I have a couple confessions to make, which I have been convicted of over the weekend.

I did a whole lot of studying on Ephesians, Chapter 6, this weekend. I’m exegeting the passage concerning the full armor of God. However… do you remember what comes right before that?

If you really wanna know… click “more”.

Read the rest of this entry

Curiously, the chapter following “Form and Freedom” is “The Battle We Are In” – which, in a nutshell, is a clarion call to engage in Spiritual Warfare. We are often attacked, and denigrated within our culture for the martial theme with which we accompany our calls to cultural regeneration . In a way, this criticism is warranted – in a way, it is not. Why is this so?

We have two problems. I’m going to address the battlefield, and our call to it, in one post. After you read this, I want to request something of you. I want you to meditate on this chapter of Scripture, once you read this first portion below. Ephesians 6. Now, with that in mind – and please, do not forget, because I will be relying on it heavily in the post to follow, and I want your head, and your heart, in God’s word before doing so – read the rest, by clicking “more” below.

Read the rest of this entry

(Special Edition)
Don’t get mad at me…

But I’m not going to enter anything for this week’s Vox Apologia. I know, I know.. I’m a hopeless infidel. But… I’m deep into this study of Ephesians 6, and the next entry for my Schaeffer series.. and I don’t want to leave them!

Don’t forget:

Wittenberg Gate is hosting the next Vox Apologia. The subject is “Three Governments: Family, Church and State”.

Send your entries here.

Entries due by midnight on Sunday.

Dost thou Dialogue?

The Carnival of the Godless #3 is up at Science and Politics.

So, the last few weeks, I’ve been thinking. Thinking a lot.

Here’s the general drift of it.

For apologists, we sure don’t go out and practice our trade very often – myself included. Why is that?

Now, I’m not intending to be critical, or anything. I’m just curious. Why is it that we don’t? Are we more interested in the intellectual pursuit of a defense, and less interested in the actual, real-time defense to others? I find myself cruising an atheistic, or agnostic blog – I read something I so want to respond to – and I don’t. I think about it, and might even start on it – but, eventually, I give up on it. Why?

I gave myself a pretty exhaustive list of atheistic blogs to look through – and I could cull 50 posts a day that need to be responded to out of it. Why is it I don’t? I don’t think it’s fear of ridicule. I expect ridicule. Ridicule is, in all honesty, something I think is funny. If they resort to ridicule of the stance, instead of honestly responding to it – they aren’t going to honestly respond in the first place, and they aren’t being honest with themselves. If they can’t get past ridicule, and on to intellectual examination, it’s going to be a shallow conversation anyway.

I respect someone who is consciously attempting to formulate a counter-response. I have no respect in the slightest for a shallow, satiric, or dismissive response. Appealing to some sort of so-called “ridiculous” is the last bastion of someone unwilling to think. A conscious, or unconscious attempt to escape or evade serious thought has always, and will always, annoy me.

Now, I’m not saying everyone on the atheistic/agnostic blogs resorts to ridicule, and only to ridicule, to make some sort of spurious case. I find, however, that the vast majority have a large, large element of it somewhere. Aye, that’s the rub, as Shakespeare says. I’ve rarely, rarely seen someone who begins with ridicule turn the corner to serious discourse. It’s not common, or expected. So… what are we to do? When the vast majority of our potential audience is populated by “scoffers,” and we are warned about such as these: Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts. (2 Peter 3:3)

Now, one of Job’s “friends” asks if scoffers (he is speaking to Job…) should not be silenced… (Shall your boasts silence men? And shall you scoff and none rebuke?)

But, is it he who we should listen to? *sigh*

I mean, we are to “destroy speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”

In my Strong’s, it says “reasoning, hostile for the Christian faith”, for “speculations”. I read that to mean logical concepts antithetical to Christianity.

“Lofty thing” is a bulwark, or rampart – barrier. I read that as “barriers erected against Christian principles”.

“raised up” is pride, or “to exalt oneself”. Obvious. Humanism is the religion of human pride. It’s also what atheism is really about.

“knowledge of” is gnosis – or, ” moral wisdom, such as is seen in right living”/” the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this religion, such as belongs to the more advanced”

So, yes – we are supposed to go on the offensive – this is the second part of apologetics. However… how do we reconcile this with “do not throw your pearls before swine”, and the command to keep from sitting in the “seat of scoffers”? Choose your battles, I suppose. But… where to? How to?

I don’t know. I’ve done some of this. It always seems to be wading in oatmeal, though. The urge for them to create a straw man Christianity, and somehow “debunk it” just seems to be too strong in most. Or, not even bother – and just ridicule things they know little to nothing about. How do we get around that?

I almost always score INTP, or INTJ.

Why? I have no idea.

I usually don’t go for these… but I always, always get the same results. I’m tempted to over-analyze myself, and it shows, with how I always vacillate between INTP, and INTJ. It usually depends on which mood I’m in. When it comes to intellectual pursuits, I can be either the “perceiving”, or “judging” of the P, and J in those acronymns. It depends on the situation, and the problem.

But, anyway, here’s how I score, in case anyone is bored enough to read it…

Read the rest of this entry

I just put a poll up on my main site, because I’m curious as to what the answers would be.

I’d like you to do me a favor, and disseminate this poll, so I can get a good cross-section.

The question is: “What is the target of your apologetics?”

Update:

Fixed the link, and the poll..

Click this link to visit, and vote. Thanks!

P.S. – Here’s an interesting quote.

Basically, apologetics is equivalent to theology in sneakers. It means getting the hay down off the loft and down to where the cows can eat it. Anyone can ‘do’ apologetics. All it takes is a willingness, a little work, and the Spirit of God in you.

Introduction to Apologetics, CARM.org

(Friday Edition)

Announcements:

Wittenberg Gate is hosting the next Vox Apologia. The subject is “Three Governments: Family, Church and State”.

Send your entries here.

Apologetics:

Brad tells us a bit about himself – here, and here.

Funky and Adrian disagree a tad. Resolution likely.. details at 11!

Challies gets frivolous. Dag, yo.

Revenge of Mr. Dumpling had a dream.

Minor Prophet has like, 5 posts.

Every Thought Captive talks about the Pope, and death.

Go Read:

These two posts from Mari and Joshua Davey at letters from bablyon.

If you’re a student, or aspiring student of God’s Word – you will be edified, most righteously. I mean that in both the “cool”, and literal meanings.

(See… I do have a bunch of these blogs on my blogroll for a reason. See the heading “Extremely Sharp”? That means I think they really, really rock. K? Now, for a dumb question – does anyone want me to do a rundown of how I have my voluminous blogroll categorized? I’m bored…)

Incidentally… letters from babylon gets my “blog of the week” for this. Rock on.

P.S. – My suggestion? Add them to your blogroll.

This is the title page for my study through Francis Schaeffer’s “The Great Evangelical Disaster”.

As we move through the study, chapter by chapter, I’ll have the posts listed on this page.

I hope you enjoy it – and, most especially, that it’s edifying.

God bless!

~RK

Chapter 1: What Really Matters?

What Really Matters?

The Quest for Autonomy

Form and Freedom

The Battle We Are In: Part I

The Battle We Are In: The Full Armor

The Battle We Are In: Part II

The Wisdom of the World

A Post-Christian Culture

This is post number 3 in a series exploring Francis Schaeffer’s book, “The Great Evangelical Disaster.”

As we read last time, the article in Time magazine finished with an amazing statement:

The American Century was to be a century of unleashing, of breaking away, at first from the 19th century … and eventually from any constraints at all. Behind most of these events lay the assumption, almost a moral imperative, that what was not free ought to be free, that limits were intrinsically evil …but … when people or ideas are unfettered, they are freed but not yet free.

Schaeffer continues his analysis of those statements in this section.

Here the problem of the 1920’s to the 1980’s is properly spelled out. It is the attempt to have absolute freedom – to be totally autonomous from any intrinsic limits. It is the attempt to throw off anything that would restrain one’s own personal autonomy. But it is especially a direct and deliberate rebellion against God and His law.

Powerful stuff. When society, or even one person sets themselves up, saying they are intrinsically autonomous, what is that called? Pride.

When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom. (Proverbs 11:2)

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. (1 John 2:16)

The problem is this: If there is not a proper balance between form and freedom, then the society will move into either of two extremes. Freedom, without a proper balance of form, will lead to chaos and to a total breakdown of society. Form, without a proper balance of freedom, will lead to authoritarianism, and to the destruction of individual and social freedom. But note further: no society can exist in a state of chaos. And whenever chaos has reigned for even a short time, it has given birth to the imposition of arbitrary control.

Let’s ruminate on this for a minute. Schaeffer is saying that the problem which exists in government, in society, and in every human endeavor is the requirement to balance form with freedom. Read the following and pause for a few minutes, before you go on.

Do a bit of thinking on what that means, and what implications that has on how we view life, and just about everything in it. What does “form” entail? What does “freedom” entail? We value freedom – but we also value structure – or form. Could it be, perhaps, that the balance between those two is really what makes societies what they are? Our lives what they are? Take a minute – stop here. Don’t read further yet. Do some thinking on that for a minute. Then, once you’ve mulled that over for a bit – click “more”.

Read the rest of this entry

(Thursday Edition)

Apologetics:

James White covers J.P. Holding.

He also posts part V of his “The Catholic Verses”.

The Minor Prophet posts about 50 billion trillion things. So just read him 😀

Adrian encourages us to tell our own story, after he and Jollyblogger have spent some time telling theirs of late.

Imago Dei takes on David Vellman’s argument for a first trimester abortion “compromise”.

Catez is Anne of Green Gables. I won’t ever admit that I ever read those books. Ever.

Read this post from her too. It’s good.

blogma asks – Can God die?

Wittenberg Gate remeinds us not to fall for the bait and switch.

Is Counter-cult apologetics a neglected mission field? Counter-Cult weighs in.

offshore fisherman – speaking in other tongues? Edify yo-self foo’!