Weds. Prayer service Message

This is a summary of message I gave tonight at my church in Austin. It was a privilege for me to speak while our pastor is away visiting Southern Seminary with his son, Stephen. We prayed for NAMB missionaries and this message was designed to encourage our members to urgently preach the gospel. I hope that it is of benefit to you and please let me know what you think.

II Samuel 17

The text we for tonight is that famous story of David and Goliath. I will highlight a few parts of this text, but first allow me to summarize the story. Goliath taunts the Army of Israel, Challenging them to send a soldier to fight him. Israel, seeing his size and confidence, cowers. Even Israel’s mighty king Saul is afraid. David hears Goliath as his comes forward to mock Israel, and is indignant. David takes the challenge and fights, saying “God will give us victory.” And the rest is history.

There are three points of which I want you to take note.

1. Saul and Israel was “much afraid.” (vs. 11&24.)

Twice the text mentions their fear. Israel, the ever faithless and easily dismayed, quivered at the taunts of a giant, though it had all its peculiar history to encourage it. The God of heaven and earth, creator, the God who delivered them from Egypt by unmistakable miracles had given them all the reason in the world to hope. Saul, the anointed of God, who had seen prophecy fulfilled and prophesied himself, was much afraid.

2. David was Zealous for the Lord. (v. 26.)

His concern is not for the people, nor is it for fame and wealth. He is indignant because this fool mocked God, the living God, creator and redeemer of Israel. David’s concern was for the Glory of God.

3. David recognized that his zeal and confidence were from the Lord. (v. 46&47.)

David gave thanks to the giver of all good things. He recognized that it is God who delivered Israel and would do it again. This would be a sign to the world that there is a God in Israel, and that Israel would know that it is not by the might of men that Israel is persevered.

This week is the Annie Armstrong week of prayer for North American missions. The theme for the week, according the “On Mission” is for us to “live with urgency.” The urgency, here, is to preach the gospel. It is urgency in missions, a zeal for it. This connects to our text in that David was zealous for the glory of the Lord; the purpose of missions is also for the glory of God. So we must ask ourselves, Are we like David, are we zealous for God or are we like Israel, much afraid? If we are like Israel then let us pray that we would be like David. Let us remember the mighty works of the living God. Living he is indeed, for both us and Israel have much to testify to this fact. God delivered Israel form Egypt with twelve miraculous plagues and Christ was resurrected for our salvation. Remember that he is living and take courage for our God has shown us favor. Then we can say “to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” for we shall then glorify God in life and see the magnificence of his face in death. And we long to see the beam beaming rays of light that shine forth from his presence. And Finally, Give thanks to the giver of all good things. Spineless cowards we may be, forgetful and fearful, but God has shown is light upon us and has granted us redemption from our sins and gives us zeal for his name, for the sake of his name. It is his pleasure to give to those who ask and it shall be given for we ask that we may glorify his name.

by Samuel Gantt

Seminary

Next week my wife, my parents, and I will be traveling to Lousiville Kentucky. We will be visiting The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. We are about 95% sure that SBTS is where God will have us go, however I think that the visit will be illuminating. I am not exactly sure what I will do when I get there. Hopefully I can meet Albert Mohler but we will see about that. I would like to meet some faculty.
Moving to Louisville will be a difficult experience. I am not sure where I will work. I am not sure where I will go to church. I dont know anybody there. However I do trust that God is faithful and that he will provide Kym and I with all that we need.

Written by Stephen

Van Til as a Christian Hedonist

Many that know me know that I am a huge John Piper fan. I think that he is one of the most balanced pastor/theologians that there are today. It is easy for Christians to veer into one of two camps. Often times a Christian is concerned with either the objective aspects of the Christian faith (like doctrines & orthodoxy) to the expense of the subjective aspects (holiness, sanctification, godliness and the like) or the disproportion is the other way around, emphasizing the subjective aspects to the minimization of the objective. The choices are presented as either feelings or facticity. By themselves both present an equal danger. To choose one without the other is to deny the robustness of the Christian faith. It is unhealthy. So Christian beware.
John Piper represents a balanced position in that he emphasizes both aspects. That is exactly what Christians need to do.Furthermore Piper's Christian Hedonism (get over the name) presents an aspect of the Christian life that many people have not considered. That aspect being the fact that happiness and pleasure in doing good is an essential part of a good act. In other words if pleasure is absent, then so also is the moral good. One should not interpret the pleasure that I am speaking of in a shallow sense that excludes pain and toil.
Anyhow, not only am I a John Piper fan but I am also a Cornelius Van Til fan. He was an apologetics professor at Westminster Theological Seminary for many years. He is of a previous generation to Piper. Yet he is a Christian Hedonist himself! Anyhow consider the following quotes:

"Originally there could not possibly be any contrast between seeking happiness and seeking righteousness in the kingdom of God. A man could not possibly wish for happiness unless he also wished for righteousness. It is only after the entrance of sin that these ideas have been separated. The members of the kingdom would not think of the one without also thinking of the other."

"For the member of the kingdom there are no ulterior motives. Their motives with the realization of the kingdom itself is the glory of God. Their motive with their own self-realization is the glory of God. Their motive in seeking their own happiness is the glory of God. None of these matters can be seperated. Not one of them can be antithetical to another. He that seeks righteousness seeks to realize himself, seeks the good will, seeks happiness, seeks usefulness, seeks rewards, seeks the kingdom of God, and seeks God himself."

These quotes are taken from Van Til's book "Christian Theistic Ethics."

Written By Stephen Stanford

Van Til, Piper and Triperspectival Ethics

In Van Til's "Christian Theistic Ethics" Van Til gives us a tri-perspectival approach to dealing with ethics he says, "All ethics then deals with these three questions: a.) What is the motive of human action? b.) what is the standard of human action? c.) What is the end or purpose of human action?" All three aspects must exist in any good ethical system.

I am reading "Christian Theistic Ethics" and I have been running this part of the first chapter through my head for sometime. Yesterday, I finished reading John Pipers "God is the Gospel." Van Til answers these questions is a slightly different manner than I think Piper would. However, I think that they would agree but simply use different language. Anyhow, I think that Piper would answer these questions this way: The motive of our actions should the Glory of God. The standard of our actions should be the word of God. The end or purpose of human action is to glorify God by enjoying him forever.

Written by Stephen Stanford

Materialism,Weirob and the Perception Problem

In January I reviewed a John Perry book. Now I will present some of the issues more in depth. In John Perry’s book “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality” there is a philosopher name Wierob who is on her death. To pass the time and perhaps have some hope for an afterlife, she debates her friend a chaplain by that name of Miller on the subject of souls and the afterlife. Wierob does not believe it is possible for an afterlife. Miller on the other hand believes that there will be an afterlife. In this essay I will argue that one of the arguments given by Wierob, I call the perception argument, is weak. First I will lay out the argument presented by Weirob. Next, I will counter this argument by presenting a counter argument. Then I will take on a few objections that I think the dead Wierob would have fired at me had she lived long enough. Before I begin, I will lay on the table just what I will be assuming so that one given my assumptions would follow my argument. I assume that we believe that our friends, relatives, acquaintances and loved ones genuinely have subjective-mental states. Even poor Weirob believed this.

Weirob wants reasons to believe in the afterlife. Miller argues that, given our soul, we would have an afterlife to look forward to. Weirob points out that we never perceive a soul. If personal identity corresponds to our soul then we never know that the physical body that we meet corresponds to the same soul that directed the body earlier. This is a particular problem that would relate to us all. Suppose you met your wife on Monday, you assume that the body corresponds to the person of your wife, but the next day you would have no assurance that the soul of your wife corresponded to the same body.

Let us suppose that there are no souls. Let us suppose that all that constitutes personal identity is some aspect of the body. When a person meets a friend on Monday and on Thursday, one assumes several things about that the person. The assumption that is made during our meeting with that person is that that same body on Monday as well as on Thursday is accompanied with a subjective-mental state. Perhaps I should say that that body “accompanies” a subjective mental state but rather that body contains a subjective mental-state. Now remember we are not assuming here a mind body dualist position we are assuming a mind-body materialist position. On Monday when I go to class to meet Dr. Hutcheson I have perception of his body but I do not have perception of his subjective mental states. The question that I should then ask is this: Does he have subjective mental states? If so, how do I know? I hold that Dr. Hutcheson in fact does have subjective mental states. It is important to note that we do not in fact observe Dr. Hutcheson’s subjective mental states. If perception is what verifies knowing Dr. Hutcheson has a subjective mental state then the fact of Dr. Hutchesons subjective mental state cannot be verified. Thus, if I am required to be able to perceive X in order to believe X exist, then other peoples subjective mental states are outside of the realm of knowledge.

Another example of the perception problem is the problem presented by Hume. Suppose that we perceive pool ball A strike ball B then B moves. Suppose we see it a thousand times we still do not see the “causation” behind it all. For all we know it could turn out that B could do something unexpected.

Also we must note that, except for those lucky few who have found a place to buy a magical crystal ball, we do not perceive the future. Thus given the perception criteria we have no knowledge that the future will resemble the past given the same circumstances. For all we know, for example, there might be a brief period of time in the future when gravity will randomly malfunction.

This problem is importantly related to Wierob’s argument because she cannot have it both ways. She cannot reject the idea of a souls continual correspondence to a particular body because the soul is not perceived and still accept that there is a non-empirical subjective mental-states in the people that she meets. This strict empiricism also gives us the problems of skepticism toward induction as well as causation. The criterion that Wierob has given us not only leads her toward skepticism of souls, but a whole lot of other things including causation and that her friend Miller really has a subjective mental state of feeling her speak to him. Thus it is not right to object to the continuity of the soul in a particular body because of a lack of perception. If it is a problem of perception that she wants it is a problem of perception that she will get.

Now she could respond that we do in fact see the body and that the body contains the subjective-mental state. Thus, she might think that we see the mechanism that created the subjective-mental state. However this would not be a solution to the problem because we still do not actually perceptually verify the subjective mental state. Further more, it is at least possible, there is nothing logically contradictory, about a body interacting within an environment without a subjective mental state. It is at least possible that others are in fact similar to zombies. Like zombies others might have no subjective mental feeling but interact as if they do.

It might be given in response that we could always ask. This simplistic solution still does not verify for us the truth of the other persons subjective mental state. Suppose that we had a computer has a special program. This program is designed by its creator to respond every time you type “do you have a subjective mental state or feelings” into a bubble on a screen, with a voice “yes I do have feelings and please do not punch so hard on my keys.” Given the fact of its programming alone, this would not establish that the computer does in fact have subjective mental states. What is needed is to be able to perceive the subjective mental states.

It might be responded that we know that others have subjective mental states because we have ourselves subjective mental states. However this commits one to the same problem that Wierob pointed out. Trying to generalize from one owns personal example would be too hasty of a generalization.

Now someone could respond that they do not believe in induction, causation, other people subjective-mental states and least of all souls. I respond that they have bitten the bullet. I am astonished and astounded at their willingness to believe in just a very few things.

However, I seriously doubt that anyone believes that. Here I deviate a little from arguing with poor dead Wierob. It seems to me doubtful that someone would really have doubts about causation, induction and other people’s mental states. I could believe that someone genuinely does not believe in souls (although by what I have argued lack of perception should not be the reason). What I am saying is not that it is impossible that someone has those beliefs or rather the lack thereof, but rather it would be difficult for me to accept someone really having a lack of belief in causation, induction and other people subjective mental states. The reason for this is that it is hard to take someone serious that claims that they believe a belief say -X but act and revolve their whole life as if X.

If I have argued cogently we cannot deny the existence of souls because of a criterion of perception, to do so is to put not only souls to doubt but so also other peoples subjective mental states and other areas of knowledge that we rely on every day.

Written by Stephen Stanford

New Biography on Van Til

Check this post out. The bio looks interesting.

Sam

Follow the Evidence

On a recent broadcast of the Albert Mohler Radio show about evolution and Christianity a caller mentioned that we must follow the evidence, follow the truth wherever it leads. Now I think that this caller meant that whatever we believe, we need to let the evidence lead us to the truth that we should believe. Such a statement is an appeal to being objective not letting our own biases get in the way. But it betrays a simplistic understanding of evidence that is misleading. Allow me to illustrate this with an analogy.

Someone leaves a trail of bread crumbs as they walk through a cave. Another person finds this trail and follows it. He hopes to find either the source of the crumbs or the mouth of the cave by following this trail. There are two possibilities in his mind and he follows the evidence wherever it leads him. There it is a simple picture of what we mean by following the evidence. The problem is that this is not the kind of evidence that has been left around. I think this simple idea is also visible in popular television, where CSI and House rule the day. While the heroines follow the evidence, despite being sidetracked by a few rabbit trails along the way, they eventually come to the truth. It is a pretty picture of a scientific age in which scientific evidence always, ultimately, leads to the truth. In reality, however, this isn’t how things happen. In criminal investigations crimes are often unsolved and the innocent convicted. In the scientific world claims to what the truth is, namely theories, are verified or falsified, kept around because there is nothing better and many are useful though untrue. These theories are all supported by evidence. But the evidence has not led to the truth in every case. If one thing is clear, evidence is not truth.

What is it that constitutes evidence and what is it that constitutes truth? Let us explain this by way of example. A criminal investigator comes to a scene with some idea of what a crime scene looks like, this is the truth. When he arrives he examines the scene and decides whether it is a crime scene based on his knowledge of what one looks like. His examination reveals the evidence. The investigator decides what is evidence based on the truth, or what he supposes to be the truth not vice versa. The challenge, then, for creationists and evolutionists is not found in the evidence, but in what is considered the truth, because the truth determines what is evidence. The battle is over truth rather than evidence. The evidence may lead to or correspond to the truth, but it is no trail of crumbs. It is, rather, more akin to a mountain of bread crumbs.

Scientists do not have a unified body of thought that comes to one conclusion. Disagreements between scientist and opposing theories exist in abundance. But the more fundamental the questions that are asked the more important the answer and the more entrenched the opponents become; since it is on the fundamentals that everything is based. But the more fundamental the question is the more difficult it is to answer. There are many questions that science can not answer about reality. How does one scientifically, test the existence of God anyway? Instead, our worldview or understanding of the nature of reality determines what is truth and our sciences attempt to show how nature corresponds to that truth as in the example of our investigator given above. The grander a theory is the more tentative it should be considered and it will be, at least apart from the worldview to which it corresponds. When coupled with that worldview by those that affirm it, such theories are easily seen as truth. These grand theories of which I speak are ones that provide a framework for other theories to function within, that provide a sort of coherence by binding many theories to one. Theories that are compatible with different worldviews may not be as controversial and often times are judged without appeal to a worldview. But the more paradigmatic a theory is the more likely its justification is to be found not in sciences but in worldviews.

Finally, our worldviews determine truth which discriminates between evidences and weighs it. So, for materialist no supernatural event is evidence, because it is impossible and for a Christian that which contradicts the scripture can not be true. Clearly, the evidence is not objective nor does it lead to one truth as a trail of bread crumbs. Instead, following the evidence means that a person must see what evidence supports what worldview; and then which worldview provides the most coherent understanding of reality. Worldviews are not proven by only scientific evidence, but by historical and philosophical arguments as well. I hope this post serves to enlighten the reader by helping him to understand the proper place of evidence, especially scientific evidence.

By Sam Gantt