A recent article on the Sydney Anglican Heretics blog highlights the depth of compromise on Genesis in the Sydney Anglican Diocese. I mean, if theistic evolution is the position of the leader of the church then I expect this to have some kind of top-down effect.^[1,2]

John writes:

Peter [Jensen], as has long been known, is an evolutionist*. Quite naturally Peter, along with all theistic evolutionists, has to play some irrational semantic games and alter the meaning of words in order to mould Scripture to fit a pagan worldview. Somehow – the details, scientifically or theologically, never exactly laid out – God is able to allow chance to create while never surrendering his office of creator. At this point I tend to think that Peter and the others are trying to turn a circle into a square but still have it called a circle. Beats me!

Anyway, the point I want to make is that Peter’s allegiance to evolution puts him outside of Christian orthodoxy, by a theological mile. If a metaphysical principle is creating the enormous amounts of novel biological information that life requires, then it isn’t our Lord doing it. New biological information is the product of thought, of teleonomic conception, not the randomisation processes being acted upon by natural selection that evolution posits as being its source (This is superbly argued in the triple-PhD Wilder-Smith’s book, God: To be or not to be?). Peter can’t have his square and circle be the one object: Either Christ, acting through will and thought, brings forth biological information, and thus life, or it’s chance randomisation of matter, the metaphysical principle of materialism. The two are incompatible and irreconcilable.

* Lest it be said that we are misrepresenting Peter’s views, the following is a quote from Doctrine 1 while he was principal at Moore College: “There is a division of opinion about how God created the world [Actually, there isn’t, Peter. The difference lies between those that truly believe the Bible is God’s unchanging revelation to mankind and those, like yourself, that believe it can change as science, so-called, “proves” God has less and less to do with. Just ask Jack Spong.]. From the standpoint of these notes the ‘theistic evolution’ account offers the best understanding….By ‘theistic evolution’ we mean that God created the world through the process of evolution [there’s that square-circle again folks!].” Doctrine 1, Unit 7, p. 105.

http://sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/2010/02/test-for-orthodoxy.html

For another great illustration highlighting the incoherency of theistic evolution, I recommend John Woodmorrappe’s short essay on the subject.

1. Peter Jensen is the Archbishop of the Sydney Anglican Diocese
2. In the comments section of John’s article, Sam Drucker quipped that Peter Jensen “encourage[d] Clergy to avoid confrontation on this issue.” Whether that is the case or not, I can attest first hand to such experiences among the Anglican faithful and now I wonder how much of it is the influence of the leaders in the church who don’t think that discussion about this issue is important?

For the sake of those who might be surprised to find out, you actually can present what the gospel says in bold and clear terms on atheist message boards. (And in my opinion, only by presenting it boldly and clearly.) The following is a brief exchange between me and an atheist (who we’ll call Anthony) which ensued after I had described one thing that makes Christianity unique or sets it apart in the marketplace of religions. I hope the following can be instructive, in some small way, for those who find themselves with an opportunity to present what the gospel is to unbelievers.

RYFT (Christian):

Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; that is, every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is not based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because “a balance of good works” is precisely that: a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God’s holy law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, “Well, aside from these laws you have broken you’re an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you.” It would be unjust to not punish guilty criminals. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands crime be punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.

ANTHONY (Atheist):

You came to the conclusion that the correct religion in the world consists of a God with a one-size-fits-all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?

RYFT:

Since that is a crude caricature that fails to reflect what I had said, there is nothing for me to respond to. I have zero interest in answering for beliefs I don’t have.

ANTHONY:

But you said Christianity is based on belief and grace, rather than actions in life. I was addressing that. The only characteristic that God would consider is your belief in him, which is a human act. Would that be a fair assessment?

RYFT:

I had said nothing about what Christianity is based on. I said salvation is based on God’s grace, not human works.

Moreover, that is not a fair assessment, but a wildly inaccurate one that completely ignores what I had actually said. Belief in God does not save anyone. A person is not saved because he believes, but because of what Christ did.

It’s not as if man exists in some state of spiritual neutrality from which either ‘belief’ or ‘non-belief’ finally determines his standing before God, whether justified or condemned. Under biblical Christianity, all mankind exists in a state of condemnation already on account of sin. We all come from the same pool of death and darkness, of sin and moral ruin—and through unbelief (itself a sin) man remains there. We exist under judgment for death; only in Christ is there judgment for life. We exist under God’s wrath; only in Christ is that wrath removed. We exist under condemnation; only in Christ are we justified. Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.

"The doctrines of grace are the biblical teachings that define the ends and means of God’s perfect work of redemption. They tell us that God is the one who saves, for his own glory, and freely. And they tell us that he does so only through Christ, only on the basis of his grace, only with the perfection that marks everything the Father, Son, and Spirit do. The doctrines of grace separate the Christian faith from the works-based religions of men. They direct us away from ourselves and solely to God’s grace and mercy. They destroy pride, instil humility, and exalt God." (James R. White)

ANTHONY:

You’re not making any sense. First you say, “Belief in God does not save anyone.” But then you say, “Salvation is through Christ, not belief, who died for the sins of all who repent and believe.” So in order for me to be saved, I need to believe that Christ is my personal Savior (an entity that is also considered God). Or am I getting this wrong?

