Sunday, November 4, 2018

FLIP-FLOPS

Have you ever noticed, especially when reading apologetics or in anything requiring critical analysis, an extraordinary occurrence that pops up quite frequently. They're employed in some of the most startling quotes from my favorite authors. Since my wife gifted me with the complete works of Oswald Chambers; I've been making a habit of highlighting them and will refer to them as "flip-flops.


For a clearer understanding of what I refer to as Flip-flops, saving me the task of trying to explain them, here are some examples from Oswald Chambers works which I referenced above.


"God does not further our spiritual life in spite of our circumstances, but in and by our circumstances."


"God does not give us the overcoming life: He gives life to the man who overcomes."


"The idea is not that we get the victory, but that the Victor has got us."


"Faith never knows where it is being led, it knows and loves the One Who is leading."


"God never fits His word to suit me; He fits me to suit His word."


These examples should quickly explain my perceptions of what flip-flops are and do. Quick surgical cuts contrasting common misconceptions with a very often uncomfortable alternative. They very often verify the distinctions between a persons role and God's. How often have you heard someone wishing they could just find the right person to marry or find that perfect job that suit his wants or needs. It could quite possibly be that God desires that you work on making yourself the right person for marriage or actually making yourself the right person an employer would desire to hire. I very much doubt the drive for self-realization will ever dethrone God's will for His realization. I have doubts that God will ever reverse roles with us in our God centered relationship. Peter, states in his second epistle about being partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Following that he says "And beside this, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they shall make you that ye shall not be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In the world today of our adopted entitlement mentality, prevalent in the church, we naturally assume that it's God's job to add these things. I recently read a five step plan for salvation. Noticeably absent in all these steps, starting with what I would regard as the most important, was that awful repentance word, not withstanding obedience, which is the most vital aspect of a relationship with God, which may lead to another uncomfortable confrontation with discipline. One more thought; if it pleased God to bruise His only begotten Son for our salvation, why would it not be possible that He bruise us. Or is their ever to be a sacrifice on our part?       
                                    Flip-flop!

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Atheistic Contributions to Apologetics

I've been reading Geisler's Christian Apologetics  again. This is the 4th or 5th time. It's hard reading for someone such as me with my limited linguistic skills. Still, I've always been driven by an insatiable thirst for logic and have been pleasantly surprised by the contributions made by atheistic arguments for the correction of erroneous assertions made by ill informed Christians. I won't go into all of these points of contention for the sake of space, and of course, you always have the option of reading the arguments yourself. I would recommend reading material representing both sides.The sound of one hand clapping is no sound at all except the echoing of one's own bias, ingratiating ones own ego, or more to the point, a simple cowardly waste of time.

I've decided to go with two cosmological arguments against theism for an example of the atheistic defense of the non existence of God.  The principle of causality to atheism or rather that causality leads to an infinite regress is a very common defense used by Bertrand Russell via his "Why I Am Not a Christian" expose. It goes something like this. If everything needs a cause, then so does God in which case he would not be God. If God does not need a cause, then neither does the world. If the world needs no cause then neither does God. Hence, whether every thing needs a cause or doesn't need a cause there is no God. If we push the principle of causality all the way and insist everything needs a cause, then we launch on an infinite regress and never reach a first cause or what theist's would call God.

 The second example we can label "Causality leads to a self caused God" as Sartre presented in his work "Being and Nothingness." It goes something like this. Everything must have a cause in itself or out side of its self. If we arrive at a cause that no longer has need for any cause outside of itself [God],then this cause must have the cause for itself within itself. That is, that God must be a self caused being. But, a self caused being is impossible; for to cause oneself to exist, one would have to exist prior to his existing, which is impossible. Another way of stating this is, only what does not exist needs its existence to be caused. But to cause existence one must exist; nothing cannot cause something. Hence God as a self caused being cannot exist. 

 These two arguments are intriguing in their own way. Of course, Christian theology doesn't believe God needs a cause, or that He is self caused. The Bible tells us that God  identifies Himself simply as "I Am." We believe God is un-caused, or to say it another way, that God is a necessary being. The question then becomes, "How is that defensible?" Geisler states that "Causality need not lead to an infinite regress." He believes that this is based on a misconception of the principality of the principal of causality. Or better, it is a confusion of the principle of sufficient existential causality and the principle of sufficient reason. The latter affirms that everything needs a cause. This would seem,as the atheists observe, leads to a contradiction of God being His own cause. But Aquinas, for example held that only finite, changing,dependent beings need a cause. This does not lead to a contradictory self-caused Being, but to a non contradictory un-caused Being. For if only finite beings need a cause, then when one arrives at a non finite [i.e. infinite] being it does not need a cause. Hence, from Aquinas' principle of causality the series would legitimately stop at a first, Uncaused Cause of all finite beings.  

The principle of existential causality does not lead, as does the principle of sufficient reason, to a contradictory self-caused Being. Rather, since only finite, dependent beings need a cause it leads to an infinite and necessary Being that does not need a cause.


Geisler goes on further in his rebuttal but this is sufficient for the basis of my personal perspective. Critical thinking on both sides, while sometimes lacking in presentation, does indeed lead to self analytical correction. Self defeating statements are laid bare upon examination and exposed. One of my favorites is about truth. People let it spill out their mouths only to confirm their own lack of forethought, but revealing an extensive degree of proficiency in mimicry. It always goes something like this; "Truth is subjective and can't be known." Of course, what they are saying is they want you to accept this statement as true, that truth can't be known. When I was younger I repeated a lot of silly mantras I'd heard without an inkling of critical thought. I used to say you can't legislate morality. I'll let you think on that one for a while. If you can't figure that one out I've wasted my time. 

I'm rabbit trailing again. My whole premise, once again, is not to bash the atheist. I believe they're wrong; but along the way they've played a great part through their challenges of theism in correcting my own misconceptions and perspectives. Geisler's book has stripped away many invalid arguments, but laid a solid foundation for an incredibly effective approach for giving an answer to anyone seeking for truth.

One final thought, in following the metaphysical arguments to the end, we find that for the Christian, God is pure actuality, or as the Bible says He is the great "I Am". We are contingent, or rather we are finite. We don't have to exist. We are confined to the realm of potentiality. We need a cause to exist. Hence the whole basis for examination of the infinite regress position. There is no potentiality in God. He is pure goodness without possibility of being other than that. He is pure Justice, Compassion, and Mercy. He can't be more or less than this. This is pure actuality. For the atheist, he arrives at nothing, absolute nothingness, and believes that from potentiality comes actuality.

At the end of the day none of this lead me to or from my belief in God. Jesus said to "Seek ye first the kingdom of God". I did. I asked and received. I'm almost embarrassed at some of the undeniable things God so graciously did to assure me of His reality. My consuming interest in pursuing theology isn't to just bolster my faith, or to give an answer. I'm still kind of a dork of sorts, and I still want to learn and at times even to be corrected. This is, of course, not nearly as extensive as it needs to be. Just trying to stir the pot a little. My pot has burn marks from not being stirred enough. (;<)




"In the beginning, [time] God created the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]. Genesis 1:1  



Recommended reading for a more exhaustive examination of Methodology, Theistic apologetics, and Christian Apologetics: Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler