Tasting the smell of soft colored sounds

I am currently reading a book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, which, though highly recommended, within the first couple of chapters I found myself in sharp disagreement with the author. Some may find that arrogant considering the author is J.I. Packer, a widely known and highly regarded theologian. But withhold your judgment for a moment and hear me out. While the book is primarily concerned with reconciling the Christian duty to evangelize with the sovereignty of God, before he tackles this he attempts to tackle reconciling the more general and age-old conundrum of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. Prior to this he very ably demonstrates how concerning one's own salvation and prayer, every Christian knows God is sovereign. We do not believe we saved ourselves, nor do we pray as if God cannot do whatever He wills. Rather we are thankful to God because he, rather than we ourselves, has saved us; and we pray to God with petitions precisely because we believe He is able to fulfill them. This is for the most part very good, though not necessarily profound. But then he gets to the issue at hand, man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. He begins by introducing the terms antinomy and paradox. He defines these terms, which is helpful, and I will do so momentarily, but he does not define the more basic term, contradiction, which he uses to define these term. I assume he assumes everyone, including himself, knows what the term means, and it is therefore unnecessary to define it. In this, certainly regarding most people I know, and perhaps himself as well, I believe he is in error.

So before I give his definitions, let me define a contradiction. A contradiction exists when a proposition (or propositions) asserts that A is A and 'A (read “not A”) in the same way at the same time. A proposition is simply the meaning of declarative sentence: a subject doing something. By A I mean anything, and by 'A, I mean the exact opposite of A or everything besides A (Whether Packer means this I am not quite sure. Logically it seems he must, but he does not appear to. But if he does not, I do not know what he could mean.). But to the terms he does define, paradox and antinomy. He defines paradox as a play on words or a literal or apparent contradiction, but one that, upon deeper contemplation, can be satisfactorily reconciled. An example is Paul's statement “when I am weak, then I am strong.” While this may be a literal contradiction, when we understand that Paul is using weak in one sense (his own strength) and strong in another sense (God's strength) we see that Paul is not contradicting himself because he is not saying A is A and A is 'A in the same way at the same time. He is saying A is A (I am weak) and A is 'A (I am strong, i.e., I am not weak) at the same time, but not in the same way. Therefore it is not a contradiction. It is in fact a profound truth that is more arresting to our attention because of the paradoxical way in which it was stated (Whether this is a common or technical use of the term paradox is questionable, but since he has defined it as such we will use it as such.). An antinomy, however, he says is different. He quotes The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which defines antinomy as “a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary.” This is a satisfactory definition, but he then qualifies it by saying it should be prefaced with “an appearance of contradiction.” Ultimately he defines it as two principles (more appropriately two propositions), both of which one holds true but which cannot, in any way, be logically reconciled. There is an irreconcilable appearance of real contradiction here. He is clear in stating that this is not like a paradox in which there is no real contradiction. Here there is real contradiction. God has them reconciled and perhaps we will in heaven, but it would take more than mere “human logic” to resolve this contradiction. This is the real issue for discussion. Paradoxes seem to have been brought up merely for illustrative contrast. Antinomies are the real concept of importance. But before we go on to his explanation of the antinomy of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, let us consider some necessary implications of antinomies.

If there is an irreconcilable appearance of contradiction in antinomies, how do we determine what is an antinomy and what is an actual contradiction? To all appearances they are identical. But not just to appearances, but since antinomies are irreconcilable, to the deepest and greatest amount of study, antinomies and contradictions will remain completely indistinguishable. The quick reply that antinomies are reconciled in the mind of God but contradictions remain contradictory even in His mind is unhelpful, since either we have the mind of God, in which case we, too, can reconcile antinomies, or we do not have the mind of God, in which case we still cannot tell which is an antinomy and which is a contradiction. In either case antinomies no longer remain, but only either reconciled, known truth or contradictions. This idea of irreconcilability also seems to reek of pride. Now, asserting that someone cannot reconcile a contradiction is not necessarily prideful, since by definition a contradiction cannot be reconciled by anyone. However, asserting that an antinomy exists, that is, two propositions are both true and cannot be reconciled, is, from the understanding of someone who is very prideful, very prideful. It is one thing to admit that two propositions appear as antinomies, and that I cannot reconcile them because of my own limited intelligence. That may in fact be very humble. But it is another thing entirely to declare two propositions as antinomies and that therefore no one can reconcile them. The only valid reason for doing so would be if in fact I am the smartest man in the world and anything I do not understand, no one can understand. There is no other justification for such an assertion. So while perhaps Solomon, Christ, and/or the Spirit inspired writers of the Bible could have said, “That truly is an antinomy.”, you and I, along with J.I. Packer, cannot.

But at last, to the point of this article, Packer's assertion that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are antinomies. As defined above, basic to being antinomies, a contradiction must exist. Here, at the most basic level, the assertion fails. This I believe goes back to Packer's failure to define a contradiction. Had he defined the term we would have already known whether he actually knew what he was talking about. Since he did not, we were left to wonder. However, by asserting that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are antinomies, i.e., there is a real irreconcilable appearance of contradiction, we see that he does not really know what a contradiction is. In the first place, contradictory statements must have a common subject. The A in, “A is A and A is 'A”, must be common. The two propositions “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” have two subjects, God and man. In the second place, contradictory statements must have either opposite or mutually exclusive predicates. The two propositions in question have two predicates not at all opposite or mutually exclusive, sovereign and responsible. Therefore, these propositions are not, in any sense, contradictory. It is even less contradictory than if I asserted that the propositions Jack is a boy and Jill is a girl are contradictory. They at least have opposite predicates. The supposed dilemma at hand has nothing contradictory about it at all. So then, if there is no appearance or real contradiction, there can be no antinomy. That is it. The problem is solved. I may not understand how and/or why Jack is a boy and/or how and/or why Jill is a girl, but that does not mean they are contradictory or antinomies. This is not to say that we can never understand how and/or why some proposition is true (as I will momentarily assert how and why “man is responsible” is true), but simply because one does not know the how and/or why is not a justification for labeling them contradictory or antinomies.

But because a clear and simple logical explanation is insufficient for many people, and as an exercise to help the reader better understand what a contradiction is, I will elucidate further. Since I have asserted that the above propositions are not contradictory and therefore not antinomies, what is an actual contradiction regarding “God is sovereignty”? Since our initial proposition is “God is sovereign”, then “God is not sovereign” would in fact be contradictory. And with this, unlike the weak and strong Paul paradox above, there can be no time or sense qualifications to reconcile the two propositions. Because of the nature of God, His sovereignty is universal, i.e., it applies to all time and in all senses. Any and every statement at all in opposition to this is necessarily contradictory. To continue, what then is an actual contraction regarding, “man is responsible”? Very simply “man is not responsible” would indeed be literally contradictory. But here we must be careful. Even this seemingly very clear contradiction “man is responsible” and “man is not responsible” is only contradictory if we maintain that the two propositions refer to the same time and same sense. But the two propositions may very well both be true and non-contradictory if we qualify each statement with time or sense parameters. For example, that “man is responsible before God for the knowledge He has given him” but “man is not responsible before God for the knowledge He has not given him” are both true and non-contradictory. Likewise, that “man is responsible for what he has said” but “man is not responsible for what he has not said” may both be true and non-contradictory. Or temporally, that “man is responsible to pay back a debt when the debt is due” but “man is not responsible to pay back a debt before the debt is due” are both true and non-contradictory.

These examples are intended to impress upon one the strict nature of what a contradiction is. One cannot simply pick two statements that are incongruous (Not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings or other aspects of something) and say that they are contradictory. “That man is a murdering, stealing, wife-beating, rapist” and “that man gave his life to save mine” are certainly not congruous propositions, but neither are they contradictory. You may not think it is congruous of God to be sovereign and hold man responsible, but that is not contradictory. Nor, since God's ways are not our ways, is it inconsistent. But even this initial assumption of non-contradictory incongruity or inconsistency is a very superficial understanding of the matter.  Upon deeper contemplation I believe one will not only cease to find them incongruous or inconsistent, but perfectly logical and congruous and consistent with the nature of God. Because “God is sovereign” is true and He can do whatever He wills, “man is responsible” is not only not contradictory, but true precisely because God, being sovereign, has a right to hold man responsible despite man's inability to choose or live up to the standards God holds him responsible to. So rather than merely asserting that “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” are two incongruous, but non-contradictory propositions, I am asserting that the latter is a necessary conclusion from the former. If you believe that “God is sovereign” is true, then you ought to, at the least, believe that “man is responsible” is a consistent and plausible proposition as well.

Where then does all this discussion and disagreement come from? Is it really as simple as all that? Truly I believe that a basic understanding of logic would resolve many, if not most, of the theological controversies that exist within the church today. And I believe the above should be sufficient for a great many people. It really is that simple. Their idea of a contradiction was incorrect. Now that they have a correct understanding, they can clearly see that there is no contradiction and therefore no antinomy between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. But admittedly even this will not resolve the issue for everyone. They may, more ably than most, construct an argument that goes something like this:

Man is responsible.

Responsibility is based on ability.

Therefore man is able.

Ability presupposes sovereignty.

Therefore man is sovereign.

Therefore God is not sovereign.

Therefore the propositions “God is sovereign” and a validly deduced conclusion from the proposition “man is responsible” are contradictory.

However, since the Bible is true, both contradictory propositions are true, therefore they are antinomies.

I think it interesting that the above argument is made more often by atheists than Christians, but the atheist simply has not rejected the validity or accepted the limitations of logic and does not hold to such an illogical idea as antinomies and so cannot accept the possibility of the last statement being true. But back to the actual argument. It is a correct form of argument very similar to a reductio ad absurdum. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likewise true, but contradictory to something else that is held true (Of course the goal of a reductio ad absurdum is to force the rejection of the premise rather than to maintain both as true and make a claim for antinomies, but that is beside the point.). But are all of the premises true? If any one is not then the conclusion does not necessarily follow and the argument falls apart. In the sorites given above there are two premises, a conclusion that is taken as a third premise, a fourth premise, another conclusion that is taken as a fifth premise, and the final conclusion

Let us examine the argument somewhat in depth.  The first premise, man is responsible, has been assumed as a biblically based revealed truth. The first conclusion (or third premise), man is able, is validly deduced and therefore true if the first two premises are true. The fourth premise, ability presupposes sovereignty, seems true by definition, e.g., God is sovereign because He has the ability to do whatever He wills. Whatever one has the ability to do independent of anyone or anything else one is sovereign over. The second conclusion (or fifth premise), man is sovereign, likewise is validly deduced and therefore true if the premises are true. And the final conclusion, God is not sovereign, because of the nature of sovereignty, necessarily follows. But the second premise, responsibility is based on ability, is the crux of the argument. And while this is often true in human relationships, it is not necessarily true by definition, nor is there scriptural support for it. In fact the Bible makes the exact opposite claim. In the book Packer quotes the pertinent passage from Paul's letter to the Romans, but apparently misses the meaning of the text. In verse nineteen of chapter nine, it is precisely the assumption of responsibility being based on ability that leads the hypothetical objector to ask, “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?” Or more apropos for the current discussion, “Why does He still hold us responsible? Who has the ability to go against His will?” To all of this Paul does not backtrack and say that he has been misunderstood. Rather he maintains that he has been perfectly understood: God holds man responsible for what he does not have the ability to do. But Paul goes on and rebukes the objector for questioning God and asking “Why have you made me like this?” or again “Why have you made me, or anyone, unable and yet responsible?” To this illegitimate, but natural, question Paul, not at all shrinking from the weight of the argument, reasserts God's sovereignty over all things, even the right to “make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use” completely without regard to the ability of the vessel. This again shows that not only are the two propositions, “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” not contradictory or antinomies, but that because God is sovereign, He has the right to hold man responsible.

In conclusion, while there are mysteries in the Bible (why does God's will manifest itself as it does; in loving me, in sending Christ, in forgiving some, in damning others, etc.,?) and in the universe (is there something beyond the universe, what is the fundamental nature of matter, etc.,?), this, the supposed dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is not one of them. He has revealed both truths to us through His word. They are not even apparently contradictory. Embrace them. Do not try and pit one against the other: they are not antagonists. You might as well try and taste the smell of soft colored sounds as discuss how to reconcile two non-contradictory statements. They may sound profound or poetic, but they are both nonsensical.

Understanding Sacrifice: Insight from Ayn Rand

I'll be the first to admit that I greatly enjoyed Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead . I'd long since heard whispers of their brilliance and read glowing reviews about their being "life-changing" works. I even had an initial attraction to the author just because "Ayn" is such a unique and cool name (though I still think it sounds more like a guy's name). But upon finding out that they were novels written by a female communist escapee, they lost most of their appeal. I generally don't like to read female authors and couldn't imagine an intelligent, philosophical novel, written by a man or woman. The idea that such a thing could be never even occurred to me. Novels were a thing to lose myself in – not learn from. And so the books remained in the back of my mind, but without a strong enough desire to buy them and read them. They existed in that state of mild curiosity for several years until, while perusing a respected friend's bookshelf, I came across The Fountainhead. He had gotten it free, read it, loved it, and was willing to let me borrow it. With these added commendations (free and recommended by someone I respected) I began my forage into Ayn Rand. I began that evening and was useless for the next two days as I plowed pretty much straight through it (even forgoing a powder day on the mountain to sit in bed all day to finish it), and immediately went to the library to check out Atlas Shrugged (which had a long hold-list but I did eventually get it and devoured it in much the same way). All of that to say that I am a fan. A fan of the books at least. Objectivism must be evaluated on a more objective standard than my personal enjoyment, but the books I'd recommend to pretty much any adult who can think critically.

To some degree there's no mystery to their appeal: they're well written, have the common theme of the triumph of "good" over "evil", have heroes one wants to be and villains that embody all one loves to hate, are open about sexuality (heterosexuality that is, I believe she hated homosexuality), view "love" as something great and present it all in the format of the aforementioned intelligent, philosophical novels. And for the starving minds in the world who exist above the level of automaton, they offer a spoon-fed all encompassing philosophy that's intelligent enough to give one the idea of being part of the intelligentsia, without actually having to think critically. I even felt it myself when telling someone that I was reading Atlas Shrugged, as if I had now entered into an elite group of avid readers and great thinkers simply by reading this one book. Granted, that could just be me and my propensity to think myself great no matter what (Though a friend who proofread this for me said that the clerk at Borders told her that she didn't look capable of reading Rand. Not sure if that was because my friend has some appearance of ignorance that I don't know about, is rather young, wears a head covering or some other physical appearance of elitist that my extremely intelligent friend must be lacking. Regardless, it seems that there is some aurora sounding Rand and her books.).

