Here I am only interested in offering some observations and conclusions and will save most of my arguments for perhaps another post or venue. My views are in no way motivated by any animosity for Mike. I consider him a friend and I have not heard from him that he has changed his mind towards me—this after we discussed our respective views over lunch.

First, two related but distinct issues are confused by some of those who have weighed in. On the one hand, there is the issue as to whether a given passage (for example, the Mt. 27 passage that started this public discussion) should be interpreted as A or B (or any number of other options). On the other hand, there is the issue as to whether interpretation B is consistent with the doctrine of inerrancy. Of these two, the latter seems to me to be the most crucial.

Second, it is clear to me that if it is possible that the New Testament has legends or embellishments or that a New Testament writer has changed the facts of a story for a theological agenda (all of which Mike says are possible), then necessarily inerrancy is not true. The mere possibility of the former precludes the possibility of the latter.

Third, one has the prerogative to hold whatever view of inerrancy one choses. I regret that some so hurriedly dismiss the work of the ad hoc consortium of pan-denominational Christian theologians and philosophers whose ten-year work yielded eight volumes dealing with (among other things) the philosophical, theological, and historical dimensions of inerrancy; the seventh volume of which was a nearly 1,000 page treatment of inerrancy and hermeneutics. I am not directing this criticism at those who think that we on this side of the issue have misunderstood the doctrine of inerrancy and ICBI (the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy). (For example, Mike and perhaps many on his side of this debate affirm inerrancy and charge our side of either not understanding it or not applying it properly or consistently.) Rather, I am directing this criticism to those who sound the refrain “Why should ICBI be the standard of orthodoxy?” The argument is not whether ICBI is the standard of orthodoxy but whether ICBI is the standard for the doctrine of inerrancy. Anyone who thinks he can do a better job than ICBI is welcome to try. I am not suggesting that nothing in the work of ICBI needs correcting. I am suggesting that such matters require (and deserve) a very careful, thoughtful, and thorough treatment. A one-liner that emotionally appeals to the theological individualism characteristic of many (Protestant) Evangelicals is not enough.

I have been collecting material from both on and off the internet expressing various views on this important discussion. The numerous misunderstandings I have seen of the debate itself have prompted me to offer these observations. It is my hope that soon there can be a public format where sincere participants can come together for a concentrated airing of viewpoints.

Atheist B. C. Johnson says, “Theists believe in God, while atheists do not have such a belief.  Many theists insist that it is the responsibility of the atheist to offer evidence justifying his lack of belief in God.  But is the theist’s demand rational?  Must the atheist justify his lack of belief in God?   Or does the burden rest with the theist? [B. C. Johnson, The Atheist Debater's Handbook (Buffalo:  Prometheus Books, 1983):  11] Atheist Doug Krueger writes, “The term ‘atheism’ is from the Greek atheos. The prefix ‘a’ means ‘without,’ and the Greek theos means ‘god,’ so atheism means simply ‘being without god.’ Theism asserts that there is a god, so atheism is the view which does not assert that there is a god.” [Douglas E. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introduction  (Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books, 1998):  17] (Notice, by the way, the fallacious move in Krueger’s reasoning. He goes from the ‘not’ (from the Greek alpha) modifying ‘God’ (which is what the Greek has) to the ‘not’ modifying ‘assert.’ This allows him the semblance of grounding his position in the etymology of the Greek while illicitly concluding that atheism is the absence of the assertion of God instead of the negation of God as the Greek actually says.) Atheist George H. Smith claims, “Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief; it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.” [George H. Smith Atheism:  The Case Against God (Buffalo:  Prometheus Books, 1989), 7, emphasis in original] In his debate with Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen Smith says, “There is no atheistic worldview. Let’s be clear about that. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in God.”

Aside from the issue of whether this is a legitimate definition of atheism and aside from the issue of the rhetorical legitimacy of this move (since, as I would argue, it is an attempt to illicitly shift the burden of proof entirely to the theist and to mitigate the rational responsibility of defending one’s own worldview) there is another interesting aspect to this re-definition matter. This definition of atheism entails the quirky conclusion that atheism is logically compatible with theism. This is so because if atheism is the lack of a belief in god, then it could be the case both that atheism is true (i.e., it could be the case that George Smith, for example, lacks the belief in God) while at the same time that God actually exists. The only thing that theism is logically incompatible with is that God does not exist. I will be willing to grant this eccentric definition of atheism if the atheist will acknowledge that, even if his atheism is true, it could still be the case that God exists. Strange indeed.

What bothers me, especially in light of the row over the comments made by Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, is the misunderstanding many might have over just exactly what is the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity. There is the unfortunate confusion with the term ‘cult.’ Theologians have used the term ‘cult’ very differently than how the media uses the term. For the media, a cult is a personally and/or socially aberrant group marked by personal and/or social destructiveness such as paranoia, social alienation, and even sometimes destruction and death. Groups like Jim Jones’s People’s Temple, David Koresh’s Branch Dividians, or Marshall Applewhite’s Heaven’s Gate might come to mind. In this sense, Mormonism is not a cult. Theologians have used the word in a theological sense to refer to groups that doctrinally reject one or more of the essential doctrines of historic Christianity. (Technically, any mainstream religion can have its cults in this sense.) In this sense, Mormonism is definitely a cult.

It is this latter issue that concerns me, viz., that many people mistakenly think that Mormonism is just another installment of the diversity that exists within Christianity. But Mormonism is definitely not Christianity (regardless of which one someone would argue is true). I would like to lay out the differences between Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or LDS) and historic Christianity in a number of key areas, some of which involve these essentials. For the sake of disclosure, the brand of Christianity against which I contrast Mormonism is my own Evangelical Christianity. Lest anyone think that by doing so, I’m introducing a partisanship not unlike what Mormons do, let it suffice to say for my current purposes that in the essentials, Evangelical Christianity is in solidarity with other Christians.

I. Scripture
A. Christianity: Only the Bible is inspired Scripture.
1. “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
2. “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:19-21)
3. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
B. LDS: There are four standard works: The Bible (as far as it is translated correctly), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
1. “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” (Joseph Smith, Article 8 of The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
2. “By the standard works of the Church is meant the following four volumes of scripture: The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The Church uses the King James Version of the Bible, but acceptance of the Bible is coupled with a reservation that it is true only insofar as translated correctly. … These four volumes of scripture are the standards, the measuring rods, the gauges by which all things are judged.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), s.v., “Scripture,” p. 764, emphasis in original)
3. “The Bible is the Word of God, written by men. It is a basic Mormon teaching. But the Latter-day Saints recognize that errors have crept into this sacred work because of the manner in which the book has come to us. Moreover, they regard it as not being complete as a guide. Scores of different types of interpretations on basic doctrines, which have led to the creation of hundreds of different sects, bear witness to the inadequacy of the Bible. … Supplementing the Bible, the Latter-day Saints have three other books. These with the Bible constitute the standard works of the Church. They are known as the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, What of the Mormons? (n.c.: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1976), 10, 12.)

II. God
A. Number of Gods
1. Evangelical Christianity: There is only one God. This does not mean merely that there is only one God with whom we have to do, but rather that there is only one Supreme Being in existence.
a. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
b. “Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me.” (Isaiah 46:9)
2. LDS: There are many Gods.
a. “And they (the Gods) said ‘Let there be light’ and there was light.” (Pearl of Great Price, “Book of Abraham” 4:3)
b. “According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was …” (Doctrine & Covenants 121:32)
c. “Three separate personages—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Plurality of Gods,” p. 577, emphasis in original)
d. “If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 374, as cited in McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Plurality of Gods,” p. 577)
B. Trinity of God
1. Evangelical Christianity: There is only one eternal God who exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
a. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spiri.” (Matthew 28:19)
b. “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.” (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)
c. “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” (2 Corinthians 13:14)
d. “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.” (1 Peter 1:2)
2. LDS: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct Gods.
a. “Three glorified, exalted, and perfected personages comprise the Godhead or supreme presidency of the universe. … They are: God the Father; God the Son; God the Holy Ghost. … Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’ … meaning that they are united as on in the attributes of perfection. … they are three separate and distinct entities. Each occupies space and is and can be in but one place at one time …” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Godhead,” p. 319, emphasis in original)
b. “Three separate personages—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, …” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Plurality of Gods,” p. 577)
C. Substance of God
1. Evangelical Christianity: God is a spirit, without flesh and bone.
a. “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
b. “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39)
2. LDS: God is a physical personage of flesh and bone.
a. “The Father has a body of flesh, and bones as tangible as man’s.” (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22)
b. “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body, infinitely pure and perfect and attended by transcendent glory, nevertheless a body of flesh and bones.” (James E. Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1971), 42)
c. “We affirm that to deny the materiality of God’s person is to deny God; for … and immaterial body cannot exist.” (Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith, 48)
D. History of God
1. Evangelical Christianity: God has always been God.
a. “Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.” (Psalm 90:2)
b. “And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.” (Isaiah 43:10)
2. LDS: God was once a mere man. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … I am going to tell you how God came to be God. Ye have imagined and suppose that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea … he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, as cited in McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Godhood,” p. 321)
E. Essence of God
1. Evangelical Christianity: God is not a man. “God is not a man.” (Numbers 23:19)
2. LDS: God is an exalted man. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, as cited in McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v., “Godhood,” p. 321)

III. Jesus Christ
A. Evangelical Christianity: Jesus is God in the Flesh and is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
2. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.” (Philippians 2:5-6)
3. “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell.” (Col. 1:15-19)
4. “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)
B. LDS: Jesus is the offspring of Elohim and one of his wives and is the brother of the Devil.
1. “Implicit in the Christian verity that all men are the spirit children of an Eternal Father is the usually unspoken truth that they are also the offspring of an Eternal Mother. … This doctrine that there is a Mother in Heaven was affirmed in plainness by the First Presidency of the Church … they said that ‘man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents …” (McConkie, Mormon Docrtine, s.v., “Mother in Heaven,” p. 516, emphasis in original)
2. “Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. … There is no impropriety, therefore, in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest of human kind. … He is the The Son, as they are sons and daughters of Elohim.” (Talmadge, Articles, pp. 472, 473)
3. “Since all men are the personal spirit children of the Father, and since Christ was the Firstborn spirit offspring, it follows that he is the Elder Brother of all men.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Elder Brother,” p. 214)
4. “The devil (literally meaning slanderer) is a spirit son of God who was born in the morning of pre-existence.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Devil,” p. 192, emphasis in original)
5. “SON OF THE MORNING. … This name-title of Satan indicates he was one of the early born spirit children of the Father.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v. “Son of the Morning,” p. 744)

IV. Salvation
A. Definition of Salvation
1. Evangelical Christianity: Salvation is gaining eternal life whereby we are enabled to be with God forever in heaven. Becoming “like Him” (1 John 3:2) means that we will be made completely holy and righteous as He is.
a. “In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:2-3)
b. “As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Peter 1:3-4)
2. LDS: Salvation is distinguished from exaltation to Godhood. Salvation, in the sense of the general resurrection, will come to all mankind. Exaltation to Godhood comes only who earn it and requires faith in the Mormon Christ, baptism, obedience to the teaching of the Mormon Church.
a. “Some degree of salvation will come to all who have not forfeited their right to it; exaltation is given to those only who by righteous effort have won a claim to God’s merciful liberality by which it is bestowed.” (Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith, 91)
b. “Unconditional or general salvation, that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists in the mere fact of being resurrected. In this sense salvation is synonymous with immortality … This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons of perdition. (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v., “Salvation,” p. 669, emphasis in original)
c. “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have go to learn how to be gods yourselves … the same as all gods have done before you …from exaltation to exaltation … until you arrive at the station of a god.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, as cited in McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, s.v., “Godhood,” p. 321)
B. Means of Salvation
1. Evangelical Christianity: Salvation is by God’s grace through faith. It is a gift and cannot be earned by works. All that is necessary is belief in the gospel. Salvation is possible because God the Father punished our sins in Jesus Christ on the cross in our place. To him who believes, God imputes His own righteousness. This righteousness is what enables us to live with God forever in Heaven.
a. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)
b. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
c. “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4-5)
d. “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24)
e. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
f. “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:24-26)
g. “but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:31)
2. LDS: Works are necessary for ultimate salvation.
a. “We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.” (Joseph Smith, Article 3 of The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
b. “One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. … [This passage] makes clear the two facets, neither of which alone would bring the individual salvation—the grace of Christ, particularly as represented by his atoning sacrifice, and individual effort.” (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1969), 206, 207.)
c. “The individual effect of the Atonement makes it possible for any and every soul to obtain absolution from the effect of personal sins, through the mediation of Christ; but such saving intercession is to be invoked by individual effort as manifested through faith, repentance, and continued works of righteousness.” (Talmage, A Study of the Articles of Faith, 89)
d. “Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism. And whosoever doeth this, and keepeth the commandments of God from thenceforth, … he shall have eternal life …” (Alma 7:15, 16, The Book of Mormon, p. 212.)

Second, Ham never even acknowledged the issue of how does one interpret the word of God? From where would one get one’s principles of hermeneutics (i.e., principles of interpretation)? He cannot say that we get these principles from God’s word, because we would need to be able to understand God’s word in order to get the principles. But then, if we are able to understand God’s word in order to get our principles of hermeneutics, then that would mean that we were able to understand God’s word before we got our principles, which would mean that we wouldn’t need the principles after all. This is a contradiction. But if Ham cannot get from God’s word his principles of interpretation that he needs in order to understand God’s word (and there are only two ways to understand reality according to Ham) then he would have to say that he gets his principles of interpretation from man’s word. But of course, this will not do since Ham’s ultimate point is that man’s word is faulty (if not deceptive) and thus wrong when it comes to reality. For him to claim that he gets his principles of interpretation from man’s word while arguing what he does about man’s word would be self-refuting. It boils down to the fact that Ham is either contradictory or self-refuting. But any position that entails contradiction or self-refutation must have one or more false premises. His false premise is that there are only two ways to understand reality, viz., according to God’s word or according to man’s word. It gets worse.

Third, throughout his talk, Ham emphasized that there are only two “starting points.” This was another way of saying that we either understand reality by God’s word or by man’s word. On my drive home, I imagined having a conversation with him. A few minutes into our imaginary discussion (after he perhaps detected some opposition from me) Ham asks me what my “starting point” is. I would then try to give a most outrageous answer (in order to force the issue). Suppose I said my “starting point” was “Everything is equal to four.” Now, no matter how wrong he might regard my “starting point” to be, it remains that my “starting point” would not retroactively be able to negate what was, up to the point when he ask me what my “starting point” was, a meaningful conversation. Despite the fact that I might have the wrong “starting point” (in Ham’s view) we were (and are) able to have adequate communication. This is revealing. In fact, by the time he asked what my “starting point” was, we were both way beyond our “starting points.” We both had already “started” before we began our conversation. The problem is that the imagery of ‘starting points’ is not the way he should be describing the situation. An illustration might help show what I’m getting at. Suppose two people meet each other in the middle of the desert. Both are trying to find their way to the city. What point would it make for one to ask the other “What is your starting point?” The fact is that what is needed is not a discussion about “starting points,” but about the directions to the city. It wouldn’t matter where either of their “starting points” had been as far as how they are to get to the city from where they are now. What I think Ham must be trying to get at is not “starting points” but something like a paradigm. He’s seems to be trying to describe different manners in which one might understand reality. For example, he might be trying to argue that the Christian must have a biblical world view. As a philosopher and a Christian, I can certainly appreciate this. But framing the issue this way can be problematic. He needs to make sure that he doesn’t sound like he’s saying that everyone is using some interpretive template (biblical or otherwise) according to which he “understands” reality. (This is a problem with a lot of contemporary “world view” conversations that are going on in some apologetic circles.) The problem with framing the issue this way is that it amounts of what philosophers call ‘perspectivalism.’ Perspectivialism says that each one has his own perspective on reality (perhaps determined by one’s up-bringing, one’s gender, one’s race, one’s culture—there are lots of options). Such perspectivalism denies that any one perspective is privileged or can claim to be the objective truth. But the Christian should not be merely claiming that we “understand” reality by God’s word while everyone else understands reality by man’s word. Not only is this plagued with the problem I outlined above, but it in itself does not get the discussion where it needs to be when we are trying to defend the faith to the unbeliever. What the Christian should be claiming is that his Christian view of things is the truth. It is the way things are. It is not merely a perspective—Christian or otherwise. Now, I have no doubt that Ham would agree that when Christians make their claims they mean to be understood as making claims about the way things really are. The problem is that, because of the way he has set up the discussion, he has precluded himself from advancing that claim. Instead of trying to defend his faith by claiming that it only is according to God’s word, he should be claiming that the Christian faith is true. By ‘true’ here I mean that the claims of the Christian faith correspond to reality. Reality is the only proper “starting point” and the measure of what it means for any claim to be true. Now God is ultimate reality and He is the Creator of all that exists besides Himself. But the advantages of grounding the argument in the real are several. Reality (which includes God and His creation) is that which we come to know in all its multifaceted aspects by means of the faculties of knowing that God as created us with. Further, reality serves as the only source from which one can obtain his principles of interpretation to be able to understand God’s word. Having grounded our hermeneutics in reality, we can further our knowledge by availing ourselves to the truths about reality that God has revealed in the Bible (which could not have otherwise been known). These two categories are what theologians call General Revelation (specifically, truths about God that can be known from creation by means of the faculties of our senses and our reason) and Special Revelation (truths that God as revealed through His prophets, apostles, and His own Son).
Being a Presuppositionalist, Ham denies that there is any neutral ground in the conversation between the Christian and the non-Christian. Since there is no neutral ground (his argument goes), then the position that anyone ends up with is determined by the “starting point” with which that one begins. So the task (Ham would continue) is to get the non-Christian to change his “starting point.” But how is that done? Ham says that we can’t do it. Only God can change one’s “starting point.” To be sure, Ham insists, God can use the “arguments” and “evidence” that Christians marshal to effect such a change. But the change only comes by God. Now, what Christian could quarrel with this? Let me see if I can. Ham here is confusing apologetics with evangelism. No apologist with whom I am familiar would deny that only God can change someone’s heart. But at the same time, no apologist with whom I am familiar would ever claim that it was the task of apologetics in the first place to effect such a change in the unbeliever’s heart. Indeed, you cannot “argue someone into the Kingdom of God.” Ham is confusing understanding with believing; apprehending with receiving. The unbeliever can be made to understand and apprehend the claims of Christianity. Apologetics can serve to demolish skeptical arguments and demonstrate the truths of much of the Christian faith (e.g., the objectivity of truth; truth as correspondence to reality; sound principles of hermeneutics; the existence and attributes of God, the historicity of the Bible) even if it cannot demonstrate the truths of other claims of Christianity that must be taken by faith (e.g., Christ died for our sins, Christ is coming again). But apologetics cannot compel the unbeliever to receive the things of God. It cannot tread where only the Holy Spirit can tread—into the hearts of men. Apologetics is not evangelism. (You can insert you own “horse,” “water,” and “drink” cliché here.)
Thus, it is not an insult to God (nor is it a repeal of the Fall) to say that there is much common (neutral) ground between the believer and the unbeliever. This is the only God-honoring view to hold, for it acknowledges that there is nowhere the unbeliever can hide in all reality where he is not standing on some ground that can be shown to point to its Creator. Sometimes it might take cogent arguments to get the unbeliever to see this. But it is reality and ultimate reality that God is calling everyone to acknowledge and embrace.

