I absolutely love this clip from James White. It is self-explanatory. (Click on the white header if you want to go out to YouTube for easier downloading.)
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
11 February 2011
Academic Bias and the Parent
Al Mohler has just posted this incredible vignette about the reality of bias against conservatives in the academic setting.
Parents of high schoolers, this is your fair warning. When you send them off to the university, you are sending them to a place that will hate their values and hate them if they try to hold on to and express those values. It is a place that will try everything in their power to change those values to secular humanist values.
Am I saying don't send them to college? Not at all. I'm saying they had better be prepared for what they face when they get there. All the details of what that entails will be given in subsequent posts as I have time to write them.
I'm a college dean. I've taught in the classroom for nearly 20 years. I don't say these things lightly. But the spiritual welfare of our children is to important to not say them.
Parents of high schoolers, this is your fair warning. When you send them off to the university, you are sending them to a place that will hate their values and hate them if they try to hold on to and express those values. It is a place that will try everything in their power to change those values to secular humanist values.
Am I saying don't send them to college? Not at all. I'm saying they had better be prepared for what they face when they get there. All the details of what that entails will be given in subsequent posts as I have time to write them.
I'm a college dean. I've taught in the classroom for nearly 20 years. I don't say these things lightly. But the spiritual welfare of our children is to important to not say them.
17 January 2011
Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (book review)
I was given the opportunity by Ligonier Ministries to post a review of their recent book Abortion: A rational look at an emotional issue, by R. C. Sproul. I first heard about the book when Ligonier decided to send a copy to every member of Congress at the convening of the next congress this January. (Ligonier gave the opportunity for their followers to purchase a copy for a congressman, which I did...hopefully he or she will read it. I love the idea that the copy I paid for might end up on Nancy Pelosi's desk!)
Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-
http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/
I'll do this review in three parts, as it is a bit long for normal blog reading. Each part of the review will correspond to the same part of the book, since the book is divided into three parts.
First, the list of names in the endorsements section is a roll call of superstars of evangelicalism: Jim Daly (Focus on the Family), Marvin Olasky (World Magazine), Randy Alcorn (author), Russell D. Moore (pastor and seminary dean), John MacArthur (pastor and author), Chuck Swindoll (pastor and author), Peter Jones (apologist and author), and others.
The book is not long; about 150 pages plus appendices, notes, bibliography, and an index. The book was first published in 1990. This is the 20th anniversary edition.
Part One is titled, Abortion: The ethical dilemma of our time.
Ch 1- 'A Nation Divided'- Sproul deals with the following issues in the first chapter-
Abortion is a divisive issue intertwined in our culture; core question is, "Is abortion a form of murder?"; what is a fetus...when does life begin?; philosophical basis for making decisions about right and wrong. This chapter is a good introduction to some of the problems in thinking about the issue of abortion.
Ch 2- 'The Sanctity of Life'- The second chapter moves to some philosophical foundations for why both believers and unbelievers can understand the value of human life. These issues are highlighted in this chapter-
The nature of man; biblical roots of the concept of sanctity of life; the relation (morally) of the death penalty to abortion; the potential desctruction of actual life versus the actual destruction of potential life. This chapter moves the reader into deeper thinking about the issues involved in abortion, as well as general issues related to life and death.
Ch 3- 'The Sanctity of Life and Natural Law'- Sproul continues to develop the themes from chapter 2 in this chapter. Here, he deals with these issues-
Abortion as an act against nature; our culture's intense concern for living individuals but not for the unborn; the early church's opposition to abortion; the connection between abortion and infanticide in early cultures.
Ch 4- 'When Does Life Begin'- Sproul deals with some of the key issues in the legal realm as well as the philosophical realm in this chapter-
Scriptural support for the idea of the fetus as human life; scriptural distinction of the unborn baby from the mother; the power of prejudice in decision making and the forming of opinions; 'What should we do if we remain unsure of the answer?' Dr. Sproul will more fully develop this last idea in the next chapter.
Ch 5- 'What if You Are Not Sure about Abortion?'- In a continuation from the last chapter, Sproul deals with these issues-
The argumentum ad populum; the logic of dealing with the rightness/wrongness of abortion; the conscience and abortion (Luther- 'To act against conscience is neither right nor safe'). Dr. Sproul makes a cogent logical argument for the moral duty of anyone who may have doubts, one way or the other, about any moral dilemma. This is a valuable chapter for what is probably the majority of non-believers on the topic of abortion...not sure about what is right or wrong.
Ch 6- 'The Role of Government in Abortion'- Sproul moves to the political side of the issues in this chapter-
'Is abortion a private ethical issue or does it fall within the scope of government regulation and control?' (p. 75); the role of government in restraining evil in society; separation of church and state; the moral implications of law (and how this does not entangle church and state); how Roe v. Wade was the state's greatest failure at being the state. This chapter breaks down some of the mythology that has developed around the 'wall of separation' issues between the church and the state, and shows why the state's dealing with moral issues falls fully within the appropriate sphere of activity for a state.
To be continued...
