Protestants & the RCC Don’t Know Their Beliefs
Posted: September 29, 2010 Filed under: Apologetics Leave a commentRACHEL ZOLL writes,
“A new survey of Americans’ knowledge of religion found that atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons outperformed Protestants and Roman Catholics in answering questions about major religions, while many respondents could not correctly give the most basic tenets of their own faiths.”
Read the full article here.
Christian Bestsellers
Posted: September 22, 2010 Filed under: Apologetics Leave a comment“Christian bestsellers, with rare exceptions, indulge in groundless apocalyptic speculations, exalt Christian celebrities (whose characters often do not fit their notoriety), and revel in how-to methods.” – Douglas Groothuis
My Definition of Christian Theism
Posted: December 23, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Christian Theism, Questions & Answers 2 CommentsQuestion: Dewalt, could you give me your own definition of Christian Theism?
Answer: I’ll try, even though it may be different then that of some, but my Precise Definition of Christian Theism would be this… Christian Theism is the belief of one God, who is the creator of all things, who has existed always before time, who has all things to do with all things that pass throughout all of time, who should receive all glory due him, which intercedes constantly with his creation.
Question: Dewalt, can you give me Scripture References to defend your definition?
Answer: Yes!
One God – John 14:1 & 6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Creator- Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Existence – Heb. 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Over all things – Rev. 4:11 “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
Receiving Glory – Rev. 5:9-10 9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”
Intercedes with his creation – Isaiah 40:28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.
Same-Sex Marriage
Posted: December 18, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Questions & Answers, Questions that begged to be asked 2 CommentsQuestion: Dewalt, can you Affirm for me one’s Stance against same-sex marriage?
My Answer: I’ll try… However I am no expert. I would begin by stating that we all agree that man and woman together replenishes the earth? And if all were to be gay, then how would that be done? Passages like in the garden in Gen. 2:18 where God said, “It is not good for man to be alone” are of major importance. If God wanted the culture of the garden to then have a “buddy” or a partner of the same sex, then he would have place along side him one of the same sex. Farther in Gen. 2 after Eve is made God then explains in how marriage and a relationship is to be done, saying “she shall be called woman.” It was women made with man, not picking or choosing what one could have, or want, or think he needs, but God calling a woman to come along side of a man for a relationship. Now father more in doing so, God then in verses 24 & 25 of Gen. 2, God claims that one woman and one man become one in flesh when coming together. Now it one said 1 + 1 = 2 no one would argue that? Man + Woman = One flesh. Meaning Man + anything else, man, men, women, animals, etc. Any other formula = death. How? Easily seen in Romans 1:18-232, namely, verses 26 – 28 when they state:
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.”
The Six Levels of Learning
Posted: October 21, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics Leave a comment1. Knowledge– Learning the product you have seen, read or listen to
2. Understanding– Grasping what was learned from the product
3. Application– How the product then is played out in ones life
4. Analysis– Components of what is seen of the product
5. Synthesis– Bringing together what has been studied from the product
6. Evaluation – Either by what has been given, or what you produce from the product
If theology is an activity, finding the product from the Word of God in order to form the person. Often times, people never think they way they learn. However, today one of my professor’s bought up quite the process that we should be going through when thinking about the way we learn. My lose most of you, but if may be quite intriguing for the rest.
Review of Five Views on Apologetics
Posted: September 19, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Book Review, Five Views on Apologetics Leave a comment
This is only a review of the section in which I agreed most within the book.
I. Introduction
The position I am most comfortable with writing about and defending is the one I agree with the most: the Presuppositional Method. In my opinion, John Frame’s writing on this subject in Five Views on Apologetics is the most logical and is easiest to read. At times it felt that the other writers needed to be more technical in order to grab the reader’s attention and better defend their stances and views on apologetics. Personally, I feel it is clear and unarguable that out of the five views the presuppositional method of apologetics uses the Scriptures the most – staying close to them and dealing with things in a very biblical way. One area of the presuppositional method that is most appealing, as explained through John Frame’s writing, is its emphasis on theology. Frame often correlated the study of theology alongside this branch of apologetics, which is something the other writers tended to keep apart in their articles. Frame’s view of depravity and national revelation is clearly and easily seen through his defense of the presuppositional method. He also not only looks at the end of the argument, but at the whole of one’s argument – both in the beginning and end – as God being the Creator and reason for existence. This is why Frame’s view of national revelation is of most importance, as it allows one to argue and carry discussions with non-believers.
II. Biblical Epistemology
In his sections in Five Views on Apologetics, John Frame’s focus is straightforwardly presented from the beginning as he states the ultimate purpose of apologetics, saying, “the most important thing is to glorify God.” Frame begins by giving a defense and showing how the Bible itself talks about epistemology. Here he explains the importance of recognizing that wisdom, knowledge, and understanding comes with the “fear” of the Lord.
• Ps. 110: 10 – The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding. His praise endures forever!
• Prov. 1:7 – The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
• Prov. 9:10 –The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.
• Prov. 15:33 – The fear of the LORD is instruction in wisdom, and humility comes before honor.
He expands on this to show the view of biblical knowledge, which is knowledge that comes from a life that allows the Scriptures to speak for themselves and interpret themselves as well. The presuppositionalist is to allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves so that he hears them first, in order that they (the Scriptures) may mold and shape his thinking, rather than being shaped by man’s mind and opinion. From there it is shown how in the presuppositionalist method this “fear” of the Lord in the Christian’s life of faith is for the purpose of reasoning. With this, the believer’s faith is to govern the reasoning in/of their thinking. Frame says that it must be seen where this reasoning, which stems from faith, comes from:
1. The cause of faith – God causes faith by His own free grace.
2. The rational basis of faith – That faith is based on reality, and on truth.
Frame makes the presuppositionalist way of seeing this clear in this sequence:
God’s Rationality → Human Faith → Human Reasoning
The presuppositional method sees faith as being in accordance with God’s rationality. The individual’s whole process in human reasoning is to image God’s own thought so that they are in line with that which God intended.
Lastly, when dealing with epistemology, the presuppositional method sees the content of Scripture and faith in three senses:
1. It cannot be proven by human reason alone.
2. It contains mysteries, and even apparent contradictions, that cannot be fully resolved by human logic.
3. Only the Spirit, not reason alone, can create belief.
III. The Noetic Effects of Sin and Conversion
The presuppositional method gives the reminder that because of the fall and the influence of sin, man’s reasoning will never be completely free from sin’s captivity. Here, the one who agrees with the presuppositional method must first look at how sin has affected mankind. We are shown that people’s minds are molded to sin in their fallen nature, and the wisdom of the world – which is fully man-centered – interrupts and clashes with the purpose for which we were created: to glorify God and focus on Him. The explanation of this process demonstrates how the unbeliever’s reasoning can become irrational to what God had intended.
It is important that the one who holds to the presuppositional method knows that although one may have the Holy Spirit, they still carry the effects that sin has on mankind. However, when the individual becomes a born again believer they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and, as Frame puts it, are then able to “change in direction.” Frame also makes a good point in that one must realize that this change of the person does not ever make them 100% sinless, but they are in a process of fighting sin until the day of redemption.
IV. The Value of Apologetics
In explaining the value of apologetics, Frame expounds that it is not only meant for spiritual growth, but also for discipleship.
• Matt. 28:19 – Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
• 1 Peter 3:15 – but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.
The individual that wants to get the fullness of the value of apologetics must see that faith is always based upon certain evidence. Where that evidence comes from depends on many things; however, the presuppositional method sees this evidence as coming only from God. Frame here refers to Romans 1:18-32 which illustrates the evidence given to the natural world as man was given the knowledge of God. This value of apologetics comes as one sees correct reasoning. Frame explains the process this way:
God’s rationality → our faith → our reasoning
This reveals that it is not man that can clarify reason nor base reason on his experiences, situations or anything else besides the truth and meaning that God gives in His Scriptures.
Here lies the issue of how one is to deal with the unbeliever. How can a Christian ask a non-Christian to believe and have faith based on Christian presuppositions? Frame gives five answers as a solution of how the believer that agrees with the presuppositional method can address a non-believer and properly engage in presenting their argument. The following things must be referred to and remembered:
1. Faith is a demand of God. All of mankind is supposed to believe in God and repent. This requires the grace of God. Frame also adds to this that the apologist can do nothing more than tell the truth because it is God who plants the faith.
2. The apologist’s argument is based on biblical presuppositions that the individual ought not to be wavered from.
3. The non-believer was made originally with the intent of thinking with a Christian- theistic worldview.
4. The non-believer will hold beliefs that are not in coherence with the Scriptures. Because of this the presuppositionalist may present things that the nonbeliever does not acknowledge.
5. This then is where the presuppositionalist brings the unbeliever to reason on Christian presuppositions.
V. Apologetics Method
Apologetics focuses on the biblical truths that have been given to humanity from God for every area in the life of the believer. It is the individual’s responsibility when presenting and studying apologetics to seek out what God is saying in His Scriptures so that their end reasoning is correct and based solely on God’s truth which He has relayed to all of mankind. Frame gives eight truths and observations that one is to see and do in the apologetic method:
1. The goal of apologetics is to bring about or strengthen the individual’s faith in God.
2. Apologists must resist temptations of contentiousness or arrogance.
3. The method that the apologist uses must present God as He is.
4. The conclusions of arguments must present biblical truth, and not the thoughts and ideas of man.
5. The argument must consist of biblical principles so that it does not risk the chance of becoming man-centered thinking, but is always God-centered.
6. One must not say things to the individual (who may be an unbeliever) that will lead him back to his pretense or neutrality.
7. Apologetics is to look and think about whom one may be speaking with. Everyone is different and everyone must be handled differently. Frame says it best like this:
“We must ask where the inquirer is coming from, his educational level, previous philosophical commitments, interests, seriousness, specific questions, and so on.”
8. The apologist can show the errors that lie in a non-Christian worldview.
These are all part of the Christian view of how one sees the Bible and how one might carry a conversation with an individual who may not be a believer. Going into apologetics with a mindset of these eight areas will allow the believer to give their best effort in living to the glory of God in debating and arguing with those that are not aware of His glory.
VI. Sketch of an Apologetic Method
Lastly, Frame offers an example of an argument following the presuppositional method of apologetics. In this, Frame expresses that the presuppositional method may be addressed or presented in two ways – being either impersonal or personal. When looking at which one to choose, the method must ask which is more fundamental. In our current day and age it can be hard to debate – or even discuss – a number of different issues due to the influences that have been created by postmodernism. This is especially tricky when dealing with someone who may not even have a set of beliefs or a certain truth, but sees truth as an ever-changing thing. With this, it is hard to begin an argument at all with someone who does not see absolute truth. But from here, saying, “there is no objective truth” is not possible. That is why the gospel calls the believer to respond against such individuals and to react and stand for the truth in a postmodern culture. Here the believer sees the presuppositional method of apologetics as the way of dealing with man and, even more importantly, in glorifying God. Standing for truth must be done, and this truth must be spread so that others can then stand ground on biblical truths that God has given His people, for those who are in need of the gospel.
Review of Reason for the Hope Within
Posted: September 10, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Book Review, Reason for the Hope Within Leave a commentI recently read Reason for the Hope Within, edited by Michael Murray. I have decided to review chapter six of the book in dealing with faith and reason.
A Summary and Evaluation of Chapter Six of Reason for the Hope Within
While reading Reason for the Hope Within, chapter six stood out to me because it dealt with the topic of faith and reason. The book’s aim was to introduce a number of articles dealing with apologetics and Christian philosophy, and while I am sure that it is all well written, it lacks a number of younger audiences in contribution to Christian philosophy. Throughout this book there are often times that the chapter or topic leaves the reader wanting more information/further reading on it. Unfortunately, Reason for the Hope Within seems to be more of an overview of the subjects it deals with, and does not direct the reader to other titles that may contain greater detail for those wanting to advance in reading about Christian philosophy and apologetics.
Chapter six was written by Caleb Miller and is a section that focuses on Faith and Reason. Here Miller goes over the view of Christian Faith and Human Reason and gives attention to the issue of whether they are opposing to one another or if they work together. Miller gives Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley’s view on how faith and reason work together. His purpose in doing this is so that the Christian can see the importance of defending the Christian faith and also understand that reason does have something to do with Christianity. Oftentimes, fundamentalists tend to forget about apologetics and when needed to defend the faith simply say, “The Bible is true.” However, this is not as it should be. Christians who do not defend Christianity both Scripturally and logically are nothing but stubborn.
Miller then addresses whether or not faith is opposed to reason. Here he approaches the problem of when reason makes the individual trust their own faculties. From there he deals with the objection that faith does not measure up to the standards of reason, and also deals with what Søren Kierkegaard says about this topic in his famous book, Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Miller then follows Alvin Plantiga in claiming that belief in God can be rational even though it is not the conclusion of one’s reasoning. This idea insists that the Christian argument gives good reason to think that belief in God can be grounded in types of experiences. Examples of this are: God’s Sovereignty played out in an individual’s life, God’s passing of judgment, or God’s providence where he leads them in life. Miller suggests that there are advantages to an individual basing their faith upon their experiences instead of reasoning. However, in my opinion, this seems to be very scary, especially in a time and culture where people tend to change their decisions based on any circumstance and not on truth.
Lastly, expanding on the topic of the objection of faith and reason, Miller deals with the apologetics of evidentialism. Here he gives a brief explanation of what an evidentialist is and how they try to prove theism by ways of rational arguments based upon evidence that they believe to be true. He explains that oftentimes the evidentialist’s proof unfortunately is merely an argument and needs to be examined deeper. Miller briefly goes over the Scriptural passages that evidentialist’s use for their argument: Romans 1:18-20. However, he tends to disagree with the evidentialist view concerning this passage, saying, “This passage does not seem to say that God’s existence and nature would, but for sin, be obvious to everyone.” Miller then presents some of the problems with evidentialism – one being that every argument demands that it follows the same premises that both sides agree upon. For example: if there is an argument about Creation, both parties must agree upon the reasoning of a Creator. In view of Romans 1:18-20 he says, “They may hold such beliefs but nothing in this passage assures us they do.”
Continuing on into section two, Miller expresses the importance of an individual’s understanding of faith and reason. Here he gives three clear meanings on the subject of faith. These are:
(1.) Christian Faith is a sect of beliefs that Christians typically hold to and that are central to Christianity.
(2.) Faith has a proper human response to God – this response ends up being in two parts: first, one believing that there is an important sect of claims that are true doctrine. And secondly an element of true thought that has to deal with a personal relationship with the Triune God.
(3.) Faith is a source of belief; this view sees faith as something that can be revealed either by Scriptures or the Holy Spirit by supernatural means.
Next he gives means of knowing reason:
(1.) Reason as our proper use of our cognitive faculties: This is the Christian asking himself if faith is either reasonable or rational in their thought process.
(2.) Reason as the proper use as a natural human faculty: This is only seeing the natural use of the human’s cognitive facilities in relationship in the natural world.
(3.) The faculty of reason is that which makes beliefs and reasoning logical.
In part three Miller details the topic of Christian epistemology and goes over the three major parts of it: creation, sin and redemption. With creation, Miller shows how God created humanity with a set of purposes so that mankind would give back (glory) to God. Here Miller alleges that Christians today do not have a good enough reason to believe that prior to the fall Adam knew truth infallibly. From there he then focuses on the human life in fallenness. Here he shows how the affects of sin have corrupted man’s mind in the process of reasoning, which he perceives is what gives humans the tendency to suffer from the inability to determine truth. Lastly, Miller shows that in epistemology the view of redemption is that it has helped cleanse man’s heart in order to improve the process of thinking and reasoning. In this section (which is quite long) he indicates that man best receives truth when indwelt with the Holy Spirit. My only fear in this all is that Miller may be allowing human experience to be the determining factor on things, rather than true propositions.
Lastly, Miller concludes his chapter by dealing with the central issue in his discussion of Christian theology. He does this by answering two questions:
1. Is Christian faith rational for those who accept it?
2. Is there a basis of persuading others rationally to accept Christian faith?
After explaining both of these issues he addresses the conflict between them, and also points out that mankind may make mistakes when living this out. He shows the importance of how a Christian is to identify what God has revealed, but recognizes that it is hard to do this in the fallen state. Miller’s mindset is clearly seen in the last two paragraphs when he reveals his thoughts on the process of the Christian seeking truth, as he ends saying,
“According to Christianity, I argued, we have reason to think that we have been cognately designed by God so that when we honestly seek the truth, our cognitive faculties are reliable and that God has graciously intervened in human life to compensate for the noetic effects of sin.”
A THEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF A SECULAR HUMANIST DECLARATION
Posted: September 9, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, Article Reviews, Paul Kurtz, Secular Humanist 1 CommentRecently I have read a article at the following site. I decided to write a review of the following section that quite disturbed me, extremely! The article was written by Paul Kurtz on, A Secular Humanist Declaration, namely section 4, Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence. You can read below;
(written by Paul Kurtz)
“The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual’s obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral. For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy. There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others.”
Here is my personal response on this section, please be sure to read his article fully…
In the section entitled Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence, Paul Kurtz’s theological errors begin from the very first sentence. Regardless of whether or not Kurtz is a believer, one day he (and the entire human race) will indisputably be held accountable for the entirety of everything in his life, including his beliefs; no matter if an individual believes in a higher power or not, they will be judged (Rev. 20:11-15). Therefore, notwithstanding if Mr. Kurtz is a Christian or if he believes in any absolute truth, he still ought to be – and will be – held accountable for the theology he presents. However, there is much difficulty in revealing theological error to one’s writing and views on life when they have no personal knowledge of Christ, absolute truth, or the gospel. With this said, it is Kurtz’s first sentence in section four that stands out in a way that immediately places him on the defensive side. Kurtz says, “The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists.” This may be the case at times in history – that is true – however, historically/theologically speaking, Christianity has been attacked from the beginning when man thought that they had a better plan of intelligence by partaking from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 3:1-7). Here is the first time that man thought for themselves alone and not for the glory of God. Historically, this is the first time that man went out on his own, so-to-speak, and with the intelligence obtained, began a fatality that all of humanity would be consumed by: the power of pride. This pride is that which critical intelligence is based and founded upon – it is man trying to find happiness in himself and not enjoying God completely. Adam’s intent was nothing less than trying to find intelligence in himself, and not the One who made him.
Next, Kurtz’s second sentence states, “The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority.” If secular humanists recognize the central role of morality, then their systems such as detention centers, jails, prisons, and mental health hospitals would be able to fix the problem of humanity’s sin. But this is not the case, is it? No – they need men of God that live by a moral standard of absolute truth from the Word of God to come in and preach, pray, and teach biblical morals, because even the secular systems and men see something different about the Christian faith and Christian ministry. As a matter of fact, in a recent political forum moderated by Rick Warren between Senators Obama and McCain, Warren brought up the issue of faith-based ministries. The astounding result was that well over 70% of individuals would rather be in a ministry that deals with biblical morals and ethics than what the State, the nation, and mankind – such as secular humanists – have to offer. Theologically, Kurtz’s crucial problem is that he sees it as important to place the created above its Creator. This particular outlook is always at the very root of sin and is the cause of man’s failure in glorifying God to the utmost. The theological error in it is that man sees his own morals as his commandments rather than seeing and obeying what God has given to man to live by. Once again, this can be linked back to the fall with Adam, when he placed his moral values before that which God had ordained.
Further on in Kurtz’s fourth section he states another theological inaccuracy that is quite upsetting. When a person does not know the Lord, errors like this are in every way understandable due to a lack of basing ethics upon something that reasons as it ought to, but rather bases ethics upon something that reasons to get what is wanted, when it is wanted. This is seen when Kurtz says, “For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior.” Here Kurtz makes another theological error as he suggests that the correct way of reasoning is for individuals to make their own choices based on the understanding of human behavior. However, the real truth is that man was not created for the sake of his own name or for his own glorification; he did not have a will that made him aim to lift his name above the Lord’s; he was not made so that he may reason at any time to get his personal desires and wants. When the Lord created mankind He did not ask man what he thought about it; He did not ask man his opinion when He created them. Rather, in perfect wisdom and will, He made man to glorify Himself first and foremost above all else.
Lastly, there was one more sentence that stood out most of all in the later part of A Secular Humanist Declaration when Kurtz says, “As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation.” How can anyone find happiness in change? How does mankind find joy in what they do not know? This may give a temporary high or a season of getting a boost or taste of happiness, but only truth that never changes brings an everlasting happiness that results in morals that humans live by and that are joys to the human heart. Although ethical values may be found or may emerge, as Kurtz says, they only derive from the evil and sin of mankind. Therefore, this is why man must not look at his own fallen state to see what morals and ethical values to stand on, but rather he must look upon the perfect, blameless, and spotless Christ. This is the answer to every fallen need, every fallen want, and every fallen man that may think his mind is greater or thinks he has all the answers, and yet inevitably falls short in his needs. Christ is the answer to the secular humanist; He alone (and through the gospel) has a way of piercing the heart and humbling man before Himself.
In all, theological errors come as men try to be their own saviors – a mind savior, a moral savior, an ethical savior, a humanist savior – but in the end not one of these will save man from hell. There are even those who may know theology and the gospel, and yet rely on their own morals and ethics instead of acknowledging their need for the source of morality – Jesus Christ Himself. Why look for things that will fade away or fall in time? Why try to find answers in the mind that can change at any time? The answer is simple: because man wants to be their own savior and their own personal religion, and they do not want to give themselves up to a personal Christ – a Christ who has never changed, who perfectly lived by His own law, who was morally and ethically spotless, and who continues to be entirely perfect today as He rules from His throne until His return.
Even though my review may be barely read, thanks for reading if you have done so.
THE APOLOGETICAL VALUE OF THE SELF-WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE
Posted: August 26, 2008 Filed under: Apologetics, James Grier Leave a commentRead Dr. James M. Grier’s Apologetical article at RHB’s blog.
Gospel-Centered Musings 