Semper Reformanda

2006-06-26T17:36:00.000-04:00

For anyone who missed the memo, I moved to http://joshaber.wordpress.com/ mostly just because it's prettier. Enjoy!

Objections to theonomy

2006-01-17T23:33:00.000-05:00

One of my friends, Jordan, raised some good questions and objections to theonomy. This is a copy of the email in response which I sent to him, with a few personal notes edited out.

-----------------------------------------

Interesting points, with a few rebuttals from your less Covenant minded friend. You have not completely taken into account the portions of the law that refer to practices which the NT clearly says we need not follow, i.e. circumcision, animal sacrifices, etc.

Yep, I purposefully skipped over those because the post was already a little long. Theonomists would say that the sacrifices and separation laws do not continue in the new covenant for two reasons. First, as you say, the sacrifices did not themselves save, but rather they looked forward to the perfect sacrifice. Now that the perfect sacrifice has come, there is no need for any more sacrifices. Second, while the previous covenants had been with the people of Israel, this new covenant is with all people (Paul talks of no distinction between Jew or Gentile). There is no longer a separation by people group so no separation laws.

Or if it helps, view this not as an issue of OT -> NT continuity, but rather what the standard for human behavior is. The standard should be God's law.

So if those sacraments are done away with, where does the rest of the law go? Can we pick and choose which parts of the law are still applicable and still hold power? I think not.

We're not so much picking and choosing which parts still apply, but rather we assume it all still applies unless we have a good reason to disregard it. It would be fallacious to say that the civil law gets thrown out because the ceremonial law is now obsolete; they are two different categories.

The point here is that because of the salvation we have experienced and the love that God has chosen to show us, we obey his law - not Levitical, for the Levitical law only pointed forward to Christ and Christ has already come - but instead we follow the law He laid upon our hearts as well as the civil law of whatever nation we happen to reside in.

But the Levitical law is God's law. I agree that we should obey the law which he inscribes on our hearts, but why would that law be any different than his revealed law? Furthermore, what if what two Christians believe to be the law as inscribed on their hearts is different? How do we determine who is right? Holding to individual, revealed law could quickly devolve into subjectivism.

I agree as well that we should follow the civil law of our respective nations, but we return to the question of "by what standard?" When we determine law, what standard do we use? The theonomist would answer: "God's perfect Law."

However when God was there what did he do? When the Christ was there he instead forgave her because of the shame and repentance in her heart. That's justice from a Christ-One for the post OT era, and that's how we should view the Law.

That instance cannot be viewed as normative, because if it is then we can disregard all law and punishment.

The role of God's Law today

2006-01-08T04:17:00.000-05:00

I've been reading through the Old Testament of late, trying to get a better feel for the basis for Covenant theology. While doing this, though, I've come to notice how much detail God pays to his Law which he gives Israel and the emphasis he places on the fact that it is his perfect Law.

I decided to check out a few different perspectives on the continuity/applicability of the Law in our current time, and came upon a familiar name: Greg Bahnsen, and again I find myself agreeing with his stance on the topic.

Growing up in an Evangelical Baptist home and church, I had always assumed that, while the OT Law was good for the Israelites, it was somehow no longer applicable for today's Christians. Upon reading some articles by Bahnsen and a few other theologians, however, I cannot see how anything but the opposite could be the case.

Bahnsen et al teach a position called "theonomy;" theos meaning "God" and nomy meaning "law" so that it is literally "God's law." The question which Rushdoony, a theonomist, famously asked -- "by what standard should governmental law be determined?" -- is answered by the theonomist by saying that the "general equity" of the civil Law should be legislated.

What is meant by the "general equity" of the Law, then? Quite simply it means that the principles of justice outlined in the civil law of the OT should be legislated by government. A classic example is the case of the OT requiring railings around roofs of houses. The principle which theonomists would advocate is that accidental injury and death should be properly avoided. The current day application would then be things such as fencing swimming pools, building codes, etc.

A few initial objections may be made. First, if we look to the punishments for crimes outlined in the OT civil law, we may be tempted to think that they are overly harsh. The simple response is to remind ourselves of the creator of the law: God. We can be assured that the punishment which he commands is perfectly just.

Second, we may object by pointing to Luke where we are told that the Gospel fulfills the Law. The answer is again quite simple: fulfill does not mean abrogate. Fulfillment of the Law means that those incapable of themselves fulfilling it (i.e., everyone) can find fulfillment in Christ. It does not remove the law. An argument ad absurdum could also be used here to say that if fulfilled means abrogated then Christians are not bound to any law.

Third, we may initially wonder if theonomists advocate the overthrow of government to be able to legislate these laws. As far as I know, no theonomist does advocate civil war, but they do say that we should try to work through government to make these laws a reality.

Fourth, we may object by saying that the OT law was given only to the Israelites or Christians; it is unfair to hold non-Christians or Gentiles to that law. This, however, is not the example given in the OT. God, numerous times, judges people or nations outside of the theocracy of Israel for not obeying his commandments. This is seen in the judgment of Sodom and Gommorrah (Gen. 18:20), and when God destroys the Canaanites for their lawlessness (Lev. 18:24-27).

I'll close by asking that same question which Rushdoony asked: "by what standard?" If we do not establish laws by God's perfect standard, then by what standard do we establish them? We must base our laws upon the general equity of OT civil law. I cannot see any other position to take biblically or logically.

Transcendental Arguments and Reductio Ad Absurdum

2005-11-20T03:51:00.000-05:00

At the close of the last post, I spoke of the concept of a transcendental argument, and using a reductio ad absurdum to disprove a worldview. This post will hopefully expound more on those. I will disclaim this post by saying that I have literally no formal knowledge of philosophy; anyone is free to correct me.

First I will start with the idea of a transcendental argument. Transcendental arguments were first used by Immanuel Kant to prove the existence of outside minds. He, to over-simply it, stated that, while we are free to not believe in the existence of outside minds, doing so reduces us to insanity and irrationalism. Outside minds must exist because the idea of them not existing is not conceivable; they exist because of the impossibility of the contrary. That is the idea behind a transcendental argument.

There is a bit of a controversy over the proper, formal symbolic definition of a transcendental argument, but below is what I believe to be the best formulation. “M” is the possibility operator.

1) P
2) ~M(P & ~Q)
3) Q

Read aloud, that would be said: “P is the case; it is not possible that P is the case and Q is not the case; therefore, Q is the case.” It should be clear that it could again be said that Q is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. If P is true, it is not possible that Q is not also true. The power of transcendental arguments should also be somewhat clear; the greatest struggle, though, comes in showing that P necessitates Q and only Q. If R could also be the case instead of Q, then Q is not shown by P.

Kant’s usage of this in proving outside minds was quite a bit more complicated in that he had to show that no outside minds led to irrationalism, but the basic concept remains the same.

Since I have hopefully established, in the last post, the premise that there are no truly neutral philosophical positions, then we know that arguments, and any ideas at all, are, at base, question-begging. This means that by making any argument against a philosophical position, we are open to the charge of begging the question. Presumably, then, the only way to argue against another position is by reductio ad absurdum -- taking the philosophical position’s statements and showing that the logical conclusion of the position’s own beliefs do not make sense or lead to contradiction.

A reductio ad absurdum argument is where the argument's own premises are taken to their logical conclusion to show that the argument is not valid (absurd), e.g., "That is the case when pigs fly!" The person proposing the argument is free to accept the absurd conclusion rather than give up their argument.

By arguing reductio ad absurdum we are able to avoid the charge of begging the question because we are not using our own position's beliefs, but rather the opposing position’s self acknowledgements.

Using these two things, a transcendental argument and an argument ad absurdum, we can make a powerful argument for the truth of Christianity. The argument is known as the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) and defending using a systematic apologetic know as presuppositional apologetics (PA). The basic TAG is formed like this:

1) The world is intelligible, and uniform.
2) It is not possible that there can be a world in which the world is intelligible and the Christian God does not exist.
3) Therefore, the Christian God exists.

Hopefully it is obvious how this fits the form of a transcendental argument. It should also be obvious that most people do not readily accept the middle part of the argument: that only the Christian God can lead to a world of intelligibility; but this is where an argument ad absurdum and presuppositional apologetics come in. The presuppositional apologist shows that the other philosophical position, whatever it may be, does not allow for a world of intelligibility, or is self-contradicting. In my next post I hope to show that this is not such an outlandish idea as it may seem.

The subjectivity of objective proof (part 2)

2005-10-23T01:30:00.000-04:00

About 4 months ago I posted part one of this two-part article. In part one I argued that objective proof –- proof independent of presuppositions or worldview –- is impossible; everything we believe and argue is foundationally dependent upon our presuppositions. Closing part one I asked what the implications of this are. Perhaps the most interesting implication follows directly from the lack of objection proof: the lack of neutrality.

The ability to be neutral is supposed in many different places in life; however, it is seen most clearly and most ironically in questions regarding religion. Atheists believe that children should not be taught any specific religion, but rather left up to their own devices. Of course, this is hardly neutrality unless the atheists are willing to beg the question by assuming their own, unargued truth.

This pretended neutrality is present in the debate about religion in school. Secular lawmakers would have us think that by not speaking of religion in school, we are not endorsing any religion; they are simply helping to create open-mindedness. However, open-mindedness is acceptable only in the “religion” of atheism (and, I suppose, some transcendental religions). They endorse inclusive religion, all the while pretending to be religiously silent.

Finally, pretended neutrality is painfully evident in secular science, especially in regards to the origin of man and the universe. Unlike the other two examples, secular science actually states from the beginning that the supernatural will not be allowed; all things must have a natural explanation. From the outset, they disallow God. Any thoughts that science is neutral, then, must be dismissed – secular science is anything but neutral!

This myth of neutrality is, I believe, a problem that is not talked about nearly enough in Christianity. Christians seem to be willing to admit to non-Christians that there is a neutral position and Christianity is not it. They do not realize that there is no neutral position, philosophically or biblically. This pretended neutral ground advantage that atheists believe they have does not exist, and so neither does the advantage.

So then, since arguments ultimately hinge upon their presuppositions, it is the presuppositions that must eventually be called into question. The most effective way to challenge a presupposition is through reductio ad absurdum through a transcendental argument. I’ll discuss the concept of a transcendental argument in part three, which will hopefully take less than 4 months. :-)

Recantations

2005-08-18T02:30:00.000-04:00

Luther, Augustine, and undoubtedly others, felt the need to, when their views changed, write confessions or recantations of those previously held beliefs. I suppose its only fair that I do the same.

On the inspiration of the Bible
I previously wrote that, “With those obvious contradictions (errors) in mind, I don’t see how we can rightly claim that the Bible is inerrant.”

I confess and recant this sinful belief. I now hold to inerrancy of the original texts, and the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

On the creation of the universe
I previously wrote that, “the church has, in the past, claimed that the Bible asserts scientific truth when, in fact, it does not. I believe this is the case in regards to evolution.” I also wrote, in a comment, that I would defend the validity of the theory of evolution.

I confess and recant this sinful belief. I now hold to a literal six-day creation.

---------------

I also confess and recant the sinful arrogance with which I have posted, of late. In two particular posts, I displayed an attitude of sinful pride, and denied it even when called out on it. I underhandedly attacked my fellow Christians, and then later lauged at the lack of unity found within Christianity, and so I am a hypocrite.

O God,
light of the minds that know you,
life of the souls that love you,
strength of the thoughts that seek you:
Help us so to know you
that we may truly love you,
so to love you
that we may fully serve you,
whose service is perfect freedom;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

This day in history…

2005-08-02T23:18:00.000-04:00

I just remembered something rather significant this past Sunday: it was at TLC last year that I purchased Debating Calvinism. Little did I know how drastically that would affect my life, and where it would take me a year later…

I bought it mostly out of curiosity, and honestly expected the non-Calvinist (Dave Hunt) to trounce the Calvinist (James White). In the end, it was quite the opposite and I became (mostly) convinced of the truth of Calvinism.

I remember wondering then why I had never heard of Calvinism before. I still don’t know the answer.

And so I became a self-professed Calvinist, but I also began to wonder, if I had missed such truth that is Calvinism, what else have I missed? I investigated more and found Calvinism to be only a small part of a larger belief set: Reformed theology. “Maybe, since they nailed Calvinism, they got it right in a few more areas too,” I remember thinking. And that is where I am now. I tentatively call myself a Presbyterian, not being wholly convinced of paedobaptism (though I blame some of that on the fact that I was born and raised Baptist).

Most recently I’ve been amazed by the coherency which Reformed theology gives to the Bible. God had a plan from the beginning of the world and has been carrying it out since then, and that’s something at which non-Reformed theology fails miserably. And not only that, but Reformed theology gives Christianity a complete system of thought, including a totally non-secular epistemology. I’ve yet to see any non-Reformed theologian even attempt that.

Interesting how much different a year can make.

A Point Made Humorously

2005-07-30T19:07:00.000-04:00

[This illustration originally appeared in Unity magazine, and has been adapted and edited slightly.]

I was walking across a bridge recently when I spied a guy who looked like he was ready to jump off. So, I thought I’d try to stall him until the authorities showed up.

“Don’t jump!” I said.

“Why not? Nobody loves me,” he answered.

“God loves you. You believe in God, don’t you?”

“Yes, I believe in God.”

“Good. Are you a Christian or Jew?”

“Christian.”

“Me too! Protestant or Catholic?”

“Neither.”

“What, then?”

“Baptist.” [Editor’s note: I love how he considers Baptists neither Protestant nor Catholic.]

“Me too! Independent Baptist or Southern Baptist?”

“Independent Baptist.”

“Me too! New Evangelical/Moderate Independent Baptist or Conservative Independent Baptist?”

“Conservative Independent Baptist.”

“Me too! Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Lose-Your-Salvation Arminian Conservative Independent Baptist?”

“Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist.”

“Me too! Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Historical Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”

“Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist.”

“Me too! KJV-only Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Modern-Versions Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”

“Modern-Versions Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist.”

“Me too! Hymn-singing Modern-Versions Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Chorus-singing Modern-Versions Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”

“Chorus-singing Modern-Versions Dispensational Pre-mil Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist.”

“You heretic!” I cried. And I pushed him over.

My dad used this illustration a few weeks back in church, and I think it very effectively makes the point that we, as Christians, can be so drastically opposed to the ecumenical movement that we separate ourselves from those who may believe slightly different and label them heretics.

Baptists especially, it seems, have this one-denomination church mind where all other orthodox denominations (even fellow Baptists of a different flavor!) are shunned. Fraternizing with the enemy (i.e., other believers) is strictly prohibited. Whatever happened to unity among the body?

This is an area in which I highly respect most Presbyterian, Anglican, Episcopal, etc., churches: they often have a much better understand of the idea that, though we may believe differently, salvation is not limited to just one or two denominations.

My case in point: the Presbyterian Church in America, at a recent conference, had Reformed Baptist John Piper speak. He (obviously) isn’t part of the PCA or even a Presbyterian but he was a key speaker! That would never be accepted in at a Baptist conference or church. Why? Because, anyone who doesn’t match our doctrinal statement to the last dot and tittle are heretics who have no place in our sole-truth church.

Just to be even more explicit what I’m trying to say: I’m not trying to push lovey-dovey Let’s-Love-God-And-Forget-Doctrine-ism (I think I’d be one of the last people to throw doctrine out the door), but for crying out loud, we all need to realize a heck of a lot more people will be in heaven than belonged to our church or denomination.

We're supposed to be unified as the body of Christ. Let's at least try to live up to that.

One faith, one hope, one God.

The Christian Brainwashing?

2005-07-05T01:01:00.000-04:00

In a recent post in the blog, “Goose the Antithesis,” Francois Tremblay emotionally pleaded with Christians to “keep your filthy hands away from innocent children ! [sic]” and asked that we, Christians, stop the “Christian brainwashing and mental abuse of children.” Tremblay goes on to complain that Christians are terrible people because they do not limit their target audience to “consenting adults” but also spread it to children.

Well, yes. I won’t disagree that we teach children as well as adults. However, I seriously doubt he would have any qualms with teaching children his idea of supposed neutrality (i.e., atheism) – and that very concept of neutrality is only neutral if he begs the question by assuming atheism to be true to begin with.

The problem comes down to this: there is no “neutral” worldview which we can teach children unless we somehow teach them all beliefs without any bias. However, that solution itself would raise two problems: 1) teaching without bias is practically impossible; 2) teaching the equality of worldviews is unbiblical.

Since those two solutions turn out to self-destruct, we must continue to do what society has done for thousands of years: allow the child’s parents to decide what worldview they will attempt to instill in the child, and then allow the child to make their own choice once they become an adult.

Plainly, then, Tremblay’s rant was literally one ironic passage after another, telling Christians not to push their ideas on “innocent” children while implying that instead we should push his ideas on “innocent” children. It’s a classic persuasive essay whose case lies entirely on his use of emotion-packed words and a victim-abuser-defender appeal and because of that it fails entirely once logic is brought in. Nice try, and better luck next time.

In response... 2

2005-06-17T02:19:00.000-04:00

Traditional Calvinism is composed of five points which form the acrostic “TULIP.” The first point, “T”, stands for “Total Depravity.” What is meant by this is the belief that no person will, by his own natural will, come to God because of his extremely fallen condition. This does not mean that man is as evil as possible, but rather that The Fall has removed man’s desire to choose God over sin.

Romans 1 suggests that God is revealed to ALL men, yet some men suppress the Truth… This seems to imply all of humanity CAN know God. Now one might ask how it’s possible that a sinful dead man can know God? Well, Romans 1:19-20 seems to address this quite well… “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

But what about our totally depraved condition? Personally, I think the total depravity/inability argument is far fetched!

Whether or not man deep down knows God doesn’t really relate to total depravity. Great Calvinists such as Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen both stressed the fact that all men know of God and yet sinfully suppress that knowledge. It is to that suppressed knowledge that they attempt to appeal when they use their presuppositional apologetics and transcendental proof of God.

But it’s clear than men can do “good”. Isaiah even acknowledged men doing “good”; he just considered their good works worthless attempts at pleasing God… Isaiah 64:6

Precisely! Man can and still does “good” despite his fallenness. However, as you said even those “good” works are worthless attempts at pleasing God. So then we agree that natural man can do no work that pleases God. It follows, then, that the natural man cannot believe by his own volition, because this would be an act pleasing to God, and we have already established that the non-Christian cannot please God.

See also ---> Luke 6:33 "If you do “good” to those who do “good” to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same."

My thoughts are Romans is a comparative passage which suggests man’s righteousness is filthy compared to God’s holiness

I agree, though I don’t think this really touches on total depravity.

In Romans 3:10-12, Paul is communicating our need for a Savior. In doing this, he says “the only rightness that matters is perfect righteousness, the righteousness required by God.” Now I think you'd miss Paul’s point to argue man is unable to do “good” things. That’s why I said the passage was comparative - compared to God’s required righteousness we miss the mark by a lot since God requires perfection.

Again I agree. None of our works can bring us our own salvation. And yet we must wake ourselves from death in sin and believe? Of course not! "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father." (John 6:65)

Our inability to do anything that is truly “good” in God’s eyes necessarily means that we cannot repent by our own will.

I don’t think for a moment Paul was interested in communicating man's inability to do a good thing.

Whether or not we can do anything that appears “good” to man is a moot point. Paul and Isaiah clearly state that there is no one that naturally seeks after God. No one.

Scripture needs to be interpreted in light of scripture.

I agree.

God calls and man can respond. The idea of total inability is completely contrived. Ought implies can!

So if I were to go to the store and say, “I ought to buy that shirt,” does this mean I can? It may, but there could be other factors. I may be without money in which case despite the fact that I ought to buy that shirt does not mean that I can buy that shirt.

Furthermore, there exists the argument which Martin Luther famously made against Arasmus of Rotterdam in his book, “On The Bondage of the Will.” Luther quite cogently demonstrated that when we are dead in sin our will is most certainly not “free.” (In this context, Luther defined “free will” as being the ability to choose between two options without an prior disposition towards them.) When we are dead in sin, Luther argued, our will is tied to sin and we cannot do anything but sin. It is only until after we have been freed from sin that we have anything near a “free” will.

In response

2005-06-14T23:34:00.000-04:00

I got an interesting comment from my blog today. It was really quite interesting to read but the author didn’t leave a name or email address. Hopefully he/she will read this.

Many critics of the Christian faith will argue that if God has foreknowledge, humans have no free actions. To put it simply, if God foreknows I will do x, I cannot freely refrain from doing x. This argument (known as fatalism) says that if I could refrain from doing x, I falsify God’s belief. William Lane Craig illustrates the fallacy of this argument well. I’ll try to keep it brief.

To be picky, the belief that God foreordains or predestines all things is closer to determinism than fatalism. As a Christian, I hold this view (that all things are predestined by God).

The error is the assumption that if God foreknows something it must happen. It should be restated that if God foreknows something it will happen. If x does not happen, we have not falsified God’s foreknowledge—only shown it to be different. In the case that x does not happen, God would not have foreknown x.

In what way does God foreknow? Does he see our choices ahead of time? If so, then our choices are predetermined by what God foreknew and we are still left without free will.

For example, if God foreknows I will eat a chipotle burrito on Saturday afternoon, the fatalist will say I cannot refrain from eating a chipotle burrito Saturday afternoon, because if I do so, I prove God wrong. But this is not the case. If I refrain from eating the chipotle burrito Saturday afternoon, God was not mistaken, but rather He did not foreknow my eating a chipotle burrito Saturday afternoon. Instead, God foreknew I would not eat it.

You seem to be picking more at the concept of perfectly knowing God’s foreknowledge.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that we have an infallible revelation from God which says you will eat a chipotle burrito on Saturday afternoon. We would both agree that God cannot be wrong, so the only option is that you will eat a chipotle burrito on Saturday afternoon. God may have merely “passively seen” your eating of the burrito, but he passively saw it before it happened so that when the situation presented itself you would, without any doubt, eat that burrito. Did you have a choice? You certainly appeared to, but ultimately and unfailingly you would eat that burrito on Saturday afternoon. There was no other option.

I’m not sure what Craig means when he says free events are logically prior to God’s foreknowledge of them. It also seems to me that the chronological order is of the utmost importance in this discussion.

So it is completely coherent to say that those who God foreknows are saved, are predestined by way of His knowledge being infallible. This in no way relieves us of our freedom to respond to God.

So they are predestined to salvation because God foreknew they would be saved and they are saved because they were predestined to salvation because God foreknew they would be saved and they are saved because...

The subjectivity of objective proof (part 1)

2005-06-01T01:16:00.000-04:00

Our worldview has an extreme impact on how we live. Everything which we experience in life will be interpreted in terms of our underlying assumptions. Those assumptions (or presuppositions) are not justified prior to holding them, but rather they must be show to be rationally held within the worldview after it has been established. Those same assumptions also guide how we view evidences. If one holds to a supernatural worldview, then the supernatural is certainly allowable in the world. If, however, one holds to a natural worldview then all things must necessarily be the cause of natural forces. Therefore, differences between interpretations of evidence will ultimately come down to our own worldview.

Knowing this, it seems curious to say the least that it is possible to speak of the “objective” proof of something. Our worldview will taint everything which we believe. In fact, our worldview is ultimately the very thing to which we must appeal when we seek to prove something. To take it even a step further, it is impossible to ultimately prove anything non-circularly because statements of fact can (and will) be brought down to the basic level of from where we derive knowledge (our ultimate epistemic authority). And this must, necessarily, appeal back to our own worldview.

We may suppose that simple things such as arithmetic proofs can be proven objectively. After all, who can object to the idea that 1 + 1 = 2? That simple concept, though, requires that we assume many things, such as the universality of logic, the persistent nature of logic, the objectivity (assuming such a thing exists, which begs the question) of logic, the existence of abstract concepts, the ability to trust our own senses, etc. And all those things must come from our own worldview.

(I should note here that while objective proof is impossible, this does not mean that objective truth is similarly impossible or non-existent. Objective truth certainly exists; however, it cannot be proven outside its own worldview.)

Knowing this, how can anything be proven? Quite simply, it cannot. Nothing can be proven unless the parties debating agree upon certain premises (common ground) or both parties share the same worldview. Going from philosophy to apologetics (which are not at all far separated), the question becomes: how do we debate with unbelievers regarding the objective truth of God if objective proof is not possible? Do believers and unbelievers truly have common ground? Does common ground even exist in the debate regarding the existence of God?

This is getting too long so I think I’ll just post this one part first.

The Role of Logic in Theology

2005-05-22T00:29:00.000-04:00

In a recent debate between myself and another Calvinist on CGR on whether or not God predestines sin, the question has been raised of whether or not logic based on Scripture is allowable and reliable. Historically, Reformed thought has been very much divided on this issue. One of the most well known reformers, Martin Luther, did not believe logic to be reliable. He even went so far as to declare that reason was the enemy of the Christian faith and that faith must, at every turn, crush reason beneath its feet. John Calvin, even, was very hesitant to use logic to extend his theology beyond the Bible’s explicit teachings. (Subsequently, this is why many have claimed that Calvin was not nearly as “Calvinistic” as some of his modern-day students.)

Meanwhile, other Reformed theologians such as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and Gordon Clark have believed that logic is perfectly valid as long as the believer has the proper epistemology (epistemology is defined as the theory of knowledge). It probably comes as little surprise that this is the side with which I agree.

Key to presuppositional apologetics is the concept of Reformed (which is, ultimately, Christian) epistemology; that is to say, the philosophical study of the nature of knowledge within Christian theism. (I should note that when I speak of Reformed epistemology, I am not speaking of the Reformed epistemology advocated by Alvin Plantinga.) There are two keys points which Reformed epistemology states.

First, Reformed epistemology states that the final arbiter of truth (definitionally, the final judge of truth) is not the creation but rather the Creator. When the two conflict in matters of truth claims, the Creator will always be right. Second, Reformed epistemology states that the Bible is the divine revelation of that final arbiter of truth to His creation. As the divine revelation of the final arbiter, it is, by extension, the revelation of the final truth. This cannot be over-emphasized: the Bible must always be the final judge of truth.

Now, according to Reformed epistemology, the laws of logic exist as a reflection of God. God is, necessarily and by nature, a logical God; He cannot deny Himself (law of non-contradiction) and is immutable (logical consistency). Therefore, we see that indeed logic, a reflection of God’s nature, exists necessarily because God exists.

Knowing all this background, it should begin to make sense as to why I believe logic should certainly be allowed in theology. As long as the believer does not believe himself to be the final arbiter of truth, then it is rational and reasonable to use logic in theology.

A common complaint that those opposed to the use of logic raise is that ultimately those who use logic exalt it as the authority above the Bible. Plainly, though, under the Reformed epistemic system, this can never be the case because doing so would mean divorcing one’s self from the entire Biblical epistemic system. In short, logic must always be in submission to the Bible and changing that order of authority asserts that the believer knows better than God.

Now, the question is raised of how far we may take logic in the study of the Biblical God. Obviously, we must use logic to a certain extent to derive our beliefs so at this point the question becomes, “How much we allow ourselves to extrapolate?” Those opposed to the use of logic in this manner would say that extrapolating too much destroys the need for faith and results in heretical beliefs. A classic example would be the beliefs of Modalists or Oneness Pentecostals. Modalists and Oneness theology claim that God is one person with three separate personalities (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). A key argument which they (Oneness and Modalists) use is that the traditional Trinitarian view contradicts logic and is, therefore, invalid. Note, though, that in declaring that view, they divorce themselves from Biblical epistemology. They presume that there is a final decider of truth outside of the Bible. If the Bible does not appear to be logical, they assert, then the fault must be in the Bible and not us.

Furthermore, how are differences between interpretations resolved but by logic? Ultimately, all of our Biblical beliefs are based on our ability to derive truth via logic from the Bible. Our faith can never be completely free of logic.

In short, my point is this: the use of logic is very valid in theology; in fact, it is a requirement for any study of theology. However, believers must be careful not to reason as though they and their (presumed) rational mind is the final authority. In other words, we must not let our logic “correct” the Bible, but rather the other way around. When logic says one thing and the Bible says another, the Bible always wins.

Now I’m put in an interesting position. A few posts ago, I declared that, “I’d love to believe total inerrancy but cannot honestly do so now.” For anyone who cares, consider this a formal retraction of that statement. Perhaps in my next post I’ll take the time to write a refutation of my argument.

My ultimate fideism

2005-05-09T22:09:00.000-04:00

I had an interesting mini-dialogue with my dad a while back that touched on fideism (which, btw, is not pronounced as it looks). In essence, he does not like the hymn “He Lives” which says, “You ask me how I know He lives / He lives within my heart.” He believes that is a shallow answer and while I initially agreed with him, it seems to me there is more to it than that. As I study the Reformed faith, it seems to me that that is my (in fact, all believer’s) ultimate reason for belief: I believe because God has chosen to make me believe. (Yes, it is essentially a Calvinist thing, but because I believe Christianity is Calvinism, it applies for all Christians.)

For that reason, I am ultimately a fideist. I believe because of God; I do not appeal to an extra-Christian authority to prove my faith. Yet, at the same time, I do not believe fideism is a good defense for “the hope that is in us.” (1 Peter 3:15) Fideism is our ultimate reason; it is not our ultimate defense.

Our ultimate defense, I believe, should be the presuppositional and transcendental argument for the existence of God (hereby referred to as PA and the TAG). Entire books have been written on why PA and the TAG are necessitated Biblically, yet that is not the immediate reason I prefer PA and TAG. I prefer them because the three other major apologetics methods (classical, evidential, and fideism [if you could even call it an apologetic method]) tend to prove a generic deity, not necessarily the Christian God, while PA seeks to exclusively prove Christian theism.

Transcendental arguments and the role of presuppositional apologetics

A transcendental argument is an argument that claims Y is the necessary precondition for X, and since X is true, Y must also be true. We do not directly question Y (because its truth can be determined through X), but rather the valid question is whether or not Y is truly the necessary precondition for X or if there a thing besides Y which could also fit the role of the required precondition.

To further illustrate transcendental arguments, I give the transcendental argument that if any pan of brownies are good, then Bob must have made them. My positive statement, then, is that the brownies in question taste good because Bob made them. I do not question whether or not the brownies are truly good-tasting, but rather, is Bob the only one capable of making good-tasting brownies? If someone else is capable of making good brownies, then my argument fails terribly. One of the other good brownie-makers could have made the brownies; it does not necessitate Bob. If, though, I can prove that Bob is the only one capable of making good brownies, and the brownies are good, then I have transcendentally proven Bob made the brownies.

Now, if you return to the previous definition of the transcendental argument, and replace Y with “God” and X with “the universality of logic, rationality, and morals,” you arrive at the transcendental argument for God. God must existence because he is the necessary precondition for universality. In other words, God exists because of the impossibility of the contrary: if God did not exist, universal concepts could not exist. I should note that most philosophers would insist that transcendental proofs should only be used when the object in question (i.e., a transcendent God) cannot be proven using traditional methods (i.e., science, logic, etc.). Some philosophers will even go so far as to claim that transcendental proofs are only truly valid when there are only two choices (a dichotomy) in order to simplify the argument and prevent it from resorting to an appeal to probability. In this context, the two choices are Christian theism and anything else (atheism, deism, pantheism, polytheism, and all other monotheistic beliefs).

The presuppositional argument is that the God which is transcendentally proven is the Christian God because all other epistemic systems are internally inconsistent and/or incoherent. Generally speaking, presuppositional arguments involve a critique of the opposing worldview’s epistemology and metaphysics.

From there, the presuppositional apologist shows why the Christian God is that necessary precondition and how the opposing system in question fails. Presuppositional apologists are quick to point out that converting the other debater is not the true aim of their apologetic (that, they say, is up to God to do, and may or may not be a result of the debate) but rather their aim is to tear down “arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

At the very least, PA and the TAG get bonus points for being the most philosophically interesting arguments.

Proof of Spiderman's truth

2005-04-27T21:50:00.000-04:00

With help from tonight's youth lesson, I have formulated the proof of the truth of spiderman: because it references true, historically proven places (mainly, New York City), it must be true. Now, I must say, this isn't quite complete enough. If, though, I found some old prophecies (it doesn't really matter where they come from, so long as they are old and not too vague) and wrote a Spiderman which fulfilled those, I would have my complete proof. Yes, that would indeed show once and for all that Spiderman is true.

On a completely unrelated note, next week in youth we will learn how the "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" trichotomy tries to prove Jesus was God. It (the LLL trichotomy) originated from C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity where Lewis argued that it is impossible for Jesus to merely have been a good moral teacher. He asserted that his teachings negate the possibility that Jesus was a liar or lunatic. If his trichotomy was true, then the only possibility is that Jesus was Lord. Unfortunately for Lewis, though, those are not the only options. From an objective point of view, the other possibilities include: Jesus never said, did, or claimed what he did but rather he was lied about by the Gospel writers; Jesus never existed; or he was a brilliant, though slightly deranged man (mental problems hardly mean lunacy).

I sure hope no one bases their apologetic approach on this book.

Fear the mighty Vishnu!

2005-04-24T00:08:00.000-04:00

I have an article I'll post on here sometime soon. It's been ready for over a month now, I just haven't gotten around to actually posting it. So instead, please allow me to rant a little.

In youth and Sunday school recently, we've been discussing worldviews. Sunday school is essentially attacks on various worldviews, and youth has been an attack on moral relativism. That's cool, and I was initially excited because I thought it may delve into philosophy and apologetics. Sadly, they haven't.

For youth, the book which we are studying essentially argues, "moral relativism is wrong because the Bible says so." I'm certainly not in the tpyical high school student situation, so perhaps this has greater value for everyone else, but I have trouble seeing the typical unbelieving person turning from moral relativism because "the Bible says so." It's as compelling as if a Muslim came up to you and declared that democracy is wrong because the Qur'an says so: it is meaningless because you do not hold the Qur'an to be anything more than simple book.

Similarly, in Sunday most of the refutations of philosophies are simply, "You're wrong because the Bible says so" statements. Maybe they'll go through the trouble of making a straw-man and hacking at it, but rarely do they make any meaningful refutations.

While I'm at it, I might as well say that Pascal's Wager is a really terrible apologetics method. Again, it's about as useful as a Hindu telling you that Devi, Vishnu, Ganesh, and Shiva will cause you, in your next life, to be a bug if you do not convert. Are you afraid? Does it compell you to believe in Hinduism? No! You don't believe Devi, Vishnu, Ganesh, and Shiva to be real so their judgement hardly strikes fear into your heart. Similarly, it is silly to tell an unbeliever to become a Christian lest they burn in hell because the unbeliever doesn't even believe God to exist.

I'm quickly beginning to believe bad apologetics are more harmful than no apologetics at all.

Inerrant… to what end?

2005-03-19T21:29:00.000-05:00

In all the different searching I’ve done, trying to figure out what to believe, there is one thing within Christianity which I have not questioned: the inerrancy of the Scripture. The more I look into apologetics, though, the more I see that this topic is truly unavoidable.

There’s a crazy amount of differing views on the subject. Some people would go so far as to claim that certain translations are even inspired and inerrant (mostly KJV-only oddballs), while others would take it to the other extreme and say that the Bible can and does err and is not directly inspired by God. My view falls somewhere in between.

On one hand, yes, the Bible is inspired by God and it would make sense that God would preserve it from corruption or error. On the other hand, we cannot overlook the fact that there are contradictions (errors) in our modern-day Bible. How old was King Uziah when he reigned? What color was Jesus’ robe when he was crucified? What time of day did Jesus die? What were Jesus’ last words? Why are there math errors in some of the counting done in OT books? In fact, there are over 300 contradictions found in the Bible! Surely these all can’t be scribal errors!

With those obvious contradictions (errors) in mind, I don’t see how we can rightly claim that the Bible is inerrant. My take is that the Bible is exactly as it describes itself: God-inspired and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

The Bible doesn’t claim to be a history book, a science book, or a math book but rather a theology book. In fact, it is our ultimate book of systematic theology. As such, I believe it can be trusted in all theological issues. However, since it was not written in a historical, cultural vacuum, we must also see that the cultural beliefs of the time affected how non-theological things were presented.

I’ll freely admit that I’m not quite sure how to refute the typical inerrancy formula (God does not lie + God-breathed = inerrant); however, I know that the Bible must be the revelation of God (because of the impossibility of the contrary [a completely different rant]), and I know that the Bible does, in fact, contain non-theological contradictions. That’s why I believe what I believe, but I’m open to what other arguments people would come up with that would convince otherwise. I’d love to believe total inerrancy but cannot honestly do so.

Interpretations are not infallible

2005-02-27T02:02:00.000-05:00

In the worldview quiz which I posted about in my Xanga, a question somewhere along the lines of, "If Scripture and science contradict, then science must be in error." The "correct" answer is that, yes, Scripture trumps science. The question, however, is how do we tell when it (science) truly conflicts with the Bible and not just our interpretation of the Bible?

I don't know of an answer, however, as fallen creatures we must be willing to admit that we are very capable of erring. We must rely on the Holy Spirit's leading but we are still fallen beings, incapable of perfectly dividing the word of truth.

Now, what do we do when science and the Bible contradict each other? The most obvious thing to do is to investigate the science. Is it sound? What does the scientific community as a whole think of it? If it is indeed scientifically sound then we must turn to the Scripture.

I hold that the Bible itself is God-inspired and therefore infallible. If the Bible and science seem to contradict, and the Bible can not be wrong and science is most probably right then the problem must lie in our interpretation of the Bible (which, as we know, is not infallible). In fact, this is the very thing I claim in regards to theistic evolution. I make my case primarily using two historic cases.

First, we have the concept of flat earth. For hundreds of years the church (that is, orthodox Christianity as a whole) had claimed that the earth was flat. They also claimed several passages from Job backed up that idea. For that reason, they (the church) fiercely denied the round-earth idea until it no longer became plausible because of science. The church took the stance that those passages in Job are to be interpreted as poetry and moved on.

The second challenge came when Galileo claimed that our planets, rather than revolving around the earth, revolve around the sun. This again brought science in sharp contrast to the teachings of the church. The church taught, based primarily on passages from Joshua and Job, that the universe was geocentric. Yet again, however, the church was forced to reconcile their belief with science. They again took the poetry route in regards to Job, and there are a few different apologetic methods for the Joshua passage.

As you have undoubtably guessed, the third challenge is evolution. The question is, does the Bible assert literal scientific fact when it writes of creation? If so, how do we reconcile this with science?

I have said all this to make the point that the church has, in the past, claimed that the Bible asserts scientific truth when, in fact, it does not. I believe this is the case in regards to evolution. The problem lies not in the Bible nor in science, but rather in the interpretation.

Once again, here is a good article on theistic evolution. I can try to answer any questions anyone may have, but I'll freely admit I'm no expert.

But evolution doesn't make me feel special!

2005-02-23T22:43:00.000-05:00

This isn't what I'd originally planned to talk about, but who cares.

During quizzing practice, a question came up about phrased something like, "What does evolution rob us of?" The answer was basically, "our uniqueness as God's creation." (Essentially, though, it was, "We wouldn't feel as special if God didn't make us.")

Now, even if I thought theistic evolution was a load of crock (which I don't), I honestly don't see how they arrive at that conclusion. If theistic evolution is correct, then God specifically led man to evolve the way he did. He chose man above all the other creatures which he was evolving. The God of all existence did that. For us. That seems pretty gosh darn special if you ask me.

If creation is correct, then God created a bunch of animals and at the end created man. Oh, by the way, those humans he made? Yeah, they weren't just good, they were very good.

Yeah, that one kind of bugged me.

**

I guess it'd be appropriate to respond to some of the comments from my previous post. Very cool feedback! Can you tell I like playing devil's advocate?

I believe that slavery in the Bible was less what we call slavery and more like indentured servitude. Or at least, I seem to remember hearing that somewhere. Then again, I could be wrong. ^_^

Yes, but the Bible allowed for slave beatings and whatnot. I imagine slave beatings were rare, but they were also pretty rare in the South while slavery existed there.

One other thought: could slavery be a similar institution as divorce?

That's a pretty cool idea, but the Bible establishes that is the case for divorce but it doesn't say that about slavery.

Slavery in the culture back then was not the same slavery that we see today or even a could of hundred years ago. Back then slaves were only kept for 7 years and then released. If at the end of 7 years, the slave decided he wanted to stay because he has a good master or whatever he would be branded by the master and becomes the master's slave for the rest of his life.
Many people sold themselves or parts of their families to slavery to pay off debts. It wasn't such a bad deal because they got some moeny (from the initial selling) a roof over their head, and 3 meals a day. They werent whipped or treated very badly often because it was hard to catch a runaway slave, he looked like everyone else, unlike the blacks in the US.

Those laws only applied to Jewish slaves. They didn't make any such provision for non-Jewish slaves.

Slavery in the Bible

2005-02-23T01:11:00.000-05:00

I'm nearly again convinced that the Christian God is true (I'll probably talk about why in a later post), but I still struggle so much with how we rationalize the Bible's contradictions, oddities, etc. Case in point: slavery.

The Bible seems to condone slavery, which is something at which I grimace. We could try to pass it off as cultural, but then we must figure out why it is cultural and the other OT commandments aren't. We could say it is somehow part of the law which Christ fulfilled but then we must also show why it is part of that law.

We could use clever wording to escape it by saying that most slavery would conflict with other Biblical commandments but then we must show how Biblical laws regarding slavery don't also contradict those other commandments.

Or lastly we could be extremely liberal and say that the Bible is not, in fact, the inspired words of God. But I reject that because of the many other problems associated with that view. We are forced, then, to say that the Bible gives the thumbs up to slavery.

As much as I hate that, we are left without any other option.

Random, non-connected thoughts

2005-02-17T22:42:00.000-05:00

I had a mini-discussion in Caleb's Xanga comments about existentialism. Shortly after that, I read the section in Sophie's World about existentialism and came to find out that Soren Kierkegaard, a Christian, is actually known as the father of existentialism. It wasn't until the 19th century (if memory serves) when the atheist Satre created the existentialism which is better known today. End of topic one.

Maybe I'm just turning into a flaming liberal, but theistic evolution is making more and more sense. Surely God doesn't lie to us about the age of rocks, the age of light, etc.

One more endorsement of Sophie's World. I finished it last night, and the ending is quite unlike any other book which I have read. Not only is it a very good primer to philosophy, but it's also a great, well-written book with an awesome story line. My head is still spinning in regards to the ending. Go. Read. Now.

Last, someone commented on my last post about how Socrates and Plato philosophically proved or helped prove Christianity. I find this rather curious since Christianity in its formal sense did not exist until roughly 33 A.D. Surely their "unmoved mover," or "formal cause" arguments sought to prove some deity but they hardly necessitate the Christian God. Perhaps, though, I should read the book they recommended before criticizing.

Fideist? Not Yet...

2005-02-13T23:25:00.000-05:00

The more I think about how to prove Christianity, the more I wonder if it is truly provable. Since we are told that belief is based on faith, then why should be believe except because of faith? I still reject that, though, because if Yahweh is truly God then should he not be provable by science and logic?

I don't know. Maybe I should become a fideist and believe that God truly transcends logic and is therefore unknowable in that framework and believe that he is only knowable in the framework based on faith. And yet even thinking that makes me cringe! Surely God must be knowable from logic, at least in a limited sense. After all, Paul reasoned with the philosophers in Athens regarding the gods and the existence of his Christian God.

And the presuppositional argument keeps fascinating me... Perhaps logic can only be justified if there is a final arbiter of truth to whom we can appeal outside of ourselves. Maybe.

Presupposing Christianity

2005-02-11T23:39:00.000-05:00

Am I crazy? Am I the only one that thinks maybe, just maybe, Christianity isn't right or at the very least we should learn how to defend it before we proclaim it? Yet it seems over and over again, every time I'm in church I hear these carefully crafted lessons about truths from the Bible. That's nice and all and has a place, but isn't that preaching to the choir? Shouldn't we establish the credibility of the Bible before we presuppose its truth and then teach from it?

It's becoming more and more frustrating for me because I feel like I'm accumulating all this knowledge yet it is pointless if Christianity truly isn't valid -- something those in church seem to fear to consider. I almost wonder if most people don't give the validity of Christianity a second thought, and that frustrates me further. Why believe in something if you aren't completely convinced of its truth?

I read on a forum a comment where someone asked if it isn't more logical for everyone to start out as an atheist and once they have been convinced of Christianity, then convert. I'm inclined to agree with them.

I could go on, but I'm really tired and have to get up in the morning and want to read more of Sophie's World before I go to bed.

The story of... me

2005-02-09T01:11:00.000-05:00

The high school personality quiz which I recently took (and mentioned in my Xanga) has got me thinking. Now, I'm not at all surprised I scored as a loner -- I figured it'd be a tie between that and geek -- but what I wonder is why I am a loner. I'll preface this by saying it will probably be a long, boring rant from here on out. I'd also like to say that I love all my friends to death. They're a great comfort and a great source of fun all at the same time. You'll see why I feel the need to state this upfront later on. Also, I speak here merely of actual, human friends. The friendship of God is a completely separate thing.

By nature I am introverted and introspective. I'm not generally outspoken, I rarely get mad around people I don't know, I'm not a very good conversationalist, seldom do I emerge from my shell. Because of that I cannot think of anyone who truly knows me. Even my "closest" friends are kept in the dark in so many areas of my life and thought. In fact, I don't think I've verbalized any of my struggles with faith to anyone. Yes, I have written about them here but for whatever reason I cannot bring myself to actually speak of them in person with anyone.

Is it fear that drives me to this isolation? I don't know. Perhaps I fear how people will react when they truly know and understand me. Maybe that is the reason I enjoy ranting on here so much. I can write what is truly on my mind (though, rest assured, I can't even be completely transparent here either) without having to receive the immediate feedback; my thoughts can be verbalized without requiring or obligating anyone to respond.

As I stated before, I love my friends to death but I have no friend to whom I can truly express what I think and feel. This isn't meant as an insult to my friends, but rather a simple statement of fact. Most probably I am to blame; I keep my shell up at all times regardless of the harm that it sometimes causes. I begin to wonder, though: do friends such as that truly exist or are they merely cruel ideas which our culture has created?

Maybe I simply haven't found the right type of person. I'd love to sit down with someone and be able to thoroughly discuss the meaning of life, the existence of God, the validity of Christianity, etc., with someone who would approach things critically and logically. To me, that would be the ultimate. Perhaps that person, if they exist, is who I could finally open up to.

I don't know anymore... There are a whole bunch of random ideas related to this floating around in my head but yet again I fear to speak them. And this post has probably been depressing enough.

"I walk a lonely road, the only one that I have ever known / Don't know where it goes, but it's home to me / And I walk alone"

Got Guilt?

2005-02-04T22:06:00.000-05:00

I'm really starting to get annoyed at how often guilt is used in certain settings to motivate people. Nearly 100% of the time it's simply an appeal to our emotions; we are somehow terrible people for not doing what they ask. Often there is no logical reason for doing that thing, which is why, I presume, they must resort to guilting us.

Usually this will involve statements like, "we're doing this for you," and, "we might as well not have it," (followed by the obligatory sigh), and, "we'd be so disappointed." If we're lucky, we may also get the implication of spiritual failure.

Got guilt? Goodness knows I do.

**

OK, I'm done complaining now. I plan to post something more substantial in the next few days.

I could not have said it better myself

2005-01-18T21:14:00.000-05:00

This was posted on a Christian forum which I frequent. It captures perfectly my thoughts at this point.

Slightly edited as to not offend anyone

We have to ask ourselves what the purpose of youth ministry is (and I don't use 'purpose' in the Rick Warren-vein of 'purpose). Are we there as a glorified babysitting service or are we there to assisting the parish/local church in raising up Christian leaders capable of sustaining a faith? Answer that question correctly and I think much of bad youth work solves itself. The activities-oriented, stoopid human tricks youth minister isn't doing much in terms of real youth ministry. Games sans a teaching purpose are worthless. Teaching the faith sans relationships is worthless. All the lasers, Powerpoints, praise bands, are worthless unless the sum total of the parts is pointing to Christ.

Usually, though, it's not pointing to Christ. It's pointing to a false moralism that does nothing more than produce a lot of graduated seniors who don't smoke, don't drink, don't cuss, don't do drugs and who aren't pregnant, but who aren't distinctively Christian. At its worst, it feeds the youth worker's spiritual ego, and the whole enterprise becomes nothing more than spiritual mutual self-pleasing for the youth and the youth worker.

There's a reason for this, of course, and it's because the Church (and evangelicalism in particular) constitantly feeds the monkey of American culture by using "methods and results" as a starting place in theology, but that's another post for another time.

Do I need to say more...?

"Why Christianity" Continued

2005-01-13T00:13:00.000-05:00

The presuppositional argument seems more and more valid as I think about it. Another valid proof for theism is the ontological argument. I won't go into the ontological argument here, but even if it proves God I still struggle with "if God, then why the Christian God?" True, faith is surely a requirement but upon what do we base this faith? The Bible states that Yahweh is true, whilst the Qu'ran states that Allah is true. Why have faith in one over the other? This is, I suppose, where presuppositionalists would say that all religions but Christianity is internally incoherent or inconsistent.

Don't think I'm truly questioning religion to the point of recanting it; I'm almost convinced that Christianity can only be proven by being one. I suppose this would fit nicely with Calvinism but doesn't help evangelism much at all.

Why Christianity?

2005-01-10T22:44:00.000-05:00

I've been attempting to learn Christian apologetics recently. The Christian apologist must prove two things: 1) God exists, 2) the God that exists is the Christian God. It seems to me that the proof of the existence of a God is not nearly as difficult as the proof of the existence of the Christian God. So the question comes, why Christianity?

Presuppositional apologetics propose that Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible for the Christian God to not exist because our ability to reason comes from him. Again, though, why does the Christian God have the monopoly on logic creation? The presuppositional apologist would say that all other theistic religions are not internally consistent while Christianity is, therefore Christianity is again true because of the impossibility of the contrary. I'm not sure this really works, though...

Lest Anyone Should Boast

2005-01-05T15:16:00.000-05:00

This will probably be my last post on Calvinism for a little while, simply because I fear I put too much emphasis on it. While soteriology is certainly important and arguably one of the most influential doctrines, it is only a small section of theology.

**

Even before I knew what Calvinism was and that there was an alternative to Arminianism, something had bothered me about the salvation plan. If we so adamantly oppose a works-based salvation, then why do we proclaim that the only way to God is through a work of faith, specifically, our work of faith? If God-based salvation, composed of grace and mercy, is true as opposed to man-based salvation, composed of false-righteousness and works so that we are left with no room to boast, why do we say the only way to God is by our own pitiful attempt at a righteous, self-saving faith?

Why, if the act of believing is placed fully on our own shoulders, do some believe and others reject it? There are only two possible answers to this question. Either we have some special knowledge or ability that the unsaved do not have, or we believe because a force outside of ourselves causes us to believe.

If the former is the case, then does not it give us plenty of room to boast? “I believed because I realized the truth. That poor, unsaved fool is too stupid to realize his own poor condition.” See how much is left to our own doing!

If we hold to the latter, however, we are saved only because of God's great, unjustifiable love for his fallen creation. He chose before time to bring some about to repentance so that salvation is still through faith -- to believe otherwise would be heresy -- but this saving faith is not our own. Rather, it comes from our loving Father who cared enough for us to save us from ourselves.

That, and only that, leaves us without room to boast. We are saved not by our own doing but wholly because our God chose to save us. In what can we boast except of God's great grace!

Assumptions -- Who Needs 'Em?

2004-11-06T23:15:00.000-05:00

Man, I can't seem to update regularly at all.

The last few weeks have not been fun. I won't go into all the details, but we've had some problems in the youth group. And that's all I care to say about it at the moment.

Since I now accept the Reformed view of salvation, I've been investigating all the other facets of Reformed belief. The other two predominate ideas are Covenant theology and paedobaptism. I'm still unsure as to the specifics of Covenant theology, but paedobaptism is baptism of the newborn children of believers. The logical case for paedobaptism stems from Covenant theology, so I need to understand that before I can figure out my beliefs in those regards.

I've also been thinking some about creation vs. theistic evolution and all the variations thereof. What I can't figure out is why it matters so much. The Bible clearly teaches that God created. How long it took, and how much original creation he did is not taught in an unambiguous manner. And why does it matter as long as it all had it all came ultimately from God?

That said, I'm still a literal six-day theistic creationist. I believe this because of the logical and intellectual case for it, not because of clear Biblical evidence.

If theistic evolution is true...
* why wouldn't God inspire Moses to actually say something to that effect?
* why does Moses later refer to the six days of creation if they weren't really six days?
* if God used the six days of creation and one day of rest to establish the seven day week, then why wouldn't he have created in literally seven days?

Theistic evolutionists seem to think that we must rationalize the existence of God and science, and that they must agree with each other. They never stop to consider that God is above the very laws of science which he created. The creator is never subject to the creation.

An example of this is attempt to reconcile science and God is the battle with carbon dating. Too many creationist try to figure out how to show that carbon dating is not accurate. The fact is that carbon dating is relatively accurate when combined with other geological dating methods. Anymore, trying to say otherwise just seems foolish. The solution? Believe in the God of the Bible that is all-powerful and not bound to his own rules.

So carbon-dating tells us things are millions of years old. So what? The earth has apparent age? Could not God have created it with apparent age? After all, God created Adam and Eve with apparent age. I would imagine most of the plants and animals were also created with apparent age in order to encourage growth. Why then do we assume we started with a fresh, brand new earth?

But I think I've made my point. Question assumptions. You never know what you'll learn.

Seven-point Calvinism

2004-10-24T01:11:00.000-04:00

Just when I thought I had the five points of Calvinism figured out, John Piper, well-known Reformed Baptist author and pastor, adds two points. Upon further inspection, though, the added two points are really just explicit wording of implied ideas of the original five points.

Double predestination

The stating of this point often creates some controversy. It means that, not only does God arbitrarily chose to save some, he also choses to exact his judgment on some in the form of an eternity in hell.

I come at this assuming that you believe in the traditional five points of Calvinism. If man is so deprived that he does not come to God on his own, then anyone who is not elect is, by default, doomed. Though it may not be an active election as election to salvation, it is most certainly an election by omission. I'm not sure how one can truly believe in the truth of the traditional five points without admitting to the truth of double predestination.

Best-of-all-possible worlds

Simply stated, this point means that God has predestined everything so that the ultimate, end-result brings him glory. This should be a tenet of all orthodox Christian beliefs, so I won't go into the logical and Biblical proof.

Song blurb

2004-10-06T22:59:00.000-04:00

So we're totally deprived, buried alive
I couldn't help myself to save my life

Two Thirty Eight, "Modern Day Prayer"

'Bout a third

2004-10-04T01:13:00.000-04:00

Just so ya'll know, that title doesn't really make sense unless you were part of my youth group in the last year.

When I first started investigating Calvinism and Arminianism, my instinctive thought was to rationalize between the two. I wouldn't be one of those nutty hyper-Calvinists, nor the schizophrenic open theist. I'd be right down the middle, with everything figured out. Boy was I wrong.

The more I read about Calvinism, the more I believe it is correct. In fact, I can't even say I'm one of those funny non-five-point moderate Calvinists. Non-five-point Calvinists are funny, really, because in my thinking the five points are interlocking. If one is not true, the rest fall with it.

T

Total Depravity

If this is not true, then it ruins the entire need for limited atonement and irresistible grace. It is also one of the points which moderate Arminianists will affirm.

U

Unconditional Election

If total depravity is true, then obviously an unconditional election is needed. We can do nothing in our total depravity to get God's favor.

L

Limited Atonement

Would Christ die for more than the elect, as per unconditional election? Would He die for those who are suffering God's wrath in hell?

I

Irresistible Grace

Required because of total depravity. We won't come to God otherwise.

P

Perseverance Of The Saints

God's unconditional election and irresistible grace somehow fail to save us?

While not structured in the most logical way, hopefully that shows how the five points of Calvinism are interlocked. I'll expand on this if necessary.

The end of the tale

2004-09-12T01:44:00.000-04:00

I finished reading Debating Calvinism, and have decided that I am a Calvinist, though I prefer the term, "reformed Baptist." ; ) In the end, it seems like non-reformists must explain away a great number of passages that clearly say that God elects without human desire or effort. That is what it comes down to. My only objection with reformed theology is that they too must explain away some passages. Verses such as John 3:16 which state that "God so loved the world," potentially present a problem with the reformed position.

The typical reformed stance on verses like that is that "world" is defined by the context, in this case "world" would be all of the elect. My personal belief, though, is to take the verse at face value. God does love the world, all of it. The fact remains, though, that unregenerate man will not want anything to do with God or His offered salvation.

Also consider the use of terminology in the New Testament regarding salvation. Consider, first, the analogy of our salvation being like an adoption. The non-reformist would say that anyone who wills to be adopted must be adopted, while the reformist says that God gets to pick whom He will adopt. Which seems like real adoption?

Secondly, there is the analogy of the gift of salvation. Non-reformists like to use this to say that a gift can not be impressed on someone. I'd like to turn it around and say that when one is giving a gift, they get to choose to whom they give it. They don't have to give it to whoever would like it, but just those whom they choose. Again, the reformed idea fits this analogy perfectly, whilst the non-reformed does not make logical sense.

I welcome all of you to challenge my new belief. I freely admit I may be wrong. Currently, however, I do not see any Biblical basis for the Arminian view. And if anyone would like to borrow Debating Calvinism, you are more than welcome. ; )

In closing, I will quote the reformed affirmation which James White (pro-Calvinist) gives at the end of Debating Calvinism.

[It is my] firm conviction... that the consistent testimony of God's Word is that God is sovereign and free in salvation, that His grace is powerful, and that what is called "Calvinism," at least as it is defined by those who hold to it, is the most consistent representation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have come to this conclusion because I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that it is consistent with itself, and that when we bow to its authority and engage its text through doing God-honoring exegesis, we come to know His truth with ever greater precision. I am a Calvinist because the exegesis of the text of Scripture leads me to that conclusion.

The (in)famous prayer

2004-09-08T22:07:00.000-04:00

In reading Debating Calvinism, (a highly recommended book, btw) it occurred to me that our common means to salvation, "praying the prayer," is really quite flawed and unbiblical. The Bible teaches that salvation is received through faith by grace. The key phrase there being through faith. Salvation doesn't come by saying a prayer, or stepping forward at church, yet so often salvation stories are accompanied by "the prayer."

Now granted, prayer is a nice first step in one's newfound faith, but often too much emphasis is placed on the prayer. The fact is that salvation can be had only through faith. A prayer won't save you, you must have faith in Christ as your lone source of salvation. Consequently, I can not, and will not, attempt to put a date on my salvation. I know I am saved, however I do not know the exact point in my life when I placed my faith in Christ. In my case, it was a process of growing up in church and then accepting it as my own.

Another thing, and perhaps the most annoying of them all, is when well-meaning evangelists yell from their podium, "if you can't point to a specific time and place when you were saved, you had better question whether or not you truly are." Excuse me, but I resent you questioning my salvation. Does not salvation come through faith, and not through repetition of a meaningless prayer?

I can not help but wonder if the emphasis on the prayer is partly what leads to the doubting of one's salvation. They are faced with questions of whether or not they really meant it when they prayed. Or maybe the magic prayer somehow didn't work?

I, however, have complete confidence in my salvation. I know that I trust in Christ as the only way of salvation. Simple as that. Doubts? None. Worries? None. Biblical? Absolutely.

Do YOU sit around doing nothing?

2004-09-02T00:48:00.000-04:00

Ah, so many things to talk about and no time in which to say them. I really wish I could garner the motivation needed to write on here more... And now that I am writing, I can't quite decide what to write about. I know, let's go over one of my pet peeves. ; )

I'm home schooled. I'm sure most, if not all, of you know that. Recently at work, a new employee asked me where I go to school. I told her, and her instant response was, "I'm not sure that works."

At first I looked at her in disbelief, trying to figure out if she was kidding or not. Sadly she was dead serious. Equally sad, she felt the need to expound on her idiocy. "How can anyone learn by getting taught by their mom? Do you actually learn stuff, or just sit around doing nothing?"

The irony is that, as is often the case, this offending person isn't usually the brightest crayon in the box. I always want to ask them to compare my standardized test scores with their own. Or compare the national average standardized test scores of public school kids with those of home schooled kids.

Or another favorite question of mine, "are you able to function socially?" No, I break down whenever I lose view of my mommy. What do you think? I'd even submit that in many ways I am more socially rounded than those only in public school. But that's for a different time.

I'm out for the night.

The problem with (of?) reason

2004-07-24T23:48:00.000-04:00

First off, thank you everyone who has talked to me regarding my last post. It's been really cool to hear from so many people with so many different points of view. I still am unsure as to what I believe, though. To my thinking, Calvinism is a bit more logical but almost contradictory at times. While at BBC (I'll probably post about that later), I bought a book which is composed of two theologians debating Calvinism v. Arminianism. Tonight I'll probably start reading it. One idea that continues to haunt me through all this, though, is something that the über-wise Mr. Spencer said, and that is that human reasoning can only get us so far.

His logic is that man's fall affected his ability to reason, meaning that some things must be taken simply by faith. I can't help but wonder if all this is silly because it can never be totally and completely answered outside of Heaven. Perhaps we are just meant to believe what God tells us plainly (we are predestined in some manner, we have free will), do what God tells us plainly (witness, live the good works to which He has called us), and not worry much past that?

Short post for tonight, I'm tired and want to read some of that book before I go to bed. I'll probably post something longer in a day or two, hopefully something thought provoking.

Sporadicality -- no, that's not a real word

2004-07-11T23:38:00.000-04:00

I've decided to try to keep up to date this time. No, really, I have.

For the most part, this blog is going to be geared to all my Summer Studies friends, since those are the people with whom I can't regularly talk.

As seems to be an uncannily common theme in Summer Studies blogs, I'd like to request that you all keep me in your prayers right now. Ever since an incident to which I refer in one of my earlier entries, I have been striving to figure out exactly what I believe. Essentially, I am taking the faith which my parents have passed to me and figuring out if I also believe it, and if so why.

A few of you have been a party in my discussions and know a little of what I am doing. Most recently, I've been trying to figure out God's view of sin. Now I am trying to figure out the whole plan of salvation. Simple, you think? So did I, until I started looking into the main two ideas in salvation: Arminianism and Calvinism.

(note that I was raised, as I imagine most of you were, as an Arminian)

The basic premise of Arminianism is that salvation is a free gift which God offers to all people; those people get to choose whether or not to accept it. Calvinism, however, believes that man is so totally depraved that they will never come to God by themselves. Therefore, God decided before time (predestination and election, but different than that found in Arminianism) that he would impress His grace on the people whom he selects. The best debate I have found of these two ideas can be found here.

Honestly, I am still unsure what I believe. In all actuality, Calvinism seems more logical than Arminianism. My main problems with Calvinism, however, is that it seems to take away any reason for witnessing, which would contradict the Bible. I'm sure Calvinists believe there is a reason for witnessing, I just have not yet found it.

So that's what I have been up to. As I said, please pray for me -- that I will have discernment and wisdom to know what is the truth. If anyone is curious or believes they can help me out, please don't hesitate to email me or IM me (joshaber01).

Complicated

2004-06-08T01:16:00.000-04:00

Apparently the title of this entry is a song by the (in)famous Avril Lavigne. In the few radio clips/ads I have heard, sounds like the chorus sums up my thoughts right now. :) Why does life have to be so annoyingly complicated? Why can't everything be straightforward and simple instead of resembling a bad mix of a comedy routine and a Greek tragedy? Why can't we just have the idilic life like the people in those cheesy 60's sitcoms, the ones where everything resolved itself in 30 minutes or less?

I'm sure everyone's felt that way before, unfortunately it seems it is now my turn. The source of this is a couple dozen things.

the sudden realization that I'm going to be a senior

the event to which I allude in the last two posts

my (also sudden) feeling of discontent with my current state in just about every aspect of life

a few other things about which I don't feel comfortable posting here

Oh well, as the Pigeon John song says, "Life goes on / No matter if your life is tattered and you can't fix what went wrong / Life goes on."

Do you has?

2004-06-05T01:22:00.000-04:00

Back today, thankfully in a better mental state than two nights ago. Still kind of frustrated, but what can I do? I keep reminding myself that I can't let it rule me...

Anyways, today was good. I didn't have to work but I did have to go shopping for clothes for summer studies. Got two t-shirts (both black! :) ) and three polo shirts. Thankfully, they were all on sale so I didn't have to part with much of my hard earned cash.

Isn't it odd how society tells us that we can only be friends with people whom we have met in person? This was indirectly pointed out to me tonight. Why is this the case? Thinking about those whom I would count as friends which I know "only" online, what is odd about counting them as my friends? In some ways, I am closer to them than I am with a lot of the people I know in person. Perhaps it is just me, but it also seems easier to "keep it real" whilst online.

And that's all I have to say for now. More later, perhaps, but just think on that.

Back from the dead

2004-06-03T00:45:00.000-04:00

Thought I was dead, didn't you? Suddenly I have felt the need to revive my dead blog. Sadly, I don't really feel like typing out a long, thought-out post. Lets just say the last few months have not been all that fun. Today (or rather, yesterday since it is past midnight) was quite possibly the worst day in recent memory.

This can be seen in the fact that nearly three times today I felt the urge to break down and cry. Me, who quite rarely cries, nearly broke down three times! Definitely one of those days where God was my only comfort and that comfort was probably the only reason I didn't snap and lash out at somebody. While I hate days like this, in the end they strengthen my faith and character. Or at least that is my thinking presently.

I'm not out of the woods yet, though, I still have many things to think about. It's actually rather funny, I feel like I am at a crossroad. I must make a decision between two different paths, neither of which will allow me to continue in my present direction. Which one, though? Which one?

One road, the road of conformity, is easier and less intrusive. It has a bit more familiarity than the other, but at the same time it would mean abandoning my convictions. The other road, the road of confrontation, is hard, difficult, and potentially dangerous. I know very little as to what it entails.

2004-03-19T02:24:00.000-05:00

These past two weeks have been a nightmare... Last week I worked 25 hours and this week I worked 27 hours. Today (Thursday) I had a physics test, and government test and tomorrow the rough draft for my research paper is due. To further complicate things, I sing my TI solo Sunday and I haven't touched it since I did it at TI three weeks ago. Praise team is starting in a few weeks, and this time it will be six straight weeks. That means more music to know, more practices to attend, etc.

But there are always things to be thankful for :D To name a few...

* I got an 'A' in physics this quarter!
* spring break next week!
* my next paycheck will be really nice ;)
* I've won six free songs from the iTMS
* just eight more weeks of school after spring break
* those last eight weeks should be tons easier than this last quarter
* my birthday is slowly approaching...

I also got to see The Passion of the Christ last Sunday. I won't post my thoughts just yet (probably Sunday or Monday night), but goodness knows I have an opinion ;) I need to sleep now, gotta get up tomorrow and do some more work on this stupid paper...

2004-03-13T01:57:00.000-05:00

Another quickie post as I sit here and wait for something to download. Today at work, a customer came up to check out. He had just a few items, one of which was a can of (what appeared to be) peanuts that no longer had the paper cover around it. This meant that the barcode which I must scan was gone. This wasn't a big deal, I just grabbed an item I knew was an identical price (another can of peanuts) and continued as usual. Once he had paid though, he turned to me and asked me what kind of nuts he had gotten.

I didn't have a clue, I assumed he knew what kind of peanuts he was purchasing. I told him I didn't know what kind of peanuts they were and he got rather upset.

"I want unsalted, roasted peanuts!"
"Yes, sir, I understand that. Are those what you got?"
"You tell me! I want unsalted roasted peanuts! This is not satisfactory! Let me speak to your manager!"

I called my manager up, and he tried to understand what the man wanted. Finally, he had me grab a can of unsalted, roasted peanuts that looked like the naked can which he already had. We replaced the clothed can with the naked, and then all was good.

My manager and I exchanged relieved smiles and went about our jobs. This just confirms my belief that people are crazy! Not a sane one out there!

2004-03-11T23:53:00.000-05:00

Quick post tonight. This week and next week I will be working a lot, and I have some stupid school deadlines so no big rant. I figured I would say that I have won four free songs from the iTMS (iTunes Music Store, for the uninitiated) through the Pepsi song give away. Now the question is, what songs do I buy?

My initial thought was to buy some of the songs off of Blindside's new album, About a Burning Fire, but I really want to get the whole CD at some point in time as well. Decisions, decisions.

If anyone happens to read this and they have a good suggestion, please feel free to email me.

2004-03-06T04:16:00.000-05:00

Before I rant, I need to give you a little background. I work as a service clerk at a nearby pharmacy/drug store. Usually I run the front checkout, though occasionally they will have me restock or do some other random thing. For the most part, a really enjoyable job.

Obviously my job gives me a lot of contact with the general public whom I have found to be, for the most part, agreeable and fairly sane. Occasionally, though, I will come in contact with people who just make me shake my head and wonder... As you probably guessed, a story of such a person follows. ;)

Usually I can tell whether or not the person I am ringing up is sane or otherwise in a matter of seconds. Their mannerisms, grammar, mood, even clothing can give away of what set they are a member. The accuracy of doing this is surprisingly good, so exceptions to this rule never fail to astound me.

Now the actual story. I rang one women up, handed her her bags and began to ring the next person up when I see her leaning toward me as if she wanted to whisper something to me. I tilted my head so I could hear her.

"You know what happened in New York? Well that same thing is going to happen here because they don't have their own place."

She pointed at me with conviction and before I could even reply she walked out the door and was gone. The truly perplexing thing is that she had seemed normal when I was ringing her up. She was friendly and well dressed. Did she suddenly lose her grip on whatever sanity she had? Did our crazy low prizes make her mad? Was she just one of those people who like to do things in stores to see employees reactions? Whom is the ominous "they" to which she referred? Music teachers? Mail men? Septic tank cleaners?

Needless to say, I felt it was my civic duty to tell all who read my blog that whatever it is that happened in New York is going to happen in the central Ohio area as well. Or something.

*shakes head*
People are crazy...

2004-03-01T23:31:00.000-05:00

This post took a bit longer than I would have liked to get up but I suppose life will go on. :P

As I said in my first post, Saturday was Teens Involved for my church/area. For the uneducated, TI is best described as a pseudo-contest in which teens from area churches compete using their spiritual gifts/talents.

This year I competed in my usual four categories: quizzing, choir, vocal solo, small vocal group. I placed in all four of the categories, but quizzing was by far the most interesting of them all.

Normally with quizzing, the judges are good natured, helpful folk. They give you a little leeway as far as the answers go and they try to be as fare as possible. Unfortunately this year was a bit different.

To begin with, they completely switched what we had to study, how much (content-wise) we had to study, and the quizzing system in general. That's fine. They told us ahead of time and we were pretty well prepared. Or so we thought.

The questions which the quiz master (hehe, quite a title for a guy who reads off a piece of paper) asked us ended up being pretty crazy. This was manifested in the fact that in one match, the score was 1-0 at question #10. Half the time, neither team had a clue as to what the quiz master was asking.

To make matters worse, the quiz master was very, VERY picky about the answers that we could only occasionally give. Example: the question which was asked went something along the lines of "According to *some reference*, at what event were angels?" A guy from the other team buzzed in and said "His (the poor guy meant Jesus) ascension."

The quiz master rejected the answer and tells us he was looking for "Jesus or Christ's ascension. I think we all knew the guy meant Jesus when he said "His." The really annoying thing is that the manual over which we were being quizzed said "His ascension." Sigh. Crazy crazy crazy. Things like this happened a few more times and the bizarre questions kept coming. Our team did not do nearly as well as I think we could have, and I know I personally did really poorly.

Needless to say, it was not a fun time. Almost makes me not want to be on the quizzing team next year, except that I know I really should...

2004-02-29T00:48:00.000-05:00

FYI, the first post's timestamp is wrong. It was posted at roughly 9:55 PM EST.

--

Despite the fact that the time is almost 1 AM and I have had a pretty long day, I am actually feeling really awake. So what does one do when one is feeling alive, alert, awake and enthusiastic? Naturally (or perhaps unnaturally) one posts to one's blog.

For those without good music taste (or for those with good music taste but have been hiding under a rock for the past week), Blindside's new album, About A Burning Fire, was released on Tuesday. Those who watch TVU have probably seen their video for "All of Us" (yes, it's the one with the stretchy arm). I can't wait to get the CD, honestly. All of it that I have heard sounds like classic Blindside goodness.

I was thinking about ranting a tad bit more about my music tastes but I think I will retire for the evening. In the next few days I will probably post again going into greater depth about TI.

2004-02-28T21:55:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my blog. As the description says, this is where I, a freely admitted abnormal teenager, will post whatever pops into my head at the time.

Chances are good that if you're here you already know a good amount about me. Chances are also good that you know me through the youth group at my church, so I don't really feel the need to introduce some of the people about whom I will talk.

If you're from one of the websites which I frequent then... deal with it :P

--

Today was Teens Involved, fun and tiring. This was my second to last year (I'll graduate next year!) but it was very unlike past years and to be honest I don't know why. I did the things I have been doing for a few years but this year just seemed "weird."

The anticipation and nervousness that is usually its trademark was strangely absent. Needless to say I was nervous, but not to the magnitude which I usually am. And now that it is over, it almost feels like it never really happened. Someone pinch me and make sure I am awake, will you?

Maybe the problem is that I also did Talents For Christ where actual money is on the line. Then you come to TI and you compete for a magic school bus pin ;)

Oh well, that's how it goes. Its over now, I just have to sing my solo for church. At least this time I'll have a mic. :D