Tuesday, April 28, 2009
10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Should Answer
In answering these questions, I would first like to point out that I hold no advanced degrees in philosophy, science or theology. I am just a guy who with an undergraduate degree who can think critically (which is who the video presumed I was). I would also like to point out that the answers to these questions are based upon a Christian worldview. It is not my attempt to defend my worldview or argue for its supremacy while insulting any other as delusional and imaginary. Rather, these are the “weird rationalizations” we Christians must make to dismiss these supposedly difficult to answer questions. It is up to you to judge whether these answers are logical, rational and consistent. To be quite honest though, the questions were quite easy to answer. I guess that the author of this video never really took the time to find the answers to these questions from a Christian perspective. But it is easier to hear only what you want to hear rather than think about what you believe. Or at least that is the accusation this video backhandedly levels against Christianity.
1. Why won’t God heal amputees?
Why won’t he make apples taste like oranges? Why won’t he make the sky turn yellow on leap years? Why won’t he turn crabgrass into chili? The question itself is flawed. How could anyone possibly know why a being, who is completely other and transcendent, does anything he does? I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t seek out answers to our questions (as I will try to do below), but they should at least be legitimate questions. I also am not arguing that God wouldn’t or couldn’t heal an amputee, but rather it is his prerogative whether he does so or not. He does not answer to us and we are not in a position to accuse him of failure given our own inadequacies. As Paul says, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” (Rom 9.20). Does not the potter have the right to do what he pleases to the pot he creates? And if the ideal of God is infinitely good and just and wise, is it absurd for us to trust in his wisdom, justice, and goodness? This ideal of God (who I would argue to be the God of the Bible) is greater than any of our questions. God, through the prophet Isaiah, puts it very well,
“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”
What this means is that we are not nearly as important or as smart as we think we are. We are small and to say that we are not is ignorant and foolish. Just look up on a clear night and try to count the stars. If you can’t do that, try to imagine how big and distant those stars and galaxies are. The Bible says that he determines the number of stars and calls them each by name (Ps 147.4). And we have the audacity to say that we don’t approve of the job he is doing; and we post tiny little videos on YouTube and build websites saying that God should be healing certain people in certain ways because we think that it is a good idea.
Nevertheless, the question has been asked and I will attempt to give it some sort of answer if I can:
The first step is to define the nature and function of God’s miraculous interventions. Primarily, since the question has to do with physical healings, that will be the focal point of biblical examples. However, these principles can be applied to other miraculous occurrences like turning water into wine at a wedding (John 2.1-11) or feeding five thousand people with five loaves of barley bread and two sardine like fish (Matt 14.13-21). This should also give insight into the answers given in questions 4 and 7 which also concern miracles.
Miracles, or signs as they are sometimes called, function as a tool bringing about the revelation of larger truths concerning God. A miracle is an act of “special revelation” (revelation to specific people at specific times). A genuine miracle is an unusual event, accomplishing some useful work, and revealing the purpose and power of God in humanity’s redemption. This is both spiritual and physical redemption since The Fall in Genesis 3 affected humanity both spiritually and physically. Miracles are not a freak exhibition of power, nor are they a magic act meant to dazzle or impress. Particularly, as Jesus performed miracles, they were accompanied many times by a sermon or parable that gave insight into the significance of the miraculous act. Thus, within the context of the teachings we can understand the purposes of the divine healings and vise versa.
In relation to nature, miracles are of two kinds: (1) those in which the natural laws are intensified or augmented, and (2) those in which the natural order is reordered. The former is the type of miracle demonstrated by such things as a man living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and the latter is the type of miracle displayed in events like divine healings. This is based upon the idea that things in this world have different natures which includes their causal dispositions to affect other things in certain ways. This is called the causal disposition theory of natural law. What this means is that things tend to interact with other things in certain ways unless prevented from doing so by some other thing. Natural laws are necessary truths about what causal dispositions are possessed by various natural kinds of things. On this theory, an event that is naturally necessary must and does actually occur, since the natural propensity will automatically issue forth in the event if it is not impeded. By the same token, a naturally impossible even cannot actually occur. Thus it would be wrong to define a miracle as a naturally impossible event. Rather, a miracle is an event that results from causal interface with a stronger (or supernatural) propensity that reorders the typical disposition. This however is an arguable point that does not prove the occurrence of miracles, but gives a rational for the belief in their possibility. Given a God who created the universe, who conserves the world in being, and is capable of acting freely, the idea of the miraculous is plausible. Additionally, even if it is only epistemically plausible that such a transcendent, personal God exists, then it is equally plausible that he has acted miraculously in the universe. For if a transcendent, personal God exists, he could cause events in the universe that could not be produced by causes within the universe. And if this God is a loving and gracious God, then it is likely that he has indeed done so.
So, now we understand that miracles are not a contradiction to natural law, but a reordering of it; and now we know that miracles, by nature are used by God to reveal his presence, power and purpose for humanity in redemption. Then why won’t God heal amputees? It would be useful and merciful for God to initiate cell and tissue growth in an appendage that does not typically have a disposition to regenerate into another arm or leg. He gave that ability to alligators and lizards. So why does he not do so for us as human beings? Of course we don’t need an arm or a leg to survive, think critically, or function as a productive member of society. But lacking one, two, three, or even four limbs doesn’t help matters either. Yet we also know that genuine healings are not random acts of benevolence either. The miracles recorded in the Bible give us insight into God’s plan of redemption. They show us the significance of the cross and the impact of salvation by showing us metaphorically our sinful state (i.e. blind, deaf, & dead), and the work of Jesus to restore us as God’s new creation (2 Cor 5.17). A great biblical example of this is John 9.
In John 9 we learn of a beggar who was born blind and Jesus restores his sight. As he is questioned by the religious professionals, his insight as to who Jesus is grows, and the understanding of the educated, moral, religious people becomes more clouded and skewed. The whole episode shows the reader how God’s wisdom and glory function as he performs miracles (Jn 9.3). There must have been countless cases of people born blind. Even today, this is not uncommon. And yet, as the man says, “Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind” (9.32), at least not until then. Similarly, no amputees, to my knowledge, have ever been healed either. At least up until this point. Why? What if God, in his wisdom, has chosen not to heal any amputees because there has not been a case (in all the millions of cases) where he feels it necessary to reveal himself and his redemptive purpose in that context? What made the account in John’s gospel so unique was that, like all genuine miracles, it was a specific occurrence, for a specific person, at a specific time to reveal a specific message and insight. Maybe God does not want to reveal these things to us yet. He is God and what he wants to demonstrate and reveal to us, is his prerogative. That is why we pray for healings and do not demand them of God.
“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’”
What this means is that we are not nearly as important or as smart as we think we are. We are small and to say that we are not is ignorant and foolish. Just look up on a clear night and try to count the stars. If you can’t do that, try to imagine how big and distant those stars and galaxies are. The Bible says that he determines the number of stars and calls them each by name (Ps 147.4). And we have the audacity to say that we don’t approve of the job he is doing; and we post tiny little videos on YouTube and build websites saying that God should be healing certain people in certain ways because we think that it is a good idea.
Nevertheless, the question has been asked and I will attempt to give it some sort of answer if I can:
The first step is to define the nature and function of God’s miraculous interventions. Primarily, since the question has to do with physical healings, that will be the focal point of biblical examples. However, these principles can be applied to other miraculous occurrences like turning water into wine at a wedding (John 2.1-11) or feeding five thousand people with five loaves of barley bread and two sardine like fish (Matt 14.13-21). This should also give insight into the answers given in questions 4 and 7 which also concern miracles.
Miracles, or signs as they are sometimes called, function as a tool bringing about the revelation of larger truths concerning God. A miracle is an act of “special revelation” (revelation to specific people at specific times). A genuine miracle is an unusual event, accomplishing some useful work, and revealing the purpose and power of God in humanity’s redemption. This is both spiritual and physical redemption since The Fall in Genesis 3 affected humanity both spiritually and physically. Miracles are not a freak exhibition of power, nor are they a magic act meant to dazzle or impress. Particularly, as Jesus performed miracles, they were accompanied many times by a sermon or parable that gave insight into the significance of the miraculous act. Thus, within the context of the teachings we can understand the purposes of the divine healings and vise versa.
In relation to nature, miracles are of two kinds: (1) those in which the natural laws are intensified or augmented, and (2) those in which the natural order is reordered. The former is the type of miracle demonstrated by such things as a man living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and the latter is the type of miracle displayed in events like divine healings. This is based upon the idea that things in this world have different natures which includes their causal dispositions to affect other things in certain ways. This is called the causal disposition theory of natural law. What this means is that things tend to interact with other things in certain ways unless prevented from doing so by some other thing. Natural laws are necessary truths about what causal dispositions are possessed by various natural kinds of things. On this theory, an event that is naturally necessary must and does actually occur, since the natural propensity will automatically issue forth in the event if it is not impeded. By the same token, a naturally impossible even cannot actually occur. Thus it would be wrong to define a miracle as a naturally impossible event. Rather, a miracle is an event that results from causal interface with a stronger (or supernatural) propensity that reorders the typical disposition. This however is an arguable point that does not prove the occurrence of miracles, but gives a rational for the belief in their possibility. Given a God who created the universe, who conserves the world in being, and is capable of acting freely, the idea of the miraculous is plausible. Additionally, even if it is only epistemically plausible that such a transcendent, personal God exists, then it is equally plausible that he has acted miraculously in the universe. For if a transcendent, personal God exists, he could cause events in the universe that could not be produced by causes within the universe. And if this God is a loving and gracious God, then it is likely that he has indeed done so.
So, now we understand that miracles are not a contradiction to natural law, but a reordering of it; and now we know that miracles, by nature are used by God to reveal his presence, power and purpose for humanity in redemption. Then why won’t God heal amputees? It would be useful and merciful for God to initiate cell and tissue growth in an appendage that does not typically have a disposition to regenerate into another arm or leg. He gave that ability to alligators and lizards. So why does he not do so for us as human beings? Of course we don’t need an arm or a leg to survive, think critically, or function as a productive member of society. But lacking one, two, three, or even four limbs doesn’t help matters either. Yet we also know that genuine healings are not random acts of benevolence either. The miracles recorded in the Bible give us insight into God’s plan of redemption. They show us the significance of the cross and the impact of salvation by showing us metaphorically our sinful state (i.e. blind, deaf, & dead), and the work of Jesus to restore us as God’s new creation (2 Cor 5.17). A great biblical example of this is John 9.
In John 9 we learn of a beggar who was born blind and Jesus restores his sight. As he is questioned by the religious professionals, his insight as to who Jesus is grows, and the understanding of the educated, moral, religious people becomes more clouded and skewed. The whole episode shows the reader how God’s wisdom and glory function as he performs miracles (Jn 9.3). There must have been countless cases of people born blind. Even today, this is not uncommon. And yet, as the man says, “Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind” (9.32), at least not until then. Similarly, no amputees, to my knowledge, have ever been healed either. At least up until this point. Why? What if God, in his wisdom, has chosen not to heal any amputees because there has not been a case (in all the millions of cases) where he feels it necessary to reveal himself and his redemptive purpose in that context? What made the account in John’s gospel so unique was that, like all genuine miracles, it was a specific occurrence, for a specific person, at a specific time to reveal a specific message and insight. Maybe God does not want to reveal these things to us yet. He is God and what he wants to demonstrate and reveal to us, is his prerogative. That is why we pray for healings and do not demand them of God.
2. Why are there so many starving children in the world?
The reason that there are so many starving children in the world is because we have all failed. As Christians we have failed to “look after the orphan and the widow in their distress” (James 1.27). Tyrants and warlords have become world leaders and we have ignored the cries of the oppressed. The western church has taken its wealth and affluence and has become gluttonous. A local church today will spend a million dollars on a sound system, and only send one or two people with only a couple thousand dollars on a long term mission. As Christians, we have the greater responsibility to do more about such things and we have failed. Additionally, it is not just Christians who are at fault (although we ought to bear the majority of the blame). How much money do we spend on coffee, junk food, television, music, sports, porn, etc., each year? Billions, maybe even trillions of dollars. And how much do we send to starving women and children in Sudan or Darfur? It might as well be nothing.
My point though is not to make everyone feel bad about how much money we spend on lattes every day. Rather, my point is to show that the problem is our fault, not God’s. Could God drop a pot roast from the sky for every starving family in the world? Sure. But if he did, would we repent of our selfish and gluttonous apathy? No. The problem is real and children are starving, but it is our fault, not God’s. Does God care about these children? Yes. And he has called us and continues to call us to do something about it. But we haven’t been listening. One of the sickest things we tend to do as human beings is look at our condition and blame God for our mess. Adam did it in the garden when he blamed God for giving him a woman who would feed him forbidden fruit (Gen 3.12). And we do it by looking at the twisted and crooked world we have made and say there can’t be a God because he wouldn’t let there be any consequences for our sins. But even though this truly breaks the heart of God, we go on and carry on as we have before. The author of Ecclesiastes writes,
“Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:
I saw the tears of the oppressed—and they have no comforter;
Power is on the side of their oppressor—and they have no comforter.” Eccl 4.1-2
Is our failure to carry out God’s justice and mercy the fault of God or ourselves? It is ours and that is truly an “inconvenient truth”. He told us what we need to do for these people. But in our wickedness, we looked upon our own failure and blamed God. I don’t see how this is proof that God does not exist. The logic of such a conclusion is murky and convoluted. To say that we have ignored the suffering and oppression of these children, thus there is no God, makes no sense. And yet that is the conclusion of the well educated and thoughtful individuals who produced this video. This would lead me to the conclusion that this video is not trying to uncover truth or try to understand the other side of the issue. Rather this video is pushing an agenda regardless if it is or isn’t true or helpful to anyone. And such motivations are harmful and deceptive which is far more dangerous than being “delusional”—it is pathological and unconscionable.
My point though is not to make everyone feel bad about how much money we spend on lattes every day. Rather, my point is to show that the problem is our fault, not God’s. Could God drop a pot roast from the sky for every starving family in the world? Sure. But if he did, would we repent of our selfish and gluttonous apathy? No. The problem is real and children are starving, but it is our fault, not God’s. Does God care about these children? Yes. And he has called us and continues to call us to do something about it. But we haven’t been listening. One of the sickest things we tend to do as human beings is look at our condition and blame God for our mess. Adam did it in the garden when he blamed God for giving him a woman who would feed him forbidden fruit (Gen 3.12). And we do it by looking at the twisted and crooked world we have made and say there can’t be a God because he wouldn’t let there be any consequences for our sins. But even though this truly breaks the heart of God, we go on and carry on as we have before. The author of Ecclesiastes writes,
“Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:
I saw the tears of the oppressed—and they have no comforter;
Power is on the side of their oppressor—and they have no comforter.” Eccl 4.1-2
Is our failure to carry out God’s justice and mercy the fault of God or ourselves? It is ours and that is truly an “inconvenient truth”. He told us what we need to do for these people. But in our wickedness, we looked upon our own failure and blamed God. I don’t see how this is proof that God does not exist. The logic of such a conclusion is murky and convoluted. To say that we have ignored the suffering and oppression of these children, thus there is no God, makes no sense. And yet that is the conclusion of the well educated and thoughtful individuals who produced this video. This would lead me to the conclusion that this video is not trying to uncover truth or try to understand the other side of the issue. Rather this video is pushing an agenda regardless if it is or isn’t true or helpful to anyone. And such motivations are harmful and deceptive which is far more dangerous than being “delusional”—it is pathological and unconscionable.
3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
In order to answer this question, first it is important to point out a flawed presupposition within the question itself. The question presupposes that the people are “innocent”. According to the Christian worldview, every one is a sinner (Christian and non-Christian) and that the consequence of sin is death (Rom 3.23, 6.23). What this means is that when we stand opposed to God and his righteousness, his justice will be satisfied. This is demonstrated first in Genesis 3 after our first parents, Adam and Eve sinned and God made atonement for their sin with the sacrifice of an animal with which he made garments of skin as clothes to cover their nakedness and shame (Gen 3.21). It is also demonstrated by the sacrificial system of the Old Testament (Lev 4.1-6.7). And finally, it finds fulfillment in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross which atoned for the sins of humanity, even those outside the covenantal community of Israel (1 Jn 2.2).
What some might argue is that this makes the God of the Bible a bloodthirsty and wicked being and thus should be rejected as an ideal God. But this is a poor conclusion given all the evidence provided. Rather, it makes God out to be just and holy, and ultimately merciful and gracious. God is life (Jn 14.6) and rightly supposing that the opposite of life is death, and given that sin is opposition to God’s being and character either in act, disposition, or state; it follows that the consequence of opposing a holy God is the fulfillment of his justice, which is death. This does not mean that God does not value life. If that were the case then God would not value himself. Instead he values life higher than we ever could by not allowing death to consume the life he has imparted (Gen 2.7). The ultimate demonstration of this is found within the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here, as Paul writes, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5.21). God’s love for human life (not just physical life but also eternal life) was so great that he sent God the Son to die and suffer in our place, satisfying his justice and imputing his own righteousness onto us (Rom 3.25). Therefore, being that God’s justice must be maintained, the fact that he took our place when he did not have to, reveals very practically his attributes of grace and mercy. In a sense, God demands the death of the sinner and then provides himself as the recipient of his own wrath (Mk 15.34).
Therefore, to answer the question directly, it is God’s justice that demands the death of so many guilty people in the Old Testament who violated his Law. But it is also by his grace and mercy that he provides for his people a means of atonement that spares their physical life in the covenantal sacrifices of the Old Testament which are fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. Thereby, in the Old Testament the sins of the rebellious child or the person who violated the Sabbath are atoned for by sacrifice and their lives are spared.
But you might ask, what about God’s commands to slaughter entire races and clans of people. Is God genocidal? If you were to look at the ways of these people and look at their war tactics, you would find that they were a far more evil people than the worst terrorist groups of our day. They practiced incest and child prostitution as forms of worship. They would make child sacrifices to their false gods and attack Israel’s women and children in war while avoiding battles with the men. In short, these were not good, innocent people. And they were not people you would want in the land you were about to inhabit.
In conclusion, the question should not be, “Why does God demand the death of these people?” Rather, a more informed question would be, “Why does God allow any one to live?” And what I would argue for is something John Calvin called “common grace”. God is good and patient as to let us enjoy his provision of life. He lets us know love and peace and justice among ourselves, even apart from God and his covenant relationship. We marry and have children. We enjoy the seasons and the changing of the seasons. We enjoy the wisdom to know the difference from right and wrong, justice and injustice. We enjoy being the image bearers of God creatively and relationally. And all of this is provided even for those who would reject the God who gave these gifts. This is true both for those in the Old Testament and the New Testament. God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13.8).
