The Victory of Reason

Post Christmas and no doubt the Salvation Army and other good Samaritan organizations are inundated with calls for food parcels, budgeting services and emergency payouts from Government departments as people blowout their personal budgets.

Sadly, it is not only these services that will be in demand in the aftermath. There will no doubt be an increase in workload for grief councillors and therapy, legal services, coroners, and the emergency services- police, fire and ambulance- will all be heavily engaged as the consequence of people embracing the "festive" season with overmuch gusto. The careless, the substance abusers, delinquents and stressed out people not only kill themselves and others on our roads, they do it at our beaches and in our maritime environment. The over exuberance also culminates in our homes as domestic violence peaks.

How this has affected us on a personal level started with a simple phone call on Boxing Day. An unfamiliar voice on the other end was trying to contact a local church official to get a food parcel. Somehow our number was dialled. She offered no indication of how she had got into the predicament of having no food, not even bathroom tissue- and I didn't ask. I got some details from the distressed woman and then spoke with my family about it. Our conscience was pricked, our philanthropic impulses swung into action.

As I drove with my two Latin American son-in-laws to the supermarket they both spoke of their shared desire to bring other extended members of the family to this country imbued with Western values. They recognized the value of security, opportunity and the shared egalitarian ideals that permeate our society. Of course it isn't perfect, but nonetheless they seemed to appreciate the difference from the perspective of their own respective cultures- Chile and Colombia.

Why is it that, as a culture, our own people seem unable to appreciate all the good that Western culture promulgates? Why is it that as a culture we seem to be all too eager to cut from the roots the very influence that has infused us with these inestimably valuable ideals?

In recent decades movies have been replete with stories of the West raping and pillaging not only indigenous cultures, but also the local resources to such an extent that we seem to collectively wear a guilt complex as if nothing good ever came of Western influences. We not only forced "white man's religion" on other cultures, we introduced alcohol, sophisticated tools of war, disease, greed and all manner of evils not the least of which was colonialism. All of which maybe true- to some extent. But what is overlooked- in fact studiously ignored- is the good that came along with it. The benefits that so influenced for good, and to such an extent that countries and cultures infused with Western culture became the envy of the world.

John M. Njoroge gives a telling example of this cultural influence for good:

So profound was the transformation of British society that Bertrand Russell, one of the most prominent and influential atheists of the last century, could later write, “It is doubtful that the method of Mahatma Gandhi would have succeeded except that he was appealing to the conscience of a Christianized people.” The process of Christianization did not occur by accident but as the result of a careful understanding of the Scriptures and the application of God’s Word to all of life. The Christian leaders who had laid the foundation for the moral rebuilding of their nation understood what a community of committed believers should produce: people of deep seated character and integrity who can discern the times in which they live and who can influence others, including their leaders, not only to become believers but also to live their lives and conduct their Christian witness with biblical wisdom in spite of cultural pressure to the contrary.

An overtly public and outspoken atheist of enormous influence extols the virtue of a Christianized country which made it possible for a renowned Hindu leader to realize his goal of independence for India! Think of the incongruity of it all, the unlikeliness of it happening in any other circumstance...

Conversely we have had a complete diet of stories extolling the virtues of native religions, values and conservation ethics- but how accurate is that? What species became extinct from exploitation quite apart from "white devils" influence? What resources were killed over because of their perceived value, before ever a white man set foot on the land? When people express a genuine desire to "return to their roots" and "retrace the old paths" is it not with Christian values? Do they not forgo killing each other for revenge? Do they not forgo raiding parties for fresh wives? Have they not given up cannibalism, human sacrifice, witchcraft,and all manner of other harmful traditions like female genital mutilation, binding women's feet, self immolation, burning alive the wife alongside the body of the deceased husband? Truth be told these were very much a part of the old ways, and such has gone on in all societies from time immemorial.

The history of migration patterns tells the truth. Why are we so blind to it all?

The visionary C.S. Lewis, in his classic work "Mere Christianity" gave us valuable insight into this problem:

"A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet."

Although in this instance he was speaking of his personal antagonism towards the idea of the existence of God because of the obvious problem of all the injustice in the world- the idea carries over perfectly into our current discussion. The real issue that connects the two is subjectivism. The simple reality is that our nearness to our own culture prevents us from viewing it objectively. We cannot see the wood for the trees.

The two young men that are now part of our family had no difficulty in appreciating the benefits of our culture because they came from cultures that were significantly different. Comparison is key. Lewis presses the point home:

"A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."

I suppose there are in fact two invaluable sources that ought to be considered touchstones- vital reference points- in objectively weighing Western culture. One we have already deferred to, the question of Geography, the simple advantage of being born or raised in a different culture gives one a far more nuanced and objective appreciation of the western way of life. It goes without saying that it also works the other way round, the dark side of western culture is also all too apparent to them. But I cannot help but notice- with its weaknesses and vices- of which there are all too many, these people still want their families to come and join them. Not just because of a natural desire for familial closeness- but because they instantly recognize that it will be "better" for them.

But this ability, this advantage of being born in a different part of the world in order to appreciate another culture, as well as being able to more objectively recognize its weaknesses, gives rise to other questions:

If they are able to recognize both its strengths and its weaknesses- does it not reveal that they are weighing the societies values against the desire stemming from an ideal?  A transcendent standard? A perfect culture? A culture that currently exists only within the imagination? Where does this come from? Again we return to C.S. Lewis and his railing against the existence of God because of all the injustice present in the world. He questioned the source of his ideal of perfect justice and realized that this idea had to come from a perfect being. This inbuilt desire for a perfect culture- could it be the desire for heaven? Lewis develops this further and it becomes his "Argument From Desire"

Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft delineates the argument:

• Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. 
• Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. 
• Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. 

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

Lewis thus sums it up:

“If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”

But, I digress. I have said that there are two important reference points from which we can more objectively evaluate western culture, or any culture for that matter. We have seen that geography or "place" is one of those dimensions. The other is History or time. Time and place are all important.

For that perspective, we turn now to Historian Rodney Stark, and I want to introduce his work by referring to a communication I received from "The Chuck Colson Centre For Christian Worldview" and an archived piece by Chuck Colson reviewing Rodney Stark's "The Victory Of Reason- Christianity And The Rise Of The West" with an introduction by Eric Metaxas:

Although Western cultural elites deny it, non-Westerners know full well that the key to the West's success over the centuries is Christianity.
This is Eric Metaxas. It never ceases to amaze me how modern western secularists are doing all in their power to purge Christianity from public life. As Chuck Colson told me once, “They’re sawing off the branch they’re sitting on.”

 Today on BreakPoint, we re-air a broadcast from 2006 in which Chuck explains the fact that the freedoms and scientific progress we enjoy in the West are due to the West’s embrace of Christianity. Here’s Chuck.

Chuck Colson:

When you hear the word “globalization,” you probably think of Chinese factories or customer service centers in India. What you probably don’t think about is Christianity. Yet globalization and Christianity are linked in ways you may never have imagined.
Globalization is about more than markets and technology. It’s also about the spread across national boundaries of ideas and values—in other words, culture. While the spread and exchange of culture flows in many different directions, the ideas and values most associated with globalization are those of the West.
And this is where Christianity comes in. In his marvelous book,The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, Rodney Stark writes that “Christianity created Western Civilization.” Without Christianity’s commitment to “reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800.”
This would be a world “with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos.” The “modern world,” to which globalization aspires, “arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a ‘secular’ society—there having been none.”
Needless to say, Stark’s conclusions aren’t popular with academics and other intellectuals and have been savaged by liberal reviewers. These folks are all too happy to blame Christianity for some of the darker episodes in Western history, but they’re not about to give the faith credit for Western success.
No matter. Non-westerners see the connection. For example, Chinese scholars were asked to “look into what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.” After considering possible military, economic, political and cultural explanations, they concluded that the answer lay in what the Chinese scholars saw as the “heart” of the West’s pre-eminent culture: Christianity.
These non-Christian and non-western scholars had “no doubt” that “the Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and the successful transition to democratic politics.”
Apparently, many of their countrymen agree. Whereas there were approximately 2 million Christians in China when 'sMao came to power in 1949, today there are upwards of 100 million. What’s more, Christianity is especially popular among the “best-educated” and most modern Chinese.
Why? Because like people everywhere, except, ironically, in the West, they see Christianity as “intrinsic to becoming modern.” For them, Christianity is an alternative to a way of life that bred misery and oppression. They understand Christianity’s role in the rise of the West, even as Western elites deny the connection.
Of course, this isn’t the primary reason that Christianity is “becoming globalized far more rapidly than is democracy, capitalism or modernity.” That is due to the proclamation of the Gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Still, it’s a powerful reminder of how Christianity transforms not only individual lives but entire societies as well.
(This commentary first aired on June 29, 2006).

It would be easy for some to dismiss this as perhaps coincidence, an accident of history, but history has a way of winning arguments if you are willing to set aside cherished ideas and listen with any sense of objectivity. The Chinese scholar's attempts to define the secret ingredient to the "success of the West" is by no means an isolated hiccup in unravelling the mysteries of progress, as Alexis De Toqueville exemplified by eloquently reporting back to the French Senate in the 1800's:

" I went at your bidding, and passed along their thoroughfares of trade. I ascended their mountains and went down their valleys. I visited their manufactories, their commercial markets, and emporiums of trade. I entered their judicial courts and legislative halls. But I sought everywhere in vain for the secret of their success, until I entered the church. It was there, as I listened to the soul-equalizing and soul- elevating principles of the Gospel of Christ, as they fell from Sabbath to Sabbath upon the masses of the people, that I learned why America was great and free, and why France was a slave." – Alexis de Tocqueville, French historian reporting to the French Senate, (circa 1800)

Still, as history also shows, those that do not heed its lessons are bound to repeat its mistakes. France is now in the unenviable position, as a result of it's extreme liberal politics especially exacerbated by its immigration policies, in now having to beg it's Jewish patriots to either stay in France, or come back to it. All of which is in order to offer some much needed balance to a burgeoning problem which largely stems from a power vacuum caused by secular liberal politics that a particularly strident mix of extremist Islamic factions have been all too ready to exploit.

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy and the targeting of French Jews, French Prime Minister Manuel Vals expressed the desire to maintain the ideals of the French Republic experiment:

"If 100,000 French people of Spanish origin were to leave, I would never say that France is not France anymore. But if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure,” Valls said ahead of a memorial rally in honor of those killed in France in recent days.

If France is now lamenting the loss of the Judeo/Christian voice in its political life, what must we think of Great Britain who appears only now to be waking up from the nightmarish effects of an over zealous liberality that made no distinction between extremist Islam and other religions. They too, would do well to remember the lessons of history.

Christopher Bone writes in the Journal of British Studies:

In the past 120 years every state in Europe, except Britain and Sweden, has undergone revolution, invasion, foreign occupation, national liberation, civil war or military coups d'état. What, it may be asked, is the British secret? This question, posed by the contemporary British historian E. J. Hobsbawm was debated by many French historians in the 19th century. The most persuasive attempt to answer this question has come in the works of twentieth century French historian, Elie Halévy.

Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Élie Halévy, (1870-1937), French historian, author of the best detailed general account of 19th-century British history, Histoire du peuple anglais au XIXe siècle, 6 vol. (1913–47; A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century). This great work traces the political, economic, and religious developments in Britain after 1815.

While the French Revolution kept the blades of the guillotine descending apace on the heads of the French aristocracy, the very same social upheavals that fuelled the fires of passion burning in the revolutionists, were threatening the status quo in England.

Historian, Élie Halévy:

"If economic facts explain the course taken by the human race," he wrote, "the England of the nineteenth century was surely, above all other countries, destined to revolution, both politically and religiously."

What then, circumvented this inevitable revolution?

Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Halévy was particularly concerned with the rise of nonconformity, and he sought to show that what was basic to the British conception of liberty was a spirit of voluntary obedience.

Nonconformity, as the reader will no doubt appreciate, is the name given to the Protestant movement of dissent with the Anglican Church led by John Wesley, George Whitfield and others. Wesley had been summed up as:

"One of the architects of modern England" 

As many Western nations rush headlong into removing the historically privileged place of Christianity from all forms of public and political life, is it not time to rethink? If Christianity has proven a reliable source of social stability and a fence to ward off all manner of evils, is it not time to heed the wisdom of G.K Chesterton who said:

“Whenever you remove any fence, always ... pause long enough to ask yourself the question, 'Why was it put there in the first place?'”

We delivered our groceries, and asked the lady if she would like to be prayed for, she agreed and after brief prayer we left.

A trolley full of groceries will satiate the hunger for a while, only for it to return, she will experience hunger again. Then what? Our prayer is that she begins to recognize a desire for that "bread" that takes away the leanness of soul. Extrapolate that to a whole culture and we begin to see where we are at. The clamour for things that don't really satisfy. Like the cordial that is designed to instigate thirst, we need to be questioning our need for "junk food" as a culture. We need to recognize that though we may be replete with goods that bloat our bodies, on the inside there is a serious malnutrition that is killing us.

The Drama of LIfe

In this ever repeating drama of life Christmas brings the year to an end, but not without the promise of a new beginning, new life- fresh drama.

Merry Christmas one and all.

What is the Eye of the Needle?

This post has been reproduced from Monergism.com


 

Written by Cameron Buettel

I haven’t always sat under the teaching ministry of John MacArthur. In fact, earlier parts of my Christian walk have been tarnished by over-exposure to some really bad Bible teachers, and attendance in some very man-centered churches. A lot of my expertise in error comes from first-hand experience.

