I am still alive and fairly well but have not had time to blog in a while. Since my last post I have created and taught a  one week (30hr) seminary course, moved from a house that needed work to sell to a house that needed work to buy, and am still trying to finish my book and prepare to begin my Ph.D. program this Fall.

All that to say that I am not sure what the future holds for this blog. 

I know a lot of bloggers start posting their thoughts while engaged in academia, but that’s not really what IrContent is about. There are a few years of posts archived here though, and since most are now considered timeless classics you may wish to simply read and re-read to your heart’s content (or ircontent as is often the case!).

Anyway . . . didn’t want to leave anybody hanging. 

The Bible seems to present the idea that disciples of Jesus Christ can be unsaved. Whether these are cases of those who were never truly saved or who lost their salvation is a theological dispute for other posts (I favor the former), but that these cases exist cannot be easily denied. Jesus taught in His parable of the sower/soils (Luke chapter 8; cf. Mt. 13 & Mk. 4) that:

A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it. Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it. But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold.

After giving the reason for His speaking in parables, Jesus explains the parable to His disciples:

The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

From this we can see that it is possible that a person can both hear, receive, and believe God’s word yet fall away. (Notice that these are contrasted with those who hear but do not believe unto salvation in the first place.) Jesus teaches a similar thing to his disciples during the Upper Room Discourse in John 15:

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

This statement is all the more impactful when we realize that the Upper Room Discourse was delivered just after Judas, who was a disciple of Jesus (Jn. 6:71-72 cf. Mt. 10:4) had just left to betray Him (Jn. 13:18-30). Note that the disciples were perplexed – they had no idea Judas was the one. Nor was this the first disciple to leave Jesus - in John 6:53-66 many of Jesus’ disciples left Him after he gave them His difficult teaching concerning the consumption of His body.

Now, the key word in the above passage is “abide” (Gk. “meno”) which John uses to contrast true believers with antichrists in his 1^st and 2^nd letters:

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1 Jn. 2:18-19 [Note: the word “continued” in 1 John is the same as “abide.”])

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. (2 Jn. 1:9)

So we see from Jesus’ own teachings and experiences that disciples can leave the fold. This means that we should expect there to be people who profess belief in the Church today who are not true believers. This seems to me to be the concern of the writer of Hebrews (whose warning passages continue to fuel debate over the issue), who may be issuing pastoral warnings to the believing Jews at large - knowing that his knowledge of their actual salvation state is not sufficient to address them all as permanently saved individuals.

This should give us all pause if we tend to breathe a final sigh of relief when someone finally “says the prayer.” Evangelicals from Reformed Calvinist to Calvary Chapel backgrounds hold that believers cannot lose their salvation, and I agree, but we must not take this to mean that anyone who has even the smallest spark of belief is to be forever considered safe from falling away (the popular view of Philippians 1:6 notwithstanding). We simply do not know which disciples are not true believers unless (until?) they fall away. Fortunately, we are not held responsible for such knowledge. We are to take people’s words and actions into account and treat them accordingly (e.g., Mt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-5 & 11-12; 2 Thess. 3:14).

It is not uncommon for Christians to have occasional doubts about their faith. To help I think it is a good idea to first discover the root cause. I believe that human persons are physical/spiritual beings that have at least three aspects to their spiritual natures: emotion, intellect, and will. Doubt can creep in from any of these facets, or a combination of them. How doubt is dealt with will be determined by which kind of doubt one is facing.

Willful Doubt is caused by sinful disbelief (Rom. 1:18-19). This is not merely a lack of belief but a choice to rebel against the truth. This kind of doubt manifests as a tenacious unwillingness to accept the truth regardless of evidence. This person is always looking for reasons to disbelieve rather than seeking the truth. This should never be the case with Christians of course. The only way this kind of doubt is overcome is through the work of God in the person’s life.

Intellectual Doubt is honest unbelief based on one’s understanding (or misunderstanding) of facts. The heart cannot believe what the head thinks is false. This kind of doubt simply requires evidence to be extinguished. If sufficient evidence is provided to overturn one’s doubt it should dissipate (if not, it was probably willful doubt masquerading as intellectual doubt). Intellectual doubt is often used as a smokescreen for willful or emotional doubt, but it can also be the result of a combination of these with honest factual issues. For example, a person struggling with the problem of evil might have purely intellectual issues with the existence of an all-powerful good God in a world with s much evil. In this case, quoting Romans 8:28 will probably not be sufficient. There are emotional and intellectual issues here as well.

Emotional Doubt is more of a feeling that something is false even if one has no good reasons to think so. This kind of doubt characterizes the believer who desires (or “wills”) to believe and has no factual problem with what they want to believe, but for some reason they just don’t “feel” like it is true. It is important here to realize that feelings are simply not indicators of truth. Emotions are reactions to physical stimuli or thoughts - they are effects, not causes - and they change too often to be reliable indicators of anything other than the subjects personal state of mind or body. Emotional doubt needs to be seen for what it is and denied. Phil. 4:6-9 asserts that this kind of doubt may be dealt with through praying, thanksgiving, occupying ourselves with non-anxious thoughts - those things which are true to reality, honorable, righteous, pure, loving, of good repute, and things which are excellent in virtue and deserve praise. This is not mere daydreaming - it is an effort to develop a habit of dwelling deeply on such things. As C. S. Lewis once said, there are times when it would be very convenient for Christianity to be false. It is at these times, when the will is weak, that we most need facts to fall back upon.

Finally, we need to realize that because humans are physical/spiritual beings that each aspect affects the other. We can have feelings and thoughts that are actually caused by our bodies. Backsliding into sin is the quickest way to allow doubt to creep in. Sin can cause us to doubt our salvation or relation to God. This can result in depression or further rebellion. Instead we ought to trust the fact that “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9), because “he who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (Proverbs 28:13). Our physical states can also cause feelings - lack of sleep, hunger, etc. can actually make us feel things that are not connected to objective reality. Mental abilities can be short circuited by physical illness. While we do not necessarily want to go running to a doctor that sees all health issues in terms of the physical only, if our thought life becomes seriously aberrant or obsessive it might be time to see a specialist.

For an excellent treatment of the issue of doubt see Gary Habermas, Dealing With Doubt (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990). The entire book can be accessed free of charge here.

In the wake of “all the religious scandals” of late I thought I’d point out some even more depressing news from the Atheist front. Since any act committed by someone with religious affiliation is used by atheists to argue against religion it seems to me they won’t mind if the same logic is applied to them.

Vienna has the lowest percentage of religious conviction of any Austrian province, therefore anything bad that happens in Vienna can clearly be attributed to atheism (don’t think too hard, just keep reading). And what has Vienna been in the news for recently??? CNN reports that:

• An Austrian man (from Vienna!) has recently confessed to killing his parents, wife, and 7-year-old daughter with an ax. Vienna police said, “He is completely matter-of-fact … almost without emotion.”
• Josef Fritzl, 73, confessed last month to holding his daughter captive in a cellar below the family home (Just outside Vienna!) for 24 years, repeatedly raping her and fathering seven children with her.
• Just two years ago in Strasshof (another Vienna suburb!) a young girl escaped from the basement of a house after being held there for eight years and being repeatedly abused by her captor, Wolfgang Priklopil, who killed himself by throwing himself under a train.

Hmmmm - need I say more?

100th Post!!!

The Calvinism-Arminianism debate is often framed in terms of man’s autonomy. By autonomy is roughly meant “what natural man can do without God’s extra help.” For example, Calvinists believe that man can make no positive contribution to salvation until after God regenerates him. After that, man has the ability to believe. The Arminian sees a problem here. If regeneration alone results in belief, and only through belief can man be saved, then God is simply choosing to save some and not others. This seems to remove mankind from responsibility before God. But to the Calvinist it seems that if man can generate his own belief that this makes faith a work. Aagghh! There are other issues, but I think that a distinction might be made to alleviate some of the tension concerning belief-as-work.

First, I think we can all admit that regardless of which side we think is correct, the debate would not exist if the Bible did not seem to lay responsibility for man’s salvation on both man and on God. Second, we all agree that without God’s grace man could not be saved, and that works do not save. But if belief is thought of as a work then we must ask how a sinner could ever perform such a thing in the first place (Heb. 11:6) and how it would not nullify grace (Eph. 2:8-10). On the other hand, if belief is the result of God’s efficient causality then the blame for unbelief would seem to fall on God (Mt. 23:37). Scripture on both sides can be batted back and forth for both of these seemingly irreconcilable positions.

But I think there may be a better way to think about it. The Bible clearly presents natural man as God’s active, not passive, enemy (Rom. 5:10; 11:28). We are born battling God due to our selfish and sinful desires and we would not naturally switch to God’s side (Rom. 5:6). But couldn’t we choose to surrender? It is not required for one to positively affirm his enemy to give up the fight. Ceasing to strive against God’s grace is not, itself, striving (viz. law of non-contradiction). In fact, one might say surrender is the cessation of works! But choosing to cease is still an active choice on man’s part (e.g., ceasing to stand results in falling, but falling is not ‘by works’). This interplay of “actively making a passive choice” seems to be illustrated in the life of Jesus who, according to God’s predetermined plan (Acts 2:22), freely chose to lay down His life (Jn. 10:18), which resulted in Him being acted upon by men (Acts 2:23), who were held responsible for their choice (Acts 2:38).

This seems to (1) retain man’s responsibility for sin and unbelief while at the same time (2) affirm God’s efficient and active role in salvation, yet (3) relieve God from blame for leaving some to damnation if He must, and could, regenerate them to make belief possible but simply chooses not to do so in some cases.

My book from Moody Publishers has been given an official title and, as far as I know, cover art! It will be titled The Message Behind the Movie: How To Engage With a Film Without Disengaging Your Faith, and should be released early next year (Spring quarter 2009) if everything goes well.

The book is based on my seminar of the same title which covers the basics of film interpretation and evaluation with additional chapters on applying these messages to spiritually-significant topics such as Philosophy, Theology, Religion, and Ethics.

And as Frank Turek likes to say, “All proceeds from this book will go to feed hungry children . . . mine!”

If you have a group interested in the seminar please visit: www.dougbeaumont.org/seminars.

Did anyone go see Ben Stein’s new documentary on Intelligent Design this weekend? “Anyone? . . . Anyone?” (Sorry, had to get that in there somewhere!). Well I did, and I thought Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was pretty good. No, I don’t think it was the best documentary ever made, and I have to agree with some of the film’s negative critics - but not with most of their conclusions. Basically, their main issue is that the film is skewed in its presentation.

Well yeah, of course it is.

No one makes a documentary about something they do not think is important, and their take on its importance will usually come through. I would even say it should come through. While some film makers are better at hiding their agenda, this does not make more blatant messages false. Whether or not Expelled is 100% objective (I’d guess it was about 80.5% objective), its message is important if for no other reason than to wake America up to the fact that a considerable number of scientists disagree with the Darwinian hypothesis and are simply being lambasted into silence.

In its first week (the largest release of a documetary ever - just over 1,000 theaters) Expelled earned over $3 million . That’s very good for a documentary. True, this is substantially less than the $23 million Michael Moore’s anti-America “Fahrenheit 9/11″ claimed in 2004. However, I.D. is not exactly at the top of most Americans’ interests right now (which is a huge part of the problem, and one reason Stein’s film is so very important).

To make Expelled, Stein and company talked with educators and scientists who say they have been persecuted for questioning Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This included Dr. Richard Sternberg, who was fired from the Smithsonian Institution for publishing a paper that mentioned I.D. as a possible way to help explain life’s origins. Guillermo Gonzalez, an accomplished astrobiologist who was denied tenure at Iowa State University because of his pro-I.D. stance (which university officials admitted, BTW).

Also interviewed extensively is the Dickety-Doc himself, Richard Dawkins (Oxford University). Dawkins is the current pop-prophet and media darling of Darwinism. In a rather bizarre moment, between his typical rants about the evil of religion and how it holds back real science blah blah blah, Dawkins states that evidence of I.D. points to aliens who themselves were evolved along Darwinian paths. So, even if I.D. were to topple Darwinian evolutionary theory on earth the evolutionists will simply push it back to another planet??? Whoa! Talk about dying in the ditch for an ideology! How can that possibly be seen as authentic science? These people are so committed to keeping the supernatural out of the equation that they will stick to their theory even if it means positing a Darwinian evolution on another planet to explain its lack of presence here! I wish I had faith like that . . . not.

As stated above, critics of the film are whining quite a bit about the rhetorical devices employed by the film (examples of these with useful comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11 can be found here). Stein’s use of holocaust imagery, communist film clips, and much anonymous footage to alternately make fun of and accuse evolutionism-ists is clearly designed to evoke emotional responses. My reply - so what? First off, this is typical documentary behavior (consider “Jesus Camp’s” use of Bush/Iraq news footage to frame their entire story of the so-called evangelical subculture, or, well, anything that Michael Moore has ever produced . . . ).

Second, it shows the atheists can’t take their own medicine. Is Expelled emotionally manipulative? Yes. Is the rhetoric overdone? Yes (if only slightly). Does the film use scare tactics? Yes. Is this the same tactics that these new militant atheists use with regard to religion? Absolutely. Blaming religion for what a handful of people over the centuries have done “in the name of God” . . . referring to scientists with better credentials than themselves as stupid because they don’t bow the knee to Darwin . . . it makes for brilliant satire if nothing else.

Most important though - none of this whining over rhetorical devices matters if it’s true!!! I was a member of the women’s abuse council at DSS. At our first meeting we listened to a 911 call from a child who was watching his mother being brutalized by his father. It was one of the most horrible things I have ever experienced, and it certainly made me want to help the group in passionately acting to stop such things. Was that propaganda? Was it emotionally manipulative? Did it use scare tactics? Yes. Did that matter? No.

What the critics seem to be failing to do is give me a reason to think Stein’s thesis is false. Rather, they have launched a series of their own emotive attacks - some very personal ones on Stein himself.

Richard Dawkins whines about everything from the title of the film being changed to being misrepresented when he tries to be nice to the “IDiots” (his phrase). He says that the interview was set up under false pretenses and that he didn’t even know who Stein was. OK, first, so what? He said what he said regardless of what he thought he was doing. Second, Dawkins is now attacking Stein (a lawyer, law professor, economist, and speech writer for two presidents) as “honestly stupid.” Dawkins even goes so far as to mock Stein’s reaction to his visit to a Nazi death camp (and if you don’t believe that he would do such a thing then you don’t know Dick!). Basically it boils down to him not being aware of the film’s agenda. What seems “honestly stupid” to me is not bothering to Google Stein’s name to discover his background before agreeing to be filmed for a documentary! Even if this was somehow Stein’s fault, the point is moot - facts are facts regardless of one’s purpose for exposing them.

Andy Klein (LA City Beat) gives this enlightened response to the film: ” In its simplest terms, Expelled sees Hitler’s push for racial cleansing as a natural result of Darwin’s ideas. Whoa. Big F—ng Whoa.” Brilliant! Insightful! Seriously Andy, have you read Mein Kampf? Consider this quote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. . . it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Is this not textbook Nazi racism? Nope - it’s from Darwin’s Descent of Man! Klein makes another rhetorical-yet-factually-lacking statement with regard to Planned Parenthood: “‘The spirit of eugenics lives on in Planned Parenthood’ – huh? – and then lumps together “abortion and euthanasia” in one breath. This is yet another tip-off as to Expelled’s true goal.” Wow. There is NO QUESTION about the eugenic origins of Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger, the founder, once said that, “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind”); and the medi-ethical issues of abortion and euthanasia go hand in hand by definition (whether one is for or against either).

Jeannette Catsoulis (NY Times) called Expelled “One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time . . . a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” She then revealed startling ignorance when she stated that, “Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in ‘Planet of the Apes.’” Excuse me? Is she seriously questioning the evolutionary links between evolutionary theory and communism or Planet of the Apes (a film wholly dedicated to the evolutionary hypothesis)???

Sorry guys, but these links have been recognized by scholars for quite some time. Discovery Institute fellow Dr. Richard Weikart explains the Nazi connections in his book From Darwin to Hitler (even a pro-Islam website shows many of these Nazi/Communist connections). While it’s true that Hitler did not mention Darwin by name, he hardly ever named thinkers from whom he derived ideas. Even if, like most people today, Hitler never even read Darwin, he would have learned evolutionary ideals in school, and popular media (again, like most people today). As Weikart notes, “Hitler believed that population pressure causes a struggle for existence between organisms that leads to evolutionary progress. He also believed that this struggle occurred between human races. This is completely Darwinian . . . and Hitler often described evolution in Darwinian terms. . . . Hitler’s anti-Semitism did not derive from Darwinism, but many of his ideas did have Darwinian roots.” Dawkins himself tries to make a strong distinction between Darwinism and its social ramifications when he says, “As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it” (see “Dick” link above).

William Dembski pointed out the media ’s inconsistency with regard to these connections:

. . . the same weekend that “Expelled” opened in theaters saw the opening of another documentary, “Constantine’s Sword.” Here’s what the Village Voice has to say about that film: “X marks the spot, literally, where Christianity and the Catholic Church fostered the centuries of religious hatred and anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust…” So, for our culture’s secular elite, a film that shows how Christianity “culminated in the Holocaust” constitutes cutting-edge cultural commentary. But a film like “Expelled,” which carefully documents how the Nazis appropriated Darwin’s ideas, is “bizarre and hysterical.”

Where are the facts??? Whether or not Expelled has any artistic merit, what few critics seem to be unable to do is find actual instances of outright falsehood. Besides vague references to “other issues” being involved with Sternberg’s firing I have not heard anything but outraged opinions about Stein’s outraged opinions.

But being outraged is not the same thing as being outrageous . . . not if you’re right.

My name is D to the I to C to the K,

Yeah I’m the Dickie D, I gots my PhD
and comin’ your way on the Youtube to bust your world view
so just listen to me and don’t you argue.

You see, this battle’s been ragin’ since Zeus was on the bottle,
‘tween Science like Democritus and Faith like Aristotle,
who said the mover was unmovin’ like some magic trick but
that’s no good logic, my posse is far too quick for this religious sthick.

Cos science is the only way to know y’all,
you stand with me y’all,
or you can fall y’all
So go ahead and take your pick

Yeah you tell him Rick
Cos if you don’t know me
You don’t know Dick!

CHORUS:
Yeah he’s the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he’s smarter than you he’s got a science degree!
Yeah he’s the Dick to the Dawk to the PhD,
he’s smarter than you - he’s got a science degree!

On the shoulders of midgets we built up this machine,
YEAH!!!

Science silenced that watchdog wingnut Paley
growing stronger and harder almost daily,
storming Wilber by force as we framed the discourse
that faith and science are split in schismatic divorce.

Then Darwin took to the seas to see what no one had seen,
and ever since then we’ve been increasingly keen,
they may never adore us, but they’ll no longer ignore us,
give it to ‘em PZ hit these **** with the chorus!!!

Chorus
. . . he’s still smarter than you he studied biology!

Then there was Darrow
dukin’ it out with the straight and the narrow,
a ragin’ bull in the ring, he did his thing,
and took it on the chin like he was Bobby De Niro.

We might have lost at Scopes,
beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes,
but in losin’ we coped, becomin’ more than we hoped,
creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.

What was impossible, improbable, is now wholly unstoppable untoppleable,
the Dick Doc’ll roll up as you creationists foldup
you haters talkin’ bull,
don’t you know that this Dick is un-****-frickin’ blockable???

Chorus

Now the machine of our making, sees culture ripe for the taking,
Cos I’m the rappinest, rabidest atheist who unlike the Catholic, Muslim or even the Jew,
believes that no God but science could ever be true,
hell if I was dyslexic I’d even hate “dog” too.

Time to open your eyes, get yourself wise,
the age of science will rise to be religion’s demise,
and while you churchies all cry, shouting ‘why God oh why,’
I’ll still be poppin’ my collar earning more dollars than Allah.

Hollah!

Chorus

OK, so this is a super-nerdy thing to do, but I can’t help it - I love these things. I only played D&D once and spent most of my time irritating the DM with my insistence that I be given a “Blasting Guitar of Power” that, when played skillfully, would destroy my enemies. Anyway, here’s my results from Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus :

I Am A: Lawful Neutral Human Cleric (5th Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength-12
Dexterity-13
Constitution-11
Intelligence-15
Wisdom-12
Charisma-14

Alignment:
Lawful Neutral A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs him. Order and organization are paramount to him. He may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or he may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot. However, lawful neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Class:
Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron’s vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity’s domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric’s Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

I will be speaking in Indiana this April on “Christian Apologetics” and “The Message Behind the Movies.” For more info click HERE.