At least for now, I'll not go into a lengthy critique of objectivism, though suffice it to say that, like all forms of empiricism and/or rationalism, it can give no meaning or purpose to anything, has no concept of right and wrong and is pretty much useless for living (which is funny because Rand called it “a philosophy for living on earth”). That is why Rand, who claimed to be so logical, could not carry its premises out to their logical conclusions. Instead she invalidly concluded Christian values from many of her objectivist arguments: which is why parts of her books echo so much with Christianity. Christian values of course are a necessary consequence of Christian beliefs (by definition), but it is only by logical error that an objectivist such as Rand could come to those same conclusions (assuming her premises are contradictory to Christian premises, as Rand asserted).

Depending on your stance and knowledge of Rand, you may find it hard to believe that her objectivism and biblical Christianity could have anything in common, but her popularity among certain Christian circles is evidence for it. But even apart from that circumstantial evidence, the emphasis she placed on hard work and productivity is not called the Objectivist work ethic, but rather the Protestant (or Puritan) work ethic for good reason – it characterized the Christians who came out of the Reformation. Even the laissez faire capitalism and democracy she fled communist Russia to embrace in America, are, I believe, only logically consistent with Christianity (Robbins addresses this in Christ and Civilization). Admittedly, she was a vehement atheist, which makes it all the more ironic that she would embrace the one country most explicitly founded on Christian values and ideals (not that I would call America a "Christian nation", but merely that it is the country most explicitly founded on Christian values and ideals). Indeed, a study of Christianity and Objectivism's common and uncommon presuppositions and ideals would be interesting and certainly broader than I wish to address here, but Rand certainly thought them diametrically opposed. She railed against Christianity in her books, perhaps most pointedly in Atlas Shrugged when John Galt, in his climatic speech, bashes Christianity for the sacrificial life that Christians are called to live. Resolving that difference, and expounding the more clear understanding I now have of sacrifice is the purpose of this post. I believe you will see that it was Rand's ignorance of true Christianity and language in general that is the culprit rather than a failing or inconsistency of Christianity.

I will admit that Galt's argument, though useless (as in he has no means consistent with his empirical philosophy for saying one thing is more valuable than another thing), does seem to fit in with reality. Sacrifice, according to Galt, and therefore Rand, is the giving up of something of greater value for something of lesser value. This is stupid and morally wrong. Christianity calls for it's followers to sacrifice, therefore Christianity is stupid and morally wrong. The argument is valid, and if the premises are true, the conclusion (Christianity is stupid and morally wrong) is necessarily true as well. At face value, it seems like a valid and sound argument. In the midst of reading it, I remember thinking, “Okay, that makes sense. So why isn't Christianity stupid and wrong?” Just taking a trite example, most would agree that sacrificing a one hundred dollar bill to gain a one dollar bill is stupid. Obviously this was Rand's intent, to logically show the implausibility of Christianity by reductio ad absurdum. And I believe she succeeded with many people.

But Rand wasn't alone in this work. The ground had already been tilled by previous "Christian" philosophers and theologians who had taken Christianity out of the realm of the intellect and logical consistency and put it in the realm of "pure faith" and irrationalism. This may have begun with the brilliant, but way off, Soren Kierkegaard (who said, “It was intelligence and nothing else that had to be opposed. Presumably that is why I, who have had the job, was armed with an immense intelligence”) in the early 1800's. Rand simply took it out of the exclusive realm of philosophers, who could somehow live with such blaring contradictions, and gave it to the common thinking man, who could not rationally live irrationally (and rightly so). To these people Rand gave a supposedly logical reason to reject Christianity and allowed them, with a clear conscience, to safely put it in the category of fantasy and children's stories. Christianity, at least in America, has never fully recovered. It is still regarded by many as childish and totally unconcerned with logical consistency.

But the question still remains, “Why isn't Christianity stupid and wrong?” After all, Rand's understanding of sacrifice seems to make sense. I would certainly call someone at best stupid who gave up one hundred dollars to get one dollar. And sacrifice is without a doubt an integral part of Christianity. Isn't it a religion in which one is continually bringing oneself to a lower and lower standing so that in the end, he or she may be lowest of all? Don't passages like “the first shall last and the last shall be first” and “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” support this view? So then, how can I, who takes great effort to live logically and consistently, still believe Christianity is true? As I admitted above, the argument is valid. If the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true as well. But therein lies the error. Rand's first premise, her definition of sacrifice and its stupidity and moral wrongness, is not only foreign to Christianity, but is foreign to the general understanding of the word. Among the several listings found for "sacrifice" at merriam-webster.com, the most general is “something given up or lost”. It in no way implies anything concerning the value of the items sacrificed or gained, nor do any of the other definitions make such an implication. Now Rand's first premise (sacrifice is stupid and morally wrong), understood with a correct definition of sacrifice, is not generally accepted as true (unless one is willing to admit that all forms of loss and giving up, even trade, gifts and buying are stupid and morally wrong).

Some may persist that while Merriam-Webster doesn't necessarily see sacrifice as the giving up of something of greater value for something of lesser value,the Bible and Christianity do hold that view. Certainly on other issues, biblical definitions are not always in line with Merriam-Webster's definitions, and this, they may assert, is such an issue. The aforementioned passages may again be appealed to in support of their view. But even in these passages supposedly supporting Rand's view we find the biblical definition of sacrifice to be the complete opposite of what she said. In both of the passages Jesus is telling His disciples how to be first and great. He is not advising his disciples to be last and least, but that by being last and least here (on earth), they may be first and great there (in heaven). These teachings fit in perfectly with the rest of scripture, particularly Matthew 6 where Christ commands the storing up of heavenly treasures rather than earthly treasures precisely because heavenly treasures are indestructible and therefore superior to temporal earthly treasures. In chapter 19 of the same book, He encourages His disciples who have left all and followed Him by saying that the return will be a hundredfold. This is encouragement precisely because the return is a hundredfold the investment – they'll gain much more than they've given. It's clear that true Christianity, rather than the straw man Rand portrays it as, holds the exact opposite view of sacrifice that she attributes to it. She says Christians are called to give away valuable things for less valuable things when the calling is actually to give away what is worthless (earthly goods and services) for what is infinitely valuable (heavenly riches and rule). Here again is an irony of Rand: her idea of righteous selfishness is predated by Christianity's concern for the individual and a righteous desire for one's own well-being by nearly two thousand years. Of course, as an empiricist/materialist, she didn't believe in a heaven and spiritual rewards, but critiquing a system of thought based on suppositions of another system of thought is a worthless endeavor. The Christian does believe in a heaven and spiritual rewards, therefore his or her actions of sacrifice are entirely consistent with his or her system of belief. Either Rand was dishonest in intentionally presenting a straw man that she could easily destroy or she was genuinely ignorant of basic Christian beliefs. Of course that's no surprise since Paul wrote in the book of Romans that men will “suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. But whether intentionally or ignorantly, Rand, at least on this point of her criticism of Christianity, was entirely incorrect. In fact, her objectivism was merely following in the footsteps of Christianity, though lacking the necessary preconditions to arrive at such conclusions and any consistent means of determining greater and lesser valuable things.

It may seem odd that my title would include the term 'Insight', when thus far I have sought, and I believe succeeded, to show that Rand's argument against Christianity (at least this one based on sacrifice) was fallacious. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to call it “Understanding Sacrifice: Insight From Ayn Rand's Errors”, but whether stated or not, I do believe we as Christians, and even non-Christians, can learn from Rand's mistake. I confess that her argument seemed so plausible to me at first because I had, unintentionally and unknowingly, begun to view sacrifice in her terms. I had begun to think of the Christian life in terms of what I had to give up or deny myself (sex, freedom, money, new camera lenses, etc.), rather than in terms of what I received (forgiveness, freedom from sin, meaning, Christ and ultimately God). I believe this view is rampant in the church and plaguing it. But the world will not be won for Christ by those who view the Christian life as an investment destined to depreciate. Nor will people be drawn to a Christ who takes more from them than He gives. Let us remember that Christ is the pearl of great price and yes, we must sacrifice everything to get Him, but, oh, what a steal it is! What a bargain we get! We give all of nothing to get the one thing that is real. Those who have been transformed by that truth are the ones who will change the world. Theirs is the philosophy of not only “living on earth”, but living in eternity.



In hindsight, as philosophical novels, categorically the book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead most closely resemble may be the Bible, which would explain their wide appeal and the devotion they inspire. I believe the market is wide open for someone to put forth an intelligent, philosophical Christian novel. If Rand could put forth a false philosophy of objectivism in novel form and lure in millions, it seems probable that someone could put forth a true Christian philosophy (destroying objectivism, empiricism, rationalism, relativism, evolutionism, atheism and a host of other 'isms' in the process) and have success. Granted, the Bible does all that and more and is written by One who cannot lie or make mistakes, but I think a contemporary Christian philosophical work of fiction is at least permissible and perhaps a very worthy endeavor. The situation as it is right now is such that most, myself included, are too ignorant to read and understand a philosophical treatise, but could manage to follow a novel precisely because of the nature of a novel – that of storytelling, it's slowness in developing, less abstraction, practical examples, etc. Whether I have the necessary skills to do so is doubtful, but I believe that has become my life's ambition. That and bouldering V10. Ah, what lofty goals I've set for myself.

Epistemology: The Very Beginning

Before I can (or at least should) write anything trying to prove something (i.e. say something is true), I must make sure we are on the same page regarding epistemology. Epistemology simply answers the question, “How do we know what we know?” It is the most basic philosophical question. There are various epistemological methods for the various philosophies (empiricism, rationalism, etc.). I do not claim to be an expert on the subject (in fact I have pretty much exhausted my knowledge of it now), but my point is not to try and prove my epistemology, but merely show you the epistemology I use to determine the truths I've come to which I plan on writing about in the future (though upon finishing this little treatise, I realize I've made a bit of an argument for the superiority of my epistemology). I believe all other epistemologies are self-contradictory and self-defeating, but that is better demonstrated on a case by case basis. Most of my readers will accept my epistemology, though they've perhaps not thought about it in these terms before. So, all that to say that epistemology is where we have to start, and my epistemology is propositional revelation, basically, “The Bible tells me so.” John Robbins, from whom I've learned much of this, says the truth of the Bible is the only axiom of Christianity. All other truths (God exists, logic is valid, etc.) are derivatives. “Logic is valid.” in particular deserves some attention, since through logic, we attempt to plumb the infinite depths of the Scriptures (and I, at least hopefully, will be using it in the future to convince you what I believe the Bible teaches, though not explicitly).

So then, where does the Bible say, “Logic is valid.”? Almost surprisingly, the Bible isn't much less clear than that. The word 'logic' is a derivative of the Greek word 'logos', which we know from John 1 is in fact the person of Jesus Christ (“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God”). Simply put, God is logic. This translation of the word also fits in very well with the understanding of the Trinity Edwards and Piper hold to that I wrote about some time ago concerning Christ being the knowledge God has of Himself. God's statement to Moses, “I am that I am.” is practically a verbatim use of the first principle, the law of identity (A=A) that Aristotle formulated. Or more accurately, Aristotle’s 'brilliant' formulation in the 3rd century B.C. was only about 1000 years after Moses had recorded God saying it. God even says in Isaiah 1:18, “Come, let us reason together.” And while that treads dangerously close to trying to derive an ought from an is, or in this case an is from an ought, when God includes Himself, because of His omniscience, omnipotence and inability to lie, we may safely derive an is from an ought. We also have the abundant examples of Christ and Paul's often complicated logical arguments in the New Testament.

There is a fair amount of debate even among Christians as to the extent of the validity of the use of logic in theology. Just mention the word 'logic' in Christian circles and someone, often with an air of spirituality and perhaps in a voice meant to convey profundity, will likely blurt out, “I don't want to limit God.” or “God is above logic.” I admit there is an appearance of spirituality here, but in actuality it is a covering for ignorance or stupidity. While I whole-heartily agree that I don't want to, nor indeed am in any way able to limit God, that does not mean God has not limited Himself. We know that God is truth and cannot lie. Therefore God cannot lie. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot lie.”? We know God is holy. Therefore He cannot be unholy. Am I limiting God by saying, “God cannot be unholy.”? In the same way, since God is logic, He cannot be illogical.

Now that we have established the validity of logic, we have a means of deriving truth that is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. As the Westminster Confession says, “The whole counsel of God,... is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture.” This would seem simple enough, but logic is often misunderstood. People often claim to know something “logically” when in fact they are committing logical fallacies (I'm reminded of the witch scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail). So a brief explanation of what logic is and is not may be helpful.

Logic is the study of valid inference, or as stated above, necessary consequence. It has strict laws that must be followed. This definition itself is often misunderstood since the terms valid and necessary are often misunderstood. For logical purposes they are synonymous describing an argument in which the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion. This is deductive reasoning. It can also be understood as reasoning from the general to the specific. The classic example is :
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the general (all men) to the specific (Socrates). This is a valid argument. If the two premises (All men are mortal, and Socrates is a man) are true, the conclusion (Socrates is mortal) is necessarily true as well.

Inductive reasoning, or reasoning from the specific to the general (and what people often mistake for logic), is actually logically fallacious (and can therefore at best give us probabilities, not truths). Taking the same statements above but reasoning inductively we have:
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore all men are mortal.
Here the reasoning goes from the specific (Socrates) to the general (all men). While the invalidity of this example is not easy to see because “All men are mortal.” is generally accepted as true, it is nonetheless invalid. Another example will show this more clearly.
Midnight is a cat.
Midnight is a good pet.
Therefore all cats are good pets.
Unfortunately we do not have the present voice of those who have been killed by large cats such as mountain lions and tigers to attest the fallacy of this conclusion, but nevertheless we know that not all cats are good pets. Here we have true premises (Midnight is a cat, and Midnight is a good pet) but the conclusion (Therefore all cats are good pets) is false. It is important to understand the only differences in this argument and the second Socrates argument are the subjects and predicates. The form is the same. Symbolically they both could have been written as
X is Y
X is Z
Therefore all Y is Z
where X = Socrates or Midnight, Y = Man or Cat and Z = Mortal or Pet

Regardless of how written and regardless of whether the conclusions are true or not, the arguments themselves are invalid and cannot prove anything. It is worth noting that this inductive reasoning (from the specific to the general) is the only reasoning available to the scientific community.

In contrast, the initial Socrates argument can be written as
All X is Y
Z is X
Therefore Z is Y
where X = Men, Y = Mortal and Z = Socrates

Regardless of the symbols used, this argument is valid. This is an important concept to understand regarding logic. Validity refers to the form of an argument, not the content. The premises in a valid argument may be true or false, but if they are true, then the conclusion is always true as well. And since this argument is valid, any subjects and predicates substituted for X, Y and Z that make true premises (All X is Y, and Z is X) will necessarily result in the conclusion (Z is Y) being true as well.

