|
razzendahcuben
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Keith
Birthday: 12/18/1984
Gender: Male
Interests: Day-dreaming, reading, writing, satire, programming, dancing, biking, outdoors, missions, gaming, the Bible, apologetics, epistemology, drawing, debating
Expertise: Dry humor, being introverted, perfecting the Socratic method.
Occupation: Student
Industry: Engineering
Message: message meEmail: email me
Website: visit my website
AIM:  r4zz3nd4hcub3n
Member Since:
8/29/2005
|
|
| The Fact That Evolution Is Wrong Has Nothing To Do With Science
Rather, it is an epistemological issue. (Epistemology is the branch of
philosophy that deals with the origin and limits of knowledge and
basically asks, "What do we know and how do we know it?") The fact that evolution is wrong has nothing to do with science and everything to do with what God has clearly revealed in His word. Unfortunately, many well-intentioned creationists use science as their justification when rejecting evolution. This is the result of a misunderstanding of the philosophy behind science, especially historical science. To correct this thinking we must begin with a study of presuppositions and the paradigms they create.
Evolutionists
argue for evolution by interpreting data through a framework that
presupposes that evolution is true. They accept evolution presuppositionally because evolution is a deduction from their naturalistic worldview. They do not neutrally examine scientific facts
and then neutrally arrive at the conclusion that evolution is true. Rather, evolutionists are biased. When they
consider events of history (events to which they were not a witness)
they must presuppose certain things about history that conform to their naturalistic presuppositions.[1] In the
case of evolution, one must presuppose that the earth is very old and
that species can undergo information-increasing mutations. More
importantly, however, evolutionists presuppose that a literal
interpretation of the book of Genesis is false. Thus their primary presupposition is the autonomy of man and the falsity or unreliability of biblical revelation.
Indeed, James Hutton, the pioneer of uniformitarianism (the necessary prerequisite for evolution) showed little objectivity in his geologic observations when he said, "the past history of our globe must be explained
by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be
employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted
except those of which we know the principle."[2] Hence his commitment to uniformitarianism assumed the falsity of a literal interpretation of Genesis. Hutton presupposed the truth of uniformitarianism and then carried that bias into the field with him. His results, of course, always cohered to his bias.
And here is the famous quote by Richard Lewontin:
We take the side of science in
spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite
of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,
in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to
accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary,
that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to
create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to
the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot
allow a Divine Foot in the door.[3]
Likewise,
creationists interpret evidence through a framework that presupposes
that the Bible is true. Both sides beg the question. The
evolutionists begin their reasoning with the falsity of Genesis and
creationists begin their reasoning with the truth of Genesis. When a
creationist interprets scientific evidence it always comes out as matching the creationist paradigm, and the same with the evolutionist.
Whether gaps exist in the models of either side is irrelevant. Indeed, it is an argument from ignorance to say that an entire paradigm is wrong because a model existing within that paradigm has a hole in it. This may be confusing, so perhaps it is best to differentiate between ultimate paradigms and contingent paradigms. An ultimate paradigm accords with one's ultimate presuppositions (hence one might call it a "worldview"). For example, the biblical creationist's ultimate paradigm will always cohere to the fact that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. Why? Because the Bible says that the earth is approximately 6000 years old, and our presupposition that the Bible is the revealed word of a God who cannot lie takes precedence over any other presupposition. A contingent paradigm, however, is constructed from scientific evidence that is interpreted within the ultimate paradigm. This scientific evidence can never contradict the ultimate paradigm—if it did then the ultimate paradigm would not be ultimate after all! However, new scientific evidence can lead to the development of new contingent paradigms which then replace old contingent paradigms. This, of course, is the nature of scientific inquiry: new scientific discoveries lead to the modification, replacement, or abandonment of old theories or models.[4] But while new scientific findings might change current contingent paradigms they will never change the ultimate paradigm.
Perhaps a skillfully produced visual aid would benefit your understanding of this concept:
The line creating the circle of the ultimate paradigm is bold and without holes to represent the certainty with which the subscriber believes his ultimate presuppositions. (All ultimate presuppositions are held with certainty Within this ultimate paradigm are all contingent paradigms. These sub-paradigms are dependent on the ultimate paradigm and could not exist without it. The lines of the contingent paradigms are thinner and contain holes, which represents the uncertainty of these imperfect (flawed) models.
The key point in all of this is that one cannot use science to prove or disprove creationism or evolution. To take evidence interpreted in one paradigm and use it to refute another paradigm begs the question. And yet creationists and evolutionists try to refute each other all the time with statements like, "You're ignoring the evidence!" or "Just look at the facts!" What they are really saying is, "You're ignoring the evidence interpreted within my paradigm!" But when stated this way, the "refutation" becomes ridiculous: of course I refuse the evidence interpreted in your paradigm as a refutation of my paradigm! I don't accept your paradigm! Until one understands the presuppositional nature of science, however, the obvious weakness of these arguments is latent.
