RC Talk - The Official Blogs of Ratio Christi Chapters

Many controversies have arisen about how to interpret texts. In some modern-day circles, people feel that the crux of all Biblical disagreements is interpretation.  We are told 'that is your interpretation' and often seem to be told that people can have multiple valid interpretations. We find ourselves facing the acusation that there is not such a thing as a valid interpretation, and most, if not all, disagreements are due to interpretation.

continue reading →

by Meridith Cheek
Ratio Christi alum

Exciting things are happening with Ratio Christi – even outside the United States! The RC chapter at the Potchefstroom campus of North-West University in South Africa began as a result of Southern Evangelical Seminary’s work in South Africa and on the campus.

Simon Brace, Missions Director at SES, says that in the last year or so RC has really started to gain traction at Potchefstroom. “South Africa is only beginning to be impacted by theological liberalism, with the influence of groups such as the Jesus Seminar becoming more widespread and the universities becoming more liberal,” Brace says. “Students there do not have the same exposure to apologetics as students in America sometimes do.”

continue reading →

Dallas / Fort Worth, Texas

The Apologetics ministry of Confident Christianity, Biola University, and FBC Euless to brings you the Confident Christianity Conference: Proclaiming the Certainty of Christ in an Age of Unbelief. The goal of the conference is to strengthen and equip Christians so that they will be better able to evangelize those who have no faith or are of another faith. In order to accomplish this, they have brought together an impressive team of expert speakers and workshop leaders who will present compelling evidence for the truths of Christianity in a way that is Biblically grounded and culturally relevant.

See the event announcement and more information about the conference.

November 4-5, 2011

continue reading →

Neo-Thomism (or, The Tommy Gun)
 

I found an excellent description of Thomism, which I’m copying below.  This was written by Winfred Corduan for the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary.  It says:

“Neo-Thomism is a twentieth century revival of the thought of Thomas Aquinas . . .

“The metaphysical distinctive of neo Thomism may be found in its insistence on the maxim that “existence precedes essence.” For that reason Maritain has claimed that Thomism is the original existentialism. Put simply, this means that one has to know that something exists before one knows what it is, and before one knows that something exists, one has to accept that anything exists. This latter conviction is not the result of a rational deduction; it is an immediate awareness. Thus the act of being, apprehended in a direct intuition, precedes its various modalities.

This apprehension of being leads the Thomist to posit the existence of God via the cosmological argument. For even though the reality of being is an inescapable fact, it is not a logically necessary truth. Being exists, but need not exist. Thus being is inherently contingent, and its contingency makes it finite. If it exists in view of having no inherent necessity to do so, it must be caused to exist. Also, the very forms which being assumes are due to the interplay of various causes; and the fact of change, so characteristic of being, must be the result of causal actions as well. Thus being is bounded by causes wherever it appears.

However, since it is a logical absurdity for anything to cause itself, there must be an external cause of being. Now if that cause is also finite, we have not grounded finite being yet, and it still should not exist. A chain of finite causes would carry the same problem with it. Hence the Thomist posits an original uncaused cause of all being, viz. God. It must be noted that this argument is based on the metaphysical necessity for a cause of being, not on a need for explanation, as would be the case with Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason.

The understanding of God as unconditioned necessary existence goes far in providing the basis for Thomistic natural theology. For if God is uncaused, he is unlimited. Then he contains all perfections infinitely; e.g., he is all – good, omnipresent, omniscient, all – loving, perfect person, etc. There can be only one such God, since a God who possesses all perfections cannot differ from any other God who would also possess all the identical possessions. Thus Thomists feel confident that their philosophical arguments concern the same God whom they worship in church.

Thomism understands the relationship between God the Creator and the created order to be analogical. God is the source of all being, and finitude participates in his being, but only with limitations. In the matter of applying language to God, predication proceeds analogically as well. Language is derived from the finite world. But then it is applied to God with the understanding that he is the source of all named properties and that he posseses all those properties without limitation. For example, one may apply the word “love” to God, even though it is a word learned within human finite relationships, because God is pure love and the originator of all human love.

