Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Why I am not an Objectivist

Published by Kenneth Martens July 3, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 7 Comments

In my previous articles I explained how my libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview, and why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government.) Today I will explore Objectivism, the ethical philosophy developed by Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is best known for her novel Atlas Shrugged. In it, Rand lays out a consistent ethical framework based on the inviolable rights of life and property. She calls her ethical system Objectivism because the rights are objectively determined by reality, not by the subjective whim of the masses or by the varying interpretation of religious scriptures. Objectivist ethics are inherent in the universe. They are objectively true.

I started reading Ayn Rand because she gives a vigorous defense of small-government libertarianism. Her essays have played a part in shaping my own views of political philosophy. I agree with much of what she says about government. However, I am not an Objectivist.

Objectivism is incompatible with biblical principles. To explain why, let’s study the underpinning concepts of Objectivism. Let’s begin with the Essentials of Objectivism as presented by the Ayn Rand Institute.

Metaphysics

Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural

A belief system that rejects the supernatural is contrary to the Bible. The Bible is filled with accounts of supernatural miracles. Jesus walked on water. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush. Ten plagues afflicted the Egyptians. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. God spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Epistemology

Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge)

The Bible says a great deal about faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Hebrews 11 says it is “by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command.” Hebrews 11 lists off all the biblical heros and declares that “these were all commended for their faith.” Faith is not an optional part of a biblical worldview. Because Objectivism rejects faith, it rejects Scripture.

Human Nature

Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)

According to the Bible, God is sovereign over all things. God can harden the heart (Exodus 7:13, 9:12). He controls our eternal destiny: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5). God is in control of nations: “The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.” (Psalm 33:10). A man does not control even his own destiny: “Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.” (Proverbs 19:21).

Ethics

“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action.”
“Rationality is man’s basic virtue.”
Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Man’s reason is a poor guide: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12).

Politics

Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

The sociopolitical system that is compatible with Objectivism is laissez faire capitalism. The way to achieve this is through a minarchist libertarian government. This is not incompatible with biblical values. The underlying values of Objectivism are unbiblical, but Objectivist politics are not.

Esthetics

“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.”

I don’t even know what this means.

Of the Essentials of Objectivism, only one out of six (Politics) is compatible with biblical values. As a Christian, I cannot be an Objectivist. Objectivism is based on a godless secular view of the world. It worships man instead of man’s Creator.

The Death of Left and Right

Published by Colin July 2, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 5 Comments

It has been a tough thing this election cycle, especially with the beacon of light which was the Ron Paul movement, to admit defeat. Argument after argument I have engaged, especially with “conservatives” has been predicated on the hope that the new statist conservative movement is a fad, and that there is still a remnant of “old school” conservatives in the mainstream GOP. I think it is time to admit defeat. The Left died some time ago in this country, and now the Right has joined them in the grave.

It was once said that Left and Right in America looked something like this:

Right - Social and fiscal conservatives. Philosophically opposed to collectivism, big government and taxes. Fiscally responsible, favouring balanced budgets and looking to cut taxes and spending. Supporting civil rights. Promoting a moral society. Supporting private and family education. Seeing the family as the foundation of a moral society. Strong on defence but sceptical of empire and conflicts that could damage trade. Supporting immigration and freer borders.

Left - Social and Fiscal liberals. Generally favour collectivism to individualism. Bigger government but restrained by laws and free and fair elections. Fiscal investments in welfare, infrastructure and military. Supporting civil rights, especially privacy. Sceptical of police and military for uses other than peacekeeping and defence. Generally more states-rights.

In name, the major parties still would claim to hold to these principles. But when Mitt Romney argues that government-mandated healthcare is a “market solution” and Mike Huckabee claims that we need to “stop spending,” but should support increased NASA funding, farm subsidies and federal education spending - we clearly have double-speak of Orwellian proportions.

Bob Barr, former conservative congressman, currently running for president as a Libertarian, explains exactly when it was that conservatism died:

I remember the precise moment. I was elected to Congress in 1994 with the Republican Revolution, and four years later we were in one of the House Republican caucuses, just before the ‘98 election, and the leadership came in and said very clearly, “We’ve got an election coming up. Anybody here who has a problem in their district, sit down with Representative Kasich or Armey and tell them what you need to have in this year’s budget to win your election.” And they might as well have had a sign flashing in the background that said “business as usual.” We were no longer serious about reining in government. And now McCain goes out and talks about doing away with earmarks, and the public applauds. But in one year, you could simply freeze spending and save ten times as much. They want to give the appearance of tackling the issue, but not really. It’s part of the same shell game they use cycle after cycle.

The left and right as a valid barometer of political spectrum has now vanished. There is now little that distinguishes someone like John McCain from Barack Obama. Both are for continuing the war in Iraq. Both are gung-ho about possible expansion. Neither would fix the PATRIOT act. Neither would fix NCLB. Both seem to want increased border restrictions. Neither will cut spending. Both want statist solutions to global warming. Both are opposed to free markets. Neither of them support individual liberty. And it seems neither have read the constitution in a while.

Again, Barr speaks eloquently to the topic:

[The presidency is] the same establishment, the same power-hungry entity, whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat… Every administration that comes in takes the powers that it inherits from its predecessor as a floor, not a ceiling. So whether it’s McCain or Obama, they’ll inherit the powers of the Bush administration.

I propose that there is now only one spectrum that matters - it’s vertical rather than horizontal. Power and authority are on the top; freedom and liberty are on the bottom. The question is no longer whether an official considers himself left or right, but authoritarian or libertarian. Moderates should start ignoring the typical labels and buzzwords of each side and look at the substance of proposals to see whether they contribute to an authoritarian society, or a free and open one.

With today’s conservatives supporting all manners of interventions, from universal healthcare to military empire building, it’s time to face the facts. Stop appealing to Republicans with the old conservative arguments - you are arguing with a party of corpses.

The Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Part IV)

Published by Chris A July 1, 2008 in Religion. 2 Comments

There are many benefits of the Holy Spirit afforded to those who are believers in Jesus Christ. However, the failure of many in receiving of these benefits has to do with ignorance of receiving the Spirit’s power. In fact, I dare say most Christians examine the power of God through a historical lens looking back to biblical times. Although most Christians acknowledge the miracles the early church experienced in the book of Acts, there is a disconnection in there minds between then and now.

This kind of thinking fosters within people an attitude of skepticism toward any claim of the miraculous. Those who display this attitude plainly show their lack of experience with the power of the living Christ. Some seem to think that the power experienced by the early church has to do with their extreme persecution. While there may be truth in the reasoning that opposition causes people to draw nearer to God and him to them, it is not correct to say that the totality of God’s power through the Holy Spirit cannot be accessed without opposition. There are some Christians who attribute the great power of the early church to the apostles. This too is erroneous and unscriptural.

The Voice of the One Crying in the Wilderness
Most of us understand that John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus’ earthly ministry. What has received less attention, or at least has not been fully understood, was one key thing John said about Jesus’ ministry.

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire (John 3:11).

This ministry of baptizing with, or more literally, in the Holy Spirit has been misunderstood for centuries. Nevertheless it is a key part of the ministry of Jesus Christ and should be experienced by all believers. This baptism is the experience of being endowed with the same power Jesus was endowed with. Jesus’ own water baptism experience demonstrates what John meant by being baptized in the Holy Spirit. This experience is recorded in Luke 3.

21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Here we see that following Jesus’ water baptism he was empowered by the Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus, the book of Acts records similar instances in which the Holy Spirit descended on believers much the same way.

Then You Shall be Witnesses
Jesus did not baptize anyone in the Holy Spirit as part of his earthly ministry; rather this aspect of his ministry began to take place after his ascension to the right hand of the Father. Jesus alluded to this before ascended, as recorded in Acts 1.

4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

6So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Notice that Jesus said in verse 5 Jesus said they would be baptized in the Holy Spirit “in a few days.” This, of course, coincided with his instruction to remain in Jerusalem. The fulfilment of what Jesus said would happen took place after Jesus had ascended, for we read in verse 9, “After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.”

We should realize that Jesus predicated their being witnesses upon their being empowered by the Spirit, the implication being that they would not have been equipped to be effective witnesses prior to their receiving the power they were instructed to wait for. Notice also that verse 4 makes clear the fact that this was a command. This is particularly important in light of the fact that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts the unbeliever of their sin in order to reveal to them the grace of God through Jesus Christ. It only stands to reason that those who would be witnesses of Jesus be empowered by the Spirit whose function it is to draw men to the Father.

The Day of Pentecost
Jesus baptized the early believers in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost following his ascension.

1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tonguesas the Spirit enabled them (Acts 2:1-4).

What happened subsequent to this experience? Peter preached the Gospel and 3,000 people repented and professed Jesus Christ. This was made possible because he was empowered by the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit worked in conjunction with the message preached by convicting the hearers of their sin. Notice the response of his audience after hearing the Gospel.

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ (Acts 2:37)

Notice the phrase, “They were cut to the heart.” This is evidence of the Spirit’s work.

Debating the Existence of God: Some Definitions and the Burden of Proof

Published by Casey Huxley June 30, 2008 in Religion and Philosophy. 44 Comments

Defining terms is frequently half the battle in any discussion - and discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of god(s) is no exception. Often meaningful conversation is made impossible by conflicting sets of definitions. I see two main different sets of definitions in use. Unfortunately, dictionaries are often mixed on the issue. For the record, I’m an ex-Christian who is now a weak agnostic.

Popular Definitions
Perhaps the most common set of definitions are what I here term the popular definitions. It appears that most people who haven’t been involved in much debate on this issue will hold to definitions like these.

Atheist - someone who claims to know that god(s) and the supernatural don’t or can’t exist.

Agnostic - someone who isn’t sure if god(s) or the supernatural exists.

Theists - someone who is sure god(s) and/or the supernatural exists.

These definitions are flawed for a few reasons, but many people do seem to hold these or similar definitions. When they talk to someone who is using the more technical definitions, communication can be difficult.

Technical Definitions
Here are the more technical (and in my view, correct) definitions.

Atheist - is simply someone who is not a theist (hence a - theist). This means that they lack a belief in any god(s), but it doesn’t mean that they deny the possibility of god(s) or supernatural forces. This is the position of the “new atheists” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) that have achieved much media discussion in recent years. They would say that while they can’t prove or state absolutely that a god doesn’t exist, they nevertheless don’t believe in one, and find the existence of one unlikely.

Recently the terms strong atheist and weak atheist have come into being. A weak atheist would be one as described in the above paragraph, whereas a strong atheist is as described in the popular definitions section. Those atheists who hold to the weak position appear to greatly outnumber those who hold to the strong position.

Agnosticism - literally means without knowledge. The agnostic position is that there is no evidence, or at least no good evidence, to suggest that god(s) exists or that god(s) doesn’t exist. Agnosticism also has a strong and weak division. Strong agnosticism states that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. Weak agnosticism states that existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown (in the “weakest” view, perhaps merely unknown to the specific agnostic in question), but is not necessarily unknowable.

Theist - simply someone who has a belief in god(s).

It’s important to note that in this set of definitions, that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic atheist - don’t know if god(s) existence and do not believe in any, or be an agnostic theist - don’t know if god(s) exist but believe in one (or more). Agnostic theists in theological terms are often called fideists, a term that emphasizes their position that religious questions are better (or only) answered by faith rather than by reason.

You can see how these two sets of definitions can lead to misunderstanding. A theist might challenge an atheist to prove that god(s) doesn’t exist. To which an atheist could very well reply that they can’t and that isn’t the position of atheism anyways.

