Archive March 2005

Lobsters and Homosexuals

In his book, The Philosophy Gym, Stephen Law argues that if Christians are against homosexuality because of what the Bible says, then they must also avoid or condemn eating lobster, because the same authority (Leviticus) forbids both homosexuality and eating shelled seafoods.

Whereas the prohibition against eating shelled seafoods was a ceremonial distinctive that ended with the death and resurrection of Christ (Acts 10:9-16), the Law considers homosexuality as both a ceremonial and a moral abomination. God does not revoke this condemnation against homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather reinforces it in the strongest terms (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

In any case, even if the prohibition against shelled seafoods had never passed away, Stephen Law's argument still fails. All it would mean is that Christians are still prohibited from eating lobster and other shelled seafoods, and those who do are sinning against God. So even if Stephen Law is right about the lobsters, all he manages to prove is that many Christians are sinning, but there is still nothing here that is logically destructive to the biblical worldview or in favor of homosexuality.

Nevertheless, as mentioned, Acts 10 shows that these ceremonial dietary laws have served their intended purpose and have passed away by God's own decree. On the other hand, rather than revoking the condemnation against homosexuality, the New Testament repeats it.

Therefore, Stephen Law's argument is based on a very superficial and amateurish reading of Scripture. Now, he has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Oxford, and he is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of London. But as I have stated in several other places, the best of the anti-Christian scholars are nothing but stupid and careless lunatics. And here I have given you yet another example.

Does he really expect to refute the Christian position with something as pathetic as this? If I were to see this same argument in an essay written by a high school freshman, I still don't think I could make myself give it more than a "C." A high school student might not be a Bible scholar, but then I could still tell him to "LOOK IT UP!" in a commentary. Zero research makes you look lazy; partial research makes you look stupid — like Stephen Law. Perhaps that preacher was right who said that "Ph.D." stands for "posthole digger," with apologies to posthole diggers.

We expect non-Christians to be morons. Many Christians hesitate to say this because they have an unbiblical respect for anti-Christian scholars, and a false concept of biblical gentleness. But in hesitating to affirm the mental feebleness of all non-Christians, they have denied an important aspect of the gospel message. The biblical gospel is that man is both sinful and stupid without Christ, not just sinful.

Thus in denying that all non-Christians are stupid, these misguided believers also implicitly deny that Christ saves us from both our wickedness and our irrationalism. The implication is that we were doing quite well intellectually even without the mind of Christ, and that we only need salvation from our sinfulness. To put it mildly, this is a partial denial of the gospel, the depravity of man (including the noetic effects of sin), and the ministry of Christ. It is a serious defect in many people's theology and preaching.

So we expect non-Christians, even the best of them, to be complete morons, and morons give only stupid objections like the one you have just seen. What is really inexcusable is that many Christians are stumped by objections like these. But they don't have to be stumped; they don't have to be stupid. They now have the word of God and the gift of faith — divine wisdom is freely available to them. All they need is to renew their minds with biblical knowledge, and this is why we must diligently study the Scripture and diligently teach it to other believers. Only then will the Church as a whole become stronger and stronger, and unbelievers will no longer be able to get away with stupid objections.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, "Professional Morons"
Vincent Cheung, "A Moron by Any Other Name"
http://www.vincentcheung.com

Vincent Cheung, "Gay Marriage"

Gay Marriage

"Gay" marriage, of course, means happy marriage. However, the debate that is going on almost down the street from where I am typing this message is on homosexual marriage. I might address homosexuality in some detail in the future, perhaps in a book or an article. Here I will explain only the general direction of my thinking on this topic.

Even many Christians who are against homosexual marriage are eager to insist that they don't want to discriminate against homosexuals, and therefore they would have no problem with "civil union." But I am not so quick to make this concession.

Sodomy has been a criminal offense in some states. Some of you have probably heard how police officers caught two homosexual men in the act of sodomy in Texas, and brought them up on sodomy charges. The men were acquitted because the court said that the law should not interfere with personal and consensual acts between adults. I am not familiar with the details of the case, but the details are unimportant — my point is that homosexuality is technically still a crime in some places, and saying that homosexuality should be considered a crime should not be entirely novel.

The Old Testament regards homosexuality as not only a criminal offense, but also a capital offense, deserving death. I agree with this categorization and this punishment, and there are at least a few other theologians who also agree with this. This is just to say that we agree with the Bible on the subject. Thus Christians should not be so quick to discuss marriage and civil union between homosexuals. What I want to settle with the unbeliever is why homosexuality is not a crime in the first place.

Is it because the act or the relationship is between two consenting adults? First, what is an adult? The State arbitrarily defines the adult, so that a consenting 17-year-old doesn't count. Second, why is the act or the relationship permitted if it is between consenting adults? That is, why is the premise true in the first place? Third, since all arguments must eventually escalate to the presuppositional level, I must finally ask whether the act or relationship has God's consent.

