User profile
Status:
Name: David N
Nickname: David N
Member since: 2009-05-02 20:07:47
Website URL: http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com
About me: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority. In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed. Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!" Education Info: --Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California --2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University --2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar College
Facebook profile
Name: David N
Nickname: David N
Member since: 2009-05-02 20:07:47
Website URL: http://reasonfromscripture.blogspot.com
About me: In 2003 I graduated from high school with no set direction for my life. I spent a year in Iowa before returning to California to attend Junior College. I changed majors 3 times; from Physics to Business to Film (as you can see, no direction). I was a Christian, attending church regularly, but furthering the cause of Christ in this fallen world was not a high priority. In 2005 I picked up an issue of TableTalk magazine, and I was re-introduced to the work of R. C. Sproul (whom I had read once in high school). Later that year, while taking a biology class with an ardent atheist professor, I picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's "The Case For A Creator." In the Fall of 2006 I came to Biola University and was introduced to the works of J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. My fate was sealed. Just a few years ago, I was passionless. Now I have two passions: Studying the Word of God and engaging in the task of Apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 exhorts all Christians to be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have. My goal is to be able to give my answer articulately and powerfully, but even more importantly, in love. There are many purposes for apologetics, but by far the most important is the opening of minds and the softening of hearts for the work of the Holy Spirit. If we don't care about and pray for those with whom we engage in apologetics, we fail to fulfill this purpose. As a wise man once said, "Take a stand for the Truth, but do it in love fool!" Education Info: --Currently: M.A. in Historical Theology student, Westminster Seminary California --2008: B.A. in Philosophy, Biola University --2006: A.A. in Liberal Arts, Palomar College
Facebook profile
content rss
Why I Still Read The NIV
January 29th, 2010 at 8:07 pmDillie-O, thanks for the encouragement!
O Holy Night 3- Yonder Breaks a New and Glorious Morn
December 7th, 2009 at 3:23 pmNice! Not only is this one of my favorite Christmas songs, but the line “A thrill of hope” is one of my favorite lines in any song! It always gives me chills. And I had the exact same thought about this scene at the end of Two Towers! I’ve actually been working on a Christmas blog post for the last two years (and by “working on” of course I mean “I have an idea that I haven’t spent much time fleshing out” haha), and I want to title it “A Thrill Of Hope.” I was going to use this Two Towers scene as an illustration, but now I’ll have to come up with something else! 😛
Introduction to “O Holy Night”
December 1st, 2009 at 12:41 amThe first one is OK, but I’ve always thought this song sounds much better when a woman sings it.
I really like this version by Celtic Woman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ-8jYpa1-o&feature=related
–
Should We Sing Only Psalms?
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:30 pmOopse! Sorry azchas, but somehow I deleted your last comment! If you get a chance to respond to my questions, would you mind re-posting your comment as well? Thanks!
Should We Sing Only Psalms?
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pmazchas,
Exactly. I’m not sure how to get around the pretty clear command to sing a new song. I know that some folk argue that “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” are synonymous, but that interpretation seems forced to me.
On the subject of continued prophecy, I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making between the “inspired” Word of God and “inspired” individuals today. Are you using two different definitions of inspired? If not, then why not re-open the canon? After all, if a song-writer is inspired to the exact same degree as David was when he wrote a psalm, it seem downright foolish to me NOT to add his inspired song to the canon. If there is no difference whatsoever between this modern song and a Psalm of David, upon what basis would you exclude the former from the canon?
Should We Sing Only Psalms?
November 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 pmAaron,
I agree, which is why I think the only defensible version of this position is that we can sing ANY inspired lyrics, including the new testament hymns. And since those are now inspired because they were included in the canon, they can’t really be used as counter-examples.
I do think you’re on the right track, though. After all, could those hymns not be sung in church until Paul quoted them in his letters? That seems odd. Though I know that some argue that Paul himself might have written the Phillippians 2 hymn, so this is still not a clear-cut issue. But I hear about it a lot at school so I’m very interested in it. If u have time u should get “Recovering the Reformed Confession” by R. Scott Clark and read chapter 7 on worship.
Should We Sing Only Psalms?
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 amazchas,
Calvin and those who advocate this view would say that the Pastor/Elder holds a divinely instituted office and that preaching is explicitly prescribed for worship in the New Testament. So it would be in a different category than congregational singing and the use of instruments.
I would definitely not say that any modern songwriter is “inspired” to the same degree as any Biblical author. If that were true, then we should add those modern songs to the end of our New Testaments. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t still write songs that are true to what the Bible teaches (like you said, in just the same way that a sermon can be true though not inspired).
Christianity Is Vile to Atheists
August 30th, 2009 at 5:43 pmBen,
Hopefully this doesn’t get too confusing carrying on two conversations at once!
Before pressing on, I think I need to try to clear up some misunderstandings and define some terms.
First, nothing I’ve said is dualist, in fact it’s the exact opposite of dualism. Dualism is the belief that reality is fundamentally two opposing forces (yin and yang, good and bad, etc). In dualism good and evil are both actual things that exist, neither is a privation (or lack) of the other. What I am saying is that evil is not something real that exists, only good is. Evil technically only exists as a hypothetical, because “pure evil” would be non-existence (which is nothing). As you know, even space is not actually nothing (even if it is a vacuum), it’s something, because scientists can talk about “space-time” as something that actually exists and is therefore useful in theorizing and scientific investigation. If space were literally nothing, they could not do this.
Second, I think you’re getting caught up on good not being a “substance” because you’re simply assuming a naturalistic (or materialistic) worldview in which all that truly exists is physical stuff. Obviously “goodness” is not something like that, so that you could go out and pick up a piece of goodness off the ground. But it doesn’t follow that because something is non-physical that it is therefore not real. I believe that goodness (like justice) is what is called in philosophy jargon a “universal”. A universal is a non-spatial property or relation that is instantiated in particular, physical things.
Third, you still seem to be missing the point about light and heat. Heat is motion, yes, and cold is the absence of motion, right? But it doesn’t really make sense to describe heat as the absence of “stillness.” Heat is created by adding motion, and cold is created by removing motion. And stillness is simply defined as NOT moving. At every point motion is the thing and stillness is the absence of it. Same with light and dark. You don’t ADD darkness to a room, for example, you REMOVE light. If there could be perfect darkness, it would only be achieved by removing every photon of light. The more photons you have bouncing around, the more light you have, the fewer photons, less light. This would be true across the spectrum.
Finally, I would probably define justice along the same lines as you did. But what I want to know is, do you think that equity, balance, etc., are good things to have? And by extension, is justice a good thing to have? I think it is (which is why I think it would be unjust to shoot someone for stealing your xbox, since that doesn’t seem to be the equitable response, nor does it create a proper balance, etc.). In any case, the point is that I don’t see any distinction between what is “just” and what is “right.” Incidentally, I wouldn’t define justice ONLY in terms of “whatever the Abrahamic God does” because (a) I would need a reason to think that the Abrahamic God is just to begin with, and (b) I would need to be able to come up with at least a PLAUSIBLE defense for problematic issues like genocide in the Old Testament. I think I can meet both of those conditions, but it would take a long time and some patience to work through all the issues with you.
But honestly, while this will probably disappoint you, I’m really not all that concerned with arguing about the “god did bad stuff in the Old Testament” stuff. First of all, Jesus didn’t order anyone to fight any holy wars, in fact he may have advocated strong pacifism, and Jesus is supposed to be the final and most complete revelation of God. Second, lots of Christians have taken allegorical or non-literal reads of a lot of the Old Testament, and while I don’t personally hold that view, there’s nothing stopping you from doing so if the Old Testament stuff is the ONLY thing keeping you from accepting Christianity (which I’m sure is not the case, so I’d rather focus on more fundamental issues).
Christianity Is Vile to Atheists
August 28th, 2009 at 8:05 pmYou said: “I’m just pointing out that in no other instance do we assume that someone being responsible for our existence entitles them to full control over our fates…”
Right, which was partially my point. God is absolutely unique. That would mean that IF the God that I’m trying to defend actually exists, his actions and relations would also be unique and not fully comparable to any other creature’s actions or relations. So I don’t see it as a problem that we would hold everyone else to a slightly different standard than God, in some sense. That’s the whole point, in fact. God IS the standard.
As for the good and evil thing, that’s probably not a discussion we can have here, but suffice it to say that evil as classically understood is simply the absence of good. In other words, evil is not a thing that exists. Good exists, and as a Christian I would say that the good is God. The point is that you CAN’T go both ways (saying that good is just the absence of evil), because evil ISN’T anything. There can be no such thing as “perfect evil” because that would simply be non-existence. Think of light and heat. It is perfectly acceptable to define darkness as the absence of light and cold as the absence of heat, right? Because light and heat are both THINGS, but cold and dark are both relative. The same would be true of good and evil. An action can only be evil if it fails to meet some standard of what would have been the good or right thing to do in that particular situation (and there could be multiple and equally good acts, by the way).
As to the last part, I would say that that’s not a good example for several reasons. For one thing, it strikes me as unjust to kill a person for stealing your XBox. So I would say that if the state law says that such a punishment is legal, then the law is unjust (and since all human laws are fallible, that’s certainly possible). I fundamentally reject the notion that something can be “just” but not “good.” How would you define justice in a way that doesn’t include some concept of what is good or proper or right? I don’t see how you can.
Christianity Is Vile to Atheists
August 27th, 2009 at 10:20 pmThe problem with analogies like parents and children is that parents don’t have anywhere near the same relationship to their children as God does. For one thing, the parents aren’t responsible for their own existence, which was a contributing factor to the creation of the children, nor were they responsible for the environment in which they were able to meet, procreate, and raise the child, etc. Also, and more importantly, both the parents and children are on the same metaphysical level. They are equals in the sense of both being human. God, on the other hand, is not only responsible for every single factor contributing to the existence of everything, but he is in no respect equal to us in any way. In fact, because of all of this, I would say that the parent-child relationship as traditionally understood is merely a matter of convention, and that there is nothing inherent about parents and children such that they HAVE to behave in a certain way toward each other EXCEPT for the fact that God has commanded children to obey their parents (within reason and never contrary to his other commands, etc.)
Second, because of the fact that we are in no way equal to God, we are not entitled to do some of the things he does. So, for example, because we are all sinners who have willfully disobeyed God, it would be just of him to simply scrap the whole lot of us and start over, if he wanted. But does that mean we have the right to kill anybody who isn’t a Christian, or who does something that disobeys God’s law? Of course not, if for no other reason than because we are not omniscient, and so we can’t ever know for sure whether someone is truly a Christian, whether they are truly disobeying God, etc. Plus, God knows all things, including future events, so he would know if and when any person will become a Christian and accept forgiveness for sins. Since I don’t have such knowledge, who am I to kill someone who might become a Christian in the future? (obviously there are cases like self-defense, which are harder).
That doesn’t answer your question, though, that only shows you why I shouldn’t commit genocide even if God does. In defense of God I would only point out that, again, he is the one who is perfectly holy and good and we are the offenders who have fallen short of perfect holiness and goodness. If it is just to punish evil (which by definition is the absence of goodness), then God is perfectly just in punishing each and every person who has ever lived and sending them straight to hell. What is amazing is the mercy he chose to show by sending his son to earth as a human person to pay the penalty that is due to all of us so that we could have a means of being redeemed from that punishment. And of course, Jesus not only preached “turning the other cheek” and praised meekness, but he also claimed to be sent by the same God of the Old Testament. So if we can be charitable and try to take Jesus seriously, we might find a way of reconciling those two things (which I have attempted to do somewhat here, but only very briefly).
Christianity Is Vile to Atheists
August 26th, 2009 at 8:09 pmIf I may jump in here with a few points:
First, regarding Hell. There’s definitely a sense in which Hell is a punishment for wrongdoing. But that’s not ALL it is. One of my teachers at Biola liked to say that the gates of Hell were locked from the inside. His point was that no one is forced to go to Hell who, in one sense, doesn’t want to go there. There’s no one being “tortured” (I suppose I should also point out that Hell is not literally a place where people are burned by fire, or poked with pitch forks, or whatever else you might think it is) who really wishes they could get out and go to Heaven. In fact, Ben, it’s not unlike the sentiment you expressed in an earlier comment. You said that if you ever met the God of the Bible you would hate him and do everything in your power to resist him. That’s exactly how people in Hell would feel. They wouldn’t *want* to love God and dwell in his presence, and so in that sense they’re the ones keeping themselves in Hell. It’s not like they’re kids who God just won’t let come into his playground (even though they really want to play there) because he doesn’t like them. In one sense he simply can’t let them into the playground because all you can do on the playground is play WITH God, and that’s the LAST thing those kids want to do.
Second, you said: “I don’t understand why you think he’s entitled to enslave us. Particularly since I’ve never met the guy, and so certainly never agreed to follow his directives in the first place.”
Most Christian thinkers have postulated the idea (borrowing a bit from Greek philosophy) that God is the “greatest possible being.” The idea is that God is simply the ultimate reality, the ultimate good, etc. He IS. The physical universe we live in is merely a creation of his, dependent on him in every possible way. Not only would that fact alone seem to create at least SOME obligation on out part (him being responsible for our very existence, and all), but if he is the ultimate good, and humans should always seek after goodness, it seems like he is the very thing that would give ultimate meaning to our existence and the thing after which we should seek. And since Christians believe this being has revealed himself in the Bible and in the incarnate person of Jesus Christ, we believe that he has shown how best to seek after him (even though we tend to interpret his revelation incorrectly a lot).
In other words, not only would you (if Christianity is true) have no right whatsoever to claim some kind of innocence or independence from God because you “didn’t agree” to follow his rules, but his rules wouldn’t be arbitrary either. They would be a reflection of THE good, the very fabric of the universe, and so it would literally be impossible to disobey his rules and somehow still be OK such that he wouldn’t need to put you in hell, because you’re literally going against the grain of reality, so to speak.
I don’t expect you to simply accept all of this without objection, of course, but what I’m trying to get you to see (and what Amy has been hinting at) is that Christianity is a coherent system of thought and beliefs that has been refined and expanded on for over 2,000 years and you need to take the system as a whole, not just parts of it that you can easily criticize in isolation. Right now I’m not at all concerned with trying to show you that Christianity is TRUE (I have no expectations of that happening any time soon), but merely showing you that Christianity is a COHERENT system that is not as absurd and evil as you seem to think it is.
The Miracle of Regeneration
August 19th, 2009 at 6:32 pmAha! The true Amy is revealed! Death to the rebels! 😛
Another great post! American culture has made being a “rebel” a virtue, mostly because our country was founded by “rebels.” Rebellion against the opressive group in power has become the defining narrative of most of pop culture (just think Star Wars).
On the flip side, though, there is a sense in which Christians are actually called to be rebels, in the sense that this present age is still under the dominion of sin and death and we are called to be salt and light in the darkness. Something like C. S. Lewis’s metaphor of Allied troops landing in enemy occupied territory.
We’re called to rebell against the rebels!
Christianity Is Vile to Atheists
August 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pmHow sadly true. Maybe I just don’t hang out with enough philosophers, but I honestly can’t remember ever having a debate with an atheist where we stuck to the arguments for God’s existence. It always degenerates into, “Well, that’s a nice argument and I don’t really have a response at the moment, but I just know that Christianity is false because your “god” did so many horrible/unjust things.” Obvioulsy we need to take those claims seriously and be able to defend God’s character, but I don’t see why we should always be forced into doing ALL the work! I don’t see why “God did bad things in the Old Testament” should totally negate the Cosmological or Ontological arguments!
Atheism Is Ugly
August 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pmBravo! Very well said (by both you and Lewis!)
The Over-Realized Eschatology of American Religion
July 16th, 2009 at 10:26 amThanks Gabriel!
Yes, that makes a lot of sense as well. After all, if social justice or environmentalist causes are the primary mission of the church, then there is a lot to DO. And whenever religion becomes primaryily about “doing” you will always end up with legalism.
George Lucas and the Inconsistency of Star Wars
July 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pmHow dare you question Star Wars! This entire post is rubbish!
Just kidding. This is actually a really good point. If I can attempt to salvage the consistency of Lucas’s world for a moment, perhaps he could say that you have to learn a special skill in order to keep yourself from merging completely with the Force at death, and even then it’s only temporary. I’m thinking of the very end of Episode III, where Yoda tells Obi-Wan that Qui-Gon has returned from the “nether world of the Force” to teach him the skill he will need to communicate with the living after death. If we were to ask why he would want to learn to do that, Lucas could say that he needs to temporarily so that he can help Luke and Leah succeed in defeating their father and the Emperor.
Now, there are still some holes. For example, if this is the reason, then why would Yoda or Anakin need to do this? After all, they don’t need to “stay behind” to help anyone.
Pre-Order God and Governing Today!
July 9th, 2009 at 11:54 pmCongrats, Roger! This looks like an exciting project.
Star Trek (2009)
June 11th, 2009 at 2:02 pmJohn,
Yeah, I agree with that mostly. Star Trek has always been about Humanism, I guess. So the journey of an unhuman character towards humanity is a recurring theme (it also happened on Voyager with the Doctor and then 7 of 9). But I think I would say that Kirk AND Spock are the main characters (just like Picard AND Data are basically the two main characters of TNG, and towards the end of VOY Janeway and 7 of 9 became the main characters).
Still, now that you’ve challenged me to think about it, I guess Star Trek has always been about Kirk helping Spock to change, and never the other way around. But in TNG, I think I can remember a few times where Picard or Geordi or someone told Data something to the effect that he helped them to better understand their own humanity (from the outside, so to speak). That’s all I want to see from Spock and Kirk in these movies. I’d like to see Kirk learn a little something about his own humanity from Spock. At the very least, I think they should do what the new Bond movies have done (i.e. take their time molding the younger, rougher character into the older, more suave character we all know and love). It has to take a little longer than just ONE movie for the reckless young cadet Kirk to become the infallible and unbeatable Captain of the Enterprise!
Star Trek (2009)
June 10th, 2009 at 8:37 pmHey John!
Yeah, I thought about that. I guess my problem mostly boils down to how they treated Spock’s character. After all, Old Spock tells his young self that he wanted him to see all that he and Kirk could accomplish together, but in the actual movie all that Spock does is tag along as Kirk’s little sidekick. Kirk could have taken Scotty with him and accomplished just as much (and it would have been funnier!). Now, I have to say, I’ve always liked Kirk better anyway, and in one sense Spock really just IS his little sidekick, but I think they need to show that Spock can actually benefit Kirk as well, instead of having things be so one-sided. If I had to explain their relationship in one sentence, I’d say that it was about Spock learning to embrace his humanity (which Kirk helps him to do). That’s just fine, but I hope that the second movie shows Kirk embracing a little of his “Vulcan” side.
Now, all that said, I still loved the movie and will watch it no less than 7 times when I get it on DVD, including all the special features and director’s commentary. It was probably the best overall movie in the whole Star Trek franchise. But like I said, I needed to find SOMETHING to criticize, haha.
Star Trek (2009)
June 6th, 2009 at 9:39 amjdivito,
That video is really funny. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those Trekkies who is upset that they changed the timeline and made the Enterprise look different, etc. I’m very happy with the fact that this movie was made for a wider audience, and like I said, I loved all the action and humor.
I guess the only reason I even felt this was worth blogging about is that: (a) Abrams has been talking about his fascination with the whole “faith and reason” thing for a long time now, so I was anticipating a lot more of that kind of interplay between Kirk and Spock then the movie actually gave, (b) but even more importantly, I seriously think they ran the risk of totally ruining the character of Kirk. Kirk is supposed to be the sort of person who “rushes in where angels fear to tread”, but he always does so with intelligence and purpose (usually because he has Spock helping him). When he stole the Enterprise (in Star Trek 3), you knew why he was doing it and you were rooting for him. When he “steals” the Enterprise in this movie, you start to get the feeling that he just wants to get everyone killed (or at least that he doesn’t care if everyone gets killed).
In any case, this post probably sounded much more critical of the movie than I actually am because it focused on the negative. I still think it was a great film, and I’m glad that it has been successful, because I’m really looking forward to sequels!
A Lesson from the Penn
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 amWhat I found particularly interesting (and perhaps convicting) was his point that he doesn’t respect people who think you might be going to hell and won’t tell you because it might be socially awkward. Obviously there’s some tension there with his belief that religion also causes bad stuff (so, for example, how far am I allowed to go in my evangelism? Because I care so much that practicing gays are not right with Christ, should I support prop 8? Is that a good thing? Penn probably wouldn’t think so). But still, I wish some of the “new” Atheists shared his sentiment and his willingness for dialog.