(And that quote from White? Niiiice!)

RYFT:

You are getting this wrong. Let me construct a chain we can follow.

(1) Salvation is through Christ alone—by who he is (sinless substitute) and what he did (atoning sacrifice). (2) His death paid for the sins of all who repent and believe. (3) So in order to be saved, you need to be one of those who repent and believe because that’s whose sins Christ’s death paid for. (4) If you do not repent and believe, your sins are not covered by his sacrifice, leaving you to pay for your sins on your own.

So then it is not your repentance and belief that saves you. It is Christ’s life and death that saves you, a salvation you enter into through repentance and belief.

If there are any lingering questions, go ahead and ask. I hope I’ve made it clear, but only you can tell me.

ANTHONY:

It’s a bit confusing? You say it’s not your belief that saves you, but then you would not be able to be saved without that particular belief.

RYFT:

Well, not quite: “you would not be able to be saved without” Christ paying for your sins. Salvation is through having sins paid for. Belief does not pay for sins. (1) Christ paid for the sins of all those who repent and believe. (2) All those who repent and believe therefore have their sins paid for.

ANTHONY:

Got it.

Jonathan Sarfati’s response to Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is quite adequately titled The Greatest Hoax on Earth.

Note, this is not a book review as I haven’t even yet had the privilege of holding it my hands, let alone read any of it. But having read many of the articles and books that Dr. Sarfati produces, knowing also that he has a high authority for scripture, and having seen/heard him debate and speak in person on several occasions, I can hardly think of a person I’d rather read in response to Dawkins.

From CMI’s store-page advertisement:

Richard Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of evolution/atheism, says his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution is the first time he has presented all the evidence for evolution/long ages. It is promoted as an unanswerable demolition of creation. Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims point-by-point, showing biblical creation makes more sense of the evidence.

The introductory chapter of the book is available to read for free online.

The book is only AU$20 for single orders. But if you can spare it I’d recommend you fork out the extra 20 bucks and get two additional recent DVD presentations by Dr. Sarfati as well: Evolution and the Holocaust and Leaving Your Brains at the Church Door

Back in December of 2009, Mitchell LeBlanc of UrbanPhilosophy.net composed what he thought to be a possible disproof of the existence of God. The following day I had posted a rebuttal in response to his disproof. Given the exquisitely complex manner in which he formulated his argument, it isn’t really surprising that many people struggled to wrap their head around what exactly his argument was positing. As it usually goes in these things, the argument made good sense to LeBlanc himself, who said he was “amazed at the misunderstanding” that resulted. I’ve been in those shoes myself at times, when an argument is perfectly clear to me but the way I shared it with others left them baffled and confused. As I’ve said elsewhere, that is one of the primary reasons I blog; it allows me to constantly refine how I articulate myself, so that it becomes accessible to a larger and larger audience. I am always searching for ways to bring my language down from the mountain peaks of philosophy to the valleys of English. (I’m getting better, but I’ve still got a long way to go.)

The argument

To briefly refresh our minds, allow me to repeat what his argument had been. (And we must keep in mind that it targeted the biblical God.)

(1) If God exists, then God is necessarily omnipotent and necessarily triune.

(2) If God is necessarily omnipotent, then God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs.

(3) If God necessarily can bring about any logically possible state of affairs, then God necessarily can bring about a state of affairs that is brought about by a being that is not necessarily triune.

(4) If God necessarily can bring about a state of affairs that is brought about by a being that is not necessarily triune, then God is not necessarily triune.

(5) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

As I pointed out in my rebuttal, this argument does not belong to LeBlanc so much as it belongs to atheologist Michael Martin, [1] with LeBlanc substituting “triune” for every instance that Martin used “omniscient.” Given the doctrine of divine simplicity, such a substitution should be acceptable for the Christian.

What Martin was trying to show, and by extension LeBlanc, is that the existence of God is disproven by reason of logical contradiction; i.e., that God cannot exist. He takes two particular attributes of God and attempts to show that a contradiction results. In the case of this argument, those attributes are omnipotence and triunity.

As indicated in my aforementioned rebuttal, (1) and (2) are not contested since they reflect orthodox Christian doctrine. With regard to (3), LeBlanc later informed me that “a being that is not necessarily triune” would be some human, such as Bob who in some way caused flooding in Toronto (e.g., “Ryft on ‘A Possible Disproof of God’s Existence’”). Consequently, my previous rebuttal loses its traction, since I hadn’t understood that a secondary being was playing a relevant role (i.e., I’d thought God was the only being employed in his argument). But his argument is not saved by this clarification, since the derailment occurs now at (4) instead.

The analysis

We can accept (1) and (2), and it seems we can also accept (3) if it is predicated on God bringing about a state of affairs that was brought about by Bob. However, it’s not at all clear how (4) should follow. If God should bring about (principal cause) a state affairs that is brought about by Bob (instrumental cause), [2] how does it follow that God’s nature is thereby identical to Bob’s nature? That is, how did God become not triune by virtue of Bob being not triune? LeBlanc does not say, nor is it immediately obvious.

Perhaps LeBlanc rejects there being any distinction between types of causes, such that God is said to be the instrumental cause of all effects. If that is the case, then I think it becomes obvious how (4) follows. But if God is the instrumental cause of all effects, then all effects (or states of affairs) amount to “God in motion”—which in essence amounts to panentheism and is dramatically antithetical to God as revealed in the Bible (who the argument is intended to address, i.e., it qualifies as a straw man). So if that notion and its presuppositions are what is proposed by (4), then it must run afoul of such doctrines as aseity, necessary being, divine simplicity, transcendence and so forth, which tell us that necessarily nothing of God’s nature is identical to his creation. What God ordains should come to pass (principal cause) is a product of his nature; however, the means by which it comes to pass (instrumental cause) is a product of his creation which he exists independent of. So Bob by nature is not necessarily triune, but this has no bearing on whether or not God by nature is triune.

Hopefully I have not misunderstood his argument still. We’ll have to wait and see how he responds to find out if I’ve grasped his point aright.

References

1. Michael Martin. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Temple University Press, 1990. p. 310 (as cited by LeBlanc).

2. Bob: instrumental cause that is itself an effect; contingent. God: principal cause that is not itself an effect; necessary. So, not identical; i.e., distinguishable types of causes.

Over at his blog, Dr. James Anderson recently announced a 50% discount being offered for a very limited time by P&R Publishing on the festschrift in honour of John Frame, Speaking the Truth in Love: The Theology of John M. Frame (2009), with expository and analytical essays from 36 contributors on Frame’s own work in the fields of theology, apologetics, ethics, etc. (including Wayne Grudem, Paul Helm, Vern Poythress, James Anderson and more). The discount expires 31 March 2010, so get your copy soon. See the Table of Contents and a sample chapter (PDF).

(HT: Chris Bolt at Choosing Hats.)

[Last updated by Duane: 9 March 2010]

According to a recent SMH article, the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board decided to ban the teaching of creationism as part of the science curriculum.

Under policies published in December, the board said it required “teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.”

The SMH article provides an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues relating to creationism and science. However I only want to make one simple point about the misconceived relationship between the two.

To put it simply (as the SA board have done), the empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis – watch this – is an integral part of creationism. It’s not anti-science or non-science, but values the scientific method as a way to understand the world in which we live. The two are very much homogenous, in the same way that materialists might view the relationship between evolution and science.

Science is the study of the natural world, which Christians would say is the study of the world God created. While materialists don’t accept a Christian worldview, we all still live in the same world and so we all have access to exactly the same evidence.

In studying this evidence however, materialists must draw conclusions shaped by materialist presuppositions. Appeals to design (implying a designer) are not allowed. The fallacy of this objection is that it presumes that the design argument is an appeal to ignorance. However the inference of design is based on an analogy of what we do know scientifically, not what we don’t. So Christians are not limited by a materialistic paradigm. This doesn’t mean that creationists invoke God-of-the-gaps solutions to problems that the materialist’s paradigm cannot currently resolve. But it means that they approach the evidence with the view that God created and that God’s word provides clues about the world which can inform our presuppositions for understanding the evidence. A practical example of this is the work of PhD physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett, who have both proposed models for the universe to rival popular big bang cosmology.

Read the rest of this entry

The truth of the phrase “a picture tells a thousand words” holds much persuasive power. The media has long used a variety of images to convey the truth and reality of situations far removed from the every day viewer; we use images to provoke, to emotionally stir and to captivate people’s attention. We are, by and large, a visually stimulated people. The success of the movie industry and of TV programming is testament to that. Yet can we intentionally use graphically disturbing pictures to promote a cause or to bring awareness of an issue to the uninitiated? Can we use images to sway our opponents on the abortion issue? If they’re used appropriately, then the answer is an emphatic, “yes”.

The use of pictures does have its place; the use of factual pictures entomb the truths of an event for future generations. One man who understood this in totality was General Eisenhower who, on visiting the Nazi concentration camp at Ohrdruf on April 12th, 1945, ordered that every citizen of the nearby town of Gotha visit the camp; that media personnel make full documentation; and that military cameras be sure to capture the horrific scene, immortalizing in photographs the barbarity and cruelty.

Said Eisenhower, “I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”^[1] Eisenhower envisaged that the documentation was necessary because, at point in the future, he believed there would be people who would deny that such astrocities ever took place, perhaps thinking them some elaborate conspiracy to stir the hearts and cloud the minds of a gullible people. Yet there are groups who deny the holocaust; I’m sure Eisenhower would not be surprised.

Read the rest of this entry