I’ve come to think of libertarians and R2K advocates as moral free-riders. They want to enjoy the stability, trust and cohesion that is the result of a Christian Worldview that was incarnated as legislated Christian morality and which provides them with the stability, trust, and cohesion in their social order, but without themselves being culpable for its direct upkeep.
The Irrationality of Evolutionary Materialism
“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Charles Darwin
Letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.
“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
― C.S. Lewis
In Sunday School we have been reading and reviewing this book together,
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Darwinism-Flawed-Disastrous/dp/1436383684/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8
Windchy, brings out the Darwin quote and Lewis only teased it out its implications.
1.) Incoherency of Materialism
In the end Materialism (Naturalism) is inherently contradictory and so irrational since it the idea of truth is itself a non-corporeal, non-material idea. Further, the very second that the Materialist begins invoking “logic” to support their position they have at that point overturned their materialist position since logic itself is immaterial. Further still, as the materialist disavows the “mind,” instead choosing to embrace the material brain. But all the brain is a bio-chemical entity that has evolved over time. How can a bio-chemical entity ever develop anything like the non material concept of true truth?
2.) Materialism Attributes the supernatural to the natural
Materialism denies the supernatural and then turns around and imbues the natural with supernatural categories. Matter becomes eternal, omnipotent, having aseity, infinite, etc. Naturalism then doesn’t void the supernatural, it instead, merely tucks it away inside the natural.
The implication of this is that a absolutized Nature that is impersonal, irrational, and without purpose creates an effect — a world that is allegedly personal, rational, and purposive — without supernatural means that is greater than its cause. Materialism wants to insist that a non supernatural and mindless world brought forth a rational world that is inhabited by beings brought about by a time + chance + circumstance natural selection that can rationally reflect on their irrational origins. So, Naturalism, posits rational, self-aware human beings that have brains but no minds who can rationally and meaningfully reflect on their irrational origins.
Pointing out the Obvious
I picked at part of this quote in the previous entry but I just have to come back for another bite at the proverbial apple.
D. G. Hart writes,
“So if you are a legislator or president or judge and you hold office by virtue of being elected by Americans, not just the Christian ones, then don’t you have an obligation to execute your office in a way that is in the best interests of the people you serve (Americans and American-Christians)?”
1.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one posit, that acting in a non-Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents would be a Christian thing to do?
2.) As a Christian public office holder, why would one not think, that acting in Christian manner, in pursuing the best interest of non-Christian constituents, would always be in the best interest of non-Christian constituents?
3.) By what standard are we defining “best interest?”
Darryl asks,
“But if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”
1.) I guess every thought captive to the obedience of Christ is understood to have the addition “except in the public/common kingdom.”
2.) So much for “whatever is not done in faith is sin.”
3.) This quote suggests that if someone is voted in by all the Americans then there are times when it would be wrong to act in the best interest of Christians vis a vis the Christian constituents.
3.) Are we being told by a Dr. of the Church that it is wrong, at times, (by what Standard?) to act as a Christian when in a public capacity?
4.) If one is not acting as a Christian then how is one acting? Perhaps it is the case for Hart that it is Christian to not act as a Christian when you are a public official representing all the people?
You can’t make this stuff up.
Hart continues,
I get it. Politicians face ethical dilemmas but those are not the same as a personal preference or conviction on the one hand and what is best for everyone on the other. A Major League Baseball umpire may have grown up as a Phillies’ fan, but if he is behind the plate for a Phils-Pirates game, he’s supposed to call the same strike zone for both pitchers.
So doesn’t the same apply to Christian legislators who would seek public office in the greatest nation on God’s green earth? Don’t they have to act in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers?
1.) Only a Christian Umpire, or a Umpire influenced by a Christian worldview would think it important to call balls and strikes as “balls and strikes” in a Phillies vs. Pirates game. A non-Christian Umpire would call that outside pitch a third strike on Andrew McCutchen every time and be glad he was able to do so.
2.) Acting in the best interests of citizens who are both God-deniers and God-fearers would be to always act as a Christian.
Where R2K World’s Collide … Dr. Darrell Hart contra Dr. R. Scott Clark
Recently, public officials of the California State University locations, ruled to “de-recognize” the Christian campus ministry called “Inter-Varsity.” See story linked,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/intervarsity-sanctioned-california-state-university_n_5791906.html
Now according to R2K Chieftain Dr. D. G. Hart, this was a understandable move since,
” … if you think that you are always going to have to act as a Christian in public office, then should you be allowed to hold power in a government that shows no religious preferences?”
Now, it is at least possible that the public officials of the California State University system were Christian and it is possible, that since the California State University system was not to show any religious preference, therefore those Christian public officials of the California State University did the right thing.
However, even if the all the California State University officials who made this decision were pagans, it still is the right decision, according to Hart, since the University system was not to show any religious preferences. I mean, after all, who does Inter-Varsity think they are requiring leaders to adhere to Christian beliefs? The University, per Hart, was correct to shut this travesty of unprincipled pluralism down.
However, Hart’s colleague, Dr. R. Scott Clark thinks that the California State University was wrong to de-recognize Intervarsity. Clark offers this morsel,
“One area that ought to be a matter of growing concern for Christians (and other religious folk) is the attempt by some in our society to use administrative and bureaucratic positions to silence views with which they disagree. Such impulses are fundamentally un-American and unjust.”
Scott, sees de-recognizing Inter-varsity as something bad. But, we might ask, “bad,” by what standard? By a Biblical Standard? 1000 times no. Scott’s standard for faulting the California State University system’s decision as bad bad bad is that it is “fundamentally un-American and unjust.”
But applying Darrell’s principle it most certainly is American and just. After all, the California State University system is to show no religious preferences and allowing Intervarsity to only have leadership that is Christian is the very apex of religious preference.
Pursuing a brief rabbit trail one wonders why Dr. R. Scott Clark appeals to the Confessions in order to gain traction for policy in the Common realm? Certainly, if Scripture is not to be our guide in the common realm, per R2K, then the confessions would be out of bounds also right? Why should Christians care what the Confessions have to say concerning common realm activity? Well … they might care what those Confessions say about the common realm when they are in the Church realm but the minute they leave the Church realm they would have to forget that they cared what the Confessions said when they were in the Church realm.
Scott also complains about the California State University system trying to impose ideological conformity from above but if the University system would do what Scott wants by allowing Inter-varsity to operate untrammeled wouldn’t that also be a case where the University is imposing a top down ideological conformity? The University can either impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced,” or they can impose a ideological top down conformity that says, “No expressions of faith will be silenced except Christianity.” Either way, the University system is imposing a top down ideological construct. No neutrality Scott … remember? It is never a question of “whether or not top down ideological construct,” it is only ever a question of which top down ideological construct.
Scott complains about the unfairness of it all, but what is fair outside a Biblical standard?
Scott asks the question,
“From what mountain did the administers descend, what revelation did they receive that gives them the authority to banish historic Christian orthodoxy from campus?
I hate to be bearer of bad tidings but the answer to this question is they descended from Mt. positivistic law or they received the Revelation from St. Natural law. The further bad news for Scott is that the only thing that can combat each and both of them is Biblical Christianity in the common realm.
Micro approach supporting Infant Baptism
Why we Baptize
1.) Baptism is a subset of covenant theology. In covenant theology God calls a people and says to them “I shall be your God and you shall be my people.” This covenant calling extends to not only the called but to all who come under the household of the called.
9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
2.) So from the beginning it has been as Peter said in Acts, “39 For the Covenant promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” When Peter mentions “for your children and all who are far off,” we hear this as a covenant promise. The children are included and those afar off are understood as the generations yet to come who remain afar off.
Peter’s language is reminiscent of the language of Moses in Dt.
I am making this covenant both with you who stand here today in the presence of the LORD our God, and also with the future generations who are not standing here today.
God has always built His Church as a family of Families. Not a family of Individuals.
So, all of God’s covenants have included families. Even the major prophecies of the new covenant clearly indicate the continuance of the household as the basic unit of the people of God. See Gen. 12:3; Isa. 54:10, 13; 59:21 (the Old Testament backdrop to Acts 2:39); 61:8-9; Jer. 32:38-40; Ezek. 37:25-26; Zech. 8:5; 10:7, 9; 12:10-14; 14:17. In response to the use of the new covenant passages made by our Baptist friends, we must show that in those very passages the household principle remains as an aspect of the new covenant. If noble Christians “searched the Scriptures” (i.e., the Old Testament) to find out whether the things taught by the apostles were so (Acts 17:11), where would they have found warrant to abrogate the household principle?
3.) We see nothing in the NT that changes this covenant family arrangement. When God calls people into the Church of Jesus Christ he calls the children with him. Consider the household Baptisms
Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14)
Lydia (Acts 16:15),
Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33-34),
Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16)
Now it is conceded that in ZERO of these Baptisms are children explicitly mentioned as being Baptized. However, that is irrelevant to our appeal because the whole theology of “Household Baptism” is that on the basis of Household Baptisms babies would have been Baptized had they been present. The whole identifying reality of household baptism is that all who are in the household would be baptized. So, even if no infants were in those NT households baptized the point is that, upon the principle of household baptism, if they have been present they would have been baptized. Household means all considered part of the household.
Where do we find, with the coming of Pentecost, that God now deals with individuals as opposed to families?
Of course we do ourselves what we forbid God to do when we deny His place to call our children His own prior to their concession to God’s claim. When we have children we name them without their permission. When we have children we care, provide, and protect them without their permission. We call them our own without their permission. This is what God does in Baptism. He marks us as His own. He cares, provides, and protects via His Sacrament that conveys Grace and this without their permission. In Baptism He calls them His won without their permission. So, we allow ourselves the claim of ownership upon our children without their permission but we do not allow God in Baptism to have a claim of ownership upon His people.
4.) Continuing on as to why we Baptize our children,
We Baptize our children because we confess that they are partakers of Adam’s sin and have need to become partakers of Christ’s righteousness. Scripture says that “In sin did my mother conceive me.” We are born sinners with the sin nature.
When we baptize our children we trust God’s promises that Christ is the cure for the wound of Adam’s sin that we are all born with. Romans 5 teaches that in Adam’s fall, we sinned all. It teaches that we are born sinners and that Christ is the only cure. We understand that Baptism conveys Christ to those who have been set aside for salvation.
All of this is taught in our Catechism when it asks,
Question 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
Answer: Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; (a) and since redemption from sin (b) by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; (c) they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers (d) as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, (e) instead of which baptism is instituted (f) in the new covenant.
So why is there so much controversy surrounding this idea that the Children of those who God owns are owned by God? One of my theories is that the way we think about the foundations of how society is organized wars against a covenantal understanding where the Children go with the parents.
According to the Lockean social contract myth, upon which our social order is based, had human beings being isolated Egos. Each of us have a will of our own, and each is free to make choices on our own. We are sovereign “I’s” first and foremost, though we may, for various selfish reasons, combine with other I’s into a political society
If this is really what is going on, then the most effective argument for infant baptism may be the creation account which teaches that man in isolation is not fully man. It is not until the creation of Eve, and so the inauguration of the community whole, that man is fully self. In short, man only finds the meaning of the individual self in the context of community. The vast majority of the contemporary Church denies this insisting that man as the individual must give assent to the community whole – The Church with Christ as King – before the community whole can recognize the individual as a member of the whole community.
In short the Christian holds that the primary building block of society is the corporate whereas the non Christian holds that the primary building block of society is the sovereign individual. When the sovereign individual is the primary building block then it is easy to understand why a child must concede to God’s calling before he is Baptized.