The Gospel Coalition is running a series of articles this week on classical, evidential, and covenantal (presuppositional) apologetics from a variety of contributors. My interest is of course with covenantal apologetics so in this post are listed all the articles regarding that issue published this week at The Gospel Coalition (including responses that those articles generate which I found particularly informative and helpful.)

Last Modified: 14 March 2012.

• William Edgar, “Fides quaerens intellectum: What is presuppositionalism?” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 11).
   
• Paul Copan, “Questioning presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 12).
   
  
  • James Anderson, “Does presuppositionalism engage in question-begging?” Analogical Thoughts (2012, March 13).
     
  • James White, “Apologetics methodology: Paul Copan’s questioning of presuppositionalism,” The Dividing Line (2012, March 13). [Video.]
     
  • Steve Hays, “Copan on presuppositionalism,” Triablogue (2012, March 13).
     
  • Joshua Whipps, “Questioning Copan,” Choosing Hats (2012, March 13).
     
• K. Scott Oliphint, “Answering objections to presuppositionalism,” The Gospel Coalition (2012, March 13).

Updated (scroll down)

Mike Duran at his blog posed what he considers a dilemma regarding the relationship between apostasy and abandoning the Bible as authoritative. [1] Duran invoked the example of Leo, son of the famed intelligent design proponent Michael Behe, who said that his trust in the Bible was shaken by reading The God Delusion by Dawkins and considering for the first time “the fallible origin of Scripture.” [2]

It did not occur to me until later in life to examine the reliability of the Bible, the infallibility of which my Christian opponents would always agree upon. [3]

That point in particular was what originally shook my specific faith—Catholicism—and planted seeds of skepticism … [4]

Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. [5]

This erosion of trust in the Bible “is often the first step in Christian apostasy—‘the loss of a specific creed’,” writes Duran, quoting Behe’s phrase.

The first step toward the deconstruction of Christianity must always be the deconstruction of Scripture. For once “the foundations are destroyed” (Ps. 11:3), you are free to construct another worldview, preferably one to your own liking.

However, this creates a problem. If we can’t question and debate the  authenticity, authority, and limits of Scripture, how do we know we can trust it? Unquestioned belief in the Bible is just as wrong as unequivocal rejection of it. [6]

Read the rest of this entry

Richard Dawkins was recently challenged to a debate with William Lane Craig. He declined. Craig, he said, was a “deplorable apologist for genocide” with whom he would not share a platform. The genocide in question is that of the Canaanites in the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy (see link).

One of Richards more famous quotes from “The God Delusion” on this issue is:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

One of the biggest problems that many people have with God as detailed in the Bible, which Richard has so clearly demonstrated above, is that of His judgment against nations like the Canaanites. One only has to read Biblical history to find God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women and children. Not even the livestock are spared. So what are we make of this? Is God a moral monster?

Paul Copan has attempted to answer this challenge in his book “Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” His answer to the charge that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites is that this was not the genocide that it appears to be from a simple at face value reading of the text; that the text is hyperbolic and an exaggeration of what actually happened; that these were more like disabling raids of the military bases/cities and religious centers and not the leave no survivors destructive conquest that one might assume from a face value reading of the text. The passages on the women and children are just sweeping language being used as a disabling metaphor where central structures are undermined so that the Canaanite influence is disabled. For a more thorough explanation you can check out this interview (3rd hour) with Greg Koukl on his radio show at STR or their blog. Otherwise you can get his book.

While Paul Copan’s explanation on the issues of slavery, bigamy, child sacrifice and the treatment of women in the Old testament seems sound to me, I think Clay Jones comes to the correct conclusion on the issue of the “divine genocide” of the Canaanites. He argues in his treatise, “We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t  Understand What Happened to the Canaanites”, that the face value interpretation of the text is the correct interpretation. Clay also appeared on Greg Koukl’s radio show in an interview that can be found here (3rd Hour) which is where I got most of his answers for the rest of this blog post.