Concerning gaps (holes) in one's scientific model, I find it interesting that evolutionists enjoy pointing out that creationist models have holes when in actuality it is this argument that they loathe. That is, they loathe it when Intelligent Design theorists use it against them! Indeed, to say that creationism (a core tenet of the Christian's ultimate paradigm) is false because a certain creation model is flawed is nothing more than an argument from ignorance: "Person S can't explain X, therefore X is wrong." But as the evolutionists point out when dealing with ID theorists (who use what the evolutionists call a "God of the gaps" argument), a lack of answers is not a call to abandonment but a call to research. Such is the power of biases—for better or for worse. Of course, in the case of the evolutionist, this bias is for worse: he continues down a trail that will never lead to a true understanding of man's ancestry. Sadly, the further one travels one trail the more likely he is to ignore the other trails. This is human nature: we do not like to think that all of our work in one area was in vain. And so we stubbornly push further and get lost all the more.
Concerning the validity of one's ultimate paradigm (evolution or creationism), the question then is not "Who has the best scientific evidence?" Both paradigms contain models built on scientific evidences, but the ultimate paradigms themselves cannot be tested by science. (Although the evolutionist might falsely think so.) Scientific evidence cannot test the metaphysical presuppositions on which all ultimate paradigms are built. For example, the Bible says that God
created the Heavens and the earth. Science cannot prove or disprove
this because the scientific method cannot test God's creative
abilities. Likewise, evolutionary naturalists can't prove naturalism
using science because science cannot test the proposition, "The cosmos
is all there is, or was, or ever will be." (Paraphrasing Carl Sagan.)
Furthermore, science cannot prove or disprove anything at all if we are to define "proof" in an epistemologically responsible manner. "Proof" implies concreteness and certainty. Science only yields probability since all scientific results are inductive inferences. Why say that science yields proof, then? If science yields proof then why do science textbooks change every five years? Why are deeply entrenched scientific beliefs overthrown every decade? Who are we kidding by calling science a means of proving anything?[5]
Furthermore,
the question is also not, "Who has the most coherent evidence?" This is
a good question within the scientific models (contingent paradigms) but not when the validity
of the entire framework (creationism or evolution) is under question. For example, many
evolutionists argue over how the dinosaurs became exinct. Some adhere to the K-T theory, others adhere to a climate change theory, and so on.
Whether the evidence coheres to one of these models within the
evolutionary scientific models is a valid question. Now compare this to the
creation versus evolution issue as a whole. I already explained how
these involve presuppositions that cannot be provided or verified by
science, therefore it is silly to use a test of coherence (using
scientific evidence) to verify one and disprove the other.
Boiling it all down, the creationism versus evolution issue, then, has nothing to do with science. That angers many of you—I know. It even angered me for a while. My initial reaction was to cry out, "Then what is the point of science?" But this is a
ridiculous question, really. Why would science be useless just because
it cannot test worldviews? Can man not still explore the creation with
science? Can we not test different scientific theories within our framework using science? Can we not correct others who think that science does not affirm our models? Of course we can. Presuppositionalism simply puts science
in its rightful place. Ultimately the aforementioned question says more about our society's simple-mindedness than anything else: if something doesn't serve us in the way we think it should then it is useless. It is akin to saying, "My parents won't buy me a new car, therefore my parents are useless."
So what is the question? Good question! The question is simply this: Which ultimate paradigm is correct?
Both ultimate paradigms are built upon what I call "ultimate presuppositions"—that is, presuppositions that are held with more certainty and steadfastness than all other beliefs in one's worldview. They are the starting points for all the reasoning in one's worldview. Therefore, to know which ultimate paradigm is correct we must know what ultimate presuppositions are correct. Let's see what these ultimate presuppositions are and then compare them.
- The creationist believes that God has revealed Himself to mankind and cannot lie. In His revealed word, known as the Bible, we can examine genealogies to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. We also read in Genesis 1-12 of the Garden of Eden, the Fall, Noah's Flood, and the Tower of Babel. Studying the implications of such events can lead us to very precise views on biology, geology, astronomy, and anthropology. Furthermore, nothing in the grammar or context of Genesis 1-12 suggests anything other than a literal interpretation of the events mentioned.[6] Moses wrote Genesis 1-50 as history. Also, Christ believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis (Matt. 19:4), as did Peter (2 Pet. 3:5-6) and Paul (Rom. 5:12-14).
- The evolutionist is either ignorant of Genesis or rejects a literal interpretation of it. He rejects a literal interpretation of it for one of two reasons.
- If he is a non-Christian, he rejects God's word and God's authority as a whole. Consequently, his epistemology is usually based upon man's use of science and logic (positivism).
- If he is a Christian, he believes that science can interpret God's word, hence man is still the authority (in scientific matters, anyway).
If we presuppose that God has revealed Himself, cannot lie, and has created man's mind in such a way that it can comprehend revelation, then we can know the history of the earth if God has revealed it to us. And, indeed, He has! Many compromisers ask, "Why couldn't God have created the universe 14.5 billion years ago?" As Ken Ham says, "It's not a matter of what God could have done, but what He said He did." And God said that He created the heavens and the earth, as well as man, approximately 6,000 years ago. Hence the earth is young because God says so.
Furthermore, since God created the earth and its inhabitants ~6,000 years ago and deluged it ~4,500 years ago we can expect all good science to affirm these facts. Concomitantly, any science that affirms a non-biblical view of the earth's history can be considered bad science. Scientists of both paradigms are biased, but only the proponents of the creationist paradigm have the correct bias.
