The Westminster Confessor

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Six

2012-02-13T18:27:00.000-08:00

Charnock next observes that the being that does not understand itself thoroughly and is not capable of ordering itself cannot make itself. In order to make something properly one has to comprehend it. More than three centuries after Charnock wrote man still lacks comprehensive knowledge of himself, of his own nature. It is certain that this is not just lost knowledge--that at one point in the distant past some supremely wise man had such knowledge but somehow failed to pass it on.

He also observes, somewhat parenthetically, that the knowledge of ourselves we gain from Scripture about our nature, while not accessibly through the exercise of reason, is not contrary to reason. Here he would be talking chiefly about man's sinfulness and fall from original righteousness.

Charnock then explores a hypothetical: Say for the sake of argument that the first man did in fact make himself. If this is the case, why did he make himself with limits? Why is man not decked out in power and excellences? It is a certainty that man desires to be much more than he is; why not indulge all his desires at the outset? In fact, man's limitations testify to his contingency.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Five

2012-02-12T16:19:00.000-08:00

Wow, I really have been remiss. A combination of a bad cold and many other demands on my time. I'll try to do better.

In the next section of his argument, Charnock maintains that no creature can create itself. In the specific case of man, he quotes Psalm 100:3: "Know that the Lord himself is God; it is he who has made us and not we ourselves." To delve into the matter deeper, he observes that every created thing began to be (i.e., had a beginning, as already demonstrated) and once was not. If something is not, does not exist, it is no thing or nothing. At one time, I was not--depending on precisely when you want to time my beginning, we can say at least that prior to 1958 I did not exist and therefore was nothing. That may be existentially uncomfortable, but there you have it. And when I was nothing--when I did not exist--I could do nothing. That which is nothing cannot act. It cannot do. Nothing can act before it is. And therefore no creature can create itself, for to create is to act and the creature cannot be and not be in the same time and in the same relationship. Rationality 101, folks--the law of noncontradiction.

Tomorrow I hope to move to the next section of this argument in which Charnock considers not just the impossibility of creatures self-creating but the necessary processes by which things are created.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Four

2012-02-01T17:01:00.000-08:00

In the first place, simply that creatures are testifies to their Creator. "All things that are demonstrate something from whence they are." A statue testifies to the existence of a sculptor; a garden testifies to the existence of a gardener; a book testifies to the existence of a writer.

Furthermore, all creatures had a beginning. There was a time when they were not. The world is not eternal or from eternity, so someone or something had to bring it into existence. This "cause" of creation must itself be in being before it created--"that which is not cannot act."

Charnock elaborates two additional arguments here. He first observes that time itself cannot be infinite (the kalam argument familiar to the Christian apologist) else now could not have yet arrived. Therefore the world is not eternal. He specifically argues from the finitude of past heavenly revolutions, meaning that the planets have accomplished a finite number of orbits around the sun, and the moon a finite number of orbits around the earth--there cannot be an endless stretch backwards in time. Secondly, generations of living things cannot be infinite or from eternity because they develop or mature and thus require time. And because in the current state of things we experience decay and death, an eternal generation of creatures would necessitate an eternity of corruption; in this, Charnock was likely anticipating the concept of entropy.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Three

2012-01-31T09:30:00.001-08:00

The second reason Charnock gives for the folly of atheism (again, the first reason being swimming against the tide of the universal testimony of mankind) is that it is foolish to deny God's revelation of himself in creation, what is termed general revelation. To support this he cites Romans 1:19, 20: "[S]ince what may be known about God is plain to [wicked men who suppress the truth], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Paul could not be more explicit.

Charnock employs an analogy of a mirror--just as in a mirror we see a true (if not complete) depiction of the image of a person or object, so creation reflects the glorious image of its Creator. The heavens are especially eloquent on this point (see Psalm 19, for example). "Where Scripture was not revealed, the world served for a witness of a God."

He then elaborates this concept by looking at four aspects of how creation testifies to the reality of God: the very existence of creation, its harmony, its preservation, and its several purposes. We will look at these in more detail.

Charnock's First Summary Statement

2012-01-30T09:54:00.000-08:00

Apologies for my brief silence--last week was rather busy.

At the conclusion of his first extended discussion of the folly of atheism, Charnock observes, "[I]s it not a folly for an atheist to deny that which is the reason and common sentiment of the whole world; to strip himself of humanity, run counter to his own conscience, prefer a private before an universal judgment, give the lie to his own nature and reason, assert things impossible to be proved, nay, impossible to be acted, forge irrationalities for the support of his fancy against the common persuasion of the world, and against himself, and so much of God as is manifest in him and in every man?"

I expect there is much in those words to which a contemporary atheist would object, but Charnock is not done with his argument. The next series of posts will address the testimony of general revelation--how God has manifested proof of his existence by the things he has created.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part Two

2012-01-24T18:31:00.000-08:00

Charnock gives as his second reason that it is foolish to deny general revelation, i.e., God's declaration of himself in his creation. Of course, he cites Romans 1:19, 20 as a supporting text. He also employs the analogy of a mirror, with creation reflecting the glorious image of its Creator. In this regard, he considers the heavens to be particularly good at this.

"Where Scripture was not revealed, the world served for a witness of a God."

Charnock then develops (at some length) four propositions about the witness of creatures: in their production, harmony, preservation, and answering their several ends. I will take each of these up in sequence over the next several posts.

Demonstration of the Atheist's Folly, Part One

2012-01-22T13:39:00.000-08:00

Before I start, let me take note of new information that an atheist named Paula Kirby wrote a strongly-worded article published in Friday's Washington Post decrying Christianity and promoting atheism as a superior worldview. If I can find the article I may try my hand at answering her charges, and seeing if Charnock--as we have followed him so far--has anything to say.

But back to Charnock. He states that his first reason supporting his contention that atheism is folly is that it is foolish to deny or even doubt the "universal testimony of mankind." By this he means that no human society in his experience had ever been based on atheism or maintained it as a principle tenet. He observes three aspects of this testimony:

1) It is universal. No nation in all history previous to the mid-17th century had denied the existence of God as such, although many societies have differed substantially as to the specifics (polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, monotheism, etc.). I observe parenthetically that Charnock could not have known about the skeptical and Marxist revolutions that began in the 18th century, although subsequent experience has demonstrated that the resulting societies were unstable or successful for awhile due to severe repression, indicating that long-term official atheism is untenable.

2) It is consistent and uninterrupted. Throughout the turmoil of human history, religion as an ordering concept has stood. Men have had ample opportunity and motive to debunk it but none have done so firmly and finally. Even Satan did not attempt to deny God's existence in any of his interactions with mankind recorded in the Scriptures.

3) It is natural and innate. This means that the sense of God's existence is part of the makeup of man and impossible for him to root out of himself, although certainly many have tried (once again, Romans 1).

And yet, says Charnock, this persistent sense is not a mere tradition, else why this one concept has been preserved and all the rest (according to religious thought and observance) controverted and dissimilar? And, neither is it a conspiracy of human leadership to keep their subjects under control; he develops several reasons why this cannot be the case (no evidence of it, no manner of its communication in a pretechnical civilization, no cohesive plan; goes contrary to the grain of most politicians, who have generally lacked a reverent fear of God and tend to introduce corruptions of worship rather than preserve the good; no one has ever confessed to such a conspiracy, and how could it have remained secret for so long; who gets the credit as its originator). Nor can it be a product of fear, meaning terror, of God, for the notion of God must precede being terrorized by him; no one fears what is not recognized.

The Light of Reason

2012-01-21T16:10:00.000-08:00

Contemporary atheists like to characterize themselves as smarter and more intelligent than theists; some even go so far as to advocate the term "brights" for themselves, implying that those who believe in God are the "not-brights," or perhaps the "dims." But this seriously prejudices the case and misrepresents the place of reason in theism. It also mistakes the role of reason in atheism, which is far more dependent on irrationality than most atheists realize or care to admit.

Belief in God, most particularly the God of the Bible, is a matter not just of faith (itself often grossly misunderstood by believers as well as unbelievers) but of reason. Christianity is a reasonable faith. God has revealed himself intelligibly in creation and in Scripture; the prophets and apostles repeatedly appealed to general revelation as testimony to the reality of God.

Charnock employs the analogy of the sun as he seeks to illustrate the maxim that "revelation always implies a revealer." In the process of emitting light, by which all else is seen by normal vision, the sun reveals itself and attests to its being.

The Benefits of Debunking Atheism and Affirming the Existence of God

2012-01-20T17:27:00.000-08:00

1) It will help expose and then root out the cause of unrighteousness in a society.

2) It is vital to religion and the proper worship of God, which is a further boon to society.

3) It makes the individual believer a better Christian, for he is enabled to know why he should believe and not just because his parents and community so instruct him. In other words, he personalizes his faith.

4) It counteracts our secret atheism and informs our worship and devotion.

5) It enhances our love of God.

Contrary to the opinions of many of our contemporaries, Charnock clearly affirms the good that true religion does for the individual and the community. An unbiased study of history will bear this out. The difficulty comes in that true religion must be propagated anew every generation. The struggle against our natural corruption is constant.

Atheism Is "A Grand Folly"

2012-01-19T11:06:00.000-08:00

Charnock tells us that atheism is a stubborn denial of what is so plainly evident from reason, the testing of nature, and the being of man himself, to the point that it actually degrades a man. Recall that Charnock wrote in the middle of the 17th century in England. He observes that ordinarily he would consider it a waste of time to defend the existence of God, but that there had been in his day a proliferation of atheists (who styled themselves free-thinkers) as well as a rise in moral corruption, which he links together. As he will discuss shortly, open atheism had been espoused very rarely in Western civilization and practically not at all for the preceding millennium in Europe. So for Charnock the rise of open atheism was a new phenomenon; he did not know, as we do now, that things would only get worse in succeeding centuries. Be that as it may, he wrote in order to refute the arguments being raised and to lend encouragement to his fellow Christians--a proper study and understanding of God as he really is being of much benefit in dispelling the secret atheism that can plague even professed believers and hence reduce the outworkings of such corrupting influences.

Three Aspects of Atheism

2012-01-18T12:17:00.000-08:00

In the next section of this discourse, Charnock sets out and defends three propositions:

1) "An atheist is a great fool." Bear in mind what has already been said about fools and folly. I can think of several contemporary figures that illustrate and confirm the truth of this statement.

2) "Practical atheism is natural to man in his corrupt state." Looking ahead, the second discourse in the book is dedicated to the subject of practical atheism, so Charnock has much to say on this.

3) "A secret atheism...is the spring of all the wicked practices in the world."

We will take up each of these propositions in sequence over the next several days.

The Threefold Denial of God

2012-01-17T06:52:00.000-08:00

The fool/atheist denies God in three ways: that God exists, that he rules and provides, and that he is perfect in part or all. The second denial is subtle in that it is tantamount to actual or pure atheism; it is born out of a desire to do as the fool pleases, without being held to account, and ends up in denying God's existence out of wish-fulfillment. This sort of a man wants the lights extinguished so that he can indulge his lusts in secret, in the dark, where no one can see them. I am reminded of Jean-Paul Sartre's expressed disgust at what he called the "voyeur God," whose prying eye saw all and allowed no privacy for indulgence whatsoever. I am also reminded of the behavior of cockroaches--they go about their sordid business in the dark and instantly scatter when the light is flicked on. Not a very flattering analogy.

Charnock will develop each of these thoughts further, but first he pauses to examine the second half of Psalm 14:1.

1) They are corrupt. This is the outworking of a denial of God. Impure men desperately deny a holy God. They cannot bear to be in his presence.

2) They have done abominable works. This follows from their corruption. As a man thinks in his heart, so he is, and by his fruits you shall know him.

3) There is none that does good. Ouch. This is the universal condemnation of fallen man. Painful as it may be to accept, there is some atheism in all of us; even professing believers are subject to it (Titus 1:16). By our sins we deny God. For his part, God's judgment for our sins also entails us being given over to our evil passions so that we confirm ourselves in our condemnation (Romans 1).

The entire text is an indictment of man's corruption, complete and extensive. And lest anyone thinks he can escape, Paul (to whose exegesis we must submit) extends the embrace of this verse to everyone, Jew and Gentile (Romans 3).

The Existence of God

2012-01-16T10:33:00.000-08:00

Charnock begins his first discourse using Psalm 14:1 as his text: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

He breaks the first half of the verse into its three components.

1) The fool--this denotes a wicked man. Folly in Hebrew thought is a moral designation, not chiefly an intellectual characterization, although certainly a fool's thoughts are often intellectually substandard. The word is related to the Hebrew for used-up, dry and barren, lifeless, like a plant that's lost its sap. The fool not so much lacks reason as abuses it.

2) Says in his heart--his thoughts expressed secretly and not openly. The fool wishes God were not, he hopes there is no God. Again, this is not so much a matter of rationality but of volition, and brings to mind Paul's declaration in Romans 1 that the wicked will not acknowledge and submit to the truth of God and will not give him his rightful due. I have read contemporary (meaning 21st century) atheists express something very similar. They don't want the universe to be that way, meaning that they like or prefer the universe without God.

3) There is no God--here meaning God as judge and ruler, God in his providence. The fool is not actually denying that God exists (more on this point later), but that God rules this world and will hold all to account. The fool does not want to be accountable to anyone; he wishes to do as he pleases, without consequence, or at least without divine consequence.

We'll take up the second half of this verse tomorrow.

Ground Rules

2012-01-15T12:49:00.000-08:00

As guidelines for the forthcoming study:

1. I accept the Old and New Testament Scriptures as inspired and inerrant. Charnock makes frequent use of them (of course) and their character will not be impugned here.

2. Since we're considering the existence and attributes of God, it helps to know which God we're discussing. Unashamedly parroting the Westminster Confession of Faith, I affirm that "there is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty." Much of this will be fleshed out, so to speak, in the forthcoming weeks and months. But I want to establish up front we're not talking about the philosopher's nebulous First Cause, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

3. Constructive comments and sincere questions are welcome, but this is not a debate forum. Obstreperous trollery will not be permitted. My blog, my call.

4. I reserve the right to interrupt (briefly) this study in the event something needing a comment catches my attention.

Stephen Charnock's "The Existence and Attributes of God"

2012-01-14T18:43:00.000-08:00

Credit Mr. Radcliffe with one thing: He motivated me finally to act on longstanding plans to blog my way through this remarkable Puritan work of theology, largely because the first two discourses of this work deal directly with atheism. To the best of my knowledge, Charnock's work has never been answered, but that is likely because few atheists are aware of it. Perhaps my efforts here may change that (I doubt it).

Who was Stephen Charnock? He was a 17th-century English Puritan divine, meaning a theologian and pastor. Born in 1628, he lived through one of the most tumultuous periods in England's history--its Civil War, temporary experiment with republican government, the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, and the arduous religious conflict that accompanied all that. He had a relationship to the Cromwells in that he served in Ireland as the chaplain to Henry Cromwell, son of the Lord Protector. Not surprisingly, then, the restoration of the monarchy and the religious reaction against Puritanism brought a reversal of fortune for Charnock. He was a victim of the outworkings of the infamous Act of Uniformity passed by a reactionary Parliament after Charles II came to the throne; many worthy men of God lost their livelihoods because they could not in good conscience acquiesce to the anti-Puritan measure. Charnock died at the relatively young age of 52 and did not live to see the religious freedom for Nonconformists gained in the Glorious Revolution that deposed the despotic James II. But he left behind a treasure-trove of theological and spiritual writings, mostly published posthumously; the work we are about to consider is perhaps his magnum opus. Charnock is frequently numbered among the better-known Puritan and Independent greats such as John Owen and Richard Baxter.

The forthcoming journey will be long but eminently worthwhile and, I trust, beneficial to anyone else who wishes to join me. Tomorrow's post will lay out some working rules for our future efforts.

Daniel Radcliffe Explains It All for Us

2012-01-08T14:36:00.000-08:00

The Parade magazine for today contains, as its cover story, a featured interview of the English actor Daniel Radcliffe, of titular Harry Potter film fame. Mr. Radcliffe is an engaging enough young man, but I have to wonder about the wisdom of asking him questions that produce answers such as this, speaking of his upbringing:

There was never [religious] faith in the house. I think of myself as being
Jewish and Irish, despite the fact that I'm English. My dad [Ulster Protestant]
believes in God, I think. I'm not sure if my mom [Jewish, English] does. I
don't. I have a problem with religion or anything that says, "We have all the
answers," because there's no such thing as "the answers." We're complex. We
change our minds on issues all the time. Religion leaves no room for human
complexity.

