TANNER THETFORD . COM
  • Home
  • Sermons
  • Bible Studies
  • Blog
  • Contact

Homosexuality: Understanding Leviticus in its Context

8/22/2014

0 Comments

 
There are several texts in the Bible that speak out against homosexuality. It is a sad day that we live in when these texts are dismissed as irrelevant or not socially forward enough to be useful any longer. Additionally, many professing believers who have capitulated to the modern position on this subject have sought ways to reinterpret and rethink how we should go about viewing these texts. It is my assertion that these teachers have ulterior motives for their interpretation and do not handle the Word of God correctly. In light of that, I would like to spend several posts exegetically dealing with each relevant text so that we get a better understanding of how the texts should be understood.

A couple of caveats again, as I state always before we deal with this subject. The church has traditionally been woefully inadequate in their treatment of this topic in terms of providing meaningful help and guidance. It is my belief that many Christians who want to honor God with their lives have previously been made to feel weird or awkward about dealing with this issue and as such have received little to no help. We are quite late as the body of Christ addressing this topic as it should be addressed, with love and compassion. Secondly, if I interpret the Bible correctly, homosexuality is a sin; but not any more or any worse of a sin than many others. Heterosexual adultery and fornication are just as much major issues, and yet some have gone out of their ways to rail against homosexuality to the exclusion of all other sins. Again, this is irresponsible and as well as inconsistent with the biblical data. Additionally, it does damage to the lives of others. Thirdly, I don't particularly enjoy addressing this topic. I wish we didn't have to fight about these issues or spend so much time discussing them. I would prefer to speak of other things, "about our common salvation," however this is certainly the defining issue of our age, and we would be lax in our duties if we did not deal with it fairly and appropriately. Finally, as I hope to keep driving at with these posts, where you land on this topic is ultimately going to be determined by how highly you value Scripture, and if you are determined to interpret it correctly, as God has given it.

Scripture has been used in illegitimate ways all throughout history, and our day is no different. If you approach the Bible with a preconceived notion or idea about what it says or ought to say, you can mostly find support for your position. Additionally, if you deal with texts in isolation from one another and seek to reinterpret them according to your perspective, you can mostly make the text say whatever you want it to. The Scriptures ought to be taken as a collective whole and additionally ought to be taken on their own terms. One who genuinely comes to the Scriptures with a submissive heart that desires to know what God has to say on any given topic and conform their lives to that truth will find the Bible to be a treasure trove of divine wisdom. However, those who seek simply to reaffirm their preconceived stance will shape the Bible as a wax nose to support whatever position they see fit.

In light of these facts, faithful Bible interpretation is roughly a two step process. First, we attempt to discover what the author intended to communicate to his audience in their original context. Secondly, we seek to pull the principle out of that teaching and apply it in whatever way is most faithful to out current situation. This fact is important. It is the principle that we are after for our own lives. However, we can only get at that principle by going through the texts themselves. Sometimes the principle that is applied to our current situation is very near to the original audience's principle. Sometimes however, that principle is vastly different. It all depends upon the purpose and original context and its relationship to our context today. Please realize that this hermeneutic principle approaches the text on its own terms. It allows the text to say whatever it wants to say first, and then seeks to understand how that may apply to our lives. This is not some idea that we have cooked up in order to try and get around or pick and choose our way through Scripture. This is how any and every book should be read. We should always strive to discover the author's original intent and meaning.

Given all of this background, I want to deal with two of the most clear biblical texts on the topic of homosexuality, Lev 18:22 and 20:13:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
These texts seems pretty straightforward at first blush, and they really are when we boil it down. However, we want to make sure we deal with them faithfully so I want to take the time to address them. Because the texts are so clear, do we ever see people objecting to these text directly? No. People typically deal with many of the New Testament texts in a direct manner. They claim that we aren't sure what a certain word means, or that it isn't clear that the homosexuality in the New Testament context is at all similar to the homosexuality in our day. We will deal with these issues in time. However, these texts in Leviticus are so clear that they hardly ever receive attacks like that. Instead the way that these texts are often attacked is by attacking the entire book of Leviticus. The response you will hear 9 times out of 10 is roughly as follows: "Oh yea, why are you wearing a shirt made out of two different fibers, or shaving your beard? You can't just pick and choose which Old Testament laws you want to keep, you have to be consistent!" You may have heard of a letter to Dr. Laura on this topic. It has been out for some time and it is very well written. I had to read it in one of my Core Humanities classes in college:
Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
I believe that an episode of the West Wing also used nearly this exact form of argumentation. What is the heart of this argument? Again, it's to attack the entire book of Leviticus. This argument is really just an attempt to capitalize on the fact that most Christians don't understand well enough how their Old Testament Bible and laws fit into the New Testament gospel perspective. I hope to address that very issue.

The book of Leviticus is full of laws. This section of Scripture is often called the "Holiness Code," as it deals primarily with how Israel is supposed to remain pure before a holy God. Remember that the proper way to interpret any biblical text is by pulling out the meaning that was intended to the original audience, seeing the principle at work underneath all of it, and then applying that principle to modern times. To understand how to do that correctly requires a broader understanding of the biblical themes of who God's people are and how they are to live before him.

This topic has many more intricacies and complexities than we have time to deal with here. However I will give some general principles to set you on the right path of understanding. We ought not to be afraid of the book of Leviticus. It has much that is relevant for us today. However, we need to know how to deal with it correctly. In general realize this: the New Testament Church is the spiritual manifestation of Old Testament Israel. This isn't replacement theology, this is theology consistent with Paul's argumentation in Romans that says Israel is not primarily physical, but faith based, and that Gentiles are now grafted into the tree of Israel. What this means is that laws that are to be kept in a physical manner in the Old Testament often have a spiritual application in the New Testament. Every law that required someone to be stoned in the Old Testament, generally would require excommunication from the church in the New Testament for example. This understanding presupposes that said behavior is sinful in both testaments. So Old Testament laws all still apply, just many of them apply in new ways.

How do we distinguish how each of the laws apply to us? This is the heart of the Christian's faithful study of the book of Leviticus. However, a simple distinction makes the entire task much easier. Generally there are three types of laws in Leviticus.

First, there are general moral laws that Israel is supposed to keep. These laws have the most direct application to God's people because these are the standards God generally requires his people to conduct themselves by. The principle behind moral laws is generally the law itself. Interestingly enough, there is some biblical evidence that God also requires Gentile nations to keep these as well, and punishes them when they do not. They have consciences that reveal these standards to them. The Ten Commandments are pretty typical examples of laws that fall into this category.

Additionally, there are civil laws. Remember that Israel was a nation of people and they had a governmental system that God established for them. These laws are to be kept by Israel in their time as part of their civil society. It is important to recognize that these laws are given in the context of how people in a theocratic society are to conduct themselves. They are primarily meant to communicate how judges should view case laws. Sometimes these laws make sense for us today, but more often than not they simply give good principles and insight into what is just and fair. Various laws regarding property and ox goring fall into this category. While the principle applies, often the exact law is irrelevant to us. We don't eat and socialize on our rooftops any longer, so we aren't required to place handrails on it to prevent someone from falling off. However we do have pools at our homes, and it would be quite negligent if a family did not install fencing to keep young children from falling in. This is a perfectly consistent application of Deuteronomy 22:8, and it faithfully deals with the text's principle.

Finally, there are ceremonial laws. Many of these laws have to do with things that are made ceremonially clean or unclean based upon violating these laws. Quite a few if not all of these laws have been explicitly repealed, as Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the entire Old Testament ceremonial system. Laws in this category include just about everything relating to Levites, weird prohibitions involving blood, etc. It is not that the law is no longer helpful or applicable. It is simply that they were shadows of a greater fulfillment that was to come. That fulfillment has come in Jesus Christ. Every time we read one of these laws it points us to Jesus, and it was supposed to point the original audience to Jesus as well.

While these breakdowns are not explicitly spelled out in the Old Testament. They are honest attempts to deal faithfully with the biblical data. Further, it makes sense that all of these texts would still apply to us in some sense. It is all God's Word after all. This proper method of interpreting said laws allows us to be faithful to the biblical mandates while at the same time recognizing that we live in a different period of biblical redemption. Ceremonial laws no longer apply directly, but every time we read of a scapegoat, sacrifice, or atonement we think of Jesus, just as the law was originally intended. Civil laws no longer apply directly because we are not theocratic Israel, but the principles of equity and justice still apply and these requirements give us an idea of what that looks like. Moral laws still apply mostly directly because God's standards of living for his people are the same forever.

Please recognize that this method of interpretation is not some theological trickery to allow us to pick and choose what laws we would like to keep and which ones we wouldn't. Rather it seeks to interpret each law as it was originally intended and apply consistently those laws to a New Testament framework. This is standard hermeneutics, and if churches would start teaching people how to read their Bibles again then maybe we wouldn't have so many Christians shocked when they hear about these things. Maybe we wouldn't have so many professing believers abandon the faith when they get pressed because nobody ever taught them how to consistently understand all of God's Word.

