According to the creation story, we humans are the highest of all of God's creation. Every once in a while, I come across certain things that seriously make me doubt this sometimes.. It really is a wonder that we have been able to survive as a country and society for this long, here.
It's amazing to me how un-informed that people can be and are willing to be, and just how many ridiculously illogical things that people will believe.
I don't really watch Fox News, since I mainly read my news and listen to the news on the radio. But, this stuff was too funny (and sad at the same time) to not post up.
Here are some others, here, here, and here and below:
My friend Chang Yuon wrote a very insightful article a while ago concerning God and the problem of evil. This can be a very emotional topic and I can understand why many Christians say that God COULD NOT HAVE CREATED EVIL. But, is this really the case? If we are to understand that God is sovereign over all of creation, how can we reconcile his sovereignty with evil somehow simply springing up out of nowhere?
The link to his problem of evil article is here.
I find attending presbytery meetings to be very enjoyable. In the past, I have heard many pastors bemoan how it is "that time again" when they have to muddle through yet another boring presbytery meeting. Perhaps because they feel that they are so busy with their own local church stuff. For me, I like big picture stuff, I like top level interactions and the 30,000 ft view.. And this is what presbytery does (well, at least at the 30,000 ft regional view... GA would be the 100,000 ft view)...
About a year ago, I had attended two South Coast Presbytery (PCA) meetings in San Diego. The various sub-committees would stand up and give their updates on what happened since the last meeting etc... One of my favorites is the Candidates and Credentials sub-committee. This is the group that is responsible for licensure and ordination of licentiate and ministerial candidates, respectively.
During both meetings, there were licensure and ordination exams that were conducted. As expected, since the South Coast Presbytery is in San Diego, you get a lot of candidates that are from Westminster Seminary in Escondido. One licensure exam that was conducted on the floor was of particular interest. For most of the exam, the licensure candidate did reasonably well. When the questioning got to this candidate's exceptions to the Westminster standards, this is when things got to be a little controversial. He took the almost automatic exception of WCF XXI:VIII that nearly all candidates seem to be taking nowadays, concerning the prohibition of recreation on the Sabbath.
My observations have been that most people don't really understand this particular part of the confession and they take this exception without really understanding that the "recreation" that the candidates are thinking of (e.g. walking on the beach, admiring God's creation) is NOT what the confession is talking about. Or, it is that the candidate has the very bleeding edge and very novel Klinean view of the Sabbath in which "common" activities do not need to be ceased on the Sabbath since this is a "profane" activity that is not under "faith-norms." The former is a silly misunderstanding, the latter is just a very exegetically unwarranted view of what exactly the "common kingdom" and what "cultural activities" are. Another post for another time.
The second exception that he took is somewhat related to the recreation on the Sabbath exception in that he felt that (but wasn't quite sure) there was actually no such thing as an official Christian sabbath, therefore, taking exception to WCF XXI:VII. I could only imagine the alarm bells that were raging inside all of the ministers' heads as he said this. The digging and even harder digging began to ensue. It actually almost looked like he would not be passed based on this exception. As the candidate expressed this particular exception, they drilled him for about 20-30 min. He then had to step out of the room, and the entire presbytery discussed this for about 45 min. He was then called back in and they counseled him a little bit more on the implications of his exceptions. He then re-iterated that he hadn't studied this issue much and then withdrew his exception and then he passed his licensure exam.
To many, the WCF exception on the Sabbath may seem like a minor thing (it isn't by the way, it is a big deal), and it may have seemed rather extreme for the entire presbytery to discuss this for 45 min after the candidate was excused. However, it is a big deal, and the presbytery was focused on it like a laser.
As I reflected upon this incident, I think that an equally significant issue regarding the WCF involves XIX:IV, IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which
expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any
now, further than the general equity thereof may require. However, it is rather unfortunate that this issue is never addressed directly. More below. Especially with this whole Escondido theology (R2K) being pushed by WSCAL, many people have not taken the time to really see whether or not this R2K doctrine is even aligned with the confessions. I know many WSCAL grads who are hard advocates of R2K and they simply gloss over this particular part of the confession without ever giving it a second thought or seeing whether or not they need to take exceptions to this.
