Journal - Day 5 02/15/2003 
Audio:
Dr. Ravi Zacharias - 2 definitions of Atheism
Journals:
The journals were worse. How they could be worse is hard to say, but they were worse. It appears they looked for a question they could ask, somewhere, and there you be. One question, a definition. "What does autonomy mean?". There you go, a journal is done for the week.
Well, the youth will live up to my expectations, which is obvious to how well they listen and take every thing I tell them as if it were gospel, and so the problem is mine. I must determine how to motivate them to pour more of themselves into the journals. I could forgive the poor journals if they poured themselves into discussions, but they aren't contributing there, either. Just asking questions so I, the teacher, can answer.
When one asked what the "Westminster Confession" was, I should have assigned the question to them as homework so they could answer it for us on the following week. The same should have been done with the question on what "autonomy" was. Maybe...
Well, I didn't, so they are my babies for this week. 
Questions Asked:
Discussions:
From the Audio, we have "2 Definitions of Atheism" by Dr Ravi Zacharias. They are ...
- Atheism is the deliberate, definite, dogmatic, denial of the existence of God. The absolute denial of the absolute.
- Atheist is a person who maintains the statement "God Exists" is FALSE. Rejects belief in God.
I tried to explain to the students how important it was to be clear on our definitions. If an Atheist philosopher and an Christian philosopher debate, the first thing they debate about is their definitions. The Christian philosopher will quote different sources to define what an Atheist is. The Atheist will do their best to avoid the definition Dr. Ravi gave us and hold to a different definition of Atheism. The definition they prefer is ...
Can you see the difference in the positions? How can you PROVE to me that God does not Exist? I'll make this even easier. How could you prove "God is not walking about on earth right now." To do so, you would have to know what God looks like, and then check out every nook and cranny in the entire world, realizing that as you pass though one continent, you could not prove God just walked into the country you just finished examining.... Got a hint as to the problem? Before you can say God doe not exist, you have to know what and who God is so you can know they do not exist. It doesn't take long to get yourself in a logical box without any escape.
Now, if the Atheist can move the debate based upon our second definition, their position is much easier. In this case, the Atheist puts their finger in their ears and complain no one has provided enough evidence that God exists and someone or God needs to prove God's existence. Put another way, instead of "God does NOT exists" they claim atheism means "God has not been PROVED to exist". Also, if you ever listened to the debates, they may profess to believe in the second definition (help me in my disbelief), but they debate from the position and attitude of the former (no way Hosea!).
To help describe how Church doctrine could be considered equal with the Bible we went with prayer before meals analogy. We started with what was a good idea and moved on from there to how it could become Church and finally, Christian law to always pray before every meal. We talked about the good intentions with the need for guidance and their eventual outcome.
When reasons for the Church to receive equal billing with the Bible, one student observed it allowed politics to be avoided, or, it allowed for the curtailment of discussion. With a little probing, we decided in the absence of discussion, poor decision can be made which enable additional poor decisions.
I wish I had a good example of a Church position which seemed to be outlandish but, if we could look at all the incremental steps, see how things could turn out as they did. Anyone have an example? Thinking.....
Discussion of John Wycliffe and the Bible being the Supreme Authority fell flat. :(
One student wished to know what Thesis were. Martin Luther nailed 95 of them up on the church door in Wittenborg, you know. These were described as 95 points of view which Martin disagreed with. Roget's looks like a fair source having an explanation in which I believe is closest to our meaning...
[Something taken to be true without proof: assumption, postulate, postulation, premise, presupposition, supposition, theory. See REASON . 2. A hypothetical controversial proposition: contention, contestation. See OPINION . 3. A thorough, written presentation of an original point of view: dissertation.]
One student noted Martin did a great amount of writing which brought up a point missed by the book. When Martin was hid away, it was not mentioned where to or the ramification of such on Martin. Martin was in self imposed house arrest in Wartburg Castle because if he left the premises, his whereabouts would become known. He was there for 8 months which is just how long it took him to translating the entire New Testament into German!
Assignments:
Plan for Next Week:
Assignments:
[How the Confession Came to be Written In 1646 In 1642 the English Parliament and King Charles became embroiled in civil war. Parliament championed a Puritan reformation of the English church, an expanding middle class and a germinal beginning of representative democracy, while the king's forces supported Anglo-Catholicism, feudal nobility and the divine right of kings to arbitrary rule. This monarchism impelled thousands of Puritans to migrate to North America beginning in 1620. Because of unresolved differences between the two factions, a second civil war ensued. The second war drove a wedge between those parliamentarians who continued to seek a resolution with the monarchy and those who desired its utter overthrow. During the second civil war uncompromising men gained control over Parliament. Aided with the military leadership of parliamentarian Oliver Cromwell, Parliament a second time defeated the forces of King Charles. This second defeat led to the king's execution authorized by those assuming an uncompromising attitude then in control of the "Rump" Parliament.
At the beginning of the first civil war the Calvinistically oriented Parliament called for an assembly of theologians to gather from across England, Wales, Ireland and neighboring Scotland to prepare a Reformed confession of faith and a uniform church government. With Parliament's call 98 British and 11 Scottish Reformed theologians and two dozen parliamentary representatives gathered at Westminster Abbey in London. Reflective of church/state relations of the era, Parliament planned to pass laws implementing these Reformed principles on the whole nation of England replacing the Anglo Catholicism imposed on the realm by the Stuart monarchy. Meeting in 1642 and concluding in 1648, these representative Calvinistic Puritans of Anglican, Presbyterian and Congregational orientation prepared the Westminster Confession and several other key documents of continuing use to the church. Work on the Confession began in the summer of 1645 and concluded in the autumn of 1646
http://www.presbypress.com/history.htm]
Whew! That was a big explanation. Want it shorter?
Reformation leaders gathered together in Westminster, England to hash out "What they believe?". Out of this people could better articulate what it means to be a Reformation (fundamentalist) Christian.
In keeping with the fine tradition of a conference where Christian scholars could gather and hash out their ideas, we have the NACC (North America Christian Convention) and, in Westminster, for a few days each year since 1950, we have an ongoing Westminster Conference.
Day 5 - Chapter 4 - The Reformation
After considering this question later, I don't believe we addressed the real question which was asked. We thought we were dealing with the question, but I suspect we had the wrong take. The key point we missed was "still going on". We answered the question as if the Middle Ages came to an end and the Renaissance and the Reformation started at the same time, each going down a different side of the roof (watershed principle).
Actually, the student was absolutely correct in that the Renaissance began while norther Europe was still, basically, in the Middle Ages. The cultural changes which were happening in the south happened in the south and not over all of Europe at the same time.
Certainly, looking at a map, one might presume any cultural changes which occur in any part of Europe to be true over all of Europe. This does not take into consideration mountain ranges and other natural barriers. Is it any accident the Roman Empire did not go far north of current Italy? The Alps do separate an old Europe without modern rail and airplanes as to the Balkans in Eastern Europe. How long did the Cumberland, Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountains impede cultural changes going on in the US?
That said, there was a very good reason for the author to point out who were contemporaries of Calvin, Luther, and other leaders of the Reformation. When it came time for those in the north to address the same wrongs which motivated the south (Renaissance), they also had the advantage of "hind sight". The could see the fruits of the Renaissance movement and assess how well it addressed the wrongs originally sought to fix.
History. The study of "His Story" with the intent of learning from "His" mistakes.
Now wouldn't the north have been foolish to have had an opportunity to observe the south and hear how Leonardo Di Vinci predicted the Renaissance was not going to be able to provide any answers, and then they would rush right down the same path? So, they did not go down the same paths. They chose another path. One where God was antonymous and not man.
You know, we should also take a like at the of visual time line of dichotomies.
Here is another perspective.
Who were the people who molded opinion in the south but non-Christian or, at least, non-church leaders. They looked at the problems in the Church and tossed it all out and start over.
In the north, it was Church leaders who looked at what was going on in the Church and determined to clean it up.
Day 5 - Chapter 4 - The Reformation
[Sin wounds but does not destroy nature. And likewise Grace "builds on nature". Since nature was determined by God "in the beginning" at creation and since no one is maintaining that God re-created or uncreated after the fall of man, whatever "state" of human nature may exist, it must be understood within, not outside of, that original creation and must deal with that nature inherent in every creature as it came forth from the creating hand of God. Fallen humanity is still humanity. If it were any different, it would not be humanity at all, but rather something else. In other words, human nature after the fall, at least in relation to its creation did not differ from before the fall.
Fr. Rosario Thomas ]
The "Fall" is Adam and Eve being sent out of Eden because of their sin.
[23So the LORD God banished Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden, and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made. 24After banishing them from the garden, the LORD God stationed mighty angelic beings to the east of Eden. And a flaming sword flashed back and forth, guarding the way to the tree of life.
Genesis 3:23-24]
But, the underlying question is quite a bit more involved. A very enlightening question. Why are there differences of opinion concerning the FALL and what are they. There are several issues which not everyone agrees about concerning the "Fall".
As the leading quote suggested, there is an issue of "Free Will". Do we have "Free Will" or do we not? If we have no "Free Will" then everything is "determined". The second major issue if man is good or not. That is, are we born as sinful with perhaps something called "Original Sin", or are we all born good but just find ourselves out of Eden because of Adam and Eve.
As we saw from our studies so far is the Renaissance travelled down the Humanist road. The Humanist philosophy has a lot of problems, but these questions listed are not part of them. The Renaissance / Humanist believes only we, ourselves, determine what is right or wrong so we can always be good, free of blame and guilt and therefore in no need of redemption.
Somewhat simplistic answer, but you should be getting the idea. What would be the implication be?
Now, concerning this "Free Will", we'll get into that subject more fully at a later time.
Augustine's believed that, after the "Fall", humans need God's help for every good act of choice. This help is grace, not a right or deserved, but a free gift. Our man Thomas Aquinas redefined the "Fall" as a "Fall" of the physical body or will and not of our mind, which is the intangible part. Our bodies are weak and but our minds are sharp as a razor and able to determine the truth of all things?
Day 5 - Chapter 4 - The Reformation
American Heritage: A complete or radical severance of closely connected things.
Day 5 - Chapter 4 - The Reformation
[To be autonomous is to be a law to oneself; autonomous agents are self-governing agents
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy]
Mr. Kant says morality seems to us to be universal and categorical. That is, if we believe we are morally obligated not to lie in a particular incident, we don't perceive we are the only one who holds to this belief. In fact, we believe our community, our associates, and our entire society believe in the same moral standard.
Now why did I bring up Immanuel Kant and his concerns about morality? Autonomy is crucial in determining the source of morality.
- Does morality come from a moral law giver?
- Does morality come from our own code of ethics (we being autonomous)?
- Does morality come from laws provided by government?
- Does morality come from those standards of behavior we grew up with and were taught?
- Does morality come from some innate quality each of us has?
Ah, you asked the question and I told you what Autonomy was. You answer the follow up questions.
Day 5 - Chapter 4 - The Reformation