Now let's consider the first evolutionist presupposition: man is the authority. If this is the case, we must first ask, Which man? Or what group of men? And so subjectivity sets in. Worse yet, men make mistakes and often believe things out dogmatically for selfish reasons (see Rom. 1). And so fallibility sets in. The final arbiter of truth for the non-Christian evolutionist, then, is subjective and fallible. Does the non-Christian have a means by which he can objectively test whether his beliefs are true? No. Scientific investigation is limited to the physical world and thus cannot test epistemologies, is inductive and thus can yield only probability, is biased because it is performed by biased individuals (hence a begging of the question), and presupposes that Christianity is true, anyway.
The second evolutionist presupposition falls prey to everything I've set forth in this paper. This science that the Christian compromiser will use to interpret scripture—under what paradigm will this scientific evidence be interpreted? A paradigm that presupposes that God did not reveal that the earth is young? But whether this is presupposition is the one to use when interpreting scientific evidence is precisely the question! Of course, the Christian compromiser invariably borrows from the non-Christian worldview by accepting secular science as an authority above scripture.[7] While I believe that a person in this position can still be a Christian, he is deeply at odds with himself: on the one hand He accepts man as the authority and on the other hand he accepts revelation as the authority.[8] As Christ says in Mark 3:25, "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
Hence any ultimate presupposition extolling man as the authority will reduce to absurdity. Perhaps the Christian compromiser is annoyed by the idea of God being Lord over everything, even our interpretations of scientific evidence. As Christians, however, we must remember the simple truth that "if He's not Lord of all then He's not Lord at all."
In conclusion, science is no means of resolving the evolution versus creationism debate because any scientific endeavor towards such an end will always beg the question. The fundamental questions behind this debate are epistemological, not scientific. The most fundamental question is simply, Who determines what is true—God or man? This is a question that everyone must answer, for better or for worse. Those who answer correctly will go to God as the final word on the origins debate. We know that God created the cosmos in recent history because He revealed this truth through His infallible word. Those who answer falsely will presuppose the falsity of God's word and the supremacy of man as the final arbiter of truth. Evolution and uniformitarianism are consequences of these false presuppositions and therefore are wrong.
Footnotes
[1] Thus a distinction must be made between operational science and historical science. Historical science involves investigation into past events and therefore must include assumptions about the past. See this for more explanation.
[2] "Hutton's a priori commitment to materialism," http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Tools/Quotes/hutton.asp
[3] "Amazing admission," http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/admission.asp
[4] Here I pay homage to my manufacturing and finance textbook: Engineering Economy and the Decision-Making Process by Joseph C. Hartman. See pages 12-13.
[5] This opens up a discussion on how we can prove
something. I would argue that proof is equivalent to knowledge, and
knowledge at the level of ultimate epistemological presuppositions can
only consist of strong knowledge of necessary truths.
[6] There is no precedence for interpreting Genesis in a
non-literal fashion unless one assumes beforehand that secular science can
interpret scripture. Hence this notion is a mere begging of the question.
[7] Many Christians, sadly, are embarrassed (at least amongst evolutionists) to take the word of God over the word of man.
[8] Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has offered poignant insight into this in his book Refuting Compromise. Sarfati points out that compromisers turn nature into a "67th book of the Bible" and place it alongside special revelation in terms of authority. But there is no scriptural basis for this. The proper biblical hermeneutic is concomitant with sola scriptura: "scripture interprets scripture," not "nature interprets scripture." After all, whose interpretation of scripture shall we use? The creationist's or the evolutionist's? And hence we're back to the beginning.
| | |
| Ron Paul: Hope For America!Some Thoughts On Current Presidential Candidates (And A Plug For Ron Paul)
I nearly gave up with regards to even caring about this election. Why? Well, let's be honest: voting Republican or Democrat is the difference between shame and horror.
On the one hand we have the RINOs (Republicans in name only)---spineless, charisma-less cowards who feel all too much like the typical press-the-flesh politicos that everyone is getting sick of. Well, I admit that some of them seemed to be true Republicans, but nevertheless they still lack that kind of charisma necessary to overcome the great blight in popularity currently experienced by the Republican party. And as Newt Gingrich has pointed out, the Republicans deserve this. They haven't been solid in their principles, but rather you have people like Giuliani and Romney who either have messy personal lives (something I'm sick of in the White House) or wishy-washy stances on serious issues. Well, I'm over-generalizing, but I am very serious when I say that no one at the forefront of the Republican primary stood out as worth fighting for.
And then we have the Democrats. Why merely call them liberals? They're flaming socialists, pure and simple. Socialism never worked in the past, its not working now, and its not going to work in the future. Socialism, of course, is built on the idea that man is innately good. Hence when someone is "under-privileged" (a term that may be applied to a lazy drunkard) it is society's fault. It is always society's fault, but never the individual's. The individual is good, remember? (You can see how this becomes a springboard for foolish ideas like universal healthcare.) And besides, we're evolving! We're transcending the wrongs of yesteryear and becoming better people as time progresses, thanks in part to science. I thought that WWI and WWII had blown a hole in this belief, nevertheless its still pervasive today. Globalism is also part and parcel with socialism, which is why the Democrats have no desire to solve the immigration problem (its not a problem to them), and will even allow a massive super-highway to be built from Mexico to Canada. And, of course, there is the obsession with one-world government through the UN and a hundred other anti-American organizations that would love to get in control of our country.
Yes, so all hope is lost. Until I learned about a man named Ron Paul. For a while he was merely a dark-horse candidate, but now he's gained tremendous support, especially over the internet. Ron Paul is a true Republican, I have come to find out. He is staunchly limited government to the point where he promises to put an end to the IRS and the 16th amendment. He wants to end our alliances with the anti-American trade organizations I just mentioned. He's not afraid to talk tough about health care, the economy, the 2nd amendment, abortion, and immigration. Furthermore, he's pro-values. Watching him debate is a beautiful thing. He is not wishy-washy at all in his principles and he has the voting record to prove it. Having served in Congress since the 1980's, he has more than ample experience. Before his time as a congressmen he served in the armed forces as a Flight Surgeon. He is a doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies. He and his wife have been married for 50 years. They are Baptist. (w00t!)
That's my kind of candidate!
But why is he so unpopular? Why do the major news outlets have no desire to give him any attention? Mainly due to his stance on the Iraq war: he voted against it and has made it clear that he wants to pull all of our troops out of interventionist exercises around the globe. This is where he differs so greatly from his other Republican counter-parts. As a result, he has earned a lot of flak from his colleagues as well as a lot of support from hyper-liberals like Bill Maher who hate Bush and the Iraq war so much that they praise Ron Paul's entire candidacy on this one issue. Personally, I find this anti-interventionist stance refreshing, although I am not as ardent as Paul is on these grounds.
Interestingly, his campaign slogan is, "Hope for America." Hope is exactly what Ron Paul has given. I've gone from caring very little---despairing, in fact---to caring a great deal about seeing this man elected. I plan on doing what I can to help his campaign, and I hope that those of you who are also sick of spineless, wishy-washy Republicans (as well as socialist Democrats) will do the same. He is still a dark horse candidate, and the media wants to keep him in this position. The Democrats know that he is a threat because he is eloquent, charismatic, and can easily cut through the socialist nonsense of Clinton and Obama. The establishment Republicans know that he is a threat because he is snatching up younger voters who are tired of Bush and the Iraq War. Since so many media outlets are trying to suppress him, he is still not well-known amongst the general populace. We need to change this.
Well, that's my plug for Ron Paul. Thank God for this man! Here are some good links:
Ron Paul basic information flyer
Ron Paul issues flyer
Ron Paul on YouTube (great videos!)
  | | |
| Fundamentalism is not modernismFew things annoy me more than seeing "postmodern Christians" label fundamentalists as modernists. The ignorance of such an accusation is almost surreal. Why? Because the exact opposite is true. Fundamentalism arose as a response to modernism! The two are diametrically opposed. The emergent church, however, has to "situate" fundamentalism in order to demolish it, therefore they conflate it with modernism simply because the two have some commonalities. But as I point out, these commonalities pale in comparison to their differences. In fact, it is postmodernism that is very similar theologically to modernism.
A Brief History of Fundamentalism
Modernism, at its heart, is an epistemology. It is a way of arriving at truth. Modernism began with Enlightenment thinking and Cartesian foundationalism. The epistemological commonality between these two is autonomous human reasoning---man can reason apart from God. Consequently, humanism is modernistic to the core, because humanism holds that man can solve all his problems through unaided reason alone.
This, of course, stands in stark contrast to God's word, which says that man's mind is corrupted and unable to arrive at a truth apart from God. Col. 2:3 and Prov. 1:7 say that knowledge is something that comes from God, it is not something that man generates in his mind on his own using nothing more than science and logic. Consequently, most modernists are scientific positivists of some sort.
Modernism became the source of some of the most brutal attacks against Christianity in the 17th and 18th centuries. Rationalism and empiricism, both modernistic epistemologies, were used to attack God as well as the Bible. This sort of thinking, predominant in Europe at the time, spread from the philosophy departments into the theology departments.
And so began the rise of liberal Christianity, which attacked core doctrines of the Bible. The earliest and most well-known attack from liberal modernists was the JDEP theory that challenged the historicity of the Pentateuch. Over time, Darwinian evolution became a staple in the arsenal against liberal modernists. They knew all too well the truth of Psalm 11:3---"if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
Irrationalists like Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard recognized the failure of modernist apologists (Christians who had adopted a modernistic epistemology) and attempted to save Christianity from this onslaught by reducing Christianity to a system of ethics or a non-propositional experience. This, they thought, would save Christianity. Of course, it did exactly the opposite. Christianity was gutted of any substance and thus began no more defensible than any other opinion of the day.
In the latter parts of the 1800's and early 1900's, liberal modernism began creeping into conservative seminaries and conservative churches. Those who rejected the Bible as authoritative quickly and happily picked up on modernism. The arguments they used to defend their version of Christianity are virtually identical to the arguments used today by the emergent church. Don't believe me? Read Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen.
Many Christians stood up and opposed the lies of modernism. To clarify their position, they adopted what became known as the "fundamentals of the faith." If you denied these, you were a modernist and could not rightfully call yourself a Christian. The "Five Fundamentals" are as follows:
1. Inerracy of scripture
2. Virgin birth of Christ
3. Bodily resurrection of Christ
4. Substitutionary atonement
5. Second Coming of Christ
Those who held onto these as fundamental to Christianity became known as... FUNDAMENTALISTS. And so it was the fundamentalists who opposed the modernists. The most well-known fundamentalists were Baptists and Presbyterians. The Presbyterians quickly formed their own denominations to safeguard against the humanistic, anti-biblical modernists.
Perhaps the most famous example is that of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), which was founded by conservative faculty from Princeton Theological Seminary. Princeton began heading in a modernist direction, leavings its biblical roots, and so the fundamentalists such as J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til left and founded the OPC as well as Westminster Theological Seminary. Both the OPC and WTS firmly stand against modernism to this day.
The PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) is another group of Presbyterians that split off due to modernism. Wikipedia quotes the PCA's offical web site, which says that it "separated from the PCUS in opposition to the long-developing theological liberalism which denied the deity of Jesus Christ and inerrancy and authority of Scripture."
Likewise, fundamentalist Baptists stand firmly against modernism to this day. You can read more about the history of Baptist fundamentalists and their opposition to theological liberalism (modernism) and neo-evangelicalism here.
Hopefully the ignorance of the emergent church with regards to history and the usage of the words "modernism" and "fundamentalism" is now clear. They think the two are the same when in fact they are completely opposite of one another. In fact, one grew out of a response to the other!
Biblical epistemology does not hold man as the authority, but God. This is at the heart of the issue. Most people do not realize, then, that modernism and postmodernism are brothers: both hold man and not God as the authority. The emergent church is really nothing more than old theological modernism wearing a different wig. The arguments of the emergent church and earlier "Christian modernists" are virtually identical.
Why is the emergent church and people like Brian McLaren so duped, then? Because they notice similarities between fundamentalism and modernism and then falsely equate the two. For example, modernists thought that they could reach certainty through rationalism. Fundamentalists say they can reach certainty through God's revelation. Emergents think, "Oh! They both think they have certainty! They must be the same, then." But this is nonsense. This is like saying that a car is an airplane just because they are both made of metal or they both carry passengers.
Rather, as I've pointed out, if you go to the HEART of these ideologies you will find that postmodernism and modernism are close cousins, and fundamentalism is a complete foreigner.
Further reading:
A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren
Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen
"The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy" at Wikipedia
"History of New-Evangelicalism" by David Cloud
| | |
| Correcting Serious Misunderstandings About Fundamentalism, Legalism, Judging, Love, and UnityCorrecting
Serious Misunderstandings About Fundamentalism, Legalism, Judging, Love, and
Unity
In the intellectual tradition
of many modernists and postmodernists before them, many who profess to be
Christians have all but tossed the Bible out the window when it comes to
spiritual matters. Instead of consulting God's revealed word to mankind,
they air their own opinions and vehemently attack those who do not share their
unscriptural bias. The result is emotional, hypocritical diatribes, such
as those witnessed in the comments of many of my posts. These screeds
usually include some form of the ultra-cliche insult against fundamentalists
that usually goes something like this: "Fundamentalists are unloving,
judgmental legalists." This attack actually contains several
misunderstandings: the proponents of this view do not understand Christian
fundamentalism, biblical judgment, biblical love (or at least what it implies),
biblical unity, or legalism.
What is Christian fundamentalism?
Christian fundamentalism often takes heat merely because it contains the word
"fundamentalist"—something that is associated today with
radical Muslims. (The "radical" Muslims, incidentally, are
actually quite consistent with the teachings of the Koran, therefore it is
strange that we would call them "radical.") In reality,
however, fundamentalism is a label applied to a movement in the early 1900's
during which Bible-believing evangelicals separated from the liberal
modernists. The split occurred over the "fundamentals" of the
faith:
1. Inerracy of scripture
2. Virgin birth of Christ
3. Bodily resurrection of Christ
4. Substitutionary atonement
5. Second Coming of Christ
These Fundamentals were not intended to be a list of ALL of the most important
doctrines (although one can see that they are very important), but rather a
list of key doctrines under fire by Darwinism, German higher criticism, and
liberalism. These three groups attacked the Fundamentals mainly on
scientific grounds, being heavily influenced by modernistic Enlightenment
thinking. Those who held to the Fundamentals were called
"fundamentalists." Therefore, a fundamentalist is simply one
who holds to the above doctrines. I should also mention that
fundamentalists differ from other evangelicals over the issue of separation.
These non-separatist evangelicals were willing to remain in liberal seminaries
and tolerate the liberalism of their professors.
Although the tension between these two groups was long in the making, the
definitive moment (in my opinion) came in the late 1920's when the last
prominent theologically conservative seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary,
fell to modernism. The split resulted in the formation of a new school:
Westminster Theological Seminary, which became a bastion for fundamentalism,
including such professors as J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til.
Machen wrote the renowned book Christianity and Liberalism, which is a
tour de force against theological liberalism and still incredibly applicable
today.
What is legalism?
Legalism is, quite simply, works-based salvation. The Pharisees of the
New Testament were considered legalists because they believed they were
righteous not on the basis of God's work but on the basis of their work.
Hence they focused obsessively on conforming to rules and regulations,
especially ceremonial ones. They came under harsh condemnation from
Christ and from Paul due not only to their false soteriology but their severe
hypocrisy:
13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither
go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you
devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will
receive greater condemnation.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For
you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him
twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
-Matthew 23:13-15
Also, in Galatians 2, Paul attacks Peter for playing the hypocrite with the
Jews and not presenting the true gospel: that circumcision is not a means of
righteousness, but rather "man is not justified by the works of the law
but by faith in Jesus Christ."
This correct view of legalism stands in stark contrast to the deceptive view of
legalism that liberals have foisted upon fundamentalists. Liberals or
"easy going" (a.k.a. carnal) Christians think that legalism is mere
obedience to the Bible's commands. Therefore, when someone points out
their disobedience, they cry out "legalist!" as a perjorative.
Christ did not view obedience as legalism, however. Instead, He said very
plainly, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." These commandments
include ALL New Testament commandments, not just loving one's neighbor.
Indeed, loving one's neighbor is simply a summary of ALL the other
commandments.
What is judging?
Undoubtedly the most commonly misinterpreted verse in the New Testament is
Matthew 7:1—"Judge not, that you be not judged." A clear
condemnation of ALL judging, correct? Not at all. The
neo-evangelicals and liberals never take the time to read the following verses:
1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge,
you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to
you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not
consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let
me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5
Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see
clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
-Matthew 7:1-5
Once the entire passage is read, the context becomes clear: Christ is
condemning hypocritical judgment, not all judgment. Indeed, were
the latter true, Christ would contradict His words recorded by John:
"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous
judgment." (John 7:24) I have had to explain this elsewhere before,
so I'll just repeat what I wrote then:
Judging is essential to the
health of a believer and the church as a whole. We must "test all
things" (1 Thess. 5:21) to rebuke error (Eph. 5:11), to protect doctrine
(Rom. 16:17), to guard ourselves from sin (1 Cor. 15:33), and to separate from
unbelievers in marriage and ministry (2 Cor. 6:14,17). This is spiritual
discernment (1 Cor. 2:15), and is contrasted with self-promoting,
fault-finding, and hypocritical judgment (Matt. 7:1-5). I hope to be judgmental
just like Christ (Matt. 7:15), Paul (Acts 13:10), Peter (2 Pet. 2), and John (1
John 2:18-22)—whose preaching surely would not be welcomed to many pulpits
today.
Neo-evangelicals and liberals are quick to condemn others as judgmental, but
little do they realize that this in itself is a judgment. After all, how
did they determine that that person is judgmental?
What is love?
An easy fall-back for those lacking substantive argumentation against
fundamentalists is the charge that fundamentalists are unloving and therefore
un-Christlike, because, after all, Christ is simply love and nothing
more. Love is heart the Christianity, right? Well, no—not in
the way that liberals define love. Romans 5:8 and Mark 15:13 define love
like this:
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still
sinners, Christ died for us.
Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his
friends.
In both verses, "love" is translated from the Greek word agape.
This word is always associated with the greatest acts of love—Christ's
work on the cross (Rom. 5:8), Christ's love for the church (Eph. 5:25), a
husband's love for his wife (Eph. 5:25), a Christian's love for his brother in
Christ (1 John 2:10), and so on. This type of sacrificial love is an act
of the will. It is not merely an emotion or positive feeling based on the
circumstances or experiences of the moment. Better yet, let us go to 1
Cor. 13:4-7 to see how agape is defined:
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade
itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is
not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in
the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures
all things.
Although many liberals parade themselves as loving, true agape love is
completely foreign to their words and deeds. They are quick to condemn
fundamentalists for being unloving, but their speech is filled with malice,
annoyance, and arrogance. (Of course, many fundamentalists, including
myself, are no better at times.) Most foreign to their message, however,
is verse 6: love rejoices in truth.
Christ-like love is not intellectually apathetic—it is does not look at
a falsehood and merely say, "Hey, if that's what you want to believe, so
be it!" (Ironically, liberals are tolerant of just about every
belief except biblical Christianity.) Instead, Christ-like love should
compel us to expose error and refute it. Why? First, we must
understand that, in the eyes of Christ the apostles, false teaching is more
than just wrong—it is poisonous and destructive.
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be
false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies,
even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift
destruction. (2 Pet. 2:1)
Therefore, Christians should be proactive in fighting error, as the Bible
plainly commands: Eph. 5:11, Rom. 16:17-18, 2 Tim. 4:2-5, Titus 1:7-9, 2 Cor. 10:4-5. This is how we protect ourselves and the
church. If we love our brothers and sisters in Christ, we will protect
them from the lies of false teachers and also confront them when they are in
error. In this sense we are like Christ: "for whom the Lord loves He
chastens, and scourges every son He receives" (Heb. 12:6).
Liberals try to get around the Bible's plain commands by saying that the Bible
is flawed and not worth taking too seriously. Postmoderns attempt
to hide from the Bible by saying that the verses in question are culturally
situated and therefore don't apply to us today. "The Bible is only a
guidebook," they say. But then, in a grand show of hypocrisy, they
turn right around and continue condemning the fundamentalists for being
"unloving". And what do the cite as their authority? The Bible!
(Usually Matthew 23:39—the Golden Rule.) Thus the
liberals/postmoderns are hopelessly divided against themselves: on the one hand
they refuse to obey, but on the other hand they confidently charge others to
obey scripture.
What is unity?
Finally, many liberals enjoy condemning fundamentalists over the issue of
unity. The protection of doctrine naturally leads to separation from
false teachers, but liberals will place doctrinal heresy over unity any
day. (The Fundamentalist-Modernist movement is a perfect example.)
And this is biblical, they say, because Ephesians 4:1-6 teaches that Christian
unity is of utmost importance. Fundamentalists like myself agree that it
is extremely important—but how do we arrive at unity and what exactly
are we unifying over? The first question may be answered in two different
ways:
1. When a source of disagreement arises among Christians, remove or ignore the
divisive elements of Christianity that lead to the division. This new
"lowest common denominator" will prevent Christians from getting
offended and leaving, thus maintaining Christian unity.
2. Hold fast to the doctrine taught in scripture. When a disagreement
arises, examine scripture to see who is correct in their thinking. If
someone is clearly rejecting or disobeying scripture, put them out of the
church.
Which method is biblical? It depends on what we are unifying over.
If the "one faith, one faith, one baptism" mentioned in Eph. 4:1-6
are exclusive, then Christianity cannot be watered down to meet the needs of
the first method. Focusing on "one faith" and "one
Lord," let us examine scripture to see how exclusive Christianity's claims
really are:
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common
salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for
this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and
deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
-Jude 3
Jude clearly writes that Jesus Christ is Lord (see also Rom. 10:9 and Phil.
2:11). Not Muhammed, not Buddha, not Vishnu, not you and I, but Jesus
Christ. He alone is Lord. He claims the exclusive right to God
(Col. 2:9) and savior of the world (John 1:29.) In His greatest display of
narrow-mindedness, Christ said to His apostles, "I am the way, the truth,
and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Peter
preached this message in Acts 4: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for
there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be
saved."
Jude also clearly states that the faith has been delivered, therefore all we
need to do is look to what God has already revealed. We do not need
more revelation to understand the faith, unlike what the Mormons, Jehovah's
witnesses, Muslims, and other cultists claim. But what exactly is the
faith that Jude speaks of? (Notice that "faith" is a noun, not
a verb.) In Acts 20:21, Pauls says that he testified "repentance
toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" to the Jews and Greeks.
This faith toward Christ is the same as faith towards the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17,
1 Cor. 15:1-2).
We see, then, that Christianity is very exclusive. Combine this with the
clear commands to protect doctrine and the answer to the initial question of,
How do we maintain unity? becomes obvious: unity through separation. By
doing with this, those of the correct like-minded thinking will remain
together, continually protecting, teaching, and exhorting one another.
Unity through inclusivity, on the other hand, guts Christianity of everything
that makes it unique and holy in the first place. Or as one young man explained to me, unity is not about a bunch of humans agreeing with each other but about a bunch of humans agreeing with God.
Hopefully this puts the Fundamentals into better perspective—these are
the doctrines that unify the fundamentalists.
Conclusion
The postmoderns' and liberals' accusation against fundamentalists fails on
every count. Furthermore, their employment of double-standards is nothing
short of breath-taking.
Another question that has arisen is, How do you explain all of this to a
liberal or postmodern without setting them off in a fit of rage? I
honestly do not know. Nothing I have ever tried seems to work, which
leads me to think that their problem is not with my attitude (although they'll
use that as a smokescreen) but with the Bible itself. (This makes sense,
since many of them admit to holding a very low view of scripture, anyway.) In the future we will examine scripture to see how Christ and the apostles dealt with those in error.
| | |
| The Worst Debate I've Ever SeenThe Worst Debate I've Ever Seen
"Hi!
I'm Kirk Cameron, and my partner Ray Comfort and I come to you tonight
not as molecular biologists or as rocket scientists, but simply as an
author and an actor. And we want to do two things that fly in the face
of convention. One, we would like to show you that the existence of
God can be proven, 100%, absolutely without the use of faith. And
secondly, as a former atheist myself, an evolutionist, I want to pull
back the curtain and show that the number one reason people don't
believe in God is not because of a lack of evidence, but because of a
theory that many scientists today consider to be a fairy tale for
grownups."
And with that foolishness uttered (referring to his first aim), thus began
the worst excuse for a "Great Debate" I've ever heard in my life.
(View it online here... if you must.) But first, the contenders.
Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the Christians, are the well-known figures of Living Waters ministry that produced the Way of the Master
evangelism teaching tools. Although I appreciate their emphasis on
repentance and "works befitting repentence" in matters of evangelism,
they are just downright bad apologists. No two ways about it. Their
epistemology is about as unbiblical as one could possibly make it, and
this sad truth shines through not only in their apologetics but
sometimes in their evangelism. I saw them at a conference a couple of
years ago and they tried to impress upon the crowd the Pelagian notion
that an evangelist can "circumvent the mind" when presenting the gospel.
In the other corner we find Brian and Kelly of the Rational Response Squad
(intimidating name, no?)---a posse of crude twenty-year olds that have
an internet presence only through silly gimmicks like the "Blasphemy
Challenge." Thanks, but I'd like to see a debate with participants who
earned recognition through thoughtful writing, not YouTube.
Finally, we can feel especially embarrassed for Martin Bashir---the nightly news professional who had to moderate the most amateur debate in recent history (or just history).
