Monday, March 30, 2015

Pony Car Parables (4)


A Pleasing Aroma

Ever notice the unique smell of a classic car? Dad had a 65 Impala SS when I was young. Even now, over 3 decades later, as I get in Vinny, that smell is so familiar. I’m sure it’s just exhaust, but I’ve always liked it (strange, I know). As I thought about this, it reminded me of what God teaches about certain aroma...
I have heard that the sense of smell is the most linked to memory. And, apart from Vinny, I’ve experienced it many times. God mentions things that are ‘pleasing aromas’ and things that aren’t. We’re also told of spiritual aroma. The first mention is in Gen 8 with Noah offering on an altar he built. God called it a “soothing aroma” followed by His promise to never flood the earth with water again. The Northern army in Joel 2 yielded a foul smell to the Lord when God destroyed it. Service and devotion unto God are soothing or sweet aromas to God. And, just think, when pleasant smells remind you of something―they remind God too. What’s your life and heart smell like to God?

Paul mentions this in 2 Cor 2:14-16, “But thanks be to God, who...through us spreads the aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For to God we are the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To some we are an aroma of death leading to death, but to others, an aroma of life leading to life.” During victory parades, there was much incense. The people smelled victory; the enemies led through the streets in chains smelled it too, but knew it would end in their death. Our smell is the same. Those wanting the truth perceive our words and spirits as life. Those rejecting God remaining His enemies smell us as death (to their way of life, their sinful desires, etc.). What’s your aroma to others?

To some, Vinny just smells like an old car. Others smell memories of good times, freedom, and a simpler time. What does Scripture, prayer, obedience, the Church, etc. smell like to you? To God’s people these are life. To the enemies, they are at least somewhat of a stench.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Pony Car Parables (3)



Got Your Wires Crossed?

Vinny’s temperature gauge worked for a while, but then was stuck on ‘hot’ all the time. No problem, just replace it right? Wrong. It took a lot of rewiring...

We need rewired too. God’s Word tells us that we are to continue to “be transformed in the renewing of our minds,” or “let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think,” (NLT). This isn’t easy. But, wrong thinking leads to a wrong view of God and reality, which leads to wrong living, which leads to damage...for all involved. The temperature gauge wasn’t working. No problem; we’ll just replace it right? Wrong. First, part of the dash needed removed. Then, we had to work loose the very tightly-connected wires for EVERYTHING.

We tested the gauge; it was fine. So, what was wrong? Well, after checking the other gauges, the amp. gauge was fried. So, we got a new one. But, what of the temp. gauge? Well, we reassembled everything (which took HOURS) a wiring diagram, and much patience. See, THE DASH HAD BEEN WIRED WRONG! The temperature from the engine was being sent to the amp gauge, which fried it (and the others were mixed up too). After rewiring all the gauges, lights, and turn signals; and the dash was put back in (despite retaining clips repeatedly falling out before the screws made it through), all was well.

Imagine―all that time I was getting a false reading of reality and had no idea of the damage that could’ve been happening. Sin and ignorance do that. We really think we are wise at times when all the while it is against God and hurting others. God even warns us twice in the Proverbs about this: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Pv 14:12; 16:25) Though painful at times and though it may take a lot of work, we are to let God rewire our thinking. That way, evermore, we have the mind of Christ (1Cor 2:16; Phil 2:5).

Sunday, March 22, 2015

Email To A Thinking Christian Friend Considering Postmodernism



A deep-thinking Christian friend of yours recently wrote an email to you seriously considering the Postmodernism. The email expressed that Foundationalism (a cumulative-case type reasoning) is seriously flawed, therefore we cannot be absolutely sure about the unique claims of Christianity nor can one get absolute truth from the Bible. Further, this friend assumes a radical dichotomy between faith and reason.

How would you respond?

Here's how I responded to one well aware of my slight snarkiness ;)

 Friend,

Thank you for your honesty and for your openness in coming to me about this. Since this is the first I’ve heard of it from you, I will be making some assumptions as to your definitions, where you may have gotten your information, how you know that information to be true, etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I understand correctly, your issues are the considering of Postmodernism (which can be anything you want it to be), the flaws of foundationalism --what foundation (s) did you build upon logically to come to that conclusion, I wonder :), absolute surety to Christianity's unique claims as well as ability to get absolute truth from the Bible --which could be an issue of absolute truth in general, or that Christianity and the Bible are “different” than other books, holy or not, and the apparent dichotomy between faith and reason --I wonder if you just independently believe this for no reason, or rather that either your reason informed your belief, or your belief guided your reason, either of which shows them working together already--just sayin’.

But, since you probably want more philosophical answers, I’ll do what I can. But I’ll go at it from the last issues first.

Faith and Reason

As far as faith and reason, there are many who have struggled with this over the centuries, so you are not alone. One bonus of this is that there is ample food for ought to work through for help. Feel free to check into it yourself, but here are some basic I’ve come across. There seem to be three dominant views on this:

Fideism, meaning “faith” or “faiths” believes that faith does not rely on objective arguments1 and that to evaluate faith by any external factor like logic, evidence, etc. is a terrible mistake and is worshiping logic, evidence, etc. rather than God.2 As far as they are concerned, looking to such outside cohesion is a lack of faith. They believe there is reasonableness for belief, but that faith is faith, and one should not pursue it further.

Another method is “strong rationalism”. Which basically says, “Don’t believe anything until you know everything.” Or, “Better go without belief forever than to believe a lie.”3 Assuming that one can know everything necessary for belief and yet no defining “necessary” or “sufficient”, which would be difficult since it is “person-relative”.4

The third is “soft (or critical) rationalism”. This is somewhat a middle road from the two. It considers experience like fideism does, considers evidence, like strong rationalism, but considers belief as a “whole” not dissected, but based upon evidence that stacks up. It builds a cumulative case and believes in the most probable or reasonable conclusion at the time.

Agreeing it is wrong to “nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation”,5 critical rationalism encourages the utmost use of rational capacities. It does not “leap” and ignore further evidence as does Fideism6 but, as I said, builds a cumulative case,7 realizing faith may go beyond the objectively knowable.8 Understanding this Aquinas separated truths into those we can grasp and those we cannot, Scripture itself attesting to both.9 Strengths of this method include engaging doubts with both reasons and arguments, and resisting overconfidence and overoptimism about current conclusions.10

Personally, I side with this last view, but I would add more tenacity to belief until overwhelming evidence stood to the contrary. There are truths that exceed reason. For example, how is it that the single cell of a baby somehow turns in to cells that become bone, and others in to skin, and others muscle, etc. Which develops first, why? This is beyond my reasoning capabilities, but it is true that it happens. How is it that the numerous chemical reactions the body goes through just to produced a scab so we don’t bleed to death all know when to begin, and to stop, and to begin the next one? It’s beyond me. I mean, just one reaction not happening could result in death from a simple scrape. The glory of truth beyond reason it that it curbs presumption on our part that we can actually know everything.11 And, for the Christian, faith is the linchpin. Without faith it is impossible to please God, it is the evidence of thing NOT seen12. One cannot, by definition, have faith in what is already known beyond a doubt or seen already. It is through faith that we are being saved by God’s grace13. We are protected by God through faith for a salvation to be revealed in the last time14. No faith, no salvation. There are things I don’t understand, but that doesn’t bother me so much anymore. And, to be honest, those things pale by comparison with the evidence for Christian faith being the only rational choice...but more on that later.

