Monday

A 14-year Old Question, Answered.

Background information:

When I was in middle school, I attended a private school that invited a Christian apologist to speak in chapel every year. Afterwards, the speaker (I cannot remember his name) would visit each class and answer questions for an hour or so. I remember being in 6th grade, and monopolizing the hour my class  was given, by asking one question. The answer this apologist gave me, he said (after an hour), reduced to: "Why did God decide to put 24 hours in a day." Hm, I do not specifically remember my question, but am pretty sure it was not that.

{I recalled this story to a classmate of mine, who remarked that I must be a philosopher at heart if I had these questions at such a young age. So many warm fuzzies swelled within this this "words of affirmation" sucker. My other love language is when people leave comments and/or follow my blog}

*****

In my Advanced Apologetics class, we are discussing (among other things) truth, the ontological argument, and the kalam cosmological argument. Chad Ellison presented a thoughtful and articulate paper on logic today, which spurred some helpful discussion. The discussion was paused for the scheduled topic of discussion, but we resumed the discussion after class for an hour or so. 

Interesting points were brought to mind while listening to Chad's paper. Four views on the ontological status of logic were presented, but I want to highlight two of them (copied from Chad's outline:

     1) Logic exists by the necessity of its own nature (that is, logic exists independently of God)

     2) Logic exists as part of God's nature. That is, it is grounded in the nature of God. God is logical by His own nature just as God is good by His own nature. 

*Point 2 alludes to this, but I will be referencing both logic and morals to express the same point. 

Something I have wrestled with, and may have alluded to in my previous posts, is how to reconcile logic/morals and the character of God. 1- Is God "under" the law of logic and the moral law? And 2- If He is not, does that mean that he arbitrarily decides what is logical and what is moral? I have been advised that this proposes a false dichotomy, and that rather theism asserts a 3rd option: morality and logic are found within the very character of God.

It was pointed out to me, that I am getting caught up on the concept of the "logical necessity of God." As an apologetics student I am expected to make an argument for the existence of God all the time, so this dilemma was bound to pop up at some point, thankfully sooner than later. 

God is shown as a logical necessity through the ontological argument. I have penned some thoughts on this recently, but hopefully I can expand on those. The Kalam cosmological argument, asserts: 

     1 - Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

     2 - The universe began to exist. 

     3 - Therefore the universe has a cause.

     4 - The best explanation for this cause is God.

A initial observation, is that without an uncaused cause, we end up with an infinite regress. Therefore, the cause must be eternal. William Lane Craig makes a helpful distinction here between potential infinites and actual infinites (See his essay "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources). Now don't get me wrong, I love math. I also have not studied math in eight years, nor did my studies ever go this deep. Let's just take the brilliant philosophers/logicians/mathematicians word for it: that it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. If things have existed in eternity past, it is impossible to ever arrive at the present.

First, before you label me a heretic, thinking that I am implying God is not eternal, let me bring up another concept: time. Though our perspective is from within time, let me commend the idea to you that God created time. Therefore, prior (if that word is even appropriate) to creation, God's existence was not chronological in the way we exist; this eliminates the problem of traversing an actual infinite. 

Second, and drawing off of the above comments, because God's existence is uncaused he is necessarily personal, for how could an impersonal being will to do anything, much less creation ex nihilo?  (This was a hugh breakthrough for me, I alluded to my struggle with believing God was personal in a previous post.

Let me make one crucial point here, and it is a point Chad commended to me in our post-lecture discussion: logical priority does not entail chronological priority. This is where it clicked for me with the concept of logic and morals: morals/logic and the character of God are mutually reinforcing, one does not have to come before the other. They simply (ha) simultaneously exist and affirm each other. 

Back to 6th grade Molly...

I was thinking about the answer I was given 14 years ago, and remembered my question was in regards to how/why God sat around for billions and billions of years and then decide to create the earth, and the visiting apologist tried to answer that it was not in fact billions and billions of years because time did not yet exist. He then must have assumed my question was why God created time and decided to put 24 hours in a day (or something like that, I don't know how he went there). I am encouraged though that 1 - God had been preparing me for this very season of life at such a young age and 2 - that we should never look down on those we consider young (1 Timothy 4:12), even the dorky ones who monopolize the conversations with guest speakers. 






