Did God Condone Slavery?

(Stand to Reason) Amy Hall

Since God regulated slavery in the Old Testament, does this automatically mean that He approves of slavery? Just as some answer "yes" today, the Pharisees also jumped to a similarly wrong conclusion in Matthew 19 when they asked Jesus a question:

"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And [Jesus] answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?...What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way."

Notice what happens here. The Pharisees come with a legal question about which regulations ought to govern divorce, and Jesus responds in a very unexpected way, saying there shouldn't be any divorce. The Pharisees are immediately confused. "But how could it be that there shouldn't be any divorce if God regulated it? Doesn't that mean He thinks it's hunky-dory as long as it's done right?"

Jesus makes it clear that this is not the case.

The Pharisees had missed something very important about law: there's a difference between what's legal and what's moral--between the practical need to deal with reality and the existence of an ideal. The Law was not meant to be an exhaustive list of everything moral and immoral. It functioned as every national set of laws functions--as reasonably enforceable rules to govern their society. And the Pharisees had made the mistake of focusing on merely staying within the regulations instead of going beyond them to seek the goodness of God's ideal.

As with divorce, the same was true for slavery. The rules regulating slavery were added "because the hardness of the hearts" of humanity had created a situation where slavery existed and served certain functions in their societies, "but it was not that way from the beginning." In the beginning, there was human dignity and equal value resulting from the fact that every single individual--young or old, rich or poor, royal or commoner--was made in the image of God. But after the Fall, the ideal society was out the window, and God had to deal with what was actually there.

Deeply ingrained cultural patterns don't change overnight, but must be redeemed over time. Slavery was intricately woven into the cultures of the day, so, as with divorce (neither being the situation God desired), God made rules to keep the evil of the practice to a minimum. For example, if you kidnapped someone and made him a slave, you were put to death. If a slave escaped from his master for whatever reason, you were not allowed to return him. If you harmed so much as a tooth of your slave, you had to let him go free--in other words, no person was allowed to keep a slave if he mistreated him or her. Slavery in Western countries would never even have gotten off the ground had these rules been followed; the first rule alone would have prevented it.

Regulating a bad situation is not a foreign concept to us. We see some people using this same principle today regarding abortion. They say it's too much a part of our society at the moment to enforce a complete ban, though abortion is immoral, so they support regulating certain things about it for now in order to reduce the evil of it (banning only partial-birth abortions, or third trimester abortions, or regulating the issues surrounding abortion, for example). That doesn't mean either that they think abortion is fine or that they intend for the situation to remain in that same state forever.

God regulated divorce, and yet He explicitly said He hates it, so the regulation of the practice did not mean He condoned it. Therefore, one cannot assume that God's regulation of slavery meant God condoned slavery.

All that said (and much more could be said), the question remains: If God opposed slavery and would need to redeem the culture from it slowly over a long period of time, why not just prevent it from ever existing in the first place? The same question could be asked of all suffering that results from human sin--why does God allow it? Since the Fall, suffering has served an important purpose in this world. God's highest goal for us is not our comfort, but our more intimate knowledge of, appreciation of, and love for Him. The existence of suffering around us has long been used by God to remind us of the ugliness of sin--a physical illustration of the fact that our hearts are far from God's perfection, and a reminder of our desperate need for Him and His mercy.

Slavery has served this same purpose. Freedom is God's ideal --the kind of freedom found in the Garden at the beginning before the Fall (that is, the freedom to follow God openly and completely, without hindrance). And God's rescuing the Israelites from slavery served for them (and for all generations) as a physical illustration of a spiritual truth. Because they understood the meaning of physical slavery, the invisible truth of their spiritual slavery to sin and their need for redemption could be made visible for all to see and understand. And because they knew God orchestrated their release from slavery, they knew not only that slavery--physical or spiritual--was not the ideal, but that He cared about their condition and desired to release them from it.

The existence of slavery in the world taught God's people both the condition of their own hearts and a crucial truth about their great, good God. This is why it was Christians in the 18th and 19th century who not only worked to see that others were freed from their spiritual slavery, but who also led the way in following God's desire to free others from physical slavery.

As with the other suffering of history, God did not prevent slavery from ever existing, though He could have. But this was neither random, senseless, nor in vain. Just as Joseph said of his own suffering as a slave that "[they] meant it for evil, but God meant it for good," slavery did not pass through this world without accomplishing a purpose even greater than the suffering.

6 Facts Proving Abortion Is In The Health Care Legislation

(Americanprinciplesproject.org) Thomas Peters

The Family Research Council is in the cross-hairs of many organizations for arguing that abortion is part of health care legislation.

This morning Speaker Pelosi said "People must be allowed to learn the facts" about health care.

Well, Family Research Council provides six facts about abortion in health care:

1. The House bill specifically includes it. The Capps amendment explicitly allows abortion coverage in the public health plan and subsidizes health plans that cover abortion. (Passed 30-28 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, July 30)

2. Senate Democrats admit it. "[The health care bill] would include, uh, it would include, uh, Planned, uh, Parenthood clinics." (Sen. Barbara Mikulski, July 9, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions-HELP-Committee meeting-Planned Parenthood is the No. 1 U.S. abortion chain.)

3. Senate Democrats refused to ban it. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): "Madam Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in [about] not including abortion services? Then I think you would have more support."Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.): "...No, I would not, uh, be willing to do that at this time." (July 9, Senate HELP Committee meeting)
4. The mainstream media confirms it. ("Government insurance would allow coverage for abortion," Associated Press, August 5, 2009).
5. The Obama administration includes it in its definition of reproductive health care. "Reproductive health care includes access to abortion." (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, July 19)

6. Every amendment to exclude it from health care legislation was defeated by the liberal sponsors. The following is a list of pro-life amendments that would have prevented abortion funding or prohibited abortion mandates for covered services. (For vote tallies and details, see our complete list at www.frc.org here)

Why Christians Should Value Philosophy Part 2 of 3

(Reasons.org) Kenneth Samples

During the Middle Ages theology was hailed as the "Queen of the Sciences." Consequently, medieval Christian thinkers described philosophy as a "handmaiden" to theology.

The Importance of Philosophy for Christians

1. Philosophy Promotes Critical Thinking

In part one of this series I presented the first reason for Christians to value philosophy. It is the best discipline for preparing a person to think critically. Logic, after all, is defined as the science of "correct thinking" and logic is one of the major branches of philosophical inquiry.

