Visit to learn about the ESV Bible

Logos Bible Software

Powered by Blogger

Ignite Church Planting Ministries

Standing Against The Ecumenical Monoculture

Standing Against The Ecumenical Monoculture

Standing Against The Ecumenical Monoculture

Standing Against The Ecumenical Monoculture

God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform; He plants his footsteps in the sea, And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines Of never failing skill He treasures up his bright designs, And works his sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints fresh courage take, The clouds ye so much dread Are big with mercy, and shall break In blessings on your head.

Judge not the LORD by feeble sense, But trust him for his grace; Behind a frowning providence, He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast, Unfolding every hour; The bud may have a bitter taste, But sweet will be the flow’r.

Blind unbelief is sure to err, And scan his work in vain; GOD is his own interpreter, And he will make it plain.

--William Cowper

Thursday, March 30, 2006


The Sinner’s Prayer: Is there a Better Evangelism Paradigm?

Note: The following discussion has been carried over from another blog and since my blog has become the new hotspot for debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants, it has been continued here.

Before beginning, I will admit that my views concerning this subject are biased because as a child I prayed the sinner’s prayer, while failing to make a true commitment. That paired with an unbiblical understanding of the perseverance of the saints led me to place my confidence, of the security of my salvation, in my praying a prayer rather than in my bearing of fruit in keeping with repentance (Matthew 3:8).

Do I think there is a better evangelism paradigm than the sinner’s prayer? Yes, when coupled with an inadequate presentation of the Gospel the sinners prayer is dangerous for several reasons.

1. I think it is rooted in our desire for closure rather than Scripture and our desire to see Biblical converts.

2. I think it flows out of an unbiblical understanding of the great commission; we are called to disciple not merely evangelize.

3. I think it leads believers to place their assurance of Salvation in an act rather than in God.

4. I think it oversimplifies the Gospel.

5. I think it does not maintain an equal understanding of Christ as both Savior and Lord.

Do I think that praying the sinner’s prayer is unbiblical, heretical, or just plain bad? No, I just think there are better methods of concluding a Gospel presentation and I am positive that someone with more experience and wisdom could point me to a better method than anything I could suggest as well. I do not think this is a question of what is Biblical or unbiblical but about what methods convey the Gospel with more clarity.

Disclaimer: This all depends on what sinner’s prayer you pray and how you present the Gospel. When coupled with a Biblical Gospel presentation praying a prayer, as an outward sign of an inward commitment, is a very Biblical thing. What should be avoided is presenting the Gospel as “pray this prayer and you are always saved,” that is unbiblical. A proper presentation of the Gospel should always result in a proper understanding of prayer, in this case a prayer of commitment and submission to Christ. Honestly, would not want to pray to the God who purchased them with the blood of His only begotten Son? I think communication with the Father is a natural result of receiving the Gospel message and we should stress the importance of communicating with the Father. What we should avoid is stressing the mechanistic repetition of a prayer that does not flow forth from the heart; it is my conviction that our desire for closure causes us to do that very thing. This is why I would suggest praying a simple prayer for the individual, encouraging them pray there on there own, or encouraging them to go home a talk to God about their new life in Him.

Finally, just share the Gospel; immerse yourself in God’s Word so you know the Gospel and share it like crazy. It is my prayer that we would combine a mature knowledge of God with an ever-increasing passion for God and go tell the world. For some reason it seems that the more you know about God the more boring you become and I think we need to change that. The Puritans call this “logic on fire” the more you know of God the more your passions burn for Him.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006


Cognitive Dissonance: A Civil War of the Psyche

One of the great challenges of apologetics in our times is destroying the arguments and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God (II Corinthians 10:5). This is not due to the soundness of secular arguments but rather their plurality. There has always been a plurality of arguments and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God; however, modern times are set apart because of the plurality of conflicting arguments that one individual can hold. To compound this situation these conflicting arguments can be coherently held within the framework of the cognitive divide. (See my previous post “The Answer to the Monoculture: II Corinthians 10:4-5 and Acts 17” for more on this divide) If a worldview were defined as “the glasses through which one sees and interprets the world;” then most Americans are wearing bifocals or trifocals, which they use to pragmatically interpret the world.

Apologetics must be an appeal to both the the heart/conscience(1) and the mind. It must appeal to the heart lest they become like the church in Ephesus and loose their passion for God even though they posess a knowledge of Him (Revelation 2:4). It must appeal to the mind lest they become like the Jews who were passionate about God though their passion was not based on a knowledge of God (Romans 10:1-3).

Most of what we call apologetics focuses on the destruction of singular worldviews; rationalism, phlosophical naturalism, Hinduism, consumerism, romanticism, modernism, postmodernism, hypermodernism, etc. Such methods are no longer effective within the cognitive divide framework where one individual can hold multiple worldviews simultaneously. There are not pure postmoderns. One of the oft used examples of this is that no one wants a postmodern banker; since truth is relative your $500 paycheck may only be a $5.00 paycheck to a postmodern banker. No banker ever does that; because they have accepted modernism as their worldview at work. At the same time this same banker may accept a postmodern view of religious truth. This creates quite a challenge for the apologist (which we all are; I Peter 3:15).

To begin to understand how apologetics works in this new environment we must first understand the cognitive divide. I am not sure if there is a specific name for this phenomenon I like the terms: Adaptationalism, Divisionalism, or maybe just Pragmatism. Whatever you call it the basic premise, in its simplest form, is that the mind is divided into two different sectors one sector is dedicated to the worldviews, which govern the objective world, and the other is dedicated to the worldviews, which govern the subjective world. Science and rationality are placed under the umbrella of objective truth while religion and morality are considered subjective. An example of this would be an individual whose predominant worldview concerning the subjective world would be Postmodernism while their predominant worldview concerning the objective world would be modernism. There are other possible combinations: romanticism and rationalism or hypermodernism and naturalism for example.

Once again, the challenge of modern apologists it to destroy whatever worldviews an individual may have and then unify their mind under the total all-encompassing truth of Scripture. Apologetics like this must occur within a relationship with the individual or with the culture, that individual is from (see Acts 17 for how Paul does this). This requires you to listen first and destroy later because we must know what an individual believes before we can effectively combat it.

(1) I have combined the heart and the conscience or several reasons. Namely, because I find the passages concerning the hardening of one’s heart to be similar to the passages concerning the searing of one’s conscience. I think they are separate entities but they share a similar function. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Monday, March 27, 2006


Ignite: A New Testament Church Determined to Set UK on Fire for God

If you have not gone to the website for Ignite, please go and have a look. Find out when and where we meet to pray, find out how you can help us set fire to this campus, and find out how God is already beginning to dramatically move on the University of Kentucky's campus.

Friday, March 24, 2006


Potential Energy vs. Kinetic Energy

My physics teacher in high school, Harry Taylor, would always sign our yearbooks with the following words of wisdom, “May your PE= your KE.” Potential energy is just that, your potential. Kinetic energy is the measure of the energy that you are currently using through motion. The “Parable of the Talents” (Matthew 25:14-30) speaks of this very thing.

Commenting on this parable Erwin Raphael McManus says the following:

Yet this parable gives us an inside view of legalism at its best. This man was paralyzed by an improper view of God. There is a difference between the fear of God and being afraid of God. We have seen that the fear of God sets us free to live. Being afraid of God paralyses us and reduced us to existing. His wrong view of God’s character led him to a wrong conclusion of what God would require of him. At the same time, his wrong view of God led him to lose both the potential of his life and the pleasure of his master.

This parable establishes God’s measure for our lives. God sees not only who we are, but who we can become. When we neglect our God-given capacity, when we refuse to maximize our God-given potential, it is wickedness in the sight of God. How would it change the work of the church if our measure of effectiveness was not how little sin was being done, but how much good was being accomplished? We have seen with clarity that a life lived against God is wicked, but have we ever seen as clearly that to live a life beneath our divine capacity is equally dishonoring to God? To not have that opportunity is tragic. To relinquish it, to neglect it, to reject it is wicked in the sight of God.

As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. II Timothy 4:5

Tuesday, March 21, 2006


More Mohler and More Total Truth

The following is an excerpt from Albert Mohler’s Commentary entitled “Can Believers Be Bible Scholars? A Strange Debate in the Academy.”

Michael V. Fox doesn't believe that faith-based scholarship of the Bible is possible--and he wants to see such scholars marginalized in the larger world of scholarship. In an essay posted at the Web site for the Society of Biblical Literature [SBL], Fox argues, “In my view, faith-based study has no place in academic scholarship, whether the object of study is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Homer. Faith-based study is a different realm of intellectual activity that can dip into Bible scholarship for its own purposes, but cannot contribute to it.”

This all flows forth from the secular/sacred split that is dividing the modern mind. The secular/sacred split divides the mind into two areas first, the subjective realm of religion and morality and the objective realm of science and reason. In the realm of scholarship, as discussed above, all faith-based scholarship is placed in the subjective realm of religion and morality while non-faith-based scholarship is placed in the objective realm of science and reason. The ever-widening chasm between these two realms is discrediting all faith-based study as subjective and thus inconsequential. We must regain a view that Scripture is objectively true and that it is total truth for the totality of life. We must have undivided minds and live undivided lives unified under the objective reality of the Biblical metanarrative.

Mark Cahill Exhorts us to Contend for the Faith

Although I have only met Mark a couple times I consider him one of my friends; because his ministry has had a profound impact on my life and with his busy schedule he still finds time to answer all of my e-mails. I have pasted his March 2006 Newsletter below because it specifically addresses what I hope this blog stands for and it fits right in with a discussion that we have been having at Marvelous Light (see discussion here). Mark speaks everywhere on evangelism, has written some of my favorite books on the subject, and he lives to evangelize. Micah Millican and I picked him up from the Lexington airport once, to take him to the state FCA convention, and everyone on his flight came up, shook his hand, and thanked him for talking to them on the flight and giving them a copy of his book. On top of that, it took us forever to get him out of the airport, as he would not leave until everyone received a tract; he lives for the Gospel. I would recommend that everyone who reads this go to, buy his books, and listen to his sermons.

March 2006 Newsletter

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye shouldearnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were beforeof old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."
Jude 3, 4


I expect Hollywood to lie to me. I expect college professors to lie to me. I expect some people in government to twist the truth into lies. I expect popular magazines to distort the truth. I expect evil dictators like Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin to spew untruth when they open their mouths.

So, why shouldn’t I look at so-called “religious” people and expect the same thing? The Bible commands us to be very careful of wolves in sheep’s clothing—to be very careful of certain men who will creep into the church and teach ungodly things. But it seems like I always tend to give religious people a free pass, when the Bible tells me to do just the opposite. Why? Because it is often so hard to tell the difference between true and false Christians. The closer someone walks to the line of righteousness, the harder it is to tell that person apart from someone who is truly righteous (a true Christian). It’s sort of like this—someone can walk down the street all dressed up like a basketball player, but I would never know if he was one until I saw him try to take the ball to the hoop. I would need more information than just the outward appearance to come to the right conclusion. Too many times we accept religious people at face value, when we really need more information to come to the right conclusion.

I was speaking at an event recently, and I made a comment about something that was written in the will of Pope John Paul II. There were some Catholic kids and adults at the event who didn’t take too kindly to what I said. They emailed me and said that we should be all about unity, and why can’t we just unite under the same umbrella? Well at first that sounds good, but perhaps I need more information in order to draw the right conclusion about this unity umbrella. Wouldn’t you agree?

Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity are two faiths with some very distinct differences. The protestant reformation began when a Roman Catholic scholar, Martin Luther, protested what the Vatican was teaching. He had three main concerns.First, the Catholic Church was denying the idea of Scripture alone being the sole authority in the church. They had elevated some of the traditions of men to the same level as Scripture, which contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Clearly, Scripture is the final authority on all things.

Traditions of men cannot be on the same level as Scripture, but at the council of Trent in 1545, the Roman Catholic Church decided that tradition was equal in authority to Scripture. The council’s decision reversed what had been accepted for over 1,500 years—that Scripture alone was the sole authority.

What were some of the traditions being held up by the church? They included: the church built upon Peter as the first pope; purgatory; prayers to Mary and other dead saints to mediate on our behalf; kneeling and praying before statues and images; confession to a priest for absolution of sins; the necessity of mass and sacraments for salvation; salvation only through the Roman Catholic Church; the Eucharist by transubstantiation literally becoming the body and blood of Jesus; the selling of indulgences; veneration and worship of Mary; the rosary; immaculate conception of Mary; sinlessness of Mary. There is no biblical backing for any of these traditions.

Mark 7:1-9 says,

"Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, ‘Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?’ He answered and said unto them, ‘Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.’ And he said unto them, ‘Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.’"

These traditions of men are contrary to the teachings of God. So what will it be—Scripture or tradition? It’s your choice.

Luther’s second concern was the Catholic Church’s denial that Christ alone is the head of the church. But Christ is the head of the church and the only one that can save us from our sins. In Roman Catholicism the pope is the head of the church, the vicar of Christ. He is also viewed as being infallible in his teachings. Since Luther’s time, the Catholic Church has even elevated Mary to the place of Christ, according to the new Catholic Catechism, published in English in 1995. She is referred to as advocate, mediator, and redeemer by the Catholic Church.

1 John 2:1,2 says,

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

1 Timothy 2:5 says,

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

Finally, the third concern that Luther had was the Catholic Church’s view of salvation. They rejected salvation by faith alone, but rather said that salvation is by faith plus works. Also, according to Catholic teaching, purgatory is a place for the purification of sins, even though the Bible doesn’t even hint that such a place exists (the council of Florence made purgatory official in 1438). Alms were given and indulgences were purchased for the dead, in hopes that such efforts would lessen a loved one’s time in purgatory. Again, the only problem is that purgatory is not taught in the Bible. If purgatory is real, then Christ’s death is insufficient for the forgiveness of sins. And that flies in the face of clear biblical teaching. But remember, if Scripture is not the sole authority, then it really doesn’t matter what the Bible says, because it can always be trumped by the teachings and traditions of men.

1 John 1:7 says,

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

If all of my sin is cleansed by the blood of Jesus, there is no need for purgatory (even if it did exist!).

Hebrews 10:18 says,

"Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

Nothing else can wash away our sins but the blood of Jesus. Nothing. There is no good deed that I can do to erase any sin I have ever committed. Only my faith in Jesus Christ can do that.Please make it a point to read the new Catholic Catechism of 1995. You will be amazed at what you read.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says,

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

John 14:6 says,

"Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’"

In 1994 there was a document signed by several evangelical and Catholic leaders called The Evangelicals and Catholics Together Document. It was a commitment by both parties to lay aside doctrinal differences and to go forward in unity fighting for social reform. Brothers and sisters in Christ, we cannot put aside our doctrinal differences just for the sake of unity. We must stand up for the truth and earnestly contend for the faith, just like the book of Jude says. We cannot compromise on truth, even if people call us “narrow-minded.” Truth is narrow.If I told you that 2+2 = 5, and you told me I was wrong, should I say that you are narrow-minded? No. I should say, “You’re right! And I’m wrong!” In the same way, the truth about Jesus Christ and salvation is very narrow, and we cannot compromise on that just so that we can all huddle together under the umbrella of unity. How can truth unify with error? Not everyone can be under the same umbrella. There’s a right umbrella and a wrong umbrella. Which one do you want to be under?You cannot go to heaven by being Roman Catholic. You cannot go to heaven by being a Baptist. You cannot go to heaven by being a Presbyterian, a Methodist, an Episcopal or a Charismatic. You cannot go to heaven by being a Muslim. You cannot go to heaven by being a Hindu. You cannot go to heaven by being a Buddhist. According to Jesus, who is the Truth, the only way you can go to heaven is by being born again, trusting in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation.

