Posts Tagged ‘Theism’

The Wednesday Word: An Important Two Letter Word

I want to talk about a very weighty little word, though, if taken by itself, it has scarcely any significance. It’s the word ‘No’.

Let us look briefly at a few of the times this little word is used in Scripture.

First, let me draw your attention to the book of Psalms where we read, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” (Psalm 53:1). The words “there is” are in italics. That means they are not in the text but have been provided by the translators. The verse simply then reads, “The fool, has said in his heart, no God.”

NO God! That’s the language of the fool!

But the God whom the fool says does not exist knows the fool’s heart. Nothing is hidden from Him. To say “No God” is something akin to madness yet there are many clever, well educated people who are, by this standard, fools.

It’s foolish that people should want to get rid of the God who seeks and saves us for His own glory.

To say, “No God,” is to shut Him out.

To say, “No God,” is to love death.

But perhaps you are not so foolish as to say, “No God.” Perhaps you acknowledge Him. You attend church meetings, you are upright and respected. However, your own righteousness cannot be the ground of your hope for the future.

To explain this, let me introduce you to another “no.” “There is none righteous, no not one.” God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel (Romans 1:18), and He will have none of ours. We must submit to His. But where will we find this righteousness? The answer is, in Christ alone.

The only truly righteous people before God are those who have trusted Christ. He says, ” I, even I, am the Lord: and beside me there is no saviour ” (Isaiah 43:11) … there’s that word again …’NO’. It’s frightening to think of how many people are trusting in something other than Christ!

How many are adding a little to Christ? However, what could be plainer? There is “no.” saviour but Christ. Think of it; God says, “Beside me there is no saviour. That means works cannot save. That means our contributions to salvation are non-existent.

Why is there no saviour but Jesus? It’s because, to put away our sins, the Saviour had to die (see 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:18-22).

That is why He gave Himself a ransom ” (1 Timothy 2:6).

That’s why He laid down His life (1 John 3:16).

That’s why His precious blood was shed (1 Peter 1:18-19).

He was the only one qualified to die as our substitute. And now He lives again, the risen and exalted Christ on the throne of God. This is He who is declared to be a Prince and a Saviour (Acts 5:31). There is no Saviour beside Him, and no remission of sins but through His precious blood.

But it is not enough to know that He is the Saviour, or that His blood was shed, we must believe on Him. We must rely, trust cling to and rest on Him. Whosoever believes (trusts, clings) on Him is saved (Acts 10:43; Romans 4:25).

The entire judgment of God fell upon Christ … and what is the result? The result is that there is now therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Christ Himself has taken our place on the cross and borne our judgment once and for all.

What an important word is this little word ‘NO.’

“There’s not a Friend like the lowly Jesus:

No, not one! no, not one!

None else could heal all our souls’ diseases:

No, not one! no, not one!

Jesus knows all about our struggles;

He will guide ’til the day is done:

There’s not a Friend like the lowly Jesus:

No, not one! no, not one!”

And that’s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee   

Studies in The Baptist Catechism: Section One – Authority, Revelation, and Scripture (Q.3)

September 15, 2016 Leave a comment

William F. Leonhart III

Q.3: How may we know there is a God?

A. The light of nature in man and the works of God plainly declare there is a God;1 but His Word and Spirit only do it fully and effectually for the salvation of sinners.2

1Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19:1-3; Acts 17:24

21 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Timothy 3:15-16

I have long taken issue with the use of the terms nature and natural in discussions of God’s divine revelation. To suggest that revelation can be natural is to suggest that it could be something other than divine in origin. Indeed, nothing about divine revelation is natural. What is meant by many theologians when they refer to natural revelation might best be rendered cosmic revelation.

When referring to natural revelation, what is meant is that which God reveals to us about Himself through His created order. However, post-Darwin, the term nature has come to mean something vastly different than what it once meant. Where the pre-moderns may have been referring to the created order when they referenced nature, Charles Darwin and his humanist predecessors have redefined nature…




Read the entire article here.

Studies in The Baptist Catechism: Section One – Authority, Revelation, and Scripture (Q.2)

William F. Leonhart III

Q.2: Ought everyone to believe there is a God?

A. Everyone ought to believe there is a God;1 and it is their great sin and folly who do not.2

1Hebrews 11:6

2Psalm 14:1

The world is full of art critics. Everywhere we go, we see people standing in awe of great art. They study it, they marvel at it, and they even try to duplicate it. What they will not do, however, is recognize the existence of the great Artist who gave it birth. This great art of which I speak is the art of creation, and the great Artist, of course, is the Creator. God is not merely an Artist, though. He wears many hats. Like the great Leonardo di Vinci, God assumes the titles of Artist, Engineer, Innovator, Inventor, and a great many others. However, unlike Leonardo, God is the Chief among all others in these fields. He far surpasses all His creatures, as we noted in the previous section.

One great difference between God and all others is that His art, His engineering, His innovation and inventiveness pervades all of His creation. Painters place their signatures in the corners of their paintings. The signature of the Divine is pervasive throughout the vast scope of creation and notable in every detail of every element and atom. God is at once immensely God and intimately God. He is both the God of the stars and the planets (Job 38:31-33; Ps. 8:3; 136:7-9) and the God of our grief and our joy (Mt. 6:25-34).




Read the entire article here.

What Led You To Become An Atheist? Some Surprising Answers

November 4, 2014 3 comments

by David Murray


“What leads people away from religion and into atheism? That’s the question that fascinated Larry Taunton so much that he launched a nationwide series of interviews with hundreds of college-age atheists.

His question was simple: “What led you to become an atheist?”

The answers were surprising, creating a completely unexpected composite sketch of American college-aged atheists. Here’s a summary from his article, Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for A Stronger Christianity.”


Read the entire article here.

The Bible and Apologetics (Part 5)-Defending Your Faith Pt 30

November 3, 2014 1 comment



Mp3 Download Click here.

The Bible and Apologetics (Part 4)-Defending Your Faith Pt 29

October 27, 2014 1 comment



Mp3 Download Click here.

The Bible and Apologetics (Part 3)-Defending Your Faith Pt 28

October 20, 2014 1 comment



Mp3 Download Click here.

Why Philosophy Matters for Christians

October 20, 2014 3 comments

This is a guest post by Vern Poythress, professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is the author of Redeeming Philosophy: A God-Centered Approach to the Big Questions.


Answering the Big Questions

To many people, the mention of “philosophy” brings up an image of gray-haired intellectuals endlessly debating irrelevancies. There is some truth in this image, especially the part about the endless debate.

But philosophy matters for Christians because many of the debates are about the “big questions” of human existence.

•Does God exist?
•If he does, what kind of God is he?
•What kind of world do we live in? Is the universe nothing but….




Read the entire article here.

The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins

October 20, 2014 3 comments

An atheist reviews Richard Dawkins’ autobiography and titles it “The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins.” Even atheists are increasingly embarrassed by Dawkins.



The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion by John Gray

……….Dawkins’s suggestion is that memes “leap from brain to brain, via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation,” and it is clear that he sees this process at work throughout human culture, including religion.

There are many difficulties in talk of memes, including how they are to be identified. Is Romanticism a meme? Is the idea of evolution itself a meme, jumping unbidden from brain to brain? My suspicion is that the entire “theory” amounts to not much more than a misplaced metaphor. The larger problem is that a meme-based Darwinian account of religion is at odds with Dawkins’s assault on religion as a type of intellectual error. If Darwinian evolution applies to religion, then religion must have some evolutionary value. But in that case there is a tension between naturalism (the study of humans and other animals as organisms in the natural world) and the rationalist belief that the human mind can rid itself of error and illusion through a process of critical reasoning. To be sure, Dawkins and those who think like him will object that evolutionary theory tells us how we got where we are, but does not preclude our taking charge of ourselves from here on. But who are “we”? In a passage from The Selfish Gene that Dawkins quotes in this memoir, he writes:
They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, these replicators. Now they come by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.

If we “are” survival machines, it is unclear how “we” can decide anything. The idea of free will, after all, comes from religion and not from science. Science may give us the unvarnished truth—or some of it—about our species. Part of that truth may prove to be that humans are not and can never be rational animals. Religion may be an illusion, but that does not mean science can dispel it. On the contrary, science may well show that religion cannot be eradicated from the human mind. Unsurprisingly, this is a possibility that Dawkins never explores.

For all his fervent enthusiasm for science, Dawkins shows very little interest in asking what scientific knowledge is or how it comes to be possible. There are many philosophies of science. Among them is empiricism, which maintains that scientific knowledge extends only so far as observation and experiment can reach; realism, which holds that science can give an account of parts of the world that can never be observed; irrealism, according to which there is no one truth of things to which scientific theories approximate; and pragmatism, which views science theories as useful tools for organizing and controlling experience. If he is aware of these divergent philosophies, Dawkins never discusses them. His attitude to science is that of a practitioner who does not need to bother with philosophical questions.

It is worth noting, therefore, that it is not as a practicing scientist that Dawkins has produced his assaults against religion. As he makes clear in this memoir, he gave up active research in the 1970s when he left his crickets behind and began to write The Selfish Gene. Ever since, he has written as an ideologue of scientism, the positivistic creed according to which science is the only source of knowledge and the key to human liberation. He writes well—fluently, vividly, and at times with considerable power. But the ideas and the arguments that he presents are in no sense novel or original, and he seems unaware of the critiques of positivism that appeared in its Victorian heyday.

Some of them bear re-reading today. One of the subtlest and most penetrating came from the pen of Arthur Balfour, the Conservative statesman, British foreign secretary, and sometime prime minister. Well over a century ago, Balfour identified a problem with the evolutionary thinking that was gaining ascendancy at the time. If the human mind has evolved in obedience to the imperatives of survival, what reason is there for thinking that it can acquire knowledge of reality, when all that is required in order to reproduce the species is that its errors and illusions are not fatal? A purely naturalistic philosophy cannot account for the knowledge that we believe we possess. As he framed the problem in The Foundations of Belief in 1895, “We have not merely stumbled on truth in spite of error and illusion, which is odd, but because of error and illusion, which is even odder.” Balfour’s solution was that naturalism is self-defeating: humans can gain access to the truth only because the human mind has been shaped by a divine mind. Similar arguments can be found in a number of contemporary philosophers, most notably Alvin Plantinga. Again, one does not need to accept Balfour’s theistic solution to see the force of his argument. A rigorously naturalistic account of the human mind entails a much more skeptical view of human knowledge than is commonly acknowledged.

Balfour’s contributions to the debate about science and religion are nowadays little known—compelling testimony to the historical illiteracy of contemporary philosophy. But Balfour also testifies to how shallow, crass, and degraded the debate has become since Victorian times. Unlike most of those who debated then, Dawkins knows practically nothing of the philosophy of science, still less about theology or the history of religion. From his point of view, he has no need to know. He can deduce everything he wants to say from first principles. Religion is a type of supernatural belief, which is irrational, and we will all be better off without it: for all its paraphernalia of evolution and memes, this is the sum total of Dawkins’s argument for atheism. His attack on religion has a crudity that would make a militant Victorian unbeliever such as T.H. Huxley—described by his contemporaries as “Darwin’s bulldog” because he was so fierce in his defense of evolution—blush scarlet with embarrassment.



Read the entire article here.

The Bible and Apologetics (Part 2)-Defending Your Faith Pt 27

October 13, 2014 1 comment




Mp3 Download Click here.