I heard this author, Budziszewski, interviewed on Hank Hanagraff's show "The Bible Answer Man" (syndicated on Christian radio stations) with Hank predictably giving him lavish praise.
While I am an evangelical Christian, and agree with his conclusions, Budziszewski is long on reasons, and short on scripture. He reminded me what you might hear a Roman Catholic theologian argue, mainly from natural law, NOT from the Bible.
For example, his reasoning against homosexual marriage is that marriage is meant for children, and since homosexual relationships are by nature sterile, it makes them wrong. Good conclusion, and reasonble, but... no mention of the Bible in that--despite various verses that describe the meaning of marriage (how about in a perfect creation God saying, "It is not good that man is alone..." (Gen. 2 )).
When a woman called in to say she and her husband couldn't have children, asking if her marriage was therefore invalid, Budziszewski was befuddled....as it didn't fit the paradigm. Why doesn't he just go to Levitical law and also New Testament commands? Those never mention that THE main reason for marriage is children, but they clearly mention that homosexual relations are an abomination.
Any moral reasoning must be anchored in the Bible first...then possible reasons can be reasonably figured (for example yes, marriage is the right place for children, and of course A reason for it...but scripture never calls it THE reason), as we know scripture is God's word, His revelation, to mankind. I can't get excited about a Protestant Evangelical scholar who goes back to Natural Law and reasoning, when scripture is plain in and of itself, and cannot be argued against.
What reason can do, reason can also undo, therefore I'm not thrilled with Dr. Budziszewski.
snip...I can't get excited about a Protestant Evangelical scholar who goes back to Natural Law and reasoning, when scripture is plain in and of itself, and cannot be argued against.
While what you say is true, it's also true that Budziszewski is following in CS Lewis's footsteps in that like Lewis, he's learning to frame responses, reasoning, etc. in secular language and not in Biblical language. This is because so very many Americans today have never been to church and have never read the Bible. Therefore, if you base your responses and/or arguments upon the Bible and the authority of God to these sorts of people it is to them as though you've just said...."Because Superman said so in his Superman comic book."
It could be therefore that Budziszewski hasn't fully reasoned out every Biblical issue into secular terms. Also, he was an atheist, so he no doubt is still journeying towards the Truth.
Seems nothing wrong with backing up the Word of God with reasoning. All truth is God's truth. Why not base what we believe on the Bible, then explain it with reasoning? Reasoning is just drawing conclusions from evidence.
It seems obvious that men and women were designed for each other, just at we sometimes speak of the "male" part of an electric cord and the "female" plug. Two men together cannot by definition experience sex because there is no coupling of organs.
Well spoken. Though reason is sometimes rooted in Scripture, a lot of times those who use it do not realize where it comes from.
Once we depart from Scripture as our basis for right/wrong, we can only wait until someone with stronger reasoning powers comes along to defeat our arguments.
I found this...
When a woman called in to say she and her husband couldn't have children, asking if her marriage was therefore invalid, Budziszewski was befuddled....as it didn't fit the paradigm.
...quite interesting. Even when one is operating from reason alone, one could say, "Your marriage is valid because we're talking about models and intent. The intent of marriage was to provide a stable, loving and joyous environment for procreation. Just because you can't procreate doesn't mean it's not a marriage, you're still staying as close to the model as you're able. If the suspension on a four-wheel drive truck is broken and it can't go off-road, that doesn't mean it wasn't intended to go off-road, or that it's no longer a four wheel drive truck." And as far as the Bible goes, there's not just the prohibitions against homosexuality, but also the fact that one of the intents of marriage for the Christian is to serve as a model for Christ's relationship with the Church. One doesn't need to have children to exemplify that model.
Ever hear Greg Koukl (www.str.org)? Really sharp guy. I heard him asked that question on an interview, and found his answer helpful.
He said, "I write my books to be read. That's my designed purpose for every book I write. Now, that doesn't mean that some people don't use them as doorstops or paperweights; but that doesn't change the fact that I wrote them to be read."
Having said that, I agree with your main point. Our direction of reasoning shouldn't be, "Well, God said _____, and so I thought it over, and decided I'd go along with the Big Guy on that one." When Eve believed she had the right to determine for herself whether God was right or wrong about the fruit, the Fall was a done deal.
God is the one Being in the universe whose every word morally obliges consent.
But that doesn't mean (and I don't take it that you are arguing) that there is anything inappropriate with reasoning thus: "Given that God says ______, what can we discern about the wisdom we know lies behind that word?" Nine times out of ten, we can find a lot. But our obligation on the tenth is no less than on the nine.
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
Biblical Christianity BLOG
"Any moral reasoning must be anchored in the Bible first...then possible reasons can be reasonably figured"
That's precisely what Budziszewski did. He came to the conclusion first -- not second -- then used moral reasoning to determine why that conclusion must be true. I'm not sure what this guy has done wrong.