Debate and the Burden of Proof
A key question, either overtly or covertly, in debates over the existence of god(s) is which side has the burden of proof. The atheist and the theist will likely insist that the other has to prove their position, and the agnostic is likely to agree with both of those statements. Atheists will say that they aren’t making a claim, and that the theist is, and therefore has the burden of proof. Theists will contest this.

In a debate, whichever side can force the other side to carry the burden of proof by making them defend their position more than they themselves have to, will often appear to have “won” the debate. Thus, the burden of proof issue is critical.

My personal view is that as long as the debate is about the existence of god(s) in general, theists and atheists should have an equal burden of proof. (With the atheist arguing that the position that the existence of god(s) is very unlikely). This changes though if the theist’s claim becomes more specific. If the theist is arguing for the existence of an omnipotent, loving god then they are making a greater claim and must suffer the greater burden of proof. And if the theist is arguing for a specific god or gods and that all other ones are false, then that is a very great claim and the theist must meet an extremely high burden of proof.

Links: Bush Administration Screw-Up, Google Space-Race, More Laws = Less Safe Driving

Published by Colin June 27, 2008 in Current Events. 1 Comment

Every week, our users put together the news, interviews, articles, videos and media that they have found important, interesting and informative. We post it every Friday. Here are the links for this week:

Another Bush administration screw-up:

So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly $500 million to fund those broadcasts. The television station, called Alhurra, and the radio network, Sawa, were meant to provide an American perspective on world events and counter the wave of global criticism that had been building against the Bush administration since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Instead, Alhurra’s four years of operation have been marked by a string of broadcast disasters that government officials believe are as negative as anything aired by Al Jazeera, the widely watched Qatar-based station that aired unedited speeches of Osama bin Laden.

Google is funding a private space-race:

We believe that space should be open to anyone and everyone, especially those people who want to go… The government has accomplished amazing things … but we think that we can do it less expensively.

There are 16 million people on the membership rolls of Southern Baptist churches, but only 6 million show up to church. The Southern Baptist Convention has adopted a resolution on church membership. Local churches are urged to “exercise church discipline” and to “maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members.” Small Victories are Still Victories

According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attendees said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life. Another interesting part of the survey (link) is that 21% of atheists believe in God (see page 3 of the summary). Apparently, atheists are not so sure what that word is supposed to entail.

More Links
Why stop signs and speed limits endanger Americans

Is it inherent that Mom’s and Dad’s have unequal roles? Some researchers say, “yes.”

‘Pro-Life’ Drugstores Market Beliefs

Whistle at construction workers in England and you risk being put on the sex offenders register.

Review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Part IV

Published by Thainamu June 26, 2008 in Book Reviews. 4 Comments

Part 4 of 4 - Appendix on Bioethics and my reflections

Links to earlier parts of this review: Part I, Part II, Part III

Francis S. Collins ends his book with an Appendix chapter about bioethics, especially bioethics relating specifically to the rapid progress in understanding of the human genome. He talks about his first hand experience in dealing with an extended family who were part of an experiment to isolate the gene for a certain type of breast cancer. We all think that an understanding of genetics could do wonders for treating disease, but the non-medical implications that the families and doctors had to deal with in this case were considerable. For instance, should a woman have a preemptive double mastectomy if she learns she has the bad gene? Should children be tested, and what should their options be? How does one deal with “survivor guilt” when one sister has the bad gene and the other doesn’t?

He goes on to other issues that come up when we can learn about our own genetic predispositions to disease. Some examples: Who gets access to our genetic info, and what will they be allowed to do with it? Would insurance companies discriminate on whom they will cover? Will our life-style change if we learn about our own predispositions?

He covers cloning in detail, and devotes a few pages to the “when does life begin” question. He brings up a case that I personally have seen, where Christians who believe that life begins at conception turn a blind eye to the process of in vitro fertilization which often destroys embryos and most certainly leaves thousands in frozen limbo.

Lastly, he talks about the idea of “my genes made me do it.” He presents evidence that, yes, there are psychological traits that statistically do run in families, but strongly puts forth that these traits are “genetically influenced, but not hardwired.”

My Reflections on the Book
First of all, in regard to this appendix, I’ve often felt like, for several decades, humans have had the scientific and technological expertise to create situations way beyond their ability to deal with the implications of those situations. The burgeoning field of genetic medicine is just one more example of this. At this rate, I wonder what things my grandchildren will have to deal with–probably things I can’t even imagine.

I very much enjoyed reading this book and re-reading it as I wrote this review. I had known of Collins’s work for some years, so it was good to read his autobiographical story. I suppose the big idea that I come away with is that which I wrote about in part 3, my views on the creation of the world. This book has given me cause to think that maybe an interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that is not literal would be possible without doing damage to one’s faith in scripture or the saving work of Christ.

Ironically, my father comes to mind. He was not a believer during my growing up and teen years (though he always attended church as a way to shut my mother up). He was not an educated man, just high school, but he liked to read the newspaper. I remember having some weird conversations with him as he read news items about finding humanoid fossils, etc. He believed the scientists, and that made him more disbelieve what he was hearing at church. He was one of those people for whom a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 was a stumbling block to faith.

A final green-light thought that reading this book brought me to: if evolution is true and continuing, I wonder what would happen if humans manipulate the world such that the unfit will survive as well as (or instead of) the fit?

Why I Am Not An Anarchist

Published by Kenneth Martens June 25, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 37 Comments

This essay responds to the idea that if small government is good, then no government is better.

Two Kinds of Libertarians
If a small government is good, no government at all must be better, right? Some libertarians agree, some don’t. That point of disagreement defines the two basic forms of libertarianism.

Anarchist libertarians believe true liberty can only be achieved if there is no government at all. Any form of government is oppressive.
Minarchist libertarians believe that a government is necessary for liberty. The ideal government is not oppressive.

Or to put it more succinctly:

Anarchy = no government
Minarchy = minimal government

Governments Abuse Power
The main problem with governments is that they can use their power to oppress the public and violate the rights of the people. At first glance that makes anarchism appealing. As one anarchist put it, how can minarchists trust “the minimal, libertarian state to restrain itself, and to refrain from using its own powers” to coerce and oppress the public? (The Minarchist’s Dilemma) There’s nothing to stop the government from using its power for evil. The only way to prevent that is to eliminate the government completely.

Ayn Rand offers a succinct explanation of why anarchy cannot and does not work.

[A] society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

“The Nature of Government” (PDF document)

I’m a Minarchist
I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. There are practical reasons for my belief. E.g., I don’t think anarchism is workable in a fallen world filled with sinful people. It devolves into might-makes-right. Even Ayn Rand, a hostile critic of religion, recognizes that fact. But for now I want to focus on biblical reasons to support a minarchy. According to Romans 13, God establishes earthly governments and expects Christians to submit to them in obedience to God. Submitting is not optional for Christians.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God (Romans 13:1).

God’s Purpose for Government
OK then, submitting to the government is biblical. Does the Bible say that men must be governed, though? Is it acceptable to submit to the authorities that exist while also advocating their abolition? I believe not. The reason is related to the purpose of government. Let’s look at Romans again, to see the purpose of government.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience (Romans 13:3-5) [Emphasis added].

The Bible is Not About Political Philosophy
The God-ordained purpose of government is to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” God doesn’t tell us to obey the government on a whim; we must obey the government because it is God’s instrument of justice on Earth. The precise form of government isn’t detailed in the Scriptures, but the qualities of that government are listed: a government acceptable to God is one that punishes evildoers and holds no terror for those who do right. There is no biblical support for the idea that God’s purposes (i.e., punishing evildoers) can be achieved without a government.

The Bible isn’t a treatise on political philosophy. It doesn’t discuss the merits of republics or kingdoms or dictatorships; it doesn’t list the virtues of democracies. All the Bible tells us is that governments are established by God for the purpose of punishing wrongdoers. As a Christian, I can only support governments that achieve those biblical objectives. As a citizen and a rational, thinking human being, I believe a minarchy is the best kind of government to fully achieve God’s stated purposes for government.