The first thing that needs to be examined is the culture and behavior of the Canaanites to see if there could be any justification for their obliteration as described in the Old Testament. Archeologist William Allbright tells of an ancient Canaanite poem where the Canaanite God Baal, rapes his sister while she is in the form of a calf 77 even 88 times. We have here rape, incest and beastiality in the same act. Baal also has sex with his mother and daughter. If this is who the Canaanites worshiped, if this is their God whom they emulate, then according to Jones, this is certainly what they themselves are doing. And these acts are borne out with further study of Canaanite culture. God outlaws these practices in Leviticus and this sin is punished when both the Canaanites and Israel committed them. And that punishment was harsh. Sodom and Gomorrah were examples of Canaanite cities who were judged by God with good moral justification.

So how does Clay Jones answer the complete destruction passages of the Canaanites in the Old Testament? Clay starts off by making an observation of our own culture. We seem to have been inoculated to sin. Average people just does not care anymore about many sins. Our culture does not even recognize them as sin, let alone understand what the term sin actually means. We have become so Canaanite-like in our own culture to the point where, as Clay put it, “Studying these things over the years has led me to wonder if the Canaanites might stand up at the Judgment and condemn this generation”.

Livestock

Why kill all the livestock? You do not want to be around animals that are used to having sex with people. In Clay’s article he gives an example of a female gorilla sexually attacking a psychologist.

Women

If you want to erradicate these practices from a culture, then why would you leave women who were just as guilty and as equally dangerous as the men in participating in these practices.

Children

Yes the children too. Firstly what age do you start separating children from adults? 18? 12? Clay tells of fostering children because he and his wife could not have their own children. They learned that kids coming into your house at from as young as 4 years old were bringing their culture with them. Now, what if you had killed their parents? What would teenage rebellion look like for those children who were spared. Certainly they were exposed to a highly sexualised culture and were very much likely to have been molested by that time.

So how do you stomp out that culture in order to prevent if from affecting the Israelites adversely? If you want to erradicate the sinfullness of the Canaanites, how else can you do it?

But wait, I hear you say, the Bible talks of the continued Canaanite presence in the region after this “divine genocide” occurred. How does Clay answer that? Clay directs our attention to those “divine genocide” texts and points out that Gods command was only for a specific region. There was still a Canaanite presence outside the region that the Israelites were to inhabit and that’s why there were commands still in place not to take wives from outside the Israelite culture etc. But as we read further into the text, the likes of Kings David and Solomon did not uphold these commands perfectly (by taking wives from outside the Israelite community) and thus the Canaanite culture was reintroduced into the Israels culture and corrupted them to the point where God then dealt harshly with the Israelites via the Assyrians and Babylonians.

So in conclusion, I think we can accept the text at face value. The question that remains is what do you think of God for commanding such a thing? Does God have a right to do with His creation as He pleases? If you have a problem with the selective judgment of the Canaanites then how do you feel about the almost complete destruction wrought by God of the whole world during the Flood? And how do you feel about the impending destruction of everything at Armageddon?

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard atheists characterize Christians as “wasting” their lives. Some mean it as a pejorative, others are quite sincere about it, but in every case there is some kind of concern about Christians reaching the end of their lives and discovering it was all such a waste. By and large atheists of this sort have a desire to draw the Christian away from his or her faith and into a perspective that will not waste this supposedly one and only life. So there are two thoughts I have had with respect to this notion that I wish to share. And instead of speaking broadly for Christians everywhere, which obviously I cannot do, I will speak for myself.

On the one hand, presumably as I am lying on my deathbed, exactly how do I come to the realization that it was all such a waste? Suppose I am lying on a hospital bed, perhaps overrun with cancer and death just a matter of hours away. I have lived my life according to my convictions of Christ’s redeeming grace, committed to a local church whom I have been lovingly devoted to and who has surrounded me in a warm community of support, edification, opportunity, and guidance. I have engaged my passions in learning and understanding, from theology to philosophy to science, through both self-reflection and discourse. I have pursued my appetite for reading, from captivating novels to academic textbooks. I have experienced family and friendship; I have experienced love and being loved, forgiving and being forgiven. I have known the rewards of success and the lessons of failure. I have loved those who hate me and served those who love me. And in every circumstance I have seen God’s providential hand and (even if not consistently) praised God for it all. I have known the God of all creation and have been known by him, through which I have had a scope of vision that transcends the limits of my self, humankind, or the place in history that my existence occupied. I have seen with reverential awe the breathtaking beauty and interconnected realities of God’s handiwork.

And yet somehow, as I lay here dying, I am supposed to realize this was a waste?

Exactly what might I have otherwise had or done? If I had not these Christ-centered convictions, would I have had friendships? But I had these. Would I have been able to enjoy great learning? Would I have had a rewarding career in a field I love? Would I have explored the halls of knowledge or the wonders of the cosmos? But I had these, too. Would I have loved and helped my fellow man? Would I have gained an understanding and appreciation for the views of others that differ from mine? But I have had and done all this—and much more. Given the sort of people that this expressed concern comes from, perhaps the waste they speak of is a life that was without an abiding wonder and intellectual curiosity about the natural world around us which we have explored and sought to understand through a web of scientific disciplines. But as someone with a profound appreciation and respect for such things, having consumed countless hours learning about cosmological and biological discoveries, my life was not lived without scientific wonder and curiosity. I could go on but at the end of the day I must confess that it escapes me just how I should realize my life was wasted.

On the other hand, what is it about lying at death’s door that is supposed to clue me in to it all being a waste? Granting the atheist his or her view that this life is the only one I have, that when I die there is nothing left but non-existence as my body decomposes in the ground, how am I supposed to realize this was all a waste? While I am yet alive but dying, there is nothing that would indicate that this life was the only one I had; in other words, I have not crossed the threshold of death yet so there is not anything that indicates those atheists were right. The irony which seems lost on them, however, is that even if they are right I will never know it—because as a dead and decomposing corpse I would not realize anything. On the atheist’s view, a corpse does not engage in acts of cognition.

Indeed, as I lay there dying I would not realize it was all a waste, for by the grace of God I did everything I desired to do. When you live the life that you want to, according to the values and passions you have, how is that a waste? Perhaps the things I value and desire to do is uninteresting or tedious to you, but what has that to do with me? For example, if I love to study God’s word and you do not, just how is that a waste for me? Am I supposed to live my life according to your values and desires? The way I see it, and perhaps even you as an atheist would agree with me, my life could be said to have been wasted if I didn’t do the things I value and desire to do; that is, if someone always wanted to do this or that but never did throughout his whole life, then maybe his life was wasted in at least that respect. But if he did those things which he valued and desired to do, if he lived his life fully—even if not always consistently—according to those commitments, pursuing his ambitions and passions, then exactly how was that all a waste?

If the atheist is right, if this life is the one and only life I have and I lived it according to what I value and desire to do, after which nothing but black non-existence awaits me, then my life was neither wasted nor could I realize anything about it. That’s the sheer irony of all this. About the only thing the atheist could say is that I did not live the one and only life I have according to that atheist’s values and desires—but so what? If I did that, then I would be wasting my life.

Although I appreciate the concern that such atheists have, I do have to point out the incoherence of it. Given their view, and especially their disdain for people shoving values down their throats that are not theirs, it quite literally makes no sense for them to suggest that I am wasting my life in any way. Thus their concern is misplaced and unintelligible at any rate. If you want to know whether or not Christians are wasting their lives, then ask them if they are living it according to their values and passions.

And do try being a little more self-consistent; if you are right, then my corpse would be incapable of realizing it.

Is it consistent, on the one hand, to hold to an evolutionary world view, and yet claim, on the other hand, that humans who are causing the extinction of other creatures are improperly interfering with the evolutionary process (e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest) that’s been shaping the development of those creatures?

That was the question bumping around in my mind on Sunday evening after listening to an interview with Conservationist,  Dr. Samuel Turvey (pictured), concerning the extinction of the Baiji – also known as the Yangtze River Dolphin.

