that it might be profitable to list them here. Why Atheists think they have the monopoly on reason is a mystery – apart from them seeking to occupy that ground with the hope that ‘Joe Public’ will be fooled into thinking Christians don’t think. The reality is however, Christians lament that thinking in general about anything at all goes on far less today. The Rally for Reason is a good example.

Here’s a few Book Titles (in no particular order):

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism by Tim Keller

Reasonable Faith by William Lame Craig

Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics edited by Paul Copan & William Lane Craig

Reason to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity by R C Sproul

REASONS OF THE HEART by William Edgar

Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith by Ronald H. Nash

The point is not necessarily to recommend the above list but merely to note that Christians do not have an aversion to reason. The above titles are only those that have the word reason in them. There are many many more books that employ the God-given gift of reason but do not have the word in the title. Whatever flag (these particular) atheists are rallying around can’t exclusively be around the flag pf reason. Their Rally for Reason is therefore to my mind completely unreasonable.

God Himself exhorts sinners, inviting them to think and to apply reason – not only in dealing with God but with each other:

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Lev 19:17  ”You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.

Dan 4:34  At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;

Dan 4:36  At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me.

Act 17:2  And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Act 18:19  They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

Jas 3:17  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

1Pe 3:15  but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Related articles

• Rally for Reason (str.typepad.com)

Read Full Post »

Drawing the line – ‘Somewhere’,

I couldn’t decide what to call this post, as it could so easily have been ‘you couldn’t make it up’. On Sunday morning while preparing the veg for dinner I normally listen to the tortuous  BBC Radio 4 Sunday broadcast. The purpose of listening is to have some sort of idea what’s going on in mainstream religion here in the UK.

It was shocking to find out about a shortage of Donkeys for Psalm Sunday services. What will we do! I jest. Here’s the story. The demand has increased for Donkeys to such an extent – BTW I’m really not making this up – that Llamas are being used instead of the sacred beast. The programme interviewed a woman who runs a Llama farm and we listened in to one of the phone calls – ‘no we don’t have a Llama with a cross on it’s back but I’m sure we can sort something out’.

They interviewed a minister who thought how dreadful this was. I’m paraphrasing but it was along the lines of ‘with all the liberalising of the church where will it stop, it will be bears next – we have to draw the line somewhere‘. I think you will find reverend that the line was crossed a long time ago. If his concern is over the donkey being usurped in a service of worship it only goes to show how far things have really gone.

 

Read Full Post »