Back to the Basics

I would like to return to a series I began several weeks ago entitled, "A Study of Basic Christian Doctirne: Answers to Questions Every Christian Ought to Know". Due to the church schedule and Thanksgiving holiday I have posted other things the past three weeks, but today I want to return to the primary series featured on the blog currently.Let me remind you where we are:

- We are currently answering the question, "How do we know God?"
- I have established three points to answer this question:
The witness of God's Work
The witness of God's World
The witness of God's Word
- We have already dealt with the first point (see archive posts)
- We are beginning the second point today- The witness of God's world


THE WITNESS OF GOD'S WORLD
We want to continue to answer the question, How do we know God? by looking at various philosophical arguments that can be used to support the notion that He does indeed exist. Dr. Oliver at Clearwater Christian, and Dr. Parker at Southern Seminary would probably be surprised that I am dealing with philosophy. To be honest, in the past it has not been my favorite subject. Unfortunately, this has shown itself in various ways. Recently, however, I have really grown to appreciate philosophy more. I have come to see the importance of philosophy in the Christian worldview, particularly (if not primarily) regarding the subject of God's existence.

Let me give you the four main categories that classify the various arguments for God's existence: 1) cosmological arguments, 2) ontological arguments, 3) moral arguments, 4) teleological arguments.

Instead of spending our time defining what the above terms mean, we are going to give some actual arguments from these various categories. To me that is much more practical. I would rather give you the fruit of philosophical analysis than spend time talking about the philosophy of philosophy itself! If you want more on the above terms, then you can see me and I will point you to some good resources (better than myself!).

I have three arguments for God's existence outlined. However, before I go into those arguments, I want to make a strong caveat regarding this whole discussion. Next post will deal with the actual arguments. This post, however, is foundational to understanding how one is to view the arguments that follow.



The Caveat
Let me be clear, I say that these arguments are used to support God's existence (not prove God's existence) because ultimately no philosophical argument proves anything to anyone. In 2 Cor. 4:1-6, Paul is clear about the fact that sin affects our minds/intellect. It is not until the Spirit of the living God moves in a heart that he will be convinced of any truth. It is not arguments for the existence of God that saves; it is the message of the Gospel engineered by the Holy Spirit that saves! The reason for this is due to the power of sin. Sin distorts our ability to perceive truth. Only something more powerful than sin- God- can help our weak flesh overcome this intellectual distortion.

Supposed "proofs" for God's existence, in the final analysis, may prove nothing. A simple illustration will do well here. Let's say that you are in the middle of a large city on a winter day. All of the sudden you see a drunk man climbing up a light pole screaming, "Bear, bear!" As you look up there is a dog running in front of the man. You can tell he is drunk, and you being sober, decide to try and convince him that all he saw was a dog, not a bear. Chances are, due to the alcoholic condition of the man, you will fail in your attempts. Why? Because alcohol has affected his perception of what is true- what is reality.

You could be very intelligent, and argue logically and reasonably. However, the alcohol is an obstacle that prevents you from convincing this man that all he saw was a dog. You could use both logic and evidence to persuade him.

You could argue logically: "Look guy, its ridiculous to think you saw a bear. We are in the middle of the city. Bears do not roam around in the city."

You could argue logically again: "In fact, look around. Nobody else is fearful for their lives like you. Why is that? Because it was just a dog, not a bear."

You could point to evidence: "Look at these tiny footprints. Don't you think that a bear's footprints are bigger than this?"

You could point to more evidence: You could call the dog over and pet it in front of the drunk man.

The point is that sin ruins our ability to affirm truth just as the alchohol ruined the perception of the man on the light pole. He could not perceive reality- which was that (in reality) he had only seen a dog, not a bear.

In addition, arguments which support God's existence are incapable of satisfying the "proof criteria" of every person without exception. Who determines when a proof is viable and legitimate? Not everyone has the same criteria (exactly). Everyone possesses the same basic equipment of "proof criteria". That is, due to being created in God's image in God's world all men have a fundamental knowledge of God's laws of logic. But that is different than saying everyone possesses the same exact criteria for what constitutes an argument as legitimate, or illegitimate, illogical, or erroneous.

The reason all men do not possess the exact package of "proof criteria" is due to the fact that sin has distorted our minds on different levels. Therefore, sin keeps us from thinking in rational patterns of thought. Belief in God is basic as I have pointed out before. Were it not for sin distorting our ability to think rationally, then we would affirm the existence of God in the exact same way that a sane, logical, mature minded person would affirm that they are reading off a computer screen right now. That is how powerful sin is in distorting truth. And that is how innate belief in God is to us.

So let me be clear. Arguments used to support God's existence do just that- they support it. They do not prove it. Only the Spirit of God can do that to a skeptic, and He uses the Gospel every time to do so.

Now God can use you speaking forth these arguments to trigger belief in someones heart. Thus, arguments for God's existence on the philosophical level are by no means useless. When, as believers, we are dealing with a skeptic we give forth any argument that might help that person see God in the person of Jesus Christ. We act as if God could regenerate their hearts at any moment....because He could! We do not know the mind of God. But at the end of the day God gets the credit, right?

So we are not to use arguments for God's existence with the idea that they can prove His existence beyond doubt. Rather, we use them with the view that His existence can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The same is true with court cases. Evidence given in a murder trial such as: 1) a gun with the DNA of the accused, 2) the location of the accused at the time of the murder, and 3) personal motives on the part of the accused to kill the victim proven to be legitimate all serve as strands of evidence (when taken together) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. Even with a witness claiming he saw the defendant shoot the victim does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You say how so? Because the witness could be lying! We do not ultimately know.

My caveat (although quite lengthy) is simply that nothing, absolutely nothing replaces the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. If someone denies God's existence he will not be convinced by man's persuasive philosophical arguments regarding God's existence. The Spirit of God will be the first to convince the skeptic of any truth, and then God may choose to use your arguments to trigger belief, or affirm belief. It is only the powerful message of the Gospel when applied by the Holy Spirit that convinces someone of the worthiness and value of God to be worshipped and adored!

One more thing....arguments for God's existence lie in their cumulative ability, rather than their independent ability. These arguments are like a rope made up of many small strands. One of those small strands is not that strong. However, when they are tied together the rope becomes very strong.

Next time we will look at the first argument.

Manhattan Declaration Revisited Once Again

For those of you who might be interested in the implications of key conservative evangelicals signing the Manhattan Declaration, then read the following

Michael Horton's article opposing the declaration

R.C. Sproul's article opposing the declaration and calling upon his friends who did sign it to remove their names from the document

Lig Duncan's article explaining why some members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals signed the document


I have read all of the above and would like to make a few clarifications regarding the implications of the wide array of disagreement between key evangelical leaders.

1. The signers of the document have made it clear (at least the key ones who have written articles defending why they signed it) that they disagree with Roman Catholics on the Gospel. They make it clear that their signatures in no way whatsoever support, affirm, or even astuciously imply that they are one with the Roman Catholics on the Gospel.

2. Therefore, the consciences of the signers (who have defended why they signed the document) have not been violated or compromised.

3. The non-signers of the document who have openly disagreed with what the document implies- that Catholics and Protestants are united in the Gospel- have made it clear that they take the signers at their word when they say their consciences have not been compromised.

4. Therefore, the non-signers cardinal issue is not with particular signers of the document and their view of the Gospel. Rather, it is with the lack of discretion and judgement used by these signers (their friends and co-laborers in promoting the Gospel) that led to their signing of the document. In other words, these non-signers make it clear that those who signed the document were unwise at worst, and simply duped by Colson and his clan at best.

5. In addition, the non-signers affirm boldly and unashamedly the moral issues outlined in the document.

Below I have chosen to use one word to describe the articles of both the signers and non-signers of the Manhattan Declaration.

Al Mohler's article explaining why he signed it....honest
Allistair Begg's article explaining he did not sign it...pastoral
John MacArthur's article explaining why he did not sign it...direct
Lig Duncan's (President of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals) article explaining why some members of the Alliance signed the document and others did not sign it...clear
R.C. Sproul's article explaining why he did not sign it...passionate
Michael Horton's article explaining why he did not sign it...perceptive

I would urge anyone who is aware of the document to read through it carefully (not just the summary version) before signing. Once again, at this point I am convinced that it is an issue of conscience. It depends on how one reads the document. It is a judgement call. However, Chuck Colson has made some remarks in an interview that reveal his intention (as one of the three primary authors) for the document. In the interview he makes it clear that he believes the document effectively joins Catholics and Protestants together under the banner of the Gospel....something to think about.

Some Questions Regarding the Manhattan Declaration Upon Further Reflection

Here are just a few questions that have come up regarding the Manhattan Declaration. I will try and not comment (too much) on each question. Instead, I will just pose the questions. I welcome responses seeing that I have not yet firmly agreed, or disagree with the Declaration.

1. Are we Biblically mandated, commanded, or encouraged to draft manifesto's/declarations with political overtones (Mike Huckabee's example of the 95 Theses as being comparable to the Manhattan Declaration is absurd and shameful to even suggest in my opinion- though I like Huckabee otherwise)?

2. Are manifesto's/declarations usually effective?

3. Is the Gospel enough to change hearts and culture, or does a document/manifesto help the process of changing hearts and culture?

4. If the document is not about the Gospel (as I have indicated in another post I believe that many interpret the document this way...including myself) but about moral issues, then why does it not include Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists so long as they agree on the moral issues? In other words, why exclude those who agree with the moral issues contained in the declaration?

5. Does the document not detail the Gospel due to the fact that all the original signatories would not have agreed upon what the Gospel is?

6. Will we see some of the people who signed it publicly ask for their signatures to be removed (I am thinking especially of the Together for the Gospel Conference coming up)?

7. Is there not an essential difference between Christians formally "partnering" with unbelievers in a club or society that is professedly not Christian (say PTA) as opposed to formally "partnering" with people in a manifesto who say they are Christian but whose particular church's official teaching clearly denies the Biblical Gospel (ex. Roman Catholic view of justification by faith)?

8. Again, should we not simply take people at their word when they profess that they are Christians? Maybe some of the signatories that signed the document really are Christian even though their particular church's official teaching denies the Gospel? In other words, could there be "rebels" for the Gospel still retaining membership in church's that are not evangelical Protestant?

I am trying to think through these issues clearly. Earlier today I listened to an interview of Al Mohler (probably the one most are surprised signed the document) who welcomed MacArthur and Begg's critiques and expressed gratefulness for their insight confessing he needs help thinking through these issues as well. If Mohler needs help, I think it is safe to say that I do as well! I created this blog with a conscious effort to not labor on current news like this. However, the fact that the President of my Seminary signed this document has drawn my attention into the debate.

By the way if you have not read the declaration, click here.

Grace and Peace,

Andy

Random Post About the Phenomenom of Internet Radio...I'm Obsessed

I have been infatuated with the phenomenon of Internet radio for the last 3-4 yrs. Several months ago I was having a conversation with a group of people about how cool Internet radio is. The people present had never heard of some of the websites that I said I listened to. I very rarely buy Cd's anymore because Internet radio provides one with 24 hours of the specific type of music you want, and many of them have very, very few commercials. My wife wanted a Christmas CD the other day and I said, "No problem." I logged onto the Internet and had a variety of Christmas music playing for free. I always have music playing in my headphones when I study. Consequently, I listen to a variety of music and stations. Here is a list of my three favorite Internet radio sites (check them out):

http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/ (both the hymns and acoustic praise are excellent- no commercials!)

http://www.pandora.com/ (hardly any commercials)

http://www.slacker.com/ (a few more commercials, but a wide selection of stations)

Andy

A Few Thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration

I have been asked about my thoughts on the Manhattan Declaration (click to read it). I have spent the time to read the document itself. However, understanding that I am inadequate to form an opinion of the document from one cursory reading, I opted to do a little more research. Thus. I have also read various reflections on the content and purpose of the document itself by people way smarter than myself whose opinions were welcomed from the beginning. Some such as John MacArthur and Allistair Begg agree with what is being defended in the document, but refused to sign it due to the fact that the document appears to be similar to ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and other such documents. These particular leaders of the Christian church see the document as a Gospel compromise because those who believe the Biblical Gospel are "partnering" with with those who obviously do not believe the Biblical Gospel (i.e. Roman Catholics). In other words, a broad range of men and women from various denominations have attached their names to this document and respected leaders such as MacArthur and Begg view this as too ecumenical.

Others such as Al Mohler adamantly defended their signing of the document suggesting that penning his signature in no way compromised the Gospel in his own conscience. Mohler, as usual argues very convincingly about the primary purpose and importance of such a document.

For those wondering- my opinion was never welcomed, nor did I (or do I- believe me) expect it to be. It ultimately does not matter what I think. The document was drafted with the purpose of garnering influential Christian leaders to align themselves with the goals communicated in the document in order to send a clear message. For the record, I do not think the world is loosing sleep because Andy Smith has, or has not signed the document. As I stated, in the overall scheme of things my opinion amounts to, well.....nothing. On the other hand, some in our church have kept up with the controversy surrounding the drafting of this document and have asked if I have heard about it and what I think of it. Therefore, I want to offer just a few thoughts on the matter. Take these for what they are worth. Ultimately, I believe one's own conscience must dictate whether they approve or disapprove of the document.

1. The overall purpose of the document must be kept in proper perspective. The purpose of the document is stated early on, "We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear His image."

Now the three areas the document outlines to "defend the good of all who bear His image" are: 1) "the profound , inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life", 2) "marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society", and 3) "religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image".

To me, these appear to be very worthy ideals to defend as Christians. All three flow from the concept of all men and women being created in the image of God. We have talked about this in before so I will not wax here. But take marriage for instance, God created us to reflect the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit loving one another sacrificially). And one of the primary ways this is done is in marriage. Marriage (instituted at creation) allows us to behold and reflect the triune God that we worship. Marriage, as established at creation, was not meant to be a union between "Adam and Steve", but "Adam and Eve" (I know that is an over used cliche but it is true!). God's rules for marriage have not changed since creation. Marriage is only marriage (Biblically speaking) when it is between a man and woman. Thus, marriage between male and female was established at creation and reigns as a universal rule whether one is Christian or not. Therefore, Christians do well to defend this because it is a creation principle that has never changed. Society itself is built upon that universal, creational law. (Note: I am not saying that it is a law to be married. I am simply saying that if one chooses to get married they must do it the way that God designed marriage from the beginning- between a man and woman).

Second, the document points out (rightly so) that the promotion of same-sex marriage whether in attitude or practice is only a symptom of the greater problem. And the greater problem lies with the failure of professing Christians to take marriage seriously, and to understand it in its God given purposes. The document says, "We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage." The document then affirms that the current capitulation to the culture's current view of marriage by Christians would only "lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion, and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents maritial love) , we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant."

There is a proper attitude for Christians to bear regarding marriage. Christians should start taking marriage more seriously than we have in more recent times. We ought to view marriage as less about sexual and emotional pleasure and more about the unique ability that marriage offers in the arena of creating another life made in the image of God! We ought to rejoice in this privilege; not begrudge it, or view children as an inconvenience. The feminist movement has not helped out here; and neither has the "safe sex" movement.

In many ways, the document is brilliant because it compellingly ties together the issues of homosexuality, marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and religious liberty as one big, complex issue. And the complexity is removed when one realizes that the central issue is really submission to our Creator. Christians do not serve Ceaser. As the document itself pointed out, "We will fully and ungrudingly render to Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Ceaser's what is God's." Christians serve God through Jesus Christ our Redeemer!

In an increasingly sissified culture, it is nice to see professing Christians take such a courageous and bold stance.

2. As Mohler has documented on countless occasions, Canada and some European countries have been a theatre for recent cases where Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching against homosexuality with the Bible as their authority for doing so. Thus, this document could help make the church function more smoothly if it achieves its intended goal. The document affirms the church's discretion as to who is qualified to pastor, what to preach, and what beliefs to propagate whether from the pulpit, through literature, or the Internet. For me, this becomes a personal issue. I DON'T want anyone dictating to me what to preach. If I found myself in circumstances where that was happening on a legal level I pray that I would do the Christ honoring thing (that would be preaching the Gospel regardless of the cost for myself or family for those wondering what the Christ honoring thing would be)!

3. So far my comments have supported the document and its purpose. However, I do have one axe to grind with the Declaration. I do not know if it would be enough for me to not sign the document or not. I have not decided. My grievance is with the wording of the document. From the beginning, the document assumes that Roman Catholics affirm the Biblical Gospel.

This is the point that MacArthur and Begg make in their articles, and which serves as the primary reason that neither one of them signed the document. Read these words from MacArthur (the modern day Prince of Preachers), "...it assumes from the beginning that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct communities. Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as 'historic lines of ecclesial differences' rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity. Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel's essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like 'we [and] our fellow believers', 'As Christians , we...', and 'we claim the heritage of....Christians'. That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic Biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions".

I understand what MacArthur is saying and actually agree with him. I would point out, however that there is a sense in which Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox people (at least the ones who signed the document) could be genuine Christians. I would not hesitate to say that it is possible for a Catholic to be a Christian. In fact, I have known a few myself. That does not mean Catholic doctrine holds to the true Gospel. If you do not believe me, then follow Allistar Begg's advice (who also refused to sign the document) and read Calvin's Institutes on the Roman Catholic Mass (Book IV, Chapter 18)!

Furthermore, even if some of the signatories prove to not be true believers, it does not stand to reason that all of them must of necessity be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Would it not be possible that some of the Protestants that signed the document could prove in the final analysis to not be Christian as well? I am not trying to split hairs. Nor am I trying to judge the heart of any man that signed the document. Nevertheless, one must concede that there are Protestants who could articulate the Gospel in and out; yet still be lost. On the other hand, there could be Roman Catholics who know the Gospel, but remain in the Catholic church for inferior reasons of which they are even aware. I would just provide one caveat- I think the former is more prominent than the latter option; however, that is just my opinion.

The point is that even those who signed the document and hold wholeheartedly to a form of the heretical version of the gospel as espoused by the Roman Catholic church still affirm belief in the God of the Bible.

We have spoken a lot about this in our current Sunday School series. One can believe in God and not be a Christian in the "Gospel sense", right? James tells us that the demons know there is a God, but they are not Christians in the "Gospel sense". So the document is affirming basic truths about a Creator God. The basic truth is that all men are created in His image. The document is not trying to bring Catholics and Protestants together on the doctrinal details of the Gospel. Rather, the agenda of the document (to me at least) seems to be an effort to promote the basic freedom and rights of not just Christians, but non-Christians who have all been created in the triune image of God- our Maker.

So I think that MacArthur and Begg have a valid point. The language of the document does (to me) assume that Roman Catholics are Christians in the same sense as Protestants. I disagree with that and wholeheartedly affirm that Roman Catholic doctrine is heretical and damnable. Thus, I think the language of the document is unfortunate. Nevertheless, the document does promote a worthy cause that even non-Christians could benefit from because the overall thrust of the document (it seems to me) is to send a message that supports and promotes universal laws that God established at creation such as the sanctity of human life (on both ends- whether embryo fashion or nursing home fashion) and Biblical marriage.

Conclusion

As I said, nobody is waiting to see whether I will sign the document or not. These are just my current musings on the Declaration. Take them for what they are worth. May your conscience by your guide!

AMS

Quote

Laying on my desk are a series of index cards with different quotes that I have written down over the last several weeks. For most of the quotes I have indicated the specific author who penned it. However, (for whatever reason) I failed to indicate the author of my favorite quote on these cards. I really do not know where I read this one, but it is good......

"We must be willing to laugh at all our righteous, good deeds."

This is well said. We must view our good works as worth nothing before a holy God. They do not even come close to impressing God.

Part 2 on Reformed Evangelism

To view my articles on Reformed Evangelism- go to www.soundofgrace.com (not soundofgrace.org). I apologize for giving the wrong web address. Some were surprised to find many things completley unrelated to the Gospel or evangelism (apparently the webmaster for those websites needs the Gospel!)...for that I am sorry.

To view Part 1 go to the Nov. issue of Sound of Grace. If you want part 2 click on the Dec./Jan. issue. And if you want Part 3, then wait until Feb.

Sorry for the confusion.