And the interview leaves it at that. Perhaps it would be more fair to Mr. Radcliffe to give him the benefit of the doubt, that a more complete, thoughtful, and probing interview would allow him to develop some of these thoughts. But as provided, they're vapid to the point of absurdity. They certainly reveal a terrible deficiency in his education or (to place blame on his parents) home environment.

Perhaps in a future post I'll take a stab at replying to his statements, but for the moment I wish to ponder the folly we regularly engage in by supplying a platform for celebrities to expound on matters of great import. Do not mistake me. Mr. Radcliffe is entitled to his opinions and to express them when asked. But he is an actor. His thoughts on religion or philosophy or human complexity carry no more weight than those of the mailman, the supermarket cashier, or any number of otherwise anonymous persons who have not starred in a $7.7 billion movie franchise. Yet here he is given space provided in a national publication distributed to hundreds of thousands of American households to make unchallenged statements such as "religion leaves no room for human complexity" as if this is an unassailable truth.

Of course, he's only the latest example of this unhappy aspect of Western pop culture. We regularly hear from all sorts of celebrities pronouncing on the great issues of our times, and typically their expressed thoughts are no better developed than this. And yet the media eat it up and regurgitate it all for the consumption of the rest of us. A most unpalatable intellectual and spiritual diet.

Stuck on Stupid

2012-01-06T09:34:00.000-08:00

Okay, that's a bit harsh. Blame it on frustration.

Last night while meandering through the Internet I somewhat lazily clicked on an article about a certain pop music figure's new tattoo of an image of Jesus. Aside from obscuring the glaring truth that none of us really knows for certain what Jesus looked like beyond a bare sketch (first century Palestinian Jew, around thirty years old during his active ministry, wore a beard) the article wasn't all that memorable. But as I scrolled through the comments I came across the latest transgression in a recurring Internet meme: some anonymous yahoo ridiculing all the concern about a "mythical figure" from a "made-up book." And he wasn't talking about the pop music icon.

No, I didn't reply, although I might have if the site hadn't required a Facebook or Twitter registration. But if I had it undoubtedly would have done absolutely no good at all. For all its ballyhooed benefits in "education" and "knowledge provision" the Internet is also a slough of perpetuated ignorance. What this guy alleged--that Jesus is an ahistorical figure, and the New Testament has the same value as history as the Harry Potter series--is pure nonsense. No serious academic historian doubts the historicity of Jesus. Plenty of critics may call into question various aspects of the New Testament writings but that these books actually refer to a person who really lived in Roman Judea and the Galilee is beyond dispute. Yet there is a small vocal group that feeds upon itself trying to keep this lame idea alive. It is enough to make one despair of mankind's basic rationality.

And then I remember Paul's letter to the Romans, the first chapter, and I am reminded just how desperate is the motivation to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Michigan State 33, Georgia 30 in Triple Overtime

2012-01-02T17:06:00.001-08:00

Please forgive a personal indulgence but, hey, it's my blog, so I guess I can personally indulge.

My alma mater just came up victorious in its consolation bowl* and gave the Big Ten its lone victory against the SEC today. The whole story is here: http://www.freep.com/article/20120102/SPORTS07/120102032/Michigan-State-33-Georgia-30-3-OT-Spartans-win-Outback-Bowl-blocked-kick?odyssey=tabtopnewstextFRONTPAGE

No more excuses, now. Next year it's the Rose Bowl or bust. Unless it's the BSC Championship...

*Thanks to stupid Wisconsin and the stupid BSC Selection Committee.

New Year, New Run at Regular Blogging

2012-01-01T12:41:00.000-08:00

Well, we'll see how long it lasts this time, anyway.

Today's Washington Post sports section contains a very interesting column by Sally Jenkins about the media phenomenon of hating on Tim Tebow, the current mostly-successful quarterback of the Denver Broncos and a confessed evangelical Christian who makes no effort to hide his faith, mostly by deeds but sometimes by words. She uses as examples the boorish (a polite term) behavior of the so-called comedian Bill Maher and a radio personality named Bill Press. Both of these gentlemen (I use the term loosely) have employed ugly language recently in referring to Mr. Tebow and his professed religion. Ms. Jenkins calls them to task for it, wondering why it's any skin off their noses that Tebow is an admitted Christian, and more or less tells people to back off.

While I generally appreciate Ms. Jenkins's comments they only go so far toward the truth behind the Tebow-hating. At its root is the sinner's rebellion against God, specifically as it expresses itself in hatred for God's Anointed. Jesus told us to remember that if they hate those who bear the name of Christ, they hated him first. And Paul teaches that the faithful Christian will always be loathed by the world, because he is the smell of death to them--he reminds them that death comes and there will be an accounting, and the sinner hates being accountable to God.

It is no good trying to accommodate the "cultured despisers." One way or another they will still hate and they will excuse themselves in the doing of it.

John Calvin at 500

2009-07-10T16:29:00.000-07:00

Just a brief breaking of the silence--which I promise to rectify very soon--to give a nod in recognition of today's anniversary. There have been any number of well-worded tributes and not a few acknowledgements that Calvin himself would have eschewed any celebration of this day. But I'll offer my introductory comments from my current Sunday School series on Calvin:

We are not interested in developing a party spirit (1 Corinthians 3:4-7) or even of celebrating a man. Calvin, who did not even want a marker for his grave, would have been the first to decry attempts to place him on a pedestal. That which we properly celebrate, though, is the way God used and worked through this man so powerfully and with such enduring influence for the kingdom. It is right, to paraphrase Paul, to imitate Calvin as he imitated Christ (after 1 Corinthians 11:1). We could do far worse than to echo Calvin when he prayed, “I offer my heart to you, O Lord, promptly and sincerely.”

Apologies for Irregular Posting

2009-06-08T16:31:00.000-07:00

Things have been a bit crazy lately.

And I have to take a break for the next couple of weeks. Hope to get back to regular contributions (and finishing the current series) in July.

Political Concepts in Apostolic Writings III

2009-05-30T17:50:00.000-07:00

Let's take a look at Ephesians 2:19-22 next. On the face of it, this would not seem to apply to our present discussion but, in fact, it addresses questions of allegiences and community that pertain. What does this passage say about the community to which Christians belong? The referent passage is verses 11-13—Paul describes the reversal of the separation of the Gentiles that takes place in Christ. The Ephesian Christians used to be "outside the camp," far off from the people of God. Now they have been brought near, even "fellow citizens with the saints, and...of God's household." The people of God is trans-national. I have much more in common with fellow believers in Africa or Asia than I do with non-believers that live in my neighborhood.

Political Concepts in Apostolic Writings II

2009-05-28T17:00:00.000-07:00

Next I will consider Romans 13:1-7, which is perhaps the most explicit statement in the New Testament on the role of government. From where (whom) does civil government get its authority? According to Paul--and, more importantly, the Holy Spirit--all existing authority derives from God and has been established by God. And therefore those who unrighteously resist said authority are resisting God. Paul exhorts obedience to said authority, observing how government, when it does its God-appointed duty, is in fact a minister of God for the promulgation of justice and the restraint of sin.

These can be hard concepts for individualistic Westerners with a strong sense of personal liberty to internalize. We are used to thinking of government as something that infringes upon liberty or makes demands upon us. We may say "No king but King Jesus," but then we usually live as though Jesus is even less of a governing presence than the government we resist.

Political Concepts in Apostolic Writings I

2009-05-25T16:51:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the unexpected break in blog entries--I had a rather busy week and more.

Picking up this little exegetical exercise with the book of Acts, let's take a look at Acts 4:18-21 and compare Acts 5:17-42. What is at point in this and the comparison passage? Chiefly the point is contained in 5:29: "We must obey God rather than men." Now, in neither instance is the conflict between the people of God and governmental authorities, although the high priest and the Sanhedrin certainly possessed a societal authority. But the underlying principle applies to the Christian's relationship with any kind of secondary (to God) authority. Our highest allegiance is to the Lord. Any legitimate secondary authority that commands the Christian to disobey God has lost its legitimacy, at least regarding the point in contention. Nevertheless, the Christian may be called upon to submit to the consequences of refusing to heed the secondary authority. Note that the response of the apostles was not to call for the overthrow of the Sanhedrin or to foment a rebellion.

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues VIII

2009-05-14T16:20:00.000-07:00

The last of the passages from the gospels I will examine from the perspective of politics is John 19:11. Pilate has just threatened Jesus, whom he thinks is being uncooperative, by reminding Jesus that he has the power either to crucify him or release him--in other words, your life is in my hands, Jesus, so start playing ball. What does Jesus say to Pilate about their respective authority? He tells Pilate that Pilate's authority is a delegated authority, that he would have no power over Jesus unless that power had been granted to him by heaven. God is calling all the shots here. In the spheres of authority, God is supreme. Secondary authorities such as Pilate are just that and would not enjoy authority unless God wills it.

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues VII

2009-05-13T16:41:00.000-07:00

Today's text is John 18:33-37. Pilate interviewed Jesus, who had been brought before him by the Jewish religious leaders under a charge of "evildoing" (verse 30). Somehow Pilate got hold of the idea that Jesus claimed to be a king and asked him directly whether he was the King of the Jews. Jesus replied, after an effort to find out Pilate's source for this question, that he has a kingdom but of a different kind than the kingdoms Pilate knows. Jesus' kingdom does not operate according to the rules of this world and its political organizations. In fact, it does not even come from this world. He affirmed that he is a king, but a king quite outside Pilate's experience. He is the king of truth.

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues VI

2009-05-12T16:37:00.000-07:00

Today I'll look at Luke 6:27-38, called the “political manifesto” of Jesus by one author. This is an abbreviated form of the Sermon on the Mount. The statements Jesus makes exhort other-centeredness, the same orientation we found yesterday. They concern how we treat enemies--with sacrifice and grace, with no thought of reward. How are the statements it contains political? To the extent that interpersonal relationships are political these might hold up as political exhortations, or even within like-minded communities. Do these words apply solely to individuals, or are larger groups or societies in mind? It is hard to see how human organizations on the level of states could adhere to these guidelines. But then I don't believe Jesus preached to nations as much as he preached to the nations.

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues V

2009-05-11T14:01:00.000-07:00

Next we'll look at Mark 10:42-45. The immediate context is the rather bold request by James and John that they be accorded the privilege of sitting on the right and left hand of the glorified Christ--positions of supreme prestige and power. The other ten disciples, naturally, grumble about this display of arrogance, more than likely because they hadn't thought to ask first. Jesus' response, following an observation that the disciples didn't really know what it was they were asking and that the desired positions weren't up for grabs, was to teach a lesson about relationships in the kingdom by drawing a contrast to the way that pagans exercise authority over others.

What is Jesus’ comment about the relationship of pagan rulers to those under them? That pagan rulers "lord it over" their subjects. They take full advantage of the trappings of power. They live in the high style, frequently justifying it as "appropriate" to the eminence and prestige of the office they occupy. But Jesus holds these rulers up as a negative example. How does he contrast leadership relationships in the kingdom/church? Greatness in the kingdom of God is not defined by power, wealth, influence, living life high on the hog. Rather, greatness in the kingdom is other-centered, a life of service. And the greatest example was set by the Lord himself, who "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (verse 45).

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues IV

2009-05-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

The next text I will examine is Matthew 28:18-20, our Lord's "valedictory" to his disciples. Jesus has “all authority in heaven and earth,” a rather broadly-encompassing statement. There is nothing in all creation that escapes his lordship. How does he instruct his followers? Are they to take up arms to make him king? Are they to overthrow the prevailing powers? Are they to lead a rebellion? No. They are to make disciples of all men--to exhort and instruct everyone everywhere regarding the good news that in Christ God has reconciled the world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). Christ does not establish his lordship by overthrowing the earthly powers that be. His lordship is already established and the days of those earthly powers are numbered. They continue only at his pleasure. But in the meantime his people are to be about the business of telling people what is already reality.

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues III

2009-05-08T16:10:00.001-07:00

Matthew 22:15-22 is perhaps the most famous of this short series of passages I am considering, other than John 18:33-37 which I will discuss next week.

In contrast to yesterday's passage, in which the issue was a religious tax, the question put to Jesus here by the Pharisees and Herodians (in an effort to trap him and obtain a basis either for denouncing him to the Roman authorities or discrediting him before the people) involves the relationship between Jews and Romans. More specifically, it addresses the relationship between political authorities and those under those authorities. As is always the case, Jesus sees right through their little plot and uses the question as an opportunity to teach on a more important subject than whether it is lawful to pay taxes. He reminds his listeners that there are legitimate authorities and that God's authority is supreme over all (for what "things" are not God's?), so that in all things our primary motive is to glorify and obey God.

What does it mean to “render unto Caesar” while keeping God’s authority paramount? God has placed us in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, including the country of our habitation and the laws under which we live. So long as "Caesar" does not require us to do anything that violates God's principles we must respect his derived authority.

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues II

2009-05-07T16:21:00.000-07:00

The next passage to consider is Matthew 17:24-27. The issue here specifically is a religious tax. What does this passage say about meeting civic responsibilities? Actually, nothing. The point is that followers of Jesus, because of their relationship to God, are free from onerous obligations imposed by the religious community. Yet Jesus is willing to comply—after a fashion—with the requirement so as not to offend. Does this teach us anything about our relationship to society at large? Perhaps that if we are asked (even required) by the society in which we live to perform a task or fulfill an "obligation" that does not contradict God's word or violate a biblically-informed conscience that we should comply so as not to give offense. The cross--and the gospel that proclaims it--carries sufficient offense that we need not add to it.

Gospel Passages That Touch on Political Issues I

2009-05-06T16:44:00.000-07:00

Over the next eight posts I'll examine selections from the four gospels that I believe address politics. The first of these is Matthew 5:13-20, taken from the Sermon on the Mount.

Jesus tells his hearers they are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He observes that some things are not meant to be hidden--indeed, they cannot be. He uses his famous "city on a hill" metaphor. He then states the permanence of the law and emphasizes the importance of personal righteousness.

What are the purposes of salt and light? Salt preserves and adds flavor; light illuminates, exposes, and chases away darkness. How do these things apply to disciples of Jesus? They are meant to enjoin combatting the cultural effects of sin and disobedience to God. A sin-soaked world is a rotten world; salt can help prevent or forestall rot. A sin-soaked world is a dark world, and light cleanses.

The "city on a hill" metaphor has a long use in American political rhetoric, going all the way back to Puritan days. President Reagan famously used it to describe America, adding the word "shining" as an adjective for "city," implying that the nation was a beacon to the rest of the world. I have a mental image of Emerald City from The Wizard of Oz. While rhetorically effective, the application of this phrase can be problematic for Christians. Is it really legitimate to apply an analogy meant for Christ's disciples to a nation-state that does not have a revealed covenant with God?

That the law of God is a permanent standard--or stands until all has been fulfilled--and a reflection of God's holy character underscores the main thrust of the Sermon, that the righteousness God requires is impossible for man to achieve under his own power. The law cannot save; rather, it points toward the Savior by convincing men of their urgent need. Similarly, the laws of human government have no power to save or even to transform, and the law that neglects or ignores the Lawgiver is doomed to failure.

A Sampling of Kingdom Parables

2009-05-04T17:22:00.001-07:00

Although these are all taken from Matthew (and most from chapter 13), this is just a representative sample that brings out certain important aspects.

1) Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43: One of the unusual cases in which we have both the parable and Jesus’ interpretation. In the “now,” God’s kingdom is a corpus per mixtum, to use Augustine’s phrase. But in God’s time it will be made pure.

2) Matthew 13:31-33: From a small and inauspicious start, the kingdom grows to immense proportions. Like yeast, the kingdom pervades the whole and influences all. How does this work itself out in the life of the believer? Is there any aspect of human life untouched by the kingdom?

3) Matthew 13:44: The immense value of the kingdom.

4) Matthew 13:45-46: Likewise.

5) Matthew 13:47-50: Similar picture to that of the parable of the wheat and tares. Recall the biblical significance of repetition as a device for emphasis.

6) Matthew 20:1-16: The sovereignty of God over his kingdom and its utter graciousness. God gives his good gifts as he sees fit.

The Nature of the Kingdom of God

2009-05-03T16:23:00.000-07:00

There are several facets to the kingdom of God.

