Seven Score and Five Years ago...

On this day in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln addressed the audience of around 15,000 at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Hot on the heels of the more-than-two-hour speech delivered by Orator Edward Everett that was officially the dedicatory speech for the cemetery, Lincoln delivered his 277 word speech, eulogizing the dead soldiers and re-affirming the civil war effort. Though he thought his words would be quickly forgotten, this Gettysburg Address has survived as one of the most enduring speeches in history. It marked a turning point in the nation's sentiment for both the war and the emancipation of the slaves.

Earlier this month, seven score and five years later, America elected her first black president in Barack Obama.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Happy Reformation Day!

On this day in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses, impeaching the Catholic practice of selling indulgences, to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany. This was the spark that led to what we now refer to as the Protestant Reformation.

The Lutheran Church sprang up following the excommunication of Luther and his supporters from the Roman Catholic Church in 1520. Ultimately, the Reformed (Calvinist) and Anabaptist traditions also emerged from this quiet beginning, though some modern Baptists claim the practice of baptism by immersion continued unabated in Anabaptist sects from the times described in the book of Acts, right through to the Reformation and on to today.

At any rate, if you consider yourself saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord, then it is a good day to thank the Lord for that Grace and remember Martin Luther's life and work to free the truth of the Gospel from the tyranny of ancient Roman Catholic tradition of salvation by works.

Now, isn't that better than dressing up like deamons and other baddies, and knocking on strangers' doors to beg for candy?

Just Why Would You Believe That?

In the sidebar, you'll see I shared a post from the STR blog called Facts vs. Beliefs, which refers to this article from National Review. The NRO article very succinctly summarizes a problem I often run into while attempting to debate people about matters of faith. In short, the skeptic will often resort to blatantly disregarding my arguments from science, logic, or inference, and dogmatically asserting that my Christian beliefs are taken on blind-faith, while his Naturalistic beliefs are based on solid facts of science.

For a good example of this, please refer to the last response to me from Tom Clark in his Naturalism vs. Nihilism thread. I decided not to continue the conversation because he seemed unable to address any of my arguments, but just kept playing the Science vs. Faith card. In fact, he was almost malicious the way he twisted my words in order to make it look like I base my Christian faith on science rather than using science to show that Christian faith is not blind.

I'm learning how to handle this sort of belligerence in a face-to-face conversation (look for a post in the future re: Tactics in Defending the Faith), but online, it's much more difficult due to the nature of the medium. You just can't put someone on the spot and demand that they address your arguments based on their merits, rather than the pre-supposed lack-of-validity of the thing you're arguing for.

It would be refreshing to have a conversation with a skeptic in which he actually considered the validity of my arguments based on their merit of lack thereof.

The Sledgehammer Approach

"Art is not a mirror to reflect reality, but a hammer with which to shape it."
Bertolt Brecht

This quote from Dr. Mardy Grothe's book, I Never Metaphore I Didn't Like got me to thinking about art in general and specifically the "art" that comes out of Hollywood.

It seems to me, genuine artists use small taps of the hammer, then sandpaper, to shape their final image. Think of the great writers you've read and I think you'll find their writings have a common characteristic: they attempt to shape one's thinking through small, gentle nudges. In this manner, some authors have fundamentally altered the way generations think.

Hollywood, on the other hand, seems to prefer to take a sledgehammer approach to force their opinions upon all who view their shows or movies. Used to be, Bogart would passionately embrace his leading lady, and then... nothing. A passionate embrace, that's all. Viewers were left to assume more happened than was shown, or nothing more happened. Or, Bogart would fire his gun and viewers would see a shadowy figure fall down, presumably dead. Perhaps Heston would carry a couple of stone tablets down a mountain. Even Hollywood used to have some art & occasionally supported the Bible. Today, we're treated to, well to graphic depictions of sexual encounters and exploding body parts, and evolutionary dogma assumed as fact. The sledgehammer approach. And what it does is smash down our defenses and open an generation to baseness as a way of life. And fundamentally alters our thinking, because, after all, who has time think when there's so much good stuff to watch.

So what's the answer? Enact laws to force Hollywood to clean up their act? We already have such laws that aren't being enforced. No, I think a better solution is to get rid of the television, as Donna & I did around 10 years ago. Go ahead, cut the cable, eliminate the desensitizing distractions, and spend some quality time with a good book, perhaps even The Good Book. Am I saying it's wrong to watch TV or movies? Absolutely not. Though some TV and movies are clearly immoral and ought to be avoided. Am I advocating taking a sledgehammer to your TV? Not really, though it may be a good idea to sell it if you're addicted to movies. Christians have the liberty to watch TV or movies of any sort, but we also have a Biblical mandate to carefully consider what we allow to influence our thinking.

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Naturalism vs. Nihilism, part 3

I happened to notice that Tom Clark posted a response to my comment on his blog. It led to a second comment from me addressing some critical mistakes in his response. Rather than repost my entire comment here, please check his comment thread if you're interested in reading the whole exchange. Here's a snippet from my reply:

Your assertion that faith is "belief without evidence" is preposterous. Perhaps what you meant is "blind faith", but it is disingenuous to equate faith and blind faith. Faith is belief, and must be based upon evidence. To believe something for which you have no evidence, or in spite of the evidence, is folly. Furthermore, I would submit that the cited dinosaur hemoglobin example does, in fact, amount to a leap of blind faith on the part of the scientists in question.

It turns out, you are setting up a false dichotomy when you pit faith against empirical science. They are not comparable. Essentially, what you’re asserting is that science is the only way we can know truth. This is a patently false notion. We can determine truth through logical reasoning, examination of history, or first-hand testimony, to name but a few examples. What’s more, science can in no way address questions of a metaphysical nature, as they are outside the realm of physical science.

Does Naturalism Blind Scientists?

I heard a great poem today that made me stop & think. It's a story about six blind men who have quite different ideas about what an elephant is like, based on which part of it they were able to touch. I couldn't help but reflect how Naturalism causes scientists in the various fields of study to behave like the blind men, in regard to their postulates about where everything comes from. Geologists look at rock layers and say it takes millions of years to form them. Biologists tell us that over millions of years, evolution changes molecules into microbes, into monkeys, into men. Astronomers argue for millions of years for stars & planets to form. They're each looking at a small piece of God's creation and building an elephant that looks and functions quite different from they way God told us He did it. And the pity is, their blinders are self imposed; they reject out-of-hand, the creationist perspective by labeling it religion, and therefor not science. If they would allow themselves to consider the possibility that God meant what he said in the Bible, and explore their fields of study from a Biblical perspective, they'd be able to see the big picture and recognize the elephant for what it is.

Of course, many Christians are willing to uncritically accept any arguments that seem to support the Bible, and reject out-of-hand anything scientific that seems to contradict the it, without examination, too. The philosophy "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" may be a good starting point, but it does not meet Peter's requirement to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you (1 Pet 3:15)". We need to be able to offer sound, reasoned answers to those who are genuinely seeking.

So, without further ado...

The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe

It was six men of Indostan
   To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
   (Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
   Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
   And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
   At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
   Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
   Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
   To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
   Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
   And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
   Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
   Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
   And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
   Is mighty plain," quoth he;
" 'Tis clear enough the Elephant
   Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
   Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
   Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
   Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
   About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
   That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
   Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
   Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
   Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
   And all were in the wrong!

So oft in theologic wars,
   The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
   Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
   Not one of them has actually seen!

Naturalism and Nihilism, revisited

Tom Clark left a response to my quick post yesterday regarding the logical link between Naturalism and Nihilism, point me to his blog post with the same title from back in March. His is an attempt to rebuff the notion that Nihilism is the natural offspring of Atheism/Naturalism. He has a case, but the fact is that those who hold to Naturalism are being inconsistent in applying their faith (philosophy, if you prefer) by living their lives in a moral manner. I suppose a similar case could also be made that we Christians are inconsistent in applying our Christian morals when we sin. The noteworthy difference, of course, is that the Christian's attempt to consistently live in a moral manner is evidence of his faith.

I posted the following as a response to his article, but thought it would be useful to re-post here for posterity.

Tom, thanks for the link. I'm not going to attempt to address all of your assertions in the article, but I'll say that your summary idea that human morality can be easily explained as an evolved survival instinct suffers in the light of others' claims that humanity's war-like nature can be easily explained as an evolved survival instinct. So which is it, are humans moral because it promotes survival of the fittest, or is that why they're war-like? You can't have it both ways. The "hard-core atheists" were much more consistent in the application of their faith by acknowledging that it leads to nihilism.

In regards to whether or not athiesm/naturalism qualifies as a faith, let's look at the surprising discovery of red blood cells and still-flexible blood vessels in dinosaur fossils a few years ago. Why was this surprising? Because the hemoglobin in the red blood cells should have broken down within thousands of years, but it was found in bones claimeded to be millions of years old. But what was the scientists reaction to this discovery? Did they question the evolutionary dogma that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago? No, by a leap of blind faith, they assumed there must be some way to preserve hemoglobin for millions of years. These scientists demonstrated an amazing knack for ignoring the evidence against millions of years due to their creedal assertion that evolution requires those millions of years. And gives the lie to your claim that "Naturalists’ commitment to science in this regard isn’t a matter of faith, it’s based on experience – the widely shared experience that beliefs about the world based in science are generally more reliable than those that aren’t."

For more on the dinosaur red blood cells story, read this follow-up article that refutes claims that what was found was not actual hemoglobin and red blood cells.

Naturalism and Nihilism

I shared an interesting article (actually notes from a lecture by J.P. Moreland) from Stand To Reason, on the topic of Naturalism. Then noticed that today's Theological Word of the Day fit nicely with it since it describes Nihilism as the natural conclusion of a Atheist/Naturalist philosophy. You can check my shared items on the top right to see these articles.

An Excellent Bible Study Tool

I'm loving The Blue Letter Bible. It's an extremely powerful site that cross references the Bible with correlating passages, multiple commentaries, Strong's concordance, maps & images, multiple translations, and a bible dictionary. The real beauty is that it does this on a verse-by-verse basis. This one tool now makes word studies and even deep Bible study laughably easy.

In addition to all of the above, it hosts several daily devotionals and provides Bible-in-a-year reading plans in a few different formats. And a slew of other helpful and useful information.

Be sure to visit BLB next time you need to look up a passage or phrase in the Bible. It's the right tool for the job.

Finding the Will of God

My wonderful wife brought Jeannie Fulbright's excellent series of articles about creative vs academic writing to my attention this week. After reading them, I rolled back to her article from 7/14 on the topic of letting God direct our footsteps through the leading of the Holy Spirit. Now, it just happens that Donna and I are attending a Sunday school class based on the book Decision Making and the Will of God by Garry Friesen, and becoming more and more convinced of his arguments each week.

It prompted me to post the following comment in response to Jeannie. I realize I have not intensively researched the "traditional view" (as Friesen calls it) about waiting for a prompting or peace from God to lead to or confirm a decision, so my request for scriptural support for this standpoint is genuine.

So without further commentary, here's what I asked Jeannie:

Hi Jeannie, I wonder if you can help me out with something. In this article, you said, "It's hard to find true peace and joy when we are not following the narrow path marked out for our family. That narrow path may include putting your children in school - but it may not. The key is to find out - not by human reason, but through the leadership of the Holy Spirit (Who leads with confidence and peace)," and, "God has a perfect course for your family, and He longs to direct your steps."

Can you please provide some scriptural support for this notion that God has one particular, "perfect" path for an individual or family? And that He will make that perfect will known to believers through a feeling of peace? I don't see it in the scriptures, myself. I have done a brief word study on peace and find several references to a spiritual peace given by God to those who through faith rely upon Him for their needs and safety (Ps 25:13 says "His soul shall dwell at ease", Ps 4:8 says "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety", and Phil 4:6&7 says Christians should not worry about their needs because "the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" ), but I find nothing supporting this common christian notion that God leads us through life or major life decisions by way of nudgings or even "confidence and peace," as you put it.

Even the scripture you cited, 2Tim 1:7 "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind," actually seems to oppose your assertion that "the key is find out - not by human reason, but through the leadership of the Holy Spirit." Isn't a sound mind the basis for proper reasoning (based on God's revealed will within His word)? In fact, I believe Jam 1:5, "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him," indicates that we are to pray for God to give us wisdom, not peace or leading, does it not?

Please understand that I am not arguing that you gave the homeschooling lady the wrong advice (to persevere). I am just having difficulty with the reasons you gave her. If you know of scriptures that support this standpoint, I would genuinely appreciate hearing them.

Update:
Jeannie responded (actually very quickly) with a fairly lengthy and encouraging post including many scripture references. Now I need to make time to examine them all in context. On first blush, however, I noted that several references were either taken out of context or quite loosely interpreted. Others, however, did seem to support her viewpoint so the jury is still out on this.