What exactly does "general equity" mean anyway? Pastor McAtee explains it deftly here, and it is copied below:
As I understand it, the General Equity answers the
question as to how the Old Testament civil law is to be applied in the
Nations today and perhaps the best analogy for understanding it is the
metaphor of kernel and husk. The general equity advocates the idea that
the husk of the Old Testament civil law is discarded but the kernel of
the matter remains. So, in the classic example, the requirement of
fences being built around roof tops in the OT finds the husk of the
requirement expired while the kernel of protecting your neighbor remains
in a law, for example, that insists on building a fence around your
pool. So, “general equity” means to find valid and obligatory the
principle articulated in the civil law, keeping in mind that the civil
law was nothing but God incarnating His moral law into every day life.
Remember, the conviction is that the civil law was merely the case
law of the moral law. Much as our Supreme Court makes decisions applying
the Constitution to the cases that comes before it, God’s given civil
law was God applying His Constitution (i.e.– The moral law — Decalogue),
in concrete ways, to the society in which His people lived. Now,
obviously we no longer live in an agrarian B.C. culture, and so much of
the husk of the civil law remains behind, however, what the case law was
aiming at in principle remains… and it remains only because it was a
true flowering of God’s Moral Law. When we advocate for the general
equity we are advocating for God’s own application of the moral law, as
He revealed it in the OT Civil Law, for our era.
Just speaking from a confessional standpoint, R2K advocates really need to start thinking very hard as to what exactly general equity means. R2K folks are quick to say that the civil laws have "expired" and therefore, we CANNOT use the Mosaic law as a "pattern" for civil govt. But they never go past that word "expired" and never address what exactly "general equity" means.
Additionally, the confession doesnt say abrogated (as it does with the "ceremonial" law), it says expired. And in WCF 20:1, "But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected."
Notice how there is no mention of the "civil" law in WCF 20:1, yet it is clear about the ceremonial law and how we are free from it. R2K will say that it is exclusively natural law that governs the "common kingdom" and that Scriptural norms are inappropriate for use in the "common kingdom". And from this, they could possibly say that the general equity refers to natural law.
Pastor McAtee also talks about natural law and moral law here.
R2K will agree that for the Reformed Scholastics the natural law is
synonymous with the moral law.
The natural law is rooted in the being of
God consistent with by His intellect and His will. It is not just naked
authority but eternal moral truth. This natural moral law was written
upon the heart of Adam at the creation and on every man's heart thereafter. (Rom 2).
They will agree that nature and grace are not in conflict. Therefore, the moral
law given in nature and the moral law given Scripture are the same law
(as to general equity, i.e. the Ten Commandments). However, even though they affirm this, they want to say that the pagan, who is ruled
by this Natural law, is not ruled by the imperatives of Scripture. Those very same imperatives of Scripture that they earlier insisted were consistently articulated in Natural law.
“Biblical morality is characterized by an
indicative-imperative structure. That is, all of its imperatives (moral
commands) are proceeded (sic) by and grounded in indicatives (statements
of fact), either explicitly or implicitly. The most important
indicative that grounds the imperatives in Scripture is that the
recipients of Scripture are the covenant people, that is, members of the
community of the covenant of grace. (39) Since membership in the civil kingdom is not limited to believers,
the imperatives of Scripture do not bind members of that kingdom. These
imperatives are not ‘directly applicable to non-Christians’” (40). David Van Drunen
For R2K, the imperatives of Scripture are not directly applicable to
non-Christians and yet, Natural law, which is perfectly consistent with
God’s Moral law (and yes, the 10 Commandments are included in NL) would seem to force us to conclude that the imperatives
of Scripture, as communicated via Natural Law, would be directly
applicable to non Christians.
Natural law is the same as revealed law. Therefore, it is not only acceptable, but imperative that we use the Bible to help interpret natural law properly and also to understand its relation to revealed law. Through the Bible, we not only understand that they are the same, but also that natural revelation (and law) and supernatural revelation (and law) presuppose and complement each other.