Is it because the act or the relationship does not hurt anyone? First, what is the definition of "hurt"? If I say that homosexuality disgusts me and spoils my appetite, and thus wastes a perfectly delicious chicken drumsticks dinner that my wife has prepared for me, does that count? Why or why not? It "hurts" me in some sense, doesn't it? If spoiling my appetite, wasting my wife's time, and disappointing the chicken drumsticks that had to wait so long in the oven all do not count as "hurt," then what kind of hurt are they talking about? They must define it, and then defend the definition. Second, why should the act or the relationship be permitted so long as it does not "hurt" anyone? What makes that the standard? And is that the only standard of morality, or is that the only issue in determining whether homosexuality is right or wrong? Why or why not? We can go on and on, but as with any other topic, the unbeliever cannot move one step beyond where we let him, since he has no justification for any of the steps in his reasoning process.

Again, my position is not just that homosexuals should not be married, but that homosexuality is a crime, just like murder or theft, so that even before we consider civil union, we must consider whether or not to punish homosexuals, with the possible punishments ranging from imprisonment to execution. Morally speaking, civil union and marriage should not even be on the list of options. Even if biblical morality does not require punishment or execution for homosexuality, surely no Christian should argue that homosexuals should have the right to have civil unions. But it appears that most Christians are not sufficiently bothered or disgusted by homosexuality.

So why is homosexuality not a crime? Why? If I let the Bible define what is a crime and what is not a crime, then how can I not define homosexuality as a crime? But once someone asks why I must submit to the Bible's definition, then we have moved beyond a confrontation on homosexuality alone to a presuppositional confrontation concerning our different worldviews. Thus an even more fundamental and productive debate can begin, and it is a debate that we can and must win every time.

As with other topics related to apologetics, Christians tend to yield too much ground before they draw the line and stand firm. So watch yourselves when you talk to unbelievers. Don't yield ground or permit premises that you don't have to yield or permit. Although the laws of the land might not change to reflect the biblical standard any time soon, when it comes to intellectual debates on this issue, we don't need to compromise anything.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, On Good and Evil
http://www.vincentcheung.com

Greg Bahnsen, "In the Shadow of Sodom: Does the Bible Really Say What We Thought About Homosexuality?"
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe182.htm

Gordon Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics
http://www.trinityfoundation.org

John Murray, Principles of Conduct

Jonathan Edwards and John Piper

I hesistate to post the following without also including some detailed arguments and examples, especially to back up the several negative points that I raise about Edwards and Piper. Nevertheless, some of you might still know what I am talking about and might even agree with me.

But if you don't know what I am talking about, or if you disagree with anything, please just try to ignore this post. Please don't email me about this; I don't want to take time to say more at this time.

(The following is an edited response to an inquiry on the topic.)

I think that Edwards and Piper are good in general, definitely above average (although the average is pretty bad). And this is especially true regarding Edwards. However, I do disagree with them on a number of points, some comparatively minor (but still important and thus "major" in themselves).

For example, Edwards is sometimes imprecise, and he often makes unbiblical and unncessary distinctions in his theology. I also disagree with his view on freedom, which is a compatibilist freedom (I reject all kinds of freedom relative to God). However, one of his strong points is his generally theo-centric theology, and he tries to be biblical and consistent when applying this.

He correctly teaches that we should give glory to that which alone inherently deserves glory, which is God; therefore, the highest purpose for both God and man is to glorify God. This is biblical, consistent, and theo-centric. The same is true when he addresses the question of whether we will rejoice in heaven about hell, even though some of our relatives might be there. We will perfectly rejoice in God's honor and justice by then, and therefore we will not grieve, but glorify God for hell.

I probably have more disagreements with Piper than I have with Edwards. For example, I disagree with him on some of the points concerning his "Christian Hedonism." One problem with it is that it argues for a theo-centric view on life in a way that really makes life anthropo-centric again. There are also other problems that make his view short of wholly biblical, precise, and theo-centric.

He makes some good points in his writings regarding the doctrine of justification, but he also says some things about this doctrine that might be questionable (these might be too subtle for many readers to notice). That said, I think that Piper has done some good work in writing against feminism and open theism.

So, again, in general I have a positive opinion toward both, but Edwards more than Piper.

Related:

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
(See www.rmiweb.org)

Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
John Robbins, "Pied Piper" (PDF)
(See www.trinityfoundation.org)

John Piper, Countered Righteous in Christ
John Piper, The Justification of God
Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (2 vols.)
(See www.monergismbooks.com)

John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching
Richard Mouw, The God Who Commands
(See www.amazon.com)

The Self-Authenticating Scripture

If the heavens declare the glory of God and therefore bear witness to their divine Creator, the Scripture as God's handiwork must also bear the imprints of his authorship. This is just saying that Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of God; its divinity is self-evidencing and self-authenticating. The ground of faith in Scripture as the Word of God is therefore the evidence it inherently contains of its divine authorship and quality….

If the faith is faith in the Bible as God's Word, obviously the evidence upon which such faith rest must itself have the quality of divinity. For only evidence with the quality of divinity would be sufficient to ground a faith in divinity. Faith in Scripture as God's Word, then, rests upon the perfections inherent in Scripture and is elicited by the perception of these perfections.

John Murray, "The Attestation of Scripture,"
in The Infallible Word,
edited by N. B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley,
(P & R Publishing Company, 2002 edition), p. 46-47.

