Christian Atheists

Have you ever noticed, that most of the atheists you run into are... Christian atheists?

By that, I mean that somehow, for some illogical reason, despite holding that:

• The universe is the product of chance, not necessity or a divine plan
  
• There is no ultimate meaning behind existence
• Our lives, once we die, are over for ever
• There is no essential difference between man and any other living species whether ape, goat or cabbage - time and undirected genetic mutations link us all together
• Etcetera etcetera...

Yet, then still try to argue that, whilst being an atheist, they can or should...

• Believe it's better to live a "moral" life than an "immoral" one (whatever those terms mean)
• Live a "meaningful" and "purposeful" existence (whatever those terms mean)
• Contribute something "positive" to existence (whatever... you get the idea)
• Live as if man is somehow a "superior" or more "significant" life form (whatever...)

Where did they get those ideas from? Not from atheism, that's for sure. Nobody starts with the first set of premises above, and logically progresses to the second. Those ideas come from Christianity. The modern Western atheist feels a very strong need to somehow argue that he can hold to that second set of premises, and comes up with the most interesting set of arguments to justify it.

Of course many atheists have been more consistent, and admitted that, starting from the presuppositions of atheism, you can't arrive at a basically Christian view of the world. Some of these atheists have been profoundly depressed by that conclusion; others have argued that we ought to face the facts and ditch the idea that Christianity is a "superior" world-view (such terms having no essential meaning), and instead start building a society based squarely on atheistic ideas.

Very few can go that far though. Most have to try to be content with the inconsistent stopping place of being Christian atheists - and thus continuing to testify to what they know is true, even though they wished it wasn't so.

Will there be a future restoration of Israel?

Will there be a future restoration of national Israel, according to the Bible? That is, does the Bible teach that at some point before the second coming, there will be a national revival of the Jews, bringing them into the church?

My answer is no. I don't believe that Romans 11 and/or Zechariah 14 teach this. Rather I believe that Romans 9, coming as part of the argument leading up to Romans 11, lays down teachings which make this understanding of Romans 11 impossible and contradictory to what has gone before.

In Romans 9, Paul explains a crucial part of the accurate hermeneutic for interpreting God's dealings with Israel in the Old Testament. That is, he tells us that there has always been two Israels - even from the days of Abraham. Even from the birth of Isaac, God always distinguished between this Israel and that Israel. There has always been an Israel after the flesh (Esau, Ishmael) who were only ever a temporary part of God's plan - and there has always been an inner Israel - an Israel within Israel. That Israel is the true Israel, to whom the promises were made. This is not a new teaching or method of God's dealings that comes in with the church - it's what God was always doing.

Miss that, and you'll miss a lot. For one thing, miss that, and you'll miss Romans chapter 11. The teaching that goes to Romans 11 and starts saying, "but of course, national Israel remains special to God, and he will in future bring them back into the fulness of his promises" is one that misses the point that Paul's just been spelling out. Paul's just told us that when he speaks of Israel according to the promises, he doesn't mean national Israel - he means the elect "Israel within Israel" - these are the ones to whom the promises are truly made. He means the believing remnant - to them God will be faithful. There is and always will be such a remnant; Paul himself was one of them. The engrafting of "Israel" back into the olive tree is what happens as this elect remnant come to faith - a process going on in Paul's day (which is why he speaks about his day) and continuing down through history. It is not an "end time event", but an ongoing process.

Paul gives us the key to interpreting the Old Testament Scriptures. When we read in Zechariah 14 of the Jews looking on the one whom they have pierced, and mourning in repentance, we should use Romans 9 to tell us what that means. It is not a prophecy of a future event before the second coming. It is a prophecy of those elect Jews, beginning with the thousands converted on the day of Pentecost, who have and continue to embrace their true Messiah. When prophecy speaks of Israel, we must let the apostles tell us who is meant, and not impose another meaning.

A study on the "Federal Vision"

From Stephen Dancer, highly recommended:

In May 2006 I wrote a dissertation for a final year Independent Study module at WEST. The title was rather lengthy and perhaps a bit grand: A Critical Evaluation of “Federal Vision Theology” Arising in North American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in the Last 30 Years.

The reason for choosing this subject was that when I was studying the whole Federal Vision thing blew up in the US in 2002 and I wanted to study it a bit more. Unfortunately, because of my coursework, I could never seem to get to it. So when the opportunity came up to have pretty much a free choice of subject in the IS module, I thought I could kill two birds with one stone.

Now, I find I get a regular trickle of requests for the document so I have decided to post it here. Feel free to download it.

You get what you pay for! It is a student assignment, so it has stylistic quirks, and some limitations. I have learned a great deal since and would want to develop some areas. It was written before various important denominational study reports were published and some book-length treatments so I am not claiming anything great. So, it is what it is.

I would welcome feedback, of course.

The New Creationism

This looks interesting. Paul Garner would be a very well placed person to write such a book.

The New Creationism – Building scientific theories on a biblical foundation – Paul Garner
ISBN: 9780852346921  £8.95/$15.99

The Evolution/Creation book to read in Darwin year 2009.  Showing the most up to date creation research at a readable level.
Foreword written by Dr. Andrew Snelling.
Supported, commended and recommended by multiple PhD holders and multiple creation organisations.

‘Paul Garner powerfully demonstrates that when starting with the foundational truths of Genesis (six day creation, an historical fall, global flood, real tower of Babel, etc.), creationists can build scientific models that are far superior in their explanatory power than the evolutionary ones. This book is greatly needed in helping to popularise creation model-building as it introduces the reader to the best contemporary creationist models in astronomy, geology, biology, and so on -- and at a level the layperson can understand.’

www.epbooks.org / www.epbooks.us

Secularism and Idolatry

Independent faith schools to face Ofsted inspections
The Government is to send Ofsted inspectors into independent faith schools to make sure they are preparing pupils for life in modern Britain.

• "Modern Britain" is thinly disguised code for "secular Britain, as politicians would like it to be". Whenever you read that politicians are applying some "modern Britain" test, you're reading about politicians' social engineering efforts.

• Religious teaching that politicians don't like, and homes that implement that teaching, are a de facto part of modern Britain just as much as teaching they do  approve of. So what they really mean is "the bits of modern Britain I personally prefer."
  
  
• Decisions about how children should be prepared for life in modern Britain are the right and responsibility of parents, not government. The real issue isn't so much that the government's sending inspectors here or there - it's that it dares to think this is part of what parents want it to do in the first place.
  
  
• Obviously if some parents decide to send their children to an off-beat, particularly whacky (according to the inspectors' tastes) school, they presumably had a reason. Is it now the government's job to over-ride such wishes and tell us it knows best? This bit never gets put into the manifestos, but we keep getting it...
  

Quoth the article:

"Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has asked Ofsted to carry out a survey to ensure these schools are meeting regulation standards for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils."

• That job title never fails to send a severe chill running up and down my spine. Orwell eat your heart out!
  
  
• Note: the government has no embarrassment about determining what it thinks the "spiritual, moral, social and cultural" standards it wants your children to adhere too.
  
  
• Are there many people in the country who actually believe that the government is the standard-setting exemplar of moral, spiritual, etc., excellence?
  
  
• And in particular, just when was it determined that Ed Balls was the absolute epitome of these things such that he should be enforcing these things upon us?
  
  
• So, presumably Mr. Balls is launching out into looking at independent schools because the state schools under his direct control have achieved so highly in producing children of moral, spiritual, social and cultural excellence? He's done so well that he had a bit of spare time on his hands and thought he should spread the brilliance around a bit?
  

The relevant laws at present express a fairly vague and lightweight specification of just what these standards mean. The vagueness might be good, or on the other hand might present a golden opportunity for social engineers to argue that they're being broken. e.g. the requirement that pupils are to be given an "appreciation of and respect for their own and other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony" might, in the eyes of the social engineer, require that pupils are taught that all cultures are equally valid. Actually wife-beating is acceptable in many parts of British Muslim sub-culture. Are we really meant to respect that? The standard itself seems to assumes the secular position that all religions and cultures are equally valid. Not likely the framers were thinking of that - more likely it's meant to be a wedge for forbidding the teaching of doctrines which secularism regards as heresy, e.g. that homosexual indulgence is a definitely inferior and positively sinful way of life, etc.

Q. What are the standards of moral and spiritual excellence we should be aiming for our children?
A. That they should learn to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and to love their neighbour as themselves; to exercise repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, expressed in a life of heartfelt and joyful obedience to the Saviour's revealed will.

Q. Judged by the standards of Christianity (as expressed in the question above), what should we make of Mr. Balls' schools, given that they a) do not promote the God-given standard and b) promote a different standard in its place?
A. They're full of idolatry.

I hope my point is clear. Secularism is not a "neutral" middle ground. It's a replacement for Christianity, and Christians need to start looking at it as such.

Darwin Film Trailer

My Internet's not really very happy about streaming video, so I haven't actually watched this, but in my opinion CMI who are behind it are a very reliable creationist ministry. They've put a lot of money and time into this film, so it ought to be very useful:

Darwin Film sneak peek
On March 1 also be one of the first to view a trailer from CMI’s much awaited Darwin Film on our new website. The title will remain under wraps for just a few more days but we think you’ll get the feel of some of the stunning locations, scenery and overall quality of this exciting production.

Tomorrow's Bible study (GW)

The aim of this series is for a couple of new converts to start the Christian life with a Christ-centred focus. Kenya's "Christianity" is all about me getting saved, and then on to other things (signs and wonders, health, wealth and prosperity, etcetera). With a proper view of the glory of Christ, counterfeits lose their sparkle.

Ephesians 1:15-23 – The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ

What were the two ways by which Paul knew that the Ephesians were true Christians? (v15)

What had Paul been doing ever since hearing about the Ephesians' Christianity?

What did Paul pray for for them, and why?

a. (verse 17)

b. (verse 18-19)

A good thing to ask yourself is this. As a young Christian, what do I think I need? What would I pray that God would give me? Is it the same things that Paul prayed for, and that he says I need?

Where have we seen God's “incomparably great power for us who believe”?

After raising Christ from the dead, where did God then raise him to?

How does Paul describe Christ's present authority?

How long will it continue?

Why did God give Christ this authority? That is, does Christ use it for?

According to Ephesians 2:6-7, what is God's plan for the future for us?

Being a Christian must change how we think about the world and about the future. The most important fact in the world is that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lord and King of Kings – not only now, but to all eternity. Our great need is to know him in that way. With that knowledge we are to rely on him, to serve him, to love him and to wait for his glorious coming. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not just “something extra” to believe. It is the most important fact in the world today and forever.