You cannot have one without the other.
(One wonders how you can expect people to understand NL correctly such as the 10 commandments, if you never give them the Bible to even tell them what the 10 commandments are.)
So, back to general equity. Because natural law and revealed law are the same, as I discussed above, we can make the case that general equity could refer to natural law (yet at the same time, we have to remember that it is the same as revealed law, something that R2K likes to not really emphasize). Therefore, how can natural man (unaided by Scripture) possibly know exactly what the general equity needs to be to order the government properly if he doesn't have Scripture?
How can natural man possibly know what punishments to dish out for various crimes if he is prevented from using the Bible to understand what general equity actually requires? His own interpretation of natural law without any aid will never reveal to him the proper answers. For instance, how will he know that executing murderers is morally correct and yet executing one who steals a loaf of bread is not OK? How can he know this if he is prevented from using the one standard that will clearly tell him?
R2K will say that the natural man can know because the law is in his heart. Yes, it is true that the law is in his heart, but just like his belief in God, natural man's knowledge is suppressed and he therefore, cannot properly account for his knowledge and cannot always properly understand "natural" law without a proper guide.
This is the entire reason why we have presuppositional apologetics in the first place! If natural man can account for things on his own, and also know things properly all the time, there is no need for presuppositional apologetics. How someone can account for something is very closely connected to how he can properly understand what exactly is correct in terms of civil laws and sanctions.
How can natural man possibly know what general equity must be used when governing the civil society if he is not allowed to even be introduced to the Bible (which tells him what is required in general equity) by the R2K doctrine?
How is natural man expected to use general equity when he doesn't even have a clear concept of what it is, where it comes from and by what authority general equity comes from? Biblically speaking, R2K cannot answer these questions at all.
Francis Cheynell, a Westminster Divine, said says of the universal, moral nature of the civil law: “All
divine laws which concern the punishment of Moral transgressions, are
of perpetual obligation and therefore still remain in force according
to their substance and general equity, abstracted from special
circumstances, Typical Accessories, and the old form ofMosaicall Politie, For 1. These divine Laws are not expired in their own nature. 2. They are not repealed by God. 3. The authority of the Law-giver is the same under both administrations, old and new… 4. The matter of the Laws is Moral… 5. The reason of these divine Laws is immutable… 6. These divine Laws are Independent on the will of Man…”
From a confessional view point, R2K has some serious issues and is in direct conflict
with how the Confessions understand the law of God, and also R2K's
understanding and application of general equity (if the particular
advocate believes in general equity at all) is severely deficient and is
not consistent with the original theonomic intent of the confessions. (And I have not even begun to talk about the original 1646 version. This general equity is still in the 1789 revisions. Even through these revisions, it should be clear that the confessions should still be interpreted theonomically).
The Divines certainly didn't think at all the general equity meant that civil society was unaided in understanding how ethics in the public square
or govt. are to be directed, and the above quote (there are many) should be proof enough that the original intent behind the Confessions was ultimately a theonomic one.
This issue of what exactly general equity means needs to be discussed within the reformed church because this issue has largely been forgotten. And related to this, the reformed church needs to clearly examine and understand how R2K goes against the original intent of "general equity" and therefore this doctrine should not be considered confessional.
On American Vision, Dr. Joel McDurmon posted an article here about the health care law. A different perspective.
Article is also pasted below: ------------------------
Liberty or … death by doctor visit?
Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American colonialists into a war for
independence with the words, “give me liberty, or give me death.”
It seems that, for those who still
pursue this philosophy today, death may indeed be even closer than it was
before. Not because of war, mind you, but because the tyranny upon us may
indeed lead us to prefer the death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to
the tyranny that would come with them!
A Fox News executive recently
changed doctors. He was shocked when his new doctor nailed him with some
surprisingly intrusive questions:
One
of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured weapons in
thehome.
Something tells me that the answer,
“Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on an old family tradition,” won’t get you
very far here.
“Concerned”? Are you kidding me?
What kind of ridiculous trap question is that?
Well, first off, it verges on
fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick question.” It forces an assumption on
you whether you answer yes or no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured
weapons in your home. Merely answering this question at all may give some
government officials probable cause to search your home.
