The atheists at Penn State recently held what they called a Blasphemy Challenge. They offered a slice of pizza to anyone who would blaspheme God. The question that needs to be answered is, how can one blaspheme a non-existent entity? Who is being blasphemed?
Once an atheist blasphemes God he leaves unbelief and begins to fight against God. In doing so he is admitting the existence of the God whom he is fighting.
So in having the blasphemy challenge the atheists at Penn State find themselves in the interesting position of declaring the existence of the very God whom they claim does not exist.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Peter and the Keys
In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus gives to Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and tells him that whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven. The Roman Catholic Church claims that this means that Peter had authority over the other apostles, and by extension the pope who is the successor to Peter, has authority over all of Christendom.
In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives the same authority to bind and loose to all of the apostles though he does not give them keys. So it is the keys that the Catholic Church focuses on for Peter's and by extension Rome's authority.
They point to Isaiah 22:22-24 to show that when the king gave to his steward the keys to the kingdom this meant that the steward had authority over all of the kingdom. The problem is that in Isaiah 22 only one person is given the authority that goes with the keys. In Matthew 18 Jesus gave the same authority that goes with the keys (binding and loosing) to all of the disciples. So what is the significance of the keys?
The Catholic Church says that all of the apostles were given authority, but the keys indicate that Peter was given greater authority. Why then does Jesus use the exact same words when he gives authority to the rest of the apostles as he did when he gave Peter the keys? One would think that if the other apostles were given less authority than Peter, then Jesus would have indicated this with different wording. It seems to make more sense that if Jesus uses the exact same wording in giving authority to the rest of the apostles as he does when he gives Peter the keys, then they must have the exact same authority.
What then is the significance of the keys? There may be none. It could be that the keys were implied when Jesus gives the same authority to the apostles as he did to Peter. It could also be that in only giving Peter the keys, but giving the rest of the apostles equal authority with him, Jesus was giving Peter the place of honor amongst the disciples. So the keys in Matthew 16 shows Peter's special place amongst the disciples, while equal authority is given to all in Matthew 18.
This seems to be the more biblical and historical way of seeing Peter and by extension Rome's place in the Church.
In Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives the same authority to bind and loose to all of the apostles though he does not give them keys. So it is the keys that the Catholic Church focuses on for Peter's and by extension Rome's authority.
They point to Isaiah 22:22-24 to show that when the king gave to his steward the keys to the kingdom this meant that the steward had authority over all of the kingdom. The problem is that in Isaiah 22 only one person is given the authority that goes with the keys. In Matthew 18 Jesus gave the same authority that goes with the keys (binding and loosing) to all of the disciples. So what is the significance of the keys?
The Catholic Church says that all of the apostles were given authority, but the keys indicate that Peter was given greater authority. Why then does Jesus use the exact same words when he gives authority to the rest of the apostles as he did when he gave Peter the keys? One would think that if the other apostles were given less authority than Peter, then Jesus would have indicated this with different wording. It seems to make more sense that if Jesus uses the exact same wording in giving authority to the rest of the apostles as he does when he gives Peter the keys, then they must have the exact same authority.
What then is the significance of the keys? There may be none. It could be that the keys were implied when Jesus gives the same authority to the apostles as he did to Peter. It could also be that in only giving Peter the keys, but giving the rest of the apostles equal authority with him, Jesus was giving Peter the place of honor amongst the disciples. So the keys in Matthew 16 shows Peter's special place amongst the disciples, while equal authority is given to all in Matthew 18.
This seems to be the more biblical and historical way of seeing Peter and by extension Rome's place in the Church.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Revelation
When I tell people that we can know who God is through his revealing of himself to us they generally respond by saying that revelation is not something that happens in the real world. They claim it to be merely the product of religious fantasy. On the contrary revelation occurs every day. In fact, it is the main form of human communication and the beginning of all human knowledge.
When we converse with another human being we do so through revelation. We cannot read each others mind. We must take what is in our mind and reveal it (usually through the spoken word) to someone else. Once they hear what has been said they proceed to think about it, and then in turn, reveal what they are thinking to us. Professors through the use of the spoken word, power point presentations, etc. reveal to their students the knowledge they have of the subject they are teaching. Only after this knowledge has been revealed can students begin to reason about it. When we read a book the author is revealing to us through the written word the ideas he desires to communicate, and then we can think about it. Even science begins with the revelation of the material world, and then they do their experiments and draw their conclusions.
Reason always follows revelation. The same then must be true when it comes to God. First God reveals himself to us and then we can begin to think clearly about him.
When we converse with another human being we do so through revelation. We cannot read each others mind. We must take what is in our mind and reveal it (usually through the spoken word) to someone else. Once they hear what has been said they proceed to think about it, and then in turn, reveal what they are thinking to us. Professors through the use of the spoken word, power point presentations, etc. reveal to their students the knowledge they have of the subject they are teaching. Only after this knowledge has been revealed can students begin to reason about it. When we read a book the author is revealing to us through the written word the ideas he desires to communicate, and then we can think about it. Even science begins with the revelation of the material world, and then they do their experiments and draw their conclusions.
Reason always follows revelation. The same then must be true when it comes to God. First God reveals himself to us and then we can begin to think clearly about him.
Friday, August 22, 2008
The True Church and the Holy Trinity
The Orthodox Church's claim that Rome had a primacy of honor within the Church, but the Church was ruled by consensus, is consistent with the nature of the Holy Trinity. The Catholic Church, which says that the Pope has supreme jurisdictional authority over the entire church, and Protestantism which is hopelessly divided along doctrinal lines, is not consistent with the Trinity.
In the Trinity the Father is the head. The Nicene Creed states that we believe in one God the Father. It goes on to say that the Father has begotten a Son and brought forth the Holy Spirit. All comes forth from the Father, but the Father takes no authority over the Son and the Holy Spirit, nor are the persons of the Trinity divided in any way. The three persons of the Holy Trinity do all by consensus having one mind and one will.
For the Trinity to be in line with the Catholic model the Father would have to exercise authority over the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Trinity to be in line with the Protestant model the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would have to have three separate minds with three separate ways of thinking.
Only the Orthodox Church maintains consistency with the Holy Trinity. There is a head, which at one point was Rome but is now Constantinople, but all is done by consensus. The Church is of one mind, not because one man is head over all, but because by the grace of the Holy Spirit there is consensus amongst all.
The true Church must be consistent with the Holy Trinity from which it comes, and only the Orthodox Church fulfills that role.
In the Trinity the Father is the head. The Nicene Creed states that we believe in one God the Father. It goes on to say that the Father has begotten a Son and brought forth the Holy Spirit. All comes forth from the Father, but the Father takes no authority over the Son and the Holy Spirit, nor are the persons of the Trinity divided in any way. The three persons of the Holy Trinity do all by consensus having one mind and one will.
For the Trinity to be in line with the Catholic model the Father would have to exercise authority over the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Trinity to be in line with the Protestant model the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would have to have three separate minds with three separate ways of thinking.
Only the Orthodox Church maintains consistency with the Holy Trinity. There is a head, which at one point was Rome but is now Constantinople, but all is done by consensus. The Church is of one mind, not because one man is head over all, but because by the grace of the Holy Spirit there is consensus amongst all.
The true Church must be consistent with the Holy Trinity from which it comes, and only the Orthodox Church fulfills that role.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Naturalism
Modern scientists have defined science as being atheistic and naturalistic. Any particular scientist may personally believe in God, but he can not bring this belief to his work. Therefore any theory on origins, no matter how scientific in its approach, if God is in any way implied in its conclusion, is declared to be unscientific. As a result, modern scientists have made sure that naturalism cannot be challenged in the scientific arena.
Scientists say that all theories must be falsifiable. In other words, there has to be a way of proving them to be wrong. Since any attempt to prove naturalism wrong would need to have the supernatural as its conclusion, and this is not allowed in today's science, then there is no way for it to be falsified. Therefore it has to be questioned as to whether naturalism it is a valid scientific theory.
Some would counter this by saying that evolution is the theory and naturalism is simply a way of describing the evolutionary process. So it is evolution that needs to be falsifiable and not naturalism. There is no doubt that evolution is a theory, and therefore must be falsifiable, but it is a theory to explain the out workings of naturalism. If evolution is proven to be wrong, scientists would need to come up with another theory with which to replace it. In the mean time they would still believe in naturalism. So the theory of naturalism can stand on its own without evolution. The theory of evolution comes along as the mechanism. So naturalism and evolution are both theories. The over all theory of origins is that everything came about naturally over a long period of time. The theory of evolution is the mechanism through which naturalism works.
In order to properly evaluate a theory one must be able to compare it to a competing one. Since supernaturalism is the only alternative to naturalism, and it is not allowed into the scientific arena, then naturalism cannot be properly evaluated.
If our justice system only allowed prosecutors into the courtroom, a sizable majority of the cases would return with a guilty verdict. If we were to add defense attorneys to the mix, then that majority would be radically lowered. It very well could be that the reason so many people believe in naturalism is because it is the only theory they have been taught.
Those who support naturalism say that theories of origins which support supernaturalism can still be taught, but they must be done so in a religion or philosophy class. The problem with this is that everyone must take science classes, but philosophy and religion classes are usually optional. Therefore vastly more people end up taking science classes. In addition, our culture values the conclusions of science more than it does religion or philosophy. So if people are taught naturalism in science class, and then take a religion or philosophy class that deals with origins, because of the way we have been trained to think in today's culture, they will tend to value what they learn in science class more than what they learn in a religion or philosophy class.
To counter this, I think universities should offer a class in which one half of the semester students are taught naturalism, and then tested on their knowledge of the subject. In the other half they would be taught a theory, such as intelligent design, (by one truly knowledgeable in it) and tested again. The final would consist of writing a paper on which theory they believed to be correct and why. They would not be graded on which theory they chose, but on how well they defended their choice. This would not only give them an alternative to naturalism, but would also give them a means to properly evaluate it as a theory.
If naturalism is as obviously true as their proponents say, then they should have nothing to fear from such a class. The truth is always better seen when contrasted with that which is false. Therefore students would be able to see, in a much clearer light, the true superiority of naturalism. If not, then maybe some students would see its flaws and reject it. Either way for the first time students would be getting a real scientific education on origins, and there would finally be a way to falsify naturalism.
Scientists say that all theories must be falsifiable. In other words, there has to be a way of proving them to be wrong. Since any attempt to prove naturalism wrong would need to have the supernatural as its conclusion, and this is not allowed in today's science, then there is no way for it to be falsified. Therefore it has to be questioned as to whether naturalism it is a valid scientific theory.
Some would counter this by saying that evolution is the theory and naturalism is simply a way of describing the evolutionary process. So it is evolution that needs to be falsifiable and not naturalism. There is no doubt that evolution is a theory, and therefore must be falsifiable, but it is a theory to explain the out workings of naturalism. If evolution is proven to be wrong, scientists would need to come up with another theory with which to replace it. In the mean time they would still believe in naturalism. So the theory of naturalism can stand on its own without evolution. The theory of evolution comes along as the mechanism. So naturalism and evolution are both theories. The over all theory of origins is that everything came about naturally over a long period of time. The theory of evolution is the mechanism through which naturalism works.
In order to properly evaluate a theory one must be able to compare it to a competing one. Since supernaturalism is the only alternative to naturalism, and it is not allowed into the scientific arena, then naturalism cannot be properly evaluated.
If our justice system only allowed prosecutors into the courtroom, a sizable majority of the cases would return with a guilty verdict. If we were to add defense attorneys to the mix, then that majority would be radically lowered. It very well could be that the reason so many people believe in naturalism is because it is the only theory they have been taught.
Those who support naturalism say that theories of origins which support supernaturalism can still be taught, but they must be done so in a religion or philosophy class. The problem with this is that everyone must take science classes, but philosophy and religion classes are usually optional. Therefore vastly more people end up taking science classes. In addition, our culture values the conclusions of science more than it does religion or philosophy. So if people are taught naturalism in science class, and then take a religion or philosophy class that deals with origins, because of the way we have been trained to think in today's culture, they will tend to value what they learn in science class more than what they learn in a religion or philosophy class.
To counter this, I think universities should offer a class in which one half of the semester students are taught naturalism, and then tested on their knowledge of the subject. In the other half they would be taught a theory, such as intelligent design, (by one truly knowledgeable in it) and tested again. The final would consist of writing a paper on which theory they believed to be correct and why. They would not be graded on which theory they chose, but on how well they defended their choice. This would not only give them an alternative to naturalism, but would also give them a means to properly evaluate it as a theory.
If naturalism is as obviously true as their proponents say, then they should have nothing to fear from such a class. The truth is always better seen when contrasted with that which is false. Therefore students would be able to see, in a much clearer light, the true superiority of naturalism. If not, then maybe some students would see its flaws and reject it. Either way for the first time students would be getting a real scientific education on origins, and there would finally be a way to falsify naturalism.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Atheism
Introduction
The best evidences for the existence of God proceed from human nature. The way man naturally thinks and acts consistently points to something akin to the Christian God. On the contrary there are no evidences for atheism. The atheist can try and give alternative explanations for the arguments given for God, but he cannot put forth any positive evidences of this own. In what follows we will consider whether human nature, as it has always been, is more consistent with a world in which there is no God, or one in which there is a God consistent with Christianity.
Man has Always Believed
As far back as we have written records man has always believed in God, Gods, and/or the supernatural. There is no evidence that man has evolved these beliefs. By all accounts it seems to be inherent in him. Most atheists will acknowledge that as far as written records are concerned man has always believed. They may say that man evolved such beliefs before he learned to write, and so we have no record of such an evolution, but it is impossible to discuss non-evidence. Some atheists will claim that we can glean evidences from the remnants of pre-historic man, but such evidence would be speculative and fragmentary at best, and so for our purposes would come under the category of non-evidence.
The atheist will also say that before man could understand certain natural objects or events such as the sun, moon, eclipses, lightning etc. he explained them by resorting to the supernatural. This may be true, but it doesn't explain why man, being a product of atheistic evolution, found it so natural and easy to believe in the supernatural. The question that the atheist must try and honestly answer is whether it would it be more natural for man to believe in God in an atheistic world or in an theistic one.
Objective Morals
Man has always had what I would call objective morals. In other words, he has always pointed away from himself to someone else and declared him to be morally right or wrong. Subjective morality would be to declare that something would be right or wrong for oneself but not necessarily for someone else. Morals become objective when one declares morality for others in addition to oneself. As soon as we do this we are assuming an inviolable law to which we are all subjected. Only God could provide such a law.
A knowledgeable atheist will agree that in a godless world there are no objective morals, but he will claim that man evolved such an idea in order to best survive. Why man would need to act as if there is a God in order to best survive in an atheistic world is a question for which I have never heard a good answer. In any case there is no evidence that man evolved such an idea. As far as we have written records man has always thought this way. For an atheist to counter this he has to once again go back to the non-evidence of pre-history.
When confronted with the idea that God is the only possible authority for objective morality some atheists will claim that society is an alternative authority. The problem is, if one takes society as his moral authority, then he must be willing to submit to whatever morals his society declares. If he does not, then morals go back to being subjective. When an atheist is asked whether, if he had lived in Nazi Germany he would have accepted the slaughter of the Jews as being morally acceptable, or if he would have accepted the enslavement of black Africans in 19th century America, he invariably answers no. Obviously then society is not a violable option from which to obtain objective morals.
If the atheist is not willing to accept the moral authority of society the only authority left is the individual, but if the individual is his own authority then there is no objective morality. Once again all morality becomes subjective.
Some atheists contend that there is no such thing as objective morality because different societies have different morals, and there is no particular moral which is accepted by all peoples. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but irrelevant to the present argument. When we are talking about objective morality we are only speaking of man's seemingly natural propensity to declare something to be right or wrong, not only for himself, but also for others. For the sake of this argument the particular moral is irrelevant, as we are dealing with man's general tendency not with his specific choice.
All of this, by the way, is consistent with Christianity which says that man was created by God who declares rights and wrongs for all of mankind. As a result we all have an intuitive sense that there are objective morals, but since we are fallen, estranged from God, and on our own, we often times disagree as to what those morals should be. This is exactly what is seen in the world in which we live, and exactly what Christianity would predict that we should see.
Life Has Meaning
As far back as we have written records man has always believed that life has meaning over and above merely meeting his biological needs. It can be anything from loving God, to helping others, to enjoying himself, conquering the world etc. As with objective morals the specific meaning does not matter. We are simply concerned here with man's propensity to believe that life does have meaning.
Animals seem to be content to follow their instincts while fulfilling their biological needs. Man on the other hand acts as if life has meaning over and above these instinctual drives. But life can only have meaning if an intelligent being gives it such. If there is no intelligent being at our origin, which I guess in this case would be the Big Bang, or maybe the formation of the first cell, then there can be no inherent meaning to life.
Man as an intelligent being can and does give meaning to his life, in fact, it seems to be natural for him to do so. The question the atheist must answer is why, if man's life is inherently meaningless, does he naturally find the need to give it meaning? He will most likely say that it evolved in man to help him to better survive. But once again he must ask himself why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a godless world.
If on the one hand there is a God, then life has meaning and man would naturally act as such, and this is exactly what he does. On the other hand if there is no God, man should be perfectly content to live a meaningless life in a meaningless world, and he has never been able to do this.
Animals seem to be content to follow their instincts while fulfilling their biological needs. Man on the other hand acts as if life has meaning over and above these instinctual drives. But life can only have meaning if an intelligent being gives it such. If there is no intelligent being at our origin, which I guess in this case would be the Big Bang, or maybe the formation of the first cell, then there can be no inherent meaning to life.
Man as an intelligent being can and does give meaning to his life, in fact, it seems to be natural for him to do so. The question the atheist must answer is why, if man's life is inherently meaningless, does he naturally find the need to give it meaning? He will most likely say that it evolved in man to help him to better survive. But once again he must ask himself why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a godless world.
If on the one hand there is a God, then life has meaning and man would naturally act as such, and this is exactly what he does. On the other hand if there is no God, man should be perfectly content to live a meaningless life in a meaningless world, and he has never been able to do this.
Free Will
In an atheistic world all thoughts would be produced by the interaction of the mind with the environment. There would be no mechanism, such as, an independent soul to supersede this interaction and come up with independent thoughts. All of our actions would be mapped out for us by which thought produced by this interaction presents itself to the mind in the most favorable light.
So despite virtually all human beings for all of history believing that we make independently free choices on a daily basis, the atheist must believe that this is all an illusion. He must believe that we only think that we have free will. In reality we are merely the unwitting slaves of the mind/environment interaction. Such a belief is depressing, and does not explain man's natural sense that his thoughts are independent and free.
So despite virtually all human beings for all of history believing that we make independently free choices on a daily basis, the atheist must believe that this is all an illusion. He must believe that we only think that we have free will. In reality we are merely the unwitting slaves of the mind/environment interaction. Such a belief is depressing, and does not explain man's natural sense that his thoughts are independent and free.
The Idea of God
As stated above all thoughts in an atheistic world are produced by the mind interacting with its environment. An interesting question therefore arises. How does the interaction of an atheistic mind with an atheistic environment produce theistic thoughts?
An atheist will generally respond to this question by stringing a few thoughts together to show how by simply reasoning on the basis of what he sees around him he can come up with the concept of God. The problem with such a counter argument is that he cannot show that this is an atheistic world. Therefore he cannot show that his reasoning is the result of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment. It very well could be that this is a theistic world and his ease in stringing together thoughts that lead to God is because God has created us to easily do so.
What the atheist has to do is to come up with a mechanism in an imaginary atheistic world to free him from the natural course of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment naturally producing atheistic thoughts. If the atheist says that it is impossible to imagine such a world, then isn't he saying that the only world possible to imagine is one in which the idea of God is easily attained? If this is the case, then once again the atheist must honestly ask himself whether the easily attainable idea of God would be more likely in a theistic world or in an atheistic one.
An atheist will generally respond to this question by stringing a few thoughts together to show how by simply reasoning on the basis of what he sees around him he can come up with the concept of God. The problem with such a counter argument is that he cannot show that this is an atheistic world. Therefore he cannot show that his reasoning is the result of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment. It very well could be that this is a theistic world and his ease in stringing together thoughts that lead to God is because God has created us to easily do so.
What the atheist has to do is to come up with a mechanism in an imaginary atheistic world to free him from the natural course of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment naturally producing atheistic thoughts. If the atheist says that it is impossible to imagine such a world, then isn't he saying that the only world possible to imagine is one in which the idea of God is easily attained? If this is the case, then once again the atheist must honestly ask himself whether the easily attainable idea of God would be more likely in a theistic world or in an atheistic one.
The Desire to Live Forever
If this were an atheistic world there would be no eternal life. All life would be mortal. If mortality were our natural state, one would think that we would be comfortable with it, but we are not.
Why is it that in all other aspects of life man lives according to his nature and seems to be content to do so? When we are hungry we eat, when we are tired we rest or sleep, but we struggle with the idea of death. We see it as an unwelcome intrusion just as Christianity says that it is.
Christian theology says that we were created to live forever, but because of sin we are subjected to corruption and death. This not only explains why we have a strong desire to live forever, but it also explains why we see death as such a tragedy. It seems to me that once again Christianity does a better job in explaining human nature as it has always been then does atheism.
Why is it that in all other aspects of life man lives according to his nature and seems to be content to do so? When we are hungry we eat, when we are tired we rest or sleep, but we struggle with the idea of death. We see it as an unwelcome intrusion just as Christianity says that it is.
Christian theology says that we were created to live forever, but because of sin we are subjected to corruption and death. This not only explains why we have a strong desire to live forever, but it also explains why we see death as such a tragedy. It seems to me that once again Christianity does a better job in explaining human nature as it has always been then does atheism.
Conclusion
In the preceding paragraphs we have considered two models - an atheistic world and a Christian world. We have looked at human nature in the way it has always been for as long as we have written records. It seems to be clear that we as humans act in our day-to-day lives, even when we are not thinking about it, as if there is a God, and we thrive best in the world in which we live when we do so. The atheist finds himself in the unenviable position of trying to explain why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a world in which there is no God. Our job as Christians is much easier. The reason why we as human beings have always acted consistently with the idea that God exists is because he does.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Is Protestantism Scriptural?
If one is Protestant there are certain scriptures he cannot fulfill. This is not because he doesn't understand them, or is not morally or spiritually fit enough to fulfill them, but simply because he is Protestant. The first one is when the Apostle Paul tells us to be of one mind with each other. (1Cor. 1:10 + 2Cor. 13:11) How in the world with all of the various denominations, and all of their various doctrinal statements, can Protestants be of one mind with one another?
When confronted with this Protestants will normally resort to claiming that there are primary doctrines which affect our salvation and secondary ones which do not. They then say that they are of one mind on the primary ones and so fulfill the scriptural command. The problem is that there is no scripture in the New Testament which says that there is such a thing as primary and secondary doctrines. So in an attempt to follow one scriptural command, they invent that which is not scriptural, all the while claiming to be a religion based on the scriptures.
Another scripture which one cannot fulfill if one is Protestant is 2Thess. 2:15 which tells us to follow an oral tradition that has come down from the Apostles. Most Protestants reject tradition all together, much less an oral one. They cite the telephone game as evidence that it is sure to become corrupted over time. A combination of this unbelief, and the fact that Protestantism didn't begin until the 1500's, precludes them from having an Apostolic oral tradition, and therefore prohibits them from fulfilling this scripture.
Finally 1Tim. 3:15 says that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. This gives every indication that we should be able to look to the Church for the truth. The question one must answer if one is Protestant is which church does one look to for this truth? There are so many different churches with so many different doctrinal statements, that the idea of having something called "the Church" in Protestantism is ludicrous, much less obtaining one consistent truth from it.
To counter this, Protestants have declared the scriptures to be the pillar and ground of truth, while they believe that the church is profitable for various things. The problem is that the Bible actually says the opposite. It says that the scriptures are profitable ( 2Tim. 3:15-17) and the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. In this case Protestants actually reverse the scriptures in order to justify remaining Protestant.
The mere presence of denominations is the most obviously unscriptural aspect of Protestantism. One will search the New Testament in vain trying to find anything that justifies Christianity breaking up into many different sects with many different doctrinal statements. Of course there were heretics from the beginning, but they were able to be combated by the Church because no matter where it went in the world it took the same doctrinal statements with it. Peter, Paul John, Matthew etc. all preached the same thing. Can modern day Protestants say the same?
If one is Protestant and wants to remain so, he must ignore some scriptures while inventing others, somehow justify unscripturally dividing into many different sects, all the while claiming to be the expression of Christianity which is the most scriptural. This seems like a lot of mental gymnastics just to remain Protestant.