Sunday

On Politics

     Sitting in Church today, I was extremely distracted by all the children. I had recently wrote a paper on reflecting theologically on worship services, so I sat and thought, "What is the church trying to say, by inviting children to join in the service at different times?" I realized that the local Church I attend places a very high value on children, knowing that they are the future Christian leaders in our world.

     My "ears perked up" as I recalled a distinction I had made on my last paper, regarding how different faiths spread, and that one major was is through procreation. However, Christianity also spreads "through prayer (Matt 6:5-13), teaching (Matt 28:18-20), preaching (Rom 10:14), service (1 Peter 4:11) and demonstration of love (John 13:35)."

     Today's sermon happened to be on politics, and the Christian's role. 


     1) Are we to be political or apolitical? 

     2) If we are to be political, how? 

     We examined Luke 23. In verse 3, Pilate asks Jesus if He is king of the Jews. It is important to notice, that if Jesus said no, he would be a liar, but if he said yes, he would be labelled as a threat to the empire. Jesus answers "you have said so," being "deliberately ambiguous" (to use my pastor's words). Commentators have advised that Jesus was claiming He was king, but not of an earthly kingdom.

     Later on we read that Barabbas, a convicted murderer, had been released. It is often overlooked, that because of Jesus, Barabbas was given his life back. Though Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), He also met many physical needs during his ministry on earth. We see examples of Jesus healing and feeding throughout the gospels. 

     Was Jesus himself political? 

     Jesus dealt with two types of "political" (if you will) groups. The Essenes and the Zealots. The Zealots were ready to take up arms and fight for their cause, whereas the Essenes tended to run for the hills. They had their "fire insurance," so why both engaging culture?

     Jesus taught a middle ground between both of these groups. We are to work for the well-being of others, but not at the expense of unnecessary division. We are not to be apolitical, Jesus was in fact a political figure. However, we are also not called to "outsource" our call to the government. We should be involved more so than just voting. After all, if Christianity is indeed spread by a demonstration of love and service, what better way to do that than by meeting physical needs, just as our Savior did? But we must not stop there. One relationships are formed, we must also exercise much prayer and teaching that our efforts might be productive in the cause of the Kingdom that is not of this world.


{Update}

The article I mention in my comment below.

Thursday

On Islam

Islam is one of the major six religions in the world, and has come to light even more after the September 11th attacks in 2001. Many questions arose regarding the nature of the faith, and many answers were given that seemed to assert that the violence that was committed in the name of Allah was not in fact intrinsic to faith. Rather, the religion was actually a religion of peace, and these terrorists were simply extremists after whom the religion as a whole should not be characterized.    
This essay will examine the nature of the Islamic faith, and will conclude whether the violence attributed to Islamic terrorists, is in fact intrinsic to the faith or not. It will also compare and contrast Islam to Christianity, by analyzing the different prophets and scrutinizing the faiths apologetically. The aim of this essay is to 1: show that these two religions do not simply worship the same god in different ways, and 2: answer that if only one can be true, which one is it?

Islam and Christianity
First and foremost, we must acknowledge our perspective from which we examine the Islamic faith. Though we can never fully “step outside” of our own perspective, we must do our very best to examine objectively.  As a convert from Islam to Christianity, Tony Weedor has advised that “you can never use your western worldview to interpret Islam; you will always get it wrong.
        The best example of this is in examining Allah, the god of Islam. We must not assume Allah is like the god of the Judeo-Christian faith. “The concept of God as ‘Allah’ is of a being thatis totally other, wholly transcendent to the point of implying that Allah is unknowable in himself but known in his will and requirements revealed in the Qur’an (Sura 42:11, 112:1-4). Islam is a monotheistic religion, like Christianity, however they deny the trinity, considering it polytheism, as well as denying the incarnation which is essential to the Christian faith (Col 2:9).
        Where did this faith come from? By asserting that it completes Christianity, Muslims maintain that their religion came from Abraham, through Ishmael, through the Arab people, and was revealed to Muhammed, the great prophet. This revelation came to Muhammed alone, in a cave, by the angel Gabriel. Before this, however, Muhammed had been told he was the prophet that was prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15. More on the life of Muhammed will be reserved for the section below.
        This is where the concept of abrogation begins to surface.Completion involves retaining the former, whereas abrogation involves the abolishment of the former. “Although the Qur’an considers the Old and New Testaments as God’s word (Sura 3:93; 4:163; 5:46 etc.), it considers its own authority as greater than theirs (Sura 5:48). Not only does Islam abrogate Christianity, it abrogates former teachings of Islam in favor of latter teachings. For example, Muhammad’s first revelation taught that repayment should be made only to those who mistreat you, while his second revelation now teaches to conquer your whole region.
As we do our best to put aside our western perspective, we must realize that the purpose of the Islamic faith is not merely religious. “True Islam functions within a community (the umma) that optimally carries its own political identity.” It is a “comprehensive reality – the state is to be as much Islamic as is the local mosque.” What proves crucial to the Islamic faith is its sheep’s clothing that it is simply a culture wanting freedom to practice their values. They are given their freedom under the first amendment. However, their exercise of this freedom is not found in simply worshipping their god, but rather in bringing in the Trojan horse of the very threat to the country which gives them this freedom in the first place.
Islam works with three stages: the weakened, the preparation, and the Jihad stage. They begin by submitting to the law of the land, all the while working to increase their numbers.Islam grows principally through enculturation, procreation, intimidation, immigration, and capitulation. Muslim men seek to intermarry with the women of the area, and then they begin brainwashing their own children at the age of three. Tony has insightfully pointed out, that as Islam builds its army, it is of no surprise that they do not speak out against gay marriage or abortion. Though these are prohibited for a Muslim, the cause of Islam is actually aided when the infidels practice such things.
        Next is the preparation state, where preparations are made financially, physically, mentally, and militarily. Here we see the concept of Taqiyya surface, which justifies and practices lying under war circumstances…lying and deceit are part of the Islamic mind-set.” This is also a crucial concept that must be understood in order to understand Islam.
        Once these two phases are complete, the Jihad stage beings. “At this stage every Muslim’s duty is to actively fight the enemy, overturning the system of the non-Muslim country and establishing Islamic authority.” This is exactly what we have seen with Islamic terrorist actions, but it would appear that these actions are not of the extremists, but rather what the faith calls for in order to fulfill its ultimate purpose.
Christianity also stems from Abraham, but rather can be traced through Isaac, the Jewish people, and Jesus (who was not simply a prophet). The God of Christianity is also singular, however he is Trinitarian by nature and came to the earth (1 John 2:22-23). “That’s the difference, brothers and sisters, God came down. God is transcendent, but he is also immanent and personal. He is knowable and is unchanging, unlike Allah.
The Christian faith is not lacking in anything and therefore not able to be completed by anything else. In response to the claim the Islam does simply what the New Testament of the Bible does to the Old Testament, David Nobel explains that “Islam is not to Christianity as Christianity is to the Old Testament [because] the New Testament appeals to, depends upon, and develops from the Old Testament.”
        Salvation is through faith, and with it comes assurance (Eph 2:8, Titus 3:5-6, John 10:28). This is opposed to Islamic salvation which is attained through works, and it never comes with a sense of assurance, and how could it if Allah is not immutable? Christianity grows principally through prayer (Matt 6:5-13), teaching (Matt 28:18-20), preaching (Rom 10:14), service (1 Peter 4:11) and demonstration of love (John 13:35). It is a winsome proclaims of the life-giving news of the Gospel, rather than the intimidation, threat, and fear that drives Islam.

Jesus and Muhammad
There were many prophecies regarding the birth of Jesus throughout the Old Testament. Muhammad had also been prophesied over, as we saw earlier. A man by the name of Bahira, who claimed to be a Christian (all the while denying Jesus as son of God), told Muhammad’s uncle that he was the final prophet. Jesus embraced the beliefs of his people, and was aware of his identity as mediator (John 14:6). Muhammad was not a mediator, but rather, a final prophet. He initially embraced the beliefs of his family, the Quraysh tribe, but then later tried to persuade them of his own revelation.  Both of these men experience times of testing during their ministry. Jesus was directly tempted by Satan and Muhammad experienced a time where he did not receive many revelations. “Jesus was confident about his purpose and identity from the very beginning. He was not troubled by his time of testing. In contrast, Muhammad became suicidal when his revelations stopped coming.”
Jesus and Muhammad were both rejected during their ministries: Jesus, by his hometown and religious leaders, and Muhammad, by his very own Quraysh tribe. He was harassed and insulted. His followers were boycotted. It is interesting, that around this time, the revelations Muhammad received often included rebukes of the very people whom were persecuting him. “Jesus showed frustration and anger with the religious leaders… He also used parables to protest their actions (Matt 21:28-46; 22:1-14). However, he did not attempt to cause physical harm to any of them.”
Jesus relied on preaching and healing throughout his ministry. Once the boycott of Muhammad’s followers was repealed, he attempted to rely on preaching alone. However, his“efforts met little success.” Both Jesus and Muhammad appointed 12 key people to work with them. Both Muslims and Christians look to these men as moral exemplars for what their lives should imitate. Every Muslim wants to be like Muhammad. “The Hadith presents Muhammad as the exemplary human whom Muslims must imitate in all respects.
        Jesus did give authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal (Matt 10:1), however, he always taught his followers to leave the judgment to God, even when they were persecuted (Matt 10:14-19). Muhammad’s first revelation gave permission to fight anyone who rejects Islam, only to be replaced by his second revelation which was to spread Islam by force. “Jesus practiced his ministry the same way from beginning to end. But in Muhammad’s life, there was an event that marked a major change”
        In Mecca, Muhammad displayed cooperation, tolerance and forgiveness. However, “this soft lamb turned into a roaring lion.” Muhammad’s Islamic ministry went from preaching, to using the sword. He went from being perceived as a priest to a military commander. He went from one wife to twelve, and he went from fighting idol worshiper a to fighting the Jews and Christians.

Inconsistent Nature of Islam
The nature of Islam proves to be quite inconsistent. It does not have a correspondence theory of truth. Winifred Corduan has penned that “Islam can be a paradoxical religion. We see this through the later revelations of Muhammad that abrogate his previous revelations. We even see this within the concept ofTaqiyya, where even lying is justified under the cause of Allah.Tony Weedor has quipped that “one of the dirty secrets of Islam is that in a way it is relativistic.”
        Muslims hold that the biblical prophets of the Old and New Testaments originally taught Islam, while they simultaneously deny the reliability of those very scriptures because the Bible does not teach Islam. However, they have never successfully shown that the Bible is corrupted.”
        C.S. Lewis insightfully gave a moral argument for the existence of God, claiming that God necessarily had to be good.What we see in the Islamic faith, is that “certain actions are good not because they derive from God’s character, but because God chooses to call them good.” Again, even good is not defined by an ultimate standard, but rather by the whims of this false god. If good is relative, then is anything really evil? A Muslim cannot consistently maintain that goodness is relative, and yet anything that opposes Islam is evil.
The logical conclusion of the Muslim’s presupposition, being the Islamic faith, proves to be unlivable. “Once a Muslim starts thinking, they are on their way to becoming Christian.However, we must realized that what keeps a Muslim a Muslim is not the truth claims of the faith, but rather what seems to be a crippling fear of Allah.

Conclusion
       “The West is a sucker for anything that sounds tolerant or broadminded. In spite of these American “virtues,” we must recognize Islam for what it is: “a political, cultural and religious system…a religious primarily oriented toward law rather than theology. As has been shown above, we must also realize that “to claim that [Christians, Jews, and Muslims] worship the same God is misleading.
        The call for Christians is to be salt and light in the earth.“We must set [Muslims] free with the gospel. It is interesting that Muslims try to make Mohammed into a mediator, though he never claimed to be. This speaks psychologically and anthropologically to the human condition.

Muslims are hungry for truth because they are disenchanted with the spirit of deception in Islam.  Muslims are thirsty for love, forgiveness and mercy. Muslims are searching for peace in this world because they are disillusioned by the religious jihad, which leads to bloodshed and hatred. Women are frustrated with persecution and denial of their rights. Muslims are longing for a personal relationship with God as the Savior.

     As Christians, we must first be informed (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 Peter 3:15-16). “Early Islam spread largely through force; the radical Muslims of the twenty-first century desire to return to that golden age. We must also be courageous and act (2 Timothy 1:7; James 2:14-26), in spite of the threat(s) we may receive.
     “Islamic countries are among the most vociferous persecutors of Christians, presenting probably the greatest missionary challenge to the Church and exhibiting the most prominent external threat to the biblical values of freedom, justice, and order.” In this we find our opportunity to suffer for Christ (Phil 1:29), knowing that God does not want anyone to perish but rather to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
The Islamic community has been deceived and it is the very threat of Allah which keeps them from seeing the truth. They should be engaged gently, yet logically. Our compassion for the lost should drive us in our endeavors, yet we should never coward in the name of tolerance to keep from exposing the realities of threats. In the words of Jesus himself, we should seek to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Matt 10:16).


Bibliography

Weeder, Tony. Class Lecture in Religious Pluralism, Denver Seminary, Littleton CO, October, 29,2013.

Hyseni, Nezir. “Tolerance and the Qur’an: Understanding the Unavoidable Islam,” Answering Islam. November 7,2013, accessed October 29, 2013.

Noebel, David. Understanding The Times: The Collision of Today's Competing Worldviews, 2ndEd. Manitou Springs: Summit Press , 2006.

Gabriel, Mark. Islam and Terrorism. Lake Mary: FrontLine, 2002.

Gabriel, Mark. Jesus and Muhammed. Lake Mary: FrontLine,2004.

Corduan, Winifried.  Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions, 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InverVarsity, 2012.

Groothuis, Douglas. Class Lecture in Religious Pluralism, Denver Seminary, Littleton CO,October, 29,2013.

Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.

Tuesday

Modus Tollens: Reliability of Logic

A recent fascination with truth, and also with the technical language of philosophy, brought me to this conclusion, prompted by a comment from a fellow classmate in Advanced Apologetics.


Modus Tollens in an argument form which denies the consequent:

- If P, then Q
- Not Q
- Therefore, not P

Apply this to the reliability of logic.

- If logic is ever not reliable, it is never reliable.
- Logic is reliable.
- Therefore, logic is always reliable.

Simple, yet controversial.

Sunday

The Philosophy of Postmodernism


     Postmodern is a defining characteristic of the culture in which we live, however, it has been around for centuries. Postmodernism reduces to relativism and permeates to every area of life, and it is the aim of this essay to make this point very clear. Especially for the Christian, the concept of relativity serves as quite the obstacle.  “The root of [this] obstacle today is the postmodernist redefinition and degradation of truth.
     Truth has been defined, and traditionally accepted, as: that which corresponds to reality. When postmodernism redefines truth, it is implying that truth is no longer considered what corresponds to reality. Once this concept of truth is lost,everything is reduced to perspective and preference; however there is no room for an objective standard.
     Postmodernism “involves loss of optimism and confidence in human progress, incredulity toward metanarratives, skepticism, suspicion of claims to truth, exuberant celebration of diversity, relativism, pragmatism, and pluralism. Sadly, some would rejoice at this comment, and exclaim “Yes, this is the appropriate way to conceive of reality!” Paul refers to this type of understanding as “wisdom of the world,” and instructs the believer to not be deceived by it (1 Cor 3: 18-20).
     This essay will serve to show that postmodernism as a philosophy reduces to relativism, is illogical, and is therefore unlivable. It will also look at postmodernism in relation to Christianity, and comment on the challenge of the Christian apologist and evangelist.

