This evening Rev. Franklin Graham was briefly interviewed on the Laura Ingraham show by guest host, Raymond Arroyo (December 23, 2021). It pertained to a display in the Illinois State House where a statue of a satanic goat-like figure “just a few steps away” from a nativity scene which included the baby Jesus (https://nypost.com/2021/12/23/satanic-display-inside-illinois-statehouse-days-before-christmas-draws-protesters/). When asked by Arroyo to comment, Graham said that from the time Herod the Great sought to kill the actual baby Jesus, Satan has been seeking to destroy Jesus Christ ever since, but that all of his attempts have failed. I deemed that to be a subtle, yet sufficient retort. However, Arroyo asked a second (final) question, the answer of which left me disappointed and dismayed. Arroyo highlighted the growing reality of the decline of Christian belief in our time and then asked Graham for his suggestion as to how Christians might turn that trend around. I judge that what Graham affirmed was absolutely correct by highlighting the urgency of evangelism to the end that people come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. On the other hand Graham utterly neglected what is absolutely vital in our calling to see people come to Christ, which is the employment of apologetic arguments with the goal of persuading people of the truth of the Gospel of Christ. I am, on the one hand, fully aware that many Christians think that task is unnecessary since it is the Holy Spirit who persuades people to repent. Yet what detractors fail to grasp is that the Bible is steeped in this strategy from beginning to end.[1] Furthermore, many of the same fail to appreciate that scientific and historical evidence together with trends in philosophy these days very strongly affirm that the existence of God, who reveals Himself in the Bible as both the creator of the universe and the redeemer of sinners through Jesus Christ, is far superior to competing world-views.[2] Christians cannot afford to be apathetic about this amazing reality since, by our silence in the face of an uninformed yet mocking world, surely implies that we Christians have nothing to challenge its skepticism.[3] To Christians, I say, inform yourselves firstly about the weight that the Bible places on seeking truth wherever it is manifested in the world, and secondly, about the utter strength of the evidence supporting the God of the Bible, which is so strong that one need not fear it being toppled by skeptics. To these ends, I urge you to read not only my papers that are listed below; but also that you investigate further by branching out to the large array of other writers, who affirm the same truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in their unique and inspiring ways.
Thursday, December 23, 2021
Tuesday, December 14, 2021
A Non-Sarcastic Way to Detect Lies and Deceptions
“Answer a fool not according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” (Proverbs 26:4)
This paper doesn’t need to incite a
posture of suspicion toward one’s opponent (whether real or merely assumed). It is distrust which impels accusations such as,
“You can spot a liar every time you see his lips moving.” But I advocate instead a spirit of openness in
the expectation that good-will is possible whenever there is a mutual goal of
arriving at either truth itself, or mutually agreeable strategies for reaching resolution
(“Come, let us reason together, says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18). Neither does this essay demand, in itself,
that one assemble all of the facts of a given matter for the purpose of destroying
one’s adversary. My point here is
not to denigrate the desire to become informed about matters under consi-deration. To the contrary! Yet indeed my highest purpose in this essay is
to identify the most fruitful way to discern the degree of sincerity or the
validity of any assertion about matters of consequence.
So what
I propose is a body of criteria so simple and straightforward that a young person[1]
or even an adult, can, not only grasp, but also employ and even apply in full
confidence. What I urge all people to do
is take notice of public persons-of-consequence (high elected office holders, influential
bureaucrats, and journalists) with the
following over-arching, multifaceted, body of questions in mind:
(A) Does the person submit
him/herself to relevant scrutiny by exposing themselves to ques-tions from
critics that hold differing points of view?
Do they indeed consider these views?
(B) Does the person fully answer
questions the public is actually asking as opposed to just fur-thering their
agenda which, as a matter of public record, is opposed by a majority of citizens?
(C) Should the official be an
elected person, does he/she express a sense of responsibility to those who
voted them into office in accordance with the Constitution?
(D) Does the person appreciate that
non-specialists are often sufficiently qualified to challenge the logic of certain
public policies since rationality is an aspect that is common to humanity?
(E)
Does the person’s appeal to “follow the science” honor scientific
methodology in actuality, by promoting rigorous public scientific debate
that employs high-level academically-degreed specialists who bring differing
points of view to the table?
(F) Does the person decry the undeniable
tyranny of censoring opposing undesirable points of view (in contradiction to
the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights)?
(G) Does the person propose
solutions that are constructive and actually superior to the status quo in such
a way that society is improved, or merely dismiss or decry the views of others?
(H) Is the person fully, and
without guile, committed to our official Constitutional documents?
In summary, do the persons in question boldly submit
themselves to scrutiny, or do they cower in fear that facing their challenge will
publicly expose an utter absence of good will in their designs? Now to lay my cards on the table, I say it is
the current Administration which, hands-down, fails these questions with a
glaring “NO!” to all. I defend my view with
hard evidence as I honor scrutiny by any opponent. In turn I earnestly challenger dissenters to,
with your evidence, demonstrate where you think me wrong.
[1] See Han Christian Anderson. The Emperor’s New
Clothes. https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
Monday, December 13, 2021
Why and When the Bible Gives Science the Last Word
“Ever since the creation of the kosmos,[1] God’s…eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1:20)
The Bible rightfully claims the last word and final authority in matters of eternity: with respect to our existential[3] needs and pertaining to the array of philosophical concerns and moral demands. Indeed, this must be the case for reason of the absurdity of expecting mere humans to create ultimate answers to our deepest needs; and fallen sinners such as we are (James 4:1f) to both be righteous and instill justice for all, excluding none. Yet Jesus declared both, “I came that you may have abundant life” (John 10:10) and “I AM the first and the last …the living one, I died and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev. 1:17-18). Even so, however, the Bible, with both its declaration[4] and also its practices, points us not only to itself; but also submits itself to the scrutiny of truth.
Whenever
the question arises whether a given assertion concerning factual matters is
true, there are two disparate strategies for seeking assent. The assertor might on the one hand baldly apply
the de jure
ploy[5]
by stating, “My assertion is true because I say so!” In this case no reasons are offered for
justifying the claim; it is instead made solely on his/her own personal so-called
authority. On the other hand the assertor
might employ the de facto
method by which rational reasons are offered that can be publicly-known and
which correspond with the claims asserted.
Now I ask you which of these methods qualifies as establishing
the truth of the claim being made. Only
the latter means. By this claim I am NOT
hinting that God errs or deceives! Nevertheless,
even granting (as I do) that God has perfect knowledge about absolutely
everything; the de jure
mode can never qualify as substantiation for the simple reason that it entails
a tautology, which means it is true only by definition. In other words, it does not bolster the claim
with independent verifiable grounds. The
only way to advance from assertion to substantiation is by giving
independent grounds (or reasons) which ensure it to be true. Of course Christians are entitled to hold,
by faith and intuition, that biblical claims are true. I too do this, conditionally.[6] Yet these terms differ categorically from factual
knowledge and so cannot legitimately be the basis for demonstrating the
facticity of the claim under consideration.
[1] In the Greek text, it can refer either to the world, the
entire universe, or the whole created order.
[2] Romans 1:20, boldface mine.
[3] That is, both urgent and a matter of life and death
with ramifications extending into eternity.
[4] Romans 1:18-21.
[5] I will argue in this paper that even God doesn’t
employ that tactic. For example, even
the frequent Old Testament declaration, “Thus says the Lord,” doesn’t
directly serve to demand confidence in its truth so much as it does to clarify,
in the midst of confusion, that source of the words of the speaker is no less
than Yahweh, the maker of the heavens and the earth and also its redeemer. Obviously,
it logically follows that His words are utterly trustworthy and consequently
must be heeded!
[6] If the notion of the resurrection of Jesus was
overthrown, my faith in Christ would be shattered.