Faith and Reason

Addressing your perspective of a dichotomy between faith and reason, faith and reason are different, but actually work together. No honest faith or doubt is based on nothing. Take for instance your consideration of Postmodernism. Either you are considering putting your faith in the paradigm due to your reasoning, or are reasoning that it is a genuine possibility because of a certain faith in it. Postmodernism itself would probably scorn what grounds you have for considering it since it rejects revelation, inductive thought, and scientific investigation.15 Of course I assume that either revelation, thought, or evidence has led to your consideration. Or, hopefully not, but maybe it’s some sin you don’t want to let go of. I’m “going there” because Ryan Dobson is convinced this is the real reason people go for relativism.16 Mohler also points out that Postmodernists in many cases represent an actual reversal of Biblical morality with sexuality at the center. I think he is right when he states that, “Modernism and postmodernism can be understood as lengthy and elaborate rationalizations for sexual misbehavior.”17

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is one cannot be a Christian without faith. But, it is not a faith in itself. As Thomas F. Torrance said, “Faith becomes not the [foundation of Christianity]. Rather, faith is the expression of trust based upon that ground, that ground being Christ as the self-revelation of God in space and time.”18 As I said before, faith and reason work together.

With that in mind here are some reasons for faith in the accuracy of the Bible, thus what it says about God, us, sin, hope, salvation, judgment, etc. I offer just a few --with me a few is relative, as you know :). It is unique in its texts, its specific prophecies, and scientific inclusions (medical, archeological, geological, etc.).

The Bible

The texts are unique in continuity, circulation, translation, survival, and withstanding attack. It was written over about 1,500 years by more than 40 people from kings to slaves, business owners to prisoners, statesman to fisherman, shepherds to historians, and they all agree on every ultimate issue of life. Today we would be hard-pressed to find even three people to agree on one ultimate issue. The Bible is the most circulated text in the world of all ages and translated into over 1,400 languages. No other texts come close, why? There has been no other text that has been attacked or analyzed with such scrutiny. But, lo it stands. Historically, it has the most evidence to be trusted. For example, Julius Caesar has no known originals. We have are 10 copies, and they are from over 1,000 years after he died. We only have 600 copies of Homer’s The Iliad, and they’re 1,300 years after the originals were written. But, the Bible has over 24,000 manuscripts; some within 35 years of the writer’s death.19 You could also corroborate New Testament writings with others such as Flavius Josephus, The Babylonian Talmud, Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan, Tacitus, and more.20

The Bible stands alone in its prophecies too, not just Messianic ones. I know you know several Messianic prophecies, but do you remember the foretelling of great empires being overthrown like Greece and Rome21, Tyre and Sidon22? How about Cyrus being named specifically as releasing Israel from captivity about 700 years before he was born23? And, there was Jesus’ prophesy specifically telling how Jerusalem would fall, and it did in AD 70.

Many scientific discoveries were in the Bible the whole time: the water cycle, the sun’s orbit, the earth being round and hanging on nothing, bleeding people actually weakening their life not help, running water being more sanitary than still water, the currents through the oceans, mountains being at the bottom of the sea, things visible being made from things we cannot see, etc. And, Dr. Nelson Glueck said that not one archeological finding has ever contradicted the Bible.24

All of this so far to say that though God’s word is trustworthy, yes, there will always be things we don’t understand. Praise God! I wouldn't want a God not bigger than my puny understanding and imagination. Besides, the evidence is quite compelling.

Postmodernism

“Christian” postmodernists may reject foundationalism due to their defining it in terms of a quest for epistemic certainty, and since there’s no certainty to be found --assumption on their part-- the quest is an impossible one --which is a foundational argument against foundationalism ;). Postmodernism is full of such self-contradictory ideas. Also taken into account is that postmoderns think all foundationalism is the classic version close in flavor to strong rationalism. Classic foundationalism believes certainty is a prerequisite to knowledge. But, there are many variations of foundationalism out there.25 For instance the evidence I gave about the Bible would not fall under classic foundationalism. I have no absolute truth, merely multiple agreeing witnesses of various kinds that all line up and make sense.

Interestingly enough, the flaws postmoderns address in foundationalism, are made upon a foundation framework beginning with assumptions, adding evidence either logically, scientifically, or revelatory --all of which they say they reject-- unto a logically coherent conclusion. Or even if they embrace coherentism, one must still investigate validity of its coherence which leads to the factors they supposedly reject. Even your own question is a foundational addressing of a critical rationalistic persuasion. You are considering a course of action based upon certain evidences assumed to be true or apparent lack of them, and considering that evidence you are choosing to believe such and such. The bummer is that you are considering embracing that which holds core beliefs in contradiction to the core of your thinking.

You claim foundationalism is flawed, therefore you can’t be absolutely sure of Christianity and the Bible. However, even if foundationalism is flawed --which I hopefully have shown it’s not; even you seem to be using it in your e-mail-- the truths of Christ are not built upon foundationalism, anymore than your existence in history being researched 2,000 years from now are based on foundationalism. Your existence is based upon an absolute reality in space and time regardless of whatever evidence is found. The truths of Jesus and the Bible are the same even though there IS a multitude of evidence and outside witnesses to its veracity. Even today we can look inside the Bible and see its truth played out all around us: the rise in meteorological events, increases in homosexuality, rebellion of youth against the older, vegetarianism, wars, racial hatred, people claiming it has always been so, etc. These are all truths in the meta-narrative of the text that claims, and gives us, authority over our morality and offers a cure for our ultimate issues. Postmodernism rejects all the bolded terms in stark contrast to the Bible.

Let me just compare some key points of Christianity and Postmodernism 26:


Notice Postmodernism is counter to Scripture and exalt humans as the determiner of truth, authority, morality, and all else. There is no room for “evil” in that view because there are no standards for such language. Contrarily there can be no “good” either. And, it offers no answer to our sin problem. you have admitted being a liar, a thief, an adulterer, murder, blasphemer, etc. in God’s sight; and your conscience bore witness to that. So, what does Postmodernism offer? Therapy; a way to attempt to ease your guilt for your violating what God has written on every heart. God, on the other hand, offers the substitutionary death of Jesus to make the legal transaction of “the fine” being paid for you possible. And, having entered into the relationship by faith, one now walks with Him and begins to take on His nature and character having been born again into a new family and community who walks with you.

There is much more to be said --especially by me, I know :). But I hope you consider these things while feeling free to bring clarification, other questions or concerns, or anything else to me. This also sounds like a great time to, as the Apostle Paul exhorted, “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test? But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test.27 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.28

In your corner,

_________________________
1 StevenTsoukalas, “”Faith and Reason”, lecture 3 Philosophy of Christian Religion, WBS, Spring 2009.
2 Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, David Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford), 58.
3 William James, in Readings, 112.
4 George Mavrodes in Michael Peterson, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 63.
5 William Clifford, Readings., 107.
6 Michael Peterson, Reason, 65.
7 Ibid., 62.
8 Readings, 90.
9 Readings, 92.
10 Reason 62.
11 Thomas Aquinas in Michael Peterson, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, New York:Oxford University Press, 2007), 94.
12 Hebrews 11:1-6.
13 Ephesians 2:8
14 1 Peter 1:4-5
15 R. Albert Mohler, “What is Truth? Truth and Contemporary Culture.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Mar 2005; 48, 1; ProQuest Religion, 66.
16 Ryan Dobson, Be Intolerant: Because Some Things are Just Stupid. (Sisters:Multnomah, 2003), 55.
17 Mohler, 69.
18 Thomas F. Torrance in Steven Tsoukalas, “Toward a Foundational Epistemology”, lecture 1 Philosophy of Christian Religion, WBS, Spring 2009.
19 Jordan and Justin Drake, from Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort The School of Biblical Evangelism. (Orlando:Bridge-Logos, 2004),346-347.
20 Richard M. Fales in Biblical Evangelism, 353-354.
21 Daniel 2:39-40
22 Isaiah 23
23 Is 45:1 and Ezra
24 Nelson Glueck, Biblical Evangelism, 361.
25 J. P. Moreland, “Truth Contemporary Philosophy and the Modern turn.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Mar 2005; 48, 1; ProQuest Religion, 83.
26 Mohler, 66-69.
27 2 Corinthians 13:5-6
28 Philippians 2:12-13

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Does Philosophy Matter? (The Short Answer)

 Does Philosophy Matter? (The Short Answer)

A characteristic of philosophical wisdom--the apprehension of the true nature of reality--is to know what everything is for [1], and thus the meaning and value of it.[2]  Once one knows the purpose, one can better determine what is and is not proper, or good, concerning everything, and ultimately how to live.[3]

God says one may brag about understanding and knowing Him (Jer. 9:24).  Philosophy is a way we can better understand and know God, as well as set others free from the captivity of wrong thinking (2 Tim. 2:24-26), guard ourselves from it (Col. 2:8), and destroy those wrong ideas in their attempt to eclipse the knowledge of God and His glory (2 Cor. 10:5).  Proverbs 23:7 states that as one thinks, so one is.  One’s philosophy largely determines one’s view of reality, morality, and thus how one acts, feels, and thinks.[4]  Romans 12:2 commands us to not be conformed to the world but be transformed.  How? By the renewing of our minds.

