The church militant?

by Phil Johnson

Series Guide (This post is part of a series, taken from the transcript of a message on 1 Corinthians 16:13 given at the 2010 Shepherds' Conference.) Intro: "The church militant?" 1. "Watch Out" 2. "Stand Firm" 3. "Man Up" 4. "Be Strong"

ost evangelicals don't really think they are at war against false religion and spiritual lies. Just read the books and blogs of the people who talk most about being "missional" and "culturally relevant"—and you might get the impression that friendship with the world is the number one goal of the church. It's not. It is a grievous sin to be avoided. "Friendship with the world is enmity with God." The church is supposed to be an army waging war against worldly values—not Hollywood's Welcome Wagon.

Churchmen in these postmodern times seem absolutely terrified by the militant language in Scripture, frightened about the prospect of contending earnestly for the faith. After all, you can't earnestly contend for the faith in rationalistic and postmodern universities and keep any kind of academic respectability.

Christians today think they have a better idea: Why not serve high tea and buttered scones to our ideological adversaries and have a polite dialogue while we look for common ground so that we can affirm one another?

That seems so much more "civilized" and "charitable" doesn't it?

Why does the warfare metaphor have to be given so much emphasis?

The answer, of course, is that Scripture itself gives prominence to this truth. We really are in a war. It's not a literal struggle against flesh and blood. It's actually something much greater, far more dangerous, and infinitely more serious than that, because what's at stake in this war is eternal. Ephesians 6:12: "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."

Souls are perishing in this conflict—passing into eternal judgment where there is no hope of redemption. It's a somber, profound reality. That truth is not at all consistent with the amusement-park atmosphere so many sc-century evangelical churches have tried to cultivate. It's not in any sense harmonious with the spirit of our age. But every faithful Christian must be a warrior.

---

Giving ground to the world is a bad missional strategy

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson



The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The Following excerpt is taken from "The Broad Wall," a Sermon first published in 1911, preached on some unspecified earlier date at least 20 years earlier at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

atan will tell you that, if you bend a little; and come near to the ungodly, then they also will come a little way to meet you.

Ay, but it is not so. You lose your strength, Christian, the moment you depart from your integrity. What do you think ungodly people say behind your back, if they see you inconsistent to please them? "Oh!" say they, "there is nothing in his religion but vain pretense; the man is not sincere."

Although the world may openly denounce the rigid Puritan, it secretly admires him. When the big heart of the world speaks out, it has respect to the man that is sternly honest, and will not yield his principles,—no, not a hair's breadth.

In such an age as this, when there is so little sound conviction, when principle is cast to the winds, and when a general latitudinarianism, both of thought and of practice, seems to rule the day, it is still the fact that a man who is decided in his belief, speaks his mind boldly, and acts according to his profession, is sure to command the reverence of mankind.

Depend upon it, woman, your husband and your children will respect you none the more because you say, "I will give up some of my Christian privileges," or, "I will go sometimes with you into that which is sinful." You cannot help them out of the mire if you go and plunge into the mud yourself. You cannot help to make them clean if you go and blacken your own hands. How can you wash their faces then?

You young man in the shop, and you young woman in the workroom, if you keep yourselves to yourselves in Christ's name, chaste and pure for Jesus, not laughing at jests which should make you blush, not mixing up with pastimes that are suspicious; but, on the other hand, tenderly jealous of your conscience as one who shrinks from a doubtful thing as a sinful thing, holding sound faith, and being scrupulous of the truth,—if you will so keep yourselves, your company in the midst of others shall be as though an angel shook his wings, and they will say to one another, "Refrain from this or that just now, for So-and-so is here."

They will fear you, in a certain sense; they will admire you in secret; and who can tell but that, at last, they may come to imitate you?

---

Redneck Atheism: The Hypocrisy of Secular Humanism

by Phil Johnson



've grouped two of our atheist friends' top ten taunts together, because they stem from the same faulty presupposition. Both of them impugn what Scripture says about the justice of God, and they implicitly hold up humanistic values as a superior standard:

Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and animals. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs—though excluding those in all rival sects—will spend eternity in an infinite hell of suffering. Yet, you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Of course God by definition has the power of life and death. All that He created belongs to Him and is His to deal with as He pleases. Evidence is everywhere to prove that He ordinarily deals graciously and benevolently with His creatures—that "his tender mercies are over all his works" (Psalm 145:9; cf. Matthew 5:45). According to Scripture, He is the source and the epitome of all righteousness, and the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). Goodness, justice, mercy, and kindness are defined by His character, and anyone who wants to hold Him to a different standard would need to give some valid justification for that standard—other than "well, it seems to me."

Scripture also says that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23); that all sentient persons without exception have sinned (Romans 3:9-23); and that our entire race is altogether fallen, wholly corrupted with sin, and therefore under the condemnation of God (Romans 5:12-19). Moreover, Scripture tells us God is to be feared, because He has the right either to show mercy or to kill—and "after he has killed, [He] has authority to cast into hell" (Luke 12:5).

It is by no means remarkable or hard to fathom that a righteous God, perfectly just and rightfully sovereign, would punish someone with the due penalty of sin—especially civilizations as thoroughly wicked and self-indulgent as Gomorrah, Egypt, or the Amalekites. After all, He condemned the whole race of angels who fell, casting them from heaven without hesitation and without remedy (2 Peter 2:4; Hebrews 2:16).

So the real mystery is not that God sometimes destroys sinners with death, but that He ordinarily shows such extreme mercy.

The destruction of infants and animals by human armies under God's orders poses a deeper moral dilemma, of course, but it is a flat-out lie to suggest that Christians "don't even flinch" when we read those biblical accounts, much less when we ponder what Jesus taught about hell. (For those wishing to investigate that whole question in more depth, a good starting point is this video by John Piper.)

But let's note first of all that incidents of divinely-ordered genocide are highly unusual and confined to one or two specific points in biblical history. It is both spiritually naive and intellectually irresponsible to compare Joshua's military campaigns with wanton, willful, routine, and random acts of terrorism or genocide done in the name of religion. It is especially fatuous to suggest that slaughter and violence in the name of YWHW is characteristic of His people through the ages. That is a convenient argument for the lazy critic, perhaps, but it's not a very good one.

Frankly, the past century of humanism, scientific rationalism, and secularist "justice" is—or ought to be—far more embarrassing to Atheism than anything an atheist might criticize biblical Christianity for. The atheist record is even worse than that of religion in general, for that matter. As bad as false religion can be, we need to remember that it wasn't Islamic terrorism, Hindu violence, or suicidal cults that slaughtered the most people in the 20th century. It certainly wasn't Christianity. It was the followers of Darwin and Nietzsche: Nazis, Communists, and other totalitarian rationalists and social engineers.

And while our atheist friends are pretending outrage over the slaughter of innocent babies, let's talk about the death-toll brought on by abortion—a favorite cause célèbre of the humanist crowd and an evil that would not be possible at all if atheism had not left its indelible stamp on western culture.

Atheism is what gave us the most violent century in human history, and the atheists now want to make this the point around which they rally to oppose the God of the Bible?

The real issue here goes back to the question of biblical authority. Should humanistic moral judgments be evaluated by the Scriptures, or vice versa?

Atheism is what gave us the most violent century in human history, and the atheists now want to make this the point around which they rally to oppose the God of the Bible?

And if you want to set an artificial, atheistic moral code above Scripture, what is your justification and rationale for doing so? From where does your moral authority arise?

Scripture says God is a righteous judge, and the Bible also gives us every reason to trust Him. The dismal record of human judgment gives me no reason to trust that.

God's final judgment, though severe, will be perfectly righteous, and in the end, every tongue will confess that. It's neither "unloving" nor "intolerant" to warn those who are in danger of that judgment—and even some of your best-known atheistic allies acknowledge that.

This barely scratches the surface of an admittedly difficult question, I know. We'll draw out some more substance in the combox, I'm sure. But it's a busy day and I need to get to work now. Talk amongst yourselves.

---

Why I'm Not Looking for a Movement to Join

by Phil Johnson

What follows is a short excerpt from a message I gave 5 years ago at the Shepherds' Conference. The session was titled, "Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism," and it unleashed a firestorm in the blogosphere. (That was a couple of months before I actually began blogging in earnest.) A transcript of my message was posted at SharperIron.org (an always-interesting fundamentalist blog) just a day or so after I delivered it. A prolonged and very active discussion began at that blog even before the Shepherds' Conference ended that year. When I heard about the SharperIron.org conversation, I visited that blog to supply a more accurate transcript, provide some documentation, and clarify a few of my comments. There I encountered Dave Doran, president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He was an articulate and patient critic of my message, and we had an extended conversation on that blog, lasting several weeks. Someone saved most of those posts, and the document (available here) makes fascinating reading even now. Dr. Doran reminisced about that exchange on his blog today, and SharperIron also posted links to the original article and the Doran-Johnson discussion. That led me to the transcript of my message, and the following section stood out to me as blog-worthy. Since I need to do another "Redneck Atheism" post tomorrow, I'm stepping on Dan Phillips's excellent post this afternoon in order to get this online whilst it's still in my head. Enjoy.

   have always preferred independency. I consider myself an independent in every sense. I'm not looking for a movement to join. I belong to [Grace Community] church. That's enough for me. And I'm willing to work alongside anyone and everyone who shares my essential biblical convictions, whether the label they would slap on themselves is "fundamentalist," "evangelical," "strict and particular Baptist," or just plain old "Christian."

Think about the fruits of the various twentieth-century movements. Liberals and theological radicals never did anything but kill churches and turn denominations into spiritual wastelands.

"Fundamentalists" who tied themselves to the movement got sidetracked into fighting and dividing into ever-smaller and less significant factions. They managed to start with the all the right ideas, all the right enemies, and all the best men—and reduce their movement to virtual insignificance in less than a hundred years.

"Moderates" never did anything, period, except gum up the works of denominational discipline, while compromising and clouding everything that ought to be kept crystal-clear.

If you think about it, the twentieth century saw the same pattern repeated that you see throughout all of church history. The true vitality of the church is traceable through the nonconformists, the independents, the true biblical separatists. The true secret of their power is not—and never has been—in earthly organizations, political clout, or visible movements of any kind. Their power is derived from the biblical truth they preach. And the influence of that kind of power has always been what determines the relative health and spiritual vigor of the church.

---

Redneck atheism: Biblical ignorance

by Dan Phillips

OK, I'll take the in-vite. Actually, a couple of them appeal to me, but let's start with the low-hanging fruit. In this challenge, I take the "you" as "you Christians," not "you, DJP."

You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Agreed! Next? 

Okay, not really, not entirely. If the point of the criticism is that a staggering amount of so-called Christians (A) have very little direct knowledge about the Bible, and, far worse (B) don't care a lick about it... how could I disagree? Don't every one of us here lament that very fact, week after week? Isn't that why the professing church is overrun with nonsense and tomfoolery in the name of Christ? Isn't that why "churches" with no Biblical definition nor mission are filled to squeaking, to say nothing of the piles of claptrap that pockmark "Christian" bookstores?

So: guilty.

Though I'd not be as quick to grant the point about how much Bible "many" atheists and agnostics actually know. In my experience, the tally there isn't always much better.

I recall my first trembling encounter, as a young Christian, with an apostate neighbor. He was a much older man, well-educated, a former Christian. Myself very new in the faith, but wanting to speak with him of Christ, I asked him why he wasn't a Christian. I trembled inwardly as I anticipated the shattering blow he was sure to deal to my newborn faith.

"Those preposterous miracles," he said.

I blinked. "Oh?" I asked innocently. "Like... which ones?"

His answer: nothing. Blank. Not one example. So — as with most if not all atheists and agnostics — the presenting story was not the real story.

But let's grant for the sake of argument that 99% of professing Christians are dirt-ignorant of the Bible, and 99% of atheists and agnostics are experts.

So? What is that supposed to prove?

You see, for that to have any evidentiary force against Biblical faith,  you would have to find me a verse that says, "Everyone who names My name will be an expert in My words." Is there such a verse? There is not.

