Atheistic Compartmentalization

These are the closing statements made by “Kelly” of the Rational Response Squad in a recent debate on ABC’s Dateline (her comments are made within the first minute):

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/G6Ll2WPFxyk?rel=0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

According to Kelly in this clip, the reason why Christians can act as valuable contributors in scientific studies (or any other field in which intelligent Christians participate) is because they mentally “compartmentalize.” Christians have a “God-box” where they won’t “let their logic seep into.”

So, apparently religious (and in the context of this debate, Christian) beliefs are irrational and do not harmonize with the type of rigorous thinking that is required in science. But, according to Kelly, Christians who do engage in science do not operate with these religious convictions within the doors of the laboratory.

Is this true? Do Christians secretly operate on atheistic grounds when intellectually contributing to the world in general, or doing science in specific?

I think not. In fact, what’s most ironic to me here is that Kelly’s statement is the exact opposite of what is the case.

It’s the atheist that “borrows” aspects of their thinking from the Christian worldview. It’s the atheist that “compartmentalizes” in their thinking. Why do I say that? Because the atheistic scientist accepts beliefs about the nature of reality (the uniformity of nature, i.e. that the future will be like the past), knowledge (the validity of the inductive principle), truth and ethics (we ought not to lie in the recording of data) and logic that simply cannot be made sense of in a naturalistic worldview, that is, these concepts within this worldview are not intelligible.

The naturalistic worldview believes one way about reality (all is matter in motion), yet it adherents function in their everyday lives based on beliefs that contradict their atheistic philosophy. When Kelly argues that Christianity is irrational, how does he account for rules or laws of rational thinking? Are they merely things that people agreed on? If they are, then we’re free to break them. Are these laws of logic universal abstract “things”? But in the naturalistic worldview all things are physical. Are the laws of logic physical things that we can touch or taste? And why ought (an ethical question) we to obey these “laws”? What obligations do we have to either a social convention or physical matter?

If Kelly and her partners cannot account for rules of logic, how then do they even begin to make sense of the notion of debate?

Faith vs. Faith

Here’s a dialogue I wrote back in 2005 for a seminary class in apologetics. I employed the transcendental method that i’ve been discussing in the past several entries. I hope it helps to flesh out how one might go about actually using the argument in real life.

This was published in Reformed Perspectives Ezine.

Tim Keller on the Importance of Doctrine

The Gospel in 6 minutes

Taking a Look at the Fall (Part 3)

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
In summary, we have examined the role that the creation narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 play in properly understanding the Fall. Humanity is the apex of God’s creation and assigned the role of vice-regent over creation. Likewise, we have seen that it was God’s sovereign design to establish a hierarchy of responsibility amongst male and female, with Adam as the chief steward responsible for maintaining God’s garden sanctuary. Only as the sexes properly function according to the wise plan of their Creator can both male and female exercise dominion over creation. With these pieces in place, the Fall narrative is shown to be a reversal of the established lines of authority and a repudiation of humanity’s vice-regency.

In Genesis chapter 3 we are shown how this sinful inversion ushered in all that is now wrong with the world. In the Fall, the relationship of man with his Creator was changed. He now became a “child of wrath” and an “enemy of God” (cf. Eph. 2). Furthermore, man’s estrangement from God results in an all-encompassing alienation both with one another and with the self. If man is now at war with God because of the radical selfishness and desire for autonomy that defines his fallen nature, he cannot be at peace, for every created thing points to and reflects its Divine Maker. This is the human condition.

David R. Torres

Taking a Look at the Fall (Part 2)

Now we’ll take a closer look at the structure of the passages we’ll examine:

Outline of Genesis 1-3

Gen. 1: 1-26- God creates out of the void
Gen. 1:26- man as image and likeness =Kingship!

Gen. 2:4-15: God creates man and places him in the garden
2:16-God’s prohibition
2:18: Eve created as helper to Adam, Adam has primacy by creation order
2:19: Adam exercises dominion over animals by naming them
2:23-25: Unity among the sexes

Gen. 3:1: Introduction of the serpent
3:2-10: The temptation
3:11-24: Punishments for all those involved (hope for restoration is alluded to)

Literary Analysis
Scholars are divided on what genre the creation account in Genesis belongs to. Is it a literal narrative or is it allegory? Is it historical or merely symbolic? Some take it as myth; others say it is true myth (C. S. Lewis). It can potentially inhibit our comprehension of the text if we attempt to force it into the procrustean bed of just one discrete genre.

Genesis 3 has features of several literary genres, the most obvious being historical narrative and poetry. The notion that it is historical narrative is based upon the witness to the historicity of Adam from the Gospel of Luke (Lk. 3:38), and the Apostle Paul (Romans 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1Tim. 2:13-14). According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus is shown to have quoted Genesis 2:24 (cf. Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). In these passages Jesus appeals to the original created design for marriage, an institution grounded in real space-time history. In doing this, Jesus merely shares the common first century Jewish belief that the creation account, including the existence of our first parents, was a factual and historical reality and not an allegorical tale.

Linguistic Analysis
In 1:26, the Hebrew words tseleh (image), and dmuth (likeness) are used to convey that man was made in God’s image and likeness. Tseleh is used 17 times in the Old Testament; 5 times in Genesis (1:26, twice in 27; 5:3; 9:6). Outside of Genesis tseleh is usually used to denote a physical representation, e.g., idols (Num 33:52), models of tumors (1 Sam 6:5), or pictures of men (Ezek 16:17). The origin of this word is uncertain. This means that its meaning may have been indistinct. There is no such ambiguity of meaning with dmuth. It is a noun that is clearly related to the verb meaning “to be like, resemble”. There are various theories of whether these words have discrete meanings, or are interchangeable. In the absence of contextual evidence of distinct meanings, and in light of the apparently functionally equivalent way these terms are used in Gen. 5:3, “likeness” seems to contextually nuance “image”.

Genesis does not explicitly state that the serpent is being used or embodied by the devil. Christians who believe in the unity of scripture (i.e. both Testaments form one theological and literary whole) do not have a problem with this. In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that is translated serpent is rendered by the Greek word ophis. In the New Testament book of Revelation, ophis is used to identify the serpent as Satan (cf. Rev. 12:9, 20:2). It is widely accepted in Christian theology that the devil either took the form of a serpent or embodied an actual specimen to mislead Eve.

Theological Interpretation
The snake is described as cunning, or shrewd in the KJV. This Hebrew word is used in the Old Testament to denote both vice and virtue. In this context, it is clearly referring to the serpent’s ability in using clever reasoning with intent to deceive. In Hebrew narrative, it is not common to state the character traits of a participant in the story. When it is done, it is to solicit careful attention on the part of the reader (or listener). The narrator may be warning us as to whether the serpent is speaking the truth, and thus directing us not to accept the words of the serpent as uncritically as Eve.

The serpent deceptively leads Eve toward rejection of God’s Word as the final authority. Instead of complete trust in her Creator’s pronouncement, she is coaxed into weighing the serpent’s pronouncements against what God has said. The serpent’s lack of a covenantal relationship with God is displayed by his practice of using God (Elohim) as the designation for the Creator in lieu of addressing him as the Lord God (Yahweh). The switch of words is crucial, in describing God simply as God instead of as the Lord God, which is characteristic of the rest of Gen 2-3, there is a suggestion of the serpent’s distance from God. God is just the remote creator. Not Yahweh, Israel’s covenant partner. (Word Biblical Commentary, Genesis. Volume 1, p. 73) By deciding whose directions she should follow, Eve posits herself as the ultimate arbiter of what is right and good. This is at first shown by her appropriation of the serpent’s practice of using God instead of the Lord God (Yahweh). She had decided that God was no longer her Lord.

This repudiation of God’s divine right over the whole creation is demonstrated by how she responds to the serpent’s deceptive inquiry in 3:1, “Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Eve includes an added ban on touching the tree not mentioned in the original prohibition in 2:17. This modification may insinuate that God is oppressive. His Lordship is rejected, and now his generosity is questioned. This narrative clearly illustrates the self-centeredness that characterizes sin.

There is a certain ambiguity found in the 3:6. It is not transparently clear whether Adam was present during the dialogue between the serpent and Eve. It is commonly assumed that Adam was not present during the interchange between the snake and the woman. No less an exegete than John Calvin held this view. Other scholars hold that Adam was indeed with Eve during the whole dialogue.

If Adam was there, then he failed in his kingly duty to have dominion over the serpent and leadership in his relationship with Eve. This culminates in his refusal to reject the offer based on God’s authoritative prohibition. If he was not there, this shows that the serpent, being crafty, did not go about his task through the ordained lines of authority. Instead of addressing the man, he deceived the woman, turning the divinely-mandated authority structure on its head.

In either case, the serpent displays utter disdain for God’s hierarchical design. By directing his words to Eve, as opposed to Adam, it certainly seems as if serpent was working towards a precise reversal of the created order. The creation was good, thus the rejection of God’s order is tantamount to a repudiation of his Lordship. The serpent calculatingly led God’s royal image bearers in their rebellion by directing them to replace faith in God’s Word with faith in creaturely autonomy. In the heart of man, the summum bonum (i.e. highest good) was exchanged. Man now lived for his glory alone. Later in verses 14-19, we are shown God’s punishment for their transgression, as well as a promise of hope to come.

The theological implications of this passage are vast. Man, by his sinful self-interest ushered corruption into the created order. Christian theology cannot be understood apart from the Fall. Suffering and evil originate here. Intuitively man knows that all is not well with the world. Genesis 3 affirms this universal notion, and explains its origin. The divinely decreed hierarchical structure had been inverted, and the effects linger.

In answering for their transgression, Adam directly blames Eve and indirectly implicates God; Eve likewise blames the serpent for her disobedience (Gen. 3:12-13). The Lord first punishes the serpent. God does not question it as he does Adam and Eve. The serpent is demoted to the position of a writhing creature that is from thereafter conceived of as a symbol of deception. The second part of the serpent’s penalty is quite interesting.

Gen 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The first punishment clearly refers to the animal; the second is believed to include the actual source of the manipulation, Satan. Most conservative scholarship has understood this as an allusion to the eventual defeat of Satan accomplished in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After pronouncing the serpent’s punishment, God, then states the penalties meted out for man’s transgression.

In starting with Eve, God is following the anti-creational inversion in the Fall. In Gen. 1:28, God blesses man with the decree to be fruitful and multiply. In the curse, women will only be able to conceive in pain. Interestingly, the next aspect of the curse regards the women vis-a-vis the man. Just as in the second punishment of the serpent related to the woman, the second part of her penalty is in direct relation to man. The curse seems to have had a dysfunctional effect on the woman’s desire for her husband as well as on her subordination to him. Some commentators locate in this verse the origin of the oppressive treatment of women that has characterized most patriarchal societies.

Adam’s punishment is covered in three verses, 3:17-19. Each verse unfolds the curses that await Adam. First, in v. 17 God explains why Adam is now cursed. Rather than heed the word of God concerning judgment, he listened to the word of his wife (turning the lines of creaturely authority on their head). Second (v. 18), the creation over which Adam has been given dominion over is still his responsibility, but now it will reject his rule. Third, both life and work will be marked by pain and difficulty, followed ultimately by death. In effect, the curse of v. 19 is “life will be hard, and then you die.” Man was to rule over the world as vice regent, but just as he rejected God’s authority, the earth now yields to him only through much work and hardship. Death and corruption then entered the whole of creation resulting from man’s rebellion.

Next we’ll summarize and conclude…

David R. Torres

Taking a Look at the Fall (Part 1)

By David R. Torres

This series sets out to examine the narrative of the Fall of mankind into sin in Genesis 3. This text is chosen because it is essential in understanding not only the rest of Genesis, but the entire Old Testament as well. To bring out the fuller meaning of the narrative several questions will be addressed. These questions are first, what is the order that God had established for his creation? Second, what does this order inform us about the Fall and it’s implications? And last, what is the effect of this on our theology?

By close examination, we’ll see that more is going on than merely Adam and Eve’s disobedience of God’s injunction regarding the forbidden fruit. We’ll shed light on the Fall narrative found in Gen. 3 against the backdrop of chapters 1 and 2. When viewed in its proper context, Gen. 3 depicts the Fall as a reversal of the created order and a rejection of humanity’s vice regency.

THE CREATION NARRATIVE AS PROPER BACKDROP
In the first two chapters of Genesis, humanity is created in the imago Dei, the image of God. But, we must carefully note that the term “in” is ambiguous. It can lead to the assumption that the image is something that is found in man. In fact, the Hebrew phrase tselem (“in the image”) could be translated “created as the image [of God].” Adam is created as a finite reflection of his Maker. As God is the creator and rules over all things, so man is created as His image and given dominion over the entire earth. Both Gen. 1:26 and 2:19 illustrate the divinely mandated pre-eminence of man over creation. Regarding the image of God as reflected in Man’s ascendancy over the rest of creation, Charles Lee Feinberg states:

Many have seen the meaning of the image in man’s dominion over nature with the corollary concepts of endowment with reason and upright stature. They point out that Genesis 1:26 unmistakably affirms man’s dominion in the immediate context where image is found. Thus it is reasoned, the image consists in man’s lordship over lower creation about him, which is meant by God to be subject to man. It is more correct to declare that the image is the basis or foundation for the dominion. (“The Image of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 129. 1972. Pg 239)

The call to rule the over the world in subjection to God’s authority is what I have referred to as humanity’s vice regency. We see that both man and women shared this duty:

Gen 2:18: And the LORD God said It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

Gen 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In Gen. 1:26-27, God decrees both the creation and function of man before he brings him into being. Similarly, the creation of women is preceded by a decree that includes the reason and purpose of her creation. The creation of women as a helper for man contextually seems to indicate a functional subordination in her relationship with man. There is an order or hierarchy of responsibility established in the first two chapters. God is Lord over all that he has created; the male has a primacy of responsibility over the female, the women having been created after and from the male; human beings (both male and female) have authority over all other living things that inhabit the earth.

As we’ll soon see, the first six verses in the third chapter of Genesis depict the fall of man as the inversion of this order…

Mark Driscoll on the Church Creating Culture

Here’s a clip of Mark Driscoll:

For more of Mark Discoll, see

Apologetics and the Witness of Scripture (Part 9)

CONCLUSION
The unbeliever is double minded, unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). Within the noetic structure of the non-Christian a dynamic tension exists. In one sense, they do know God, but in a very important sense, they do not. They do not know God, in the intimate, saving fashion commended in Scripture. In this series, I have focused on the unbeliever’s surpressed knowledge of God. While they profess that the biblical God does not, indeed cannot, exist, their unguarded everyday actions betray their profession. How can they get on with their everyday lives, without living in a dream world?

God has written His Law on the heart of the unbeliever. They have an immediate, non-derivative, knowledge of God’s existence and lordship. As Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 1, God has made Himself known to His creation so that they are without excuse. Unbelieving scientists argue against Christianity because supposedly Christianity, with its miracles, violates the laws of science. But, how could “laws” of science exist apart from the infinite-personal God of Scripture? They desire to refute Christianity by decrying that Christianity violates the laws of logic (The deductive problem of evil, the Trinity, etc.). Yet, logic presupposes the mind of God impressing itself upon His creation. Ultimately, we argue for the truth of the Christian worldview from the impossibility of the contrary. Thus, all non-Christian worldviews fail in their attempt to muffle God’s voice. God will not be shut out from His creation.

The Christian apologist must press God’s claims upon the unregenerate, thus demonstrating that person’s rebellion to the God who is there. Our ultimate desire is to show the unbeliever that they have no recourse but to turn to God in Jesus Christ for salvation, both intellectually and eternally. Piety, and humble boldness must mark the apologist’s approach. But, most importantly our presentation is to be characterized by the loving manner in which we speak to those who oppose the truth.
We ought not to be deterred by the rejection of our apologetic by the unbeliever. Only God is the One who can soften the heart of the would-be autonomous sinner.

May it please the Lord to glorify Himself in the faithful presentation of His truth claims.

Apologetics and the Witness of Scripture (Part 8)

A FEW MORE POINTERS
As I near the end of this series a few last pointers are necessary. First, I would like to present the ultimate goal of apologetics, and then note a few cautions that the apologist must be made aware of.

Our Goal. As we dialogue with unbelievers in apologetic encounters, we must remember our goal. While we cannot change the heart of the lost soul, we desire to be a tool of the Holy Spirit in granting repentance and faith in Christ. The purpose of apologetics is not simply to add additional facts to an unbeliever’s noetic structure. Indeed, many who study and “do” apologetics know this, yet often in practice this is exactly what occurs. We shouldn’t forget that repentance, both moral and intellectual, is our goal. The non-Christian has, whether consciously or not, developed a shelter, a “roof” above them in order to protect them from the objective reality of God’s lordship. Our aim is to demonstrate the epistemological futility of unbelieving thought. Another goal in pressing God’s demands upon His creatures is to close their mouths and further render them without a defense (Rom. 3:19, 1:20).

Francis A. Schaeffer spoke of “taking the roof off,” this is what happens when the Christian confronts the unbeliever with TAG. The unbeliever, now having been stripped of the argumentative weapons, is left to feel the weight of their lostness. Schaeffer keenly notes,

The more logical a man holding a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the further he is from the real world; and the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical he is to his presuppositions. (The God who is There. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998. Pg 152. Emphasis in original)

Also, in presenting our case for the absolute truth of the Christian worldview we must avoid what Cornelius Van Til called the “block-house method.” This is a method in which we argue for general theism, then for the possibility of miracles, then for the general reliability of the gospels, then to the historicity of the resurrection, etc. Block by block, building up to a fully biblical worldview. Of course, this does not mean that each aspect of Christianity can be covered all at once. But, we must present our case in such a fashion that at each aspect of our argument every “part” of the Christian worldview presupposes other parts of the worldview. Greg L. Bahnsen states this point beautifully:

The Christian faith should not be defended one isolated belief after another isolated belief-as though a block house were being built up, one block at a time. Instead, the whole system should be presented and defended as a unit. Its epistemology should be defined in terms of its metaphysics and ethics (including anthropology and soteriology), and it’s metaphysics and ethics (including anthropology and soteriology) should be defended in terms of its epistemology. (Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis)

The living God, as revealed in Scripture, is the only foundation for interpreting human experience must cause His children to maintain a humble attitude. After all, all that we have we have received as a gift. Yet, it should also be a great source of boldness in apologetics. Thus, the Christian apologist must be one characterized by humble boldness. Had not the Lord in His sovereign mercy opened our hearts and minds to His truth we would remain trapped in epistemic futility.

Caution. And now a word of caution. This boldness should never make us arrogant. If we’re consistent in our approach, we’ll confess and treat the unbeliever as one created in the image of God. The moment we come off sounding intellectually arrogant, we have compromised our position. Not only should our method of argument be explicitly Christian, but the manner in which we present it must display our piety as well.

Being that Man is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) what they do and who they are is of great significance. They are of great significance even in their rebellion against God. In the eternal punishment of the wicked, God demonstrates the true worth of his creature’s moral actions, both in deeds and in thought. If the presentation of our transcendental argument must be marked by piety, then our approach to the unbeliever must be marked by love.

Battle of the Titans

I thought this was pretty cool and wanted to share:

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/rV4wqtvQ8bk?rel=0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Apologetics and the Witness of Scripture (Part 7)

The non-believer’s assumptions about the nature of reality must be challenged. Any epistemology that does not presuppose the truth of God’s word in Scripture will render any form of true knowledge nonsense, and unintelligible. This does not mean that the unbeliever can know nothing, rather is means that they cannot give a sound account of what they believe. The non-Christian is not only spiritually lost, but epistemologically hopeless as well.

Biblical support. On the other hand, the God revealed in the Bible provides the necessary conditions for making sense of human experience. Without this particular God, there would be no such things as “facts” “laws” at all. God is the final reference point for all things, His nature and plan for the universe is what give structure and provides rationale for our lives. Scripture teaches that God is self-existent (Ex.3:14, Jn. 5:26, Gal. 4:8-9), eternal (Ps.90:2), unchangeable (Mal. 3:6), omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10), created all things out of nothing (Col. 1:16-17, Heb.11:3), designed the world in wisdom (Ps. 104:24, Isa. 40:28), determines all things (Eph.1:11), preserves all things (Neh. 9:6), governs all things (Ps.103:19), predetermines the nature and course of all things, thus being able to work miracles (Ps. 72:18), and ordains historical events (Isa. 46:10, Acts 2:3, Eph. 3:9-11).

This Christian view of reality (metaphysic) accounts for all of life. The Christian is not left to figure out reality apart from God’s revelation in Scripture. Any attempt to argue against Christianity’s concept of God already presupposes something (whether it be laws of thought, science, morals) that could not be made sense of apart from the very God they desire to argue against! And if this is true, then no conflicting “evidence” can be offered to rebut the Christian worldview.

No other non-Christian worldview can consistently make sense of the above-mentioned conditions for rationality. No other worldview or theory of knowledge can provide us will the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. Many, if not all, objections to the Christian metaphysic will involve question-begging, double standards, arbitrariness, and inconsistencies in argumentation. And, depending of one’s worldview we would have to apply TAG a bit differently.

Apologetics and the Witness of Scripture (Part 6)

Picking up where we left off, I’ll now touch on the major points a transcendental approach seeks to get across. The main point is that without a biblical conception of God, and for that matter, an entire Christian worldview, life, at the deepest level, makes no sense.

Logic. The infinite personal God of Scripture is the only logical and coherent ground for laws of thought. How so? They reflect His thinking and character. The Biblical God’s character is that of truth, therefore to violate the law of non-contradiction (“Something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, in the same respect”) would effect be to lie.

Science. The uniformity of nature, which is the very heart and soul of the scientific method, needs God to stabilize the world in order for science to make reliable inductive hypotheses. Strict empiricism cannot account for the law of cause and effect (as argued by philosopher David Hume), and if the world really is left to chance then to say that we can expect tomorrow to be like today would be to make a groundless statement. We cannot experience casual connections between 2 events. Thus, a nonbeliever has no reason to believe that cause and effect actually exists. The uniformity of nature must be assumed in order for any rational inquiry to proceed.

Human dignity. We are created in the image of God (imago dei), thus the worth of humanity is directly related to the worth of the One whose image we reflect.

Ethics. According to Francis Schaeffer:

With the Christian answer it is now possible to understand that there are true moral absolutes. There is no law behind God, because God is the furthest thing back. The moral absolutes rest upon God’s character. The creation as he originally made it conformed to his character. The moral commandments he has given are an expression of his character. Men created in his image are created to live by choice on the basis of what God is. The standards of morality are determined by what conforms to his character, while those things which do not conform are immoral.- Francis A. Schaeffer, The God who is There (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998) 133.

This is the gist of the transcendental message, next we’ll look further at how Christianity provides answers for these crucial issues…

Gnostic Sex vs. Gospel Sex

Here’s an excellent blog entry on the meaning of “gospel sex.”

Tim Keller on Scripture as our Foundation

Here’s a great clip of Tim Keller, Pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.