Proper philosophy helps one live the life Jesus modeled, the life He enables and expects us to live as well.

_________________
1 John Passmore, “Philosophy”, 217.
2 Ibid., 218.
3 Ibid.
4 Del Tackett, “The Truth Project” DVD series.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Episte-what? A Brief Glance at Epitemology (How We Know Anything)


What is Epistemology?


Epistemology is the discipline and study entailing the determination of what knowledge is, how knowledge comes about, and determining foundational truths necessary and able to demonstrate something to be true ―or to demonstrate the lack of such foundational truths.


What is Epistemology Like?

The nature of epistemology is such that it determines what is ultimate truth, and therefore can become knowledge (one cannot have knowledge of something that does not exist).  It grapples with truth in the sense of examining NOT the truth claim or truth itself, but the process along which one travels to arrive at the conclusion that this or that is true or most reasonable.  It does not focus on the what one believes, but rather the foundational why or how of one’s belief.  For example, logic, perception, experience, tradition, and written and verbal witness all may be among what was drawn upon to arrive at one’s conclusion.  One or the other of these may or may not be as weighty as another in one’s mind or reasoning, but all are relevant.

One foundational hinge for epistemology is the fact that nothing can be proven by using itself as proof.  So, epistemology seeks accepted foundational truths which are, or can be, used to prove other things.1  This is necessary because the mere statement of a truth does not make it true.  It may be true, but one must look beyond the statement itself to determine its truth.  I cannot prove that I typed this simply by stating it.  However, given that one could perceive me typing it if they looked in the room, or that one could find this work on my computer dated and timed at the time I claimed, or find congruence in style with other papers I have typed, one could find adequate reason to believe that my statement is, in fact, true.

What Does it Matter?

In general, epistemology is only as important as truth is important.  However, truth is very important. The ability to discern and discover truth and thereby potential knowledge is of vast importance.  The better we become at the process of discovering truth, the better we will become at guiding others to that truth and in their own pursuits of additional truth.  This will both increase truth and reality, and decrease lies and deception to the betterment of all.  Yet, to leave God “out of the equation” is to depend far too much on the capacity of the human spirit and will.

Epistemology is significant in Christian theology in a number of ways.  We are dealing with the truth, God’s truth, and are commissioned and commanded to take that truth to every creature.  However, with the mind of man at enmity against God, it will have sensual, illogical, and prejudicial hindrances.  Also, God deserves His place of exultation among the world, so we should have a reasonable, unswerving foundation for the Faith to offer reasonable people.  We also should be able to guide others through their pathway of discovery in hopes that, by the Spirit’s mercy and the revelation of the Father, they recognize the errors in their foundational sources, repent, and place their trust in God, who is truth.

Faith is not the basis of Christianity, but the exercise of abiding trust and corresponding life based upon the factual, historical revelation of God in and to this world.2  His revelation is the basis of Christianity, not the faith which, as it were, activates Christianity.  In our concern for God and the world we must realize that we cannot merely educate the beastliness out of the beast.  All the truthful information, correct logic, and ample evidence in the world will do nothing apart from a work of God.  In our pursuit of truth, we must remember to not put our trust ultimately in the power of reason, but the power and love of God.  Only a work of God can make one a new creature with new desires and a transformed mind.

________________

1 William Hasker, Metaphysics: Constructing a Worldview (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press,1983), 18.
2 Steven Tsoukalas, “Towards a Foundational Epistemology”

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Critique of Richard Rorty’s “Anticlericalism and Atheism.”

by C.L. Ramsey

Richard Rorty’s essay comprising chapter one accurately reflects a Postmodern offering to the discussion of truth, knowledge, and reality. In typical Postmodern fashion, he is replete with continual contradiction, presumed premises, and flowery falsehoods, all while ignoring plain logic and common sense. Stripping Scripture from context, contorting it to somehow squeeze into his peculiar paradigm further betrays his blind devotion to a systematic uselessness of propositions that lead nowhere―except maybe to the destruction of those who would embrace them.

According to Alvin Plantinga, though postmodernism is characterized in various ways, some core agreements are: a rejection of classical foundationalism, the claim that there is no objectivity, a pursuit of deconstruction, a claim against absolute truth, truth is made and not discovered, and that all that really matters is power.1 R. Albert Mohler, adds to these themes the death of the meta-narrative, the demise of the text, and the decline of authority.2 Themes such as these are blatant in Rorty’s writings. But in this chapter, a discussion of “truth” and anti-authority sentiments are the thrust. However, his conclusions obviously come from the foundation of these previous themes (Rorty uses an underlying “modest foundationalism,” not the classical type he would deny―although he apparently refuses to distinguish between the two).3

Given these themes as core to Rorty’s view, his writing of anything disqualifies him from legitimacy according to his own view. It would be similar to a believer of determinism seeking to change another’s belief. If our beliefs are dictated already, what’s the point of trying to change what God has sovereignly predetermined? Rorty and all Postmodernists who believe that there is no objective meaning in the written word have no business writing anything. According to them, their words will only mean what the reader brings to them. Furthermore, if one has no right to impose authority on another, why write such things designed to advance their position? Also, how can Rorty say that there is no truth as if that is the truth of the matter? There are many contradictions like these that I will probe more deeply into, but J.P. Moreland sums Rorty’s view up well. In speaking of Postmodernism, he says it is, “the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claims to allegiance.”4

False Premises
Rorty presumes that in “this new climate of philosophical opinion” certain answers are no longer expected. He goes on to imply that there are no answers anyway to the possible pleaching of art and morality, politics and jurisprudence, or religion and natural science.5 Not surprisingly, he dodges questions that lead to where real life is lived. If art is divorced from morality, any obscene, pornographic, or violent content is considered permissible despite the oppressive results of that content on the viewer. This should be important to one claiming that oppression in every form is wrong (of course, “wrong” has no set standard according to Rorty). Without jurisprudence, those in politics (and everywhere) would be free to oppress whomever they could without deterrence or restitution. This negation seems to counter his stance of authority being suspect due to its bent toward oppression. I would think he would champion the issue of justice, especially when keeping those in power in check.

Rorty’s Real Issue
Ultimately, Rorty builds to his real issue, that of religion. He presumes a discord between religion and natural science. However, there is no such discord when speaking of Christianity. In fact, the Bible has never been contradicted by genuine science, and the more scientists discover, the more we see that their discoveries―from the water cycle6, the sun’s motion7, and the earth’s shape8, to atomic theory9 and many more, not to mention the vast archaeological finds―agree with Scripture. Both real science and Christianity are aimed at ultimate reality, as was philosophy at its beginning. In Webster’s 1828 dictionary, within the definition of philosophy was this elaboration:

“The objects of philosophy are to ascertain facts or truth, and the causes of things or their phenomena; to enlarge our views of God and his works, and to render our knowledge of both practically useful and subservient to human happiness.

“True religion and true philosophy must ultimately arrive at the same principle.”10

Christianity and genuine science are naturally interwoven, as are art and morality and jurisprudence and politics. To simply avoid the issue as Rorty does is to remain caught up in philosophical fancies of no substance, offering no answers and no help at all, contradicting his rally to pragmatism.

