Category: Uncategorized

We take the necessity of logical consistency, Empirical adequacy, and Experiential relevance … what do we put that test to? To the four questions of Origin, Meaning, Destiny, and Morality. What are the subjects? The subjects are God, reality, knowledge, morality, and mankind, which is theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and anthropology. Three tests. Four Questions. Five disciplines.

Ravi Zacharias

I heard this recently in a Ravi Zacharias sermon and it caught my attention because I was taught something very similar when I was 18, and it has remained central to my own thinking every since.

This was the form in which I learned it from Dr. Glenn Martin. Dr. Martin began every course he taught with the review you will find below. Martin taught me that the Christian, in his apologetic endeavor has to answer the larger questions with lasting answers.

The larger questions were,

“The Origin, Nature, and Destiny of the Cosmos?” &
“The Origin, Nature, Destiny and Role of Man?”

In order to do that one was required to provide answers for

Epistemology — The question of Knowledge

Options

a.) Autonomous Reason
b.) Intuition
c.) Revelation

Teleology — The question of purpose…ends

a.) The Kingdom of God
b.) The Kingdom of Man

Ontology (Metaphysics) — The question of ultimate reality

Extra-mundane Personal Sovereign God
Time plus Chance plus Circumstance

Axiology — The question of values.

God’s Law
Man’s relativism

All of this was then applied to the 7 civil-social Institutions that all social orders build.

A.) Church
B.) Family
C.) Arts
D.) Education
E.) Science
F.) Civil-social (politics)
G.) Law

“We cannot separate Christian morals and the rule of law….”

“My Puritan ancestors of Massachusetts Bay, like their fathers the “Geneva Men” of Elizabethan England, hoped to make the laws of the ancient Jews into a code for their own time—a foolish notion . My Scottish Covenanting ancestors, too, aspired nearly to that. Upon such misconceptions, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather on the distaff side , Abraham Pierce, was tried at Plymouth, Massachusetts,in 1625, for indolence on the Sabbath; by a miscarriage of justice, doubtless, he was acquitted.

Such attempts at legal archaism, being absurd, failed before they properly began; for the particular laws of a people ineluctably mirror the circumstances of an age. Hebraic legal institutions would no more suit seventeenth-century England, say, than the English common law of the seventeenth century would have been possible for Jerusalem in the sixth century before Christ. No, what Christianity (or any other religion) confers is not a code of positive laws, but instead some general understanding of justice.”

Dr. Russel Kirk
1983 Lecture — Hillsdale College

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Imprimis-We-Cannot-Separate-Christian-Morals-and-the-Rule-of-Law-Apr-1983.pdf

There is a good deal in Kirk’s lecture that recommends itself to the reader because if provides fodder for a law that refuses legal relativism (Kirk’s Dionysian) as against a law that remains absolute (Kirk’s Apollonian) and for that reason I would recommend reading it.

However, what Kirk gives that is wholesome with the Right hand in that article above he takes with the left hand in the quote italicized above.

Kirk seemingly desired the fruit of Christian law influence quite apart from the root of Christian law. Kirk desired the flavor of Christianity quite apart from the ingredients required in order to yield the flavor he found delectable. Kirk praises the child while damning the parents.

First Kirk faults the Elizabethan Geneva men, the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay, and the Scottish Covenanters. This is no small or insignificant group of ancestors and yet Kirk dismisses them seemingly because Kirk didn’t like Sabbath laws. Kirk gives us no reasons why the proper codification of law as based on a proper understanding of God’s law is “foolish.” Kirk tries to make it sound like the Geneva men, the Puritans, and the Scottish covenanters were trying to repristinate God’s law to such a degree that the result would be the re-creation of 1st century Israel in 17th century England. Anybody familiar with Calvin’s Geneva knows that 17th century Geneva was in no way 1st century Israel.

Clearly Kirk’s aspiration to have a law that would produce Christian morals is limited by what morals he himself did and did not desire. Kirk noted in the article linked that there had to be a balance achieved between being to loose with the connection between Law and Christianity as the source of Law and to strict with the connection between Law and Christianity as the source of Law. The problem we find here is, by what standard will we decide what is and is not to strict? Kirk seems to tell us that we are the standard by which the appropriate amount of strictness will be measured. However, if that is the case we are right back to man being the source of law and not God’s Law-Word.

When Kirk offers that “the particular laws of a people ineluctably mirror the circumstances of an age” we are right back to some form of relativism as the source of law. Law is not objective, per this standard, but rather subjective as reflecting the always changing circumstances of an age. Also, again we find ourselves asking, “circumstances as adjudicated by what or whom?” The Marquis de Sade would have insisted that the circumstances of his age to be quite different than the circumstances his peer, Edmund Burke, would have insisted upon as prevailing. Because this is so we would ask Dr. Kirk, “who is being absurd now?”

Kirk insisted that it is the role of Christianity to provide “some general understanding of justice,” but how can Christianity provide a general understanding of justice apart from the legally archaic particulars of which Kirk gently mocks? For example, how can we have a general understanding of murder unless we know that murder includes, per God’s particular law, both the element of the intentional and the unjust? How could we make distinctions between murder and manslaughter unless the Scripture gave us particular instances and not merely some general understanding? As said earlier, Kirk desires the fruit of the Christian faith informing law (a general understanding) without out the root of the Christian faith informing law (God’s particular case laws).

On the face of it what Kirk offers it sounds reasonable, but in the end it places him in the same camp as those who do not see Law as absolute and particular. Kirk gives us a shifting law that images the circumstance of the age without quite realizing that a shifting law requires a shifting God since Law is a reflection of God’s character.

Having said all that, allow me to say that this is no paen to the idea that God’s Law can’t be differently applied in different eras or among different Christian social orders and cultures. Clearly, God’s Law was applied differently among the Christian social order of Charlemagne and the Christian social order of Calvin’s Geneva. However, even if applied differently, once traced back to its origin one will find in every Christian social order that the Law of the land is distinctly Christian and includes the general equity of God’s particular case laws.

It is encouraging to realize that Dr. Kirk knows better now.

Radio Show Hour 3 – 2020/04/11

Wuhan is very much analogous in several respects to “Climate Change”: if the temperature increases, it’s evidence of Climate Change. If the temperature decreases, it’s evidence of Climate Change. If the temperature remains the same (and it never does), that’s evidence of Climate Change too! And we all have to “do our part,” and the government has to spend trillions of our dollars, to prevent Climate Change (just as with Wuhan), or we’re ALL GOING TO DIE!

Donald Wright

If one has any symptom it’s a sure sign you have Wuhan.

If you cough, you have the Wuhan. If you don’t cough, you have the Wuhan. If you have a skin-rash that is a Wuhan symptom. If you don’t have a skin-rash that is a Wuhan symptom. If you lose your sense of smell, you definitely have Wuhan. If you’re hearing improves you have Wuhan. If your wife has suddenly become more attractive to you than she has in decades … yep, sign that you’re infected with Wuhan.

Clearly, the Wuhan virus has become a joke that only cultural Marxists don’t get. It has clearly been established by chaps like Dr. John  Ioannidis of Stanford and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford as well as sundry other academics with copious amount of letters after their names that the Wuhan virus narrative is a hoax.

The fact that the narrative continues thus strongly suggests that the Wuhan has become a political football being used to leverage power and control, just as the Cultural Marxist left has long desired to use anthropogenic climate change as a means unto global power and control.

We have come to the point where the Wuhan virus, in the short term, is just about politics and the 2020 election.

If you’re pro-abortion you vote Democrat.

If you’re pro 2nd Amendment you vote Republican.

If you’re pro “The Wuhan virus is the end of the world as we know it,” you vote Democrat.

If you’re pro legitimate science and know “The Wuhan virus is just another seasonal flu,” you vote Republican.

So… if you’re living in a State that has a Dem. Gov. you’re locked down to the max. If you’re living in a State with a Republican Gov. odds are its not quite as bad.

This is no longer about science in the least. The science has demonstrated authoritatively that the Wuhan should not be a reason to shut States down. The science has demonstrated that the Wuhan virus is just another influenza that might be slightly more virulent and deadly than previous influenza of previous years.

In point of fact what this is about the long articulated and relentlessly pursued New World Order globalist vision to level the economy of these united States so as to be on par with the rest of the world to the end of socializing the globe and so usher in a Globalist one world vision. This is already been pointed at by the recent op-ed writings of people like Madeline Albright, Henry Kissinger, and Gordon Brown, (two former US Sec. State and one former PM of Britain) as well as sundry United Nations hacks. One simply cannot rationally go on believing that the Wuhan virus narrative is about saving lives when one tracks the doings of Bill and Melinda Gates as well as the WHO. It’s all out there for those who have the time to do the research.

Another way we can know that the Wuhan narrative is phony is to track the recent insertion of Race into the narrative. Below is a portion of a letter under the cover of the Governor of Michigan Letterhead to Michigan medical workers sent 20 April 2020.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has identified alarming racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 cases and deaths. As of April 19, 2020, African American residents comprise 33% of cases and 40% of deaths due to COVID-19 in Michigan, despite comprising only 14% of the state’s population. This is consistent with what has been seen in other states as well…. Based on what we currently know about other health disparities, there are many reasons why we are likely seeing this during the COVID-19 crisis….We all have implicit biases and the difficulty is that we don’t realize that we have them – assumptions about individuals and groups can cause medical providers to not use a patient’s individual circumstances or objective data to guide clinical management. Explicit biases include those that are more explicitly racist, that may also not be fully recognized.

First off we should note in passing that apparently it is perfectly legitimate to cite statistics when it is convenient while it still remains bad form when statistics tell us that the firearm homicide rate in America is 19.8 for every 100,000 for the US Black community while for the US White community the firearm homicide rate is 1.7 for every 100,000.

See the link below for more interesting statistics. (Beware, becoming familiar with the link below finds one guilty of the crime of noticing.)

https://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf

Referring back to the quote italicized above we notice that the “Whites are evil people” narrative is being folded into the “the Wuhan virus is the end of the world as we know it” narrative, to yield the, “Evil White people are the reason that the Wuhan is the end of the world as we know it” narrative. Clearly, if white Medical personnel in the State of Michigan were not suffering from Racist inclination fewer folks of color would be dying.

But just in case this is not obvious enough, these things have been said explicitly by opinion shapers as televised on the Lugenpresse,

“One thing I think is really interesting is how these protests have started after all the headlines last week or so about the disproportionate effect the virus is having in communities of color, and so when I look at these protests what I see are a bunch of white people essentially saying ‘oh, it’s affecting those people, so why do I have to change my life for them.'”

Renee Graham
Opinion writer — Boston Globe

Not to be outdone this was soon followed by Senior writer for The Root, Michael Harriot, offering up that those protesting the lock down are saying “quite clearly” that they “want more black and brown people to die.”  Then in order to be clear in his conviction Harriot added, “If you want the government to open up, then you want more black and brown people to die.”

And to think, that I am the one who gets accused of belonging to the “Tin foil hat” brigade.

So, we see here by all this that the Wuhan virus in its political incarnation, is now driving the train.

False premise #1 — Wuhan kills.
True premise #1 — White people increasingly know that Wuhan doesn’t kill and are out protesting unconstitutional action by Governments.
False conclusion from false premise #1 while not accepting true premise #1 — White people want colored folk dead.

It’s all so simple.

So, back to where we started. The Wuhan virus is the new climate change. If you will recall climate change has always had at its center the accusation that rich White people in rich White countries want to harm the poor minorities around the world and need to be stopped by action that will destroy the economies of the first world. This narrative failed and so the Wuhan narrative comes to the fore to fill in the gap and presto change-o the Wuhan virus is also about white people hating minorities and also serves the purpose of destroying first world economies.

“When you’re dealing with apologetics there are three tests for truth normally.

1.) Logical consistency
2.) Empirical adequacy
3.) Experiential relevance

… We’re looking for an Empirical point of reference. The Bible is not a self referencing book. The Bible is a book about geography, history and events that can be tested from outside the Bible itself. Unlike the Koran which is a self-referencing book. What do I mean by that? How do you know that the Koran is the Word of God? Mohammed said so. How do you know Mohammed is right? Because the Koran says so. The Bible is not a self-referencing authority. It has points of verification or the capacity to be falsified if it is not right from sources outside itself.”

Ravi Zacharias
Sermon — When East Meets West

Here we see Zacharias’ evidentialism come shining through. The presuppositionalist would say that geography, history, and events are not self referencing realities that sit in judgment on God’s Word. In order for geography, history, and events to be able to judge the Bible they first, in order to have legitimacy, have to be judged by the Bible and the Christian Worldview that Scripture yields.

Contrary to Zacharias’ assertion the Bible is a self-referencing book. How do I know that the Bible is the Word of God? God says so. How do I know that God is right? Because the Bible says so. Now to be sure, geography, history and events confirm the reliability of God’s Word but since the world is God’s world, just as the Word is God’s Word, all properly understood geography, history, and events can do is confirm what God’s Word states. If geography, history or events were to falsify God’s Word they would only, at that point, be falsifying themselves. To insist that Scripture is falsifiable is to suggest that there is a God outside of God who has the capacity to prove God wrong. If History can prove God wrong than History is a God over God.

Zacharias wants to give independent agency to History, Geography and events as if they have any meaning outside their dependency upon the God of the Bible for meaning. To say that history, geography, and events could possibly falsify the reality of God is to say that God is only possibly true. In order to be certain we have to wait for history, geography, and events to confirm or deny the possibility of God.

Ravi wants to talk about “testing the Bible,” but any test that would test the Bible that isn’t dependent upon the presuppositions of the Bible will always come back testifying that the Bible isn’t reliable.

Ravi is a smooth talker. He is very confident. He speaks at a high velocity tempo. He has that lovely accent that Americans find irresistibly charming. These things don’t allow people to actually think about what the man is saying as he is speaking.

Ravi is just wrong here. He is wrong more often than people would like to admit. What he is saying here is false on a number of different levels, starting with the matter of which piece of evidence would qualify as an objective touchstone against which one could test the objective inspired Word? Even if one did not accept divine inspiration, you’d still be left with why we should believe the Epic of Gilgamesh over the Genesis account of the Flood or why some self-serving Assyrian stele is more reliable than II Kings.

God’s Word is not potentially falsifiable. I mean it is shocking to suggest otherwise. Boiled down what Ravi is saying is that it is possible that God could be lying.