Grace Blogs

So first she tasted the porridge of the Great, Huge Bear, and that was too hot for her; and she said a bad word about that. And then she tasted the porridge of the Middle Bear, and that was too cold for her; and she said a bad word about that too. And then she went to the porridge of the Little, Small, Wee Bear, and tasted that;and that was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right; and she liked it so well she ate it all up…

Last week’s “God Question” about the existence of God got into some deep science that hopefully didn’t lose too many people. I wanted to follow up on that by

…

Read the full entry

Douglas Groothuis quotes evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin on the evolution-at-all-costs attitude present in much of modern science. Lewontin says,

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes

…

Read the full entry

This week’s “God Question” is “Why do you believe God even exists?” In a bit of good timing, Stand to Reason has started posting some of Greg Koukl’s podcast commentary as YouTube videos, and one of the first asks the question, “Can God’s Existence Be Proved?”

Skip down to the video if you’d like, but before diving into this question it’s worth establishing what is meant by “proof,” at least in a philosophical sense:

1. You must have at least two premises and a conclusion.
2. The conclusion must logically follow from the premises.
3. Each premise must be true, or at least, more probable than the opposite.

Accept the Argument, or Say Something Silly: Your Choice

The trick is that someone who really …

Read the full entry

Remember this exchange from the 1984 movie Ghostbusters?

Q: Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?

A: Ah, if there’s a steady paycheck in it, I’ll believe anything you say.

It’s funny because, obviously, we don’t decide to believe things because of money. We believe things because we have good reasons to think that they are true.

I mean, if I told you I’d give you a million dollars if you would just believe that humans can fly, would that be enough to get you to believe it? You might say you believe it, but what if

…

Read the full entry

It was awfully thoughtful of Greg Koukl and J.P. Moreland to get together and do a radio interview while some of the ladies of Grace Fellowship were studying one of Dr. Moreland’s books. You can find the show here.

One of the things I particularly like about this interview is how it illustrates something Hugh reflected on a few months back. In the interview we see how they disagree in some key areas and yet do so without dismissing the value that each brings to God’s kingdom.

If you listen to Greg, you will quickly pick up two things… He is a compatibilist (a.k.a. a Calvinist) and he is deeply concerned about the popular teaching about hearing the voice of God in the

…

Read the full entry

A day after Greg’s visit, I’ve got a lot of stuff swirling around in my head that I’d like to write about; but, there is one thing that I want to get out while it’s fresh. During the Sunday morning service and the ensuing Q & A, Greg represented a defense of the problem of evil from a perspective known as compatibilism. This view maintains that the Bible pushes us into a position of affirming that God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom (i.e., responsibility) are both in play simultaneously and must be compatible–even if we cannot fully explain how that works out. I think Jonathan Edwards was one of the first to develop this idea in a philosophically rigorous way.

This …

Read the full entry

I’ve had this post in draft form for several weeks. Since the phrase came up again this morning, I thought it would be a good time to go ahead and finish it and post it…

The other day I was involved in a rousing discussion with friends about the compatibility of God’s sovereignty and human freedom. As anyone who as ever wrestled with this knows, it is a very difficult topic. How can God be in control of all things, ordaining all that comes to pass and not be the ‘author of sin?’ Anyone who has not wrestled with this… well… they are probably not reading a Grace Fellowship blog. So, for the rest of us, in grappling with these issues, …

Read the full entry

On Sunday, we sought to ask the most profound question any human being can consider: How does a person become right with God? We sought out our answer to this question in Romans 3:19-26. As I spoke with sincere people after the service who posed very valid questions such as,

“Couldn’t this view [that I am fully right with God when I place my trust in what Christ did on my behalf] promote sinful living?” “If I am forgiven then am I not free to live anyway I choose and if I choose a sinful life isn’t that promoting ‘easy believism?’”

Another question, veiled in the form of a statement, was:

“The Gospel simply seems

…

Read the full entry

I arrived at work this morning, checked my email, and found a note from Hugh with the above subject line and a link to this article. Although I never met Dr. Nash, he’s had a profound affect on my thinking and growth as a follower of Christ. I find myself saddened as if an actual friend had died. His passing is a great loss to the Church, but his many works and the students he’s affected will leave an enduring legacy.

Read the full entry

There’s a problem with isms.

I’m pragmatic, but I don’t believe in pragmatism.

I believe in nature, but not naturalism.

I believe in following the law, but not legalism.

And finally…

I try to be rational, but I don’t believe in rationalism.

So, what is the difference between a principle and turning it into an ism. Adding the ism to the word takes a general principle or attribute and elevates it to a level that cannot be justified. It makes it out as the be-all and end-all–the way to salvation, after a fashion.

Ok, but what’s the point?

Many people who are critical of the pursuit of apologetics do so because they object to rationalism. But this is a straw man. Showing that the Christian belief …

Read the full entry