About TheSire

I'm a Christian, Trinitarian, rational scientific anti-realist, Baptist, Van Tilian, Covenant theology, Inerrancy, Cartesian dualist, Classical theist, Protestant, Reformed, and a particularist. I think often my friends have better views of me and my position than warranted and I thank them all for giving me a place to share them. My influences are Steve Hays, Dr. James Anderson, Dr. Greg Welty, Dr. Vern Poythress, Dr. John Frame, R. C. Dozier, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Ronald W. Di Giacomo, R. C. Sproul, Dr. James White, Dr. Paul Helm, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Paul Manata, Turretinfan, Milton Friedman, and others. " You're one of the most intricate thinkers I know so if you believe something I would like to understand why and be challenged to think about it." Tyler Vela

Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is a problem that has stood the test of time. It is commonly thought that the attributes of God are inconsistent with the existence of evil. Christians have long pondered the question of evil and here are some of the responses to it:

Triablogue:

Over Jordan

Moving goal post

Toolkit for problem of evil

To be or not to be

How to deal with the problem of evil

The “Evil God Challenge”

The best of all worlds

Serrated theodicy

Dr. Guillaume Bignon:

Calvinists and Arminians on the Problem of Evil: Who Can Say What?

Dr. William Lane Craig:

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

D. A. Carson:

How Could God Allow Suffering?

Dr. James White:

Responding to Evil and Suffering

R. C. Sproul:

Evil and suffering


Dr. John Frame:

The Bible On the Problem of Evil

Please follow and like us:

Can we trust the Old Testament?

The question of New Testament reliability often is stressed, but the New Testament often calls on the Old Testament for its validation. So, we are committed to defending the historicity of the Old Testament as well. Here are some links:

 

Dr. Peter J. Williams:

Can the Old Testament be Trusted Historically?

The Old Testament and Jesus

Ted Wright:

The Archaeological and Historical Reliability of the Old Testament

Josh McDowell:

Old Testament: Significance of Dead Sea Scrolls

Old Testament: Dead Sea Scrolls’ Contribution

Old Testament: Traditions Verify

Dr. Darrell Bock:

Validating Genesis

Archaeology and the Bible

Recent Archaeological Finds

Dr. James Hoffmeier:

The Exodus from Egypt

Dr. Gleason Archer:

The Documentary Hypothesis and Higher Criticism

Answers to Assumed Errors in the Old Testament

Please follow and like us:

Absolute Personality

Now, where does the authority of the absolute moral principle come from? Notice that I am not asking where the conviction itself comes from, as if this were a causal argument. That is not the point—at least not yet. The question concerns the authority of that principle: why should we give to it the enormous respect that indeed we do give to it? Ultimately, only two kinds of answers are possible: the source of absolute moral authority is either personal or impersonal. Consider first the latter possibility.183 That would mean that there is some impersonal structure or law in the universe that sets forth ethical precepts and rightly demands allegiance to them. But what kind of impersonal being could possibly do that? Certainly if the laws of the universe reduced to chance, nothing of ethical significance could emerge from it. What of ethical significance can random collisions of subatomic particles?184 What loyalty do we owe to pure chance? Of course, most antisupernaturalists find ethical value not in pure chance, but in some sort of impersonal structure in the universe. Perhaps it is conceived on the model of physical law: just as what goes up “must” come down, so in the moral sphere one “must” love one’s neighbor. But as I indicated earlier in a note, there are significant differences between physical and moral laws. And the main question here is: How can an impersonal structure create obligation?
(Again, we have a major is-ought problem.) Or: On what basis does an impersonal structure demand loyalty or obedience? One thinks of the fatalism of ancient Greek religion, in which, essentially, fate calls the tune for history. When the tragic hero learns of his fate, he might fight it, but in time he will be crushed by that all-controlling destiny. Here, impersonal fate is stronger than anything else. It cannot be resisted. But does that fact imply that we ought to submit to it? Is one nobler if he submits or if he fights? Some Greek thinkers, at least, seemed to think that one who fights fate is noble, even if fate eventually crushes him. Is that not also our own instinct? The fact is that an impersonal principle such as fate is insufficient to create an ought, to rightly demand loyalty and obedience.
Where, then, does the ought come from? What is there that is capable of imposing an absolute obligation on human beings? For the answer, we must leave the realm of impersonal principles and turn to the realm of persons. Obligations and loyalties arise in the context of interpersonal relationships. In terms of Reformed theology, we may put it this way: obligations, loyalties, and therefore morality are covenantal in character. When I receive a bill from a man who has repaired my roof, I feel an obligation to pay it. It is not just that that person (plus the police!) is, like the Greek fate, strong enough to crush me. In the personal arena, there is always another factor: I recognize in the roof repairman a person like myself. And I have the sense about him that he deserves to be paid. Or, to put it differently: when we agreed that he would fix my roof, I promised to pay him. That promise created an obligation, and I would have little respect for myself if I did not keep that promise. We learn morality, typically, in the family—another deeply personal, covenantal environment. Parents rightly demand the obedience of their children, not only because parents are bigger and can spank, but also because they presumably have greater wisdom and experience, greater compassion and goodness, and deep responsibility and love for their children.
Beyond all that, they bear authority simply because they are parents, even when, so far as we can tell, they do not deserve that authority. Other adults might be wiser and more compassionate than one’s parents, but the word of the parent still counts for more—unless it contravenes a still higher moral authority. Our obligations to repairmen and even to parents are not absolute. If the repairman’s bill is ten times his estimate, a higher moral arbiter, the court, might have to be involved. If parents tell a son to murder somebody, it is best that he resort to higher moral authorities, perhaps to his absolute or ultimate moral authority. But where does that authority come from?

Dr. John M. Frame. Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief (Kindle Locations 2728-2764). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition

This has been sufficient for the moment and has helped us understand some problems for impersonalistic accounts of ethics. I think more needs to be said about norms and obligations. We must discuss this question “What are their attributes?” The first issue we will note is that they are objective. We agree that subjectivism is as it always is self-refuting. We must also accept the indispensable feature that morality must have in order to be objective. It must be normative. That means it commands, directs, demands, and favors us to do certain activities. This means that these moral commands are in fact objective. These moral commands are themselves commands of reason. They require design and intent. Suppose for the moment we discovered a machine that was not working. If we were to study it and find the issue and it began to work. If you would notice the implicit assumption in our reasoning was the notion that the machine was meant to do any activity. To say something ought to be doing something implies that it was meant, intended, designed to do such an action. That means when we wish to say a man was suppose to act a certain way implies he was meant to act a certain way. We seem to be on the way of understanding something about these demands. They are commands of reasons, they are commands that direct us to act certain ways, this source that commands us must be personal, we must be designed to act in accordance with this beings moral prescriptions. This seems to imply that behind moral commands are moral commanders. The problem is these commanders simply can’t be human agents. Human agents aren’t absolute. The result would be that we could not preserve the objectivity of ethics. The other option is that an absolute personal rational mind commands us.

What kind of a mind would it have to be? It would have to have a few properties. It must be omniscient. If it wasn’t then it could be mistaken about what our obligations, command, and duties are and must be. It must be omnibenevolent. If it wasn’t, then how could we trust it to be the absolute standard of ethics. It must be unchanging. If it were to change, then our duties and commands are changeable on the whim of this being. This being in virtue of these attributes must be a se. He is not dependant on anything that exists. It seems like this being must also be knowable and if we are to know our obligations then he has revealed himself.

Please follow and like us:

Anonymous Gospels?

This is a collection of resources on the issue of who wrote the Gospels( and maybe some other NT books).It is often said that Christians only have a collection of random books that have no relationship to those that the early church attributes them too.

Dr. Michael J. Kruger :

New Testament Reliability

Did the Gospel Authors Think They Were Writing Scripture?

10 Misconceptions about the NT Canon: #9: “The Canonical Gospels Were Certainly Not Written by the Individuals Named in Their Titles”

Dr. Darrell Bock:

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually author the gospel accounts?

Dr. Timothy McGrew:

Who Wrote the Gospels?

External Evidence for the Truth of the Gospels

Internal Evidence for the Truth of the Gospels

On the authorship of the fourth Gospel: A letter to a young enquirer

Dr. Ben Witherington:

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Jonathan McLatchie:

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Dr. Mike Licona:

Discuss the Authorship of the Four Gospels

The A, B, Cs . . . Ds Es of Defending the Gospels

J. P. Holding:

Who Authored Mark?

Who Authored John?

Who Authored Matthew?

Who Authored Luke-Acts?

Triablogue:

Anonymous Gospels?

Anonymous sources

Early Interest In Gospel Authorship

Bart Ehrman Is Very Wrong About Gospel Authorship

Ehrman’s Errors In His Debate With Bauckham

Who Wrote The Gospel Of John?

The Gospels and ancient literacy

Skeptical Myths About The Church Fathers

Some Lesser Known Evidence Relevant To Gospel Authorship (Part 1)

Some Lesser Known Evidence Relevant To Gospel Authorship (Part 2)

Some Lesser Known Evidence Relevant To Gospel Authorship (Part 3)

Some Lesser Known Evidence Relevant To Gospel Authorship (Part 4)

Are The Letters Of Ignatius And Polycarp Forgeries?

Acts’ Authorship

Richard Bauckham Is Wrong About Matthew’s Authorship

Richard Bauckham Is Wrong About John’s Authorship

Which Mark Wrote The Second Gospel?

The Significance Of Eyewitness Testimony

Polycarp As A Witness To New Testament Authorship

Other sources:

Did Jesus exist?

Please follow and like us:

Shapiro vs Harris

I usually don’t speak about Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris but they recently had a debate. I reject both materialism and Judaism. Both men are prominent and popular in current conservative circles. They represent the two sects that exist in conservativism: Religious and Non-religious. The question will one day become which of these undergird that political system. The village atheist thinks that Harris is actually some genius and the theist thought Ben got him on the issue of Freewill. This goes to show how each group lacks critical thinking skills.

