The Constructive Curmudgeon

Some Thoughts on Social Media, Self-Promotion, and Christian Ethics

2012-03-11T13:35:00.001-06:00

Several Facebook folks have recently criticized me for promoting myself or for being egotistical. This leads me to reflect a bit on the matter.

I am responsible to made good on the gifts God gave me, to not bury by talent or hid my lamp under a table. Since I am a teacher and writing, I need to get the word out. I am driven by my conviction that Christianity is true, rational, and pertinent to all of life, that Jesus is Lord of all.

I am also a sinner, so I may at times promote my own work too much or present things on Facebook that are not fitting. (Sometimes the etiquette is difficult to fathom.) Please bear with me. Strong criticism that judges my motives, given by strangers is hard to swallow, I must admit. It is rude. But even rudeness may speak the truth.

However, I view social media as a limited means to get out the message of my work and other things I think are worth thinking over--or even just worth laughing at (doggies).

Therefore, I will continue to try to use this medium to its best. Please help me with your comments and prayers.

Apologetics Conference

2012-03-09T12:14:00.001-07:00

Here is an article at The Christian Post at the apologetics conference I will be speaking at on March 10.

Lecture on Jesus as God

2012-03-08T18:55:00.002-07:00

My lecture outline for my talk this Saturday morning at Cherry Hills Community Church, part of "Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask."

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

Jesus was a Good Man—But the Son of God?

‎

"Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” -- C.S. Lewis

I. Jesus Christ and the American Mind

A. Most are very favorable toward Jesus

B. Most do not hold the Bible’s view of Jesus, however

C. Argument: If Jesus was a good man, what else do we need to believe about him?

II. Sources of our Knowledge of Jesus

A. The Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

1. Transmitted accurately over time: manuscript evidence

2. Written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or those who consulted them (Mark and Luke)

3. Are written as space-time history, not myths or legends (see Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16)

B. The Apostle Paul (letters in The New Testament)

1. Paul was a converted Jew

2. Was authorized by the author original Apostles

3. Wrote in the 50s

III. Some Claims of Jesus

A. Claimed the authority to forgiven sins (Mark 2:1-14); give his life for sinners

B. Was the Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:15-28)

C. Was “one with God, the Father (John 10:30-31)

D. Claimed he would die and rise again (throughout the Gospels)

IV. Some Credentials of Jesus

A. Taught with authority; was a masterful philosopher (On Jesus)

B. Worked miracles of many kinds: over nature, illness, demons

C. Was the crucified and resurrected Lord (1 Corinthians 15)

1. Facts of history

a. Known burial place of Jesus

b. Empty tomb of Jesus

b. Many appearances of Jesus

c. The resurrection changed the lives of the disciples

2. Best explanation: simplest, explains the most: Jesus’ resurrection in space-time history

V. The Conclusion About Jesus: Four Options

A. Was a legend; No: the evidence supports the New Testament record.

B. Was deceived; a madman: No: his character was sane and rational, not insane and irrational

C. Was a deceiver

1. No: there was no benefit in doing deceiving people

2. Being a deceiver does not fit the rest of his character or his actions

D. Conclusion: He was who he said he was: Lord and Savior!

VI. Jesus Christ Best Answers the Human Condition (John 10:10)

Jesus is the God whom we can approach without pride and before whom we can humble ourselves without despair.—Blaise Pascal, Pensées

For much more on these arguments:

1. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011), chapters 19-22.

2. Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus (Wadsworth, 2003).

3. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Zondervan, 1998)

On Third Parties

2012-03-07T09:44:00.000-07:00

Stan Van Sant: Voting for a third party candidate is like peeing your pants. It may make you feel warm for a bit, but in the end it leaves you cold.

2012-03-03T22:37:00.001-07:00

‎"Nothing is easier than to have good intentions but, without an understanding of how an economy works, good intentions can lead to disastrous consequences for an entire nation. Many, if not most, economic disasters have been a result of policies intended to be beneficial - and these disasters could often have been prevented if those who originated and supported such policies had understood economics." - Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell

Can You?

2012-03-03T13:19:00.000-07:00

Can you lovingly give more love?

Can you lovingly receive more love?

My New Cell Phone

2012-03-02T20:39:00.000-07:00

My new low-tech cell phone frightens me. It is a black box of deep mysteries--and it is disposable.

1. It photographed me without my volition. I heard a (simulated) shutter sound, then I shuddered.

2. It talked to me without me asking it a question. More disturbingly, I answered back.

3. Strange indecipherable things appear on the screen for no apparent reason.

4. It took me a week to figure out how to...answer it.

I wish I had been born in 1940.

Statism

2012-03-02T19:03:00.001-07:00

Statists will take away as much power from the private sector--private property, free trade, and liberty--as you let them. Do not let them.

2012-03-02T00:39:00.001-07:00

‎"Though the Bible says men are lost, it does not say they are nothing. When a man says he is a machine or nothing, he makes himself less than the Bible’s view of fallen man." ~ Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There.

RENEWING YOUR MIND IN A WORLDLY WORLD: How Christians Can Take Back Their Minds

2012-03-01T00:34:00.002-07:00

Douglas Groothuis

Published in the Christian Research Journal

Americans are being lied to every day. Popular culture tells us that deep thinking and reflective living is pointless. Instead, we must move faster. We need faster cars, faster food, and faster computers—now. We need more things, more toys, more power, and more perks. We need more hair (if baldness threatens), but we don’t need more knowledge or more wisdom. We need less wrinkles (hence Botox parties) and less pounds, but not less vices (as long as we can get away with them). Our media are dominated by celebrities who are not wise, learned or godly people. They are usually over-paid and ego-driven athletes or movie stars. Next to nothing in popular culture encourages us to slow down and cultivate a contemplative life before the God “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Instead we are tempted to believe that God has nothing to do with our most valued activities and dreams. We can do fine without him. Or, we may redefine the God of the Bible and godly religion to fit our designer preferences. Either way, worldliness reigns, world applauds, and the mind is deadened.

The myriad messages of popular culture have been sticking to and deforming our souls. American men and women are not known for their reasoned convictions about those things that matter most. Polls show that Americans are very “religious” concerning belief in God and church involvement. Yet they watch an average of four hours of typically mindless and violent television per day, are terribly ignorant of basic biblical truths, seldom read thoughtful books, and are theologically confused on basic doctrines. Some of the most popular Christian teachers and writers today often lapse into heresy or aberrant doctrine. (Hence the need for The Christian Research Journal’s many articles correcting these errors). Few Christians share their faith regularly or wisely. If they do, they are often stumped when faced with skeptical questions and challenges, since their evangelism is not grounded in solid apologetic arguments (see 1 Peter 3:15-17; Jude 3). Pollster George Gallup found that many of the same people who say, “Yes, Jesus is the only way,” also affirm that “Yes, there are many paths to God.” But this is logically impossible. Jesus cannot be one of many ways—and the only way! Gallup comments, “It’s not that Americans don’t believe anything; they believe everything.” Here Proverbs give a word to the wise: “A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps” (Proverbs 14:15).

So-called “spirituality” is on the rise, but spiritual discernment—even among Christians—is languishing. Many feel free to combine ideas and practices from various religions with little or no concern for logical consistency or allegiance to any received religious tradition, let alone biblical authority. A kind of smorgasbord mentality prevails. One might, for example, consume servings of happy Christian thoughts (“God loves you”), self-effort (“God helps those who help themselves”), and some yoga for physical wellbeing and inner peace—and feel no pain of inconsistency. This is despite the fact that God’s love is not an amorphous energy that permits everything (including Hindu practices such as yoga), ratifies works-righteousness, and condemns nothing. Quite the contrary, God’s love is manifested concretely through the gracious work of Christ who alone liberates us from counterfeit spirituality and the futility of self-salvation. Yet these radical and world-changing truths are easily lost in fogs and bogs of our worldly environment.

The Media Fast: Breaking Free and Reaching Up

The Lord Jesus Christ does not want us to believe everything—only the truth (John 14:6). He commands us to love our God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37), to know the truth that sets us free by following him (John 8:31-32) and to make that truth known to others (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:15). The Apostle Paul commands us to “test all things. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil” (1 Thessalions 5:21). Rather than letting culture conform us to its mold, we should be transformed through the renewing of our minds so that we know and accomplish God’s will in all of life (Romans 12:2). Similarly, the Apostle Peter wrote his readers to stimulate them to “wholesome thinking” (2 Peter 3:1) and to admonish them to prepare their minds for godly action (1 Peter 1:13). In his Pensées, Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal issued a strong indictment: “Man is obviously made for thinking. Therein lies all his dignity and his merit; and his whole duty is to think as he ought.” Yet instead of pondering God and the soul, the world inclines us to think more about diversions, such as “dancing, playing the lute, singing, writing verse, fighting, and becoming king, without thinking what it means to be a king or what it means to be a man.”

How do Christians break free from the deceptive temptations of popular culture and reach up to receive with open hands all that God has for us? We need first to disengage from worldly distractions and then engage our God-given minds in constructive and rewarding ways. As the Psalmist cries to God, “Teach us to number our days aright, that we may gain a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12)

“My mind cleared. I had fewer lustful thoughts. I started to think more deeply about life. I prayed more. I spent more time with my family and friends. I want to be this way more often!” Hundreds of students at Denver Seminary offer testimonies like this after completing a required “media fast” for my class on ethics and contemporary culture. For at least one week they abstain from at least one popular medium (usually television) and meditate on various Scriptures, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-18). Reading their reports is a rewarding task for me, because they reveal that God is at work renewing my student’s minds and liberating them from subtle snares.

Why should anyone fast from media when they are everywhere and so easy to use? Should we become cultural hermits, who spurn all of popular culture? No. This spiritual discipline follows from the spirit of Jesus’ teachings on fasting from food. For a time, we deny ourselves something that is routinely part of our lives in order to focus more intently on God and his Kingdom (Matthew 6:16-18, 33; see also 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 for another application of fasting). In our media-saturated, self-focused, and dumbed-down culture, a media fast is often a tonic for the beleaguered and benumbed mind. Some of my students initially suffer from withdrawal symptoms. The silence roars in and the mind races after they unplug. They automatically reach for the remote control and have to stop themselves. Something must fill the “empty” time. But they soon find there is much to do that refreshes the soul and renews the mind. These principles apply to any Christ-follower, not just seminary students who are doing an “assignment.”

First, the media fast allows for—but doesn’t automatically produce—more reflection, prayer, and a deeper life before God. Instead of being yanked along at a breakneck pace by television, movies, radio, or video games, we can slow down, “be still,” and remember God in all our ways (Psalm 46:10). We can listen to the voice of conscience, repent of our sins, and seek a more godly and peaceful life (Matthew 7:7). Just as King Hezekiah had the temple purified by priests and Levites after many years of defilement and abuse (2 Chronicles 29), so should we purify ourselves from the habitual sins so readily encouraged by popular culture, since our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

Second, we discover time to pursue intellectually challenging activities, especially reading. Christian author Larry Woiwode notes that television is a “Cyclops that eats books.” Many Christians don’t read a single thoughtful book in a year because they are too occupied with a myriad of mind-numbing media. If they do read, the are often short, simplistic, or sensational and of dubious theological and intellectual substance. (Consider most Christian bestsellers.) But a deeply meaningful life in Christ cannot be experienced without consistent exposure to and enjoyment of great thinkers. The Bible ranks first in great thoughts since God is its ultimate Author, and because it is the truest and wisest book ever written (Psalm 119). Because it is God’s own word, it cuts to the quick and teaches us the truth we need to know in order to love God and others aright (2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12).

We should also seek out and savor thoughtful books and articles about the Bible, theology, apologetics, history, art, ethics, literature, and so on. Great books can be good friends, and for a lifetime. The writings of C.S. Lewis are a treasury on many topics, from apologetics to ethics, to science fiction. He was a delightful and arresting writer, a dedicated Christian, and a brilliant thinker whose works stand the test of time. I have read his apologetic classics—Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, and The Abolition of Man—many times and with great profit. You can also stay abreast of contemporary culture from a Christian perspective by receiving Charles Colson’s daily “breakpoint commentary” (see www.breakpoint.com) and by listening to Ravi Zacharias’s radio program, “Let My People Think”—as well as by reading their thought-provoking books.

Getting Down to Business

Compare the time you spend on entertainment with the time you spend reading and reflecting on Holy Scripture and profound books. Then compare it with the time you spend in prayer and biblical meditation. Prayerfully seek God for the necessary adjustments in thought, word, and deed. Engage in a media fast for yourself. Instead of languishing in front of the TV with your family and friends (or by yourself), read a meaty book together and talk about it. Invite your family and friends to resist the hollow enchantments of worldly culture and to instead glorify a holy God in their thinking, speaking, and doing (Colossians 3:17). But be sure to begin the process with yourself as you resist worldliness and pursue godliness (Matthew 7:1-5).

From National Review On LIne

2012-02-29T21:38:00.001-07:00

Comments

In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.

Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)

Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, in his 2004 Senate campaign, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth.

In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

One other excuse for Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill has been proffered: that the final version of the bill was coupled with another piece of legislation that imposed criminal or civil consequences for doctors who did not properly treat infants who were covered by the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama and others deemed this second bill unacceptable. However, this doesn’t begin to defend Obama’s vote on the first bill.

As Ponnuru pointed out back in 2008, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact admitted the above facts as such, but have disputed whether they constitute “legalizing infanticide”; FactCheck argued that that question remains a value judgment. Since the Illinois bill would have provided legal protection for born-alive infants who had not been protected before, by opposing it, Obama voted to continue to make it legal to kill them. Thus, the only question remaining in order to determine whether it was “infanticide” is: Were the subjects of the bill fetuses or were they infants? In order for them not to be considered infants, one would have to contend that an unviable prematurely born baby is not an infant — a claim few would be willing to make. And yet, Obama’s votes, three times over the course of three years, indicate that he believes that fetuses who have been born alive, but have not yet reached the age of viability, are not human persons worthy of protection by our laws. Such a position on abortion is, to say the least, extreme, and deserves attention.

Which leads to the second question Gingrich raised: Have the media questioned Obama’s position on the Illinois infanticide bill? Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple has turned up a few media references to President Obama’s extreme abortion stances from the 2008 campaign: two CNN segments discussing his record, including the Illinois legislation specifically; one instance in a debate, where John McCain raised the question of Obama’s record, and he defended his position on the Illinois bill; and one interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, in which Obama was queried on partial-birth abortion, though not the Illinois legislation specifically.

The attention was most intense in August of 2008, after the NRLC managed to generate national debate about Obama’s position on the Illinois bill. Obama was asked about it during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he offered a thoroughly deceptive response to the question, saying, “Here’s a situation where folks are lying” about his position. However, Obama was the one lying: He told the interviewer, David Brody, that he opposed the bill because of its threat to Roe v. Wade, and that existing Illinois law already protected infants who were born alive. As we have seen, the first assertion is implausible; the second is just plain false.

This seems to be the one instance in which a journalist asked candidate Obama directly about his support for the bill, and he was unfortunately let off, even by a conservative reporter, with his mendacious explanation.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times reported on the controversy, noting the points the NRLC had raised about Obama’s inconsistent and extreme positions. The Times, citing sources on both sides, explored Obama’s claim that he opposed the final Illinois bill because of its unacceptable companion bill. However, Obama’s claim has no solid legal basis: Two different bills are two different bills.

Thus, while one cannot say, as Gingrich did, that the media have literally never questioned Obama’s extreme record on abortion, we can certainly say that there has not been a sufficiently revealing discussion of his views. An honest appraisal would depict him as having voted repeatedly to protect a form of infanticide. Instead, the media have willingly accepted explanations that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

And they deserve scrutiny, for two reasons. First, as explained above, Obama has offered deceptive explanations of his own pro-abortion legislative work, while simultaneously accusing his pro-life opponents of being dishonest. More important, Obama’s record as a state senator was not merely pro-choice, but radically pro-abortion. His voting record indicates that he does not believe infants deserve protection even once they have emerged from the womb if they are deemed to be below the age of viability, and he did in fact, three times, vote to keep a form of infanticide legal.

— Patrick Brennan is the 2011 William F. Buckley Fellow at National Review.

Rookmaaker on Georges Rouault, French Painter

2012-02-29T21:31:00.001-07:00

‎"Rouault shows that another kind of art is possible. It is an art which is a positive answer to absurdity and surrealism and existentialism. Yet it does not show the rosy sentimentality, more humanistic than human, that so much of so-called Christian art has produced."--Hans Rookmaaker, Art and the Death of a Culture.

The Urantia Book: Not Credible (from Jesus in an Age of Controversy)

2012-02-26T23:21:00.002-07:00

I once received a call from a young radio announcer for a Christian station, who wanted information on a Christian view of UFOs and life on other planets. After a few minutes the man reluctantly confessed that his interest was based on The Urantia Book, a revelation that supposedly supplements, corrects, and updates the Bible. Despite his Christian background, this man had doubts that Jesus had to die in order to atone for our sin and turn away the wrath of God. I spoke with him for almost an hour, earnestly arguing for the biblical teachings on Christ’s sacrificial death. Near the end of the conversation his troubled soul seemed to come back to the Bible. What is this Urantia Book and how could it lead someone away from the teachings of Scripture?

The Urantia Book (1955) is a mammoth tome that credits no human author. Rather, it claims to have been assembled by extraterrestrials entities or “Revelators”--with ostentatious names such as Perfector of Wisdom, Number, Divine Counselor, and One Without Name--and channeled by one unidentified human. This 2097 page volume gives a fantastically convoluted and obscure account of cosmology, anthropology, theology, and history. One of its more objectionable anthropological claims is that the black (or “indigo”) race was the most inferior; although it claims that these people “have exactly the same standing before the celestial power as any other earthly race.”[i] Martin Gardner observes that this “is exactly what southerners in the United States, including their minister, used to say about the African American slaves.”[ii]
One of Urantia’s devotees, Peter Bergman, of the comedy group “The Firesign Theatre,” said of it: “It’s been this major influence on my life since 1972. . . . I find it to be the most complete expression and explanation of our relationship to God and where we’re going and where we come from.”[iii] Under the leadership of the Urantia Foundation in Chicago, the book has gone through eleven printings in the United States, with translations in Spanish and Finnish appearing in 1993. Work is being done on Russian and Dutch editions, and there are plans for other languages as well.[iv]My search of the Internet yielded several home pages dedicated to spreading the gospel according to The Urantia Book. Some of the materials offered were aimed specifically at reaching Christians.

The Urantia Book supplies us with over 774 pages on the life of Christ--much of it concerning his supposed world travels during the “lost years of Jesus” not addressed in the New Testament (see chapters 7-8). It tips the extraterrestrial hat to the biblical Gospels, deeming them influential but inadequate, partial, and imperfect records.[v] From the alien angle, the New Testament was corrupted by the influence of Paul, Peter, and others, and only dimly reflects the real teachings of Jesus.[vi]

To attempt to fathom The Urantia Book one must descend into a dark and foreboding labyrinth of quirky terminology, pseudo-scientific pronouncements, and revisionist ideas about Jesus. In barest outline, the book informs us that God is a “Trinity of Trinities,” that humans are unfallen beings who have a divine spark within them (called a “Thought Adjuster”), that they can become fused with God through evolutionary development, and that Jesus’ death on the cross did not atone for our sin against God.

In its attack the idea that Jesus sacrificed his life for ours, The Urantia Book states that “the Father in Paradise did not decree, demand, or require the death of his Son as it was carried out on earth.”[vii] And: “Jesus did not die...to atone for the racial guilt of man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and forgiving God.”[viii] Furthermore, the resurrection of Jesus was, it claims, spiritual and not physical, since his body instantaneously decomposed in the tomb.[ix] It says: “This material or physical body was not a part of the resurrected personality.”[x] These notions contradict the preaching of the Apostle Peter, who proclaimed shortly after Pentecost:

Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know--this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power (Acts 2:22-24, NRSV).

Peter was only echoing his Master, who solemnly asserted that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). The most ancient and reliable records available clearly teach that Jesus offered his life on a bloody cross in obedience to the will of his Father for the redemption of humanity. The first Christians, such as Peter, witnessed and declared that Christ rose from the dead in a perfected physical body, not as a disembodied spirit (Luke 24:36-43; 1 Corinthians 15:1-34; see also chapter 15). However, The Urantia Book, with its Gnostic devaluation of the body, would have us abandon the biblical record and embrace its own unhistorical and idiosyncratic perspective, which it claims is a revelation superior to the Bible or any other source.

The Urantia Book declares that “the gospel of the kingdom is: the fact of the fatherhood of God, coupled with the resulting truth of the sonship-brotherhood of man.”[xi] The true gospel as taught by Paul is that: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” and that he appeared to many witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). These apostolic words bear the marks of historical facticity and personal integrity. For these truths Paul lived and died. On these truths Christianity was born, survived through bloody adversity, and makes its unique appeal today. For all its physical bulk and metaphysical murk, The Urantia Book is devoid of this transformative authority and power.

-------------

[i] The Urantia Book (Chicago, IL: The Urantia Foundation, 1955), 725.
[ii] Martin Gardner, Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery (New York: NY: Prometheus Books, 1995), 24.
[iii] Quoted in Peter Stenshoel and Jay Kinney, “Audio Magicians: When is a Cult Figure an Occult Artist?” Gnosis, Summer 1994, 42.
[iv] Gardner, 11.
[v] The Urantia Book, 1341-1342.
[vi] Ibid., 2091-2093
[vii] Ibid., 2002.
[viii] Ibid., 2016.
[ix] Ibid., 2023-2024.
[x] Ibid., 2021.
[xi] Ibid., 2059.

Mohammad or the Constitution?

2012-02-25T11:32:00.002-07:00

Sharia law comes to America.

2012-02-25T00:37:00.001-07:00

Doug Groothuis on Amazon:

Your reviewing stats

Reviews written: 223

Reviewer rank: 9,568,693

Helpful votes: 3,519 of 6,032

Guest Poem

2012-02-24T14:49:00.001-07:00

The Coming of the Messiah Copyright, 2012

America!

I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you — Hope — Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you

from the cradle to the grave,

even help you in it.

America!

I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you – Hope – Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you

Every Day— and – Every Hour in it.

You don't need to do the planning.

America!

I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you Hope — Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you.

You don't need to tax your brain.

I Know What's Best for You.

America!

I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you Hope – Change – Everything!

I promise to take care of you.

I'll rid you of your noble soul,

the soul that mapped your Noble Dream.

America! Once the envy of All Nations –

now but a faint, flickering flame –

a soul vastly overrated.

It's not so great a thing – it's just a dream.

Yes – a Dream Supreme! But still – just a dream.

America! I come bearing a Mighty Scheme.

I bring you Hope – Change – Everything!

You've no need for an antique dream.

It's not so great a thing – it's just a dream.

America! Hand it over!

Marietta Bakes Knapp

Book of Common Prayer

2012-02-22T01:12:00.001-07:00

57. For Guidance

Direct us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favor, and further us with thy continual help; that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy Name, and finally, by thy mercy, obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

58. For Guidance

O God, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light riseth up in darkness for the godly: Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what thou wouldest have us to do, that the Spirit of wisdom may save us from all false choices, and that in thy light we may see light, and in thy straight path may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord.Amen.

59. For Quiet Confidence

O God of peace, who hast taught us that in returning and rest we shall be saved, in quietness and confidence shall be our strength: By the might of thy Spirit lift us, we pray thee, to thy presence, where we may be still and know that thou art God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Groothuis Teaching

2012-02-21T19:35:00.002-07:00

I will be teaching on "A Short Course in Christian Apologetics" at Calvary Church in Englewood on February 26 at both services.

Strobel, Groothuis

2012-02-21T01:29:00.000-07:00

Lee Strobel interviews me about Christian Apologetics.

Outline for Teaching at Cherry Hills Community Church Sunday, Feb. 19

2012-02-18T20:50:00.001-07:00

Douglas Groothuis, Denver Seminary

JESUS AND THE NEW SPIRITUALITY

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF JESUS

A. The Jesus question: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13-16)

· Americans answer: much confusion

B. The danger of false views of Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:1-4)

C. The need to defend the true Jesus (1 Peter 3:15-16)

II. THE REAL JESUS: BIBLICAL BASICS

A. Jesus’ unique deity

1. Jesus’ own words (Mark 2:1-10, 23-28; John 8:58)

2. Apostolic authority (Colossians 2:8-9)

B. Jesus’ true humanity (John 1:14)

C. Jesus as the only Savior and Lord

1. Jesus’ words (John 14:1-6)

2. Apostolic authority (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

D. Jesus as the only basis for salvation by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)

III. THE JESUS OF THE NEW SPIRITUALITY (NEW AGE)

A. The New Age world view: pantheism (all is God) monism (all is one)

B. The New Age view of Jesus (see 1 John 4:1-6)

1. Enlightened master, guru, adept, yogi, swami

2. Jesus is separate from the impersonal “Christ Consciousness”

3. Jesus is not uniquely God in the flesh--one of many spiritual examples

(see Acts 4:12)

4. Jesus’ crucifixion not redemptive (see Colossians 1:22)

5. Jesus’ resurrection is not literal (see 1 Corinthians 15)

6. Jesus’ second coming is not personal and physical (see Acts 1:1-11)

7. The Bible is not the final authority on Jesus: other sources replace it

(see 2 Timothy 3:16-17)

a. Other supposedly historical documents (Gnostic, etc.)

b. Channeled material (A Course in Miracles)

c. Near-death experiences (Betty Eadie, Embraced by the Light)

8. Esoteric interpretation of Scripture: texts out of context as pretexts for

theological and spiritual error (see 2 Peter 3:15-16)

V. DEFENDING THE REAL JESUS TODAY

A. Spiritual warfare and prayer (2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Ephesians 6:1-10)

B. Communicating the real Jesus to those who are confused

(1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

C. Defending the reliability of the New Testament (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16)

D. Counting on the power of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4;

Ephesians 1:18-23)

VI. RESOURCES FOR DEFENDING THE BIBLICAL JESUS

Books:

1. Douglas Groothuis, Jesus in an Age of Controversy (Wipf and Stock, 2002), Confronting the New Age (InterVarsity, 1988), Deceived by the Light (Wipf and Stock, 2002).

2. Ajith Fernando, The Supremacy of Christ (Crossway, 1994).

3. John Stott, The Cross of Christ (InterVarsity, 1987).

4. Booklet: Douglas Groothuis, Are All Religions One? (InterVarsity, 1996).

2012-02-18T16:58:00.001-07:00

"For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all." -- 2 Corinthians 4:17

Doug Groothuis Teaching

2012-02-17T19:07:00.002-07:00

I will be speaking on the New Age view of Jesus at Cherry Hills Community Church (Highlands Ranch, CO) this Sunday at 10:30 in the chapel. I will also be selling copies of my book, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

Fetus Fatigue

2012-02-17T00:02:00.002-07:00

I wrote this article, "Recovering from Fetus Fatigue," before the last presidential election, but it is doubly pertinent after four ugly years of pro-choice Obama.

Christian Apologetics and Ethics at Denver Seminary

2012-02-14T01:08:00.001-07:00

Douglas Groothuis has established the reputation of being one of the
best apologists and Christian philosophers in the Evangelical
community. Now he has developed a new and exciting program in
Christian apologetics and ethics. This program is very important in
light of contemporary culture, and any student who studies with
Groothuis and his colleagues will get first-rate training. I highly
recommend this program. -- J.P. Moreland

Distracted from Distraction by Distraction

2012-02-12T22:50:00.002-07:00

Neither plenitude nor vacancy. Only a flicker
Over the strained time-ridden faces
Distracted from distraction by distraction
Filled with fancies and empty of meaning
Tumid apathy with no concentration
Men and bits of paper, whirled by the cold wind
That blows before and after time,
Wind in and out of unwholesome lungs
Time before time and after.
The first of T. S. Eliot’s "Four Quartets,” Burnt Norton.

Doug Groothuis Sermon on line

2012-02-12T21:02:00.002-07:00

My sermon, "The Crisis of Truth in the Postmodern World," is available from Crossroads Church of Denver.

Book of Common Prayer

2012-02-11T00:42:00.001-07:00

For Quiet Confidence.

OGOD of peace, who hast taught us that in returning and rest we shall be saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be our strength; By the might of thy Spirit lift us, we pray thee, to thy presence, where we may be still and know that thou art God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For Guidance.

OGOD, by whom the meek are guided in judgment, and light riseth up in darkness for the godly; Grant us, in all our doubts and uncertainties, the grace to ask what thou wouldest have us to do, that the Spirit of Wisdom may save us from all false choices, and that in thy light we may see light, and in thy straight path may not stumble; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Art Show

2012-02-10T00:36:00.001-07:00

Please consider visiting Elayne Moseley's art show at Colorado Community College.

2012-02-10T00:23:00.001-07:00

Apologia Report 17:5 (1,097)
February 9, 2011

APOLOGETICS
Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, by
Douglas Groothuis [1] -- as a fellow educator at Denver Seminary
with Goothuis (though part-time), reviewer Robert Velarde uses this
review to laud his colleague's latest book concluding that "no
single volume of apologetics has, in recent years, approached the
comprehensive qualities of Christian Apologetics.
"Intended by the author primarily for use in seminary-level
apologetics courses ... a few portions may pose some challenges to
the lay reader [but] on the whole Christian Apologetics offers an
intermediate level of content that is both scholarly and accessible.
"The approach is that of cumulative case apologetics (chap. 3),
which Groothuis views as superior to fideism, presuppositionalism,
Reformed epistemology, and evidentialist approaches. This, however,
does not mean that Groothuis entirely dismisses competing
apologetics approaches (fideism being the exception).... Cumulative
case apologetics builds a case for the Christian worldview: 'Several
lines of evidence converge on the hypothesis that Christian theism
is the best-attested worldview. ...
"Christian Apologetics strives for a nonpolemical approach, but
in a few instances it will invariably perturb some. ...
"The book is divided into three parts, Part One addresses
'Apologetic Preliminaries' such as methodology, the Christian
worldview, and truth. Part Two, the lengthiest portion, offers 'The
Case for Christian Theism,' in what may be described as a thorough
'systematic theology' of Christian apologetics. ... Part Three
capably confronts three 'Objections to Christian Theism:' religious
pluralism, Islam, and evil." Christian Research Journal, 34:6 -
2011, p53. [3]

---

Groothuis Sermon Outline on Postmodernism

2012-02-08T23:42:00.002-07:00

This is my sermon outline for my sermons at Crossroads Church of Denver, February 12, 2012.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

Doug.Groothuis@denverseminary.edu

The Crisis of Truth in the Postmodern World

I. DECLARING AND DEFENDING THE TRUTH TODAY

A. A tale of three umpires

B. Our command from God: Speak the truth in love to all (Ephesians 4:15;

Matthew 28:18-20)

B. The apologetic imperative: defend the truth of the faith rationally

1. Have a reasonable answer to questions about God (Isa. 1:18; 1 Peter 3:15-16; Jude 3)

2. Know your culture (1 Chron. 12:32)

3. Know the truth: church is “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)

C. Snapshots of postmodern realities

1. Bumper sticker: “I’ve given up on reality. Now I’m looking for a good

fantasy”

2. Erosion of Christian convictions about truth: relativism and ignorance

D. Preview: Diagnose truth decay, expose it, and give a biblical view to apply

II. DIAGNOSING TRUTH DECAY: POSTMODERN APPROACHES

A. What is truth decay? The loss of the proper notion of truth. This renders

Christianity incomprehensible

B. Postmodernity (cultural condition) and Postmodernism (philosophy)

C. Postmodern cultural conditions (postmodernity): air we breath culturally

1. Sociological pluralism (compare 1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

2. Media saturation; “the saturated self” (Kenneth Gergen)

3. Identity choices multiplied and made easier: “reinventing” the self

D. Postmodernist ideas or philosophies (see Colossians 2:8)

1. Constructivism: we are contingent all the way down

2. Relativism: no access to truth; everything depends on perspectives

3. Language creates perspectives: many languages many perspectives, not truth

4. Irony, superficiality, no depth to discover (all is constructed):

“Whatever…”

5. Implication (a): Revealed, biblical truth is deemed impossible

6. Implication (b): Spirituality divorced from truth; if it “works for you.”

IV. POSTMODERNISM ON TRIAL: THE REVENGE OF REALITY

(Proverbs 8:34-35; Matthew 7:24-27)

A. False and illogical view of human language

1. Self-reference problem: uses language to discredit language

2. Language and reality: words can connect with facts: maps and destinations

(Mapquest); doctors and diagnoses; astronauts go to the moon and back

B. Ethical problems with Postmodernism: Counterexamples

1. Particular cultural expressions of true moral good: Martin Luther King’s

stand for civil rights for blacks

2. Particular cultural expressions of true moral evil: Martin Luther King’s

assassination; Osama bin Laden; torturing the innocent for pleasure; rape

V. TREATING TRUTH DECAY: THE CHRISTIAN’S CHALLENGE

A. Knowing the Christian worldview (theology for all of life)

1. The total Lordship of Christ (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 1:15-19)

2. The obligation to oppose falsehood (2 Corinthians 10:3-5: Jude 3)

B. Christian view of God’s truth

1. Clarify the concept of truth, before getting to content of truth

2. General concept and Christian: correspondence view of truth: truth is what

matches reality. See Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay, chapters 3-4.

C. Four Elements of Christian truth: radical monotheism (Deuteronomy 6:4)

1. Revealed—not constructed, created by us (Hebrews. 4:12)

a. God: uncreated, unconstructed, undeconstructed, unreconstructed—

eternal, immutably good in his character. The Rock of our salvation.

b. Language is adequate for communicating truth; God is there to speak to

us.

c. G.K. Chesterton: “I won’t call it my philosophy; for I did not make it.

God and humanity made it and it made me.” (Orthodoxy)

d. Truth from God for his creatures

2. Objective—not only merely subjective (Romans 3:4)

a. Not dependent on opinions or feelings or preferences; mind-independent

b. Biblical truth stands apart from our interpretations as factual; interpretations are not all equal.

c. Truth must be subjectively appropriated; truth sets you free only if you follow it!

d. Truth must be lived out in community, the Body of Christ: teaching, preaching, mentoring

3. Absolute, invariant—not relative (John 14:1-6); no exceptions, exemptions, vetoes

a. Qualifications, nuances

1. We don’t have all the truth (1 Cor. 13)

2. We cannot convince everyone of it immediately, even Jesus and the Apostles could not

3. We are not infallible in our understanding of it; we are in process

b. Benefit: God is not all over the map; God is focused in Jesus Christ, the way out of the spiritual maze

4. Universal—not situational, regional, parochial (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 4:12)

a. Truth covers all of reality: cross-cultural (Matthew 28:18-20)

b. Truth is for all humanity: for their salvation (Acts 4:12). One died for all.

c. No neutral ground; no demilitarized zone; claimed by God, counter-claimed

by Satan (C.S. Lewis)

d. Vastness, multinational throng of the redeemed worshiping the lamb (Rev.

7:9-10)

V. STAYING TRUE TO THE TRUTH

A. Know the truth that sets us free (John 8:31-32).

1. Resist the dumbing down of culture; resist the lies of postmodernism

2. Oppose biblical illiteracy and theological ignorance. How?

3. Study the Scripture like the Bereans (Acts 17:10-11

B. Back to the umpires:

a. Call ‘um as they are: arrogant

b. Not anything till I call ‘um: postmodernist

c. I call ‘um as I see ‘um: Christian. Work to get into the right position to know the truth, as does a good umpire.

C. Live in and live out the total truth of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:15)

1. Stay true to the truth. Be a holy person of truth. See Os Guinness, A Time for Truth

2. Application (a): Ask God to reveal areas of truth decay in your life; then repent of them (Psalm 139:23-24; 1 John 1:8-10)

3. Application (b): Look for opportunities to present the truth of God in all its fullness conversations, letters, telephone calls, etc. Stay true to the truth; be a holy person of truth willing to live in the holy will of God’s (1) revealed, (2) absolute, (3) objective, and (4) universal truth

4. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “One word of truth outweighs the world.”

5. Instead of “I’ve given up on reality, now I’m looking for a good fantasy”

“I’ve found reality, and I’ve given up on fantasy. Why don’t you join me in the truth of Jesus Christ that sets us free?”

For more on the biblical concept of truth and how to respond to postmodernism:

1. D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Baker, 1996).

2. Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press, 2000).

3. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics (InterVarsity Press, 2011), chapters 6-7 particularly.

4. Douglas Groothuis web page: www.DougGroothuis.com

5. Doug Groothuis Blog: The Constructive Curmudgeon: www.theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com

6. Os Guinness, A Time for Truth (Baker, 2000).

7. J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind (NavPress, 1997).

8. Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth (Crossway Publishers, 2004).

9. Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who is There (InterVarsity Press, 1998); A Christian Manifesto (Crossway, 1981).

10. James Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalogue, 5^th ed. (InterVarsity Press, 2010).

Eric Metaxas at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2012

2012-02-05T23:18:00.002-07:00

I just listened to Eric Metaxas's speach at the Washington Prayer Breakfast. Metataxas is the author of a best-selling biography of Bonhoeffer. I am thankful for the truth that he presented, particularly his testimony, his comments about Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer (although he gets Bonhoeffer's theology wrong in his big book on Bonhoeffer), and his pro-life comments. However, rhetorically and logically, the talk was weak.

First, there was far too much humor at the beginning, which made it difficult to make a transition to the more serious material. Some of the jokes worked; some did not. No matter, there were too many of them.

Second, in his "testimony," Metaxas never explained the gospel of Christ's atoning work for us. He emphasized his subjective experience of the living God, but not what God had in fact done for us in and through Jesus Christ. That is no small omission.

Third, Metaxas used the cliche distinction between religion and knowing the living God. Christianity is a religion: the one true religion, which is both a world-view and a life-transforming reality. A few times, Metaxas spoke of "dead religion," which is fine and biblical. At other times he contrasted "religion" with what he experienced and what Jesus taught. That is not correct.

Fourth, Metaxas said that is take a special revelation from God to see that the unborn are persons worthy of respect. He was a bit vague on this, but he seemed to make this something one could not reason about with a non-Christian. This is false. There are perfectly good philosophical arguments against abortion that rely on no uniquely Christian premises. I have used them myself in many settings, and often to good effect. However, God is the giver of every good gift, so we can say that all moral knowledge (justified, true belief) is a gift of God. I'm not quite sure what Metaxas meant.

I salute Mr. Metaxas for speaking in the public square. However, we need to do far better rhetorically and logically.

2012-02-04T00:47:00.001-07:00

Better a martyr for Truth than a coward for comfort.

2012-02-03T14:39:00.001-07:00

A good friend of mine went to bed hungry, along with his wife, recently. They are godly missionaries in the US. Pray, please! I have helped and others can, too.

Francis Schaeffer, January 30, 1912-1984

2012-01-30T10:56:00.001-07:00

My friend, Professor Timothy McGrew, selected these quotes on the occasion of Francis A. Schaeffer's centennial:

We as Bible-believing evangelical Christians are locked in a battle. This is not a friendly gentleman's discussion. It is a life and death conflict between the spiritual hosts of wickedness and those who claim the name of Christ. It is a conflict on the level of ideas between two fundamentally opposed views of truth and reality. It is a conflict on the level of actions between a complete moral perversion and chaos and God's absolutes. But do we really believe that we are in a life and death battle? Do we really believe that the part we play in the battle has consequences for whether or not men and women will spend eternity in hell? Or whether or not in this life people will live with meaning or meaninglessness? Or whether or not those who do live will live in a climate of moral perversion and degradation? Sadly, we must say that very few in the evangelical world have acted as if these things are true. Rather than trumpet our accomplishments and revel in our growing numbers, it would be closer to the truth to admit that our response has been a disaster.

-Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1984), pp. 31-32

Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless. If our reflex action is always accommodation regardless of the centrality of the truth involved, there is something wrong. Just as what we may call holiness without love is not God's kind of holiness, so also what we may call love without holiness, including when necessary confrontation, is not God's kind of love.

-Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1984), pp. 64-65

Most people catch their presuppositions from their family and surrounding society the way a child catches measels. But people with more understanding realize that their presuppositions should be chosen after a careful consideration of what world view is true. When all is done, when all the alternatives have been explored, "not many men are in the room" -- that is, although world views have many variations, there are not many basic world views or basic presuppositions.

-Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), p. 20

Suppose we awoke tomorrow morning and we opened our Bibles and found two things had been taken out, not as the liberals would take them out, but really out. Suppose God had taken them out. The first item missing was the real empowering of the Holy Spirit, and the second item the reality of prayer. Consequently, following the dictates of Scripture, we would begin to live on the basis of this new Bible in which there was nothing about the power of the Holy Spirit and nothing about the power of prayer. Let me ask you something: what difference would there be from the way we acted yesterday? Do we really believe God is there? If we do, we live differently.

-Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, vol. 4, p. 40

Book of Common Prayer

2012-01-30T00:10:00.001-07:00

Written prayers in The Book of Common Prayer are often my only way to pray. Pain and sorrow can bring out intercessory passion and even eloquence, but they can also silence it. These prayers, many of which are written for the trials of sickness, give a biblical voice to our yearnings, fears, and hopes. I commend them to you

Translation

2012-01-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

My book, Christian Apologetics, is to be translated into Korean!

Groothuis Interview

2012-01-23T10:22:00.000-07:00

Here is a short interview with me.

Thirty-Nine Years after Roe v. Wade

2012-01-21T13:35:00.000-07:00

Why I am Pro-life:

A Short, Nonsectarian Argument

Abortion is the intentional killing of a human fetus by chemical and/or surgical means. It should not be confused with miscarriage (which involves no human intention) or contraception (which uses various technologies to prohibit sperm and egg from producing a fertilized ovum after sexual intercourse). Miscarriages are natural (if sad) occurrences, which raise no deep moral issues regarding human conduct—unless the woman was careless in her pregnancy. Contraception is officially opposed by Roman Catholics and some other Christians, but I take it to be in a moral category entirely separate from abortion (since it does not involve the killing of a fetus); therefore, it will not be addressed here.[1]

Rather than taking up the legal reasoning and history of abortion in America (especially concerning Roe vs. Wade), this essay makes a simple, straightforward moral argument against abortion. Sadly, real arguments (reasoned defenses of a thesis or claim) are too rarely made on this issue. Instead, propaganda is exchanged. Given that the Obama administration is the most pro-abortion administration in the history of the United States, some clear moral reasoning is called for at this time.

The first premise of the argument is that human beings have unique and incomparable value in the world. Christians and Jews believe this is the case because we are made in God’s image and likeness. But anyone who holds that humans are special and worthy of unique moral consideration can grant this thesis (even if their worldview does not ultimately support it). Of course, those like Peter Singer who do not grant humans any special status will not be moved by this.[2] We cannot help that. Many true and justified beliefs (concerning human beings and other matters) are denied by otherwise intelligent people.

Second, the burden of proof should always be on the one taking a human life and the benefit of doubt should always be given to the human life. This is not to say that human life should never be taken. In an often cruel and unfair world, sometimes life-taking is necessary, as many people will grant. Cases include self-defense, the prosecution of a just war, and capital punishment. Yet all unnecessary and intentional life-taking is murder, a deeply evil and repugnant offense against human beings. (This would also be acknowledged by those, such as absolute pacifists, who believe that it is never justifiable to take a human life.)

Third, abortion nearly always takes a human life intentionally and gratuitously and is, therefore, morally unjustified, deeply evil, and repugnant—given what we have said about human beings. The fetus is, without question, a human being. Biologically, an entity joins its parents’ species at conception. Like produces like: apes procreate apes, rabbits procreate rabbits, and humans procreate humans. If the fetus is not human, what else could it possibly be? Could it be an ape or a rabbit? Of course not.

Some philosophers, such as Mary Anne Warren, have tried to drive a wedge between personhood and humanity. That is, there may be persons who are not human (such as God, angels, ETs—if they exist), and there may be humans that are not persons (fetuses or those who lose certain functions after having possessed them). While it is true that there may be persons who are not humans, it does not logically follow that there are humans who are not persons. The fetus is best regarded as a person with potential, not a potential person or nonperson.[3]

When we separate personhood from humanity, we make personhood an achievement based on the possession of certain qualities. But what are these person-constituting qualities? Some say a basic level of consciousness; others assert viability outside the womb; still others say a sense of self-interest (which probably does not obtain until after birth). All of these criteria would take away humanity from those in comas or other physically compromised situations.[4] Humans can lose levels of consciousness through injuries, and even infants are not viable without intense and sustained human support. Moreover, who are we to say just what qualities make for membership in the moral community of persons?[5] The stakes are very high in this question. If we are wrong in our identification of what qualities are sufficient for personhood and we allow a person to be killed, we have allowed the wrongful killing of nothing less than a person. Therefore, I argue that personhood should be viewed as a substance or essence that is given at conception. The fetus is not a lifeless mechanism that only becomes what it is after several parts are put together—as is the case with a watch or an automobile. Rather, the fetus is a living human organism, whose future unfolds from within itself according to internal principles. For example, the fertilized ovum contains a complete genetic code that is distinct from that of the mother or father. But this is not a mere inert blueprint (which is separable from the building it describes); this is a living blueprint that becomes what its human nature demands.

Yet even if one is not sure when personhood becomes a reality, one should err on the side of being conservative simply because so much is at stake. That is, if one aborts a fetus who is already a person, one commits a deep moral wrong by wrongfully killing an innocent human life. Just as we do not shoot target practice when we are told there may be children playing behind the targets, we should not abortion fetuses if they may be persons with the right not to be killed. As I have argued, it cannot be disputed that abortion kills a living, human being.

Many argue that outside considerations experienced by the mother should overrule the moral value of the human embryo. If a woman does not want a pregnancy, she may abort. But these quality of life considerations always involve issues of lesser moral weight than that of the conservation and protection of a unique human life (which considers the sanctity or innate and intrinsic value of a human life).[6] An unwanted pregnancy is difficult, but the answer is not to kill a human being in order to end that pregnancy. Moreover, a baby can be put up for adoption and bring joy to others. There are many others who do want the child and would give him or her great love and support. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for women to experience deep regrets after aborting their offspring.

The only exemption to giving priority to the life of the fetus would be if there were a real threat to the life of the mother were the pregnancy to continue. In this case, the fetus functions as a kind of intruder that threatens the woman’s life. To abort the pregnancy would be tragic but allowable in this imperfect world. Some mothers will nonetheless choose to continue the pregnancy to their own risk, but this is not morally required. It should be noted that these life-threatening situations are extremely rare.

This pro-life argument does not rely on any uniquely religious assumptions, although some religious people will find it compelling. I take it to be an item of natural law (what can be known about morality by virtue of being human) that human life has unique value. A case can be made against abortion by using the Bible (only the Hebrew Bible or both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament combined) as the main moral source, but I have not given that argument here.[7] Rather, this essay has given an argument on the basis of generally agreed upon moral principles. If the argument is to be refuted, one or more of those principles or the reasoning employed needs to be refuted.

Although at the beginning of this essay I claimed I would not take up the legal reasoning related to abortion, one simple point follows from my argument. In nearly every case, abortion should be illegal simply because the Constitution requires that innocent human life be protected from killing.[8] Anti-abortion laws are not an intrusion of the state into the family any more than laws against murdering one’s parents are an intrusion into the family.

[1] See Scott Rae, Moral Choices, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 288-291.

[2] For an exposition and critique of Singer’s thought, see Gordon R. Preece, ed., Rethinking Peter Singer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002).

[3] See Clifford Bajema, Abortion and the Meaning of Personhood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1974). This book is on line at: http://www.ccel.us/personhood.toc.html.

[4] On the dangerous implications of his perspective, see Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, revised ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1983).

[5] For a developed philosophical and legal case for including the unborn in the moral community of human beings, see Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007); and Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen, Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (New York: Doubleday, 2008).

[6] On the distinction between a quality of life ethic and a sanctity of life ethic, see Ronald Reagan, “Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation,” available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp. This was originally an article in the Spring, 1983 issue of The Human Life Review.

[7] See Rae, 129-133.

[8] See Beckwith, chapter two.

2012-01-19T23:58:00.001-07:00

What if hope cannot extend beyond human endeavor itself and is never answered by anything beyond it? What if the millennia of human cries echo only into the empty sky and not further? That possibility must be faced if the quest itself is to have any meaning. In the end, hope without truth is pointless. Illusions and delusions, no matter how comforting or grandiose, are the enemies of those who strive for integrity in their knowing and being. Statements such as "I like to think of the universe as having a purpose" or "The thought of an afterlife gives me peace" reflect mere wishes. These notions do not address the truth or falsity of there being purpose in the world or of our postmortem survival, because there is no genuine claim to knowledge: a warranted awareness of reality as it is. A hearty, sturdy and insatiable appetite for reality--whatever it might be--is the only engine for testing and discerning truth. (D. Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, p.16)

2012-01-19T17:54:00.001-07:00

The fall of humanity is admittedly difficult to fathom; however, once it is admitted into our worldview, the enigmas of the human condition are explained and the human landscape is illuminated as never before. Douglas Groothuis "Christian Apologetics"

Groothuis on Tebow

2012-01-18T22:06:00.000-07:00

I am quoted in this Terry Mattingly piece on Tim Tebow.

Christian Apologetics in Boulder

2012-01-18T19:00:00.001-07:00

Dr. Bradley Monton, an atheist, is using my book, Christian Apologetics, as the text in a philosophy class at the University of Colorado--Boulder called, "Theology Forum." I should be speaking to that class in late April or early May.

Book of Common Prayer

2012-01-17T15:20:00.001-07:00

In Pain

Lord Jesus Christ, by your patience in suffering you hallowed earthly pain and gave us the example of obedience to your Father's will: Be near me in my time of weakness and pain; sustain me by your grace, that my strength and courage may not fail; heal me according to your will; and help me always to believe that what happens to me here is of little account if you hold me in eternal life, my Lord and my God. Amen.

2012-01-16T23:45:00.000-07:00

Here is the sum of the matter. We must earnestly endeavor to know the truth of the biblical worldview and to make it known with integrity to as many people as possible with the best arguments available. To know God in Christ means that we desire to make Christian truth available to others in the most compelling form possible. To be created in God’s rational, moral and relational image means that our entire being should be aimed at the glorification of God in Christian witness. A significant part of that witness is Christian apologetics." - Douglas Groothuis (Christian Apologetics, p.44)

2012-01-16T00:29:00.001-07:00

The Internet is a facsimile of sociality--Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.

2012-01-14T23:18:00.001-07:00

Don't miss the Doug Groothuis interview on "Christian Apologetics" on the God Solution at 8:30 am MST Sunday, January, 15, on KDUR (91.9 and 93.9 FM in Durango and kdur.org online). -- From the host of the program, Nate Herbst.

Book of Common Prayer

2012-01-14T20:03:00.001-07:00

¶ A Litany for the Sick or Dying.

O God the Father,
Have mercy.
O God the Son,
Have mercy.
O God the Holy Ghost,
Have mercy.
Remember not, Lord, our offences.
Spare us, Good Lord.
From all evil and sin,
Good Lord, deliver him.
From the assaults of the devil,
Good Lord, deliver hint
From thy wrath, and from everlasting damnation,
Good Lord, deliver him.
In time hour of death,
Good Lord, deliver him.
In the day of judgement,
Good Lord, deliver him.
By the mystery of thine Incarnation,
Save him, O Lord.
By thy Cross and Passion,
Save him, O Lord.
thy thy Resurrection and final Triumph,
Save him, O Lord.
That it may please thee to grant him relief in pain
We beseech thee to hear us.
To give him such health as is agreeable to thy will
We beseech thee to hear us.
That it may please thee to deliver his soul
We beseech thee to hear us.
To cleanse him from his sin
We beseech thee to hear us.
That it may please thee to receive him to thyself;
We beseech thee to hear us.
To set him in a place of light and peace
We beseech thee to hear us.
To number him with thy saints and thine elect
We beseech thee to heat’ us.
Son of God;
We beseech thee to hear us.
O Lamb of God;
Have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God;
Grant him thy peace.

Review of Christian Apologetics

2012-01-13T14:14:00.002-07:00

Dr. Steven Cowan reviews my book, Christian Apologetics, at Credo.

Mind, Brain, and You

2012-01-12T13:43:00.001-07:00

The fact that consciousness is affected by the brain and by other physical objects, such as the probe, in no way reduces consciousness to a physical property any more than a wooden oar that troubles water turns the water into wood. Douglas Groothuis in Christian Apologetics.

Groothuis on Gag(a)

2012-01-11T22:28:00.000-07:00

Here is my 20-minute interview about Lady Gaga's worldview.

Gaga and Groothuis

2012-01-11T00:24:00.001-07:00

I will be interviewed on Lady Gaga's worldview tomorrow on Issues, Etc.

2012-01-10T23:40:00.001-07:00

2012-01-05T23:19:00.003-07:00

Please read this excellent article on being kind to folks with chemical sensitivities. It is written by my friend, Sherri Connell.

The New Age Movement

2012-01-05T16:15:00.003-07:00

Many years ago (about 1989), I was part of a short video on The New Age Movement called, "The Search." This can now we seen on YouTube.

2012-01-05T12:43:00.003-07:00

Love increases both joy and suffering in this fallen world "under the son," after the Cross, and before the End.

Groothuis on Gaga

2012-01-05T01:48:00.004-07:00

Here are some blog comments about my writing and a recent article of mine on Lady Gaga.

Ic

2012-01-03T01:01:00.003-07:00

When eclectic
becomes eccentric
(and not concentric)
it gets hectic.

Christian Apologetics on Amazon

2012-01-02T21:07:00.000-07:00

My book, Christian Apologetics has been reviewed 14 times on Amazon, with 13 five-star ratings and one four-star ratings. It has been liked "81" times. If you would like to contribute to this forum, please go to Amazon.

Review of R.J. Rushdoony, To Be as God

2011-12-31T23:55:00.001-07:00

Rousas John Rushdoony, To Be as God; A Study of Modern Thought Since Marquis de Sade. Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2003. 253 pages, with index.

Rev. Rushdoony's son, Mark, notes in his introduction that his father had left his book incomplete at his death in 2001. Nevertheless, a book there was and a book we have, despite the author's inability to finishing writing all he had in mind.

R.J. Rushdoony was a prolific, often profound, and equally-often idiosyncratic Christain scholar, writing on topics as varied as epistemology, history, psychology and eschatology. I know. I read about thirty of his books (including the 890-page "Institutes of Biblical Law") from the late 1970s to the early 1990s--and I have dipped back into three of his later works--including this one--in recent years. A Westminister Standards man of the Reformation, Rushdoony also championed reconstruction: the doctrine that the institution of comprehensive biblical law would be a key factor in establishing the (post-millennial) Kingdom of God on earth. The epistemology and apologetic behind this was Van Tillian presuppositionalism: one must give no inch of common ground to the unbeliever in apologetics, but must, rather, presuppose the entire Reformed worldview and use that perspective as the foundation from which to critique alien worldviews.

I was much influenced by this grand and compelling vision for several years. While I remain a Calvinist on soteriology, I have abandoned reconstructionism, although I retain a "Christ transformer of culture" model, to use Neibuhr's typology from Christ and Culture. Nor do I accept Van Til's apologetics in its entirely, as I point out in my book, Christian Apologetics.

Yet Rushdoony, the disciple of Van Til, aptly employs his mentor negative apologetic and key theological insight throughout this book: people want to be their own gods at the expense of the one true God of Scripture. In so doing, they erect impotent (if noisy) idol which ultimately turn against them and all they influence, since those who hate God love death. In some cases, they are blatant in this confession (Nietzsche); in others, the idea must be traced out through analysis. And this is what Rushdoony does by critiquing an impressive list of thinkers, including Marquis de Sade (a perverted thinker far more important than most realize), Walt Whitman, Nietzsche, Marx, and others. He was also able to apply theological categories to social and philosophical thought in way that uniquely illuminated their true roots and fruits. In addition to his deep historical knowledge and philosophical insights, Rushdoony had broad pastoral and personal experience--sources from which he draws many illustrations, some humorous.

For these reasons, the book is worth reading as an apologetic against autonomous modern thought. However, like most of Rushdoony's works, it is poorly edited, given that he seldom wrote for established publishers who would rigorously prune and purify a manuscript. Nevertheless, the book, like all of his works, is deeply footnoted. His son-in-law, Gary North (another prolific author and Reconstructionist) claims that the man read a book a day for decades. Having seen his library and read so many of his books, I believe it.

Award for "Christian Apologetics"

2011-12-29T12:05:00.001-07:00

My book, Christian Apologetics, has received an "award of merit" from Christianity Today in their annual book awards.

Biographies

2011-12-25T18:14:00.002-07:00

Of late, I have been reading a lot of biographical material about Georgia O'Keeffe (d. 1986) and her circle of friends and artists, including her photographer-impresario husband, Alfred Stieglitz (d. 1946). Both helped shape the adventurous face of artistic modernism in the Twentieth Century. Both were fascinating personalities, but hardly virtuous outside of their art work. Much of their lives, despite their artistic genius (and my fascination is with O'Keeffe far more than with Stieglitz), were marred by the sexually perverse.

In contrast, I am near finishing Basic Christian, a biography of the British evangelical pastor, author, and statesman, John Stott (d. 2011). Rev. Stott was not an artist through photographs or on canvas (although as an avid bird-watcher, he did engage in aviation photography), but rather a purveyor of biblical truth through a godly and focused personality. His call was to preaching, teaching, writing, and the truths of Scripture. He was known for his discipline, articulation, and humility. He was a model for ministry, for a life well lived under the calling of Christ. I have benefited from so many of his many works: Basic Christianity, The Cross of Christ, The Contemporary Christian, Why I am a Christian, Between Two Worlds, and others.

John Stott, I can admire. I am inspired by this faithfulness and character. O'Keeffe and her kin, on the other hand, display creativity, daring, and often (when not perverse) endearing idiosyncrasy. But they were not godly. In most ways, they cannot serve as models of moral character. And I must read and study them with a certain amount of caution, lest I imbibe unhealthy sensibilities.

Gag on Gaga

2011-12-24T22:43:00.000-07:00

Mark Sayers and I have the cover stories on Lady Gaga in the most recent Christian Research Journal.

Revelations

2011-12-24T00:10:00.002-07:00

Special revelation calls to and for general revelation:

More.

General revelation calls to and for special revelation:

More.

Introduction to Philosophy

2011-12-23T14:27:00.001-07:00

Douglas Groothuis

Texts for Intro to Philosophy

Metro State, Spring 2012

32255

1000-1250

PHI

1010

Introduction to Philosophy

D Groothuis

01/17-05/12

WC-233

Books

1. LouisPojman, Philosophy: the Pursuit of Wisdom.Wadsworth

2. Plato,The Trial and Death of Socrates. Barnesand Noble.

3. BlaisePascal, Human Happiness. Penguin.

4. BertrandRussell, The Problems of Philosophy. Barnesand Noble.

5. Ecclesiastes: Or the Preacher. Canongate Books Ltd.

ISBN-10: 0862417945

ISBN-13: 978-0862417949

Recommended:

Douglas Groothuis, On Pascal. Wadsworth.
Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus. Wadsworth

Yes, and No

2011-12-22T15:42:00.000-07:00

Wisdom knows
when to gaze,
and when to avert the eyes.

When to listen,
and when to muffle the ears.

When to touch,
and when to pull way untouched.

When to embrace,
and when to turn away.

When to ponder the past,
and when to inhabit the present fully.

Each thing, time, place
in its own measure.

Only God
can bear to know
all things
as they are--
and know them aright.

2011-12-20T02:46:00.001-07:00

a
fugitive
impresario,curator
ofthe abandonedAbsolute.

Christopher Hitchens is Dead

2011-12-16T22:22:00.001-07:00

Christopher Hitchens, the acerbic atheist and prolific author, is dead. I reviewed his book, god is not Great, a few years ago. He was a keen wit, a good writer, and a terrible philosopher of religion.

Apologetics!

2011-12-13T13:23:00.000-07:00

I am speaking at this event.

Bachmann on Gingrich

2011-12-12T18:30:00.000-07:00

“Well, I think there’s very serious concerns about Newt Gingrich as the nominee. And this is starting to get unpacked, because again we know that he has taken over $100 million. His offices are on the Rodeo Drive of Washington called K Street. He’s the king of K Street. And so for a person who has been influence peddling for over 30 years in Washington D.C. to think that Newt Gingrich is somehow an outsider, when he’s the consummate establishment insider, he’s the big government candidate just like Mitt Romney is the big government candidate, that’s not what we want in our nominee. It doesn’t even survive the falling off the chair laughing test.” -- Michele Bachmann.

2011-12-10T15:18:00.001-07:00

Dear Douglas,

Only 24 days remain until the Iowa caucuses and our campaign is ramping up its efforts! Despite what the elitist media and my establishment-backed opponents would have you believe, Iowa is still anyone’s game and we are rising in the latest polls.

With your help, I can prove to the liberal media that grassroots conservatives like you not only stood with me in Ames, Iowa, but also stand with me in the national polls and support my campaign with your generous contributions.

In fact, according to some of the latest polls, 70% of likely early primary voters are still undecided in this race!

That’s why I must raise every available dollar between now and January 3rd to ensure our hard-charging constitutional conservative campaign – not some milquetoast opponents like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich – wins over these undecided Iowa voters.

With so much on the line for our nation, struggling Americans deserve a consistent conservative to solve our economic problems and create jobs -- not the same empty rhetoric offered up by my opponents and the Democrats. We need a proven leader who will stand up to the “Washington elite”.

I am the consistent conservative running for President, and you can always count on me to stay true to my word. Your donation of $25, $50, $100 or more today will ensure our campaign is able to stand up to the Democrat war machine.

As a mother of five and foster mother to 23, I need to prove to the liberal media that grassroots conservatives like you not only stood with me in Ames, Iowa, but also stand with me in the national polls and support my campaign with your generous contributions.

This election is the most critical of our time and it's not a year to settle for just anyone; this is the time to restore the principles that once made our nation great.

The next step on the road to the White House is the Iowa caucus, and we're going all in. Join us as we push forward to victory!

Sincerely,

Michele Bachmann

O'Keeffe in a Cup

2011-12-07T11:24:00.001-07:00

I looked, then gazed, then beheld...my coffee and milk in my cup. Yes, yes, it looked something like a Georgia O'Keeffe painting--especially the swirls, but not the colors. I thanked God, and took another gulp

2011-12-04T22:23:00.001-07:00

It is somehow our lot to lament the avoidable and the unavoidable woes of a wounded world.

From Michele Bachmann

2011-12-03T22:33:00.000-07:00

You can always count on me to stay true to my word and put America and Americans first. I am the consistent conservative who will put our nation back on a path towards prosperity and restore our values to government. In the words of Rush Limbaugh, “She's not seeking fundamental transformation of our country. She seeks to uphold the country and the Constitution."

My Original Version of an Article Published in Christianity Today

2011-12-03T00:13:00.001-07:00

Social Media and the Church

Many American assimilate and advance new communication technologies without a second (or perhaps first) thought. To invoke Marshall McLuhan, they “sleep walk through history.” Those who Jesus called “salt and light” (Matthew 5:13-16) should rather wake up and assess the nature, strengths and weaknesses of the plethora of technologies that assail us daily and hourly.

What place does social media have in the fellowship and evangelism of the local church? Is Facebook a good home for your church? Should your pastor tweet or not? To answer these pertinent questions, we need to attend to two issues: First, what is social media? Second, what is a biblical model of fellowship (or koinonia)?

Social Media

Social media are computer-mediated methods for communication. They enhance human accessibility and the speed of communication between people and groups. I can check Facebook or Twitter to learn how a friend in India (or across the street) is doing. (That is, assuming I can verify their identity—no small problem for much of social media.) However, social media both give and take away, as do all media. They extend the reach of text and images far beyond what the un-electrified, un-mediated individual may do. However, social media also restrict the human presence by subtracting the reality of “being there” and “being with.”

Social media also clutter our field of concentration, rendering our attention to any one thing at one time with any depth nearly impossible. Thus, multi-tasking becomes the norm (even though our God-given brains are not designed for it). We become scattered, flighty, not fully engaged in anything.

Biblical Fellowship

The Bible prizes the personal and face-to-face dimension of human association which is absent, but simulated, through social media. John writes at the end of his short epistle, ^“I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12; see also 3 John 13-14). Although God had sent prophets and inspired holy Scripture for centuries, all was not complete until “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

The mission of God is to make himself known and worshipped as the one true God in all the nations. To that end, Christians have ardently preached and defended the Gospel. The have copied and translated the Bible into as many languages as possible. Christ-followers have also labored to out the message through radio, television, and now the Internet, because “how can they hear [the gospel] without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14). We can try to evangelize through social media and develop forums of association within the church.

Nevertheless, we should remember the shortcomings of social media. They remove the personal presence and fracture awareness. One should not receive communion while glancing at a text message. One cannot be baptized on line. As Paul said, “Test everything. Hold on to the good” (1 Thes. 5:21).

Douglas Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary is the author of Christian Apologetics (InterVarsity, 2011) and The Soul in Cyberspace (Baker, 1997).

Urgent Prayer

2011-12-02T16:49:00.001-07:00

God, who owns everything, prevail on behalf of your impoverished servant who is in danger of losing his house at the holidays. He is working for your to educate the church on Islam. Come to his aid, Oh God of mercy and provision. Oh, God, restore, renew, and bless supernaturally. Amen

2011-12-02T01:24:00.001-07:00

Sending hand-written cards to people is a way to personalize an increasingly impersonal world. "Love is kind."

Groothuis at Saddleback

2011-12-01T01:08:00.002-07:00

Here is a link to my November 27 lecture at Saddleback Church: "Putting Truth to Work: The Biblical View of Truth," along with the other lectures from that series.

Prayer

2011-12-01T00:24:00.002-07:00

Oh, God: Thank you for secular blessings (as it were),
such as the art of
John Coltrane,
Duke Ellington, and
Georgia O'Keefe--
for every good gift comes
from You.

2011-11-29T12:11:00.001-07:00

On Thursday in Denver, the temperature will drop forty degrees. Many laugh at this, but those with chronic illnesses will suffer exponentially on account of it. Pray for them, try to show mercy when they are angry and sorrowful, and be thankful you do not share their miserable plight. If you want to begin to understand, read Psalm 88--slowly and repeatedly. There are many Hemans among us. Look for them, if you have the courage and compassion.

Naturalism and Truth. See chapter 17 of my book, Christian Apologetics

2011-11-25T21:56:00.002-07:00

Patricia Churchland:

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in…feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing [the world] is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost. [1]

Charles Darwin:

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? [2]

[1] Patricia Churchland, “Epistemology in an Age of Neuroscience,” Journal of Philosophy 84 (1987), pp. 548-549; emphasis in the original.

[2] Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; reprint, Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.

2011-11-25T19:40:00.001-07:00

For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

–II Timothy 1:6-7, NIV

Manners, Morals

2011-11-24T22:09:00.001-07:00

Is it not rude to sending and receiving text messages at the Thanksgiving table while surrounded by family and their friends? The decline in manners means (eventually) the decline in morals. MeWorld replaces community.

2011-11-22T19:54:00.001-07:00

Why do some of my students not get the basics of an argument for P?

1. Introduce the issue and its importance.
2. Give the argument form for P
3. Give the evidence for P.
4. Respond to salient objections to P
5. Conclude.

2011-11-22T13:01:00.002-07:00

One may threaten to destroy the soul of another by one devastating insult. More common is the assassination by a thousand small complaints, a constant dripping of acid into the heart.

Duke's Music in The World to Come

2011-11-20T23:46:00.001-07:00

In my restless, eager, and perhaps exorbitant pursuance of all things Ellingtonian, I at times lament that much of Duke's early music was recorded on less than stellar equipment. The exquisite arrangements and virtuoso soling are muted, distorted, or improperly balanced--and not in stereo. Yet, the beauty speaks through it all, nonetheless--so my search continues.

Given my eschatology, I believe that the best of human culture--from every tongue, and tribe, and time--will somehow be conserved in The World to Come. I was convinced of his years ago when I read Richard Mouw's short but compelling book, When the Kings Come Marching In(now out in a second edition by Eerdmans). The chapter addressing "true beauty" in Truth Decay underscores this as well, for what it is worth.

If this is so, then, one glorious day, in the presence of the Triune God and all the redeemed (and I hope Duke is among them), we shall in some manner listen to the aesthetic apex of Duke's nonpareil orchestra form every period, whether badly recorded, well recorded, or not recorded at all. Surely the ears of heaven cannot forget such beauty--or hoard it.

Outline for My Talk at Saddleback Church, Nov. 27

2011-11-20T21:52:00.001-07:00

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

Putting Truth to Work: the Biblical View of Truth

Truth is so obscure in these days, and lies so well established, that unless we love the truth, we shall never know it.—Blaise Pascal Pensées.

I. Truth in Christian Witness: Apologetics

A. Jesus is Truth Incarnate and an apologist (John 14:1-6). See Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus, chapter 3.

B. His followers must know the truth and make it known (John 8:31-32;

1 Peter 3:15; Matthew 28:18-20).

Christian worldview: creation/fall/redemption/consummation. Christian Apologetics, chapters 2-3.

II. Truth and Today’s Culture

A. Knowing our culture, for example,

“From Issachar, men who understood the times and knew what Israel should do”—Chronicles 12:32 (see also 1 John 2:15-17).

B. Two types of unbelief

1. Postmodernism (Richard Rorty): Truth is socially constructed and variable (relativism or non-realism)

2. Philosophical materialism (Richard Dawkins): Truth is what materialistic science describes (realism); there is no supernatural realm, e.g., God, the soul, spirits, the afterlife

III. The Christian View of Truth: the Nature of Truth

A. A true statement is one that reflects or matches reality (realism or the correspondence view of truth). See Christian Apologetics, chapter 5; Groothuis, Truth Decay, chapter 4.

“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”—1 Corinthians 15:14.

B. Truth is objective; not merely subjective

Truth-claims stake out portions of reality through words: “Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:5-11).

C. Truth is antithetical, either/or

"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters—Matthew 12:30.

D. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). Depend on the Spirit to give us an intelligent and virtuous witness (Acts 1:8).

IV. Against the Postmodern View of Truth

A. Postmodernism often refutes itself: claims truth is not objective, but then claims to be the objective account of truth: “There is no objective truth.”

a. If this statement is true objectively, then it is false. It is, therefore, self-refuting, self-stultifying as an objective truth claim.

b. If the statement is true subjectively, then there no reason to hold the postmodern view of truth as the claim applies to everything as objective, universal claim.

2. Counterexamples against postmodernism showing universal, objective truths:

a. Laws of logic: identity (A=A); noncontradiction (A is not non-A).

b. Objective moral goodness or evil: Mother Theresa or Osama bin Laden; sadistic torture or famine relief; murder or love

B. Challenge postmodernists to pursue the truth and put off laziness: truth counts forever (Luke 9:25). See Christian Apologetics, chapters 6-7.

V. Against Scientific Naturalism

A. If the brain is not designed for truth, and if organisms can survive and reproduce without consciousness or rationality, there is no reason to think our material brains know the truth. Charles Darwin. See Christian Apologetics, chapter 18.

1. We were designed to know God and the world; there is a fit between our being and our knowing of the world (Genesis 1:26-28; Psalm 8).

2. Laws of logic are not physical, but universally and absolutely true ideas (that is, immaterial things).

B. Morality is more than instinct and social conditioning (materialism): values are immaterial truth beyond mere matter. See Christian Apologetics, chapter 15.

VI. Take Biblical Truth to the Streets!

A. Understand the biblical view of truth (realism) and what is true (creation/fall/redemption/consummation) as opposed to postmodernism and scientific naturalism.

B. Therefore, defend Christian truth with competence, confidence, courage, compassion, and creativity (2 Tim. 1:7). There is much at stake (Matthew 25:46).

Sources: Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011); Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press, 2000); On Jesus (Wadsworth, 2003).

Doug Groothuis at Saddleback

2011-11-20T21:47:00.001-07:00

I will be giving the last lecture in this series of lectures on apologetics at Saddleback Church. My title is "Putting Truth to Work: The Biblical View of Truth." I will post my outline shortly.

2011-11-19T21:39:00.001-07:00

What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self ?--Luke 9:25.

2011-11-19T00:32:00.001-07:00

What does our age of constant diversion, distraction, and dissipation lack? It lacks meaningful discipline: self-denial for a cause greater than the self. But this alone gives meaning and truth to the self, which is otherwise derelict in its own finite absorption

Roots and Fruits

2011-11-18T21:11:00.002-07:00

A write up of my recent talk, "Roots and Fruits," plus the audio, is now available at the Denver Seminary web page.

2011-11-18T13:47:00.001-07:00

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., Doug.Groothuis@denverseminary.edu

Denver Seminary

How to Spot a Cult

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.—Colossians 2:8.

I. Discerning Truth from Error

A. Christ, the church, and the truth

1. Jesus is Truth Incarnate (John 14:1-6)

2. The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth

3. The truth about God, salvation, ethics, and history is found in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

B. The challenge of theological error

1. The wide road to destruction (Matthew 7:14-14)

2. Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:20-28)

3. Being rooted in the truth (1 John 4:1-6)

II. What is a Cult?

A. Historically: groups that split off from an established religious body

Christian cults: significant deviations from Christian orthodoxy

B. Scaling the language barrier (Walter Martin)

Cults use Christian vocabulary without using our dictionary (the Bible’s meaning of these terms)

C. Theologically: teachings deny key orthodox beliefs about God and salvation

1. Source of authority: the Bible alone (sola scriptura) or the Bible plus another source?

a. Mormonism: Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants

b. Jehovah’s Witnesses: Watchtower Society pronouncements

c. Christian Science: Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures

d. Other Mind science groups: Unity, Religious Science

2. Understanding of human nature

a. Cults always demote God and promote humans (Walter Martin), thus denying the need for the Cross of Christ

b. Cults deny total depravity and original sin (Mark 7:21-23; Romans 3:9-20)

3. Redefining the person and work of Jesus Christ

a. Cults diminish the work of Christ for our salvation (Galatians 1:6-11)

b. Deny his deity (John 1; Colossians 2:9)

c. Deny his full atonement for sins (Romans 5:1-8)

d. Deny his physical resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)

4. Cults deny the gospel of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-11; 2 Corinthians 11:14)

a. The gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8; John 3:16-17; Romans 5:1-5; Ephesians 2:8-9)

b. Faith plus good works or mystical experience

Mormons: We do all we can—and God makes up the rest

c. Salvation is found only in Christ (Acts 4:12) and received only by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9)

III. Reaching Those in Cults

A. Know what you believe and why you believe it (Romans 12:1-2)

B. Be prepared for spiritual warfare (Acts 13:1-12; Ephesians 6:10-19; 1 Peter 5:8-9)

C. Be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8)

D. Treat the cultist as a human being needing salvation, not on object for evangelism

E. Discern the cultists beliefs and gently challenge them with biblical truth and apologetics (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

Resources

Books

Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults. Several editions.

Gordon Lewis, Confronting the Cults (P&R Publishing).

Robert Bowman, Orthodoxy and Heresy (Baker, 1992).

Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of Cults and New Religions (Zondervan, 2001).

Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality (Tyndale) A classic on living the Christian life biblically. I have read this many times.

Magazine: The Christian Research Journal. See www.equip.org

2011-11-18T13:34:00.002-07:00

I am speaking on "How to Spot a Cult" for Logos Central Chapel tonight at 7:00 at Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Denver.

Groothuis on Radio

2011-11-18T01:08:00.000-07:00

I will be on Crosswalk with Gino Geraci Friday from 4:00-5:00 on KRKS-FM (Denver) to discuss Christian Apologetics.

Wisdom from Timothy McGrew

2011-11-17T00:10:00.001-07:00

One of the most disastrous illusions of the internet age is that an amateur plus Google is equivalent to a scholar. A search engine offers information, more or less relevant according to the skill of the searcher. But it does not sift that information; it does not sort fact from fancy, wheat from chaff. It does not explain which facts are relevant and which are beside the point. It does not weigh the merits of competing arguments and tell the user where the balance of evidence lies. A bright amateur armed with the internet may be better informed than he would otherwise have been, and he may occasionally catch a real scholar in a factual error. But it will not turn him into a scholar himself. There is no such thing as effortless erudition.

Lecture outline for my talk at Denver Seminary today

2011-11-15T10:35:00.001-07:00

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.

Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

November 15, 2011

Roots and Fruits:

Intellectual Influences that Shaped my Christian Calling

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.—1 Corinthians 11:1

I. What is a Christian Calling? (See Os Guinness, The Call)

A. Life direction according to spiritual gifts, opportunities, and strong desires

1. What needs to be done for the Mission of God

2. What one does well

3. What gives one deep joy

B. My calling (Matthew 6:33; 1 Corinthians 10:31)

1. Defend and apply Christianity as objectively true, rationally compelling, and pertinent to all of life (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3)

2. To do this through teaching, preaching, and writing

3. What this means: teaching at Denver Seminary, adjunct teaching and guest lecturing at secular schools; preaching in local churches; writing academic and popular works: Twelve books; two dozen peer-review academic journal articles; hundreds of articles, book reviews, and letters to the editor in dozens of magazines, journals, and elsewhere.

4. The biggest literary fruit: Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Christian Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011)

II. The First Root: Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55)

A. The Sickness Unto Death: exegeted my own soul for me

B. Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing: solidified my calling as a Christian thinker

C. Example of an earnest, brilliant life of letters for the cause of Christ (despite his fideism)

III. The Second Root: Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-84)

A. The discovery of Schaeffer in the fall of 1976: The God Who is There (1968)

B. The gift of understanding, intellectual courage, and a life-plan

C. Schaeffer’s strengths

1. A deep compassion for the lost

2. Spiritual integrity in ministry

3. A broad understanding of the Bible, theology, culture, and history

4. A strong sense of the Lordship of Christ over all of culture

D. Schaeffer’s weaknesses

1. Over simplification

2. Lack of philosophical rigor

IV. The Third Root: Blaise Pascal (1624-1663)

A. The discovery of Pensées in 1977.

B. The genius of his view of the human condition: deposed royalty

C. The genius of the wager (properly understood)

D. His influence on all my writing and ministry

E. See my book, On Pascal (Wadsworth, 2003); chapters 7 and 19 of Christian Apologetics.

V. The Fourth Root: Os Guinness (b. 1941)

A. The Christian as astute social critic and prophet: The Dust of Death (1973); The American Hour (1992); The Case for Civility (2008); etc.

B. Guinness as a matchless orator and statesman for Christ

VI. The Fifth Root: Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

A. Rebecca and my calling

1. Prodding me to write Unmasking the New Age (1986)

2. Alerting me to spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:10-19; 1 Peter 5:8-9)

3. Challenge to develop my views of women in the Kingdom of God.

a. “Equal in Being, Unequal in Role: Exploring the Logic of Woman’s Subordination,” in Discovering Biblical Equality (2004)

b. See Adam Omelianchuck, “Ontologically Grounded Subordination.” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 13, No. 1 (2011): 169-180. This defends Rebecca’s argument against challenges by Steven Cowan.

c. See Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Women Caught in the Conflict (1994); Good News for Women (1997).

B. Rebecca’s editing and my writing

Episode from finishing our book, Christian Apologetics

Those also deserving mention (not in priority order):

James W. Sire, C.S. Lewis, Carl F. H. Henry, Gordon Clark, Gordon R. Lewis, R. J. Rushdoony, J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, Richard John Neuhaus, Arthur Holmes,

Keith Yandell, R.T. Herbert, John Calvin, The Westminster Divines, G.K. Chesterton, Jacques Ellul, Bernard Ramm, John Stott, Walter Martin, Brooks Alexander, Harry Blamires, Ronald Nash, Alvin Plantinga, Phillip Johnson, F.F. Bruce, William Dembski, Neil Postman, Marshall McLuhan.

Advice from Duke

2011-11-13T22:52:00.001-07:00

In an interview, Duke Ellington said that his "first job is to listen." See James 1:19.

Steve Jobs, Jesus, and the Problem of Evil

2011-11-12T23:01:00.003-07:00

In the best-selling biography Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson recounts an event when a thirteen- year-old Steve Jobs is distressed by a photograph in a 1968 Life Magazine of a pair of starving children in Biafra. He then went to his Lutheran pastor, holds up one finger and asks, "Did God know I would hold up this finger before I did?" The Pastor said, "Yes, God knows everything." Then Jobs produced the Life cover photo and asks, "Well, does God know about this and what's going to happen to those children?" The Pastor replied, "Steve, I know you don't understand, but yes, God know about this."

Issacson reports that "Jobs announced that he didn't want to have anything to do with worshiping such a God, and he never went back to church." Instead, Jobs pursued Buddhism, gurus, and hallucinogenic drug use instead (pages 14-15). This is yet another tragic encounter with the problem of evil. Jobs later told Issacson that "The juice goes out of Christianity when it becomes too based on faith rather than on living like Jesus of seeing world as Jesus saw it (p. 15).

The most reliable records of Jesus life are the Four Gospels of The New Testament (see chapter 19 of Christian Apologetics). In them, we find Jesus affirming the existence of one, all-powerful God, as well as the existence of all manner of evil. That is how Jesus saw the world. But, unlike the Buddha, Jesus did not counsel his followers to detach from the world of suffering by ceasing to crave satisfaction. He rather said, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they will be satisfied." It is inescapable that those who so hunger will also suffer: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted," Jesus also affirmed. (For more on Jesus's teachings, see chapter 20 ofChristian Apologetics.)

The evils of this groaning world did not detract Jesus from his mission to "seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10). It was this wounded and aching world that sent Jesus to a bloody and horrible death on a Roman Cross, in order that humanity and deity might be reconciled and hope restored to an erring planet. As Pascal said: "The Incarnation shows man the greatness of his wretchedness through the greatness of the remedy required" (Pensees, 352/526).

If God is perfectly good and thoroughly powerful, he will not waste the sufferings of the world. He will bring a greater good out of them not otherwise possible. This may sound theoretical, but God himself put flesh to that reality through the Incarnation: "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). That Word taught only truth, offered only love and justice, and was put to death for no legal reason. On his Cross, he forgave his accusers and finally said, "It is finished." He was buried, dead as dead could be. The universe waited...until he rose from the dead in three days time--never to die again.

At a young age, Steve Jobs faced the severity and seeming absurdity of evil. In so doing, he rejected the only answer to the suffering: Christ Jesus. Let us rather affirm with the Apostle Paul:

⁵⁵O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

⁵⁶The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

⁵⁷But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

⁵⁸Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.--1 Corinthians 15:55-58, King James Version.

(For more on the problem of evil, see chapter 25 of Christian Apologetics.)

Self-promotion?

2011-11-12T00:20:00.001-07:00

Some may wonder why an author is promoting his own book (Christian Apologetics) so much. We are often suspicious of "self-promoters." Let me explain what I am doing and why.

1. The purpose of this blog is not bragging on myself, but rather promoting a work I believe in for the sake of advancing the Kingdom and Mission of God. That is why I spent over eight years writing it.

2. Further, given the rise of the Internet, the old ways of promotion are no longer adequate: adds in magazine, radio interviews, and so on. Much of the interest in books is generated on line, and the author is often the only one available to do this. That is why I started my blog about the book and why I promote the book on my social media.

3. Whatever good one finds in my book, I attribute to God's grace and faithfulness. I did not make up the Christian faith, not can I can credit for the rational defense of it. It is all of grace.