Deception Often Delays Marriage

It was asked of me:

"Why is it that people a few generations ago were ready to marry and start families at 18 (or even younger) while today we have 40 year olds who aren't ready? A lot of it goes back to the fact that our kids are being entertained to death. Everything is play, play, play, and they are never taught to grow up. That in itself has a huge impact on modern "dating". Let's face it, if a person is in the process of dating for 20 years without searching for a spouse, this person is going to eventually do things he shouldn't be doing."

I'm of the opinion that one new variable is that we now live in a world where education (or at least the gaining of a college degree) is more important than before. Accordingly, there are additional pressures that can delay marriage. Having said that, I believe that the main reason for what you have observed is that people do not take sexual sin as seriously today as in years gone by. Accordingly, we have men who keep going to the well of 1 John 1:9 rather than using God's provision for the flesh, which is of course marriage. In other words, if more men would make it an absolute priority to rid themselves of their improper thought life and premarital relations through God's means of appointment, then I think the result would be earlier marriages. Finally, I also find that men can be way too selective. Sure, a man must be attracted to his spouse but so many women are not seen as attractive as they actually are because today more men are lusting after the super models that are on parade. I suppose that many women are guilty of the same sort of thing. {At the risk of taking away from what I have said above, it must be said that there are many single men who are disciplined with their thought life and are earnestly seeking a spouse though getting up in years.}

Ron

Dating: Part II

What is the godly end to which the dating process is supposed to lead? What is the telos, in other words, of such activity? If the expressed purpose of dating is not to ascertain whether another person is well suited to be one's spouse, then what would be the God centered purpose or design of dating – simply mere recreation and experience? What can be the biblical purpose of an exclusive relationship if not the pursuit of a life's mate? For instance, what could be the purpose of a sixteen year old boy and girl holding hands? Is such activity among Christians permissible without question, or are there some principles that must first obtain for such activity to be found appropriate? We might consider whether a girl would feel slighted if she saw the boy she was holding hands with yesterday holding another girl’s hand today. Obviously the girl would feel affronted because she would have learned that she was not as unique as she was led to believe. Consequently, something as “innocent” as holding hands has grave implications. Therefore, such activity should not be entered into lightly – for such activity implies unique and particular regard for another person and, therefore, should at least be reserved for one who is being pursued for more than just recreation and experience.

I am not categorically opposed to young men and women holding hands outside of marriage. Under certain circumstances I believe that such limited physical contact can even be appropriate, like taking a man's arm. If a man and woman are pursuing each other with the expressed purpose of ascertaining a life’s mate, then I can appreciate the physical relationship blossoming in a manner consistent with self-conscious, biblically harnessed feelings and intentions that would make holding hands a most wholesome and appropriate expression of such a relationship. I do believe, however, that such conduct should always culminate in engagement. To hold hands without an imminent engagement is never under good regulation. Like with immodesty, one needn’t know where the precise line should be drawn in order to know that one has clearly crossed it. So it is with prolonged exclusive relationships that culminate in holding hands outside of engagement, as is common place in the culture and, sadly, the church.  Also, I would argue that young men and women for a time may decide for oneself to exclusively date apart from engagement, but only in order to remain focused during a relatively brief transition period. However. such a personal decision may not bind the other person given no formal engagement. Such discipline would be personal and pragmatic. 

However, when people are too young to seriously marry, then I can find no sound reason for the exclusivity of a testing period that would entail holding hands. Again, it all gets back to purpose, which includes putting others before ourselves. What would be the purpose of a teenager who is not prepared to marry expressing exclusivity in the romantic, sensitive way of holding hands? How is God glorified in leading another person (by the hand!) toward nothing in particular? For that matter, what would be the purpose of any couple of any age expressing such exclusivity apart from an eye toward marriage?

Parents should be willing to ask their children, “Why would you hold hands?" and wait to see what they get for an answer. Unfortunately, if the question has to be asked, then the training of the child was probably not done in the first place.

Some Thoughts on Dating (Part 1)

1. If two people are merely friends, then it is misleading to say "they are dating." Therefore, dating must include some other element; whether it is dating according to biblical principles or dating according to the ways of this world, another element turns common friendships into dating relationships. Accordingly, when we are speaking of "dating" we are referring to something more than just friendly relationships between people of opposite persuasion. We are talking about a peculiar kind of relationship that is beyond mere friendship.

2. If dating includes giving one's heart away or any sort of exclusive relationship-claim whereby obligations are imposed upon another person without an eye toward marriage, then not only may Christians not date non-Christians - they may not date Christians either! When a woman gives her heart away to a man outside of a marriage commitment, the "boyfriend" is placed in the position of exercising unbiblical authority over the woman that is reserved for the woman's prime, earthly authority (typically her father) and is one day to be transferred to the woman's husband. In such exclusive dating-relationships the woman's conscience becomes un-biblically bound by the boyfriend whereby she loses certain privileges of singleness, such as spending time with other men who might be good candidates for marriage. Nobody except a parent or spouse is to hold such a position over someone else. A single woman is to submit to her father, not her "boyfriend." Giving one's heart away without a marriage commitment not only runs contrary to what the Bible teaches regarding guarding one's heart, it is contrary to what the Bible teaches about parental authority (and the proper transfer of that authority). What is it to have a commitment to another that can be broken for any reason?

3. If dating includes considering one for marriage, then obviously Christians may not date non-Christians because Christians may not consider marrying non-Christians any more than a man may consider marrying another man.

4. If dating does not include considering one for marriage, then what is the Christian's purpose in dating? What is "dating" after all?

5. There is no place to say "I love you" in a dating relationship. Those words mean commitment; yet when dating, the commitment only goes as far as the "feeling." What does it mean to say "I love you" if you may break up tomorrow because you found someone better? "I love you" translates to "I love me and I want you (at least for now)." Those words of commitment must be followed by proposal of marriage.

6. The right type of dating includes considering another person with prayerful purpose to be one's spouse; it includes no exclusivity outside an eye toward marriage; it includes wanting to bless the other person, considering them more important than yourself; it includes no obligations of submission to an unauthorized head; it includes not saying anything misleading to the other person in order to "win" her heart for personal, egotistical or any sort of selfish gain; it includes not implying anything without words that you wouldn't explicitly say with words; it means godliness.
These principles apply whether parents are involved in the dating process or not. They are principles that are within the grasp of any Christian who is serious about dating to the glory of God and, therefore, blessing a potential spouse.

Rome: Its Teachers and Followers in Light of Paul

The apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit declared that if he or even an angel from heaven preached any other gospel other than that which he preached let him be accursed.

With respect to the gospel, what the apostle had in view was not the finished work of Christ but rather the appropriation of that work. In other words, the apostle was not addressing whether Jesus died for his people and rose again for their justification. Rather, the apostle was jealous to protect and desirous to declare the good news of how the finished work of the Savior must be appropriated so that one can be saved. The apostle had in view justification by faith apart from works (Galatians 2:16).

The apostle taught that the forgiveness of sins and a right standing before God comes only through the monergistic work of the Holy Spirit and not by obeying God’s ordinances (even by grace). By being baptized into the finished work of Christ sinners become heirs with Christ according to the promise that was made to the patriarchs (Galatians 3:29). It is only through union with Christ that one is clothed in Christ’s righteousness (Galatians 3:27). Upon union with Christ the sinner is imputed with Christ's perfect righteousness, constituted as such, and then pardoned and declared legally not guilty for the sake of Christ. The apostle indexes the instrumental cause of the sinner’s pardon and right standing before God to faith and faith alone. Faith is the gift of God that is immediately present within the sinner the moment he is recreated in Christ and found in Him (Philippians 3:9).

The apostle distinguishes between the "bewitched" saints and the false teachers who did the bewitching by perverting the gospel of grace. The apostle’s unambiguous anathema was placed upon those who perverted the gospel and not upon the confused congregants who were about to fall from grace as it were. The apostle in the tradition of Christ always dealt more severely with the religious leaders who made proselytes twice the sons of hell as themselves (Matthew 23:15). It is the godless man who slips in unnoticed and denies the Sovereign Lord’s gospel of grace who faces the greater condemnation (Jude 4). Accordingly, we do well to consider what we are teaching because it is the teacher who will incur the more severe judgment (James 3:1). We should want to ensure that we are not found among those who will be destroyed for smuggling in damnable heresies (2 Peter 2:1).

The churches at Galatia were confused. The gospel was faint and in some sense unrecognizable; yet the church existed in a visible form with visible sacraments and the apostle addressed his audience as "brethren." It is noteworthy that Israel had an incorrect view of circumcision and how corporate membership related to salvation. Nonetheless, even given a perverted use of the sacrament it still distinguished the Jews from the world, marking them out as the visible people of God. Accordingly, Roman baptism, although perverted, is to be honored. Moreover, Israel called for the crucifixion of their Messiah; yet the apostle John records for us that that Christ came to “his own” who received him not. How are God’s covenant people to be identified? Is it by the orthodoxy of the gospel or the visible signs of the covenant (or both)? How are the Popes to be viewed? Well that’s an easy one. Let the Pope and his Bishops who pervert the gospel and lead people to hell be accursed - and all our Roman Catholic friends be saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

He who cannot pronounce curses cannot pronounce blessings.

Ron

Counter since: 9/6/2006

Federal Vision, Augustinian not Reformed

Federal Vision (FV) theology borrows from Augustine at his worst while departing from Calvin and the Reformed confessions at their best. FV is correct that perseverance is a gift given to the elect alone but where the system is terribly flawed is in its doctrine of regeneration, which suggests that the reprobate can, for a season, enjoy the grace of faith and union with Christ prior to falling away. Consequently, the FV has no place to ground the assurance of salvation that is available to the regenerate because the system allows for the reprobate to receive the same measure of regeneration and faith as the elect. Assurance becomes predicated upon the secret decree of perseverance, which cannot be known being a secret! All of which stands in stark contrast to the biblical teaching, that the Holy Spirit bears witness with the believer’s spirit according to the unambiguous word of promise that all who God calls, He justifies and will glorify.

If FV has brought something new to the church that exceeds the theological precision and exhaustiveness of the Reformed confessions, then what is it that its proponents have discovered? The simple answer is that the FV movement has brought nothing new to the church but rather denies what the Reformers taught. What is most disruptive is that FV'ists claim the tradition of the Reformers only to turn around and deny what they taught, and even died for.

Ron

Counter since: 9/6/2006



Hit Counters

Youth Group Eclipsing Grace? Can God Compete?

"Disregard the study of God, and you sentence yourself to stumble and blunder through life blindfolded, as it were, with no sense of direction and no understanding of what surrounds you. This way you can waste your life and lose your soul." J.I. Packer

Is the Christian church training our young people in the way that they shouldn't go by not teaching them that corporate worship and the study of God is essential to living the Christian life?

Don't get me wrong. I am not against youth group (necessarily). My question is why is it that so many in the church today are preoccupied with a vibrant youth ministry yet not the least bit faithful in joining with the church in corporate prayer, the sacraments, corporate worship and fellowship, and the hearing of God's word? I am afraid that there might be too many parents raising children in the church who are looking for spirituality in all the wrong places.

Too often young people in the church are looking to meet God under rocks. What a shame that is. If for nothing else, for the sake of Christ's sheep, shouldn't the church be instructing them in the God ordained means of grace? We have children who, as Lewis said, "go on making mud pies in a slum because they cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased." Some will undoubtedly say, "Oh but Ron, we must meet our children where they are!" No, I say. We must do better than that. We must no not only meet our children where they are; we must teach our children where they must meet God! Let's not do one without the other.