Harris is asked how does he avoid the naturalistic fallacy. Harris in response asks a question that just assumes naturalism. He asks that if we knew all the physical facts of the universe, then we would be able to figure out what we ought to do. The issue at heart here is that facts are about what “is” the case. They in no way provide what “ought” to be the case. The issue is that man has no purpose in a materialist universe. That is a problem because to say a man is acting wrongly implies that he was designed to act a certain way. The issue at hand is simply that ethical facts are a different kind of fact than a physical fact. It is as if he hasn’t learned anything from his encounter with Dr. William Lane Craig.

Eric Weinstein points out that he doubts that we know what reality is truly like. Sam Harris thinks he is correct because evolution is about survival and not about how men can ascertain the truth. They both don’t know what reality is like. Harris’ case is thus undermined because it may not be possible that he knows any truths about reality.

Ben Shapiro argues that we can’t have moral responsibility without libertarian freedom. The problem is that that is not something that everyone takes for granted. It is itself very problematic. I’m a compatibilist. I think human responsibility and determinism are compatible. Humans actions are only free in the sense that they are voluntary.

Shapiro argues that naturalism is incompatible with reason. That is true, but he argues it wrongly. He focuses on the fact that Harris is a determinist. Determinism isn’t incompatible with reason. He later readjusts it to attack materialism. Dr. Bahnsen style argument.

The “debate” ended with Sam Harris speaking about his acid trips and being amazed at a tv guide with Dick Van Dyke on the cover. This is probably where his philosophical views arise from. I’ll be honest that no one won this debate and that everyone on that stage was wrong.

Please follow and like us:

1 Cor. 10:13

A while back some indeterminist proponents were using this verse to defend libertarian freedom. The problem with that is they maintain that libertarian freedom is the necessary condition of moral culpability. That means that an agent without that ability would be innocent for any deed he does. If they believe this way of escape that is provided by God is libertarian freedom, then the passage only gives that freedom to believers in God. God doesn’t provide a way of escape for everyone. So, the libertarian would have to maintain all nonbelievers are innocent.

Other stuff:

Steve Hays:

Molinism and 1 Cor 10:13

1 Cor 10:13

Escape route

Contrary choice

Eternal insecurity

Paul Manata:

The use of 1 Corinthians 10:13 as an Argument for LFW: Caught between a rock and a hard place

1 Corinthians 10:13, Doing Otherwise, and Will Setting

Dr. James Anderson:

How Biblical is Molinism? (Part 2)

Please follow and like us:

Sola Fide

This will be a collection of resources on the topic of Justification by faith alone. This is the witness of the New Testament that men are justified by faith alone and saved by grace alone. This is the position of the Christian faith:

Clement (80-140 A.D.): So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Clement, Clement’s First Letter, 32.3-4) [1]

Triablogue:

Sola fide-1

Sola fide

Paul and James on Justification

God’s foundling

Repentance, remission, and justification

Is Faith a condition for justification?

Does baptism save?

How are forgiveness and baptism linked?

Big Bird

Faith alone in Christ alone

Bavinck on Justification and Adoption and Perseverance and Assurance

Baptism In The Bible And Church History

Raëlian Catholicism

Justification by faith or baptism?

Catholic Judaizers

Baptismal Justification

Justification Through Foot Washing

Judgment according to works

The Early Teaching Of Sola Fide Outside Of Paul

Luke 18 And Roman Catholic Desperation

Matthew 25 And Sola Fide

Dr. Michael Horton:

The Differences between Rome (infusion) and Geneva (imputation) in Justification

Are We Justified By Faith Alone?

Are You Saved by Faith Alone?

Dr. Douglas Moo:

Is the Lutheran Approach to Pauline Justification ‘Justified’?

Dr. Thomas Schreiner:

Justification by works and sola fide

The Five Solas: Faith Alone

Dr. James White:

The Empty Hand of Faith

Dr. James White on Justification

Defend the Faith against Works-Righteous Cults

Justification by Faith

Defending Sola Fide – A Historical Overview

Dr. R.C. Sproul:

Justification

Dennis:

Clement of Rome on faith and works

Philip Ryken:

Justification

New Perspective on Paul:

Dr. Charles Lee Irons:

The Righteousness of God

Wright’s reformulation of justification

Dr. Thomas Schreiner:

Schreiner reviews Wright
Paul and the Gift: A Review Article

Dr. Daniel Wallace:

Paul and justification by faith

Gerald Bray:

The Wrighteousness of God

Triablogue:

White is Right vs Wright on the NPP

Dr. Douglas Moo:

John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift and the New Perspective on Paul

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

D. A. Carson:

The New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective On Paul

Evaluating the “New Perspective” on Justification

Evaluating the “New Perspective”

The Nature of Justification

“New Perspective” on Justification Discussion

Dr. Robert Cara:

Part 1

Part 2

Please follow and like us: