I am not an expert in Apologetics. I am not a Philosopher. I am not a high-flying high-achieving Evangelical academic either. But I can see that Paul Copan has shown, or it seems to me he has shown, that he has not been listening to the same PA material that I’ve listened to. Below is Critique No1 from Paul and my brief response to it.
First, it engages in question-begging—assuming what one wants to prove.It begins with the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that God exists. Such reasoning would get you an “F” in any logic class worthy of the name! [Note: For a broader critique of Frame’s starting points, see Harold A. Netland, “Apologetics, Worldviews, and the Problem of Neutral Criteria,” Trinity Journal 12/1 (Spring 1991): 39-58.]
While we begin our worldview examination from somewhere, universal logical laws like the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle are inescapable for assessing and critiquing worldviews. In his debate with Henry, Hackett said that without some set of “neutral criteria” that are logically prior to consent or commitment to a particular worldview, “there is no way to show that one worldview perspective is more plausible than another” since both parties are “starting from totally different assumptions.” Indeed, the statements of Scripture themselves presuppose the validity of logical laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle; they also appeal to criteria beyond Scripture—the court of appeals of historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-19)—things that were not done in a corner (Acts 26:26).
This is not good. And for the following reason. The article began with an Editors Note:
Editors’ Note: The Bible calls Christians to always be prepared to give an answer to those who ask for the reason of the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15). And so, from the very beginning of church history, Christians have publicly and privately labored to show the reasonableness of our faith against the objections of skeptics.
First off, does Paul really want me as a believer to start with the non-existence of God? Wouldn’t that be the same as expecting an atheist to start with the existence of God! This reminds me of an instance when the Mormons came knocking on my door: They asked me to pray for God to open my eyes to the truth (especially about Jesus Christ). I told them I could not do that. Because I already have the truth it would be an act of unbelief, even rebellion to ask God to show me something that He has plainly revealed to be true. Namely, Jesus is God or that He (God) exists. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” Psalm 14:1.
Copan must have missed the Editors Note because if he had read it, and looked up the full text of 1 Peter 3:15 he would have seen how first of all we are to set apart Christ as Lord. This is the first thing we do as apologists and as Christians. But what Paul is suggesting here prevents us from doing that very thing. As Dr Oliphint has pointed out several times: Philosophy must be in service to Theology. If we first get the Theology right, in this case, God exists, the rest will follow. So we must go into any discussion already presupposing the Lordship of Jesus and that God has created all things. This must be especially when the Bible says quite plainly that regarding the creation God has made it plain.
If we do not do this then some other person or thing must be Lord instead of Jesus. What this is about is Ultimate Authority. So, we as Christians are not to enter a discussion already presupposing the existence of God. Now I’m just a nobody in the Christian world but this seems completely wrong. I must admit to being quite surprised that Paul of The Gospel Coalition doesn’t want me to believe the Gospel or at least begin any discussion with that presupposition. Sorry Paul, I can’t do that.
Bought a trailer load of wood from the farmer. it’s now either chopped or stacked for drying. Couldn’t have done it without my two boys. They worked really hard to get it all cut. BTW, When they started cutting for real they did wear the right gear. They had just been out and bought two new Stihl chainsaws from Tudor Environmental – nice!
Dude, that’s a lot of wood!Note appropriate PPE!Mostly Ash, Cut, chopped and ready to go!Beech I think – cut and stacked for seasoning / drying.
The rhyme / text below is Pasted from Stoves Online. From the same site there’s a link to the different woods and their burning qualities – wood as fuel chart.
As for the best types of wood to burn, in your woodburner, these old rhymes are as good a guide as anything to the best, and worst, sorts:
Beechwood fires are bright and clear
If the logs are kept a year.
Chestnut’s only good, they say,
If for long ’tis laid away.
But Ash new or Ash old
Is fit for a queen with crown of gold.
Birch and fir logs burn too fast
Blaze up bright and do not last.
It is by the Irish said
Hawthorn bakes the sweetest bread.
Elm wood burns like churchyard mould,
E ‘ en the very flames are cold.
But Ash green or Ash brown
Is fit for a queen with golden crown.
Poplar gives a bitter smoke,
Fills your eyes and makes you choke.
Apple wood will scent your room
With an incense like perfume.
Oaken logs, if dry and old.
Keep away the winter’s cold.
But Ash wet or Ash dry
A king shall warm his slippers by.
Oaken logs, if dry and old,
Keep away the winter’s cold
Poplar gives a bitter smoke
, Fills your eyes, and makes you choke
Elm wood burns like churchyard mould
, E’en the very flames are cold
Hawthorn bakes the sweetest bread –
Or so it is in Ireland said,
Applewood will scent the room,
Pearwood smells like flowers in bloom,
But Ashwood wet and Ashwood dry,
A King can warm his slippers by.
Beechwood logs burn bright and clear,
If the wood is kept a year
Store your Beech for Christmas-tide,
With new-cut holly laid aside
Chestnut’s only good, they say
If for years it’s stored away
Birch and Fir wood burn too fast,
Blaze too bright, and do not last
Flames from larch will shoot up high,
And dangerously the sparks will fly…
But Ashwood green,
And Ashwood brown
Are fit for Queen with golden crown.