To summarize:

I am not an anarchist. I believe God has established earthly governments for a purpose.
I am a minarchist because I believe a minarchy best fits the purposes of government laid out in Romans 13.

Are Anarchists Heretics?
This doesn’t mean that anarchy is heresy. I believe you can read the Bible and come away with an understanding that anarchy is compatible with God’s character and with biblical values. For example, you might look to the period of judges and see that God preferred Israel as a nation without a national government. God permitted Israel to have a king, but he warned them of the dire consequences. I don’t believe this implies that anarchy is God’s preferred system of government, but I can see how someone can come to that conclusion.

So no, anarchy is not heresy. I believe minarchy is a more reasonable understanding of the Bible, but good Bible-believing Christians can be anarchists too.

Stepping Back - What Is A Sacrament, And Does It Do Away With “Faith Alone”?

Published by Bryan June 24, 2008 in Essays, Religion and Theology. 9 Comments

About The Series In General
This will be the final entry directly on the subject of sanctifying grace being given in the Lord’s Supper. In past entries we have looked at: The Frequency Of The Lord’s Supper, If The Lord’s Supper Is Magic?, and Calvin’s View Of The Lord’s Supper. In the next few entries we will be turning to other aspects of the Lord’s Supper before moving on to baptism. Today we will examine the objection to the view that sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s Supper which argues that such a view does away with the Protestant doctrine of “Faith Alone”.

Stating The Objection
The objection has been stated on here in the following form:

Our FAITH is what bestows grace (and that faith is also a gift from God). Belief in magic rituals that “force” God to bestow grace is unbiblical. Grace is not something we do acts to earn, it is a gift granted despite our complete inability to do anything to deserve it…

And summed up as

Grace granted as the result of an act isn’t grace, it is a wage that was earned.

Since sacraments have already been distinguished from “magic” in a previous post in which were given biblical examples of acts brining about God’s grace not being considered magic, I will first only briefly address the magic comment before moving onto the main trust of the argument.

What Is Magic?
Magic is the act of relying on a supernatural force to bring about some desired end. The supernatural force is under the command of the magician and in popular cultural is usually brought about by some kind of ritual.

A Christian sacrament on the other hand is a gift given by God to help the church perform it’s mission on earth. It is God who brings about the result of the sacrament, it does not rely on any power in the one who performs it. Whereas magic attempts to either appease or control of a supernatural power or being into performing the whim of the magician, there is no appeasement or control in a sacrament. Man does not force God to given grace in a sacrament, God freely gives it because it is a gift to the church.

A Comparison To Prayer
Why sacraments are accused on being magic, and doing away with “Faith Alone” and not prayer confuses me. One way to think of sacraments are prayers of physical matter. In prayer Christians ask for grace to be given them (Lord give me the strength to overcome XYZ so I can conform more to Christ) and in the Lord’s Supper one takes the bread and wine expecting help to become more like Christ. The only major difference in this respect is that one is spoken, and the other a physical action. If sacraments are magic rituals, then prayer is magic enchantments. We will return to this comparison of prayer later.

The Doctrine Of Faith Alone
No Protestant will argue with the importance of faith in the life of the believer. No Protestant will argue with the statement that “It is by faith alone that one is justified.” However, Protestants will differ on what that statement means. The first Reformers who championed the doctrine saw no contradiction between that doctrine and the belief the the sacraments bestow grace.

As we saw in the last entry, that was Calvin’s view, and it was also Luther’s, the greatest champion of the doctrine to to mention the hundreds of other Reformers who held similar views. One could argue, and it often is, that those Reformers were still caught up in some Roman Catholic doctrine and it was left to others to shed the remaining Roman Catholic doctrines. While such an argument may be made, futility I believe, all I wish to point out is that historically we need not see a break between sacramental grace and the doctrine of faith alone.

How Is That Possible
One modern evangelical writer who has bucked the trend of seeing the Lord’s Supper only as an act of remembrance, and has made room for grace being given in it is Wayne Grudem. Chapter 48 of Grudem’s Systematic Theology is entitled “Means of Grace Within The Church” and will be used to explain why sacraments and the doctrine of “faith alone” are not mutually contradictory.

Grudem begins by asking the question:

All of the blessings we experience in this life are ultimately undeserved - they are all of grace. In fact, for Peter, the entire Christian life is lived by grace (1 Peter 5:12).
But are there any special means that God uses to give additional grace to us? Specifically, within the fellowship of the church are there certain means - that is, activities, ceremonies, or functions - that God uses to give more grace to us? Another way of formulating that question is to ask whether there are certain means through which the Holy Spirit works to convey blessings into the life of the believer. Of course, personal prayer, worship, and Bible study, and personal faith, are all means through which God works to bring grace to us as individual Christians. But in this chapter we are dealing with the doctrine of the church, and we are asking specifically within the fellowship of the church what the means of grace are that God uses to bring blessing to us.

Grudem identifies 11 activities, ceremonies and functions that God uses to bestow grace on the believer (For example; teaching the word, prayer, worship, giving…etc). Two of them are ceremonies (Baptist and the Lord’s Supper) which are which are the sacraments. It is important to note that in Grudem’s understanding, and all orthodox Christians, these means are only avenues that the Holy Spirit uses. The ritual in and of itself does not bring about grace, but it is the Holy Spirit working through them that does.

On the Holy Spirit working through the sacraments Grudem is lock step with Calvin who said in section 19 of his Short Treatise On The Lord’s Supper:

But to understand this advantage properly, we must not suppose that our Lord warns, incites, and inflames our hearts by the external sign merely; for the principal point is, that he operates in us inwardly by his Holy Spirit, in order to give efficacy to his ordinance, which he has destined for that purpose, as an instrument by which he wishes to do his work in us.

Not Ex Opere Operato
Ex Opere Operato is a Latin term that means that the work of the sacrament being performed confers the grace to the recipient, for the sake of our discussion, regardless of their faith. Such a belief would do away with the Protestant doctrine of “faith alone”, but Grudem is clear that this is not what he means:

But on a Protestant view, the means of grace are simply means of additional blessing within the Christian life, and do not add to our fitness to receive justification from God (However, the Anglican Church teaches that baptism is “generally necessary” for Salvation [My Note: We will deal with this in a later post if we get to baptism]). Catholics teach that the means of grace impart grace whether or not there is subjective faith on the part of the minister or the recipient, while Protestants hold that God only imparts grace when there is faith on the part of the persons receiving these means.

Once again we can turn to prayer to see a correlation. Prayer must be made in faith, in fact prayer is an act of faith. It must be made by someone who is trusting in God, and they put that trust into action by, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says “…offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.” The fact that the faith of a person is acted on in a way commanded by God to receive grace does not do away with the supremacy of faith in prayer just as it does not do away with it in the Sacraments. In the sacraments the faith of the person is acted on through the means that God has ordained (Baptism or the Lord’s Supper) and it is because of faith that the grace is given, just as in prayer.

Why Then External Ritual?
The obvious question at this point should be; “If it is faith that is what matters in the sacraments, why bother with the external sign?” This is a huge question and one that I can only deal with in part in this entry. For an excellent extended answer see Evangelical Is not Enough by Thomas Howard The simple answer, and one that I heard given this past weekend, is because God commands it, but such a view seems to make the sacraments into a burden instead of the gift that they are. Yes God commands participation in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but He does it for our own good. To base participation in them on a command is akin to saying the reason your use a gift is because your dad who gave it to you our of love forces you to. God knows that humans enjoy ritual, that the physical is something that humans need to connect with, and there is so much meaning locked up in the sacraments that participating in them makes the gospel come alive in ways that reading about them can not bring about.

Conclusion
Are sacraments magical? No, they are means that the Holy Spirit use to bring grace to the Church. Do sacraments do away with faith? No, faith is the heartbeat of them. They are nothing without faith on part of the recipient. Is there nothing then to the external ritual of them? No, God has ordained the rituals of the sacraments, they are the means that our faith is expressed. Will this explanation satisfy everyone? No the debate that been going on in Protestant churches since Luther and Zwingli, but I hope at least to have done away with some misconceptions on the topic.

GOP Flip-Flop on Financing

Published by Colin June 23, 2008 in Politics. 24 Comments

One of the major party candidates wants to see the Federal Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on presidential campaigns. This candidate also wants restrictions on donations, especially from businesses and wealthy people. This includes restrictions on the speech of religious groups as well.

The second major party candidate has decided to save taxpayers millions of dollars, by not taking this money in what is basically welfare for politicians. By this same token, free speech is no longer put into boxes based on timing, nor is money now channelled into rule-laden 527 Groups.

As I am sure the reader knows, the big-government position is being advocated by Republican John McCain, while, ironically, Democrat Barack Obama has forgone spending taxpayer money.

While this is already an almost comical commentary on the lack of distinction between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican National Committee has made themselves look even more foolish by criticizing Obama for his conservative position.

RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said the following:

In his decision to break his promise and forgo our nation’s public financing system, Barack Obama failed to demonstrate the kind of principled leadership that Americans are looking for in our next President. Obama’s decision is what we’ve come to expect from a candidate whose rhetoric is nothing like his record, and it undermines his own claims to represent a ‘new’ kind of politics. Clearly, Barack Obama is just another politician who is willing to do whatever benefits his own personal agenda.

While Obama is “flip-flopping” - it is the good kind - moving from a bad policy to a good one. Whereas McCain and the GOP’s steadfast adherence to their own hypocrisy is deplorable. The correct thing to do, is for the GOP to issue an apology for supporting a candidate like John McCain who claims to want to “reduce wasteful government spending” and subsequently supports federally-funded elections and free-speech restrictions.

What I suspect is the biggest problem with Obama’s move is that it is a break from the typical bipartisan agreements that the Dems and GOP have made to keep unfriendly elements (third parties and independents) from using wealth or grassroots support to crash their two party fiesta. That is the reason McCain-Feingold is in place - to enforce the duopoly currently in control of Washington.

Perhaps Obama really does represent change, and maybe his decision will have a positive impact on the future viability of non-traditional candidates. Either way, in this instance, it’s clear that public financing is not a viable program.

Links: Japanese Healthcare Solutions and Gitmo Outa’ Here

Published by Colin June 20, 2008 in Current Events. 2 Comments

Politics
Japan has enacted a law in an effort to rein in ballooning health care costs. Local governments are measuring the waist size of citizens.

British man pepper sprayed while watching TV. See what happens when you won’t open up your door and prove you aren’t being a bad boy? I love police.

Is Obama an enlightened being? His answer/opinion is at the bottom.

Senate Votes To Privatize Its Failing Restaurants. Alternatively: Mark Cuban wouldn’t hire politicians to manage a Diary Queen.

‘Deadly flooding keeps Iowans from homes’ and/or ‘Man gets pulled from truck at gunpoint for trying to go around a barrier’

Women’s hands, feet, hacked off, then throw into firebombed house in Zimbabwe election violence

From the New York Times:

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its third consecutive rebuff to the Bush administration’s handling of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ruling 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.

Religion
President Bush considering conversion?

Anglican Church In Meltdown

Misc.
10 Minute Radio interview with Canadian Industry Minister Jim Prentice on Canadian DMCA. This is an excellent interview where the Minister shows that he either has NO idea what he’s talking about or he’s outright LYING…and then hangs up. Seriously, this is unbelievable. Oh, and Canadian Music Artists do not like this bill.

Wine snobbery: “When wine drinkers tell me they taste notes of cherries, tobacco and rose petals, usually all I can detect is a whole lot of jackass.”

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol