Stand to Reason now has a library of short videos on YouTube. Greg Koukl, as usual, is excellent in his ability to speak concisely and clearly on a number of apologetic issues. The STR You Tube page is here if you’d like to investigate.
We ought to give thanks for all fortune: if it is “good,” because it is good, if “bad” because it works in us patience, humility, and the contempt of this world and the hope of our eternal country.
- C.S. Lewis, Letters: Don Giovanni Calabria (10 August 1948)
Today, in the Lakeland Ledger (my hometown newspaper), it was noted that:
A majority of Polk County School Board members say they support teaching intelligent design in addition to evolution in public schools.
Based on the article and some other information not referenced in the article of which I am aware, the local Polk County controversy may grow somewhat over the next few weeks.
In my last post, I referenced a session given by Paul Copan at the Reasonable Faith apologetics conference in San Diego. In that session, Copan argued well that Hell is most likely not a literal place of “high thermal output.” He further argued that Hell is the logical outcome of a life and mindset away from God.
Hell should be understood as an outcome which flows naturally from a lilfe on earth which has been directed away from God. If one finds himself in Hell, it should not be a surpise outcome, but the natural consequence of how one has lived his life on earth. Copan quoted Peter Kreeft and Ron Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics:
The punishment fits the crime because the punishment is the crime. Saying no to God means no God.
Hell, understood accordingly, is both the punishment and the fruit of one’s earthly life. Copan also stated:
God’s presence would be torture for those who don’t desire it.
He illustrates this point by mentioning his love of the music of J. S. Bach. To him, such music is heavenly (I agree). To some, listening to the music of Bach might be intolerable. For those who have no desire for God in this life, God will grant their desire for eternity. Why would one wish to spend eternity being in the presence of one who he has no desire to be with today?
The very essence of Hell is separation from God. Now, to me and other Christians this is the greatest loss possible since the presence of God is the greatest gain possible. To spend eternity alienated from the presence of God would be agony and utter hopelessness. This said, one’s choices on earth will determine one’s state beyond this life. God will not impose on that individual anything other than to what he has already committed himself. The punishment is the crime.
The Christian teaching on Hell is cited by many agnostics and atheists as an obstacle in them being able to come to Christ. Some Christians are equally troubled over the concept of their fellow human beings being subjected to the eternal torture of being burned by a fire that never goes out. Paul Copan, yesterday, talked about reconciling Hell and the goodness of God. His beginning statement was that Hell is “not a place with high thermal output.” This goes against some of the literal descriptions of Hell contained in the Bible. Copan is not the first to understand the description of eternal flames in a figurative sense. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that it should be understood figuratively.
First, the Scripture describes Hell as being a place of “darkness” and well as a place of eternal “flames.” These two descriptions are contradictory if meant to be interpreted literally. When I light a candle, I universally find that I generate light. It seems difficult to see how hell could be full of fire and yet be dark at the same time. Isaiah 66:24 speaks of “worms” in Hell. Once again, it seems obvious that there are not literal worms in Hell.
Lest one think that this figurative understanding of the fire of Hell is a departure from the traditional understanding of the Church, even Calvin and Luther held that the “fiery” passages are metaphorical. Yielding further evidence in support of the figurative view is the description of the original purpose of Hell in Matthew 25:41. Hell, we are told, was prepared for the devil and his angels - spirit beings who lack physical bodies endowed with pain fibers and therefore unable to be physically pained with fire. William Crockett, speaking on this subject, states:
Physical fire works on physical bodies with physical nerve endings, not on spirit beings.
So, if it is not the high thermal output of Hell which makes it suitable for the punishment of those who reject God’s grace, what is it? The essence of Hell, according to Copan, is the…
… agony and utter hopelessness of separation from God - to be “away from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thes 1:9), the greatest loss possible.
Mortimer Adler stated:
The damned in hell do not suffer bodily fires or tortures. Their punishment is pain of loss, not of sense.
Today wrapped up the “Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World” apologetics conference. It was a great day which began with Craig Hazen’s “To Everyone an Answer” in which he made the claim that Christianity is unique among world religions in that it invites investigation into its truth claims. It is testable in a sense that no other world religion can claim.
In the first breakout session, I attended Dan Wallace’s session on “Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?” Wallace is one of the premier experts in textual criticism and provided strong evidence for the reliability of the New Testament.
In the last morning breakout session, Paul Copan presented “The Incarnation of Christ in Philosophical Perspective” in which he explicated the difficulties of the divine Christ becoming a human being. After lunch, Copan then presented “Hell and the Goodness of God.” He showed how Hell is compatible with the teaching that God is good.
In the final plenary session of the conference, Gary Habermas ably finished things up with a discussion of “The Resurrection of Jesus” in which he convincingly argued that one can establish the historicity of the resurrection accepting only those “minimal facts” which are accepted by 90 to 100% of all scholars (liberal and conservative).
With a full mind and a tired body, I make my way home to Lakeland tomorrow.
Today was the final day of the EPS/ETS annual conference. I spent the morning in a panel discussion based on Doug Geivett and James Spiegel’s new book, “Faith, Film and Philosophy: Big Ideas on the Big Screen.” First, Geivett, of Biola University spoke on “Escaping into Reality: How The Truman Show Reveals Epistemological Conditions for Human Flourishing.” Then, David Hunt of Whittier College presented a paper called, “The Sleeper Awakes: Gnosis and Authenticity in The Matrix.” James Spiegel, of Taylor University, then presented his paper, “What Would Have Been and What Could Be: Counterfactuals in It’s a Wonderful Life and Run Lola Run.” Finally, “Rattle and Film: U2 and the Kingdom of God”, a paper by Douglas Blount of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was presented. This was an enjoyable session examining philosophical issues through film.
In the afternoon, I followed a sort of “aesthetics and culture” track. First, Joseph Wooddell of Criswell College presented a paper, “Christian Artists and Art Critics: The Apologetic Value of Evangelical Involvement.” Then, David Alan Reed of Bethel College presented, “The Logic of Aquinas’s Theory of the Beatific Vision.” Finally, a fellow Biola Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics student, Michele Armstrong presented her paper, “Beauty, Virtue, and Wisdom.”
Tonight at the “Reasonable Faith” Conference, James Sinclair offered a plenary session lecture called, “God, Science and the Cosmos.” The first part of his lecture provided additional support for the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (that the universe began to exist) from current scientific thought. In the second part, he offered a defense of the Cosmological Fine Tuning Argument.
In the breakout session, I attended Ben Witherington III’s “Knowing the History of Jesus” in which he presented Christ’s own Christology (or how he thought of himself). Jesus spoke continually of two things in regard to himself and his mission: “Son of Man” - an obvious reference to deity from Daniel 7, and “The Kingdom of God” again found to be given to the Son of Man in Daniel 7. He argued Christ had a “high” Christology of himself.
Tomorrow, I will attend several sessions at the “Reasonable Faith” conference. More after that.
Today was a full day and I am unable to provide as much information on each session as yesterday. But, the first session of the day at EPS/ETS was by Jay Richards, of the Acton, Institute, answering the question of “Is the ‘Spontaneous’ Market Order an Example of Design without a Designer?”. Next, J. P. Moreland offered a response to Phillip Clayton on the subject of “Substance Dualism and Individuals in the Mereological Hierarchy.” Then, Michael Rea, of Notre Dame, answered the question, “Were the Cappadocian Fathers Social Trinitarians?” After Rea, William Lane Craig responded, “No” to the question, “Is Uncertainty a Sound Foundation for Religious Tolerance.” In the afternoon, David Hunt offered a “Defense of Simple Foreknowledge.” Then, in a plenary session of the EPS, Michael Murray, of Franklin and Marshall, addressed the question of whether “Evolutionary and Cognitive Psycology” could adequately explain religion. Of course, there were many other sessions taking place simultaneously in other areas of the conference.
This evening, “Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World” Apologetics Conference kicked off with an inspirational challenge by Lee Strobel. Afterwords, there were several breakout sessions including the one I attended in which J. P. Moreland discussed the “Argument from Consciousness”: A powerful argument for the existence of God. Briefly, Moreland presented arguments to show that conscious states cannot be identical to brain states. Physical matter cannot give rise to non-physical entities, and so consciousness is a recalictrant fact with which physicalism cannot deal. On the other hand, the Theist belief in God as a conscious being who created man in his own image does offer an explanation for consciousness.
Tommorow is another full day. Hopefully, I can offer another update tomorrow evening.
Well… I had anticipated blogging a little more frequently since my last post, but life has kept me from it. Today, I arrived in San Diego for the Evangelical Theological Society/Evangelical Philosophical Society Annual Meeting. The Apologetics Conference I spoke of in my last post takes place each evening, starting tomorrow, while the day is spent listening to papers from evangelical scholars in philosophy and theology.
I arrived in San Diego after noon and made it to three excellent sessions today. Here’s a brief summary:
First, J. P. Moreland delivered a paper entitled, “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It.” One might misunderstand Moreland’s topic without having attended the session. In one sense, Evangelicals are under-committed to the Bible, yet, Moreland argues, they have over-committed to the Bible in making it the sole authority, or source of knowledge. This stands in contrast to the historical view which holds that the Bible is the ultimate authority or source of knowledge. This over-committment stems from a withdrawal from the broader world of ideas, surrendering the source of “real knowledge” to the hard sciences. Moreland’s call was for evangelicals to recover the use of right reason, natural law, experience, Creeds , and tradition as subordinate sources of knowledge.
I then heard an excellent paper by Dr. Angus J. L. Menuge of Concordia University Wisconsin called, “Socrates in Service to Christ: The Formation of an Apologist.” One never knows what to expect and is often misled by the Title of a Paper. I was pleasantly surprised that Menuge’s paper presented a study of Oxford University’s Socratic Club under the presidency of C. S. Lewis, 1942-1954. He asserts that the Socratic Club provides an ideal model for training Christians in apologetics. His paper was quite insightful.
Lastly, I attended a session in which Steven L. Porter of Talbot School of Theology presented a paper called, “What does a foundationalist theological methodology look like?” Porter first recounts how philosophical nonfoundationalism has led to a nonfoundational movement in theology. He then asks why a recent resurgence in philosophical foundationalism has not led to a corresponding surge in theological foundationalism. Finally, Porter provided a sketch of how three foundationalist theories (externalism, doxastic internalism, and nondoxastic internalism) affect theological methodology.
Tomorrow’s another day. I’ll see if I can provide another update then.
I am excited to be soon attending an apologetics conference called Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World. Among the speakers will be Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, J.P. Moreland, and Craig Hazen. The event will be held November 15-17, at College Avenue Baptist Church in San Diego, Ca. Jeremy and I were able to attend last year’s conference in Washington, D.C. If you are able to attend this year’s, I would highly recommend it.