See you on Monday.

Arguing by Intuition, Part 7

We are not done with Ganssle yet, since he goes on to say:

Second, libertarian free will makes the most sense of our deliberation. We often find ourselves deliberating between alternatives, and we are convinced that our deliberation has a real effect on the outcome. The decision we come to, upon deliberating, seems to be up to us. If freedom is not of the libertarian kind, then deliberation does not make as much sense. Thus, libertarian freedom is the better concept of freedom, and compatibilist freedom is no freedom at all.

We have so thoroughly dissected his way of thinking that by now you should be able to see what's wrong with the above statements without much help. So we will briefly summarize the problems without going into the details.

We note that the whole paragraph again tries to merely make sense of what we supposedly do, without justifying that we should do it in the first place.

He says, "We are convinced that our deliberation has a real effect on the outcome." But who is he to speak for all of us? In fact, I am not convinced of this statement at all. In any case, even if we are all convinced of this statement, the question remains, "But is it true?" As it is, the foundation of his premise is mere subjective intuition, or even mere popular opinion. Adding to this that the term "real effect" is ambiguous, the whole statement is unintelligible.

Then, he says, "The decision we come to, upon deliberating, seems to be up to us." Again, he is resting this premise upon intuition alone. Just because something seems a certain way to us does not mean that it is really true. But we have already discussed the fallacy of appealing to intuition, so we will move on.

His conclusion is that, "If freedom is not of the libertarian kind, then deliberation does not make as much sense." Well, then, so much the worse for deliberation! The argument intends to establish libertarian free will, and to do that he claims that only libertarian free will can make sense of deliberation. But the argument completely fails because, first, he fails to establish that only libertarian free will can make sense of deliberation; second, he fails to establish that we should make sense of deliberation; and third, he fails to establish that deliberation makes sense at all.

He claims that "libertarian freedom is the better concept of freedom," but whether this is true or not is irrelevant at this point, since he fails to establish libertarian freedom, or for that matter, any kind of freedom.

Nevertheless, I might agree with him on something after all, for he ends the paragraph by saying, "compatibilist freedom is no freedom at all." Now, as he explains in the previous pages, by "compatibilist freedom" he means "determined but free." Earlier in the chapter, he states that this is a popular concept of freedom, but one that he opposes. Here he adds that it is "no freedom at all."

But it appears to him that the only remaining option is to accept libertarian freedom; however, this is not true. What if we deny both libertarian and compatibilist freedom, and affirm an absolute and comprehensive divine determinism?

I understand that even many Reformed/Calvinistic writers would object to this; instead, they feel compelled to affirm compatibilist freedom. This is at least partly because they assume that man must have some kind of freedom in order to be justly held accountable. But this is just an assumption, impossible to prove, and contradicted by Scripture.

Of course, we must be careful to define "freedom" in an accurate and relevant way. We must at least answer the question, "Free from what?" Now, when we are speaking of divine determinism, the "determiner" is God. So in this context, the only relevant thing to be free from is God, and whether we are free from any other thing is irrelevant. Thus the question becomes, "Is man free from God in any sense?" Once you assert that man is free from God in some sense, you have lost the God of the Bible.

A consistent Reformed/Calvinistic/Scriptural position would be as follows. Absolute divine determinism is true; therefore, man has no freedom at all relative to God — he is not free from God in any sense. However, he is still morally responsible and accountable because God holds him morally responsible and accountable. There is no logical reason to bring in the issue of freedom at all. The premise, "responsibility presupposes freedom," is completely arbitrary, unbiblical, and impossible to prove. Rather, Scripture teaches that responsibility presupposes divine judgment, and divine judgment presuppose God's decision to judge. It has nothing to do with whether or not man is free.

In fact, since human responsibility presupposes divine judgment, and since divine judgment presupposes divine sovereignty (God's right and power to judge), it follows that human responsibility presupposes divine sovereignty, and not human freedom. We are morally responsible precisely because God is sovereign and we are not free.

The question then becomes whether or not this is just — that is, whether it is just to hold someone accountable who is not free. However, this is just the same question rephrased. The issue of justice appears to be relevant only because one has already illegitimately and arbitrarily brought freedom into the discussion. But we answer that this is just because it is what God has decided to do, and he is the sole and ultimate standard of justice; therefore, this is just by definition.

This position is biblical and coherent, and there is nothing inherently contradictory or impossible about it. Many people might not like it because it contradicts their intuition of freedom, responsibility, and justice; however, theirs is a sinful intuition. In appealing to their intuition, they have ignored the noetic effects of sin. In chiding them for placing their trust in their own intuition, I do not then turn to assert my own intuition as true; rather, I appeal to divine revelation alone, and if we are going to speak of intuition at all, we must look to revelation to judge our intuition.

(To be continued.)

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil"
(http://www.vincentcheung.com)

Gordon Clark, Predestination
Gordon Clark, God and Evil
(http://www.monergismbooks.com)

Ronald Cammenga and Ronald Hank, Saved by Grace
Herman Hoeksema, The Wonder of Grace
(http://www.rfpa.org)