John 3:3 says,

"Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’”

Until the nets are full,


P.S. I just received an email from some people who are witnessing in Florida. They gave the book One Heartbeat Away to an atheist. He became a Christian after reading it. They gave the book to an evolutionist. He became a creationist after reading it. Praise be to God!

Monday, March 20, 2006


Reflections on Peru


For those of you who do not know I spent the last week in Peru. Before specifically addressing our trip, I want to give some background information on what we are doing in Peru. Porter Memorial Baptist Church is working with IMB missionary Mike Weaver, developer of the Rapid Entry Advance Plan (REAP). The current end vision for the Peru partnership is “to have a viable indigenous, reproducible church in every town and every person in the people group have access to the Gospel by 2013 (7 years)”. Simply put we will work ourselves out of a job by 2013 and then employ the plan elsewhere to plant churches among another people group.

Important Concepts

There are two concepts to define in order to gain a correct understand of the purpose and goal of this seven-year partnership. First, church planting is missions. If your idea of a mission trip is evangelism abstracted from the local church then you have an unbiblical understanding of missions. The Great Commission is not a call to evangelize but to disciple. The goal of REAP is to plant churches both through discipling and to disciple the people of Peru. Second, what it means to plant indigenous churches. I think the easiest way to understand this is through painting a picture of what an indigenous church does not look like. Imagine Sunday morning in northern Kenya where locals go to church wearing suits and ties, to sit in pews, and drink communion from little plastic cups. This is not an indigenous Kenyan church it is Americanization, the locals never wear suits any other day of the week, they never do anything indoors much less sit in pews, and they drink from a common cup whenever they eat at each other’s houses. The goal of REAP is planting indigenous churches that are methodologically and theologically Biblical but whose style is distinct to that culture; this means they may meet in huts and not cathedrals, they may play native instruments and not an organ, and they may wear gourds and animal skins instead of suits.

Personal Reflections

First, foreign countries such as France, Japan, Germany, and others had spent time and money investing in the areas that we stayed and visited; the problem was that their honest efforts ranged from helpful to laughably useless. One of the most helpful items was a hydroelectric station used to generate electricity. The most useless was a satellite TV receiver that rebroadcast satellite TV over standard UHF and VHF frequencies that the locals could receive via an antenna. The problem was that the locals did not have TVs much less the electricity needed to power one. As Christians, we often attempt to meet the needs of individuals before forming a relationship and understanding what an individuals specific needs are and how we can meet them best.

Secondly, we are surveying towns deep in the mountains of the world’s driest desert, they have had ¼ inch of rain in 700 years, and almost every town has a Catholic church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists. We are interviewing a woman in an abandoned mining town and she told us “I don’t want to learn Catholic, or Jehovah’s Witness, or Seventh Day Adventist; I want to learn the Bible. I know it is God’s Word and it is all we have, but there is not one to teach it to us.” I have never been to a place that is this open in my entire life, where you walk through the fields of harvest and the grain literally cries out “pick me, pick me, pick me.” At the same time, the situation bore an immense amount of shame; because these heretical groups had beaten us to the punch and I think every Christian should be ashamed of that. One thing is for sure, we must go back and I would encourage all of you to get involved in this anyway you can because amazing things are going to happen in Peru and inside PMBC because of Peru.

Saturday, March 18, 2006


Mohler’s Commentary on Total Truth

Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey is quickly becoming one of my favorite books of all time and I would encourage you to read Albert Mohler’s commentary on the book's importance, “Total Truth”--A Bold Manifesto for the Christian Worldview.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006


This Is Awesome

For those of you who havenot heard of Jason McElwain or seen this video check it out because it is awesome. If you are blessed to know Wally and have seen him play basketball this video reminds me of him lighting up the net.

South Dakota Enacts Law Banning Abortion

From the article:
Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota signed into law the nation's most sweeping state abortion ban on Monday, an intentional provocation meant to set up a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal.

You can read the complete New York Times Article here: South Dakota Bans Abortion, Setting Up a Battle.

Friday, March 03, 2006


The Answer to the Monoculture: II Corinthians 10:4-5 and Acts 17

4For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

v.4 We live in a world at war, a spiritual war, a war that has been fought since the fall of man. While we may be persecuted and physically oppressed because of our belief in Christ, our fight is nonetheless a spiritual one. We fight the good fight of the faith with divine power, power from God. In I Corinthians 1:18 we find that the message of the cross is the power of God “to us who are being saved.” This means that the strongholds are ideological strongholds, in which men entrench themselves through self-deception.

v.5 in the first half of this verse, there are two conflicting ideologies man’s opinion, which is not founded upon objective knowledge but man’s sinful desires, and the perfect and objective knowledge of God. Through the word of the cross, which is the power of God, we destroy every opinion that conflicts with God’s word. I think that is where most of us stop destroy, destroy, destroy. However, Paul takes it one-step further by saying that we must subjugate their thought life. There is a definite difference between destroying an individuals thoughts and subjugating them. The subjugation of an individual’s thoughts implies that their thoughts will be useful when brought into captive obedience to Christ. This phenomenon is largely due to the role of general revelation, although perverted by sin, upon the formation of man’s thoughts (see my previous post “The Sin of the Monoculture” for more information regarding this).

In Acts 17 Paul is brought before the Areopagus so they might understand his strange new teachings. Paul both destroys their ideological stronghold and subjugates their thoughts.

Paul destroys their ideological strongholds by informing them that:

  • God rules both heaven and Earth.
  • God created the world.
  • God does not dwell in temples nor is He served by man.
  • God is the source of all life.
  • Etcetera

Paul subjugates their thoughts by informing them that:

  • There is a god whom they do not know.
  • He even goes on to point out that; their own poets have made correct statements about God. Paul probably knew this because he spent everyday in the marketplace proclaiming Christ.

Too often we are so caught up in refuting an argument that we forget to listen to the individual we are sharing with. Like Paul, we should know their poetry, favorite band, or simply their thoughts on life. This allows us to understand and destroy their stronghold with God’s Word and it aids us in subjugating their correct thoughts to Christ. Presuppositional apologetics does not work in a postmodern age; after all the only thing you can presuppose about postmoderns is that, there are no presuppositions. We must form relationships and allow individuals to construct their worldview before us so that we can destroy the fallacies that support it and use what truth may exist in it to construct a Christian worldview.

I will close with a modern example that really hit me this week while reading. Immanuel Kant was a Newtonian Determinist, he believed that the universe was like a machine entirely determined by the laws of nature; this encompassed everything from the orbits of the planets to the synapses firing in your brain. At the same time, he maintained a paradoxical view that man was an autonomous free moral agent, or at least there is the illusion of such. After reading that I could only sit and think about what would have happened if an individual, like Paul, said to Kant; “you are right the actions of the universe are entirely determined by the laws of nature. Laws created and sustained by an absolute Sovereign God, and in Him, all things hold together, from the microscopic double helix DNA carrying the code of your genetic makeup to the rotation of the Milky Way Galaxy. Un-paradoxically your moral accountability is not an illusion it is real and one day the absolute Sovereign God who holds the planets in orbit will hold you accountable.”

In short, our job as apologists is not only to show corrupt ideology for what it is but also to confirm what man has gleaned from general revelation as true, once that thought has been freed from the false ideology, which suppresses the Truth. All of which must happen within the framework of a relationship.