A Monument to the Fool

Starke, Fla--On Sunday, June 30th, a monument to Atheism was unveiled at the Bradford County Courthouse. The unveiling comes after an unsuccessful effort by atheists to remove a five ton granite slab that contains the Ten Commandments.

Atheists sued to have the Ten Commandments removed, but, during mediation on the case, they were told they could have a monument too. So the atheists took the stance that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The monument was designed to be functional and has a bench for people to sit on. This is supposed to reflect the atheist focus on the real and tangible. The monument has several quotes by Madelyn Murray O'Hair, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. It also has a list of punishments for breaking the Ten Commandments. The atheists made sure to point out that the punishment for atheism is death.

Atheists have hailed this monument as a victory for free speech and atheism. Local Christians see it as an intrusion of outsiders upon local values of those who live in the "Bible Belt." Freedom of Speech is granted to the atheist as well as the Christian, but I do wonder why atheists from Washington DC, have to go out of their way to put up a monument in Florida? It seems to me to be an in-your-face reaction to Bible Belt values. It is interesting that there are some atheists who do not agree with the approach of those who have erected the monument. I wish more atheists would take a less in-your-face approach and take a more humble approach to dialogue. I say the same for Christians, too. We need to be more gentle and respectful, as the Apostle Peter tells us (1 Pet. 3:15), when we give an account of the hope within us.

At any rate, I'm actually fine with atheists putting up monuments to their godlessness. Let atheists boldly portray their irrational belief in a materialistic universe so others can view for themselves how utterly nonsensical atheism is. If they want to be fools and say there is no God, let them be fools publicly. The public nature of their foolishness allows Christians, then, to publicly expose atheism as an irrational belief.

I am appreciative of one of the quotes on the monument from Benjamin Franklin, who was not an atheist. The quote says, "When religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its supporters are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

I see some wisdom in this quote. Christians need to remember that for over 2,000 years the gates of hell have not been able to prevail against the Church, and as far as Christ is concerned, the future doesn't look good for the gates of hell either. So when an atheist organization places their monument next to the Ten Commandments, we don't have any reason to worry. Let atheists erect their monuments to the fool. In the end, all their monuments will be ground to rubble, and all their foolishness will be exposed when Christ appears in glory.

The Presuppositional Approach to Doubt

Can we use the presuppositional method of apologetics in cases of doubting believers? I answer this question in this paper I wrote for an apologetics class. Here is the link to my paper on google docs.

The Law is Just (Pt. 4): Exodus 21:22-27 - On abortion, miscarriages, and the treatment of slaves.

Thus far we have examined Exodus 21 on laws concerning servants and laws concerning violence. We have seen that when one considers the historical context and the genre of "law" in Hebrew, the Mosaic law turns out not to be the moral monstrosity that skeptics often claim it as being. As we wrap up our examination of laws pertaining to violence we come across a law which liberals and skeptics actually agree with, but only because they misunderstand it. And then finally we find a statement which again grants human rights and protection to slaves. Moses writes:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth." (Exodus 21:22-27 NKJV)

Notice first, that the beginning of our text deals with injury to a woman that results in a "termination" of her pregnancy. As I mentioned above, this is a verse that many skeptics and liberals actually like. According to them these verses do not grant human rights to "fetuses." Now of course, many of them will claim this is because the Mosaic law only grants such rights to "male property owners," but still, they will argue that our own holy book expounds a view of human beings in utero similar to their own. But where do they get this idea? Well first, it comes from several translations that incorrectly render the phrase in the New King James "gives birth prematurely," as "miscarriage." The most famous example of this comes from the outdated Revised Standard Version, a favorite amongst liberals and secular academics. It says:

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage [...]" (Ex. 21:22a RSV)

Those who take the pro-abortion interpretation of this verse will then point to the fact that the death penalty is not required for this miscarriage, just merely a payment to the husband. When the text says, "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life," by a process of elimination it is presumed that this therefore must refer to the life of the mother. In other words, the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the child, and the lack of a death penalty for the murder of the child demonstrates that "it" is not a human.

In response to that we must first recognize that there is a problem with the RSV translation of this verse (which has been corrected in the NRSV). The Hebrew word used here is Yasa, which literally means "to depart." It is used throughout Scripture to refer to the normal event of a child leaving the womb. This is the word that God used in Jeremiah 1:5 when he told the prophet, "Before you were born (lit.: came forth out of the womb) I sanctified you." This is also used throughout Scripture for untimely birth that does not necessarily result in a death of the infant (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423). This is exactly why every other translation of Scripture renders this as "give birth prematurely" or a variant of that meaning in English. Therefore, when a fine set by the father/husband is required by the law as a punishment, that is meant as a compensation for the difficulty/stress of the situation in light of the other man's carelessness. However, if "harm follows," whether it be to the child or the mother (which often happened), then punishment up-to-and-including the death penalty could be enforced in response to the level of harm. This verse does not support abortion, it supports the rights of a human being to grow in the womb unharmed.

Then finally in verse 26-27 we find further reinforcement to the argument I made in parts 1 and 2 of the series; that slavery was a temporary institution in ancient Israel which, while limiting a persons rights, did not absolutely void them. This can be clearly observed here at the end of this section on violence. If a man took disciplinary action, whether justly or unjustly, on one of his slaves and permanently injured any of their body parts, they were to be set free.

The Mosaic law, in setting down principles of justice in cases of violence, takes care to protect the most vulnerable in society; from the developing person in the womb, to slaves trying to pay off debts. The law is just.

Next we will move forward through Exodus and examine what the law says about property and property rights.

What Does It Mean That Christ and Scripture Are Self-Attesting?

There are two starting points for presuppositional apologetics: 1) the self-attesting Christ and 2) the self-attesting Scriptures. The presuppositional apologist will not and cannot have any other starting point than these two things. In seeking to persuade the unbeliever about the truth of Christianity, he does not begin with evidences to lay a foundation upon which claims of Christ and the Scriptures might stand. Rather, he begins with Christ and the Scriptures and seeks to persuade from there. But is this a case of circular reasoning? Doesn't this undermine the plausibility of the apologist? Aren't the claims of Christ and the claims of Scripture under scrutiny? Don't they need to be proven true by rational arguments and evidences? Why, then, does the presuppositional apologist begin with them?

It is important to understand that the presuppositional apologist is not opposed to rational arguments and evidences for the Christian faith. They are tools at his disposal, and he may use them as needed. But they are just that: tools. Tools are useful for building a house, but a house does not stand upon tools. It needs a foundation. In the same way, the truth of Christianity does not stand upon the tools of the apologist, but upon the firm foundation of Christ and the Scriptures. You see, it is a question of foundations. What establishes the truth of Christianity? Is it rational arguments? Is it evidences? Or is it Christ and the Word of God?

If Christ is who He claims to be, then He is of necessity self-attesting. If He is the Lord of glory as the apostles testified (1 Cor. 2:8), then there is no higher witness than Himself. True, Christ did say that He did not testify to Himself, but claimed another testimony, that of His Father (John 5:31-36). Yet Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30). The Spirit also testifies concerning Jesus (1 John 5:6). But neither the Father nor the Spirit are ontologically superior to Christ. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is a higher witness than Christ; they are witnesses with Christ and to Christ.

Christ came to teach us about the Father, and to provide a way for sinners to be reconciled to Him (John 12:45; 14:6-11; 2 Cor. 5:19). Everything that He did cannot be separated from who He was. As the Son of God, He is one with the Father, and as God there is no one on earth who is higher in authority than Him. Therefore, there is no higher court of appeals than the witness of Christ. There is nothing outside of Christ that can add to His authority or truthfulness. All other witnesses, whether the Church, reason, or general revelation are subordinate to Christ. As subordinate witnesses, they cannot establish the truthfulness of the claims of Christ, only confirm what Christ has said.

Unbelievers cannot appeal to reason or general revelation as witnesses higher than Christ. They are subordinate to Christ. Christ has created all things, and all things were created for Him (Col. 1:16). Reason and creation can only attest to Him, not against Him. But they are subordinate to Him; therefore they cannot be appealed to as an higher authority.

Scripture, too, carries the full weight of God's authority. Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:1-14). Scripture is the written Word of God. Like Christ, the Word, Scripture has no higher authority outside of itself. All that is written in Scripture cannot be separated from the ultimate author, vis., the Holy Spirit.

It is true that God used fallible men to write Scripture, but these men wrote under divine inspiration. 2 Peter 1:21 says that these men spoke from God as they were being carried (φερόμενοι) by the Holy Spirit. Since, then, Scripture is ultimately of divine origin, though proximately written by men, it is of divine authority. We do not appeal to a higher authority than Christ, for there is no higher authority. Likewise, we do not appeal to a higher authority than the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Christ and Scripture agree because Scripture was spoken by the Holy Spirit, who is also called the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9).

Unbelievers, then, cannot appeal to reason and science, as if they are an authority higher than Scripture. All evidence outside of Scripture comports with Scripture, and, if rightly interpreted, fully supports Scripture. But the evidences brought forth by reason and science are subordinate to Scripture and cannot serve as the foundation of the truth of Christ and His Word.

Christ and Scripture possess divine authority. The authority that they possess is foundational and is sufficient for establishing the truth. Furthermore, since it is divine authority that they possess, the proper response of those to whom their truth claims are made is reverence and submission. The call of the gospel is not "Once you figure out that science and reason are compatible with Scripture, then you may believe." Rather it is "Repent and believe!" Reason and science are not enough to establish the credibility of Scripture because they are limited in their ability to reach beyond the realm of this cosmos and understand spiritual things. Furthermore, there is a fundamental flaw in the human ability to understand things beyond the creational realm.

The things of God cannot be understood by unbelievers because their hearts are darkened by sin. "God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). But the unbeliever "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). The unbeliever, not science and reason, is at odds with Christ and Scripture, because he is not able to discern spiritual things. It is only by faith that anyone can fully understand the world around him and the God who created all things (Heb. 11:3).

This is, then, what is meant by Christ and Scripture are self-attesting. They are the ultimate authority in all the matters that they address. There is no higher authority to appeal to beyond them. Reason, science, and evidences are helpful in meeting the arguments of unbelievers, but the unbeliever must ultimately submit himself to Christ and His Word. He cannot submit himself to science and reason first and then submit to Christ. If he does so, he has not rooted himself in Christ (Col. 2:6-7), as Scripture calls us to do, but he has instead been taken captive by philosophy and empty deceit (Col. 2:8). He does not stand upon a firm foundation, who stands upon anything else other than Christ and His Word.  

Calvin on Evidences and Establishing the Authority of Scripture

Presuppositional apologetics is simply Reformed apologetics. There is nothing new under the sun:

Yet they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputations are doing things backwards. For my part, although I do not excel either in great dexterity or eloquence, if I were struggling against the most crafty sort of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence their clamorous voices. And if it were a useful labor to refute their cavils, I would with no great trouble shatter the boasts they mutter in their lurking places. But even if anyone clears God's Sacred Word from man's evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty which piety requires. Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Isaiah very aptly expresses this connection in these words: "My Spirit which is in you, and the words that I have put in your mouth, and the mouths of your offspring, shal never fail" [Isa. 59:21p.]. Some good folk are annoyed that a clear proof is not ready at hand when the impious, unpunished, murmur against God's Word. As if the Spirit were not called both "seal" and "guarantee" [II Cor. 1:22] for confirming the faith of the godly; because until he illumines their minds, they ever waver among many doubts! (The Institutes, Book I, Ch. VII, Sec. 4b)

The Law is Just (Pt. 3): Does Exodus 21:12-19 Say That One Can Stone Their Own Children for Rebellion?

Yes, actually, it does. Immediately this may seem problematic though, as the punishment does not seem to fit the crime in our ordinary observations of such behavior. In fact, this law is embedded between other laws that do seem to be reasonable in many people's eyes.

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die. And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed. (Exodus 21:12-19 NKJV)

As usual I have three principles to keep in mind when reading texts like this.

1) We must recognize that God's covenant to redeem Israel only heightens their moral responsibility. We cannot understand many of the Mosaic laws if we do not recognize that the number one concern of the Torah is how a sinful people can live amidst a holy God. This becomes the primary concern of the text after the Exodus, during the construction of the tabernacle, and in the wilderness wanderings. Redemption, in the case of Israel, makes the law more severe in its stipulations. For example, after the theophany on Mt. Sinai, where God verbally gave his law, stricter penalties can be observed over issues like work during the sabbath. For example, in Exodus 16, the Israelites, probably in large numbers, continued to work on the sabbath and yet God had mercy on them after rebuking them. But after God appears to the congregation, he demands the death penalty for the same crime in Exodus 35, and we see it enforced in Numbers 15. Because of their direct experience of God's mercy previously, and his appearance before them, their rejection of his law became a "high handed sin." This can be observed with other laws as well. We must remember that men are responsible before God, not other men, and justice is primarily about an attribute of God, not about "fairness" or equality before men. Revelation intensifies these realities, especially in light of how God orders his covenant community.

2) Covenant transmission occurs in the Bible primarily through the family unit. Therefore, the parents are entrusted with the covenant and the responsibility to pass it along to their children in the form of signs (IE circumcision/baptism), instructions (Dt. 6:1-4), and example. This also meant that children of the covenant had a heightened responsibility as well; to receive and believe in God as He was given to them in the covenant. In the Old Testament, where church and state were required to be conjoined, this meant that excommunication due to covenant rejection was normally enforced through the death penalty (with some exceptions). The disobedient child subject to the death penalty is not a child who merely displayed regular adolescent foolishness, but one that was particularly wicked and refused to obey God and the parents He placed over them. A rejection of parental authority in the context of the covenant had a heightened severity to it (in line with point 1)). This is why the 5th commandment, to honor one's Father and Mother, is the first commandment pertaining to our duty to man that follows the previous four pertaining to our duty to God. Parents were the horizontal connection to the individual child's vertical relationship with God. Furthermore, to "curse" one's parents is a serious offense, and probably involved a lot more than what us moderners intend when we say "swear words." Deuteronomy 21:20 further describes this child as one who, "will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." This is a child, who at a certain age of maturity (IE he could drink), had rejected his parents authority (and thus rejected God), and committed his life to squander and wickedness.

3) Again, as I have stated in previous posts, the Old Testament laws present us with maximum penalties, not necessarily required penalties. On top of that, the passage in Deuteronomy 21 clearly implies that a child put to death for such offenses had to have their parents as the accuser. Capital offenses in the Old Testament require two or three witnesses, and since the offense was against the parents, the parents had to be the witnesses. In the ancient near-east, just as today, that would be a very difficult thing for a parent to do regardless of the child's behavior. Familial connections often lead to extraordinary instances of mercy and grace. In fact, out of all of the historical books, we do not have one instance of parents bringing such charges against their children. It probably rarely, if ever occurred.

At first, we may hesitate to confidently state that in this instance, the law is indeed just. That is because we often associate justice, with mere human justice, not divine justice. Justice is an attribute of God, one which all fallen men are opposed to and violate. Therefore, in the covenant community, where God was "birthing" salvation for the world, rebellion against God's commands were treated with more severity as we saw in point 1). Because of the covenantal arrangement of Hebrew life, the parent-child relationship was also intensified according to point 2). However, the parental-child relationship was not completely disregarded, as the parents had the final say in this matter given point 3). So with this law we get a sense of both the severity of God's justice, and the implied tenderness and mercy that comes from familial relations. This law is completely fulfilled by Christ, who as the eternal, beloved Son of God, came into this world, under the law of Moses, to redeem us from the curse of the law. He did that by submitting himself to the death penalty for our childish rebellion against the Most High, even though he was without sin. However, because he was the eternal, beloved Son of God, being without sin, when he had completed that work, he was raised again from the dead and ascended into heaven to return to the "lap" of the Father. Therefore, all those who are in him are given the status as the sons of God, and are justified in their relationship to the law. The law is Just, and Jesus is merciful. Amen.

John Calvin on the Ethical Nature of Belief in God

Calvin affirms that all men have a knowledge of God, but that they do not respond properly to this knowledge. The sinful nature, which effects the intellect, is the source of unbelief, not a lack of information. Unbelievers know God exists. This reality also takes the gusto out of the argument of universalists or sycretists who argue their position based upon a vague notion of God found in various religions. Calvin writes:

Nevertheless, it is one thing to feel that God as our Maker supports us by his power, governs us by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and attends us with all sorts of blessings-and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ.

Further, he states,

Moreover, although our mind cannot apprehend God without rendering some honor to him, it will not suffice simply to hold that there is One whom all ought to honor and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of every good, and that we must seeking nothing elsewhere than in him [...] (Institutes Book I. Ch. II.i)

According to Calvin (and Paul in Romans 1), man does not have an intellectual problem, he has a moral problem with God. He knows who God is, as even the demons know God and tremble (James 2:19). We should not be surprised then that we see the knowledge of God in all men, and that often they may give themselves over to their better knowledge as they seek a benefit from doing so (ie to appease conscience, earn blessings, or be "moral"). The problem according to Scripture, as Calvin points out, is that men are "holding back" or suppressing the truth. They will not fully commit themselves to God because they do not trust in the goodness of God. Their unbelief is rooted in an implicit slander against God. It is founded in ungodliness and is strengthened by their unrighteousness. Calvin elaborates:

For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him-they will never yield him willing service. Nay, unless they establish their complete happiness in him, they will never give themselves truly and sincerely to him. (Ibid)

If you examine the narrative of the fall, in Genesis 3, it is the goodness of God that Satan attacks in tempting Eve to turn from him and try and become god herself. Indeed, this noetic (or mental) effect of sin is implanted in all of us, unless the Holy Spirit regenerates us. That is why we grow in our sanctification as we come to find our joy in the goodness and grace of God. To hear this fleshed out further, check out this sermon on Genesis 3.