Archive for December, 2007

One of the qualification for those who teach the Word of God is the ability to refute those who are in Error (Titus 1:9); but how can you refute error if you are ignorant?

Pastor Joel Osteen, can’t even distinguish Mormonism from the Historical Orthodox faith.

From http://www.apologeticsindex.org/646-joel-osteen-mormon-church

WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I’ve got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?

OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.

And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don’t think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that’s what I felt like.

WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

OSTEEN: I probably don’t get hung up in them because I haven’t really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know.

I certainly can’t say that I agree with everything that I’ve heard about it, but from what I’ve heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that’s a common bond.
– Source: FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace, Dec. 23, 2007

Read Full Post »

Here’s an update for the end of 2007 on Reformed Theological Seminary’s mp3s provided on iTunes for free since since it first debuted. Veritasdomain wishes you a Happy New Year for 2008.

Revisting itunes.rts.edu has revealed some changes:

“Educational Ministry of the Church” under Practical Theology A couple Chapel messages for Fall 2007 have been updated. And finally 2 new Seminar series “Worship Wars, Holy Kisses, and Names for God: An Evangelical Model for Contextual Theologizing” by Dr. Steve Strauss and “The Calvin I Never Knew” by Dr. Frank A. James III

They divided the plenary sessions from the seminar sessions for the 2007 and 2006 Westminister Confessions for Today Conferences.

They removed the commencement and other special event lectures.

And finally they added a large amount of videos, mainly promoting RTS, while organizing the original brochures by campus location.

  • RTS Virtual Courses
    • Old Testament
      • Genesis through Joshua by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. (30 Tracks)
      • Judges through Poets by Dr. John Currid (38 Tracks)
      • Isiah through Malachi by Dr. Richard Belcher, Jr. (34 Tracks)
    • New Testament
      • Gospels and Acts by Dr. Knox Chamblin (49 Tracks)
      • Pauline Epistles by Dr. Knox Chamblin (48 Tracks)
      • Hebrews through Revelation by Dr. Simon J. Kistemaker (46 Tracks)
    • Church History
      • History of Christianity I by Dr. Frank A. James III (33 Tracks)
      • History of Christianity II by Dr. Frank A. James (31 Tracks)
      • The Church and the World by Dr. W. Andrew Hoffecker (28 Tracks)
      • History and Theology of the Puritans by Dr. J.I. Packer (17 Tracks)
      • History of Missions by Dr. Samuel H. Larsen (36 Tracks)
    • Practical Theology
      • Disabilities and the Church (30 Tracks)
      • Educational Ministry of the Church by Dr. Andrew J. Peterson (25
    • Theology
      • Intro to Pastoral and Theological Studies by Dr. Richard L. Pratt,
        Jr. (23)
      • History of Philosophy and Christian Thought by Dr. John M. Frame
      • Theological Foundations by Dr. Derek W.H. Thomas (25)
      • Systematic Theology I by Dr. Douglas F. Kelly (38)
      • Systematic Theology II by Dr. Douglas F. Kelly (20)
      • Systematic Theology III by Dr. Douglas F. Kelly (38)
      • Pastoral and Social Ethics by Dr. John M. Frame (43)
      • Christan Apologetics by Dr. John M. Frame (27)
      • C.S. Lewis by Dr. Knox Chamblin (27)
  • RTS Chapel Messages
    • RTS Charlotte Chapel Messages (24)
      • Fall 2007 (11)
      • Spring 2007 (6)
      • Fall 2006 (7)
    • RTS Jackson Chapel Messages (30)
      • Fall 2007 (7)
      • Spring 2007 (12)
      • Fall 2006 (11)
    • RTS Orlando Chapel Messages (33)
      • Fall 2007 (12)
      • Spring 2007 (10)
      • Fall 2006 (11)
  • RTS Seminars and Lectures
    • RTS Campus Lecture Series
      • RTS Jackson John Reed Miller Lecture Series (9)
        • 2007 – By Dr. Mark Dever (3)
          • The Symbol and Significance of Preaching
          • The Use of Preaching
          • The Art of Preaching
        • 2006 – By Rev. Mark Johnson (3)
          • The Call to Ministry
          • The Call to Preach
          • The Call to Pastor
        • 2005 – By Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson (3)
          • Preaching Christ
          • Reaching Our Standards
          • Using Our Grids
      • RTS Orland Simon J. Kistemaker Lecture Series (0)
        • Group 1
        • Group 2
    • RTS Seminars
      • Crass Plagiarism? The Problem of the Relationship of the Old Testament
        to the Ancient Near Eastern Literature by Dr. John D. Currid (3)
      • New Perspective on Paul by Dr. D.A. Carson (3)
      • Roles & Relationships in Pastoral Ministry by Dr. John Sittema
      • Worship Wars, Holy Kisses, and Names for God: An Evangelical Model
        for Contextual Theologizing by Dr. Steve Strauss (3)
      • The Calvin I Never Knew by Dr. Frank A. James III (4)
  • RTS Campus Resources
    • RTS Charlotte Campus Resources (8 Booklets)
    • RTS Jackson Campus Resources (38)
      • RTS Jackson Campus Videos (32 Videos)
      • RTS Jackson Campus Resources (6 Booklets)
    • RTS Orlando Campus Resources (8)
      • One School, One Book (2 Tracks)
        • Writing a Spiritual Memoir by Lauren Winner
        • Real Sex by Lauren Winner
      • RTS Orlando Resources (6)
    • RTS Virtual Campus Resources (11)
      • RTS Virtual Campus Videos (4 Videos)
        • Distance Education
        • Technology
        • Contemporary Churches
        • New Students in Seminary
      • RTS Virtual Campus Resources (7 Booklets)
  • Westminister Confession for Today Conferences
    • 2007 Westminister Confession for Today (12)
    • Plenary Sessions (4 Tracks)
    • Seminar Sessions (8 Tracks)
    • 2006 Westminister Confession for Today (12)
    • Plenary Sessions (4 Tracks)
    • Seminar Sessions 8 Tracks)

Read Full Post »

We are not here to endorse any candidate.

But this ad from a current candidate is good.

Read Full Post »

Merry Christmas to our Readers

May this season bring great joy for you in knowing the Lord Jesus Christ, especially His work on the cross.

John Piper on A Kind of Christmas Tale.

Don’t forget about The Nativity Story.

A free Christmas song from Sovereign Grace. (enter CHRISTTHELORD as the promo code)

Read Full Post »

The Story Of The Birth Of Jesus


Read Full Post »

I don’t really know how many people are debating on apologetics on YouTube since I’m not a regular follower of that community, though I do know one of the incoming links comes from YouTube from a Christian called AntiPelagian who has a collection of videos on apologetic related issues as well as politics. I only watched his video responses but he was using a lot of terminology and ideas that should immediately be familar to the presuppositionalist.

I only write this because several months ago I wrote about the possibility of using YouTube for outreach opportunities and it’s encouraging to know that some people are doing so. I hope there will be more Christians making impacts in whatever sphere God has placed them in.

AntiPelagian also writes a blog on Xanga.

Read Full Post »

Today I happened to be flipping through TV channels and came across Hannity & Coles, on Fox News, in which the host was interviewing a scientist who was fired after disclosing in conversation that he didn’t believe in evolution, specifically the common ancestor theory. The host, pointed out that the job description explicitly states that they need an evolutionary mindset. The former employee responded by pointing out that the job description the host was reading was reposted after they fired him.

What I found so hilarious was the host concluded by saying that’s all we have time for, and said next, they were going to talk about a country star and his new CDs. Though I’m not surprised at all by the news media’s tendency to switch to different topics in order to cover everything who are the ones that select which stories to talk about? Why do they even bother bringing people to be interviewed when they don’t spend enough time for the person to speak out anyways? Instead of talking more about the case, and getting the facts straight, the host decides a country star and his CDs are more important?

I personally think that if TV news were ever to become extinct it would be from lack of interest in their shows. Gone is the time of national and global news report. Instead it is replaced with what appears to be such, but inserted with interviews of country star singers, a recently passed away Broadway writer, coverage of Britney Spears child custody, discussion about Paris Hilton’s stay in jail, or Lindsey Lohan’s latest car accident. Instead of increased coverage time on other parts of the world it seems that American media finds interviewing reporters in the midst of a hurricane, coughing on forest fire smoke, interviewing people rescued from the forest, or interviewing Anna Nicole’s friends and doctor will keep the American public from changing channels.