The story of the ant and the grasshopper. But this one is a little different …… Two Different Versions ….. Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well-fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE OLD STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION:
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well-fed, while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home, with a table covered with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing “It’s Not Easy Being Green…” ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house, where the news stations film the group singing “We shall overcome.” Then, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton have the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper’s sake. President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush for the grasshopper’s plight. Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with MSNBC’s David Gregory that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs, and having nothing left with which to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends eating the last bits of the ant’s food. Meanwhile, the government house he is in, which was always so well-maintained by the ant, crumbles because the grasshopper takes it for granted and has trashed it. The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug-related incident. The house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the now-ramshackle neighborhood, which was once so prosperous and peaceful, The entire Nation collapses, dragging the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be very, very careful how you vote in the future, and especially in 2012

Tim Wildmon, (Don’s son and as a function of “divine right of kings theology” crown prince of the American Family Association) was recently raving about President Obama suggesting that some people had made enough money. This enraged Wildmon, he was incensed that someone should suggest the he could ever make enough money. Tim Wildom and Gordon Gecko agree, in contrast to the Bible: “greed is a good thing.” … If the rabid-foaming-at-the-mouth Republicans are so bereft of the love of God, of compassion for man, and for virtue to the extent that they refuse to raise taxes on the rich while raping the poor, then I wonder if it is not best to let them have their way – shut down the government. Those who will not consider imposing a modest tax on the rich while pilloring the poor are idealogues and collossal frauds. … “But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? Do not they blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called?” James 2:6,7. That passage must not be in the Republican Bible. … So let me get this straight: Kelsey Grammar can end a 15-year marriage by phone, Larry King is on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55-hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods (while married) were having sex with everyone, 53% of Americans get divorced, and 30 to 60% cheat on their spouses. Yet, same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Re-post if you find this ironic. I did.

First, as one who has taught Critical Thinking at the college level, it was very easy for me to spot in your comments what the logicians refer to as “pseudo-reasoning.” Strong rhetoric like “divine right of kings theology,” the “crown prince,” and “raving” all serve to stimulate the emotions but do nothing to advance a substantive argument. While there is nothing wrong with being passionate about one’s views or even punctuating one’s comments with strong rhetoric, where it becomes illicit (and why such use of rhetoric is called “pseudo-reasoning”) is that it tends to move the readers’ emotions in the absence of substantive evidence and argument. In other words, when the rhetoric serves as a surrogate for reason, it becomes “pseudo-reasoning.” Such rhetoric can cause the readers to embrace a conclusion because of the force of the emotions and walk away mistakenly thinking they just read a powerful argument. But what they are experiencing are powerful emotions, not thoughts, evidence, or arguments. Now it might just be the nature of the venue in which you’ve published your comments that it doesn’t lend itself to such sustained reasoning. I only hope your readers keep this in mind with they read your comments.

Second, you make a subtle shift in stating Wildmon’s position. At first you have Wildmon raving about the President’s “suggesting some people had made enough money.” But then you imply that Wildmon holds that “greed is a good thing.” This is a non-sequitur. The former has to do with the propriety of someone making a suggestion about people making enough money. The latter has to do the people making enough money (what you call greed). An example might help illustrate the subtle illicit shift. Suppose an adult at the grocery store sees someone else’s child having a temper tantrum while the child’s parent is apparently oblivious. Suppose further that the adult then says something to the parent, suggesting that the child ought to be disciplined. Now the parent might be “incensed” at the adult. But the parent’s anger is about how inappropriate it is for an adult who is not the parent to be making such a suggestion. But this is not the same as saying that the parent himself thinks that the temper tantrum is appropriate. In other words, it is two different things to say on the one hand that it is not the place of the adult to make the suggestion and to say on the other hand that temper tantrums are appropriate. Thus, for Wildmon to be “enraged” that the President would make a suggestion about some people having made enough money does not entail that Wildmon thinks that it is not possible for people to make enough (or too much) money. His rage is the inappropriateness of the President making such a suggestion. Even if it was greedy for people to make beyond what is enough money, it is not the place of the President to make such judgments any more than it is the place of the adult to try to discipline the child (or chide the parent for not disciplining the child) while knowing that tantrums are inappropriate. For a third party to observe that such a judgment is inappropriate for that adult to make does not mean that this third party approves of temper tantrums. They are only enraged that this adult was sticking his nose in somebody else’s business. Wildmon is enraged (rightfully so) because it is none of the President’s business whether anyone has made enough money. This is true even if making such money was a matter of greed. It should be clear, therefore, that the second paragraph only builds on the pseudo-reasoning of the first. Since any argument is missing, you seemingly have to compensate by piling on the rhetoric in order to make sure that the emotions stay sufficiently stimulated so as to carry the reader over the threshold of being persuaded. For Wildmon to say that he thinks it is none of the President’s business whether someone has made enough money does not entail that he is “befeft of the love of God, of compassion for man, and for virtue.” It certainly does not entail that he is “raping the poor.”

Third, you have committed what logicians call the fallacy of false dilemma. A false dilemma is when one implies that there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more than two. (There is such a thing as a true dilemma when there are only two alternatives; like saying that God either does or does not exist.) The rhetorical value of committing such a fallacy is that when you offer your readers only two alternatives (hoping they won’t notice that there are actually more than two) and one of the alternatives is clearly unacceptable, then you illicitly force your readers to accept your other alternative. When you imply that if we do not raise the taxes on the rich then we will have to “shut down” the government, this is a false dilemma. Since presumably no one would want to shut down the government, then “obviously” (so the fallacy tries to persuade) we need to raise taxes on the rich. But, of course, there are a lot of alternatives between these two options (like cutting government’s egregiously wasteful and sometimes destructive spending). Now someone might say that what my friend was referring to was the alternative of either passing a given bill (which included the tax hikes) or time would expired on the current budget (which would mean that the government would have no more money to spend and would effectively “shut down.”) In this case, it is not a false dilemma. But in response, I would take exception to the expression “shut down the government” as it indeed does imply the false dilemma I’m referring to. This is so because the expression is deliberately intended to convey the false impression that all government services would cease if the debt ceiling was not raised and a new budget was formed. This is simply not the case.

Fourth, you do not explicitly tell us who are these who are not considering imposing a modest tax on the rich and at the same time “pilloring” (I think you mean ‘pillorying.’) the poor. I suspect the implication is that it is those of the ilk of Wildmon (which would include me). I deny this charge. I counter charge that what government is currently doing (by many of those who favor such a tax hike) is more of a rape of the poor than those  you characterize as “idealogues” (I think you mean ‘ideologues.’) They are deliberately creating and maintaining a constituency of dependents who eventually have no choice but to vote to keep those in office who will stick it to the rich and give them from the public coffers what they need or think they are entitled to. Now I am not here mounting any argument for my charge. Such arguments can and have been made in other contexts.

Fifth, the quote of James 2:6-7, again while rhetorically powerful (After all, the likes of Wildmon are supposed to be impressed with what the Bible says, are they not? Perhaps Wildmon has not gotten this far in his New Testament yet! (if I man indulge in some rhetoric of my own)), does nothing to substantially advance an argument. One thing that certain Bible scholars try to remind Bible readers of is an interpretive device called “context.” The passage of James has nothing to do with government policy but rather has to do with the conduct of individual Christians in the context of the church (i.e., the assembly of believers in Christ). Now, while it might sometimes be the case that there is overlap in what might be morally obligatory for Christians within the assembly and what might be morally obligatory for public policy, there are other times where they clearly have nothing to do with each other. (Government is strapped with the duty of protecting its citizens by means of, for example, a police force. But hopefully no American would advocate that the Church should maintain an armed police force of its own. If we have not learned this from our Bible, let the testimony of history be enough to persuade us against such horrors. Further, the Church is strapped with the duty of maintaining the proper forms of conduct in the assembly of believers. But hopefully no American would advocate that the Government should try to regulate our ecclesiology. Again, if we have not learned this from our Bible, let the testimony of history be enough to persuade us against such horrors.) So, whether James’s admonition (undeniably addressed to the believers in the assembly) might have implications (and even applications) for the debate over society’s (or Government’s) responsibility to the poor, this would need to be argued (again, which perhaps your venue would not allow). The mere quoting of a verse is not enough to prove the point.

Last, you list all the statistics regarding marriage (that I’ll grant for now for the sake of argument) and then comment “Yet, same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really?” asking your readers if they too find this ironic. But it is not clear to me what the implication is that you find “ironic.” You could be saying (1) that marriage is already destroyed (so that there nothing left for same-sex marriage to destroy) or (2) that there are far worse threats to the institution of marriage (and these threats are indicated by the statistics) so Wildmon should not waste time working against same-sex marriage. If it is the latter (i.e., if you mean (2)), you do not tell us what these other threats are. That is, you do not here (nor do you necessarily need to as you may have done so at length in other places) tell us what you think are the factors that have given rise to these regrettable statistics about marriage. But even if you did tell us, it does not follow that same-sex marriage is not also a treat. To say that cigarette smoking is dangerous to the health of teenagers is not contradicted just because someone points out that more teenagers are killed by suicide than by cigarette smoking. Even if suicide kills more teenagers, it does not mean that cigarette smoking is not also dangerous. So why would one be so critical of a group who is trying to reduce or eliminate cigarette smoking among teenagers by touting the other (even greater) dangers to teenagers? Likewise, even if there were other dangers to the institution of marriage (and even if these other dangers were greater dangers) it does not follow that same-sex marriage is not also a danger. One would have to make that specific argument. So, there would not be anything “ironic” at all about Wildmon making the efforts he does in trying to stave off the additional threat of same-sex marriage.

If it is the former (i.e., if you mean (1)) then this seems to be simply false. I see no reason to conclude that the institution of marriage is already destroyed such that there is no need for ministries like Wildmon’s. Further this point seems far too trivial to warrant the degree of rhetoric you are using. I suspect that you are really trying to imply that same-sex marriage is not at all a threat to the institution of marriage. That seems to better explain why you would find Wildmon’s position ironic. But, as I said above, such a claim is not proven by your appeal to the statistics. (Again, you need not necessarily had made his argument here. Perhaps you have made it elsewhere or perhaps you have (or could) direct your readers to others who have make the argument for you.)
Just some thoughts.

(re-posted from last year and the year before and the year before, mutatis mutandis) I remember being in the our front yard one afternoon after school on Marwood Dr. in Jackson, MS. One of my older brothers had had his telescope out looking at the cloud formations. It began to rain so my brother scooped up his telescope and he and I ran into the house. I sat down to watch television. It was about 4:30. We had a window over the kitchen sink that looked out into our carport. Suddenly, the rain and wind became so intense that the view from the window became obscured even though it was protected by the carport ceiling. Then the power went off. That was always frightening to a child, even in the afternoon. Then another brother came running into the den area where we were with our mom. (My youngest brother had been asleep on the couch.) Dad was away on one of his out-of-state business trips. My brother was yelling, “It’s a tornado! It’s a tornado!” None of us knew exactly what to do. The kids wanted to just jump in the car and flee but none of us knew exactly where to flee to. Before we had time to really gain our composure (being only 10 years old, perhaps I was the only one who was actually panicked) the storm had passed. There was an errie calm that set in as we began to hear the scream of sirens. The tornado had passed at least a statue mile from our house and we sustained no damage. It was not so for the Candlestick Park Shopping Center. Some sources say 13; others say 19 were killed in the shopping center. More were killed as the tornado tracked eastward across other parts of Mississippi and Alabama. Over 300 were injured. After the twister devastated Candlestick Park, it hit a power sub-station (which is what made our power go off). It then followed along Cooper Road for several hundred yards and lifted up, skipping over downtown Jackson. Another brother of mine (I have four) watched the storm from his office window in a downtown sky-scraper (or what would pass as one in those days). The duration of the afternoon and into the night was filled with the sounds of cars rushing to take the injured to the hospital. Someone came to our door and asked if we had a thermos he could borrow to render aid to the rescue teams. We sat around our kitchen table listening to a transistor radio. I was a Beatle fan. I heard for the first time their new hit “Nowhere Man.” Needless to say, every time I heard that song for many years after, it always took me back to those eerie and frightening feelings of that day. Finally, in what seemed like forever, our power came back on at about 10:00 that evening. We all hugged. It was Thursday, March 3, 1966.