|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Thoughts on some subjects
|
(I) I do find it amazing how so called intelligent people view the beginning of our world and the universe. From (Genesis 1:1), we learn a very simple fact: Tha God created the universe. This explanation is as simple as it is profound. Not only is this so but it offers us the most rational explanation of all. Why? Because as humans who have been endowed with intelligence and rationality we “know” for example someone has built that every house we see. Further any rational thinker never challenges that presupposition to do so would invite the deserved ridicule of others
When one really thinks on this issue one can only conclude that the universe, which houses our earth as well as all other planets and galaxies, must support the same presupposition. Think for a moment with me, if we assign a builder to every house we see and we do so rightly then how is it that we immediately argue that the universe has no builder at all. Can we really not see the folly of this reasoning? Do we really not see that by assigning a builder to the lesser house that is NEVER QUESTIONED that to not assign a builder to the greater house is a complete abandonment of reasoning? Surely if the lesser admits of a builder then so must the greater for to argue that the lesser does but the greater does not is an abortion of all reason theoretical and practical.
(II) From the above another question is often raised. If this is indeed true then where did God come from? this gets us into the problem of infinite regress. We can play this game forever since we can go backwards into infinity. when we do this we will never get a logical answer. God is simply the beginner of all things including time. He is the unmoved mover who has always existed and from him all else originates in space and time.
Think of a soft drink bottle that too is an unmoved mover it exsists but never moves itself.It does however move us towards it when we get thirsty. thus the concept of the unmoved mover is real. again though it is the lesser one, god is the greater one thus if the lesser unmoved mover exists then so must a greater.
(III) It has also been alleged that the external world is simply
an illusion that has been created by our own sense organs.
Friedrich Nietzsche rightly observed that if this were correct
Then our own body that is part of the external world must also be an illusion created by our sense organs. How then are our sense organs contained in our bodies? Have our sense organs actually been created by our sense organs? Apart from being a petio principii this shows also the bad reasoning in the argument. We have this: “in the beginning our sense organs created our sense organs which created our bodies and the external world.” This goes on to ‘reductio ad absurdum.’ The only “Illusion” in this is the fact that man is thus said to have created himself thus the external world is not an illusion that is created by our sense organs.
Nietzsche further observes that causa sui is an absurd notion
(that is, cause of itself) a property possessed only by God. More properly, the uncaused first cause. So if man did not create himself, and there really is no God whence then came the world, the universe and man? A philosopher may answer: “it is improbable that you are not in error, but why should we insist on truth?” A truly dishonest and sceptical position and one that carries within it shoddy reasoning.
(IV) The universe is an effect and not a cause. Like a footprint in
the sand the inference being something or someone caused that footprint (the effect) just as something or someone caused the universe to come into existence. Here I will ask a question: is a shadow a cause or an effect? Now consider this, if there was no light, then how would we be able to assert that we can see a shadow? The light then is the cause of the shadow. The shadow then is caused by a solid object coming into the light thus the shadow is an effect. I cannot side with either Nietzsche or Hume who assume that we simply cannot infer cause and effect because it seems a natural thing to do based on observation over time. In other words they are saying that cause and effect is a natural assumption that we make OUT OF HABIT.
I believe that any inference deduced simply by habit alone is a very bad form of inference as is more likely to be false. One must draw any inference according to the warrant of the evidence it possesses and one cannot either fall short of that evidence or go beyond it. Habit is not necessarily evidence and is in danger of breaking the above law of logic. It appears as though both Hume and Nietzsche were in the “habit” of assuming that cause and effect came out of habit. This is indeed a self limiting and restrictive not to mention sceptical position to take. Nietzsche says of cause and effect: “they are pure concepts used as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and not for explanation. We alone invented causes.
We should not concretise cause and effect, we push and tug at the cause until it has an effect, NO LAW GOVERNS IT.”
Go back to the footprint in the sand, it is an effect, and effect is caused by something. That is an immutable law so regardless of Nietzsche’s assertion to the contrary, the law is plain every cause has an effect that precedes it. Hit your thumb with a hammer and then say that it “caused no pain.” If indeed there is no law of cause and effect no pain should ensue from hitting your thumb with that hammer. However, we know that the pain was caused initially by the hammer blow to the thumb.
That effect (pain) is immutable, try it yourself and see. No, cuse and effect are not simply concepts alone, your thumb I suspect will concretise the concepts indelibly on your brain via the painful thumb caused by that errant hammer blow.
The universe then is likewise an effect that has been caused. This fact alone draws with it another fact that is, that the universe does have a cause outside itself, and that cause is God the uncaused first cause. The creation of the universe further implies that the creator is intelligent and therefore that God is capable of sustaining a relationship with those He has created, His creatures.
Voltaire in his “Candide” rails against cause and effect but to no avail. He then goes on to say: “if this is the best of all worlds then why does evil abound in it?” What he forgets here is the fact that prior to the fall it was the case that this planet was the best of all worlds. It still is (try living on Mercury or Jupiter). Since the fall moral and physical decay began. It will however, end in a final conflagration at the second appearance of Christ.The second law of thermodynamics also points to the eventual destruction of the universe.
Voltaire (as well as Nietzsche and Hume) forget God yet want us to hold on to our free will and power of choice. Free will implies that we have the ability to obey or not obey the creator, the power of choice also implies that we can choose not to obey Him. They also blame God for the free will choices that mankind makes. We accept the good consequences that ensue from mankind, for example, the harnessing of electricity, the invention of modern technology, and the advances in medicine and suchlike. Yet God is never praised for this. But as soon as bad consequences ensue from mankind’s behaviour God is brought to the bar tried and executed in the hearts of men like these.
Others trying to dodge this argument go even further, they say that since God did give us free will then it is He who is responsible for all that is bad in the world. That too is a very bad argument we blame the parent for the child’s errors.
Do we do that when the child has had a good start and then goes out and murders someone for money? No, we place the blame on the decision and choice of the child. Thus in blaming God for Mankind’s bad behaviour these “philosophers are simply absolving themselves from any responsibility for their behaviour and distinct lack of intellectual honesty. These philosophers so called should fear wrong choices by all means but in doing so however, they should also reverence God.
(V) The “I” (mind) which makes me who I am can exist without the
Body or the brain, this is the concept of the non-local mind.
(Look in Luke 16:17-31). I also think that Descartes was right in this when he says: “The I, that is to say the mind by which I am what I am is entirely distinct from the body.” He is also correct when he says: “God is the perfect one eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, all loving and benevolent.” However, his “proofs” are not substantial since one can learn of God only by studying His word the Bible.Interestingly, however, the Bible does not set out to prove the existence of God it actually presupposes that we know that fact. Remember we have already said that every house presupposes a builder and that presupposition is never challenged since to do so would be silly. The Bible then presupposes the builder of all things. When people get honest with their reasoning they can then know that if they truthfully and prayerfully examine that ancient document they can certainly know that God is and that the mind is indeed non-local and thus it survives death.
(VI) “What is truth?” That was the question that Pilate asked the
Condemned Christ, Pilate, however, never stayed to hear the answer and how the world these 2.000 years since that event has embraced that heathen Roman’s lead. Sadder than this is the fact that the religious denominational world has done the same.
They have not believed the Holy Spirit sent by the resurrected and ascended Christ, the same Spirit that authored the Word of God.
“Your word IS TRUTH.” Thus spoke the Lord of His Father’s word. In the religious world therefore nothing else can be true except the inspired word. Further what Christ spoke is necessarily true if this not the case then Christ must be disqualified as the son of God.Think seriously about that statement the “so called religious worlds” disqualify themselves from Christ by not following (therefore not honouring) Christ’s word. They are then if they are false implying the disqualification of Christ as God’s son by saying (or tacitly approving) that God’s word is not complete or relevant for us today. Christ said it is correct on both counts thus either He or the denominations are in error. We cannot have a Son of God as a liar or who is ignorant of the real situation regarding God’s word. No wonder the world scoffs at mainstream religion they have nothing to offer us but their divisive credos and their ignorance of the truth of God’s Word.
03/05/08 10:25.
(VII) Now let us consider the question:what is man? He is the
Creature and that relationship too is immutable and eternal.
The relationship of mankind to God is one that flows from the lower to the higher, the creature to the creator that is the truth. Therefore the creature cannot alter the creator’s laws that are found within His word. “If you love Me then keep My commandments.” (John 14:15). Christ is the saviour of “them that obey him.” (Hebrews 5:9). There is only one name given among men whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12). That word is authored and confirmed by the eternal (Holy) Spirit.
(Hebrews 9:14,John 14:17, 16:13, II Timothy 3:16,II Peter 1:20-21).
(VIII) The question is often asked:if the brain dies with the body
How does the mind survive? Read (Luke 16:19-31) and realise that nothing is too hard for the Lord.At this point in time only He knows how the mind survives after death in the Hadean world, but it DOES SURVIVE. When one reads this account one is struck with the emphatic yet simple nature of the account.
Abraham asked the rich man to REMEMBER this is an act of the mind. Yet the “rich man died and was buried.” In Hades (the realm of the dead) the rich man “lifted up his eyes.” Thus he was CONSCIOUS OF HIS SURROUNDINGS and he was able to speak to Abraham as well. This man saw and remembered things about his earthly life before he died and was buried. This shows us that memories (stored in the brain are recalled after death). Surely to the discerning person this shows the omnipotence of God.
Look too at the transfiguration of Christ both Moses and Elijah appeared and spoke long after they had left this earthly realm thousands of years previously. They too were recognised by the disciples who were there just as the rich man recognised Abraham who had died a long time before he did. Yes the mind (psyche or psuche) does outlive the physical body and brain. Yet man’s wilful ignorance and unbelief, as well as his intellectual arrogance rails against this truth by calling it a myth.
(IX) It has been said that scripture has been given to men to save
Them from their own convoluted reasoning. I believe this to be true since man and his “Philosophy” speculative or otherwise, and especially his “Theology” have destroyed the unity of God’s Word within the minds of those who follow after these deluded “Sages.” They have produced utter chaos and scepticism especially so in our “Post-modern world.” These things plus the empty “theory of Evolution” are taking captive our children and grand children as well as all those who do not study so as to be able to present an apology to these Godless systems of mere men.
In (Philippians 1:27), we are admonished to “conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ, standing firm in ONE SPIRIT with ONE MIND striving together for THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL.” Christ Himself in His (almost) farewell prayer recorded in (John 17) pleads with His Father that His followers may “All be ONE so that the world may believe that God had sent Him.” (To redeem mankind).
We are still further admonished in (Colossians 2:8): “See to it that no-one takes us captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
From these and like admonitions we can see why scripture has been given to us. It is even given to the religious philosophers and theologians whose speculations have provided nothing but a great chasm between speculation and truth that we cannot go to them and they cannot pass over from thence to us.
Man’s so-called reasoning has destroyed the plainness of God’s Word by having forgotten the one guiding factor, which distinguishes human from Divine thought (as well as reasons and motives). “For My thoughts ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS, neither are My ways your ways declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Once we see and believe that this is so we can see how scripture can rescue us from our own (fallen) reason and thoughts. If we add to this the words of Jeremiah 10:23: “I know oh Lord that a man’s way is NOT IN HIMSELF; nor is it in a man who walks to direct his own steps.” And sadly mankind has walked a long way from God’s Word that contains His thoughts.
Jeremiah also gives Christians a warning about how they should see God in their minds. (Jeremiah 9:23-24) puts it this way for us: “Thus says the Lord, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not the rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, THAT HE UNDERSTANDS AND KNOWS ME, that I am the lord who exercises loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth, for I delight in these things, declares the lord.”
This provokes the question: how does the reasoning of man highlight this attitude when it has divided and disdained the scriptures which contain those very thoughts of God? They have made a liar out of God by setting up man made and man reasoned creeds to justify them, none of which honour Christ or the scriptures. Where does this honour the loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness of God on earth? How does it honour the truth of the scripture? Rather it manifestly proves that such men do not know or understand God since they are plainly boasting in their own perceived wisdom and might by trying to “improve what God has already established. They have been taken captive by human reasoning not knowing that they have sent God from their minds. They cannot be saved in this condition since they have become self directed and arrogant how sad this is.
Sadder still all those who follow them into futility not knowing the difference between will worship and true worship.
“God is a Spirit and those who worship Him MUST worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24).
Others have said regarding this issue that philosophy and theology are the conceptual expression of ideas that underlie essential religious experience. Yet again man is the author of his own salvation and since experience is subjective and personal, then anyone can be saved by his or her experience.
Others have connected the two by saying that they are a connection between Christian and Platonic thought. Again this is empirical, subjective and human based. God’s objective truth by again elevating man above God.
Both start from the assumption that there is somehow an affinity between the structure of the world and the human mind. It here attempts to make Christianity simply an extension of Platonic thought. Plato’s epistemology has somehow been retained in Christianity. Think with me for a moment on the implications of this it makes Plato at he very least the defacto founder of Christianity if not the founder itself. This then relegates Christ from being both Lord and founder of His own religion. If Christ merely used Plato’s epistemology then Platonism is raised up simply to be the intellectual side of Platonism. What an arrogant animal human reasoning becomes without Christ.
Bruno Baur (a German theologian), once said: “Christianity is a Graeco-Roman phenomenon in a Jewish mask.” Again God is discredited and man and his intellect are raised above the creator of intellect. In fact a lot of the discreditation of the truth of God’s Word has come from German theologians.
John smith in his “Excellency and nobleness of true religion.” Was nearer the mark when he stated: “A true Christian is more for a solid peace and a settled calm of spirit, than for high rapture and feelings of joy or extraordinary manifestations of joy in him.” This is a far more objective approach.
It seems; however, the Gospel of john provided the source of Cambridge Platonic theological thought. Here God is conceived of as a unity of love and knowledge. This of course is true He is omniscient and all loving. How this equates to Platonic thought, however, is a mystery. Plato was neither omniscient nor was he all loving. No human has these two traits to the Divine degree that is absolutely and fully. We have knowledge and love in a lesser degree both have been affected by the fall.
Smith again says: “Wherever true religion finds beauty, harmony, goodness, love, ingenuousness, wisdom, holiness, justice and the like, it is ready to say here and there is God. Wheresoever any such shine out, a holy mind climbs up by their sunbeams and raises itself up to God. God is not better defined to us by our understanding than by our wills and affections. He is not only the eternal reason but He is also that unstained beauty and supreme good to which our wills are perpetually aspiring. Heaven and hell are not things or places without, they are states [within] our own souls.” [ I do not agree with that statement since heaven and hell are real places outside ourselves attested to by Christ in His word].
Smith then continues “One [heaven consists of a true conjunction in a secret feeling of his goodness. The other [hell] from an evil spirit arising from the bottom of our souls. More desirable than to hear a voice from heaven giving assurance of salvation is to find a revelation of all from within rising up from the centre of a man’s soul in the real and internal impressions of a God-like nature upon its own. Therefore IT IS FROM NO EXTERNAL WITNESS BUT FROM THE NATURE OF THE SOUL AND ITS EXPERIENCES THAT WE CAN LEARN OF THE EXISTENCE, OPERATION, AND NATURE OF God.”
Here again, however, we can see God being relegated below the mind and soul of man, even heaven and hell are relegated to mere internal experiences rather than external realities.
Smith says, “THERE ARE NO EXTERNAL WITNESS. Yet has not God left external witness (es) around him? His creation, His Son, and his word? Surely there can be nothing but a resounding “yes” to these questions.
Now it is true that there are internal witnesses and I believe that our mind is one of them since we have the ability to reason and philosophise beyond any other created thing. However, this does not give man the right to enthrone his reason (which is derived from God) to a position above God. That was one of the traits that made Satan rebel he claimed a position above God.Whenever man does this he does not consider his reason to be God given but rather as a product from himself this engenders pride, arrogance, and unbelief.
Even if we were to grant that one cannot find God in the world I would suggest that it is because we have not attuned ourselves to Him through an honest study of His Word.The mere act of asserting that God does not exist does not necessarily negate an eternal creator those two things just do not follow.
Is it not an interesting thought that the whole visible universe whispers to us the idea of a Deity, a Divine creator?
“The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech; and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no (audible) speech nor are their words heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth and their utterance to the end of the world. In them he has placed a tent for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; it rejoices as a strong man to run his course. Its rising is from one end of the heavens and its circuit to the other end of them. And there is nothing hidden from its heat.” (Psalm 19:1-6).
I would say to this that we couldn’t understand these things without an internal interpreter but what is it by the aid of an internal interpreter might be discovered in the whisper of the external? In (Proverbs 20:27), we have an interesting statement which I believe forms part of the answer. It is also an internal witness and interpreter. That verse says this: “The Spirit of man is the candle [or lamp] of the lord.”
What then are we to make of this? First I would venture to say that this shows we as humans only have a derived light given to us by God.This candle of the lord is not ours it is borrowed light from God. This being so shows secondly, that the glory and Excellency of all created things [including man’s mind and reason] can be seen shining derivatively from borrowed beams of light, God’s candle. This then goes on to show thirdly those ideas of reason and obligation for example imply an actual [real and underived] reason or mind that transcends our own derived ones. From that we can say fourthly that it cannot be worthwhile living in a world that has neither God nor His providence. Yet man has succeeded in making life that brutish for most of this planets inhabitants. Men have done this with their own enthroned gods of evolution, eugenics, science and philosophy so-called. Forgetting that he has only the candle [and that belongs to God]. Thus he denies that the candle has a source GOD HIMSELF.
04/05/2008 14:10.
(X) Man is free not because he has the power of mere choive alone this is merely one condition of freedom.He is
also determined in the sense that he can determine himself by his idea of good. Thus he is freer according to the good he identifies himself with, and the fullness of his knowledge of that good.
Now good can only be mixed with the will of God, which is all- good, thus God is completely free. This thought then naturally
Naturally leads to the Deity of Christ for He went about doing good. Thus Christ too was completely free.
We must not however, think that because Christ forgave sins and practised good works and life, that He overlooked sin. In every case when forgiving sin there was a rider attached to it that rider was “sin no more,” or more correctly, “do not do that again.” You see Christ was freeing people to live another way a “good way.”
From this we can see that man is set free. Again, however, it is us who must determine if we really want that freedom this is our free will and we alone exercise it in regard to God and His commandments. (Romans 12:2) tells us how we can exercise the freedom of will we have.”Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is GOOD, ACCEPTABLE AND PERFECT.”
Here we are being told not to conform to the fleeting external fashions and philosophies of the age we live in, but rather to have a metamorphosis a change from the inside out. That is why man was given the power to reason. Reasoning takes place in the mind thus to renew our mind in the sense we are talking about we must change our reasoning. The reasoning here is the wanting to do good since as we realise our potential to do good the freer we become. This process is; however, a life long process and the day we die a Christians we are at last completely free.
It follows then from what we have said that the wellspring of freedom IS OUR MIND EMPLOYED IN CORRECT REASONING. This point is I believe underscored in the book of Proverbs.
(Proverbs 4:23) “WATCH OVER YOUR HEART [MIND] WITH ALL DILLIGENCE, FOR FROM IT FLOW [ISSUE] THE SPRINGS OF [YOUR] LIFE.”
This is saying to us that that no person who reasons incorrectly is a person who is completely free. Think with me for a moment, a person is free to deny God but once he does he is immediately imprisoned within his own will, his own ego. This one is not diligently watching over his mind and reasoning faculties, this leads to an impotency of true understanding and the true use of the mind as God designed it.
Nothing in the world simply floats free without a governor. We have laws of gravity, thermodynamics, physics, chemistry and suchlike. Knowing that this is true it would seem fallacious to then assert that there is no God. It is more prudent to believe that since there are such laws there is also a governor or head over these laws. This governor is God He presides over all things. Further He is omnipotent, omniscient, good, just and benevolent. There is something in His own nature immutably and eternally just and good; He is not arbitrary in His dealings with man. Yes we are free to choose but once we do we are then accountable to that governor for our choices.
Now let’s turn to another point, the point of creation and creators. What is true of artificial things (that they need a creator) is more obviously true of organic creatures including man. This also tells us that man has been endowed with the ability to create thus in this sense he is made like God who is the creator of all things.
Consider also that it is only by a creative act of mind that the parts can be seen in their organic unity. If we see the world only through our senses [empirically] then the world is pluralistic. There can be no knowledge of individual objects of every kind except on the assumption of an underlying intelligence. When therefore we see the visible universe we can only assume that an intelligent being created it.
What I find remarkable about this concept is that the Bible (the inspired word of God) assumes this very fact. Nowhere does the Bible set out to prove the existence of God it presupposes the fact that He does exist and goes from that presupposition.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
(Genesis 1:1). This verse very plainly assumes an underlying intelligence that created; His existence is not questioned. Further no reasonable person CAN QUESTION IT.
Why do I say this? Simply because when we read the statement:
“Every house has been built by someone.” We NEVER QUESTION IT.
Why? Because to do so is unreasonable. In fact it is down right stupid. Every child knows that when you see a house then someone built it.
Now think with me for a moment we do not question the statement because it has the same presupposition as Genesis 1:1. That is that an intelligent creator created [or built] the universe which houses our home the planet Earth. We never question the assumption that every house built has been built by the creativity of the creator of that house. The fact that the house had a builder is never questioned at all.
Do we realise then that to question the assumption of the builder or creator of the universe is to in fact affirm a contradiction? If one affirms a contradiction then any and all propositions are allowable. How do we know this? Well if the law of non-contradiction is dismissed then anything goes and logic fails in its very laws of thought. Now let us explain what is meant here. If we grant that someone builds every house then we also grant that the assumption of a builder or creator is indeed true.
Every house exists as an effect of an intelligent being’s creativity. So with the universe and man himself. Now the question becomes this. Where is the logical consistency in affirming one [the house] and not the other [the universe]? The law of non-contradiction denies this type of reasoning. For if the lesser [the house] assumes the knowledge of a builder without question then how can the greater [the universe and mankind] not assume the existence of an intelligent creator?
This is a non sequitur, which means that it does not follow.
Also consider this: If an artificial toy bear (the lesser) has to be made by an intelligent designer what then of (the greater) the real organic bear? If an artificial bear assumes a designer [and it does] who then designed the real organic bear? To deny that the true organic bear does not have a designer yet the artificial toy bear does completely dethrones reason. In the same way then to affirm only that the house has an intelligent builder but the universe does not is also to completely dethrone reason. Yet it is now thought to be “intelligent” to teach and believe such illogical reasoning. This I think is one of the greatest non-sequiturs foisted upon intelligent people it is in fact a plain insult to a reasonable person’s intelligence in the first place.
Another thing foisted upon us is this, that the idea of God is simply incomprehensible. The argument proceeds like this.
The idea of God is incomprehensible.
What is incomprehensible is inconceivable
What is inconceivable is as good as nothing.
Since God is incomprehensible then
GOD IS AS GOOD AS NOTHING.
This argument is a variation of Hume’s fork, which says that
(In the form of a dilemma)
“Either actions are determined, in which case
We are not responsible for them. Or they are
A result of random events, in which case we
Are also not responsible for them.
The question I have for such “reasoning” is this, is incomprehensible really synonymous with inconceivable?
Surely truth is bigger than our finite minds. Whatever is in its own nature inconceivable in the absolute sense is indeed nothing. However, this is not the case with something that is fully comprehensible by our imperfect understanding.
As an example think of eternity or infinity. We being finite and governed by time do not have a full comprehension or adequate understanding of those two terms. Yet it is no way inconceivable. We cannot be without some idea, conception, or apprehension of it. So long as it can be shown that it belongs to something, even if it is nothing only than a perfect, immutable, and eternal nature God.
It may be hard for an arrogant person to admit that there really is an intelligent being who is far superior in every way to man. To that person God may seem incomprehensible. But that alone does not make it inconceivable or as good as nothing.
This seems more especially true when that person tells you that all that now exists came from nothing. Now that really is both incomprehensible and inconceivable it is also unintelligent in the extreme sense of the word.
05/05/08 10:21.
(XI) Whenever we have a law two assumptions follow from it. (1)
That there is a lawmaker, (2) that there is an obligation to observe that law. That obligation to obey is older than all laws and thus is antecedent to them. I say this because before the law is written down the assumption that it will be obeyed already exists. Therefore in all laws it is not simply will that induce obedience rather it is the nature of good and evil, and that which is just and unjust in the world.
When we consider Almighty God in this area we can know that the will of god is always free but it is not always indifferent. God’s will is like this because it has the greatest perfection to be determined by his infinite wisdom and goodness. Now our human reason tends to follow the nature of things with which it agrees or disagrees with what it thinks is true or false. What we tend to forget, however, is that this never releases us from the obligation to obey the law of God. Whether we agree with it or not is in fact irrelevant.
God is all being and that makes all mankind derivative beings. When one truly thinks about it one finds that mankind must be made in the image of something, and we are, in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). That image is not the outward physical image; rather it is the inner image of soul and spirit.
Rational evidence rests on the law of non-contradiction and God has given us His law thus if there were to be any contradiction within His word we can dismiss it and do whatever we want to since then there would be no higher law than our own.
We have revelation but revelation depends on our sense (or empirical) knowledge and therefore shares in its defects. This is true of man’s revelations we see it all the time in the charismatic churches, however, it is not true of God'’ revelations. God’s revelations (in His Word) do not have defects and because of this it is therefore non-contradictory
To other truths.
It is true that no philosophy can show the immortality of the soul and this is where our human philosophy is inadequate yet how many philosophers would admit to this? But a philosophy that denies the immortality of the soul is at variance with our ideas of moral reasonableness in the world. So much so in fact that in the end it must ultimately lead to outright scepticism about morality itself.
The argument would then look like this:
If there is no immortal soul then there is no God.
If there is no God then there is no law.
If there is no law then there is no danger.
If there is no danger then everything is permissible.
This is how man tries to get rid of God and His law however, as we said above this type of reasoning never releases us from the obligation to obey God’s law. We are derivative beings and as such the saying is true
In Him we live, breathe and have our being (Acts 17:25).
This same God commands everyone everywhere to repent and turn to Him and follow his law. (Acts 17:30).
(XII) There has been considerable debate in and out of the church
Concerning the subject of social drinking. Now at the outset I will say that I am not talking about the medicinal use of alcohol as in cough medicines and the like. I am speaking only on the practice of drinking alcohol in a social setting e.g., in hotels after work or parties and the like.
The answer to the issue can I believe be found in scriptural context itself. It seems a fair assumption to make when we see wine (a synecdoche for all alcohol) being associated with a negative consequence we can fairly say that it is referring to alcoholic beverages. On the other hand when it is associated with non-negative consequences it is not. Thus context will define its association.
“Who has woe and sorrow, contentions and complaining
Who has wounds without cause and redness of the eyes?
Those who linger long over wine and go to taste mixed wine.
Do not look at wine when it is red and sparkles in the cup.”
(Proverbs 23:29-31).
It would be a very naïve person who would conclude that this is not speaking of drinking alcoholic beverages. Further the injunction “do not even look at it,” must absolutely prohibit the actual drinking of alcohol. If it doesn’t then the injunction is meaningless.
Some even dare to charge Christ with the act of producing alcoholic wine when He performed the miracle in Cana. How they can do this I can only but wonder at it. Think with me for a moment, would not He who framed the injunction “do not look.” Then ignore it by making an alcoholic beverage and sanctioning the drinking of it at a wedding party He was at?
Would He who put the words into the mouth of His prophet Habakkuk 2:15. “Woe to you who make your neighbours drink
When you mix VENOM even to make them drunk.”
Then go on to make the very venom He condemns? Habakkuk then goes on to0 say this: “you will be filled with disgrace rather than honour.” How then could Christ then be filled with honour if He produced a disgraceful miracle? Are not the two aspects mutually exclusive? If indeed He did do this then clearly He is not the Son of God.
I think we can legitimately assume that when Christ turned the water into wine at Cana in Galilee (John 2:1 ff.). That that wine was non alcoholic since this accords with Proverbs, Habakkuk, and every other scripture that forbids its consumption.
There is another aspect in this debate and that is that the special property of a new product is in the whole of that new thing, thus it is therefore in every part of that new thing. This means then that every new thing contains special properties of its own. It is therefore the property or properties that makes something good or evil. This is a scriptural concept since we are to “abstain from EVERY APPEARANCE OF EVIL.” (Thessalonians 5:22). Now while the context here refers to idolatry, the concept covers all other evil practices.
What then is the property we find inherent in alcohol? I suggest to you that it is the property of INTOXICATION. Think with me here, alcohol is not found in the original grain that produced it, but once the new property of alcohol is produced in that grain the property of intoxication is as much in one drop as is in a whole bottle or bottles. This is why the injunction to not even look at alcohol, abstain from it. The question then becomes how much of it are we to abstain from?
Scripture is very clear in its implication; we are to abstain from all of it. Why? Because not only does scripture forbid it, but also the property of intoxication is inherent in every drop. Thus we can conclude that the social drinking of alcohol as well as the private drinking of it is prohibited by divine decree, whether it be one glass or 20 bottles.
(XIII) What about faith? Faith alone is dead says James in (2:17).
Until faith is strengthened by understanding little progress can be made. Knowledge without application is rather like medicine that is not taken. This highlights the truth of James’ statement that faith without works is indeed dead. So then in order to have a living working faith we must understand what faith is. That understanding I suggest can only be attained when we gain knowledge. This is why we are urged to study the scriptures. Knowledge to by itself is dead we must apply the knowledge we have gained and we must turn knowledge into wisdom.
For example we may know we have to eat in order not to starve to death, but unless we apply that knowledge and be wise enough to actually eat we will indeed starve to death. Application then is putting knowledge to work through the understanding of what faith is. Thus we strengthen our original faith through action.
It is not enough for example to say or to believe that a widow in the church needs help we must also understand how she ought to be helped, and when we know that we apply it by giving her the help she needs. This then strengthens the original belief that help was indeed needed, then the appropriate works were rendered out of that conviction.
The same is true of salvation. When we come to the belief that we need salvation from our sins it is then that we must have faith in the saviour. Until understanding what the saviour requires of us so He can grant us salvation strengthens that faith we do not have it. The understanding can only be obtained by having knowledge of the Word of God, which must be studied. Once we have acquired the relevant knowledge we must then apply it in order to be saved.
Further we must apply the full knowledge to its full extent. If we do not, then we cannot be saved either. What do I mean by this? There is in scripture 6 absolute requirements to qualify one for salvation. (1) We must hear the true word of god. (2) We must fully believe that word. (3) We must truly repent of all of our sins. (4) We must confess before men that we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (5) We must be fully immersed in water [baptised] for the remission of those sins. (6) We must remain faithful to Christ until we die. If we follow these steps and continue to study the word of God we are guaranteed salvation by the saviour.
This if you will is the prescription for salvation and the healing of the soul. The whole of it must therefore be applied or it is of no effect. If then we apply all except baptism it is clear that we cannot be saved. If we apply baptism and leave out repentance, again we cannot be saved. We cannot, in short, be 5/6ths saved, any more than we can be 1/6th saved. We are either 6/6ths or fully saved or we are not saved at all. This shows us that we must apply the full knowledge (or all the warranted evidence) in order to reap the stated benefit (salvation).
This is what is meant when it is said that knowledge without application is like medicine that is prescribed but not taken, or that faith without works is dead being alone. This is how Biblical knowledge strengthens faith by understanding. It also shows us that full Biblical knowledge (in this case of the plan of salvation) must be fully applied in all cases, at all times, in all areas, by all people, for all time.
(XIV) Marriage Divorce and Remarriage. This is another subject that
Produces a great amount of argument within the church. The scriptures however seem very clear on this subject. As usual it is man that appears to complicate what is simple. There are certain terms that are explicit in nature, which cover the subject.
(Matthew 19:9 and 5:32) cover those terms. They are, however, differing in their descriptions. (5:32) Deals with a husband who divorces his wife when she has not been sexually unfaithful. It is saying that in such a case the husband is culpable if his former wife marries again. (He makes her commit adultery). The husband’s re-marriage is not under consideration at that point. (19:9) Deals with a husband who has divorced a wife when she has not been sexually unfaithful and he re-marries, he is then said to be committing adultery in that re-marriage. Thus the structure of Matthew 19:9 looks like this.
A marriage that has been entered into
AFTER THE DIVORCE OF A FORMER SPOUSE
WHO HAS BEEN GUILTY OF SEXUAL UNFAITHFULNESS
To a scripturally eligible partner
DOES NOT COMMIT ADULTERY IN THAT RE-MARRIAGE.
From this we see that there must be two essential qualities that must be present, and they are, (1) The former spouse must have been divorced for sexual unfaithfulness and (2) The eligibility of the new spouse must be scripturally defined. These say Christ are the minimum requirements. There appear to be no other requirements either explicit or implicit in Matthew 19:9.
If this is the case then we can go on to state exactly what can be affirmed about every individual in the class of people who are in a scriptural re-marriage. What can be affirmed is this.
Every individual who has divorced a former spouse
On the grounds of sexual unfaithfulness
And has then married a scripturally eligible partner
DOES NOT COMMIT ADULTERY IN THAT RE-MARRIAGE.
Further we can also affirm that the terms are general in nature and that they are used distributively, thus it is not a collective term. This is because it applies to every individual in the class of scripturally re-married people. A collective term applies to the class but not to every individual in that class.
Thus if we use a term distributively in one premise of an argument and then collectively in the other premise we end up with a fallacious conclusion, which is of course an invalid one. An argument like this appears to be valid because the term seems to be used in the same way in both premises. The reality is, however, that the argument is unsound because of the way the terms are used differently. A general term is ALWAYS used distributively and can always be predicated affirmatively of each of the members to which it applies. A collective term cannot be used in this way.
For example in the following argument,
All the people of the country are suffering from the famine.
You are one of the people from the country.
Therefor you are suffering from the famine.
The term “people of the country” appears in both premises, but in the first it is used collectively and in the second it is used distributively and thus the conclusion does not follow.
Further we cannot know whether a term is general (distributive) or collective until we know the proposition in which it occurs. This highlights the problem of extraneous terms such as (in the divorce and re-marriage debate) “innocent party.” Some use it as a general term implying that every individual instigating a divorce for a spouse’s sexual unfaithfulness must be innocent of sexual unfaithfulness themselves. Others use it collectively by implying that if a spouse commits sexual unfaithfulness and is then forgiven by the other spouse and they continue the marriage, then the unfaithful one becomes “innocent.’
Then if the other spouse commits sexual unfaithfulness later and refuses to repent of it, the previously forgiven “innocent” party can then divorce that spouse and re-marry scripturally.
The innocent party here is deemed innocent by virtue of the previous reconciliation and not because they were previously immoral. In this case the term “innocent” is clearly a collective term not a general one since it cannot be affirmed that every re-married person individually fits this case.
However, “innocent’ is used collectively, and “reconcile” is used distributively in these cases. What actually gives us the scriptural warrant to use the terms in this way? This highlights our problem, for not only is there no scriptural warrant for the use of these terms, and because there is no warrant some seem to think that therefore these terms can be used whatever way we want to use them, either collectively or distributively. In other words we can then formulate any proposition and then manipulate the terms to suit. Where in scripture do we get authority to do this?
Christ does not explicitly or implicitly use such terms in Matthew 19:9 at any stage. Therefore where do we get the warrant to apply them? If Christ did use these terms then I suspect that He would have used them distributively thus making it explicit that all individuals who re-marry when they have divorced a spouse for sexual unfaithfulness must necessarily be innocent of that sin themselves thus removing all doubt. It is just this doubt over the issue that shows Christ did not state or imply it.
Many state that the “innocent party” term is in fact a suppressed premise in Matthew 19:9. Is this the case? I do not think so because when you look at the explicit statement you do not get that sense. The proposition stated is this.
“Whoever divorces his wife
EXCEPT ON THE GROUND OF SEXUAL UNFAITHFULNESS
AND THEN MARRIES ANOTHER WOMAN
THAT ONE COMMITS ADULTERY.”
When you look at this proposition where within it can you glean that one must be totally innocent of that sin? Now I will agree that each case of divorce must be investigated to ascertain the facts in each case and every case is different. However, I am confining the enquiry to that of the supposed suppressed premise in Matthew 19:9.
When dealing with implicit, assumed, or suppressed premises the first thing we are to notice is that there is a trade-off the strength of an argument and the premises it assumes. Because of this we can see that a strong argument has a small gap between its stated or explicit premises and its conclusion. Since this is the case we find that the gap can be spanned by a fairly innocuous or simple implicit, assumed or suppressed premise. (These three terms mean the same thing). This simple innocuous premise will be easy to defend.
On the other hand a weak argument has a bigger gap to span so the gap must be filled by a substantial implicit premise and would therefore be harder to defend. A thoroughly weak argument in turn would be filled by an implicit premise so strong that it could well be false and thus could not logically be defended, even if it were true it could commit us to defending so much that it could subtract from a valid argument.
I am arguing that in the marriage-divorce-re-marriage argument the so-called suppressed premise of “Total innocence” does exactly these things.
Therefore the very first thing we need to do is to measure the gap between the stated (explicit) premises and the conclusion before we assume any implicit premise. Next we must ascertain whether or not that implicit premise is necessary to close the gap. So the very first question we need to ask is this. Is how strong is Christ’s argument in Matthew 19:9? Remembering always that the stronger His argument is the weaker the implicit premise needs to be if indeed we actually need one.
Our first rule then in identifying an assumed, implicit, or suppressed premise is this.
The implicit premise should only be strong enough
To close the gap between the explicit (stated)
Premises and the conclusion to the argument.
Two other rules then follow. (1) The implicit premise must not commit us to more than is necessary. (2) The implicit premise must be informative. When all of this has been done we must be careful to ensure that the implicit premise when added in no way affects the soundness of the argument. To do this we must ask ourselves this question. “Assuming that both the explicit and implicit are true is it possible for the conclusion to be false?”
There also has to be a corollary to these things. The implicit premise must be a suitable general one applying to a whole class of people and never a particular one applying to one individual person.
For example in the argument x has grey hair there fore x is a professor. We must add the implicit premise all professors have grey hair. Which is general, and not the particular premise if x is a professor then x must have grey hair, which is clearly invalid.
When this is applied to the argument in Matthew 19:9 x has re-married without sin therefore x has divorced a spouse for sexual unfaithfulness. You must then add the suppressed premise
All, who divorce a spouse for sexual unfaithfulness and re-marry, re-marry without sin. That is the implicit premise in Matthew 19:9 and it follows from the above criteria
Another aspect to consider is this. If anything that could possibly be false in the implicit premise must be added to the explicit premises to guarantee the conclusion then clearly it is invalid.
Thus by adding the “innocent party” premise breaks these rules. Further it adds a second exception to the only one that Christ allowed. Also by adding the so-called implicit premise of “total innocence” that is assumed to be what Christ is arguing it commits the fallacy of petitio principii or arguing in a circle by assuming to be true what in fact needs to be proven to be true.
Finally we need to ask ourselves this. Is Christ’s argument in Matthew 19:9 so weak that it needs such a powerful implicit premise to allow it to make sense? What do you think.
(I) I do find it amazing how so called intelligent people view the beginnin of our world and the univers. From (Genesis 1:1), e learn a very simple act: Tht God created the universe. This explanation is as simple as it is profound. Not only is his so but t offers s the most rational explanation of all. Why? Because as humans who have been endowed with intelligence and rationality we “know” for example someone has built that every house we see. Further any rationa thinker never challenges that presupposition to do so would invite the deserved ridicule of others
When one really thinks on this issue one can only conclude that the universe, which houses our earth as well as all other planets and galaxies, must support the same presupposition. Think for a moment with me, if we assign a builder to every house we see and we do so rightly then how is it that we immediately argue that the universe has no builder at all. Can we really not see the folly of this reasoning? Do we really not see that by assigning a builder to the lesser house that is NEVER QUESTIONED that to not assign a builder to the greater house is a complete abandonment of reasoning? Surely if the lesser admits of a builder then so must the greater for to argue that the lesser does but the greater does not is an abortion of all reason theoretical and practical.
(II) From the above another question is often raised. If the above
is indeed true, then where did God come from? This gets us
Into the problem of infinite regress. We can play this game
Forever since we can go backwards into infinity. When we do
This we will never get a logical answer. God is simply the
Beginner of all things including time. He is the unmoved
Mover who simply was and from Him all else originates in time
And space. Think of a bottle of soft drink on a hot day. The
Soft drink bottle here is the unmoved mover it exists but never
Moves itself. It does, however move us toward it when we are
Thirsty. Thus we see that an unmoved mover can and does exist.
Again we have the lesser that implies a greater.
(III) It has also been alleged that the external world is simply
an illusion that has been created by our own sense organs.
Friedrich Nietzsche rightly observed that if this were correct
Then our own body that is part of the external world must also be an illusion created by our sense organs. How then are our sense organs contained in our bodies? Have our sense organs actually been created by our sense organs? Apart from being a petio principii this shows also the bad reasoning in the argument. We have this: “in the beginning our sense organs created our sense organs which created our bodies and the external world.” This goes on to ‘reductio ad absurdum.’ The only “Illusion” in this is the fact that man is thus said to have created himself thus the external world is not an illusion that is created by our sense organs.
Nietzsche further observes that causa sui is an absurd notion
(that is, cause of itself) a property possessed only by God. More properly, the uncaused first cause. So if man did not create himself, and there really is no God whence then came the world, the universe and man? A philosopher may answer: “it is improbable that you are not in error, but why should we insist on truth?” A truly dishonest and sceptical position and one that carries within it shoddy reasoning.
(IV) The universe is an effect and not a cause. Like a footprint in
the sand the inference being something or someone caused that footprint (the effect) just as something or someone caused the universe to come into existence. Here I will ask a question: is a shadow a cause or an effect? Now consider this, if there was no light, then how would we be able to assert that we can see a shadow? The light then is the cause of the shadow. The shadow then is caused by a solid object coming into the light thus the shadow is an effect. I cannot side with either Nietzsche or Hume who assume that we simply cannot infer cause and effect because it seems a natural thing to do based on observation over time. In other words they are saying that cause and effect is a natural assumption that we make OUT OF HABIT.
I believe that any inference deduced simply by habit alone is a very bad form of inference as is more likely to be false. One must draw any inference according to the warrant of the evidence it possesses and one cannot either fall short of that evidence or go beyond it. Habit is not necessarily evidence and is in danger of breaking the above law of logic. It appears as though both Hume and Nietzsche were in the “habit” of assuming that cause and effect came out of habit. This is indeed a self limiting and restrictive not to mention sceptical position to take. Nietzsche says of cause and effect: “they are pure concepts used as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and not for explanation. We alone invented causes.
We should not concretise cause and effect, we push and tug at the cause until it has an effect, NO LAW GOVERNS IT.”
Go back to the footprint in the sand, it is an effect, and effect is caused by something. That is an immutable law so regardless of Nietzsche’s assertion to the contrary, the law is plain every cause has an effect that precedes it. Hit your thumb with a hammer and then say that it “caused no pain.” If indeed there is no law of cause and effect no pain should ensue from hitting your thumb with that hammer. However, we know that the pain was caused initially by the hammer blow to the thumb.
That effect (pain) is immutable, try it yourself and see. No, cuse and effect are not simply concepts alone, your thumb I suspect will concretise the concepts indelibly on your brain via the painful thumb caused by that errant hammer blow.
The universe then is likewise an effect that has been caused. This fact alone draws with it another fact that is, that the universe does have a cause outside itself, and that cause is God the uncaused first cause. The creation of the universe further implies that the creator is intelligent and therefore that God is capable of sustaining a relationship with those He has created, His creatures.
Voltaire in his “Candide” rails against cause and effect but to no avail. He then goes on to say: “if this is the best of all worlds then why does evil abound in it?” What he forgets here is the fact that prior to the fall it was the case that this planet was the best of all worlds. It still is (try living on Mercury or Jupiter). Since the fall moral and physical decay began. It will however, end in a final conflagration at the second appearance of Christ.The second law of thermodynamics also points to the eventual destruction of the universe.
Voltaire (as well as Nietzsche and Hume) forget God yet want us to hold on to our free will and power of choice. Free will implies that we have the ability to obey or not obey the creator, the power of choice also implies that we can choose not to obey Him. They also blame God for the free will choices that mankind makes. We accept the good consequences that ensue from mankind, for example, the harnessing of electricity, the invention of modern technology, and the advances in medicine and suchlike. Yet God is never praised for this. But as soon as bad consequences ensue from mankind’s behaviour God is brought to the bar tried and executed in the hearts of men like these.
Others trying to dodge this argument go even further, they say that since God did give us free will then it is He who is responsible for all that is bad in the world. That too is a very bad argument we blame the parent for the child’s errors.
Do we do that when the child has had a good start and then goes out and murders someone for money? No, we place the blame on the decision and choice of the child. Thus in blaming God for Mankind’s bad behaviour these “philosophers are simply absolving themselves from any responsibility for their behaviour and distinct lack of intellectual honesty. These philosophers so called should fear wrong choices by all means but in doing so however, they should also reverence God.
(V) The “I” (mind) which makes me who I am can exist without the
Body or the brain, this is the concept of the non-local mind.
(Look in Luke 16:17-31). I also think that Descartes was right in this when he says: “The I, that is to say the mind by which I am what I am is entirely distinct from the body.” He is also correct when he says: “God is the perfect one eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, all loving and benevolent.” However, his “proofs” are not substantial since one can learn of God only by studying His word the Bible.Interestingly, however, the Bible does not set out to prove the existence of God it actually presupposes that we know that fact. Remember we have already said that every house presupposes a builder and that presupposition is never challenged since to do so would be silly. The Bible then presupposes the builder of all things. When people get honest with their reasoning they can then know that if they truthfully and prayerfully examine that ancient document they can certainly know that God is and that the mind is indeed non-local and thus it survives death.
(VI) “What is truth?” That was the question that Pilate asked the
Condemned Christ, Pilate, however, never stayed to hear the answer and how the world these 2.000 years since that event has embraced that heathen Roman’s lead. Sadder than this is the fact that the religious denominational world has done the same.
They have not believed the Holy Spirit sent by the resurrected and ascended Christ, the same Spirit that authored the Word of God.
“Your word IS TRUTH.” Thus spoke the Lord of His Father’s word. In the religious world therefore nothing else can be true except the inspired word. Further what Christ spoke is necessarily true if this not the case then Christ must be disqualified as the son of God.Think seriously about that statement the “so called religious worlds” disqualify themselves from Christ by not following (therefore not honouring) Christ’s word. They are then if they are false implying the disqualification of Christ as God’s son by saying (or tacitly approving) that God’s word is not complete or relevant for us today. Christ said it is correct on both counts thus either He or the denominations are in error. We cannot have a Son of God as a liar or who is ignorant of the real situation regarding God’s word. No wonder the world scoffs at mainstream religion they have nothing to offer us but their divisive credos and their ignorance of the truth of God’s Word.
03/05/08 10:25.
(VII) Now let us consider the question:what is man? He is the
Creature and that relationship too is immutable and eternal.
The relationship of mankind to God is one that flows from the lower to the higher, the creature to the creator that is the truth. Therefore the creature cannot alter the creator’s laws that are found within His word. “If you love Me then keep My commandments.” (John 14:15). Christ is the saviour of “them that obey him.” (Hebrews 5:9). There is only one name given among men whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12). That word is authored and confirmed by the eternal (Holy) Spirit.
(Hebrews 9:14,John 14:17, 16:13, II Timothy 3:16,II Peter 1:20-21).
(VIII) The question is often asked:if the brain dies with the body
How does the mind survive? Read (Luke 16:19-31) and realise that nothing is too hard for the Lord.At this point in time only He knows how the mind survives after death in the Hadean world, but it DOES SURVIVE. When one reads this account one is struck with the emphatic yet simple nature of the account.
Abraham asked the rich man to REMEMBER this is an act of the mind. Yet the “rich man died and was buried.” In Hades (the realm of the dead) the rich man “lifted up h
 |
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
|
|