Is there liberty to give my children donuts for dinner? Well of course there is but how profitable would it be? Two things that must be considered are what would they be receiving in the actual meal and what would I be teaching them about good nourishment? In the like manner, is youth group lawful? Well of course it is but what can they receive in youth group as compared to corporate worship and what would we be teaching them about their need for corporate worship if we allow youth group to be a greater priority in the young person’s life than the corporate worship of God? I am against a "vibrant" youth group if such a mindset reduces to giving children dessert prior to them feasting on the main meal. Let's do both. If a church is detetermined to have a "youth group", then make it an excellent one by emphasizing the priority of corporate worship and all that it entails. I question, however, that if youth resonate with that, then will there even be any great need for youth group? Won't fellowship in various homes suffice?

"If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

Plain and simple from the prophet Isaiah, if the young people of the church really want to delight in the Lord, then they should not seek to find their own pleasure on Sunday but rather do those things pleasing to God, which can largely be accomplished by receiving the grace that is dispensed during the corporate worship of God. Doing the Lord's pleasure on Sunday is a sufficient condition for delighting in the Lord; so let's get back to basics, shall we? Whether or not Word and Sacrament is what people want -- it is what we desperately need. I've got an idea: let's teach about Word and Sacrament in youth group!

Jane Austen’s Mr. Bennet said to his silly daughter Kitty, "You go to Brighton!—I would not trust you so near it as East-Bourne, for fifty pounds! No, Kitty, I have at last learnt to be cautious, and you will feel the effects of it. No officer is ever to enter my house again, nor even to pass through the village. Balls will be absolutely prohibited, unless you stand up with one of your sisters. And you are never to stir out of doors till you can prove that you have spent ten minutes of every day in a rational manner."

Bennet finally got it right on behalf of his daughter Kitty but at the high cost of his youngest daughter Lydia’s dignity. He finally learned that certain privileges must be earned by a demonstration of an appreciation of what is needful. Until Kitty could prove that she could be sober minded for even ten minutes, she was not permitted to stir outdoors. Note well that the requirement was a precondition to function well in the reward that was before her. In other words, Kitty would not even be able to operate well outdoors unless she had learned to be sober minded indoors. In the like manner, is it really that unreasonable to strive to teach our Christian young people to have an appreciation and affection for the inner sanctum of the church prior to cutting them loose outdoors, to be “spiritual” in youth group? Let's not try to shortcut God's ways in an effort to know God better.

For a description of what a great youth group might look like, maybe take a peek here: http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=720&var3=searchresults&var4=Search&var5=youth_group

Ron

Counter since: 9/6/2006




Hit Counters

The Precedence of Paedocommunion Does Not Come From The Precedence For Covenant Baptism

There is a difference in precedence between infant baptism and infant communion. The former is built upon the OT precedence that infants of professing believers are to receive the mark of inclusion into the people of God. It is not suggested under the older economy that infants should participate in a covenant meal of communion with God. Moreover, the reality that the sign and seal of circumcision signifies need not be tied to the moment of the administration of the sacrament, whereas the practice of communion IS communion. Communion, in other words, is not merely a sign and seal that is to be considered later but rather it IS communion at the moment of partaking. Accordingly, whereas one can be passive when receiving the sign of entrance into the visible, covenant people of God such is not analogous to the practice of paedocommunion. The mind must be engaged in communion.

Ron
Counter since: 9/6/2006




Hit Counters

A Sound Proof For God's Existence

So often we hear that the existence of God cannot be proven, which simply is not true. That is not to say that we come to know God through cleverly devised proofs. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know God by nature and we must justify this knowledge by Scripture, the Christian's ultimate authority.

All reasoning has a terminus point; for the Christian it is Scripture. For the unbeliever it is usually the universal laws of logic, which problematically do not comport with any worldview that denies the existence of God and our being made in his image as rational, logical creatures.

Since the premises in the following argument are true and the form of the argument is valid, the conclusion is reliable and true.

P1. If God has revealed himself, then God exists
P2. God has revealed himself
C. Therefore, God exists

So Christian, please never say again that one cannot prove the existence of God.

The issue is not about proof. Proving God's existence is simple, as was just shown. The issue is over the justification of premises and what people will accept as authoritative. For instance, if one believes that his senses can justify premises, then one might choose to prove that there are crackers in the pantry in the following manner:

P1. If I see crackers in the pantry, then there are crackers in the pantry
P2. I see crackers in the pantry
C. Therefore, there are crackers in the pantry

The deductive argument for there being crackers in the pantry was implicit in Dr. Bahnsen's debate with Gorden Stein. The point I'd like to make is that only a skeptic would deny such a proof can be sound because only a skeptic would deny that one's senses can be reliable. Just the same, if a skeptic did not accept the truth of the premises, the proof would not become invalidated or proven false. In the like manner, only an unbeliever - who is suppressing in unrighteousness the obvious truth of God's revelation - would deny that God has revealed himself and, therefore, God exists. Just as it is true that the skeptic's disfunctional worldview cannot invalidate what is actually true - it is no less true that the fallen worldview cannot invalidate the absolute authority of Scripture. Truth is not a matter of consensus after all. To think so is to confuse proof with persuasion, a fundamental error in apologetics.

Don't get me wrong; I would not employ such a proof for God's existence in a debate with a professing atheist. My only point in putting forth such a proof is to show that the issue is not about proof but rather about the willingness to yield to the self-attesting, authoritative Christ of Scripture and the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit who testifies that God is speaking in Scripture.

Not to despair, we are not reduced to fideism, which is to say we are not reduced to saying that God has revealed himself and that settles the matter. Although it is true that God has revealed himself to all men everywhere, the Christian is to defend the faith and not just assert what he knows to be true.

We should defend the faith by arguing that God is the necesssary precondition for intelligible experience.

Prove A: The Christian God exists.
Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.
Step 2 (~A--> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
Step 3 (~B): There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!)
Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)
Step 5 (A): --> God does exist (Law of negation.)
Q.E.D.

The above demonstration of the transcendetal argument for the existence of God (TAG) is sound in that the form is valid and the premises are true. We must keep in mind that the truth of any valid conclusion is not predicated upon the consensus of the truth of the premises. Accordingly, since unbelievers refuse to admit to the truth claims of the Bible and, therefore, step 2 of the proof, the only thing the Christian can do is (i) reduce the opposing worldview to absurdity by exposing its arbitrariness and inconsistency and (ii) show how the God of Scripture provides a necessary precondition for knowledge, reality and ethics. In a word, the apologist is to demonstrate that God's special revelation, Scripture, offers the only justification for intelligible experience.

TAG is to be offered as a challenge to the unbeliever and, therefore, a starting point for discussion. The apologist is then to demonstrate by the life experiences enjoyed by the professing atheist how intelligible experience presupposes God's revelation of himself. For instance, the apologist might wish to demonstrate how only the Christian worldview supplies the necessary precondition for the justification of trusting one's senses in order, for instance, to begin to justify the knowledge of crackers being in the pantry. In doing so the apologist gives "evidence" of the reliability of the proof, but such evidence cannot "prove" that the proof is sound anymore than evidence can prove God's existence. Again, the unbeliever denies step-2 of the proof. Accordingly, all the apologist is left to do is show that logic, reality and ethics presuppose that which only the Christian worldview can afford - a common creator who has provides a fruitful connection between the minds of men and the created order, making intelligible experience possible.

In sum, the proof of God's existence is sound in and of itself because it employs a valid form and true premises. Consequently, the argument succeeds in proving the existence of God, but in a much more powerful way than the first deductive argument at the top of the page, which although is sound, does not deal with the preconditions of intelligible experience and, therefore, is not very interesting other than it serves as a good example (to the Christian in particular) that God's existence can be proved.

Finally, the Christian would do well not only to offer a proof for God's existence in a transcendental fashion but also to expose the various forms of the one unbelieving worldview for their arbitrariness and inconsistencies. Note well, however, that to reduce an opposing worldview to absurdity is not to prove the Christian worldview. It's a far cry from it in fact. Our apologetic is not inductive. We must also appreciate that all the competitors to the Christian worldview are simply variations of the single-unbelieving worldview, which posits that intelligible experience can be justified apart from revelation. Consequently, there are not an infinite number of worldviews as some have claimed but rather only two. I know this from Scripture, which is a reliable appeal for truth; Scripture allows us to know some things without having to know all things! Scripture is the only appeal for those who wish to justify their knowledge of anything.

At the end of the day, "Jesus loves me this I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so." That's not my defense of the Christian worldview, but it's certainly a defensible fact. In other words, we don't "reason" ourselves to God, but our belief in God is indeed reasonable. In fact, it's not just reasonable; it's justifiable and true, which is to say it constitutes as knowledge. Belief in God is the only reasonable position to hold if for no other reason, it is unreasonable to argue against God's existence because to do so one must first presuppose those tools of argumentation that are only defenisble given God's existence.

Ron

Counter since: 9/6/2006




Hit Counters

TAG: So Basic, It's Often Honestly Misunderstood (or is it due to a desire for autonomy?)

That Modus Ponens (MP) can be misapplied does not mean that one cannot know when MP is not being misapplied. Knowledge entails a true belief that is justified. In fact, if the belief is properly justified, then it must be true! Accordingly, with a proper view of a “justified” belief, one can reduce knowledge to a justified belief – if we agree that justification requires maximal warrant. Obviously then, when one misapplies MP, then that which such a person thinks he knows by the employment of MP cannot yield true knowledge since that which would be believed would not be justified since the justification would be based upon a misapplication of MP! However, does that then necessitate that one cannot be justified in his belief that he has employed MP properly? Can’t one who is fallible have knowledge after all? If not, then how could a fallible man know he had eternal life? Or how could the apostle John have know that he was writing Scripture when he penned the epistles that bear his name, etc.? Was he not fallible, yet didn’t he have knowledge? Are we to believe that since I can make a mistake in complex reasoning that, therefore, I cannot know when I apply the law of non-contradiction validly and with true premises? Are we to reason, after all, that since I can make mistakes that I cannot know when I have not made a mistake?Let he who has ears hear!

Dr Bahnsen, in his reader on CVT, offers a severe criticism of John Frame on this very point. Frame disagreed with CVT that there is an "absolute certain" proof for Christian theism. One of Frame's points in particular, which Bahnsen disagreed with, is that there is "room for error" in the formulation of arguments. Bahnsen argued against Frame's position in a reductio fashion, noting that Frame elsewhere argues that our "justification for believing" is not merely probable (page 86 in Apologetics to the Glory of God)! Bahnsen zeroed in on an inconsistency of Frame’s, noting that Frame “cannot have it both ways.” What's ironic is that Frame has acknowledged elsewhere (probably in DKG, but I don't remember) that with respect to our knowledge of salvation, which he appreciates we can possess with infallible certainty (an unnecessary qualification of knowledge I might add), is based upon logic! After all, one must reason with premises such as “Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved;” “I am included in the set of anyone;” “I have called upon the name of the Lord” etc. Our assurance is obviously more complex than embracing syllogisms, but nonetheless the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit according to truth of God’s word, which requires us to reason in a fashion just described. The simple point is that the basis for my assurance, which is multi-faceted and which Frame allows for, can include syllogisms. Accordingly, although I am capable of reasoning fallaciously - I can have epistemic certainty of my salvation by knowing that I have reasoned validly with true premises.

At the end of the day, it is child’s play to construct sound syllogisms for the existence of God. In the like manner, it is no great feat to construct a sound transcendental argument, which is not merely a use of modus tollens (but rather a particular use of argumentation that addresses the preconditions of human experience). Moreover, it is not fallacious to appeal to God’s word for the justification of premises. After all, don’t all systems of thought have a terminus authority? Professing atheists and Christian skeptics won’t accept such appeals but they will be hard pressed to show a fallacy just the same when dealing with ultimate truth claims. Having said that, to simply offer a sound argument such as: “God exits or nothing exists; not nothing exists; therefore, God exists” is utterly useless for it does not put forth a challenge to the unbeliever. Notwithstanding, the argument is indeed sound. TAG, however, when properly constructed, which can be found here:http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/03/impropriety-of-trying-to-prove.html
is quite useful in that it puts forth a transcendental challenge and, thereby offers a point of discussion with the atheist.

TAG is sound in that the form is valid and the premises are true. We must keep in mind that the truth of any valid conclusion is not predicated upon the consensus of the truth of the premises. No doubt – the unbeliever will not accept the truth claims of the Bible and, therefore, the premise that “If God does not exist then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility.” Consequently, all the apologist can do is refute the hypothetical competitors to the Christian worldview one by one. He does this by performing an internal critique of the opposing worldview, exposing it for its inconsistencies and arbitrariness. Secondly, he does not merely assert TAG, but rather he shows how TAG applies to ethics, reality, knowledge, etc. NOTE: This is not to argue for God's existence inductively or that there are an infinite number of possible worldviews, but rather it is to show that the atheist cannot defeat the claims of TAG no matter how long and hard he tries. (God's existence is argued for deductively through TAG. The formulation of TAG from the link I've provided is valid and the premises are true; now if any Christian wishes to deny the truth of the premises, then we must have to question whether such a one submits to the word of God as being a source of unquestionable truth!)

Note well that all the competitors to the Christian worldview are simply variations of the single-unbelieving worldview, which posits that intelligible experience can be justified apart from revelation. Consequently, there are not an infinite number of worldviews as some have claimed, but rather only two. I know this from Scripture, which is a reliable appeal for truth and the only appeal for those who wish to justify their knowledge of anything!

In the final analyses, the demonstration of the soundness of an argument does not make an argument sound. The apologist merely demonstrates the claims of TAG to a watching world when he exposes the various forms of the one unbelieving worldview for its arbitrariness and inconsistencies. Moreover, there is no limit to the number of sound deductive arguments for the Christian worldview. The problem with Christian-skeptics is that they believe that the only acceptable argument will be one that persuades the unbeliever, which is to confuse proof with persuasion and utilize the tools of predication without a justification. Sadly, these professing believers have deceived themselves into thinking that they cannot trust the Bible apart from “proving” it’s truthfulness by means that do not comport with the denial of the need to presuppose Scripture to argue against TAG! These Christians operate from the same autonomous platform as the professing atheist.

Ron

Counter since: 9/6/2006


Hit Counters

Obedient Faith Or Obedient Belief?

I argued in the link below that justifying faith must be distinguished from cognizant-belief, but never separated in the lives of those capable of understanding. (A reading of that entry will help in understanding what follows.) If my thesis is false and belief in certain gospel propositions is necessary for justifying faith, then infants can be united to Christ by the Holy Spirit without having received pardon from God due to a want of belief in propositions. In other words, if the essence of justifying faith requires cognizant-belief, then infants cannot be forgiven in infancy, or justification is not always by grace through faith alone.

However, if we understand saving faith as a sovereign work of God whereby He subdues a person’s heart and renews the entire soul after Christ, then it is easy to see that elect infants can be justified by faith alone prior to comprehending the gospel. Accordingly, if a justified infant lives to years of maturity, he will in time believe to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word… and in particular will accept and rest upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life…

What I find ironic in the contemporary Reformed landscape is that those who so strenuously argue that justifying faith is not “obedient” faith also argue that all men everywhere are commanded by God to repent and believe the gospel in order to appropriate Christ's righteousness. Now how does one willfully follow a command (i.e. savingly believe from beginning to end) without obeying the command? One can't. Therefore, belief can be obedient if it results from a command; so if faith is belief, then faith can be obeident-faith! Yet, if we acknowledge that justifying faith is a subdued heart that must exercise itself in belief when confronted with God’s word, then of course justifying faith cannot be “obedient” faith for a dead man (or infant) who comes forth from the grave – ready to believe — does not do so out of obedience, let alone understanding. The point is simply this. If justifying faith is belief, then of course it can be obedient faith because belief always engages the mind and what we believe can be in response to a command. However, if what I say is true, that justifying faith is the propensity to believe all of God's truth from a posture of being recreated, then it is "by this faith" one can believe in obedience; but faith itself is not obedient anymore than Adam was obedient by being created out of the dust of the earth or Lazarus was obedient by coming forth from the grave.

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-faith-belief.html

Ron

Counter since: 9/6/2006




Hit Counters