1) God as king. In 1 Samuel when Israel complains to Samuel that his sons are unworthy successors to him as judge and it was time the nation had a king just like the surrounding pagan nations, God told Samuel they were not rejecting Samuel but him. God has always been the rightful ruler of the people of God (indeed, of all creation for that matter). Ezekiel 34 records God's plans to dismiss the human authorities of the nation for their sins and incompetence and take over the position himself. Only in this way can the people receive good government.

2) Now and not yet. A recurring theme through Scripture is the partial realization of the promises of God in the coming of Christ. The kingdom has been realized in part, yet the complete manifestation is still future. In Luke 17 Jesus makes this explicitly clear; verse 21 speaks of the realized presence of the kingdom and in the very next verse describes the future coming of the kingdom.

3) Not political, not of this world, but a real kingdom. When Jesus appeared before Pilate he acknowledged that he was indeed a king but not of the sort that the Roman governor would recognize. John 18:36-37 records this statement.

4) Men are translated from one kingdom to another by regeneration (John 3:1-3, Colossians 1:13-14). This spiritual transformation occurs only by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not under the control of men. Furthermore, it is the only way by which real change in the nature of man can occur. What happens when secular governments try to change men--as they frequently have, with ample evidence in the 20th century of such attempts--apart from God’s transformative power? Most commonly such efforts end in large numbers of deaths.

By the way--happy birthday, Mom!

The Kingdom of God

2009-05-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

The concept of the kingdom of God is one of the great themes of all Scripture. As we have seen already, the OT abounds in passages that declare God’s righteous rule over his creation, including men and their affairs.

The kingdom is the principal theme of Jesus’ message in the synoptic gospels. It also appears briefly in John 3 as we will see.

1) Matthew 4:17, 23: Jesus announced the arrival of the kingdom--he said it was "at hand"--and preached repentance in preparation for the kingdom. In association with this proclamation he carried on a ministry of healing.

2) Mark 1:15: Jesus declared "the time is fulfilled" (compare Galatians 4:4) and urged on his hearers repentance and belief.

3) Luke 4:42-43: Jesus states that he was sent specifically for the purpose of preaching the kingdom of God.

4) Finally, the interview Nicodemus conducted with Jesus as recorded in John 3 opens with Jesus' declaration that spiritual rebirth is a precondition for seeing the kingdom.

The Purpose Statements of Jesus

2009-05-01T16:37:00.000-07:00

Our Lord was plain-spoken about the reasons for his coming, for his ministry. He frequently cited the Old Testament, pointing back to the many ways in which it spoke of him.

1) Luke 4:16-21: The inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry. He reads from Isaiah 61:1-2 (and possibly Isaiah 58:6). His words after putting up the scroll, that the prophecy had been fulfilled in the hearing of his listeners, were jaw-dropping in their significance.

2) Matthew 11:2-6: Jesus’ response to the questions of John the Baptist; verse 5 echoes the passage in Luke and alludes to Isaiah 35:5-6.

3) Mark 10:45: The well-known “ransom” passage. Jesus puts his emphasis on service and sacrifice.

Old Testament Expectations

2009-04-30T15:35:00.000-07:00

With today's post I begin to look at Jesus in the context of politics. As is always the case, Jesus transforms whatever he touches.

The Old Testament contains several passages that speak of God’s promised Messiah, the one who would deliver Israel from her enemies and establish his permanent reign of righteousness. As we have seen, the religious and political climate of first-century Judea fueled expectations of the imminent arrival of such a deliverer. These passages (except for the last) are representative of the hopes of many in Israel.

1) Genesis 49:10-12: The promise of an ultimate king from the line of Judah.

2) Psalm 2: The supremacy of God’s chosen king.

3) Psalm 24: The identification of God with the King of glory.

4) Jeremiah 23:1-8: The promise of a righteous king; God provides for his people to take care of them.

5) Ezekiel 34:20-31: The idyllic king portrayed as the faithful shepherd, established by God.

6) Zechariah 9:9-10: The coming king.

7) Isaiah 52:13-53:12: The passage that many in Israel neglected to incorporate into their thinking—God’s suffering servant, the one who dies to redeem his people. Subsequent Jewish biblical commentary has tended to identify Israel herself, rather than Messiah, as the suffering servant.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Daniel

2009-04-29T15:59:00.000-07:00

I conclude this brief overview of godly men, leadership, and politics in the Old Testament with a look at Daniel. He was taken into exile in Babylon as a young man and early on earmarked by the Babylonians for potential service within their governmental system.

Daniel 1:1-21: Here is an introduction to the situation faced by Daniel and his compatriots, with specific mention of how they held their convictions in the face of pressure to conform and ended up being vindicated.

Daniel 2:46-49: Nebuchadnezzar, in recognition of Daniel's gifts, sets him in high authority in Babylon, even over many native officials.

Daniel 3:8-30: Daniel's friends, previously placed by Daniel in similarly high authority, choose conscience over convenience. God again vindicates their faithful obedience.

Daniel 6:10-23: Jealous rivals conspire against Daniel and manage to bring about official condemnation. But Daniel remains unyielding, meekly in the real sense of that word, and God defends him. At the end, he is once again raised up while his rivals who meant to harm him met their deaths.

Although these servants got in trouble by obeying God rather than men, their actions ended up being celebrated by their earthly masters. We cannot always count on this--there have been many who laid down their lives rather than compromise with earthly rulers--but the reward for faithfulness to God is greater than the approval of men.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: David

2009-04-28T16:11:00.000-07:00

David is perhaps the paradigmatic human ruler of Israel. He receives a covenant from God regarding his throne and Scripture looks forward to the enthronement of "David's greater Son" as the fulfillment of that covenantal promise. How did David rule?

2 Samuel 5:1-5: A summary of how David came to be made king over all Israel (he was first king over Judah; the other tribes accepted him seven years later).

2 Samuel 7:1-28: The Davidic covenant and David's prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving. As king, David was most concerned that God be glorified and obeyed.

2 Samuel 9:1-13: David's kindness to Mephibosheth. An excellent example of grace and clemency, desirable qualities in a godly ruler.

What does it mean to rule as God's anointed? Obviously this is a circumstance very few leaders can legitimately claim for themselves. In the United States, we witnessed a great deal of criticism of former president George W. Bush for his remarks that he believed God wanted him to be president at the time he served. Evidently his critics don't believe in the sovereignty of God, that God raises up kings and nations and brings them down again according to his good purposes. It seemed to them Mr. Bush was being prideful when all he was really stating was a theological obviousness.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Samuel

2009-04-27T15:54:00.000-07:00

After the conquest of Canaan, Israel for several hundred years was ruled by a series of judges, persons of varying character and ability whom God raised up often in response to a moral or military crisis in the nation. The cycle observed in the Book of Judges is one of Israel's descent into sin and idolatrous rebellion against God, divine chastisement (often in the form of incursions by surrounding pagan nations), a crying out to God for deliverance, God's appointing a judge to deal with the crisis and get the nation back on track, and then a period of spiritual and material prosperity leading back into a time of forgetfulness and eventually sin. An excellent illustration of this pattern is found in Judges 2:7-23; a shorter version appears in 1 Samuel 12:10-11.

Samuel was the last in the line of people who judged Israel.

1 Samuel 7:15-8:9: This passage begins with a description of how Samuel conducted his business as judge, then moves into an account of the failure of the next generation--his sons "turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice." This occasioned Israel's demand for a king. Samuel warned them thoroughly what this would mean at the command of God, who told Samuel that Israel was not rejecting him but God himself.

This style of government depends heavily on having the right person for the job. In the hands of a godly man like Samuel the nation was ruled righteously. But even then the leader can do only so much--if the people fail the nation falls.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Joseph

2009-04-26T11:42:00.001-07:00

I mentioned Joseph yesterday as one of the patriarchs, although he is not classically included in that category. Scripture depicts him, however, as a man of unusual political influence, and that in a country foreign to his people.

Genesis 39:1-6a: Joseph started small--he was faithful in little things. Brought as a slave to Egypt, he did such a good job working for his new Egyptian master that he quickly rose to a position of responsibility. So great was Potiphar's confidence in the abilities of Joseph that he gave no thought for his business and household affairs except for the meal he was presently eating.

Genesis 41:33-57: After a period of unjust condemnation (occasioned by a false witness) Joseph again rose in the esteem of his foreign overlords. Pharaoh recognized his talents, and Joseph responded by exercising his new responsibilities with competence, to the great benefit of the people he served.

Genesis 47:13-26: Through his stewardship, Joseph was able to prevent mass starvation. The consequence of this was to bring everything within Egypt under the control of Pharaoh. And yet the people regarded him as a savior and not a tyrant.

Old Testament Case Studies in Government: Abraham

2009-04-25T07:55:00.000-07:00

A common model of government in the early history of the people of God was the patriarch, a man who was the acknowledged head of a household or clan, including the attached servants and helping hands. Abraham was one such patriarch.

Genesis 12:1-6 depicts God's initial call to Abram (as he was originally styled) out of the land of his ancestors into "a land that I will show you." He was the head of a small band of relatives and servants who packed up their possessions and hit the road in obedience to God's command.

Genesis 13:1-9 depicts Abram as, having prospered greatly during a temporary stay in Egypt, returning to Canaan. He and his nephew Lot had so much livestock that the land could not support all of it in one place. Abram acted as a peacemaker (for there had been contention between his servants and Lot's servants over land use) and leader by arranging for a workable settlement. And he was gracious enough to let Lot pick the best land. His object was the wisest use of people and possessions to engender prosperity for all.

Genesis 14:11-16 depicts Abram as the defender of his family, an able military commander who conducted an effective action against foreign threats. He was professionally a man of agriculture and trade but when the need arose he was able to protect his family interests through use of necessary force.

Other examples of patriarchs described in Genesis are Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and Joseph.

Divine Mandates for Human Government

2009-04-24T16:38:00.000-07:00

Isaiah 1:16-17 and Micah 6:8 offer a convenient summary of the biblical mandate for the behavior of societies as well as individuals:

1) Cease to do evil.

2) Learn to do good.

3) Do/seek justice.

4) Love kindness.

5) Rebuke the oppressor.

6) Defend the fatherless and plead for the widow.

7) Walk humbly with God.

All of these are tall orders for even the best earthly government just as they are for each individual. But this is the standard to which we are called.

Political Images in Scripture, Part Two

2009-04-23T05:23:00.000-07:00

Here are the remaining items in Dr. Barr's list:

4) The eschatological image: Evoking a vision of a new world to come and hence a new world order in which God will restore all things and banish evil, re-establishing his direct rule over his creation. Political upheaval and violence are often seen as heralds of God’s actions in human history (Mark 13:7-8). Such a viewpoint can encourage isolationism, interventionalism, and sympathy for revolution.

5) The image of migration/pilgrimage: The people of God are wanderers, pilgrims, strangers in a strange land. This world is not their home—they are seeking a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Separatist movements, self-exile, colonization are common embodiments of this idea.

6) The image of liberation: The redemptive picture of the Exodus—God freeing his people from an oppressor. Solidarity of the people of God with the downtrodden, the poor, the burdened; seeking deliverance from evil circumstances. But the Hebrews of old were not asked to issue calls for social reform in Egypt, and when they went to Canaan they subjugated (even massacred) the inhabitants there.

And this is likely not an exhaustive list. We can readily see, then, that the task of identifying the political perspective of Scripture is not easy. People with particular worldviews have often been able to go to the Bible and find corroboration or encouragement for their ideas and goals. Searching out the whole counsel of Scripture is our charge. Because there is ultimately one Author of Scripture we may be confident that a unified perspective is contained therein--we must be diligent to discern his voice and submit to it.

Political Images in Scripture, Part One

2009-04-22T16:11:00.000-07:00

Dr. Barr (professor of Hebrew at Vanderbilt University and Oxford University) perceives six distinct ways of considering politics in Scripture. Here are the first three:

1) The theocratic image: God has directed how human societies should be governed, most particularly in the Mosaic law. Human leaders are surrogates for God and rule with delegated authority (see Romans 13:1). Church and state are partners. Biblical problems with this idea center on the legitimacy of assumed delegated authority—when Israel demanded a king, God considered this rebellion against his established rule through judges (1 Samuel 8:1-9; compare Deuteronomy 17:1).

2) The alien state: The Israelites regarded the governments of the surrounding nations as anti-God and threats to their national safety; the prophets are full of words of judgment against the nations. Yet Jesus (as we will explore in greater detail later) seemed to take a far more neutral stance, saying little if anything against the civil government and speaking of his kingdom as “not of this world.”

3) The prophetic image: The prophets called for social justice and warned Israel of judgment in the form of political and cultural subjection by the surrounding nations. The role of the church, then, was to be the conscience of the state. In this case, the prophetic image conflicts with the theocratic image—God has seen fit to overthrow established authorities deemed abusive toward the people and hence disobedient to him. Yet the prophetic call to reform was usually cast in religious and not political terms—Israel was to return to the true worship of God and away from idols.

Authority Spheres

2009-04-21T05:24:00.000-07:00

Chapter XXIII of the Confession is entitled "Of the Civil Magistrate" (you knew I had to go there eventually). The first paragraph reads as follows:

"God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers."

Some have written that government is a necessary evil. I disagree. In my previous posts, although it may have been rather subtle, I have built a case that government is a positive good, a creation ordinance--God governs, and man created in his image is charged with government--and that good government is all the more necessary given the fallen moral state of man.

But not all government is equal. There exist spheres of authority, a concept most commonly associated with Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch Reformed thinker and one-time prime minister of the Netherlands. In brief, it can be asserted that the supreme authority is God himself and that under him there are divinely-appointed secondary authorities: the civil government, the church, and the family. Because human relationships are multifaceted there will be some overlap of these spheres, but there will also be areas in which each sphere operates exclusively (under God, of course) of the others. Later posts will spend some time fleshing these ideas out. But next I turn my attention to some political images seen in the Bible, drawing upon the work of James Barr.

Why Men Require Government II: Their Moral State

2009-04-20T15:51:00.000-07:00

Chapter IV, paragraph 2: "After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures."

Chapter VI, paragraphs 1 and 2: "Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

Man was created as originally innocent but fell into sin. If government was part of the original created order--as we saw yesterday, God governs his creation, and man was given dominion over the creations to govern them--how much more necessary is it when sin is introduced and disrupts the relationships between God and men and between men?

Why Men Require Government I: Creatureliness

2009-04-19T10:52:00.000-07:00

Two paragraphs from the Westminster Confession of Faith help answer the question of the necessity of government--in part because men are creatures, contingent beings.

Chapter IV, paragraph 1: "It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good."

Chapter V, paragraph 1: "God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy."

While there are many things to learn from these two paragraphs, the point here is that God has authority over his creatures; their origin from and dependency upon him grant him lordship. Because he made them he knows best how they are meant to function. God governs men and he would do so even if they had never departed from their original state as created. This matter will concern us in my next post.

The Political Situation in Early First Century Judea

2009-04-18T11:37:00.000-07:00

If we are to learn from Jesus, and indeed all of his word, regarding politics it is helpful to know something of the context in which he lived and taught.

I begin with a brief history of post-exhilic Israel. The southern tribes returned in part to the land in the late fifth century BC under Persian sponsorship and rebuilt the city and walls of Jerusalem. About one hundred years later, however, the Persians and their empire, including the Jewish lands, fell to Alexander the Great. His successors ruled the area, bringing Hellenization but also increasing oppression, until the Maccabean Revolt in the 160s BC restored Jewish religious freedom. The war for political independence achieved success in 142 BC but the process of adopting Greek ways, at least by the ruling classes, continued.

The principal players in Judean politics in the early first century included the Romans, the Herodians, and the Jewish religious parties.

1) The Romans: Far and away the dominant power in the ancient Mediterranean world, the Romans added Palestine to their empire when Pompey the Great occupied Jerusalem in 63 BC. The region was created the Roman province of Judea. Initially they tried to rule the province through local leadership, but by the time of Jesus’ public ministry a substantial territory was under the direct control of a Roman governor and the peace enforced by a Roman army.

2) Herod and his family: Herod, an Idumean [descendant of Edom] proselyte to Judaism, was created king by the Romans in 37 BC. He was an effective and productive, if somewhat ruthless, ruler. Upon his death in 4 BC his kingdom was divided amongst his three sons: Philip took the northeast; Herod Antipas the region of Galilee and Perea; and Archelaus had Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but only until AD 6, and after that these regions were ruled by Roman procurators.