What some might argue is that this makes the God of the Bible a bloodthirsty and wicked being and thus should be rejected as an ideal God. But this is a poor conclusion given all the evidence provided. Rather, it makes God out to be just and holy, and ultimately merciful and gracious. God is life (Jn 14.6) and rightly supposing that the opposite of life is death, and given that sin is opposition to God’s being and character either in act, disposition, or state; it follows that the consequence of opposing a holy God is the fulfillment of his justice, which is death. This does not mean that God does not value life. If that were the case then God would not value himself. Instead he values life higher than we ever could by not allowing death to consume the life he has imparted (Gen 2.7). The ultimate demonstration of this is found within the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here, as Paul writes, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5.21). God’s love for human life (not just physical life but also eternal life) was so great that he sent God the Son to die and suffer in our place, satisfying his justice and imputing his own righteousness onto us (Rom 3.25). Therefore, being that God’s justice must be maintained, the fact that he took our place when he did not have to, reveals very practically his attributes of grace and mercy. In a sense, God demands the death of the sinner and then provides himself as the recipient of his own wrath (Mk 15.34).
Therefore, to answer the question directly, it is God’s justice that demands the death of so many guilty people in the Old Testament who violated his Law. But it is also by his grace and mercy that he provides for his people a means of atonement that spares their physical life in the covenantal sacrifices of the Old Testament which are fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament. Thereby, in the Old Testament the sins of the rebellious child or the person who violated the Sabbath are atoned for by sacrifice and their lives are spared.
But you might ask, what about God’s commands to slaughter entire races and clans of people. Is God genocidal? If you were to look at the ways of these people and look at their war tactics, you would find that they were a far more evil people than the worst terrorist groups of our day. They practiced incest and child prostitution as forms of worship. They would make child sacrifices to their false gods and attack Israel’s women and children in war while avoiding battles with the men. In short, these were not good, innocent people. And they were not people you would want in the land you were about to inhabit.
In conclusion, the question should not be, “Why does God demand the death of these people?” Rather, a more informed question would be, “Why does God allow any one to live?” And what I would argue for is something John Calvin called “common grace”. God is good and patient as to let us enjoy his provision of life. He lets us know love and peace and justice among ourselves, even apart from God and his covenant relationship. We marry and have children. We enjoy the seasons and the changing of the seasons. We enjoy the wisdom to know the difference from right and wrong, justice and injustice. We enjoy being the image bearers of God creatively and relationally. And all of this is provided even for those who would reject the God who gave these gifts. This is true both for those in the Old Testament and the New Testament. God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13.8).
4. Why does the Bible contain so much scientific nonsense?
To answer this question I will limit myself to the three examples given by the video: The creation of the universe in 6 days, the universal flood, and the account of Jonah in the belly of a whale. There are of course many other miraculous stories that this video would have also dismissed as “scientific non-sense” with no actual investigation or thought. However, since the video had questions about these three events, then that is where I will limit my investigation.
It is important to note here that Creationism is not contradictory to modern science. In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").
6 Day Creation:
Young Earth advocates, such as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), believe in a literal reading of the Genesis account. Each day was a 24-hour day comparable to a modern day, and plants and animals were created directly by God in a mature functional state. The earth was created as a home for mankind. Adam, the first man, may have appeared about 20 years old when created. God could have created the world in an instant, but took six days to do so, followed by a day of rest, as a pattern for us to follow (it is interesting that the seven-day work week has been followed almost exclusively throughout history, yet has no astronomical basis, unlike the month or year, for example). By examining the various genealogies found in the scriptures, it is estimated that the creation must have taken place somewhere between six and fifteen thousand years ago. The most famous Biblical chronology is that of Bishop James Ussher who in 1650 determined the date of creation to be 4004 B.C. Modern creationists are willing to acknowledge the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, pushing this date back some (I personally would agree with the latter position of 13,000-15,000 years).
Evidences that the geologic column was formed quickly, supporting a young Earth viewpoint include:
• Fossilized trees that extend vertically through multiple ages of rock strata (called polystrate fossils).
• All soils become populated with living things such as plants and worms, which leave a record. However, many strata layers do not show signs of this activity, implying they were not at the surface for very long.
• In many cases there is lack of a layer of soil between adjacent strata layers.
• In an unconformity between adjacent rock formations, the lower rock layers have been tilted and eroded. By tracing unconformities laterally through information from outcrops or oil wells, they can be resolved into an area where the layers or formations were either not deposited or not tilted or eroded, indicating that the unconformity does not represent a significant time lapse. Application of this technique can be extended to show that "the majority of the fossiferous column resolves into a single, continuous depositional sequence" (Morris).
• In some places entire rock layers can be seen bending, implying they were soft and not very old when uplifted.
• In some places the contact between adjacent rock beds (of totally different rock types, such as shale and sandstone) is very sharp, which would not be expected if the lower surface had been exposed to the effects of erosion for a long period of time.
• In many rock layers in many locations, surface features seen on the top surface of the lower bed must have been covered quickly to be preserved, such as animal tracks and ripple marks formed by water moving over the surface.
These points are abbreviated and not exhaustive, but nevertheless, they point to a rather young earth with the formation of the different sedimentary layers being a rapid geological event. There are many other documented scientific studies and observed “anomalies” that point to a rather young geological history (roughly 13,000-15,000 years).
Biblically, the created world was a paradise until Adam and Eve disobeyed God. God cursed the creation because of this sin (Gen 3:14-19). Along with physical death, the general process of decay known as the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics was introduced at this time. A consequence of this law is that the universe will eventually die a heat death (the entire universe will be at the same temperature). Genesis chapters 6-9 describe how all of mankind became wicked, except for one man named Noah and his family. God sends a flood to destroy all living things except for a remnant of eight people and representative animals saved on a large boat called the ark, which are to later repopulate the earth. This flood scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, and created the geologic column.
In regards to the theories of evolution, no one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others. Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible. The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible (Which supports the second event the video questions). Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time). The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". “Atoms to people” evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact. There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!
Global Flood:
There is much evidence for a global flood including evidence from geology, archaeology, ancient legends, catastrophism trademarks, biblical consistency, evidence of Noah’s ark, and from Jesus Christ Himself. The worldwide flood, the biblical story and the evidence fit together perfectly. In general, the credibility of the worldwide flood story in the Bible is supported by unrelated facts that support the truth of the Bible. In recent years, much archaeological evidence has been found that supports the truth of many facts documented in the Bible. Also, Jesus, God in the flesh, completely supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it often.
The climate in the pre-flood era was different than after the flood. The climate was warm and moderate, which was favorable to plant and animal life from pole to pole. Evidence of high concentrations of bones found all over the globe is consistent with what would be expected from a tropical, lush, pre-flood environment and a catastrophic worldwide flood. Some of these areas include Agate Nebraska, a cave of San Ciro in Sicily, ossiferous fissures in England and Western Europe, including the Rock of Gibraltar and Santenay in central France.
The only possible explanation for most fossils is rapid deposition from a catastrophic event. The worldwide flood is the only satisfactory explanation for the evidence. The uniformitarianism philosophy that was made popular by evolutionists 150 years ago cannot explain the fossil evidence. Additional evidence that completely supports catastrophism and recent deposition are discoveries in the polar-regions where animals are left standing with undigested food in their stomachs. Oceanographers took core samples of sediments in the Gulf of Mexico that included fossils shells from one-celled plankton called foraminifera and made an interesting discovery. They discovered that at locations in the core samples that represent thousands of years ago, the salinity in the water was suddenly reduced based upon the shells locked-in permanent record of the conditions. This reduction in salinity could only be caused by a huge fresh water deluge.
There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .” Stories of the Noachian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark. But, I guess this evidence is all simply scientific nonsense and has no basis in fact. It makes you wonder how much research and thought went behind these “faith shattering” questions that an intelligent Christian isn’t supposed to be able to answer rationally.
Jonah’s Whale Tale:
First of all we may justifiably point out that the Bible does not speak of a whale.
The book of Jonah merely mentions ‘a great fish’ (Jonah i, 17), and although the English
version in Matthew xii, 40 uses the word ‘whale,’ the Greek original has kÁtoj, which is a general word meaning a huge sea-monster. Now it cannot be doubted that there are several enormous sea-creatures which may be able to swallow a full-grown man easily enough.
Moreover it may be observed that the narrowness of throat applies only to the true whale which is at home in the Arctic seas but is not found in the Mediterranean. There is another species of the same order, the sperm whale or cachalot, which is actually found in the Mediterranean and which could doubtless swallow a man. Ambrose John Wilson in the Princeton Theological Review of 1927 mentions a case analogous to that of Jonah. A member of the crew of a whaling ship in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands was swallowed by a large sperm whale which had been harpooned, his boat being upset by a lash of its tail. The whale was killed and dissected and on the third day the missing sailor was found inside the stomach of the animal, doubled up and unconscious. A bath of sea water soon revived him, but the skin of his face, neck and hands, exposed as it had been to the action of the gastric juice, was bleached to a deadly whiteness and never recovered its natural appearance; otherwise his health was not affected by this terrible ordeal.1 In another American periodical, Bibliotheca Sacra, G. Macloskie, of Princeton University, has taken the trouble to demonstrate how even the true whale may be able to rescue a man from drowning. He points out that, as the whale is an air-breathing animal, it has to expel from its mouth cavity all superfluous water immediately after having received its food. Now if any other air-breathing creature should get mixed with its food and be carried by the influx of water between the monster’s jaws, the intruder would be transferred from the water in which it was drowning into the air supply of the whale itself. It could not enter the whale’s stomach because of the narrow inlet, but it might reach the great laryngeal pouch, which starts from below and in front of the larynx and runs down the front of the neck on to the chest. It has thick, elastic walls, and a cavity quite large enough to receive a human body, and to supply it with air for breathing.
