February 2015

Is it Illogical for an Atheist to Question God's Moral Commands?

It is illogical for atheists to question the moral commands of God for two primary reasons:

1) The Bible is clear that God is the one Who defines morality to start with. He says what is right, wrong, good and evil. And He, as the Creator of the world and of all life, also has complete ownership of all that He has created. If He chooses to end the life of some of His creation (which by the way is corrupt and evil by nature and is guilty of breaking His holy law) by His sovereign command, then He not only has the right to do so but is also entirely just in doing so. So it is illogical for a limited, fallible human creation of the unlimited, infallible God to question the moral law and judgments of the omniscient definer of morality.

2) If you are an atheist then you cannot believe in any kind of absolute, universal morality. Morality itself is nothing more than a social construct and is defined by society. Therefore there is no moral code that can be said to "right" or "wrong" and no moral code can be said to be better than any other moral code. How is it that you, as an atheist, can say that the actions of the Israelites were absolutely evil? If you are an atheist, there is no such thing as evil. So for you then to express moral outrage at the actions of God as described in the Bible is entirely illogical.

If you are an atheist, then you can neither define what moral "good" and "evil" are supposed to be with any kind of certainty, nor can you condemn the moral actions of anyone in the Bible, especially God, without both contradicting your own beliefs as an atheist and stealing from the Christian worldview of absolute, universal morality.

Sun, 02/08/2015 - 14:52 -- john_hendryx

Are Evangelicals Upset with Obama for Accurately Recounting History?

Online Comment: Evangelicals are mad at Obama for accurately recounting history. For people who are so bent on calling everyone "sinners" it just seems odd to me that they are less willing to call their own tribal members in history "sinners." Paul said he was the "chief." Question for evangelicals: Did Christians ever justify slavery or Jim Crow in the name of Jesus and "the gospel?" Yes or No?

Fri, 02/06/2015 - 19:00 -- john_hendryx

What About the Crusades?

Christians today can discuss whether the Crusades were in fact warranted. But any such discussion must be made under a clear understanding of what historically transpired and why.

There is a great deal of historical revisionism and hatchet jobs regarding these events which need to be utterly debunked. During the time of the Enlightenment up to recent time critics often claim that the Crusaders were Western imperialists, those who set out after land with a desire to loot. But there is a background that so many of the modern critics of the Crusades, for some reason, ignore: The history begins in the seventh century when conquering Muslim armies swept over the Middle East, North Africa, and southern Europe. One Christian land after another was mercilessly attacked and conquered by advancing Muslim armies. Vast stretches of once Christian lands were now in Muslim hands. The entire of North Africa, once solidly Christian now were under complete Islamic rule. It is important to remember that Muhammad told his followers, "I was ordered to fight all men until they say `There is no god but Allah.'" Just to show that his followers understood his words literally, it was a century after his death in which vast swathes of territory hung under the bloody sword of Islam.  Under their rule there were gruesome tortures of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land and vile desecrations of churches, altars, and baptismal fonts. It is in this light of centuries of Islamic conquest, bloodshed and tyranny that the Crusades should be viewed.

Thu, 02/05/2015 - 15:21 -- john_hendryx

Book Review: Exploring Christian Doctrine: A Guide to What Christians Believe

Review by Nate Claiborne

Tony Lane is professor of historical theology at the London School of Theology. He is a world-class Calvin scholar and author of several books, most recently Exploring Christian Doctrine: A Guide to What Christian Should Believe. The book is part of the Exploring Topics in Christianity series (includes one other volume at the present) which complements the Exploring The Bible series also published by IVP Academic.

Like the other volumes, this one is very accessible. It is essentially a brief systematic theology in terms of topics covered, but far from typical in the way the material is presented. Maybe that’s a slight exaggeration. In any case, I was surprised at how some of the contents had shifted from what I consider a standard ordering.

Lane first section (A), Method, is comprised of three chapters. The first is about knowing God, the second is about the Bible, and the third is about language about God. So far, pretty typical. Bonus points for having an actual prolegomena section in such a short systematic.

Tue, 02/03/2015 - 16:32 -- john_hendryx

Lest Anyone Should Fall by Steve Hays

It seemed to me that the only way I could know I was saved was by knowing the status of my eternal election. Was I chosen by God for salvation or was I eternally damned before I had done anything good or bad? To be sure, the Calvinist theologian in me had responses to this question, yet none of them sufficed…my Calvinistic theology presented my needs for assurance with an epistemological problem: in order to have assurance I needed to know the status of my election, something that by definition is secret and cannot be known. 
https://ochuk.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/why-i-am-not-a-calvinist/
 
That's illogical:
 
i) Calvinist Christians can know they are saved in the same way that Arminian Christians can know they are saved: by believing the Gospel.
If it be objected that a professing Christian can be self-deluded, that's possible for Calvinists and Arminians alike.
 
ii) In addition, it's demonstrably false that God's secret decree is by definition unknowable. For instance, past events are part of God's secret decree, but once they eventuate they are knowable. 
 
This objection was articulated in an article by William Lane Craig entitled “Lest Anyone Should Fall”: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings where he essentially argues that the “means of salvation view” is actually more coherent in a “middle knowledge” perspective. Middle knowledge is the view of God’s knowledge that contains what his creatures would freely do in any given circumstances (or “possible world”) before he creates the world.
Mon, 02/02/2015 - 11:48 -- john_hendryx

Whosoever Will

Visitor: I say whosoever so ever will and you say who so ever God enlightened

Response:  Indeed "whosoever will" is right... the thought of denying such an important part of Scripture never crossed my mind ...but if we are to honestly interpret the Bible we must declare the whole counsel of Scripture. The same Bible that teaches 'whosoever will' also teaches 'but men love darkness and hate the light and will not come into the light (John 3:19-20) and "the man without the Spirit cannot understand the things of the Spirit and thinks them foolish" (1 Cor 2:14) and "no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor 12:3).  i.e. No one naturally submits to the humbling terms of the gospel.

So I affirm, together with you, that whosoever will may come. But this is a conditional statement asserts nothing indicatively. "if you are willing", "if you hear", "if you do" declare, not man's ability, but his duty. "Does it follow from the imperative 'repent' that therefore you can repent? Does it follow from the command "'Love the Lord you God with all you heart' (Deut 6.5) that therefore you can love Him with all your heart? What do arguments like these prove, but that 'free-will' can do all things by its own power apart from the grace of God. Is that what you are trying to say?

A good interpretation takes into full account all the Scriptures. Taking everything into account affirms that anyone who is willing may come but it also affirms that no one is naturally willing apart from grace.

Mon, 02/02/2015 - 11:01 -- john_hendryx

Pages

By Topic

Joy

By Scripture

Old Testament

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Ezra

Nehemiah

Esther

Job

Psalms

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Song of Solomon

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Ezekiel

Daniel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Obadiah

Jonah

Micah

Nahum

Habakkuk

Zephaniah

Haggai

Zechariah

Malachi

New Testament

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Revelation

By Author

Latest Links