The phrase "presuppositional apologetics" might be lost on many in the church, but its method and use has continued to increase in popularity even today. Dr. Bahnsen didn't develop the method but he did give it teeth, as demonstrated remarkably in his formal debate ("The Great Debate: Does God Exist?") with Gordon Stein as well as several other debates.
Yet he not only demonstrated this method of defending the faith, but taught it to thousands in the church. And his legacy continues today through various means.
Knowing which ones fall into which category is also dealt with. And the answer is that it really depends on the person, the abnormal behavior (whether it's depression, anxiety, hyper-activity, obsessive compulsiveness, mania, etc.). And the goal of course is to get to the root issue that is causing the abnormal behavior. Is it sin? Is it a chemical imbalance? Is it both?
How the person is treated depends on the answers to those questions.
I am not going to blindly defend Neil Gorsuch, but I am going to ask that he be given a fair trial. To be clear, I strongly believe a "fetus" is a person, at the moment of conception. And I strongly oppose the murderous law of human abortion, on which I've written, here, here, here, and here (among other places).
But until that time comes, here is my take on the current evangelical reaction. I am truly perplexed at the evangelical response to these two recent (or about to be recent) theatrical film releases. The current response to these films actually seems almost topsy-turvy.
Beauty and the Beast
On the one hand, we have a live-action version of Beauty and the Beast that, according to the director, has a “delicious,” “exclusively gay” moment. And so naturally, very prominent evangelical leaders are calling for a boycott of the film. When I first head about this “moment” I was initially wondering if it was similar to the “moment” in Finding Dory when there’s a split-second scene of two women with a stroller - which obviously means they are “clearly” a homosexual couple (while two mothers at the aquarium while the fathers are at work is not just as plausible is still beyond me).
Thankfully, Matt Perman does a wonderful job in sticking to the sub-title: "How the Gospel Transforms the Way you Get Things Done" (emphasis mine).
In other words, he doesn't neglect Ephesians 2:8-9 - we are saved by grace through faith - when teaching on Ephesians 2:10 - we are saved for good works. That's the foundation to the entire book. We are not saved by good works, but we are saved for good works.
Now that it's attainable, we have "millions" of women protesting that possibility. And while Christians should always be doing our best to live at peace with all (Rom. 12:18), there is still a responsibility to speak out against those "who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Isa. 5:20). Consequently, there is a certain joy that comes with the knowledge that our nation might actually stop the murdering of 3,000 innocent lives a day - an atrocity that far outweighs the Holocaust to the point that it's now beyond measure.
While good-intentioned as these arguments may be, I reject them for at least the following reasons: (1) The political atmosphere is only a byproduct of the cultural war, which we evangelicals as a whole have given up on long ago. If we're to worry about tainting our witness to the world, it must start first and foremost with the cultural war, (2) We have a solid history in Scripture where our fellow-saints were able to live in good conscience, given the circumstances around them, with supporting immoral people in office (or a position of political power) and even helping them attain such a position. The situation we face today is similar. And we would do well to follow their example. (3) Seeking the world's approval should be the furthest thing from us - even when it comes to politics.
What probably didn't come across in my last post as much as I should have stressed, is that either of these options (Trump or Hilary) is a judgment from God (Prv. 16:4; cf. 1 Sam. 8:7-8, 9-18).
I did say it in the last post, but I probably didn't stress it enough.
And I'm certainly not going to tell you to vote for Hilary. What I am going to do is write down the principles I believe we have in Scripture when our nation is faced with such a choice as is before us today, and what I plan to do in light of them.
But before I do that, let's go in reverse order as to why I'm not going to tell you to [fill in the blank]:
And often enough (and what I believe we've experienced) He installs wicked rulers, in part, as a judgment for the sinful acts of a nation (Prv. 16:4; cf. Judg. 2:11-15). Of course, thankfully, in His mercy He relents from judgment when a nation collectively repents (Jon. 1:2, 3:10; cf. 2 Chron. 7:14; Dan. 9:1-19). That's something to which we ought to pay great attention in our lives today!
Repentance is still an option; and a viable one at that! But what of what kind of repentance are we speaking? And how do we go about doing it?
In all seriousness though, I get that it's a little unsettling to think of the idea of someone asking you about your faith and you having to give a reason for it right there on the spot.
But in equal seriousness it's truly something we're all called to do, isn't it?
Obviously, like in any area of life, we need to take into consideration what the whole Bible says about a situation, and not just limit ourselves to pet proof texts. Yes, our true citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), yet our marching orders from the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given, are to disciple all nations of the world (Mt. 28:18-20). Discipling includes applying His Lordship to every area of life - even the politics of this world (Rom. 11:36, 13:1-7; 2 Cor. 10:5).
|
