Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:15-17: The New Creation Has Dawned!

EXEGETICAL IDEA: The death of Christ has brought about a reality in which those who receive new life gain a spiritual knowledge of Christ and others which demonstrates that they are part of the new creation.

HOMILETICAL IDEA: As those who are in Christ, we have a new way of thinking that evidences our new creational status.

In v. 15, we see that “Christ died for all so that those who live might no longer live for themselves.” Now, at the beginning of v. 15b, the words “so that” indicate purpose—the purpose for which Christ died. What follows the words “so that” in v. 15 is a purpose for which Christ died.

Next note that the purpose for which Christ died in v. 15b relates to “those who live.” It was for the purpose that “those who live” might no longer live for themselves. Now, in Paul, and elsewhere in the New Testament, the concept of life often has more to do with spiritual life than mere physical life. And so the phrase “those who live” should be understood as a reference to “those who have come to have new spiritual life in Christ.” So, v. 15 indicates that Christ died for the purpose those who have come to have new spiritual life in Christ “might no longer live for themselves.” This is what they’re not going to do. Rather, Paul says in v. 15c, they are going to live “for him who died for them and was raised again.” Christ died for the purpose that those who have come to have new spiritual life in Him might no longer live for themselves, but for their Savior, Jesus Christ, who died for them and was raised again.

Now as I dive into v. 16, let’s look at the phrase “according to the flesh.” See in v. 16a where it says that “from now on we know no one according to the flesh” and in v. 16b where is says that “we had known Christ according to the flesh”? A prima facie reading of this might lead one to think that this refers to the fact that Christ’s earthly followers at one time experienced Christ’s physical presence with them on earth. Christ lived and dwelt among his disciples during his earthly ministry. But now, Christ is seated at God’s right hand. And so both Paul and those to whom he is writing no longer experience Jesus’ fleshly presence with them on earth. However, this is not what is in view. Notice that in other instances when Paul uses the phrase “according to the flesh,” that it has negative connotations. In Romans 8:4-5, Paul indicates that "we do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." Here the phrase clearly has negative overtones. Also notice 1 Corinthians 1:26-27, "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." Here the phrase has a similar nuance. Not many who are called to Christian leadership were wise “according to the flesh,” that is, not many of them were wise according to the worldly standards of the old fallen order.

Now, keeping this in mind, let’s look at v. 16. The word “therefore,” indicates that what preceeds in v. 15 (see above) is the cause of that which follows in v. 16. The fact that “from now on we know no one according to the flesh” (v. 16) that we know no one according to the world’s standards, is what has resulted from Christ’s dying so that his followers might live for him (v. 15). Since Christ died for the purpose that those who have come to have new spiritual life might live for him, it has therefore produced the result that Christians no longer evaluate things according to the world’s standards, even though, moving on to v. 16b, we had known Christ "according to the flesh," which is to say, even though we had known Christ according to the standards of the fallen world. Before those who make up Paul's audience were Christians, they did not esteem Christ. They thought about Christ using the corrupt patterns of thinking prevalent in the world. But, Paul says in v. 16c, “we no longer know him in this way.” We have a new way of thinking that is unlike the way of thinking that characterized the old fallen order.

Therefore, Paul concludes in v. 17, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation! The old has passed away, the new has come. This is an allusion to Isaiah 65:17. Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets developed this concept of new creation. The Scriptures teach that we live in a fallen world in which sorrow, sin, suffering, sickness, and death are a reality. Ultimately, the entire created order is under the curse that God brought upon the earth because of the sin of Adam in Eden. But Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets foretold of a new era in which the curse would be brought to an end. Isaiah indicates that the wolf and the lamb will dwell together in peace (Isaiah 11:6). There will be no more death and God’s people would experience a resurrection to eternal life (Dan 12:2). God’s people would be made righteous and a new Davidic King was to rule over them upon a new earth in this new creational order (Isaiah 11, 60:21). God would make his covenant with his people and write his law on their hearts (Ezek 36:26-27).

In the New Testament, you can read about this in Revelation, chapter 21. This will be a time when there is no more death, no more sorrow, no more sickness, no more sin, and no more suffering (Revelation 21:4). God will be our God and we will be his people and we will never cease to praise his name (Revelation 21:3). But here in 2 Corinthians 5:17, Paul says, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come.” In light of this Old Testament eschatological perspective and Paul's direct allusion to Isaiah 65:17, Paul is saying that the promises made by Isaiah and the rest of the prophets have already begun to be fulfilled. Through his life, death, and resurrection, the cosmic event which is the culmination of all of redemptive history has come upon us. The new creation has broken into the present age and we experience it in the fact that God is writing his laws upon our hearts and we have come to acknowledge the Lordship of the coming Davidic King. Ultimately, although we were dead in trespasses and sins, we have now been raised from the dead and given new spiritual life so that we no longer evaluate things according to the standards of the old fallen world order.

Biblical Evidence that the Latter Days Have Already Begun

Greg Beales has a very helpful article, "Eschatology," in The IVP Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. In this article he provides biblical evidence that the latter days have already begun in Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Here is the basic outline.

The OT Concept of the “Latter Days”
The eschatological themes in the OT include a progression of events that would come about in the future. 1) Israel would experience a period of tribulation in exile because of unfaithfulness (Jer 23:20; 30:24). This tribulation would be marked by oppression (Ezek 38:14-17), persecution (Dan 10:14; 11:27-12:10), and false teaching/apostasy (Dan 10:14ff.; 11:27-35). 2) Israel would again come to seek the Lord (Hos 3:4-5), would be delivered (Ezek 38:14-16; Dan 10:14; 12:1-3), and judgment would come upon their enemies (Ezek 38:14-16; Dan 10:14; 11:40-45; 12:2). 3) These two eschatological realities (judgment and deliverance) would come about through a leader who would come and defeat Israel’s enemies (Gen 49:1, 8-12; Num 24:14-19; Isa 2:2-4; Mic 4:1-3; Dan 2:28-45; 10:14-19). 4) There would be a resurrection from the dead (Dan 12:2). 5) God would establish a new covenant with Israel (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:26). 6) God would establish his kingdom on the earth (Is 2:2-4; Dan 2:28-45; Mic 4:1-3) which would be ruled by a coming Davidic king (Hos 3:4-5). 7) There would be Gentiles who would be redeemed (Jer 47:48; 49:39; cf. Is 19:19-25).

1. Gen 49:1 – In Gen 49:1, Jacob calls together his sons in order to explain the things that will come about in “the latter days” (LXX). This is not merely a reference to the immediate future, but rather an allusion to the eschatological realities that were to come. This is evident for at least two reasons. First of all, the eschatological themes of the coming Messiah and the obedience of his people is referenced in 49:10. Secondly, these things about which Jacob speaks are the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises which are an eschatological fulfillment of the failed Adamic commission (Gen 1:28).
   


2. Numbers 24:14 – Balaam prefaces his oracle against Balak by saying that the things about which he is preparing to speak are the things that Israel will bring against his people in “the latter days” (LXX). Again, this does not apply merely to the immediate future, but also to an eschatological fulfillment. This is evident from 24:17 which uses the phrase “crush the foreheads.” This alludes back to Genesis 3, again pointing toward the eschatological fulfillment of the failed Adamic commission. Furthermore, the NT authors understood this crushing to be fulfilled in Christ (See Heb 2:14 and Rom 16:20). Moreover, Numbers 24:17 is alluded to in Rev 22:16 indicating that the author understood Jesus to be the star from Jacob.
   


3. Isaiah 2:2-4 – “the latter days” (LXX) is used to refer to a time when eschatological events would come to pass. This includes a time in which the mountain of the house of the lord would grow (which, as Beale has observed, refers to a growing temple) and God’s kingdom would be established on the earth bringing everlasting peace. This theme is also picked up by Joel (see especially 2:28 and 3:10). Luke then alludes to Joel 2:28 in Acts 2:17 rendering Joel’s “after this” as “the latter days.”
   


4. Hosea 3:5 – According to Hosea 3:5, Israel would be restored after the exile under the rule of a Davidic king. These things, it is said, will come about in “the latter days.”



5. Daniel 2:28-45 – The interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was said to a revelation of what would come about in “the latter days.” This interpretation included the establishment of God’s eschatological kingdom on earth and the defeat of Israel’s enemies which harkens back to the ruling and subduing of Gen 1:28.
   

The “Latter Days” in the New Testament
The use of the phrase “latter days” in the NT indicates that the NT authors saw this time as a period which had been inaugurated in the life of Christ (especially his death and resurrection). Thus, the eschatological events described in the OT as events that would come about in the “latter days” are pictured in the NT as beginning fulfillment in the first century.

1. Acts 2:17 – Acts 2:17 indicates that the latter days have already begun. In his sermon, Peter quotes from Joel while pulling the phrase “in the latter days” from Isaiah 2:2. Therefore, Peter interprets “after these things” in Joel 2:28 as an equivalent to “in the latter days.” Ultimately, Peter here refers to the first century fulfillment of an eschatological reality, namely a time when God’s Spirit will be poured out on all of God’s people (as opposed to just kings, prophets, and priests).
   


2. Hebrews 1:2-13 – In v. 2, indicating that the “latter days” have come, the author says that these “latter days” are days when God has spoken through his Son. He then goes on in vv. 5-13 to describe, through the citation of OT texts, that the eschatological messianic Kingdom has begun fulfillment in the coming of the Son.
   


3. Hebrews 9:26-27 – The eschatological themes of Christ’s death and the final judgment of both God’s people and those who reject God are described here in the book of Hebrews. The author uses the phrase “the consummation of the ages,” which is a close synonymous verbal parallel to the “latter days,” indicating that it is a present reality by his use of the word “now” in v. 26.
   


4. 1 John 2:18 – In 1 John 2:18, John forms an inclusion, twice using the phrase “the last hour,” a close synonymous verbal expression to “latter days.” John says that “many antichrists have already appeared.” Thus, John sees that the end-time deception of the antichrist which was foretold in the Old Testament (Dan 10:14ff.; 11:27-35) was not merely future, but had already been consummated in the many antichrists who had already come.
   


5. 1 Peter 1:20-21 – In 1 Pet 1:20-21, Jesus’ resurrection is associated with “these last times.” Thus, Jesus’ resurrection is portrayed as the beginning of the end-time resurrection that was foretold by in Isa 26:19 and Dan 12:1-2. It should especially be noted that the phrase “in these last times” is indicated to be something that has already come about.

The Tribulation and the Antichrist

John tells us that “many antichrists have already appeared” (1 John 2:18). Similarly, 2 Thessalonians 2:7 says that “the mystery of lawlessness” spoken of by the prophet Daniel is already at work. These passages point to the inaugurated aspect of the deception of the antichrist whose ultimate deception awaits a future consummation.

The eschatological deception mentioned in the above passages is part of the eschatological tribulation that has already been inaugurated. The nature of the eschatological tribulation during the church age is one in which believers are undergoing deceptive influence which seeks to negatively influence them so that they do not believe in Christ and His Word (2 Corinthians 11:13-14). This is evidenced in John’s exhortation to believers which stresses a love that grows out of and expresses itself in a right understanding of Jesus’ person and death thereby protecting them from false teaching (1 Jn 4:1-18). This explains John’s emphasis on “love in truth” (1 John 3:18; 2 John 1:3; 3 John 1:1). This temptation for believers to embrace deception is a temptation to commit covenant-community apostasy.

This end-time deception is a reproduction of the deception which characterized the beginning of history with the first Adam. Thus John refers to the devil as the one who “has sinned from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). John's allusions to Genesis 3 provide further evidence that the end-time satanic deception will be like the deception of Adam and Eve in the garden. John alludes to Genesis 3 in his mention of “Cain” (1 John 3:12), “seed” (1 John 3:9), and “deception” (1 John 3:7).

The Epistle of Barnabas may also provide a precedent for an early tradition that would support the idea of an end-time typological reproduction of Satan’s original deception. The author ascribes these words to the Lord, “Behold, I will make the last things like the first” (Barnabas 6:13). So just as the new creation is inaugurated in the resurrection of Christ and in the believer’s unity with the resurrected Christ, so too the end-time tribulation has been inaugurated so that believers in the church age wrestle against the satanic deception that took place in the beginning and will achieve its consummation in the antichrist.

In light of these things, an understanding of Satan’s first deception may shed light on the nature of the eschatological deception about which the New Testament authors speak. To this end we should note that Satan’s original deception was one in which he deceived Adam and Even into breaking their covenant relationship with God. He accomplished this by telling Eve that she could achieve a deeper level of knowledge and enlightenment (Genesis 3:5). The reason that Satan was able to succeed in this was because Eve either did not know God’s Word well enough, or she did not esteem it highly enough. Satan deceived them about their own marital relationship (not to remember God’s Word together); he deceived them about the judgment of God (that it would not occur); he deceived them about the lethal danger of Satan himself; and he deceived them into believing that evil was good (also see 2 Corinthians 11:13-14). The end-time deception of the antichrist will likely take similar shape.

Watching the Superbowl to the Glory of God

Click here to read a blog post C. J. Mahaney wrote leading up to Superbowl XLII. He includes some helpful tips on how to watch a Superbowl to the glory of God. Very helpful!

Edward's Successor at Princeton

The year is 1758. Jonathan Edwards has just died of a small pox vaccination in Princeton, New Jersey. For the purpose of this post, I will pretend (rather arrogantly!) that the College of New Jersey has appointed me to serve on the search committee to find the successor of President Edwards. The question for the college trustees is whether the successor of Edwards should be his theological and philosophical heir, or whether the college should seek someone more in touch with Enlightenment thought. They have sought my opinion in this matter.

You might read Edward's "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," John Locke's "Letter on Toleration," and Voltaire’s "Treatise on Toleration" to help you understand the background of this situation.

Here is my opinoin:

To the distinguished trustees at Princeton,

First of all, I want to thank you for this privilege. I am pleased to have the opportunity to give you my opinion concerning the successor of Princeton’s former President, Jonathan Edwards. Since there are many men who I would consider to be much more qualified to give such an opinion, I am greatly honored to have been asked. So without further ado, allow me to address the question at hand.

I am of the opinion that Edwards’ successor ought to be his theological and philosophical heir (in as much as possible) as opposed to someone who is more in touch with Enlightenment thought. This is not to say that conclusions drawn from the arguments for tolerance are not without merit, but that these ideas have a theological basis rather than anthropological basis. The fundamental problem with Enlightenment thought is that its foundation is in the idea that man is able to autonomously judge for himself as to the nature of God and His ordinances. This can be seen in the thought of John Locke. In his Letter Concerning Toleration he wrote, “All the life and power of true religion consists in the inward and full persuasion of the [human] mind.” Further, Locke contends, “the care of every man’s soul belongs to himself and is to be left unto himself.” However, the care of men’s souls does not belong to men; rather it belongs to God. Ultimately, the basis for tolerance is the Word of God which judges all men (Hebrews 4:12). This idea is diametrically opposed to the notion that it is man who is the judge of God’s Word. Therefore, the ideology of the Enlightenment cannot rationally coexist with the orthodox Christian faith. The two are mutually antagonistic.

The progressive nature of the hostility of those of the Enlightenment toward the Christian faith is evident. Locke’s ideas concerning tolerance were primarily focused on bringing an end to the maltreatment of some factions by others. He believed that such factions could hold different religious convictions while at the same time maintain tolerance toward one another. However, the thought prevalent today is that it is religious belief itself that leads to such maltreatment. Hence, it is considered dangerous by those of the Enlightenment to proclaim the truth of hell or the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as man’s Savior from hell. They say that such things have been the source of the violent oppression that has been inflicted upon those who believe in another means of salvation. Ultimately, it is believed by those of the Enlightenment that such oppression is done in order to bring those who are considered heretics into agreement with the doctrines of the oppressing faction.

Unfortunately, those of the Enlightenment have a point. There has been violent oppression carried out in the name of Christianity. However, isn’t such activity a result of the depravity of man rather than the Christian faith? Is there any basis in the Word of God for such activity? Why not legislate a ban on the violent oppression by factions rather than condemn the only intelligible basis for the denunciation of such oppression? Of course it is true that men ought to love their enemies. However, this is in accordance with the Lord’s command and cannot be concluded aside from His command. The folly of those of the Enlightenment is clear. After all, might not one also argue that those of the Enlightenment may come to represent a majority faction who could then inflict violence upon those who hold to such “dangerous superstitions” as the Christian faith? Clearly, it is not the religious ideology of various factions which leads to violent oppression; rather it is the depravity of man and his natural deficiency of the Christian virtue which dictates such intolerance. Ultimately, without the Christian basis for morality—the nature of the God of Scripture—there can be no meaningful objection to the oppression of one faction by another. This is consistent with the theology of Edwards.

Accordingly, the solution to this dilemma can be found only in the God of the Christian faith. While those who hold to the ideology of the Enlightenment might maintain that an abandonment of the Christian faith is in order, the reality is just the opposite. In the same way that Edwards called men to turn and embrace the God of Scripture, so too ought his successor. As has been stated, the basis for the condemnation of violent oppression of some factions by others has its basis in the God of the Bible. And although there may be oppressors who purport to have the support of the Scriptures in their attempts to forcefully compel others to embrace the tenets of their religion, there is a Judge who will bring retribution upon such wicked ones as these. The foolishness of the appalling philosophy of the Enlightenment that asserts that the human being is the final judge in such matters is apparent in this context; for if there is not a common Judge by which the moral actions in question are discerned, then man would be left to reason as to the moral nature of the oppression of his fellow man. And this is what those who hold to the ideology of the Enlightenment are suggesting as a virtue! Nonetheless, if the heinous nature of such oppression is a truth that is self-evident apart from so-called dangerous superstitions of the Christian faith, then such a truth ought to be evident within the context of such so-called superstitions. In other words, an epistemology in which it is believed that certain truths are self-evident can only exist in a reality in which such truth is known. However, these truths are not self-evident; they have been revealed by God. Apart from revelatory and illuminating work of God, men will be left to false doctrine that it is acceptable to oppress others for their individual gain. Therefore, Edwards’ successor ought to be a man who acknowledges the Triune God as the divine basis for morality and who proclaims the truth of God’s revelation so that others might be brought into this truth.

Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will, by R. C. Sproul

Willing to Believe is a good introduction to the history and nature of the debate on the Protestant doctrine of man’s total depravity and God’s effectual grace. It is a survey of how theologians have explained and thought about the relationship between the sinfulness of man and his ability to come to Christ in faith. Sproul seeks to answer the question of whether God is the author only of justification or of both justification and faith. The book examines the theological understandings of Pelagius, Augustine, the Semi-Pelagians, Martin Luther, John Calvin, James Arminius, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, and Lewis Sperry Chafer concerning this issue.

Here is a brief summary of the theologians surveyed in the book:

1. Pelagius believed that man was inherently able to live according to God’s law.
2. Augustine said that man is incapable of living for God apart from God's grace. He prayed, asking God, "demand whatever you will, only supply what you demand."
3. The Semi-Pelagians believed that while man was still sinful, he was able to cooperate with God’s grace.
4. Martin Luther believed that man was in bondage to sin and could only be rescued from this bondage by God’s grace.
5. John Calvin sided with Luther and Augustine and believed that man was a voluntary slave that could not choose Christ in and of himself apart from God’s grace.
6. James Arminius believed that while man was sinful, he was free to believe. Arminius believed that God would not ask of man what man could not do.
7. Jonathan Edwards sided with Calvin and added that man always does what he most desires.
8. Charles Finney was essentially a Pelagian who believed a different gospel (that Christ’s death was not a work of atonement, but that Christ died in order to inspire us to live for God).
9. Lewis Sperry Chaffer believed that mankind was capable of belief and while it was God’s work the final act of conversion was an act of an individual’s will.

For anyone who does not understand this important debate, this would be the first book I recommended.

A Great Quote from Tim Keller

There are two ways to read the Bible. The one way to read the Bible is that it’s basically about you: what you have to do in order to be right with God, in which case you’ll never have a sure and certain hope, because you’ll always know you’re not quite living up. You’ll never be sure about that future. Or you can read it as all about Jesus. Every single thing is not about what you must do in order to make yourself right with God, but what he has done to make you absolutely right with God. And Jesus Christ is saying, “Unless you can read the Bible right, unless you can understand salvation by grace, you’ll never have a sure and certain hope. But once you understand it’s all about me, Jesus Christ, then you can know that you have peace. You can know that you have this future guaranteed, and you can face anything.” --Tim Keller

Does Science Contradict Christian Theism?

In 1982, there was a court case concerning the addition of Creation Science in scientific textbooks in the state of Arkansas (McLean vs. Arkansas).[1] Critics of this initiative argued against the inclusion of Creation Science in the school curriculum. They believed that Creation Science necessarily included a belief in God and objected to the inclusion of Creation Science in textbooks on the grounds that the state should not support any particular religious position. Accordingly, the critics of Creation Science argued that science must be essentially atheistic.

Ultimately, the court decided against the state of Arkansas and determined that Creation Science could not be included in school textbooks. This decision was based in large part on the testimony of Michael Ruse, a professor of the philosophy of biology, ethics, and science at Florida State University. Ruse’s testimony included a description of principles which he argued were definitive of good science. These principles, he maintained, were antithetical to what he understood to be the inherently theistic nature of Creation Science.

The criteria of good science as described by Michael Ruse in his testimony are as follow:[2]

1. Scientific explanation “relies exclusively on blind, undirected natural laws and naturalistic processes.”

2. “A scientific explanation may try to explain how one phenomenon follows in a tight and definite way, as a result of the working of natural law.”

3. The explanations of science must be “testable.”

4. The explanations of science must be “tentative.”

But do these principles which Ruse asserts to be the characteristics of good science conflict in any way with a theistic worldview? In his book, The Universe Next Door, James Sire identifies the basic presuppositions which function as the a priori assumptions through which individuals view the world.[3] Here he outlines the presuppositions of the Christian faith, which are as follow:[4]

1. God is infinite and personal (triune), transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign and good.

2. God created the cosmos ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system.

3. Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness and creativity.

4. Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with them.

5. Human beings were created good, but through the Fall the image of God became defaced, though not so ruined as not to be capable of restoration; through the work of Christ, God redeemed humanity and began the process of restoring people to goodness.

6. For each person death is either the gate to life with God and his people or the gate to eternal separation from the only thing that will ultimately fulfill human aspirations.

7. Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving).

And so the question is, is there an inherent contradiction between the presuppositions of the Christian faith and the principles of good science? The thesis of this composition is that they do not. There is no explicit contradiction between the Christian presuppositions of James Sire and the tenets of good science as maintained by Michael Ruse in his testimony in McLean vs. Arkansas.

In order for there to be an explicit contradiction between two propositions, there must exist a “conjunction of a proposition and its negation.”[5] This is not the case when the principles of good science as espoused by Michael Ruse are weighed against the presuppositions of Christian theism. Rather, the coexistence of both sets of propositions is logically possible.[6]

But while it is clear that there is no explicit contradiction between much of what Sire understands to be axiomatic of the Christian faith and what Ruse maintains to be the characteristics of good science, methodological naturalists might object, maintaining that there is a contradiction after all. It might be clear that there is no unambiguous negation between the Christian understanding of the afterlife and the testability of scientific explanations, but there may appear to be a contradiction between the “blind, undirected natural laws” of good science and the sovereignty of God as posited by Sire in the first of his presuppositions. Doesn’t it seem that God’s sovereignty would entail a divine control of these natural laws?

While it is true that the divine attribute of sovereignty does include God’s control of natural laws, Ruse’s description of these laws as “blind” and “undirected” does not conflict with this idea. In his testimony, Ruse explains that “uniformitarianism refers to scientific reliance on blind, unchanging natural laws.”[7] Further, he says that uniformitarianism describes the fact that the natural world is “subject to the same natural laws in the past as in the present.”[8] Thus the characterization of natural laws as “blind” and “undirected” is merely an account of their uniformity. This, of course, in no way conflicts with a Christian worldview.

Ultimately, unless it can be shown that the presuppositions of Christianity contradict the principles of science, then science need not be necessarily atheistic. And not only does it appear obvious that no explicit contradiction exists between science and theism, but it seems that the distinctives of good science are dependent upon the Christians worldview. Ultimately, the uniformity of natural law upon which Michael Ruse says good scientific explanations are dependent, is expected by Sire who presupposes the universe to “operate with a uniformity of cause and effect.”[9]

_________________________

Endnotes

[1] The information included in the summary of McLean vs. Arkansas was taken from “Hoisted Upon Their Own Petard: How Design Science Satisfies the Scientific Criteria as Established by Its Critics,” by Bryan O’Neal, Assistant Professor of Theology, Moody Bible Institute. This paper was presented at the 2005 Midwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO which I attended.
[2] Michael Ruse, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1996), 296-301.
[3] James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1997), 16.
[4] Ibid., 23-35.
[5] Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York: Oxford, 1994), 81.
[6] A proposition is logically possible when its negation does not entail a contradiction. Ruth B. Marcus, “Possibility,” The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (New York: Oxford, 1995), 706.
[7] Ruse, 298.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Sire, 16.

Kevin DeYoung's Book List

Kevin DeYoung has listed the books he's been reading for the last several months on his blog with some brief remarks about each book. At the outset he says he's not posting the list to make us think he reads a lot of books, but I came away from it thinking, "Wow! This guy reads a lot of books!"

That having been said, he is reading some good stuff. If you're looking to add to your own reading list, this might be a helpful resource. Click here to see it.

Augustine of Hippo on the Plight of Man

Biographical and Background Material
Much is known about the life of Augustine due to the vast quantity of his writings. He was born in the town of Thagaste in North Africa in 354. While his father was a pagan, Augustine’s mother, Monica, was catholic.

During his adolescent years, Augustine attended the academy of Carthage. It was here that he was drawn into two arenas of interest. First, Augustine became involved in what he would later come to characterize as debauched sexual activity. In addition, he began to accept the religious system of Manichaeism.

Manichaeism was a system of religious thought that has been closely associated with Gnosticism. Adherents to Manichaeism believed that there was being played out a “cosmic drama” between Light and Darkness in which the purpose of creation was to rescue pieces of Light that had become trapped within Darkness during a battle that had initially occurred between the two opposing forces.[1] After some time Augustine began to become skeptical about Manichaeism and left Carthage for Rome shortly after the great Manichaean teacher Faustus was unable to address some of Augustine’s questions.[2]

In Rome Augustine encountered two things that significantly affected his life and thinking. First, he became impressed with the rhetoric of the preacher Ambrose. Augustine would reflect that although his conversion did not come until a short time after, it was while listening to the preaching of Ambrose that he became convinced of the truth of the Christian faith. The second thing in Rome that impacted Augustine’s thought life was his study of Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism was a religious philosophy in which it was believed that there existed a hierarchy of emanation—a hierarchy of ontology from which each succeeding level of being proceeded from the previous level within the hierarchy.[3] Within Neoplatonist philosophy, evil was not understood to be an active existing force, but was understood to be the absence of good or “non-being.”[4] This would become one of the paradigmatic features in Augustine’s thinking about the nature of evil.

Augustine was converted in the summer of 386. While grievously contemplating his life after reading from Paul’s Epistle to Rome, Augustine recollects hearing words spoken by a child saying “take up and read, take up and read.”[5] Augustine interpreted this as a message from God to return again to the Apostle’s letter. It was there that he read “let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Romans 13:13-14). Following his reading of this passage, Augustine experienced a deep assurance and security which he understood to be the grace of God. This marked the beginning of his Christian life.

Following his conversion, Augustine undertook monastic orders in Milan. He then decided to return to North Africa where he intended to launch a monastery. In 395, Augustine became a co-bishop to the bishop of Hippo. Upon the death of the bishop in 396, Augustine became bishop of Hippo. It was in this office that he served until the time of his death in 430.

While serving as bishop, Augustine fought vehemently against several influences that he believed were both in opposition to the truth and dangerous to the church. First was Donatism. The Donatists were a schismatic sect whose adherents believed that priests were substantial in their dispensation of the sacraments. In other words, a priest “had to be holy and in proper standing with the church for the sacrament to be valid.”[6] In contrast to this, Augustine believed the role of the priest to be instrumental rather than substantial. Hence, a sacrament remained effective even if God administered that sacrament through a corrupt official.[7]

The second influence which Augustine believed to be dangerous was the Manichaeism to which he had previously held (see above). Initially Augustine had been drawn to Manichaeism because it provided a solution to the problem of evil. But Augustine now sought to discredit Manichaeism and to demonstrate how the existence of evil could be accounted for apart from a dualistic explanation such as was offered by Manichaeism.[8]

Another force which Augustine recognized as a threat to the church were the heresies of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. Augustine had written a prayer which contained the phrase: “Grant what thou commandest, and command what thou dost desire.”[9] Pelagius understood that the implications of this passage penned by Augustine included the notion that man was not in and of himself able to turn from sin apart from God’s grace. And so Pelagius feared that this ideology would lead to a sort of antinomianism in which Christians would not fight against sin since they themselves did not have the capacity to resist sin. Rather, he feared that such Christians might do nothing while they waited on God to enable them to overcome their sins. Pelagius was of the position that a moral responsibility implied the ability to carry out that responsibility. If God determined that a man ought to do something, then Pelagius believed that a man was capable of doing that which God required of him.

In this debate, Augustine holds to a monergistic view of salvation. Monergism is “the view that the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians.”[10] In such a view, God is the only one who affects the salvation of the individual. Such a view is opposed to synergism—the Pelagian view. Synergism is a view in which “the human will cooperates with the divine will in achieving salvation.”[11] And so God and man work together in order to bring about salvation. It is worth noting that this marks the beginning of a debate that has continued over the course of Church history (e.g. Luther and Erasmus, Calvinists and Arminians, etc.).

The Plight of Man
Concerning The Plight of Man—Augustine’s eighth chapter in Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love—it is important to note that it was not so much a response addressed to the factions to which Augustine was opposed, rather it was addressed to the church over which Augustine presided. This is clear from his opening comments in which he evidences his concern for his people when he says that he is writing in order to inform his readers about the basics of what they “need to know about the causes of good and evil.”[12] This is further illustrated in that he is writing to encourage his readers that they “ought not to doubt in any way that the cause of everything pertaining to [their] good is nothing other than the bountiful goodness of God himself.”[13] This implies that his readers already held to a Christian perspective but that Augustine did not want opposing views to cause them to doubt their current beliefs.

In The Plight of Man, Augustine briefly summarizes the origin of evil—a summary, which in its historical context, is an obvious explanation of Manichaeism. As mentioned above, Manichaeism taught that ultimate reality was composed of two opposing forces—Light and Darkness. And so adherents to Manichaeism accounted for the existence of evil by way of this dualistic philosophy. In The Plight of Man, Augustine argues that evil is the result Adam’s choice in Eden. Augustine writes that before sin entered into the world mankind was “mutably good.”[14] Augustine believed that prior to the fall, the nature of man was such that he had both the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. Hence to be “mutably good” was to both be good and to have the capacity to become evil. Thus it was by an act of the will that Adam abused his freedom and actualized his mutation from good.

It is significant that Augustine views Adam’s sin (and all other acts of sin) as a “privation of the good.”[15] This demonstrates his Neoplatonic influence. Augustine has here adopted the Neoplatonic view, understanding Adam’s sin to be not so much an action in which Adam accomplishes and succeeds at doing that which is evil, but rather as an act in which he has failed to do that which is good. Adam had not turned to something but had turned away from something, namely that which was good.

Augustine continues, describing the result of Adam’s choice as having brought about a perversion of the human nature in which “there crept in…ignorance of the right things to do and also an appetite for noxious things.”[16] And so it is that, according to Augustine, this corruption of the human nature is what leads to error and sorrow. Augustine further explains that the resulting situation is one in which all of humanity, having descended from Adam, has received this corrupt human nature. He maintains that it is therefore the case that all of the sorrow and suffering in the world has come about as a result of this series of events.

Another distinctive of this treatise on the origins of evil is evinced in Augustine’s characterization of the fallen human will. Augustine describes the sinful desires of fallen humanity as “tainted springs of action.”[17] Here Augustine is indicating that it is the sinful desires of fallen man that lead his will to act. This would be consistent with what Augustine has written elsewhere concerning the human will, saying “it was by the evil use of his free will that man destroyed both it and himself.”[18] This point is also evident in Augustine’s concluding sentence. He describes Christians as those upon whom God has determined to bestow pardon though they were unworthy of such pardon. And so it is not based on any worth, merit, or action of the individual person working in harmony with God (such as in a synergistic view), but rather it is God’s choosing to pardon based solely on the fact that He is merciful (a monergistic view). Hence Augustine is also addressing the Pelagian heresy.

Augustine brings his exposition to a close as he explains God’s mercy and graciousness in the midst of world in which the experience of evil is a reality. He argues that even though God would be perfectly just in withdrawing His sustaining hand from the fallen angels, He graciously continues to sustain their existence. Augustine states that God continues to provide man with the opportunity and existence in which he can beget children, exercise control over his own body, experience enjoyment, and eat food that brings nourishment to his body. Ultimately, Augustine concludes saying that even though God would be perfectly just in condemning all mankind, He determined “to show far more striking evidence of his mercy by pardoning some who were unworthy of it.”[19] Ultimately, such statements not only laid the foundation for the doctrine of predestination, but are also a powerful illustration of God’s mercy in the midst of a fallen world.

_______________________

Endnotes

[1] S.N. Lieu, “Manichaeism,” New Dictionary of Theology, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1988), 410.
[2] Garry Willis, Saint Augustine, (New York: Viking, 1999),34.
[3] Everett Ferguson, “Neoplatonism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 821.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 259.
[6] Victor L. Walter, “Donatism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 352.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Olson, 262.
[9] Augustine, Confessions, (10, 29, 40).
[10] Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Louisville: John Knox, 1996), 177.
[11] Ibid., 275.
[12] Augustine, Plight of Man (23).
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Augustine, Plight of Man (24).
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Augustine, Enchiridion, (27, 30).
[19] Augustine, Plight of Man (27).

Responding to an Objection to the Christian Faith

Excuse me, sir, but your worldview is the worldview in which this problem exists. Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that the real problem might be your bankrupt worldview.

Book Review: At the Altar of Sexual Idolatry, by Steve Gallagher

This book is relatively good in the way it approaches the ethics of sexual addiction. Gallagher identifies the types of attitudes and behaviors that lead to sexual sin, as well as those which keep sexual addicts from experiencing freedom. Gallagher also does a good job of describing the problem of sexual sin. He explains the important internal and external factors that lead to sexual sin. He also describes some of the negative consequences experienced by sexual addicts.

The primary thing I’ve found lacking in the book is a connection to the gospel. Over the course of the book Gallagher indicates that the addict should confess his sin, be mentored by someone who can provide godly instruction, note the consequences that come to sexual addicts, learn to deny selfish desires, stop making excuses, stop blaming others, become desperate for change, cry out to the Lord, develop new habits, separate from the world, realize there is a spiritual battle going on, put on the armor of God, follow Christ’s example, repent, receive God’s discipline, spend time in prayer and God’s Word, avoid atmospheres that provoke lust, cultivate gratitude, repent from complaining, give, serve others, pray for others, fulfill the needs of others, and love their wives. Yet you’ll notice that these are all imperatives—law without gospel.

Now, to be fair, there are a few glimpses of the gospel. In the chapter on repentance, Gallagher indicates that the sexual addict must come to a place of realizing that he is unable to overcome sin apart from God. Yet Gallagher doesn’t tie this explicitly to what God has done in Christ’s redemptive work. Moreover, this is a relatively short section of the book. The cross actually isn’t even mentioned until the last chapter of the book. Gallagher mentions the atonement as payment for the penalty of sin (although his point here is simply that this doesn’t mean that God’s law is no longer relevant). He does then go on to explain that God’s grace saves not only from eternal condemnation, but also from bondage to sin. This gets close, but he doesn’t really explain specifically how God’s grace sets sinners free or how Christ’s life death and resurrection serve as the basis for that freedom from sin.

As we deal with sin, sexual or otherwise, we must keep the gospel central. The message of the gospel strips away my doomed self-righteous attempts to fulfill the law. The knowledge that God no longer counts my sin against me provides me with the freedom to openly acknowledge my sin before Him. The redemptive work of Christ revealed in the message of the gospel empowers me to put the sin in my life to death. But these resources are not made available to the Christian in Gallagher’s book due to the lack of connection to the life-changing gospel. Tragically, this seems to be an all too common trend in current evangelical literature and preaching.*

_________________________

*For a thorough explanation of this problem, see Christless Christianity, by Michael Horton.

Six Preconditions for Apologetics

But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord, always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is within you... 1 Peter 3:15

1. Say “no” to neutrality. Wear your faith on your sleeve.
2. Say "yes" to the truth.
3. Renounce autonomy.
4. Bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.
5. Depend upon the Holy Spirit: use the means he will use to convict, and convince, namely God's Word.
6. Begin with real common ground which unbelievers have with believers, namely the fact of God.

What Does It Mean to Accept Jesus?

I thought Ray Ortlund stated this very well.

Warfield's Concession to Liberalism in Apologetics

Benjamin Warfield was a Presbyterian theologian who taught at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1887 to 1921. Personally, I love Warfield. He is probably one of the greatest American theologians (perhaps second only to Jonathan Edwards). However, I think Warfield's approach to answering the higher critics of his day may have been a concession to the modern rationalism which fueled the liberal theology of his critics.

The higher critics with whom Warfield was contending believed that the Bible contained errors. They held the moral and ethical teachings in the Bible suspect. Ultimately, these critics held to a worldview which denied the supernatural realm and so sought to explain the Scriptures in a way that excluded supernatural events. The explicit major premise of the critics was that the Bible contained historical, scientific, and factual errors. The implicit minor premise was that the Bible contained statements concerning ethical, spiritual, and religious issues that went beyond what could be proven to be true. Therefore, these critics concluded, since the Bible is unreliable in scientific and historical issues that can be tested, it is also likely unreliable in matters of religion and spirituality which cannot be tested.

Warfield sought to answer these critics by challenging (and essentially inverting) their explicit major premise. Warfield argued that the Bible was reliable in matters that could be tested (history and geography, for example). And since the Bible can be shown to be reliable in these areas, he concluded, we can also trust the Bible in matters which cannot be tested (theology and ethics, for example). In this way Warfield argued that the Bible was completely trustworthy.

But while I would whole-heartedly agree with Warfield's conclusion, there seems to be a few problems with his approach.

1. The argument is lost before it begins. We have already compromised the authority of God’s Word when we begin to appeal to the supposed higher authority of human reason.
2. At best Warfield arrives at probability. There is a logical leap that occurs when he moves from that which can be tested to that which cannot be tested. It is logically possible that a source might be reliable in all matters which can be verified while remaining unreliable in matters which cannot be verified.
3. There is a question as to who should have the burden of proof (note that this is a moral question!). As Christians, we begin with God and His revelation in the Scripture. This is our highest standard of proof. When we accept the burden of proof on the terms of the unbeliever, we have alread conceded (see problem 1 above). Warfield accepts the burden of proof and, in so doing, concedes to the rationalist worldview.

So while I appreciate Warfield and his legacy in almost every respect, I am more inclined to follow the method of apologetics espoused by his predecessor, Cornelius Van Til, who along with J. Gresham Machen, left Princeton Seminary to form Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929.*

_____________________________

*Note that the theological prolegomena followed by Van Til can also be seen in Dutch Reformed theologicans such as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, as well as apologists Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and the theological tradition of Westminster Theological Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, and Reformed Theological Seminary.

Fifty Fruits of Pride

This is a list of fifty fruits of pride compiled by Brent Detwiler of Sovereign Grace Ministries. It's followed by a nine-step plan to deal with pride. I've found it both in my own life and as a ministry resource.

Fifty Fruits of Pride

1. Want to be Well Known or Important (Isaiah 14:13-15; James 3:13-16; Romans 12:6) – “I am selfishly ambitious. I really want to get ahead and make a name for myself. I want to be someone important in life. I like having a position or title. I far prefer leading to following.”
2. Sinfully Competitive – “I am overly competitive. I always want to win or come out on top and it bothers me when I don’t.”
3. Want to Impress People (Luke 10:38-42) – “I want people to be impressed with me. I like to make my accomplishments known.”
a) Clothes or jewelry you wear.
b) Vehicle you drive.
c) Furniture you own.
d) House you live in.
e) Place you live.
f) Company you work for.
g) Amount of money you earn.
h) Food you eat.
i) How spiritual you are.
j) What you look like (physical appearance).
k) What you have accomplished.
l) What you know.
m) Where you went to School.
n) Who you know.
o) What your background is.
4. Draw Attention to Myself (Proverbs 27:2) – “I like to be the center of attention and will say or do things to draw attention to myself.”
5. Like to Talk About Myself – “I like to talk, especially about myself or persons or things I am involved with. I want people to know what I am doing or thinking. I would rather speak than listen. I have a hard time being succinct.”
6. Deceitful and Pretentious (Psalm 24:3-4, 26:2-4; Jeremiah 48:10; Proverbs 26:20-26) – “I tend to be deceptive about myself. I find myself lying to preserve my reputation. I find myself hiding the truth about myself, especially about sins, weaknesses, etc. I don't want people to know who I really am.”
7. Desire Recognition and Praise (John 5:41-44; Matthew 6:1, 23:5-7) – “I desire to receive recognition and credit for what I do. I like people to see what I do and let me know that they noticed. I feel hurt or offended when they don't. I am overly concerned about my reputation and hate being misunderstood.”
8. Not Fulfilled Serving Others (John 3:30) – “I am not very excited about seeing or making others successful. I tend to feel envious jealous or critical towards those who are doing well or being honored.”
9. Self Sufficient (Matthew 4:4; John 15:5; Acts 17:25; 2 Corinthians 12:7-10) – “I tend to be self sufficient in the way I live my life. I don’t live with a constant awareness that my every breath is dependent upon the will of God. I tend to think I have enough strength, ability and wisdom to live and manage my life. My practice of the spiritual disciplines is inconsistent and superficial. I don’t like to ask others for help.”
10. Anxious (Psalm 4:8; Philippians 4:6-7; 1 Peter 5:6-7) – “I am often anxious about my life and the future. I tend not to trust God and rarely experience his abiding and transcendent peace in my soul. I have a hard time sleeping at night because of fearful thoughts and burdens I carry.”
11. Self Focused (Exodus 4:11; Job 10:8-11; Psalm 139:13-16; Isaiah 53:2; Jeremiah 1:5) – “I am overly self-conscious. I tend to replay in my mind how I did, what I said, and how I came across to others. I am very concerned about my appearance and what people think of me. I think about these things constantly.”
12. Fear Man (Proverbs 29:25) – “I fear man more than God. I am afraid of others and make decisions about what I will say or do based upon this fear. I am afraid to take a stand for things that are right. I am concerned with how people will react to me or perceive my actions or words. I don’t often think about God’s opinion in a matter and rarely think there could be consequences for disobeying him. I primarily seek the approval of man and not of God.”
13. Insecure – “I often feel insecure. I don't want to try new things or step out into uncomfortable situations because I'm afraid I'll fail or look foolish. I am easily embarrassed.”
14. Compare Myself – “I regularly compare myself to others. I am “performance oriented.” I feel that I have greater worth if I do well.”
15. Perfectionist – “I am self-critical. I tend to be a perfectionist. I can't stand for little things to be wrong because they reflect poorly on me. I have a hard time putting my mistakes behind me.”
16. Self Serving (Philippians 2:19-22) – “I am self-serving. When asked to do something, I find myself asking, ‘How will doing this help me?’ or ‘Will I be inconvenienced?’ I am not focused on the needs and interests of others.”
17. Feel Better or Superior – “I feel special or superior because of what I have or do.”
18. Think Highly of Myself (Romans 12:3, 16; James 2:1-4) – “I think highly of myself. In relation to others I typically see myself as more mature and more gifted. In most situations, I have more to offer than others even though I may not say so. I don’t consider myself average or ordinary.”
19. Credit Myself (1 Corinthians 4:6-7; 15:10) – “I tend to give myself credit for who I am and what I accomplish. I only occasionally think about or recognize that all that I am or have comes from God. I don’t’ consciously transfer all glory to God for any good I have or any good I do.”
20. Self Righteous (Luke 18:9-14) – “I tend to be self-righteous. I can think that I really have something to offer God. I would never say so, but I think God did well to save me. I seldom think about or recognize my total depravity and helplessness apart from God. I regularly focus on the sins of others. I don’t credit God for any degree of holiness in my life.”
21. Feel Deserving – “I feel deserving. I think I deserve what I have. In fact, I think I ought to have more considering how well I have lived or in light of all I have done.”
22. Ungrateful (Luke 17:11-19; Ephesians 5:19-20; 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18; Colossians 3:15-17; Philippians 2:14) – “I often feel ungrateful. I tend to grumble about what I have or my lot in life. I am not amazed by grace on a regular basis.”
23. Captive to Self Pity – “I find myself wallowing in self-pity. I am consumed with how I am treated by God and others. I tend to feel mistreated and hate being misunderstood. I seldom recognize or sympathize with what's going on with others around me because I feel that I have it worse than they do.”
24. Jealous and Envious (James 3:13-16) – “I can be jealous or envious of others abilities, possessions, positions, accomplishments or friends. I want to be what others are or want to have what others have. I think I deserve or should have the good things other people do. I find it hard to rejoice when others are blessed by God.”
25. Unkind and Harsh (Ezekiel 16:49; Psalm 17:10; Proverbs 24:17-18; Luke 10:25-37) – “I am pretty insensitive to others. I feel some people just aren't worth caring about. I have a hard time showing compassion or extending mercy to others. Some people aren’t worth my time and attention.”
26. Love to Reveal My Mind (Proverbs 18:2) – “I like to reveal my own mind. I have an answer for practically every situation and an opinion on every subject. I feel compelled to balance everyone else out and let them know my thoughts.”
27. Know It All (1 Corinthians 8:1) – “I have a know-it-all attitude. I am impressed by my own knowledge and understanding of things. I feel like there isn't much I can learn from other people, especially those less mature than me.”
28. Like People to Know I Know – “I feel compelled to stop people when they start to share something with me I already know.”
29. Hard to Admit I Don’t Know – “I find it hard to admit it when I don’t know something. When someone asks me something I don't know, I will make up an answer rather than admit I don't know.”
30. Don’t Listen to Ordinary People – “I have a hard time listening to ordinary people. I listen better to those I respect or people I am wanting to leave with a good impression. I don’t honestly listen when someone else is speaking because I am usually planning what I am going to say next.”
31. Interruptive – “I interrupt people regularly. I don’t let people finish what they are saying.”
32. Don’t Get Much Out of Teaching – “I don’t get much out of the teaching. I tend to evaluate the speaker rather than my own life. I grumble about hearing something a second time.”
33. Thinking of Others During Teaching – “I listen to teaching with other people in mind. I constantly think of those folks who need to hear and apply this teaching and wish they were here.”
34. Not Teachable (Proverbs 12:1) – “I’m not very open to input. I don’t pursue correction for my life. I tend to be unteachable and slow to repent when corrected. I don't really see correction as a positive thing. I am offended when people probe the motivations of my heart or seek to adjust me.”
35. Don’t Admit Wrong Doing (Proverbs 28:13; James 5:16) – “I have a hard time admitting that I am wrong. I find myself covering up or excusing my sins. It is hard for me to confess my sins to others or to ask for forgiveness.”
36. Do Not Welcome Correction (Proverbs 15:12) – “I view correction as an intrusion into my privacy rather than an instrument of God for my welfare. I can’t identify anyone who would feel welcome to correct me.”
37. Resent People Who Correct Me (Proverbs 9:7-9) – “I resent people who attempt to correct me. I don’t respond with gratefulness and sincere appreciation for their input. Instead I am tempted to accuse them and dwell on their faults. I get bitter and withdraw.”
38. Contentious and Argumentative (James 1:19-20) – “When corrected, I become contentious and argumentative. I don’t take people’s observations seriously. I minimize and make excuses or give explanations.”
39. Get Angry or Offended With Others (1 Corinthians 6:7) – “I am easily angered and offended. I don't like being crossed or disagreed with. I find myself thinking, “I can't believe they did that to me.” I often feel wronged. I hate to be misunderstood by others especially those I respect and desire to think highly of me.”
40. Constantly in Conflicts (Proverbs 13:10) – “I have “personality conflicts” with others. I have a hard time getting along with certain kinds of people. People regularly tell me they struggle with me.”
41. Have Little Esteem or Respect for Others (Numbers 16:1-3) – “I lack respect for other people. I don't think very highly of most people. I have a hard time encouraging and honoring others unless they really do something great.”
42. Do Violence with My Mouth (Psalm 101:5; Romans 3:13-14; 3 John 1:9-10) – “I am a slanderer. I find myself either giving or receiving evil reports about others. I am not concerned about the effect of slander on me because of my maturity level. I think I can handle it. I only share with others the things I think they really need to know. I don’t tell all. Anyway, the things I say or hear about people are usually true.”
43. Sow Discord (Proverbs 28:25) – “I am divisive. My actions and attitudes separate people rather than unite people. My words frequently undermined the confidence and trust people have in one another. I also tend to resist or resent authority. I don't like other people to give me orders or directions.”
44. Demean or Belittle Others – “With a motivation to put people in their place or look good myself, I like to demean or put others down. They need my adjustment. This includes leaders. Other people need to be humble and have a “sober” assessment of themselves.”
45. Critical – “I tend to be critical of others. I find myself feeling or talking negatively about people. I subtly feel better about myself when I see how bad someone else is. I find it far easier to evaluate than to encourage someone else.”
46. Self Willed and Stubborn – “I am self-willed and stubborn. I have a hard time cooperating with others. I really prefer my own way and often insist on getting it.”
47. Independent (Proverbs 18:1; Luke 1:51-52) – “I am independent and uncommitted. I don't really see why I need other people. I can easily separate myself from others. I don’t get much out of the small group meetings.”
48. Unaccountable (Acts 2:42; Hebrews 10:25) – “I am unaccountable. I don’t ask others to hold me responsible to follow through on my commitments. I don’t really need accountability for my words and actions.”
49. Unsubmissive (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 5:5) – “I am unsubmissive. I don’t like being under the authority of another person. I don’t see submission as a good and necessary provision from God for my life. I have a hard time supporting and serving those over me. I don’t “look up” to people and I like to be in charge. Other people may need leaders but I don’t. It is important that my voice is always heard.”
50. Feel Mature – “I really appreciate somebody taking the time to put this paper together. It will really be a big help to my friends and family. However, I don't really need this because I think I'm pretty humble already.”

How to Deal with Pride in Your Life

1. Ask God to illuminate your heart so you can begin to see the fruits of pride in your life. Ask friends to point out the fruits of pride in your life realizing your heart is exceedingly deceitful. Be self-suspicious.

2. Ask God to convict you point by point (Psalm 139:23-24) and trust that he will. You don't want or need general condemnation, only specific, godly conviction.

3. Confess your pride to God point by point and ask for his forgiveness. Just as importantly, ask him to cleanse you of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

4. Ask God to give you a holy hatred for pride and its fruits in your life. Be continually on the alert. Don’t allow pride to grow in your heart.

5. Ask God to give you a love for anonymity. Encourage and serve others each and every day. Associate with the lowly.

6. Confess your sins of pride to those you have affected and to your friends. They can help to hold you accountable and bring the on-going encouragement and correction you will need.

7. Scripture calls us to humble ourselves before the Lord (1 Peter 5:6). Think much about God and little about yourself. Regularly study the goodness and greatness of God.

8. Live to promote the reputation of God and not your own. Be impressed with God - don’t be impressed with yourself. Find your satisfaction in him and not in your vain accomplishments.

9. Remember your war against pride is life-long. It is not a battle won in a day. But as you faithfully put pride to death and put on humility, you will experience greater freedom and more importantly greater conformity to image and likeness of Christ. In so doing, God will be glorified in your life!

Galt Family Values

As the leader of my family, I have sought to summarize the main values we want to hold as a family. This is a work in progress. If anyone has thoughts about how I might tweak or add anything, I'm open to suggestions. Here is my current draft:

We, the Galt family, affirm that God is glorified when we find our delight in Him alone. Thus, we recognize that our purpose is to glorify God and enjoy him forever. We seek to embrace the following values towards the fulfillment of this purpose.

1. Mission – We will seek to glorify and enjoy God by spending ourselves for the advancement of the gospel. We believe the gospel is of first importance (1 Cor 15:3-4). The gospel is God’s message of salvation that provides redemption from the curse that has come upon the earth as a result of human sin (Gen 3; Rom 1-3). The redemption about which we speak in the gospel will culminate in the new creation—the ultimate consummation of our redemption (Rev 21).
2. Prayer – We will seek to glorify and enjoy God by expressing our dependency upon Him though prayers of praise, thanksgiving, and supplication. As God’s creatures, we are wholly dependent upon Him. We have nothing that we have not received from Him (1 Cor 4:7). Therefore, we seek to acknowledge our dependency upon God through prayer, expressing praise to Him (Psalms 104:35; 106:1, 48; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1; 117:1; 135:1-3, 21; 146:1-2), giving thanks to Him in all things (1 Thess 5:8), and making our requests known to Him (Phil 4:6-7).
3. Church – We will seek to glorify and enjoy God through our commitment to our church family. We recognize that the Christian faith is something that is to be lived out within a church community (Heb 10:24-25). We therefore commit ourselves to the church by maintaining the doctrinal teachings of our predecessors (Heb 13:7), submitting to the authority of our church leaders (Heb 13:17), hearing the preaching of God’s Word (Rom 10:17), remembering Christ through sacred communion (Matt 26:26-28), remaining accountable to our church body (Matt 18; Gal 6; James 5:16), giving faithfully and sacrificially from the resources with which we’ve been entrusted (Mark 12:41-44; 2 Cor 9:7), and determining to help our brothers and sisters grow as disciples as we exercise our spiritual gifts for their edification (Eph 4:11-16).
4. Discipline – We will seek to glorify and enjoy God by ordering our lives for the purpose of godliness (1 Tim 4:7). We rejoice in the freedom from a lifestyle of bondage to sin that we have experienced through the gospel (Rom 6:6-7). Thus, we will, by faith, seek to put sin to death and to order our lives in such a way as to hasten our sanctification (Rom 8:13; 1 Tim 4:7).
5. Worldview – We will seek to glorify and enjoy God by seeking to cultivate a biblical worldview. We believe that all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ ( Col 2:3). Therefore, as followers of Christ, we seek to conform our thinking to God’s revelation in the Scriptures. Our desire is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so that we might know God’s will (Rom 12:2).

Should the Christian Apologist Appeal to Evidences?

Evidentialism is a method of apologetics used by some Christians which operates from an empiricist’s worldview. One’s source of truth is grounded in human observation. In contrast to rationalism, there are no innate ideas. There are only facts. For this reason, it is believed that the mind cannot obtain truth apart from the facts of one’s experience.

The evidentialist typically appeals to lines of historical evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the verification of its claim to be true. In this the evidentialist may use various facts recorded in Scripture, archeological evidence and other non-biblical sources to prove the factuality of the Scriptures. Such facts are as follows:

1. The testimony of the early church fathers.
2. The resurrection scene (empty tomb, rolled away stone, the seal on the tomb broken in spite of the Roman guard, etc.)
3. The change in the disciples.
4. The existence of the Church.
5. The post resurrection appearances.

Scientific facts are also used to verify the factuality of creation. Such facts would include:

1. The second law of thermodynamics.The intelligent design movement.
2. The anthropic principle/teleological argument.

Tenets of Evidentialism

1. It is based upon human observation.
2. Some evidentialists draw a distinction between the facts and the interpretation of the facts.
   Ultimately, evidentialists believe that facts are self-interpreting (note: this is inconsistent with the previous tenet).
3. Some facts are more paradigmatic than other facts. They become the facts by which other facts are interpreted.

Critique of Evidentialism

1. Facts and events are only meaningful within the context of a worldview in which they are conceived.
2. Meaning is not inherent within facts.
3. There is no way to distinguish some facts as more meaningful than others. So even if facts did speak for themselves, they couldn’t be organized in a meaningful way.

The Funniest Joke in the World

This kind of thing is generally out of character for my blog, so feel free to register a complaint. But according to one potentially unreliable internet source, this joke was found to be the world's funniest in a scientific study. I'm not sure about whether or not it's the funniest joke in the world, but I thought it was pretty funny.

A couple of New Jersey hunters are out in the woods when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn’t seem to be breathing, his eyes are rolled back in his head.

The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps to the operator: “My friend is dead! What can I do?”

The operator, in a calm, soothing voice, says: “Just take it easy. I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.”

There is a silence, then a shot is heard. The guy’s voice comes back on the line. He says: “Okay, now what?”

Paul's Apologetc: Paul Appeals to the Authority of Scripture in Acts 13

In Acts 13, Paul begins by describing God’s work in the history of Israel. Starting with their bondage in Egypt, Paul tells of God’s work in the exodus, the wilderness, the distribution of the land, the appointment of Saul and the appointment of David. It is at this point that the sermon climaxes. Paul says, "From the descendants of this man [David], according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus." It is at this point that Paul begins to teach about Jesus Christ.

According to Paul, Jesus was proclaimed by John the Baptist. He was not recognized by the rulers in Jerusalem though their condemnation of Him fulfilled words of the prophets. They put Him to death though He was innocent. Though they laid Him in a tomb, God raised Him from the dead. This is the good news Paul is preaching.

Paul’s authority here is Scripture. Paul says that the Jews in Jerusalem fulfilled "all that was written concerning Him." He equates not recognizing Jesus with not recognizing "the utterances of the prophets which are read ever Sabbath." He says that the good news he is preaching is that of the promises made to the fathers. Finally, he quotes from several of the Psalms, Isaiah, and Habakkuk.

In the same way, let us not be afraid to appeal to the authority of Scripture as we week to convince the unbeliever of the truth of the Christian faith and the folly of his unbelief.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part IV

The humanism of today is primarily naturalistic in its metaphysics. The first affirmation of Humanist Manifesto I, for example, is that the universe is self-existing and not created. Likewise, the second affirmation is that man has come about as the result of a continuous process.

Over the last several days, I have discussed two epistemological problems with humanism (again, "epistemology" refers to one's theory of how we come to know things). But there is a third epistemological problem of humanism. This problem is centered around the correspondance between human perception and the real world. If all that exists is matter in motion (per the humanist's naturalistic metaphysic), then human thought and perception is nothing more than matter in motion. Our thoughts are just the result of chemical reactions in our brains—matter operating in accordance with natural law. But we know that impersonal matter has no interest in leading us to right conclusions based on sound observations. So if our thoughts and perceptions were merely the result of matter operating in accordance with natural law, we couldn’t really know anything. There would be no reason to believe in a correspondance between our thoughts and a real world. Thus, the logical implication of naturalism is nihilism

Nihilism says that nothing can be known and all things are, therefore, meaningless. Of course, for those who are willing to embrace nihilism, we must ask how they know that nothing can be known if nothing can be known, but most are not willing to live with these implications.

So the question for the humanist is: If your thoughts are the result of matter operating according to natural law, how do you know that your thoughts correspond to reality?

The epistemological problems about which I've been writing in my last three blog posts corroborate the Satanic origins of humanism. These problems demonstrate the biblical truth that we reap what we sow. When we follow the example of Satan by attempting to establish ourselves as autonomous human knowers, we are suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness. When we suppress the truth in this way, we reap the negative consequences of our sinful thinking. The epistemological problems, logical contradictions, and incoherence of the humanist position are prime examples of the negative consequences of sinful thinking--the kind of fruit we reap when we sow the seeds of rejecting Christ as the Lord of all knowledge.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part III

Another epistemological problem with humanism is that human reason is not autonomous. As a humanist begins to reason, he utilizes the laws of logic. So the question becomes, where do these laws come from? Human autonomy can’t account for the laws of logic because these laws are universal—they are transcendent. And if the humanist seeks to argue otherwise, he must presuppose the laws of logic before he gets started. So the laws of logic are prior to human reason. And this is inconsistent with the humanist contention that humans are autonomous. This shows that there is something that precedes human thought. The thoughts of human beings are dependent upon a transcendental way of thinking. So, in the end the humanist is unable to account for the laws of logic.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part II

As I mentioned yesterday, humanism is based on human autonomy. Humanist epistemology, then, is a theory of knowledge in which it is believed that man is able to know and understand the world around him based on this autonomy.

Now, there are several serious problems with this that I will look at over the next several days. These are problems we can exploit in our efforts to poke holes in the humanist worldview. First, humanism is a position in which it is believed that an individual independently come to a place of objectivity from which he or she is able to judge the world. Humanists might say things like "let us look at this objectively” or "let us set aside our differences and think about this rationally.” The problem here is that the humanist is unable to view things from an objective standpoint. The minute that a person believes that humans can be objective in-and-of themselves is the moment that he or she becomes biased. Whenever we embrace the notion that we can be objective, we have already become biased. This is a bias that dictates that any viewpoint contrary the humanists own "objective" viewpoint is faulty. So ultimately, one cannot hold that he is objective in-and-of himself and be objective at the same time.

In light of this, one question we might ask a humanist, then, is this: How can you be objective about something if you’re not willing to believe that you cannot be objective? Objectivity from a humanist perspective implies a level of openness towards truth claims that have not been tested by human reason. But what about the possibility that their epistemology (theory of knowledge) is flawed? This line of questioning may be fruitful by the power of the Spirit to help the humanist to begin to see his or her need for a Savior.

While the humanist is unable to be objective, the Christian worldview is the objective standpoint. God’s standpoint is the only objective standpoint and one cannot be objective without God's perspective. Since the Christian worldview is one in which divine revelation is a reality, only the Christian worldview can account for how people are able to view things from an objective standpoint. As Christians we understand that God Himself has given us the God’s-eye view that is necessary for objectivity.

The Satanic Origins of Humanism, Part I

As we begin to think about humanism, we first need to understand exactly what it is that we’re talking about. Most historians consider humanism to be a relatively recent development. During the Renaissance, the word humanism was created to refer to an educational program—the humanities. It was created to differentiate the classical curriculum of Greek and Latin from the then newer emphasis on science and mathematics. So at this point the word wasn’t used to signify a philosophy or a worldview, but it was used to refer to an educational program.

It was not until the Enlightenment came about several hundred years later that the word humanism came to refer to a philosophy. Now as you know, the 17th-18th century Enlightenment is known as the age of reason. So humanism came to be used to refer to the Enlightenment philosophy in which human reason became the philosophical basis for human dignity. Whereas it was once understood that human dignity and value was based on the fact that man was created in God’s image, humanism says that man is valuable because he is the only being which has the ability to reason.

Protagoras is considered by many to be the founder of humanistic philosophy. His motto was homo mensura—which means man is the measure of all things. Protagoras said man is the measure of all things, of things that are, that they are; and of things that are not, that they are not. And so this is a philosophy in which man is elevated to the place of God. While the Christian worldview is one in which we say let God be true and every man a liar, humanism says that the human being is the final judge of all things. In the words of R. C. Sproul, in the case of humanism, "there is no ultimate distinction between a supreme being and a human being because the human being is the supreme being."

Most historians see humanism as are relatively recent development; they see it as having come about during the enlightenment. And I think that most philosophers probably recognize Protagoras’ motto "man is the measure of all things," which goes back to around 400 BC, as the philosophical basis for humanism. But as Christians, we ought to recognize that humanism is much older. When Adam and Eve determined that they had a right to decide whether or not to obey God, Humanism was born. When Satan tempted Eve in the garden, he said, "you will be like God…” And it was Satan himself who said:

I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God,
And I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north.
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.' (Isaiah 14:13-14)

Adam and Eve determined to follow the devil’s example. Therefore, a more appropriate description of humanism might be Satanism. For as we are Christians who seek to follow Christ’s example, so too those who follow Satan’s example can be described as Satanists. If I might bottom line this for you, I would do so using Van Til’s implementation of the word humanism. He uses the word synonymously with the word autonomy. And that’s what this is all about—human autonomy.

Exploiting the Offense of the Easily Offended

Kevin DeYoung has a great piece on his blog today describing the cultural phenomenon in which it's easier to be offended than it is to be right about something. He writes, " To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?"

But I want to take the conversation in a little bit different direction. Perhaps we can exploit the offense of the easily offended. Unbelievers often object to certain tenents of the Christian faith on the grounds that those tenents are offensive. But what if we could show them that the beliefs upon which their objections and offense are based are themselves offensive to other cultures or people groups? What if we could show that taking offense to Christainity on the grounds of the doctrine of hell, for example, presupposes something that is offensive to cultures who have a deep sense of God's righteous judgment?

I think this is often the approach Tim Keller often takes in his book, The Reason for God. And while I don't think this kind of approach speaks to the ultimate issue of unbelief, it may provide a way for us to "tear down every argument raised up against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor 10:5).