Why interview an USDA representative on updates on bad Spinach when you know there’s nothing new they can talk about? Why pose questions to the local police or sheriff’s investigation you know they can’t answer? Why throw reporters into a hurricane who can only tell you that it’s really windy and call that reporting? Why ask mine representatives if they think anyone survived, when the situation hasn’t changed- that is they can’t say yet! Instead of spending coverage time with idle conversation about what you think, and what some special consultant thinks why not just do your job and report on what you do know, or if you already did that report on something else? Why loopback video feeds of fires and a mall during a mall shooting and have a reporter do side commentary that only he cares about? Or ask pointless questions that the sheriff can’t answer?

Am I ranting? I think so. Frankly, I think the people who pick the stories for American media have a poor taste in stories, and to put it bluntly are idiots.

Thus, enters in the new age of internet news. Instead of listening to stories by people hoping to keep you on their television channel, website, or radio station internet, we now have bloggers and enterprising video productions producing something that rather than trying to catch everyone, focus on the stories and specific interests instead. If you are interested being green, stay a few seconds watching ZapRoot. Interested on stories on Iraq mainstream news took weeks before covering visit Amy Proctor’s blog. Interested on the other side of a story that news covers, drop by Michelle Malkin. Gone is the day in age of having to listen to what the news media hopes the majority of people will be interested in.

The story I mentioned above is worth discussing, but at this point in time, I just feel like poking the eye of today’s TV news media. I hope they go extinct. Personally, I think that as the internet becomes more and more pervasive in society, being accessible everywhere on everything, the static news programs from radio and television will be replaced by more dynamic news sources picked out by the individual. I think mass media’s attempt to reach the masses will always fail because the mass don’t all have the same interests. Maybe some enterprising president of one of the giant news conglomerates will see that and survive the extinction of today’s news dinosaurs.

Read Full Post »

Dead Links On Your Blog?

If you provide a lot of resources such as mp3s like our blog, then finding dead links might be a pain.

Fortunately, I found websites that will help assist with finding broken URLs!

LinkScan/QuickCheck – Displays not only the bad link but includes the HTML so that you can locate the bad link on your webpage quickly! It’s offered online, so you don’t have to download a program to your computer. This website only will scan one webpage at a time (though for my purposes I preferred this instead of going through the entire website). The site will mark broken links with a red sad face. For a link that isn’t broken but doesn’t have the file in the URL it says ‘warning’ or ‘missing’ and marks it with a yellow exclamation mark. It marks possible errors (a timeout in my case), with an orange smiley face.

My experience thus far, does show that the results aren’t 100% accurate, as one or two broken links worked when I manually tested them.

If you’re looking something that’ll search all your links (which may take a long time) try:

Dead-links.com – Which will “crawl” through all the links on your page. However, unlike the top one, this tool only shows the bad link. Therefore finding the broken link in the actual post will be more time-consuming. The only solution I can think of right now is to go to the webpage you’re checking and download the html page (right click and click view page source), then search or find the reported bad link by copying and pasting the URL into the search field of your text editor.

Read Full Post »

I thought I’d keep a post of links on how to install WordPress for myself. Maybe you’ll find it useful.

Webhost Requirements

Before installing or even downloading WordPress , (or signing up for a web host provider if you haven’t already), please ensure your web host meets the following requirements:

  1. PHP version 4.2 or greater
  2. MySQL version 4.0 or greater

Is WordPress For Me?

Here are some reasons you might want to install WordPress:

  • You want to manage a dynamically created website- creating webpages that are created when the webpage is accessed rather than created only when you make a new webpage and upload it.
  • You want a blog that can be customized to your liking without creating one from scratch (and have a knowledge of php and cascading style sheets). If you don’t know php or css, try using WordPress.com.
  • You want a content management system (CMS). However, keep in mind WordPress is primarily meant for blog users. Here’s a website that gives instructions on how to make WordPress a full-fledged CMS rather than just a blog.

Here are more specific WordPress features, such as dynamic webpages, user management systems, comments management and spam protection.

If WordPress is what you’re looking for, go ahead and begin downloading it.

Installing WordPress

Read Full Post »



This is a brave account of a Muslim who is concern with this group in various campuses

I have met this guy before in the past, and I was suprised to find this from him

Read Full Post »

Christmas Shopping and Debts

Is that time of year again where you spent a lot of money. But for some they spend throughout the year. Hope this would bring some laughter (as well as conviction) as you do your shopping.

Read Full Post »

Sensus Divinantis by John Calvin,

To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops. Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor him and to consecrate their lives to his will.

Men of sound judgment will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced is engraven upon men’s minds. Indeed, the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow … For the world…, tries as far as it is able to cast away all knowledge of God, and by every means to corrupt the worship of him. I only say that though the stupid hardness in their minds, which the impious eagerly conjure up to reject God, wastes away, yet the sense of divinity, which they greatly wished to have extinguished, thrives and presently burgeons. From this we conclude that it is not a doctrine that must first be learned in school, but one of which each of us is master from his mother’s womb and which nature itself permits none to forget, although many strive with every nerve to this end.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:3.1

Read Full Post »

What is the foundation for truth?

Most (ok, I will be generous—instead of “all”) atheists believe that atheism is true and theism is false/wrong/duplicitous. However, to state that atheism is true implies that there is such a thing as objective truth. The atheist does not believe that atheism is only true for them but it should be to everyone as well. But if atheism is true, there must be a foundation for objective truth.

So what is the foundation for truth?

Most (ok, I will generous again—instead of “all”) atheists pride themselves on being rational. But, why be rational if the universe is the result of random chance or irrational chance? There is no reason to be rational or coherent in a random universe. Therefore, the very thing in which atheists most pride themselves has not foundation. This is another question, let us stay with “What is the foundation for truth?

Read Full Post »

Calling all atheists for the Atheist Challenge Part 2 (Part 1), the late Greg Bahnsen would like to make a challenge to you. Using the Great Debate with Gordon Stein, we summoned his arguments with the atheist. Emphasis mine.


The Transcendental Proof of God’s Existence

When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for the very debate in this blog!

We are debating the existence of God. I specified I would be speaking in order to avoid logical contradictions on one particular view of God, the Christian view of God, which I personally hold. The atheist often times will not restrict himself to the Christian conception of God. That’s fine, he may not. But all the time he uses anything outside the Christian conception of God will be irrelevant. In fact I would join him in refuting those other conceptions of God. The existence of God that I’m arguing is the Christian one.

The atheist may hold to logical binds and logical self-contradictions. The atheist may say that the laws of logic are universal; however, they are conventional in nature. That is not at all acceptable philosophically. If the laws of logic are conventional in nature, then you might have different societies that use different laws of logic.

It might be appropriate in some societies to say, “Well, my car is in the parking lot, and it’s not the case that my car is in the parking lot.” There are laws in certain societies that have a convention that says, “go ahead and contradict yourself”. But then there are in a sense, some groups in our own society that might think that way. Thieves have a tendency to say, “this is not my wallet, but it is not the case that it’s not my wallet.” They may engage in contradictions like that, but I don’t think any of us would want to accept this.

The laws of logic are not conventional or sociological. I would say the laws of logic have a transcendental necessity about them. They are universal; they are invariant, and they are not material in nature. And if they are not that, then I’d like to know, in an atheist universe, how it is possible to have laws in the first place. And secondly, how it is possible to justify those laws?

The laws of logic, you see, are abstract. As abstract entities, which is the appropriate philosophical term, not spiritual – entities that most atheist speaks of – abstract entities – that is to say, not individual (or universal in character). They are not materialistic. As universal, they are not experienced to be true. There may be experiences where the laws of logic are used, but no one has universal experience. No one has tried every possible instance of the laws of logic.

As invariant, they don’t fit into what most materialists would tell us about the constantly changing nature of the world. And so, you see, we have a real problem on our hands. The atheist wants to use the laws of logic in the discussion. I maintain that by so doing he’s borrowing my world view. For you see, in the theistic world view the laws of logic makes sense, because in the theistic world view there can be abstract, universal, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. Within the theistic world view you cannot contradict yourself, because to do so you’re engaging in the nature of lying, and that’s contrary to the character of God as we perceive it.

The transcendental argument for the existence of God, is that without the existence of God it is impossible to prove anything. And that’s because in the atheistic world you cannot justify, you cannot account for, laws in general: the laws of thought in particular, laws of nature, cannot account for human life, from the fact that it’s more than electrochemical complexes in depth, and the fact that it’s more than an accident. That is to say, in the atheist conception of the world, there’s really no reason to debate; because in the end, as the atheist could only say, all these laws are conventional. All these laws are not really law-like in their nature, they’re just, well, if you’re an atheist and materialist, you’d have to say they’re just something that happens inside the brain.

