Some Posts Are Too Important to Link–and Must be Quoted in Full

The link is here.

Having given that, Doug Wilson’s entire post is below:

7 Questions for Those Who Want Money for People With Minds That Hate . . .

Let me get this straight.

1. You are the group that wants drivers working for FedEx and UPS to be unknowingly carrying around boxes with baby parts in them, babies who were killed for the sake of those parts, AND you want to be the enlightened, progressive group?

2. You are the party that wants lab workers to dump baby parts into pie plates, in order to sort through them carefully looking for the valuable bits, AND you want to be the liberals?

3. You are the faction who wants to keep us from showing mothers an ultrasound of their child, in order to keep that child alive, and you want to prevent those same mothers from seeing how you use the ultrasound (to avoid damaging the product), AND you want to be known as the ones in favor of the free flow of information?

4. You want to tell one group of people that we are just dealing with nondescript tissue and such, and you want to tell another group that you have livers, hearts, lungs, and limbs for sale, AND you want to be the party of intellectual consistency and forthrightness?

5. You want to be known as the group that thinks #blacklivesmatter, while you are the leading wholesaler of black people in America today, only you kill them first, with your prices much lower than 19th century prices were, AND you want to be the enlightened ones who are showing the way for us on matters of racial reconciliation?

6. You are the party of women’s rights and you agitate for protection for women, and yet with the exclamation #anotherboy, you reveal that you do in fact know that half of the bodies you are taking to market are female bodies, AND you want to be the feminists?

7. You are the group that has T-shirts reading “care no matter what,” and at the same time you are the merchants who fatten children for market, since 20 weekers bringing in more than the younger ones, AND you don’t want to be the witches straight out of medieval tales?

All I can tell is brother you have to wait.

12 August, 2015

Christianity is Reasonable

“

We are to put on the whole armour of God—for, or because, ‘we wrestle not’ etc. This is one of the most glorious aspects of the Christian faith. You cannot reason yourself into it, but the moment you are in it you find that it is the most reasonable thing in the world, full of understanding, full of explanations. Christianity, unlike so many of the cults, is not merely something which teaches you to persuade yourself in a thoughtless manner. It does not just tell you to say something, and to go on saying it mechanically, whether it be true or not, and whether you feel it or not. That is not Christianity. It always gives reasons.”

The Christian Warfare: An Exposition of Ephesians 6:10–13 (Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 38–39.

12 August, 2015

The Janus-Faced Covenant Breaker

“In fact the ‘free man’ of modern non-Christian thought is Janus-faced. He turns one way and would seem to be nothing but an irrationalist. He talks about the ‘fact’ of freedom. He even makes a pretence of being hotly opposed to the rationalist. With Kierkegaard he will boldly assert that what cannot happen according to logic has happened in fact. Then he turns the other way and would seem to be nothing but a rationalist. Surely, he says, the ‘rational man’ will accept nothing but what has intelligible meaning for him in accord with the law of contradiction. There must be coherence in experience. It is meaningless to talk about the ‘entirely single thing.’ But both in his irrationalist and in his rationalist features, the would-be autonomous man is seeking to defend his ultimacy against the claims of the Christian religion. If he is right as an irrationalist then he is not a creature of God. If he were a creature of God, he would be subject to the law of God. He would thus be ‘rationally related’ to God. He would know that he was a creature of God and that he should obey the law of God. If he is right as a rationalist, then too he is not a creature of God. The law that he then thinks of as above him, he also thinks of as above God; God and he are, for him, subject to a common law. If he were a creature of God, he would grant that what God has determined, and only that, is possible. He would then subject his logical manipulation of ‘reality’ to the revelation of God.

It is this Janus-faced covenant-breaker, then, who must be won for the gospel. It is he who walks the streets of New York and London. And no one but he does. All men are sinners; all are interested in suppressing the fact of their creaturehood. The irrationalist and rationalist have become friends in the face of their common foe. And this common foe is historic Christianity

The implication of all this for Christian apologetics is plain. There can be no appeasement between those who presuppose in all their thought the sovereign God and those who presuppose in all their thought the would-be sovereign man. There can be no other point of contact between them than that of head-on collision. The root of both irrationalism and rationalism is the idea of the ultimacy of man. If this root is not taken out, it will do little good to trim off some of the wildest offshoots of irrationalism with the help of rationalism, or to trim off some of the wildest offshoots of rationalism with the help of irrationalism.”

Cornelius Van Til and Eric H. Sigward, The Pamphlets, Tracts, and Offprints of Cornelius Van Til, Electronic ed. (Labels Army Company: New York, 1997).