Billy’s His Own Best Critic

Last night I got to go see Billy Joel in concert. It was a great time despite the inevitable disappointment- we would have been there all night had he played all his great songs so something had to be left out. He doesn’t look as young as he used to, but he still is great on stage.

The concert got me thinking about something Francis Schaeffer said in his book How Should We Then Live. He said that art always reflects the philosophy behind it. Althought I don’t think Billy Joel would consider himself a philosopher, his songs do reflect a kind of philosophy toward life.

Let the Bodies Hit the Floor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok4Hv0LQiIA

I’ve always liked this song, but never thought about it this way. I’m stretching to find a category this might fall into, but it’s so awesome, I have to include it in my blog!

To keep it relevant to the blog, I think I’ll mention apologetics. This is what so many people think we are like- and thanks to people like Hinn, we’ve got a lot more ground to cover.

Marilyn on Bias

http://www.parade.com/art…006/Ask_Marilyn

In another exercise in futility, I attempt to correct Marilyn vos Savant- the smartest person in the world.

When asked to explain what bias is, she said:

Think of bias as a learned or emotional predisposition to believe a certain way, regardless of the facts. That’s why bias is so tough to overcome. It weighs heavily on a person’s thinking and warps it accordingly. So one usually is unaware of one’s own biases.

Penn and Teller: A Helping Hand

http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/39460/

Here’s an episode of the Penn and Teller show- “BS”- that the Bible for being fictitious.

CAUTION: Graphic language

Simpsons: No God

http://www.devilducky.com/media/39566/

In this brief clip Homer Simpson accidentally proves that there is no God. Fortunately for the rest of us, Flanders destroys Homer’s proof.

Why does the world find it so easy to believe that Christians would destroy such a thing? Probably because we’ve been such jerks to the world- hateful, arrogant jerks. This just goes to show that apologetics is so much more than proof- it’s about love.

Justification in the Early Church

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/….xiv.xviii.html

Here’s what Schaff has to say about the doctrine of justification in the early church:

The doctrine of the subjective appropriation of salvation, including faith, justification, and sanctification, was as yet far less perfectly formed than the objective dogmas; and in the nature of the case, must follow the latter. If any one expects to find in this period, or in any of the church fathers, Augustin himself not excepted, the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, as the “articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae” be will be greatly disappointed. The incarnation of the Logos, his true divinity and true humanity, stand almost unmistakably in the foreground, as the fundamental truths. Paul’s doctrine of justification, except perhaps in Clement of Rome, who joins it with the doctrine of James, is left very much out of view, and awaits the age of the Reformation to be more thoroughly established and understood. The fathers lay chief stress on sanctification and good works, and show the already existing germs of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the meritoriousness and even the supererogatory meritoriousness of Christian virtue. It was left to modern evangelical theology to develop more fully the doctrines of soteriology and subjective Christianity.

Does this mean the Roman Catholics are right in criticizing the Protestant understanding of justification by faith? Does this give fuel to the New Perspective people who redefine justification in their own, unique way?

Monty Python: The Bishop

http://www.pistolwimp.com/media/47047/

One of the most difficult things to do in apologetics is to actually listen. Supposedly Van Til tried to encourage this by teaching his students to “always buy the next cup of coffee” but we haven’t been listening.

Part of listening includes listening to our culture- so much can be learned by watching TV, movies, or listening to music. Here’s an example from a Monty Python sketch: The Bishop.

LOST in Apologetics

I can’t wait for the season premiere of Lost- in fact, I’m now trying to catch up by watching season 2 of Lost. I’m a big fan for a couple reasons: one, because it’s the only sci-fi show I can get my wife to watch with me (but don’t tell her that it’s sci-fi); and two, because it illustrates the nature of evidence in presuppositional apologetics.

Vincent Cheung- The Justification Controversy

I have made an error, attributing an article to Mr. Cheung when another author wrote it. The irony of the article is that I lambasted Mr. Cheung (even though it was Mr. Robbins) for spreading viscous rumors on the internet and how Christians should be particularly careful when they post things because of the nature of the internet. The internet is the great equalizer- you don’t know if you are reading the writings of an eloquent amateur or an incompetent expert- so you have to be very careful to check your sources and make sure you are telling the truth.

John W. Robbins- The Justification Controversy

http://www.vincentcheung….on-controversy/

Previously I had erroneously attributed this blog entry to Vincent Cheung. Although it was published in Mr. Cheung’s blog, it was actually written by John W. Robbins- a fact I had completely overlooked. I hope Mr. Cheung will accept my apology for mis-characterizing him for saying things he never said.

In this blog, John Robbins attempts to explain that the current debate over the New Perspective on Paul has been going on longer than one might, at first, think. In fact, he ends up blaming Westminster Seminary as the cause of the current debate- specifically attributing it to the theological methodology of Cornelius Van Til.

I couldn’t resist responding to his blog entry (albeit a year old) because it touches on two of my favorite topics- justification and presuppositional apologetics. In fact, as a result, I will finally unveil my new blog category: apologetics.