It took longer than I care to admit, but eventually, the reckless handling of Scripture became too hard to ignore. One of the most blatant examples was related to Christ’s interaction with the rich young ruler. Luke 18:22-25 explains the sad end to their conversation.


When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Based on the simple reading of the text, there shouldn’t be any confusion about what it means to pass a camel through the eye of a needle (the reference also appears in Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25). And yet I’ve witnessed pastors do all sorts of exegetical gymnastics to explain away the clear meaning of Christ’s words—not only in my original Australian congregation, but throughout Europe and America, as well. What at first glance seems like a straightforward hyperbolic illustration has been twisted, contorted, and explained away through eisegesis and iffy archeology.

The explanation usually goes something like this: Christ wasn’t referring to the eye of a literal needle—that would be preposterous. Instead, He was talking about a narrow entrance into the city of Jerusalem, a gate known locally as “the eye of the needle.” This gate was so small that a camel could only be brought through with great difficulty, squeezed through on its knees—which depicts how we humbly need to come to the Lord.

That explanation can be quite compelling—after all, humility is necessary—as long as you don’t read the next two verses of Luke’s gospel: “They who heard it said, ‘Then who can be saved?’ But He said, ‘The things that are impossible with people are possible with God’” (Luke 18:26-27).

Christ’s words make the point of His illustration abundantly clear. He can’t mean that the rich man can only attain salvation through humility—getting a camel to stoop and squeeze through a narrow gate might be challenging, but it doesn’t require divine intervention. In context, His point is unmistakable: Manufacturing your own salvation is just as impossible as threading a massive beast of burden through the eye of a sewing needle. Apart from the intervention of the Lord, it cannot be done.

In his commentary on the passage, John MacArthur explains another key flaw with the spurious interpretation:


There is no evidence that such a gate ever existed. Nor would any person with common sense have attempted to force a camel through such a small gate even if one had existed; they would simply have brought their camel into the city through a larger gate. [1]

Instead he says,


The Persians expressed impossibility by using a familiar proverb stating that it would be easier for an elephant to go through the eye of a needle. The Jews picked up the proverb, substituting a camel for an elephant, since camels were the largest animals in Palestine. [2]

So why go to such great lengths to sidestep the clear meaning of Christ’s illustration? The reasons come into better focus when we consider the most vocal proponents of the “Needle-Gate” theory.

For starters, it’s predominant among many prosperity preachers and televangelists, who understandably don’t want to draw scrutiny and rebuke for their extravagant lifestyles. Christ’s exclamation, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” (Luke 18:24) would have been a shock to His original audience. As John MacArthur explains, “The idea that wealth was a sign of God’s blessing was deeply entrenched in Jewish theology.” Prosperity preachers today have repeated that lie to pillage the people of God. What better way to insulate their thievery from Christ’s warning than to warp the meaning of His words altogether?

There’s another group that favors the “Needle-Gate” theory, and they’re grounded in the same mindset that Christ originally rebuked. The rich young ruler was a product of the Jewish religious system, and his self-assurance about earning his salvation was a direct reflection of the Pharisees’ man-centered legalism.

Just consider his original question to Christ, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18). As John MacArthur explains, “In keeping with his legalistic system of self-righteousness, he sought that one elusive good work that would push him over the top to obtain eternal life for himself.” [3]

In the same way, countless pastors and church leaders today downplay the Lord’s intervening work in salvation and defy Christ’s words in this passage, treating faith as a mere decision, and repentance as nothing more than simply changing your mind. The God-centered gospel of regeneration is substituted with a man-centered decisionism which makes salvation the result of one’s humility—however difficult that may be.

As John MacArthur explains, that betrays the point of Christ’s words, and the truth of the gospel.


The obvious point of that picturesque expression of hyperbole is not that salvation is difficult, but rather that it is humanly impossible for everyone by any means, including the wealthy. Sinners are aware of their guilt and fear, and may even desire a relationship with God that would bring forgiveness and peace. But they cannot hold on to their sinful priorities and personal control and think they can come to God on their own terms. The young man illustrates that reality. [4]

The “Needle-Gate” theory isn’t exclusive to false teachers—it’s been around long enough and taught widely enough that even some faithful teachers assume this interpretation by not carefully studying the text in context. Tragically, a wrong interpretation of this text not only promotes error, it becomes a missed opportunity for worship. How so?

Luke 18:25 is one of the clearest testimonies from our Lord on the inability of man to do anything to save himself. This doctrine of total inability is a vital component to the gospel; it highlights the impossibility of salvation apart from a sovereign work of God in a person’s heart. More than that it highlights God’s grace in that He does do that work. For that reason this text should lead to humble praise of our God and Savior.

Is That A Fact?

Every now and then one of those ubiquitous slogan wielding images that populate facebook pages everywhere turn up a gem that cannot be resisted. Just such a gem caught my eye the other day and now I just have to comment on it.

Marcus Aurelius was a Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD and has also been distinguished as one of the most important Stoic philosophers. It is he that is credited with the caption used in this image from The Idealist on Facebook. But it’s not just the saying that captured my imagination- it’s the very clever use of the image involved as well. Together they epitomize all that is clever and good about a slogan- punchy, humorous and quickly grasped. It exemplifies the cliche: “a picture is worth a thousand words”. What staggers me somewhat is that Aurelius seems to have captured the spirit of our age, no mean feat when considering his antiquity. But of course, what goes around, comes around.

Humanity has not changed significantly in two millennia, despite the dramatic change in accessories. But this really does characterize in a nutshell, just exactly the chief dilemma of our time, the emasculation of truth. Everything is reduced to "opinion" and when that happens, truth is devalued and lumped in with half-truths and convincing fallacies, and straight out lies dressed in exotic clothes. The term Post-modernism characterizes the spirit of our times. This generation is impressed by this sort of pop-culture, instantly gratifying philosophy as opposed to the serious discipline of extended focus and concentrated effort in layered thinking. 

But I love this admittedly clever drawing and its application for the reason that it gives me the perfect opportunity to critique the laziness of today thinkers. Or rather the rash haste to accept a soundbite on face value without even raising an eyebrow. To quote a popular American President who sadly met an early demise- J. F. Kennedy

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie- deliberate, contrived and dishonest- but the myth- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinions without the discomfort of thought”

So what’s wrong with it?

Good old Marcus has made an absolute, unequivocal statement. Not once but twice, (given that the translation is accurate) he uses the word “everything” ditto.. There is not much that can be an exception to that is there? So everything is an opinion is it? Is that a fact? But therefore what he says can’t be a fact can it? If all is opinion, then that must include Marcus’s own statement mustn’t it? If we subject his saying to his own rule- (that everything is opinion and not fact) then his own saying defeats itself. His own saying (as defined by his own saying)- isn’t a fact. So who then is interested in opinions not based on facts? This is after all, merely his perspective, and not the truth- he has laid a trap for all truth, and has fallen neatly into his own net, hoist by his own petard.

The reality is that if true knowledge was impossible, which is what his saying concludes, we wouldn't even be capable of knowing what an opinion was! We all know what an opinion is, compared to true knowledge or factuality, truth- but we only know these from comparison. If we were incapable of truth, then neither would we know what "opinion" would be. As C.S. Lewis has said with regard to the moral law, (another absolute), a man can only call a line crooked, when he has some idea of a straight line. Well, the same holds for opinion, we can only call something an opinion, (like the crooked line) when we know what truth is, (the straight line), and if everything was literally opinion, as Aurelius opines, then we could not distinguish an opinion from truth. We could not know any truth.


While the clever use of the illusory planks gives cogent expression to the idea that given even apparently accurate facts, people will still come up with two different perspectives, none of which relate to the reality. This fits perfectly with Marcus Aurelius’s axiom. But it is quite plainly wrong. The two cartoon characters have different views, not because the truth cannot be known, or expressed, but because they are both bearing witness to an impossibility, a logical contradiction. The truth only bears witness to reality, not to logical contradictions which is exactly what the boards illustrate and represent. But not only the impossible planks, the impossible saying of Aurelius is the issue. The problem then is not with the nature of truth at all, nor so much as its accessibility to human endeavour. Neither is there any fundamental shortfall in the limitations of language in which to express it. The essential problem is with the mind that has twisted the truth to make it ambiguous or unreal and therefore agreement remains elusive. The problem lies with the mind which has accepted things as true, without the discomfort of effortful thinking. The mind that, at its deepest level, has an axe to grind with truth, especially the sort of truth that will involve getting out of our comfort zone. The problem then is not epistemological, it is a moral question. Or rather it is the morality we bring to our epistemology.

There is a difficulty involved when blanket, universal absolutes are pronounced, based on the authority of one’s own thinking. When such blanket statements are made, they are made from the perspective of a finite being who has assumed an omniscient perspective. He or she is playing God. It is usurping the position of God himself.

Jesus said “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”.

The following poster suffers from a similar malady. Does Andre Gide speak the truth? Or should we doubt him?

Two Parables and the Question of Falsifiability

Famed British philosopher of religion Antony Flew (1923-2010), writing as an atheist in 1955, expanded upon a parable designed to show that there is no difference between God as an “invisible gardener” and there being “no gardener at all.” To give an idea of the extent of Antony Flew's influence consider this: His books were used as standard texts for those wishing to engage in the study of Christian Apologetics at a tertiary level. Towards the end of his life, Flew, who maintained that he would go wherever the evidence leads him, gave up his atheism and embraced the idea that God exists.

"Throughout the last half of that century, Professor Flew was recognized as one of the most significant philosophical advocates of atheism, eventually writing at least 35 works, many arguing for the non-existence of God. Then, at age 81, Antony Flew changed his mind. God, he explained, probably does exist." Al Mohler

PARABLE ONE (Antony Flew):

 Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, “Some gardener must tend this plot.” The other disagrees, “There is no gardener.” So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. “But perhaps he is an invisible gardener.” So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well’s The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” At last the Skeptic despairs, “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?”

John Frame counters with a parable of his own. John M. Frame is an American philosopher and Calvinist theologian especially noted for his work in epistemology and presuppositional apologetics, systematic theology, and ethics:


PARABLE TWO (John Frame):

 Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. A man was there, pulling weeds, applying fertilizer, trimming branches. The man turned to the explorers and introduced himself as the royal gardener. One explorer shook his hand and exchanged pleasantries. The other ignored the gardener and turned away: “There can be no gardener in this part of the jungle,” he said; “this must be some trick.” They pitch camp. Every day the gardener arrives, tends the plot. Soon the plot is bursting with perfectly arranged blooms. “He’s only doing it because we’re here—to fool us into thinking this is a royal garden.” The gardener takes them to a royal palace, introduces the explorers to a score of officials who verify the gardener’s status. Then the skeptic tries a last resort: “Our senses are deceiving us. There is no gardener, no blooms, no palace, no officials. It’s still a hoax!” Finally the believer despairs: “But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does this mirage, as you call it, differ from a real gardener?” —John M. Frame, “God and Biblical Language: Transcendence and Immanence,” God’s Inerrant Word,

In the first parable by an atheist it is pointed out how the theistic view of the world cannot be falsified. After all if the senses are generally reliable and you cannot find any evidence through the senses, there is just as much reason to say there is in reality no gardener at all. So the story of the gardener is resisted on the basis there should be some sense verification of the presence of the gardner. In the retold story by the theist, the same story is resisted on the basis that just because you can see and feel and touch a gardener you shouldn't believe because as we all know the senses can be fooled, it is just a mirage. What this shows is that there is a prior commitment at a deep level not to acknowledge the gardener no matter what the evidence shows, one way or the other.

‘As apologist John Frame shows, however, Flew’s argument only tells part of the story….systems of thought that resist falsification are not necessarily invalid, for all philosophical systems resist falsification at their most fundamental level. Consider the man who thinks that making money is the most important thing in life. He will strive his hardest to gain wealth, perhaps even neglecting to care for his own health or for his family in the process. It will be difficult to convince him that wealth is not as important as he thinks it is. He will reject any arguments his friends bring against him, believing that his friends are mistaken, no matter how well formed those arguments are or how strong his friends’ evidence is. His belief in the value of money is a “basic commitment,” or a “presupposition.” He will interpret everything he sees and hears such that it will form a consistent system of thought built upon this basic commitment. Only when he finds that his commitment leads to irreconcilable claims or when he senses that his commitment fails to account for the world he experiences will he have cause to doubt it. His basic commitment thus resists all falsification. This same reliance on basic commitments applies to the rationalist, the modernist, the post-modernist, the atheist, and the Christian. The commitments will naturally take different forms; some will hold that sense perception is the only way to test claims, others will rely on logical deduction, still others will rely on gut instinct. Each of these resists falsification. If you try to reason with the man who relies on instinct, he will say his gut tells him that you are wrong and will dismiss your claims. If the Christian tells a man who relies on sense perception that he believes in an invisible, intangible God, that man will likewise outright dismiss the Christian’s claims. Each system is valuable to the one who believes it, but each system nevertheless will resist falsification. The Christian and the atheist, each an outsider to the other’s belief system, will find that system strange, indefensible, and invalid. Since all systems resist falsification at their most basic level, we cannot reject Christianity purely on the grounds that it resists falsification. Instead, we must examine it from within. We must see if it is internally consistent. In the words of C. S. Lewis, we must step inside Christianity and look “along” it,rather than stand from the outside and look “at” it. What I think you will find is a system that is consistent, that can account for any evidence you bring against it, and that is of great value. Christianity makes a greater difference in the life of the believer than anything else ever could. In closing, consider John Frame’s clever version of the Parable of the Invisible Gardener, in which he rewrites Flew’s version to show the resistance to falsification that lies within atheistic modernism:’ (From Tolle Lege- The Blog of the Dartmouth Apologia, written by Nathaniel Schmucker.)

The Noetic Effects of Sin (continued)

noetic
nəʊˈɛtɪk
adjective
formal

adjective: noetic
relating to mental activity or the intellect.


Sentence: "the noetic quality of a mystical experience refers to the sense of revelation"

Origin: mid 17th century: from Greek noētikos, from noētos ‘intellectual’, from noein ‘perceive’.

• First it is important to understand this teaching from the perspective of apologetics because we need to know realistically the state of the unregenerate heart and mind, what effect sin has had on the person we are trying to reach on behalf of Christ. "Know your enemy" in other words. Not that an unregenerate person himself is so much an enemy in a physical sense, but that his/her mind is definitely at war or in enmity against God and his truth- even at the same time as they may feel they are perfectly "open minded " and may imagine they are neutral about the question of the reality of God. The enemy within the unregenerate person is the carnal heart/mind. And having become Christians- we still have to war against the carnal mind, the carnal nature within ourselves

   "The mind governed by the flesh (the carnal mind) is hostile (is enmity) to God; it does not submit to God's law. nor can it do so." Romans 8:7
  
  

Note that it doesn't just say- "the mind governed by the flesh does not desire to submit to God- as if, had it happened that we desired rightly- we could then submit to God's law. What it in fact does say emphatically, is that "it does not submit", and "nor can it do so", it cannot submit to God. Where the mind goes, the person follows.

• Secondly. this doctrine you will not hear any mention of in possibly any other church. You will not hear it preached in perhaps 90 percent (or even higher) of evangelical Churches in New Zealand. It is a particular doctrine of the reformers. That is to say only reformed churches preach this. You may hear it in a more traditional Lutheran church, a traditional Presbyterian church, a reformed Baptist church and some others. But it is definitely not a new thing or a modern "invention" of contemporary theology. It is clearly evident in Augustine's writings of the 3rd (4th?) century and in various church fathers and movements all the way through church history. But- and this is the really important bit- it is amply testified to in scripture itself- which is of course our ultimate test, not only of orthodoxy, but of reality. We just cannot trust our own views, our own (or others) experiences and opinions. Even as I say this, I am sure you will all admit, only God sees things as they really are. And the reason for this is not only that we have a finite capacity for knowledge, but that- and more importantly-we are all suffering the noetic effects of sin. Yes Christians also. If this was not the case, why would so many passages of scripture talk about "the renewal of your mind". Romans 12:2 Why else then would we need to "cast down vain or futile imaginations"? 2 Corinthians 10:5  This is the reason why scripture talks about "their foolish heart was darkened" Romans 1:21, or "their heart was hardened" Mark 6:52, John 12:40, Ephesian 4:18 and many others like it.

• Thirdly, this doctrine is closely allied with the doctrine or teaching about Total Depravity, and which is also a distinctly reformed teaching, relating to Original Sin. We know what "depravity" means. In relation to total depravity and original sin, it means debased, or corrupt. It means that a persons being, their nature has taken a backwards or retrograde step. It is analogous to something good morphed into something degraded like a mutation that is self repeating, self perpetuating.

DEPRAVITY- moral corruption, wickedness.
corruption, corruptness, vice, perversion, pervertedness, deviance, degeneracy, degradation, immorality, shamelessness, debauchery, dissipation, dissoluteness, turpitude, loucheness, profligacy,
licentiousness, lewdness, lasciviousness, salaciousness, lechery, lecherousness, prurience, obscenity, indecency, libertinism, sordidness;
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
the innate corruption of human nature, due to original sin.

The word "innate" mentioned in relation to Christian Theology above, refers to the fact that this sinful predisposition is not merely a question of our will to do wrong freely, but that this will, desire and intention to do wrong is inborn, part of our makeup, inbred, congenital, inherent, intrinsic to us. That is, that sin is part of our makeup, our "DNA". It is in our nature to sin and it is this sin nature which is self perpetuating. If you are a sinner because of a sin nature, then your children will be born that way. Just as a leopard with spots, gives birth to another leopard "with spots", and it is bound to do so. And as the Bible says: "Can a leopard change his spots?" or "people do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. A tree is identified by its fruit". If something springs from you "by nature" then it occurs as naturally, and spontaneously and as irrevocablyas an apple must come from an apple tree- if there is no external intervention. If sin is innate to fallen human nature, then we, "as sinners by nature" can no more avoid sin (in our fallen state) than we can avoid breathing. It is only when we fully understand the helpless condition of both ourselves in that state and those around us we begin to appreciate the miraculous and breathtakingly merciful reality of God's saving grace in Christ. Grace precedes obedience.

Ephesians 2:3 says “All of us also lived among them ("them" being those referred to as "children of disobedience" Eph.2:2) at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.”

Why were we deserving of God's wrath just like the rest? Because ultimately we came from the same "tribe"- we were all at one time "children of disobedience" because our common ancestors Adam and Eve- when they sinned- their nature changed. And we inherited that nature. So we were, before Christ, helpless and "dead in our trespasses and sins". We sinned by gratifying or falling in with the desires of that sinful nature, we did it willingly. But it wasn't just the fact that we sinned- we did it-and therefore are guilty as charged. Nor was it merely our willingness to sin that justified God's righteous anger towards us. "The devil made me do it" doesn't wash with God, our responsibility is real and culpable. No one needed to hold a gun to our head while we sinned. But the scripture informs us plainly that "we were by nature deserving of wrath". The distinction here is that our very fallen nature is detestable to God and worthy of being subject to His anger.  (There are always objections to this which I will come to further on)

It was Arthur Schopenhauer who said

 "Life is short and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth" 

He also said:

 "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" and a variant translation is " We can do what we wish, but we can only wish what we must". I don't know if he said a lot else worth noting but I thought that is worth quoting. Free but bound.

Some may object that depravity is not uniquely a doctrine of the Reformed Church, but it is when coupled with the word "Total". Total depravity does not mean, as I mentioned- that one is as wicked as one could be. Thankfully God, for most of us, restrains that sort of total corruption. (Even Hitler was kind to his dogs) But it is total in the sense that every part of a person is affected by sin. There has been some corruption in every facet of our being. And that is where the doctrine of the Noetic Effect of Sin comes in. Just as sin has affected our desires- so that we want what we should not, and impacted on our will- so that we do what we should not, and that which we should do- we don't do. It has also affected our knowledge. It matters not at all to me what churches or denominations or what reformers, whether Calvin, Luther or anyone said with regard to these doctrines. The essential questions are: Do they represent the truth? Is this the correct understanding of scripture? So hence the analogy of the poisoned chalice. A glass may contain pure water, but add just a little poison of the right sort, and  the whole glass is poisoned, though the glass does not contain all poison.

The word "determinism"has been used, but that's not really news is it? "Can a man by thinking add one cubit to his stature?" I think it would be nice to be 1.8 meteres tall but my height is unfortunately determined by my genes. Perhaps it would have been nice to be born to rich parents in Laguna Beach, but I had no say in the matter. Can you think of a period in human history in which you would rather have been born? Perhaps growing up as a kid in Bethlehem in the time of Christ may have had an advantage, but if you think of Christ's own brother who did not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ until rather late in the picture, I rather doubt it. We are determined in so many ways anyway. Human freedom is real enough, but it is not absolute.

With regard to determinism take this for example:

Ask the question- Who was responsible for Jesus' death?

• Well truly the Jews called out to Pilate "Crucify him" repeatedly. And I think also said "let his blood be upon us" or words to that effect.
• Pilate himself though he ceremoniously washed his hands of it, still ordered it to be so. 
• The Roman soldiers executed the orders.
• Scripture informs us that Herod was also a party to it. Acts 4:28 
• The Gentiles and the people of Israel. Acts 4:28
• We ourselves necessitated the death of Christ as sinners (He was bruised for our transgressions- Isaiah) 
• Jesus himself was responsible. "the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep", "I lay down my life...no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down myself" John 10 
• God was responsible. Acts 4:28

Now look exactly at what it says in Acts 4:28-

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. "

Not just a general vague sort of plan, but specific people were called by name to do what God had foreordained them to do. Did that mean they were forced? No, Pilate made his decision perfectly naturally based on the well known principle of political expediency. ( I know he's not guilty, but if I don't put Jesus to death the Jews will go nuts and I'll be in trouble from my superiors for not keeping control of the Jewish "rabble".) He acted perfectly according to his own nature. He acted freely and yet his act with regard to Jesus was determined by God. We are never so free that we can put ourselves out of the reach of God, but neither are we so determined that we are automatons, we act freely within the bounds of our own nature.





Another Biblical example of the noetic effect of sin, and I think Brett may have referred to it, is in the story of Lazarus in the "bosom of Abraham" and the rich man tormented in the fires of hell. Irrespective of our thoughts about a literal hell, the question must be asked what is the point of the parable? The rich man who had died wanted to get word to his family to warn them not to end up in the state he was in. He wanted them saved from the same fate. Evidently Christ believed that it was due not to a lack of evidence they already had, that would prevent them from entering the same state as the rich man. In fact Jesus said, by implication, that the Gospel of salvation was clear enough, apparent enough, evident enough in the writings and testimony of "Moses and the Prophets", (essentially the Hebrew bible, the Old Testament) by which to be saved. This must have serious implications for the Jews even today on that consideration. But the rich man continued to insist that wasn't enough, they needed more evidence, more certainty, more scripture, a personal envoy. Finally, Jesus relates that Abraham (who is the father of all the faithful- Rom 4:16) told the rich man-





"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." The noetic effect of sin is such that to the person who wills not to take knowledge of an indisputable fact such as the miracle of the resurrection, though he is even a firsthand witness of it, he will yet cry "I need more proof". And in so doing speak to the truth of that which Paul wrote saying in Romans 1:18:





"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.…" (My emphasis)





Instead of rejoicing in all truth, we accept only those truths that don't cost too much, that don't cramp our style, that still leave our sense of personal sovereignty intact.


Whether we like it or not, accept it or not we are bound by our human nature until such time as we depart this "mortal coil" and this is why we must "put on Christ"in the meantime.





Now some may object to the idea that if I am a sinner by nature then why does God hold me to account? Why am I judged evil when the sin I commit is freely committed by me because I can in fact do no other- since sin is "built-in". If I am a sinner by nature, then when I do what comes naturally to me why do I face the wrath of God? As Al Mohler points out, when a lion tears the throat out of an antelope, does the lion suddenly pull up short and say "whoa, where did that come from?" as if somehow he was forced into doing it? Or do we call that lion wicked for doing what comes naturally? Can the lion be anything or do other than what its own nature dictates what it must do? So then how does God condemn those who are subject to a sin-nature? St. Paul in fact anticipates this understandable objection to being culpable and deserving God's wrath for having a corrupt nature which was not of our own doing, and which we cannot avoid. (See all of Romans 9, particularly v14 and 19,20.) The reality is that the moral law, is an objective moral standard for God's creatures that are moral agents. That's us. It makes no ultimate difference to our guilt if we don't know what is right, if we don't believe in the objective moral law, or even if we are now (since the fall) incapable of what we (humanity) were originally capable of. The moral law is an unchangable standard. Something that is objectively real, and objectively true does not rely on our input or understanding to exist. Nor does God require our permission to exact the consequences of sin. This may sound stupid but can a person die of typhoid when that person has no knowledge of it? When he doesn't even know the name of the disease he's dying of? Of course! And just as truly "Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" are always and at any moment on a precipice, on the edge of eternity and worthy of his wrath, whether the state of their own mind is capable of knowing that or not. And whether or not the state of their nature is now capable of obedience or not. That's the reality. ("Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God" is the title of America's most famous sermon by Johnathon Edwards, an early American preacher and theologian) The actions of our ancestors, Adam and Eve, by whom sin came into the world resulted in this catastrophic fall from God's order. And we are subject now to the same nature that came upon them at the fall. But this is not how God originally created Adam and Eve. Consider the tragic circumstances of a heroin addict who falls pregnant. The addict is now not really in control of their own life, and now their irresponsible action has resulted in a foetus that is also an addict. For all the tragedy of it, nothing changes the consequences of those actions, utterly regrettable though they are. The developing child is born an addict. It is not responsible for that addiction, and yet it suffers the results, the fate of its mothers actions as surely as if the actions were its own.

As grim and as relentlessly hopeless as that state of affairs is from the human perspective, it is not the final curtain for humanity thanks to Christ.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." That is, when we were- like Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha in the tomb and three days dead and stinking- (without any inherent power of our own to come forth from the grave) Christ called, and his power that came by his word accompanied the command of his word, and we came forth into life.


Lastly I want to emphasize that the noetic effect of sin is present with us as Christians even as I write this, preventing us, or at least making it difficult to see, understand and know what we ought to. We especially cannot see our own blindspots, and for this cause we really do need each other, and an environment with wisdom in which we can be honest with each other and supportive at the same time. The question remains- having available what I believe are good scriptural evidences of these truths, good historical verification of their relationship to orthodox Christianity- will you therefor embrace it, or will the noetic effect still take its toll? :) I wold reccommend to watch again the Al Mohler video from Youtube entitled "The Way The World Thinks" and also a video by John MacArthur on Total Depravity Remember the noetic effect is still at work whenever we have sufficient evidence and warrant to believe what we ought to- yet still find a resistance within us that will not allow us to concur with that which is in fact undeniable. That is the nature of the beast. That is the noetic effect of sin on our knowledge. On our epistemological efforts. We cite lack of evidence when it is not a question of needing more proof or certainty but an unwillingness to concede what is obvious because of a perception lurking in the heart that we may have to get to work, or that there may be other implications that we don't want to face if we concede this truth.

