“Jesus Christ holds lawful title”

“The kingdom of God is the arena of God’s redemption. Jesus Christ redeemed the whole world — that is, He bought it back. He did this by paying the ultimate price for man’s sin: His death on the cross. The whole earth has now been judicially redeemed. It has been given “a new lease on life.” The lease that Satan gained from Adam has been revoked. The Second Adam (Jesus Christ) holds lawful title.

The world has not been fully restored in history, nor can it be; sin still has its effects, and will until the day of final judgment. But progressively over time, it is possible for the gospel to have its restorative effects. Through the empowering of God’s Holy Spirit, redeemed people are able to extend the principles of healing to all areas under their jurisdiction in life: church, family, and State.

All Christians admit that God’s principles can be used to reform the individual. They also understand that if this is the case, then the family can be reformed according to God’s Word. Next, the church is capable of restoration. But then they stop. Mention the State, and they say, “No; nothing can be done to restore the State. The State is inherently, permanently satanic. It is a waste of time to work to heal the State.” The Christian Reconstructionist asks: Why not?

They never tell you why not. They never point to a passage in the Bible that tells you why the church and family can be healed by God’s Word and Spirit, but the State can’t be. Today, it is the unique message of Christian Reconstruction that civil government, like family government and church government, is under the Bible-revealed law of God and therefore is capable in principle of being reformed according to God’s law.

This means that God has given to the Christian community as a whole enormous responsibility throughout history. This God-given responsibility is far greater than merely preaching a gospel of exclusively personal salvation. The gospel we preach must apply to every area of life that has been fouled by sin and its effects. The church and individual Christian evangelists must preach the biblical gospel of comprehensive redemption, not just personal soul-winning.’ Wherever sin reigns, there the gospel must be at work, transforming and restoring. The only area of life outside of the reach of Spirit-empowered restoration is an area that was not affected by the fall of man. This, of course, means no area at all.”

DeMar, Gary and North, Gary, Christian Reconstruction: What It Is, What It Isn’t (revised Text), n.d.

Proof for the Existence of God that You May Not Like Nor Accept

Van Til 4

“Two remarks may here be made by way of meeting the most obvious objections that will be raised to this method of the Reformed apologist. The first objection that suggests itself may be expressed in the rhetorical question “Do you mean to assert that non-Christians do not discover truth by the methods they employ?” The reply is that we mean nothing so absurd as that. The implication of the method here advocated is simply that non-Christians are never able and therefore never do employ their own methods consistently. Says A. E. Taylor in discussing the question of the uniformity of nature, “The fundamental thought of modern science, at any rate until yesterday, was that there is a ‘universal reign of law’ throughout nature. Nature is rational in the sense that it has everywhere a coherent pattern which we can progressively detect by the steady application of our own intelligence to the scrutiny of natural processes. Science has been built up all along on the basis of this principle of the ‘uniformity of nature,’ and the principle is one which science itself has no means of demonstrating. No one could possibly prove its truth to an opponent who seriously disputed it. For all attempts to produce ‘evidence’ for the ‘uniformity of nature’ themselves presuppose the very principle they are intended to prove.” Our argument as over against this would be that the existence of the God of Christian theism and the conception of his counsel as controlling all things in the universe is the only presupposition which can account for the uniformity of nature which the scientist needs. But the best and only possible proof for the existence of such a God is that his existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world. We cannot prove the existence of beams underneath a floor if by proof we mean that they must be ascertainable in the way that we can see the chairs and tables of the room. But the very idea of a floor as the support of tables and chairs requires the idea of beams that are underneath. But there would be no floor if no beams were underneath. Thus there is absolutely certain prod for the existence of God and the truth of Christian theism. Even non-Christians presuppose its truth while they verbally reject it. They need to presuppose the truth of Christian theism in order to account for their own accomplishments.
The second objection may be voiced in the following words: “While a Christian can prove that his Christian position is fully as reasonable as the opponent’s view, there is no such thing as an absolutely compelling proof that God exists, or that the Bible is the word of God, just as little as anyone can prove its opposite.” In this way of putting the matter there is a confusion between what is objectively valid and what is subjectively acceptable to the natural man. It is true that no method of argument for Christianity will be acceptable to the natural man. Moreover, it is true that the more consistently Christian our methodology, the less acceptable it will be to the natural man. We find something similar in the field of theology. It is precisely the Reformed faith which, among other things, teaches the total depravity of the natural man, which is most loathsome to that natural man. But this does not prove that the Reformed faith is not true. A patient may like a doctor who tells him that his disease can be cured by means of external applications and dislike the doctor who tells him that he needs a major internal operation. Yet the latter doctor may be right in his diagnosis. It is the weakness of the Roman Catholic and the Arminian methods that they virtually identify objective validity with subjective acceptability to the natural man. Distinguishing carefully between these two, the Reformed apologist maintains that there is an absolutely valid argument for the existence of God and for the truth of Christian theism. He cannot do less without virtually admitting that God’s revelation to man is not clear. It is fatal for the Reformed apologist to admit that man has done justice to the objective evidence if he comes to any other conclusion than that of the truth of Christian theism.”
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia, 1955).

No Common Ground in Apologetics, but an Axe to Grind

Van Til 2

“It is only to follow out the lead which Hodge in his theology, following Calvin, has given, if we seek our point of contact not in any abstraction whatsoever, whether it be reason or intuition. No such abstraction exists in the universe of men. We always deal with concrete individual men. These men are sinners. They have “an axe to grind.” They want to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They will employ their reason for that purpose. And they are not formally illogical if, granted the assumption of man’s ultimacy, they reject the teachings of Christianity. On the contrary, to be logically consistent they are bound to do so. This point will engage us more fully in the sequel. For the moment it must suffice to have shown how the apologist is not only untrue to his own doctrine of man as the creature of God, but also defeats his own purpose if he appeals to some form of the “common consciousness of man.”

Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia, 1955).

If a Christian Doesn’t Eat Meat, He Still Isn’t a Vegetarian (or Vegan for that Matter).

A Christian may or may not eat meat. That’s a matter of preference. But Vegetarianism and Veganism are religious worldviews set against the Biblical worldview. Those holding to these positions are attempting to enforce a religion of paganism upon those who do not share that view. Please view this animal rights video by Dr. Mealanie Joy, then consider my response, to a non-meat-eating Christian. Happily, the person to whom I addressed this note sees through the paganism of the video.

Re the Dr. Melanie Joy video.

Dear,                 

I can understand there are health arguments against eating meat, as well as issues regarding cruelty to animals in modern farming. But the main argument in this video betrays a thoroughly pagan worldview. I’ll leave the health issue aside for now, but the worldview of the presenter worries me.

Shortly into the video, she refers to animals as “individuals,” a term in normal use is reserved for people. Yes, each animal is an individual animal, but not an individual person, as we usually use the word, by itself, of people. Her comparisons between pigs, chickens, cows, and human infants are jarring. This is the same approach to human infants that the pro-abortion movement takes—that the infant is no more than an animal. Ironically, the same people who have no problem aborting a human infant are very often opposed to any use of animals. I am 99% certain that she considers herself “prochoice.” What “heterosexism” has to do with vegetarianism and veganism is beyond me, but it rounds out my perception of her worldview.

The problem with a pagan worldview is that it reduces man to nature, and denies, first of all, the existence of a God who is an uncreated creator of all things. Paganism identifies nature with God—pantheism, so God is a part of nature and by extension, all of nature is a part of God. Secondly, paganism denies the Biblical teaching that man is uniquely created in the image of God, and by virtue of that image, man has dominion over creation (there are very important implications in this doctrine, read Genesis 1:26-31). Without this uniqueness, law, judgement, sin, salvation, and holiness are meaningless, because man is an animal with no unique stature nor responsibility before God.

Dr. Joy raises the issue of animal rights, a phrase which is rarely thought out. In the traditions of Western societies, humans have rights; and humans have responsibilities to animals. If animal rights were the case (and she brings the term “social justice” to her argument), then animals are a part of society such as a human is.

To speak of human rights, means that a human must not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. So if animals have rights, it means that an animal can never be deprived of its life or liberty without due process, that is, without a court order, such as is the case when a human is tried and found guilty of a crime. Nor can humans be used for slavery or experimentation, but these things are seen as inhumane (the Nazis and Planned Parenthood are modern examples of the horrors of such abuse).

If animals are afforded “rights,” it must be asked, “who grants these rights?” Is it God? Not in paganism. It is always man who grants rights in paganism, and as history shows, man can take rights away from those he deems unfit. Thus in pagan America and Canada, man has determined that the unborn have no rights and are not human.

Quite practically, if animals are given the same rights as humans, all elimination of disease-carrying pests must be made illegal: rats, mice, mosquitoes, etc., all have a right to life. Antibiotics are also forbidden, as they kill of entire populations of bacteria.

This may seem like an extreme example, but once rights are afforded to a class, the size, age, intelligence, or perceived value of that class must be deemed irrelevant. An animal is an animal.

This also holds true for animal testing for life-saving medications. While I think that cosmetic testing is cruel (and cosmetics don’t help most of those who use them anyway), I am in full favour of using an animal to test a drug or medication for effectiveness or harmful side effects. Pigs have been bread for the sole purpose of harvesting their skin for burn transplants. Paganism may see that as illegitimate, but it is illegitimate only if the Biblical doctrine of man created in the image of God is ignored.

So if one wishes to be a vegetarian or vegan from a Christian viewpoint, it must be done so without confusing man and animal. The Bible does teach, by the way, compassionate animal husbandry. The vegetarian does, however, have to deal with passages throughout the Bible that permits the eating of meat (and commands it in the case of the priests—see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). The Old Testament has strict limits on diet, as is well known.

In the New Testament, Jesus made it clear that the dietary restrictions were a thing of the past (note vss 18-19):

Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

It might also be good to remember that Jesus served fish (John 6:9; Luke 9:16; Mark 6:38; John 21:9)!

Furthermore, when the Gospel is preached, food is used to convince a faithful Hebrew Christian (Peter) that if foods are not to be rejected as unclean, neither should people (Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 11). Galatians 2:11-14 only makes sense if we understand that Paul allowed eating any kind of meat. His prohibitions on meat eating in his other letters are about the unique sense of where the meat was purchased, that is, a pagan temple. He did not allow it if it violated a Christian’s conscience.

So in summary,

  1. The Biblical worldview says that man is created in the image of God, and therefore separate from animal, and any appeal to vegetarianism must not cross those boundaries.
  2. Animals, while under the care, stewardship, and dominion of man, do not have human rights.
  3. Advocating for animal rights is an act of sinful rebellion, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:18—32). In this manner, vegetarianism and veganism is very dangerous to the Christian.
  4. The Bible advocates the eating of meat, and does not forbid it. Therefore, vegetarianism or veganism cannot be made a law to which Christians are subject. It is a matter of Christian liberty.

 

46schaeffer

I’ve attached a chart, from Francis Schaeffer, which explains the nature of the “chasm” between God and creation, and between man and the rest of creation. The first slide shows what the Biblical worldview teaches, that there is a “chasm” between God and His creation; that is, He is entirely separate from and not dependent upon, in any way, what He created. The second slide shows that there is also, within creation itself, a separation between man and all other entities, living or otherwise, in creation.

God, Creation, Chasm God, Creation, and us

I hope this helps you in your evaluation of this video. Eating meat or not is a choice you can make. But to call oneself a vegetarian or vegan is to be aligned with a movement that is opposed to the Kingdom of God. This is by no means meant to be a rebuke, but a way to help you see the implications of the worldview of this particular presentation.

In the Lamb,

Scott

 

If a Christian Doesn't Eat Meat, He Still Isn't a Vegetarian (or Vegan for that Matter).

A Christian may or may not eat meat. That’s a matter of preference. But Vegetarianism and Veganism are religious worldviews set against the Biblical worldview. Those holding to these positions are attempting to enforce a religion of paganism upon those who do not share that view. Please view this animal rights video by Dr. Mealanie Joy, then consider my response, to a non-meat-eating Christian. Happily, the person to whom I addressed this note sees through the paganism of the video.

Re the Dr. Melanie Joy video.

Dear,                 

I can understand there are health arguments against eating meat, as well as issues regarding cruelty to animals in modern farming. But the main argument in this video betrays a thoroughly pagan worldview. I’ll leave the health issue aside for now, but the worldview of the presenter worries me.

Shortly into the video, she refers to animals as “individuals,” a term in normal use is reserved for people. Yes, each animal is an individual animal, but not an individual person, as we usually use the word, by itself, of people. Her comparisons between pigs, chickens, cows, and human infants are jarring. This is the same approach to human infants that the pro-abortion movement takes—that the infant is no more than an animal. Ironically, the same people who have no problem aborting a human infant are very often opposed to any use of animals. I am 99% certain that she considers herself “prochoice.” What “heterosexism” has to do with vegetarianism and veganism is beyond me, but it rounds out my perception of her worldview.

The problem with a pagan worldview is that it reduces man to nature, and denies, first of all, the existence of a God who is an uncreated creator of all things. Paganism identifies nature with God—pantheism, so God is a part of nature and by extension, all of nature is a part of God. Secondly, paganism denies the Biblical teaching that man is uniquely created in the image of God, and by virtue of that image, man has dominion over creation (there are very important implications in this doctrine, read Genesis 1:26-31). Without this uniqueness, law, judgement, sin, salvation, and holiness are meaningless, because man is an animal with no unique stature nor responsibility before God.

Dr. Joy raises the issue of animal rights, a phrase which is rarely thought out. In the traditions of Western societies, humans have rights; and humans have responsibilities to animals. If animal rights were the case (and she brings the term “social justice” to her argument), then animals are a part of society such as a human is.

To speak of human rights, means that a human must not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. So if animals have rights, it means that an animal can never be deprived of its life or liberty without due process, that is, without a court order, such as is the case when a human is tried and found guilty of a crime. Nor can humans be used for slavery or experimentation, but these things are seen as inhumane (the Nazis and Planned Parenthood are modern examples of the horrors of such abuse).

If animals are afforded “rights,” it must be asked, “who grants these rights?” Is it God? Not in paganism. It is always man who grants rights in paganism, and as history shows, man can take rights away from those he deems unfit. Thus in pagan America and Canada, man has determined that the unborn have no rights and are not human.

Quite practically, if animals are given the same rights as humans, all elimination of disease-carrying pests must be made illegal: rats, mice, mosquitoes, etc., all have a right to life. Antibiotics are also forbidden, as they kill of entire populations of bacteria.

This may seem like an extreme example, but once rights are afforded to a class, the size, age, intelligence, or perceived value of that class must be deemed irrelevant. An animal is an animal.

This also holds true for animal testing for life-saving medications. While I think that cosmetic testing is cruel (and cosmetics don’t help most of those who use them anyway), I am in full favour of using an animal to test a drug or medication for effectiveness or harmful side effects. Pigs have been bread for the sole purpose of harvesting their skin for burn transplants. Paganism may see that as illegitimate, but it is illegitimate only if the Biblical doctrine of man created in the image of God is ignored.

So if one wishes to be a vegetarian or vegan from a Christian viewpoint, it must be done so without confusing man and animal. The Bible does teach, by the way, compassionate animal husbandry. The vegetarian does, however, have to deal with passages throughout the Bible that permits the eating of meat (and commands it in the case of the priests—see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). The Old Testament has strict limits on diet, as is well known.

In the New Testament, Jesus made it clear that the dietary restrictions were a thing of the past (note vss 18-19):

Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

It might also be good to remember that Jesus served fish (John 6:9; Luke 9:16; Mark 6:38; John 21:9)!

Furthermore, when the Gospel is preached, food is used to convince a faithful Hebrew Christian (Peter) that if foods are not to be rejected as unclean, neither should people (Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 11). Galatians 2:11-14 only makes sense if we understand that Paul allowed eating any kind of meat. His prohibitions on meat eating in his other letters are about the unique sense of where the meat was purchased, that is, a pagan temple. He did not allow it if it violated a Christian’s conscience.

So in summary,

  1. The Biblical worldview says that man is created in the image of God, and therefore separate from animal, and any appeal to vegetarianism must not cross those boundaries.
  2. Animals, while under the care, stewardship, and dominion of man, do not have human rights.
  3. Advocating for animal rights is an act of sinful rebellion, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:18—32). In this manner, vegetarianism and veganism is very dangerous to the Christian.
  4. The Bible advocates the eating of meat, and does not forbid it. Therefore, vegetarianism or veganism cannot be made a law to which Christians are subject. It is a matter of Christian liberty.

 

46schaeffer

I’ve attached a chart, from Francis Schaeffer, which explains the nature of the “chasm” between God and creation, and between man and the rest of creation. The first slide shows what the Biblical worldview teaches, that there is a “chasm” between God and His creation; that is, He is entirely separate from and not dependent upon, in any way, what He created. The second slide shows that there is also, within creation itself, a separation between man and all other entities, living or otherwise, in creation.

God, Creation, Chasm God, Creation, and us

I hope this helps you in your evaluation of this video. Eating meat or not is a choice you can make. But to call oneself a vegetarian or vegan is to be aligned with a movement that is opposed to the Kingdom of God. This is by no means meant to be a rebuke, but a way to help you see the implications of the worldview of this particular presentation.

In the Lamb,

Scott

 

Here’s the Problem:

https://mediamatters.org/embed/206855

This scene from the TV series Homeland was featured on Monday’s MSNBC news, as a commentary on the Paris attacks. Notice around the 1:35 mark, when the solutions are proffered: “200,000 ground troops indefinitely to protect an equal number of doctors and teachers,” OR “bomb Raqqa into a parking lot.”

Those are the only options available to the mind of popular media (which is a mirror of popular thought). I fear that Western leadership suffers from the same tunnel-vision, when the question should be asked, “Why are we so impotent?”

We, the West, are powerless to fight against the ideology of Islam, as the clip correctly shows. But the problem is not one of strategy, but one of moral nerve. This moral nerve cannot be mustered, because the West has committed spiritual suicide, having finally and completely rejected its spiritual foundations in Christendom.

Christendom gets a lot of bad press right now, often without describing what it really was, could be, and really entails. Mention it and you will get one of two comments: “You can’t go back to the days of ‘Leave it to Beaver,'” or, “Yes, but the Crusades were terrible.” The first comment only demonstrates ignorance; the second, fails to understand that the soldiers of the Crusades actually believed that what they were fighting for had eternal consequences.

Today’s soldiers will grow weary fighting for freedom when, upon their return, find that their governments define freedom as confused young men’s rights to shower with their daughters after gym. The growth of government has been a solution to the wrong problem for decades, and when freedom is celebrated in the West, it is done so with the proper permissions, permits, and waivers.

The spiritual underpinnings of Western freedoms and democracies have not simply faded away, they have been banished. This is why in popular culture, the two options of humanistic education and health care (the 21st centuries’ version of salvation) or elimination through bombing are the only two choices available.

The option of national repentance, from leaders to the led, across all segments of society, is not on the table, and this is certainly why the West must fall.

We, the West, have tolerated the destruction of generations of children. We cannot, then, think of ourselves as the moral superiors to Islam in any form, violent or not. Our cultural sins have brought great judgement upon us, and God will give our lands to those who do not kill their children.

Consider God’s words against Nineveh, who a century and a half repented under Jonah’s preaching, but was to fall for their sins. Nahum compares Nineveh to Thebes of Egypt, a nation that Nineveh (Assyria) slaughterd:

Nahum 3:10 (ESV)

10  Yet she became an exile;

she went into captivity;

her infants were dashed in pieces

at the head of every street;

for her honoured men lots were cast,

and all her great men were bound in chains.

Notice the infanticide that Nineveh inflicted upon Thebes, and how that was a cause of judgement. Nineveh was known for its cruelty, yet somehow Western post-Christian nations think that they are not! The thousands that Islam has killed in the past decades is such a small number compared to the mass destruction of the innocent by the West.

In Nahum 3:11-13 we read how easy it will be for Babylon to defeat Nineveh. Keep in mind that Nineveh and Assyria were the regions superpowers at the time, and were thought for years to be invincible. No military strategist could have seen this coming.

11  You also will be drunken;

you will go into hiding;

you will seek a refuge from the enemy.

12  All your fortresses are like fig trees

with first-ripe figs—

if shaken they fall

into the mouth of the eater.

13  Behold, your troops

are women in your midst.

The gates of your land

are wide open to your enemies;

fire has devoured your bars.

Drunkenness, fear, pursuit, an easy target, women soldiers and open gates all describe Nineveh before her enemies. Nineveh, and her neighbhours, did not believe this for a moment, but this is how their end came.

God mocks their preparations, as He mocks our strategies today:

Nahum 3:14–15 (ESV)

14  Draw water for the siege;

strengthen your forts;

go into the clay;

tread the mortar;

take hold of the brick mold!

15  There will the fire devour you;

the sword will cut you off.

It will devour you like the locust.

Multiply yourselves like the locust;

multiply like the grasshopper!

Get ready, and die anyway, is the message of Nahum.

More doctors! More teachers! or, More bombs!

Since we’re not treating our cancer, it must metastasize. God granted Nineveh repentance during the days of Jonah, but did not do so again. We have no certainty that He will grant us repentance, and we should just reflect upon that.

Here's the Problem:

https://mediamatters.org/embed/206855

This scene from the TV series Homeland was featured on Monday’s MSNBC news, as a commentary on the Paris attacks. Notice around the 1:35 mark, when the solutions are proffered: “200,000 ground troops indefinitely to protect an equal number of doctors and teachers,” OR “bomb Raqqa into a parking lot.”

Those are the only options available to the mind of popular media (which is a mirror of popular thought). I fear that Western leadership suffers from the same tunnel-vision, when the question should be asked, “Why are we so impotent?”

We, the West, are powerless to fight against the ideology of Islam, as the clip correctly shows. But the problem is not one of strategy, but one of moral nerve. This moral nerve cannot be mustered, because the West has committed spiritual suicide, having finally and completely rejected its spiritual foundations in Christendom.

Christendom gets a lot of bad press right now, often without describing what it really was, could be, and really entails. Mention it and you will get one of two comments: “You can’t go back to the days of ‘Leave it to Beaver,'” or, “Yes, but the Crusades were terrible.” The first comment only demonstrates ignorance; the second, fails to understand that the soldiers of the Crusades actually believed that what they were fighting for had eternal consequences.

Today’s soldiers will grow weary fighting for freedom when, upon their return, find that their governments define freedom as confused young men’s rights to shower with their daughters after gym. The growth of government has been a solution to the wrong problem for decades, and when freedom is celebrated in the West, it is done so with the proper permissions, permits, and waivers.

The spiritual underpinnings of Western freedoms and democracies have not simply faded away, they have been banished. This is why in popular culture, the two options of humanistic education and health care (the 21st centuries’ version of salvation) or elimination through bombing are the only two choices available.

The option of national repentance, from leaders to the led, across all segments of society, is not on the table, and this is certainly why the West must fall.

We, the West, have tolerated the destruction of generations of children. We cannot, then, think of ourselves as the moral superiors to Islam in any form, violent or not. Our cultural sins have brought great judgement upon us, and God will give our lands to those who do not kill their children.

Consider God’s words against Nineveh, who a century and a half repented under Jonah’s preaching, but was to fall for their sins. Nahum compares Nineveh to Thebes of Egypt, a nation that Nineveh (Assyria) slaughterd:

Nahum 3:10 (ESV)

10  Yet she became an exile;

she went into captivity;

her infants were dashed in pieces

at the head of every street;

for her honoured men lots were cast,

and all her great men were bound in chains.

Notice the infanticide that Nineveh inflicted upon Thebes, and how that was a cause of judgement. Nineveh was known for its cruelty, yet somehow Western post-Christian nations think that they are not! The thousands that Islam has killed in the past decades is such a small number compared to the mass destruction of the innocent by the West.

In Nahum 3:11-13 we read how easy it will be for Babylon to defeat Nineveh. Keep in mind that Nineveh and Assyria were the regions superpowers at the time, and were thought for years to be invincible. No military strategist could have seen this coming.

11  You also will be drunken;

you will go into hiding;

you will seek a refuge from the enemy.

12  All your fortresses are like fig trees

with first-ripe figs—

if shaken they fall

into the mouth of the eater.

13  Behold, your troops

are women in your midst.

The gates of your land

are wide open to your enemies;

fire has devoured your bars.

Drunkenness, fear, pursuit, an easy target, women soldiers and open gates all describe Nineveh before her enemies. Nineveh, and her neighbhours, did not believe this for a moment, but this is how their end came.

God mocks their preparations, as He mocks our strategies today:

Nahum 3:14–15 (ESV)

14  Draw water for the siege;

strengthen your forts;

go into the clay;

tread the mortar;

take hold of the brick mold!

15  There will the fire devour you;

the sword will cut you off.

It will devour you like the locust.

Multiply yourselves like the locust;

multiply like the grasshopper!

Get ready, and die anyway, is the message of Nahum.

More doctors! More teachers! or, More bombs!

Since we’re not treating our cancer, it must metastasize. God granted Nineveh repentance during the days of Jonah, but did not do so again. We have no certainty that He will grant us repentance, and we should just reflect upon that.

Bahnsen on Miracles: What Makes a Theist?

 

Bahnsen on Miracles

Quote from Greg Bahnsen in his closing remarks in a debate with Dr. Gordon Stein (Stein representing the atheist position).

Audio and printed transcript available here.

The full context of the quote below:

Moderator: Dr. Stein, the final question is directed to you. It reads:
You have said that there has been no adequate evidence put forth for God’s existence. What for you personally would constitute adequate evidence for God’s existence?
Stein: Well, it’s very simple. I can give you two examples. If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry.

Assuming that there wasn’t an engine under there or a wire attached to it, we can make those obvious exclusions. That would be evidence for a supernatural violation of the laws. We could call it a miracle right before your eyes. That would be evidence I would accept.

Any kind of a supernatural being putting it into appearance and doing miracles that could not be stage magic would also be evidence that I would accept. Those are the two simplest way. I would also accept evidence that logically non-contradictory, and I have not heard any yet here tonight that hasn’t been offered already.

Bahnsen: Dr. Stein, I think, is really not reflecting on the true nature of atheism and human nature when he says, “All it would take is a miracle in my very presence to believe in God.” History is replete with first of all things which would be apparently miracles to people.

Now, from an atheistic or naturalistic standpoint, I will grant, in terms of the hypothesis, that that’s because they were ignorant of all the calls of factors and so it appeared to be miracles. But you see that didn’t make everybody into a theist. In fact, the Scriptures tells us that there were instances of people who witnessed miracles, who all the more hardened their heart, and eventually crucified the Lord of glory. They saw his miracles, that didn’t change their mind.

People are not made theists by miracles. People must change their world views; their hearts must be changed. They need to be converted. That what it takes, and that’s what it would take for Dr. Stein to finally believe it. If this podium rose up five feet off the ground and stayed there, Dr. Stein would eventually have in the future some naturalistic explanation because they believe things on faith, by which I mean that they believe things as which they have not proven by their senses.