During my Sunday afternoon drive home a couple of days ago, I found myself inadvertently listening to a program called Earth Beat – a product of Radio Netherlands Worldwide – courtesy of ABC News Radio, Australia. During the program we learned that Dr. Turvey has spent quite a bit of time working to locate and preserve any remaining members of the species that had been in steep decline for several decades. As it turns out, he was too late.

The Earth Beat website says that Dr. Turvey describes the demise of the dolphin as “a national tragedy and an international disgrace.” [emphasis mine]

Elsewhere, in several articles citing the paper co-written by Dr. Turvey concerning the extinction of the Baiji (a paper subsequently published in the Royal Society Biology Letters journal), he is also quoted as saying, “This extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life and emphasises that we have yet to take full responsibility in our role as guardians of the planet.”

Now I want you to keep in mind that the broader context of this story is an evolutionary world view. That’s critical context, given that we are dealing with the attempted conservation of a species that has arguably been eradicated by the industrialisation of the Yangtze River.

So here’s the remark that really caught my attention. Earth Beat host, Marnie Chesterton, says:

Read the rest of this entry

Approximately 24 hours ago Ray Comfort and his Living Waters Ministry released the short 180 Movie regarding the subject of abortion, which has not only exploded across social media but also reignited conversations all over North America over the moral question about abortion. A bit skeptical about the film, given the hype and build up to its release, I decided to give it a viewing, mostly because I knew I would encounter conversations about it in my circles and wanted to be properly informed. And good thing, too, for the conversations have been plenty. While many of those conversations have regarded the biblical and theological integrity of the Way of the Master gospel witnessing techniques, one of them tonight regarded the issue for which the film was made in the first place, which I want to share with you here. While I have changed the young man’s name to protect his identity, the following is the conversation that we had tonight over the moral question about abortion. He did not explicitly state his position on the subject but I gathered that for him the issue remains a somewhat open question (due to things he had said prior to the part I am sharing here), having not settled definitively on one side or the other. He is a Christian but converted quite recently, a matter of a few months ago. We pick up the conversation mid-stream, where he is critically evaluating the merits of defining life in the womb as human.

~ * ~

JOHN: I don’t think the biological distinction between “human” and “non-human” is the morally relevant question.

DAVID: What then is the morally relevant question as it pertains to valuing human life?

JOHN: It’s like I said: “persons” are afforded full dignity and value. In fact, we already know that not all persons are human beings anyway.

DAVID: Who or what defines personhood?

JOHN: Oh, well God, I should think.

DAVID: Does Scripture give any indication at which point such personhood becomes morally relevant?

JOHN: I have looked and, actually, I don’t think it’s very clear.

DAVID: So the Bible is unclear about human life in the womb?

JOHN: It doesn’t seem to be very clear on that issue.

DAVID: Are you familiar with Psalm 139:13-15 and Jeremiah 1:5?

JOHN: Yes.

DAVID: What is unclear about the moral relevance question in those passages?

JOHN: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” I don’t see how that is going to make your case.

DAVID: That rather clinches it, I should think. Not only does God knit together the human life in the womb, but that life belongs and is known to him before that life is even conceived. Does that not indicate fairly clearly the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: It seems to be a statement of God’s foreknowledge, more than anything. I don’t think you can extrapolate anything else from that, particularly not anything helpful about dealing with a full-fledged person in the womb.

DAVID: That bothers me somewhat, that you don’t think anything beyond God’s foreknowledge can be extrapolated from that—such as, for example, his purpose for that human life, to which it is already set apart (consecrated) before it is even formed in the womb. The text rather explicitly states this. Ergo, you certainly can extrapolate more than God’s foreknowledge from this—not to mention what can be understood from this text and Psalm 139 about human life belonging to God.

JOHN: But the verse isn’t about that. It’s about God’s purpose for Jeremiah and foreknowing his destiny. I’d be more convinced if that verse was combined with more explicit statements about the topic, but that seems to be as good as it gets.

DAVID: How is what you said essentially different from what I said (vis-a-vis God’s foreknowledge and purpose for that human life)? You repeated what I said as if it was different from what I said.

JOHN: So, God making statements about foreknowing Jeremiah’s destiny implies that human life begins at conception? Non-sequitur.

DAVID: God foreknows Jeremiah’s destiny because he ordained it; before he was born God knew him, God consecrated him, God appointed him to a particular purpose.

JOHN: Yeah, right. So?

DAVID: What it implies, again, is that God not only knits together the human life in the womb but that human life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That indicates rather clearly the moral relevance vis-a-vis the value of human life.

JOHN: Right, and God also foreknew that his parents would get together in the first place. I don’t think any relevant conclusion could be drawn from that, could it?

DAVID: John, that life is knit together in the womb by God; that life belongs and is known to God before it is even conceived. That life does not belong to itself, or to the mother or the father. It belongs to God. That is the morally relevant question as it pertains to human life.

JOHN: Yes, before he was even conceived God knew him. Obviously before he was conceived he wasn’t actually a person.

DAVID: Indeed. And yet even then that life belongs to God—because he is the one who brings it forth, knitting it together, having a purpose for it. If that life belongs and is known to God before conception, what about at conception or thereafter? You see what I mean?

JOHN: Okay, but in the situation outlined by the verse itself, God states that before Jeremiah was conceived God knew him. I think the “before” part is actually a problem to the argument.

DAVID: I cannot imagine how.

JOHN: Because if God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived, then it must be that his parents had to get together or they’d be doing something wrong, frustrating God’s plans, not forming the life which is properly his, etc. And that seems highly implausible.

DAVID: That is an interesting and separate question from the one we are looking at.

JOHN: Well, I am arguing that perhaps the verse should not be taken in that direction, at the risk of implausible conclusions.

DAVID: Okay, let me address that. First, this subsequent issue you are raising pertains to the parents and their coming together, whereas our question pertains to the issue of moral relevance with respect to the value of human life. Therefore, it is a fallacious avenue to pursue (ignoratio elenchi). Second, we can certainly pursue that question if you like, but not until after the present question is settled. Third, your objection, at any rate, carries the implicit assumption that it is possible the parents could fail to come together (and thus do something ‘wrong’).

JOHN: I’m employing what I understand to be an analogous argument to yours about the nature of the verse, to demonstrate a reductio.

DAVID: See the second point.

JOHN: Yeah, I realize you think they are separate issues. But it strikes me as the same sort of reasoning being applied to different parts of the verse.

DAVID: Let us assume for the sake of argument that the verse carries the implication that I am arguing for. Let us continue in that vain. So, if that verse carries the implication I am arguing for, then what does that tell us about the moral relevance pertaining to the value of human life?

JOHN: That’s a loaded question (which is, by the way, what I think Ray Comfort was doing).

DAVID: An ‘arguendo’ does not a loaded question make.

JOHN: No, that’s not it. It’s the term “human life.” But setting that aside for a moment…

DAVID: Do we need to get into imago Dei? I would point to Psa 139:15 (cf. Job 10:9–11) as answering that question with its implicit reference to Genesis.

[A pause in the conversation for a few moments.]

JOHN: I think I lost track of what exactly I should answer—what the consequence would be of agreeing the verse implies that God directed the development of Jeremiah in the womb, or of agreeing that God directs the development of everyone in the womb? Sorry, I’m getting tired.

DAVID: You raised the issue of what the morally relevant question is with respect to valuing human life (with respect to the abortion issue in the context of The 180 Movie). My answer, calling upon those two texts from Scripture, seeks to answer you on that score, showing that the morally relevant question is answered by the fact that all human life belongs to God—not only in the womb but even prior to that. That is, abortion is wrong because that life belongs to God. Not to itself, nor to its mother, but to God. That answers what the morally relevant question is.

JOHN: Right, okay, which to me seems to leave us precisely where we started—namely, what counts as “human life.” The fact that God knew Jeremiah even before he was conceived (when obviously Jeremiah the person, the human life, was not around) doesn’t help to settle that question.

DAVID: If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?

JOHN: If I accepted your interpretation of the verse for the sake of argument, that God knitting Jeremiah in the womb suggests that any developing embryo, fetus, etc., belongs to God and therefore only God has the right to direct what will or will not happen to that (developing) life, then yeah, I could see how that could apply to the morality of abortion. But I would suggest that that is a different argument than relying on defining a blastocyst as a human person or life or whatever. And I think that is a lot of weight for a single verse to carry, when the verse isn’t explicitly about that.

DAVID: Answer that question I asked you, please: “If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life, would that not also apply to when it is a human life?”

JOHN: You are assuming it all counts as human life. That is precisely what I question.

DAVID: I am getting to that.

JOHN: Okay. Then yeah, I granted that with my previous comment. (Also, I need to get going soon, after your next point.)

DAVID: All right, now observe the following. If that person belongs and is known to God before it is a human life (which answers the question of moral relevance), and if that person constitutes a human life upon being born (infant), then the moral relevance of abortion is answered at every stage in between—from conception to infancy.

JOHN: Right, which I just granted.

DAVID: At what point you happen to consider it a human life is irrelevant if that person belongs and is known to God even before it is a human life.

JOHN: Well, it wouldn’t be a person. But yes, I granted that.

DAVID: It would not be a person according to who or what?

JOHN: If the issue is that the (developing) human life or person “belongs to God” and therefore only God has the moral right to direct its progress or non-progress, then okay. That is an argument different from arguing that it is wrong because the blastocyst is a human life or person.

DAVID: Right. Whether it is a person, a human life, a potential human, etc., all of those points are irrelevant, given the answer to the moral relevance question.

JOHN: Okay. And I did explicitly state in the other conversation that a different argument could be advanced using a different morally relevant fact. So I think I will tentatively agree that, if I grant that interpretation of the verse, the argument could then follow.

DAVID: There are countless ways to answer this question. I have simply advanced two.

JOHN: Sure.

DAVID: The prior one I never actually got to finish because our conversation was hijacked.

JOHN: Yeah, the topic can rile people up.

DAVID: Are you too tired to argue for how that interpretation creates a problem for my argument?

JOHN: I think so. I am supposed to get up fairly early tomorrow. But, if you’d like, I’m game to pick it up another time.

DAVID: Sure thing.

JOHN: Okay, cool.

~ * ~

Have you watched The 180 Movie? Has it sparked conversations in your life about the moral issue of abortion? Do you have any positive encounters to share?

Justin Taylor yesterday at The Gospel Coalition offered some comments about the issue of “angry Calvinists.” It may be due to the fact that I am not plugged in with any particular inner circle of blogs or online ministries or what have you but quite frankly I was not aware that there exists an issue of angry Calvinists. Either that or the term “angry” may be less than accurate, such that the issue is more about Calvinists who are aggressive or insensitive in their passion for the doctrines of grace—in which case the stereotype as such is an inaccurate caricature. And I think that Taylor could probably agree that it is more about being aggressive or insensitive than it is about being angry, for he invokes terms like “mocking, rude, sarcastic, and nasty,” which is not necessarily from anger but is certainly aggressive and insensitive.

Now, he suggests that one will see this sort of attitude from people of varying traditions in the posts and comments area of blogs that discuss issues of theological significance or “ultimate things”—and we have certainly witnessed that here—but he almost seems to imply that this is a tempting excuse, a feeble tu quoque fallacy, and spends the rest of the article offering suggestions for how Calvinists can not only own up to this problem but also how to be self-conscious about it and correct it. I am particularly drawn to the thoughts shared by Joe Thorn in his interview with Ed Stetzer on that point.

And I am certainly not denying that this perception exists out there, nor even the reality that the inaccurate caricature draws upon. Just last week several of us from church met at the beach for fellowship late Sunday afternoon and joining us were some people from another local Baptist church, including their new pastor. Someone pointed to the book that I had with me—James White, The Sovereign Grace of God—and asked that pastor what he thought of the author. (A strange question when removed from its original context but it was relevant to preexisting conversation.) He said that although he really appreciates the doctrines that White firmly believes and defends he did not really care for the aggressive and combative personality White has. And that is something I have heard more than once so I cannot deny that this perception exists.

But I have to go back to Taylor’s implication that this problem is not at all unique to Calvinists—as anyone who is a Calvinist can invariably attest! There are so many examples I could draw upon to make this point, but what better example could I use than my own self? When I was converted to Christianity it was upon hearing for the first time the gospel of Christ presented to me by a gentleman whose anti-Calvinism would later rub off on me. Through our doctrinal studies he had me convinced that Calvinism was practically blasphemous, and for years I had that attitude. And in those rare occasions when I would confront a Calvinist I was very harsh about the teaching. Aggressive, insensitive, nasty; these words were applicable. That is how I treated Calvinists and their doctrines for many years. So I can well attest that this problem is by no means unique to Calvinists. And even now, holding to Reformed theology as I do, I get confronted by people who have the same attitude I once did, getting called all sorts of rather unpleasant things (to put it lightly).

I do agree that Calvinists need to own up to their failings and strive to be self-conscious about them and work to correct them—but it is not just Calvinists, as those people who are rigorously anti-Calvinist routinely demonstrate, just as I once did too. This is a problem that anyone who is part of the family of God needs to address in their own lives, if and where applicable. I think Thorn’s final remarks bear repeating, and with a note that it should apply to all Christians:

Anger is sometimes very appropriate. We see that in the prophets and Apostles, and even in Jesus. But when dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ it’s important to do more than “set the record straight,” or prove one wrong and point to the truth. We need to do that, but we need to do it in a way that bears fruit, and biblically that means doing such work carefully. Sometimes it does mean we need to drop bombs, but more often it means we need to sit down with a brother (literally or figuratively) and reason with him. … [There are people who] need some counsel on being more gracious, humble, and gentle. We all do. At the very least, we all need to learn to be better teachers and physicians of the soul when it comes to correcting each other.

———-

• Justin Taylor, “The problem of ‘angry Calvinists,” The Gospel Coalition (2011, September 16).
  http://thegospelcoalition.org
• Ed Stetzer, “Joe Thorn and angry (fake) Calvinists,” The LifeWay Research Blog (2011, September 14).
  http://www.edstetzer.com
• John Piper, “Why are Calvinists so negative?” DesiringGod (2008, May 21).
  http://www.desiringgod.org

Aaron from the Apologetic Junkie blog, and an associate in the Christian Apologetics Alliance, recently offered some thoughts on the question of whether or not all sin is the same, and I think it is well worth a read. He tells how the answer is both yes and no, depending on the context of the question. In the legal context of our guilt before a most holy God, the answer is yes. In the existential context of the damage sin does to others and the church and to our relationship with God, the answer is no.

Click here to read more from Aaron.

This argument arose on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) in the #ChristianDebate chat room on the Dalnet network. Since I was engaged with another fellow in a rather in-depth conversation on issues pertaining to the gospel, this following argument proposed by the gentleman below did not receive any attention from me at the time. I assured him that I would respond to him the next time we saw each other; but since I am having a difficult time staying connected to IRC lately, I decided that I would respond to him here and simply provide him a link to this article the next chance I get.

On Saturday evening (17:39 PDT) Grey_Fox said that my presupposing the truth of the Bible as the word of God

does not meet the definition of axiom as “the fundamental starting point” because you were not born believing the Bible. There must have been some line of reasoning that caused you to originally believe that the Bible was the word of God, and that line of reasoning was, if not the fundamental starting point, at least closer to it. 

First, when I say “fundamental starting point” I am not somehow talking about beliefs people are born with, so that issue is not relevant to this (however interesting it might otherwise be). I am talking about that which must be the case in order for something else to be the case, that is, the relationship between some Q and the P upon which it necessarily depends. Irrespective of whether we were born with them or not, we all have axiomatic starting points upon which the rest of our mental furniture depends, the necessary P from which we argue for Q.

Second, the suggestion that there was “a line of reasoning” by which I arrived at the belief that the Bible is true simply assumes without warrant that my presupposition is not an axiomatic starting point—which is a fallacious move that begs the question against my view. An axiom by definition is not something a person reasons to; rather it is something a person reasons from. If you want to claim that my belief is something that I reasoned to, not from, then you will have to shoulder the burden of proof and make your case—but without begging the question.

Short answer – Yes.

When it comes to marriage, the question boils down to this; what “right” does someone with a heterosexual sexual orientation have that someone with a homosexual sexual orientation does not? The immediate response from those in the pro-homosexual camp is that homosexuals can’t get married. This is clearly not the case. What needs to be kept in focus during this debate is that “rights” are accrued to individuals. This is an issue regarding the law as written and concerns “rights”. Does a homosexual person have less “rights” than a heterosexual person in virtue of their sexual desire? Of course not. A heterosexual person can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex of their choice. The same-sex attracted person has the exact same “right”. If they say they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then my response is that they don’t have to. This is not meant to be cold hearted. It is an answer with regard to legality and “rights”. What is being sought here is a right that nobody has had previously under that government. Clearly not an equality issue. Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either. In both cases, each individual is treated exactly the same by the law.

When it comes to individuals, this argument is compelling with regard to rights proper. But what happens when the rights of homosexual couples are brought into the equation? And in this regard they may seem to have a legitimate complaint. The problem is that constitutional “rights” are accrued to individuals, not groups. Governments always treat couples differently than they do individuals. For example, if two people enter into a contract to buy a house, then there are certain laws and obligations that apply to those two people as a couple that don’t apply to other couples who aren’t buying a house. Why? Because their circumstances are unique. And because they are unique, they get unique treatment under the law. The question then becomes; Is the unique treatment under the law justifiable given the unique circumstances? And given our example, those involved in the sale of a house are treated differently to those couples who are not. So the government does not treat you the same, because the circumstances are different.

Homosexuals have the freedom to do all the things that married people do – pledge their love, live together…etc. But the State does not recognise that relationship. It will not licence it, privilege it or control it. Why? Because it has no reason to do so. Governments are free to make provision for homosexual couples, and they do in some cases (civil unions), but civil unions between same-sex couples are not the same as marriages between opposite-sex couples. This is because they function differently in the culture. Long term heterosexual unions, as a rule, as a group and by nature, produce the next generation. Same-sex unions do not. Heterosexual unions are very different to same-sex unions in a way that matters to the State. This is why it is appropriate for the State to treat those unions differently. They are not obligated to declare them exactly the same when they clearly are not the same to the State when it comes to policy purposes.

While this may seem quite reasonable to most people, the homosexual activist will most definitely not be convinced. This is because they don’t really care about the facts of the matter; the issues of law. What they care about is getting public approval of same-sex relationships. That’s what it’s all about. This is not about equality of rights but rather a restructure of culture so that there is complete public and official government approval of homosexuality.

The distinctions offered here are entirely legitimate. Will they make any difference to the homosexual lobby or those sympathetic to them? No. Not one bit. Because what they want is for everybody to say that their lifestyle is the same as everybody else’s and that what they do is just wonderful. I’m not willing to say that. There are many others not willing to say that. The State of California was not willing to say that (Prop 8). Legitimate distinctions have been made with regard to public policy, to which the other side has become so unhinged that they broke things and punished people (in response to the Prop 8 decision).

Anyone who thinks should be able to see the difference. And I don’t know why we should apologize for the obvious. But this is what the politically correct leftist culture is forcing upon us.

What is demanded of us is a rationale. And when a rationale is given, it becomes very clear that they do not want a rationale, they want things their way. They want approval. Which strikes me that homosexual people are the thinnest skinned people on the planet. This then leads us to ask the question, why?

[Paraphrased from Greg Koukl's radio show, Stand to Reason]