Which category then does Lev 18:22 and 20:13 fall under? It is quite clearly a moral law. It certainly isn't simply ceremonial, it applies to more than just the priesthood, and is broader for the nation of Israel than just when they are presenting sacrifices. Additionally, it is a capital offense, which is typically more consistent with moral offenses (they also mirror behavior that is unacceptable for NT believers as well under the judgment of NT church discipline up to and including excommunication). The law is likely not civil either. The primary argument for this lies in the fact that gentile Sodom and Gomorra was destroyed for this crime, a group of people clearly outside of the civil realm and authority of theocratic Israel (a community that didn't even exist yet). As such this is a moral command that is still binding upon God's people (and unbelievers as well) today. God clearly identifies homosexuality as a sin with the punishment that those who unrepentantly pursue such behavior will be cut off from their people.

Let us not fall victim to the tactics of the secular humanists. An honest and straightforward reading and understanding of the text reveals that God's moral command against homosexuality is binding for all people everywhere. Where does our ultimate authority lie? Will it be with God and his Word? Or will it be with secular man and what he deems is appropriate behavior? Ultimately, your stance will either be with God and his Word or with man and his opinions, regardless if you try to apply a religious veneer to it after the fact. I hope and pray that we will not feel that we must succumb to the pressure of the unbelieving majority. May God's people stand firmly upon his truth even though the whole world may assail them.

-tanner
0 Comments

Evangelism and Apologetics: The Goal of Apologetics

8/19/2014

0 Comments

 
Sometimes when we study apologetics often, we feel the need to flex our intellectual muscles and go “looking for a fight.” We want an opportunity to test our new found knowledge and see if it can really stand up under the pressure. However, this type of attitude misunderstands the nature of what apologetics is and seeks to accomplish. Apologetics is never an end it is simply a means to a much greater and more important end.

The foundational verse for the support of engaging in biblical apologetics is found in 1 Peter3:15:
but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect
Now this text is important for many aspects of sharing our faith, however I simply want to focus on one thing today. Notice that Peter’s charge is for those who would respond to a question asked of them. Peter says we are to be ready to make a defense, but that very statement assumes that somebody is challenging us or asking us a question. This thought is emphasized with the fact that he adds "anyone who asks" to his charge. The point for us is this: you typically do not lead with apologetics, it is always something that you are ready to do if needed, but it isn’t something that you start with.

What then is our starting point? Our starting point is evangelism. Evangelism is the end that apologetics seeks to serve. Our task is not to assume things about our hearers and answer what we feel are common or typical objections. While that knowledge can help us to prepare a response, our primary task or end is a positive presentation of the gospel message.

It can be helpful to begin your evangelism by recognizing specific areas of the Christian worldview that your audience rejects. Paul exhibited this exact strategy in Acts 17.
So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“ ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
Note that Paul is primarily wrapped up in positively proclaiming the gospel. He doesn’t spend extensive time philosophizing and providing his opponents with proofs. He proclaims the God that they did not know. Paul’s evangel is tailored to the group he is dealing with to be sure, but he is not engaged in responding at this point. Paul does not spend time trying to prove the existence of his God to these Athenians, nor does he attempt to argue with them about their polytheism. Paul’s message is the message of repentance and faith toward the one true God of the universe, a positive proclamation of the truth. Rest assured, if somebody objected to Paul or questioned him, he would gladly reason with them, but he doesn’t start there.

Apologetics is a fantastic field of study. It has many riches for us as believers in addition to providing a reasoned defense of the faith to deal with unbelievers. However, we must always remember that apologetics is merely the servant of evangelism. Our passionate defense of the faith should always begin with a positive and bold proclamation of that faith as THE truth.

This recognition also furnishes us with insight as to the goal of apologetics. The goal is not to win an argument. Rather, the goal is the conversion of the hearers. We should be employing every means and attitude we can to the end that those who have ears to hear might be found out. Now, there is value in the vindication of God’s word over against its detractors to be sure. We should not distort our evangel or apologetic because we think it will be more palatable. However that does not change the fact that our aim is to save souls, and that work is done by the Spirit of God. May we study and employ apologetics prayerfully, that God would see fit to use it to the saving of many souls.

-tanner
0 Comments

Self-Esteem: An Admirable End, but the Wrong Means

8/15/2014

0 Comments

 
We are more affected by our society and culture than we know. In many ways, we have been bombarded with false ideas and incorrect assumptions that color how we view the world around us. When those assumptions and ideas are not checked against the Word of God, they can be adopted into our worldview web even though they run counter to scriptural affirmation. One such false idea is that of self-esteem.

A quick google search of the term self-esteem yielded no less than 4-5 websites dedicated to recognizing the importance
of self-esteem, on the first page. They tell you what self-esteem is, what it means for you, and how to improve it. They have tests and quizzes you can take so that you can identify if you need help. In short, this topic is very important to a lot of people, and they feel it needs to be addressed.

A word about how NOT to address this topic. I am going to say little in this post that is original (that could really be said for all of my posts). I'm sure you have heard people discuss the topic of self-esteem before. Likely you have even heard those that explained the fact that they were against self-esteem as well. Perhaps you even know people that rant and rave against this idea. I would like to suggest that those who do so are going about addressing this topic the wrong way. All ranting and raving gets you is a bunch of people in your corner who already believed the same way you do, and everyone who doesn't agree with you writes you off and they won't hear another word you say. I am likely going to arrive at the same conclusion as these people, but I hope to use means that will resonate with people, even those that may disagree.

Self-esteem is essentially tied to how we perceive ourselves. As such, it is linked fundamentally with the idea of identity. Who are you?

The goal of self-esteem is admirable, let me describe what I believe is happening from a spiritual perspective. Self-esteem comes primarily from the movement and perspective of secular humanists. Their answer to the fundamental question of identity is grim indeed. Secular science asserts that there is no creator and we arrived here through entirely natural causes over long periods of time. Consequently, everything you are can be reduced to physical processes acting on physical matter. Immaterial things such as souls, beauty, and love do not exist, or can be explained by entirely naturalistic phenomena. Now all of these concepts and ideas may not be fully formulated or discussed by the secularist. They may not even affirm all of these either. However, this is the consistent worldview web that is produced from their affirmed ultimate authority, and anywhere they do not affirm these things they are (praise God) being inconsistent.

So what is your identity if these beliefs are affirmed? Your identity is essentially worthless. Not only are you a mere animal, the fact that you are derived
from non-living matter at your core makes you less than an animal. Human beings have no value or transcendent meaning, and survival of the fittest reigns supreme. What is the difference between a ball bouncing off of a wall and a bullet colliding with somebody's brain? Nothing. They are simply atoms banging into each other. The bullet does not take a life, because life itself is simply natural processes in the body and brain, the fact that they are ended is irrelevant.

The movement of self-esteem is a radical reaction against the conclusions outlined in the paragraph above. Because we are made in the image of God, all human beings react violently against the idea that we are simply natural processes. We KNOW we are more than that and as
such refuse to accept the conclusions of the naturalistic worldview. However, secular humanism refuses to abandon the presuppositions that lead to the conclusions they hate. Instead, they seek to (inconsistently) establish a different foundation for humanity's worth. Unfortunately since they have already abandoned God, everything they propose is ultimately insufficient.

Self-esteem manifests itself in and abundance of ways. Positive thinking and appealing to the universe abound. Motivational speakers and media seek to appeal to your inner nature, but lack the truth content for a sustainable perspective. The emotion and feelings wane and there is no truth to keep you driven. Ultimately self-esteem is vapid and empty. This is because it advocates a pull yourself up by your own bootstraps type of mentality. If YOU think positively, if YOU say to yourself, if YOU take charge. This boils down to the basic works-righteousness mentality that nearly all false religions fall into, and it is profoundly unbiblical.

What is the alternative? The alternative drives at the root of what self-esteem is and is trying to cure.
As I asked earlier, who are you?

You are a human being created in the image of God. The image of God in every single human being is what gives us our value and worth. Ironically, promoting your true identity is then done in the very opposite manner than the world pursues it.

Rather than trying to build and lift you up with positive words and affirmations, the Bible does everything in its power to tear you down. This is because your value and worth has nothing to do with you and everything to do with who made you.

Read the first 3 chapters of Romans sometime and tell me that your worth is found in yourself. It's not there, it's not anywhere in the Bible. Using various means and methods in our life, God often brings us to rock bottom. Why would a loving God do that?

The more you are trusting in yourself and your own strength and your own worth to give yourself meaning, the further you are from your true identity. God brings us down so that he can build us up on a proper foundation. From the depths of the pit look at yourself and your life and see how much you are worth. All you bring is your sin. Nothing but iniquity and transgression. Any yet. AND YET. Look now to that cross.

God sends his only Son, the one in eternal fellowship and communion with himself, the one who created all things, the one who is eternal God and sustains all things by the power of his word, to die for . . . you. Why? You certainly weren't worth it. It isn't because of you, it's because of HIM. God values you because God values you; and if God values you, then nothing else really matters. It's the very fact that I am so LOW that I am so HIGH. The fact that I am a wretch and "worm and not a man" when I stand before my God is the very reason that I am an heir to the throne and a brother of the King. The way up is down.

He must increase, but I must decrease. - John 3:30

-tanner
0 Comments

Evangelism and Apologetics: Two Sins of Thought

8/9/2014

0 Comments

 
Let's continue our analysis of thinking well by identifying two sins of thought. These two sins are things that we must look out for in our own worldviews and thinking in addition to the worldviews of our opponents: arbitrariness and inconsistency.

Arbitrariness and inconsistency are two signs of a failed worldview. There are others to consider, but these two are major ones to look out for. Ultimately, we want to seek to avoid both of these as we formulate our worldviews and arguments for our perspectives. Additionally, it will help if when we are doing apologetics, we also hold our opponents to these standards. Ironically, there is no reason why these standards should be followed from within a non-Christian worldview, but as all people are created in the image of God unbelievers often seek to follow these standards as well. The Christian worldview requires us to hold to these standards as human beings are created in the image of God, and these principles reflect God's character.

Arbitrariness comes from the adjective: arbitrary. It is defined as follows:
arbitrary /ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/

  ■ adjective
    1      based on random choice or personal whim.
Let me use an illustration I heard from Dr. Bahnsen to explain. Imagine I give you a $100 bill. You look at it for a moment, then tear it into tiny pieces and throw it away. I am shocked; "Why would you do that!?" I exclaim. "Oh, no reason" you reply, and walk away.

Now, I can think of a number of reasons why somebody might do this. Perhaps you don't like me very much and tearing the money up was a way to spite me. Or maybe you are trained at spotting fake money and knew instantly that it was counterfeit. Maybe the reason is even something absurd - you think all $100 bills are poisonous if they are kept on a person for more than 5 seconds. ALL of these reasons are better than tearing the $100 bill up arbitrarily.

If you indeed had no reason whatsoever for tearing the money up and your decision was completely arbitrary, it is worse than if you believed it was poisonous. You see, arbitrariness means making a decision completely randomly and without reason. It is worse than even absurd or failing reasons, because it has no justification whatsoever. Nothing we do in life is arbitrary. Even attempting to do something spontaneously arises out of an inner desire to escape, be free, or be "fun." As such, to believe something arbitrarily runs completely counter to how God created logical and rational creatures in his image. It is like having your web of beliefs in one area and an isolated belief in another that is not derived at all from your web. It is a subversive attempt in thought to return to the false "marbles in a jar" perspective on worldviews.

Christians often believe things arbitrarily. This is unfortunate as it is a major intellectual sin. Sometimes they believe things arbitrarily that are true and sometimes things that are false. This is often due to emotional reasons or considerations. For each of those true beliefs we have that we believe arbitrarily, we should seek to ground those beliefs in the ultimate authority of our worldview, the Bible, thus no longer making them arbitrary. For each of those false beliefs that we hold to arbitrarily, we should reject them and order our lives in such a way as to match true and justifiable beliefs. To find out which beliefs are true and which beliefs are false, we also must consult our bibles.

Now, don't misunderstand me here. I am not advocating rationalism nor dismissing the necessity of faith in the Christian worldview. I am advocating an examining of your individual beliefs to make sure that they fit within your worldview appropriately.

Non-Christians are often arbitrary in their beliefs as well. This is the case necessarily as only the Christian worldview can make sense of all of reality. However, unbelievers also believe both true and false things. The
true things are arbitrarily believed, as they do not ground their belief in the Bible, the false things are sometimes tied to their (also false) ultimate authority (thus those are not arbitrary), and are sometimes arbitrary as well.

Let's move on to deal with inconsistency:

inconsistent

  ■ adjective
    1      not staying the same throughout.
      ▶      acting at variance with one’s own principles or former behaviour.
    2      (inconsistent with) not compatible or in keeping with.
Inconsistency is believing two things that are contradictory to each other. Its moral form is often called hypocrisy, or acting in a way that is not consistent with one's stated beliefs. This sin of thought often rears its head in the moral areas of life. For example, I have recently witnessed those who are pro-choice on the issue of abortion lobbying hard for the recent event of children who have fled across the border from Mexico. They have firmly stated that we cannot send the children back because they will die. This demonstrates a fatal inconsistency over whether or not human life is valuable. In one area of their life they affirm with their actions that human life is not valuable, while in another area they affirm that it is valuable. Not speaking to the politics of the issues, one must decide if their ultimate authority affirms the value of human life or if it does not and thus confirm their stance accordingly.

Inconsistency is deadly because if two things that are contradictory can both be true at the same time, then truth and objectivity are demolished and we can believe anything that we want. The laws of logic are completely destroyed by
inconsistency, which ultimately destroys knowledge itself.

This sin is often visible in the lives of Christians when it pertains to things they are believing arbitrarily. This is because the Bible itself is perfectly consistent. If the believer is making sure that all of his beliefs are grounded in his absolute authority - the Bible - then he will not believe anything inconsistently.

In the lives of unbelievers, inconsistencies run rampant. This is because they have often not made any sort of concerted effort to maintain an absolute authority and to derive their beliefs from it. Typically, unbelievers choose to believe things just because it makes sense to them. For example, naturalistic materialism destroys any foundation for things that are metaphysical in their nature. However, naturalistic materialists will often affirm the existence of immaterial things such as laws of logic, morality, and love. This demonstrates fundamental inconsistency. However, this inconsistency is unavoidable to them because they are created in God's image.


In philosophy, arbitrariness and inconsistency are not allowed. If you can prove that somebody is believing in something arbitrarily or that they are being inconsistent among their own beliefs, then you win. It does not matter if they are convinced by your argument or not. If they are being arbitrary or inconsistent then they either have no reason to believe what they say they do, or they contradict themselves. Both run counter to and destroy the image of God in man, and nobody can live their lives either arbitrarily or inconsistently. Pray for them, that God would bring conviction over their intellectual sins.

Additionally, as Christians, we should also never believe anything arbitrarily or inconsistently. It would behoove each one of us to examine our belief system and see if we are guilty of either of these sins and repent and seek God's forgiveness on the topic.

-tanner
Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
0 Comments

Evangelism and Apologetics: A Primer on Worldviews

8/8/2014

0 Comments

 
Since we have already discussed the importance of thinking well, today I want to address the topic of worldviews. You see, everyone has a worldview, and worldviews have certain characteristics to look out for and to be aware of. If you are committed to thinking God's thoughts after Him, you must have a proper understanding of worldviews.

First, we must address what a worldview actually is. Greg Bahnsen defines it excellently in the book, Pushing the Antithesis:
A worldview is a network of presuppositions which are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted.1
In the book, the implications and importance of this definition are fully fleshed out. However, today I just want to bring a few of the points to your attention to hopefully get you thinking in a proper fashion.

First note that a worldview is a network of beliefs, EVERY worldview. The challenge is to have a network that is consistent within itself and makes sense across the board. If our beliefs do not properly relate to one another, we aren't avoiding the implications of our worldview, we are just being inconsistent. Bahnsen continues:
Unfortunately, many evangelical Christians generally think in a piecemeal fashion, focusing on stray individual doctrines and facts rather than a full-scale, coordinated system of beliefs. They tend to view the Christian faith as a random assortment of free-standing doctrines rather than as a coherent system of interlocking truth claims.2
Now this statement isn't simply true in the realm of apologetics. It is certainly relevant in that field, however it is important much more broadly than that as well. If we are to follow the idea that we are to think God's thoughts after him, we must recognize that the beliefs and doctrine that make up the Christian worldview are interconnected and reliant upon one another.

You see, many people believe that their worldview is like a jar full of marbles. In that jar are placed all of their individual beliefs about things, and they can scoop out beliefs that they don't like, examine them in isolation, and toss them out as they get more evidence.
Picture
This compartmentalization is radically unbiblical. God's Word makes it clear that our faith and our beliefs affect each other. Ultimately, those beliefs affect our actions as well. It is so sad when a Christian, unaware of what he is doing, swallows the secular idea of compartmentalization. It is this dogma that allows people to live hypocritically in opposition to their stated beliefs. Their views may contradict in so many areas, yet because they think in the "marbles in a jar" type fashion, they are content with this being the case. We must recognize that a "marbles in a jar" worldview construction is false and not the reality of things.

Instead of marbles in a jar, a worldview is truly a network of beliefs. It is much more helpful to think of a worldview as a spiderweb. At the center we have the ultimate authority of the particular worldview in question, and we have each of the beliefs branching off as natural consequences of the worldview's ultimate authority:
Picture
The great goal of this philosophy is really to make sure that all of the beliefs that we hold are consistent with the ultimate presupposition that we adopt. Note that this ultimate presupposition affects every area of your life. Whether the matter be a simple one of thought, an ethical matter, or an important doctrine that colors how you view everything in the world.

Again, it is quite unfortunate that many Christians hold to many beliefs that are not consistent with their ultimate authority or presupposition. Non-Christians do this constantly because they are created in God's image with a conscience and yet adopt an ultimate authority that is not His word. As such, they often support things that are proper and godly, yet those very things are not consistent with or even diametrically opposed to their stated ultimate authority. As we will discuss in apologetics posts in the future, one of our great goals is to show them their inconsistencies and push them to carry out the logical conclusions of their ultimate authority to the very end.

However, this should not be the case among Christians. Properly developed, ALL beliefs of every Christian should either be explicitly taught in the Bible (their ultimate authority) or derived from it of necessary consequence. Additionally I will add that in theory, Christians should never have disagreements. If all Christians were to think consistently and derive their beliefs on ALL subjects from their ultimate authority, then we would all agree. In practice, we would actually have some minor disagreements about the matters that are of "necessary consequence," but those disagreements would be FAR out on the edges of the web. In actual reality, we see Christians fundamentally differing on a WIDE variety of important issues. It is my assertion that these disagreements result from a failure to think in a proper fashion, ultimately compartmentalizing thoughts and developing differing perspectives on subjects that are actually antithetical from the stated ultimate authority. Bahnsen continues:
You must defend the Christian faith as a package deal. Every particular human experience, thought, or sensation must be seen and understood within the context of a broader system of interpretation of those things. Each part of a worldview must relate to every other part.3
While Bahnsen is focused upon the apologetic implications of this concept, I want to bring you to something more fundamental. Christianity is not simply adding another marble marked "Jesus" to your worldview jar. Christianity is a radical supplanting of your entire frame of thinking, replacing your ultimate authority and reexamining each of your individual beliefs to make sure that they are derived from that authority. If they are not, they must be rejected.

"So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple." Lk 14:33

-tanner

1 Gary DeMar, ed., Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 42.

2 Ibid, 43.
3 Ibid, 43.

0 Comments

Evangelism and Apologetics: Thinking God's Thoughts After Him

8/7/2014

0 Comments

 
One of the passions of my life is that Christians learn how to think well. Consider the following quote from Al Mohler:
The fact is that most human beings evidently do not like to think. At the very least, most seem quite satisfied never to think in a concerted, critical, or careful way. Such never think strategically, consistently, or critically. They go from thought to thought without reflection, analysis, or questioning their own decisions. They operate at the basic level of thinking, and they think about the things that interest them, but they are not seriously interested in the process and quality of thought.1

While this is very much true of the population at large, this ought not to be among Christians. Unfortunately, the facts are that most Christians look just like the world in this area of their lives. They form opinions and have perspectives that they shouldn't just because they have not learned to think well.

In some ways it is difficult to blame Christians for not thinking well. We have been so programmed by the world and so affected by our culture that we feel that our actions are ours to decide. "It's my life, I'll live it how I want" is a mantra that even some professing Christians adopt. Although this perspective is profoundly unbiblical, it has infiltrated even our churches.

Someone may say, even if we should not live certain ways, certainly our thoughts are ours to choose for ourselves. However, this is not how the Bible represents our thought life. Jesus said that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his heart, because that is what reveals his inner iniquity. The inner man is where true godliness is determined. Actions are simply the outworking of our thought processes. Thinking is in the moral realm. It is something that is inherently ethical. Paul speaks on this topic clearly:
Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. Eph 4:17–18

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. 
Ro 12:1–2
Therefore one of the great goals of our lives is to think in such a way that honors and glorifies God. As Christ is our elder brother and the perfect image of the living God, there is a very real sense in which we should ask What Would Jesus Think? Truly going a step further, many have said that the great goal in the thought life of the Christian is to "think God's thoughts after Him." This perspective is especially explicated in the writings of Cornelius Van Til:
If man is a creature of God he is an analogue of God. God is the original while man is the derivative. Man’s thoughts must therefore be patterned after God’s thoughts. Man must, as we often express it, think God’s thoughts after Him.2
How are we able to think God's thoughts after him? This seems to be quite a tall order. It is indeed, but it is a task that we must commit ourselves to. I'll leave you with some practical advice on how to think God's thoughts after him.
After all, the Word of God must radically affect our thinking so we literally think God’s thoughts. As we “think God’s thoughts” our judgments on matters become more “godly.” As our thoughts become more “godly,” we grasp the difference between good and evil, enabling us to make correct moral choices.3

To think God’s thoughts requires much prayer. If you do not pray much, you are not thinking God’s thoughts. If you do not read your Bible much and often and reverently, you are not thinking God’s thoughts. Those thoughts you are having—and your head buzzes with them all day long and into the night—are earthly thoughts—thoughts of a fallen race. They are the thoughts of a lost society. They should not be our thoughts.…
Your thoughts will one day come up before God’s judgment. We are responsible for our premeditative thoughts. They make our mind a temple where God can dwell with pleasure, or they make our mind a stable where Christ is angry, ties a rope and drives out the cattle. It is all up to us.
4
-tanner

1 Albert Mohler, The Conviction to Lead (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2012), 59.
2 Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).
3 Kenneth O. Gangel and Howard G. Hendricks, The Christian Educator’s Handbook on Teaching (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 65.
4 A. W. Tozer and Ron Eggert, The Tozer Topical Reader, vol. 2 (Camp Hill, PA: WingSpread, 1998), 236–237.
0 Comments

Evangelism and Apologetics: Apologetics as Offense

8/2/2014

0 Comments

 
Apologetics is one of my favorite fields of study. In fact, it is one of the fields that drew me deeper into my faith to begin with. I have never been satisfied with believing in something simply out of tradition or because it is convenient. I want to believe something because it is true. That conviction necessarily brings one to the field of apologetics.

Apologetics is an english word that is derived from the greek word apologia. The word is used several times in the New Testament, but the most classic is 1 Peter 3:15 where Peter says: "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you." The verb at it's root means to make or give a defense or reply.

Given the word's origin, it makes sense that much of the field of study has been devoted to the "defensive" side of things. It seems we are always busy coming up with complex arguments to answer the queries of the opposition. However, the field itself has moved beyond merely the basic dictionary definition of the term. The field of apologetics is a vast and varied discipline including both philosophy and science, faith and fact. As such, we must adapt our "defense" to deal with the arguments that are hurled our way in as effective and biblically faithful way as possible.

It is at this point I would like to submit the idea that our apologetics are often all too "defensive." Coming from a football background, it was said that sometimes "the best defense is a good offense." I would suggest that oftentimes we are so focused on answering objections that we fail to realize that we have a decisive opportunity to put our opponent on the defensive instead, and strike at the heart of their worldview.

Facts are that as we discuss our faith with somebody, they are positing as much of a positive outlook on life as we are. What I mean is that their particular belief system and structure also contains certain perspectives and outlooks that are affirmative in nature. Everybody has what I refer to as a worldview; some system of beliefs by which they look at and interpret the world. As such, even as they call us out on our particular belief system, we should be willing and able to call them to give an account for their worldview as well.

A particular worldview
that often puts us on the defensive is atheism. This is made worse by the fact that atheism is inherently a position of negation. In fact many atheists are very bold in their assertion that they are not making any positive claims whatsoever, but rather simply negating your positive claims as a theist. As an example, I pulled a couple of quotes from atheists off of an online message board. While these quotes are not necessarily meant to represent an overarching academic argument, they are indicative of how atheists in general view their position.

"
Atheism is not a position of truth, it is a lack of belief in gods."
"there's no such thing as 'the atheistic worldview'"

These assertions often make sense to us, and we are content to stay on the defensive and answer as many of their objections as we can handle. However, stating or affirming something does not necessarily make it true. The facts are that while atheism begins as a position of negation, its particular outlook and perspective on life results in positive affirmations. If there is no God, that has certain consequences for how the world functions, who we are, and whose "rules" we are playing by. We should not hesitate at that point to call atheists to give an account of their particular way of looking at the world. If God does not exist, then where does knowledge and morality come from? Are there such things as beauty and love? What is their absolute authority and can they give a cogent defense of it?

Such a challenge opens up opponents of the Christian faith to examine their own belief system for a change. This is healthy and may result in them having to seriously rethink their position on many issues, as nobody has ever really challenged them to think positively about what they believe before. This also results in a back and forth dialogue which is often an excellent way of setting forth the gospel.

Remember, just because you are defending the faith does not necessarily mean you always have to "play defense." Look for opportunities to challenge your opponent as well. It will result in a healthier dialogue and give you opportunity to present the gospel more clearly.

-tanner
0 Comments

    Archives

    September 2014
    August 2014

    Categories

    All
    Christian Living
    Church History
    Devotional Thoughts
    Evangelism And Apologetics
    Politics
    Recommended Resource
    Theology

    RSS Feed