Now, there are verses like John 8:31-32, which reads:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

So here, Jesus does say that it is a mark of genuine Christian faith that one will continue in His word, know the truth, and be set free.

Now, turn that on its head. It would mean that —

• if one has not been set free, he has not known the truth; 
• if he has not known the truth, he has not continued in Jesus' word; and
• if he has not continued in Jesus' word, he is not truly His disciple.

So all we learn, granting the 99% figure, is that 99% of those who say they are Christians are not really Christians.

Which has zero evidentiary force against Biblical faith.

In fact, quite the contrary, from two perspectives:

1. The Bible itself is quite clear that many will claim to know Christ, but the claims will be false (Matthew 7:21-23). Calling Him "Lord" is meaningless, if the call is not adorned by obedience (Luke 6:46; John 14:15: 15:14). Yet many will do so, and will ultimately apostatize (Matthew 24:10-12). So actually, a high number of false professors confirms what the Bible says... sadly so, but undeniably so. But what's more....
2. This admission from the "skeptic" will come in quite handy later. Because, if he's true to form, pretty soon he'll fall to ad hominems. He'll want to talk about his loony Aunt Betty, and his hypocritical dad; and then maybe it will be the Crusades, or Benny Hinn, or some such. 

And when he tries this, well, we'll be all set, won't we? We'll just remind him that, as he himself said, a whole lot of people who say they are Christians really aren't.

See, then we can get back to talking about Christ. Because Christ is the issue. Our aim isn't to preach Christians. Our friend's greatest need isn't to believe in Christians, or accept Christians. We want and need to preach Christ, because it is Christ who our friend needs. Everything else is a fruitless, pointless dodge.

Next?

---

One other thing today

by Frank Turk

If you're looking at the new layout/template, you can see the "star rating" for each post now available as we enjoy each other's company.

Now, we all know that every post on this blog is a 5-Star post by common internet standards. DJP can write a 5-Star post if he was typing in asian characters with his feet on the topic of what he had for lunch, by the common internet standard; Phil has forgotten posts he never made which, but the standard of the average blog, would be 5+ stars. I am fortunate to usually contribute adequately.

HOWEVER, that said, I have two favors to ask of you groupies:

1. Try hard to rate the posts on the PYRO scale and not on the scale of, "well, compared to Hugh Hewitt or Perez Hilton, that post's like a 13.4 on a scale of 5". So for example, this post is probably a 2 or a 3 -- informative, mildly amusing, but it didn't rock your world. Rate it appropriately

2. When you have time, use the archive to find your favorite posts and rate them as well. I realize that we have over 2000 posts to pick from, but you probably have a handful of posts you really, really liked. Rate those.

Both of these requests are important because, eventually, there will be a "highest rated posts" or "most popular posts" widget for Blogger, and what a great resource that would be for the passers-by and the n00bs -- if you astute readers already rated the best of the best of the best and they showed up in the sidebar.

Just sayin': help a brother out.

---

Redneck Atheism: Science vs. Enthusiasm?

by Frank Turk

So from the list of Redneck Atheist complaints, we have this interesting affirmation:

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Some posts write themselves.

Listen: it turns out that Christianity actually appeals to "history, geology, biology and physics". That is: the simple claim of the Gospel is that something actually happened which a person ought to be aware of and take note of.

This is how John the Apostle says it:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. [ESV, 1 John 1]

No tongues there -- no "Holy Spirit Hokey Pokey". Simply Jesus as a real person making God known, and witnesses making what they saw and touched and heard known.

Anything else I would say would be piling on. Which, really, is what the comments are for.

---

Colossians studies 6: Paul responds to the false teacher (1)

by Dan Phillips

[First and appropos of little, peer-pressure has done its work on me, and I have now yielded to the siren call of Twitter. Why? Because the cool kidz are doing it. And now you know that.]

Last time we outlined the false teaching that loomed as a threat to the young church in Colosse. Now we begin to study how the apostle responded.


First, I notice that Paul does not detail the false teaching. This is why there has been such debate and variations among students of the letter, through the centuries, as to the exact configuration of “the Colossian heresy.” We are left with allusions, mostly in chapter two; and with hints we glean from Paul’s emphases.

Rather than laying out the opposing view in detail, and then refuting it point by point, Paul mostly issues a positive corrective. He does not say, “Teacher X says 123, but that’s not true, because of 456. The real truth is 789.” Instead, Paul says in effect, “The truth is 789. You know this. Why ever would anyone settle for 123?”

It would be false to conclude from this that there is never any place for doing what Paul does not do here. For instance, in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does dedicate more space to presenting and refuting specific error. That is not the case, however, in Colossians.

Second, I notice that Paul doesn’t name this single false teacher who is threatening the flock. Sometimes, he does name the false teachers (1 Timothy 1:20), and sometimes he doesn’t (1 Corinthians 15:12; 2 Corinthians 12:11; Galatians 6:12). I don't know a simple formula that will explains the apostle’s choices in each case.

I can, however, observe that what the apostle actually does has the effect of focusing attention on the cure, rather than the disease (or its carrier). It is as if Paul is saying, “This man is nothing. What he is saying is of no consequence. That’s precisely what puzzles me: given that Christ is who He is, and that He has done what He has done – why would you pay any attention to such things, rather than stay as far away from them as you can?”

So what does Paul do, to counter the false teacher? I’ll lift out two related facets today, and then (DV) develop more next time.

FIRST: Paul supports the teaching of Epaphras (cf. 1:4-7, 23; 2:7 [DPUV]).

...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones, ⁵on account of the hope which is laid away for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth, the good news, ⁶which has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit of itself and growing just as also among you, from the day in which you heard it and came to know fully the grace of God in truth; ⁷just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

1:23 assuming that you remain on in the faith, abidingly founded and settled and not being shifted away from the hope of the good news which you heard, which was announced in all creation which is under Heaven, of which I, Paul, became a servant

2:7 abidingly rooted and being built up in Him, and being confirmed by the faith just as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving.

Paul speaks of their faith (1:4a), love (1:4b), and hope (1:5) — and then says that they had learned these truths from Epaphras. That is Paul's seal of approval on Epaphras' teaching. In this way, the great apostle tells the Colossians, "What you already heard from Ephaphras is the real deal. It is the one saving, sanctifying, and preserving and true Gospel. There will not be another. You have no need for another. There will be no second editions, no upgrades, no supplements. What there is to know, you have already heard. Epaphras is the man."

Then 1:23 reaffirms that they are not to leave nor shift from this faith that Epaphras had taught them. What is more, it is the "catholic" faith — which is to say that it is the one Gospel that is preached everywhere, without alteration: full salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This teacher has nothing they need.

Then 2:7 again reaffirms that all the confirmation they need in Christ, they will get from the faith Epaphras had taught them. No new revelations are necessary.

So, they had already heard the right truth.

SECOND: Paul supported the character of Epaphras (cf. 1:7; 4:12, 13)

1:27 just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

4:12 Epaphras greets you, who is one of you, a slave of Christ Jesus, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, in order that you might stand mature and fully assured in every aspect of the will of God. ¹³For I bear him witness that he has much anguish for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for those in Hierapolis.

To say that Epaphras is "faithful" is to say that he is reliable, dependable, can be counted on — as opposed to this self-impressed upstart. Epaphras is committed (1) to Christ's service, and (2) to their spiritual wellbeing. Neither of these things is true of the false teacher.

Not only did they already have the right truth, but had already heard if from the right man.

This, then, is Paul's opening salvo. It speaks to us today. Epaphras was not an apostle, but he had grounded that church absolutely sufficiently, by laying the church's one foundation: the preaching of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). It was not necessary that he have special standing or special, supernatural, revelatory gifting. What was necessary was that he preach Christ — and he had done that.

This tells us who are pastors to preach Christ, and we can be assured that we stand within the apostolic tradition. This is the true apostolic succession: the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. If you are dedicated to Christ's service, and if you preach the Gospel, you could cherish the hope that Paul would also write a letter commending your ministry because and only if he could also commend your message.

SIDEBAR: don't miss the sad irony here. The sect which today most famously makes the biggest noise about "apostolic succession" — doesn't have it.

It tells all us sheep, as well, to stick with the Gospel. Hear it straight, then stick with it. Expect our adversary to send persuasive salesmen with "new and improved" versions to appeal to our restless discontent. Expect, and prepare to ignore.

As we shall continue to see, Colossians brings us a very contemporary, much-needed message: Christ is supreme and sufficient. Accept neither supplement nor substitute.

Under Construction

by Frank Turk

Sorry for the dust and stuff. It'll get normal in a few hours.
_______________________

OK, as of right now we're running a blogger 2.0 template, and I think I have everything migrated from the old template to the new. It looks vaguely different. Except for the headlines which I have intentionally made sans-serif (at Phil's request).

So, enjoy insofar as you would enjoy something like this.

---

Brothers, We Are Not Figure-Skaters

by Phil Johnson

Pulpit Highlights - Phil Johnson from Grace Community Church on Vimeo.

---

On Reimagining the Gospel Afresh for Every Age

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from an article titled "Progressive Theology" in the April 1888 issue of The Sword and the Trowel. Reading it, you might think Spurgeon was dealing with today's "New Perspectives" and assorted Emerging novelties. That simply reflects what we've been saying for the past five years: The controversies in the church today are not new; they are all basically reruns. And Spurgeon sometimes speaks more cogently to our age than all the leading evangelical pundits of today combined. We ought to pay better attention to what he said:

he idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!

Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth rearing. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this "modern thought." It is singular that, by the way of free-thought, men should be reaching the same end as others arrived at by the path of superstition. Salvation by works is one distinctive doctrine of the new gospel: in many forms this is avowed and gloried in—not, perhaps, in exact words, but in declarations quite unmistakable. The Galatian heresy is upon us with a vengeance: in the name of virtue and morality, justification by faith and salvation by free grace are bitterly assailed. Equally a child of darkness is this New Purgatory. It is taught that men can escape if they neglect the great salvation. No longer is the call, "Today, if ye will hear his voice"; for the tomorrow of the next state will answer quite as well. Of course, if men may be gradually upraised from sin and ruin in the world to come, common humanity would lead us to pray that the process may go on rapidly. We are hearing every now and again of "a night of prayers for the dead," among certain priests of the Establishment. Nor is it among Ritualists alone, or even mainly, for the other day, at a meeting for prayer, an eminent believer in this notion prayed heartily for the devil; and his prayer, upon the theory of the restitution of all the sinful, was most natural. Prayers for the dead and prayers for the devil! Shades of Knox and Latimer, where are ye? How easy will it be to go from prayers for the dead to payment to good men for special supplications on their behalf! Of course if a devout person will spend an hour in praying a deceased wife out of her miseries, a loving husband will not let him exercise his supplications for nothing. It would be very mean of him if he did. "Purgatory Pick-purse," as our Protestant forefathers called it, is upon us again, having entered by the back-door of infidel speculation instead of by the front entrance of pious opinion.

Nor is this all; for our "improvers" have pretty nearly obliterated the hope of such a heaven as we have all along expected. Of course, the reward of the righteous is to be of no longer continuance than the punishment of the wicked. Both are described as "everlasting" in the same verse, spoken by the same sacred lips; and as the "punishment" is made out to be only "age-lasting," so must the "life" be. Worse even than this, if worse can be, it is taught by some of these "improvers" that even the blessed of the Father are by no means blessed overmuch; for, according to the latest information, even they will have to undergo a sort of purgatorial purification in the world to come. There are degrees in the inventiveness of the nineteenth- century theologians; but, to our mind, it is the license given to this inventiveness, even when it is most moderate, which is the root of the whole mischief. What is to be taught next? And what next?

Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?

We shall, on the supposition of an ever-developing theology, owe a great deal to the wisdom of men. God may provide the marble; but it is man who will carve the statue. It will no longer be true that God has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; but the babes will be lost in hopeless bewilderment, and carnal wisdom will have fine times for glorying. Scientific men will be the true prophets of our Israel, even though they deny Israel's God; and instead of the Holy Spirit guiding the humble in heart, we shall see the enthronement of "the spirit of the age," whatever that may mean. "The world by wisdom knew not God," so says the apostle of the ages past; but the contrary is to be our experience nowadays. New editions of the gospel are to be excogitated by the wisdom of men, and we are to follow in the wake of "thoughtful preachers," whose thoughts are not as God's thoughts. Verily this is the deification of man! Nor do the moderns shrink even from this. To many of our readers it may already be known that it is beginning to be taught that God himself is but the totality of manhood, and that our Lord Jesus only differed from us in being one of the first men to find out that he was God: he was but one item of that race, which, in its solidarity, is divine.

It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval. After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!

But what if earnest protests accomplish nothing, because of the invincible resolve of the infatuated to abide in fellowship with the inventors of false doctrine? Well, we shall at least have done our duty. We are not responsible for success. If the plague cannot be stayed, we can at least die in the attempt to remove it. Every voice that is lifted up against Anythingarianism is at least a little hindrance to its universal prevalence. It may be that in some one instance a true witness is strengthened by our word, or a waverer is kept from falling; and this is no mean reward. It is true that our testimony may be held up to contempt; and may, indeed, in itself be feeble enough to be open to ridicule; but yet the Lord, by the weak things of the world, has overcome the mighty in former times, and he will do so again. We cannot despair for the church or for the truth, while the Lord lives and reigns; but, assuredly, the conflict to which the faithful are now summoned is not less arduous than that in which the Reformers were engaged. So much of subtlety is mixed up with the whole business, that the sword seems to fall upon a sack of wool, or to miss its mark. However, plain truth will cut its way in the end, and policy will ring its own death-knell.

---

Redneck Atheism, Part 3: Prayer

by Phil Johnson

his week is Shepherds' Conference so I don't have a lot of time to write detailed blogposts. Incidentally, you can watch the livestream of this morning's session at 9:00 PST here. I'll be preaching from 1 Corinthians 16:13 ("Act like men!").



we're in the process of replying to our Atheist friends' Ten Most (currently) Popular Sneers against Christians. Given my jammed schedule, I've decided to take up just one of their arguments today, and on top of that, I'm picking the easiest one:

You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the will of God.

I can't speak for people who deliberately pray for things that are manifestly opposed to the will of God, but my prayers are all answered. While I don't tabulate the answers statistically, I'm confident that the majority of my prayers are answered with some kind of yes—often far more abundantly than anything I could ask or imagine (cf. Ephesians 3:20).

In any case, your exaggerated (and obviously undocumentable) statistic is pathetic evidence of how desperate you are to discredit the One whom you are clearly obsessed with yet adamantly insist doesn't even exist. I doubt even the most wild-eyed, biblically-illiterate, superstitious, name-it-claim-it charismatic could honestly say only .01% of what they pray for goes unanswered. If they follow Christ even nominally—enough to pray once a day or so for "our daily bread"—I'll guarantee the "success rate" (as you so elegantly put it) is much higher than one hundredth of a percent—one in ten thousand.

Anyway, if a person takes time to learn to pray by studying the Lord's Prayer (and the other prayers in Scripture); and then prays diligently, importunately, and sober-mindedly—not "ask[ing] wrongly, to spend it on your passions" (James 4:3)—that person will certainly have no reason to take such a cynical attitude toward prayer.

---

Whence 'Redneck' Atheism?

by Frank Turk



Vigilant reader ‘Aimee’ who is a High School student asked this relevant question regarding this series of posts:

After all of these highly intellectual people have commented, I feel sort of silly, but I have a question. Why are you calling this series "*Redneck* Atheism"? I am not technically a redneck myself, but I think that you might be misusing the term "redneck". Having been raised in the South, using "atheism" and "redneck" together sounds like an oxymoron to me. All of the rednecks I've ever met were kind, smart, hard-working people, and many were sincere believers. I get that you're not trying to paint all rednecks as atheists or vice versa, but I am honestly confused and would love to hear an explanation. I hope I haven't been disrespectful.

Which, of course, is a reasonable question.

Since I coined the term, I’ll unpack it for y’all.

First, let me say that I would agree with Aimee’s assessment that the people I know who are actually rednecks tend to be salt-o’-the-earth sort of people who work hard, play hard, and love the people they love hard. You shake hands with an actual redneck, and his (no offense, ladies) hand feels like the hand of a man who works – and not at a keyboard all day blogging or some such nonsense. So the usage I’m thinking about here is not regarding people who self-select into this group.

Wikipedia is a good help to start the disambiguation of the matter:

Southern comedian Jeff Foxworthy defines "redneck" as "a glorious absence of sophistication," stating "that we are all guilty of [it] at one time or another."

Redneck has two general uses: first, as a pejorative used by outsiders, and, second, as a term used by members within that group. To outsiders, it is generally a term for white people of Southern or Appalachian rural poor backgrounds. In the West Coast, there are regionally specialized versions of the term, namely Okie and Arkie, for poor rural white migrants from Oklahoma and Arkansas, displaced from the Great Plains by the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s.

I’m thinking of the way an outsider to the group would use the term, and the reference to Foxworthy is especially useful – since he is the popularizer of the infamous series of books and jokes which begin “You might be a Redneck if ...”

You know -- you might be a Redneck if:

• You ever cut your grass and found a car
• You think the Stock Market has a fence around it
• Your wife has said, “Come move this transmission so I can take a bath.”
• Your mother-in-law has “ammo” on her Christmas list
• There are more than 5 McDonald’s bags in your car
• You’ve ever financed a tattoo

You see what I’m sayin’? I an sure this will make for a frothy meta to this post.

That said, the point of calling the problems referenced in the top-10 list from the atheists in question “Redneck Atheism” is two-fold:

1. Unabashedly, they are trying to cash in on the popularity of the “you might be a Redneck if ...” meme. In spite of the fact that it’s played out. So pointing out their less-than-timely attempt to ride th coat-tails of a fad is somewhat satisfying on its own terms.

2. But more importantly, the complaints themselves are specifically unsophisticated. They are in their own way, laughably ignorant of the subjects they are speaking of – and the real irony there is that the actual atheists riding this John Deere into their own intellectually-overgrown front yard where they may yet find all manner of items due for the philosophical junkyard are proud to be the purveyors of this sort of ignorance regarding what they allegedly disdain.

Not all atheists are “redneck atheists”. But the ones rolling out this jalopy with the red-tape tail lights, a giant crack in the windshield, and a “Chiggers On Board” window decal certainly are.

So enjoy the spectacle. I admit that I am.

Thanks for asking.

---

Colossians studies 5: the false teacher's teaching (2)

by Dan Phillips

Last time we laid the base for understanding the Colossian error as syncretistic in nature. Now, the specifics as I glean them from Paul's hints in Colossians. I note five (all translations are my own), which I present briefly in overview:

FIRST: a reduction of Christ. This was doubtless the subtlest. It could not have been an outright rejection of Christ, or the false teacher himself would have been rejected out-of-hand by Christians. Satan is seldom so frontal. At least, not with professed believers.

Though I put this first (because of its importance), it might better be placed last, because it is the upshot of all the rest. One might obscure a large object in a room by walking up to it and trying to pick it up and carry it away. Or one might accomplish the same end simply by crowding the room with so many other things, that the main thing is sidelined and obscured.

Thus it is with virtually all heresy. This teacher may have said something like, “You trusted in Christ? Great! Now do you want to have fullness of life? Do you desire special revelation, special knowledge and understanding? Do you yearn for a deeper life, greater reality, and a deeper level of spirituality? Do you long for greater holiness and intimacy with God. I have discovered the secret! I can show you how!”

SECOND: an imposition of Jewish rules and rituals. See 2:16 — "Therefore, stop letting someone judge you in eating and in drinking, and in respect to a festival or new moon or sabbath day."

As disciples of Paul and his Lord, Epaphras and the church would have revered the OT revelation. If their teaching hadn’t gone very deep, hadn't been very comprehensive — and particularly if this man were a Jew — they might very well have been made to feel like second-class citizens in light of Israel’s great position in the plan of God, and the great promises that Israel had and has.

The false teacher may very plausibly have said, “If you want in on the whole package, you need to keep the law of God too!”

My suggestion may find additional confirmation in 4:11, because Paul specifically names the authorized, on-target Jewish believers. That is, in saying "only these who are of the circumcision are fellow-workers for the kingdom of God," Paul may well be implying "—as opposed to that guy, who is not."

THIRD: asceticism (i.e. extra rules for holiness, applying to diet and all). See 2:18a, 20b-22 — "Stop letting anyone rule you out, delighting in humiliation...why, as though living in the world, do you permit yourselves to be regulated — `Handle not, neither taste, nor even touch’ (all of which things are destined for destruction by consumption) — in accord with the commands and teachings of men?" The false teaching tried to lessen the evil impact of the flesh. But in so doing, it concentrated on the flesh, tailored itself to the flesh, and actually preened and promoted the flesh.

FOURTH: angel-worship. See 2:18 — "and worship of the angels." One might reasonably doubt that any Jew or Jew-oid would have taught such a thing. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Qumran community was one Jewish sect that was very interested in angelology.

Remember, too, that the Jews of Colosse originally came from Mesopotamia, not Israel. Many religions put forth many mediators, objects of worship. His was, it appears, another one. Therefore this appears to be a mixture of a sort of Judaism and paganism, as Christian Science is a mixture of Christianity and Eastern mysticism.

FIFTH: a dependence on this man’s own special revelation and teachings. First, note 2:8 — "Keep looking out lest there shall be someone who takes you hostage through  empty, deceptive philosophy,  in accord with the tradition of men, in accord with the rudiments of the world,  and not in accord with Christ." Then, 2:18 — "Stop letting anyone rule you out, ...going into detail about things he has experienced, being inflated without cause by the mind of his flesh." I take it that this teacher stressed their getting information that they could get nowhere else, apart from him. This arcane information does seem to be a prominent feature, since Colossians features different terms for knowledge in 14 verses, and “wisdom” in 7 verses.

The Greek is interesting and challenging here. Perhaps we'll dig in deeper, when and if we get to chapter two. The upshot: the false teacher is his own proof-text! Whatever else God may have made available to all Christians, he had something special. The only way they could access it was by dependence upon him. The whole tenor of his teaching would turn them from what God had done and provided for all His people in Christ, to this man's special goods.

One real guy? I do think (for reasons I argued two posts ago) that it was one teacher, and that he was both a real presence and a real danger.

In verse 4 Paul's warning could be hypothetical, since Paul phrases his fear in the subjunctive mood ("that no one should delude you"). Then in verse 8 he moves to the indicative mood, but now the tense is future ("Keep looking out lest there shall be someone who takes you hostage through empty, deceptive philosophy").

Yet in neither case does the grammar mean that the attempt is not in progress, only that it is has been (and must remain) unsuccessful. They are not being deluded, they are not being taken hostage — but someone is sure trying.

However, in v. 16 it is possible that Paul should be translated "stop letting someone judge you," indicating that it was going on; and in v. 18 "Stop letting anyone rule you out," as well as v. 20's incredulous question "why, as though living in the world, do you permit yourselves to be regulated...?" Both are in the present tense, more than hinting that the action was in progress.

Pause. At present, we're just introducing the book and doing an overview. If I (A) live, and (B) continue to be allowed to blog here, and (C) continue in this series, then perhaps we will examine each of those more closely when we get to chapter 2.

For now: what modern equivalents do you think you see?

Next time, Lord willing, we'll start looking at how Paul responded.

---

Redneck Atheism: is Christianity really polytheism?

by Frank Turk

There are so many things about the list Phil provided already that I enjoyed that it’s hard to start in the middle like this and not want to go back. But a lot of the principles carry over from one thing to the next, so I’ll just enjoy talking about this nifty little aphorism and be content with my 3 pages of joy. They say you might be an unquestioning Christian if you laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God.

Now, a basic defense of the Trinity seems to be the straightforward approach to this reproach, but let me be honest: I’ve never met any Atheists converted to robust Christian faith by a sudden dawning of the truth of the Nicean Creed. If you have, please line it out in the meta as it will undoubtedly be instructive.

Instead, I want to talk about Physics for a minute. Physics is a brilliant thing – because it deals with things as the actually exist in nature. People who are really good at physics tend to be good at other stuff, too – like chemistry and engineering. They make things work, and who can’t actually admire that?

Physics is something that, frankly, is sort of the king of sciences (in my humble and ignorant opinion). It’s because of physics that we can take a gallon of a smelly liquid, set it on fire one drop at a time, and convert the force that comes out of the tiny explosion over and over again into enough kinetic energy to drive to work in the morning. It’s one of those things where you know for a fact that the amount of force that comes from setting two drops of gasoline isn’t anything at all, and the force of dropping a match on a gallon of gas is enough to probably kill you if you’re standing close enough, but if you manage the drop-sized explosions closely enough, you can drive 20 or 30 or 50 miles with the air conditioner on. And while there are a lot of things in play there, one which is necessary is the law of the conservation of energy.

Anyway, the people who figure that kind of stuff out will enjoy without any end of the glee this article from Scientific American from 09 Oct 2006. The most of the rest of you would rather read about supralapsarian reprobation and God’s hidden will, and the flabby-bottom rest of you can follow me to the comic book shop to discuss the recent apparent death of the Red Skull.

Ahem.

My point in linking to the SA article is this gem:

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above.

Now, before anyone starts blustering about the way this is phrased, these are the words of Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor who probably knows something about this. Probably more than you. So if this doesn’t meet your critical assessment of the issues, please do yourself a favor and take it up with him.

BTW, what I’m about to say here next is not attributable to Dr. Kane, and I have no idea if he’s a Christian or not.

What I’m about to say is this: I think we should believe our friends the philosophical naturalists when they put it to us that quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy. We should trust them. This is what they do.

But is it reasonable to trust them? Do we actually know for a fact – a fact almost as old as physics itself – that the energy is a closed system cannot increase or decrease – only change state? Should we have a massive “AHA!” when we find ourselves listening to otherwise-reasonable men who say, “well, yeah, usually, but in this case we know it for a fact because we saw it ourselves. I probably can’t show you, but I can show you the guys who wrote all this down. And some of it might not make any sense because they’re had to invent new words to really describe what’s happening. Maybe you would just take my word for it and enjoy your radio and your snake-egg magnets and your computer and leave the rest to me.”

I mean: I can be honest and say that I really don’t know anything about solid-state electronics and magnetic fields, so the idea that an electron is sometimes not an electron makes me a little woozy. It doesn’t actually make any sense to me – but you know what? Making fun of it will not make the Physicist change his mind.

Which brings us back to the statement of our atheist friends: aren’t you an unquestioning Christ if you laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God?

Well, I think the answer is “NO.”



Because let’s face it: first of all, Trinitarianism isn’t polytheism any more than virtual particles are some sort of pixie dust. Polytheism is always a system which describes the world as a place where chaos reigns due to the capricious nature of the urges of beings who are generally much greater than men, but under some sort of inexplicable hierarchical rule which requires them to quibble without actually overthrowing the order of things. And in these systems, the “gods” are either completely apathetic toward mankind, or somehow aligned with mankind in order to divide mankind – and often the gods did not even create mankind.

But the Bible speaks to something different. The essence of Trinitarianism is the unity of God. That is to say, in the act of creation, all of the Godhead were in agreement. In the act of judging man’s sins, all agreed. In promising to redeem or correct man’s error, all agreed. And in counting the cost and setting forth the price in grace and love, all agreed.

Yet in this unity, there is diversity. What the Son has done, the Father agreed with – but the person of the Son accomplished it. What the Spirit did and does the Son agrees with and requires – but the Spirit accomplishes it. And in this, we say rightly, God is unique.

Secondly, the unique attribute of the Triune God is his call of all men to himself. All men are qualified and indeed obligated to be his unique possession.

But there is a final fact which must be true: whatever it is that God is, He cannot be anything else. It seems a little less than candid to listen to Dr. Kane say with certainty and authority, “Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy,” without abandoning all hope for reasonability or comprehensibility – let alone the hope that your car will go when you press the gas pedal – but to demand of God – whom even the atheist must agree is in some way greater than us -- that there be no moments when we have to admit: it is what it is, even if it looks like a logical contradiction or an absurdity. Those of us who know God must confess that He is what He is, and nothing less, and nothing else. It doesn’t matter if it seems to be some kind of contradiction.

So for a laymen to point and laugh at Dr. Kane’s description of virtual particles and what happens to them even though that description has a seeming contradiction is unwarranted – and to frame it as something it is not (insert your own punchline here) is simply dishonest. In the same way, to frame Trinitarian descriptions of God as somehow another kind of polytheism is itself simply a crass and reductionistic approach to something someone simply doesn’t want to understand, and doesn’t want to have confidence in. (there's an interesting hypothesis for why this is true, and a book recently published which explicates this. Remind me to tell you about it some time.)

God is what he is. We have an obligation to say he is what he is. And to hear someone rebuff that by saying, “well, you’re a little foolish to reject what he is not since I say all these other things look suspiciously like him,” sounds ill-considered to me. You wouldn’t do that to Dr. Kane, so have a little consideration for the maker of Dr. Kane.

---

Colossians studies 4: the false teacher's teaching (1)

by Dan Phillips

In the last post, I introduced and defended my idea that the Colossians were being troubled by one particular charismatic false teacher. By the way, I did not mean to say that no one else has ever had that idea, which is unlikely. I may even have read it, in 35+ years of loving and reading on Colossians. But I honestly don't recall anyone advancing the position, and I do continue to see and hear the plural + Gnosticism as the standard, default position.

Now let's approach a closer look at the shape of the false teaching. After that, I plan to shift to focusing on how Paul responded to it.

As TruthStands observed in the last post's meta, Colosse was ideally situated for syncretism. In case that's not a regular word for you, syncretism is basically playing religious mix-n-match. You take a bit from various religions and mix it together, so that what you have is a little of several religions, but not any particular religion — until it itself becomes a religion. I'd say that Christian Science, Religious Science, and Roman Catholicism are three syncretistic religions, for example. You could name others.

Why was it ideal for syncretism? Here is where introductory matters matter, in interpretation. As I observed in the first post, Colosse hosted travellers going to and from Rome and the Euphrates Valley, and was home to native Phrygians, Greek settlers, and Jews — specifically Jews who had been imported not from Israel but from Babylonia and Mesopotamia.

What that means is that the populace featured folks presumably influenced by paganism, Greek thought, and Judaism that had been uprooted from the holy land and put through a wringer for a few centuries. It was not singly rooted anywhere, nor in anything. It was eclectic, and not in the best sense of the word. The framework would have been not to have a framework.

Kind of like us.

One can over-generalize and say that false teachers can come at Christianity in one of two ways.

1. Confrontation. They can initiate a frontal, head-on collision, trying their mightiest simply to undo Christian truth-claims. "Not that, but this" would describe this stance. Atheists, Orthodox Jews, Islam today are often of this stripe.
2. Assimilation. This approach tries more at collusion than collision. Assimilators labor to give the impression of shared common-ground, so as to make room for their bringing in what really matters to them. Mormons are attempting this today, as are many Roman Catholics. This apparently was the approach of the Judaizers in Galatia. They were not kin to apostate Jews today who would try to discredit Jesus' Messianic claims. They would affirm faith in Jesus as a terrific starting-point... and then say "here is what you really need to be fully saved."

If you think it through, you see that the Serpent utilized both approaches, in Genesis 3, starting more with the second, and ending up with the first.

The Colossian teacher was of the second variety. Piecing together what clues we have in Colossians, it does not appear that he flatly denied Jesus. I gather that from the fact that Paul did not deal with him by asserting the truthfulness, or the reality, or the qualifications of Christ.

Rather, I think his approach was to "Yes, yes of course" the whole Jesus-thing... but then, by emphasis and omission, to substitute the distinctives he brought as the real heart of the matter (according to him). Like the Colossians, he was ready to admit Jesus as important, and to affirm him as a tremendous starting-place.

Christ just wasn't enough. Having Jesus alone didn't get you all the way there. Christ wasn't everything one needs.

To get all that, you needed what the false teacher was bringing, which he would be delighted to share.

This is why Paul's pro-active response is not to stress the truthfulness of Christ, but the absolute sufficiency of the person and work of Jesus Christ.


Next time, Lord willing, we'll get into the specifics of the false teacher's doctrines. After that, we'll begin looking at Paul's response, in overview.

---

Redneck Atheism

by Phil Johnson

n the busyness of all my preparation for this week's Shepherds' Conference, I almost forgot Monday is my day to post. Sorry this is 6 hours late. I got up early this morning to write it, after staying up late to watch the tail end of the Olympic closing ceremonies.

And let's not forget to say congratulations to Challies and all the other hosers up north who read our blog, eh?



Last week I proposed a series of posts answering the points in this popular atheist meme, which is currently plastered all over the internet. (Incidentally, I don't want to hog this project; Dan and Frank are welcome to jump in if they like. Or not. I never tell them what to post. My original intention was to deal with the atheists' "Ten Signs" myself on the days I post, but I would also be happy if Frank wants to apply his golden wit or Dan his trademark thoroughness to the project.)

Anyway, as I said last week, some of our atheist neighbors have treated this Top Ten List as if it contains all the best ironclad arguments against Christianity. Atheists generally cultivate a totally unwarranted air of intellectual superiority. I'm pretty sure it's part of the job description (Psalm 14). But if these are the best reasons someone can come up with to reject Christianity, I'd say whoever compiled the list is desperate to justify a bad worldview. (Which we know is in fact the case—Romans 1:28-32).

This morning I'll give my thoughts about the first two of the atheists' allegations, with this caveat: I want to come back to #1 at the end of this series, because I think it's foundational to the not-so-subtle argument our atheist friends are making. This morning I'll reply to it in abbreviated fashion, then when it's time to wrap the series up, we'll revisit it.

And by the way—one of my goals here is to keep all my answers as brief as possible. There's no need for me to write a long essay in response to a trifling point:

You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your God.

Well, yes (except for the histrionic assertion that I "feel outraged" when I see people trying to do what Romans 1:21-32 says we all try to do).

This is, after all, one of the fundamental truth-claims of Scripture: "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): 'I am the LORD, and there is no other'" (Isaiah 45:18; cf. vv. 5, 22; 46:9; Joel 2:27).

Belief in the God who made that decree has been the foundation of both Judaism and Christianity for millennia. It's not as if some acne-faced postmodern twenty-first-century apologist invented the God of Scripture out of thin air as a rhetorical device—like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the allegation seems to want to dismiss the God of Scripture as if He were no more important to human history, human belief, and human understanding than Tinkerbell. You'd have to be hopelessly jejune or intellectually dishonest to think an argument like that carries any weight.

And surely you need to come up with a better first argument than "You always think you're right and everyone else is wrong." When I was 7 and my sister used that argument, I knew she had run out of real, substantial arguments.

Indeed, the atheists' List o' Ten instantly gets even weaker:

You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

The accusation utterly miscontrues creationist concerns. (Furthermore, it implicitly seems to want to deny basic scientific facts that are not even in dispute.)

What's most troubling about the evolutionary hypothesis is not the claim that humans descended from other primates but the assertion that homo sapiens is even now nothing but an advanced ape—morally and spiritually equivalent to an animal.

The scientifically demonstrable (!) biblical truth that we "are dust, and to dust [we] shall return" (Genesis 3:19) has nothing to do with the dignity of man. On the contrary, it illustrates how ignoble we truly are. Our fallenness (and the fact that we all are prone to do evil) further underscores how vile we have become as a species. Biblical Christians don't chafe at or ignore that truth; we emphatically affirm it.

The "dignity" of the human race, however, is bound up in the fact that we bear God's image. And that is just what materialistic evolution denies. Contrary to atheistic claims (but supported by a century and a half of the political fruits of Darwinism) the materialists' denial that humanity bears God's image removes society's moral foundation and breeds all kinds of evil. That's more "dehumanizing" than all the other stupid atheist ideas combined.

---