Ten Commandments (Photo credit: Russell Heistuman)
The 10 Commandments are more than a ten step recovery program to heavenly acceptance. (Our acceptance before God is only through Jesus Christ. I don’t believe there’s a day in history when it has not been necessary to assert that truth over and over and over again.) We saw in Part 2 of this little series that this is exactly what they are not – a recovery program. The 10 Commandments are really a summation of the Holy and Perfect moral character of God. They are summarised for us by Jesus when he was asked in this way (Matthew 22:36-40):
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a]38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (NIV1984)
They are also encapsulated or ‘boiled down’ as it were to one command in Genesis given to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden. As follows:
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
Gen 3:3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'”
The commandments are embedded into our nature because we are made in the image of God. And so we all have a sense of right and wrong. Incidentally, apart from this the Atheist needs to explain where we get our sense of morality from. It’s corrupted by a fallen sinful nature but it’s there all the same and cannot be completely irradiated. This is all to lead into a brief consideration of the First Use of the Law.
The First Use of the Law
I merely noted in the previous post the First Use of the Law is to Restrain Sin. Now I’ll attempt to put a bit of flesh onto this bold statement. It’s worth just noting that it isn’t my idea, neither is it new, but has been taught by the Church for centuries.
People without a conscience have a special name, so unusual is it to come across such an individual that it really is worth invoking the phrase ‘the exception proves the rule’. Not only so but I think we ought to be relieved that such individuals are a rarity. The fact is we all have a conscience. Think for a moment what sort of world it would be if everyone really did what was right in their own eyes without any sense of wrong. What is it that stops people doing evil. The answer is the law of God actively operating on us. It’s the glue if you like that keeps society working harmoniously – however bad it can seem. Concentration camps are not the norm – thank God. Evil is the norm however, but unrestrained evil isn’t.
We should take special note and assert here that this restraining of evil or sin is not restricted to restraining sin or evil in Christians (and we’ll get to that in due course) but to all people everywhere! It applies to people regardless of their faith, be it atheism or Islam. To cut to the chase, it applies to you. You may come back and say ‘I do not believe the bible and I do not believe there is a God’. You may say that of course. But this is just to suppress the fact and is an act of rebellion. You ought to thank God He restrains you and fall on your knees in repentance and call upon God for the sake of Christ to be merciful to you a sinner.
Given that God is the Sovereign ruler of the Universe and as this world is His creation we shouldn’t be surprised at all that God takes an active interest in it. It’s very difficult then to separate the use of the law and Gods Common Grace exercised in some measure to all people everywhere. Here I sit in my kitchen typing away unhindered and without fear the authorities will suddenly burst in the door and arrest me for writing as a Christian – not yet anyway. How can this be? this is due to Common Grace and the restraining power of the law of God. Thanks be unto God for it!
What is the law of Nations built upon if not upon an assumption that people will mostly be dissuaded from evil if there is a law that punishes them. But I would argue that even if actual written laws were not in place such is the restraining power of the law upon our hearts and minds (conscience) that much evil would still be averted. Even it we lived in an atheist state the Christian worldview would be necessary to give any meaning at all to the concept of right & wrong.
Over here a story ran in the news concerning Jimmy Saville. (BTW this is still a big police operation: Operation Yew Tree) Over a period of several decades it has come to light that he was a sexual predator. Thankfully this man is dead and no longer a threat. Now I do not want to make light of this but how can we apart from the Christian worldview in any way call this evil. In a material universe how can such a category exist? People use these categories without thinking but in reality acknowledge the existence of God.
This isn’t an exhaustive piece on the Law of God (others have done it far better) but if it’s gone some way to explain it then I thank God for the opportunity and that God will bless you through it.
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
Rom 13:4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Rom 13:5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
My very good friend Trevor Thomas preached an excellent sermon the other week and I’ve meant to post it ever since. It was a really great sermon that deserves wider recognition. We have been friends since about 1980. Trevor is a gifted preacher and spent about 9 years as a missionary / Pastor of a church in Palma, Majorca. Sounds very exotic, but the apartment – over the church – was situated next to the main motorway ring road. You could just about see the sea if you stretched out to look over all the other flats. It also meant no escape from Pastoral duties. He has a Spanish wife and is fluent in Spanish as are the three boys. The Lord blessed his ministry there and several people were converted under it. Trevor is back in the UK and has been for a few years now. He is also a skilled carpenter and teaches at a local college. Thankfully he still preaches and preaches frequently in our church where we are both members.
Anyway, to the sermon. The reading was John 4: 1 – 26 and the text from Proverbs 25:25:
‘As cold water to a weary soul, So is good news from a far country.’ (NKJV)
The sermon is a great example of Gospel preaching and how to preach from the Old Testament. I thank God for Trevor. The link is below, listen and be blessed through it.
My very good friend Trevor Thomas preached an excellent sermon the other week and I’ve meant to post it ever since. It was a really great sermon that deserves wider recognition. We have been friends since about 1980. Trevor is a gifted preacher and spent about 9 years as a missionary / Pastor of a church in