Basically, this is going to be painful. Now back to the "debate"...
Ray
began by giving three "irrefutable evidences." These evidences?
Design in nature (teleological argument), the conscience, and the
conversion experience. The first two are irrefutable, yes, but they do
not constitute "100%, absolute scientific proof." Scientific proof is
an oxymoron, actually. Science, due to its inductive nature, can never
yield knowledge and therefore never have any place in the premise or
conclusion of a proof. Design in nature and the conscience are
justified only by special revelation, and trust in special revelation
requires faith. Finally, a positive conversion experience is merely
subjective and presupposes that Christ does indeed live in and convert
the believer. So already we see that Kirk and Ray have no clue what
they're doing.
Ray also proclaims that he is an empiricist when
he says: "You can't have a building without a builder. I don't need
faith to believe in a builder. All I need is eyes that can see and
brain that works."
Embarrassing himself further, Ray answers in
advance the charge that the teleological argument is not scientific by
holding up a picture of the Mona Lisa. "If several scientists were
repeatedly asked to observe this painting they would always come to the
conclusion that the Mona Lisa had a painter." (paraphrase)
Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Ray
then says, "And exactly the same applies with the existence of God."
Actually, no. A finite painting requires only a finite painter, but
Ray would claim that God is infinite. To make this claim he would have
to go to scripture, but this would violate his promise to prove God
apart from the Bible. Also, this argument commits the fallacy of
division. All of the paintings in the universe may have a painter, but
this does not necessarily entail that the universe has a painter. (All
of the parts of your car may weigh less than a thousand pounds, but
this does not mean that your whole car weighs less than a thousand
pounds.)
What is incredibly humorous is that it was not the atheists that pointed these problems out to Ray and Kirk but Martin Bashir,
further reminding us that he is the only competent thinker present. :)
(I also read on Wikipedia that he is a Christian, interestingly.)
From
this point on, virtually all of Ray and Kirk's comments centered around
gospel presentations. No, really. I'm not sure how they thought that
this accomplished their initial goal of proving God apart from faith,
but they certainly stuck to it.
Of course, Kelly and Brian were
no better. And I don't say merely because they're atheists, but
because their arguments were a mish-mash of angry and juvenile
comments---a pretty good reflection of their demeanor, also. At
multiple points I cringed to think that hundreds of thousands were
watching this.
Brian responded to the teleological argument by
saying that we can communicate with the painter but we can't
communicate with God. This begs the question very directly: he
presupposes that the Bible isn't true therefore God and man do not
communicate. Brian also responded to the cosmological argument by
asking, "what caused God?" Brian rejected Ray's answer that God is
eternal, once again begging the question against the Bible.
At
another point, Brian charges Ray with an argument from ignorance
because Ray "made up" God as the solution to the infinite-regress
problem. This isn't an argument from ignorance, however, but an ad hoc solution. Brian, does, however, rightly ask, why not the universe as the First Cause? Why God?
Martin
Bashir then challenges Brian and Kelly on the point of morality, doing
an excellent job of pointing out that their morality isn't
authoritatively binding in any sense. Why atheists don't simply admit
this is beyond me. Nevertheless, Kelly gave the standard "morality is
beneficial for survival" spiel and then questioned why morality
requires God, even throwing in the classic "Hitler was a Christian" jab.
Kirk responded by giving part of his testimony. Hmm... no comment.
When
atheists talk of morality, we should remind them that within a
deterministic universe phenomena simply happens---they don't get the
luxury of assigning action an 'ought', thus morality does not exist in
their worldview. Its not that atheists are immoral, but rather that
they are amoral. As atoms move around and molecules get re-arranged,
what does it mean to say that something "ought" to happen? It just
does happen. To impose an "ought" upon the universe requires something
outside of the natural universe.
During the Q&A, Kelly tries
desperately to wiggle out of the accusation that atheism has led to the
deaths of millions via communism. She claims that the analogy is
bad---communism (Marxism, in this context) is about state-worship, not
atheism. Unfortunately for her, the Marxist leaders in question were
die-hard atheists and made this very well known in their writings.
More importantly, Marxism is a deduction from atheism that stresses the
rise of the proletariat as the ultimate authority. The state,
ultimately, will cease to exist, therefore Marxism cannot be called
'state-worship'. Kelly has confused Marxism with fascism.
To
their credit, Ray and Kirk do answer the question of, Why have people
who have never heard the gospel go to Hell? by explaining the
condemning nature of general revelation. Ray also correctly answer the
question of suffering by pointing out the effects of the Fall.
The
closing statements consist of Ray giving yet another gospel
presentation and Kirk admitting that the atheists' problem is
spiritual, not intellectual. Brian and Kelly close with another
determined whine about the abusiveness of theism and the illogic of its
followers.
In conclusion, I have no clue how this debate got on
Nightline. I'm embarrassed for ABC. William Lane Craig versus Michael
Martin? Sure. Ken Ham versus Richard Dawkins? Sure. J.P. Moreland
versus Richard Carrier? Sure. Instead, we have two duos of amateurs, neither of whom deserve to act as representatives for their
ideologies in a nationally televised debate. [Note: I think Craig and Moreland are poor apologists, nevertheless no one would call them 'amateur'.]
| | |
|
|
