Letter to a Presbyterian Pastor

Philosophical Wanderings 5a

These posts have generated some offsite discussion. I've been posting some of these exchanges. This is a continuation of the discussion from the previous post.

Philosophical Wanderings 5- Is Logic Empirical?

Continuing this discussion, a friend and I have been interacting via email. With all argument you tend to have to keep peeling back layers and get back to basic definitions of your terms and concepts.

No surprise my friend is a bit uncomfortable with some of my language concerning logic. I say no surprise because again, for those of us reared in the West...this is default thinking. He inquired concerning logic and wondered if I would agree that logic itself it 'built into humanity and at least analogous to the Mind of God'?

In response I raised an issue concerning logic itself. What is it? What is its nature? Not easy questions to answer. Is logic objective? Is it something intrinsic to creation or can we go even further and say reflects the Divine Nature?

What if logic is in fact subjective? What if it is dependent upon our human ability to frame, decipher, and categorize? In response to my friend, I raised a question....

Is logic empirical?

Answering Questions #19- War and Scepticism

This is kind of a strange lead-in, but my friend and I were discussing one of my favourite movies. ‘The Last Valley’ came out in 1971 and stars Michael Caine and Omar Sharif, certainly two of the best actors…ever.

Philosophical Wanderings 4

The role of reason and logic in the realm of metaphysics....

Philosophical Wanderings 3

** These discussions will not interest most readers.

They will seem perplexing, pedantic, if not arcane and impractical. In the end what I'm saying is that the Bible has to shape our thinking. That would seem obvious to everyone that appreciates my writings. That's what all this leads to.

While on the surface it seems obvious, there are nevertheless many disagreements among Christians and within the larger circle of people labeled the Church. Why?

Because we all read things differently and we have different ideas about 'thinking' and how ideas are formed and work. You don't have to master this material to read your Bible. But at some point virtually all of us will to some extent wrestle with some of these questions. If we're not, then we're probably just reading the Bible as Westerners, as 21^st Century Americans. To be sure, we can still apprehend the Gospel...but will we understand the Bible rightly? Deeply? What is that we're after?....to merely escape hell or to know God, to be reconciled with Him and to know the Truth?

So many of us agree the Bible alone is foundation. So many of want to just follow the Bible....why then are there so many disagreements on so many topics? Most of the arguments are a waste of time because the fundamental issues that drive the disagreements are not being addressed. That's what is happening in these posts, in this discussion I've labeled Philosophical Wanderings....

Dishonorable Disclosures

A few comments regarding the ‘Dishonorable Disclosures’ film….

 

Putin and a Punk Band- Sacral Russia and American Evangelical Silence

Sacralist minded American Evangelicals have long hoped for some form of synthesis between Church and State. While they generally eschew a formal or legal union with an Established Church, they want the two 'spheres' to work in a symbiotic relationship.

The political leaders should be members of and thus accountable to the Church.[i]

Assange, Breivik, a SEAL, and Wicked Hypocrisy

While Bradley Manning certainly committed treason in releasing the diplomatic cables made famous by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks website, I’ve often been left scratching my head when listening to people speak of Assange himself.

Answering Questions #18- How Should We Respond To Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 8)

This is the final segment of this discussion on marriage the state and the related issues concerning sexuality and behaviour.

It may seem I’ve strayed a bit in discussing the whole issue of ‘church’ weddings, but the reason I bring it up is because I think we have problem when we take ideas like marriage and divorce which for us have theological meaning but also overlap with the culture.

If the last segment seemed a bit out of bounds to some readers, I’m afraid this section will seem even more so.[i]

Two Items

One, the final part of the Gay Marriage series is basically done. I hope to post it sometime Saturday.

Thank you for the recent comments. I'm going to hold off on responding until the last part is up. It might help clarify why I was bringing up certain points. Many still will not agree but hopefully be able to understand why I'm thinking as I am.

I don't expect very many readers to agree with me. Some of thinking is way out of bounds to probably most people. But I hope the discussion is helpful and challenging.

And, I thought I would post the link to a pertinent article I put up a couple of years ago since it is a date that deserves reflection.

1 September 1939

Anwering Questions #18- How Should We Respond To Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 7)

Marriage for the unbeliever is like all things....ultimately sinful. It's part of what condemns them. The little bits of relationship, love, and humanity they experience result from Common Grace. Sometimes people will experience a great deal of this and are very guilty when they stand before God.[i] Others receive very little of this in their miserable lives, but they still stand condemned.

Answering Questions #18- How Should We Respond To Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 6)

The Israelite Theocracy presented a multi-faceted picture of Adam (the Hebrews) in the Garden (the land of milk and honey) as well as a picture of man's inability to find his own righteousness (the law standing alone) and a picture of the gospel (the law's condemnation and the picture of redemption). With Israel we have a picture of both the 1^st and 2^nd Adam, the condemnation/despair and the redemption/hope.

Or to put it another way, from start to finish it was a picture of Jesus Christ the True Israel and demonstrated the consequences of rejecting Him.

Answering Questions #18- How Should We Respond To Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 5)

At this point Proverbs 14.34 is usually invoked to contradict what I’ve said….

Righteousness exalts a nation,
But sin is a reproach to any people.

We see this everywhere, on billboards and certainly on Church signs[i] around election time.

Answering Questions #18- How Should We Respond To Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 4)

To answer my first question:

For the unbelievers among us, what purpose does marriage serve?

Answering Questions #18- How Should We Respond To Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 3)

There were some Christians in the 1600's...early Congregationalists who refused to perform marriages.[i] These elders said the Bible nowhere teaches that a 'minister' should marry you,[ii] nor does it give any credence to the whole idea of a 'church wedding'.... all holdovers from medieval Catholicism and the Romanist view of marriage as a Sacrament, viewing the building as a holy temple, etc...

A Miscellany for 21 August 2012 (MacArthur, Zenawi, and Akin)

I have several more articles just about ready to go, but tonight I wanted to comment on three things.

Answering Questions #18- How Should We Respond to Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 2)

There are others who have made America into an idol and created a myth-narrative to go with it. Essentially the United States has become the present manifestation of the Kingdom of God or at the very least the leading vehicle for the Kingdom of God to work on this earth. It's not that far of a leap if you incorporate culture (and thus politics) into the definition of the Kingdom. Following Verduin, we have labeled this extra-Biblical and very pervasive error...Sacralism.

If America or the West abandons its supposed Christian heritage, then it's as if the Gates of Hell have triumphed.

Answering Questions #18- How Should We Respond to Gay/Homosexual Marriage? (Part 1)

I've received a couple of questions regarding this matter and basically I can sum up the questions in this way...

Why are so many Evangelical and Reformed leaders so adamant about the need for Christians to oppose the Homosexual agenda, not just theologically, but in social and political terms as well? And why has this become so much more intense over the question of marriage?

It's a complex question, but to put it simply....for different reasons.  Since that's not very helpful, we'll have to look at some of the larger issues, or to put it differently, we have to look at some basic or foundational issues and assumptions that are driving people to think a certain way and thus respond a certain way. After examining this a bit, we can weigh their considerations and then attempt to come up with an answer, hopefully one that is Biblical and helpful.

Philosophical Wanderings 2

 

Since these comment threads are so long, I'm just putting them up as posts. The comment module will only take about a page at a time. If I want to type a 5 page response, I have to break it up and copy-paste. Plus it's harder to read for anyone following. This is easier.

Pardon any typos....I'm not getting too carried away since this is just an ongoing discussion.

Philosophical Wanderings....A discussion thread that took on a life of its own.

This is just an topically eclectic thread that has grown to the point that I thought I would just post it by itself and then we can continue the discussion under this heading.

Here are the original comments.......followed by a long response by me.

Why No Time? 2/2

Anyway, this is what I'm dealing with. It's no big deal...just consumes a lot of time and energy. One of the advantages of punching a time-clock is that you go home and don't have to worry about your job anymore.

God willing by dropping this electrical job and perhaps/hopefully dropping this other job...I will have more time. Some might balk at this and suggest I'm breaking a commitment. There's no contract, it was tentative agreement. I'm very careful about how I commit myself. And I don't do this in a shady or ambiguous way. I'm cautious. There are just some people that I don't want to work for and you don't always know that right away.

Why No Time? 1/2

Personal issues and a little window into my world....

To the anonymous who is praying for me and all others likewise engaged....

As always, thank-you.

This is just a personal note. Nothing profound, but an explanation regarding my lack of web activity.

We're fine, I'm just insanely busy. This summer has been especially bad in terms of 'after-hours' work. I've been dealing with the electric company which is a nightmare. In fact, that job I just cancelled. I did so because it has been a dreadful experience and it has reached the point of absurdity.

One day when I get to my 'Life in Babylon' series that will basically be a small book...I hope to share and elaborate on my observations and experiences regarding the Christian interacting with our economic and social system. I have much to say.

No Time

 

It's been a frustrating week. I've been going to work quite early, in part to deal with the heat and often getting home late. I'm exhausted and disappointed that I haven't had time to get to my writing.

I still want to finish the articles on the issues surrounding Kirk Cameron's movie...I've got a couple more parts to finish.

A Few Clarifications Regarding Philosophy and Christian Theology

This is an update/revision of an article originally published in July 2010

For years I grappled internally and with others over theological issues. As time progressed I became convinced most theological debate was basically fruitless due to fundamental differences regarding reason itself, and accepted or assumed thought categories.

We bring this baggage with us when we read the Bible and we run the risk of two extremes.

Kirk Cameron's Monumental Part 5: The Enforcement of Original Intent and The Road to Oligarchy

From the standpoint of non-Sacral Christianity, a composite society is highly desirable and allows for maximum freedom. In the end that's not what we're supposed to spend all of our time and energy looking for, but, if it's a possibility we ought to support it in the civil sphere.

And yet at this point, I cannot in good conscience support the American Establishment in any sense. America's economic and foreign policies promote violence and bloodshed and so like a Christian living in Rome I go about my business, but I will not worship Caesar nor will I support the legions or the machine that empowers the empire.

Unlike many of my ancestors, I wouldn't have supported the Rebellion of 1776, but once the new American state was established I would have been content to live within it.

Kirk Cameron's Monumental Part 4: Common Law, The Puritans, Composite and Monistic Views of Society

Did the Founders belong to a time when a Sacral Christian consensus still reigned? Of course. And yet, they were of many different stripes and persuasions and a jumble of ideas came together in what they produced. The Sacral consensus of the Middle Ages and Reformation was beginning to crumble and the Founders were men of their day. They imbibed (as we all do) from a variety of sources of worldviews, everything from English Common Law to Locke and others.

Interestingly Jefferson detested the famous Blackstone commentaries on English Common Law, which is often something Christian America advocates point to when trying to build their case for the Founders attempting to establish a Christian state. While it may work with someone like John Adams, they won't find an ally in the author of the Declaration of Independence.

Answering Questions #17- Calvin v. The Calvinists, The Renaissance and Reformed Scholasticism, Orthodoxy, Armstrong, Amyraut and Muller…Incomprehensibility and the nature of Theology.

A friend recently sent an email referencing Brian Armstrong’s “Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France”

I responded………

Kirk Cameron's Monumental Part 3: Foundations of Law, Theonomy, Social Consensus/Contract and The Problem of Democracy

In addition to questions concerning 'rights' and the 'state' and how these concepts are read (by many Christians) back into the Bible, there is the whole question of democracy itself. America is of course a Republic, which by definition has a public or democratic element, and yet foundationally rests in the notion of rule by law. There are many forms of Republicanism, but in the United States we have specifically a form of Democratic Republicanism.

So though we're ruled by law, our legislators (our lawmakers, law proposers, law givers) are selected democratically. These legislators have a dual obligation. They are to forge laws compliant with the 'static' foundational document of the Republic (the Constitution) but they also are to represent the 'dynamic' needs of their constituents, dynamic in that they (the needs of society) change with the cultural and historical context.

Updates 7 July 2012

The following links are to older posts which have been recently revised and updated. Some will be of interest to newer readers.

Two Kingdoms and Separatism

I Remember 

In times of Interdict, the heretics rejoice 

Nominalism versus Thomism? 

Mercersburg and Hegelian Historiography 

How to pastorally deal with the default setting 

The Bereans versus The Gatekeepers

The Real Issue Behind the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals

Two Kingdoms- Neither Left nor Right on the political spectrum

Kirk Cameron's Monumental Part 2: The Theology of Nationalism and Historical Narrative

Cameron brings along Marshall Foster to help him interpret the monument's symbolism. Foster is a popular 'historian' in these circles. I've listened to him lecture on numerous occasions and find myself rarely agreeing with much of anything he says. Even when gets something correct, it is framed in a misleading or manipulative manner. History has a narrative to it, and it's amazing how it seems to perfectly match the Theonomic Reconstructionist and Christo-American cultural and political agenda.

Providence guides history, but history isn't complete and unless God has specifically laid out a historical narrative, which he hasn't for any nation in the New Testament but the Church...it is a dangerous thing to impose one upon the annals of history. History is messy and complicated and imposing these narratives (like God's hand was on America) on history is a dangerous business, can be self-deceptive, have a tendency to whitewash and mythologize, promote unbiblical pride and bigotry, and can blind people to the evils their nation commits. Assyria was used by God in Isaiah 10, but then Assyria was crushed and punished by God for her wickedness. America and the Americanists would do well to take heed. They think of themselves as a North American Israel...but how do they know they're not an Egypt?

Kirk Cameron's Monumental: Initial Considerations

Dominionism is the idea that says we must seek to transform society and culture. Among the myriad of Christian sects almost everyone would agree that Christianity brings a set of ethics and values to the table, it has something to say regarding human conduct and behaviour.

Protestants in particular have laid an emphasis on the new life, being 'born again' as Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3. As New Creatures, we approach all ethical tangles differently than the nonbeliever. In addition our entire focus is different, we seek heavenly wisdom, we are to lay up treasure in heaven where are our hearts, our hopes are.

Dominionism says we must go further. Based off their reading of Genesis 1.26-27 they believe we are to subdue the earth. This combined with Paul's injunction to 'bring every thought captive' launches them on what seem to them to be a clear programme to transform all of culture and society. To them this is Kingdom work, this is bringing the Kingdom of God to earth and making it manifest.

Updates

Some recently updated posts from 2010:

Two Kingdom Theology On Guard

Greeks, Turks, and Two Kingdoms

Common Grace Culture

News Commentary 28 June 2012 (2)

 Some musings about the continued fallout....

I heard a commentator today mention that this decision coupled with an Obama re-election will further radicalize the extreme Right. I agree. But what does that mean for Christians who reject Sacralism?

This has already entered the Church and though I'm no fan of Barack Obama, I am not content to sit in a congregation where people are cursing the nation's rulers, engaging in seditious and violent rhetoric and promoting law-breaking and armed resistance. Anyone who has read my writings knows I am no fan of the great lie known as the United States. Nevertheless I am to pray for the peace of this Babylon, not try and overthrow Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Sennacherib, or Caesar.

News Commentary 28 June 2012 (1)

A few thoughts regarding the Supreme Court decision today....what it means for the American Church and what the present social polarization points to in the coming days, months and years.

First a few specific points of consideration....

1.    Romney has been avoiding an in-depth healthcare discussion due to the conservative condemnation of his Massachusetts programme. But now, Evangelicals more than ever will be polarized by the Supreme Court ruling the health reform as Constitutional. They will rally around Romney who has promised to work towards repealing Obama's reform....even though putting the rhetoric into action will be difficult.