His seemingly noble suggestion that believers and nonbelievers follow a policy of “live and let live”11 may sound good at first, but how about merely “letting live” those who hold a policy of “live and let’s murder”? His solution of religion being “unobjectionable as long as it is privatized” leaves murderers free to harm whomever they wish if say, Christianity, was relegated from the public square. Claims that religion should not be involved with politics typically occur after political figures have roped issues into politics that are, in actuality religious issues, like ethics, value of existence, life, etc.

Key Contradictions
Despite Rorty’s being religiously “non-musical,” he seems to champion the Christian virtue of charity or love. In fact, he goes so far as to state that history has no ultimate meaning or purpose, but only “the hope that love may prevail.”12 He even applauds Vattimo for stripping Jesus from history and identifying Him with neither truth nor power but only with love.13 However, he does not define the truth of what love is―and doesn’t try. Building upon Vattimo’s removal of Jesus from truth and history, Rorty issues the imperative that religion should retreat from the sphere of the quest for truth. Further contradicting himself yet again, he states that the truth of this conclusion is the lesson learned from the history of Europe and America.14 It is interesting that he espouses a lesson from history, although history, according to him, has no meaning. Furthermore, considering Rorty’s heralding of open-mindedness saying things like, “[open-mindedness] should be fostered for its own sake,”15 his moral imperative regarding religion seems counter to his dogma, especially considering his denial of the existence of a “moral high ground” from which one can make moral judgments and demands in the first place.16

Supporting Vattimo’s agreement with Heidegger that, “the metaphysics of objectivity culminates in a thinking that identifies truth of being with the calculable, measurable and definitively manipulatable object of techno-science,”17 Rorty seemingly changes his viewpoint from postmodernism to modernism. And, redefining terms that are inconvenient for his point, he identifies “rationality” with pursuing universal, intersubjective agreement and identifies “truth” as the outcome from such a pursuit. This premise, he concludes, squeezes religion out of public life and intellectual life as well.18 I don’t know what he does with the scientific truths in the Bible that we continue to “catch up with.” After all, these meet the criteria laid out by Vattimo and Heidegger that Rorty says he supports. But, changing the definition of “rationality” and “truth” is one way to present himself as correct―even though being “correct” or stating the “truth” would leave him only stating what has been agreed upon (according to his definition of “truth”). But, then again, since there is not universal agreement concerning his statements, then, by his own definition, he is propagating untruth (or falsehood). Contrarily, if Rorty’s view of rationality and truth is played out, then all we would have to do is agree that there is no cancer or AIDS,19 and it would be reality. According to Rorty, reality follows universal opinion. For being so non-religious, he sounds a lot like a devout member of the word-of-faith movement which also espouses we can create reality with our agreement and words. This idea of deciding what reality will be simply by agreeing on it is ridiculous. Underlying his opinion is the assumption that religion is irrational. But, as Plantinga points out, there is no genuine solely du jure question, only one of, or intwined with, the de facto question.20

Scripture Out Of Context
I find it strange that, given Rorty’s education and literacy, he can so widely miss the point of even the plainest meaning of Scripture despite the context―but then again, he would say that writing only means what the reader brings to it. For example, he agrees with Vattimo’s misrepresenting Jesus’ kenosis as God’s turning over everything to humans. This is an utter perversion of the term, let alone the event. His bizarre conclusion from this is that secularization is the “constitutive trait of authentic religious experience.”21 This is like saying that the way to make snow whiter is to mix it with dung. As I read Rorty, I’m reminded of Martin Luther’s response to Erasmus. Though unlike Luther with Erasmus, I am not impressed at all with Rorty’s style. Luther conceded to Erasmus in his upstaging eloquence and genius. But, Luther regarded his arguments as so worthless, that in contrasting Erasmus' content with his style, he compared his writing to “peasepods or pieces of dung served up in vessels of gold and silver.”22

Rorty further says that if we would only become more secular, we would somehow better carry out “the Gospel’s promise that God will no longer see us as servants but as friends.”23 The trouble with this statement is that this is not the Gospel’s promise, but a result of the promise. And, this result is dependent upon a condition. The condition is in the same verses misrepresented here from John 15 and is from Jesus Himself. He said to His disciples that they were His friends IF they do what He commands. Rorty’s touting of Vattimo’s reduction of Christianity to love, while leaving the rest to “the non-finality of historical experiences,”24 fails to realize―or admit― that both the command to charity as well as the rest of Jesus’ commands were both given and lived out in historical reality and experience.

Nonsensically, Rorty then lifts up examples from the past that supposedly model Christian love, like Darwin, whose work inspired the Holocaust―that was love? On the other hand, Darwin and those like him should have no problem with the Holocaust, since it would only be “survival of the fittest” in action, improving our “favoured race.” Of course, according to Rorty, if we would but agree that the Holocaust never happened, then it would be so. Rorty lifts up Freud as well and describes him and Darwin as followers of Christ in some sense―nonsense! Freud proposed that God does not really exist at all, but is a result of mere wish-fulfillment. Darwin and Freud having nothing to do with being like Christ.

Rorty states that “truth and knowledge are a matter of social cooperation,”―never mind that this contradicts itself since this proposition itself is not agreed upon―and two paragraphs later he says that both he (with no regard for religion) and Vattimo (raised Catholic with much religious feeling) can both, “cite 1 Corinthians 13 in support of [their] refusal to engage in any such individuous explanation.”25 The problem with this is that 1 Corinthians 13:6 states, “Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness…”―notice the moral implication that Rorty would deny is possible―“...but [love] rejoices in the TRUTH.” Notice that love rejoices in the truth whether we all agree that it does or not.
Earlier in verses 4-5 we see, “love” does not act improperly, envy, and is not conceited. Contrarily, Rorty describes his version of a global civilization of “love” in which he so-typically contradicts himself describing it as both “domination-free” yet, “power would be entirely at the disposal of the free agreement of…” whom, the people? the consensual law? the individual? no, “...the free agreement of a literate and well-educated electorate.”26 So much for domination free. Does he think that this elite would not be tempted to oppress others for personal gain? For being so anti-power and authority believing all power to be bad, he is awfully quick to decide that controlling power should not only exist, but those like himself should ascend the throne.

Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing
This essay smacks of a desperate fool trying to wage word games until he can justify his depravity to himself by tying his mind in such contradiction that true reason cannot penetrate. It also seems that he is trying to manipulate public consensus in order to recast his deception as acceptable. Peter puts it this way, “These people are springs without water, mists driven by a whirlwind. The gloom of darkness has been reserved for them. For uttering bombastic, empty words, they seduce, by fleshly desires and debauchery...They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption.”27 To again quote J.P. Moreland, Rorty’s views are “the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claims to allegiance.”28
_____________________________
1 Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York:Oxford University Press, 2000), 422-423. Afterwards WCB.
2 R. Albert Mohler, “What is Truth?  Truth and Contemporary Culture.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Mar 2005; 48, 1; ProQuest Religion, 66-68.
3 J.P. Moreland, “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; March 2005; 48, 1, 83-84.
4 J.P. Moreland, 88.
5 Rorty, Richard and Gianni Vattimo,  ed  Santiago Zabala. The Future of Religion (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) 32.
6 Amos 9:6. 7 Psalm 19:4-6. 8 Isaiah 40:22. 9 Hebrews 11:3.
10 Webster, Noah (1828). Rosalie Slater, Ed., American Dictionary of the English Language. (San Francisco, CA:Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).
11 Zabala, 33.
12 Ibid., 35. 
13 Ibid., 35-36.
14 Ibid., 36.
15 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, p 52. Quoted in Rosalind M. Selby, Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 52.
16 Richard Rorty, Quoted in Rosalind M. Selby, Comical Doctrine: An Epistemology of New Testament Hermeneutics (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 242-43.
17 Zabala, 36.
18 Ibid., 36-37.
19 WCB., 430.
20 Ibid., 169 and other places.
21 Ibid., 35.
22 Henry Worsley, The life of Martin Luther, Vol. 2, (London:Bell and Daldy, 1856), 85.
23 Zabala, 38.
24 Ibid., 38.
25 Ibid., 39.
26 Ibid., 40.
27 2 Peter 2:17-19 HCSB.
28 J.P. Moreland, “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; March 2005; 48, 1, 88.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Pony Car Parables (2)

Light in the Darkness:


In restoring ‘Vinny’ (the Mustang), I found I needed to replace the vintage headlights with a brighter set and realign them. Then I thought...

Headlights that are too dim or not aligned properly do not give a proper view of reality in the darkness. Likewise, our ‘lights’ may need adjusted. We will have misperceptions at times; it’s part of the road-trip. If we are teachable, the solution will likely be a simple matter of adjusting the screws of an understanding of Scripture and/or the nature of God that’s a little off.

Scripture is key: “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,”―Ps 119:105. Like Vinny, we need new headlights, new light in our head. We need Jesus, the Light of the World; and we need to walk in the path He lights for us. Are you trusting and following His light, or are you still driving by your own dim understanding of reality? Eph 4:23 says, “...be renewed (restored) in the spirit of your mind.”

Later, in Eph 5:8 & 11 that we “were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light...Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” Are you? We’ve become pretty decent at avoiding a measure of immorality, greed, filthy talk, impurity, etc. (from verses 3-6). But, are we exposing them for what they really are. How can people repent if they don’t see the sinfulness of sin? And, how can they know that without someone caring enough to explain it to them? After all, we are the ones with the light, not them. And, we can drive in relative darkness with our lights off for a while, but a wreck is in the near future if we do. As Jesus might say, “No one turns on the headlights to shine them where no one will see it. No, they turn them on to better see the road and to be seen.”

In our restoration, as in any classic, new lights are crucial. In this present darkness, it’s the only way to see the ‘highway of holiness’ (Isa 35:8). And, they greatly increase the safety of ourselves, of others, and help protect the investment of our Master Restorer.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Theology Matters

Because theology matters, this page focuses primarily upon theology matters ;)

Theology

THEOL'OGY, noun [Gr. God, and discourse.] Divinity; the science of God and divine things; or the science which teaches the existence, character and attributes of God, his laws and government, the doctrines we are to believe, and the duties we are to practice. theology consists of two branches, natural and revealed. Natural theology is the knowledge we have of God from his works, by the light of nature and reason. Revealed theology is that which is to be learned only from revelation.

Moral theology teaches us the divine laws relating to our manners and actions, that is, our moral duties.theology, teaches or explains the doctrines of religion, as objects of faith.

Scholastic theology is that which proceeds by reasoning, or which derives the knowledge of several divine things from certain established principles of faith.

--from the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster

These link to the articles by name:



How Can God and Evil Both Exist? (an email response for a "thinker")


Returning from the first year at the university, a friend is now questioning many aspects of the faith, including the existence of God, especially in light of evil in the world. 


How would you respond?

Here is an email response I would offer too a particular friend f mine just stating university. (He know of my degrees of sarcasm, pun, and getting at the roots of things).

Friend,

So, you’re battling with God’s existence, especially given the presence of evil in the world?  Your professors and friends have you thinking?  Good ;).  Consider this the beginning of your journey to a stronger, more fortified faith in the Lord who is.  I look forward to your faith and confidence blooming as we go through this together.  My guess is that soon you’ll be showing others out of their darkness.

Without God, There Is No Ultimate Standard of Good or Evil
First off, there are many great arguments for God’s existence: from creation, order, logic, etc.  All are convincing.  If you want these, great.  We will need to set up a time to talk, not because they are complicated necessarily, but because concepts new to you may need explanation.  I will be coming more straightforward: from your moral conscience.  We all believe in certain things being right or wrong.  For instance, torturing people to death for fun is always wrong.  Why do we believe this?  The theory most compelling to me for the nature of these beliefs is one involving God’s existence, and “wrongs” being inconsistent with His nature and character, will, or commands.1  Universal moral beliefs, and universal morals themselves, can only exist if God exists. Without God, there is no ultimate measure or standard for good/bad and right/wrong. Without God, these are reduced to useful or preferable depending upon circumstance, perspective, and/or one’s goal.

What is That “Inner Voice” We Sometimes Battle?
The Bible teaches that apart from God, there is no forgiveness, hope, or lasting fulfillment.  Does experience agree?  People chase ever-fleeting happiness everywhere, from sensuality, to beauty, to intellectuality.  Christianity maintains the reason for this is we were not created to be whole apart from God.2  Nothing finite can fill the eternity God has set in all hearts.3  Could it be that we are not designed for this place?  Apart from God, how else do we explain experience’s telling us that we long for something unattainable in this world.  C.S. Lewis said, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”4  Completeness can only come from God.

Lewis also told a story about someone’s call for help eliciting two desires.  One is to help, the other to run away for one’s own safety.  But there is this third thing saying you should repress the desire to run and follow the desire to help.5  What is this third thing? It is obviously not us, or we wouldn’t be struggling against it.  The “something” outside us urging us to a moral standard external to ourselves can only be God.

Even Hume mused, “Supposing there were a God, who did not discover himself immediately to our senses; were it not possible for him to give stronger proofs of his existence, than what appear on the face of nature?”6  God has made His existence evident through creation, but there are other evidences, like this whole idea of “right and wrong”, and the belief that we need to be better, or forgiven, or something.  Richard Swinburn spoke of this being a reasonable expectation from God’s existence saying, “If there is a God who wills men to seek [him] or not, there is reason to expect that he will take steps to ensure that they acquire information as to how to attain that well-being...So there is a priori reason to suppose that God will reveal to us those things needed for salvation.”7  This begins in the conscience.

God is there.  We have this innate sense of human value, right and wrong, the “ought” that comes to mind when we don’t want it to, etc.  Where else would it come from?  The whole “problem of evil” is usually a smokescreen covering people's sin.  Present evil is a proof of the truth of His Word.  But again, there are more detailed answers.

Aspects of Evil and God’s Goodness
Three main aspects of this reputed conflict of God’s goodness with the reality of evil seem to be defining evil (What is the necessary standard?), man’s freedom (how is “freedom” to be understood?), and God’s sovereignty (what kind of power does God exercise?).  “If all human actions are causally determined, then no one is ever morally responsible for any action.”8  If no true freedom exists, then God is the source of all evil.9  But, if man’s choices can thwart God’s perfect will, God may seem less sovereign and man deemed a sort of “god” since he decides the future.

To define “evil”, one must have an ethic or standard of reference.  Those who are absolutely sure there are no absolutes :), or there is no God, really have no basis for using such language.  With no ultimate standard there is neither right, wrong, good, nor evil.  Furthermore, evolutionists should be fine with human atrocity playing out natural selection.  Compassion for the weak, oppressed, poor, etc. is inconsistent with their view, which has no basis for the innate value of life.

Like Marilyn Adams—although disagreeing with her universalism—I prefer to bring out first that God’s existence is compatible with present evil if that evil can, in fact be defeated in an individual’s life.10  First, let’s assume there is no God.  At whose feet does the blame for evil fall?  The blame sets squarely on mankind; there is no one else to answer for it.  With that in mind, let us assume now that God does exist.  Does His existence alone change the state or nature of mankind?  No.  The existence of God is a largely separate issue from the presence of evil.  The problem is not God.  As Pogo said, “We have found the enemy and it is us.” :/  However, guilt and praise are only reasonable if there is freedom and responsibility. 

We innately know that people deserve rewards for good and punishment for evil.11  But, one can do neither without genuine choice.  No response-ability, no responsibility.  Even Steven Cahn who believes God’s existence is “highly improbable” says evil character can only be meaningful if it is freely chosen, being best accomplished by quenching one’s conscience through consistent evil choices.12  There can be no true love or obedience apart from the choice to rebel.  God does not will for evil, but allows its possibility.13  It is not God’s will that any perish, but that all come to repentance,14 but many will end up in Hell despite His wishes.15

It has been said, “The most important issue is not that God exists, but what He is like.”16  One of God’s unique, yet oft misunderstood attributes is His sovereignty.  God is sovereign over everything; “everything” includes His own sovereignty.17  He is, therefore, able to choose to limit His choices so we may have free will.18  God desires a genuine personal relationship.  And, although God knew man would go wrong unleashing much evil, He granted free will anyway because, “a world of free creatures with a meaningful range of choice is more valuable than a world of automatons,”19 or there being no world at all.

God's Grace
Wesley’s paradigm of prevenient grace, human will, and responsibility alleviate theistic “problems” of evil and human suffering.  Along with God’s existence and sovereign nature, which includes necessity for at least a degree of human freedom, Wesleyan theology includes prevenient grace.  This grace is irresistibly given to all people everywhere, but as mentioned earlier, we can harden ourselves to it.  Many call this “the conscience” or moral law.  It contains basic knowledge of, and ability to respond positively to, the things of God.20  It is like a plane ticket purchased in your name, necessitating its use it to get where it can take you.

Evil results when people disobey God and His ways.  Sadly, many use suffering to reject God’s existence notwithstanding it’s vivid testimony to the truth of His Word.21  Adam’s sin brought the curse on a once perfect world.  Sin and suffering cannot be separated.  With sin comes misery.  Ray Comfort summarizes our plight this way:

     We are like a child whose insatiable appetite for chocolate has caused his face to break out with ugly sores. He looks in the mirror and sees a sight that makes him depressed. But instead of giving up his beloved chocolate, he consoles himself by stuffing more into his mouth. Yet, the source of his pleasure is actually the cause of his suffering. The whole face of the earth is nothing but ugly sores of suffering. Everywhere we look we see unspeakable pain. But, instead of believing God’s explanation and asking Him to forgive us and change our appetite, we run deeper into sin’s sweet embrace.22

This is just a beginning; we’ll talk more through the summer.  Write down all your questions; God has answers...and better yet, wisdom.

In your corner; in His service, 

______________
1 Robert Adams, “Moral Arguments for God’s Existence.” in Michael Peterson, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, New York:Oxford University Press, 2007), 246-257.
2 Jerry L. Walls, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (New York:Oxford, 2002), 117.
3 Ecclesiastes 3:11 NASB.
4 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York:Macmillan, 1960), 119-120.
5 Ibid., 22.
6 Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 215:cf. 202, 214, quoted in Jerry L. Walls, Heaven, 15.
7 Richard Swinburne, Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy (Oxford:Clarendon, 1992), 72-74, quoted in Jerry L. Walls, Heaven, 28, 31.
8 William Hasker, Metaphysics, 46.
9 Michael Peterson, Philosophy, 380.
10 Jerry L. Walls, Heaven, 119 cf. note 16 p. 210.
11 William Hasker, Metaphysics, 31-32, 34.
12 Steven M. Cahn, “Cacodaemony”, Analysis 37 (1977) referenced in Jerry L. Walls, Heaven, 28.
13 Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity: A Plain Exposition of His Teaching on Christian Doctrine, (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1994), 114.
14 2 Peter 3:9, NASB.
15 Ibid., Revelation 21:8, etc.
16 Jerry L. Walls, Heaven, 15.
17 C.L. Ramsey, “Sovereignty + Prevenient Gace = Freedom and Responsibility.”
18 James H. Railey, Jr. and Benny C. Aker, “Theological Foundations,” in Systematic Theology, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield:Logion Press, 2002), 48n 23.
19 Michael Peterson, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 160.
20 Kenneth Collins in Steven Tsoukalas, “Preveient Grace and Human Will.”
21 See Matthew 24, Luke 21, and 2 Timothy 3, Deuteronomy 28, etc.22 Living Waters, http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/whyistheresuffering.shtml (accessed April 11, 2009)

Pony Car Parables


Why Pony Car Parables?


Well, upon reflecting on our '66 Mustang, I realized that God is in the restoration business. And, as such, I could learn plenty about what He is doing and wants to do in, for, and through us. Also, I could learn about some of the process from His point of view, like...

These older cars need much more attention than newer ones. Similarly, God says He will guide us with His eye upon us (Ps 32). It is also a work that is ongoing...like God’s work in us. He who began a good work will be faithful to complete it in us (Phil 1:6). If the work stops, it’s because we have abandoned the process, not Him. In restoring a classic, one has to be intentional and deliberate. Things need to be checked often, not just when something is wrong. As with God, He is always checking in with us by the Holy Spirit. We need to maintain “short accounts” as far as sin is concerned. God is deliberate; He always has a plan and a sequence to continuously renew our ‘new man’ into the image of Christ (Col 3:10). And, He is waiting for our response to His grace to address any sin issues (1Jn 1:8-9) or needs (2 Cor 12:9).

Restoration is costly. It cost the Father dearly in sending His Son (Jn 3:16-18) to live perfectly and die sinlessly. But, He also reaped the joy in Him rising victoriously! Just as Vinny (our Mustang) can’t restore himself, neither can we (Jn15:5). We need God to do it. Furthermore, I can’t restore Vinny alone; I need an expert. And, we can’t live the Christian life alone either; we need God and the Church.

I also need the right tools, like God has the right tools in the Church (Eph 4, etc.). And, we need different tools at different times. Just as Vinny will need his engine and transmission rebuilt every so often, so we need ourselves searched and restored every so often (Ps 139:23-24). There is more, but again, God is the Master Restorer. “Restore us to You, O LORD, that we may be restored; Renew our days as of old,” (Lam 5:21). 

What is God repairing, restoring, or upgrading in you? And, remember to celebrate what He has already done!

Monday, March 16, 2015

Sovereignty + Prevenient Grace = Freedom and Responsibility

Basic Issues:

Three basic issues regarding the seeming conundrum of human freedom in the context of God’s sovereignty seem to be: divine power (what kind of power does God exercise?), human freedom (how is “freedom” to be understood?); and knowledge (what sort does God have?).1  The dilemma is the seeming contradiction of God’s supreme providence while people under that sovereignty are responsible for their actions.  “If all human actions are causally determined, then no one is ever morally responsible for any action.”2  Further, if no true freedom exists, then it ultimately follows that God is the source of all evil.3  Yet, if man’s choices can thwart God’s perfect will, it may seem to indicate God is less sovereign and deem man a sort of “god” since he is the one deciding the future.  What of God’s sovereignty, is He omnipotent?  

Sovereignty, Freedom, and Responsibility:
God is sovereign.  What determinists overlook in the fact of His sovereignty being over everything, is that “everything” includes His own sovereignty.  He is, therefore, able to choose to limit His choices so that we may have a measure of free will.4  God’s providence does not eliminate freedom, but rather necessitates it due to His desire for a companionate world.  If God allowed no possibility for vice, there could be no virtue.  There can be no true love or obedience apart from the choice to rebel; no real responsibility without a response ability.  God does not will for evil, but allows its possibility.5  It is not His will that any perish, but that all come to repentance,6 but many will end up in Hell despite His wishes.7  The tendency of fallen humanity is only sin (and, only a “primordially good” freedom can morally “sin”), but even so, God continues with merciful alternatives to the “original plan,” which were prepared before the world began.8  God’s foreknowing in no way necessitates action, it simply knows.  I see the sun, but do not cause its shining.  He foresees our sin, but does not cause it.9  