1. Philosophical Implications in Christian Doctrine

Believers should study philosophy because Christian doctrine contains many philosophical implications. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity involves one "essence" (being) but three "subsistences" (persons). Both of these critical terms (used to describe the triune nature of God) are philosophical in nature.

The same is true for the doctrine of the Incarnation (God coming in the flesh), where Jesus Christ is understood as being one "Who" (a distinct and unified person) but two "Whats" (possessing both a divine and a human "essence"). Again this essential Christian doctrine is loaded with subtle philosophical meaning and implications. Analysis of Christian theology also extends to God's being and characteristics. God's attributes–whether incommunicable (independent qualities) or communicable (shared qualities with humankind)–involve the philosophical categories of time, space, and knowledge.

In describing philosophy as the handmaiden to theology, medieval scholars asserted that philosophy (or reason overall) serves to explain and help defend the truths of historic Christianity. Reason isn't supposed to function in a magisterial way (like a magistrate judging God's revealed truth). Rather it is to fulfill a critical ministerial function (like a minister serving God's written Word) in the overall study of theology. This close connection between philosophy and theology is evidenced in a subset of the formal study of theology known as "philosophical theology."

Through the ages, Christian theology has viewed reason as God's good gift to humanity–a result of being made in the image of God (imago Dei, Genesis 1:26-27). Christian truth can never be exhaustively comprehended by finite human beings, but through the imago Dei God ensures that his creatures can trace his intelligible truths. Thus, both mystery and knowledge accompany a creature's relationship with God Almighty.

However, the consensus of theology is also that truth and revelation never damage reason itself. The minds of sinners can be negatively impacted by humanity's fallenness, but the laws of logic and the principles of argumentation remain undefiled.

In history, philosophy has (at times) been used to critique and attack the truth of Christianity. However, it is also true that believers have appealed to philosophy to explain and defend the truth of the faith.

For more about philosophy and its benefits to the Christian, see A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test. For two excellent books on the subject of philosophical theology, see God and Reason by Ed L. Miller and Our Idea of God by Thomas V. Morris.

Care Versus Control

(Townhall.com) Thomas Sowell

As someone who was once rushed to a hospital in the middle of the night, because of taking a medication that millions of people take every day without the slightest problem, I have a special horror of life and death medical decisions being made by bureaucrats in Washington, about patients they have never laid eyes on.

On another occasion, I was told by a doctor that I would have died if I had not gotten to him in time, after an allergic reaction to eating one of the most healthful foods around. On still another occasion, I was treated with a medication that causes many people big problems and was urged to come back to the hospital immediately if I had a really bad reaction. But I had no reaction at all, went home, felt fine and slept soundly through the night.

My point is that everybody is different. Millions of children eat peanut butter sandwiches every day but some children can die from eating peanut butter. Some vaccines and medications that save many lives can also kill some people.

Are decisions made by doctors who have treated the same patient for years to be over-ruled by bureaucrats sitting in front of computer screens in Washington, following guidelines drawn up with the idea of "bringing down the cost of medical care"?

The idea is even more absurd than the idea that you can add millions of people to a government medical care plan without increasing the costs. It is also more dangerous.

What is both dangerous and mindless is rushing a massive new medical care scheme through Congress so fast that members of Congress do not even have time to read it before voting on it. Legislation that is far less sweeping in its effects can get months of hearings before Congressional committees, followed by debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives, with all sorts of people voicing their views in the media and in letters to Congress, while ads from people on both sides of the issue appear in newspapers and on television.

If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can't it stand the light of day or a little time to think about it?

The obvious answer is that the administration doesn't want us to know what it is all about or else we would not go along with it. Far better to say that we can't wait, that things are just too urgent. This tactic worked with whizzing the "stimulus" package through Congress, even though the stimulus package itself has not worked.

Any serious discussion of government-run medical care would have to look at other countries where there is government-run medical care. As someone who has done some research on this for my book "Applied Economics," I can tell you that the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care is not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it.

Thirty thousand Canadians are passing up free medical care at home to go to some other country where they have to pay for it. People don't do that without a reason.

But Canadians are better off than people in some other countries with government-controlled medical care, because they have the United States right next door, in case their medical problems get too serious to rely on their own system.

But where are Americans to turn if we become like Canada? Where are we to go when we need better medical treatment than Washington bureaucrats will let us have? Mexico? The Caribbean?

Many people do not understand that it is not just a question of whether government bureaucrats will agree to pay for particular medical treatments. The same government-control mindset that decides what should and should not be paid for can also decide that the medical technology or pharmaceutical drugs that they control should not be for sale to those who are willing to pay their own money.

Right now, medications or treatments that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration are medications or treatments that you are not allowed to buy with your own money, no matter how desperate your medical condition, and no matter how many years these medications or treatments may have been used without dire effects in other countries.

The crucial word is not "care" but "control."

Dawkins' Delusion

(Reasonablefaith.org) William Lane Craig

Richard Dawkins has emerged as the enfant terrible of the movement known as the New Atheism. His best-selling book The God Delusion has become the literary centerpiece of that movement. In it Dawkins aims to show that belief in God is a delusion, that is to say, "a false belief or impression," or worse, "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence."1 On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." Note it well. If this argument fails, then Dawkins' book is hollow at its core. And, in fact, the argument is embarrassingly weak.

It goes as follows:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements.

Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument intended to logically imply the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.

A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" simply doesn't follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified. The only delusion demonstrated here is Dawkins' conviction that this is "a very serious argument against God's existence."2

So what does follow from the six steps of Dawkins' argument? At most, all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is quite compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation. Maybe God wants us to believe in him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.

So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false in any case. Take just step (3), for example. Dawkins' claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: Who designed the designer?

This objection is flawed on at least two counts.

First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there.

In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Second, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained, so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations—for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. If a less simple hypothesis exceeds its rivals in explanatory scope and power, for example, then it may well be the preferred explanation, despite the sacrifice in simplicity.

But leave those questions aside. Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable physical quantities and constants (mentioned in the fifth step of Dawkins' argument),3 a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas (it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus), but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity.4 Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that's worth.

Other steps in Dawkins' argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.

Several years ago my atheist colleague Quentin Smith unceremoniously crowned Stephen Hawking's argument against God in A Brief History of Time as "the worst atheistic argument in the history of Western thought."5 With the advent of The God Delusion the time has come, I think, to relieve Hawking of this weighty crown and to recognize Richard Dawkins' accession to the throne.
_____________________________________________________

Endnotes

1 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 5.

2 Ibid., 157. Indeed, he fancies himself to have offered a "devastating" and "unrebuttable refutation" of God's existence.

3 Otherwise known as the fine-tuning of the universe for life. The optimism expressed in step (6) of Dawkins' argument with respect to finding a physical explanation for the cosmic fine-tuning is really quite baseless and represents little more than the faith of a naturalist. For discussion of the design argument from the fine-tuning of nature's constants and quantities, see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 157-79.

4 His confusion is evident when he complains, "A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. . . . Worse (from the point of view of simplicity), other corners of God's giant consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings and emotions and prayers of every single human being—and whatever intelligent aliens there might be on other planets in this and 100 billion other galaxies" (God Delusion, 149). This conflates God with what God is thinking about. To say that God, as an immaterial entity, is extraordinarily simple is not to endorse Aquinas' doctrine that God is logically simple (rejected by Dawkins on 150). God may have diverse properties without having the sort of complexity Dawkins is talking about, namely "heterogeneity of parts" (ibid., 150).

5 Quentin Smith, "The Wave Function of a Godless Universe," in Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 322.

Why Christians Should Value Philosophy Part 1 of 3

(Reasons.org) Kenneth Samples

Someone in antiquity said, "Philosophy bakes no bread."

This famous assertion raises concerns about philosophy's practical relevance and value. I remember my father's quizzical look when I informed him that I was studying the subject in college.

My father grew up during the Great Depression, worked hard as a West Virginia coal miner, and served his country as combat soldier in the Second World War. These tough experiences shaped in him a very pragmatic view of life. At first he questioned my choice to study a discipline that seemed abstract and speculative (not to mention a field that doesn't pay all that well). However, being part of an American infantry division that had liberated a Nazi concentration camp, my dad knew that ideas (and especially ideologies) mattered and had inevitable consequences. He, therefore, came to approve of my academic studies.

What is Philosophy?

In his excellent primer, Questions That Matter, Ed Miller defines philosophy as "the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important questions." Traditional philosophy has been interpreted as the pursuit of wisdom, knowledge, and truth. Philosophers are primarily interested in the following six areas:

• Metaphysics: The study of the ultimate nature, structure, and characteristics of reality.
• Epistemology: The study of the origin, nature, limits, and validity of knowledge.
• Ethics: The study of the origin, nature, meaning, and criteria of moral goodness.
• Value Theory: The study of what people generally value (other than moral values) and why.
• Aesthetics: The study of beauty and how people respond to it (taste).
• Logic: The study of the principles of correct reasoning and argumentation.

While few philosophers become financially wealthy (and the job market can be competitive), there are very good reasons to value the study of philosophy, especially for Christians.

The Importance of Philosophy for Believers

1. Philosophy Promotes Critical Thinking

Being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) means that human beings have unique intellectual abilities. And the Bible teaches that followers of Christ should use the gift of their mind in their love and service to God (Matthew 22:37). Furthermore, intellectual virtues such as discernment, reflection, testing, analysis, and renewal of the mind are biblical imperatives (Acts 17:11; Roman 12:2; 1 Corinthians 14:29; Colossians 2:8; 1Thessalonians 5:21).

The study of philosophy, like no other discipline, exposes a person to the important areas of critical thinking and the principles of argumentation. Thinking clearly, carefully, and reflectively are the benefits of studying logic–one of the critical fields of philosophy.

Pursuing the "life of the mind" to the glory of God is an important component in the Christian's overall devotion. And the study of philosophy can uniquely serve to prepare the believer for intellectual engagement.

Look for further discussion on the importance of philosophy next week.

For more about philosophy and its benefits to the Christian, see A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Is Dogmatic Agnosticism Logically Self-Defeating?

(Reasons.org) Kenneth Samples

The word agnosticism literally means “no-knowledge-ism”. The skeptical position held by agnostics usually comes in two distinct forms: soft and hard. Soft or flexible agnosticism simply claims to have an absence of knowledge as to whether God exists (thus reserving judgment). Hard or dogmatic agnosticism makes a stronger claim asserting that “no one” can know whether God exists.

This hard type of agnosticism appears to suffer from the same problems that atheism does in terms of verifying its bold claim. To embrace a hard form of agnosticism would mean that a person would have to either (1) know that knowledge of God is logically impossible, or (2) be an expert on all the possible ways one could come to know about God. Yet neither of these positions seems logically justifiable in nature.

Plus, the dogmatic form of agnosticism is actually self-defeating (at the same time affirming and denying the identical claim) for the position simultaneously asserts that one doesn’t know if God exists and yet knows enough about God to assert that no one can know that God exists. Hard agnostics, in effect, claim to have knowledge about a topic that they claim is not possible to know anything about. In his book No Doubt About It, Christian philosopher Winfried Corduan notes the following: “Thus agnosticism pivots on a contradiction by having to maintain that at one and the same time it is both possible and impossible to know something about God.”

Hard agnosticism asserts the self-destructing claim that “one knows enough about God in order to affirm that nothing can be known about God.”¹ Thus, the extreme claims of skepticism first affirm what they ultimately deny.

1. For a critical evaluation of agnosticism, see Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics (pages 13-27).

Is Postmodernism A Myth?

(Conversantlife.com) Sean McDowell

In the early 1990s interest in postmodernism exploded in the church. Books widely appeared as bestsellers and conferences featured seminars about doing ministry in a postmodern world. While people disagreed about exactly what was meant by “postmodernism”—and they still do!—there was considerable agreement that the world was leaving the modern era behind and wading into the unknown waters of the postmodern matrix.

In Postmodern Youth Ministry, for example, Tony Jones argues that postmodernity is the most important culture shift of the past 500 years, upending our theology, philosophy, epistemology (how we know things), and church practice. It is an “earthquake that has changed the landscape of academia and is currently rocking Western culture.” (p. 11). Thus, to be relevant in ministry today, according to Jones and other postmodernists, we must shed our modern tendencies and embrace the postmodern shift.

For the longest time I simply accepted that we inhabit a postmodern world and that we must completely transform our approach to ministry to be effective today. But that all changed when I had the opportunity of hearing philosopher William Lane Craig speak at an apologetics conference not too long ago. “This sort of [postmodern] thinking,” says Craig, “is guilty of a disastrous misdiagnosis of contemporary culture.” (“God is Not Dead Yet,” Christianity Today, July 2008, p. 26). He argues that the idea that we live in a postmodern world is a myth. This may strike you as awfully bold. How can he make such a claim?

For one thing, says Craig, postmodernism is unlivable and contradictory: “Nobody is a postmodernist when it comes to reading the labels on a medicine bottle versus a box of rat poison. If you’ve got a headache, you’d better believe that texts have objective meaning!” (Reasonable Faith, 2008, p. 18) Craig speaks to tens of thousands of (mostly non-Christian) college students around the world every year and his conclusion is that we live in a cultural milieu that is deeply modernist. Reason, logic, and evidence are as important today as ever (although he’s careful not to overstate their importance, too).

Postmodernism and Apologetics

But this is not all Craig has to say! In the introduction to Reasonable Faith, Craig provocatively claims, “Indeed, I think that getting people to believe that we live in a postmodern culture is one of the craftiest deceptions that Satan has yet devised” (p. 18). Accordingly, we ought to stop emphasizing argumentation and apologetics and just share our narrative. Craig develops this idea further:

And so Satan deceives us into voluntarily laying aside our best weapons of logic and evidence, thereby ensuring unawares modernism’s triumph over us. If we adopt this suicidal course of action, the consequences for the church in the next generation will be catastrophic. Christianity will be reduced to but another voice in a cacophony of competing voices, each sharing its own narrative and none commending itself as the objective truth about reality, while scientific naturalism shapes our culture’s view of how the world really is (p. 18-19).

In a personal email, Craig relayed to me that he believes postmodernism is largely being propagated in our church by misguided youth pastors. While he meant the comment more to elicit a smile than to be taken as a stab in the back, I can’t help but wonder if he is right.

If our culture were so profoundly postmodernist, why have the “New Atheists,” as Wired magazine dubbed them, been so influential? Popular writers such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins have recently written bestselling books attacking the scientific, historic, and philosophical credibility of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Their writings have wreaked havoc on many unprepared Christians. If our culture were postmodern their challenges should have fallen on deaf ears.

Postmodern Youth

While studies show that youth are significantly relativistic when it comes to ethics, values, and religion (e.g., Soul Searching, by Christian Smith, Oxford Press, 2005), they are not relativistic about science, mathematics, and technology. When discussing morality and religion, I have heard many young people say things such as say, “That’s just your truth. I have a different truth.” But I have never heard a young person say this about a claim in the realm of science or math. Modernists believe that science is the sole purveyor of truth while religion and ethics belong in the private, subjective sphere. It seems to me that the thinking of young people is more influenced by modernism (and specifically naturalism) than postmodernism.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be some postmodern influences in our culture. There is a latent cynicism about knowing truth, a deep suspicion of authority, and an awareness that bias affects people more profoundly than we would like to admit. But ultimately I think Craig is right—the claim that we live in a postmodern culture has been greatly exaggerated and oversold to (and by) the church

There Is No Truth?

(Stand to Reason) Greg Koukl

. . .but at least fifteen things have to be true before this statement can even be uttered in English. What are they?

Recently, I was asked a question that I get asked a lot. It's a common challenge on the campus. It was offered as I spoke in the lecture hall at Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls. Though it was primarily a Christian group who came from the outside, this was the facility they used. The question is one that is asked all the time on campus.

I was reflecting on that question as I flew back this morning. I started jotting some notes down and was quite surprised at what I came up with in response to this question. They were things I'd been aware of before, but it was interesting the way it all fell together. The question was this, how to deal with somebody who says there is no truth.

Now this is very popular on campus, with deconstructionism and postmodernism, this radical skepticism that's swept the academy. It's this idea that you can't know anything for sure, nothing is set in concrete; everything is influenced by our culture, our upbringing and our suppositions, so it's impossible to get at any objective truth.

I flatly reject such a thing. I think there are a number of things we can count on as being true simply because the opposite is not possible. If we can even utter the sentence, "There is no truth"-- and, of course, we must at least utter the sentence to make the claim-- then several things must be objectively true.

First of all, if someone holds that there is no truth, then there's at least one thing that's true: the statement they just uttered that there is no truth. It's one of those awkward situations for a person making a claim, because there's no way their claim can be true. If it's true, it's false, and if it's false, it's false. Obviously, if the statement "There is no truth" is false, then it's false. But even if it's true that there is no truth, then it's also false, because that becomes a true statement, which nullifies it.

It's called a self-refuting statement. It's as if I said, "I can't speak a word of English." If I said it in English, of course that would be self-refuting. This is one of those statements. Even to utter the statement itself is a statement of truth, and so the statement that there is no truth can't stand. It defeats itself.

But there's more. In order to state the phrase "There is no truth," an individual must exist to ponder the truths of existence. Remember Descartes, sitting around in his oven back in the 18th Century, or thereabouts? He said, "I can doubt everything, but the one thing I can't doubt is the fact that I am doubting." He came up with a dictum: Cogito, ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am." I must exist if I'm pondering my existence. Someone who states that there is no truth must exist, and so it's true that at least one individual, the one uttering the statement, must exist.

Time must also exist, by the way. Time must exist to express a sequence of words, the sequence being "There is no truth." The word "is" must come after the word "there," and the word "no" after both of them, and one can only come after the other if there's time, with present, past and future. So time must exist as an objectively true thing, because this statement was uttered with words in temporal sequence.

The statement itself is a proposition, so propositions must exist. That's a truth. It contains tokens, words that are tokens of ideas. The concept of truth, the concept of negation expressed in the word "no," must exist as ideas and be true as existants, things that exist.

There has to be the concept of unity, the idea that the four words work together in a sentence, and plurality, the distinction of the four different words. Space must exist to differentiate one word from another, separating the units.

If the statement itself that there is no truth is true, then its opposite must be false. If there is no truth, then it is not the case that there is truth. Therefore, the law of non-contradiction must exist and be true. That statement is also distinguished from all of its contradictions, so the law of identity must be true.

There's at least one sentence that exists, because the person just uttered it. That must be true. There are English words, and grammatical relationships between the words-- subject and predicate. That must be true.

The numbers one through four must exist because there are four different words. So addition must be true, because you add those units up and get the number four. The alphabet exists. Parts of speech exist, like nouns and verbs.

Do you see the point? In order to object by saying "There is no truth," there must be at least 14 things that are true before you can even make the statement. They must, in fact, be necessarily true, given the statement itself. When I say necessarily true, I mean there's no way they can be false, given the statement, "There is no truth," uttered in English. If there's such a statement uttered in English, then all these other things must be true. It's impossible for them not to be true.

That's why radical skepticism like this is not justified. As one thinker put it-- Dallas Willard, a Christian philosopher at U.S.C.-- "If we want to be intellectually honest skeptics, we must be as skeptical about our skepticism as we are about our knowledge." We should take the burden of proof to defend our skepticism instead of simply asserting our skepticism. Anyone can assert skepticism. Whether they can make sense out of their skepticism is a different thing.

That's why just uttering the statement "There is no truth," in itself establishes the truth of many different things. And if we can establish their truth just by uttering such a statement, then it seems to me there are a whole lot of other things we can determine to be true as well, and be certain about.

Therefore, radical skepticism is unjustified.

A Post-Racial President?

(Townhall.com) Thomas Sowell

Many people hoped that the election of a black President of the United States would mark our entering a "post-racial" era, when we could finally put some ugly aspects of our history behind us.

That is quite understandable. But it takes two to tango. Those of us who want to see racism on its way out need to realize that others benefit greatly from crying racism. They benefit politically, financially, and socially.

Barack Obama has been allied with such people for decades. He found it expedient to appeal to a wider electorate as a post-racial candidate, just as he has found it expedient to say a lot of other popular things-- about campaign finance, about transparency in government, about not rushing legislation through Congress without having it first posted on the Internet long enough to be studied-- all of which turned to be the direct opposite of what he actually did after getting elected.

Those who were shocked at President Obama's cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being "stupid" in arresting Henry Louis Gates must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious implications of Obama's 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything.

With race-- as with campaign finance, transparency and the rest-- Barack Obama knows what the public wants to hear and that is what he has said. But his policies as president have been the opposite of his rhetoric, with race as with other issues.

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama pushed the "racial profiling" issue, so it is hardly surprising that he jumped to the conclusion that a policeman was racial profiling when in fact the cop was investigating a report received from a neighbor that someone seemed to be breaking into the house that Professor Gates was renting in Cambridge.

For those who are interested in facts-- and these obviously do not include President Obama-- there has been a serious study of racial profiling in a book titled "Are Cops Racist?" by Heather Mac Donald. Her analysis of the data shows how this issue has long been distorted beyond recognition by politics.

The racial profiling issue is a great vote-getter. And if it polarizes the society, that is a price that politicians are willing to pay in order to get votes. Academics who run black studies departments, as Professor Henry Louis Gates does, likewise have a vested interest in racial paranoia.

For "community organizers" as well, racial resentments are a stock in trade. President Obama's background as a community organizer has received far too little attention, though it should have been a high-alert warning that this was no post-racial figure.

What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.

To think that someone who has spent years promoting grievance and polarization was going to bring us all together as president is a triumph of wishful thinking over reality.

Not only Barack Obama's past, but his present, tell the same story. His appointment of an attorney general who called America "a nation of cowards" for not dialoguing about race was a foretaste of what to expect from Eric Holder.

The way Attorney General Holder has refused to prosecute young black thugs who gathered at a voting site with menacing clubs, in blatant violation of federal laws against intimidating voters, speaks louder than any words from him or his president.

President Obama's first nominee to the Supreme Court is, like Obama himself, someone with a background of years of affiliation with an organization dedicated to promoting racial resentments and a sense of racial entitlement.

An 18th century philosopher said, "When I speak I put on a mask. When I act I am forced to take it off." Barack Obama's mask slipped for a moment last week but he quickly recovered, with the help of the media. But we should never forget what we saw.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 7 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 4 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 5 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 6 of 7

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our earliest Islamic sources depict the life of Muhammad as one filled with warfare, assassinations, and constant violence. While the majority of Muslims today are peaceful, the grounding for this attitude within Islam seems to be without authority. Muhammad was not a peaceful man instilling a peaceful religion. His life depicts the evolution of a man from a tolerant street-preacher to a power-hungry political and military leader willing to engage in atrocious acts for the cause of his religion. When we understand the revelations contained within the Qur’an, the law of abrogation, and the context set within his biography, we are presented with a man whose life example is not to be emulated but rather avoided and condemned by all. Until more Muslims are willing to come forward and denounce this “prophet” it is hard to take seriously the notion that Islam is a religion of peace.

Christian Apologetics Blog Directory

Our thanks and appreciation go out to Brian of Apologetics 315 for recently including our blog site in his Christian Apologetics Blog Directory. If you have not done so already, be sure and check out Apologetics 315 for great mp3 downloads, book reviews, and more.

Brian,

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Is Calvin Still Relevant After 500 Years? It All Depends

(Monergism.com) Michael Horton

According to many Protestants-including some evangelical leaders-the Reformation may be over. In an age of rampant secularism, the threat of militant Islam, and moral relativism, surely the issues that unite us are greater than our differences. It seems that a lot of today's heirs of the Reformation are weary of fighting age-old battles and most people in the pews cannot even identify the flash points. Something about the pope, and Mary and the saints, or something.

For that matter, surveys reveal that most evangelicals hold views about salvation that are, if anything, worse than the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. While it's undeniable that Calvin had a major impact on Western history, it is not clear at all whether his driving concerns are still regarded widely as relevant in contemporary Christianity.

I have to admit that I've been a little uneasy with this whole "Calvin 500" celebration. And I'm not sure that a rigorously God-centered minister like Calvin-who demanded to be buried in an unmarked grave, within a plain pine casket-would appreciate all the attention. I am even a little more confident that he would not approve of all the attempts to turn him into an important person for all the wrong reasons. This is where Calvin is brought out by some as the tyrant of Geneva and by others as the pioneer of modern liberties and all sorts of other concerns that were, at best, tangential to the Reformer's interests.

What was central to Calvin's interest also happens to make him more relevant than whatever he may have incidentally and inadvertently done to improve Western culture. Calvin's obsession, the nearest I can tell, was the tender mercy of the Father, shown toward sinners in the Son and through the Spirit. I agree with B. B. Warfield's assessment that Calvin was even more interested in God's fatherhood than his sovereignty. Calvin's robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit leaves its mark on every theological topic. And as for the "in Christ" part of it all, this is the nearest thing to a "central dogma" that I can think of for Calvin.
Is the Reformation Over?

...Click here to continue reading...

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 6 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 4 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 5 of 7

VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE, AND MORE VIOLENCE

Muhammad continued to lead successful campaigns and increased in power and financial resources. After the nullification of a peace treaty between Muhammad and the city of Mecca, the Prophet and an army of ten thousand men invaded Mecca in the year 630 A.D. Ibn Ishaq says that “The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them, except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka’ba.”(1) Among those ordered to be killed was ʽAbdullah b. Saʽd because he had apostatized from the Muslim religion. However, ‘Abdullah was a foster brother of a close companion of Muhammad and was able to receive a hearing from the Prophet in order to request immunity. Muhammad remained silent for a long time until he reluctantly granted ‘Abdullah immunity. Afterwards Muhammad told his followers, “‘I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O apostle of God?’ He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing."(2) Among the others ordered to be assassinated by Muhammad were those who had brought insults against him. Two of these were girls who “used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed,” and another was a man “who used to insult him in Mecca.”(3)

As Muhammad continued his raids he was preparing to send one of his commanders on an expedition. He instructed ‘Abdu’l-Rahman b. ‘Auf to “Fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with the spoil; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate, nor kill children. This is God’s ordinance and the practice (sira) of his prophet among you.”(4) Muhammad here gave his commander explicit instructions to fight and kill all non-Muslims who disbelieve in Allah. Notice also that Muhammad says this has been ordained and is the common practice that he himself follows. If Muslims then are expected to follow the path of Muhammad it is easy to see where they get there justification for violence and oppression.

Assassinations continued throughout the last years of Muhammad’s life. Abu Sufyan, Muhammad’s uncle, was the leader of the pagan opposition to the Prophet in Mecca. Muhammad ordered that he should be killed and sent two of his followers, one of them being ‘Amr b. Umayya. Upon arriving at Mecca, ‘Amr and his companion were recognized and pursued, leaving them unable to assassinate Abu Sufyan. While hiding in a cave ‘Amr recognized an enemy and “went out and stabbed him under the breast with the dagger.” Continuing back to Medina ‘Amr met a one-eyed shepherd who sang “I won’t be a Muslim as long as I live, Nor heed to their religion give.” ‘Amr recounts that as soon as the man was “asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck.”(5) ‘Amr fled and came across two Meccans sent to spy on the apostle. He shot and killed one and took the other captive. When ‘Amr finally reached Medina with his captive he stated that Muhammad “asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me.”(6)

Immediately after this we are told of a man named Abu ‘Afak. He had shown disaffection toward the killings of Muhammad and wrote a poem against him. Muhammad responded, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?”(7) Salim b. ‘Umayr rose to the challenge and went forth and killed Abu ‘Afak. After this assassination we are told of a woman named ‘Asma’ d. Marwan. She did not like that Abu ‘Afak had been killed so she composed a poem against Muhammad and his followers. When Muhammad found out he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Ibn Ishaq tells us that ‘Umayr “who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he said, ‘You have helped God and his apostle, O ‘Umayr!’” ‘Umayr then asks if he would have to suffer any consequences for his actions to which Muhammad responds “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her.”(8) So ‘Umayr returned to his people.

CONSISTENT ISLAM IS VIOLENT ISLAM

These examples of Muhammad’s involvement in warfare and killing and his approval of assassinations and torture are but a small example. Does this seem to be the life of a man who has been appointed by God to be the moral example for all mankind? If this is the sunna that modern day Muslims are expected to follow it is no wonder that 28 of the 32 Muslim states worldwide were classified as “Terror States” in 1991.(9) Do Muslims really still believe that this example of Muhammad is applicable to today? It seems that many do. One translation of the Qur’an titled “The Noble Qur’an” is published at the King Fahd complex in Saudi Arabia. Notice how they translate Sura 8:60. It states, “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know.” The words in parenthesis are obviously not in the original Arabic. They were added by the translators because they believe that the words of the Qur’an are just as applicable today as they were when they were written. The life example of Muhammad is to be followed today just as it was during the first 100 years after the death of Muhammad when Islam proceeded to conquer nation after nation. Historians have commented that if it were not for Charles Martel stopping the Muslim advancement at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. there is a good possibility we might all be speaking Arabic right now. It is no wonder that Westerners are often skeptical when Islam is touted as a religion of peace. These “radical” or “extreme” Muslims seem to be the true Muslims who are following true Islam and the life example of Muhammad. It is easy to see where their authority comes from.
___________________________________________________________

(1) Ibn Ishaq, 550.

(2) Ibid., 550.

(3) Ibid., 551.

(4) Ibid., 672.

(5) Ibid., 674.

(6) Ibid., 675.

(7) Ibid., 675.

(8) Ibid., 676.

(9) Lingel, Course Pack.

Capitalism and the Free Market

Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue - 1979

It seems things have not changed much. The same economic fallacies and misunderstandings articulated here by Donahue are repeated time and time again by democrats and liberals today.

Limited Atonement?

The five points of Calvinism represent the major tenets of Calvinistic thinking. They can be easily remembered by memorizing the acrostic TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints.

Many Christians take issue with the idea of a "limited atonement." Why would anyone say that the work of Christ is limited? This confusion may stem from the meaning of the term itself.

As Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason points out, the idea of a limited atonement should not be an issue. The atonement has to be limited in some sense, otherwise universalism (the idea that everyone will be saved) is true. How is that? Because Jesus accomplished something on the cross. He paid the penalty for sin. But if Jesus paid the penalty for sin, why isn't everyone saved? Why isn't universalism true?

Well for one, the Bible clearly does not teach universalism. Not everyone is going to heaven. So the question is this: How is the atonement limited?

A Calvinist would say that the atonement is limited in its scope. In other words, Christ did not die for every man, woman, and child. He gave His life up for the Church. He secured their redemption at the cross. This is why Christ could say, "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15). This view could more accurately be labeled "particular redemption" or "definite atonement." On this view, the death of Christ was sufficient for all but only efficient for some.

If you do not limit the atonement in its scope then it would seem you must limit it in its effect or nature. In other words, Christ did die for every man, woman, and child, but his atonement and sacrificial death did not actually secure anyone's redemption. It merely made salvation possible. Now it is up to the individual to place their trust in Christ in order to have the effects of the atonement applied to them.

Again, regardless of where you stand on this issue, one thing is for sure: the atonement must be limited in some sense. Greg Koukl explains in further detail:

Limited Atonement: Part 1 of 2



Limited Atonement: Part 2 of 2

Free Will and Calvinism

In honor of the 500th year anniversary of John Calvin's birthday this last week I thought it would be appropriate to examine Calvinism and some related topics more in depth.

The reason for this is twofold:

First, John Calvin has been one of the most influential theologians in the history of the Christian church. This alone makes his life and teachings worthy of study.

Second, there are far too many critics of Calvinism who really know nothing about Calvinism itself. While there are brilliant people on both sides of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate, it seems to me that if you are going to disagree with Calvin you first need to know what Calvin taught and believed. I have run across far too many dissenters of Calvin who cannot accurately describe what they are dissenting from. They end up attacking a straw man, a "John Calvin" who never really existed. This is unfortunate.

We begin then with the topic of free will and Calvinism. Free will is certainly a complicated topic, not as simple as some would make it seem, or even like it to be. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason does an excellent job of explaining the topic of free will from a Calvinist perspective. Regardless of whether you agree with Greg or not, everyone can profit from his insights and the logic of his position.

Free Will and Calvinism: Part 1 of 3



Free Will and Calvinism: Part 2 of 3



Free Will and Calvinism: Part 3 of 3

Happy 500th Birthday John Calvin!

(Biola.edu) Fred Sanders

July 10, 2009 is the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. Celebrations and commemorative publications abound to mark this milestone, from a huge conference in Geneva to new biographies and new editions of some of his writings.

John Calvin occupies a place of honor among theologians, as one of the greatest teachers in the history of the Christian church. His legacy is well worth celebrating.

Yet “Calvinism” has become a curse word in the vocabulary of many people, and the name of John Calvin carries unpleasant baggage. Far from being inclined to celebrate his quincentennial, people are inclined to hate John Calvin without ever having read his books or learned anything about him. Marilynne Robinson, author of the Pulitzer-winning novel Gilead, lamented this rough treatment of Calvin in an essay she published in her 1998 bookThe Death of Adam. In her essay, Robinson referred to the reformer by his French name, “Jean Cauvin,” just to “free the discussion of the almost comically negative associations of ‘John Calvin,’ which anglicizes the Latin name under which he wrote, Ioannes Calvinus.” She calls him Cauvin because “the name Calvin …is so burdened that I choose to depart from custom.”

“People know to disapprove of him,” Robinson laments, “though not precisely why they should, and they know he afflicted us with certain traits the world might well wish we were in fact afflicted with, like asceticism and an excess of ethical rigor.” In her final bid to rehabilitate his reputation and win a fair hearing for him, Robinson mocks the popular misunderstanding of Calvin:

Many of us know that Calvinism was a very important tradition among us. Yet all we know about John Calvin was that he was an eighteenth-century Scotsman, a prude and obscurantist with a buckle on his hat, possibly a burner of witches, certainly the very spirit of capitalism. Our ignorant parody of history affirms our ignorant parody of religious or “traditional” values. This matters, because history is precedent and permission, and in this important instance, as in many others, we have lost plain accuracy, not to speak of complexity, substance, and human inflection. We want to return to the past, and we have made our past a demonology and not a human narrative.

These are words worth hearing from one of our greatest living novelists. Marilynne Robinson is an artist whose imagination has been honed and polished by her Reformed theology. But Calvin does not belong only to the Calvinists; his contribution to all thoughtful Christians is too great to belong only to those who confess themselves to be Reformed. Speaking for myself, I am a Wesleyan theologian, and I dissent from the theology of Calvin at three or four (or maybe five) crucial points. But I have learned more from John Calvin than from any other theologian, especially about the great, central doctrines of the Christian faith.

Calvin's greatest contributions to the whole Christian world are: (1.) His Institutes of the Christian Religion, a classic, comprehensive text of Christian theology, (2.) His massive commentaries, a 22-volume exploration of the Bible, and (3.) His theology itself, centered on the glory of God.

Calvin’s coat of arms had the image of two hands hold up a burning heart, with the motto Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere. “My heart I offer to you, O Lord, promptly and sincerely.” That is the legacy of John Calvin, and the reason he continues to be a teacher of the entire church, 500 years after his birth.

Read more on Calvin and his contributions to the Christian world.

Written by Fred Sanders, Associate Professor of Theology, Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University.

The opinion and viewpoint expressed in this article is that of the author. As a diverse community and within the context of our own theological convictions and community standards, Biola University encourages freedom of thought and expression by its faculty as first responders to relevant news and events.

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 5 of 7

Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 1 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 2 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 3 of 7
Islam: Religion of Peace? Part 4 of 7

ASSASSINATIONS GALORE

Muhammad not only participated in raiding campaigns but ordered a number of assassinations as well. The first in a series was the murder of an old Jewish man named Ibnu’l-Ashraf who had composed insulting poetry about Muslim women. Muhammad said, “Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?” One of his followers answered, “I will deal with him for you, O apostle of god, I will kill him.” Muhammad responded by saying, “Do so if you can.”(1) Muhammad then gave his followers permission to lie and use trickery if need be to get the job done. His followers venture to the house of Ibnu’l-Ashraf in the middle of the night and deceive him in order to coax him out of his house. Ibn Ishaq tells us they cried, “Smite the enemy of God!” and Muhammad’s follower recounts, “I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of God had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground.” He concludes by saying, “Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life."(2) Immediately after this Muhammad states, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” Upon hearing this, a follower of Muhammad named Muhayyisa b. Mas’ūd killed a Jewish merchant. Muhayyisa’s older brother Huwayyisa objected to the killing at which point Muhayyisa says, “Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.” Huwayyisa was astonished. We are told, “He exclaimed, ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!’ and he became a Muslim.”(3) Not only does the Prophet of Islam command Jews to be killed but apparently this was seen as evidence of a grand religion.

One of the most horrific and violent acts in the life of Muhammad was performed after the battle of the ditch.(4) According to this account, the Meccans sought to crush Muhammad once and for all by advancing against Medina with an army of 10,000 led by Muhammad’s uncle, Abu Sufyan. Muhammad and his followers were able to withstand a two-week siege through various tactics including digging a trench around the city of Medina, after which the Meccans gave up and withdrew. Proclaiming victory, Muhammad proceeded to attack the last Jewish tribe in Medina, Banu Qurayzah. Ibn Ishaq tells us that after the tribe surrendered, Muhammad confined them in Medina and “went out to the market of Medina…and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches…This went on until the apostle made an end of them."(5) Ibn Ishaq tells us the number of men killed that day by Muhammad was between six hundred and nine hundred. The biography goes on to say that Muhammad “divided the property, wives, and children of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth."(6) Muhammad even chose one of the captured women for himself. At this time Allah sent down a revelation to Muhammad found in the Qur’an: Sura 33. Sura 33:26 reads, “And those of the people of the Book who aided them—Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.” The fact that Ibn Ishaq makes known that Sura 33 is revealed at this time is very significant because it allows the context of the sura to be established. Here in the holy book of Islam and the biography of Muhammad we have reference to the assassination of hundreds of men by the Prophet along with the explicit approval of Allah. It goes on to say that Allah showed great pleasure toward Muhammad for this and addressed the believers saying, “In God’s apostle you have a fine example for one who hopes for Allah and the last day.”(7)

Another incident described by Ibn Ishaq is the torture and killing of Kināna b. al-Rabīʽ. Kināna had custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadīr and was questioned about it by Muhammad. Kināna denied knowing where the treasure was located. Muhammad responded, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” The Prophet was told of a certain ruin where Kināna would go every morning and when the ruin was searched part of the treasure was found. Muhammad questioned Kināna as to the location of the rest of the treasure but he refused to cooperate. We are then told that, “the apostle gave orders to al-Zubar b. al-ʽAwwām, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head.”(8)
____________________________________________________

(1) Ibn Ishaq, 367.

(2) Ibid., 368.

(3) Ibid., 369.

(4) Ibid., 450.

(5) Ibid., 464.

(6) Ibid., 466.

(7) Ibid., 467.

(8) Ibid., 515.

The Faith of Our Fathers

(Stand to Reason) Greg Koukl

There's been a lot of rustle in the press lately--and in many Christian publications--about the faith of the Founding Fathers and the status of the United States as a "Christian nation." Home schooling texts abound with references to our religious heritage, and entire organizations are dedicated to returning America to its spiritual roots. On the other side, secularists cry "foul" and parade their own list of notables among our country's patriarchs. They rally around the cry of "separation of church and state." Which side is right? Oddly both, after a fashion.

Who Were the Founding Fathers?

Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn't arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.

As for others--George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.

The Constitutional Convention

It's not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder's guiding light. There's an easier way to settle the issue.

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Benjamin Franklin

Even Franklin the deist is equivocal. He was raised in a Puritan family and later adopted then abandoned deism. Though not an orthodox Christian, it was 81-year-old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Convention. James Madison recorded the event in his collection of notes and debates from the Federal Convention. Franklin's appeal contained no less than four direct references to Scripture.

And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.

Three of the four cornerstones of the Constitution--Franklin, Washington, and Madison--were firmly rooted in Christianity. But what about Thomas Jefferson? His signature cannot be found at the end of the Constitution, but his voice permeates the entire document.

Thomas Jefferson

Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him.

Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel's God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.

It's clear that Thomas Jefferson was no evangelical, but neither was he an Enlightenment deist. He was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian.

This analysis, though, misses the point. The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson--or any of our Founding Fathers--isn't whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.

Even today there are legions of born-again Christians who have absolutely no skill at integrating their beliefs about Christ with the details of their daily life, especially their views of government. They may be "saved," but they are completely ineffectual as salt and light.

By contrast, some of the Fathers may not have been believers in the narrowest sense of the term, yet in the broader sense--the sense that influences culture--their thinking was thoroughly Christian. Unlike many evangelicals who live lives of practical atheism, these men had political ideals that were deeply informed by a robust Christian world view. They didn't always believe biblically, having a faith leading to salvation, but almost all thought biblically, resulting in a particular type of government.

Thomas Jefferson was this kind of man. In Defending the Declaration, legal historian Gary Amos observes, "Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense."

What Did the Founding Fathers Believe and Value?

When you study the documents of the Revolutionary period, a precise picture comes into focus. Here it is:

• Virtually all those involved in the founding enterprise were God-fearing men in the Christian sense; most were Calvinistic Protestants.
• The Founders were deeply influenced by a biblical view of man and government. With a sober understanding of the fallenness of man, they devised a system of limited authority and checks and balances.
• The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed.
• Therefore, they structured a political climate that was encouraging to Christianity and accommodating to religion, rather than hostile to it.
• Protestant Christianity was the prevailing religious view for the first 150 years of our history.

However...

• The Fathers sought to set up a just society, not a Christian theocracy.
• They specifically prohibited the establishment of Christianity--or any other faith--as the religion of our nation.

A Two-Sided Coin

We can safely draw two conclusions from these facts, which serve to inform our understanding of the relationship between religion and government in the United States.

First, Christianity was the prevailing moral and intellectual influence shaping the nation from its outset. The Christian influence pervaded all aspects of life, from education to politics. Therefore, the present concept of a rigid wall of separation hardly seems historically justified.

Virtually every one of the Founders saw a vital link between civil religion and civil government. George Washington's admonitions in his Farewell Speech, September 19, 1796, were characteristic of the general sentiment:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports....And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.

Second, the Founders stopped short of giving their Christian religion a position of legal privilege. In the tradition of the early church, believers were to be salt and light. The First Amendment insured the liberty needed for Christianity to be a preserving influence and a moral beacon, but it also insured Christianity would never be the law of the land.

This ought to call into serious question a common tactic of the so-called Religious Right. "We were here first," their apologists proclaim. "Our country was stolen from us, and we demand it back." Author John Seel calls this "priority as entitlement."

The sad fact of the matter is that cultural authority was not stolen from us; we surrendered it through neglect. Os Guinness pointed out that Christians have not been out-thought. Rather, they have not been around when the thinking was being done.

Choosing cultural monasticism rather than hard-thinking advocacy, Christians abandoned the public square to the secularists. When the disciples of Jesus Christ retreated, the disciples of Dewey, Marx, Darwin, Freud, Nietzsche, Skinner, and a host of others replaced them.

Seel warns of the liability of an "appeal to history as a basis of Christian grounds to authority." Playing the victim will not restore our influence, nor will political strong-arm tactics. Shouldn't our appeal rather be on the basis of truth rather than on the patterns of the past?

The faith of our Founding Fathers was Christianity, not deism. In this regard, many secularists--and even some Christians--have been wrong in their assessment of our history. On the other hand, many Christians have also been mistaken in their application of the past to the present.

Christians have no special privileges simply because Christianity was America's first faith. "If America ever was or ever will be a 'Christian nation,'" Seel observes, "it is not by conscious design or written law, but by free conviction."

Success for the Christian cannot be measured in numbers or political muscle, but only in faithfulness. Our most important weapon is not our voting power, but the power of the truth freely spoken and freely heard.