Recently, I’ve been doing a good bit of study on issues of the will, desire, and their relationship to God’s sovereignty.

As a result of that study, I’ve moved (I believe) toward a position of Theistic Determinism, instead of my previous (self-defined, perhaps out of ignorance) soft compatibilism. However, to be completely honest, I saw quite a few different definitions for each - so this may fit better than I think.

Why’s that? Mostly because I’ve never really followed the presupposition of God’s Sovereignty to it’s philosophical conclusion before, in my thinking. Here’s my definition of what I’ve come to, as a result.

God has (Sovereignly) decreed all that will occur (i.e. all of history that ever will be), and how it is to occur . God has decreed in accordance with His intrinsic desires. God can decree whatsoever history he pleases, and by whatsoever means that history will be accomplished, as he pleases. Man’s will is in accordance with his own desires; those desires are influenced and generated by external and internal circumstance(s), environment(s), and natural inclination(s). These desires and influences are always in accordance with the decree of God; Thus, every will of man is in accordance with the decree of God. Man’s will is contingent upon God’s will, and can be said to be “free” in only a contingent manner, and with no autonomy possible. Man’s will is always in accordance with his desires, so man can never be said to be forced, or coerced into any action against his will. Man is responsible for his actions before God, regardless of his opinion of the justice of God, or the “fairness” thereof. The only valid concept of “Justice” proceeds from God’s intrinsic nature; He decrees from that Just nature, when He says that all His works are Just; Thus, God is just in declaring men responsible for all of their contingently free desires and actions.

So, let’s break that down.

1. God has (Sovereignly) decreed all that will occur (i.e. all of history that ever will be).
1a. God has decreed also how history will occur.
1b. God has decreed in accordance with his desires.
1c. God’s desires are intrinsic to Him.
1d. God can decree whatsoever history he pleases, and by whatsoever means that history will be accomplished, as he pleases.
1e. Whatsoever occurs, is contingent upon God’s decree.
(Eph 1:11, Isaiah 46:10, 48:3, 55:11, Acts 4:28, James 1:17, Prov 16:33, Numbers 23:19, Acts 2:23, Deu 28:63, 1 Sam 12:22, Jer 5:22, 18:4,6, Jon 1:14, )

2. Man’s will is in accordance with his own desires.
2b. Those desires are influenced and generated by external and internal circumstance(s), environment(s), and natural inclination(s).
2c. Those desires and influences are always in accordance with the decree of God.
2d. Every will of man is in accordance with the decree of God.
(Romans 6:12,16, Gal 5:17, Eph 3:23, 2 Ti 4:3, Jam 3:4, 4:15)

3. Man’s will is contingent upon God’s will.
3a. Man’s will can be said to be “free” in only a contingent manner, and with no autonomy possible.
3b. Man’s will is always in accordance with his desires, so man can never be said to be forced, or coerced into any action.
3c. Man is responsible for his actions before God, regardless of his opinion of the justice of God, or the “fairness” thereof.
3d. The only valid concept of “Justice” proceeds from God’s intrinsic nature.
3e. He decrees from that Just nature, when He says that all His works are Just.
3f. God is just in declaring men responsible for all of their contingently free desires and actions.
(Romans 8:5, 9, Prov 11:6, Eph 2:3)

Questions, comments, objections? (Spiritual proofs would be helpful, especially.)

Big thanks to Tur8inFan for helping me gather my thoughts - and for contributing greatly to the first section. If any error exists, it belongs to me, however… Thanks also to all of the folks who have debated me lately… you’re represented in this somewhere!

No, it isn’t what you think.

Outspoken and antagonistic skeptic John Loftus locked horns with the outspoken and antagonistic Christian apologist Frank Walton in CADRE’s comment section. The irony?

The post was concerning whether atheists are persecuted or not, with BK condemning the hint of any such practice.

Neither person involved in the fracas were especially gracious. It looks as if there’s plenty of history between the two - but here’s a tip: Don’t let it spill into the comment section of other people’s blogs.

It’s not especially polite.

Vox Weekly’s current question is here, submitted by John Loftus (reposted from his blog, here).

This post is a response.

In my book I argue that there is no coherent understanding of the atonement. Here are some questions for those who accept the penal substitutionary view:

Fair enough.

In order for someone to be forgiven why must there be punishment at all?

Well, I think we’ve crossed terms already. The forgiveness is not dependent upon the punishment. It follows after it, but is not dependent upon it. Forgiveness is granted upon repentance, not atonement. Atonement is required to satisfy God’s Justice, and His Holiness, but not to satisfy His Mercy.

…

To forgive someone doesn’t mean that you must first punish the offender at all.

Yes, they are two different terms altogether.

Punishment is satisfied by the Atonement, and satisfies God’s Holiness.

Forgiveness is granted by God, and satisfies His Mercy.

They are related, as God will not forgive anyone who has not been atoned for. This is due to His holiness, which cannot tolerate sin. A sinful man cannot even *be in the presence of God*. It’s not a random requirement, it is necessity. For us to be with God, we must be atoned for, and our sins as if they never were - as far as the East is from the West.

Forgiveness doesn’t really depend upon the remorse of the offender, either, although it does help quite a bit. At this point it’s not up to the offender at all, but the victim who must find a way to forgive.

Remorse is onlya step toward repentance, which is required for salvation. God found a way to forgive - He substituted Himself for us. The victim took the punishment for the offender, and seeks to grant the offender eternal fellowship with him.

To forgive means bearing the suffering of what that person has done to you without retaliation.

That’s a bit of a fib. Forgiveness is pardon, excusing a mistake or offense - not bearing suffering and the like.

If I stole something from you, then forgiveness means bearing the loss without recompense.

How can we recompense God for anything we’ve done? We have no way of doing so. That doesn’t apply very well. Besides, God doesn’t want recompense. God wants Justice, and Holiness. Neither can accept anything short of perfection without negative consequences.

If I slandered you, forgiving means bearing the humiliation without retaliating.

God cannot slander us, and cannot ever commit any sin in retaliation. You’re comparing apples and oranges.

If the cross of Christ means someone got punished for my sins, then that’s not offering forgiveness, that’s punishing someone for what I did wrong.

Do you really think that forgiveness means that there are no consequences for sin? If my son or daughter steals from me - I’ll forgive him or her - but, they will still be punished for what they did. To simply allow them to do wrong, and not face consequences for it is not good parenting.

I forgive them - I do not hold it against them, and still love them. However, they will still have to face consequences for their wrongdoing.

If the cross was needed to pay the punishment for my sins, then how can God really be a forgiving God?

Punishment was for the sin. Forgiveness is for the sinner. Punishment is for the action. Forgiveness is for the actor. Actions have consequences - forgiveness does not negate those.

Forgiveness and punishment are not balance here. Atonement and punishment are. Forgiveness is the act of God to grant life eternal with Him, to those who believe. Atonement is the payment for sin by the substitutionary death of Christ. The two are not the same. Atonement is paying for the consequences of sin. Forgiveness is granting more than just not-death, but life more abundantly. Therein lies the difference.

Forgiveness doesn’t require punishment.

No, it doesn’t. Holiness and Justice does.

To put it bluntly, if I can’t forgive you for striking me on the chin until I return the blow back to you, or to someone else, then that’s not forgiveness, that’s retaliation, or sweet revenge!

Do we let criminals go free, if the families forgive them? Do we let people get away with crimes, if we choose to forgive them? Only if a pardon is signed - but the consequences are always the same, and authority has to grant that pardon to the consequences.

In God’s legal system, there is one penalty, for one crime. Death, for Sin. To pay that penalty required a substitutionary death. God’s love is still boundless, but it does not allow for sin to go unpunished. It must be atoned for, and it has been, for those who believe. For those who do not, they will take their own penalty on themselves.

Revenge is never an ethical motive for action, even if we are led to take revenge on others sometimes. John Hick: “A forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment is not forgiveness, but merely and acknowledgment that the debt has been paid in full. (The Metaphor of God Incarnate, p. 127).

Vengeance is often quite ethical. If a man takes a life, his life is required of him. God says “the man who sins, shall die”. God is the essence of ethics, thus, you are incorrect. God Himself says “Vengeance is Mine”. So, rethink that one. Your own idea of ethical, when God says differently, won’t sway me here.

Besides, revenge is said to be wrong because it can be done spitefully, or vindictively. It’s been a mainstay of human life since human life began, just about. However, Christians are told that revenge is not ours - it is God’s - because He is Just, and Righteous in every way. How could a perfectly righteous God seek vengeance and not do so Justly and Rightly?

It’s not possible. Thus, you are incorrect.

To sum up:

Forgiveness =/= Atonement.
Punishment does not relate to forgiveness.
Vengeance is not wrong when God executes it.

That’s about it.

A response to the comments posted here, by t.f.

God decides to make a universe (for whatever reason)

Actually, He says why He created it.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.
~ Col. 1:16

God created everything - for Himself.

God decides to create free moral agents (ditto)

Well, that’s exlained as well: Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.
~ Isaiah 43:7

It’s to God’s own glory everything exists.

God decides to create some rules (to, supposedly, give them moral choices)

Well, I’d have to disagree with you, there. They aren’t rules He “created” - they are the essence of God’s own character. Things are, because God is. God is holy - thus, sin cannot be permitted - unholiness is, by definition, wrong.

It’s not arbitrary. It is in keeping with the character and person of God.

God arbitrarily decides to assign the punishment of “death” for ALL SIN, and specifically, “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin”

First: Where is your backing for “arbitrarily”? Where is that said, implied, or mentioned?

Second: Why not? If every sin is a specific violation of the very character of God - His holiness, shouldn’t He set the penalty?

Since man, by virtue of his free will, chooses at *ANY* point to disobey, god must punish man with death/require blood, in order to be “just” or consistent

With Himself, correct.

However, since god is love/good, god decides to give man an “escape hatch” from this system of justice by offering mercy/grace

Correct.

god decides to pay the penalty of sin in the place of man
those men who “accept it” get to have grace

Correct.

(god is not “just” in this sense, since punishing the innocent for the crime of the guilty is a tortured logical exercise in demonstrating “justice”)

By who’s standard? Yours, or God’s? God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts, correct?

(Isaiah 55:8-9)

those men who do not believe it, for whatever reason, still get what is coming to them - death and hell

Well, it’s not believing *it*, per se - it’s believing *in* God as Savior - and your own need for such a Savior - and turning away from the sin that required you to need a Savior.

in summary:
god dies because god decided death was necessary to pay for what god determined was sin because man committed sin and god dies for man and if man accepts it he gets eternal bliss and if he doesn’t he gets eternal hellfire

…sound about right to you?

Eh. To some extent. Obviously, it’s more complex than that - but that’s a decent synopsis - aside from one thing. God doesn’t precisely “decide” that death was necessary. It *is* necessary, because of God’s holiness.

and do you really wonder why paul said the gospel was foolishness to people like myself?

No, I don’t. At all. It’s very clear it is, and there is a reson for that, which is grounded in what you mean by “foolishness” - and from what perspective that determination is made.

That series of verses has much more to it than just “the gospel is foolishness”.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.” For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

~ 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:16

Basically, this passage says that God’s wisdom is totally different from our wisdom. We have only so much information to go on - and He has it all. God shows us what is right, directly. This is moral wisdom, as well - not just intellectual wisdom. When you try to filter God’s principle through your own, it won’t work. You have not been shown what is correct about the world around you, because you insist on insisting that your way is correct - and something which does not conform to your way of thinking must, (dare I say it?) for some reason, be inconsistent.

This is not logical. If there is a transcendent being - God - his ways, necessarily, as Isaiah mentions earlier, will be much higher than our ways - and different. We haven’t even got to the point of our intrinsic sinful nature, or our egocentricity. Basically, Paul is saying that regardless of what men *think* is wise - God will show us, like Paul does later in this letter to the Corinthians, “a more excellent way”. God’s way of doing things may not jive with our sensibilities. I think, before we rush to say “it isn’t logical”, we ask ourselves “how in the world am I qualified to judge that?” Are you eminently logical? Do you have the answer to everything? God asks Job that, in a serious of pointed questions.

Job’s answer is excellent.

Then Job answered the LORD and said, “I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.’ “I have heard6 of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

When we encounter the Living God, we too, repent in dust and ashes - and we learn a new kind of wisdom. Not the wisdom which we thought was wisdom - the same wisdom anyone else deems themselves as possessing. This wisdom is the wisdom of God, which surpasses everything we thought we knew before. It’s a new way to look at things, because we have more of the information - and we have the Author to explain His book to us.

Wouldn’t that be the best way to go about understanding what an author meant, when He wrote a book?

That’s the kind of wisdom God shares with those who are His. It’s not “based on nothing”. It’s based on MORE. It’s a fundamental paradigm shift, which leaves you looking at things a completely different way. The “wisdom” people think they have looks foolish, in comparison to God’s. God’s “foolishness”, as they call it, looks like transcendent profundity. That is the meaning. God gives, and we receive. His wisdom, not ours. We’re not as smart, or as profound, as we think we are.

This post was written for the Carnival.

---

The largest objections I’ve seen to the concept of faith revolve around these three issues.

First, that faith is somehow inherently unwarranted - that it flies in the face of logic.

Second, that faith, warranted or no, is inherently unbelievable - that it is not trustworthy.

Third, that faith, warranted, believable, or not, is even comprehensible - that we can’t know anything about it.

I’ll start with some statements that say this, and go on from there.

Warranted:

“Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.”
- Dan Barker, “Losing Faith in Faith”, 1992

“Faith is surprisingly difficult to define, but in a religious context, I think we can agree that it refers to one’s confidence in a belief for which their is no evidence. Thus, when someone refers to his or her faith, we generally interpret this as reflecting a body of religious dogma in which the speaker believes without empirical basis.”
- vjack, Atheist Revolution

“I reject this sort of faith as a destructive departure from reason that has dire consequences for humanity (see Sam Harris’ The End of Faith). To suspend reason by embracing superstition is to delude oneself into a blissful but counterfeit state of idiocy, one which history has taught us repeatedly leads to bloodshed.”
- vjack, Atheist Revolution

“All religions have flaws. They all can be argued to the point where logic forces the proponent to claim “well, you just have to have faith”.”
- Dave Silverman, NoGodBlog

---

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not out to bash these folks. I just selected a few quotes, to give an example of the general opinion towards faith from the skeptical community. I am, however, going to answer them. See, the general consensus is that faith, because of it’s second dictionary definition: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence is some sort of belief made out of whole cloth - a faith which simply rests on nothing.

While that definition does, indeed, exist, there is more than one definition of it. #4, if you’ll notice, says this: “The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.” This, when you interact with a Christian, is what is meant by faith - in one sense. In another sense, it is dictionary definitions 5 and 6. “The body of dogma of a religion“, and “A set of principles or beliefs.”

You’ll see some confused Christians say that they really have no reason to believe what they do - but, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, they really don’t. They don’t even know what they believe, in many instances. Part of faith is knowledge of the object of your faith. If you know the object of your faith, there is sufficient justification for that belief.

Spurgeon says, as I’ve mentioned previously, “What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.” The first component is what addresses this. This portion is addressed by theology - the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions. This portion is addressed by philosophy - the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. This portion is addressed by a host of other systematic studies - which all delve into the nature, the object, and the veracity of knowledge.

Christianity has a 2,000-year history of studying these subjects, and the wealth of that study is incalculable. It is not embarked upon lightly, should not be considered lightly, and is undertaken with trepidation. The subject matter of faith is God - who tells us we should rightly fear Him. The same sort of fear which strikes awe into our very soul, which blinds us with it’s brightness, and forces us to our knees in reverent wonder. The study of God is no academic matter. It is a matter of grave importance. This study is what we are called to do, as Christians, and Theists - or, even skeptics. If your God is unknowable, your faith is worthless, because you have no basis for it. The very bedrock of Christianity is that God is knowable, and that He wants us to know Him.

The study of knowledge, the study of Creation, the study of mathematics, the study of… anything; they are all the basis for a Faith which is grounded not in “blind” acceptance - but in reasoned, knowledgeable, and studied acceptance of something (someone) proven trustworthy. I believe, because I “know Whom I have believèd, And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed Unto Him against that day.” - as the old hymn goes.

Trustworthy:

Uhhhhhhhhhh . . . isn’t Passover about the slaughter of innocent children? Didn’t God use all sorts of horrible plagues just to tease the virtuous Job? It wasn’t just blasphemous deposing rebels who felt God’s wrath. For Chrisstake, He killed Himself and his perfectly innocent own Son. So He’s used that “technique” over and over; but even if it were only “once” I don’t see why any spiritually sensitive person would trust Him.
- The Raving Atheist

This is the sticky one. Trust is something experientially determined. It can be given, without prior experience, but it’s veracity is determined by experience. So, the question remains, how can we trust God? Well, the answer lies in knowledge. Theology, as we’ve already discussed, is the knowledge of God. If you’ve studied theology, you learn what God is, and what He isn’t. God is good, but he is not evil, and etc. This, perhaps, is something I may have to get into later. I may use this for a topic when it’s my turn to host. I’d like to explore it more. For me? I trust God because I know Him, and I’ve learned about Him. I’ve studied Him, I’ve experienced Him, and I’ve read what He has to say about life. I trust His judgement. This is not a trust based on “hey, why don’t I just trust God” - although, in it’s defense, I’ll say that this is acceptable. God is, by definition, trustworthy. At least a inherently good God would be. My God is.

---

Comprehensible:

One good reason to not believe that God exists is that the concept of God is incoherent. The concept of God is like a round square or the largest number.
- Michael Martin

“Is Christianity absurd in the dictionary sense of being ridiculously incongruous and unreasonable? It seems to me that the answer is “yes.” Given standard criticisms of Christianity and certain plausible interpretations of it, Christianity is filled with ridiculous incongruities and unreasonable beliefs and practices.”
- Michael Martin

As Michael Martin, the premier “Christianity is incoherent/absurd/incongruous” debater exemplifies, there is a point where the objection is not that there can be no knowledge of, or trust in, Christianity (or Theism), but that the very concept makes no sense. There is a laundry lista mile long of the supposed “incoherencies” he’s listed, but, it essence, it’s a very old objection. Our brains aren’t functioning right, or we’re being deceived.

Plantinga has a comment on rationality to answer this: “What you properly take to be rational, at least in the sense of warranted depends on what sort of religious and metaphysical stance you adopt. It depends on what kinds of beings you think human beings are, what sorts of belief you think their noetic faculties will produce when they are functioning properly, and which of their faculties or cognitive mechanisms are aimed at truth.”

Basically, there’s a subtle truth that you learn when studying theology. God’s ways are not our ways. By this, I mean that what seem incongruous to us, may not necessarily be so, to God. We just might be wrong about our sense of coherence. God’s plan doesn’t involve our input, frankly. A lot of theological concepts only “work” when you look at them from a certain perspective. Things like Atonement, Sin, and Sacrifice only make sense when you grasp the concept of Holiness. Coherence, as shown above, depends on what you’re aimed at.

Faith requires knowledge of the object of faith - it requires trust in the object of faith, and it requires the object of faith to be understandable, to a certain point. No human knows everything with certainty - few know more than a few things with certainty. What we need to know, we need to know well enough to consider that belief warranted. What we need to trust, we need to trust well enough to make that trust warranted. What we need to understand, we need to understand well enough to make our belief that we understand it warranted.

---

So, let’s put it all together. Faith is warranted, because faith is based on knowledge. Faith is trustworthy if the object of that faith is trustworthy. Faith is comprehensible because you cannot have faith in something you do not understand enough to justify your faith in it. Faith without justification is simply that blind faith we’re accused of having. That sort of faith, however, is not the faith we have.

Faith, as a noun, means something else - and can be used in this instance as well. allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person

A Christian must have faith in His God - that faith involves allegiance, it involves loyalty, and it involves duty. Christians are citizens of heaven, first and foremost. Our allegiance is to God, and only then to others. We must be loyal to what God is, and what we are asked by Him to be. We have to be loyal followers. We have a duty to do what He has told us, and to do things His way.

The first important issue, however, is truth. If a thing is true, it is therefore worthy of our faith in it. That’s the meat of the issue. So many times, we simply say “that doesn’t make sense” - and assume that this means something isn’t true. This isn’t the case, in many instances. Truth is the major determining factor in determining whether or not something should be believed.

If you say you have no faith in anything - you’re not being very truthful. You have faith that you if you step out in the crosswalk, a truck won’t come barreling in and run you over. You have faith in the good intentions and skills of the drivers on the road, whenever you drive. You can say you don’t have faith in God - but if you don’t know Him, how could you? Well, you don’t know the drivers around you. By that standard, you’d have no reason to trust them, either.

I can say this: Until you know God, you cannot have faith in Him. After knowledge comes understanding. If you lack the knowledge, you will ever lack understanding of the concept, in my view.

What it boils down to, to rephrase it, is whether the knowledge that faith claims to have is justified. Be it a priori or a posteriori, knowledge comes from somewhere. However, the important questions are, is that belief true, is it justified? Of course, I’m a foundationalist, so that would make perfect sense to me

If something is justified, the core issue is “what justifies it?” As I’ve already said, in so many words, I believe that the nature of God, the knowledge of God, and the coherence of the whole “enchilada” do so. Inductively, along with my own personal (emotive and spiritual) experiential relationship with God, I can say that my belief in God is a justified, true belief.

That’s what you need to have faith. A belief, a justifier. That’s it. If you’d like to discuss exactly what those would be, and advance defeaters for my justification, you’re welcome to do so. I’d love the chance to talk with you.

I’m not going to list all of the components which undergird my faith in this post. If you’d really like to know, comment. Then, we’ll talk. Discussion is much better for unearthing things anyway. It makes the topic more lively. So, feel free.

I don’t think I’ve mentioned it on my blog yet, but I bought a motorcycle. It’s silver and black, and needs some work. That’s just background, however. I went to Slidell to purchase some parts for my bike not too long ago - just prior to Christmas. Afterwards, since we hadn’t yet finished our Christmas shopping, we decided to go by North Shore Square Mall, also in Slidell, to finish our shopping up. On our way in, we encountered a man up on a step stool, asking questions, and offering a dollar for a correct answer. This approach is directly out of Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master”, and I recognized it almost immediately, and wanted to watch, so we stopped there for a bit.

He finished the last 1 dollar question, and progressed to the 20 dollar question, which uses the Ten Commandments, and demonstrates that everyone is a sinner, and needs God to overcome their sin. The speaker was really very good, and did this very well. His name was Mike.

While he was beginning this final portion, I overheard a janitor, who I had been watching, say into his radio that there was a “disturbance” outside the mall entrance. Now, I had been watching him for a few minutes, and he didn’t have anyone complain to him that I saw, and the group watching was not disturbed. There were a couple people who disagreed, but all they had to do was leave. They stayed right there to listen, regardless.

One in particular, a young man, we overheard saying “this guy is preaching, let’s leave”. Right after that, though, a security guard walked out, and said that “noone is allowed to have a forum on the premises”, and that he would have to stop, or do his presentation on an individual basis only. Well, I jumped in at that point, and asked if it was mall policy to discourage public speech. The security guard told us he was a churchgoer, but that this was, indeed, mall policy. Several others voiced dissent at this point - including the young man who had just said he was leaving. he said, I believe, “this is America - he can say whatever he wants to”. The security guard’s reply was simply that this was private property, and this was the mall’s policy, and reiterated that they were free to continue on an individual basis.

So, while I continued to talk to the guard, the evangelist asked whoever was willing to continue the discussion on an individual basis to follow him. A group of 13-15 people followed. Silently rejoicing, I kept talking to the security guard, and asked where I could file a complaint, and told him that I would no longer be shopping at the mall due to this policy. He told me where to go, and was really very nice. I went to the customer service kiosk, was responded to with courtesy (if a bit of frost, due to my reason for visiting), filled out my complaint form, saying i was no longer intending to shop there, due to their policy, explaining what I had seen the janitor do, and left.

It was a bit odd, and I made a snap decision, but I don’t think I could have done anything in good conscience. As a visitor to a shopping complex, the only means you have to show your displeasure are complaint forms and refusing to buy from them, in my estimation. So, that’s what we did. In fact, though, it turned out nicely. I went to the outlet mall, closer to home, spent less than I would have otherwise to finish my Christmas shopping, and had a good time.

The point wasn’t the shopping, or my displeasure, though, really. To be honest, I was trying to focus the attention on me to give the evangelist less distraction. The other was just the means to do so. The security guard escorted me to the kiosk, and stayed there after I left, and the evangelist was still talking with his group of people - they were all smiling as he explained what he had to say. I hope God was able to use him, and that He may have used me in a small way.

I do intend to keep my promise to cease shopping at North Shore Square Mall, in Slidell, however. I dislike that policy, and won’t support a business (or group of businesses) which espouses it. So, that’s the story. I told my wife I would post it, and I told the mall I would, too.

So, there you go. I’m no longer shopping there.

Well, I’ve revamped the Aggregator.

I’ve removed a few posters who combined their blogs, added quite a few who have been asking for a while, and a few of my own choices, who didn’t.

There are now 34 members, in total. All should be shown on v1 of the Aggregator display feed, to your right. I’m still working on versions 2 and 3, and on transferring them to Vox, as well, as more people visit here than Vox even though I’d rather it be the other way around… but, c’est la vie.

Welcome to CMV warrior, from Christianity is Jewish; Michael Craven’s “Cultural Apologetics“; The bloggers from the Apologetics Resource Center, who have combined their former blogs into one group blog - which is now on the Aggregator. Welcome to Mr. Dawn Treader, who I should have added months ago, and is ALWAYS worth a read. Welcome to the folks from Eternal Revolution, who have been doing some very interesting things with the “God or Not” series of late. Welcome to Scott Pruett of Pensées, who only recently asked to be added - but who impressed me thoroughly. Welcome to Tom Wanchick from The Good Fight. Definitely a different take - which I like. Last, but not least, welcome to The A-Team. They need no introduction. They’re… the A-Team!

As for the steadfast members of the aggregator, who have been posting, while I haven’t… thanks. Sorry I haven’t been around much. Life, a new marriage, work, and hurricane recovery stuff have been burying me solid. I figured it was way past time to at least straighten this out, if I did nothing else.

Check out John Zuhone’s thoughts of late. Check out Tim Challies’ latest - which is brilliant, as always. The CADRE is always good for thought-provoking material. Or Vincent Cheung? Wow.

Really, if you haven’t surfed the Aggregator lately… just do it. The amount of excellent, mind-blowingly brilliant material on these member blogs really will stagger you, if you just go through the last ten posts by each person. Well, except for me. I’m being lazy. But, hey… read some of these folks. You’ll be glad you did.

Anyway - welcome, new members - and thanks, those of you who’ve been with us for a while.

UberKuh has an interesting post, listed in the Dec. 11th Carnival of the Godless, which lists various forms of “Atheistic Belief”, along with a brief explanantion and example. I found it interesting, myself.

He makes a point that jumped out at me.

Until one has attempted to understand why atheists are who they are, one’s biases and arguments for and against atheism must be said to be superficial and trite, and should not be taken seriously.

I’m not quite sure about some of the listings, though, like this one:

Incapable (Da₂):
This type of atheist is aware that a deity is claimed to exist and is motivated to form an opinion about the truth of that claim, but is incapable of grasping what that claim entails. For example, a mentally challenged person who has been told about Jesus but is unable to grasp who Jesus claimed to be can be called an atheist with respect to belief in Jesus.

I’ve worked with children quite a bit. I know children as young as 3 who know who Jesus was, and who He claimed to be. Not fully, but quite enough to explain to someone else. Some, on the other hand, don’t - but there are some who do. I don’t know how well that one holds up. We’re talking about mentally retarded people in this instance - but children are usually the best comparison, there.

I’ll have to devote some time to examining them. Just thought I’d share.

In the comments to my previous post, I was challenged by Hookflash, who will be quoted from this point on, and annotated as “H“.

H: Even if there are “objective” moral facts, your apprehension of them is subjective (and, thus, prone to error).

The proper response is:

Despite the fact that objective moral facts exist, your apprehension of them is subject to error, and prone to be misinterpreted subjectively, despite their objective status.

From such misapprehensions arise sin - aka “violations of the objective moral standards”.

H: This is why, if you were to ask 10 moral realists to outline their supposedly “objective” moral standards, you’d probably wind up with 10 different standards.

First, that claim lacks specificity. The subject is not “moral realism” - it is “moral objectivism”. What is “real” is another way of saying “what is true”. However, it is not a common conception to all “objective” moral standards, nor are all “objective” moral standards similar, let alone identical.

Thus, by using a non-universal as your universal, you are committing a fallacy of composition. Someone who considers Objectivism to be true, despite the term “Objectivism”, is not akin to a Christian objective moralist, who holds that all truth, all morality, is derived from the person of God. An Objectivist believes that all truth is derived from human reason, and that the primary goal of human morality is to advance self-interest, and self-happiness.

Thus, your statement is no longer universally applicable, as the two are incompatible. By stating something already known as if it is something that is not, you are committing a Fallacy of Exclusion.

We *know* moral realists are not all alike. However, as this is a Christian apologetics blog, assume, always, that I am talking about Christian Objectivism - especially due to my argument above. In Christian Objectivism, the only correct morality is the morality given from God. Misapplications, subjective, or otherwise, are by default, inherently wrong. Truth claims contrary to those given by God are also inherently wrong, and thus, subjective. You are also committing a Broad Definition fallacy, because you are stating what is already said to be excluded from valid truth, as if it is legitimate truth within the system criticized.

Christianity, within it’s basic, necessary premises, says that anything contrary to God’s statements is untrue, regardless of ‘alternate” subjective interpretations. There is one truth, and one truth only. If we are wrong - we are only that - wrong. Only God’s statement on the issue is right.

Whether a hypothetical 10 “moral realists” contradict each other is inconclusive, at best, and irrelevant, at worst. In a logical winnowing of the truth/morality claims, only one is legitimately correct. Plurality has no basis in logical argument.

True/False, not Both.

H: Furthermore, the source one chooses as the basis of their “objective” morality (e.g., the Bible, or the Koran) is chosen subjectively — i.e., you make a decision which is, like all decisions, subjective.

This comes down to your conception of reality, and of the efficacy of logical thought. If things are knowable, and truth can be distinguished from untruth, then the choice is anything but subjective. It is once again, objective. Only one religion can be true, or no religion is true at all. Those are your choices.

Jesus cannot be both God and not-God. This is a logical violation. Christianity, by that simple logical proof, excludes all inclusion in pluralistic thought. Jesus’ claim to deity defies logical inclusion with any religion which denies His deity.

A cannot be both A, and Not-A.

So, we now have Christianity, and every other religion. Islam, for example, thinks Him to be a prophet, but decidedly not God. it cannot be true, while Christianity is also true. The converse is also logically necessary.

Atheism is also incompatible, as a truth claim, with Christianity. A philosophy which states “there is no god” cannot co-exist, pluralistically, with a religion which claims that there is not only a God - but that a specific historical, verifiable person in history was, in fact, God.

It also cannot co-exist with weak atheism, or agnosticism, which says “I have not enough evidence to believe in a God.”

It runs directly into Christianity’s Romans 1:20, which states:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Once again, incompatible.

The choice is made logically, whether you consciously realize it, or not. things are subject to others things until you run out of subjects, yes. To a point. However, Reason is derived from objective principles governing it (logic) - or Reason ceases to be trustworthy. Truth claims are winnowed by logic, and logic by the actual veracity (truth) of logic’s premises.

If you choose which Truth is “correct” the same way you choose which breakfast cereal to buy - you take the process of arriving at, and coming to an understanding of, Truth far too lightly. You don’t “choose” what is true. You arrive at the doorstep of truth via reason, and logic. Reason takes you only so far. Truth is truth, no matter what you choose to consider as true. There is no “Atheism is True for you, but Christianity is True for me”. If A =/= C, (they are by definition antithetical) then A = T and C = T is, by definition, and by logical proof - false. Thus, there can be only one “T” - and only one thing can be correct.

The same thing applies for every claim to truth which differs. There is NO “this truth is correct, and so is this truth - despite the fact that the two “truths” contradict each other. Either one is true, or neither are true. Those are your only options.

Let’s put it another way. If nothing is objectively true - all of the logical proofs above would be meaningless. I could say “A =/= C - yet A = T and C = T are both correct - and this is true for me.” I would be absolutely correct - because there is no objective, absolute, outside-of-myself truth. Unless there is an objective standard to say “No, inequal statements BOTH equaling a third statement is absolutely impossible.” This is not paradox, but impossibility, unless we have an explanation which negates A =/= C. There is no such negation, and there is such a standard (the laws of logic) which says that the above is, indeed, the truth. Contradictory statements just can’t. This is immutable. Absolute. Objective.

Objective Morality holds to the same principle. Morality is a standard defined outside of the person whose behavior being measured against the standard. Morality is NOT a standard defined by the person whose behavior is being measured against the standard. This is subjective morality.

Subjective morality denies “standards” altogether. A standard is a measurement by which the measured are measured BY. The measured do not maintain the standard - or they could move it whenever they wished, willy-nilly. it ceases, at that point, to be a standard. It is then a “personal goal” - which can be adjusted whenever the person in question sees fit.

He is now the only person judged by that standard - and a judge cannot judge himself. In law, a judge would have to recuse himself for a case involving his own personal interests. Do you honestly think moral law is any different? Or do you think a judge should judge himself?

H: You can then stamp your feet and declare vehemently that your source is the objective one, and everyone else is wrong, but the fact remains that you’re using moral standards which are, at bottom, subjectively chosen.

The choice of which objective moral standard which I believe to be logically (and actually) true is not the issue. The issue is whether the standard chosen is itself objective or subjective. That is the question, not whether the choice of which objective standard to choose is subjective. Of course it’s subjective. However, the principles by which we arrive at that choice are objective - unless we are wrong. In which case we’re wrong. However, we are objectively wrong, not subjectively so. Only one objective truth claim is objectively true. If all objective truth claims are compared, only one will be actually true. Several may be logically true - as in, logically valid - but only one will be actually true. The principles of logic are objectively true. Therefore, by objective principles, we choose which objective truth claim has the best claim to be, in fact, true.

The fact that we make a choice may be subjective - but, the process of making it will be objectively valid, or objectively invalid. True, or false. This is objective. With two antithetical truth claims there is either one true claim, or none. Both cannot be true.

H: In short, “objective” morality solves nothing, especially when its supposed objectivity is based entirely on a subjectively-motivated assertion (whether made by a group or an individual).

Does Objective Truth exist? If not, why should I believe you when you say it doesn’t? In that case, my claim that it does is just as valid as yours, since I subjectively defined it myself.

If so, then there is such a thing as a truth undefined by man, and true regardless of what any man thinks, as to it’s truthfulness. Truth may be Atheism, Christianity, or neither. but what we think about it doesn’t have any affect on whether it is, in fact, true.

Thus, either you, or I, or neither are correct. There is no highway option.

The standard is objective. Whether I choose to believe it to be true or not does not affect it’s actual truth one iota. It is either true, or it is not, regardless of my choice to believe it is.

You are mistaking a subjective action for a standard. You are changing subjects, and proclaiming that the Scarecrow hereby defeats the Tinman - when the fight was between the Lion and the Tinman to start with. I could quibble with you about whether the choice actually IS subjective or not - but it’s still irrelevant. it isn’t about the choice. It’s about whether the standard by which morality is defined is mutable, or immutable. Subjective, or Objective.

When and how we choose to believe which is correct has nothing to do with the properties of the standard itself. Unless you deny Objective Truth. In which case I no longer recognize the validity of your claim, state my claim to be lord and master of humankind, and decree that all my subjects shall henceforth be referred to as “Elvis”. Oh, and I’m right. Because I say so.

And there ARE beezelflobbits on Jupiter - and their name is Sam. Just Sam. I’m right then, too.

Subjective morality, just like subjective truth, is self-contradicting. It’s still fun to be 2 years old again sometimes, though.

“That isn’t your toy!”

“MINE!”

“No, it isn’t.”

“MINE!”

2 year olds are inveterate subjectivists. Everything, regardless of the *objective* truth of their claim - is subjectively theirs. They say so, after all.

A logical form modeled by a two-year old doesn’t hold much appeal to me, however.

UPDATE: Joe posted on the same basic subject today.

Something’s been bothering me lately.

I’ve been chatting in James White’s IRC channel on apologetics - and the main topic there seems to be Catholicism.

I had someone ask to be in the aggregator recently, yet I find that a large, large number of his posts concern the “apostasy” of Catholicism, and refer to Roman Catholics as “Romanists” and “Papists”. Now, I won’t say that I disagree that RC theology is erroneous, or even flat-out unbiblical (because, actually, I think it is) - but I asked a question in #prosapologian, James’ chat channel, and the answer took me aback, considerably.

The question was: “Does Roman Catholicism deny salvation to it’s adherents?”

The answer was: “Yes.”

So, I have a question for you, my readers.

If the Roman Catholic believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins, adheres to the Apostles’ Creed, and has accepted Christ as Savior and Lord - what doctrines within Catholicism, then, “deny” salvation to such a person?

I’m genuinely confused by this attitude. Do Calvinists really think that Roman Catholics who adhere to that doctrine are really not Christians at all?

I know Rand does, but we’re not talking about him…

The second question:

If some Protestants think that - do Roman Catholics believe that Protestants, because they believe in so many things that are pronounced “anathema”, are not Christians either?

If we really think that - then there’s a WHOLE lot less Christians out there than we like to admit, should we take that to it’s logical conclusion. For Calvinists, who insist (correctly) that Arminianism is a faith + works salvation - are they Christians? Does that deny them salvation?

For Catholics - is anyone outside the RCC a non-Christian?

We haven’t even reached the Orthodox churches yet.

Troubling subject, and it’s been weighing on my mind quite a bit. What do you think?