The insistence on being over essence also makes itself felt in Thomism’s understanding of the human person. Thomism avoids both a Platonic mind – body dualism and a reductive materialism. With the understanding of the soul as the form of the body, the human is seen as a unit, composed of soul and body in mutual dependence. Thus, for instance, cognition combines both the physical / empirical (sensation) and the spiritual (abstraction). Thomistic writings have consistently defended the dignity and integrity of human personhood, particularly against totalitarian ideologies.

In theology Thomism has usually been linked to conservative expressions of orthodox doctrines, partially due to the close dependence on Aquinas’s own formulations. Since the Second Vatican Council it has lost much ground in Catholic circles to philosophies of more recent origin, e.g., phenomenology or process thought, due to a certain impatience with Thomism’s supposedly outmoded Aristotelianism. At the same time there has been some movement in evangelical Protestantism to adopt Thomistic philosophical principles for purposes of apologetics and theological enhancement, e.g., by Norman L Geisler.”

Therefore, Thomistic metaphysics thus becomes the answer to the modern confusion that has become epistemology. And the Thomistic philosophical system fits well with conservative biblical exegesis and with modern science.

continue reading →

There is something called “The Moral Law.” Proponents hold that this law is inherent in all human beings, and that the fact of such a law proves that God exists. Other people deny that a moral law exists other than in some people’s opinion, and because it does not exist, it certainly does not prove God exists.

There are two senses of the moral law: In the first sense, proponents claim that all people’s of the earth have basically the same sense of morality. The idea is that all people have a similar sense of what is right and wrong. Opponents quickly claim that most people simply do not have a similar sense of right and wrong, and quote the many views of marriage, sex, murder, torture, etc., as proof that many people have different views of right and wrong.

However, in C. S. Lewis book “The Abolition of Man,” Lewis researched most of the legal systems in the world, and in the appendix, quotes laws from many diverse cultures and nations, showing the remarkable similarity in their laws. So for those who deny the moral law, I point you to Lewis book. The point of this first argument can be summarized this way: Despite what people may say, no one truly believes that it’s OK to torture no one believes it’s OK to slowly torture little puppies to death for fun. No one, and I mean no one, believes that it’s OK for me to steal their stuff. If you deny this, please send me their address and let me know when they’re not at home.

But the second sense of the moral law is more powerful and significant than the first. This argument does not say that all people have the exact same moral code, but rather that all people have some sense of morality. No one in history has ever felt that anything and everything is OK. All people from all time and all places have felt that something, somewhere, is truly wrong…..not just someone’s opinion, but truly, objectively wrong. This second argument says that it is irrelevant whether there are differences between people as to what exactly is right and wrong. The point is that all people everywhere claim that something is wrong. Even Attilla the Hun would believe it’s OK to steal your stuff, but if you try to steal his stuff, he’ll think it’s truly, morally wrong.

The point is this: the atheists say that we are all just molecules, and no spirit or god exists. If this is true, and we are mere collections of molecules, then where did we get this sense of moral right and wrong? People don’t say that things are wrong due to my opinion, they believe that things are morally wrong truly, objectively, despite what you or I think.

C. S. Lewis put it this way. If I were to kill a neighbor kid, then I’d be held morally responsible. But if a tree were to drop a limb and kill a neighbor kid, then we wouldn’t say the tree was bad in a moral sense. But to the atheist, there’s no real difference between us and a tree, except the molecules are arranged in a different way. They can’t appeal to free will, for a materialist cannot logically hold to free will (the subject of another blog), and they can’t appeal to “herd instinct” for survival, for this still does not give us objective, external “wrong.” All it would give is “I don’t like.”

So the power of the moral argument says this: If a true sense of morality exists, and we hold that things are really right and really wrong, not just our opinion, then a Moral Law exists separate and apart from us, and more than mere molecules exist in the world. There has to be something separate and apart from material reality……. a moral law giver.

The way the Moral Law is applied goes this way: Do you ever say that anyone, anywhere, is ever wrong? If you do, then your statement can be taken in only two senses: 1) You are correct, and the actions are truly wrong, or 2) your accusation of wrongness is only your opinion. If 2, then you have no grounds to claim that anything, anywhere is ever truly “wrong,” including the most egregious things imaginable. If 1, then you admit that a sense of morality exists that is not mere opinion or societal conventions.

So the atheist is painted into a very real dilemma. If a Moral Law exists that is separate and apart from anyone’s opinion, then materialism is false, a Moral Law Giver must exist, and this Law Giver is universal and separate from all humans. If a Moral Law does not exist, then the atheist has no grounds for saying that anything, anywhere is wrong (especially anything Biblical), and therefore they must hold to an absolute moral relativism, admitting that nothing is ever wrong, any where, any time.

My Conclusion: If you’re reading this, you believe something, somewhere is truly wrong, and it’s not just your opinion that it’s wrong…….rather, you hold that it’s REALLY wrong. Therefore, you are forced to contend with the universal Moral Law Giver.

Would you like to be introduced to Him? Read the book of John.

continue reading →

So this semseter we have been going over this curriculum: http://bible.org/series/historical-reliability-gospels during our Ratio Christi weekly meetings.

We have covered the first six articles and have concluded thus far that the Gospels talk about real historical places and put at the center of their narratives a real historical person (Jesus). From what we have seen the idea that the Gospels are primarliy mythological in character and portray a mythological person named Jesus who probably never existed does not hold any weight in light of the historical evdience.

We are just getting into the historical reliability of the message concerning who Jesus is according the the Gospels. I invite you to look over these articles (they are not too long) and share your thoughts.

Look forward to hearing from you!

-Ken

continue reading →

Sigmund Freud defined an illusion as beliefs that are derrived from human wishes. “We call a belief an illusion when a wish-fullfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality” (Future of an Illusion, 38-40). Freud said that we tell ourselves that it would be nice if there were a God that is good to us. These ideas were very similar to those of Ludwig Feurbach, who said that religion is an outward projection of what is inside man. However, as Geisler points out, “We can tell ourselves that it would we wonderful if there were no hell or no final day of judgment at which we will be held accountable for all our deeds, but we shouldn’t fail to note that this is exactly what we naturally want to be true” (Systematic Theology, 4:317)

C. S. Lewis said: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock, it is opened.” (Great Divorce, 69)

The one who refuses Godl ” has his wish–to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And wht he finds there is Hell.” (Problem of Pain, 111).

“A damned soul is nearly nothing: it is shrunk, shut up in itself. Good beats upon the damned incessantly as sound waves beat on the ears of the deaf, but they cannot receive it. Their fists are clenched, their teeth are clenched, their eyes fast shut. First they will not, in the end they cannot, open their hands for gifts, or their moutns for food, or their eyes to see. (Great Divorce, 127)

“I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of Hell . . . but the certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self–enslaved. (Problem of Pain, 115-116)

Geisler says that human dignity demands a Hell: “God created humans to be free, because He will not (cannot) force people into heaven against this freedom, human dignity demands a hell. Jesus cried out “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who sent you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”

He also said that “there are people who cannot stand to go to church one hour a week. What kind of a God would force people to go to church for all eternity?”

Fredrich Nietzsche is often quoted as saying “Better to reign in Hell than serve in heaven.”

In Sartre’s play, No Exit, the door to hell is opened in the middle of the play. No one leaves, for they are there willingly.

Jesus speaks of Hell:
“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.” (Matthew 13:40-41)

“This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the firey furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:49-50)

What can we then say? Hell is real....it is a dark place where people are alone, with their bodies burning forever. The straightforward agreement between atheists and Christians alike is that it is better to have free will, and therefore better to be willingly separated from God forever than it is to be forced to be in God's presence. All who go to Hell are there willingly, and would have it no other way.

continue reading →

posted in TrueU by Dr. Mike Keas

Today World on Campus published a story about how University of Georgia psychology professor Rich Suplita experienced a dramatic conversion to Christ after years of being one of the most high profile spokespersons for atheism on campus.  By 10pm CST over 30 comments had appeared below his story, including many words of affirmation, and several comments by Rich Suplita himself.  Rich’s last comment today explained how the story that World on Campus author Kelsey Deans wanted to capture was “my testimony/story and not my best Christian apologetic. Those were some of the factors that were most salient to me, personally, in coming back to Christ. I do not pretend that they are the most compelling rational case to be made for the faith.”  Well said, Rich, and indeed it is a compelling story.  Thanks for sharing it with us all. I am sure Rich could have said much about the reasons for Christian faith.

Read remainder of the story here

continue reading →

Been accused of using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?  You’re not alone.

The No True Scotsman fallacy occurs when one makes a claim that someone would never do a certain thing because they’re a certain classification of a person.  The recognition of this fallacy originated with the example of a Scotsman reading the newspaper and saw that a horrible act was committed in his community.  He responded by saying that, “No Scotsman would do such a thing.”  The implication is that certain types of people are incapable of doing certain bad things.

Christians are often accused of using this fallacy when they are confronted with an example of a person who is said to be a Christian but did something immoral.  In many Christian circles, upon hearing that someone did something horrible, they’ll say “they weren’t a true Christian, anyway.”

The No True Scotsman fallacy exposes non-sequintar logic.  It’s not logical to say that because someone did x, then therefore they’re not a Christian.  A person is not a Christian based on their works, but their faith.  However, a Christian’s works gives evidence for their faith.

I have two thoughts on this.  First, I think when someone says “They’re not a true Christian,” many times they really mean “They’re not living consistently with Christ’s (or the Bible’s) teachings.”  So, in the sense that one meaning of “Christian” is “Christ-like,” it’s true that they’re not being like Christ.

Second, before this issue can really be addressed, the question that must be answered is, “What is a true Christian?”  Let’s look at an analogy that puts some light on this question.  If Larry lives in Scotland, but isn’t a citizen and wasn’t born there, then he does not meet the qualifications of a Scotsman.  Simply stated, Larry isn’t a true Scotsman!  Likewise, there are many opinions on what a Christian is.  The only real authority on this question, though, would be the Bible. 

The Bible says a true Christian is a person who:
Places their faith in Christ alone for salvation
Repents (turns) from their sins and toward pursuing God
Does good to others (as an evidence of their faith, not as a way to earn salvation)
Loves God
Loves their neighbor

The Bible acknowledges that Christians still sin (1 John 1:9), still struggle with their desires (Romans 7), and have growing to do. (Phil 1:6)  However, Christians ought to sin less (Romans 6:1-2); live loving, selfless, and moral lives; and not pursue or continuously be in sinful behavior.

So, while Christians are guilty of using the No True Scotsman fallacy, there are times the statement “They’re not a true Christian” is in fact true.  This is especially true in America where cultural Christianity abounds.  Cultural Christianity is when people assume they are a Christian solely because they go to church, like Jesus, or are moral - in other words, don’t meet the criteria of a “true Christian.”  If they haven’t placed their faith in Christ alone for the remission of sins, they are not a Christian.  It’s a matter of having the right understanding of what a Christian is.

However, since this phrase is overused and in most cases it’s not clear whether someone is a Christian or not (especially when you don’t know they person and haven’t asked them to articulate what exactly they believe), I think it’s better to not use this phrase. It’s more divisive and confusing than anything, especially in our culture.  Instead, saying something along the lines of “this person’s actions do not match what the Jesus (or the Bible) teaches” is a more clear and correct way of articulating the difference of a person’s actions and supposed beliefs.

continue reading →

This week we talked about the wonderful work being done by women in apologetics.  The ISWA President, Sarah Ankenman, recently did an interview that is worth watching.  By the way, I love this quote by our own Julie Miller (chapter director, Rutgers) to this weeks blog.

If every mom got fired up about apologetics and applied it to their kids, we would not have so much work to do on university campuses. The kids would be leading the RC groups by the time they made it to the university!

Here is the video interview…

continue reading →