Prevenient Grace:
Though no fallen creature left to oneself has the ability to obey God,10 one is still morally responsible before God.  This is because no person is “left to oneself”; God has sovereignly given His irresistible, prevenient grace to all.  This grace gives witness of God’s attributes, an inscription of His moral Law on our hearts, and an ability to discern between sinful desires and His Law.  Prevenient grace also gives everyone a measure of free will enabling ability to respond positively to God or to not.11  It is the resisting of that God-given ability that incurs responsibility for sin due to one’s refusal of this ability to respond God’s way.  
The Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace unlocks the initial seeming mystery of man’s free will in the context of God’s sovereignty.  God sovereignly initiates through the irresistible gift of prevenient grace, which enables one to choose what is right in God’s sight.  And, being sovereign over His own sovereignty, He enables one to then choose to acquiesce to His will or to resist it and choose sin.  Having this ability from God, one is now both responsible for one’s choices and is unfounded in any boasting, since one could not choose anything good apart from this gift of grace.  God’s knowing what one will choose beforehand (but not causing it) allows Him to have plans at the ready to enact upon one’s choosing.  Thus, through this doctrine, God’s sovereignty is preserved, man’s responsibility is explained in light of that sovereignty, and God’s non-causal foreknowledge allows for His working together of all things for good to those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.12

---------------
1 Michael Peterson, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 173.
2 William Hasker, Metaphysics: Constructing a Worldview (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press,1983), 46.
3 Michael Peterson, Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, New York:Oxford University Press, 2007), 380.4 James H. Railey, Jr. and Benny C. Aker, “Theological Foundations,” in Systematic Theology, ed. Stanley M. Horton (Springfield:Logion Press, 2002), 48n 23.
5 Thomas C. Oden, John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity: A Plain Exposition of His Teaching on Christian Doctrine, (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1994), 114.
6 2 Peter 3:9, NASB.
7 Ibid., Revelation 21:8, etc.
8 Thomas C. Oden, Systematic Theology: The Living God (Peabody:Hendrickson, 1987), 306.
Scriptural Christianity, 260
10 Ibid., 243.
11 Kenneth Collins in Steven Tsoukalas, “Preveient Grace and Human Will.”
12 Romans 8:28, NASB.

Some Christian Reflections on The Last Samurai



The word samurai means “to serve”.

In the movie The Last Samurai are many parallels to our current struggles as Christians. If we look at the Samurai’s condition, motives, attitudes and character we will see symbolic pictures of our Lord’s people.  However, their battle was physical, ours is spiritual.

Their primary weapons were the sword, bow and arrow, and fire/smoke-screens.  Ours are primarily the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph 6:17, Heb 4:12); our children (biological and spiritual) “like arrows in the hand of a warrior (Samurai)”; and fervent (“zelos” in the Greek, meaning ‘hot’) prayer (Ja 5:16), which ascends like smoke to heaven (Rev 5 and 8).

If one watches the movie keeping in mind the sword as the Word, Samurai as Christians, the imported influences as worldliness, their devotion to the Emperor as devotion to Christ, and Capt. Algren’s journey as that of one converting to Christ, one will begin to see and hear strong lessons for the Christians’ battle for Truth.

The Samurai: “A handful of warriors willing to die for what seems to have become a forgotten word: honor.”

The American said he was, “surprised to learn ‘Samurai’ means ‘to serve’”.

In the same way, “minister” means “to serve”.  All Christians are to be equipped for the work of the ministry or “service” (Eph 4).  All genuine Christians are God’s Samurai.

Stunned, the American comments on the strange new people he has encountered.  “They are an intriguing people.  From the moment they wake they devote themselves to the perfection of whatever they pursue ...I have never seen such discipline.”

“Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”  “And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.  Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. --1 Cor 10:31, 9:23-27

After observing his new community, Capt. Algren ponders, “What does it mean to be ‘Samurai’...to devote yourself utterly to a set of moral principles; to seek a stillness of your mind, and master the way of the sword?”

For us the "principles" are the Word.  The stillness is an active not passive stillness.  “Shalom”, Hebrew for peace, carries the idea of a fullness of peace—not merely an absence of activity.  This fullness of peace is so complete that no matter how much it is shaken, there is no movement within the boundaries of that peace because it is so crammed full.  When Jesus stilled the sea, the Word says, “it became calm”, however a more literal, and meaningful translation would read, “And a great calm occurred.”  You see, peace, calmness is actively overtaking the storm.  The great shaking that occurred was overpowered by the calm Jesus pronounced.  As we utterly devote ourselves to Biblical principles mastering “ the way of the Sword”, we will know more this stillness of mind—even in the hottest battle.

The training started early...as children. During one scene we see two boys play-fighting with bokkens (wooden training swords shaped like a katana (samurai sword). They swing and block hard, trying to one-up each other. One boy repeatedly gets the advantage over the other stopping his bokken just at the others boy’s neck or disarming him of his weapon completely.  Capt. Algren picks up the felled bokken to return it to the child, but is offered to ‘take on’ the winning child. He is told, “They may be children, but they are strong.”

Are we training our children to be strong...really? Or have e passed that responsibility onto some teacher, pastor, youth leader, coach, etc.? The vast majority of children raised in the church do not follow on with Jesus as adults. As little as 1 in 5 do. For the children in the movie, practicing/training with their swords was fun! It was what they did during spare time as well as training times. They wanted to be great at it (and they knew their lives depended on it). So it should be with our children and the Sword of the Spirit. We should be training children that live and play in the context of God and His truth. We should be able to say of our children, “They may be children, but they are strong.” Can we?

At one point in the movie the Samurai leader said of the idea that the Emperor might want him killed, “If the Emperor wishes my death, He has only to ask.”  He also believed his ‘rebellion’ to be in the service of the Emperor.

This is the attitude of a Christian!  We are not our own; we were bought with a price (1Cor 6:20, 7:23).  He actually commands our death; but so we can become truly alive and walk with Him.  This attitude of “whatever best pleases our Master” being paramount to us is one we must get again—or maybe for the first time.  Our ‘rebellion’ as the world sees it is also in service to our Emperor; but Christians embrace, as the Samurai did, the idea that the rebellion may also lead to pain and ultimately, our death.

The Samurai did not fear death, he understood it is part of the way things are.  He did not long for death, but accepted it.  This brought tremendous freedom during combat; his mind was free from the fear of pain and death within which left his mind free for the actual battle before him.  In all this talk of death, however, the way of the warrior (bushido) is actually about life.  It was put like this by the Samurai leader; “To know life in every breath, every cup of tea, every life we take—the way of the warrior.”  In response, half whispering the concept to himself, the American repeats pondering, “Life in every breath.”  “That is bushido,” declared the Samurai.

Jesus is about life, abundant and eternal life.  However, one must die first: die to oneself to begin this new life in Christ, die physically to enter into eternity in His direct presence (unless He comes before that).  Even the excuses and arguments we destroy (2Cor 10:3-5), even the pride, self-righteousness and ego we kill, we kill out of a desire for life—true life...life in every breath.

The “last straw” for the Samurai was when they were forbidden to carry their swords in public—the same swords that once protected everyone.  They were told that now that they are a nation of laws; they did not need the Samurai (servants armed with the outdated swords).  They were mocked by their own people for clinging to the principles which made them as great a nation as they were.

Sound familiar?  More and more we are becoming a nation of man’s laws and are being forbidden to carry and/or use our weapons, the Sword of the Spirit, prayer, etc. in public; they view it as outdated and no longer appropriate.  We too are mocked as we cling to what is good and hate what is evil (Ro12:9).

Upon reentering the main settlement of the city after the Spring thaw, the local society was militantly different.  Not only were swords forbidden to be worn in public, but now those carrying them and dressed in the old way with robes and their long hair in topknots were out-rightly ridiculed.  The ridiculing of the outward appearance of the samurai village’s leader culminated in rudely cutting off his topknot of hair—a very precious thing to a Samurai.  During the violent stripping of this outward sign of honor, he screamed in horror and grief, tears running down his face.

Ro 12:2 says, “do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”  J.B. Phillips translates it, “do not let the world squeeze you into its own mould.”  The Message says it like this, “Don’t be so well adjusted to your culture that you fit in without even thinking.”  3Jn11 says, “Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.”  Are we as grieved and resistant when things in our culture want us to conform to its view of acceptable?  Are we as troubled when others tempt us to betray our Lord Jesus by choosing their ways over His?  We are to appear different to the world, “as lights in the world” (Phil 2:15).  This starts with our inner attitude character, and devotion, and is reflected in our outward appearance in areas such as modesty, compassion, and entertainment choices.  

The lifestyle of the Samurai was described by the American as they sat around a campfire as a life of service, discipline, and compassion. The Samurai leader was thinking his life was a failure, because in his eyes he had failed to uphold the good, protect the culture from itself, and honor the great ones who went before him.  Tears welling up in his eyes, his right hand subconsciously caressing the sword of his ancestors resting upon his shoulder, he grievously reflects, “For 900 years my ancestors have protected our people.  Now, I have failed them.”  The American in response to his shame dismally responds rhetorically stating, “Shame?  Shame for a life of service, discipline, compassion?”  The leader defeatedly explains,“The way of the Samurai is not necessary anymore.”  “Necessary?”  The American retorts, and refocusing his friend, rhetorically asks, “What could be more necessary?”

The Christian life is one of service, discipline, and compassion.  Pastor, leader, parent, Christian, do you feel ashamed thinking you are irrelevant or ineffective to the ones and world you wish to protect or save?  Do you feel the world has dubbed you “unnecessary” to their plans?  Take heart; the same is said of Jesus and all the prophets that were before you (Mt5:11-12).  The more dark and cold the times in which we live become, we, like that campfire, become more necessary.  Indeed, a life of service, discipline, and compassion—what could be more necessary?

Through his journey, the American comes to understand what it is that is truly important and valuable.  The American is asked if he will fight the other Americans if they attack them.  His answer is simply, “Yes.”  When asked why, his heartfelt explanation is, “Because they come to destroy what I have come to love.”  He has become more like those who look and live differently than those whom he came through biologically.

As Christians, Jesus works in us to will and to do for His good pleasure (Phil 2:13).  We are closer to Him and His people, no matter where they are from, than our own family many times (Mt 10:34-39, 12:48-50).  We are closer by the blood of Jesus than the biological blood of man could ever make us (Gal 3:28).  And, when those we were once like attack those we love, we will respond to protect those loved ones—even from so-called “family”.

The sword the American was given before the last battle had a special inscription on it.  It said, “I belong to the warrior in whom the old ways have joined the new.”

Jesus said, “...Every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings forth out of his treasure things new and old.” Matt 13:52.  Everyone who has studied thoroughly the old ways and has come to the new Light of the Truth has great things from both.  Likewise, we as Christ’s, have wonderful things from the new and old of God’s Word.  However, they are not relegated to the past.  Jesus is with His people through His Holy Spirit now, and the Word of God is applicable even now.  Though the wisdom of God is “old” it is still fresh, because even though times may change, people, apart from Christ, will not.  The Bible needs to be in the hands, heart, and mouth of every warrior for Truth in whom the old ways have joined the new.

The Samurai “rebelled” to maintain the lifestyle they thought (knew) was best for everyone.  Their rebellion was more, in actuality, a lack of conformity.  They were not rebelling against society.  However, they were thought of as rebels, because they were not willing to follow the society in its plan of worldliness.  They were the religious conservatives, not wanting to lose what made their land the place of honor it used to be.  They did not want their country to be like the rest of the world.

This same “rebellion” is ours today; and we are seen as rebels Isa 59:15 says,
“‘Yes, truth is lacking
And he who turns aside from evil makes himself a prey.’
Now the LORD saw,
And it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice.”  

We too are a target, just as they were, when we stand for what is right.  

Toward the end of the film was a heart-wrenching scene in which the American—the last samurai—presented the sword of his fallen brother, the samurai leader, to the Emperor.  Painfully kneeling, and injured from the battle, he urged the Emperor beseeching him with the last words of his mentor, the Emperor’s own former teacher saying, “This is Katsumoto’s sword.  He would have wanted you to have it.  Let the strength of the Samurai be with you always.  He hoped with his last breath that you would remember the ancestors who held this sword...and what they died for.”  

Likewise, Jesus who has gone before us to death, urges us through those now battered and bruised in His service, “This is the precious Word of God, the Sword of the Spirit.  He wants you to have it.  Fight the good fight (1Tim 1:18, 6:12)! Let the strength of the Warrior-Servant Jesus be with you always.  Jesus commands that you remember Him (1Cor 11:24-25), those who suffer and die by this Sword (He 13:3), and remember all who lived by this Sword, “who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith,” (Heb 13:7).  The Word is precious.  May we be faithful in passing it to our leaders, those around us, and the next generation.

He then declares to the Emperor, “Your highness, if you believe me to be your enemy, command me, and I will gladly take my life.”

His outward confession declares his previous inward conversion; he has taken on the heart of the great warriors before him. It is the same heart-change that occurs when people repent to God from their sins, and place their continuous trust in Jesus to forgive them by God’s grace through their faith and trust. This results in a new life with new desires.

It works by Jesus’ sinless blood paying the price of our deserved punishment for our willful rebellion against Him (1 Thess 1:9; Acts 20:21).  “Sin” is breaking God’s laws, the 10 Commandments, also, doing what one knows to be wrong, which earns His wrath and condemnation (1Jn 3:4; Ja 4:1-4,17; Ro 3:23; Jn 3:18).  Through God’s law, we see ourselves in truth—if we have lied, looked with lust, hated, and taken anything without permission, we are a lying, adulterous, murdering thief (Mt 5:28; 1Jn 3:15),  none of which will have an inheritance, in the Kingdom of God, but do merit a place in the lake of fire (Rev 20:8).  When one becomes a Christian—not a church-goer—one dies to their former way of thinking and living.  God works this in us as we obey Him in trust.  As we become dead to the desires that make things such a mess, we become more and more of who we really are, untainted by outside pressures and influences.  

Galatians 2:19-20 says it this way, "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.  "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”  Rom 6:5-7
Says, “For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.”  Christians become Christians through confessing that the sins of their previous life were wrong, repenting (tuning from them) to God through Jesus, and surrendering to Jesus allowing His Holy Spirit to reshape them in the way He wants them to be. From there it is a daily walk with Him in prayer, reading His Word, meeting and “training” with other believers.  He will train you with His Sword, and you will become Samurai.

The Emperor’s response was that though he dreams of a unified, strong, and independent country; and even now they have many modern conveniences and Western clothing, “We cannot forget who we are, or where we come from.”

Neither can we as a people, as a nation forget that before Jesus came we were His enemies, lost, and without hope (Eph 2:11-13).  But, the media, government schools, and entertainment industries are calculatingly redefining history and censoring truth in order to erase the memory of God and the Faith in Jesus held dear by those who made us great—and indeed, the faith needed to continue in any greatness at all.  
Personally we must keep our desires on things above (Col 3:2), or we too will lose ourselves in the sea of “relevant” affluence, comfort, and convenience (Jn 15:5).

Sin, satan, and selfishness are on the march.  The warriors of God must sharpen their weapons, train, and engage, or all is lost.  The enemies are infiltrating that which we have come to love.  Fight Samurai!  Warrior of God and Truth, we all need you.  “...Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.” –2 Tim 2:1-4

Do you long to be mighty?  The mighty are always those in service of something bigger than themselves; something that carries on through their lifetime into many lives to come.  There is no greater calling than the call to be part of the Lord’s army and family; nothing that will have greater impact. 

     I hope this little reflection has challenged you somewhat about what and Who it is you are fighting for.  Is it Christ or comfort; truth or tastefulness; reality or relevance?  Is your goal your divine call, or your dignified colleagues?  Do you fight more for you and your “rights”, or for your Ruler an what's right?  Everyone is fighting for something.  

     I long for people to have devotion for Christ like the Samurai leader, and “convert” had for their emperor.  If you want to be the Lord’s samurai, may God bless you and keep you, brother, sister!  Recognize and remember the battle. Train, and act; be ready for opposition, never, ever give up.