On abortion…..

I have no idea why this is a subject that has come to the forefront lately for me. In the last couple of weeks I have discussed the topic of abortion more than any other social issue that theology pertains to. 

When it rains it pours, right? 

Since I have written only a little on the subject I figured today’s posting would be in regard to what the Bible has to say about Abortion. The answer is that the Bible does not address abortion directly. Meaning there is no text found therein stating something along the lines of, “Thou shalt not allow abortions.” But don’t get too excited pro-abortion advocates because what I am about to say will not sit well with you I imagine. 

In spite of the Bible’s silence in regard to the specific usage of the term abortion, the text has a great deal to say in regard to the unjust taking of human life, or rather, murder. It is wrong to murder someone. There are very few people out there who will take issue with that particular teaching from both the Old and New Testaments. Which is why the arguments surrounding abortion tend to rely on this purported belief that the unborn, are not to be considered “people” until after they have exited the womb. Because, if the unborn are not people until after they have exited the womb, then it cannot be considered murder to end their lives so long as you do so before they exit…..right?????

There is so much wrong here I am genuinely having a difficult time figuring out how to begin to address this from a Biblical perspective. I think I will set the stage for what is expected of Christians in regard for how they are to treat human life and then move on to common pro-abortion arguments. Hopefully this will keep things clear:

Human life is that which is human by nature, and alive. No I am not being cheeky. This is essential in understanding a Biblical perspective. There are no accommodations made for scientifically vague stages of human reproduction. Meaning that human life does not begin at some post-zygote molecular level at some stage along the development of the embryo. Human life began when God created Adam and Eve. Their reproductive tools, eggs and sperm, continued human life through the ages down to all of us in the here and now and our reproductive tools. Which means when a child is conceived (no matter the means), that conception is a continuation of human life. Live human eggs and sperm, when united, continued their process into a live human zygote/embryo, infant, adolescent, and finally adult. Life did not end and then begin. Upon having united the two things required to form and adult human (egg and sperm) you have continued human life.  

Now that this has been established we come to how life ends Biblically. There is a difference in the Scriptures between life ending in a just way (killing, or natural death…notice how God makes specific accommodation for war, self-defense and capital punishment as all justifiable ways of ending human life {Deuteronomy}), and life ending in an unjust way (murder {Exodus, Deuteronomy, and elsewhere}). Murder occurred when an individual or group ended human life in a way that God does not condone. Hence the admission of murder into the Ten Commandments as a unilateral command that we are not to engage in such activity at all. 

So the question then becomes, if the unborn are human by nature and alive, would then the ending of their lives be just, or unjust in the eyes of God? Has the unborn been found guilty of a crime punishable by death?

Of course not.

I hope by this point you are following where I am going with this. The biggest issue that I have come up against discussing this issue with fellow Christians and non-Christians alike is the reliance upon clinical terminology to de-humanize the child in the womb. It’s easier and more pleasant to think about the “removal of a zygote” then it is to think about murdering unborn children. Such reliance is absolutely ludicrous when you put it in terms of whether or not the unborn is human by nature and alive. Of course the unborn is human by nature and alive. There is no debate about this until you reach the sheer magnitude of what it means when you want to end that life unjustly. That is murder loved ones. Period. There is no getting around it. 

The best thing you can do if you find yourself promoting abortion and wanting to remain consistent Scripturally is tear out those sections of Scripture that teach not to murder. I will give you a moment to go and do that…..it’s going to take you a while. 

Now for the fun. Let’s engage some common Pro-abortion arguments:

1. So long as the unborn remains in an embryonic stage prior to the abortion occurring, all the mother is doing is essentially discarding a group of cells. This is not unlike scratching dead skin off of your arm….

This perspective fails to address whether or not the embryo is human by nature and alive. If the embryo is human by nature and alive and you end that life unjustly, you are still guilty of murder. Moreover, the embryo is undergoing one of the early stages of becoming an adult human being (Meiosis). Your arm skin is undergoing a Mitotic cycle and is not an early stage of producing an adult human being. The scraping of said cells in question is entirely different.

2. But what if the child is a product of rape….?

This is a really sad scenario to occur, but yet again, this objections fails to address the fact that the child that was a result of the rape did absolutely nothing to deserve being murdered in the womb. It does not make any sense to say, Person A raped Person B, therefore murder Person C. The only person we should be discussing the ending the life of here is the rapist. It makes no sense to murder the child. 

3. Better to be aborted than to live a life of not being wanted…

This objection has always really bothered me. Really? Who are you to decide who lives or dies contingent upon the life they may or may not lead? I actually had a good friend of mine tell me that she supported abortion because there were too many unwanted children in the world. How does this make sense, “I think that there are too many unwanted children in the world so let’s go ahead and murder the new ones.” Sounds a lot worse when presented clearly doesn’t it? 

I think what bothers me the most about this objection is that it is actually recognizing the murder and condoning it. That is really dark. I am completely blown away hearing that come out of folks mouths that I go to church with. I guess at least with this one they are recognizing the murder? Perhaps we are making ground? 😦

4. It’s just not the right time in my life to be raising a child…

So….let’s go ahead and murder it?! Seriously again, this is murdering due to inconvenience. You wanted to have sex and not live with the consequences of your actions so you’re going to murder your child? Same problem as the rest with this one. Another failure to address the core issue of whether or not the life in the womb is human and alive. Of course it is. Of course it is wrong for you to murder someone because it was more convenient for you to not have to deal with. 

5. What about when the life of the mother is at risk….?

This one is not as difficult as folks make it out to be. I am not being insensitive here, close family members of mine have had to deal with this situation and it is unbelievably painful. Ending the pregnancy is still murder in this scenario, the only caveat is that in true life of the mother scenarios, the mother will die if the pregnancy is not terminated (I say “true” because folks like to feign life of the mother when it’s more like life-will-be-exceptionally-difficult-during-the-course-of-the-pregnancy-for-the-mother…true life of the mother scenarios are exceptionally rare). The scenario forces a choice between lives here. My answer to this one is prayer. I honestly do not know what else to say in this case except that to murder either party is morally incorrect. I assure you this is not a cop-out it is just that I would be lying to you as an Apologist if I claimed to know Biblically what to do here except to pray for a miracle. God has a habit of doing those when we are faced with a scenario only He can solve if we are obedient to His teachings. 

To be fair, I have yet to be faced with an example of a true life of the mother scenario. Most scenarios are that the pregnancy will end the life of the mother and child and therefore the child will die to begin with. In those cases we pray and ask God to be patient with us and our dealings with the result of sin in the world. I can already hear the cries from my non-Christian readers of why God would allow such a thing to occur. Sorry guys, that’s for another post. Long story short, if this scenario is really occurring then we need to save the mother and pray for forgiveness for not knowing how to do both. This is exceptionally sad for me to write. Praise God that this scenario is so rare that I have yet to actually see one occur.  

In closing (I know I’ve written a book but considering the number of followers I have, apparently you all like to read), there is no excuse for allowing the murder of the unborn by abortions in the numbers our country does. I realize that there are a lot more objections out there and you are more than welcome to post them below. I will attempt to get to everybody in good time. 

Please consider being an active voice for the voiceless in the womb loved ones. 

In Him,

A.R. 

So my phone alerted me today…..

Yeah, so I was getting ready for orientation at my new teaching position today and my iPhone alerted me that my blog had some unreviewed comments. I was all, “That’s cool, I’ll check it out. I didn’t think anyone was reading my blog anymore. It’s been a while.” 

That’s when I logged in and saw that I had 600 page views……

OHMYGOSH WHAT?! 600 PAGE VIEWS????????? ……MULTIPLE UNREAD COMMENTS?????!!!!!

I have been remiss, my followers, forgive me! I should have a new posting up sometime this afternoon. I have no idea why I have only just now received these alerts.  

Cheers and thanks everyone. I really mean it. Folks are reading and commenting. I will get to your comments in the order in which they were posted. 

Thank you so very much! 🙂 

Chick-fil-A and the Homosexual Agenda

There has been so much going on with Facebook and the Chick-fil-A (and now Starbucks day) in regard to the debate over Gay marriage that I feel it’s time to throw in my two-cents, for whatever it’s worth to you my loved ones. I’ve been in several debates over this issue of late and there are some points involved in this argument that I think are really not broadly circulated, or at least they are not recognized as presuppositions in this debate. I intend on discussing those issues in this posting.

Firstly, when did it become hatred to disagree with someone in general? Why are the terms “hate speech” thrown around so freely in this debate? Last I checked, no one is burning any of the LGBT community at stake, or stopping them from using the same water fountains as straight people. When I say to someone, “No, I’m sorry but I disagree with you and what you are saying or how you are living,” I am HATING them?! Really? So, am I hating my loved one when I tell them that I think that they should stop doing heroin or getting drunk and driving? It’s absolutely ridiculous to say that hate is the same as disagreement but it comes up in this specific context all the time. Why? I realize that this is a heavily emotion-filled topic but can you imagine during a Presidential debate, Mitt Romney telling President Obama that he is hating him for disagreeing with his Economic Plan? He’d be laughed off the stage, yet that is not happening here in this debate. I suspect this is due to the fact that there is an assumption placed on the debate that goes as follows:

1. If disagree with Gay marriage, then you must support traditional marriage.

2. If you support traditional marriage it must be because you are a Christian.

3. Christians believe that Homosexuality is immoral.

4. Christians disagree with Gay Marriage.

5. Disagreement is the same thing as hating.

6. Therefore disagreeing with Gay marriage is the same thing as hating Gay people and because Jesus was about love, Christians are being inconsistent and hateful. 

Sound familiar? 

Now I am not saying that this is clear thinking by any means, but what I am attempting to demonstrate is that there are a ton of assumptions going on here that are not accurate and need to be addressed by we Christians before we talk about Gay marriage. Obviously Jesus was a nice guy and yes he spoke a lot about love. But he also spoke a lot about other issues as well, like for instance his validation of Mosaic Law:

“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:46-47)

So when your friends quickly dismiss your quotes from Leviticus about Homosexuality because they claim that Jesus never said that Homosexuality was wrong and therefore Jesus would support Gay marriage, ask them why then did Jesus validate Moses’ writings and affirm that they were written with regard to him? (then take them to Romans Chapter 1 were Lesbianism is discussed…but that’s for another posting….)

My point is, I suspect that the vitriolic response that some of us receive when we say,”No, I do not believe that Homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle and I support the notion of traditional marriage,” stems from an emotional hurt that is experienced by the Homosexual community by not being unilaterally considered acceptable. Because it really is not a tenable argument to say that expressing a dissenting opinion is tantamount to hatred. Moreover, if I am to assume that expressing a dissenting opinion is in fact tantamount to hatred, then I am free to say that the Homosexual community is hating me for not agreeing with my position….

…the hypocrisy in this scenario is palpable….

Now onto my next point: No one is stopping members of the LGBT community from getting married. I know you’re thinking right now, “What is she talking about?” but just bear with me here for moment. At any given time an openly practicing Gay man can take a willing lady and get a marriage license. No one asks you what your sexual preference is when you apply for a marriage license. They are then completely free to go and have a wedding, with the whole nine yards, and qualify for all the tax breaks that they want. No one is going stop them (on civil level) from doing so and the same is true for Lesbians.

So what’s my point? My point is that the Homosexual Agenda is not seeking to have the right to get married. They already have that right. The Homosexual Agenda is seeking to:

1. Redefine what Marriage is…

2. Find unilateral acceptance of the new definition through federal-level legislation (because obviously Civil Unions aren’t good enough otherwise we wouldn’t still be discussing this issue) And…

3. Silence those who disagree with their lifestyle by passing “Hate Speech” legislation that calls for the jailing of those individuals who have the audacity to verbalize their beliefs in public…

This is why I am writing this post. Because this issue is serious. Very serious. I can’t say that enough. My right to write this blog for example may be quickly waning and I want to get this out there just in case the Homosexual Agenda wins the day. The issue of “Gay Marriage” is much much more than just an upset minority getting louder. It is a serious affront on all American’s right to speak freely and without fear of expressing their opinions. Chick-fil-A day on August 1st was a great exercise in calling attention to the hypocrisy and showing the world that we still support Free Speech.

My call to you this afternoon is to keep it up and to keep aware. I don’t care what group it is, LGBT or otherwise. It should never be the case that our right to Free Speech is infringed regardless of what our personal beliefs are. And so long as I still have the right, this is what I am going to say…

I believe that Christianity is a necessary pre-requisite for interpreting reality correctly. I disagree with those who disagree with me and I am going to continue to fight for Christian World-View as long as I live. From marriage issues to political ones, social issues to personal ones, this is what I believe. I say this not because I hate those who disagree with me, but because I love them and want them to know the truth. I have said this before and I will say it again, if I didn’t love you, I wouldn’t care to tell you otherwise. 

…it is my ardent hope that even if you think I am completely nuts that you will, at the very least, stand with me in support of our right to disagree with each other. 

In Him,

A.R. 

Time to forfeit our 501c3s…….

Hey guys. Long time no see but it is for a good cause as I am currently studying directly under the internationally renowned apologist Dr. John Frame. This means that my blog posts will be becoming more and more interesting (God willing) as time progresses. I should be back in with the social networks at the end of my studies with him (He studied directly under Cornelius Van Til!!!!! Ahhhhh! I’m theologically geeking out).

Alright enough of that….

Now onto the reason that I am writing today: I was just informed that the IRS addressed the Pulpit Summit this year and warned the Pastors attending that it would be illegal for them to comment from the pulpit on any of the goings on of the Presidential Candidates. My response was, “I’m sorry…..WHAT?!” Exactly what business does the IRS have addressing the Pulpit Summit? And how exactly do they feel that such a comment isn’t a massive infringement on our Constitutional rights?! So I did a little digging…..

Long story short, the IRS’ justification stems from the Johnson Amendment in 1954 where the amendment states that a church organization which receives government funding (in most cases a tax exemption in the form of a 501c3) are legally obligated not to discuss, endorse or indirectly endorse, a specific candidate for office or political party. This amendment, to my great dismay was passed and is still in effect. How this isn’t an infringement on free speech I have no idea. It’s perfectly acceptable for other non-religious/religious organizations who receive the very same funding to endorse a presidential candidate but it’s not cool if you speak out from the pulpit? Really?

Insanity. Does no one study church history anymore?!  

So what’s my advice to my brethren in the church in light of this? Follow the law. Do not break it. We are obligated by Scripture to do so. We are not obligated however to take and use government tax credits and we needn’t feel as though we are. Tell the government that they have no business being involved in what is spoken about from the pulpit. Give back your 501c3s and trust that if you are doing the job that the Holy Spirit has appointed to you, then the funding that you need will come from our Father in heaven who will not fail to give us everything we need in order to accomplish His plan for us. 

Spread the word! And if you would like to show your support consider praying for the leaders of your church and those of us who are fighting the good fight daily! We need your prayers. 

In Him,

A.R.

 

For more information, check this out!

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/churches-and-politics/irs-official-warns-pastors-to-keep-silent-during-elections/

So about the Presidential Election Coming Up…

I thought that I would go ahead and alert you guys to a petition going around the internet. It’s called, “For the Sake of the Gospel” and it is a petition that requests that regardless of your political affiliation, that we recognize Mormonism is not a Christian belief system.

The petition was begun by a few Pastors who were steeped in the political sphere. They realized that their support of Mitt Romney or lack there of was being interpreted by their lay people and the folks whom they would talk to as an affirmation that Mormonism was a Christian denomination. This confusion greatly affected the Pastors and they thusly began the “For the Sake of the Gospel” campaign. What the campaign states is that as Pastors and lay people we believe that no matter what religious background our future president has, whomever they are, what have you, that we believe that the Gospel is clear and that anyone espousing anything other than what the Gospel states is not a Christian. No matter what they say or how sincerely they believe they are. 

In Mitt Romney’s case, if he ends up winning the election, regardless of anyone’s political affiliation, the petition states that we want to make it very clear that his religious affiliation is not Christian. It is fine for him to espouse Mormonism, he certainly has a Constitutional right to do so and we affirm that that should be the case, however we Pastors, Theologians, and lay people will not say that the LDS Church (Mormons) is a Christian church. 

Please be so kind as to read the petition and if you feel so moved, sign it. This stuff is important guys. It is absolutely necessary that the Gospel of Christ not get compromised for the sake of political correctness or sincere belief. The Gospel is clear and we ought to fight for that clarity no matter what. 

So check it out! I have signed it and my professors at Seminary have signed it. Take a stand for the Gospel’s sake. And if anything, just read the petition to see why we feel so strongly about this…

http://forthesakeofthegospel.com/

 

Fighting off sickness and what not…

So no, I haven’t forgotten about you all. Let’s just start there. 

Between this horrendous sinus infection, losing my laptop charger, my students freaking out over the 3rd Grade SAT, and Grad-School, wedding plans, and moving everything I own 9 hours away to the Smoky Mountains, I simply haven’t been able to write. 

I know, shame on me. 😀 

However, I should be back online here sometime around the 17th. So be patient with me and pray. There’s so much going on!!! I am truly blessed, however the stress is beginning to rear its ugly head so the blog updates are just going to have to wait. 

Thanks for understanding. 

And who knows? Some great studies might just come out of my hikes in the Mountains…

Maranatha,

A.R. 

What is the Bible?

2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed…

At first glance, this question may seem a little redundant. This is not the case, I assure you. In order to clarify the misconceptions regarding the nature of the Scriptures we must first define precisely what the Bible is. Knowing this, we can then identify what the Bible is not.

 I. The Bible is “God Breathed:”

 What this means is that the Scripture itself was inspired by God in the mind of the respective author (Paul, Moses, etc.). What they, in turn, record is then the self-revelation of God, meaning that the Scriptures are precisely what God has deemed necessary for us to know about Himself and in regard to how to proceed in the situation in which we find ourselves.

II. The Bible is the standard of Truth:

Because the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind, it is, in effect, perfectly true and correct in every way. We know that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and thusly when He speaks through the authors, they too record what God has revealed as true.

*A note on the circularity of revelation: it is true that there is a circularity to this reasoning. The approach that the believer takes on this point is one of faith to some degree. For example, to say that the Bible is the inspired word of God because the Bible says that it is the inspired word of God is in fact a circular argument. The problem of course with this is that there is not any way to escape this predicament.

The nature of our situation is that human beings haven’t a way to escape the system in which we dwell in order to stand objectively separated from both the supernatural and the natural to observe the validity of this claim. Instead, we test that which claims any level of the supernatural with the test of consistency as well as time. If it is true, then it will stand up to the test.

There are myriads of examples within the Scriptures that reveal aspects of the world hundreds of years before the knowledge would have been available to the authors who recorded it. Descriptions, prophecies, etc. are only to name a few. For example, at one point (Psalm 22) there is an account of crucifixion that was written 400 years before crucifixion was invented by the Phoenicians. Scripture demonstrates a knowledge that man could not have fabricated.

The final point is that yes, Christianity recognizes the issue at hand and yes there is an account as to why this is the way it must be. The faith required in this is perfectly informed and logical. The natural skeptic assumes the same circularity in denying that the supernatural exists. Because of his or her complete inability to test this hypothesis, they in turn assume their own circular argument: The super-natural cannot exist because it cannot be proved naturally. See the problem?

Having established this, let’s proceed in clearing up a few of the more prevalent misconceptions surrounding what the Bible is.

• The Bible is not “more like guidelines.” Because of the nature of the revelation (truth), the Scriptures are not merely good ideas or suggestions. There are very real consequences to actions and what is revealed therein contains a very real account of what is, has been, and what will be.
• The Bible is not irrelevant in light of the Society of today. What the Scriptures reveal should and must be interpreted in light of their specific context. However, this does not mean that what is established is to be disregarded when the present society does not agree with what has been revealed as true. Society is subject to Scripture. Not the other way around.
• The Bible does not contain contradictions. A contradiction is established when one set of circumstances does not allow for the possibility of another set of circumstances. It is true that there are difficulties in the Bible that take a little more time than others to explain but this does not mean that they represent examples of contradictions.
• There are no parts of the Bible that are “more inspired” than others. Scripture is uniformly and entirely God breathed. This means that Christ’s words in the Gospels, for example, are equally as valid and true as the Apostle Paul’s words in the epistles or the prophet Isaiah’s words in the Old Testament.

This has been just a quick survey of the issues that are out there regarding Scripture. The important thing to remember is that you have every right and a Christian responsibility to live and breathe by the words found within. We, as a body of believers, have a responsibility to uphold these truths above all else as well as subject even ourselves to its standard. It’s tough, but in the end, do you really want to live a life where your basis for living is a lie? I didn’t think so.

 

In Him,

A.R.

Why Study Theology?

Isaiah 1:8 “Come now, let us reason together…

 Theology is important to us for several reasons. Firstly, in seeking clarity one begins to develop truths, bases for the believer to spring from. Theology cements what is clear and delves into the development of what is not as so easily perceivable.

There are many different Theologies (or studies of God or gods), but the one that is key in understanding as a believer is the study of the One True and Living God. This is not to say that the study of alternate faiths in unimportant, it simply means that all of these other studies remain secondary in comparison.

Theology is for everyone. It is not a study reserved for monks shut away in dark towers hunched over ancient writings. Theology is not a preference. It is a requirement for every believer. Now, in stating this, it is not to say that for an occupation you must drop everything and become the next C.S. Lewis. What I mean is that getting to know who and what God is about is what a believer is responsible for. We are to get to know God. Once He introduces Himself to you, there is no turning back.

So how do we go about getting to know God? Fellowship, Prayer, and reading your Bible. We have all heard this before, but what does this mean? The first two are obvious enough, how can you have a relationship with someone if you don’t talk to them? That is easy enough, but why read the Bible? Scripture is important because it is the mode of transmission that God has decided to reveal Himself to us through. The only reason why we know about God is through His awakening of our spirits, and this book He has given to us.

Scripture is necessary for several reasons. The first is that it reveals what is true. The line of reasoning is as follows:

1. God is Truth and is therefore the standard by which all else is compared in order to apprehend validity.
2. God has chosen to reveal Himself to His creation through a mode of transmission known as the Bible.
3. God is Truth and therefore inspires truth.
4. The Bible is the inspired word of God.
5. Therefore, the Bible reveals truth.

This is why it is so vitally necessary to read your Bible. You cannot find what is true in regard to your life without it. Scripture is the basis upon which everything is compared, judged, and subjected. It is the standard. But before we can begin to subject our lives to it, we have to know what it says.

This will be the focus of my study here at Reason and Responsibility. We will be jumping into Scripture and subjecting today’s society to the scrutiny of Christian study. It is true that we may not discover everything we think we might, however Scripture contains many more answers than we give it credit for.

II.             The dichotomy of Reason and Feeling

 Reason and Feeling are not to be separated. They are partners eternally and are never to supercede one another. For the most part, human beings have a tendency to latch on to one over the other, but this is not to be done. Both were given to us by God and both are to be used. The important thing to note is not to determine which is to be subject to the other, but instead to understand that both are to be subjected to Scripture.

Sin has an effect upon every aspect of our lives. This includes human reason and feeling. We are not to abandon theses due to this fact, but are instead to continue to exercise both in the knowledge that they are touched by this sin. We discover how much so when we begin comparing our reasoning and emotions to Scripture. This is the only way to determine whether or not what we think and feel is valid. If what we think and feel is true, then it will stand up to the test. If not, then it will fail. If we are interested in learning truth, then this is what it takes. As hard as it may be sometimes, we must do so. I cannot stress this enough.

In Him,

A.R.

 

Sugared Philosophy: An Assessment of the Role Presentation Plays in the Works of Anselm and Aquinas Regarding the Existence and Attributes of God In light of Robert Nozick’s Conception of the Explanatory Function of Philosophical Arguments

 

 

Abstract

It is my intention for this paper to discuss the writings of Anselm and Aquinas in light of Robert Nozick’s introduction to his Philosophical Explanations[1]. The conception of explanatory function in philosophical arguments outlined in Nozick’s work is apparent in the works of the Proslogion, Monolgion, and On Faith and Reason. This paper will attempt to illuminate just how this is the case.

  

1. Introduction

 

Robert Nozick introduces the notion of philosophical argument when he questions how a good piece of philosophical writing entices its audience to adopt whatever conclusion the author is advancing. He notes that the piece of writing cannot be too overbearing in its approach as the audience will become defensive. The writing must not force its audience by way of argument, but instead must entice or convince the audience in a manner that is not offensive or results in a feeling of intrusion. Interestingly enough, Nozick notes that it is not the strength of the argument (that is, an argument can be perfectly sound) that accomplishes the greatest positive response, but instead the strength of an argument coupled with a style that renders the greatest possible element of persuasion. The best philosophical works entice an audience to entertain what the philosopher is contemplating.

 

It is due to this style of persuasive writing coupled with strong and clear argument that renders an audience useless to put up much of a fight in objection to what the philosopher has to offer. Nozick makes a point in noting that in the past he has been guilty of approaching a philosophical paper with the intention of finding the inconsistencies before he has even begun to read.[2] I must admit that I too am guilty of just such an approach to reading and assessing philosophy. I do not begin with an open mind and I gauge the strength of the philosopher’s work on his or her ability to overcome my defenses and leave me with an inability to reject what they have advanced in their respective works.

 

The work of Thomas Aquinas is an example of just such a philosopher. Upon reading his On Faith and Reason I found myself sitting on my front porch swing, sipping coffee, and  reading past the assigned sections only to be alarmed that I was going to be late for class. The strength of a philosophical work is found in what you do not realize that you are being convinced of. The reader merely follows the philosopher as he or she teases out the heavier concepts and offers their conclusion for consideration. If propositions begin being crammed down the reader’s neck, the work loses the element of persuasion and the audience loses their open mind. They end up spending too much effort finding a reason to reject the author’s work, and not enough time considering the argument’s strength.

 

A perfect example of just such an occurrence can be found in the work of Anselm. Fellow students (and I include myself in this) find his Ontological Argument difficult to accept. Yet (and here I am citing my own discussions with fellow students), it is very difficult to pinpoint precisely why it is that we have a desire to reject the argument as viable. To this day I cannot tell you exactly why I am somewhat bothered by the argument (and I already believe that God exists!). Could it be that what Nozick notes as the knockdown[3] argument is what could be the source of my rejection? Even though I do not know for certain, the point here is that there is most definitely a level of influence that stems directly from the author to the reader by way of the style and presentation. It is true that an argument’s strength is directly related to the propositions offered. However, an argument’s persuasiveness (I am convinced) is directly related to the way the argument is presented. If a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, then why wouldn’t the same hold true for philosophical writing?

 

1. Anselm’s Lack of Sugar

 

Anslem’s presentation regarding the attributes and existence of God is seriously lacking in the sugar department. I am not entirely sure this is a negative in his work, it may simply be due to a lack of desire to produce work that is anything more than the bare bones of an argument. Anselm’s concern is “faith seeking understanding” {MP II, xiii} which was, interestingly enough,  the initial title of the work he later renamed the Proslogion. This way of already accepting a conclusion as true and then reasoning to it, may explain why Anselm presents his arguments in the way he does. He carefully considers every step he makes in an argument. It is a very slow and tedious (and admittedly, sometimes I would be reading and wonder why he felt he needed to establish certain steps that seemed to me to be perfectly unquestionable) way of argument. Everything is fleshed-out to such a degree that there can be no counter-argument. All of the alternatives to a proposition he considers as the reader considers along with him. It is in this way that perhaps the difficulty in accepting his arguments is not due to the argument itself, but instead due to the argument forcing the conclusion. The Ontological Argument, for example, Anselm’s most famous contribution to the philosophical and theological realm, is so exquisitely simple that it is alarming. One reads and rereads the argument searching for a flaw, any flaw that would allow the reader space for objection. Perhaps now is a good time to take a look at the argument in a little more detail in order for me to demonstrate what I mean by this.

 

1. The Ontological Argument

 

The Ontological Argument as presented in the Proslogion is, in reality, one of several proofs for God’s existence found within the work. Two separate, and preliminary proofs can be found in the Monologion alone. For example, in Monologion I, Anselm asks the question of whether or not all existing things exist through some one thing? His conclusion is that yes they do, and that one thing is in fact God:

 

[Phase I]

 

1. Every entity exists either through something or through nothing.
2. It is impossible that any entity does not exist through something. Therefore,
3. Nothing exists through nothing. Therefore,
4. Every entity exists through something.

 

[Phase II]

 

5. Either (a) there is one thing, or (b) there are several things, through which all entities exist.
6. If (b) there are several things through which all entities exist then either (i) they in turn exist through one thing, or (II) each of them exists through itself, or (iii) they exist through one another.
7. If (i), then not-(b) but rather (a).
8. If (ii), then they all exist through themselves in virtue of some one poser or nature of self-existing, which is tantamount to (a).
9. Not-(iii), since entities cannot exist through one another reciprocally. Therefore,
10. There is one thing through which all entities exist. Therefore,
11. The one thing through which all entities exist exists only through himself. Therefore,
12. All other entities exist through him.

QED[4]

Here we see Anselm’s consideration of every step. As a philosophy student assessing the argument presented (in light of having spent significant time considering) I continue to have a problem finding where a premise has been assumed or may be lacking in some area. The argument appears to me to have considered every alternative. For example, I could say that perhaps premise six is not anticipating a fourth option. But what else could there be? It seems to me that the three available options exhaust the possibilities for existence. Because I cannot provide the reader with an example of a fourth category, I am forced to accept that the options have been exhausted and thusly I am forced to accept the conclusion that there exists some one thing through which all other things exist {MP 3, p. 12-13}.

 

Anselm does not stop here. Remember that this section is devoted to the Ontological Argument- the above is merely a preliminary stage. The existence of God may have been established, but the attribute of the greatest possible being conceivable has yet to be established:

 

[Phase I]

1. We can conceive of a being that which none greater can be thought (God).
2. We understand the meaning of this description.
3. To understand something is for it to exist in intellectu, though not necessarily in re. Therefore,
4. The being that which none greater can be thought (God) exists in intellectu.

  

[Phase II]

1. The being that which none greater can be thought (God) exists in re.
2. Assume that 5 is false.
3. What exists in intellectu can be conceived of existing in re.
4. If the being that which none is greater can be thought (God) can be conceived of existing in intellectu, then he can be conceived of existing in re.
5. Existing in re is greater than only existing in intellectu.
6. If the being that which none greater can be thought only exists in intellectu, then it cannot be the greatest being that which none greater can be thought.
7. Premise 10 is a contradiction. Therefore,
8. Premise 6 is false. Therefore,
9. Premise 5 is true.

QED[5]

Here again, Anselm assumes nothing (save for what is necessary for a reductio ad absurdum) leaving no room for the reader to object. It is truly a beautiful and simple piece of work. But in light of Nozick’s analysis of philosophical writing, Anselm necessarily opens his work to a substantially larger population to reject by virtue of his presentation.

 

Personally, I have a very difficult time saying that Anselm’s work possesses a negative air about it in this way. I have a preference for cold and hard premises that I cannot argue with. My nature is to necessitate that an argument be shoved down my throat simply because I will almost never embrace a new system of thought unless it is so thoroughly exhausted that I cannot deny its truth. I find that with Anselm, the rejection of his arguments by myself (and others) is due more so to pride than to anything else. It is a very humbling experience to be presented with a piece of work that is so well done and simple that one wonders why the argument has not been thought of before (or at the very least, how, if there is something wrong with the argument, it is still being entertained some hundreds of years later).[6]

 

All in all, whether or not one appreciates the simplicity of Anselm’s work is irrelevant to one’s acceptance of the strength of the argument. It is a sad fact that work such as this can inspire a negative reaction in an audience. Perhaps had Anselm anticipated his work being scrutinized by college students, he might have presented it in a little more considerate matter. Perhaps the manner that it was presented in is the most considerate as the argument does not presume that the reader will be convinced by niceties, but only by the strength of the premises. Either way, there is a reason why Anselm is still studied today and that fact alone renders his presentation of argument well done (even if it is a little hard to swallow).

 

1. Aquinas’ Approach Easier to Swallow

 

In comparison to Anselm, the work of Thomas Aquinas is much more palatable with respect to the actual reading of the text. It is true that I am biased in my analysis of Aquinas, however I feel that I am justified in saying so considering the conversations that I have had with others who hold the same opinion as myself. I am unsure as to why this is the case except for perhaps the layout of the arguments differ, which may account for the difference in readings.

 

Both authors appeal to scripture as the basis for their work when convenient to do so. Aquinas is particularly good at appealing to scripture when necessary (as well as conveniently leaving scripture out of the picture when necessary) and it is because of this basis that I believe grants Aquinas the air of authority that becomes evident when reading his work. There is a certain pointed and unapologetic feel that comes through in the writing that is not as evident as in the work of Anselm.

 

In passing, I noted briefly that perhaps my ability to accept Aquinas with a little more ease than Anselm is due to the layout of argument. Simply stated, I prefer the way in which Aquinas decided to format his arguments.[7] Not only does he state the problem, but he also presents the many different responses one might have to the problem, followed by his own reply. He then anticipates objections to the specific position he advances. I think this may be perhaps why I am biased.[8] The clarity and anticipation of objections always impresses me. 

 

Another reason for my preference in his work (and why I would regard Aquinas as an example of what Nozick mentions as a type of author who can convince an audience without knocking them down) is that in regard to the nature and attributes of God, he embraces via negativa. I have had, in the past, a tendency to approach theology by way of negatives; designating what God is not, instead of what he is. Aquinas does the same thing. Perhaps it is this approach to the study of God that grants Aquinas’ work a level of humility that the reader is sensitive to. This may explain why the Cosmological Argument advanced in On Faith and Reason is more readily accepted by the masses (or, at the very least, the folks I have had the privilege of speaking with). This is certainly not to take away from the authoritative undertones that one experiences in reading Aquinas, but merely to point out that such an approach to the study of God openly acknowledges the nature of human finitude and adjusts accordingly. Deciphering what God cannot be seems to be within human limitations. Defining what God is may not be.

 

1. The Cosmological Argument

 

Aquinas offers his own argument for God’s existence with a slightly different approach than that of Anselm. Although both offer very strong arguments, again in light of Nozick’s illumination of how an argument is presented, Aquinas outlines his argument in a slightly different way. Essentially what he does is construct what can be distinguished as three separate ways of proving God’s existence, and he does so without appealing to scripture. Allow me to demonstrate the first of the three below:

 

[Phase I] 

1. Some things change.
2. Everything that changes is changed by another thing.[9]
3. If another thing changes, it must be changed by yet another thing. Therefore,
4. And so on, and so forth.

 

[Phase II] 

5. If something changes it must be changed by another thing.
6. An infinite regression of causes is illogical.
7. Assume 6 is false. Therefore,
8. There is no first cause. Therefore,
9. There are no intermediate causes.

      10. (Premise 9 is contradictory with 1) Therefore,

11. Premise 6 is not false. Therefore,
12. There is a first cause (God).  

QED[10]                                   

Here we find what appears to be exactly the same kind of work (or at least, of the same tradition as Anselm). I would agree that it seems here that Aquinas is not much different from his predecessor by way of argument (with the obvious exception being the content). However, in spite of my having formatted their arguments in relatively the same manner, if the reader were to compare the writing styles of these two men, they would find that they are decidedly dissimilar.

 

While writing this paper it occurred to me that the reason that Aquinas is more acceptable in comparison to Anselm to me may be do to the politeness of presentation as well as form. For example, Aquinas begins his articles by raising an objection and then responding to it. But upon raising the objection (something he anticipates the reader to be thinking as a possibility) he remarks, “It would seem….” {OFR VII, 1 p. 96}. I say “politeness” because what he does there is entertain the idea that it is very likely and seems plausible to consider so and so objection. Even though he goes on to prove the objection false, he grants the reader consideration, granting them a level of credence that Anselm did not. It is almost as though when one is reading Aquinas, he or she is having a conversation. The philosopher and reader are on equal terms and carrying on a friendly conversation. With Anselm this was not the case. The relationship between Anselm and the reader was distant and less engaging. In his analysis it is almost as if the reader is standing by and watching Anselm work. He is not really interested in anyone else’s thoughts but his own and so his work comes across as less appealing. With Aquinas, significant amount of time is placed in anticipating how others might react to what he is advancing. This allows for the development of alternative ideas and renders his work more convincing perhaps.

 

1. Concluding Remarks

 

The time and effort placed in the work of Anselm and Aquinas is astounding. If one can look past the respective presentations of these men and base the strength of their arguments purely upon the validity of the premises, it is my opinion that they would both come out equal. However, as is evident in Nozick’s introduction to his Philosophical Concepts, that is, regrettably, not the only aspect of argument that is considered. Form and ease of acceptance is found in the argument’s persuasiveness coupled with the strength of its premises. With respect to both philosophers, I can appreciate both arguments for what they have to offer. Perhaps a less cut and dry form of argumentation renders a sweeter and more readily acceptable argument. Perhaps the reader needs to develop a taste for the sour. Either way, both philosophers advance proofs for God’s existence that deserve careful consideration.

  

Bibliography

 

1. Williams, Thomas. Monologion and Proslogion: with the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm. Indianaplis, MD./Cambridge UK: Hackett Publishing Co, Inc. , 1995. {MP}
2. Brown, Stephen F.. Aquinas: On Faith and Reason. Indianaplis, MD./Cambridge UK: Hackett Publishing Co, Inc. , 1999.

{OFR}

3. Nozick, Robert. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1981.

---

[1] Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

[2] Coercive philosophy section.

[3] Nozick p. 4.

[4] J. Palmer Handout of Monologion 1. (Formatting mine).

[5] J. Palmer Handout. (Formatting Mine).

[6] I realize that there are (and have been) objections to this argument throughout history. Our class raised some objections to specific premises, however there is always a failure in objection to be able to come up with adequate enough counter-examples to prove the premises undoubtedly false. Perhaps one exists, but as of yet I have not been given one.

[7] As well as, I am sure, Stephen Brown’s editing.

[8] That or my bias is due to the fact that I have been faced, up until this point, with Boethius and Ockham’s way of presenting an argument. Perhaps the ease of reading with Aquinas in comparison to these two men only made me lazy. Oh well, Aquinas still wins in my humble opinion.

[9] Omne quod movetur ab alio movetur- here he presents a subsidiary argument for this premise, but because this was not elaborated upon (and need not be for sake of this paper), I have excluded it.

[10] J. Palmer Handout (Formatting mine). 

 

In Him as always,

A.R. 

The Holy Spirit and the Every Day: A Story about Listening

I’ve been away for a few days. You’ll have to forgive me. Between Seminary, wedding plans, and seven eight-year olds who decided to all come to school in spite of being sick (probably my fault considering they didn’t want to miss all the work I assign), I’ve been quite busy.

I have lately been inspired by some of my co-workers to write about how one ought to listen for the Holy Spirit in one’s daily walk as a Christian. No, this is not going to be an “appreciate the little things” lecture so not to worry. Instead of telling you what you ought to do, I am instead going to defer to telling you what I do and that way you can decide for yourself.

My story this evening begins with my leaving my folks house this weekend and heading for home. It was Sunday evening and I was really wanting to get home to have some time to settle and get a good night sleep before the week began anew. As I was driving through one of the poorer neighborhoods in one of the towns I pass through on my normal drive, I noticed two suited lads going door -to-door. It appeared that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were out doing their normal routine.

That was when it happened. I had the most pointed feeling in my gut as I passed by. My very first thought was, “I need to stop and talk to them.” My second thought was, “There will always be Jehovah’s Witnesses out, you should go home.”

So I kept driving.

Block after block passed by as I continued the debate in my head,

“You need to stop.”

“No you need to go home and get those papers graded.”

“You should really turn around and go and talk to them.”

“Wouldn’t you rather just keep awkwardly trying to sing Bohemian Rhapsody and continue driving?”

“Turn the car around….”

After ten blocks, I was in physical pain and the debate in my head sounded more like this,

“You’re not really prepared to debate a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses right now. You should go home and study more.”

“TURN THE CAR AROUND AND GO AND TELL THEM ABOUT MY SON.”

At that point I knew I wasn’t going to be able to sleep that night if I didn’t at least attempt a conversation with these guys even if it amounted to what appeared to me as nothing (which it usually does). I made a U-turn and drove the then 20 blocks back to where I had spotted them. Once I got there, they were already engaged in a conversation with an elderly woman on her doorstep. There was no place to park so I pulled off on a side-street, threw on my hazards, and strolled up to the house. There I was met by not two Jehovah’s Witnesses, but instead, two un-orthodoxly clad Mormon elders preparing to initiate the first of their “Bible” studies with this woman. I introduced myself to the three, told them why I was there, and then requested of the woman a momentary word when she was finished with her conversation with them. The Mormon elders took my info and went on their way. The woman invited me inside.

I spent the next several minutes explaining to the woman who the Mormons were, what they believed, and that they did not affirm the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. As it turned out, she had invited them into her home not knowing who they were but happy to learn about Jesus Christ and his “newest” revelation, The Book of Mormon. She (and her two daughters who came out once they heard a stranger’s voice in their living room) assured me that they would no longer entertain any Mormon Studies in their home and would do some research in the future before they entertained any other door knocking evangelists.

After about only 10 minutes of actual discussion, I found myself back on the road. I only made it a few blocks before I broke down sobbing. I had almost allowed an entire family to be infiltrated by a cult group to save myself what only amounted to be 10 minutes of actual effort. I didn’t have to debate anyone. I didn’t have to be prepared. I didn’t even have to have any Bible verses memorized. All I had to do was say what the truth of the Gospel was. That’s it. 10 minutes.

So what’s my point? My point is to ask you how often your head debates happen to you as a Christian? How often does the Holy Spirit ask you to tell someone about Jesus and what He did? And how often do you find what seems to be perfectly reasonable excuses not to do so? No, this story doesn’t mean that every time you get a funny feeling that you should act on it. And no, I do not mean to tell you that you should stop for every tiny instance someone talks about Jesus. What I do want you to do however is to seriously stop for a moment the next time you are inspired to share the Gospel. I want to encourage you to try and share the Gospel even when you think it won’t matter in the long run. I want to encourage you to not do what I almost did. I have a sneaking suspicion that all that important stuff you absolutely must get done, can wait for 10 minutes.

Especially when that 10 minutes means keeping someone from being led astray by someone else who is willing to give them 10 minutes of their time.