Abandoning the Outer Defenses: A Warning from the 1920’s

My first love, (apart from Christ of course!) has always been history - especially ancient and medieval history. In the past few years, however, I have been doing some reading in recent history (17^th Century to the present). One of the most fascinating things that I have discovered is that people are pretty much the same in every epoch of time. This is certainly true of the Christian church and how Christians have handled modernity and the arrival of the scientific age.

In 1923 J. Greshem Machen, a professor of New Testament at Princeton University wrote a little book titled “Christianity and Liberalism.” The book was a critique of the theological liberalism prevalent in his day. Liberal theologians of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries thought that they were “rescuing Christianity” from irrelevance and academic respectability by giving up certain key doctrines and lessening the language of Scripture to make it more relevant (I don’t imply here that these theologians used the word relevant, but that is indeed how they thought).

In the Introduction of his book, professor Machen states what was at stake in no uncertain terms. In essence, what he says is that when Christians of any age begin to compromise key doctrines to fit modern theories then they are literally abandoning the outer defenses of the Faith. He writes:

What is the relation between Christianity and modern culture; may Christianity be maintained in a scientific age? It is this problem which modern liberalism attempts to solve. Admitting that scientific objections may arise against the particularities of the Christian religion – against the Christian doctrines of the person of Christ, and of redemption through His death and resurrection – the liberal theologians seeks to rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as being “the essence of Christianity.”

It may well be questioned, however, whether this method of defence [i.e. apologetics] will really prove to be efficacious; for after the apologist has abandoned his outer defences to the enemy and has withdrawn into some inner citadel, he will probably discover that the enemy pursues him even there. Modern materialism, especially in the realm of psychology, is not content with occupying the lower quarters of the Christian city, but pushes its way into all the higher reaches of life; it is just as much opposed to the philosophical idealism of the liberal preacher as to the Biblical doctrines that the liberal preacher has abandoned in the interest of peace. Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the liberal conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no “peace without victory”; one side or the other must win.[1]

Today one of the debates brewing among Christian apologists is exactly what the outer defences are. It is my belief that this is an even worse place to be in than trying to answer liberal theologians. In the past few weeks the debate which has been brewing between Drs. Mike Licona, Norman L. Geisler, Al Mohler, et. al., - the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has come to the surface. After reading several blogs about the controversy and reading people’s comments it saddens me that some Christians are engaging in ad hominem attacks against one person or another and are not considering the primary and vital issue at stake – which is biblical inerrancy.

In the late 70’s and early 80’s the crisis of inerrancy came to a head and culminated in a document titled “The Chicago Statement.” In October of 1978 three hundred scholars, pastors, and laymen met together and read academic papers in support, clarification and defense of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The participants were from a broad theological spectrum; Anglican, Baptist, Free Church, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and others. The “Chicago Statement” contrary to what some people believe, is NOT just about Norman Geisler even though he played a key role. One of the papers was given by Dr. Paul Feinberg. In his paper titled “The Meaning of Inerrancy” Dr. Feinberg does an excellent job of carefully examining a proper, philosophically and theologically defensible definition of biblical inerrancy. In the final section of his paper Feinberg concludes by making some final observations, qualifications and misunderstandings – just in case his original thesis/argument was misunderstood. In the second observation Fienberg makes the point that “Inerrancy is a doctrine that must be asserted, but which may not be demonstrated with respect to all the phenomena of Scripture.”[2]

There is in this definition of inerrancy the explicit recognition of both the fallibility and the finiteness of the present state of human knowledge. There are really only these two choices: either the theologian will trust the word of an omnipotent, omniscient God, who says that He controlled human agents, making it necessary for the theologian to admit his fallibility as critic, or in some sense he will declare that the aforementioned control is restricted and will affirm at least his own relative finite omniscience as critic. Since Christ exhibited total trust in the Scriptures, can we do any less? All that is claimed is there is no final conflict with truth.[3]

Does the doctrine of inerrancy need to be redefined or re-evaluated today in light of a controversy over a biblical passage? I say no! For those who wish to redefine or re-hash inerrancy I say fine, gather your three hundred scholars and spend several years in academic meetings hammering it out. In the end, I believe that two positions will come to the surface - the same two, incidentally, that Feinberg wrote about thirty-three years ago. “Either the theologian will affirm that God is omniscient or that he - the theologian, is omniscient.”

Inerrancy is a vital part of evangelical Christianity. I would even go so far as to say that it is one of the essential outer defences. If we compromise on this doctrine and don’t defend it but certain theologians because of friendship, likability, or popularity, then we and our institutions will drift hard to the left, the same way Princeton University did, exactly as theologians like B.B. Warfield, G. Greshem Machen and others warned of in the 1920’s. Even Machen’s own Presbyterian church defrocked him in 1933 when he refused to remove himself from a group, which aligned itself against the liberal elements in the Presbyterian church. Machen went on to found what came to be known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. In the Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer, in commenting about Machen’s rift with his church, accurately commented that, “It was the culmination of a long trend toward liberalism within the Presbyterian Church and represented the same trend in most other denominations.”

Hegel lamented, “If there is anything we learn from history it is that we learn nothing from history.” Theologians and apologists are among those who don’t’ learn. We would do well to study the debates of the past decade and even centuries. Perhaps there is wisdom in studying the lessons of the past. Solomon was right, “there really is nothing new under the sun.”

Inerrancy has already been defined and defended by theologians of the past. It just needs to be adhered to. “Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the liberal conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no “peace without victory”; one side or the other must win.”[4]

If a theologian or biblical scholar doesn’t agree with inerrancy that is one thing. But let no one claim that they are holding to it – when it is clear that they are not.

---

[1] J. Greshem Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York: MacMillan, 1923), 6.

[2] Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Norman L. Geisler, Editor, Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 294.

[3] Ibid., 295.

[4] Machen.

Defending Creation to Those Without Excuse: The "Problem" with ID

Depending on who you ask, the philosophical argument for the intelligent design of the cosmos has been around at least since the 13th Century, by St. Thomas Aquinas, and perhaps even before that. In the early 19th century William Paley brought a form of the argument back into consideration (via his Natural Theology) because of some of the skeptical philosophies of his day. In our modern world the teleological argument has seen a come-back with the rise of the ID (Intelligent Design) movement. Beginning in the early 90's a group of disparate thinkers, mathematicians, scientists, and professors met to discuss their dissatisfaction of the Darwinian explanation of life (outlined in the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life) One of the main goals of the ID movement, according to Phillip Johnson, was to drive a "wedge" into the scientific and academic establishment and to challenge their monopoly on science. According to Johnson,

Biologists have legitimate authority to tell us the facts that they observe in the field and in their laboratories. They have no authority to tell the rest of us what metaphysical assumptions we must adopt. Once it becomes clear that Darwinian theory rests upon a dogmatic philosophy rather than the weight of the evidence, the way will be open for dissenting opinions to get a fair hearing. In a nutshell, that is the strategy (in Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design, Ed. W. Dembski & J. Kushiner, p.26)

It has been over a decade since the ID movement has been in full publication and debate mode and there still doesn't seem to be any major headway into academia or the mainline scientific community. Today, in addition to dealing with criticisms from naturalists, the ID movement now has the theistic evolutionists to contend with (i.e. Francis Collins, Bio-Logos, et. al.) It seems as if the ID movement is like an enormous ice-breaker ship (very powerful) which had plotted a course to sail to the north pole through thick pack ice only to be stopped by the ice pack - the ships radar unable to detect how thick the ice was.

Now...let me be clear. I am not a critic of ID. I believe very strongly that ID is a fruitful and legitimate endeavor. I do, however, have friends and colleagues who are critical of it for various reasons. Some of the criticisms are: "ID doesn't name the God of the Bible as Creator;" or "ID does not make this or that minute philosophical distinction." I personally think ID is an amazing application of the human intellect given to us by God to probe and explore His creation. Every corner of the cosmos has God's fingerprints covering it, yet still, the scientific & academic world is adamant that "nature is all there is." They are "convinced" that physical evidence of God's existence is not to be found anywhere in the physical world. So, the question I ponder is simply, "Does the problem lie with ID or is it somewhere else?"

My own view is that ID has actually made those (committed to Naturalism) and who understand what the argument is saying even MORE without an excuse for not believing that there is a God. Let me explain.

According to Romans 1:20 - the Apostle Paul states that "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. so that men are without excuse."

From Paul we learn two basic truths:

(1). Convincing evidence of God's existence, His power and His nature has been pouring into human knowledge since the world began - by the created order of things.

(2). Those who refuse that knowledge are without excuse for their condemnation

The ID movement actually makes the self-imposed noose of unbelief even tighter. To those who refuse the knowledge of God from creation, no additional knowledge (from the ID movement or otherwise) will ever convince them. Rather it will only deepen their unbelief.

A case in point is a few quotes from one of my favorite books on ID by William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence:

In these excerpts Dembski is commenting on a concept known as emergence. Emergence is a highly theoretical area of physics and biology which tries to explain how complexity may arise out of rather simple mathematical laws. Once more Dembski checkmates those who attempt to get something for nothing:

"The logic of emergence parallels the logic of alchemy. Emergence, like alchemical transformation, is a relational notion. To say that something emerges is to say that it emerges from (e.g., gold emerges from lead plus some other things). "X" emerges is an incomplete sentence. It needs to be completed by reading "X emerges from Y." Moreover, the claim that X emerges from Y remains vacuous until one specifies Y and can demonstrate that Y is sufficient to account for X... (pg. 244).

...a complete set of the building materials for a house do not suffice to account for a house - additionally what is needed is an architectural plan (drawn up by an architect) as well as assembly instructions (executed by a contractor) to implement the plan. Likewise, in the origin of life, it does no good simply to have the building blocks for life (e.g., nucleotides bases or amino acids). The means for organizing those building blocks into a coherent system (i.e., a living organism) needs to be specified as well (pg. 244).

...The problem with claiming that life has emerged from purely physical causes is not that it admits ignorance about an unsolved problem, but that it restricts the possible solutions to that problem; namely that it requires that solutions limit themselves to purely physical causes" (pg. 245).

The concept of emergence is currently being explored by scientists who call themselves "Complexity Theorists" (see, Stewart Kaufmann, Murray Gell-Mann, the Santa Fe Institute, et. al.). These men are currently seeking with all their hearts and minds, a theory or a set of physical laws that will explain the cosmos that we are currently living in in purely physical terms. We know from Romans 1 that they are doomed to failure. Even someone as brilliant as Bill Dembski, with two earned doctorates, technical peer-reviewed publications, and dozens of articles and books will not convince them that they are wrong about creation and God.

If the convincing power of creation itself is not enough, then no forthcoming additional evidence will convince them either. They "will" not to believe and this is a matter of the heart. The solution? ID theorists must continue to render futile the arguments of skeptics to rule out God from His creation and believers must pray for those who don't believe that they will respond to the evidence that is already there right in front of their eyes.

Eternity in a Grain of Sand

I've been reading this small book about Irish saints and came across this really excellent catechism (for the uninformed a catechism is [in general] a collection of principles for a particular understanding of the essence of Christianity) for Baptists it is similar to but not exactly like a doctrinal statement ("What we believe"). Catechisms come in the form of questions and answers for the purpose of memorization and then finally incorporation into one's life. The following is the catechism of Saint Ninian a 5th Century Missionary to the Picts - the native people of Scotland - I love its simplicity and aim.

Ninian's Catechism

Question What is the best thing in the world?

Answer To do the will of our Maker.

Question What is His will?

Answer That we should live according to His laws.

Question How do we know these laws?

Answer By study - studying the Scriptures with devotion.

Question What tool has our Maker provided for this study?

Answer The intellect - which can probe everything.

Question And what is the fruit of study?

Answer To perceive the eternal Word of God reflected in every plant and insect, every bird and animal, every man and woman.

For the ancient Christians there was a desire to see the presence of God in all things. This is something many modern (and particularly evangelical) Christians fear. I certainly understand the fear of sounding pantheistic, but our Creator's eternal power and divine nature we are told, are clearly revealed from creation (Rom. 1:20, Ps. 19). The Lord even urged us to "...consider the lilies of the field and the birds of the air" that we might learn from them not to worry but to trust and rest.

The fruit of our study and incorporation of Scriptural principles is to make us holy and make us like the Savior - but as Ninian stated - it should also cause us to see all of reality different - to perceive the eternal Word of God reflected in everything, or as William Blake said, "To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour ." God's glory is everywhere! For as Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote we live, "in a universe charged with the grandeur of God."

River Man

Just recently my son Ian and I went on a father & son kayaking trip on the Catawba River in South Carolina. My boat is only a one man touring kayak, but Ian is small enough that we could both fit into the cockpit. It was just a day trip, but we still had a great time. We floated downstream for a few miles frightening the occasional blue herron and king fisher along the way until we eventually turned back upstream to explore an island which was several acres long. We found a spot where an old tree had fallen into the river, its roots exposed and some of its branches were still alive and growing leaves. We pulled the kayak onto a small sandbar right along the bank, got out and swam around for a while. While Ian swam, I sat on one of the branches and watched him try to go against the current. This got me to thinking about rivers, streams and tributaries. They're very common, but also very fascinating when you stop to think about them. These liquid arteries carry water, silt, rocks and debris miles from their original locations. The Catawba river, which we were on is a tributary of the Wateree River which empties into the Santee and eventually into the Atlantic Ocean in the brackish waters north of Chareston. The waters of the Catawba originate on the eastern facing slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Western North Carolina. As the mountains get their fair share of rain and snow, these waters end up in pristine mountain streams and creeks; home to the Salvelinus fontinalis or the eastern brook trout (see picture above). Some of the water also comes from underground springs, deep in the earth. These cold streams then empty into the Catawba and onward starts the journey far away from the original source. The processes of a river are amazing in their own right, but they also illustrate a profound truth concerning human sin and failure. The river illustrates what God does with the sins and shortcomings of those who look to Him for forgiveness. He takes their sins and casts them into the heart of the sea. Psalm 103 communicates this truth in a powerful way. "...as far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us (v.12)." Far from the sandy banks Catawba River there is another river - that river that is called Jordan in Israel. Just like the Catawba, the waters of the Jordan are meltwater from the snowy white slopes of Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights.  It was in this swiftly flowing river two thousand years ago that a dusty, dry, desert hermit came; he was a desert man who became a river man  - this man was called "Baptist." The Bible says of him; "People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized (immersed) by him in the Jordan River (Matt. 3:5-6)." Unlike the Catawba, the Jordan empties into the lowest and deadest place on earth - the Dead Sea (1,385 ft below sea level). The imagery and symbolism of what God does with the sins of the repentant is even more striking! After we swam and played for about an hour, we packed up, pointed the nose of the kayak upstream (which took twice as much effort!) and paddled back. As I reflected back to our day on the river, it is comforting to know that there is a Heavenly Father who will forgive and cleanse from all unrighteousness. He will take our sins and place them in a river and then in a sea of forgiveness. 

The Unknown Land of the Blog-O-Sphere

First of all I would like to welcome everyone to my new blog. The title of the blog is taken from a phrase that was printed on ancient maps before the world was fully explored and mapped. The Latin phrase terra incognita literally means "unknown land." Ironically, after being on earth for millennia and after having been to the moon, humans are still discovering "new places" on the earth. I chose this title because I love the rich symbolism of the phrase. The first meaning, I believe, still has meaning to this day, in a culture obsessed with life in cities, urbanism and man made things. We currently live in a society that does not and cannot see the wisdom, the beauty and the truth found in the natural world. Other subtle nuances of the phrase can be taken to mean the unknown land of the interior world of thought, the spiritual world, the philosophical world, and the moral world. Unlike the physical landscape, these other "landscapes" are much more frightening and can be just as adventurous. In addition to the phrase terra incognita ancient geographers would also inscribe the words, "here be dragons" in places unknown and unexplored. I am sure that in the cyber world just as in the physical world there are plenty of dragons to watch out for. The themes I am most interested in "thinking out loud" about [or "blogging" about] are nature, exploration, adventure, truth, beauty, art, goodness, and God. I realize that this is a very broad range of topics. But, it is my contention that all of these disparate subjects are intimately connected. Please stay tuned to this blog for further updates, thoughts, musings, brain droppings, etc...The French philosopher, E. Gilson got it so very right when he wrote the words, "finding out truth is not so difficult, what is difficult is not to run from it once we have found it" (The Unity of Philosophical Experience, pg. 61).