"To give truth to him that loves it not, is merely to give more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation"George MacDonald

My father once told me this sort of "sick" joke. A tradesman was visiting a local mental institution one day when he observed one of the patients going to and fro with an empty wheelbarrow. The problem was he was dragging the wheelbarrow upside down wherever he went. With a grin he could scarcely contain he gently went up to the man and instructed him in the correct use of the wheelbarrow. "See- turn it over like this and then it will work much better" he said. The patient, with a furtive look around responded: "Your'e crazy, if I do that someone will put something in it!"

A Frequently Missed Apologetics Text And The Noetic Effects of Sin

This piece was copied from  The Cripplegate

by Lyndon Unger

To find out what the phrase "The Noetic Effects of Sin" means watch the Al Mohler video below this post.

A while ago, I reading Acts 4 when I noticed something I hadn’t seen before and I thought I would share with the fantastic Cripplegate readers. Acts 4:14-21 is a great little text that gives a wonderful example of the noetic effects of sin; how sin affects the mind and the rational process. The unbelieving mind is anything but neutral regarding facts and their relationship to God, and Acts 4:14-21 displays that in rather stark language.

"The unbelieving mind is anything but neutral regarding facts and their relationship to God"

Acts 4 follows Acts 3, where Peter and John heal a lame man who’s more than 40 years old (Acts 4:22). He’s lame, asks for money, they command him to rise up and walk, and he does (Acts 3:1-9) in full view of many people in the Temple and thousands had heard about it almost immediately (Acts 4:4). Everyone knows the guy because he’s been lying on his mat for a long time(Acts 3:10) and then Peter preaches the good news of the resurrection of Christ in the temple (Acts 3:11-26). Then, in Acts 4 Peter and John are called before the Sanhedrin the next day and the Sanhedrin read them the riot act (Acts 4:4-13) Then, comes this passage:

14 But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. 15 But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus.19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” 21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened.

Now that’s an amazing apologetics text with some amazing implications to apologetics and evangelism.

- The facts were irrefutable.

- The guy who was healed was standing in plain sight; everyone know he was the guy who had been paralyzed, lying outside the temple for decades.

- The Sanhedrin recognized that it was a sign, meaning a divine sign (an act of God).

- The Sanhedrin themselves admitted that they could not deny it, as much as they desperately wanted to.

- They knew that it was “evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem”, meaning that the whole city knew the guy and would eventually hear about it.

- Their main concern was that more people would hear about the clear and obvious sign (and thus become followers of the way).

- The facts of the healing weren’t in question. The facts were plain and irrefutable.

So did the Sanhedrin recognize the facts that were glaring them in the face and submit to theobvious and irrefutably proven conclusion that Peter and John were speaking on behalf of the God that they claimed to worship?

Did the Sanhedrin follow the facts to their admittedly logical conclusion and believe the message of Peter and John?

Not for a second.

- Instead, they attempted to suppress the distribution of the story. All they could do was hope to stop the spread of the story regarding these irrefutable facts.

- Also, they attempted to suppress the apostolic interpretation of the facts. They didn’t tell them to shut up completely, just to shut up about Jesus.

- When that didn’t work out well, the Sanhedrin threatened them. The Sanhedrin knewthat Peter and John were speaking on behalf of God and they hated it. The people likewise knew that Peter and John were speaking on behalf of God and the Sanhedrinhated it.

"the carnal mind is powerless to see the facts of reality rightly in relation to God; not rightly in relation to other facts"

Unregenerate people can see the facts of reality (including the facts of science, history, etc.) and the facts are never the problem. The interpretation of the facts in relation to God is the problem; the unregenerate person’s hatred of the God to whom the facts point is the problem. To say it another way, the carnal mind is powerless to see the facts of reality rightly in relation to God; not rightly in relation to other facts (i.e. that’s why they can balance their checkbook, do successful research, etc.).


The carnal mind will not understand the facts of reality rightly in relation to God’s interpretation of all facts (namely, scripture) because they cannot, and in facing the facts and then responding in warfare against the logical conclusion of those facts, they display theirrationality of sin.


That doesn’t mean that unbelievers are stupid, but rather rationally powerless to see and interpret facts in their relation to God.


In other words, the reason that basically every unbeliever isn’t a biblical creationist is because they cannot be; the whole notion of a creator God necessitates a whole tsunami of moralimplications and unbelievers are slaves to sin (John 8:34) and dead in their sin (Eph. 2:1,2:5). They’re powerless to emancipate themselves from their bondage to sin and death.

Just some biblical food for thought.


The Noetic Effects of Sin by Al Mohler

Book Review: Letter From A Christian Citizen by Douglas Wilson

Douglas Wilson writes this playful little book as a response to Sam Harris and his work “Letter To A Christian Nation”. Wilson, to his credit, writes with a style reminiscent of G.K Chesterton. There is a lightheartedness that keeps his writing lively and yet the seriousness of the whole work cannot be denied. This book- while little- has a lot of heart. Drawing on various other scholars such as the indomitable C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga and even shades of Greg Bahnsen he makes a compelling case for those who lauded Harris’s work to reconsider. All that glitters is not gold. While Harris seems to make a lot of sense, a critical mind soon shows up the flaws.


Again and again Wilson pulls Harris up for, as Chesterton would say, “undermining his own mines”. The problem with naturalism, is that it is self refuting and inconsistent. Harris, while claiming life has no ultimate purpose or meaning then proceeds to pursue a meaningful life, with the sole purpose of ridding the world of religion. Wilson points out that if life is truly an accident, as Harris assumes, then there can be no grounds for absolute morality, yet Harris is adamant that religion, particularly the Christian variant is absolutely wrong. If all views are relative then Harris has no grounds for criticising Christianity, it is (on that basis) equally valid with any other worldview. Harris’s criticism is thereby invalidated. Harris tries to have his cake and eat it too- but Wilson just doesn’t let Harris get away with it. Wilson takes issue quoting Harris at various points and makes an excellent job of critiquing his logic.On the view of materialism then, there is no real difference between Mother Theresa and HItler or Pol Pot. Harris, while attempting to claim the moral high ground by adopting the materialist worldview has totally undermined any objective morality by which to clobber Christianity.

By claiming the materialist view Harris has undermined not just human freedom but thinking and logic as well. and Wilson unrelentingly reminds him of that reality - to his chagrin. Wilson does a valiant job of calling Harris to account for the reality that were materialism true, then Harris could not appeal to an absolute morality, he could not appeal to logic, he, could not, without smuggling in the assumption of transcendence even be free, especially not free to think, free to exercise logic.. To use Cornelius van Til’s analogy, Sam Harris is like the child who slaps the Father in the face, which he would have no power to do if he was not at the same time sitting in the Fathers lap.

Al Mohler On The United States Supreme Court Decision Re. Same Sex Marriage

Al Mohler, Pastor and President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, respected leader in the Gospel Coalition gathers his thoughts on the momentous decision with regard to same-sex marriage handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday.
The following is a transcript of part of his summation. The entire message may be heard in the audio at the bottom of this post:

Al Mohler:

In the final analysis the decision is far more damaging, far more devastating, far more significant than even we had expected. In one sense that’s because this decision isn’t only about marriage- that’s not its only importance. It’s hard to overestimate just what it means that the court has redefined marriage. But in the larger sense as Justice Scalia joined by three other dissenters made very clear- what the court effectively did in this decision was to change the way the United States government operates and how we as a nation of laws come to have the laws under which we operate. That is a more ominous development even than just the redefinition of marriage because it will not stop with the redefinition of marriage. Justice Kennedy’s opinion follows directly in the line of his opinions written in 2003 in the Lawrence case, in 2013 in the Windsor case. In the most crucial section of the argument on page 22 Kennedy writes “These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person and under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, couples of the same sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty”

Now what we need to note there is the assertion of certain things that have never been asserted before. In the first place that marriage is a fundamental right in this sense. In the sense that it would include, or even could include same sex couples. The other thing we need to note is that the actual wording of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. The actual wording of its due process and protection clauses that were cited here. The actual wording never cites marriage at all, not only does it not cite anything that would include so-called same sex marriage, it doesn’t address marriage at all. The most important aspect of the majority opinion in this case is that it isn’t actually much of a legal argument at all. It certainly isn’t a Constitutional argument. And no one made that point more eloquently than the Chief Justice of the United States when he wrote in his dissent: “The majority’s decision is an act of will- not a legal judgement”

 Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court John G. Roberts, Jr. 

The Chief Justice openly accused the majority in this case of imposing their moral judgement not any informed rational or legal judgement on the Constitution of the United States and thus on the nation. At the very end of his very eloquent dissent in a paragraph that indicates that the chief Justice actually is for same sex marriage he just didn’t believe it was a Constitutional right. He acknowledges that there will be those who will celebrate this decision, but then he writes: “But do not celebrate the Constitution- it had nothing to do with it, I respectfully dissent”

At this point in the recorded audio, I could not help but remember a post I had written some weeks ago about a decision handed down by the Lord Chief Justice in the United Kingdom which had similarities to what was happening here. In that instance the counterpart to the U.S. supreme court Lord Chief Justice Thomas of Cwmgiedd (pictured) had handed down a remprimand to a magistrate, and ordered him to be "re-educated" (shades of the Gulag?) for "being influenced by his religious beliefs".
The irony lies in the fact that in the case of the United States Supreme court this Chief Justice made essentially the same claim about the other Judges who formed the majority and thus ruled the day with regard to same sex marriage. According to him, their "moral judgement" had informed their decision, not any rule of law or legal argument and hence his observation that their decision was in point of fact "an act of will- not a legal judgement". In short their worldview (probably philosophical naturalism) had influenced their decision rather than any legal framework to which they should have defferred. The myth of secular neutrality is thus clearly observable in both instances.

Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Al Mohler continues:

Elsewhere in his dissent the Chief Justice says that the majority’s reasoning has far more to do with philosophy than with the law. The Chief said: “The Court today not only overlooks the country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it preferring to live only in the heady days of the ‘here and now’ "

The Chief Justice of the United States joined by other dissenters points to the fact that one of the most devastating aspects of today's decision is the fact that the majority actually vilifies the opposition. It declares here that there is no rational basis for any opposition to same sex marriage, to the right of same sex couples to marry. And not only that, the majority claims that the only basis for opposing same sex marriage is moral animus. That is- an irrational moral judgement that should have no public consequence and should not be allowed to have any influence in terms of the life of the nation. And thus- as the Chief Justice and the other dissenters pointed out- the majority basically says that every previous supreme court, every previous Justice of that court, every previous American and the majority of the states of the United States of America right now are operating out of a moral animus that must be corrected by the action of a five- four majority of the United States Supreme Court. In so doing, as Justice Scalia was very clear, the majority on this court has simply substituted its own moral judgement for the Constitution of the United States and for the operation of a Representative Constitutional Democracy. Whereas just yesterday in the Obergefell decision the Supreme Court said that it was acting in deference to the legislature. As Justice Scalia made very clear today, in the case of same sex marriage, the court has decided to “be” the legislature. He then writes: “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative- indeed- super legislative power, a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.” He goes on to write: “Except as limited by a Constitutional Prohibition agreed to by the people, the states are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices reasoned judgement.” Speaking of the majority, he then wrote these very chilling words:

“A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy”

Getting right to the point Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent to the majority opinion “Today’s decision usurps the Constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage, the decision will also have other important consequences” he then writes these words of clear warning: “It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new ‘orthodoxy’” Once again we are not talking about someone on the margins of American political life, we’re talking about a sitting Justice of the United States Supreme Court saying that this judgement will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. And not only was it said by Justice Alito, it was said by Justice Thomas, it was said by Justice Scalia, it was said by the Chief Justice of the United States- John G. Roberts Jnr. All four of those Justices, three associate Justices, and the Chief Justice of the United States have told us that this decision handed down today will be used to vilify those who will not join the new moral orthodoxy. Further words of warning from Justice Alito included these:

”Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this court in its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do, is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate.”

He then says:” Even enthusiastic supporters of same sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims” Even in the days leading up to the release of today's decision it was interesting that many in the mainstream secular media all of a sudden began publicly to acknowledge the inevitable conflict between same sex marriage and religious liberty. Justice Thomas in his dissent wrote these words: “In our society marriage is not simply a governmental institution it is a religious institution as well, today’s decision might change the former but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable” wrote Justice Thomas,”that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same sex couples.” Justice Thomas then wrote: “The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability, it makes only a weak gesture towards religious liberty in a single paragraph”

ADDENDUM: In a recent news item from Still Waters Revival Books newsletter people have been quick to take advantage of the moral slack that the Supreme Court decision has cut for those who are determined that this decision has far more implications than same sex marriage. It seems there is virtually no moral position that cannot be successfully persued under the rubric of "equality" when used in such vacuous circumstances.

Polygamist Applies for 'Marriage' License in Wake of "Supreme Court" Same-Sex "Marriage" Ruling: "It's All About Equality"
Excerpt: HELENA, Mont. - A polygamist in Montana is seeking to obtain a "marriage" license for a second "wife" following last Friday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that all 50 states must legalize same-sex nuptials because of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. "It's about marriage equality," Nathan Collier, 46, told The Associated Press this week. "You can't have this without polygamy." Collier went to the Yellowstone County Courthouse on Tuesday with his partner Christine to seek a second marriage license as he stated that if the Supreme Court really believes in equality, then he should have the right to marry as he wishes as well. He cited language from dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated that the "gay marriage" ruling "would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." "[The majority ruling] offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not," Roberts wrote. "Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world."