The video dismisses the accounts supported by this evidence as figments or delusions of the imagination and not confirmation of the inspired words of an all knowing God whereby primitive people wrote about primitive ideas. Well within the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration, it is feasible that the authors of these accounts were documenting what they saw, experienced, or were shown and detailed them in such ways as could be understood by their contemporaries and themselves. It makes more sense to discuss Adam being “formed from the dust of the earth,” with the breath of God blown into his nostrils to make him into a “living being” (Gen 2.7) as opposed to an explanation of carbon molecules being assembled and reassembled by a supreme being converting a carbon based geological thing into a carbon based biological thing; at least within a theological frame work. The important thing to realize is that the Bible is not a scientific text. When we read it and interpret it as such, then we misuse the text and ignore the function of the book. Don’t misunderstand me, I believe that every word of the Bible is true and flawless (Prov 30.5). But you can’t get apple juice from a grape—it will only give you grape juice. The Bible doesn’t give us insight into performing open heart surgery; it doesn’t tell us how gravity works; it doesn’t teach us about ecosystems and food chains. The Bible is not exhaustive nor is it all inclusive. God orchestrated the writing of the Bible and its content to serve the specific function of revealing his work and plan of redemption. Does this make it any less true? No. Does it give us cause to evaluate what it says in a way that may be counter intuitive to our own personal paradigm? Absolutely.
It is important to note here that Creationism is not contradictory to modern science. In fact, the Biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand it, which is what science is all about. "Creation Science" is simply the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgement that there is a creator God, versus the now standard operating assumption of naturalism (that nature is "all there is").
6 Day Creation:
Young Earth advocates, such as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), believe in a literal reading of the Genesis account. Each day was a 24-hour day comparable to a modern day, and plants and animals were created directly by God in a mature functional state. The earth was created as a home for mankind. Adam, the first man, may have appeared about 20 years old when created. God could have created the world in an instant, but took six days to do so, followed by a day of rest, as a pattern for us to follow (it is interesting that the seven-day work week has been followed almost exclusively throughout history, yet has no astronomical basis, unlike the month or year, for example). By examining the various genealogies found in the scriptures, it is estimated that the creation must have taken place somewhere between six and fifteen thousand years ago. The most famous Biblical chronology is that of Bishop James Ussher who in 1650 determined the date of creation to be 4004 B.C. Modern creationists are willing to acknowledge the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, pushing this date back some (I personally would agree with the latter position of 13,000-15,000 years).
Evidences that the geologic column was formed quickly, supporting a young Earth viewpoint include:
• Fossilized trees that extend vertically through multiple ages of rock strata (called polystrate fossils).
• All soils become populated with living things such as plants and worms, which leave a record. However, many strata layers do not show signs of this activity, implying they were not at the surface for very long.
• In many cases there is lack of a layer of soil between adjacent strata layers.
• In an unconformity between adjacent rock formations, the lower rock layers have been tilted and eroded. By tracing unconformities laterally through information from outcrops or oil wells, they can be resolved into an area where the layers or formations were either not deposited or not tilted or eroded, indicating that the unconformity does not represent a significant time lapse. Application of this technique can be extended to show that "the majority of the fossiferous column resolves into a single, continuous depositional sequence" (Morris).
• In some places entire rock layers can be seen bending, implying they were soft and not very old when uplifted.
• In some places the contact between adjacent rock beds (of totally different rock types, such as shale and sandstone) is very sharp, which would not be expected if the lower surface had been exposed to the effects of erosion for a long period of time.
• In many rock layers in many locations, surface features seen on the top surface of the lower bed must have been covered quickly to be preserved, such as animal tracks and ripple marks formed by water moving over the surface.
These points are abbreviated and not exhaustive, but nevertheless, they point to a rather young earth with the formation of the different sedimentary layers being a rapid geological event. There are many other documented scientific studies and observed “anomalies” that point to a rather young geological history (roughly 13,000-15,000 years).
Biblically, the created world was a paradise until Adam and Eve disobeyed God. God cursed the creation because of this sin (Gen 3:14-19). Along with physical death, the general process of decay known as the Second Law of Thermo-dynamics was introduced at this time. A consequence of this law is that the universe will eventually die a heat death (the entire universe will be at the same temperature). Genesis chapters 6-9 describe how all of mankind became wicked, except for one man named Noah and his family. God sends a flood to destroy all living things except for a remnant of eight people and representative animals saved on a large boat called the ark, which are to later repopulate the earth. This flood scoured the earth down to its basement rocks, and created the geologic column.
In regards to the theories of evolution, no one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others. Large scale change of one type of organism into another, so-called "macro-evolution", is beyond the ability of mutation coupled with natural selection to produce. Evolutionists acknowledge this is a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists (such as Denton and Behe) have written books giving the hard scientific facts that document why this is impossible. The "geologic column", which is cited as physical evidence of evolution occurring in the past, is better explained as the result of a devastating global flood which happened about 5,000 years ago, as described in the Bible (Which supports the second event the video questions). Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully-formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (that is, no change over time). The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people ALL BY THEMSELVES (that is, without any intelligent guidance) is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolution postulates it is "building up". “Atoms to people” evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact. There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis!
Global Flood:
There is much evidence for a global flood including evidence from geology, archaeology, ancient legends, catastrophism trademarks, biblical consistency, evidence of Noah’s ark, and from Jesus Christ Himself. The worldwide flood, the biblical story and the evidence fit together perfectly. In general, the credibility of the worldwide flood story in the Bible is supported by unrelated facts that support the truth of the Bible. In recent years, much archaeological evidence has been found that supports the truth of many facts documented in the Bible. Also, Jesus, God in the flesh, completely supported the truth of the Old Testament and quoted it often.
The climate in the pre-flood era was different than after the flood. The climate was warm and moderate, which was favorable to plant and animal life from pole to pole. Evidence of high concentrations of bones found all over the globe is consistent with what would be expected from a tropical, lush, pre-flood environment and a catastrophic worldwide flood. Some of these areas include Agate Nebraska, a cave of San Ciro in Sicily, ossiferous fissures in England and Western Europe, including the Rock of Gibraltar and Santenay in central France.
The only possible explanation for most fossils is rapid deposition from a catastrophic event. The worldwide flood is the only satisfactory explanation for the evidence. The uniformitarianism philosophy that was made popular by evolutionists 150 years ago cannot explain the fossil evidence. Additional evidence that completely supports catastrophism and recent deposition are discoveries in the polar-regions where animals are left standing with undigested food in their stomachs. Oceanographers took core samples of sediments in the Gulf of Mexico that included fossils shells from one-celled plankton called foraminifera and made an interesting discovery. They discovered that at locations in the core samples that represent thousands of years ago, the salinity in the water was suddenly reduced based upon the shells locked-in permanent record of the conditions. This reduction in salinity could only be caused by a huge fresh water deluge.
There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .” Stories of the Noachian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark. But, I guess this evidence is all simply scientific nonsense and has no basis in fact. It makes you wonder how much research and thought went behind these “faith shattering” questions that an intelligent Christian isn’t supposed to be able to answer rationally.
Jonah’s Whale Tale:
First of all we may justifiably point out that the Bible does not speak of a whale.
The book of Jonah merely mentions ‘a great fish’ (Jonah i, 17), and although the English
version in Matthew xii, 40 uses the word ‘whale,’ the Greek original has kÁtoj, which is a general word meaning a huge sea-monster. Now it cannot be doubted that there are several enormous sea-creatures which may be able to swallow a full-grown man easily enough.
Moreover it may be observed that the narrowness of throat applies only to the true whale which is at home in the Arctic seas but is not found in the Mediterranean. There is another species of the same order, the sperm whale or cachalot, which is actually found in the Mediterranean and which could doubtless swallow a man. Ambrose John Wilson in the Princeton Theological Review of 1927 mentions a case analogous to that of Jonah. A member of the crew of a whaling ship in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands was swallowed by a large sperm whale which had been harpooned, his boat being upset by a lash of its tail. The whale was killed and dissected and on the third day the missing sailor was found inside the stomach of the animal, doubled up and unconscious. A bath of sea water soon revived him, but the skin of his face, neck and hands, exposed as it had been to the action of the gastric juice, was bleached to a deadly whiteness and never recovered its natural appearance; otherwise his health was not affected by this terrible ordeal.1 In another American periodical, Bibliotheca Sacra, G. Macloskie, of Princeton University, has taken the trouble to demonstrate how even the true whale may be able to rescue a man from drowning. He points out that, as the whale is an air-breathing animal, it has to expel from its mouth cavity all superfluous water immediately after having received its food. Now if any other air-breathing creature should get mixed with its food and be carried by the influx of water between the monster’s jaws, the intruder would be transferred from the water in which it was drowning into the air supply of the whale itself. It could not enter the whale’s stomach because of the narrow inlet, but it might reach the great laryngeal pouch, which starts from below and in front of the larynx and runs down the front of the neck on to the chest. It has thick, elastic walls, and a cavity quite large enough to receive a human body, and to supply it with air for breathing.
The video dismisses the accounts supported by this evidence as figments or delusions of the imagination and not confirmation of the inspired words of an all knowing God whereby primitive people wrote about primitive ideas. Well within the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration, it is feasible that the authors of these accounts were documenting what they saw, experienced, or were shown and detailed them in such ways as could be understood by their contemporaries and themselves. It makes more sense to discuss Adam being “formed from the dust of the earth,” with the breath of God blown into his nostrils to make him into a “living being” (Gen 2.7) as opposed to an explanation of carbon molecules being assembled and reassembled by a supreme being converting a carbon based geological thing into a carbon based biological thing; at least within a theological frame work. The important thing to realize is that the Bible is not a scientific text. When we read it and interpret it as such, then we misuse the text and ignore the function of the book. Don’t misunderstand me, I believe that every word of the Bible is true and flawless (Prov 30.5). But you can’t get apple juice from a grape—it will only give you grape juice. The Bible doesn’t give us insight into performing open heart surgery; it doesn’t tell us how gravity works; it doesn’t teach us about ecosystems and food chains. The Bible is not exhaustive nor is it all inclusive. God orchestrated the writing of the Bible and its content to serve the specific function of revealing his work and plan of redemption. Does this make it any less true? No. Does it give us cause to evaluate what it says in a way that may be counter intuitive to our own personal paradigm? Absolutely.
5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
For the answer to this question I will defer to a great and exhaustive article on www.pleaseconvinceme.com . The author deals with the answer to this question better than I ever could and I find no fault with his position.
6. Why do bad things happen to good people?
Why do good things happen to good people? Why do good things happen to bad people? Why do bad things happen to bad people? Is it all just random chance? Is it all without purpose or end? Is it fate? Is it karma? Is it perception of what is good and what is bad? What is bad for one could be good for another. Some guy getting laid off may mean that the single mother does not.
Also, from a biblical worldview, there is no such thing as a “good person” (Ps 14.1-3, 53.1-3; Eccl 7.20; Rom 3.12). Christian and non-Christian are all equally guilty of sin and all are equally deserving of nothing but wrath and punishment for our crimes (see answer to question 3). That is why Christianity is not a religion based on morality or being a good person. Good people die and wake up in hell. Rather, what Christians aspire for is the grace of God provided through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. That is the only atonement for our rebellion and dysfunction as God’s creatures.
Even so, there are happenings in our world that are tragic and they do happen to what we would call innocent people. And the question of why is timeless and fundamental to understanding our condition. When God created the world, he created it to be very good (Gen 1.31). Therein, he gave man and woman dominion over it and there was order and harmony (Gen 1.26, 28; 2.15). However, we became arrogant and proud and sinned. We decided that there was wisdom and life apart from God and what we found was confusion and death. God cursed humanity and declared,
“To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Gen 3.17-19.
What this means is that because of sin, life is a struggle and the world in which we live is working against us. We will fight to survive, working against the dirt, and in the end the dirt will win. We will die and the earth will mock us because it endures and we do not. Natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, fires will kill us and destroy what we have worked so hard to build. Diseases will ravish our bodies and we will be crippled by viruses and bacteria. No one is immune. No amount of knowledge or wisdom can preserve us, or save us. Every person who has ever lived has died and we will too and so will those who come after us (Heb 9.27). And in the mean time, our life will be plagued by struggle and heartache. Horrible things will happen to us; we will be betrayed by those we love and others will seek to harm us and destroy our lives. Drunk drivers will kill our children, perverts will molest our sisters and rape our mothers and we are left asking why? We live in a fallen, crooked and depraved world. It is a world separated from God by sin. And what I mean by sin is not simply moral failures, but rather the condition of humanity and creation that has resulted in the separation between creation (us and our world) and creator (God). Sin has corrupted and frustrated every aspect of our lives and God has laid this curse upon us, not because he is vindictive and hates us, but rather because he loves us. He wants us to look out upon our world and see what our separation from him has done and cry out to him asking for the grace and mercy needed to restore that initial community we shared with him in Eden. And although, that restoration has not come to pass fully, the hope for that day is found in the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a hope that one day, bad things wont happen. We will all be judged according to God’s holiness and he will condemn those who defy them and give grace to those who love him (Tit 3.7). It is then that Jesus will reign over the earth as king and lord. It is then that the concept of “shalom” or peace will be made a reality. A peace that is not simply the absence of conflict, but the presence of unity and love between people, the world we live in, and the God who created it all (Rev 21.3-4).
Also, from a biblical worldview, there is no such thing as a “good person” (Ps 14.1-3, 53.1-3; Eccl 7.20; Rom 3.12). Christian and non-Christian are all equally guilty of sin and all are equally deserving of nothing but wrath and punishment for our crimes (see answer to question 3). That is why Christianity is not a religion based on morality or being a good person. Good people die and wake up in hell. Rather, what Christians aspire for is the grace of God provided through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. That is the only atonement for our rebellion and dysfunction as God’s creatures.
Even so, there are happenings in our world that are tragic and they do happen to what we would call innocent people. And the question of why is timeless and fundamental to understanding our condition. When God created the world, he created it to be very good (Gen 1.31). Therein, he gave man and woman dominion over it and there was order and harmony (Gen 1.26, 28; 2.15). However, we became arrogant and proud and sinned. We decided that there was wisdom and life apart from God and what we found was confusion and death. God cursed humanity and declared,
“To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Gen 3.17-19.
What this means is that because of sin, life is a struggle and the world in which we live is working against us. We will fight to survive, working against the dirt, and in the end the dirt will win. We will die and the earth will mock us because it endures and we do not. Natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, fires will kill us and destroy what we have worked so hard to build. Diseases will ravish our bodies and we will be crippled by viruses and bacteria. No one is immune. No amount of knowledge or wisdom can preserve us, or save us. Every person who has ever lived has died and we will too and so will those who come after us (Heb 9.27). And in the mean time, our life will be plagued by struggle and heartache. Horrible things will happen to us; we will be betrayed by those we love and others will seek to harm us and destroy our lives. Drunk drivers will kill our children, perverts will molest our sisters and rape our mothers and we are left asking why? We live in a fallen, crooked and depraved world. It is a world separated from God by sin. And what I mean by sin is not simply moral failures, but rather the condition of humanity and creation that has resulted in the separation between creation (us and our world) and creator (God). Sin has corrupted and frustrated every aspect of our lives and God has laid this curse upon us, not because he is vindictive and hates us, but rather because he loves us. He wants us to look out upon our world and see what our separation from him has done and cry out to him asking for the grace and mercy needed to restore that initial community we shared with him in Eden. And although, that restoration has not come to pass fully, the hope for that day is found in the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a hope that one day, bad things wont happen. We will all be judged according to God’s holiness and he will condemn those who defy them and give grace to those who love him (Tit 3.7). It is then that Jesus will reign over the earth as king and lord. It is then that the concept of “shalom” or peace will be made a reality. A peace that is not simply the absence of conflict, but the presence of unity and love between people, the world we live in, and the God who created it all (Rev 21.3-4).
7. Why didn’t any of Jesus’ miracles in the Bible leave any evidence?
(If you haven’t already, please first read the answer to question #1)
I find that this question seems to answer itself. The Bible records first hand accounts of the miracles. What other evidence is needed? The Bible, as compared to other ancient texts, is the relative equivalent to live TV today. And yet it is also the most disputed books in antiquity. Secular papyrologist Carsten Peter Thiede can date certain fragments of the gospel of Matthew back to A.D. 60. This is within 30 years of the events themselves, where the eye witnesses were still alive to refute or verify the miracles that Jesus performed. Additionally, other scientists argue for a latter date of about A.D. 100, and this is being very generous. This means that these accounts were in wide circulation during the infancy of the church and if the accounts were false, people who were there could have refuted them and put an end to the false account, but they did not. Additionally, we have more early manuscripts of these accounts than we do any other ancient texts in the western canon of literature (roughly 14,000 manuscripts). What this means is that we have more accounts of the miracles from manuscripts that were written closer to the event it is recalling than the works of Plato, Aristotle, or Homer combined. To give you an idea, we have roughly 643 early manuscripts of Homer’s works and we do not know how far removed the earliest of these are from the original. For Aristotle, we only have 7 early manuscripts and the earliest is 1400 years removed from the original autographa. And we have only 5 manuscripts of Plato’s work and they are nearly 1300 year older than the original text. Additionally, for Tacitus, the Roman historian, we only have 20 early manuscripts and the earliest of these is 1,000 years removed from the original. And yet no one is calling into question the accuracy or authenticity of these works. They are all taught in high school and college as historically accurate and reliable. The comparison to the New Testament documents is incomparable and to simply reject their accounts is academically irresponsible. To claim that 14,000 manuscripts dating 30 to 70 years from the original are less reliable than 20 manuscripts 1,000 years removed does not make sense academically, historically, or rationally. If we were to apply the same scrutiny to these and other ancient texts as most do to the Bible, then we would have no ancient literature (historical, philosophical, theological) within the western canon.
My point is simply this: the accounts of Jesus’ miracles recorded in the gospels of the New Testament are reliable evidence. They are of the same caliber as the accounts of George Washington crossing the Delaware River and they are just as reliable as the accounts of Napoleon Bonaparte’s battle at Waterloo. And we teach these stories in schools and rely on this information as evidence of historical events. I am not sure what further evidence this video is demanding apart from the biblical accounts. If it wants fossilized bodies of people healed of leprosy or blindness, then I must admit that I cannot provide this level of evidence. If it demands satellite photos of Jesus walking on water or a chemical analysis of the water he turned into wine, then I am at a loss. But I would submit that this kind of scrutiny has an underlying agenda and it is not the search for truth or a rational worldview. Rather it is pushing for the supremacy of its own ideologies which are not necessarily academically, historically, or philosophically valid or responsible. Nor are they more or less plausible than the Christian worldview given the data.
I find that this question seems to answer itself. The Bible records first hand accounts of the miracles. What other evidence is needed? The Bible, as compared to other ancient texts, is the relative equivalent to live TV today. And yet it is also the most disputed books in antiquity. Secular papyrologist Carsten Peter Thiede can date certain fragments of the gospel of Matthew back to A.D. 60. This is within 30 years of the events themselves, where the eye witnesses were still alive to refute or verify the miracles that Jesus performed. Additionally, other scientists argue for a latter date of about A.D. 100, and this is being very generous. This means that these accounts were in wide circulation during the infancy of the church and if the accounts were false, people who were there could have refuted them and put an end to the false account, but they did not. Additionally, we have more early manuscripts of these accounts than we do any other ancient texts in the western canon of literature (roughly 14,000 manuscripts). What this means is that we have more accounts of the miracles from manuscripts that were written closer to the event it is recalling than the works of Plato, Aristotle, or Homer combined. To give you an idea, we have roughly 643 early manuscripts of Homer’s works and we do not know how far removed the earliest of these are from the original. For Aristotle, we only have 7 early manuscripts and the earliest is 1400 years removed from the original autographa. And we have only 5 manuscripts of Plato’s work and they are nearly 1300 year older than the original text. Additionally, for Tacitus, the Roman historian, we only have 20 early manuscripts and the earliest of these is 1,000 years removed from the original. And yet no one is calling into question the accuracy or authenticity of these works. They are all taught in high school and college as historically accurate and reliable. The comparison to the New Testament documents is incomparable and to simply reject their accounts is academically irresponsible. To claim that 14,000 manuscripts dating 30 to 70 years from the original are less reliable than 20 manuscripts 1,000 years removed does not make sense academically, historically, or rationally. If we were to apply the same scrutiny to these and other ancient texts as most do to the Bible, then we would have no ancient literature (historical, philosophical, theological) within the western canon.
My point is simply this: the accounts of Jesus’ miracles recorded in the gospels of the New Testament are reliable evidence. They are of the same caliber as the accounts of George Washington crossing the Delaware River and they are just as reliable as the accounts of Napoleon Bonaparte’s battle at Waterloo. And we teach these stories in schools and rely on this information as evidence of historical events. I am not sure what further evidence this video is demanding apart from the biblical accounts. If it wants fossilized bodies of people healed of leprosy or blindness, then I must admit that I cannot provide this level of evidence. If it demands satellite photos of Jesus walking on water or a chemical analysis of the water he turned into wine, then I am at a loss. But I would submit that this kind of scrutiny has an underlying agenda and it is not the search for truth or a rational worldview. Rather it is pushing for the supremacy of its own ideologies which are not necessarily academically, historically, or philosophically valid or responsible. Nor are they more or less plausible than the Christian worldview given the data.
8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to you?
I don’t believe that such an appearance would be necessary for me to believe. Has
Barak Obama come to your house to reveal to you that he is indeed real and really the President of the United States of America? Are you sure that he is not simply an actor playing the part on TV or a digitally manufactured character who does not really exist? Then why do you believe he is who and what he says he is on TV, radio, and on paper? By the same standards this question is imposing on Jesus, you can’t be sure that I exist or give explanation why I haven’t appeared to you. Of course neither I nor President Obama claims to be divine, but before Jesus left he did tell us where he was going and why. And the writers of the gospels and the book of Acts documented this without conflict. Mark records that after Jesus delivered his last teaching to his disciples he was “…taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.” (Mark 16.19). Luke similarly records that Jesus was “taken up into heaven” in Luke 24.51 and Acts 1.9. Also, Jesus tells us why he ascended into heaven in John 14.2-3. There we learn that he is preparing a place for us as his followers as a parent would for their run away child who is finally coming home. Additionally, in the episode of Jesus appearing to Thomas at the end of John’s gospel, Jesus tells Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20.28).
Barak Obama come to your house to reveal to you that he is indeed real and really the President of the United States of America? Are you sure that he is not simply an actor playing the part on TV or a digitally manufactured character who does not really exist? Then why do you believe he is who and what he says he is on TV, radio, and on paper? By the same standards this question is imposing on Jesus, you can’t be sure that I exist or give explanation why I haven’t appeared to you. Of course neither I nor President Obama claims to be divine, but before Jesus left he did tell us where he was going and why. And the writers of the gospels and the book of Acts documented this without conflict. Mark records that after Jesus delivered his last teaching to his disciples he was “…taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.” (Mark 16.19). Luke similarly records that Jesus was “taken up into heaven” in Luke 24.51 and Acts 1.9. Also, Jesus tells us why he ascended into heaven in John 14.2-3. There we learn that he is preparing a place for us as his followers as a parent would for their run away child who is finally coming home. Additionally, in the episode of Jesus appearing to Thomas at the end of John’s gospel, Jesus tells Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20.28).
9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
Jesus established the Lord’s Supper/Holy Communion/Eucharist in the continuity of a well known tradition that when the messianic age came, the Messiah would feast with those who expected and waited for him (cf. Isa 25.6). Recently it has been suggested that the breaking of bread in early church life was dominated by the belief that Jesus willed the continuation of his fellowship and resurrection meals with his disciples on a similar pattern so that the church could continue after the Ascension to realize his presence and have joyful communion with him. However accurate this may be, the words “this is my body” and “this is my blood” (Mt 26.26-28; Mk 14.22-24; Lk 22.20-21; 1 Cor 11.23-26) indicate the wish of Jesus that these elements should be regarded as such signs of his own real presence among them. Just as the Passover meal was a “memorial” for the Hebrew Exodus, not only in memory but also in actual participation in the past redemptive events of their history, so also the Communion “remembrance” involves becoming vitally affected today through the representation of a unique event in the past. This is contrary to the argument that it was a counterfeit of some other cannibalistic, pagan ritual has no contemporary or geographical relation to the time and place that this tradition was established. If it was the resurgence of an old pagan ritual, I would have to commend Jesus on his historical knowledge of ancient Ausatru Vikings and his implementation of their rites into first century Jewish culture. (This is the only cult that I could find who practiced symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their enemies before battle). Rather it is more likely that this ritual fulfills the celebration of the Passover. As God redeemed the Hebrew people through the Exodus from their bondage in Egypt, we find Jesus redeeming all people through the second Exodus from their bondage of sin. Jesus undoubtedly had this in mind in identifying himself as the paschal lamb, and his death with the sacrifice of the lamb for deliverance from bondage. Thus the redemptive history of Israel foreshadowed the work of Jesus delivering humanity from sin. He referred to this idea at the Last Supper (Mt 26.28) and thus it makes sense that we should understand it in this light.
The church has always found significance in the fact that Jesus, who identified the elements with himself, actually gave them to be eaten and drunk rather than to be merely looked at and adored. This deliberately planned giving and receiving implies some kind of real participation in Christ himself—that Jesus in the act is seeking to impart to men in some real ways the actual life which dwelt in his own flesh and blood. This imparting of life is in some way connected with the giving and receiving at the Last Supper. Indeed, so realistically did Paul interpret this communion with Christ that he uttered a warning about the judgment one would bring upon his/herself if one were to eat and drink “in an unworthy manner…not recognizing the body of the Lord…” meaning the sacrifice he made on our behalf (1 Cor 11.28-29).
Now, of course, there are various doctrines surrounding this rite. The Roman Catholic belief of transubstantiation, which became an official doctrine in 1215, believes that the elements (bread and wine) actually transform into flesh and blood mystically as it has been blessed by the imparted grace of the church (namely the priest performing the Mass) and consumed by a worthy believer. However, Protestants, mostly influenced by Zwingli and Luther, make a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Following the teachings of Augustine, the Protestant church insists that faith alone could receive, for salvation, the reality present in the Eucharist. Thus, although the rite was important for devotion and community (and I would argue also that the Reformers saw a mystical attribute as well), the bread remained bread and the wine remained wine. Nevertheless, under either doctrine, the purpose remains the same: remembering the sacrifice made by Jesus, giving thanks for his redemption, and identifying with him and with each other as believers. That is why he asks us to “eat his flesh and drink his blood.”
The church has always found significance in the fact that Jesus, who identified the elements with himself, actually gave them to be eaten and drunk rather than to be merely looked at and adored. This deliberately planned giving and receiving implies some kind of real participation in Christ himself—that Jesus in the act is seeking to impart to men in some real ways the actual life which dwelt in his own flesh and blood. This imparting of life is in some way connected with the giving and receiving at the Last Supper. Indeed, so realistically did Paul interpret this communion with Christ that he uttered a warning about the judgment one would bring upon his/herself if one were to eat and drink “in an unworthy manner…not recognizing the body of the Lord…” meaning the sacrifice he made on our behalf (1 Cor 11.28-29).
Now, of course, there are various doctrines surrounding this rite. The Roman Catholic belief of transubstantiation, which became an official doctrine in 1215, believes that the elements (bread and wine) actually transform into flesh and blood mystically as it has been blessed by the imparted grace of the church (namely the priest performing the Mass) and consumed by a worthy believer. However, Protestants, mostly influenced by Zwingli and Luther, make a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Following the teachings of Augustine, the Protestant church insists that faith alone could receive, for salvation, the reality present in the Eucharist. Thus, although the rite was important for devotion and community (and I would argue also that the Reformers saw a mystical attribute as well), the bread remained bread and the wine remained wine. Nevertheless, under either doctrine, the purpose remains the same: remembering the sacrifice made by Jesus, giving thanks for his redemption, and identifying with him and with each other as believers. That is why he asks us to “eat his flesh and drink his blood.”
10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
The reason that the divorce rate among Christians is the same as those who are not Christians is because we have failed to obey what the Bible teaches about marriage. I am not talking simply that the Bible teaches that we should not get divorced (Mal 2.16; Mt 19.3; 1 Cor 7.11, 27). To make such an argument would be foolish. Rather, I am saying that in every case of Christian divorce, both husbands have failed to love their wives just as Jesus loved the church, sacrificially and abundantly and generously (Eph 5.25-33); and wives have failed to submit to their husbands as they would submit to Jesus (Eph 5.22-24). Men have been selfish, self seeking, and unfaithful to the women put under their protection and provision. They are lazy and passive and failed first to be masculine men, and second they failed to be husbands who showed their wives the love of Jesus. Additionally, women have been self seeking, self promoting and undercutting to their husbands. Their desire was not for their husbands (Gen 3.16) but rather they cut them down in public and in private. They did not trust that their husband had the capability to lead the family and so they took the reigns and drove the marriage into a ditch. And these men remained passive, casting off their responsibility to be godly, masculine and dependable men who are trustworthy of leadership and capable of being the head of the household. To be perfectly frank, I place the majority of the blame on the Christian men in these divorces. If these men were overbearing and selfish, slave-driving, taskmasters, then they did not love their wives like a servant—they didn’t love their wives like Jesus loved his disciples and his church. Jesus washed the feet of his disciples and died so that we might live. For these men this was an ideal that they never sought to reach. Also, if the women were nagging, argumentative, demeaning and rebellious, then the men failed to show their wives that they were Christ-like and worthy of submission, obedience, and respect. My wife does submit to me, not because I’m mean and cruel, but because she trusts that I love her and our family enough to do what is best for them and not me. And I serve her and show her that I am willing to give my life, my comfort, my time and my energy to make sure she and my children are happy, loved and cared for. Additionally, my wife is respectful and encouraging to me. She does not demean me publicly or privately nor is she pestering or nagging. She is a good help-mate and a wise confidant. She is my best friend and I lead her lovingly and supportively. Of course we fight and disagree about things. We naturally get frustrated with each other, but in the end I would give my life up for her.
The reason Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians is because we are just as sinful and fallen as the rest of the world. Being a Christian does not transform you into a moral person—it transforms you into a worshiper of God. The Christian life is a journey that as you mature in Christ, you become more and more like Jesus. This is called sanctification. And it is typically a slow process that is never fully realized in this life. Constantly I need to repent and ask forgiveness for my rebellion against God and my sin. Yet, he is faithful and patient to forgive me. I am the first to admit and take responsibility for the fact that the church as a whole (Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.) has failed to be the example as God’s people to the rest of the world. However, this does not mean that God doesn’t exist or that he is a bad God. Rather, it simply means that we are still a sinful people in need of the love, grace and sacrifice of Jesus. I know the church is a mess. I am just as responsible as anyone else for its condition. But complaining about it and blogging about it does not fix anything. It contributes even more to the problem. Rather what will fix it is our love for one another (Jn 13.35) and the slow process of repentance which is turning away from our sins and rebellion and turning back to God and his Word.
The reason Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians is because we are just as sinful and fallen as the rest of the world. Being a Christian does not transform you into a moral person—it transforms you into a worshiper of God. The Christian life is a journey that as you mature in Christ, you become more and more like Jesus. This is called sanctification. And it is typically a slow process that is never fully realized in this life. Constantly I need to repent and ask forgiveness for my rebellion against God and my sin. Yet, he is faithful and patient to forgive me. I am the first to admit and take responsibility for the fact that the church as a whole (Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, etc.) has failed to be the example as God’s people to the rest of the world. However, this does not mean that God doesn’t exist or that he is a bad God. Rather, it simply means that we are still a sinful people in need of the love, grace and sacrifice of Jesus. I know the church is a mess. I am just as responsible as anyone else for its condition. But complaining about it and blogging about it does not fix anything. It contributes even more to the problem. Rather what will fix it is our love for one another (Jn 13.35) and the slow process of repentance which is turning away from our sins and rebellion and turning back to God and his Word.
Conclusion
Hopefully now that you have read my answers to these 10 questions you now understand the Christian world view. I also hope that now you realize that the complexity of the answers also meet the complexity of the questions. To answer them flippantly with a one liner, like “God is imaginary” is academically and intellectually deceitful. With the same logic used by this video, I can answer the questions just as well by saying “Keith Richards is imaginary”. Look at the formula in comparison:
q = starving children
r = God or Keith Richards
p = real
If q, then (r = ~p)
If there are starving children in the world (q), then God (r) is imaginary (~p).
If there are starving children in the world (q), then Keith Richards (r) is imaginary (~p).
The validity of the answer is just as questionable, logically. Whether you believe the answer or not is contingent upon what presuppositions you bring to the table. I would have thought that such advanced critical thinkers like the producers of this video would have realized the flaw in their thinking. These questions are important and are good questions to be asked. However, the producers use these important questions to personally attack a people group. That is bigotry. Furthermore, they have not done any research or investigation to see what the counter arguments to their questions would be. Rather, they built straw-men by describing any Christian answers that could be given as “weir rationalizations.” They chose to hear only what they wanted to hear, ignoring all other sides of the argument. That is ignorance. And lastly, I can only imagine what painful and damaging experience these people had that they should hate God so much. And I can only imagine what I as a Christian did to them that they should hate me so much. The people who produced this video and who built the website did so out of hate and intolerance. They hate the influence Christianity has had on history and the American worldview and they are intolerant of its teachings and precepts.
Nevertheless, I hope that they had a chance to read this blog and see how an intelligent Christian answers their questions. Additionally, I hope that as others read, they would maybe see that, contrary to popular belief, you do not have to check your brain at the proverbial door in order to believe the Bible or call yourself a Christian. Is it true that some Christians need to educate themselves about what they believe? Absolutely. The Bible does say that we need to be prepared to give reason for our faith (1 Pt 3.15). But the same can be said of the atheists, as well. I have talked with people who don’t believe in the Bible because, “it was written by Shakespeare 200 years ago.” My point is simply that if a person is sincerely searching for truth, then it is important to inform yourself. It is foolish to reject an argument that you do not understand or has been presented poorly. My hope in this blog was not to convince anyone of the superiority of my argument. Rather, it was to show that the Christian argument is not without basis. I have attempted to show you through philosophy, history, science, and most importantly, the Bible itself, that the Christian worldview is not without reason or consistency. By this, I hope to undo the stereotypes this video tries to reinforce. So please, don’t drink the kool-aide. Don’t let this video tell you what to believe. Think for yourself and make your own decisions as to which set of answers to the ten questions are more valid.
q = starving children
r = God or Keith Richards
p = real
If q, then (r = ~p)
If there are starving children in the world (q), then God (r) is imaginary (~p).
If there are starving children in the world (q), then Keith Richards (r) is imaginary (~p).
The validity of the answer is just as questionable, logically. Whether you believe the answer or not is contingent upon what presuppositions you bring to the table. I would have thought that such advanced critical thinkers like the producers of this video would have realized the flaw in their thinking. These questions are important and are good questions to be asked. However, the producers use these important questions to personally attack a people group. That is bigotry. Furthermore, they have not done any research or investigation to see what the counter arguments to their questions would be. Rather, they built straw-men by describing any Christian answers that could be given as “weir rationalizations.” They chose to hear only what they wanted to hear, ignoring all other sides of the argument. That is ignorance. And lastly, I can only imagine what painful and damaging experience these people had that they should hate God so much. And I can only imagine what I as a Christian did to them that they should hate me so much. The people who produced this video and who built the website did so out of hate and intolerance. They hate the influence Christianity has had on history and the American worldview and they are intolerant of its teachings and precepts.
Nevertheless, I hope that they had a chance to read this blog and see how an intelligent Christian answers their questions. Additionally, I hope that as others read, they would maybe see that, contrary to popular belief, you do not have to check your brain at the proverbial door in order to believe the Bible or call yourself a Christian. Is it true that some Christians need to educate themselves about what they believe? Absolutely. The Bible does say that we need to be prepared to give reason for our faith (1 Pt 3.15). But the same can be said of the atheists, as well. I have talked with people who don’t believe in the Bible because, “it was written by Shakespeare 200 years ago.” My point is simply that if a person is sincerely searching for truth, then it is important to inform yourself. It is foolish to reject an argument that you do not understand or has been presented poorly. My hope in this blog was not to convince anyone of the superiority of my argument. Rather, it was to show that the Christian argument is not without basis. I have attempted to show you through philosophy, history, science, and most importantly, the Bible itself, that the Christian worldview is not without reason or consistency. By this, I hope to undo the stereotypes this video tries to reinforce. So please, don’t drink the kool-aide. Don’t let this video tell you what to believe. Think for yourself and make your own decisions as to which set of answers to the ten questions are more valid.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Unknown God
Today, when you ask people who God is, you can get every answer from orthodox to weird. Most people in our culture seem to believe in a god of some sort. Most people, however, seem to make their own definition. There are some definite traits that the majority of people seem to agree upon. God is “good”—but what is good seems to change from person to person. God is love—but love is also open to interpretation. God is fair—but we don’t understand why the innocent perish or the wicked prosper. God is great and completely other—but we seem to grasp who he is and are pretty comfortable with putting him in our box. These are just the answers off the street—great men from history and philosophy have pondered this question too. According to Plato, God is the eternal mind, the cause of good in nature. Aristotle considered him to be “the first ground of all being.” Leibniz says that the final reason of things is called God. Kant defined God as a being who, by his understanding and will, is the cause of all nature; a being who has all rights and no duties; the moral author of the world. Hegel considered God the absolute spirit (giest), yet without consciousness until it becomes conscious in the reason of man. These answers, whether we agree with them or not, show that there is something unanswered about the nature of God. And it also shows that we want the answer.
Nevertheless, the only tool we have in-and-of ourselves to define God is our insight (a philosophical word meaning “best guess”). What we find is that because God is transcendent (bigger than we can understand), and because we are a fallen and frustrated people, our best guesses are just as fallen and frustrating as we are. Yet, we keep searching for a greater understanding of God and who he is. The Teacher, in the book of Ecclesiastes, tells us that God has set eternity in our hearts, yet we still cannot fathom him (3.11). What he means is this—we know that God exists, and we know that we are meant to know that he exists, but we are so small that anything we come up with sounds like a three-year-old explaining how a carburetor works. But God is good enough to reveal himself to us in such a way that we can apprehend this revelation and understand it. This is done through General Revelation (nature, conscience, providence) and Special Revelation (miracles, the Incarnation, Scripture). With these, God trumps our insight and tells us who he is; he tells us about his beauty, his love, his glory, and sometimes we recognize these things and respond as we ought to—worship and awe. But sometimes we confuse the issue like the Athenians in Acts 17.16-34. Here, Paul sees how the Athenians recognized God’s providence during a plague several years back by building alters. However, they didn’t know who they were worshiping, so they wrote, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD”, on the formless statues. It was here that Paul uses their insight to point out the revelation of God in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He uses a tool that most of us Christians have forgotten all about. He uses the tool of context. The Athenians had a concept of God and Paul used this concept within the context of Greek culture to show them how God was revealing himself and how this revelation should be understood. He didn’t use a tract or a pizza feed. He didn’t use an outreach strategy or attractive church bulletins. He used the context of the people and spoke to them using ideas from their own culture and world-view. God has done the same for us. Jesus came down and became a man so that we could understand who God is. Paul writes about Jesus in his letter to the Colossians 1.15 that he is the image of the invisible God. A theologian by the name of John Calvin, writing about the incarnation (God becoming a man) called it “the Great Condescension”. It was where God revealed his love by lowering himself to our level and showing us who he is so that we might once again know the unknown God.
Nevertheless, the only tool we have in-and-of ourselves to define God is our insight (a philosophical word meaning “best guess”). What we find is that because God is transcendent (bigger than we can understand), and because we are a fallen and frustrated people, our best guesses are just as fallen and frustrating as we are. Yet, we keep searching for a greater understanding of God and who he is. The Teacher, in the book of Ecclesiastes, tells us that God has set eternity in our hearts, yet we still cannot fathom him (3.11). What he means is this—we know that God exists, and we know that we are meant to know that he exists, but we are so small that anything we come up with sounds like a three-year-old explaining how a carburetor works. But God is good enough to reveal himself to us in such a way that we can apprehend this revelation and understand it. This is done through General Revelation (nature, conscience, providence) and Special Revelation (miracles, the Incarnation, Scripture). With these, God trumps our insight and tells us who he is; he tells us about his beauty, his love, his glory, and sometimes we recognize these things and respond as we ought to—worship and awe. But sometimes we confuse the issue like the Athenians in Acts 17.16-34. Here, Paul sees how the Athenians recognized God’s providence during a plague several years back by building alters. However, they didn’t know who they were worshiping, so they wrote, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD”, on the formless statues. It was here that Paul uses their insight to point out the revelation of God in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He uses a tool that most of us Christians have forgotten all about. He uses the tool of context. The Athenians had a concept of God and Paul used this concept within the context of Greek culture to show them how God was revealing himself and how this revelation should be understood. He didn’t use a tract or a pizza feed. He didn’t use an outreach strategy or attractive church bulletins. He used the context of the people and spoke to them using ideas from their own culture and world-view. God has done the same for us. Jesus came down and became a man so that we could understand who God is. Paul writes about Jesus in his letter to the Colossians 1.15 that he is the image of the invisible God. A theologian by the name of John Calvin, writing about the incarnation (God becoming a man) called it “the Great Condescension”. It was where God revealed his love by lowering himself to our level and showing us who he is so that we might once again know the unknown God.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Truth
One of the more important things under attack in our culture today is the concept of Truth. Most of us live as functioning relativists. We exist in a bubble of reality in which we can hold to anything that permits our behavior and world-view. What we believe is “true for us,” because it confirms our perceptions and our interpretation of reality. When we are confronted by a contradictory truth it is validated as true for that other individual, but is still not incorporated into our own reality. The problem with this is that, by default, having individually validated truth invalidates all truth. By saying that everybody is right, you essentially prove everyone wrong. This is called the law of the excluded middle (something is either true or it is false—there is no middle ground). It is one or the other. The fact of the matter is that not all “truths” are true and not all opinions are equal and to assert otherwise is itself a contradiction.
This foolishness, however, stems from a very true assessment of the human condition, but it comes to a very false conclusion. It is true that man’s ability to fully comprehend reality and to universally recognize truth is flawed. We have different perspectives and we have different opinions because sin has permeated and fractured man’s connection to the world around him and has severed his connection to God who, by definition, is Truth. However, to fix this uncertainty we came up with the idea that we can define our own truth and everything will turn out fine. Essentially, we admitted to ourselves that we are blind and convinced ourselves the cure to our blindness is to close our eyes, jump in the driver’s seat and go on a joy ride. This kind of public-school logic is the best we could come up with. However, despite our backwards attempts to find Truth, God, who us above creation, saw fit to step in and show us truth, instead of letting us fumble around like a drunken prom date. This was done through relationship and revelation and providence. It was done by what is called inspiration. As God revealed truth, we began to recognize it a like lost sheep hearing the voice of its shepherd, and we wrote it down and kept it. As these things were passed from one person to another, they became volumes of historical accounts and letters and prophetic declarations, until finally they became one volume of complementary texts. These texts were transcribed and translated, and guys with too much time on their hands came up with lists adding in and subtracting books in the Bible. They did this to propagate their theological and political agendas thinking that they were more important than they were. Things became messed up, the original manuscripts were lost, and new ones were made. There were errors here and there—words misspelled, phrases adjusted, punctuation changed—but God preserved the truth of his word.
The original texts were written by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit making use of their personalities to superintend every word that was written. But over time as the originals were lost, errors occurred in transcription but not in such a way as to influence any significant doctrine. That is to say, as the different existing manuscripts are compared, although they vary in details, the overarching teachings and doctrines are not changed. The Holy Spirit preserved the truth as God laid it out for man to know and as hard as we tried, we did not destroy its message. This is a miraculous testament to the eternal nature of God’s truth and gives some credence and reason for the belief in the Word of God—it gives credence and validity to what we call the Bible. The words and teachings that come from its pages do not come from man who is crooked and deceived; they came from God who is the ultimate authority. It isn’t a book of good ideas or morals, but it is the standard by which we are to look at the world and verify whether we see the world for what it truly is or we are looking at it upside down because we are an upside down and perverted people.
This foolishness, however, stems from a very true assessment of the human condition, but it comes to a very false conclusion. It is true that man’s ability to fully comprehend reality and to universally recognize truth is flawed. We have different perspectives and we have different opinions because sin has permeated and fractured man’s connection to the world around him and has severed his connection to God who, by definition, is Truth. However, to fix this uncertainty we came up with the idea that we can define our own truth and everything will turn out fine. Essentially, we admitted to ourselves that we are blind and convinced ourselves the cure to our blindness is to close our eyes, jump in the driver’s seat and go on a joy ride. This kind of public-school logic is the best we could come up with. However, despite our backwards attempts to find Truth, God, who us above creation, saw fit to step in and show us truth, instead of letting us fumble around like a drunken prom date. This was done through relationship and revelation and providence. It was done by what is called inspiration. As God revealed truth, we began to recognize it a like lost sheep hearing the voice of its shepherd, and we wrote it down and kept it. As these things were passed from one person to another, they became volumes of historical accounts and letters and prophetic declarations, until finally they became one volume of complementary texts. These texts were transcribed and translated, and guys with too much time on their hands came up with lists adding in and subtracting books in the Bible. They did this to propagate their theological and political agendas thinking that they were more important than they were. Things became messed up, the original manuscripts were lost, and new ones were made. There were errors here and there—words misspelled, phrases adjusted, punctuation changed—but God preserved the truth of his word.
The original texts were written by men who were guided by the Holy Spirit making use of their personalities to superintend every word that was written. But over time as the originals were lost, errors occurred in transcription but not in such a way as to influence any significant doctrine. That is to say, as the different existing manuscripts are compared, although they vary in details, the overarching teachings and doctrines are not changed. The Holy Spirit preserved the truth as God laid it out for man to know and as hard as we tried, we did not destroy its message. This is a miraculous testament to the eternal nature of God’s truth and gives some credence and reason for the belief in the Word of God—it gives credence and validity to what we call the Bible. The words and teachings that come from its pages do not come from man who is crooked and deceived; they came from God who is the ultimate authority. It isn’t a book of good ideas or morals, but it is the standard by which we are to look at the world and verify whether we see the world for what it truly is or we are looking at it upside down because we are an upside down and perverted people.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Gospel
Literally Gospel means "good news", but within the context of Scripture, the depth of the good news is life changing. But what is it really? The technical definition is the message of God's redemption in Jesus Christ. In the New Testament it is, first, the proclamation by Jesus that the
This doesn't mean that the Gospel isn't simple, just that it gets bigger and deeper everyday we are changed by its message of grace. If we were to stop and meditate upon the implications and consequences of the Gospel in history, in theology, in our very own personal lives, I think we would be awestruck by its impact on every aspect of creation. Simply the fact that the Gospel has been at the forefront of God's mind since before creation and has been woven into the threads of history and creation—even unto the end of this age when God will create a new heaven and a new earth. It is staggering, and yet, despite its philosophical and theological girth, it is presented to us as a free gift, given by a loving Father.
However, it is not a gift meant to keep for ourselves, nor is it a chunk of information we know in our minds. It is the life we live and the hope we share. It is praying for a stranger and being a good friend. It is caring for the fatherless and single mothers. It is living with the understanding that no person deserves the grace of God and then giving it indiscriminately and without consideration of personal cost. And most importantly it is living with the understanding that you don't deserve the grace of God, but receiving it with humility and faith in Jesus Christ. It is the life lived apart from Sunday mornings worship with all of its ritual and high-minded charades, where blood and tears are shed everyday because it is a real world bound by addiction and abuse, hate and fear, pain and suffering; where real people fail at life. The Gospel is that Eternal Life that we live out today in the midst of everything else because there is more than this. The good news is the hope greater than all of us and greater than our despair and struggles. That hope is simply Jesus and his Kingdom. The Gospel is the promise to us that we can live in spiritual abundance in a world of poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