So then, to arrive at truth we must not only have valid logical arguments (deductive rather than inductive), but we must have valid arguments with true premises. As we've seen, valid deductive arguments are fairly easy to construct, but where do we get true premises? From valid deductive arguments with true premises. But again, where do we get these new true premises? From more valid deductive arguments with true premises. This reasoning would result in infinite regress (and does for the rationalist, though Aristotle unsuccessfully attempted to explain it away) except that we have truth in the form of propositional revelation in the Bible. This is my starting point, or to use more intellectual language, it's my presupposition, and therefore, by definition, unprovable. Hence it would be pointless (and Robbins says even detrimental) to try and prove that which cannot be proven. (I believe he maintains it is the work of the Holy Spirit to prove the unprovable). This commitment (that everyone necessarily has, though perhaps unknown) to some presupposition is why all reasoning is ultimately circular. There must be an unprovable beginning. (It's quite ironic, and somewhat funny, when people think they are being logical and intelligent by asking someone to prove their presuppositions. In case you don't see the humor, rather than showing their intelligence, they're showing their ignorance of even the definition of the term.) So while all reasoning is circular, not all reasoning is self-defeating. Well, I should say one reasoning is not self-defeating, namely logical deduction from the Bible, or simply biblical Christianity. All others are not only circular (as biblical Christianity is) but also self-defeating (as biblical Christianity is not). This understanding has led me to expand my view of the Bible. Growing up in Southern Baptist churches, I was taught the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible. It wasn't until I came to a Reformed understanding that I came to see it as sufficient for “all things pertaining to life and godliness.” Now however, I've come to see it not only as true and sufficient, but exclusively true. There is no truth apart from the Scriptures (which Calvin and the other reformers taught, but I've just now understood).

The sciences, or rather ignorant and/or deceptive scientists, have somehow fooled the average person into thinking that the sciences belong with logic in the realm of truth assertion. This is simply not the case. The only method of reasoning available to the sciences is inductive reasoning and that from false premises. Einstein himself said he would never accept his theory of relativity as true, even if all of its predictions were accurate. He acknowledged that it more accurately predicted things than Newtonian physics, but through any number of points, there are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through those points and therefore an infinite number of formulas for those lines. If there are an infinite number of possible answers, the probability of choosing the right one is 1/infinity. So not only are scientific theories not likely true, they are certainly not true. And from these certainly false theories (premises), more inductive and fallacious reasoning is done to arrive at more theories. This is done through many stages with the end result being scientists supposedly proving something and giving us truth. While many contemporary “intellectuals” have not acknowledged this, some have. Karl Popper, an agnostic and one of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century said,

First, although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it...[W]e know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... in science there is no “knowledge” in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. … Our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to improvement; … our knowledge, our doctrine is conjectural; … it consists of guesses, of hypotheses rather than of final and certain truths.

Bertrand Russell, another highly regarded secular philosopher and logician who was also quite antagonist towards Christianity, was even more condemning of the contemporary sciences when he said,

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: “If this is true, that is true; now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say; “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing.” If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

This formal fallacy that he mentions is so common it has been named, but despite its widespread use, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is still fallacious. And yet, as Russell said, fundamentally it is upon this fallacy that “all scientific laws are based.”

My older brother, who certainly disagrees with my epistemology, acknowledged this and said that any decent scientist knows it. Perhaps he's right. He himself is quite intelligent and more well-read than I am concerning the sciences and philosophy, so it would be reasonable for him to be familiar with this understanding. However, the fact that I went through elementary, middle and high school along with five years at three different universities (and got a degree) without ever having this basic understanding of the limitations of science explained to me seems questionable. The atheists and evolutionists I've talked to certainly don't have this understanding. Even the debate about whether evolution should be taught as fact or theory is evidence that the education system doesn't understand this limitation. How could anyone argue for some scientific proposition being taught as fact when science is incapable of arriving at any fact or truth? Unless of course one is making decisions based on one's presuppositions (which one necessarily asserts as true) rather than on what is actually provable. Unfortunately most supposed and even true Christians don't understand the impossibility for science to give us truth. Nor do they have the above menioned exclusivistic view of the Bible as true.

For those who reject my view, you are in a difficult position. It's precisely because I have a Christian view of logic that I can expect your mind and thought processes to be conformed to the laws of logic. Logic is valid because God thinks logically. Man is made in the image of God, therefore man thinks, or at least should think, logically. Notice here I am arguing why logic is valid, not how we know logic is valid as I was above. Without this basis, how do you impose the standard of having to be logically convinced that I am correct? Or why do you think, supposing you were able to do it, that convincing me logically of your position should have any effect on my beliefs? The most common answer to this question from atheists is something like, “Well everybody knows that.” or, “Because....” and then nothing. And people accuse Christians of taking a “leap of faith” and being irrational. It is so ironic that the accusers are guilty of exactly what they accuse others of being but are too deceived to see it in themselves. We should never be ashamed of admitting our presuppositions. They are unprovable, yes, but everyone has them, and the Christian presuppositions are the only ones that fit in with the world we see, the way we think and the experiences we have. The evolutionist/atheist must admit (though they usually will not) that the true love that they long for, the truth they yearn to know and the purpose they hope to fulfill are logically inconsistent with their presuppositions, but they cannot disregard the reality they feel. They must live inconsistently or not live at all. The Christian alone can live and live consistently. And yet every time we sin, we act as though God does not exist.

For any seriously interested in these topics, I'd recommend John Robbins' mp3 lecture serieses which can be found at www.TrinityFoundation.org (for free via download) and Michael B. Yang's Reconsidering Ayn Rand (which draws heavily from Robbins' works as well as Robbins' mentor Gordon Clark's works). If you are already very familiar with philosophy and philosophers (or are simply much more intelligent than I am), jumping straight into Clark's An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, A Christian View of Men and Things, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God or Thales to Dewey would probably be the most direct path. I've begun An Introduction to Christian Philosophy and have never felt like such an idiot while reading an Introduction book.

Just to whet the appetite

Not sure when I'll get them done, but to all of my adoring and fanatical readership out there waiting for my next blog like the next Harry Potter book or Twilight series, I'm working on three titled

The Superlative Nature of the Single State
Understanding the Nature of Sacrifice, Insight from Ayn Rand
and lastly,
Rethinking Polygamy

Of course, I wouldn't even be interested in writing on these issues unless I thought I had some brilliant insight into an issue that seems to go against modern "Christian" teaching.

And to any who thought I was serious about the Potter and Twilight series comments, I say that in deprecation of myself. I bought the last of the Harry Potter books on the day it came out (and read it with only bathroom and food breaks) and I just finished the Twilight series last week (which though I didn't starting them until they were all out, it took me no more than 2 days to read each of them).

My Mars Hill Church experience

As some of you know, on my recent trip to Washington I visited Mars Hill Church in Seattle. This is my critique of it. I know that's somewhat lame, critiquing a church and church service, but there are a few who have asked about it, so here you go. If you know nothing about Mars Hill, it's where Mark Driscoll is the main preaching pastor. The church is considered one of the most influential in America and is one of, if not the, flagship church in the Acts 29 Network. Driscoll has a fair amount of popularity (or in some cases, notoriety) for his books and for throwing out some curse words from the pulpit (which I've heard he has repented of). In a recent NY Times piece on the resurgence of Calvinism, Driscoll was the man they picked to talk with about it. His openness about pornography, masturbation, sex and a host of other issues not often dealt with from the pulpit has given him somewhat of a cultic following. The only book of his I've read, Porn Again Christian, is available as a free download and was even a bit surprising to me (it's more of an article than a book, really quick read). You just don't hear the issues he addresses addressed anywhere else from a Christian worldview and perspective. So all of that is the baggage I had going into the service.

A little anecdote is worth telling here, since I think it shows the character of at least some of the Christians at Mars Hill. Before leaving Jackson, I had posted on facebook a short itinerary of my trip and mentioned that I was going to hear Driscoll preach. I got a message from a facebook friend (one of those people who you've never met and probably never spoken to, but have some thin tangent of connection to) saying that he typically preached in person at the Ballard campus. I assumed she went there, so I replied giving her my number (internet access isn't always a sure thing when road tripping, so I didn't know if I'd get her response even if she did send one) and saying we could meet up Saturday if she wanted. I got to Seattle early Saturday (I slept in a parking lot a little south of the city) and headed straight for my favorite place in any city, the public library (restroom facilities are usually pretty decent, the internet is high speed and free and it's a quiet, warm place to read). I forget the details, but we ended up talking on the phone. She was unfortunately busy that evening throwing a birthday party for her roommate, but I, having not had a real conversation with anyone since the previous Sunday and my head brimming with the twenty plus hours of lectures and sermons I'd been listening to while driving, kind of fished for an invitation. It was maybe a bit awkward, but such are real life introductions that begin on facebook. Anyway, I got one and headed out to her place. The party was fun, I met and talked to a few people. Turns out she, my new friend, didn't go to Mars Hill (used to), but her roommate did and several other people at the party. One guy, who I met just as he was leaving with his girlfriend, I had a great, though brief, conversation with and knew he was the type of guy I would like. They left, but a short while later the birthday girl got a call from the guy's girlfriend asking where I was staying. I ended up talking to the guy again and saying that I'd probably find a parking lot somewhere, and so he offered his couch. I of course was more than willing to accept and he gave me the address and left the key out for me. I ended up staying at the party until midnight or so, took a delightful walk along Alki Beach (where the below Seattle skyline night photo was taken) with my new friend discussing all manner of theological and personal issues (And to her credit, she patiently listened as I very poorly tried to convey the gist of the Logic lectures I'd listened to. I'm sure I could not have sounded more boring nor more like an idiot.). Anyway, she, her sister, the birthday girl, the guy I stayed with, his girlfriend and I all met at Mars Hill the next morning to worship. Afterwards we went out to the Pike Place market (saw the famous fish market, the first Starbucks, etc) and I ended up spending another night at his place. I went out to Olympic National Park, but came back through Seattle and stayed another two nights with him. His phrase was “Mi casa es su case.” and I believe he meant it. I also went out again with my friend who was willing to take me to all the other Seattle sites (“Waiting for the Interurban” photo below being one). I was also able to go with the guy and his girlfriend to their “Community Groups” which meet during the week to eat, fellowship and discuss the sermon. It was a wonderful time. In fact, of all the beautiful places I visited (Columbia River Gorge, Crater Lake National Park, Redwoods National Park, Oregon Coast, Olympic National Park), Seattle, because of the beauty of the believers, was the highlight of the trip. Obviously God was looking out for me and orchestrating everything and perhaps He did direct me to the only Christians at Mars Hill who are living out their faith, but I kind of doubt it.

But I digress. I'll get to the original point. What was the church service like? (Though I do wonder if what I just wrote is the main point, and the church service is the secondary issue.) Driscoll preaches five times on Sundays. They have (I believe) eight other campuses that receive the video feed of his teaching/preaching. All other aspects of the service (singing, prayer, Lord's Supper, etc.) are handled individually by the campus pastors. The services are extremely simple. We began with some singing. Now in general, I think it's really lame to begin a service with singing. Particularly if it's just trite choruses written by people whose theology hasn't gotten out of Sunday school yet. Not that singing, i.e. praising God, can't be used to begin a service, but when that is the “worship time”, despite the fact that your intellect hasn't even begun to be engaged, then I think you have a pretty superficial understanding of worship. But fortunately, it was neither. Content wise, it was a mix of contemporary and old hymns. Providentially, one hymn was Nothing But the Blood, one of my favorites, and one contemporary was In Christ Alone, probably my favorite Christian song written in my lifetime. The worship pastor (believe that was his title) made some comments in the midst of it and there was some prayer before or after as well. Then Mark got up to preach. And he preached for like an hour. Now, that's nothing that I'm not used to. My current pastor I believe has done some hour and half sermons and anything less than forty-five minutes I start to question how much preparation the preacher put into it, but I didn't expect a well known pastor, the service which I'm attending is packed, and who's broadcasting to eight other locations, and is going to preach that same sermon five times that day, to bust out an hour long sermon. And one who is openly Calvinistic from the pulpit, a hardliner on men's and women's roles, and who preaches expositorily from the Bible. It still excites me. That's freaking awesome. After the sermon, there was some more singing (Which I love. I much prefer to sing after my heart has been pierced by the Word, and my singing is an expression of the emotion that my intellect has created from understanding the truth just taught rather than an emotion I have to try and work up. That's a good contrast with the superficial worship I referred to earlier.) We also had the Lord's Supper, which they do every week, which I also love. While I won't say it's commanded to do so every week, all of the arguments I've heard against it (thus far) are lame. If doing something weekly or regularly necessarily makes it less meaningful, then quit telling your wife you love her, quit praying and singing praises to God. In fact, you should probably only go to church once a quarter as well. Surely your soul will remain in tip-top shape from those four services a year (Now if you listened to Robbins lectures on Logic, you'd know that's an ad hominen argument.) But again I digress from this digression.

My one point of contention was with the music. I guess not really with the music itself, but with the presentation of it. I'm all for music. I'm all for instruments. I'm even all for musicians playing their instruments passionately and getting into it. But I don't really understand why they need to be up front on the stage. It does make sense if you want to make it like a concert. I mean that's why people will pay $60 to go to a concert when they already have the album and can listen to the music anytime they want. Concerts are all about the performance. It's all about the musicians themselves. People wouldn't go to concerts if the band was playing behind a curtain and never came out. That would be a concert all about the music and not all about the musicians. But as I said, nobody would go to those concerts, but that's the kind of concert I think needs to be taking place in the church. Now I understand this isn't very popular, particularly with musicians. They, perhaps even more so than your average Joe, are prideful and self seeking (I say that as a wanna be musician. The things that make me most self-seeking are the same things that make me want to be a musician.). They like being up there. And I can understand them wanting to be up there. But all that means is that even for their own sakes, we shouldn't put them up there. Even if they honestly could do it sinlessly in themselves, they are a huge distraction to others (to me if no one else). The girl who was up there I thought was exceptionally attractive, and though not dressed particularly immodestly, I was still constantly aware of her presence. Admittedly, that's an issue that I'm hypersensitive to (I just called myself hypersensitive. That's never happened before.), but I don't think the service would have suffered at all had she not been up there and it certainly would have been more beneficial to me. I believe they are in a logical dilemma. If they are the type of people who don't care about being up there, they'll have no objection to not being up there so as not to distract others. If they are the type of people who do care about being up there, they don't need to be up there for that very reason. Either way, they shouldn't be up there.

I do not have this objection primarily for myself. If I honestly am the only one and the church at large is benefiting immensely from having concert style praise, then so be it. I'll gladly sacrifice my preferences for the greater good. Or if only the strong are distracted while the weak are not, then they (the strong) have the biblical obligation to bear with the weak in this and all other matters of preference. Again, I am willing to do this. Mainly I throw this out there as an issue of contemplation. I do not think the Bible is as clear nor as strict on this as say female elders, what to preach, etc. I trust the leadership at Mars Hill has thought the issue through and has come to where they are through prayer and the application of biblical principles. Nor do I say this to detract from the wonderful work God is doing there. I have a strong desire to move there just to be a part of that church. Any who go to Seattle I would encourage to visit Mars Hill (in fact I've got some friends there who I'm sure would love to meet you). I think the reformed community could learn a lot from them. I'd be overjoyed if several churches that I know of or have been a part of became more like Mars Hill. Not that it's a perfect church, but it's striving to reach the world with the gospel. The pure, unadulterated life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. And they are succeeding.