But you see, what happens inside your brain is not what happens inside my brain. Therefore, what happens inside your brain is not a law. It doesn’t necessarily correspond to what happens in mine. In fact, it can’t be identical with what is inside my mind or brain, because we don’t have the same brain.

As the laws of logic come down to being materialistic entities, then they no longer have their law-like character. If they are only social conventions, then, of course, what we might do to limit debate is just define a new set of laws. and ask for all who want the convention that says, “Atheism must be true or theism must be true, and we have the following laws that we conventionally adopt to prove it,” and see who’d be satisfied.

But no one can be satisfied without a rational procedure to follow. The laws of logic cannot be avoided, the laws of logic cannot be accounted for in a Materialist universe. Therefore, the laws of logic are one of the many evidences that without God you can’t prove anything at all.

I’m maintaining that the proof of the Christian world view is that the denial of it leads to irrationality. That is, without the Christian God, you cannot prove anything.

An atheist universe cannot account for the laws of logic.

What are the laws of logic, Mr. Atheist, and how are they justified? We’ll still have to answer that question from a materialist standpoint. From a Christian standpoint, we have an answer – obviously they reflect the thinking of God. They are, if you will, a reflection of the way God thinks and expects us to think.

But if you don’t take that approach and want to justify the laws of logic in some a priori fashion, that is apart from experience, something that he suggests when he says these things are self-verified. Then we can ask why the laws of logic are universal, unchanging, and invariant truths – why they, in fact, apply repeatedly in the realm of contingent experience.

Once again we have to come back to this really unacceptable idea that they are conventional. If they are conventional, then of course, there ought to be just numerous approaches to scholarship everywhere, with approaches to history, to science, and so forth, because people just adopt different laws of logic. That just isn’t the way scholarship proceeds, and if anyone thinks that is adequate, they just need to go to the library and read a bit more.

Now if you want to justify logical truths along a posteriori lines, that is rather than arguing that they are self evident, but rather arguing that there is evidence for them that we can find in experience or by observation – that approach, by the way, was used by John Stuart Mill – people will say we gain confidence in the laws of logic through repeated experience, then that experience is generalized.

Of course, some of the suggested logical truths, it turns out, are so complex or so unusual that it is difficult to believe that anyone has perceived their instances in experience. But even if we restrict our attention to the other more simple laws of logic, it should be seen that if [their] truth, cannot be decided independently of experience, then they actually become contingent. That is, if people cannot justify the laws of logic independent of experience, then you can only say they apply, as far as I know, to any past experience that I’ve had.

They are contingent, they lose their necessity, universality, and invariance. Why should a law of logic, which is verified in one domain of experience, by the way, be taken as true for inexperienced domains as well? Why should we universalize or generalize about the laws of logic- especially in a materialistic universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?

Now, it turns out, if the a priori and the a posteriori lines of justification for logical truths are unconvincing – as I’m suggesting briefly they both are – perhaps we could say they are linguistic conventions about certain symbols. Certain philosophers have suggested that the laws of logic would not be taken as inexorably dictated, but rather we impose their necessity on our language. They become, therefore, somewhat like rules of grammar, and as John Dewey pointed out so persuasively earlier in the century, laws of grammar, you see, are just culturally relative. If the laws of logic are like grammar, then the laws of logic are culturally relative, too.

Why then, are not contradictory systems deemed equally rational? If the laws of logic can be made culturally relative, then we can win the debate by simply stipulating that a law of logic that says “anybody who argues in this way has gotten a tautology on his hands, and therefore it’s true.’

Why are arbitrary conventions like the logical truths so useful if they’re only conventional? Why are they so useful in dealing with problems in the world of experience?

We must ask whether the atheist has a rational basis for his claims. Atheists love to talk about laws of science and laws of logic. They speak as though there are certain moral absolutes from which Christians were just a few minutes ago being indicted because they didn’t live up to them. But who is the atheist to tell us about laws? In a materialist universe there are no laws, much less laws of morality that anybody has to live up to.

When we consider that the lectures and essays that are written by logicians and others are not likely filled with just uninterrupted series of tautologies, we can examine those propositions which logicians are most concerned to convey. For instance, logicians will say things like “a proposition has the opposite truth value from its negation.”

Now when we look at those kind of propositions, we have to ask the general question: what type of evidence do people have for that kind of teaching? Is it the same sort of evidence that is utilized by the biologist, by the mathematician, the lawyer, the mechanic, by your beautician? What is it that justifies a law of logic, or even beliefs that there is such a thing? What is a law of logic, after all?

But it isn’t absurd to ask the question that I’m asking about logic. You see, logicians are having a great deal of difficulty deciding on the nature of their claims. Anybody who reads in the philosophy of logic must be impressed with that today.

Some say the laws of logic are inferences comprised of judgments made up of concepts. Others say that they are arguments comprised of propositions made up of terms. Others say they are proofs comprised of sentences made up of names. Others have simply said they are electrochemical processes in the brain. In the end, what you think the laws of logic are will determine the nature of the evidence you will suggest for them.

Now in an atheist universe, what are the laws of logic? How can they be universal, abstract, invariant? And how does an atheist justify the use of them? Are they merely conventions imposed on our experience, or are they something that look like absolute truth?

The atheist wants me to use the laws of logic, in so doing, is borrowing the Christian world view. He’s using the Christian approach to the world, so that there can be such laws of logic, scientific inference, or what have you. But then he wants to deny the very foundation of it.

It is important to note that the argument doesn’t say that atheists don’t prove things, or that they don’t use logic, science or laws of morality. In fact they do. The argument is that their world view cannot account for what they are doing. Their world view is not consistent with what they are doing; in their world view there are no laws; there are no abstract entities, universals, or prescriptions.

There’s just a material universe, naturalistically explained (as) the way things are happen to be. That’s not law-like or universal; and therefore, their world view doesn’t account for logic, science or morality.

But, atheists, of course, use science and morality. In this argument atheists give continual evidence to the fact that in their heart of hearts they are not atheists. In their heart of hearts they know the God I’m talking about. This God made them, reveals Himself continually to them through the natural order, through their conscience, and through their very use of reason.

They know this God, and they suppress the truth about him. One of the ways that we know that they suppress the truth about him is because they do continue to use the laws of logic, science and morality though their world view doesn’t account for them.

Therefore, from a transcendental standpoint the atheistic view cannot account for this discussion; because this discussion has assumed that we’re going to use the laws of logic as standards of reasoning, or else we’re irrational; that we’re going to use laws of science; that we’re going to be intelligent men; that we’re going to assume induction and causation and all those things that scientists do. It’s assumed in a moral sense that we’re not going to be dishonest and try to lie or just try to deceive you.

I don’t want a lot of details, just begin to scratch the surface, – how, in a material, naturalistic outlook on life and man his place in the world, can you account for the laws of logic, science, and morality?

The atheist world view cannot do it, and therefore I feel justified concluding as I did in my opening presentation this evening by saying that the proof of the Christian God is the impossibility of the contrary. Without the Christian world view this discussion wouldn’t make sense.

The Bible tells us, “the fool has said in his heart: there is no God.” It’s trying to describe somebody who is dense in the sense that they will not use their reason as God has given him. (someone who is rebellious and hard hearted) It’s the fool who says in his heart there is no God.

Paul tells us in I Corinthians the first chapter, that God has made foolish the wisdom of this world. He calls rhetorically, “Where are the wise? Where is the debater of this age?

Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” In a sense I think what Paul is telling us, if I can amplify or read between the lines, is that the whole history of Philosophy is an argument for the existence of God. The whole history of Philosophy is an argument for the existence of God because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Someone who wants to say [something that is] contrary to what the Bible says about God, let him stand up and answer these questions. Let him show that in his heart he may say there is no God, but he can’t live that way. He can’t reason that way.

In Romans the first chapter Paul says God is making himself known continually and persuasively to all men, so that men do not have an excuse for their rejection of the existence of the Christian God. That isn’t to say that all men confess this God. Not all will own up to Him as their heavenly Father. Not all will submit to Him. Some continue to rebel. Some continue to devise their fools’ errands and rationalizations of why they don’t have to believe in Him.

What I want you to do right now is to think and consider whether there isn’t something to that: Why is it that some people continue to use laws of logic, morality, science, and yet they have a world view that just clashes with that; and [yet] they just won’t do anything to resolve that contradiction.

We haven’t touched all the issues that you may want to look into.

However, in broad strokes we have touched on a very important issue. If you’re going to be a rational man, a moral man, a man of science, can you do so in an atheist universe. Dr Bahnsen said you can’t and I agree with him.

Read Full Post »

Gary DeMar has an interesting piece at American Vision’s Website that puts pollution that result from Transportation in perspective


Something to chew on and think about

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »