Posted in Apologetics, Epistemology, Evolution, Metaphysics

The Illusion of the Unattended Brain

Posted on by Mac Deaver

In an effort to ground morality in science, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, wrote a book published in 2010 entitled The Moral Landscape with the accompanying cover description: “How Science Can Determine Human Values.” Also on the front cover, Sam Harris is touted as “New York Times bestselling author of The End of Faith.” Sam Harris is not shy about either attacking religion or about extending the traditional role of science. Having plodded through the book, in keeping with the way that Sam explains his nature and condition as well as that of the rest of the human species, I can now say that Sam is a bold brain, but I can’t say anything else if I remain within the confines of Sam’s own description of himself and the rest of us. If you have read the book or if you follow along in this paper, you should soon see what I mean.

Sam Harris attempts to build a case for ethics based completely on the physical nature of man as an evolved species on this earth. Without evolution as theoretical background and the all encompassing presupposition as the explanation for the existence of mankind, Sam’s argumentation for scientific ethics has nothing to offer, but with it, he thinks that he can argue rationally for an ethical approach to life based simply on a greater understanding of the human brain and its relationship to events in the world. But can he?

Interestingly, a reader does not get far into the text before he realizes that Harris tries, in one sense, to “distance” himself from evolution. He writes, “As with mathematics, science, art, and almost everything else that interests us, our modern concerns about meaning and morality have flown the perch built by evolution” (14). But just what in the world does that mean? How have we humans “flown the perch” that evolution built? Sam doesn’t tell us. But given the fact that he says such a thing impresses me that there is something incongruent about the concept of evolution and the concept of meaning and morality that Sam Harris recognizes. And it is a problem for him throughout his effort to base morality on physicality. Look at the situation like this. When Sam says that we humans have “flown the perch built by evolution” I submit to the reader that since he surely is trying to say something meaningful, that he is either saying:

  • (1) Evolution is false, so we need to distance mankind from it in making the case for evolutionary ethics; or
  • (2) Evolution is irrelevant to the discussion of evolutionary ethics; or
  • (3) Evolution is inadequate as a justification of any evolutionary ethical theory.

I know he not claiming (1) evolution is false, because to the end of the book he stays attached to the claim of its scientific accuracy. I know he is not claiming (2) evolution is irrelevant because throughout the book he constantly employs the concept to bolster his thesis. I conclude that he is conceding, without intending to, that there is something awfully incoherent about conceptually connecting the concept of morality to mere apes. And if the reader thinks that I am being too hard on Sam for referring to people as “apes,” simply read the book and see how many times he uses the word or some synonym or similar expression to describe the human family. His is simply another sad effort at building a case with a missing link. Somehow and in some way (isn’t it strange), Sam thinks that human concern with meaning and morality go beyond the purview of evolution (the expression “flown the perch” has to have some application), and yet throughout the book he writes as though there is perfect harmony between the concept of organic evolution including the evolving of apes to men and the concept of human morality.

Harris chides fellow scientists for claiming that science has nothing to say about morality, and he claims that he has found the explanation as to why science can say something about it after all. It is his contention that facts cannot be separated from value. We all know that scientific work is in the field of empirical discovery. Science attempts to tell us about facts. But, Harris claims, that values are attached to facts, so that if science can tell us what the facts are, it can tell us something about what the values are. And if we know the correct values regarding facts, we can more adequately choose correctly in making our moral decisions.

Of course, Harris’ thesis is that since we cannot separate facts from value and since science is in the business of discovering and reporting the facts, that science then is equally in the business of being able to tell us what the value of the facts are. But, it must not go unsaid, that Harris’ whole case is based on his unproven and unprovable notion that all “facts” are physical ones. This is necessary to the proving of his thesis, but he never does, and he never can prove that only empirically derivable conclusions reached in a scientific laboratory qualify as “facts.” This is what he assumes but cannot prove, and in his book he never seriously tries to do so. He simply writes his book while granting that most Americans still do not believe the theory of evolution, as if they should. He never attempts to prove the theory at all, but takes it as a scientifically established fact. But, here Harris is very wrong. The fact is, that evolution as an explanation for the arrival of the human species has never been proven. Furthermore, given the nature of science and the nature of origins (including the origin of man), such a discussion of the origin of man and the morality of man is outside the scope of science anyway.

On the first night of the four night public debate in 1976 between Thomas B. Warren (theist) and Antony G. N. Flew (at the time a world renowned atheist, but who later disavowed atheism), Warren gave Flew the following True-False question:

  • T/F Value did not exist before the first human being.

Flew answered the question “True” and wrote on the paper that value was a function of the human mind (Warren-Flew Debate, p. 15 and APPENDIX). In his first speech on Monday, Warren pointed out that Flew’s answer to the question meant that since Flew was claiming that value did not exist before the first human did, then value itself was simply a function of the human mind. And that meant that the concept of “value” then is reduced to the subjective likes and dislikes of a person. Warren likened it to “liking or not liking spinach” (Warren-Flew, p. 15). This means that according to Flew’s answer, he was unfortunately taking the position that when men approve of something or disapprove of something, that in saying it is “right” or “wrong” they are simply expressing their likes and dislikes. In Philosophy, that view is described as “the emotive theory” of ethics.

Of course, since Sam Harris is here either by creation or evolution, and since he asserts that he (as well as the rest of us) is here via evolution, he has no basis upon which to dignify the concept of “value” or “morality” that gives it the objective meaning or status that he wants it so desperately in his book to entail. He wants so badly to argue for some kind of “objective” ethics based on some things that humans have in common which tend toward general human well-being. But all of his argumentation amounts to nothing when one considers that “value” is simply an invention of the human mind per evolutionary theory. And that means that “morality” is a merely human invention, too. So regardless what Sam Harris’ thesis is as to how to go about establishing a good evolutionary ethic, it all amounts to the fact that Sam Harris is simply providing us via his book with his own personal wish for the world as he would like it to be. But that is as high a standing in “value” as his thesis can acquire. It represents Sam’s effort at getting his way because the world as he envisions it is the world he wants. It is made up of things he likes. And it is true that a lot of what he likes, others like, too. But that is no basis of morality. And Harris even admits that a view is not established as true by its numerical support. Hear him:

“Does a lone psychotic become sane merely by attracting a crowd of devotees? If we are measuring sanity in terms of sheer numbers of subscribers, then atheists and agnostics in the United States must be delusional: a diagnosis which would impugn 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences” (Landscape, 157, 158).

So, while on the one hand Harris recognizes that any particular viewpoint is not established as actually true simply by counting the number of people who support it, yet on the other hand he does argue for a theory of ethics which is based on the overall well-being of or happiness of “the greatest number of people” (Landscape, 28 ). So, regarding ethical theory, numbers do count after all! This is just one of many incoherencies in the development of his thesis.

Thus, basing ethics on the well-being of the greatest number, Harris is ethically a “utilitarian.” Regarding the question of God’s existence, he is an atheist. In fact, he is an atheistic neuroscientist whose view is that science and religion are antagonistic (158-176). They cannot be reconciled. Regarding politics, he says he is a liberal (90), and concerning his origin and nature, he is a self proclaimed ape (2, 114). I am not making this up! He does have a doctoral degree, however, but how impressive should that be among apes? So, the book is the product of an atheistic ape who is attempting to tell the rest of us apes how science, a discipline invented by apes, can help apes live happier lives. Are you following this?

Now, let us get back to the massive wall over which Harris attempts to climb in his effort to establish a science of morality. He does not accept the conclusion of the famous Scottish skeptic, David Hume, who pointed out many years ago that no one can get “ought” from “is.” And to attempt to do so is to commit what has come to be called the “naturalistic fallacy.” Harris thinks that Hume was simply wrong (38). He contends that there is a way for science (which describes to us what our world is) to tell us something of how we ought to act in it. But, we respond, it is just not possible!

Several years before he met Warren in public debate, the then atheist Antony G. N. Flew wrote a little book entitled Evolutionary Ethics. It was published in 1967, and he debated Warren in 1976. In his book, Flew affirmed that one simply could not get from “is” to “ought” in an evolutionary world. He sided with Hume. Flew quoted from Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature:

“In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with I have always remarked that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence….” (Evolutionary, 38).

According to Flew, Hume took the position that “value” was a projection of the human mind onto the things that are being valued. Rather than value existing in the thing itself, value was the position or status granted it by the mind. Mind gave value to the thing rather than the thing’s having a value that presented itself to the mind. This, of course, meant that “value” was not objective. Value was not a characteristic of the thing but rather a propulsion of the mind onto the thing. Mind created value. Flew described Hume’s view as being,

“that values are not any sort of property of things in themselves, but that they are in some way a projection out on to the things around us of human needs and human desires. (One resulting problem, more obvious perhaps to us than to Hume, is that of explaining how values can be in some such fundamental way dependent on, and some sort of function of, human needs and human desires, without its thereby becoming the case that some purely descriptive statements about what people do want or would want must entail consequences about what ought to be” (Evolutionary, 39).

And let it be noted that between 1967 and 1976, Flew had not found the answer to that problem! He recognized a great philosophical difficulty for evolutionary theory and ethics. And he never reconciled the two. He saw the problem; he had no answer.

In his third affirmative speech on Monday night of his debate with Warren, Flew said with regard to value: “I can not give a complete account of the nature of value and particularly of moral value, which I regard as even halfway satisfactory…The general line I want to take, as I think all humanists do, is that value is somehow—somehow—a function of human desires, human wishes, and so on…” (Warren-Flew, 43).

Flew went on to suggest that moral value was somewhat like the market value of a 1974 Volkswagen Beetle, and he maintained the likeness throughout the discussion (43, 184, 201). Flew maintained this likeness because he thought it illustrated to him how that moral value (1) was on the one hand a product of human desire—someone’s interest in buying a Volkswagen, and yet (2) on the other hand, the price was not determined simply by any one person’s desire. A man couldn’t buy a 1974 Volkswagen for a price that his desire set or determined. The market price decided what the man must pay.

But in is fourth affirmative on Thursday night, Warren responded:

“But I have a question for Dr. Flew along that line: if the Volkswagen is worth $500.00 at one place and $1,000.00 at another place, how is the actual or real value of the car to be decided? Or, does it have any real value? Now, if your illustration is worth anything at all, it will have to have some real value, or else you will have to say that no human being has any real value, and you will have joined the Nazis in a thorough-going way to say that the Jewish people did not have any real value (only a market value that might fluctuate up and down and therefore would be worth nothing under the regime of the Nazis). Dr. Flew, you ought to think those illustrations through before you give them” (Warren-Flew, 186, 187).

Flew responded in his fourth negative that night, “I hope that I did not confuse people about this. Of course I do not think that moral value is in all respects like market value. One terribly important dissimilarity is precisely that market value does vary very freely with a place and time” (Warren-Flew, 201). Flew simply reiterated his point that at least the illustration presented a situation in which value was the product of human desire and yet one man’s desire did not determine what the value of the car would be. However, he was stuck with an illustration that, if like moral value, allowed for a relativistic view of ethics.

The sad thing is that Sam Harris concedes the whole point that, granted evolutionary theory as the accurate explanation for the arrival of the human species, we are stuck with evolutionary value. That is, we are in a situation such that moral values can change! So, on the one hand Harris says that “morality can be linked directly to facts about the happiness and suffering of conscious creations” (Landscape, 64); on the other hand he grants that what makes conscious creatures happy will not necessarily remain the same (84). And, of course, he has no way of countering Flew’s contention that science alone cannot tell us that what humans do, in fact, currently desire is what they ought to desire.

So, it is clear that, given evolution, there can be no such thing as “objective” ethics or, to put it another way, there can be no such thing as an act that is intrinsically good (that is, good in and of itself) or an act that is intrinsically evil. And yet Harris, while admitting this, continues to attempt to establish an evolutionary ethic. In fact, Harris concedes that, given evolutionary theory, it is possible that the science of morality may eventuate into perhaps a contradictory kind of morality so that what is now seen as good could be later viewed otherwise. Listen to Harris:

“But what if advances in neuroscience eventually allow us to change the way every brain responds to morally relevant experiences? What if we could program the entire species to hate fairness, to admire cheating, to love cruelty, to despise compassion, etc. Would this be morally good? Again, the devil is in the details. Is this really a world of equivalent and genuine well- being, where the concept of ‘well-being’ is susceptible to ongoing examination and refinements as it is in our world? If so, so be it. What could be more important than genuine well-being?” (Landscape, 84).

Wow! Per Harris, if it turns out that current good is eventual evil and that current evil is eventual good, so be it! Of course, whether current or eventual, his ethical utilitarian theory is that if most people gain happiness by an act, that act is “good.” So, even now (much less later), if a majority of people would gain overall well-being and happiness from an act that gets rid of the minority, such would be good! Flew had no way of overcoming this objection to his concept of ethics; Harris has no answer either. Harris says that if the brain can be changed to look at ethics differently, that is the way that it will be. “The devil is in the details,” he says. No, the devil is behind the very idea of trying to justify ethics without God!

Of course, Harris goes on to express the view that a radical change in the way that we currently look at ethics is not likely to happen, but the fact that he allows for this is a tremendous insight into his theory of ethics. He is advocating “relative” ethics rather than “absolute” ethics, and by his imagination, he has treated us to his view that that is the nature of ethics. And that means that there is no such thing as an absolutely good act or an absolutely bad act! Consider the following:

  • T/F 1. An act is intrinsically good or evil in and of itself (Sam Harris says “False” because an act is only “good” if it contributes to the overall well-being of the majority of the people).
  • T/F 2. The Nazi killing of the Jews in World War II was an intrinsically evil act. (Sam Harris would have to say “False” since no act to him is an intrinsically evil act. And there are conceivably circumstances in which the annihilation of the Jews would contribute to the happiness or over all well-being of a majority of people in a nation or in the world).

Consider that Harris in a footnote bemoans the current standing of atheists in American society. He claims that “atheists are the most stigmatized minority in the United States—beyond homosexuals, African Americans, Jews, Muslims, Asians, or any other group” (Landscape, 234, 235). Then, I humbly ask, is it conceivable that we could reach a moment in our history in which the killing of atheists (on the grounds that they are atheists) would be acceptable ethical practice if the majority of Americans and/or the majority of all men deemed that the happiness of most men would be enhanced? According to the basis of Harris’ concept of ethics, neither he nor any other man would be able to pronounce such killing at such time as intrinsic evil! In fact, according to “utilitarian” ethics, such killing would be the right thing to do!

But now, consider the following statement from Harris: “I believe that we will increasingly understand good and evil, right and wrong, in scientific terms, because moral concerns translate into facts about how our thoughts and behaviors affect the well-being of conscious creatures like ourselves” (Landscape, 62). Now, regarding the quotation please notice the following:

  • Sam expects more of us in the future to accept the concept of good and evil as a scientific matter.
  • There are no moral concerns outside the realm of facts (which to Sam must be empirical).
  • Our thoughts and behaviors are determined by empirical facts only.
  • We are conscious creatures.
  • Sam believes this.

Now, dear reader, what you need to see at this point is that the above affirmations are reducible to the last one: Sam said, “I believe that….” We could give attention to each part of the quotation, but such is not necessary because of the relationship that Sam Harris has to the claims. Who believes the assertions? Sam Harris says that he does. Well, who is Sam Harris? And amazingly throughout the book he writes (1) as though a real person named Sam Harris exists who is, in some way, ontologically distinguishable from mere matter while all the time (2) attempting to convince us that neither Sam Harris nor any of the readers actually exists! Do you think that I have simply misread Sam Harris? Follow closely.

To assert that men are simply instances of conscious matter is incredibly self-contradictory. “Consciousness” is not a material property! It is not simply an empirical characteristic of anything. And consciousness has never been found in science (or anywhere else) capable of expressing itself without rationality. Apes have feelings, but apes cannot articulate those feelings in language. And language requires thought. Consciousness cannot express itself without thought. Animal life can express itself by mere animation (movement). But consciousness to express itself beyond movement requires thinking.

But, Sam Harris claims that all thoughts are merely and exhaustively empirically driven or produced. In other words, Sam attributes human thought completely to the human brain! And the brain is simply conscious matter. There is no “real” person attending the brain. The brain, according to Sam Harris, is an unattended physical organ that produces the “mind” with its thoughts and intentions! Furthermore, he (Sam Harris) as a neuroscientist studies the brain, and having studied the brain a lot (to the reception of a doctoral degree), he is now in position to tell us that there is no real Sam Harris! Furthermore, anyone reading his book needs to read it while recognizing that not only is Sam Harris nonexistent, but that the reader is equally ontologically unavailable! And all the while this conceptual and linguistic joke is carried on as though it has real scientific merit. Listen to Sam:

“Your ‘self’ seems to stand at the intersection of these lines of input and output. From this point of view, you tend to feel that you are the source of your own thoughts and actions. You decide what to do and not to do. You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. As we will see, however, this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know about the human brain” (Landscape, 102).

Again, “All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion” (Landscape, 103). Again, “From the perspective of your conscious mind, you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world” (Landscape, 104). Sam claims that “thoughts arise (what else could they do?) unauthored and yet author to our actions” (Landscape, 105).

Dear reader, can you (and I mean the real YOU) believe it? You may ask, “Well, if no one is responsible for his own thoughts, then who is doing the thinking? Sam would have “us” to believe that the brain is the thinker! Per Sam Harris, the brain produces what “we” think of as the mind and its thoughts. “Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc. are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world” (Landscape, 105).

So, there you have it. It is not simply true that the real, personal, spiritual, metaphysical, ontologically distinguishable, Sam Harris has disappeared, but that, according to Sam Harris (whoever that is), there has never been a Sam Harris. But still, “we” have to account for Sam’s thoughts. Well, that is attributed to “Sam’s” brain. Sam is claiming that he is brain. He is conscious matter. But the conscious matter is not personally attended. It is still matter only that somehow in evolution reached a level of consciousness. And now at that level of consciousness, the brain all alone and unattended produces thoughts which express themselves at times in actions.

Dear reader, can you believe such? Of course, it never dawned on Sam that as he was writing his book and trying to inform us all that “we” do not exist but rather that our “brains” are the existent empirical entities that alone are responsible for our thoughts, that he was at cross purposes with himself. First consider the following:

  • T/F 1. I, Sam Harris, am a person ontologically (in the nature of being) distinguishable from my material body (Sam says “False). Per Harris, there is no immortal soul (Landscape, 110).
  • T/F 2. I, Sam Harris, am my brain and body, and my brain is physically distinguishable from the rest of my body (Sam would say True).
  • T/F 3. While I, Sam Harris, am composed of brain and body, it is “my” brain that is responsible for all my thoughts and intentions. (Sam says True).

Now, dear reader, please look at #3 again. The word “my” is placed in quotations because the sentence is written as though Sam somehow exists apart from body and brain, but according to Sam, he clearly does not. Furthermore, he writes this way throughout his book. He writes as though he has a real metaphysical status and that his readers have an actual metaphysical status while all the time attacking the very concept of anyone’s having real metaphysical status.

Please consider the difficulties that one faces when attempting to deny himself (that he actually has a metaphysical existence). Consider the following statement:

I, Sam Harris, deny myself.

The sentence makes sense in that it is pieced together with words each of which has meaning, and the whole of the arrangement seems to be stating a complete thought. However, the sentence does not make sense conceptually. For example, when we consider what is being affirmed and what is being denied, we must face the fact that either (1) the “I” (whoever it is) has to exist in order to make the denial of oneself, or (2) the “myself” has to exist in some sense in order to be denied. So the “I” must be here as denier or the “myself” must be here as the one to be denied. If one says, well, the answer is that the “myself” is not here for it is the very thing being denied, so far so good, it would seem. However, the denial itself must be attached to the “I” in order for the denial to be made. The brute fact is that there is no denial being made at all if someone is not making the denial and neither is someone being denied.

Furthermore, since Harris denies that he exists as an “immortal soul,” then let us consider a further difficulty. When he says that he does not exist, we then face the following possibilities. It is either the case that:

(1) a soul is denying itself; or

(2) a soul is denying its body (including brain); or

(3) a brain is denying its soul; or

(4) a brain is denying its body (including itself).

Since Harris denies having a soul, obviously then he cannot be meaning either (1) or (2). A soul cannot be doing anything since it simply is not there. So he cannot possibly be meaning that a soul is either the “one” (a metaphysical being) denying self or denying its body. So (1) and (2) are out of the issue. If it is then suggested that Sam means (3), that would mean then that a brain would be denying its soul. But since, per Harris, a brain has no soul, how could and why would a brain do that? How can a merely physical organ deny an ontological attachment to a metaphysical entity? A gall bladder can’t do that, nor a liver, nor a lung, nor a physical heart, etc. How is it possible for a merely physical organ, derived from an evolutionary background to go into the negative in describing its own nature? Can an empirical entity create the metaphysical category only to deny that it has any occupancy? And by the way, how would a mere brain know that anyone had ever accused it of having any attachment to a metaphysical entity in the first place? Such would be absolutely absurd!

Either a brain is not a purely physical organ (this, Sam as an evolutionist would deny), or it must be in some way connected to a metaphysical entity that is utilizing it in denying whatever it is that is being denied!

Harris has a personally unattended brain saying that it has no association with or connection to a soul. And, per Harris, the brain’s thoughts are not metaphysical constructs but rather are physiologically driven. Thoughts are the products of the mind which is the product of the brain. Thoughts, anyway, are simply like gas that has escaped the brain. We might say that his view more or less means that a brain merely “erupts” into thoughts. There is no purpose to them nor design for them. They are random secretions for which no person whatever is responsible!

Remember, he has told that “the conscious mind cannot be the source of its own thought and intentions” (Landscape, 216). And furthermore, he says, “Am I free to change my mind? Of course not. It can only change me” (Landscape, 104).

And that leaves us with (4): a brain is denying its body (including itself). When Sam Harris claims that he does not exist, he must be telling us that he as a brain is denying that the brain is there (with its body or that the body is there with its brain). But we know that Sam can’t mean to be suggesting (4) because that would mean that the brain is denying itself. And Sam in the book is quite insistent to claim that it is only the brain (with accompanying physical body) that does exist, and that the brain alone is “responsible” for thinking! Each of the four theoretical possibilities is thus eliminated from what Sam could actually be meaningfully saying. Regardless what with his incongruent combination of language and concepts he is attempting to do, the elimination of each possibility shows us that no one can rationally deny himself! And yet the ethic proposal that Sam proposes in his book is grounded in this irrational attempt!

But all the way through his book, Sam is taking the brain as being there and the metaphysical soul as not. He writes, “It seems to be that few concepts have offered greater scope for human cruelty than the idea of an immortal soul that stands independent of all material influences, ranging from genes to economic systems” (Landscape, 110). First, let it be said that without that immortal soul Sam can’t be rationally calling in question the existence of anything, much less himself! Dirt can’t deny the existence of dirt! Apes can’t deny the existence of apes, and they can’t even try.

Only metaphysical entities attached to empirical substance or form or bodies can have the capacity on this earth to deny one or the other of their conceptually distinguishable natures (physical or metaphysical). A purely physical entity has no ontological capacity to deny anything. Only a metaphysical entity has capacity to affirm and deny. Second, Sam is critical of the existence of any independent immortal soul that is not under the influence of “material influences.” But let it be said just here that we theists recognize that the mind or soul currently utilizes the brain. And any damage to the brain certainly can have a significant effect on the mind and its capacity to think. If the brain is the organ that the mind uses (as opposed to the liver, gall bladder, etc.), then any damage to the brain can certainly affect what the mind can or cannot currently accomplish. No one denies this that I know. But that is certainly not the same thing as to claim that there is no metaphysical mind as is proven by the fact that brain study has determined that a damaged brain affects thinking.

Sam Harris has studied the human brain a lot. But Sam has drawn some conclusions regarding human nature, the nature of truth, and the nature of morality that simply cannot be rightly deduced from that study. His denial of himself cannot “square” with his empirical investigation of the human brain. Someone is doing that study. But according to Sam it is merely one brain looking at another brain, and when thoughts are produced, they are unauthored by a person and no person is responsible for them. Notice the following:

  • T/F 1. Sam Harris as a metaphysical soul within a physical body is responsible for his book. (Sam says False).
  • T/F 2. Each reader of Sam’s book is a metaphysical soul within a physical body who is responsible for what he does with Sam’s book (Sam says False).
  • T/F 3. Sam Harris’ brain is alone responsible for Sam’s thoughts which in an “unauthored” way has provided us with Sam’s book (Sam tries to justify this as True though it is a self-contradictory affirmation).
  • T/F 4. Some unidentified brain produced the mind which produced the thoughts which produced the book called The Moral Landscape, attributed to Sam Harris as author (According to Harris’ argumentation as to the nature of man [he is a completely physical entity], this would be True).
  • T/F 5. The “people” who “read” Sam’s book are actually (according to Sam’s view of human nature) only other unidentified brains that produce minds which produce thoughts which produce action, so that only unidentified brains are “responsible” for minds allegedly produced by them (True, if Sam Harris’ view of human nature is correct).

A conscious mind cannot be held responsible, Sam tells us (Landscape, 216). Furthermore, he says that our thoughts are not even “authored.” Remember, he has told us that “…thoughts simply arise (what else could they do?) unauthored and yet author to our actions (Landscape, 105). On the cover of The Moral Landscape we find these words describing Sam Harris: “New York Times bestselling author of The End of Faith.” Therefore, even though Sam Harris is an “author” of books, he assures us that his thoughts have no author other than a personally unattended brain. Believe it who can! How can such drivel be allowed such publication and distribution for public consumption? It is as though Sam is telling us and trying to convince us that our situation is comparable to one computer communicating with other computers, telling them how they ought to act. And there is no “one” in the picture except computers. There is no “mind” behind the brain which uses the brain. There is no Maker of the mind but Sam knows that there can only be a computer and correspondence carried on between computers if someone made the computers and if someone uses the computers. But irrationally, Sam contends the situation is otherwise for the, according to him, evolutionarily developed human species!

Curiously, and without any evidence to support his theory, Harris attributes all thought to a physical organ that is metaphysically unattended, and Sam Harris intellectually attacks any concept of personal moral responsibility! Somehow our moral world is going to be improved when we all face up to what this neuroscientist is telling us: No real person is responsible for anything. Only a brain is! Remember, Harris contends that a “person” is no more responsible for his thoughts and actions than he is for being born into this world (Landscape, 104). As it turns out, given the explanation of the human situation according to Sam Harris, ethics has nothing whatever to do with personal responsibility! Now, there is your ape morality! And mixing such absolute fiction with some sort of “moral guidance” direction for the further development of the human species cannot save it from its on self-destruction.

There are many more very serious mistakes made in the book, The Moral Landscape. But we will not go into the exposure of every wrong turn that Sam took in arriving at his current confusion and explanation regarding morality. Once we see how the foundation for the theory (that science can determine human values) is based on such ontological self-contradiction, we see that everything else to be discussed is peripheral and secondary.

The very idea of a self-styled ape trying to convince other alleged apes how to live is laughable. And while I do sympathize with Sam in his horror over evil done in the name of religion, I cannot sympathize with him in a solution that embodies such incoherence and self-contradiction. And who among us can accurately apprise the misery caused in this nation already over the pseudo-scientific advocacy of organic evolution in its expression of current immorality? Sam incoherently warns us against self-deception (Landscape, 163, 176), all the while assuring us that there is no actual ontological “self” to be deceived! Such confusion is no help in trying to contribute to a better world.

It Is Only My Brain Talking

He said to me that he is not here.
“Who is not here?” I replied.
“Me,” he said as if unaware
That his denial had just been denied!

“If you are not here,” my inquiry began,
“To whom shall I make my reply?”
Someone responded (and I’m not really sure who),
“Me,” without blinking an eye.

“But how can I talk to you when you’re not here?”
“It is merely my brain,” he said with a smile.
“But how can that be?” I asked in response.
He said, “It’s been that way all the while.”

“Your brain? I asked with a skeptical look.
How can that possibly be?
The brain cannot be ‘your’ brain at all
For you just told me that the brain had no ‘me!’”

“There is no ‘my’ brain,” I tried to point out,
Not sure that he at all apprehended.
“If you are not here, the brain is not ‘yours.’
Indeed, the brain is completely unattended.”

Posted in Baptism, Doctrine

A Brief Response To Massive Confusion

Posted on by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

The reader may be aware that not long ago I wrote a lengthy article exposing an unsound syllogism that had been written, the writer of which was trying to falsify our contention regarding what happens when a sinner is baptized into Christ. The article was entitled, “Who Is Added To the Church—Saint or Sinner?” The syllogism had been written by Daniel Denham whose name I did not call in the article. However, now he has placed a brief statement on Facebook which I have been sent. According to Denham, my whole article “can be falsified with one simple question. Mac Deaver, when an accountable person receives the remission of sins in baptism is he at that point saved or lost?” Then he goes on and refers to the law of excluded middle, showing that the man is either saved or lost, one or the other. My response: of course!

Denham’s confusion is apparent. He thinks that my article indicates that I would have trouble answering the question. Hardly! In baptism, when a person’s sins are forgiven, he is at that moment saved from those sins! But the problem is that Denham assumes (without proof) that the remission of sins is the same thing as entry into the kingdom. And this is where he is wrong!

Remission of sins is one thing; entry into the kingdom is another. And according to the Lord, entry demands not only immersion in water for remission of sins, but immersion in Spirit as well (John 3:3-5). So, again I raise the question, “Who does the Lord add to the church?” Denham is already on record as implying that the Lord adds a sinner to the church so that the sinner can now “in Christ” receive the spiritual blessing of the remission of his sins! In other words, Denham has taken the position that requires the sinner to bring sins into the kingdom so that while in the kingdom he can receive the remission of those sins! And he incredibly thinks that his one question somehow destroys the force of my article. Amazing! Consider:

  • T/F 1. The Lord adds a sinner to the church (False). It is false because one has to be forgiven in order to be added to the church (cf. Acts 2:47). Denham is already on record as declaring that one must be in Christ in order for his sins to be remitted. He implies that a sinner must bring his sins into the kingdom, and then while being in the kingdom, he receives the spiritual blessing of forgiveness per his wrong understanding of Ephesians 1:3, 7. So, Denham has the Lord adding sinners to the church in order to be make saints out of them after they have been added to the church! Why must they bring their sins with them into the church? Because forgiveness is a spiritual blessing, and it is only granted to those who are members of the church (according to Denham’s wrong view of Ephesians 1:3, 7).
  • T/F 2. The Lord adds a saint to the church (True). Only the saved are added to the rest of the saved (Acts 2:47). Sinners must become saints before they can enter. They must be born of both water and Spirit, and not just water (John 3:3-5). Kingdom entry entails being born of both water and the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). Water only is not enough.
  • T/F 3. The Lord adds both saints and sinners to the church (False). Obvious! If sinners could enter the church as sinners, then there would be no point in their becoming saints. God is in the church and the devil is in the world, and the world cannot enter the church while still existing as the world (1 John 4:4; 5:19; Acts 2:47)!
  • T/F 4. The Lord adds neither saints nor sinners to the church (False). Since a church exists, somebody has entered it.

Denham’s confusion centers on his assumption that forgiveness equals entry. And his assumption is false. If his assumption were true that all cases of forgiveness granted in association with water baptism and based on the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ equaled kingdom entry at that moment, then that would imply that all of John’s disciples including the apostles would have entered the kingdom ten days before Pentecost of Acts 2. Why would the implication follow? It would follow because all of those disciples were baptized in water for the remission of their sins (Mark 1:4; Matt. 3:11), and the Lord died for them, was buried for them, and was raised for them, and remained on the earth 40 days following his resurrection. The forgiveness of their sins was granted ten days prior to Pentecost! And yet they did not enter the kingdom until they were immersed in the Holy Spirit ten days following the Lord’s ascension (Acts 2:1-4). But, if Denham’s assumption that forgiveness equals kingdom entry is accurate, then these disciples entered the kingdom ten days prior to Pentecost! The fact is that the kingdom’s actual coming was identified by the empirical miraculous power that verified the presence of the Holy Spirit (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:8).

According to Paul in Romans 6:3-4, a person is baptized into Christ Jesus. He is not baptized in Christ. If he were baptized in Christ that would mean that his baptism took place while the man was already in Christ. And this is the Baptist position on baptism! Paul does not teach that, but Denham by implication does. Given his confusion on Ephesians 1:3, we face the following:

  • T/F 1. Every spiritual blessing is in the church of Christ (True per Denham).
  • T/F 2. Initial forgiveness of sins is a spiritual blessing (True per Denham).
  • T/F 3. Initial forgiveness of sins is found only in the church of Christ (True per Denham).
  • T/F 4. One must be in the church of Christ in order to receive this remission of sins (True per Denham).
  • T/F 5. One then must be in the church of Christ prior to the remission of his sins (True per Denham).
  • T/F 6. Remission of sins is granted only to those who are already in the church of Christ (True per Denham).

Does the reader detect a problem? Unlike Denham, Paul teaches that through baptism one is forgiven first and then the forgiven party is regenerated and indwelled by the Spirit so that the party can arise to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4). It is certainly true that by means of baptism one enters Christ. But the problem for Denham is that he can’t see that the sinner cannot be added to the church while a sinner; rather, the forgiven party must then be regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit, and recognized as a son (Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 4:6). Then, based on this recognition as a child of God, God moves the Holy Spirit to within the heart of that child (Gal. 4:6). Only his children are added to the church. So again, which is it, Denham? Does God add sinner or saint to the church? All of us ought to know that we cannot enter Christ (the spiritual body of Christ, or, the church of Christ) as sinners. But we also need to know that forgiveness does not by itself equal kingdom entry. Kingdom entry requires not only the water of forgiveness but the regeneration of the Holy Spirit so that we become partakers of the divine nature (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:5-6; 2 Pet. 1:4)! In baptism the Holy Spirit enters the body of the forgiven party, regenerates the human Spirit, and moves into that spirit (or, heart) to indwell (Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 4:6).

The man who is baptized into the death of Christ is the sinner who needs forgiveness for his sins by means of the Lord’s death (Rev. 1:5). The man who arises to walk in newness of life is the saint who, because of his forgiveness and regeneration is now a child of God. The saint is the one who now arises to walk in newness of life with the Holy Spirit in his heart as God’s own pledge of heaven to come (Eph. 1:13-14). The sinner was forgiven and the saved man was then added to the church! Consider:

  • T/F 1. The sinner is baptized into the death of Christ in order to receive remission of his sins (True).
  • T/F 2. The saint is baptized into the death of Christ in order to receive remission of his sins (False).

If #1 were false then no sinner can be saved by water baptism. If #2 were true, it would mean that saints (those persons already forgiven) would have no sins to be forgiven.

  • T/F 1. The sinner arises to walk in newness of life (False).
  • T/F 2. The saint arises to walk in newness of life (True).

If #1 were true, then forgiveness is not granted in water baptism (and that would mean that water baptism is not for the remission of sins!) and the sinner arises still in his sins. If #2 were false, then the sinner does arise to walk in newness of life while still in his sins. So, just as the Bible teaches, while under the water the sinner is forgiven of his sins. The forgiven party (Acts 2:38) is then regenerated (Titus 3:5-6 —being made partaker of the divine nature— 2 Pet. 1:4), recognized by God as a son, then indwelled by the Spirit who moves to within his heart (Gal. 4:6). The child of God then arises to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4). Denham cannot answer correctly the question, “Who does the Lord add to the church—sinner or saint?” without contradicting his position on Ephesians 1:3!

Posted in Doctrine, Instrumental Music, Worship

The Instrumental Music Question, From Another Angle

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

More and more, members of the Lord’s church in various places are beginning to advocate the use of mechanical musical instruments in worshiping God. This, in spite of all the hard won battles of days gone by, where ground was gained and minds were converted to the truth when we once powerfully proclaimed that every belief and practice must have a “thus saith the Lord” in back of it.

Often, the justification for instruments in modern worship is based, at least in part, on an appeal to the Old Testament. Perhaps the one making such appeal does not comprehend the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. Or, perhaps he believes that any practice that was once right in God’s eyes will always be right in God’s eyes. Thus, if Israel used instruments under the law of Moses, there is no way instruments could be wrong now.

In replying to that argument, we have often held up examples of other Old Testament practices, such as animal sacrifices and burning incense, neither of which we use in our worship now. N. B. Hardeman rightly argued along those lines in his classic 1923 debate with Ira Boswell. That which proves too much, proves nothing. If instrumental music is alright now because it was alright once, then we should also be able to offer goats in worship, and even practice polygamy.

But, let us approach the subject from a different angle (which I have not seen done before). If it is right to justify instruments today because Israel used them at one time, then ponder what that means. If an Old Testament practice could never be wrong in the New Testament, then would it not also follow that every right practice in the New Testament would also have to be a right practice in the Old Testament? Said another way, if “once right, always right” is true, then it should follow that what is right under the gospel should not have been sinful under Moses. In other words, the principle (if correct) should work both ways, right?

Consider that there are numerous Old Testament prophecies about the church, and that “all peoples, nations, and languages” would serve the Messiah (e.g. Daniel 7:13-14). What if a forward looking Israelite decided to ignore the distinction God made under Moses between Jew and Gentile? After all, the gospel makes clear that such a distinction exists no more (see, especially, Ephesians 2:11-22). Jesus brought Jew and Gentile together in himself, having torn down the “dividing wall of hostility” that had been put there by divine legislation. Now, did any Jew in Old Testament days have the right to ignore that “dividing wall” God built? No. It was good that it existed under the Old Testament. But, it is sinful for anyone under the New Testament to perpetuate what was abolished with Jesus’ death. If someone today says that every Christian doctrine would have been right to practice in the Old Testament, that is simply false. And the converse is false, as well. It is wrong to say that every Old Testament religious practice must be acceptable to God now. It is wrong to justify any practice solely on its being right under a divine law that has now been abolished.

Moses did not baptize for remission of sins, and it would have been sinful for him to start the practice. Likewise, we do not approach God through Levitical priests serving in a tabernacle containing the Ark of the Covenant. We would sin in trying to re-establish that expired practice.

The gospel brought radical change to the status quo of two millennia ago. It is wrong today to kill a goat as an animal sacrifice to God—not because it has always been wrong, but because it is not authorized in the gospel. It is wrong today for a man to have two (or more) wives—not because it has always been wrong, but because it is not sanctioned in the gospel. It is wrong today to enforce Jewish dietary laws (cf. Mark 7:19)—not because they were wrong under Moses, but, rather, because they have not been re-instituted under the gospel of Christ. Think of the law of Moses as having been issued with a sunset provision. Moses’ law was nailed to the cross, but, unlike Christ, it was never resurrected (cf. Hebrews 10:9; Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15).

Our task is not to imitate what God once allowed under a now-abolished law, but, rather, to learn what his new law demands. To justify present practice by relying on the law of Moses is like going to the store to make a purchase with a stack of Confederate money. It would have worked (in the South) in the early 1860’s, but nowhere today. “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13, ESV). True, the Jews had musical instruments in worship, but their entire God-given system turned obsolete and vanished, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross by God himself. The Old Testament has much to offer (cf. Romans 15:4), but it is not normative for worship in the Lord’s church. No one has the right to appeal to the Old Testament in justifying a practice he cannot find in the New Testament!

In a nutshell, the old covenant was abolished. The new superseded it. The new covenant does not say anything about the Lord’s people using mechanical musical instruments to worship God, but it does mandate singing to worship God. Hence, the church of Christ’s historic opposition to anything other than acapella music in worship. Those who would give up that position must prove that instruments are acceptable in worship today, but on what basis? If they do not prove it by Scripture, they are disobeying 1 Thessalonians 5:21. They cannot justify it based on the Old Testament. The only remaining option is to justify the practice by New Testament proof. Where is that?

God can—and has—changed his law in going from Moses to Christ (cf. Hebrews 7:12-14). Those who would take a superseded, abolished law from Moses to sanction worship that Christ never authorized, are playing with fire.

Posted in Doctrine, Salvation

Who Is Added To the Church–Saint or Sinner?

Posted on by Mac Deaver

By Mac Deaver

For several years we have maintained that in order for a person to enter the church, several things must occur. Most of us are very familiar with the plan of salvation or the steps of obedience, so that we are clear on the fact that one must move from personal faith to repentance to confession of his faith and then to baptism. We have believed and taught this developmental procedure for years and years. And we have been correct.

But there is another procedural point that is not at times rightly comprehended because insufficient thought has been given to it, and that is that sinners must become saints before they can enter the kingdom. Now why is this so? It is so because it is either the case that (1) the Lord adds sinners to the church or (2) the Lord adds saints to the church. And to get the matter straight in our heads, we have got to comprehend when forgiveness transpires. Furthermore, we need to know just who it is that God forgives in the act of conversion. God either forgives (1) the sinner, or he forgives (2) the saint. Whom does he forgive?

I have explained both in book and in public debate that in the process of conversion, a person is forgiven of his sins (Acts 2:38), then he is regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5, 6), and then he is indwelled by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 4:6), and then he arises to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4). This is the chronologically correct conceptual order and actual event order. Now, to be sure, the forgiveness, regeneration, and indwelling, all take place within the blink of an eye. And they all take place while the human body is under the water! Following these conceptually distinctive events, the baptized person is then lifted up. He breaks the surface of the water, but by that time, he is already a forgiven, regenerated, indwelled Christian. He arises to walk in newness of life. This is the essential conceptual and actual event order in the process of conversion as it entails the momentary transition from sinner status to saint status. Scripture makes it plain that this order cannot be gainsaid. When one attempts to change the sequence of events in the process, he faces doctrinal implications that are incoherent regarding the nature of salvation.

Let us make this inquiry as simple as we can. Let us, then, imagine an alien sinner responding to the gospel invitation, stating his desire to become a Christian. Based on his repentance and now on his having-been-taken confession of faith, he withdraws to the dressing room, from which he then enters the baptistery. Who walks into the baptistery? A sinner or a saint? Unlike most denominationalists, we in the churches of Christ have for years correctly defended the view that a sinner enters the water (Acts 22:16)! Faith alone cannot save (John 1:11, 12); faith with repentance alone cannot save (Acts 2:37, 38), and the confession must be followed by baptism in order for it to contribute to salvation (Rom. 10:9, 10; 1 Tim. 6:12; Rom. 6:3, 4).

Now, the baptizer and the alien sinner stand in the water before the audience. The sinner is then lowered (immersed) in the water. What happens while he is under the water? The first thing that happens is that God forgives the man, and that forgiveness takes place in the mind of God. God no longer counts the man a sinner! Since he has done everything that the New Testament requires of him to become a child of God, God now grants that much desired forgiveness (Acts 2:38; 22:16). The human spirit is now clean (Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22). Second, God regenerates that human spirit since it is now forgiven of all sin. This means that the Holy Spirit actually and personally and directly contacts the human spirit and changes its nature! The human spirit is revitalized; it is given spiritual life (Tit. 3:5, 6). Its nature is now altered (2 Pet. 1:4). Now, why must regeneration follow forgiveness? It must follow instead of precede because if the alien sinner were still in his sins, then God would be giving spiritual life to one who remained guilty of his sins. Any sinner must be forgiven before he can be granted spiritual life! If someone objects to the Holy Spirit’s being placed within the body of the baptized person in order to regenerate the spirit of that person, he must remember that the Holy Spirit is being given to a forgiven person! At this point of the process, the Spirit is within the body but outside the spirit of the person. He works from the outside of the human spirit or heart to regenerate it. Why? Because the nature of the forgiven person must be changed before the Spirit can take up his permanent abode! But if someone objects and says: “Yes, but Mac is saying that the Holy Spirit is within the body of a person not yet in the kingdom,” my response would be that (1) certainly he is within the body of a person not yet in the kingdom, but (2) he is in the body of the person who is about to enter the kingdom and who is under the water, and (3) he is in the body of the person who stands already forgiven!

Then, following the forgiveness and regeneration, the Holy Spirit moves to within the spirit or heart of the person who is immersed in water. How do we know that this act takes place at this time? We know it because Paul tells us. “And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6). Paul doesn’t simply state that the Spirit moved to within our bodies, but into our hearts. And he cannot take up his abode in an unholy place. His “abiding” in this permanent location is the indwelling of the Spirit, which takes up his abode for holy purposes (Rom. 8:9-11; cf. 1 Thess. 4:1-8; Gal. 5:22-24; Eph. 1:13, 14; 1 Cor. 6:12-20).

Now, as proven in our book, Except One Be Born From Above, the water in baptism is for the remission of sins. John’s baptism was water baptism, and it was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4). But water baptism alone could not and did not ever put one into the kingdom. This is what Jesus was telling Nicodemus. It is likely that Nicodemus himself had already received John’s baptism, but whether he had or had not, the Lord made it clear that water baptism alone could not secure entry into the kingdom (John 3:3-5). But another point that we have often overlooked is that the continuation of the fact that water alone as continued under the “great commission” assignment could not provide entry into the kingdom any more than it could during the days of John’s ministry. As I explained in tedious detail in our book, this is what Luke is telling us in Acts 8:12-17 and in Acts 19:1-7. Water alone never put anyone into the kingdom even under the “great commission” assignment given the apostles! Water, in the story of redemption, has always been for the remission of sins (of course, in the sense of a stipulated requirement). But it has never been by itself a way into the kingdom. It has been a requirement of the gospel because only forgiven people can enter the kingdom!

Now, let us seriously consider Acts 2:47. “…And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.” The KJV has “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Actually the word “church” is not in the Greek text. But clearly, somebody was being added to something or to somebody else. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Marshall puts it, “And the Lord added the [ones] being saved from day to day together.” The words “being saved” come from an accusative, plural, masculine, present, passive participle. The word “added” is a 3rd person, singular, imperfect, active verb. So, the verb indicates that at the time that Luke was recording the account, God had been adding together or placing together (and Luke says it was on a day by day basis) some people. Now who exactly were being placed together? The “being saved” ones. So, as sinners were being saved, they were being added to the rest of the saved. But the question with which we are now most interested is, “Were these people sinners or saints at the time that they were on a day by day basis being added together by the Lord?” Precisely, the question entails the following theoretical possibilities: That is (1) the Lord was adding together all saved people, or (2) he was adding together all lost people, or (3) he was adding together some lost people to already saved people, or (4) he was adding some saved people to already lost people. Now, dear reader, which is it? To a Bible student, the answer is obvious! The tense of the Greek verb by itself cannot answer this question. Dana and Mantey inform us that “…in dealing with the present tense we must consider not only the fundamental force of the tense, but also the meaning of the verb root, and the significance of the context” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.181).

Now, we know that those referenced by Luke in Acts 2:47 were not being added to the church or to the rest of the saved prior to their own conversion. If the saved constituted the group to which others were added, obviously then those being added could only be more people who were being saved without destroying the nature of the group. This much should be certainly clear. But the point of controversy is the point at which the being-converted ones or the being-saved ones are precisely being added to the rest of the already-saved. We know that it happens while the person being baptized is still in the water. But we are attempting to point out that there is even more explanatory precision that is provided for us in the New Testament. Our concern just now is to locate the exact point at which the being-converted ones are being added to the rest of the saved. So, let us consider, in the light of Acts 2:47, some True-False questions:

  • T/F 1. God added forgiven sinners as sinners to the church. (False)
  • T/F 2. God added saved men as saved men to the church. (True)
  • T/F 3. God added neither sinners nor saved men to the church. (False)
  • T/F 4. God added both saved men and sinners to the church. (False)

The reader should have absolutely no trouble whatever in coming up with the correct answer to the above. So, now let us move on.

  • T/F 5. God added forgiven men who were not yet regenerated to the church. (False)
  • T/F 6. God added only regenerated men to the church. (True)
  • T/F 7. God added neither regenerated nor non-regenerated men to the church. (False)
  • T/F 8. God added both regenerated and non-regenerated men to the church. (False)

Is this hard? Surely, any member of the church ought to be able to answer all of the above with ease. If someone is not clear on the last set of questions, he should realize that to regenerate is to give life to, to make alive, to revitalize. It is not the same thing as forgiveness. That is why we know that regeneration follows (rather than precedes) forgiveness. If it preceded forgiveness, then we would face the absurd situation of a sinner’s being made spiritually alive while still in his sins! Most members of the church understand that in some situations there is the necessity of conceptual order (for example, faith must precede repentance, and repentance must precede baptism).

But just here and before proceeding with what happens while a person is in the water of baptism, let us go back for a moment and revisit the concept of a necessary sequential order in the plan of salvation before one enters the baptistery. And we see that it is not simply a conceptual order but it is a chronological order as well. That is, just as there is a conceptual order to the topics of faith, repentance, confession, and immersion in the life of any man who becomes a Christian, just so there is a time sequence in which each item must exist. I am reminded that years ago I received a phone call from a Baptist preacher whom I was about to engage in public debate. He assured me on the phone that when he said that we are saved by “faith only,” that he was including repentance! My, my! How convenient, but it is ludicrous. “Faith only” is not only faith if repentance is added to faith. Language cannot cover such misguided conceptual confusion. My opponent’s definition of his expression contradicted the words of the expression. If I were to claim that “baptism only” saves us but then added that by “baptism only” I mean to include faith and repentance, “baptism only” is not only baptism.

In his second negative of the Warren-Ballard Debate, brother Warren said regarding Ballard, “He said repentance and faith are joined together. Where is the Scripture that says it? Where is the Scripture that says repentance and faith are joined together?” (p. 44). Of course, there is none! The steps in the plan of salvation are not simultaneous steps. That is, since one can come to faith without yet repenting, we know that faith must come before repentance can occur (Acts 2:37, 38). And since one can arrive at faith and yet refuse to confess his faith, and since we know that one cannot rightly confess what he does not believe, we know that confession of faith follows the initiation of faith (John 12:42, 43). And since baptism transfers a person into Christ (Gal. 3:26, 27), we know that faith, repentance, and confession must precede baptism.

Now, let us get back to the baptistery and again focus on the conceptual distinctions and the chronological order of the sequence of events that transpires while the person being baptized is in the water. We have already determined that prior to the sinner’s entering the baptistery, (1) he has come to faith, (2) he has repented of his sins, and (3) he has confessed his faith. Now he steps down into the water, and someone (usually the preacher) then immerses him in that water. Now, regarding the most serious topic of salvation and kingdom entry, what is the order of spiritual events that transpires while the person being baptized is yet under the water (immersed in or submerged in that water)?

Is water baptism for or unto the remission of sins? Yes (Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38). Can God regenerate or make spiritually alive a person who is yet dead in his sins while he is still in his sins and yet to be forgiven? No. Then, regeneration must follow forgiveness (Tit. 3:5, 6). So now we have the chronological order of (1) forgiveness of sins and then (2) regeneration. Now, notice that regeneration is changing the nature of the dead human spirit into a live human spirit by virtue of its having its nature changed. This is 2 Peter 1:4. While in the water, the baptized person’s nature is changed, so that now he is considered not only forgiven, but regenerated or revitalized by God’s Holy Spirit so that he is now at a higher level of association with God than his being in sin allowed him to be (See the discussion of this vital point in chapter 13 of our book, Except One Be Born From Above—especially look at the “Scale Of Connection” on page 218). Now, understand that it is the regeneration (which is what being born from above means) that makes one finally fit for the kingdom. It is the “regeneration” that belongs to the washing, that now causes God to consider this forgiven person as now finally his child! Forgiveness alone doesn’t make him a member of the church; it does not transfer him to the kingdom. It takes both the water of forgiveness and the regeneration of the human spirit by the Holy Spirit to make one fit for the kingdom! Read Titus 3:5-6 very carefully along with John 3:3-5.

In talking with Nicodemus, Jesus said that a person cannot enter the kingdom unless he is born of water and Spirit. If to be born of water is to be baptized in water, then it cannot be successfully gainsaid that to be born of Spirit is to be baptized in Spirit (See our book, pages 109-117, for a more thorough discussion of this point and for refutation of the suggestion that to be born of Spirit simply means to be baptized in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Spirit). And for the elaborated proof that water-only baptism has always been baptism into the name of Jesus only (and not into the names of the Father and Holy Spirit), see our book, chapter 1 (as well as pages 61-68).

Follow this carefully. It is at the point when a person (still being under the water) is not only forgiven but now has been regenerated in his spirit by the Holy Spirit of God, that God now sees that person as a spiritual child of his! That is the time at which God then, because he now recognizes him as no longer guilty and no longer dead, sees him as a son! Notice that Paul tells us specifically that God sends the Holy Spirit into the hearts of those whom he considers his children (Gal. 4:6). Please observe that God does not send the Holy Spirit into the hearts of (1) those not yet sons, (2) those not yet sons in order to make them sons, and not even (3) those not yet sons who are already forgiven! It is when a forgiven person is completely regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God (and, of course, while the person is still in the water), that God moves the Spirit from the outside of the heart to the inside of the heart as well. Now, not only does the Spirit enclose the heart, but it indwells the heart. I discuss this point in detail in our book to show why the idea that we are “in” Spirit is equally accurate to the expression the Spirit is “in” us. This is what makes it possible for the person under the water to arise to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3, 4; 2 Cor. 5:17)!

If someone objects to the foregoing and says that there is no detailed chronological order to the events that transpire while the person is under the water, he must face the numerous logical contradictions that his suggestion necessarily entails. If someone says that what we claim is false because we have a “forgiven” party not yet “regenerated,” and we have a “regenerated” party not yet in the kingdom, the first thing that we need say is that the not-yet-in the-kingdom-party is still in the water. And we are, after all, discussing the transition from sinner status to saint status! And secondly, we must remember that Jesus told us that the birth of water and Spirit was required in order for any man to enter the kingdom (John 3:3-5). Unless we are born both of water and Spirit, we cannot enter the kingdom! We can only enter by virtue of our being baptized in both water and Spirit. Read John 3:3-5 very, very carefully.

Now, we see the person being baptized in the baptistery. And we know that while his body is submerged in the water, that God forgives him. And we know that forgiveness alone is not enough to catapult him into the kingdom. But we do know that birth of water along with birth of Spirit can do that very thing. Thus, today when the believing penitent who has confessed his faith now has (1) a body under the water, and (2) a human spirit or heart regenerated by the Holy Spirit himself, having been dispatched to that person from Jesus Christ (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16), he satisfies the twofold requirement that the Lord gave Nicodemus. He is now born of water and Spirit, and just as the person’s body immersion is a baptism in water, just so his spirit or heart immersion is a baptism in Spirit!

If someone objects to the order of events as here described as occurring while a having-confessed, penitent believer is being baptized in water, and claims rather that everything happens simultaneously (forgiveness, regeneration, indwelling), then (1) he faces not only the logical contradictions that his denial implies, but (2) he contradicts the very notion of the essentiality of sequential events as described in Scripture.

Now let us consider one final point. One is either in the kingdom or out of the kingdom. Our discussion of what happens while a baptized person is under the water, helps us to see where the line is crossed from being outside the kingdom to being inside the kingdom. According to the Bible, since God can only add the saved to the rest of the saved (the church), a person has to be not only forgiven but regenerated. And today in every occurrence of kingdom entry, it is always at the point of regeneration that one is added to the church. [I have to say “today” because in the cases involving initial entry of the three major ethnic groups (Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles) into the kingdom in the first century era, there was a time lapse that occurred (1) between the time that some entered the water and the time in which they received the Spirit or (2) between the time in which they received the Spirit and the time in which they entered the water (see Mark 1:4 with Acts 2:1-4; Acts 8:12-17; Acts 10:44-48)]. Today every person who enters the kingdom enters the water first before he can receive the Spirit.

Following regeneration, the person is now a son into whose heart the Spirit then goes. So, notice the following conceptual stages: (1) forgiven, (2) regenerated by Holy Spirit, (3) identified as spiritual kinfolk (sons and daughters of God), so that we are then (4) indwelled by Holy Spirit. Since point (2) is the point at which our nature is changed, that is where we become the sons and daughters of God. Because we are his children, then, he sends the Spirit to abide in our hearts (Gal. 4:6).

So again, if objections come which claim that this makes no sense because we then face the fact that (1) a forgiven person is not yet in the kingdom, and (2) a regenerated person is not yet indwelled, and that (3) a son of God is recognized as a son without his having the indwelling Spirit within his heart, remember that all of these events take place in the blink of an eye while the baptized person’s body is under the water as he is being changed from sinner to saint. And the process is not over until each stage is reached. And the complete process is ever so quickly completed while one is still under the water! But conceptual distinctions must absolutely be observed. If we deny them, we wind up in conflict with the doctrine of salvation as explained in Scripture and have to face the logical contradictions that are by the denial implied.

To clarify, let us say again that (1) we are not added to the kingdom at the point of forgiveness because we have not yet at that point been immersed in Spirit. (2) We are then regenerated by the Holy Spirit, which regeneration constitutes the baptism of the Holy Spirit. (3) We are not yet added to the kingdom at the point of regeneration, but we have by this point been born of water and Spirit. The body is immersed in water and the human spirit is immersed in Holy Spirit. (4) Now we are added to the kingdom because as recognized children of God, God sends his Spirit into our hearts per Galatians 4:6. This encompassing Holy Spirit (surrounding my human spirit in regeneration) now moves to the inside of my heart. His now being within my heart constitutes the indwelling. It is now true that (1) a person is then “in Christ” and that (2) Christ is “in him” or, to say it differently but equally truthfully, that (1) a person is now “in Spirit” and (2) the Spirit is “in him.” And when a person is in Spirit and has the Spirit within him, he is in the kingdom (Rom. 8:9-11; Luke 17:20, 21). God only adds his spiritual children to the kingdom. He only adds saints (and not sinners) to the church!

If one attempts to deny the “process” of salvation (whether before the water or while one is under the water), he faces great difficulty. We have historically known about (1) the difficulties that denominationalists have faced when attempting to dismantle the logical steps in the plan of salvation or by combining concepts that cannot be joined (cf. Warren-Ballard Debate again). But what about (2) the difficulties that we face as brethren if we attempt to deny the process and the distinctions that the Bible makes as to the sequence of events that transpire while the baptized person is under the water? What if someone claims that there is no process so that everything takes place at once? What if all that occurs, occurs simultaneously? Well, let’s consider that.

If it is true that, while a person is being baptized in water, “everything takes place at once,” it either takes place inside the kingdom or outside the kingdom. Which is it? We know that the sinner entered the baptistery. Now if, while he is under the water, “everything takes place at once,” then let’s consider the first option. Let us say that he is forgiven, regenerated, recognized as a child of God, indwelled by God’s Spirit while he is still outside the kingdom. Is this possible? Is it possible for a forgiven, regenerated, recognized, and indwelled child of God to be outside the kingdom? NO! Why not? In the first place, it is “no” because only those who are in the kingdom (or church) can finally enter heaven, and the indwelling Spirit is the earnest of that inheritance (Eph. 1:13, 14), and in the second place, when a person is indwelled by the Spirit, that means that since the Spirit of Christ is now “in” him, the kingdom is “within” him (Luke 17:20, 21). Consider the chart:

While Under The Water
Remission of sins → Regeneration → Recognition → Residence

It is at the point of “Residence” that the Spirit resides within the heart of the forgiven, regenerated, and now recognized person! At the point of “Residence” we have (1) the person’s heart residing within the Holy Spirit, and (2) the Holy Spirit residing within the heart of that person. This is why Jesus could say that “the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20, 21), and Paul could say, “But ye are not in flesh but in Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). On the chart the transition of the forgiven, regenerated, recognized party takes place as the person moves from “Recognition” to “Residence.” One is not in the kingdom until he reaches the point where he resides in Christ by residing in the Spirit of Christ and where Christ by his Spirit resides in that person!

Let’s try the second option. The person in the water, let us say, is forgiven, regenerated, recognized as a child of God, and indwelled by God’s Spirit, and all of this while he is inside the kingdom. But we all surely know that if a person is forgiven and regenerated while he is inside the kingdom, we are saying that he enters the kingdom before he receives such forgiveness and regeneration. In other words, this position implies that one must enter the kingdom in order to receive forgiveness and regeneration! So, as it turns out, the claim that all that occurs while one is in the water occurs at the same time actually implies an impossible chronological process of its own! The view implies, if one takes the second option, that one must (1) enter the kingdom, or church, in order (2) to receive forgiveness and regeneration!

Now, if someone suggests that Paul did claim in Ephesians 1:3 that all spiritual blessings are “in” Christ rather than outside of Christ to bolster the claim that initial forgiveness of sins must be then found “in” Christ, we examine the claim first by asking, “What did Paul mean?” Consider the following argument that recently appeared in print:

Major Premise: If the Mac Deaver doctrine of present day Holy Spirit baptism is true, then the doctrine that alien sinners receive the remission of sins before and without entering the spiritual body of Christ is true.

Minor Premise: The doctrine that alien sinners receive the remission of sins before and without entering the spiritual body of Christ is not true (Eph. 1:3, 7).

Conclusion: Therefore, the Mac Deaver doctrine of present day Holy Spirit baptism is not true.

This is a valid argument form called modus tollens. However, it is not a sound or dependable argument because a sound argument is not only valid, but its premises are true as well. In this argument the minor premise is false. That means that the argument is not sound!

If the expression “all spiritual blessings” includes initial forgiveness and regeneration, and if the expression “in Christ,” means “the church of Christ,” then it is clear that one must enter the church of Christ before he can receive initial forgiveness and regeneration! That is, the sinner must enter the church as sinner, and then he must after being admitted to the church as sinner, receive forgiveness and regeneration, which means then that at first he is a sinner in Christ but afterward he is a saint in Christ! But we know that this is not so. The saved are added to the rest of the saved, as we have previously proven. So, this implication is false. It is simply false doctrine to contend that “initial forgiveness of alien sins” is found “in Christ,” taking that expression to mean in “the church of Christ.” That will not work! So, we have to determine what spiritual blessings are being contemplated in the passage and/or we have to more carefully define what “in Christ” in the passage means.

Look at it like this: Is the Bible a spiritual blessing? If we answer “yes,” then we can see that either (1) the Bible is being excluded from the category of spiritual blessings as contemplated by Paul in Ephesians 1:3 [so that only spiritual blessings that only Christians actually have access to are being included] or (2) the Bible is being included in the category of “spiritual blessings” being referenced by Paul, but if it is, then the expression “in Christ” must refer not to the church of Christ but rather to the person of Christ since many people outside the church of Christ have access to the Bible.

If we answer the question (“Is the Bible a spiritual blessing?”) with a “no,” we find ourselves having to face the implication that then it is either not spiritual or not a blessing. And since it is the most spiritual book we can have, being produced by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12, 13; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 1 Pet. 1:10, 11; 2 Pet. 1:20, 21), we wouldn’t say it is not spiritual. And we certainly would not deny that it is a blessing!

So, the answer to the question (“Is the Bible a spiritual blessing?”) must be “yes.” But that means we have to face the implications that then (1) it is excluded from Paul’s comments in Ephesians 1:3 or it is being included. I do not think that the context will allow for its exclusion, but if someone suggested that it must be excluded because the expression “in Christ” can only refer to the church of Christ, then I would suggest that then on equal grounds, the concepts of forgiveness of sin and regeneration can be equally excluded from the expression as found in the passage, so that Ephesians 1:3 lends no support whatever to the view that “forgiveness and regeneration” take place “in Christ” meaning “the church of Christ.”

But, since there is no way to exclude the Bible from the category of spiritual blessings, the expression “in Christ” must mean, not the church of Christ, but the person of Christ himself! Paul elsewhere clearly does make the distinction between the Lord’s spiritual body (the church) and himself. In fact, later in the book of Ephesians, he does this very thing, distinguishing between glory being “in the church and in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:21). Furthermore, in the letter to the saints at Colossae, Paul claims that “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” are hidden in Christ (Col. 2:2, 3). This is claiming that it is by reason of the person of Christ (not the church of Christ) that this wisdom and knowledge are available! And this lends support to what we have said about Ephesians 1:3 not excluding the Bible from the category of spiritual blessings. It is by means of the Spirit of Christ that we have the Bible (1 Pet. 1:10, 11; 1 Cor. 2:12, 13), but people outside the church of Christ have access to it. It would be absurd to claim that Paul was excluding the Bible from the category of spiritual blessings to be found “in Christ” when writing to the saints at Ephesus, and yet locate all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge “in Christ” when he writes to the Colossian brethren (2:2, 3)!

So again, I reiterate: Anyone who says that since all spiritual blessings are in Christ (meaning the church of Christ), and since initial forgiveness of sins is a spiritual blessing to be found in Christ (meaning the church of Christ), is taking the Baptist position that one must get into Christ before he is baptized!

Finally, the reader by now should be able to answer the following True-False questions without difficulty.

Before One Enters The Water

  • T/F 1. Before the sinner is immersed in water, all that he does he does outside the kingdom. (True)
  • T/F 2. Before the sinner is immersed in water, all that he does he does inside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 3. Before the sinner is immersed in water, some things he does he does inside the kingdom and some things he does he does outside the kingdom. (False)

As One Is Immersed In Water

  • T/F 1. As the sinner is immersed in water, all that he experiences, he experiences outside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 2. As the sinner is immersed in water, all that he experiences, he experiences inside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 3. As the sinner is immersed in water, he experiences at least some things from outside the kingdom (forgiveness and then regeneration), and then he experiences at least one thing (indwelling) which transitions him from outside the kingdom to inside the kingdom. (True)

Note: At some point while under the water, the person has to go from outside to inside the kingdom!

  • T/F 4. The sinner leaves sinner status and gains saint status while he is under the water so that he can arise to walk in newness of life. (True)

When One Arises From The Water

  • T/F 1. As a saint all that he does he does inside the kingdom. (True)
  • T/F 2. As a saint nothing that he does he does inside the kingdom. (False)
  • T/F 3. As a saint only some things that he does he does inside the kingdom. (False)

May God help us to come to a greater understanding of and appreciation for the new birth. And let us all be united in the truth that the Lord adds only saved ones to the kingdom.

Posted in General

Read Your Bible

Posted on by lmkilpatrick1

By Marlin Kilpatrick

In years gone by, I have often emphasized the importance of reading the Bible. There’s no book like the Bible, and knowledge of its contents is basic to the living of the Christian life. But, is just reading the Bible all that’s necessary to the living of a life that’s pleasing to the Lord? If one is to benefit from reading the Bible, he must first understand some guiding principles that will assist him in coming to a deeper appreciation of God’s eternal word (cf. Matt. 24:35), and how the scriptures have an application in his own life.

The Bible is literature. Not all literature is interpreted in the same way. To further challenge our understanding of what we are reading, the Bible is comprised of different kinds of literature. When one reads the Bible he will encounter history, poetry (wisdom literature), biography, along with some apocalyptic writings. Each of these kinds of literature requires the reader to apply certain rules of interpretation. A mistake is made when we try to interpret all scripture the same way.

The Bible is a book. All books have a basic function which is to impart information. One who is trying to solve a mathematical problem would not seek help from a book about world history. He would seek a book that illustrates how to solve various kinds of mathematical problems. Likewise, the Bible, being a book, imparts all the information one needs to be able to obey the gospel of Christ and live successfully the Christian life. The Bible is unique among all books, because it is God-breathed (2 Pet. 1:20, 21).

Christians are supposed to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). The first step in our spiritual growth is to read the Bible. But more is required than just reading the scriptures; we must correctly handle God’s word (2 Tim. 2:15). If we correctly handle the scriptures, we will be able to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). We will also be able to “prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of the God” (Rom. 12:2). The reading of the scriptures will make us “wise unto salvation” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15).

Should we just read the Bible? No, but reading, studying, and applying the teaching of the scriptures in one’s own life will greatly enhance his life and lead him to that eternal home of the soul. Think about it.

 

Posted in Restoration History

Thomas Campbell’s Desk

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Solomon told it right when he said, “Of making many books there is no end” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The number of books extant today would dwarf any library Solomon ever saw or imagined. As a preacher, my religious library has grown with time, including hundreds of volumes of greater and lesser value (though it is still small compared to many). Some I would hate to part with. Others just occupy shelf space. In younger days, I was driven to build up a library, thinking that more books translated into more advantage to a preacher. These days, it is only occasionally that a book is added to the collection and I am more motivated to actually read what is on the shelf, rather than be on the lookout for something new to place on the shelf.

Good books can aid immeasurably in Bible study, depending on the caliber of their content, and assuming they are read with a discerning eye, educated in the Scriptures. Though an advocate of helpful books, I was, nevertheless, struck by an observation that Alexander Campbell made about his father:

“In my boyhood, when entering into his study, in which he had a large and well-assorted library, I was wont to wonder on seeing, with a very few exceptions, only his Bible and Concordance on the table, with a simple outfit of pen, ink, and paper. Whether he had read all these volumes, and cared nothing more for them, or whether he regarded them as wholly useless, I presumed not to inquire, and dared not to decide. But such was the fact” (Memoirs of Elder Thomas Campbell, p. 271).

Isn’t that what it ought to come down to? For all that can be said in favor of things like commentaries (bad examples of which can do much harm), there is nothing to take the place of a man alone with his Bible. It is easy for our perceptions to be colored by something read elsewhere, and we may end up missing what the Bible actually says because we have been helped into a misunderstanding by an unhelpful book (or article, preacher, etc.). Whatever benefit we reap from other sources, we will always need open Bibles, prayerful hearts, and minds keen to learn exactly what God wrote. And, perhaps, the church would be in better shape if, along with having his honesty of heart, more of our preachers had desks like Thomas Campbell’s.

 

Posted in Christian Living

Summer Is Near

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Jesus observed that, when the fig tree puts out leaves, “you know that summer is near” (Matt. 24:32). In Texas, the mercury in the thermometer is rising, kids are almost out of school, trees are in bloom, thoughts of travel steal into our minds. Let’s remember some things this vacation season.

First, God does not go on vacation. The God who created summers (cf. Psalm 74:17) expects to be our God during the summer. He does not take leave from maintaining the universe, from blessing us, or from listening to our prayers. Nor should we try to take a vacation from God. On Mount Carmel, Elijah poked fun at the false god of the Baal worshipers, suggesting that Baal wasn’t answering his followers because he had gone away on a trip (1 Kings 18:27). Thankfully, the true God is constant and dependable. Are we?

Second, watch what you wear (others surely will). Since the world is not trying to please God, shouldn’t it raise a red flag if we find ourselves dressing (or, undressing) like the world? One of the “works of the flesh” listed in Galatians 5:19 is the Greek word aselgeia, which is translated as “sensuality” (ESV, NASB), or “lasciviousness” (ASV, KJV), or “lewdness” (NKJV). Aselgeia has to do with an attitude that ignores spiritual purity and, instead, emphasizes the flesh, without respecting holiness or the impression made on other people. We kid ourselves if we say, “no one cares or pays attention to what I wear.” We ought to be covered—at a minimum—to the knees. If we can show half our skin (or more) to strangers and not be embarrassed, something is wrong (cf. Jer. 6:15). Being at a pool or the beach does not excuse “sensuality” in attire. Neither does a hot day.

Third, if you travel this summer, find the faithful. Hebrews 10:25 is part of God’s word, even during June, July and August. The obligation to assemble with the saints to worship the Lord does not go away just because we do. Besides, it is easier to plan ahead and find the Lord’s people today than it ever has been. You can look up churches on the internet, check their websites, map it online. If all else fails and you find yourself separated from brethren on the Lord’s day, have a worship service with your own family. The point is not to neglect God, even if the brethren back home will never know.

Fourth, upgrade your understanding this summer. Unlike software, apps, or cell phones, our minds are the only thing we can upgrade and still take with us into eternity. The Bible calls on us to be making continual spiritual progress (cf. 1 Tim. 4:15). Summer is no time to slack off from growing in the faith. Why not find a good commentary to read on a particular book in the Bible? Take your studying to a new level. How about a biography of a gospel preacher of days gone by, such as Alexander Campbell, Barton Warren Stone, Raccoon John Smith, or a dozen others? Read or watch a helpful religious debate. Study some ancient church history written in the early centuries after the New Testament. Of course, there’s no substitute for reading the Bible itself. At the rate of three chapters a day, you could read the entire New Testament this summer. With summer approaching, let’s purpose to be better servants of God before summer is over.

 

Posted in Apologetics, Christianity and Culture, Evolution

Aliens and Evolution (What Happens When Imaginary Green Men Get Credit for God’s Work)

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

The year 1898 saw publication of H. G. Wells’ novel, War of the Worlds, which helped pioneer the concept of aliens (and aliens versus man). It was adapted in a 1938 radio broadcast which frightened many into believing aliens were invading America. H. G. Wells was an adoring student of Thomas Huxley, who was known as “Darwin’s bulldog” due to his staunch defense of Charles Darwin’s theory of human origins.

If aliens are defined as physical creatures inhabiting other planets or galaxies, then they have no place in a worldview informed by the Bible. Angels and demons are treated as matter-of-fact realities in the Bible, but not as living in space. Stars are created by God (Gen. 1:16) and, though sophisticated instruments will only allow scientists to guess at their number, God knows the precise number of stars and has already named every one of them (Psalm 147:4). One thing the Bible never hints at is intelligent life in outer space.

However, aliens do go hand in glove with evolutionary theory. In his 2008 documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein chronicles extreme prejudice in academia against belief in intelligent design in the universe. At the movie’s end, Stein interviews Richard Dawkins, one of today’s leading advocates of atheism. Asked about the possibility of the world’s being intelligently designed, Dawkins replies:

“Well… it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved… by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto…perhaps this… this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail…details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”

In other words, even an atheist like Dawkins feels the pressure to admit the possibility of what to so many of us is painfully obvious: we are surrounded by intentional, intelligent design. So, with straight face, he posits as a serious suggestion that unidentified aliens, at an untold time, from undisclosed location, by an unknown method, “seeded” on earth a “form of life” they “designed.” Dawkins’ desperation is palpable, and a grasping at cosmic straws.

The debate may be shifting. Whereas atheists used to deny intelligent design in nature, at least some now seem willing to admit it, as long as the designer is anyone but God. What but an entrenched anti-God bias would produce a baseless assertion, such as Dawkins’ theory of intelligent design by aliens? Yet, some will doubtless view it as scientifically credible, since Dawkins said it, even though there is nothing scientific about it.

Scripture affirms the existence of Adam and angels, but not aliens. Rational, thinking beings that we are, there is no excuse for confusion about where we came from. Noting the inescapable evidence for God all around us, the apostle Paul writes that “the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

Posted in Apologetics, Existence of God, Metaphysics

“Something” or “Nothing”?

Posted on by Mac Deaver

The issue of “origin” as a concept has to begin somewhere. From whence did everything that is arrive? What is the source of all that we experience on earth? Ultimately, we are going to have to face two theoretical possibilities. Either there was a point at which there was “nothing,” or there has never been a point at which there was “nothing.” But before we go further, let us make sure that we are all on the same page regarding what nothing “is.” Look at those last quotation marks. They indicate that the very concept of “is” is opposed to the very concept of “nothing.” If we say that nothing is so and so, we are trying to give nothing some sort of ontological or “being” status, which by definition it simply cannot have. Nothing is not something. Nothing has no characteristics or qualities. Nothing is void of everything. It is the absence of anything and everything. It is the negation of all being. And by “being,” we mean existence at its most fundamental ontological level. If “nothing” were to be the absolute ultimate ontological condition at a given point, then we as men could not “think” it. As humans we cannot live with nothing and our minds are not equipped to even clearly grasp the meaning of the term we choose to describe as the absolute ontological contradiction to “being.” We have to think of “nothing” as a “something” even to bring it forward as a concept for discussion. Isn’t that amazing? And isn’t that insightful?

So, when we talk about “nothing” as a theoretical possibility regarding origin, we are having to intellectually squirm around in the effort to make sense of that which we are trying to describe. It is hard for a finite mind to get hold of the concept of nothing. It would do well for atheists to contemplate this point the next time they criticize the concept of eternal “something”. As humans we can only contemplate “nothing” as a topic from the background of the something that already impresses itself constantly on our minds. The backdrop of the discussion of “nothing” exists as a “something”. It cannot happen any other way. Since a human mind is certainly “something,” then we can only begin to attempt to fathom the concept of nothing via something, that is, our human minds. Minimally, the existence of at least the human mind is always the ontological presupposition to the discussion of “nothing”. Without our minds, there is no discussion, there is no issue, there is no controversy about the ultimate origin of all there is. So either “something” or “nothing” as the ultimate ontological explanation for all else is only relevant to a mind.

Now, just what does that insight tell us? It tells us that “nothing” can only be thought about by “something”! The approach to the topic of “nothing” can be made only by a mind. But a mind must exist before the concept can be thought. It is, then, impossible for “nothing” to be an intellectual category of existence all by itself. It can only exist in some sense as someone’s thought. If there were no thinker, then “nothing” could be thought or mentally produced as a concept. If there were no thinker, “nothing” could ever be known to be the ultimate ontological condition. If there were no thinker, “nothing” could never be discovered to be the ultimate ontological condition. “Nothing” as a concept only exists in a mind. Without a mind, there is no “nothing” to be thought or discussed. If “nothing” were (and without an eternal Mind) to be the ultimate ontological condition, then that “nothing” would have to continue as the ontological state. Out of nothing, nothing comes! That is, ontologically speaking, something cannot come from nothing! It is irrational to attempt to contradict that basic truth.

Think about it this way. Non-being cannot “be”. Non-being is not being. And not-being cannot be an existing ontological category that permits exploration or discovery as an existent category can. This means, then, that when in language we attempt to discuss the concept of “nothing,” that we can only do so by approximation. We can approximate the proposed ontological category of “nothing” only by language accommodation. But we can never actually get our minds around “absolute nothing,” because a mind can only think of “something”. That is the nature of thought. A thought cannot contain “nothing”!

Just as “something” is ontologically prior to “nothing” (as truth is to falsehood and as good is to evil), logically a mind is ontologically prior to the discussion of the possibility for any kind of “nothing”. That means that “something” is ontologically prior to “nothing”! “Nothing” as a category of thought or being only makes any sense either ontologically (in the totality of reality) or conceptually (in someone’s thought) with something already existing. Ontologically “nothing” can be isolated and in concept identified only against the background of “something”. It is, as already stated, like the concept of good or the concept of truth. “Evil” makes sense only on the ontological precondition of an existing good. And falsehood only makes sense on the precondition of an existing truth. Just so, “nothing” means nothing (that is, not anything at all) conceptually unless ontologically “something” exists with which it can be contrasted.

So, it is impossible for “nothing” to exist because “nothing” is “non-existence.” In one sense, to say that “nothing exists” is to say that nothing both exists and does not exist, which is a logical contradiction. This means that nothing cannot be anywhere located. It cannot be discovered because it cannot be found. It cannot be found because, by definition, it has no existence. If it has no existence, it has no accessibility to discovery. We talk about it only in some accommodative sense by an approximation in concept and then in language. Since one cannot discover “nothing,” he can only get close to it by altering the meaning of it. Since men cannot conceive of “absolute nothing,” we imagine a condition that is “almost nothing.” That is the best that we can do regarding the topic of origin. When we try to imagine a state of “absolute nothing,” we always fail. So, perhaps without thinking, we redefine the “almost nothing” that we imagined to be good enough to be the “absolute nothing” that is necessary in the discussion of origin as an alternative to an eternal “something”. So then, we should see that in our discussion of “nothing” and “something,” we cannot even discuss the contrast between the two without at the same time granting some sort of existence to the concept of “nothing” so that our minds can handle the discussion.

Now, think about the fact that if we could comprehend “nothing” (complete and universal non-existence absolutely) without accommodation and approximation, the concept itself could not have clear and precise definition. That is, it could not have clear meaning to us. Why? Because definition distinguishes something from something else. That is what definition does. By the fact that we can discuss “nothing” in some way that seems to make intellectual sense to us in the discussion of origin, we learn that it is being contrasted with “something” already. And I submit to you that the precondition or the backdrop or the contrast that makes the discussion of “nothing” a theoretical possibility in a way that is rationally intelligible is the existence of our minds. Our minds are always being the precondition or the “something” with which the “nothing” we seek to explore is held in contrast. “Nothing” is meaningful as a concept only because of “something” already being presupposed which presupposition is the human mind itself! This is the way that it is; this is the way that it always must be. We think at times that we are really grasping “nothing” because we try to imagine a blank or a void outside of our minds. But the mind itself is so constructed as to impose by its own nature conceptual limitations on our thinking. “Nothing” at minimal ontological reduction must be at least a concept or a thought we try to think or that is manufactured by our imagination, but we can never quite rid it of all content. Never!

To illustrate the impossibility of thinking of “nothing” without approximation (getting only close to its real meaning), let me offer a few items. Let us say that someone objects to our treatment of the topic and says that he can think of and describe, with absolute comprehension, the meaning of “nothing”. Let us say that our objector says that he thinks of “nothing” and can adequately describe it as a hollow or an empty place (void) or a place without form or color or shape. But you see, dear reader, that he is thinking about “nothing” from the viewpoint of “something”. The human mind is stuck right here in its capacity to conceptualize anything. We can only approximate the concept of “nothing”. We cannot grasp it accurately and certainly not comprehensively. We can only think in terms of “almost nothing”. This is as close as we can get! When the objector says that he thinks of “nothing” when he thinks of a hollow or an empty place, he is affirming “something” by which he means to be describing “nothing”!

Interestingly, the first definition in my dictionary of the word “nothing” is “something that does not exist.” And even the second definition, “NOTHINGNESS,” by the “-ness” on the end of the word suggests, somehow, “something” (see Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 577). That is, “nothing” is being considered as “something”. We cannot mentally get to the concept of “nothing” without identifying it as “something,” some state of affairs or condition or situation or location, etc. Now, isn’t that instructive? The human mind simply cannot get its arms completely around the concept of “nothing”. That means that when we attempt to think it or try to discuss it, we are doing so by means of some kind of conceptual and language accommodation, so that each of us knows what the others are meaning to say without anyone’s actually and precisely saying it when we refer to “nothing”. No human being can at one and the same time (1) exist and (2) claim accurately that “nothing” is possible of comprehension. The already existing mind cannot “get it”. We can only intellectually arrive at the border or the idea of the concept of it by thinking and speaking in terms of “almost nothing”. And that is as far as we can go. The bottom line is, then, that in the discussion of origin, we cannot even consider the idea of “nothing” without first presupposing “something”. By negation of “something,” we conceptually arrive at its opposite “nothing”. But that “nothing” cannot have complete meaning without the “something” that it opposes. To make this clear, let me offer the following. Let us identify the ways in which we can think of “something” and “nothing”. We can think of “something” in the following ways:

Possibilities for “Something”

1. Something as only a concept (that is, it exists only in a mind).

2. Something as an actual ontological existent (that is, it exists also outside of the mind).

3. Something as only a word or sound (that is, there is no ontological referent for it even though the word can be written or spoken).

4. Something as an actual non-existent.

Number 1 can be illustrated by a 4,000 pound horse.

Number 2 can be illustrated by a real horse.

Number 3 can be illustrated by a unicorn.

Number 4 can be illustrated by a horse no longer alive and whose bones and flesh have been completely absorbed by nature.

Possibilities for “Nothing”

1. Nothing as only a concept (that is, it exists only in a mind).

2. Nothing as an actual ontological existent (that is, it actually exists outside of the mind and without a mind).

3. Nothing as only a word or sound (that is, there is no ontological referent for it even though the word can be written or spoken).

4. Nothing as an actual non-existent.

Number 1 means that “nothing” is never outside the mind at all. There cannot be an “absolute nothing”.

Number 2 is a contradiction by definition. “Nothing” cannot be “something”.

Number 3 is actually a denial that “nothing” exists since it is only existing by a sound or a word that names it but gives it no ontological standing. We have a sign without a referent to which the sign points or for which the sign stands. “Nothing” is really simply a word or sound with no meaningful referent.

Number 4 is the meaning of “nothing” being attempted in the discussion of origin, but we arrive at the concept of “nothing” only by conceptual approximation.

Now why is this important to consider? It is important because it means then that, ultimately, there is no alternative to the eternal existence of “something”! Since out of nothing, nothing can come, and since the human mind can only approximate the condition of nothingness by the description that “almost nothing” exists, we are seeing and saying that “something” has always existed. And the very description that “almost nothing” exists becomes itself void of significance in the effort to identify theoretical possibilities in the discussion of ultimate origin. Why? Because we are affirming that “something” really does, after all, exist! And, ontologically speaking, that is the contradiction of the claim that “nothing” exists. In other words, to say that “almost nothing” exists is to say that “something” exists! So, to claim that “almost nothing” exists is not much of a claim, as it turns out, after all.

Think about the concept of improbability. If someone says that it is improbable that God exists, since the claim of improbability is the admission of the possibility of the contradictory, then whoever says that it is improbable that God exists is saying at the same time that God may exist after all! More strikingly, however, when someone says that it is possible that at a point “nothing” existed, since he can only approximate “nothing,” he is saying that at a point “almost nothing” existed, which implies, at that point, “something” existed after all!

Think about it this way. What if someone is discussing a box that he thinks has been emptied of all the apples in it. Suppose he says to a friend of his that the box is empty. Then suppose that his friend looks into the box and finds one remaining apple. Being shown this, the original claimant who said the box was empty now, in response, says that the box is “almost empty”. What does this mean? Obviously, if the box is only “almost empty,” then clearly it is not empty at all! Now to apply this easy illustration, when we find that the “ontological box” is almost empty (conceptually as we attempt to think about “nothing” as a category of inquiry and discussion), we are finding that the “ontological box” is not empty at all. “Something” is in it. But it looks like that something is barely in it. That is, the box looks to be almost empty or void of anything except this one lone, isolated apple.

Ah yes, it looks like there is a large encompassing atmosphere that envelops the one lone apple. The box is larger than is the apple within it.

And here is where the application of this illustration breaks down because the actual ontological condition cannot be that way. Why not? Because the ultimately identifiable “something” has no encompassing atmosphere that is larger than it is. If there is a larger encompassing something that is beyond what the already identified ultimate “something” is, then the “something” identified could not be the ultimate “something” possible! This reminds us, does it not, of Anselm’s correct insight regarding the ultimate Being as being that “greater than which cannot be conceived”. It is not merely coincidental that Scripture claims that God inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15; cf. Psalm 90:2). Conceptually, that is not anything close to saying, for example, that God inhabits Georgia. What God inhabits cannot be properly conceptualized as being a place larger than the inhabitant. The nature of ultimate Being cannot be described that way.

The Bible claims, and the situation must ontologically obtain, that beyond time and beyond everything else that there could ever possibly be, something had to be already “in place” with the “place” not being something like geography (e.g. Georgia) but a condition beyond time and place. The ultimate something, whatever or who it is must be beyond time in the sense that everything in time is characterized by the property of merely enduring through moments or segments of durative existence. That is, everything in time is marked by time and must be in the process of passing away or passing out of time. I would describe time basically as the process of diminishing change. The ultimate something or existent must be beyond time. Too, the ultimate existent has to be beyond place in the sense that it must be its own place. When Scripture declares that God inhabits eternity, it is saying that God is his own residence! He simply cannot exist in a place that preceded him, and he could not possibly exist in a place that succeeded him! God is his own area or “place”. He, himself, constitutes the only location there is, at least before any creation occurs.

This means that ultimate Being is something beyond both time and place as we are forced to think about both concepts, because we can only think of time as it applies to things created (that is, finite things); we can only think of place as location always in some sense larger than any possible existing inhabitant. Interestingly, according to Scripture, there is a sense in which God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and he inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15). God is the “I Am That I Am” (KJV) or the “I Am Because I Am” (ASV) per Exodus 3:14 in that he is not an effect but the eternally existing Being whose being is explainable only in terms of its own and only ontological self-sufficiency. The reason for God is God. As Aquinas taught us, his essence simply is “to be”. In one sense, it sounds so strange, but when the finite mind begins to explore the nature of reality, the absolute essentiality of such an ultimate essence is found to be not simply a possibility but an essentiality. So, again, God is beyond time and he was, since he was outside of time, the only “location” before creation.

Following creation, all of creation must be “in him”. This is why Paul can tell the philosophers in Athens that men live “in God” (Acts 17:28). The whole creation is a different sort of thing (by the nature of any created thing) from the Creator himself. All of creation must be “in God” in that God is greater than any and all of what he makes. The effect cannot be greater than the Cause. To revert to our “almost empty basket” illustration earlier, we see that God is not simply the lone apple left in the basket that shows that the basket is only “almost empty”. Rather he is the essential and necessary “basket” that contains any and all apples that can exist. So, as it turns out, the “something” that is implied by the “almost nothing” is, in fact, not merely a lone “something” that means that the basket is barely occupied, but rather the “something” turns out to be the necessary Lone Something—or God—that is able to contain everything else that ever there is or could be.

Now, what if someone grants the contention that it is really impossible, after all, for the human mind to completely comprehend the concept of ontological “nothingness,” but then registers the objection that such is irrelevant in the discussion of origin since the human mind cannot fathom the concept of eternity either. Suppose a skeptic says, for example, that the impossibility of complete comprehension of the idea of “nothingness” is not important to the discussion anyway, since the concept of eternity is equally off limits to human comprehension. Let us explore this possible objection and see if there is some merit to it.

When someone says that the concept of an eternal something (God) is just as hard to intellectually grasp as is the concept of an ontological “nothing,” we would suggest that since we humans are here to look at the topic of origin, something is certainly existing now. We must begin the exploration of the nature of the origin of our universe by virtue of the fact that something is already in place. The “something” and all the “somethings” that are present display their nature to be finite (limited) and contingent (dependent) effects without efficient cause and without sufficient reason from within themselves to explain themselves.

It is an obvious feature of our universe with its component parts, that the items that when combined constitute that universe are such as to cry out to us that they cannot explain themselves and they cannot cause themselves. The idea of something’s causing itself is a contradiction in terms. “X” cannot cause itself to exist because if “X” is the cause, it already exists before its effect does, and if “X” is the effect, it cannot be the effect of “X” that does not exist previously. It is irrational to suggest that anything can cause itself! It is an impossible situation that amounts to a claim for an ontological contradiction which is absurd. Well, if it is impossible for anything to cause itself, what about the possibility of something’s being the reason for itself? Those who study philosophy may be familiar with the principle of efficient causality and with the principle of sufficient reason. These are two different principles of tremendous worth. And both of them cover the existence of everything that there is! The principle of efficient causality covers everything that is an effect (which is everything but God). The principle of sufficient reason covers everything including God.

No man thinking correctly can say that (1) he caused himself to exist or that (2) he has the sufficient reason or explanation for himself within himself. Every man, if he thinks about the matter at all, surely realizes that the explanation for himself lies outside of himself and the cause for himself is outside of himself. And such is characteristic of every particle of this physical universe! The efficient cause and the sufficient reason for everything within the universe and the universe itself is outside of itself. That is the very nature of the essence of physicality. And even regarding the mind of man, by self-reflection, each of us can know that (1) he did not cause his mind to exist (since it is a contradiction to claim that a mind caused itself to exist) and (2) the sufficient reason for the existence of his mind within his body indicates that the sufficiency for the arrangement is not within the arrangement itself. It has to come somehow from the outside. Each of us would begin to explore the cause and the reason for ourselves by taking the first step and claiming that our parents are our efficient cause even if they cannot be the sufficient reason for us. According to Scripture, all men have a heritage of efficient cause all the way back to Adam and then to God who is the ultimate efficient cause and sufficient reason for the existence of everything outside of himself.

Every “something” in the universe, or the universe as a “something” considered as one entity, indicates its complete ontological inadequacy in explaining itself or being the reason for itself or in being the cause of itself. Every feature of our world points to a “something” that must exist and not by causing itself (which as we have seen is a contradiction in terms) but which must have the reason for itself within itself. But a mindless “it” or a simple piece of matter has no capacity to be its own explanation or reason, as we see in looking at our universe and all that composes it. The ultimate principle of the universe cannot be just an “it” or an “It” or an “IT”. All of the “its” as a category are effects at best of something that is not. The essence of the ultimate Being has to be greater than everything that composes a part of our universe and greater than the universe as a whole.

The ultimate “something” or “Something” has to be this way! God has the reason for himself within himself. He does not cause himself because such is impossible and also because he is no effect. But he does and must have within his own essence the essential claim on existence. And all effects must be less that all causes. And the total effect of creation must be less, in some sense, than the ultimate Creator. Aquinas taught us that God’s essence is to exist. Now, we may not be able to completely fathom such an essence, but we can fathom the necessity of such an essence when we are considering how it is possible for anything now to exist at all.

So, let us look at our two possibilities as we think about the origin of our universe. Everything is the result finally of either (1) “nothing” or (2) “something”. Now, it is correct to say that it is hard for a human and finite mind to comprehend an “eternal something”. But the “eternal something” is implied by every “finite something” that exists. The fact that it is hard for a finite mind to comprehend an infinite and “eternal something” ought to make us humble, reverent, and submissive while admitting to ourselves that it is impossible for us to completely grasp the nature of divine essentiality. But what we do know is that while we cannot grasp the nature of essentiality (and thus the sufficient reason for God’s infinite eternality), we can grasp the necessary nature of that existence as an explanation for whoever it is that causes everything else to exist. The first cause must be his own explanation. It simply has to be this way. And this is what the Bible means in affirming God!

It is true that we cannot fathom completely the concept of “nothing”. We can know, however, that “nothing” cannot be the ultimate cause of anything. And “nothing” cannot explain anything. We can approximate the category of “nothing” only by looking at it against the background of “something”. In fact, “nothing” is always being considered “something” as we try to imagine it. It is also true that as we talk about the eternal God as the ultimate cause of everything outside of himself and as the sufficient reason for himself, that we are claiming something that we cannot completely comprehend.

However, the two situations are not parallel in that—

1. “Nothing” can ever be the cause or the explanation for anything, period!

2. “Something” necessarily or essentially existed forever in order for something to exist even temporarily today.

3. The incapacity of the human mind to grapple completely with the concept of “nothing” only indicates the necessary background of “something” as the precondition for the discussion of “nothing” anyway.

4. We cannot know “nothing” as such, and we cannot know the essence of essential existence that must characterize the ultimate cause of the universe.

5. But we do know that since out of “nothing,” nothing comes, and that since “something” has come, then the “ultimate Something” somehow carries his own eternal ontological credentials for himself within himself. It cannot be any other way.

In the 1976 Warren-Flew debate on the existence of God, Warren said that an atheist cannot disprove the existence of God by appealing only to the concept of God (see p. 54 of The Warren-Flew Debate). Rather, Warren said that the attempt at disproof would necessarily entail not only the concept of God (which concept by itself is coherent), but such would entail combining the coherent concept with some empirical fact which supposedly contradicts the concept. This is what is involved when atheists attempt to disprove God by the so-called “problem of evil”.

So, according to Warren (and this was never denied by the atheist Flew in the debate), the coherent concept of God plus some empirical fact alleged to be contradictory of the concept would be required to attempt to disprove theism and to establish the claim of atheism.

Now, what have we been saying in this article? We have been saying, in effect, that the concept of “nothing” is really an incoherent concept at best. We simply cannot make sense of “absolute nothingness”. The state or condition or situation of any proposed “absolute nothingness” is an incoherent concept in and of itself! It only becomes intelligible by making it “almost nothing” against the backdrop of a “something”. By itself the concept of “nothing” or “nothingness” can never rationally be suggested as an alternative to the necessity of creation. The concept of “God” is a coherent one, and the atheist Antony Flew did not deny such. But the concept of “absolute nothingness” is not even coherent! In the Warren-Flew debate, Flew suggested in his rejoinder on Monday night, “It seems to me that someone could perfectly consistently be an atheist and believe that the universe is going as a matter of fact to have an end, or believe that it had had a beginning but was not going to have an end. However, I am myself inclined to believe that matter is without end and without beginning. But I do not see why as an atheist I have got to” (ibid., p. 65).

Thus, as an atheist Flew wrongly accepted the irrational notion that (1) “something” can come from “nothing,” while at the same time wrongly accepting the view that (2) matter is eternal. But Flew also conceded correctly that the concept of God by itself is coherent! Warren exposed Flew for accepting the self-contradictory view from Strato of Greece, called the “stratonician presumption,” which claims that “everything there is is a product of nature” (ibid., p. 170f.), which if true would mean, as Warren pointed out, that nature produced itself (now who can possibly actually believe that when he understands what it means?) and he told Flew that he needed to get on with the business of attempting to prove the eternality of matter (p. 187)! Warren used the Second Law of Thermodynamics in physics to show that the claim that matter is eternal is false (ibid.).

Finally, if the concept of “God” is coherent, and if the concept of “nothing” is incoherent, and if the attempt at disproving God must entail not only the coherent concept of “God” but an empirical fact judged to be contradictory to the concept, then what can we finally say about the concept of “nothing” plus some empirical fact? Notice that the incoherent concept of “absolute nothing” plus any empirical fact, means that “something” exists! Why? Because the empirical fact exists alongside the incoherent concept of “nothing”.

So, the concept of “God” plus some empirical fact is what is necessarily attempted by atheists to disprove God when they use the so-called “problem of evil,” but no facts can disprove God, because all facts ultimately demand God for ultimate explanation! As Professor Warren used to teach us, “if one thing exists, then God exists. If the one thing that exists is God, then God exists, and if the one thing that exists is not God, then it requires God for its existence”. And the incoherent concept of “nothing” plus some empirical fact proves “something” rather than “nothing” exists because the empirical fact is “something”.

It is impossible, then, to build a rational case for atheism either by the alleged eternality of matter or by “something” coming from “nothing”. There is no room in the discussion of ultimate explanation of the origin of anything, rationally speaking, for claiming anything other than God!

Posted in Christian Living

“You’re First” and “You’re First, Too”

Posted on by Weylan Deaver

 

By Weylan Deaver

In the aftermath of the recent severe hailstorm in Denton, there has been no shortage of roofing companies pounding the pavement, hoping to get to pound on our housetops. It seems common practice for them to stick a sign in their customers’ yards when an agreement is reached. Thus, my neighborhood is dotted with a multitude of signs from a plethora of roofers, one of which is called the “You’re First” roofing company. Now, I know nothing about them and have nothing against them, and give them the benefit of the doubt they are a good business. But, I just found it funny, as I drove down my street, to pass a house with a sign in the yard saying “You’re First,” then to pass the house right next door with a sign in its yard also saying “You’re First.” How can both homes be first to that company? It brought to mind a more important point. We often want to think of ourselves as serving God, but our actions betray that we also want to pursue our own interests at God’s expense. In other words, we’re telling God, “you’re first,” while at the same time saying to self, “you’re first, too!” In reality, it cannot work that way. “But seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37). We can put ourselves first, or we can put God first, but we cannot do both at the same time. Come investigate the church of Christ. We do not promise visitors that they are first, but that we will strive to offer an atmosphere where God and his truth are.