3) The religious parties: There were four main divisions. (a) The Pharisees were the party of religious and cultural purity. Orthodox Jews, they wanted to preserve distinctive Jewish religious and cultural values. Politically, they were conservatives. Religious quietists who developed an elaborate oral tradition concerning the Law, they were not actively involved in political life except where matters affected their own self interest but were generally considered to represent the opposition party. They resisted Hellenization. They are the religious ancestors of the Hasidic Jews. (b) The Sadducees were religious liberals. Like many liberals today they did not believe in a resurrection or a life to come, and consequently put their energies into politics and the affairs of this life, in partnership with the Roman administration. They actively collaborated with the Hasmoneans and then the Herodians and remained the chief political party until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. (c) The Zealots were at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Fanatical Jewish nationalists, they were crusaders, freedom fighters, and revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of Roman tyranny, if necessary by means of terrorism and violence. (d) the Essenes, a separatist group that lived in community on the shores of the Dead Sea. They expected the imminent arrival of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s final victory over his enemies.

A Definition of Politics

2009-04-17T17:36:00.000-07:00

Here's a reasonable one:

“The art and/or science of government; that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state, the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity, the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. The management of a political party; the conduct and contests of parties with reference to political measures or the administration of public affairs; the advancement of candidates to office; in a bad sense, artful or dishonest management to secure the success of political candidates or parties; political trickery.”

Another succinct summary of what I call the elements of politics is the following. It may sound familiar to some.

1) To form a more perfect union

2) To establish justice

3) To ensure domestic tranquility

4) To provide for the common defense

5) To promote the general welfare

6) To ensure the blessings of liberty to the current and subsequent generations (otherwise known as the posterity)

A New Series: Jesus and Politics

2009-04-16T17:14:00.000-07:00

Over the next several weeks I plan to write on the subject of politics from what I believe is a biblical perspective. Clearly it is impossible to cover the entire scope of politics and church-state relations here. However, I will look closely at what the Bible and particularly Jesus have to say on the subject, and spend some time identifying important Christian contributions to political thought. I’ll ask and try to answer the question whether the United States is or ever was a Christian nation. I’ll consider some contemporary Christian criticism of standard political philosophies, drawing upon the work of J. Budzieszewski, a UT-Austin professor of philosophy and government; the book he edited entitled Evangelicals in the Public Square will be a major source. And I’ll examine the 2008 document called “An Evangelical Manifesto.”

I am fully aware this is a contentious subject but I am confident it can be discussed in a manner befitting Christ’s people to the glory of God. I will endeavor to maintain an atmosphere of balance—if I am successful, you will not know for sure my political persuasion or preferences.

We'll start tomorrow with a definition of politics.

Ligonier 2009 Wrap-Up

2009-04-15T13:50:00.000-07:00

Over the years, I've learned there are three things I can always count on happening when I attend the national conference:

1) I will learn far more than I expected and the days just whiz by.

2) My posterior is not suited for three days of sitting.

3) Dr. Sproul will repeat one (or more) of his stories, allowing me to sit back and enjoy the break from taking notes for several minutes.

I've gotten more disciplined about the conference bookstore. Used to be out of control--every time I visited the place I'd come out with another purchase. But the past couple of years I mentally set myself a modest budget and I've been able to stick to it. I still think there's books left over from last year in my "to read" pile. Oh, well.

Tomorrow I hope to embark upon that "Jesus and Politics" series I promised before I left for Orlando. There will also be a review of a recent book called Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican...or Democrat that I found in the local library last week.

A Consuming Fire: Holiness, Wrath, and Justice

2009-04-14T16:45:00.000-07:00

As is his wont, Dr. Sproul concluded the conference. His text was 1 Chronicles 13:1-14.

We live in a culture and sadly in a church that doesn't consider God to be holy. If we do understand he is holy, there is no grasp of his justice; and if we do understand holiness and justice, we will not want to hear about God's wrath. We much prefer God's love, compassion, and grace. We assume grace. We are not amazed by grace. The text provides one example of the outbreak of God's wrath found in Scripture. This often forms one basis of criticism against Scripture's inspiration--according to this line, the Bible is just the product of a prescientific nomadic people lacking sophistication, attributing a man's sudden death to an offended deity. It is alleged the portrayal of this wrathful God is out of character with the NT concept of God. These passages need to be looked at again, to find out what's going on. This episode was supposed to be a joyous occasion. David brings the ark back from where it rested after capture and then release by the Philistines. He had a special ox cart built to transport the ark. Musicians, choirs, dancers. But one ox stumbles and the cart tilts. The ark is in immediate danger of falling onto the ground. Uzza instinctively (probably) seeks to prevent this and puts his hand on the ark to steady it. Instantly he is struck dead. Commentators have tried to produce naturalistic explanations or even attribute arbitrariness or darkness to God. Evidently these people never read Numbers 4, the instructions as to the care of the sacred vessels of the tabernacle. The ark, designed by God himself, had rings built in so that it could be transported by wooden rods, carried by the Kohathites on foot (not on carts). They would never have direct contact with the ark. There is an explicit warning not to touch the ark or else death results. Uzza was probably a Kohathite and should have known better. According to Jonathan Edwards, Uzza was guilty of arrogance. He assumed contact with the ground would be a greater sacrilege than contact with a human hand. Yet the earth does not defile the throne of God as does the touch of sinful man. Uzza had profaned the most holy object in all of Israel. Leviticus 10:1ff. Nadab and Abihu offering profane fire. They were also executed summarily by God for this offense. Experimental worship--innovative. God determines what is pleasing to him. [Cited the attractions of idolatry as demonstrated in the golden calf incident.] When Uzza was executed, David got angry. He had a hard time with God's wrath. What do we suppose Aaron's reaction was to the death of his sons? Leviticus 10:3--a reminder of God's requirement that all who approach him must regard him as holy. Instead, Nadab and Abihu came in profanity. Give a thought to how we come to and participate in worship. The relatives were instructed to remove the bodies outside the camp and were forbidden to mourn their deaths. Citation of Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Sproul said typically it was assigned in American lit classes as an example of sadistic preaching (although a true sadist wouldn't bother to warn people of God's wrath). The text for this sermon was "their feet shall slip in due time." Their fall was inevitable without repentence. The dam metaphor used by Edwards--God's wrath is heaping up and threatens to break forth at any time. The bow metaphor--the bow is bent and the arrow is aimed at your heart; the only thing holding back your doom is God's hand. The spider metaphor--hanging by one slender thread over the fire; the flames of wrath are burning all around. The sermon actually teaches the grace of God. Is it scary anymore? No one believes in hell these days. We all lie to ourselves that we have nothing to worry about from God. Edwards asked his congregationif there was any reason apart from God's grace why they were still alive. Sproul recounted the incident of students and late term papers from early in his teaching career as an illustration of justice and grace and the way we take advantage of grace.

In the middle of his sermon, Dr. Sproul recommended "Gospel Worship" by Jeremiah Burroughs as important reading for everyone.

The Third Q&A Session, Part Two

2009-04-13T15:56:00.000-07:00

8) Is it possible for a nonelect person to truly want to be elect? No.

9) Contextualization? That is, putting the gospel into the context of the local cultural milieu. Because we're finite we inevitably think in a particular framework. But this can be taken too far, especially in postmodern thought. Adapting the gospel to a particular culture? It is wise to begin with where those you are trying to reach are, but recognize that no culture will accept the Bible. God is in the process of of creating a new people that will subvert the existing culture. Maintaining ethnic boundaries weakens our love for the church.

10) Predestination, election, and John 3:16. The verse is a call to faith, to belief in Christ. Predestination is best understood as a hedge against pride. We can't be boastful of our faith. What do you have that you have not been given? The believer is not better than those who don't believe, although he's certainly better off. Note the position of Paul's discussion of election in Romans and then in Ephesians. It is not fruitful to discuss this with unbelievers. "A family secret." Per Dr. Carson: a) That God is absolutely and utterly sovereign does not mitigate human responsibility, and b) human beings are responsible but not so as to make God absolutely contingent. What is the right way to balance a) and b)?

11) Did the fathers before Augustine teach the doctrines of grace? Each generation wrestles with peculiar problems of their times and cultures. Thomas Oden has shown that ideas of justification were present in the early fathers but it has to be admitted they didn't get everything right. So as with the doctrines of grace.

12) The difference between a prophet and a preacher. "Prophet" should not be applied in the sense of new revelation given authoritatively. Look at the range of meanings of these words in Scripture.

13) How to be an effective preacher with all the burdens we carry. Four-five hours in the morning devoted to study. The better educated you are before going into the ministry the more effective/efficient you can be in the pastorate. The most important way to serve the congregation is the right preaching and teaching of the word. Plan to pray, plan to study. Things will change according to the different stages of life.

The Third Q&A Session, Part One

2009-04-12T11:35:00.001-07:00

First of all, a blessed Easter to everyone in the name of the risen Christ.

Thabiti Anyabwile, D. A. Carson, Robert Godrey, R. C. Sproul, and Derek Thomas participated in the third and final question/answer session.

1) A questioner perceived a de-emphasis on general revelation in Reformed theology. The panel disputed the question's point. General revelation brings knowledge of God and his goodness but does not bring the gospel. Book I of the Institutes is largely an exposition of the uses of general revelation.

2) How does one handle a poor work atmosphere, closed to the gospel? TA worked in a liberal policy thinktank in DC for six years. In many ways it was a hostile environment. Be faithful stewards of the mysteries of God, be joyful in one's relationship with God, and don't be bashful. Instead, be thankful that God has sent this one into the harvest field. We must love these people and not be afraid or resentful of them. It's a danger for us to love ideas more than people.

3) What challenges are there to the holiness of God in churches today? [Question not well worded--nothing challenges the holiness of God.] The church has become a poor cousin of commercial enterprise, filling gaps in perceived human need. Avoidance of suffering. Decline of honoring the Lord's Day, which does not allow for adequate time with him. The preaching of the word is one of the most important means of sanctification.

4) As a pastor of new church, a congregation of mostly all new Christians, from what biblical books should he preach first? It's all God's word, but would emphasize those portions that explain the gospel. Don't go slowly or with painstaking exegetical series taking years. Get congregations to know their Bibles, get a thorough grounding in the gospel. Use one of the catechisms as a framework of instruction.

5) Growing in the grace of God. Working out God's grace given us in Christ Jesus. We are increasingly transformed into his likeness. Outworkings in behavior, speech, thinking patterns.

6) What motivation is there for evangelism if one is a Calvinist? Guaranteed success. The same God who ordained the elect ordained the means. God's sovereignty underpins perseverance in evangelism.

7) Are we all equally sinful? We are all equally guilty. "Gilead"--distinction between honorable sinners and dishonorable sinners. Any gradation in sin is "small potatoes" compared to being a sinner at all. Jesus did recognize differences in degree, and the apostles recognized that hardness of heart mattered.

Be Ye Holy: The Necessity of Sanctification

2009-04-11T10:00:00.000-07:00

Dr. Derek Thomas spoke next, taking 1 Peter 1:13-25 as his text. The point of all theology is to drive us into Christlikeness. We are saved to be holy. Start to think biblically, Christianly--get your mind ready. What do you think about when you're not thinking about anything? The answer is an indication of your spiritual state. 1 Samuel 1-2, Hebrews 2. We share in the holiness of Christ. Our sanctification is accomplished by our being brought into gospel union with Christ. We are children, part of a family, and must bear the family reputation. There will be a judgment and we must give an account.

Wounded for Our Transgressions: The Holiness of God and the Cross

2009-04-10T16:38:00.000-07:00

I honestly did not plan it to come out this way (someone else must have), but this is certainly appropriate for Good Friday.

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, the president of Westminster Theological Seminary in California, spoke on the atonement. The American attitude toward sin is that we like it and we like it that God indulges us and forgives readily. This is, of course, a complete lie. If we don't know God and don't know ourselves we don't know anything worthwhile. American church life is trivial--we are a country full of Christianettes. Isaiah 6:1-7. The reign of King Uzziah (background information in 2 Chronicles 26), a good king who reigned 52 years and did many wonderful things. Judah prospered under him materially. But he became proud and desired to fulfill the role of priest as well as king (in imitation of surrounding pagan cultures and even some of the kings of Israel). God's judgment was to strike him with leprosy, which ended up being his legacy. It was in the year that Uzziah died in disgrace after trying to exalt himself that Isaiah had his vision of the exalted Lord. Isaiah sees the true king high and lifted up. Quite a contrast. What is the significance of the smoke? It's a common Scriptural description of the surroundings of God--his glory, his inapproachability, his veiledness. Maybe also an allusion to the altar of incense. God is very serious about how he is to be worshipped and how sinners may not approach him without the provisions he has stipulated. Isaiah is acutely aware of his sin and unworthiness and his helplessness. A seraph purges his lips with a burning coal from the altar. God initiates and accomplishes salvation. Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Only Messiah is rightly priest-king. We tend to take lightly the cost of salvation, what Christ had to give up, to endure, to pay. Psalm 116.

A Holy Nation: The Church's High Calling

2009-04-09T16:43:00.000-07:00

In one of the more universally praised sermons of the conference, Dr. D. A. Carson stepped up to speak from 1 Peter 2:4-10.

1) Our identity. A chosen people/race, a specific OT reference (Isaiah 43) applied originally to Israel now applied to Christ's people. A royal priesthood--this derives from the Exodus. Kingdom and priests or royal priests. The Levitical priesthood was not voluntary, rather by appointment. But in one way all the people of God are considered as priests, mediators between God and men. In the NT Paul speaks of discharging his priestly role through evangelism. Christians mediate through intercessory prayer. Nation here means ethnicity (the idea of nation-state is of 18th century origin). We are a holy nation. The distinction between communicable and incommunicable attributes. Holiness is in a unique category; it has concentric rings of meaning. At its core holy is almost an adjective for God as God. The highest order of angels cover their faces as they extol his holiness. What does this mean for a people commanded to be holy? Set aside by God for God, therefore holy but also behaviorally/functionally. God's special possession. God has ownership of all nations but his people are his in a special sense. Nothing intrinsic in ourselves, but by God's sovereign choice according to his purposes.

2) Our purpose. That we may declare his praises, his excellences. Consider the sheer God-centeredness of this concept. Is God egocentric? Selfish? It is a supreme act of love for us that he requires this, for it is for our own good. God has no needs, he is entire in himself. There is also a sense of sheer privilege as we are called out of darkness and into his marvelous light.

3) Our foundation. Once not a people but now a people (Hosea 1 and 2). God's gracious restoration of his people; in the case of Romans 9 and 1 Peter 2 this is extended to Gentiles because Jews and Gentiles are in the same boat (Romans 1:18-3:20). This identity, purpose, and foundation erases all other distinctions.

Dr. Carson made repeated references back to the opening verses of the epistle throughout the sermon.

If anyone were inclined to obtain an audio copy of just one of the 2009 presentations this is probably the one for persons already familiar with Dr. Sproul's ideas; for newbies to Ligonier material I'd go with his Saturday message, the notes for which are yet forthcoming.

Cosmic Treason: Sin and the Holiness of God

2009-04-08T17:18:00.000-07:00

Thabiti Anyabwile took the pulpit next to speak on the subject of sin, with Numbers 25:1-18 as his text.

1) Verses 1-6: The horrible context. A proscription against idolatry lies at the heart of God's covenant with Israel. Despite God's protection of Israel from plotting by the king of Moab, the people begin to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. Spiritual adultery underlies the physical sin. They repay the faithfulness of God by bowing down to false foreign gods. Watch out for the seductive smiles of the world, for they are a greater danger than the world's disapproval and hate. God directs a drastic example be made of the leaders of the people.

--Sin is moral in nature, a transgression of what is right.
--Sin is personal, against God himself. An apostasy, a falling away, a turning.
--Sin is rebellion against God's rightful rule.
--Sin is dangerous, self-destruction. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2) Verses 6-9: While the people are gathered grappling with the judgment of God, an Israelite man blatently brings a Midianite woman through in full sight of Moses and the people--really, in the sight of God himself. This is brazen sin, contemptuous of God. Phinehas deals decisively with this affront and thereby stops the plague that had killed many thousands. Do we side with the sinner in his sin or with God, seeking vindication for his name? Sin should cause brokenness and weeping.

3) Verses 10-13: Honorable commendation. God praises Phinehas and makes a special covenant with him and his descendants. Phinehas exhibits godly characteristics. God must also be commended and honored for his grace in ending the plague and for exalting his name. Because sin is treason it requires punishment, correction. That we may participate in his holiness. Sin requires atonement. God's wrath must be turned away. There must be reconciliation. Phinehas as priest points to Christ. Notice the promise of a perpetual priesthood.

4) Verses 14-18: See how the sinner and Midianite woman are remembered by name. God promises a judgment against Midian. God will be God over all, as is right.

The Second Q&A Session, Part Two

2009-04-07T05:48:00.000-07:00

Without further ado...

7) Define the difference between a Calvinist and an Arminian. Do we believe that regeneration precedes faith or that faith precedes regeneration? Is salvation merely possible or has it been accomplished? The island of righteousness idea. Dr. Begg posits that a lot of "Arminian" Christians are just poorly taught or that's the default position. There ensued some discussion of the experiential aspects of salvation.

8) The distinction between preaching and teaching. The latter is the conveying and clarifying of truth; the former requires teaching with added aspects of persuasion, motivation, passion/intensity, exhortation, and application.

9) The origins of the idea of prevenient grace. In the true sense, it's found in Genesis 3. If by this is meant the RCC sense, it comes out of the notion that something is granted in baptism, coming before justification. An infusion of righteousness. But in order to be effective this righteousness requires assent and cooperation. The Arminian view is similar--grace comes not from baptism but from the preaching of the gospel and requires assent and cooperation.

The Second Q&A Session, Part One

2009-04-06T16:36:00.000-07:00

The second hour of question-answering was conducted by Drs. Begg, Ferguson, Lawson, and Sproul fils; Sproul pere was supposed to be the moderator, but it will come as no surprise that he made one or two contributions.

1) What was Calvin's position on the classical arguments for God's existence, or did he think belief in God is basic [meaning foundational or axiomatic]? The implanted knowledge of God, related to his view of men as created in the image of God. It is impossible for man to escape divine revelation, so the knowledge of God is a given. Calvin taught an immediate revelation. Self awareness, per Augustine, brings an awareness of one's contingency and dependence. There is a distinction between proof and persuasion.

2) What does being "reformed" mean? The five solas, especially sola Scriptura, at the heart of which is the saving gospel.

3) How does Calvin's concept of piety differ from John Wesley's sanctification? Sanctification and glorification are tightly linked. Wesley was profoundly influenced by pietism, so have to beware of the excesses of that movement. Calvin placed emphasis on mortification and vivification. Wesley was more inward-focused.

4) Monergism vs. synergism. Sanctification is properly understood as synergistic but this is solely because we are new creations. Our salvation is predicated wholely on Christ and his righteousness. Our works count nothing for our justification but we will be rewarded because of our works. God crowning his own gifts (Augustine).

5) How to deal with a passive congregation with respect to expositional preaching. Recall that the Lord's preaching was not readily received. Reliance on the Spirit. Be faithful and accurate in your presentation of the word and then get out of the way.

6) Did Jesus have the ability to sin? There was no external binding on him to prevent sin, but he could no more sin than the Father can lie. Jesus has no desire to sin. His will is solely to do the will of his Father.

The Breath of the Almighty: The Holy Spirit

2009-04-05T14:52:00.001-07:00

Dr. Alistair Begg, he of Parkside Church in Cleveland and the radio ministry Truth for Life, spoke on the subject of the Holy Spirit. His text was John 16:5-14. This is an inexhaustible subject. It is therefore important to stay grounded within Scripture and stay bound by its limits, for the Holy Spirit has been a subject of great speculation. Note the context of the passage. Jesus explains why it is that he must leave just at the time the disciples need him most.

1) The necessity of Jesus' departure. The Lord emphasizes that he is going back to the Father and this is to the disciples' advantage. If he doesn't go, the Helper/Counselor won't come to them. Think about the cost of all this--everything that will take place between this event and his ascension. In the entire drama of redemption the Spirit is the applicator of all the Father has decreed and the Son accomplished. Who is the one sent as a Helper? Verse 13 says "the Spirit of truth." He is a unique person, not a power or influence, and definitely not an "it." He is one with the Father and the Son, coequal and coeternal. He is sent by both Father and Son. He is never in isolation from the person and work of Christ or the will of the Father. The Spirit is the agent of creation (see Genesis 1) and the author of the new birth (John 3). He is the author of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3).

2) Another of the same kind of helper who comes alongside. He will be with and in the disciples and will remain forever.

3) When the Spirit comes, he will convict the world. He confronts the sin, he proves the world guilty. The Spirit will convict individuals. All this is to the advantage of the disciples and to all of us who have come along behind them. In verse 12 and following the Spirit comes and will guide them into all truth. He inspired the apostles to write down their witness and guided them in doing so. The activity of the Spirit is also to glorify Jesus. He takes what is Christ's and declares it to Christ's people and through Christ's people. He ever reminds us of our sonship (Romans 8) and works to transform us into the image of Christ, such that when Christ appears we will be like him.

The Holy One of God: The Holiness of Jesus

2009-04-04T12:07:00.000-07:00

Dr. Lawson returned to the pulpit, taking Mark 1:21-28 as his text. There is no more dangerous place to be than where truth confronts false or dead religin. Satan is aroused, demons awakened, hell mobilized. There is peace in the house of death and they'd like to keep it that way. But as soon as light shines into the kingdom of darkness trouble begins. The truth is a great threat to Satan. This is where Jesus finds himself in this passage. The synagogue at Capernaum had rules but no relationship with God. The religious crowds were those who most opposed Christ. False, dead relgion was one of his greatest enemies (still is). Jesus here advances directly into one of Satan's strongholds. It was a takeover. Capernaum would become the headquarters of his Galilean ministry. He began to teach in this synagogue with all his considerable talents and authority. His hearers were amazed--the light shines into their darkness and it overwhelms. At this point a man appeared in the synagogue who had an unclean spirit--a demon. "What is there to you and us?" is the literal rendering of what he says. In other words, what do we have in common? Nothing, of course. The demon recognizes how alien Jesus is to him. Actually, there were a plurality of demons. The unclean spirit discloses the identity of Jesus as "the Holy One of God." It recognized Jesus' absolute holiness, a high confession for such unholy lips (James 2:19). Holy in all his ways and being. The phrase is a title for God himself, seen in Isaiah (see also John 6:69). A title of supremacy. God has come down to be among men. Jesus rebuked the demon, perhaps for interrupting his teaching the crowd, and cast it out. His observers were doubly amazed by all this: A new teaching, an authority they'd never heard, and the obedience of demons.

Hallowed Be Thy Name: The Holiness of the Father

2009-04-03T17:21:00.000-07:00

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson spoke next, using several verses from John 17 as his text. Verse 11 of this chapter contains the only reference in all of Scripture to "holy Father." This prayer offers a unique window into the heart and mind of Christ, on the eve of his passion and death. It is a most sacred moment. We should approach it with awe and reverence. Recall the opening phrases of the Lord's Prayer--we are invited to use the same language. Jesus here widens the disciples' understanding of the Trinity.

What does it mean for the Lord of glory to say "holy Father?" As the Logos, God the Son ever addresses the Father as holy. "Holy" within the blessed existence of the Trinity can mean purity and intensity but not separation. An intensity of love and fellowship. In his prayer, Jesus voices longing not just to be reinstated to this intensity of love but to have his disciples behold it and share in it. Analogy with human relationships of intimacy. Being is fundamental to doing. John 5:19-20--the Son does nothing of his own accord but only what he sees the Father doing. John 10--Jesus speaks of giving his life for the sheep and says the Father loves him because of his coming death and resurrection. We have been brought into this family. If when we pray we say "our holy Father," then the church is the holy family. Since he is the holy Father he gives his children the Holy Spirit as a surety and seal of identification. He has set his heart on making all of his children like his holy Son and will stop at nothing to accomplish this. Recall how much it cost Jesus to express what he did in John 17.

I AM the LORD, There Is No Other

2009-04-02T05:31:00.000-07:00

Dr. Sproul officially opened the main part of the national conference by addressing the conference theme, the holiness of God. He stated that he detects a strand running through the great theologians and preachers, who all seem intoxicated with the majesty and holiness of God. His text was Isaiah 45:1-8, which he acknowledged is a "strange" text because it is addressed to Cyrus, who was not yet alive at the time of the prophecy. Israel was in bondage in Babylon. Cyrus was the future king of the Medo-Persian empire that would later defeat Babylon and liberate Israel. In this passage God calls Cyrus his "anointed," which of course is also rendered messiah. God says he will go before Cyrus and empower his armies to lay waste the present powers. Why? That Cyrus may know it is God, the Lord of Israel. All this is done not for Cyrus' sake but for the sake of Israel. Per Calvin, when God closes his holy mouth we should desist from speculation, but Sproul does so anyway with respect to Cyrus' thought when he heard this passage. At first, perhaps he thinks God is proposing a summit meeting, one potentate to another, but God goes on to declare his absoluteness and uniqueness. "Holy" has two common references: God's otherness, the sense in which he is different from his creation; and his purity, which is the sense in which we can obey the command to be holy (the first is incommunicable, as we can't be other than creatures). In the first sense it refers to his transcendent divine nature which we cannot imitate. How to grasp this? Three tools--the way of negation, the way of eminentia, and the way of affirmation. Aseity--God's self-existence. He is the only one who has the power of being in himself. All else is contingent.

[Here Dr. Sproul made his oft-repeated remarks on nothing.]

Aquinas' arguments for God's existence. One is that God possesses necessary being, which is what makes him holy. God is the kind of being who cannot possibly not be. God's being is also logically necessary. We have to take leave of our senses to assume God does not exist, or else from where did everything come?

[Here he told his story about the famous cosmologist and "gradual" spontaneous generation.]

Returning to the Isaiah passage: What does this God do? He creates all that is and provides blessing and curse/judgment.

The First Q&A Session, Part Two

2009-04-01T15:58:00.000-07:00

Continuing with the questions...

5) What was Calvin's relation with Martin Luther and Lutherans? In a word, distant. Luther and Calvin probably never met. Calvin acknowledged an enormous debt to Luther but thought there were troubling elements in Luther's theology. Out of respect he took great care to correct without scolding. He had a different relationship with Philip Melancthon but was unhappy that (in his opinion) Melancthon pussyfooted and watered down Luther's stronger predestinarian views. He considered Luther a kind-of spiritual father and had hoped early on that Melancthon would prove a like-minded colleague. There was a bit of a falling-out when Calvin realized that Melancthon would not work for a thorough reformation. He had hoped for greater unity in the various reform movements but was disappointed.

6) What aspects of Calvin's thought should we disregard? The answer on this one was a little fuzzy. The panel began with a side comment that there were two Baptists on the dias, evidently referring to the disagreement over sacramentology. Someone also observed that Calvinism is broader than the famous five points.

7) What was central to Calvin's theology? The ideas represented by the five points (although anacronistic when applied to Calvin) reflect an underlying unity. The influence of the book of Romans. Solid trinitarianism. God himself is the gospel. A very high Christology.

8) Are we guilty of over-revering Calvin? We have to be careful not to be too vigorous in defending the five points, which are often the focus of attacks, thinking the whole of Calvin's teaching is at stake. We all have spiritual geneologies as well as physical geneologies. It is more important that someone have a high view of God, of Christ, and of the Bible than that he self-identifies as a Calvinist. We've come up with labels as shorthand, based on the previous experiences of the church.

9) What are some significant gleanings from Calvin's life and thought? The model of a gospel minister in a local congregation. A model preacher. A teacher who understood the necessity of the people of God learning. The fundamental problem man has is idolatry. Calvin's exposition of the atonement.

The First Q&A Session, Part One

2009-03-31T17:41:00.000-07:00

Drs. Duncan, Ferguson, Lawson, and Mohler participated in a Q&A forum at the end of the mini-conference on John Calvin. I took notes on nine of the submited questions and will split this up into two parts.

1) Why is Calvin important 500 years later? He was the first great biblical exegete of the church. Other theologians contributed greatly, of course, but Calvin had a genius for explaining the Bible. His time in history was key, for the Reformation was the greatest movement forward for Christianity since the beginning. The opportunity for dissemination of ideas through print and movement of people across national and geographical lines was unprecedented. This produced a multiplication effect. Calvin, as we've previously seen, had a tremendous institutional legacy. Calvin did theology with his life at stake [referring to the implied threat if Rome ever got her hands on him]. We face many of the same challenges today, by the way. He prepared able men who took his teachings to many others.

2) Where should laypeople start to learn about Calvin? His sermons are easy to read. The Institutes are very pastoral. Try his sermons on Galatians and Ephesians. Read the dedicatory letter at the start of the Institutes. Ferguson's lecture on Calvin's commentary on Romans and the commentary itself.

3) What is generally not known about Calvin? According to Ferguson, his favorite game was "Keys" [I'd always heard it was a form of ninepins]. The suffering of the man--virtually every day was something to be endured. Illnesses and infirmities. Emotional and relational difficulties. Yet the joyfulness of his piety is readily apparent. The general historical portrayal of the man found in popular writings is often incorrect. He was not the "tyrant of Geneva." He launched a mission movement, very uncharacteristic of Christian teachers and theologians of his day. He had the dedication of his friends. Remarkable for the strenuousness of the opposition and ugliness of the hate directed toward him in his life.

4) What about Servetus? Michael Servetus was a heretic who would have been condemned anywhere in Europe. He was warned not to come to Geneva. Calvin personally tried to dissuade him. He came anyway, was tried and condemned. Calvin tried to obtain a more merciful form of execution--beheading rather than being burned at the stake. In his answer, Mohler tried to put the matter in its historical context. Servetus was guilty of the equivalent of treason. Heresy is a threat to all of society but the government is not the correct agent for dealing with this. At the time, there was near-universal acceptance of the unitary model of church and state; by comparison, we are used to a radical separation model, making it very difficult for us to understand 16th-century thinking on this matter. Calvin was not the prosecutor for the case against Servetus; at the time, he was not even a citizen of Geneva. The men on the consistory were his political enemies and sought to embarrass him. Servetus begged to stay in Geneva because anywhere in France it would have been far worse for him.

Permit me to editorialize and provide some additional facts regarding the Servetus affair: Opinions on what to do about him were solicited from all the major Swiss cities, and the universal consensus was that he be condemned. Other reformers, even those with a mild reputation such as Philip Melancthon, were similarly firm. He already had the death sentence in France; anywhere within Roman Catholic authority he was a dead man. Was this the right way to deal with theological error? No, and it took Christian Europe a long time to come to grips with the fundamental inconsistency. Yet Calvin takes enormous criticism for the lone example of Servetus when far, far worse went on elsewhere. This again raises the issue of why this man was subject to such intense opposition and hostility and I would look to the gospels for the answer.

The Legacy of John Calvin, Part Three

2009-03-30T16:23:00.000-07:00

Dr. Lawson concluded his presentation by expanding upon the idea that Calvin exerted an international influence. Calvin's ideas spread to the world. Geneva was a refuge city; once those refugees were able to return to their homelands they took Calvin's thought with them. Many returned to be martyrs. Translations of Calvin's work were made in several languages. Alistair McGrath refers to "a new type of being--the Calvinist--with a can-do approach to life." By 1556 there were about 2000 Reformed congregations in France; fully one-tenth of the French population was Reformed, at a time when it was required to be Roman Catholic and no one was permitted to emigrate. In Scotland, John Knox preached a complete rebuilding of the church. Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian thought was brought to American shores. The Westminster Standards and the Belgic Confession are both hugely based on Calvin's teaching. Lawson spoke of the Synod of Dort. The Great Awakening and Presbyterian influence on the American Revolution. William Carey and the modern missions movement. Time magazine has just published an edition in which the "new Calvinism" is listed as the number three idea shaping the world.

The Legacy of John Calvin, Part Two

2009-03-29T13:13:00.000-07:00

Dr. Lawson continued: Calvin put forward a Christian worldview, summed up as soli Deo gloria. See Romans 11:36. No man ever had a more profound view of God (per B. B. Warfield). He possessed zeal for the glory of God. A work ethic--all work is a calling from God. Prior to Calvin, a doctrine of vocation was reserved to apply to the clergy. Education--love God with all one's mind. In the Middle Ages, education was a valuable commodity in short supply. Even with the Renaissance education remained for the elite only. Calvin's Reformation changed all that. He established the Geneva Academy, which trained many of the Protestant clergy of the next few generations. A standard of law, order, and justice. Calvin explained the uses of the Law. Punishment must fit the crime. Free market capitalism. At its heart were certain values: Hard work, right of private ownership, investment, honesty and integrity in business, nobility of profit, necessity of caring for the poor out of the profits given by God. He established a Reformed church in Geneva and then spread abroad such ideas such as Scripture as the sole and final authority, the preaching of the Word, church leaders as a plurality of godly men, the regulative principle, and even democratic republicanism. Geneva was the laboratory for Calvin's view of church and state relations. There was limit on power, checks and balances, distinct branches of government. He emphasized divine sovereignty over human sovereignty. All of this to the preservation of individual liberty. Everything above was in the notes for the Geneva Bible, which was one reason James I of England authorized a new translation of the Bible in order to get rid of the influence of those notes. Calvin can be credited with instituting separation of church and state.