____________________
FCC disclaimer: Ligonier provided me with a PDF copy of the book for review purposes. Anyone who writes a review is eligible to receive a paper copy of the book.
Here is the copyright information for the book. Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.
This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Here's the link to the book on Ligonier's website-
http://www.ligonier.org/store/abortion-hardcover/
I'll do this review in three parts, as it is a bit long for normal blog reading. Each part of the review will correspond to the same part of the book, since the book is divided into three parts.
First, the list of names in the endorsements section is a roll call of superstars of evangelicalism: Jim Daly (Focus on the Family), Marvin Olasky (World Magazine), Randy Alcorn (author), Russell D. Moore (pastor and seminary dean), John MacArthur (pastor and author), Chuck Swindoll (pastor and author), Peter Jones (apologist and author), and others.
The book is not long; about 150 pages plus appendices, notes, bibliography, and an index. The book was first published in 1990. This is the 20th anniversary edition.
Part One is titled, Abortion: The ethical dilemma of our time.
Ch 1- 'A Nation Divided'- Sproul deals with the following issues in the first chapter-
Abortion is a divisive issue intertwined in our culture; core question is, "Is abortion a form of murder?"; what is a fetus...when does life begin?; philosophical basis for making decisions about right and wrong. This chapter is a good introduction to some of the problems in thinking about the issue of abortion.
Ch 2- 'The Sanctity of Life'- The second chapter moves to some philosophical foundations for why both believers and unbelievers can understand the value of human life. These issues are highlighted in this chapter-
The nature of man; biblical roots of the concept of sanctity of life; the relation (morally) of the death penalty to abortion; the potential desctruction of actual life versus the actual destruction of potential life. This chapter moves the reader into deeper thinking about the issues involved in abortion, as well as general issues related to life and death.
Ch 3- 'The Sanctity of Life and Natural Law'- Sproul continues to develop the themes from chapter 2 in this chapter. Here, he deals with these issues-
Abortion as an act against nature; our culture's intense concern for living individuals but not for the unborn; the early church's opposition to abortion; the connection between abortion and infanticide in early cultures.
Ch 4- 'When Does Life Begin'- Sproul deals with some of the key issues in the legal realm as well as the philosophical realm in this chapter-
Scriptural support for the idea of the fetus as human life; scriptural distinction of the unborn baby from the mother; the power of prejudice in decision making and the forming of opinions; 'What should we do if we remain unsure of the answer?' Dr. Sproul will more fully develop this last idea in the next chapter.
Ch 5- 'What if You Are Not Sure about Abortion?'- In a continuation from the last chapter, Sproul deals with these issues-
The argumentum ad populum; the logic of dealing with the rightness/wrongness of abortion; the conscience and abortion (Luther- 'To act against conscience is neither right nor safe'). Dr. Sproul makes a cogent logical argument for the moral duty of anyone who may have doubts, one way or the other, about any moral dilemma. This is a valuable chapter for what is probably the majority of non-believers on the topic of abortion...not sure about what is right or wrong.
Ch 6- 'The Role of Government in Abortion'- Sproul moves to the political side of the issues in this chapter-
'Is abortion a private ethical issue or does it fall within the scope of government regulation and control?' (p. 75); the role of government in restraining evil in society; separation of church and state; the moral implications of law (and how this does not entangle church and state); how Roe v. Wade was the state's greatest failure at being the state. This chapter breaks down some of the mythology that has developed around the 'wall of separation' issues between the church and the state, and shows why the state's dealing with moral issues falls fully within the appropriate sphere of activity for a state.
To be continued...
____________________
FCC disclaimer: Ligonier provided me with a PDF copy of the book for review purposes. Anyone who writes a review is eligible to receive a paper copy of the book.
Here is the copyright information for the book. Portions used in this review were used by permission, per email on December 6, 2010, from D. Finnamore.
This book's copyright information: © 2010 by R.C. Sproul, Published by Reformation Trust Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
07 October 2010
Atheism and Morality- Is there such a thing as morality beyond God? (Thinker Thursday)
This started out as a question asked by a friend in our local church social network called 'The City'. My friend Chris posted this-
I’m always interested in British thinking. It is often quite different from what we typically encounter in the Texas Panhandle. The article linked below is an interesting essay on morality. I would be curious to have someone decipher the article for me.
Morality beyond God
I initially responded with the following post-
[begin post]
What is there to decipher?
This author is very much infused with Nietzsche-an “God-is-dead-ism” and is trying to find a basis for a universal (morality) in a worldview of relativism.
She does get one thing very, very right. She says, “However, the enthronement of God as the source not only of the laws of nature but of moral law has its origin not in the argument from design, but in the narrative of the scriptures.” That’s absolutely true. If we reject the authority, inerrancy, and divine inspiration of scripture, we leave ourselves not with a three-legged stool, but a no-legged stool. One look at the direction of American culture is all the emprical evidence we need of this fact.
Here’s her inescapable predicament…she claims, “No human being is exempt from the temptation to make things worse in his own interest, nor from the responsibility not to do so.” That’s a moral absolute, in a statement with no foundation in which to ground it. Who says (if not God, as she claims) that no human being is exempt from anything? How dare she state an absolute from within her worldview of relativism? (If you make the statement that ‘there is no absolute truth’, is that statement absolutely true?)
Without the absolute of an infinite creator who establishes moral law, there are no absolutes in human behavior. There’s not even a standard by which to judge good or evil. Atheists like to point out the ‘problem of evil’ for the theist. However, in reality, they have it backwards. If there is no God, there’s a much bigger ‘problem of good’ for them to deal with.
No absolute moral authority, no morality. In fact, to state that there is a basis for morality outside God would itself be an immoral statement, because you are infusing yourself with absolute moral authority. Everything moves from’the good’ to ‘the power’. As Marx said, if you remove the absolutes of God, then all that’s left is me gaining power over others.
Look at the two hundred million murder victims of the 20th century for evidence that he was right.
[end post]
It occurred to me a bit later to add a spin on Tertullian's quote about, 'What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem'...so I added, 'What hath London to do with Amarillo?'
Chris replied in much the same way as R. C. Sproul, Jr., did, in this very useful blog post from Ligonier.org. (If you want the Cliff's Notes version, Tim Challies give it here.) Basically, the answer is, 'much in every way'.
I was thinking about this last night and this morning when I ran across four different blog posts over on James White's website, aomin.org. These posts are all responses to the 'Consensus Statement' (which aomin.org humorously calls the 'Atheistic Ethics Confession of Faith') published recently by militant atheist Sam Harris and others. These are much more detailed in how they answer the ideas that we can have moral codes without ultimate moral authority. I highly recommend you take time to read them.
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 1
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 2
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 3
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 4
This isn't easy reading, all of it, but it is important reading. Are you prepared to do anything more than just blush and stammer when one of your acquaintances hits you over the head with, "We don't need God to have a moral code in society...how can you insist on the need for God?" If you aren't, please re-read Jude 3 and 1 Peter 3:15, then come back to these articles and become ready.
I’m always interested in British thinking. It is often quite different from what we typically encounter in the Texas Panhandle. The article linked below is an interesting essay on morality. I would be curious to have someone decipher the article for me.
Morality beyond God
I initially responded with the following post-
[begin post]
What is there to decipher?
This author is very much infused with Nietzsche-an “God-is-dead-ism” and is trying to find a basis for a universal (morality) in a worldview of relativism.
She does get one thing very, very right. She says, “However, the enthronement of God as the source not only of the laws of nature but of moral law has its origin not in the argument from design, but in the narrative of the scriptures.” That’s absolutely true. If we reject the authority, inerrancy, and divine inspiration of scripture, we leave ourselves not with a three-legged stool, but a no-legged stool. One look at the direction of American culture is all the emprical evidence we need of this fact.
Here’s her inescapable predicament…she claims, “No human being is exempt from the temptation to make things worse in his own interest, nor from the responsibility not to do so.” That’s a moral absolute, in a statement with no foundation in which to ground it. Who says (if not God, as she claims) that no human being is exempt from anything? How dare she state an absolute from within her worldview of relativism? (If you make the statement that ‘there is no absolute truth’, is that statement absolutely true?)
Without the absolute of an infinite creator who establishes moral law, there are no absolutes in human behavior. There’s not even a standard by which to judge good or evil. Atheists like to point out the ‘problem of evil’ for the theist. However, in reality, they have it backwards. If there is no God, there’s a much bigger ‘problem of good’ for them to deal with.
No absolute moral authority, no morality. In fact, to state that there is a basis for morality outside God would itself be an immoral statement, because you are infusing yourself with absolute moral authority. Everything moves from’the good’ to ‘the power’. As Marx said, if you remove the absolutes of God, then all that’s left is me gaining power over others.
Look at the two hundred million murder victims of the 20th century for evidence that he was right.
[end post]
It occurred to me a bit later to add a spin on Tertullian's quote about, 'What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem'...so I added, 'What hath London to do with Amarillo?'
Chris replied in much the same way as R. C. Sproul, Jr., did, in this very useful blog post from Ligonier.org. (If you want the Cliff's Notes version, Tim Challies give it here.) Basically, the answer is, 'much in every way'.
I was thinking about this last night and this morning when I ran across four different blog posts over on James White's website, aomin.org. These posts are all responses to the 'Consensus Statement' (which aomin.org humorously calls the 'Atheistic Ethics Confession of Faith') published recently by militant atheist Sam Harris and others. These are much more detailed in how they answer the ideas that we can have moral codes without ultimate moral authority. I highly recommend you take time to read them.
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 1
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 2
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 3
A Christian Response to the 2010 Consensus Statement on Morality, Part 4
This isn't easy reading, all of it, but it is important reading. Are you prepared to do anything more than just blush and stammer when one of your acquaintances hits you over the head with, "We don't need God to have a moral code in society...how can you insist on the need for God?" If you aren't, please re-read Jude 3 and 1 Peter 3:15, then come back to these articles and become ready.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)