Postmodernism as a philosophy
     It is interesting to examine postmodernism under the lens of philosophy, because what is discovered, is its self-refuting nature. Comment on this will be reserved for the section below.
     In order for the postmodern philosophy to get off the ground, it must first seek to redefine truth. They assert that in remains unknowable in its current regards, and therefore in order to know truth, we must redefine it. Instead of the previous definition, postmodernists regard “truth as socially constructed, contingent, inseparable from the peculiar needs and preferences of certain people in a certain time and place. This notion has many implications – it leaves no value, custom, belief, or eternal verity totally untouched. This very redefinition underscores the whole philosophy; things can be changed, nothing is absolute, and all is relative.
     As a philosophy, postmodernism not only attacks truth, but is very abrasive to anyone who subscribes to the “ludicrous” notion that we can even know truth in the first place. These people are labeled as intolerant and bigoted.  “Postmodernists fret mightily about arrogance and dogmatism, but to avoid them they typically rebound into the equal and opposite errors of cheap tolerance and relativism.
     The question that arises is can this cheap tolerance and relativism withstand the scrutiny of philosophy? If the discipline of philosophy is dedicated to studying truth and reality, then the worldview of postmodernism ends “up being more of a preference or prejudice than a philosophically argued position.

Engaging postmodernism
     Postmodernism can and should be engaged apologetically. One way to engaged people apologetically, is it to push them to the logical conclusion of their proposition. When this is done with the postmodernist, it becomes quite apparent that their philosophy commits the fallacy of self-refutation.
     If an essential part of postmodernism is that there are no ultimate standards, then this applies to even language. The postmodernist believes that even semantics are arbitrary, yet they use words to express their various points. According to the fine print of their teaching, it would be allowable for someone to completely misinterpret the postmodernist. So why then even speak?
     Postmodernism carries with it incredulity towards metanarratives. It asserts that rather, everything is determined by biological and cultural forces, leaving no place for judgment. However, this very notion undercuts itself, because the postmodernist places themselves as judge for all those who disagree.
     Included in their attack on truth is an attack on logic, because it has been associated with the rationalism of the Enlightenment. However, the postmodernists is not able to break free from using it. In stating that postmodernism is the best philosophy, are they not implying that it possesses its own identity? Thus they invoke the law of identity. If the postmodernism claims a different philosophy is not right, are they not invoke the law of non-contradiction, which is necessary for something to be considered wrong?
     In the claim that we cannot know truth, postmodernism conflates the categories of metaphysics and epistemology, byimplying that therefore truth (in its classical form)must not exist. Though humans are surely flawed, this does not mean we are completely hopeless to know anything as true. “The hazards of human reasoning count nothing against the validity of logic itself. What is more, is not this very implication a truth claim made by the postmodernist themself? They seem to be saying that we cannot know truth because of our limited perspective, yet are they then claiming to have the perspective from which it is allowable to claim the truth of this statement?
     “There is a real world consisting of logical and moral truths that serves as ‘the last word,’ and it cannot be dissolved into nature or culture.” If it could, it would be anchorless, even for the very philosophy that teaches it.  “Postmodernism reduces to nihilism because there is no final standard. It’s as if they say this with a smile on their face. The Christian should be disturbed by this and spurred to action. Paul has taught us to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15), even when dealing with the very people who carry this smile, because we know it is only masking the bondage of a deceptive philosophy. Only the truth will truly set us free (John 8:32). 