The Legacy of John Calvin, Part One

2009-03-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

Dr. Steve Lawson gave the last of four formal talks on John Calvin during the mini-conference. However, my notes on this presentation are too extensive to type up for one blog post, so I'll split this into three entries.

Dr. Lawson began by observing that Calvin's legacy is difficult to encompass, for he lived the life of twenty men. Virtually no area of life is untouched by his influence. He was the "man of the millennium." Dr. Lawson referred to a theological standard. Calvin was the architect of Reformed theology. Whereas Martyn Lloyd-Jones likened Martin Luther to a volcano that spewed out ideas, Calvin was a systematizer, an organizer who was greatly needed. He credits Calvin as preserving the heritage of the Reformation. The Institutes are the greatest theological work to emerge from the Reformation. He defended the biblical character of Reformation doctrine against the false charge of novelty. His literary output was incredible--commentaries, sermons, pamphlets, and letters. Most importantly, Calvin's work was a ministry of the word of God.

The Doctrines of Grace

2009-03-25T15:09:00.000-07:00

Dr. Sinclair Ferguson spoke on the doctrines of grace as perceived by John Calvin. He took as his text Ephesians 1:3-7, although admitted there were many places he could have gone. Ferguson reiterated the scriptural theme of God going before us in salvation. His focus was on grace in a larger sense, not necessarily in the narrower way we tend to think of it as the famous five points that are so often controverted. He spoke to three principle subjects:

1) The teaching about grace on which Calvin was reared. Medieval theologians majored heavily on grace and how to get it. From the Reformation perspective it wasn't lack of speaking about grace but wrong ideas about grace. The medieval perspective was adulterated, dis-grace. At baptism, grace was (supposedly) granted, even infused. The whole course of the Christian life was to nurture and enhance this grace so that ultimately the individual believer's life was righteous and then God would be able to justify him. "Heaven helps those who help themselves." This idea is rife in western Protestantism today. The most difficult thing for sinners to grasp is undiluted, unassisted (by men) grace. The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to teaching of free grace as fear of antinomianism. They also referred to a "legal fiction," claiming that the Reformers stated God pronounces a sinner righteous when he's not, missing the basis of why God could do this. Medieval religion offered no joy, and assurance was impossible. Ferguson quoted Robert Bellarmine's opinion that the greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance of salvation, because the church can't provide assurance through the sacraments and rites/rituals. Calvin's critique was that Rome substituted the pope and magisterium for the Spirit as the vicar of Christ. Rome's doctrine of justification is too fragile--it needs to keep being shored up.

2) The doctrines that Calvin expounded. He gave gospel responses to the rejection of Reformation teaching. Calvin always points to the gracious salvation of God in Jesus Christ. Men are born dead and live dead. We cannot but do and speak wickedness. We are under God's wrath and justly so. We are hopeless without God's sovereignty in salvation. The atonement is effective; unless one is a universalist every Christian maintains a limited atonement. God is never at odds with himself. There is a great sense of the efficacy of Christ's work. He didn't come simply to make salvation possible but actually to save. Irresistable grace--would God have permitted Christ's sacrifice without seeing the matter through?

3) The nature of the grace Calvin preached. Is grace a stuff or a substance we acquire? There is no such "thing" as grace, there is only Jesus Christ. It is not something outside of Christ dispensed by the Spirit like stock dividends. What the Spirit brings is faith in Christ himself, who is all the righteousness we will ever need.

John Calvin and the Christian Life

2009-03-24T16:29:00.000-07:00

The next speaker in the mini-conference on John Calvin was Dr. Ligon Duncan. His text was 1 Timothy 1:3-5--the goal of instruction is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith. The practical fruits of godliness. Not just a head knowledge [compare 1 Corinthians 8:1) but transformed and changed by the truth (Romans 12:1-2). Piety is an important idea in Calvin's teaching. The word comes from the Latin pietas and applies to the whole understanding and practice of the Christian life. An experiential love of God as Father plus a fear and reverence of God as Lord. "Religio"--a heart matter, faith joined to fear and reverence. The pious man honors God as his own Father, yet fears/reverences him as Lord. There is a similar idea in classical Roman thinking reflective of the attitude of children toward parents and citizens toward the state. (By the way, the reason why Roman authorities often charged Christians with impiety and atheism was because they did not appropriately respect the state and they had rejected the Roman pantheon). In the NT, the idea of piety is frequently rendered as "godliness." What were the origins of Calvin's teaching on piety? Unlike the "conversion verses" of Augustine and Martin Luther, the biblical text that the Spirit used to convert Calvin is not known because he wrote so little about himself and did not elaborate much on this event. The Calvin scholar Battles speculated it might have been Romans 1:18-25, especially verse 21, because the central theme of Calvin's teachings was honoring God and being thankful to him. In Institutes III:6, the object of the work God is doing in us is to manifest in our lives harmony and agreement between God's righteousness and our obedience, and to confirm us in our adoption as his children. Two more aspects were that a love of righteousness that is foreign to us needs to be instilled, as against antinomianism; a rule is set forth that does not let us wander. The spirit of the current age is against the guiding use of the Law. Calvin highlights God's holiness as a foundation for our own righteous living, a motivation. When we hear mention of our union with God, recall the bond of holiness. We need to cleave to him, infused with his holiness, and then we can follow him. We come to him to become like him, to be conformed, that we might have fellowship with him. Pursue holiness. God's benefits in salvation are another motivation. Since cleansed by Christ, we will not want to get back in the mud. Keep the body of Christ free of spots and blemishes. Philippians 2:12-13. Piety has negative implications in our contemporary thinking; it's a synonym for hypocrisy in the mind of many. Calvin points out our lives are not characterized by perfection but of growth. A progressive sanctification. God is not done with us yet.

A summary of Institutes III:6-10:

1) Self denial

2) Cross bearing

3) Meditation on the future life; animated by a vital hope

4) The use of the present life; moderation in the enjoyment of temporal benefits, industry, thankfulness, cognizance that God is greater than his gifts

John Calvin--Preacher and Teacher

2009-03-23T16:28:00.000-07:00

2009 marks the quincentennial of the birth of John Calvin (later this year--10 July). The traditional Ligonier pre-conference seminar was expanded into Thursday morning in order to accommodate a "mini-conference" on the life and legacy of Calvin, given his importance in the history of Reformed theology.

The series was kicked off by Dr. Al Mohler, who spoke on the theme of Calvin as preacher and teacher. He observed that this was an apt description of Calvin's legacy. God vindicates his own and his truth, reflected in 500 years of influence. Calvin preached 4000 sermons in Geneva in a relatively short time span. He preached through many (not all) books of the Bible and conducted many sermon series. He was very dedicated to his calling as a preacher. The Reformation was mostly within his hearers. William Farel and Martin Bucer exhorted him against his preferences to go to Geneva. He was convinced that preachers needed to be taught; the Institutes in their final form were intended for this purpose. Preachers are to confine themselves to the word of God--don't preach one's own ideas and don't try to be clever. Exposition of the Bible is the preaching of God's word, which is applied by the Spirit in the hearts of the hearers. The preacher is sent and commissioned by God himself and therefore carries authority. A call to the preaching office is necessary. Preaching is revelation--not innovative but in proclamation. Preaching is central to worship. The preacher must be a scholar. Study is required in order to rightly divide the word of truth. Preaching is eminently pastoral. Counseling comes best through preaching the word (Mohler inveighed against the practice of seminarians taking counseling classes and neglecting theology). Any preacher faithful to his calling will face adversity, in the form of hard work, opposition, and suffering; Calvin certainly did. But Calvin understood that the enemies he faced were God's enemies--he himself was not the real focus of their enmity. Thank the God who gave Calvin to the church and spoke through him. Right epistemology: God speaks, you listen.

Ignorance Is Not Bliss

2009-03-22T11:14:00.000-07:00

Last week, for the thirteenth consecutive year, I journeyed down to Orlando, Florida, in order to attend the national conference held annually by Ligonier Ministries. Although I had known some of Dr. R. C. Sproul's writings it was not until I was invited by my pastor to join a group of men on a "road trip" in the spring of 1997 to attend this conference. That year the topic happened to be on essential truths of the Christian faith. I was hooked. The content and conduct of the conference was like raw meat to a starving tiger. By the grace and provision of God I have managed to make it back every year since. Two years ago I took the step of becoming a regular supporter of the ministry. As a consequence I now get invited to participate in events held in advance of the actual conference schedule. This year Ligonier held a dinner offsite on Wednesday evening in order to introduce ministry partners to the organization's new capital campaign. Dr. Sproul also give a short message rather than conduct a Q&A session as he usually does for these events. The following are the notes I took while listening to him speak.

His text was Hosea 4:1-6 and his theme was that "the people lack knowledge." Hosea here records a call to a solemn assembly: "Hear the word of the LORD, you children of Israel." This summons was for the purpose of delivering God's indictment against the nation. The Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land. The word translated "charge" can also be read as "controversy," as it is in the KJV. God has a controversy with Israel. God is angry; there is a conflict here. So what's the big deal? There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land. How can this be said? Recall Romans 2, where Paul insists on the advantages Israel had because she possessed the oracles of God. Here in Hosea the nation seems to have lost all this.

Dr. Sproul applies this indictment to our contemporary situation. There is a famine for hearing the word of the Lord in the land. We often shy away from controversy and conflict. Truth divides, is the complaint. It also unites like-minded believers. He quoted Francis Schaeffer, who thought that the church had lost all sense of antithesis in his day (and that was around thirty years ago--we certainly haven't regained lost ground since then) and had retreated from naming falsehood and opposing it.

What are the consequences of vacating the knowledge of God? In this passage, Hosea says the restraints are gone and there is unbridled wickedness. The land will mourn. God judges in kind. He blessed America with remarkable prosperity but now he may be removing that blessing. It is always perilous to apply prophetic warnings originally given to national Israel to other nations at other times but God's unchanging character suggests that we as a nation not in possession of a specific covenant with him have no reason to expect exemption from judgment.

"I will destroy your mother." In context, that meant Israel. A fearsome thing. The people perish for lack of knowledge.

The Triumph of Truth and Reason

2009-03-17T16:07:00.001-07:00

The task seems daunting, recognizing the sway that naturalism and Darwinian evolution have over the thought leaders of biology and considering the influence scientists as a whole hold in this culture. Journalism largely is in thrall to scientism. Yet there is power in ideas, and great power in ideas that are true. Truth has been ground down before but always rises again. Many may pay a great price for confronting the spirit of the age but we are assured that truth will prevail.

This concludes my series on Darwinism and entrenched materialistic naturalism. I will take a short break from blogging to attend this year's national Ligonier conference; upon my return perhaps I'll share some impressions before moving on to my next non-controversial topic, "Jesus and Politics."

Theistic Evolutionists Respond to Phillip Johnson

2009-03-16T17:12:00.000-07:00

Theistic evolutionists are generally Christians, some scientists, who have made efforts to reconcile Christian belief with what they accept as the truth of evolutionary biology. Not surprisingly, then, some of them have been unhappy with Johnson's efforts. Criticisms boil down to five issues, remarkably similar to the objections raised by naturalists.

1. It is necessary to distinguish between the scientific theory and the excesses of Darwinist apologists. But some of the more politically incorrect Darwinists are simply taking the claims of the theory to their logical conclusions.

2. The commitment to methodological atheism (naturalism).

3. Avoid the "God of the gaps."

4. Johnson's requirement for proof is too stringent. They blame his legal background for this, insisting that biology doesn't require absolute proof, just superior theories which may themselves be perfect. But Johnson hasn't asked for absolute proof, just sufficient proof.

5. Johnson has no alternative theory to propose. Remember, the only acceptable alternative is a "scientific" (naturalistic) one.

When it comes right down to it, most theistic evolutionists have swallowed the orthodox naturalistic line. They have not examined the underlying presuppositions and drawn out the necessary conclusions.

Some find the blind watchmaker thesis attractive (for more, see the article "Creator or Blind Watchmaker" at the First Things web site). But metaphysics and science are hopelessly entangled in this idea. Johnson observes he has had difficulty getting theistic evolutionists to grapple with it, and rightly says that one cannot serve two intellectual masters. Naturalism always seems to win out whenever someone tries to hold it in tension with theism.

Other Responses to "Darwin on Trial"

2009-03-15T14:35:00.000-07:00

We previously mentioned Michael Ruse, the philosopher of science and the most important witness for the opposition to the 1981 Arkansas case we examined a while back (the one over which Judge Overton presided). At the Foundation for Thought and Ethics conference in March 1992 reputable academics from both sides of the evolution controversy gathered. Attention was paid specifically to the metaphysical issues for once. Ruse and Phillip Johnson participated in a debate there over whether theism and Darwinian evolution are compatible. Then at the February 1993 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Ruse made some astonishing public admissions. He affirmed the reality of metaphysical assumptions in naturalistic science and urged honesty in dealing with them.

But no good deed goes unpunished. Arthur Shapiro, a zoologist who also attended the 1992 meeting, readily affirmed that "there is an irreducible core of ideological assumptions underlying science," but celebrated the materialistic preference for explaining reality and contrasted it to a primitive viewpoint that essentially ascribes natural phenomena to "the gods." By this Shapiro showed he held an appalling--but all too common--misconception of theism.

The aforementioned William Provine was very harsh in his comments about Johnson's arguments as put forth in Darwin on Trial but admitted that there was one point in common: Both understand the incompatibility of Darwinism and theism and deplore the efforts to cover this up for public relations purposes. Remember, Provine is a very hard core atheist.

We Maintain the Right to Refuse Service

2009-03-14T08:14:00.000-07:00

In the early 1990s, University of California-Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson published his book Darwin on Trial, a scathing exposure of contemporary evolutionary biology's refusal to brook any criticism or examination of its axiomatic materialisitic naturalism. Needless to say, the book was not well received by the examinees. At the time, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard was the best-known and (presumably) articulate defender, nay, public educator and promoter of evolutionary biology. Everyone expected that he would offer the definitive and most deflating critique of Johnson's book.

And so it came about that Gould's four-page review of Darwin on Trial appeared in the July 1992 edition of Scientific American. The effort proved to be somewhat hit-and-miss, with several "criticisms" too off the point for further consideration. But here are five of the most important arguments Gould made against Johnson's work:

1. There is no conflict between Darwinian science and religious belief or even atheism. Gould cited the example of Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the great evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, calling him "a believing Russian Orthodox." The problem is, Dobzhansky was a pantheist who expected Darwinism to provide the basis for a great humanistic religion (somewhat akin to Julian Huxley's hope) and could hardly be considered a faithful Orthodox Christian. That there is no conflict between Darwinism and atheism is readily seen--in fact, Darwinism as a form of materialistic naturalism requires atheism or some form of deism that is practically the same thing. But orthodox theism of any stripe is automatically excluded. Other Darwinists, as we have seen with William Provine, have been much more transparent on this point.

2. Johnson neglected sexual recombination as a method of variation. By this Gould intended to point out that mutation and selection are not the only mechanisms by which variation occurs from generation to generation. True, but this objection is inconsequential to Johnson's critique, because recombination can account only for immediate variation but not genuine genetic innovation, i.e., no new genetic information is gained in the resortment or shuffling and cannot account for the development of new characteristics or functions.

3. Darwinian evolution should be judged successful as a historical science. As we have seen, undoubtedly Darwinism has enormous explanatory power. But the question is actually, "Is it true?" not, "Does it provide a good model of reality?" Ptolemaic astronomy had superior explanatory power when Copernicus first proposed his heliocentric model but that did not make the former true.

4. Johnson gives insufficient credit to positive evidence for macroevolution such as the therapsids. But recall that it is acknowledged by critics that the therapsids are a point in favor of the Darwinists. The objection is that so much is claimed on the basis of single data bits such as this. It is insufficient and actually wrong to consider just the positive evidence and ignore the negative evidence.

5. Johnson's quotes of figures like Simpson and Mayr are out of date and therefore irrelevant to the current issue. In general, one wants to refer to the best, most contemporary sources when dealing with the technical aspects of the issue. But it remains legitimate to consult historically significant and influential thought leaders, including Darwin himself, when considering the claims made on behalf of the theory, expecially when it reaches past explanations of biological phenomena into metaphysics.

How did Johnson respond to this review? Other than the specifics already mentioned, overall he was disappointed by Gould's efforts. He wrote that they actually have a lot in common, but "What divide us are the same metaphysical questions that I have debated with Steven Weinberg and Michael Ruse: Is 'science' by definition simply applied materialistic philosophy? If so, is naturalism simply the same thing as 'reason' or can naturalism itself be questioned on rational grounds?" In essence, the poor quality of Gould's critique reveals the weakness of his arguments, implying that he really had no reponses on the merits of Johnson's criticisms. Gould seemed to be unwilling to engage on the wider, more fundamental questions of truth.

So Johnson's charge is confirmed. Science and non-science (non-sense?) are treated as separate but "equal" and all that entails. Per Gould in his reply to Johnson, "Science treats factual reality, while religion struggles with human morality," thus invoking the fact-value divide and relegating religion to the category of subjective opinion and non-rationality. And "separate but equal" here has the same effect as it did in American racial policies of the last century. It is an inherent statement of actual inequality.

There Is No Room for God in Naturalism

2009-03-13T13:54:00.000-07:00

Stephen Jay Gould, of whom we will speak more tomorrow, once waxed rhapsodic over the legacy of Charles Darwin. Because of Darwin mankind now knows: "[N]o intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs of nature (though Newton's clock-winding god might have set up the machinery at the beginning of time and then let it run). No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature."

Well, so much the worse for God, then. I guess the heavens don't declare the glory of God after all, and we have Mr. Gould and Mr. Darwin to thank for this revelation.

Phillip Johnson observed in response, "If Darwinism has such profound anti-theistic implications, and if the crucial Darwinian mechanism for generating complex innovations is having as much trouble as Gould has said [elsewhere], then it would seem to be very reasonable indeed for philosophical theists to question whether Darwinism is true. Is it possible that a dominant group of scientists has been so devoted to philosophical naturalism that it has been too easily satisfied by inadequate evidence for naturalistic mechanisms of creation?"

Maybe. Only no one seems to willing to let the question be asked.

Naturalism: The Unexplored Assumption

2009-03-12T15:56:00.000-07:00

At its very basis, the controversy over evolution is about metaphysics--worldviews, philosophies, religions, ways of explaining reality. Contemporary western science is steeped in naturalism to the point where it is the very water in which most scientists swim. It is their natural environment. Do they even recognize this? Does a fish even know it's wet?

The goal of this perspective is the best naturalistic explanation possible. We have seen in previous discussions how evolutionary biologists cling to Darwinism because from their point of view there is no acceptable alternative. One model of science insists that one has to have a better theory in order to discard the previous paradigm. And since no naturalistic alternative to Darwinism as come along the theory stands.

This raises a good question: Is Darwinian evolution true, not just "good science?" According to Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate physicist, "The only way that any sort of science can proceed is to assume that there is no divine intervention and to see how far one can get with this assumption." That is methodological naturalism, usually insisted upon as the very foundation of the scientific method; otherwise, it is claimed, we can imagine all sorts of alternative explanations for natural processes including magic and "God did it." But this approach begs the question by defining science as that which seeks only naturalistic explanations for reality. If one does not accept the assumption of naturalism, it is reasonable to ask not just whether a particular explanation is "good science" but whether it is actually true. The materialistic naturalist assumes that these are the same thing. Is that a valid assumption? Do the vast majority of evolutionary biologists even ask that greater question?

Darwinian Evolution in a Nutshell

2009-03-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

Just a little review before plunging ahead.

The three great principles:

1. Mutability of species.

2. Descent with modification from common ancestor(s).

3. Natural selection as the agent by which variation is conserved and compiled/aggregated.

The three great underlying assumptions:

1. Materialistic naturalism.

2. Uniformitarianism/gradualism.

3. Reductionism.

The great slippery word: Evolution.

Examing Darwinism As Science

2009-03-10T16:50:00.000-07:00

Darwinism got off on the wrong footing early on. Darwin himself initiated the habit of explaining away the fossil record and using selective breeding as an example of natural selection at work. The central concept of Darwinism, that of descent with modification, was thus protected almost from its inception from empirical testing. The theory was widely accepted before it was rigorously tested. The "science" embarked upon finding confirmatory evidence and explaining away negative data. Eventually some evolutionists reached the point illustrated in my previous post on the 1959 Centennial celebration--recall the remarks of Julian Huxley, overtly religious in tone and content.

Much has depended upon use of vague definitions and equivocations. The elasticity of the word "evolution" allows it to cover many bases. Natural selection itself can appear and disappear on command, depending on the sophistication of the critic being answered. Many Darwinists apparently see themselves in the front lines of a struggle against "fundamentalism" and "irrationality," and so are devoted to defending the theory rather than evaluating it.

If science is to get back on track, the first thing that must happen is that Darwinists must permit foundational concepts such as common ancestry and descent with modification to undergo rigorous testing. All evidence should be confronted, not just the confirmatory bits, and then only the confirmations obtained from risky predictions should be accepted. "Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation."

The Right to Be Wrong

2009-03-09T17:00:00.000-07:00

Karl Popper wrote, "The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right." In fact, this is the essential point of his model and it goes to the heart of human experience. Whatever opinion we hold, we naturally believe it to be right (or else we would hold another opinion, one closer to the truth). But more than that, we want our beliefs to be right. We often have a great deal invested in our beliefs; to change them is often traumatic.

Popper upheld the value of metaphysics, which he meant to encompass all ideas that are not empirically verifiable. In contrast to the logical positivists, however, he, did not thereby think that such ideas are nonsensical or irrational. Quite the contrary. Popper credited metaphysics--and even some pseudosciences such as astology and alchemy--with providing the basis out of which science emerged and can be carried on. Metaphysical concepts may not be scientifically verifiable but they are meaningful and (importantly) may be criticized.

So where does falsifiability fit in? The proper use of this tool is not to differentiate natural science from other types of worthwhile intellectual activity but to discipline natural scientists not to be afraid of failure.

A Side of Bacon

2009-03-08T11:10:00.000-07:00

Karl Popper was a well-known philosopher of science who worked in the middle of the last century. He got in trouble for writing that Darwinism is not really a scientific theory because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation that can account for everything (and therefore is not falsifiable--more on that tomorrow). That he got in trouble for saying this does not necessarily mean he was wrong.

If an idea can be stretched to account for every conceivable event, what is its real power of explanation? It actually doesn't help. According to Popper, the only genuine theory is one which makes risky predictions, i.e., it goes out on a limb to predict something will happen according to this theory, risking being proved wrong if the prediction is incorrect. For example, one of the key predictions Albert Einstein made in his general relativity theory is that light from distant stars would be bent by large gravitational fields. A few years later, other scientists made the observations that confirmed Einstein's prediction.

This follows the Baconian model of science, otherwise known as induction. According to this model, the scientist begins with experimental data and draws conclusions from what he has observed. The theory is then verified by accumulating corroborative evidence. There are admittedly problems with this model, often centered on the reliability of our observations and our ability to discern accurately cause and effect--this was the crux of David Hume's skepticism about causality. The Baconian model also does not reflect what actually transpires. Scientists typically begin with an idea or hypothesis and then carefully design experiments to test the accuracy of the idea, a sort-of artificial mode of observation but one that carries distinct advantages.

The difficulty for Darwinian evolution and for evolutionary biologists is that macroevolution can't be made to fit in this construct, particularly because naturalistic evolution's foundational concepts have been declared true by definition (axioms) and are therefore not subject to testing.

Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain

2009-03-07T14:38:00.000-08:00

Well, after the California State Board of Education policy statement on science education came out, a curriculum guide called the Science Framework, instructions to textbook publishers how they were to proceed if they wanted to sell their products in California, was produced. It clearly emphasized that the purpose of instruction in evolution is to persuade the student of its factuality. Areas of difficulty were ignored or minimized. In places the document is not even internally coherent even though isolated portions of it make good sense:

Students should never be told that "many scientists" think this or that. Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that "scientists believe." Science is not a matter of belief; rather it is a matter of evidence that can be subjected to the tests of observation and objective reasoning...Show students that nothing in science is decided just because someone important says it is so (authority) or because that is the way it has always been done (tradition).

As Phillip Johnson observes, however, the Framework immediately proceeds to use a dissembling definition of evolution and appeals to the authority of scientific orthodoxy.

The prior commitment to materialistic naturalism that we have seen repeatedly in the course of this series is the Achilles heel of the Darwinists. By insisting that the subject be taught in an unquestioning manner in the public schoosl they are almost asking for a wider debate that will certainly include knowledgeable critics. We have seen that critics have a hard time getting a fair hearing, but this situation cannot last forever. Inevitably, someone with sufficient credibility will succeed in exposing the humbugs.

California Dreamin'

2009-03-06T16:36:00.000-08:00

In 1989 the California State Board of Education put out a policy statement that was the result of many years of pressure applied by science educators to establish clear ground rules about how scientific subjects such as evolution were to be approached in the classroom. The statement doesn't actually refer to evolution specifically; the idea was to talk about science education in broader terms. Phillip Johnson wrote:

On its face, the Policy Statement is reasonable and broad-minded. It begins by saying that science is concerned with observable facts and testable hypotheses about the natural world, and not with divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes. These non-scientific subjects are relegated to the literature and social studies curricula. The Policy Statement emphasizes that neither science nor anything else should be taught dogmatically, because "Compelling beliefs is inconsistent with the goal of education," which is to encourage understanding. The Policy Statement even repeats this important distinction between believing and understanding: "To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural sciences curriculum, but they have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws."

The Policy Statement goes on to explain that scientific facts, theories, and hypotheses are subject to testing and rejection; this feature distinguishes them from beliefs and dogmas, which do not meet the criterion of testability and are therefore inappropriate for consideration in science class. Science teachers are professionally obligated to stick to science, and should respectfully encourage students to discuss matters outside the domain of science with their families and clergy.

By now, readers should readily recognize the subtle but emphatic assertion of the fact-value divide made in the Policy Statement. Far from actually being fair, the statement is intended to provide justification for teaching naturalistic evolution as "fact" in an educational system that is ostensibly neutral toward matters of metaphysics. Educators may not compel "beliefs" but may certainly compel "knowledge," for the whole purpose of education is to make people more knowledgable. So long as naturalistic evolution is considered "knowledge" to be imparted without debate resistance to it is deemed to stem from ignorance.

Our Three--No, Four Main Weapons...

2009-03-05T16:33:00.000-08:00

I promised I'd get back to that comment about Marxism. Apparently biologists are fond of reading into biology their opinions as to socioeconomic theory. Convinced Marxists have found any number of biological illustrations of that philosophy, and committed capitalists likewise look to biology to substantiate their opinions. This probably reveals more about human psychology than anything else--our tendency to see what we want to see, a very important concept to keep in mind as we proceed.

Anyway, by the end of the controvery over the British Museum of Natural History's exhibit on Darwinism the consensus among the leading evolutionary biologists was that museums have no business telling the public about unsettled matters in science. This, it was supposed, would just confuse people. The role of a museum, instead, is to "educate" the nonscientist about prevailing "truth." In other words, a museum should be a propagator of received orthodoxy.

Under the barrage, the museum revamped its exhibit to toe the party line, while still trying to reassure visitors that evolution should not conflict with their religious beliefs. "Darwinists are very resentful if their theory is presented to the impressionable in a manner likely to encourage doubts...To Darwinists, teaching about evolution does not mean encouraging immature minds--or mature ones, for that matter--to think about unacceptable possibilities."

Lest the reader think this was an isolated incident that took place over a quater-century ago, consider the Dover (Pennsylvania) decision against intelligent design, the brouhaha over the creation museum in Kentucky, and the reception accorded the movie "Expelled" and the consequent tarring of the reputation of Ben Stein such that he has become persona non grata on some university campuses. You say you didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition? Well, no one does, but their fanatical devotion to materialistic naturalism has truly brought out the worst in some behaviors.

Orwell Was Off by Three Years

2009-03-04T16:41:00.000-08:00

As a centennial celebration in 1981, the British Museum of Natural History opened a new exhibit on Darwinism that was remarkably open-minded as to the established nature of Darwinian evolution. It pointed out that Darwinism is not strictly science because the theory depends on logical deduction rather than direct observation and experimentation. It challenged certain "verities" of evolution such as the inclusion of Homo erectus in modern man's chain of descent. The upshot of the exhibit was to acknowledge the importance of Darwinism while leaving open the matter of its certainty.

In order to understand what happened next, we have to become acquainted with the concept of cladism. This is a theory of biological classification that assumes no species can be identified as the direct ancestor of another species. Obviously, this directly challenges one of the main tenets of Darwinism as usually formulated, that of common ancestry. Even so, the theory caught on in several circles (including museums and textbooks). Critics of the BMNH exhibit accused the organizers of being cladists, complaining that cladist literature is full of derogatory statements about stalwarts of Darwinism such as Mayr, Simpson, and even Darwin himself.

So, it comes as no surprise that once the news got out about the museum's new approach to evolution some leading biologists in the United Kingdom had conniptions. One of the fiercest critics, L. B. Halstead, went so far as to accuse the organizers of being Marxists [hold that thought]. The main bone of contention seems to have been that the museum had aired dirty laundry--it had publicized doubts about Darwinism discussed up until then only in professional circles. The controversy also revealed that scientific opinion on the matter of Darwinism was not by any means uniform. A lengthy argument-by-correspondence ensued in the pages of Britain's premier journal of science, Nature. The editors of Nature also weighed in repeatedly with editorials that attempted to nuance the discussion. One leading article bore the title, "How True Is the Theory of Evolution?" that itself touched off a storm of criticism by implying that Darwinism is actually a metaphysical (philosophical) system sustained partly by faith.

Faith?! Anything but that!

Praise Charles from Whom All Blessings Flow

2009-03-02T16:22:00.000-08:00

In several recent instances, attempting to marry science to some form of philosophy or religion other than biblical Christianity has received cautious support (more enthusiastic in some circles than others). I recall the brief popularity of such books as The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu-Li Masters, both written by Westerners trying to tie together Eastern mysticism and quantum mechanics. Eastern philosophies in general have been particularly attractive in this regard as they are commonly enountered in the West in the New Age movement. One early proponent of this approach was the heterodox Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He tried to refound or re-establish Christianity on evolution. He called evolution the "light which illumines all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."

When one appreciates that Darwinian evolution represents a worldview to its adherents one can see how readily it becomes a sort of religion, for at basis a religion provides an all-encompassing explanation for reality and man's part in it. All the necessary components are here--Darwinism even has a creation story! Darwinism's great "gospel" is the liberation of mankind from an all-controlling deity to whom we are responsible. Its apostles and evangelists are out to make sure that the public is delivered from all sorts of falsehood and mistaken belief, for it is only science that can lead us into a better future.

The Gospel According to Darwin

2009-03-01T18:11:00.000-08:00

Dr. Frank Press, at one time president of the National Academy of Sciences, objected to the idea that there is "an irreconcilable conflict between religion and science." He further observed, "A great many religious leaders accept evolution on scientific grounds without relinquishing their belief in religious principles. As stated in a resolution by the Council of the National Academy of Sciences in 1981, however, 'Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief.'"

Stephen Jay Gould, late champion of evolutionary biology and its great interpreter to the lay public, thought that there could be no conflict between science and religion because there is no intersection between them, properly conceived. "Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of the earth. Honorable and discerning scientists (most of us, I trust) have always understood that the limits to what science can answer also describe the power of its methods in their proper domain. Darwin himself exclaimed that science couldn't touch the problem of evil and similar moral conundrums: 'A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.'"

Were these men being disingenous, or did they really think they were accurately describing how materialistic naturalists view the respective value of science and religion? After all, as we have clearly seen, the one is equated with rationality and the other with irrationality. William Provine of Cornell University, an historian of science and an avowed atheist, is quite emphatic that the conflict between religion and science is inescapable. He considered Press's statement "politic but intellectually dishonest." In other words, Provine thought Press was telling us poor benighted believers in religion what we want to hear even though Press knew better.

Scientific naturalists do not accord science and religion equal status. The former is objective and based on fact and the latter is subjective and a matter of personal opinion, or so goes the mindset. The two are in separate realms, and to this point Dr. Gould was refreshingly honest. A rational person will, of course, always prefer what is real and objective to what is subjective whenever possible. Therefore there will be no ultimate conflict between science and religion, for science will always win out. What rational person would ever want to be thought irrational?

It's Evidence Only If I Say So

2009-02-28T13:21:00.000-08:00

Is "science" really synonymous for "reality?" The mindset we have been examining treats science as definitionally equivalent to truth/fact and non-science (or perhaps "non-sense") as equivalent to preference or value. This is a prevailing view in contemporary Western society, recently put on display by apologists for the current US administration. Hold onto this thought, and also to this one: "To scientific naturalists the notion that there could be a reality outside of science is literally unthinkable."

Thomas Kuhn developed a paradigm model of science, an explanation of how science progresses that reminds one of saltationism. "Normal science" prevails most of the time, but gets interrupted or reset by occasional revolutions or "paradigm shifts." A paradigm, of course, is a way of looking at reality, a worldview or perspective or interpretative lens by which one sees and interacts with the world. Scientists, being humans, operate according to a set of values or principles or "ground rules" that influence the way they perceive reality. So long as a particular paradigm holds sway it dictates the approach to doing science. It becomes a form of "groupthink" that actually enhances the ability of scientists to communicate and collaborate. But this often means that phenomena that do not fit the paradigm are not seen or ignored because they are not being looked for. One sees what one knows or recognizes. Adherents to paradigms are typically conservative (not necessarily in the political sense), unwilling to suffer challenges to the paradigm and willing to defend it even at substantial cost. Only when the "crisis"--the overwhelming accumulation of observations contrary to the prevailing paradigm--occurs can they get past their loyalty to the old paradigm. But no matter what there must be a paradigm. "To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself." This is what puts evolutionary biologists in a quandary. To them, there is no alternative to the naturalistic explanation they have devised for the development of life on earth. According to their paradigm, it is true and cannot be seen as otherwise. The questions for all of us, scientists and others, are whether they are right and whether they properly may control the public discussion of these matters as they currently do.

An Irrepressible Conflict?

2009-02-27T16:55:00.000-08:00

According to Judge Overton, science (evolution) and religion (creation) are not opposed. He was quite indignant that anyone would suggest that the two, properly understood, are in final conflict. He was also quite mistaken in what he thought the evolutionists believe.

George Gaylord Simpson disagreed with the judge. In his The Meaning of Evolution, he wrote: "Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic, or, in a proper sense of the sometimes abused word, materialistic factors. They are readily explicable on the basis of differential reproduction in populations (the main factor in the modern conception of natural selection) and of the mainly random interplay of the known processes of heredity...Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." In further elaboration, he added, "There is neither need nor excuse for postulation of nonmaterial intervention in the origin of life, the rise of man, or any other part of the long history of the material cosmos. Yet the origin of that cosmos and the causal principles of its history remain unexplained and inaccessible to science. Here is hidden the First Cause sought by theology and philosophy. The First Cause is not known and I suspect it will never be known to living man. We may, if we are so inclined, to worship it in our own ways, but we certainly do not comprehend it." There is no room for God in Simpson's thinking, or if there is it is only for an eternally hidden, uninvolved god who may not be known by "his" creatures. How there is no conflict between this view and Christianity is beyond understanding.

Simpson's view is not merely a personal or a minority opinion. It may often get blurred or even covered over, but Simpson's words accurately reflect the thoughts of the scientific establishment. Naturalism--that worldview that posits the material universe is all that is, has been, or ever shall be--is the philosophical basis for Darwinism. The first two of Judge Overton's "rules" express this. "Natural law" should be understood as referring to the physical laws of nature and not the philosophical and legal idea pertaining to human rights and related concepts.

There is also a commitment to empiricism, as demonstrated in the last three of the judge's "rules." Empiricism is the philosophy that all truth is discerned by observation, that it is gleaned through the senses. It is not the same thing as naturalism and many are confused on this point. In fact, these two tenets of Darwinism are in conflict, for all the claims made by naturalism cannot be empirically verified. More to the point, empiricism itself cannot be empirically verified, making it self-referentially absurd. As it happens, the commitment to naturalism is prior to the commitment to empiricism; if it were the other way around, the theory of evolution would be confined solely to statements about microevolution, which can be observed. No one has ever witnessed macroevolution.

Judge Overton Explains It All for You

2009-02-26T16:39:00.000-08:00

In 1981 the Arkansas state legislature passed a law that required the state public schools to teach "creation science" and "evolution science" in a balanced manner. It was immediately challenged. Poorly written, the law was dead on arrival in court. Michael Ruse, a Darwinist philosopher of science, provided key testimony that the presiding judge, William Overton, drew upon when writing his decision.

The results of this "collaboration" were a definition of science put forward by Judge Overton and a set of rules he termed the "essential characteristics" of science. Firstly, he stated that science is that which is "accepted by the scientific community." So the problems begin right at the start. Truth is to be determined by the preferences of a community. Overton elaborated with his five essentials:

1. Science is guided by natural law.

2. All phenomena are explanatory by natural law.

3. Ideas are testable against the empirical world.

4. Conclusions are held tentatively.

5. All scientific statements are falsifiable.

Other philosophers of science were not happy with the details of the decision and several of Judge Overton's "rules" are fundamentally flawed. Scientists are not in the least tentative about their basic commitments to evolution as we have seen, commitments that are themselves not subject to empirical investigation--how do you prove empirically that ideas must be testable against the empirical world? Advocates of "creation science" do make several claims about their theory that are truly falsifiable, so why should they be excluded on this criterion? How can they be declared false and yet unfalsifiable at the same time? Sad to say, though, the scientific community at large was quite delighted with the decision and it was published in toto in the journal Science, demonstrating that scientists may be expert geologists or zoologists but are often lousy philosophers.

Grasping at Straws

2009-02-25T16:13:00.000-08:00

Yesterday we spoke of attempts to propose a naturalistic mechanism by which early proto-biochemicals might have come about. The harsh reality of the matter is that geologists now strongly doubt the early atmosphere had the composition required by the model that reigned in the 20th century. Biochemists now believe that the putative prebiotic soup would have been chemically unstable and could not have existed in the form proposed. But even if the right chemicals were at one point congregated in a concentrated environment, how do we get from that condition to life? There is simply no evidence that concentrations of amino acids and nucleic acids will spontaneously organize and interact. Astronomer Fred Hoyle once famously remarked that this was somewhat akin to a tornado running through a junkyard constructing a working jetliner.

DNA, RNA, and the myriads of necessary proteins are interdependent. No convincing explanation has ever accounted for life starting with these materials independently. Some have advocated a "naked gene" composed of RNA; others champion the proteins; others have touted an initial inorganic organization formed from clay crystals acting as a template upon which organic molecules organizes themselves and then "took over." A lot of effort has gone into creating laboratory and computer models, but so far all these offer is insight into how a designer might have worked.

Although subsequently explained away by embarrassed colleagues, the quandary of the molecular origin of life has provoked wild speculation on the part of some very famous people, to the degree that some have advocated the idea that aliens seeded the earth with life. What are we to make of a science that has come to this end? It simply refuses to admit the bankruptcy of its basic assumptions. Faced with the irreducible complexity of life and the appearance of design, its acolytes invariably look the other way. Why? That's our next topic.

Better Living Through Chemistry

2009-02-24T16:23:00.000-08:00

The next problem to confront us is the explanation of how the present molecular complexity came to be in the first place. Although occasionally evolutionists will protest that their theory applies only to the study of changes in life once it has appeared, the exclusively materialistic nature of the theory demands a natural explanation for life's origins as well as its progress.

So what came before the cell? Charles Darwin had a thought on this question: "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could never have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." He wrote that in 1871. Little has changed in 140 years.

We are actually less close to a naturalistic answer now than we were sixty years ago. And before that, in the 1920s biologists Alexander Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane proposed a theoretical model of life that (in brief) had four postulates:

1) The atmosphere of early earth was made up of reducing gases, with little or no free oxygen.

2) Into this atmosphere entered various forms of energy, such as lightning.

3) Essential organic compounds, formed by the interaction of energy with pre-organic chemicals, accumulated in pools.

4) From this hot prebiotic soup life emerged.

A famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller in the early 1950s seemed to corroborate this model. At least, obligatory pictures of the Miller-Urey experiment grace practically every biology textbook, so it must have been a slam-dunk proof, right?

Maybe not.

Momma's Boy

2009-02-23T15:26:00.000-08:00

Using our favorite examples of the bat and whale, consider what happened according to the Darwinian scheme following the original split from the putative common ancestor of mammals, the reptiles. A sequence of conserved changes eventuated in the animals we know today. The experiences of the two evolutionary sequences would have become more and more disparate as the divergence progressed. Yet when the molecular evidence is consulted--the types of enzyme cytochrome c found in homologous structures, for example--changes have occurred at roughly the same rate and they are chemically equidistant from comparison molecules in any modern reptile. But if these molecular mutations have been occurring regularly without regard to environmental pressures (in contrast to the prevailing view of natural selection), what is the implication for Darwinism? This "molecular clock" concept forms the central idea in a theory known as the neutral theory of molecular evolution. The "neutral" part refers to molecular changes that have no impact upon functionality, such as the variations in cytochrome c. It is a neat way to account for the heterogeneity found in organisms, greater than would be expected by selection and it acutally improves the explanatory power of Darwinism. A specific example of how the idea of the molecular clock has been put to use is the recent theory that all humans now living are the descendants from one woman who lived in Africa less than 200 million years ago--the so-called "mitochondrial Eve," because the studies that led to this conclusion were done on mitochondrial DNA, which is conserved as it is passed through the maternal line [mitochondria are self-replicating organelles within eukaryotic cells that are present in the ovum but lacking in the head of the sperm that fertilizes--hence all the mitochondria in my body came from my mother, and all the mitochondrial DNA is passed through the generations through the maternal line]. This has caused some controversy between the molecular anthropologists and the fossil-based anthropologists, as their sequences of descent don't agree.

All of this would seem quite impressive, and it certainly can be daunting to the inexperienced, but at basis it simply distracts attention from the fact that the molecular clock hypothesis assumes the truth of the common ancestry thesis that it is supposed to confirm. It is a technically sophisticated restatement of the argument from classification and relationships.

So we are back to our tautologies. Evolution is true by definition. But the molecular evidence to which scientists appeal has not provided the necessary transitional forms to create links to purported common ancestors and there remains no corroboration that natural selection actually has the power to conserve and aggregate the types of changes required to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. Indeed, the molecular evidence has only added to the burden of unexplained complexity.

Looks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck...

2009-02-22T11:04:00.000-08:00

The revolution in molecular biology over the past sixty years now permits examination of the biochemical constituents of life to a high degree of detail. It has been possible for many years now to determine the precise make-up of many important proteins and nucleic acids, such that the specific types of these molecules that occur in different species may be compared and degrees of divergence quantified.

Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there appear to be several genetic pathways to the same end. For example, most species of frog look essentially the same but their molecules differ as much from one another as do the molecules of the various mammalian families. Hence the relationship between phenotype and genotype is not as straightforward as it once seemed.

Much has been made of the high degree of convergence seen in the genomes of chimpanzees and humans. By some estimates, chimps are more closely related genetically to humans than to other sub-human primates, with up to 99% genetic convergence. Yet would anyone ever mistake a chimpanzee for a human being? The information contained within the DNA sequences and subsequently expressed must differ radically in order to account for the distinct and undeniable differences in phenotype. This point seems lost on some Darwinian biologists, who claim that "where it counts" the higher primates are nearly identical. The use of that phrase "where it counts" betrays a great deal of unspoken philosophy. At best, the genetic data corroborate the system of classification of Linnaeus; they do not confirm Darwin's theory of how these organisms came to be in the first place.

Recall that the key problem with the fossil record is the near-absence of the all-important transitional forms. Cellular chemistry also lacks the kind of consistent progression the Darwinist should expect to see from his theory. Studies of cytochrome c show a divergence range of 64-66% among animals as compared to a species of bacteria. Organisms as diverse as silkworms and kangaroos and humans therefore exhibit about the same degree of divergence from bacteria with no evidence of any intermediate forms. To take another, even more fundamental example: All living organisms used to be classified as either prokaryotes (no true nucleus--the bacteria) or eukaryotes (a nucleus contained within a membrane--the plants and animals). Based on recent RNA studies, it appears there are actually two distinct forms of bacteria, now renamed eubacteria and archaebacteria, that are so radically different from each other that they can have no common origin. This leaves us with three disparate kingdoms that cannot have a common ancestor, yet the Darwinist insists that they must, otherwise did life arise spontaneously not just once but three times?

Is That on the Map, George?

2009-02-21T10:11:00.000-08:00

A quick survey of covered ground, just to make sure we're all on the same page.

1) Biological relationships necessitate common ancestry, per Darwinism. Descent with modification. Accordingly, the theory demands continuity between species, as illustrated by our discussion of vertebrate sequences this week.

2) The problem of discontinuity. As has been pointed out repeatedly, neither the existing order of living organisms nor the fossil record corroborates the idea of descent from common ancestors with modification--the intermediary transitional forms are scanty and inconclusive, not robustly present with a clear line of descent.

3) The relationship of phenotype to genotype. Natural selection favors the organisms whose characteristics best allow them to compete and reproduce. These are physical characteristics, but ultimately it is not these specific characteristics upon which natural selection works but the genes that specify or direct these physical traits. In other words, the phenotype is produced by the genotype, with the help of the environment.

Keep that last sentence in mind as we go forward.

Lancelot Links?

2009-02-20T16:18:00.000-08:00

Picking up where we left off...

4) Reptiles to birds. One of the most famous fossils in existence is that of so-called Archaeopteryx, a bird-like creature believed to be about 145 million years old. It has numerous skeletal features suggesting a close kinship to a certain dinosaur species. Its discovery shortly after the publication of Origin helped convince a number of former skeptics and discredit nay-sayers. Analysis of Archaeopteryx indicates that it is best considered as a possible bird ancestor, not a definite one. Nevertheless, it is one of Darwinism's strongest bits of evidence, even in isolation--but it is not very good science to base an entire theory on one data point.

5) Apes to humans. As of the late 1980s there were five putative hominid species: Australopithicus afarensis, A. africanus, Homo habilis, H. erectus, and H. sapiens. But is the fossil record really all that secure? Physical anthropology is one of the most subjective of all investigative fields. It is all too easy to read volumes into the scanty evidence. If one is looking for human ancestors, it is easy to get quite inventive about finding them. There is enormous professional pressure to establish this important concept in evolutionary biology, pressures that sometimes lead to spectacular frauds, such as Piltdown man, covered up by the British Museum for forty years. At this point, the fossil records provide at best some plausible candidates as ancestral forms of modern humans, but they are far from establishing certainty after nearly 150 years of enthusiastic investigation. In fact, the overall testimony of the fossil record is so against the prevailing Darwinian theory of evolution that Darwinists have been forced to look elsewhere for corroboration. Lately they have turned to molecular biology, to which we will turn next.

The Vertebrate Sequence: Sufficient Proof?

2009-02-19T16:47:00.000-08:00

All of the following sequences are accepted parts of evolutionary biology. Yet, as earlier remarked, the truth of evolution is assumed or defined into truth by the terms and presuppositions utilized (apparently unthinkingly). The challenge to evolutionists is to prove the sequences are valid without first assuming the truth of what they are trying to prove.

Gareth Nelson, he of the American Museum of Natural History, observed: "'We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those.' Why? 'Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.' That's by and large the way it has worked. I'm not exaggerating."

1) Fish to amphibians. Supposedly a fish species developed the ability to escape the water and survive on land, along with all the other peculiar properties of amphibians (whose reproductive systems differ considerablly from known fishes). Certain ancestral fish species have been proposed as this possible amphibian predecessor. One such species, thought to have been long extinct, was discovered in the Indian Ocean several years ago. When investigated, it proved inadequate to the task of being a frog's great-nth grandfather.

2) Amphibians to reptiles. No satisfactory candidates exist as yet to corroborate this putative link. One of the problems is that the main differences between amphibians and reptiles is in their soft parts, which are destroyed during fossilization.

3) Reptiles to mammals. The existence of a mammal-like reptile is the best example available to the evolutionary biologist: the order Therapsida, of which there are many fossil examples consisting of skeletal structures that appear to be intermediary between reptiles and mammals. The problem is--as already established above--the skeletal similarities are insufficient to confirm a definite link, and so far biologists have been unable to demonstrate a firm line of descent from the therapsids to mammals. The therapsid fossil evidence may actually create more difficulties for evolutionists trying to hold onto the idea of common ancestry.

We'll look at reptiles/birds and apes/humans tomorrow.