When confronted with this Protestants will normally resort to claiming that there are primary doctrines which affect our salvation and secondary ones which do not. They then say that they are of one mind on the primary ones and so fulfill the scriptural command. The problem is that there is no scripture in the New Testament which says that there is such a thing as primary and secondary doctrines. So in an attempt to follow one scriptural command, they invent that which is not scriptural, all the while claiming to be a religion based on the scriptures.
Another scripture which one cannot fulfill if one is Protestant is 2Thess. 2:15 which tells us to follow an oral tradition that has come down from the Apostles. Most Protestants reject tradition all together, much less an oral one. They cite the telephone game as evidence that it is sure to become corrupted over time. A combination of this unbelief, and the fact that Protestantism didn't begin until the 1500's, precludes them from having an Apostolic oral tradition, and therefore prohibits them from fulfilling this scripture.
Finally 1Tim. 3:15 says that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. This gives every indication that we should be able to look to the Church for the truth. The question one must answer if one is Protestant is which church does one look to for this truth? There are so many different churches with so many different doctrinal statements, that the idea of having something called "the Church" in Protestantism is ludicrous, much less obtaining one consistent truth from it.
To counter this, Protestants have declared the scriptures to be the pillar and ground of truth, while they believe that the church is profitable for various things. The problem is that the Bible actually says the opposite. It says that the scriptures are profitable ( 2Tim. 3:15-17) and the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. In this case Protestants actually reverse the scriptures in order to justify remaining Protestant.
The mere presence of denominations is the most obviously unscriptural aspect of Protestantism. One will search the New Testament in vain trying to find anything that justifies Christianity breaking up into many different sects with many different doctrinal statements. Of course there were heretics from the beginning, but they were able to be combated by the Church because no matter where it went in the world it took the same doctrinal statements with it. Peter, Paul John, Matthew etc. all preached the same thing. Can modern day Protestants say the same?
If one is Protestant and wants to remain so, he must ignore some scriptures while inventing others, somehow justify unscripturally dividing into many different sects, all the while claiming to be the expression of Christianity which is the most scriptural. This seems like a lot of mental gymnastics just to remain Protestant.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
The Religion of Joel Osteen
Joel Osteen is probably the most popular pastor/t.v. evangelist in America today. His church seats 16,000 people and his books are best sellers. He purports to preach Christianity, but in my opinion the religion that he preaches is anything but Christian.
What makes Joel Osteen's message so deceptive is that there doesn't seem to be anything that he says that one could label as non-Christian. He tell us to be kind, generous, forgiving etc. All of which are good Christian virtues. The problem is that he never seems to say anything that is distinctively Christian. Those of all religions, including many atheists, can relate to what he is saying. This seems to be the next logical step in the ecumenical movement, which I believe ultimately ends with the Anti-Christ, who will unite all religions under himself.
For years now, in an effort to be unified, Protestants have been saying that only a few core doctrines, such as, the life death, and resurrection of Christ really matter. The rest are secondary and not germane to our salvation. It was just a matter of time before someone came along who believed that even these core doctrines get in the way of true unity. This someone seems to be Joel Osteen.
In the 80's and 90's there was a debate within Protestant circles as to whether it was appropriate to bring rock music into the church as a vehicle of worship. In many places there was even a debate as to whether rock music could be Christian at all, or if it was hopelessly of the Devil. Gradually some churches began to make use of it, and those that did grew in numbers. Eventually the others (including some Catholic Churches) became aware of this, and in an effort to keep up with the Joneses, introduced rock and roll worship into their churches. Even many who were steadfastly opposed have caved in in an effort to bring in the people.
At the moment Joel Osteen has one of the largest church's in the nation. He got that way by preaching a generic, watered down message that all can relate to. Since in these days the amount of people you have in your church is the main indicator of success, it should not surprise anyone if we see more and more pastors preaching what amounts to a Dr. Phil/Oprah self-help message in order to pull in the masses.
If the Anti-Christ is going to unite all the world religions he will probably have to use, at least in part, some sort of a generic human potential message that appeals to all and can be adopted into all religions. In his 60 minutes interview Osteen was filmed at a book signing. At one point a man came up to a very Protestant Joel Osteen, and told him that he was Jewish and the lady next to him (possibly his wife) was Catholic, and they both love and get a lot out of his programs and books. This, in my opinion, is the next step along the road to the ecumenism of the Anti-Christ.
Just so I am not misunderstood, I do not believe that the religion of Joel Osteen is the religion of the Anti-Christ, but it does seem to be a major step in that direction.
What makes Joel Osteen's message so deceptive is that there doesn't seem to be anything that he says that one could label as non-Christian. He tell us to be kind, generous, forgiving etc. All of which are good Christian virtues. The problem is that he never seems to say anything that is distinctively Christian. Those of all religions, including many atheists, can relate to what he is saying. This seems to be the next logical step in the ecumenical movement, which I believe ultimately ends with the Anti-Christ, who will unite all religions under himself.
For years now, in an effort to be unified, Protestants have been saying that only a few core doctrines, such as, the life death, and resurrection of Christ really matter. The rest are secondary and not germane to our salvation. It was just a matter of time before someone came along who believed that even these core doctrines get in the way of true unity. This someone seems to be Joel Osteen.
In the 80's and 90's there was a debate within Protestant circles as to whether it was appropriate to bring rock music into the church as a vehicle of worship. In many places there was even a debate as to whether rock music could be Christian at all, or if it was hopelessly of the Devil. Gradually some churches began to make use of it, and those that did grew in numbers. Eventually the others (including some Catholic Churches) became aware of this, and in an effort to keep up with the Joneses, introduced rock and roll worship into their churches. Even many who were steadfastly opposed have caved in in an effort to bring in the people.
At the moment Joel Osteen has one of the largest church's in the nation. He got that way by preaching a generic, watered down message that all can relate to. Since in these days the amount of people you have in your church is the main indicator of success, it should not surprise anyone if we see more and more pastors preaching what amounts to a Dr. Phil/Oprah self-help message in order to pull in the masses.
If the Anti-Christ is going to unite all the world religions he will probably have to use, at least in part, some sort of a generic human potential message that appeals to all and can be adopted into all religions. In his 60 minutes interview Osteen was filmed at a book signing. At one point a man came up to a very Protestant Joel Osteen, and told him that he was Jewish and the lady next to him (possibly his wife) was Catholic, and they both love and get a lot out of his programs and books. This, in my opinion, is the next step along the road to the ecumenism of the Anti-Christ.
Just so I am not misunderstood, I do not believe that the religion of Joel Osteen is the religion of the Anti-Christ, but it does seem to be a major step in that direction.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Penn State Group Think
For years I have wondered how so many Penn State students could think exactly alike on so many moral and spiritual issues and yet fully believe that they think for themselves. Virtually all of them, unless they have religious reasons to the contrary, are pro-choice on abortion, homosexuality, fornication, drunkenness, and religion. They favor relatively easy divorce, buy into evolution hook, line, and sinker, believe both spouses will have to work just to make ends meet, and at least while they are in college are pro-choice on Pot smoking. It was pretty easy to figure out why they all think alike. They were merely conforming to modern day American pop culture. The question was, how could they believe that they came to these beliefs by thinking for themselves.
It took many years but a monk finally clued me in. To begin with most students were never sat down and formally taught these ideas. As we said before they absorbed them from the various vehicles of the popular culture. Virtually from the time they were born they have been watching television. They have listened to popular music, read newspapers, magazines, and popular novels, watched movies, and were educated in the public school system. For the most part all of these vehicles of information have preached the same secular message, which says that even if God exists he is irrelevant in real life, so do as you please as long as you do not hurt anyone else.
When I hold forth in front of the hallowed steps of Willard Building people know that they are being preached to. They know that someone is trying to influence them with a point of view and they are on their guard. But when they are watching T.V. and see pre-marital sex put in a neutral to positive light they are so caught up with the story that often times they do not realize that they have just been preached to. The same is true when they watch a movie, listen to pop music, read a novel etc. By the time they reach college they, and most everyone around them, have absorbed the same secular message for 18 years.
On the one hand, no one has formally sat them down and taught them these ideas so they think that they have come up with them on their own. Even in the public schools it is more caught than taught. On the other hand, they have all absorbed the same secular message from the same secular media and school system so they all think alike.
I believe that this is how 40,000 Penn State students can all think a like and yet firmly believe that they think for themselves. The only exception to this seems to be those brain washed religious kids.
It took many years but a monk finally clued me in. To begin with most students were never sat down and formally taught these ideas. As we said before they absorbed them from the various vehicles of the popular culture. Virtually from the time they were born they have been watching television. They have listened to popular music, read newspapers, magazines, and popular novels, watched movies, and were educated in the public school system. For the most part all of these vehicles of information have preached the same secular message, which says that even if God exists he is irrelevant in real life, so do as you please as long as you do not hurt anyone else.
When I hold forth in front of the hallowed steps of Willard Building people know that they are being preached to. They know that someone is trying to influence them with a point of view and they are on their guard. But when they are watching T.V. and see pre-marital sex put in a neutral to positive light they are so caught up with the story that often times they do not realize that they have just been preached to. The same is true when they watch a movie, listen to pop music, read a novel etc. By the time they reach college they, and most everyone around them, have absorbed the same secular message for 18 years.
On the one hand, no one has formally sat them down and taught them these ideas so they think that they have come up with them on their own. Even in the public schools it is more caught than taught. On the other hand, they have all absorbed the same secular message from the same secular media and school system so they all think alike.
I believe that this is how 40,000 Penn State students can all think a like and yet firmly believe that they think for themselves. The only exception to this seems to be those brain washed religious kids.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Protestantism is Relativism
Protestantism is relativistic in nature. The same sort of relativism that the Protestant decries in the culture he embraces in Protestantism.
In the culture one is expected to believe in certain things, such as, democracy, constitutional freedoms, rule of law, and some basic morals. After that everything is up for grabs. The same is true in Protestantism. One must believe in a few basic doctrines, such as, the Trinity, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, and basic Christian morality. After that everything is up for grabs.
When a Protestant evangelist tells the popular culture that there is only one true religion he is told that he is prideful, narrow-minded, divisive, a relic of the past etc. When an Orthodox evangelist tells the Protestant that there is only one true expression of Christianity, he is said to be prideful, narrow-minded, divisive, a relic of the past etc. It is the same reaction because it is the same relativism.
The main reason that the popular culture adopted relativism was that it realized that reason alone did not provide them with the means to know the truth on many issues. The main reason that Protestantism adopted relativism is because they realized that the Bible alone could not provide them with the truth concerning many of the doctrines of the faith.
Sometimes it is difficult to know which came first, but usually the culture will reflect the religion of the people, and I believe that this is what has happened in this case. Because of its belief in the Bible alone Protestantism is relativistic by nature and that nature has been reflected in the popular culture. If Protestants do not like what they see in the culture they should take a moment and realize that what they see is merely a reflection of the relativistic Christianity they profess.
The only answer to the relativism of the culture is to realize that the one true God has only one true religion, and the only answer to the relativism of Protestantism is to realize that the one true God has only one true expression of the one true religion.
In the culture one is expected to believe in certain things, such as, democracy, constitutional freedoms, rule of law, and some basic morals. After that everything is up for grabs. The same is true in Protestantism. One must believe in a few basic doctrines, such as, the Trinity, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, and basic Christian morality. After that everything is up for grabs.
When a Protestant evangelist tells the popular culture that there is only one true religion he is told that he is prideful, narrow-minded, divisive, a relic of the past etc. When an Orthodox evangelist tells the Protestant that there is only one true expression of Christianity, he is said to be prideful, narrow-minded, divisive, a relic of the past etc. It is the same reaction because it is the same relativism.
The main reason that the popular culture adopted relativism was that it realized that reason alone did not provide them with the means to know the truth on many issues. The main reason that Protestantism adopted relativism is because they realized that the Bible alone could not provide them with the truth concerning many of the doctrines of the faith.
Sometimes it is difficult to know which came first, but usually the culture will reflect the religion of the people, and I believe that this is what has happened in this case. Because of its belief in the Bible alone Protestantism is relativistic by nature and that nature has been reflected in the popular culture. If Protestants do not like what they see in the culture they should take a moment and realize that what they see is merely a reflection of the relativistic Christianity they profess.
The only answer to the relativism of the culture is to realize that the one true God has only one true religion, and the only answer to the relativism of Protestantism is to realize that the one true God has only one true expression of the one true religion.
Monday, May 19, 2008
A Secularized Christianity
It seems to me that the average American has become totally secularized. Even the Christianity that we profess is secular. We have taken the anti-Christian secular Culture and combined it with our Christianity. So we believe in Jesus but we also accept homosexuality, abortion, fornication, drunkenness, and virtually every religion and philosophy there is.
Our present day popular culture was formed in the 60's and 70's. It was a reaction against the Protestant Christianity which dominated American culture from its inception. As a result it became anti-Christian in nature. Whereas much of western Europe seems to have thrown off Christianity for its version of secularist anti-Christianity, we have combined the two.
It would have been better for us to do what Western Europe has done. At least there one has a clear choice to accept or reject Christianity. Here one can reject Christianity while believing that he still clings to it. It may just be the Devil's masterpiece.
Christians have always thrived when there is a clear choice and even more so when there is persecution. Evangelizing those who know that they are not Christian can be challenging, but at least they know where they stand and can accept or reject. But how does one evangelize those who believe they are Christian but are not? In today's climate they either do not believe they have a need for what the evangelist brings them, or they believe that he is just a far right extremist and dismiss him as such.
It may sound strange but I pray that God would either convert the popular culture or push it into realizing that it is anti-Christian and have it act as such.
Of course that would mean that the rest of the true Christians, who have become soft through lack of persecution, would have to get strong or apostatize. But isn't that the way it is supposed to be?
Our present day popular culture was formed in the 60's and 70's. It was a reaction against the Protestant Christianity which dominated American culture from its inception. As a result it became anti-Christian in nature. Whereas much of western Europe seems to have thrown off Christianity for its version of secularist anti-Christianity, we have combined the two.
It would have been better for us to do what Western Europe has done. At least there one has a clear choice to accept or reject Christianity. Here one can reject Christianity while believing that he still clings to it. It may just be the Devil's masterpiece.
Christians have always thrived when there is a clear choice and even more so when there is persecution. Evangelizing those who know that they are not Christian can be challenging, but at least they know where they stand and can accept or reject. But how does one evangelize those who believe they are Christian but are not? In today's climate they either do not believe they have a need for what the evangelist brings them, or they believe that he is just a far right extremist and dismiss him as such.
It may sound strange but I pray that God would either convert the popular culture or push it into realizing that it is anti-Christian and have it act as such.
Of course that would mean that the rest of the true Christians, who have become soft through lack of persecution, would have to get strong or apostatize. But isn't that the way it is supposed to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)