The challenge of postmodernism to Christian apologetics
     “Speaking truth in love” is easier said than down. As the postmodernists undermines the notion of truth, the task of the believer only becomes harder. How would the Bible be interpreted through the lens of postmodernism? It would undermine the Gospel message. How can the truth set us free, if it is not regarded as absolute, uncompromising, exclusive, unchanging truth? Through the lens of postmodernism,  men cannot be culpable for the rejection of Christ. How can grace, defined as giving something that is not deserved, be received if one does not see themselves as underserving? “Only if we recognize that the truth of truth… is today in doubt, and that this uncertainty stifles the word as a carrier of God’s truth and moral judgment, do we fathom the depth of the present crisis.”
     The Bible teaches a correspondence view of truth because the truth value of a proposition can only be assessed by its correspondence with reality. However, as has been shown, this runs completely contradictory to what postmodernism teaches. Because “the basic laws of logic… and argument forms… constitute proper thinking, [and] are not contingent social constructions,” we must rely on these very things to expose the nature of the philosophy of postmodernism.
     We know that the Lord is near to those who call on him, but we also know that they must call on him in truth (Ps 145:18).It is our job, as evangelizers, to winsomely argue for the truth that is assumed in this verse.

Without a thorough and deeply rooted understanding of the biblical view of truth as revealed, objective, absolute, universal, eternally engaging, antithetical and exclusive, unified and systematic, and as end in itself, the Christian response to postmodernism will be muted by the surrounding culture and will make illicit compromises with the truth-impoverished spirit of the age.

Conclusion
     “Truth is a daunting, difficult thing; it is also the greatest thing in the world. For the Christian, called to be ambassadors for Christ, begging the world to be reconciled to God, (2 Cor 5:20), we must accept the confrontational nature of this task.The concept of truth must be the evangelizer’s primary focus when engaging with the postmodernist. When they “seek to disparage metanarratives, deconstruct truth into language games and render spirituality a mixture of subjectively compelling elements, evangelicals must bring objective truth back to the table as the centerpiece of concern.
     G. K. Chesterton has insightfully penned that “pragmatism is a matter of human needs; and one of the first of human needs is to be something more than a pragmatist. Our compassion should drive us in our task, as we were once far away ourselves until saved by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13). We cannot compromise on the absolute nature of the truth of the Gospel, because again, it is the only thing that will set us free (John 8:32).



Bibliography
Groothuis, Douglas. , Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.
Anderson, Walter. The Future of the Self: Inventing the Postmodern Person. New York: Jeremy P Tarcher/Putnam, 1997.
Groothuis, Douglas, Class Lecture in Advanced Apologetics, Denver Seminary, Littleton CO, October , 28, 2013.
Henry, Carl. God, Revelation, and Authority. Waco: Word, 1976.
Chesterton, G. K. Chesterton. Orthodoxy. 1908; reprint, New York: Doubleday, 1959.

Friday

Does the Ontological argument reduce to, "If God exists, he exists," ?

I'm sorry, what?

I was introduced to the Ontological argument last fall. However, while trying to just keep my head above water while in my first semester of seminary, I did not spend too much time trying to understand it (please don't disown me, my dear professors).

Now taking advanced apologetics, the Ontological argument has reared its face once again. I confess that my initial thought was that it simply reduced to: "If God exists, he exists." Profound, I know. I shall pen my thoughts on the subject in this forum as opposed to writing an academic paper. Although, based on my previous syllabus reading skills, I might come to find out that I actually am required to write this paper, in which case I would gladly appreciate your comments.


The Ontological argument takes a variety of forms, but basically reduces to

1) We can conceive of a greatest possible being (please don't try to tell me that we cannot, because I am conceiving of one right now).

2) It is greater to exist in reality than to merely exist in understanding.

3) A greatest possible being therefore necessarily exists in reality.

4) Therefore, a greatest possible being exists.

This argument was put forth by Anselm in the 11th century, and has been scrutinized by contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantiga, among others. After taking apart, rewording, and expanding (to 33 premises) Anselm's argument, Plantiga advises that though the argument is sound, it does not serve as a proof for the existence of God. "It establish not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability."

Don't worry. After reflection on both, I no longer think this argument is simple enough to reduce to the tautology "if God exists, he exists." I would therefore begin by placing myself in Plantiga's camp by accepting that this argument is sound but questioning if is serves as explicit proof for the existence God. It does make me think, though, how one would respond to this argument if they did not accept it as sound. And, if they did accept it as sound, but not true, then one (or more) or the premises must be false. However, this modus ponens argument is logical and consisting of true premises. What then do we do with it?