The correct answer here is, “I don’t
know, doc. Are you concerned that you have not stopped beating your wife?”
But just in case the nonsense wasn’t
obvious and in-your-face enough, the questionnaire followed with a question
about . . . beating your wife!
Another
asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have been physically
hurt
or are you afraid of your partner?”
Bringing this down to home
The worst part of this questionnaire
is that it’s not only real, but it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all
or at least most of our doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive
questions come 2014.
Fox notes that “Judge Andrew
Napolitano explained that the question about guns comes out of a post-Sandy
Hook executive order by President Obama, but it will be required under
Obamacare.” Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you
questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues, craftily
stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or Child Protective
Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is here that Napolitano’s
advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut up.” The Fox article relates,
“Most
people will think they have to answer. They
don’t need to answer under the law,” he explained.
Napolitano
said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are being asked, but
noted that Congress approved of the gun question when it passed Obamacare. He
said the question about a person’s relationship at home is “totally a creation”
of Health and Human Services under Obama.
“For
the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without authority
under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal law or from any
source, puts the government in the middle of the patient-physician
relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where there has to be free
communication of ideas, not information that’s gonna go to the government,”
said Napolitano, who noted that patients should be informed by the doctor that
they are not required by law to answer the questions.
Three main things are of note here:
First, in the near future, you
doctor may indeed ask you such questions, and
Second, that doctor should but
probably will not inform you that you don’t have to answer such a question,
and, most importantly,
Third, under current law, you do not
need to answer any such intrusive question.
If an activist doctor tries to
involve the Feds after such a non-answer, it appears that they would be acting
on no evidence, not a reasonable suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to
a lawsuit.
Liberty or … death by
doctor visit?
Obamanation-Death-Panel4Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American
colonialists into a war for independence with the words, “give me
liberty, or give me death.”
It seems that, for those who still pursue this philosophy today, death
may indeed be even closer than it was before. Not because of war, mind
you, but because the tyranny upon us may indeed lead us to prefer the
death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to the tyranny that
would come with them!
A Fox News executive recently changed doctors. He was shocked when his
new doctor nailed him with some surprisingly intrusive questions:
One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured
weapons in the home.
Something tells me that the answer, “Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on
an old family tradition,” won’t get you very far here.
“Concerned”? Are you kidding me? What kind of ridiculous trap question
is that?
Well, first off, it verges on fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick
question.” It forces an assumption on you whether you answer yes or
no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured weapons in your home. Merely
answering this question at all may give some government officials
probable cause to search your home.
Did you enjoy this article?
Share
the
Love
Get Free Updates
Name
Email
The correct answer here is, “I don’t know, doc. Are you concerned that
you have not stopped beating your wife?”
But just in case the nonsense wasn’t obvious and in-your-face enough,
the questionnaire followed with a question about . . . beating your
wife!
Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have
been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?”
Bringing this down to home
The worst part of this questionnaire is that it’s not only real, but
it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all or at least most of our
doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive questions come 2014.
Fox notes that “Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question
about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President
Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare.”
Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you
questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues,
craftily stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or
Child Protective Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is
here that Napolitano’s advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut
up.” The Fox article relates,
“Most people will think they have to answer. They don’t need to answer
under the law,” he explained.
Napolitano said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are
being asked, but noted that Congress approved of the gun question when
it passed Obamacare. He said the question about a person’s relationship
at home is “totally a creation” of Health and Human Services under
Obama.
“For the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without
authority under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal
law or from any source, puts the government in the middle of the
patient-physician relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where
there has to be free communication of ideas, not information that’s
gonna go to the government,” said Napolitano, who noted that patients
should be informed by the doctor that they are not required by law to
answer the questions.
Three main things are of note here:
First, in the near future, you doctor may indeed ask you such questions,
and
Second, that doctor should but probably will not inform you that you
don’t have to answer such a question, and, most importantly,
Third, under current law, you do not need to answer any such intrusive
question.
If an activist doctor tries to involve the Feds after such a non-answer,
it appears that they would be acting on no evidence, not a reasonable
suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to a lawsuit.
Obamanation-Death-Panel4
Published
on May 21st, 2013 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon
1
Liberty or … death by doctor visit?
Obamanation-Death-Panel4Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American
colonialists into a war for independence with the words, “give me
liberty, or give me death.”
It seems that, for those who still pursue this philosophy today, death
may indeed be even closer than it was before. Not because of war, mind
you, but because the tyranny upon us may indeed lead us to prefer the
death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to the tyranny that
would come with them!
A Fox News executive recently changed doctors. He was shocked when his
new doctor nailed him with some surprisingly intrusive questions:
One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured
weapons in the home.
Something tells me that the answer, “Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on
an old family tradition,” won’t get you very far here.
“Concerned”? Are you kidding me? What kind of ridiculous trap question
is that?
Well, first off, it verges on fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick
question.” It forces an assumption on you whether you answer yes or
no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured weapons in your home. Merely
answering this question at all may give some government officials
probable cause to search your home.
Did you enjoy this article?
Share
the
Love
Get Free Updates
Name
Email
The correct answer here is, “I don’t know, doc. Are you concerned that
you have not stopped beating your wife?”
But just in case the nonsense wasn’t obvious and in-your-face enough,
the questionnaire followed with a question about . . . beating your
wife!
Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have
been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?”
Bringing this down to home
The worst part of this questionnaire is that it’s not only real, but
it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all or at least most of our
doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive questions come 2014.
Fox notes that “Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question
about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President
Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare.”
Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you
questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues,
craftily stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or
Child Protective Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is
here that Napolitano’s advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut
up.” The Fox article relates,
“Most people will think they have to answer. They don’t need to answer
under the law,” he explained.
Napolitano said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are
being asked, but noted that Congress approved of the gun question when
it passed Obamacare. He said the question about a person’s relationship
at home is “totally a creation” of Health and Human Services under
Obama.
“For the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without
authority under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal
law or from any source, puts the government in the middle of the
patient-physician relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where
there has to be free communication of ideas, not information that’s
gonna go to the government,” said Napolitano, who noted that patients
should be informed by the doctor that they are not required by law to
answer the questions.
Three main things are of note here:
First, in the near future, you doctor may indeed ask you such questions,
and
Second, that doctor should but probably will not inform you that you
don’t have to answer such a question, and, most importantly,
Third, under current law, you do not need to answer any such intrusive
question.
If an activist doctor tries to involve the Feds after such a non-answer,
it appears that they would be acting on no evidence, not a reasonable
suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to a lawsuit.
Liberty or … death by
doctor visit?
Obamanation-Death-Panel4Patrick Henry famously persuaded the American
colonialists into a war for independence with the words, “give me
liberty, or give me death.”
It seems that, for those who still pursue this philosophy today, death
may indeed be even closer than it was before. Not because of war, mind
you, but because the tyranny upon us may indeed lead us to prefer the
death resulting from refusing doctor visits (!) to the tyranny that
would come with them!
A Fox News executive recently changed doctors. He was shocked when his
new doctor nailed him with some surprisingly intrusive questions:
One of the questions was whether he/she was concerned about unsecured
weapons in the home.
Something tells me that the answer, “Hey sawbones, I’m just carrying on
an old family tradition,” won’t get you very far here.
“Concerned”? Are you kidding me? What kind of ridiculous trap question
is that?
Well, first off, it verges on fallacy of “complex question,” or “trick
question.” It forces an assumption on you whether you answer yes or
no—i.e. that there may in fact be unsecured weapons in your home. Merely
answering this question at all may give some government officials
probable cause to search your home.
Did you enjoy this article?
Share
the
Love
Get Free Updates
Name
Email
The correct answer here is, “I don’t know, doc. Are you concerned that
you have not stopped beating your wife?”
But just in case the nonsense wasn’t obvious and in-your-face enough,
the questionnaire followed with a question about . . . beating your
wife!
Another asked whether he/she was “in a relationship in which you have
been physically hurt or are you afraid of your partner?”
Bringing this down to home
The worst part of this questionnaire is that it’s not only real, but
it’s mandated by ObamaCare. This means that all or at least most of our
doctors will be mandated to ask these intrusive questions come 2014.
Fox notes that “Judge Andrew Napolitano explained that the question
about guns comes out of a post-Sandy Hook executive order by President
Obama, but it will be required under Obamacare.”
Get that folks. ObamaCare is about to mandate that doctors ask you
questions about guns in your home, as well as about other issues,
craftily stated, which may give a doctor reason to “sic” the Feds or
Child Protective Services on you for even a “suspicious” answer. It is
here that Napolitano’s advice is most helpful. In my paraphrase: “shut
up.” The Fox article relates,
“Most people will think they have to answer. They don’t need to answer
under the law,” he explained.
Napolitano said it’s “exceptionally troublesome” that the questions are
being asked, but noted that Congress approved of the gun question when
it passed Obamacare. He said the question about a person’s relationship
at home is “totally a creation” of Health and Human Services under
Obama.
“For the government to compel that question, that’s the problem. Without
authority under the Constitution, or from the Congress, or from federal
law or from any source, puts the government in the middle of the
patient-physician relationship. That is a sacred relationship. One where
there has to be free communication of ideas, not information that’s
gonna go to the government,” said Napolitano, who noted that patients
should be informed by the doctor that they are not required by law to
answer the questions.
Three main things are of note here:
First, in the near future, you doctor may indeed ask you such questions,
and
Second, that doctor should but probably will not inform you that you
don’t have to answer such a question, and, most importantly,
Third, under current law, you do not need to answer any such intrusive
question.
If an activist doctor tries to involve the Feds after such a non-answer,
it appears that they would be acting on no evidence, not a reasonable
suspicion, and thus would likely be liable to a lawsuit.
I recently came across this somewhat old video of William Lane Craig (with no white hair and full beard!) in which he talks about presuppositionalism, atheism, and apologetics. I have always been somewhat perplexed (well, not really) as to why Arminians don't use presuppositional apologetics. Video is below.
It really does come down to Dr. Craig being a consistent Arminian and somehow thinking that if enough "evidence" (physical, or philosophical) is given, then the non-Christian will somehow become convinced. A rather man-centered apologetic for a man-centered theology.
When I first was watching the video, I thought that he would address presuppositionalism as a method but he never actually does. He talks about atheistic presuppositions, but never delves any deeper. The purpose of the video was to answer this question: "What role does one's philosophical assumptions play in doing historical research, particularly related to the resurrection of Jesus?" Now, to be fair, Dr Craig wasn't asked to address the issue of presuppositionalism directly, only the narrower question of how one's presuppositions affect how one does historical research for the NT. But what he says is a reflection of his apologetic method and his Arminian theology.
Here are some key statements within the video, and my interactions: "I think that one's philosophical presuppositions will be an important guide in doing historical work with respect to the NT narratives because these narratives overtly present a supernatural Jesus.... and if you come to these narratives with a presupposition of .... naturalism... that is to say, that as a historian, you will not allow supernatural causes to enter the picture, then these events will be ruled out of court, in advance regardless of the evidence. I think that this is fundamentally the problem with the methodology employed by the infamous Jesus seminar..... the first pillar of scholarly wisdom (as they put it) is scientific naturalism. .... anything that had supernatural aspects to it was by definition relegated to myth rather than history, now this is not a matter of argument, it's not a matter of evidence. This is simply a matter of definition... The supernatural is defined as being in the category of mythical, not historical. And if you begin with those sorts of presuppositions then of course the resurrection will be evaluated as un-historical because you have defined it as un-historical. .... they (Jesus seminar) think of the risen of Christ as not a historical individual and this is done so not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of presuppositions. .... the degree to which one will be ready to trust these documents (gospels) depends more upon one's openness to a supernatural worldview than it does upon their literary and historical qualities. So I think this is absolutely crucial and ... philosophically, I see no reason to adopt such a philosophical naturalism. It seems to me that only an atheist could be justified in saying that miracles are impossible because unless you have some proof of atheism, you have to be open to the possibility that God exists, and if that is even possible, then it is possible that He's acted in history. So in the absence of any proof for atheism, which I don't think anyone has, we have to be open to the possibility of the supernatural and let the evidence speak for itself."
------------------------------
WLC: "I think that one's philosophical presuppositions will be an
important guide in doing historical work with respect to the NT
narratives because these narratives overtly present a supernatural
Jesus.... and if you come to these narratives with a presupposition of
.... naturalism... that is to say, that as a historian, you will not
allow supernatural causes to enter the picture, then these events will
be ruled out of court, in advance regardless of the evidence."
CSL: In the beginning Dr. Craig rightly recognizes that one's presupposition of naturalism, by definition, will eliminate anything inherently supernatural. I appreciate that he made it very clear that this would happen regardless of any evidence that "proves" otherwise.
WLC: "I think that this is fundamentally the problem with the
methodology employed by the infamous Jesus seminar..... the first pillar
of scholarly wisdom (as they put it) is scientific naturalism."
CSL: Yes.. I agree.
WLC: " .... anything that had supernatural aspects to it was by definition
relegated to myth rather than history, now this is not a matter of
argument, it's not a matter of evidence. This is simply a matter of
definition... The supernatural is defined as being in the category of
mythical, not historical. And if you begin with those sorts of
presuppositions then of course the resurrection will be evaluated as
un-historical because you have defined it as un-historical."
CSL: Here is where I run into problems with Dr. Craig's formulations. I agree with him when he says that (due to the naturalistic presuppositions) that anything supernatural is by definition relegated to myth rather than history.. He goes on to say that the issue behind their unbelief in supernatural is simply a "matter of definition."
It is true that there is a matter of definition involved in this issue. However, the problem is much deeper than mere definitions or simply understanding that this is a myth vs. history problem. It is much deeper than simply defining super-naturalism in the correct way.
The real problem involves consistently understanding that the naturalist worldview that it will want to purposely deny anything supernatural. This absolute denial is manifested by defining supernaturalism as a myth. In other words, the presupposition of naturalism isn't only involving wrongly defined terms, but an intentional and willful disregard for supernatural things. This is a little bit more fleshed out in my discussions on Rom 1 below.
WLC: " .... they (Jesus seminar)
think of the risen of Christ as not a historical individual and this is
done so not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of
presuppositions. "
CSL: Dr Craig makes an interesting statement here, and this statement presupposes that the problem of unbelief by the Jesus seminar can be solved simply by somehow convincing the Jesus seminar that they need to simply look at the evidence and that this will somehow overcome their presuppositions.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that how one understands the evidence presented to him is an indication of what his worldview is, not that they (worldview and interpretation of the evidence) are two separate things.
WLC: ".... the degree to which
one will be ready to trust these documents (gospels) depends more upon
one's openness to a supernatural worldview than it does upon their
literary and historical qualities. So I think this is absolutely crucial
and ... philosophically, I see no reason to adopt such a philosophical
naturalism."
CSL: This is by far one of the weakest points in Dr Craig's mini-lecture. I am glad that he recognizes that people's unwillingness to trust the historical reliability of the gospels (and by extension, unwillingness to believe) is an issue regarding worldviews and presuppositions.
However, he then incredibly just dismisses this issue of worldviews (and therefore the presuppositions that generate those worldviews) and simply says that he finds no reason to believe in naturalism.
What is going on here? Why such a casual dismissal? This is implicitly answered in the very last part below.
WLC: "It seems to me that only an
atheist could be justified in saying that miracles are impossible
because unless you have some proof of atheism, you have to be open to the possibility that God exists, and if that is even possible, then it is possible that He's acted in history. CSL: It seems that he is contradicting himself here. This first sentence doesn't make any sense at all. Atheists will never have any proof of their atheism. Therefore, they can never be justified in saying that miracles are impossible. I think that he had a "brain fart" in that first sentence.
WLC: So in the absence of any proof for atheism, which I don't think anyone has, we have to be open to the possibility of the supernatural and let the evidence speak for itself." CSL: Yes, while atheists don't have any actual proof of their atheism, but even with the atheist's own alleged proof of his atheism, that "proof" isn't the reason that he is an atheist. The issue is the total depravity in his heart and mind have been completely corrupted due to the sin nature that he inherited from Adam. And from that sin nature, his worldview is therefore corrupted. Even if the atheist acknowledges that he has no proof of his atheism, he will never, on his own volition, be open to the supernatural, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. Dr Craig's assumption is that once we expose to an atheist that he as no proof for his atheism, it isn't that much of a leap to getting him ***on his own volition*** to be open to the possibility of the supernatural. This line of thinking denies the reality of total depravity in man's heart. And this is not surprising given the fact that Dr Craig is a staunch Arminian. Another big picture issue is the troubling remarks that he makes regarding that one must be open to the possibility that God exists. It is a FACT and a revealed TRUTH that the Triune God exists, and that the atheist does not acknowledge this (or more precisely, suppresses that innate knowledge and revelation, Rom. 1) is irrelevant to how we should be preaching the revealed truth of the Bible. It is not that it is possible that God acted in history, or that He does exist, it is an inviolable certainty that He actually did act and that He does exist. And for one to start with the presupposition that He may or may not exist (as does all Arminian apologetics), this is to deny how the Bible starts with the fact that God exists and this then places the non-believer in the judge's seat to examine the "evidence" and make a determination himself as to whether God exists or not. How is allowing a non-Christian the opportunity to "decide" whether or not the evidence is convincing being honoring to God as the true judge over all? The problems that were present in Dr Craig's mini-lecture really boils down to several other key things: 1)While he is keenly aware of the atheist's presuppositions, in this lecture specifically, and as a reflection of his larger apologetical methodology, he never deals with those presuppositions. It seems amazing to me that in this very short lecture, his best argument against the atheist presuppositions is simply to convince the unbeliever to be open to the possibility of the supernatural by attempting to get him to seem more "evidence" and that will somehow win over the atheist. From a biblical and apologetical standpoint, the unbeliever already does knows that God exists. Romans 1 tells us that all men have clearly been shown who God is: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" God has been clearly seen, and all men are without excuse. There is no need to provide any evidence to the natural man. The task then becomes to show the natural man that he already does believe in God and that it is only through his belief in God can he think, assign meaning and logic and order to anything. At that point, it is understood that his understanding that God exists has been suppressed for so long. "For the wrath of
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"
2) With Rom 1 in mind, again, there is no need to provide the unbeliever with more evidence. And in fact, the motive behind throwing evidence upon evidence to the unbeliever is to attempt to prove to him that God exists. Why would God need to prove to any man that He exists, esp. in light of Rom 1? And esp. in light of the fact that attempting to "prove" to someone that God exists means that you are attempting to "vindicate" God through that man. Now, that man becomes the judge and not God. It is this natural man that needs to submit to the Lord by our showing him that he cannot exist at all without God being presupposed. The intent behind this is to show that he must submit to the Lord Jesus Christ because if he doesn't, his life is one big disobedient and inconsistent, contradictory and meaningless existence.
3) Finally, since Dr. Craig's approach never deals with the core foundational presuppositions of natural man because he never addresses them either in this video or in his apologetic in general, it is only through the methodology of presuppositional apologetics that the natural man can ever be confronted with his utter defiance of God, and his utter inconsistency of wanting to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to say that God does not exist.
I find attending presbytery meetings to be very enjoyable. In the past, I have heard many pastors bemoan how it is "that time again" when they have to muddle through yet another boring presbytery meeting. Perhaps because they feel that they are so busy with their own local church stuff. For me, I like big picture stuff, I like top level interactions and the 30,000 ft view.. And this is what presbytery does (well, at least at the 30,000 ft regional view... GA would be the 100,000 ft view)... 
On American Vision, Dr. Joel McDurmon posted an article here about the health care law. 
I recently came across this somewhat old video of William Lane Craig (with no white hair and full beard!) in which he talks about presuppositionalism, atheism, and apologetics. I have always been somewhat perplexed (well, not really) as to why Arminians don't use presuppositional apologetics. Video is below.