I would say he severely misunderstands logic. Logic is a universally applied discipline. Logic is the discipline of pursuing reasonable & consistent thought. Anyone who is against logic is against thinking reasonably.

---

Proof that logic is not just a western idea?

---

Mathematics and science are built on the idea of consistently. The principle of A + B will give me C results. A Muslim invented algebra! For one to abandon logic they must also abandon mathematics and science which both require logic to function. The person's issue is not with logic it is with philosophical logic. The issue is they have contrary beliefs that they are emotionally attached to even though reasonably they make no sense. The issue isn't with logic, it is with the desire to be driven by ones emotions rather than intellect.

---

Can I prove the person isn't against logic?

---

Yes, does this person brush their teeth? Why? Do they believe if they brush their teeth that it will prevent cavities? Behold, logic at work! No human being can reject logic and still function as a human being. One of the things that separate us from other creatures is our sentients. To be able to reason is one of the things that make us human. He is not just rejecting philosophical logical. At the end of the day he is rejecting his humanity! Hope this helps. Thoughts in a nutshell :^). I'll deal with this question more in depthly on my podcast, go subscribe! https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/coram-deo/id963018449?mt=2

View more

Hey! Good question. Karl Barth had an extremely high view of God. The sections in his works dealing with the Doctrine of God are Spectacular. Some of the best you will ever read!

---

His areas of weakness were primarily in the areas of inerrancy & salvation. Ironically, he had trouble reconciling his High view of God with the possibility of Inerrant "written" revelation. In some sense, Barth believed God is too transcendent to have his word confined to the written word". That is certainly an over-simplification but is kind of the gist. As it relates to the Work of Christ, many scholars believe Barth was a Universalist. If you read his writings, his logic definitely leads there, but throughout his life he insisted that he wasn't. Barth was neo-orthodox. He rejected his Theologically liberal training and embraced many elements of Evangelicalism. Unfortunately, he tried to wed elements of the two together and on a foundational level, they are diametrically opposed to one another. This led to great inconsistencies within Barth's theology. I do absolutely think he was a believer but he did have his serious errors. I would absolutely recommend Barth on the Doctrine of God. He is good on the Doctrine and work of Christ but he gets weird and should be read with caution there. His understanding of scripture is wrong but it is extremely interesting how he develops it.

View more

Thanks for your feedback! I'm glad you found my answer helpful. My goal in answering the question was to avoid the simple (Anti-Gospel) rhetoric that has been occurring regarding Lent and actually dealing with the more foundational issue that is often overlooked. The issue of motivation. There are many things in the Christian life that are neutral. Much of what we do really does come down to the motivation or heart's intent behind why we are doing it. That is the crux of Biblical Counseling, to help a person come to see what heart motivations are causing the issues in their life and helping them to repent where necessary and re-orient their hearts. When it comes to Lent, I think it's possible but extremely difficult to have a motivation in practicing it that is sound. It is very much possible but unlikely. I think when we ask questions that deal with the motivations of our heart we can generally find areas where we are given over to "Religious Traditionalism" that separates our lives into secular and sacred practices. The Christian life however is all sacred. When this is understood, Lent becomes just a series of days that are lived faithfully rather than a season of "extra-spiritual days of fasting". Hope that makes sense and is helpful. Grace & Peace!

View more

Very interesting question. I do not think the burden to reconcile the two is necessary. I do not see the tension between the two at all. Unless one is to assert that mentally disabled people are in some way less than human, the issue of the Imago Dei and mental disability are not in contrast. In fact, it is the understanding of the Imago Dei that actually protects and treasures the inherent value of the mentally disabled person. Any other system of thought must either borrow capital from Christianity or believe that the mentally disabled are a nuisance to humanity. The consistent atheist would see the mentally disabled as needing to be disposed of as they are weak and are holding back evolutionary advancement. Most world religions would see them as cursed by God and under his judgment. It is the Christian who looks at the mentally disabled and can say that despite their mental disabilities, they are precious and valuable beyond measure because they are made in the image of God. Now much can be said about what the "imago dei" is and why it isn't lost within a mentally disabled person. Given this context, suffice it to say that it relates to way more than a person's intellectual faculties. The Imago Dei speaks primarily of the relationship man has to God and not man's abilities within himself. Man is the only being that God has "covenanted" with. Again, when most people think Imago Dei, they automatically assume man's sentience as being the defining marker of it. I would argue that it definitely plays a role but more deeply the Imago Dei relates to man & God's relationship to one another, specifically in the form of covenant. This is a very complex issue and unfortunately this medium isn't the best format to discuss it at length.

---

So if Mental Disability and the Imago Dei are not at odds, then what aspect of Christian Theology speaks towards Mental Disability? I would argue it is the understanding of "Biblical Anthropology" or the Doctrine of Man. Man was made as the crowning achievement of God's created Order. However, When Adam sinned, death in all its forms came into the world. All sickness, disease, and infirmities are the direct result of the fall. Mental Disability exists because sin, sickness, and death exist. As some people are born with physical disabilities, others can be born with psychological ones. Now there are a lot of psychological diagnosis within modern medicine which are actually spiritual issues but there are also mental disabilities which are truly physiological. These disabilities are the effect of the fall and people are born with disabilities not because they are cursed but because all of nature is under a curse and they are a part of nature. Until they repent and believe, they are enemies of God. When they repent and believe, their infirmities may still exist but they are promised a glorified state in Christ in which no infirmities will exist as Jesus rules as the sinless last Adam on the New Earth.

View more

I think topical sermons done rightly are always okay. There as been an emphasis on expository preaching that I think is good and healthy. However, a lot of young men have taken the idea to an extreme and have asserted that it is the ONLY way to preach. I disagree and church history disagrees with me. I absolutely believe that a church needs a steady diet of expositional preaching. If a man is going to shepherd a congregation, he should do so expositionally. If a man is to preach, he is to proclaim the word of God. That very well may be a topical sermon. Jesus' Sermon On The Mount was not an expositional sermon, neither is The Book of Hebrews. They are both Biblically saturated and are the expounding of Scirpture but they aren't verse by verse exposition. I don't think there is anything wrong with preaching a topical sermon. It just needs to be done right (preached grounded, saturated, and overflowing with the scriptures. I would say preach what you think will edict. If there is a specific text you want to expound, go for it! If there are several verses you want to expound and handling them more topically will better serve the young men, do it! Hope his helps

View more

I think the big issue is with Catholics who use Lent as a means of justifying themselves before God. I don't think Lent has to be that however. I think Lent can be practiced by evangelical (Gospel) Christians as a season of reflection and self-denial and in so being, a season of cultivating their spirituality. If a Christian seeks to practice Lent in the way I just described, my question would be why.

---

The Christian life as a whole is to be one of self-reflection. fasting should be a part of the normal Christian life. Lent practiced by Protestant Christians can be like a Spiritual Valentine's Day. Have you ever browsed The Greeting Card section of your local Super Market during Valentine's Day? The most common card is one that says, "I know I don't say I love you enough but..." In my marriage, Valentine's Day is just another day because as a pattern of life I am called to Woo my wife not just one day a year. Don't get me wrong, my wife gets flowers on Valentine's Day and she gets a romantic dinner as well. She also experienced those things a few weeks prior. Similarly, the discipline of fasting which is practiced during Lent is to be one that marks the Christian life. If a saint is feeling the need to practice Lent, even in an evangelical (Gospel-central) way, the concern is why do they feel the need? Are they playing spiritual catch up with fasting? The desire to practice Lent by evangelicals may be a result of lack of Spiritual vitality through every other season of their life as it relates to fasting. I do not think Lent is inherently wrong. I do think it can help a Christian in their walk. It can also play as a diagnostic upon a saints soul regarding their spiritual vitality. I think Lent for Catholics is anti-Gospel. I think Lent for Evangelicals is unnecessary if they are practicing a robust Christian life. Those are my thoughts in a nutshell. I welcome push back and any additional comments for clarification. Trace and peace!

View more