One other note. At the party I asked a guy who attends Mars Hill what a typical member of the congregation was like. I believe I specifically mentioned Calvinism and that I knew Driscoll was but were the people attending the church. His reply was basically that many of them were clueless, even people who had attended for a substantial amount of time. What? How is that possible? I know Driscoll doesn't hide his nor the church's position. In the few sermons I downloaded and listened to, he said he was a Calvinist and that he thought it was the doctrine taught by scripture. I don't even think he went in to an apology for the terminology. This is still incredible to me. People can attend the church, know Driscoll's a Calvinist, not be a Calvinist, and still not feel condemned or belittled enough to leave the church. That's fantastic. I confess I still struggle with not thinking that every Arminian is an idiot and not wanting to immediately show them how ignorant their view is. I trust I am getting better at it and more ready to let the Spirit work and less ready to blast them, but it's not my natural disposition. What an accepting body of believers! How much greater sphere of influence they can have then my extremely limited one. I wouldn't be surprised if I could talk theological circles around 90% of the people at Mars Hill, and yet, I'd be less surprised if 90% of the people at Mars Hill weren't being more used by God as instruments of His grace and mercy than I am. That is humbling. And it's good to be humbled.



A couple photos from the trip

Seattle Skyline from Alki Beach



Waiting for the Interurban statues

The Confessions of Saint Seth

I use 'saint' loosely and merely as a literary ploy. For any who have read The Confessions of Saint Augustine, the title and our particular area of struggle is the extent of the similitude between the proceeding work and that brilliant piece of literature.

This is, in a way, a bringing together of many of my recent musings. From my own personal failings and that of my family (of which I am a part) to the more general failings of churches (of which again I am a part), this is my attempt to destroy whatever good there is in my name, that I might have no pride in anything, save Christ and Him crucified (Galatians 6:14). Indeed, the world has been crucified to me, and I am invincible. As John G. Paton said, “I am immortal until God's work for me to do is done.” If God is for me, who can stand against me? (Romans 8:31) And who dares to bring a charge against God's Elect? It is God who justifies. (Romans 8:33) If the whole world were arrayed against me, I would, I trust, stand just as firm as Athanasius until they could not help but say, “Seth contra mundum”, “Seth against the world”. It is impossible for me to care less what you think of me. My hope and worth are completely bound up in the person of Christ and His work, and there it rests securely, untouchable. This is at last my disposition. It is only from this position that I feel safe enough to write this. My sincere desire is that you will join me. Free yourself from secret guilt and shame. Cast off the shackles of that easily besetting sin. Acknowledge your sinfulness and seek the Divine Help. How many wallow in sin because they refuse to admit it to themselves? And of those that can admit it, how many fight alone, whose struggling only sink them deeper and deeper into the quicksand? Brothers, sisters, we must help these poor tortured souls! They are your brothers. They are your sisters. They will be your children. I throw myself out there. Whatever sin you struggle with, I have committed it. If not in deed, in mind. And if not in deed, it is only because of an inability, not undesirability. I am a wretch of the first magnitude. I am kin to Hitler, Stalin, Dahmer, LaVey, the Pharisees and... Paul. But just saying that doesn't mean much. And so I will show you the darkness of my heart. It is not a pretty sight

(I will remain somewhat general, not to keep things hidden, but for the purity of any who read it. I cannot recommend you read it. I don't know if it will make you struggle. If you wish, you may skip down to the “Now really, why do I” paragraph. You should avoid the sordidness with that.)

Though I'm sure many people could rattle off a lengthy list of my sinful tendencies (and be correct), in some ways, I don't even care about those sins. They are splinters in my foot compared to the beam I know I have in my eye. Not that they in and of themselves are not damnable, but I've never thought it very profitable to spend time cleaning the dirt under my fingernails when I knew I was going to go jump in the pigsty later. Such is, and always has been, the case of lust in my life. I am currently it's master, and have brought it into submission over the last two years, but I hang by a double stranded thread. Those strands are some dear brothers in Christ and the Holy Spirit. Without either of them (Yes, either. Apart from my Christian brothers, the Holy Spirit has not been enough), I know I would immediately run back to it. Ah, perhaps I could last a few weeks or a month, but eventually and certainly, I would run back to it.

My first exposure to pornography was at quite a young age, I assume around five or six. And yes, I can remember some of those images twenty plus years later. At the time I didn't even know what I was looking at, but I knew I I liked it. Since that time I believe I've been addicted to it. Even in times when there was none available, I was addicted to it. Even now, though I do not indulge myself, I am addicted to it. There is nothing I would rather do (except have sex) than look at porn. If someone where to ask me, “Seth, would you like to go climbing, hiking, photographing, out to your favorite restaurant then come back and talk theology?” and I were going to be honest I'd say, “No, I'd rather look at porn.” “But all your friends and family are going to be there.” “That's nice. I'd rather look at porn.” That may come across as an exaggeration, but despite that scenario never having been played out, were the questions asked and were I honest, that's exactly how it would go down. Nor do I say it for shock value. I simply want you to have an accurate view of who I am. It's not that I want that to be my preference, it just is. The Spirit of God can change it, but I cannot anymore than you can arbitrarily change your deep seated preferences. I don't think most people have much to correlate the consuming and obsessive nature of lust with in their lives. An alcoholic might. An OCD person probably does.

If I had lived my life merely with this preference and disposition without any indulgence, than that would be one thing. But I have not. The vast majority of my life has been unabashed abandonment to it. College was not a very good time for me. I don't know what the ratio would be for time spent looking at porn compared to time spent studying, eating and everything besides going to class and sleeping, but it's certainly higher than 2:1. Were I a blatant pagan whose conscience has been so seared or who grew up with abuse or with no knowledge of God and the Bible, that would one thing. But again, I did not.

That is merely the external. The depravity of my thought life is beyond description. The only figures I can use to approximate the imaginative fornications I've conceived would be akin to the number of my heart beats, the number of steps I've taken or the number of breathes I've taken. It is incalculable. And since lust is adultery and the women I have imagined haven't consented, I'm a rapist hundreds of thousands of times over.

This is who I am. Your son, your brother, your friend, Seth Walters. This is me.

Sorry to disappoint.

Now really, why do I say all of this? Surely I can not give a crap about your opinion of me without intentionally destroying your opinion of me. In fact, going to all this trouble to give you a bad opinion of me is evidence that I do in fact care what type of opinion you have of me. So if I really do find all my worth in Christ, why write? Why set up some awkward moments with any who read it next time I see them or make my most embarrassing and complete failures available to the public? Perhaps more than any other, this blog is for your benefit. For almost the entirety of my Christian life, I have walked without the Spirit. Not that He ever fully left me, but my sins so grieved Him, He could not or would not exert His power in my life. I wonder how much farther in my Christian life I could be had I spent the last ten years in communion with Him. I'm sure I'd be much more holy and much more humble about it. So that is what I missed. What I got instead was an unbearable burden that has oppressed me for the vast majority of my life. Loneliness, guilt, shame and failure are the words that most characterize it. There is a self-loathing that comes from this that you cannot understand unless you've experienced it. Pondering death has often been my only relief. And I am afraid, and unfortunately confident, that you, your brother, your husband, your son or perhaps even your sister, wife or daughter may be now, or will in the future endure what I have endured. Someone you know's life, though a child of God and fellow heir with Christ, may be devastated and made useless by an addiction to pornography. For any in the midst of it, I am here for you. Whatever sin it is, there is victory in Christ. It doesn't matter if it's my struggle or not. Christ can overcome it. Homosexuality, bitterness from being abused, abusing others, whatever it is, I know your bondage. I know your fear of men. I know all around you are a bunch of condemning hypocrites. I know that death seems better than confession. But it's a lie. Satan has deceived you. If you only begin you will see the beauty of it, but you can't do it alone. Have you not learned that by now? You will never have victory in your own struggles. Let me help you. Let me show you Christ's love. There is joy immeasurable on the other side. Please, with all I am, I beg you. Join me. I have tasted it. It is so sweet. James 5:16 “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another,” Why? “that you may be healed.” Please, be healed.

For the rest, though you didn't throw me into the quicksand, you didn't help me get out either. Had it not been for some faithful and loving brothers, I'd have drowned there. Had I made shipwreck of the faith, your surprise would have been genuine, even though my course was set towards destruction all the while. Oh, you offered help, right in the midst of saying, “Anyone who does that is the worst type of person. Do you do that?” And while now I can boldly respond, “Yeah. And Christ forgave me and still loves me, but your self righteousness will damn you to hell unless you repent.”, for years I could not. And there are many who still cannot. Your attitude keeps them from crying out. Your condemning and judgmental attitude is why they are afraid to confess, repent and “be healed”. If there is any sin or issue that you assume no true Christian would struggle with, then when one does (and most definitely there is not one but legions), they won't come to you. And if that's the prevailing mindset of the family or the church, then they won't go there either. They'll hide it. They'll fight with all their might, but alone, and ultimately to no avail. Some will, by the miraculous grace of God, survive. Many won't. One of them will be the next Dahmer, another just your average serial killer, another a serial rapist and another a pedophile. We the church, and believers individually, are God's instruments of grace in this world. If not us, then who and what has God given to rescue poor wretched souls from Satan's grasp? The Holy Spirit indeed, but He does not work in a mystic, ghostly way . He works through His word and through His people. We are His hands! As corny as that sounds.

For you parents, if there's any sin that you tell your children is so bad, then you can be certain, when they commit that sin, they won't be coming to you. And for your daughters, if there's any sin you isolate to be “a guy's problem”, then if your daughters have sexual struggles (which is becoming more and more common), then rest assured, they won't come to you. They'll think themselves wicked, evil and perhaps even psychotic, but they won't come to you. And thus, when the infant sin is just taking root and could with but two fingers be plucked from the ground of your child's heart and thrown into the fire, they will hide it from you and allow it to grow. Not that they want to. Not that they don't hate the guilt, but you have forced their deception. Their desire for your love and approval keeps them from bringing that particular issue to you, their parents. And years later, if by God's grace they are able to mortified it, the tree may be dead, but it's roots will have grown so deep that only the resurrection will fully cleanse them. That is where I have been left. The tree has been cut down, but I may always have to fight the new ones that spring up from it's roots. The time of my life of greatest mental aptitude and physical prowess is gone, wasted on fleeting images. I am, more than likely, too scarred to ever marry. The new man could never settle for anyone less than a model of Christian character and above average intelligence, but the old man could never settle for anyone who didn't look like a model. I rejoice that God has saved me, but oh how much the locusts have eaten. Please God, spare my nephews from such a life as I have lived. Kill me rather than have them repeat my mistakes.

So that's why I've thrown myself under the bus. Maybe it'll be easier for someone else to now. Or maybe someone who's already under can get out now. Maybe somebody else will and then another, and eventually the whole of Christendom will be throwing themselves under the bus to help those burdened brothers and sisters in Christ who have been under there for years, constantly being run over by Satan and getting tire tracks down their backs.

Father, forgive me. For these sins and for the sins I've let others fight against alone and for all the rest.
I surrender myself fully to you again. I am your vessel, though weak, ignorant and despicable. Please use me still. May I bring some glory to your name?


Below is one of my favorite hymns. I was so encouraged to hear Mars Hill sing it and privileged to take part. I cannot think of it without tearing up, nor will I ever be able to write something that so well expresses my hope.

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

For my pardon, this I see,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
For my cleansing this my plea,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Nothing can for sin atone,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
Naught of good that I have done,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

This is all my hope and peace,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
This is all my righteousness,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Chorus
Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.




As a final qualification, if what I've written doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Don't be a little baby and gripe about my generalizations. Yes, I know not every family and every church is like this, but many, if not most, if not almost all, are like this. Use this as a time to thank God for His blessings on you and pray for everyone else. If you were already convinced, be encouraged, the tide may be turning. If you were convicted, repent and change. If you think I'm way off, you're an idiot, but I'm glad you read it anyway.

The idiot comment was said in jest. If you think I'm way off, I think you're wrong. (This is pathetic. I have to qualify my qualifications.)

Oh, and my apologies if you're offended by my forthrightness, but that's also the attitude that's allowing this issue to destroy the church. My email is in my profile if any wish to correspond privately.

Preface to my next blog

I am back from my road trip. Thank you for your prayers and well wishes. I believe God blessed, as He always does. Hopefully I'll get to give a full report on what I did and the intricacies of God's working, but not sure when. I have so much that I wish to express, but here is a summary.

Before I left Jackson I downloaded a bunch of podcasts from Piper, Matt Chandler and Driscoll and began reading Gordon Clark's Logic (which I still haven't finished, though it's a short book.) For the first week or so I mainly listened to sermons while driving and read when an opportune time arose. The sermons were very good and the book great, once I had humbled myself to acknowledge that I was and still am a very stupid person who is not very logical. I did some internet research on Clark (who is nowhere near as well known as he should be) and came across www.trinityfoundation.org. It was run by John Robbins (He died last year. I very much would have enjoyed hearing him lecture), who lectured on much of Clark's works. I downloaded the 18 part series on "Introduction to Logic" which used Clark's book as the textbook. This was tremendously helpful. I went ahead and downloaded the whole mp3 catalog and yesterday listened to a five part series on the justification controversy plaguing the Presbyterian church. It was fascinating. Reformed Baptist churches are so autonomous that their histories, unless personally involved, are rather mundane. Not so with Presbyterians. So after hearing Robbins rip on lots of people who are incredibly highly regarded (Van Till, Wilson and Leihart) in many reformed circles, I am very interested to get the other side of the story. Apparently it has it's roots in the Clark-Van Til controversy in the 40's, whose outcome has since shaped the Presbyterian church and allowed the errors to begin to grow (at least as it appears to me at this time). Clark, and Robbins for that matter, seem to be super solid theologians, and yet I don't think I'd ever heard of them until I stumbled across Logic a couple years ago by accident (and didn't know what I'd stumbled onto until this past week).

So there are like ten books that I want to read now, but I'm trying to exercise a little patience and finish the ones I currently have before going on to these. But anyway, it was a very exciting time. I was trying to think of an analogy of how much I was engrossed in them and the lectures on Logic, but the only one I could come up with was porn. Some will completely understand that analogy and some won't. I currently have a lust for knowledge that I can only compare to sexual lust. I think I am in some danger of making knowledge an end in and of itself, but hopefully I can keep it in it's proper place. I am sure Satan would be just as happy if knowledge became my new idol to distract me from Christ.

Can't wait to see you, family.