Here’s a short excerpt from the book I am writing:
Possibly the best illustration of this aspect of justification is in the 2001 film A Knight’s Tale, starring Heath Ledger as William, a thatcher’s son who takes on the totally fictitious persona of Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein so he can participate in jousting tournaments, which are limited to proven nobility. He makes it to the finals, only to have his identity revealed by his nemesis, the evil Count Adhemar. Following the revelation of “Ulrich’s” true identity, William is arrested and put into the stocks, as he should have been; he was, after all, guilty of fraud. He knows, and accepts this.
Suddenly, Prince Edward (son of the King, the Prince of Wales), steps out from the crowd to proclaim that per his personal historians, William is indeed descended “from an ancient noble line,” and is then, a nobleman. If this weren’t enough, Edward adds, “This is my word, and as such, is beyond contestation.” He then proceeds to knight William under his real name: Sir William Thatcher.
Like William, we are frauds, guilty under the Law, and deserving of punishment. Our accuser reminds us of that daily. However, here’s the kicker: Jesus, our Prince, makes this proclamation: “You are noble. You are a child of the King. This is my word, and as such, is beyond contestation.” If anyone but Prince Edward (except for his father, the King) had made such a proclamation, William would have continued to live in doubt and fear. However, by the Prince’s declaration, even William himself couldn’t contest his nobility. This is our case as well. Jesus has proclaimed our justification, our freedom and our nobility, and we ourselves do not have the right to contest it!
We are free before the Law. Not only that – we’ve been adopted into the King’s family, and “knighted” (sealed with the Holy Spirit and attested to in baptism) as proof. The Law has been satisfied, we are declared righteous, we are made royalty, and it has all been done in the open, in sight of our accuser. (c) Copyright 2009 Alden Swan, all rights reserved
Justification is the crux of Christianity, although most Christians don’t understand the concept whatsoever. For more on the subject, you can read here and here.
In recent comments to a prior post, my friend Mike once again raised the issue of whether religion was compatible with science (or vice versa). With incredibly perfect timing, Bradley Monton (who I have identified in the past as one of my favorite atheists for his very open and honest views) authored a post that is right on point, Bias in academia. The post is relevant on 2 fronts: First, it addresses the issue of “bias in academia” (obviously a very appropriate title), this time referring to philosophy as opposed to science. His brief comments on this issue speak for themselves, so I suggest you head over there (when you’re done here) and read them.
Monton’s post was motivated by the introduction to a live-blog review of a debate between atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett, known for his pro-evolution, anti-religion views, and Alvin Plantinga, a well-known Christian philosopher who the author identifies as “one of the finest epistemologists of the last fifty years and one of the finest philosophers of religion since the Medieval period.” At the debate, Plantinga presented a paper on the issue of whether theism was compatible with science. Dennett was there to respond.
I was pleased that Plantinga opened by stating that Theism is not incompatible with science, it is incompatible with naturalism, a point that I’ve raised (it’s always nice to know that you agree with really smart guys). And, Dennett, for the most part, agreed. Of note, Dennett said:
- Evolution is compatible with theism
- We don’t have to have a conception of randomness that is incompatible with theism
- The theistic hypothesis can’t be refuted
- Contemporary evolutionary theory can’t rule out ID
Dennett appears to have behaved exactly like I would have expected him to, and in keeping with much of the science v religion debate that I’ve seen. Overall, he failed to address most of Plantinga’s points, and resorted to ridicule and insults (the comments tended to agree with the reviewer’s assessment). It makes you wonder why he even bothered to show up, except that it did illustrate the current state of the science v religion debate.
