Wednesday, February 14, 2007

This is Sad

I just want to point everyone to a discussion on Phyllis Schlafly Live. It is with a college graduate in social work by the name of Emily Brooker. It is absolutely amazing what this girl went through. You can listen to the first half here, and the second half here. The absolute insanity of many on the left is brought out in this young girl's story. These silly teachers told her that she must separate her beliefs from her professional work. And yet, did these professors separate their belief that homosexuality is an acceptible lifestyle from their work? No. What they suggested is totally impossible. What you believe has implications for how you live your life, including how you do your work in the professional realm, and every other area of life.

These people always want to come across under the guise of neutrality, but in reality they are some of the most biased people on the planet. Greg Bahnsen once said, rightly:

Therefore, the Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian! By denying his distinctive religious commitment he is reduced to apostate thought patterns and absorbed into the world of unbelief. Attempting to find a compromise between the demands of worldly neutrality (agnosticism) and the doctrines of Christ's word results in the rejection of Christ's distinctive Lordship by obliterating the great gulf between the thinking of the old man and that of the new man [Always Ready Directions for Defending the Faith p.9].

It is one of the most deceptive tricks the political and social left will use, namely, the myth of neutrality. If we fall for it, we end up, as Greg Bahnsen said, being absorbed into the world of unbelief. That is why I am so thankful that this young woman had the courage to deny the neutrality myth, and to come out and win the case. I only wonder how many more students have had these injustices done to them, and the ending was not so happy.

Also, this program is availible in Mp3 format for about two weeks yet. Here is the first half, and here is the second half.


Bruce said...

Hi Adam,
I've finally figured out how I can post without being a blogger. All I need is to be signed into G-mail.

Anyway, I look forward to keeping up communication.

Did you catch any of Unch-Rad's Open-Theism dialog-debate-discussion this week. It was 5 hours out 7 that Gene did this week.

The Openers worship a god as different and strange from the God of the Bible as any Mormon or JW. But just like the latter, they profess to be just as sincere Christians as "settled viewers" as they call us. They constantly punctuate their comments with professions to brotherhood, and they think that by politeness, they will charm their way to acceptance. Orthodox Christians are "harsh" and "unloving" in their strident criticisms.

My comment: "Sorry to break it to ya, Openers, but you are devoted to a trivial god, and we don't share him with you."

PuritanCalvinist said...

Hey Pastor Buchanan!

Ya, I heard that discussion is causing quite a stir. I haven't studied that much, though. I have heard that it is a good theological study for someone who is going into Old Testament studies to go into.

From what I gather, these folks are similar to the beliefs of A.N. Prior, who is one of the experts in "tensed logic." Prior said that he believed that the future is contingent, and then moved from there to argue that no one could know future contingent events. This is because knowledge is justified belief, and no one could ever justify a belief about something that is, as yet, contingent, because it is still up in the air as to what will happen.

I don't know if these folks would be any different than that, but I have used that argument against arminians many times, and I think it is a devistating argument. The scary thing is that, if some heretics who actually DO deny that omnicience entails foreknowledge have gotten ahold of that argument, they are really, really dangerous, because I don't think evangelical Arminianism can answer that argument.

I will have to check it out when I get a chance to breath. I have been doing around seven translation assignments a week in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and this weekend is devoted to reviewing and memorizing the weak verb paradigms, and getting ready for the big vocabulary test on Monday in Latin and Hebrew. I did get a chance to listen to Gene Cook's discussion with Robert Morey on this topic. I listened to is while I was making up my flash cards on the pual forms of II-guttural verbs. Anyway, I like the argument Dr. Morey used. He said that some of these folks have inconsistently denied eternal punishment in hell. The reason this is inconsistent, is because they end up knowing more than God. If God doesn't know the future, then he does not know that there will not be eternal punishment for unbelievers. However, these folks claim that they DO know that there will not be eternal punishment for unbelievers. In essence, this entire position destroys the study of eschatology.

Maybe I will put it on my Mp3 player, and listen to it inbetween classes.

God Bless

PuritanCalvinist said...

You're right Bruce. I don't even think this stuff is Christian. A friend of mine [I guess he would also be my pastor] is getting his Phd in systematic theology at Marquette, and he said the same thing. He recommended that I get John Frame's work on the subject.

However, from a cursory examination, this stuff has more in common with Greek Philosophy than with Christianity. I was rolling on the floor laughing when this guy said that our view is derived from Greek Philosophy. He confused the unchanging nature of God with the fatalistic notion that external factors control what God will inevitably do. In essence, he confused God's immutability with fatalism.

But, I agree, this stuff is not Christian. It is sad when people are willing to worship an entirely different God rather than give up free-will.

Thanks for pointing this out to me!