Cody's Black Box

Reflections on Psalm 27

2012-02-05T14:03:00.002-05:00

Psalm 27, KJV
"1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? 2 When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. 3 Though an army should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear; though war should rise against me, even in this will I be confident. 4 One thing have I desired of the LORD; that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in His temple. 5 For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion; in the secret places of His tabernacle shall He hide me; He shall set me upon a rock. 6 And then shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me; therefore I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the LORD. 7 Hear, O LORD, when I cry with my voice! Have mercy also upon me and answer me. 8 When Thou saidst, 'Seek ye My face,' my heart said unto Thee, 'Thy face, LORD, will I seek.' 9 Hide not Thy face far from me; put not Thy servant away in anger. Thou hast been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation. 10 When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up. 11 Teach me Thy way, O LORD, and lead me in a level path because of mine enemies. 12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies; for false witnesses have risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty. 13 I would have fainted, unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living. 14 Wait on the LORD; be of good courage, and He shall strengthen thine heart. Wait, I say, on the LORD!"

Psalm 27 was once one of my favorite Psalms. I became an atheist at a very young age, but God worked on my heart until slowly I became a believing Christian. God had continually shown me His love and goodness by demonstrating patience and allowing me to feel His overflowing kindness. He did this even as I sought to ignore Him, desiring my own way. Every time God spoke to me, I tried to ignore Him, going so far as to even tell Him to leave me alone so I could be an unconflicted atheist. I knew my own way was leading to futility, but pride is a strong motivator. God's mercy helped to slowly break down my pride, until I was willing to, slowly but surely, let Him in. What made me decide to become a Christian theist specifically was working through “moral” objections I had to the Bible and becoming convinced of the fact that is a book of divine as well as human origin. Not wanting to accept traditions of men, I worked through questions of doctrine straight from the Bible, until I became convinced of the deity of Christ and the essential doctrine relating to the Holy Trinity from my understanding of the biblical witness alone and not by anyone's insistence that they were truths.

As a Christian, just as when I was an atheist, I went through hard times. The Psalms were always a great comfort to me at these moments, and the Bible I have from some of those periods is underlined all throughout the Psalms. Psalm 27 is no different, and numerous verses that struck me with the faithfulness of God are boldly underlined. I was encouraged by the confidence of the Psalmist in God's protection from all evil rising against him. The knowledge that God would take care of His people despite all forms of enemies and wars made me feel comfortable trusting in God. It strengthened my resolve through personal crises as well as my faith that God would be sovereign through the non-violent action that I believed Jesus commanded of all Christians in the New Testament.

While intellectually I still believe this promise, the end of my marriage, the painful experiences leading up to it, and my resulting movement further away from God have contributed to me feeling very disconnected from Him. My struggle is not so much in believing His promises, but in believing that they apply to me. Verse four reminds me of my thinking on this matter when it says that the Psalmist is seeking to dwell in the house of the Lord. How can I claim that God will protect me when I am not seeking to dwell in Him anywhere near like I should? Feeling estranged from God makes it harder to feel comfortable following after Him, which in turn makes one feel that the promises God makes to His children aren't applicable to oneself.

The struggles that David speaks about in this Psalm brings to mind a lecture I recently heard from a Mennonite folk musician named Brad Yoder. He spoke about our impulse as humans to make things better as soon as possible. This resonated with me because all of the pain, trauma, and sorrow we encounter in life seems like it may crush us. I have often reflected on the fact that as a result of these troubles, we can either draw closer to God realizing that we don't have control and the situation is best left in His hands, or we can move away from Him, fearing where He will take us next. The wisdom Yoder shared was that at times, “things need to be as bad as they really are.” We must go through trying and tumultuous times-- some of us more so than others, some of us less. However, it is not a life without pain that ought to be our ultimate goal, but a life in which we have a caring, compassionate, and sovereign God to carry us through, so that we may deepen in our love and trust for Him. We are not perfect and are capable of messing up any number of times along the way, or even losing sight of God completely. But the cross of Christ is God's strongest way of communicating that no sin on our part should stop us from pursuing God, because He has removed every obstacle between Him and us through Christ. God has not abandoned us, but is “[our] light and [our] salvation.” Whom or what shall we fear that can honestly separate us from God? He has determined to remove all obstacles, if we are only willing to walk toward Him.

Looking over verse five, it is of interest to me that the Psalmist predicates His seeking of God (in verse four) on the fact that He knows God to be trustworthy (“for He will hide me in his shelter in the day of trouble”). It is this knowledge of God's goodness that should move one to seek Him. I am trying to make it my goal, as verse eight says, to seek the Lord's face. As verse ten points out, one may be abandoned by a father or mother, or, if I may take liberties with the text, even a husband or wife. But God does not abandon. God is gracious and loving through all of our heartaches and losses, and as He showed us through Christ, He is in our suffering with us-- not separate and sovereign alone, but loving and intimate as well. When we feel unworthy, abandoned, and alone, God is still there. By God's grace, I pray to grow stronger in Him and claim without reservation this Psalm for myself once more.

TheSketchy.com's Rene Descartes Week

2011-12-22T09:32:00.003-05:00

My friend Jackson who writes and draws the web comic "Sketch Comedy" is doing a Rene Descartes week, and I'm enjoying it quite a bit so far. Here is the first comic in the series, where Descartes sticks it to Nietzsche-- Cornelius Van Til style:

http://thesketchy.com/ic/1047

John Cleese sticks it to reductionist materialists. And it is beautiful. I love John Cleese.

2011-12-15T09:29:00.001-05:00

Wheel Throwing Project I Just Finished -- Jack Skellington (from The Nightmare Before Christmas) Luminaire Face Jug

2011-12-08T17:20:00.002-05:00

I thought it was kinda nifty and wanted to share it. Made this for a friend.

Study on Bible Reading and Political Progressivism

2011-11-15T10:00:00.002-05:00

Came across an interesting Christianity Today article that notes a correlation between Bible reading and having liberal political views (abortion and gay marriage seem to be excluded, however). Here's the article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/october/survey-bible-reading-liberal.html

Co-Exist -- Coffee With Jesus

2011-10-20T10:33:00.005-04:00

Just a humorous comic strip I've been reading from Radio Free Babylon that I thought was worth sharing. :-) Click image to view readable version.

A short film I made a few years back-- "Over the Rhine"

2011-10-13T00:10:00.001-04:00

Watch "Over-the-Rhine Part 1" on YouTube

The link is to part 1. Check out part 2 once you're there. My friend Andrea made it with me and it's about Over the Rhine-- the "bad part" of Cincinnati. Hope you like it!

Jesus Is the JEWISH Messiah

2011-08-23T22:51:00.001-04:00

I wanted to discuss certain prophecies and allusions to Jesus as the Messiah in the Old Testament, the Old Testament of course being those books in the Bible that were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born and are equivalent to those books in the Jewish Scriptures (which I will be calling the Tanakh, taking the Hebrew name for these books, throughout the rest of this blog. However, for clarity, I will be referring to Jesus, as opposed to "Yeshua," which is the Hebrew name which the word Jesus is derived from. I point out that Jesus' name was Yeshua here to strengthen my claim that Jesus was in fact Jewish and steeped in the Jewish religion). Before I do so, I want to point out that the New Testament (those books written after Jesus' crucifixion) argues that Jesus is divine, the second Person of a Trinity of Persons which compose the one Godhead. He is thus pre-existent as God prior to the moment of incarnation where He also assumed humanity. However, the Tanakh is also often quite clear about the divine nature of the Messiah. And yet, Jesus was rejected by most of the Jews of His day to which He presented Himself, and even more so by the Jewish leaders, who read the Tanakh (what Jews call the Tanakh-- their Scriptures) and yet did not see that Jesus fulfilled its prophecies about the Messiah. That all being said, a brief examination of certain key passages written hundreds of years before Jesus can greatly illuminate the fact that God was communicating hidden truths about His Messiah hundreds of years before His birth as a man.

The Birth, Name, and Time Period of the Messiah

Micah 5:2 tells us that the Messiah would be from Bethlehem, and Daniel 9 tells us that the Messiah would come to "finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness" 69 septads (69 units of seven, which from the context clearly indicates that these septads each consist of seven years, as even Jewish anti-missionaries such as Tovia Singer acknowledge) after the re-building of the Temple commenced, ending at Jesus' entry into Jerusalem to be crucified. Similarly Zechariah 6:12 tells us that the name Yehoshua (the lengthened version of Jesus' actual given name Yeshua) would also be the name of the BRANCH, which is a term another prophet, Isaiah, uses to refer to the Messiah.

While we could focus on prophecies dealing in more specifics like these (and I would like to in the future), for now I would like to focus on the premise that there are clear allusions to the Messiah's mission and nature hundreds of years before Jesus that only Jesus seemed to pick up on. These allusions create such an amazing consistency among the 66 biblical books written over a period of 1,500 years by numerous authors that a sufficient naturalistic explanation is difficult to come by.

The Messenger of the Lord, Distinct from the One God Yet Also the One God

In the Tanakh and particularly in the first seven books of the Bible, we find a common occurrence. A figure referred to as the Angel of the Lord, or more literally, the Messenger of the Lord ascends from God in a bodily form and appears to certain individuals. When He does so, He is invariably referred to as YHWH (the name of God that the Tanakh translates into English as LORD) Himself, and worshipped as such by those whom He has revealed Himself to. The Messenger of YHWH never objects to such worship, despite the fact that YHWH repeatedly and emphatically commands that He alone should receive worship. Here are a few examples (all quotations from the NKJV):

"Now the Angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur... Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, 'Have I also here seen Him who sees me?'" (Genesis 16:7-13)

"And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, 'I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.' So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, 'Moses, Moses!' And he said, 'Here I am.' ...Then Moses said to God, 'Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they say to me, What is His name? what shall I say to them?' And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' And He said, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.’ Moreover God said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations’" (Exodus 3:2-15).

One could also compare verses which are chapters apart such as Exodus 13:21 which says about the Jews coming out of Egypt that, "the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night," and Exodus 14:19 which tells us that, "the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them."

This happens often throughout the Exodus account. One example is that God tells Moses in Exodus 33:20 that Moses could not see His face and live, and yet Exodus 33:11 gives an account where Moses did indeed speak with God face-to-face. The Skeptics Annotated Bible, betraying a strong presuppositional bias against the Bible, counts this as a contradiction. Of course, this would be peculiar considering the alleged contradiction is only a few verses down the page. Reading Exodus 33:9-10 (the verses just preceding the verse where we are told that God DID speak to Moses face-to-face) gives us the proper context:

"And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door." (Exodus 33 quotations taken from the translation used by the Skeptics Annotated Bible) Thus, we are reading that the Messenger of God who is also somehow distinct from God the Father and yet clearly referred to as the one God, is sent by God the Father to human beings, so that Moses was able to speak to God Himself face-to-face, but not to the Father. John, writing after the birth of Jesus centuries later, explains that, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him" (John 1:18), thus providing the clarity to this account that was missing when the Jews originally read it.

(For a few more examples of Angel of the LORD language in the Tanakh, see Judges 13, Zechariah 3 [which also shares that this Messenger cleanses a man of his sin], Joshua 5:13-6:2, etc.)

The Messiah's Eternality

Micah 5:2, speaking of Bethlehem, says, "though you are little among the thousands of Judah, [Yet] out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth [are] from of old, From everlasting." This is a strong affirmation that the Messiah is not simply a man, but pre-exists eternally. However, it is not the only affirmation of this in the Tanakh.

Isaiah 9:6, in giving us an account of the Messiah, says of Him that, "unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father [alternate translation: Father of Eternity], Prince of Peace." Thus we learn that a child will be born as a human being who will be God. While this is a concept rejected by traditional Jews, it is affirmed in the Jewish Scriptures and Jesus claims to be the fulfillment of it.

The Messiah and Atonement

It is a strong teaching of the Jewish Scriptures that sin deserves punishment and that the blood sacrifice of that which is pure and unblemished makes atonement for sin (feel free to read my blog "The Necessity of the Atonement" for a few reasons why God would require a sacrifice of atonement to forgive sins). In the Jewish Temple, this was walked out through animal sacrifice. However, Jesus and His disciples taught that Jesus fulfilled these commands to sacrifice animals for atonement by being the sinless Lamb of God. This was not however a concept that He made up.

Isaiah 52:13-53 gives us an account of a figure who "shall be exalted and extolled and be very high." However, before this takes place, it is said of Him that, "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed." Even though "He had done no violence," God makes Him "an offering for sin." Although the "we" in the passage deserves the punishment this One receives, He makes "intercession for the transgressors." (please see my blog "Isaiah 53 and the Jewish Publication Society Translation" for a full explication of this passage from a Jewish translation or my blog "Is Isaiah 53 About the Messiah?" to see how Jewish Rabbis have understood this passage throughout the centuries.)

Finally, Zechariah 12:10, speaking of the final judgment when God punishes the wicked, says that:

"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn." God is the one speaking in this verse, and He refers to Himself as having been pierced.

While passages could be multiplied and expanded upon, I trust that this small sampling will provide adequate justification for my claim that the teachings of and about Jesus which are in the New Testament are consistent with the Jewish Scriptures.

Bart Ehrman vs. The Infidel Guy on the Historicity of Jesus and Paul

2011-07-29T11:33:00.002-04:00

Demonstrating once again that non-Christian experts on the far left (Ehrman) are far less skeptical about the New Testament than most internet atheists.

Why Does John's Gospel Call Jesus "the Word?"

2011-07-24T20:25:00.000-04:00

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it" (John 1:1-5).

This New Testament passage is very well-known in Christian circles, but it is not widely understood. In order to properly understand this passage, we must first understand the Jewish tradition that preceded it.

Psalm 33:6 says, "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made." This Psalm emphasizes what is already stated in Genesis chapter 1-- God spoke the universe into existence through His Word. In time, as Jewish thinkers reflected on this teaching, they began to conceive of God's Word having a personality distinct from God, but tied directly to Him. In the Rabbinic mind, the transcendent God of the universe could not interact with us personally. But how could He do so? There needed to be an intermediary-- His Word.

The Targums were Aramaic translations of the Tanakh (Old Testament). However, they also included commentary that the translators thought better explained the text. It is here that we see the idea of the Word having personality and an identity distinct from God, but still identified with Him, begin to take shape in the Jewish mind. (Quotes taken from Michael L. Brown's Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume 2)--

"And they heard the sound of THE WORD OF THE LORD God walking in the midst of the garden" (Genesis 3:8).

Above we see that the Word of the LORD was considered by Jews to have both personality and identity.

"The Word of the Lord created man" (Genesis 1:27).

"The Word of the LORD sits upon his throne high and lifted up and hears our prayer whenever we pray before him and make our petitions" (Deuteronomy 4:7).

Similarly, Deuteronomy 31:3 was translated from "The Lord your God will pass before you" to "The Lord your God, his Word will pass before you."

Thus we see that in the Jewish tradition preceding John's Gospel, God's Word is Him, but yet is somehow different from Him.

Philo, a Jewish Greek-speaking philosopher, developed this concept further. He referred to the Word (Gr. Logos) as "the second G-d," "mediator," "firstborn," "Name of God," and "Archangel." He also seemed to connect the Word with the Messiah when he said, “For that man is the eldest son, whom the Father of all raised up, and elsewhere calls him his first-born, and indeed the Son thus begotten followed the ways of his Father...” (Philo, De confusione linguarum 4:45).

Furthermore, the Zohar (a Jewish book of mysticism that is the center of Kabalic teaching) teaches specifically that the Messiah is part of a Triune Godhead in its commentary of Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema-- "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our G-d, the LORD is one."):
"Why is there need of mentioning the Name of God three times in this verse? ...The first (name of God) is the Father above. The second is the stem of Jesse, the Messiah who is to come from the family of Jesse through David. And the third one is the Way which is below and these three are one." Thus, we also find some strong Jewish support for the Messiah (who is the Word of God) being identified WITH God.

It is this tradition which John is most probably reflecting upon when he wrote his Gospel, though certainly the Greek concept of the Word (logos) being an organizing principle of the universe is probably also in view.

A Personal Confession

2011-07-23T12:15:00.001-04:00

I've often heard atheists charge Christians of having an emotional religion with no intellectual aspect, that in our minds we know that God doesn't really exist. For me, it's always been the opposite. I have an intellectual confidence and assurance that the God of the Bible exists and that I can trust Him to save me and protect me. The part I struggle with is the emotional side.

Those of you who know me well know that I've been having a rough 18 months. I won't go into detail here, but I will say that it's been hard to be optimistic and to trust God's plan for my life. Sometimes He seems to be taking us somewhere, or taking us through somewhere that seems so hard and horrible. I had an absolute intellectual confidence that God knew what He was doing and that I could trust in His plan, but emotionally I struggled with where He had me, and struggled to feel close to Him. I strongly and confidently believed ABOUT God, but believing IN Him was a lot tougher.

As a result, it became tougher to live in accordance with the premise that I trusted God. I made choices that I know God didn't want me to make but, quite honestly, in my short-sightedness and haughtiness, it seemed to me that His plan wasn't getting me anywhere so maybe I ought to substitute my own. That, of course, is sin and the root of sin.

The reality of the Christian walk is that we are enabled to live a holy life by the power of the Holy Spirit, but sin is still in our hearts and can consume us and pull us away from God if we let it. It is unreasonable to assume that a Christian will never sin, but it is also unreasonable to call yourself a Christian and be unwilling to repent and turn back to God.

Furthermore, satan desires to do one of two things with our sin-- either make it seem like it's not a big deal, or to make it seem so big that God couldn't forgive us. Often, he will lead with the first and when we begin to wise up to the wickedness of our sin, he kicks in with the second. Both pull us away from God and must be resisted.

When God saved us, He knew every sin we would commit, and yet He chose to save us anyway, meaning that if we will repent and turn to God, He is always willing to forgive. Or is there a sin so big that the blood of Christ, God in the flesh, can't cover it? God desired to bring us into fellowship with Him but our sin was in the way. So God took the penalty of that sin into Himself so we could know Him.

I tell you a little bit about my struggles because I believe that Christians tend to hide their sins out of embarassment. Thus, they feel that they are somehow too sinful for God to save. They worry that they aren't in the body of Christ because they feel less "together" than other Christians since everyone else in the body of Christ is hiding their sin too! I want anyone who reads this blog to know that while we have struggled and sinned, even as Christians, God is always forgiving and always loving. Christ is willing to take the penalty for every sin we are willing to repent of, and we can't let any sin get in the way of knowing Him.

So as a human being with a depraved nature, I tell all of my other fellow depraved human beings to confess your sin, repent, and KNOW that Christ has saved you completely. You are not too wicked to save, because Christ is infinitely holy. "Where sin abounded, grace much more abounded" (Romans 5:20).

Don't Quote Me, Bro!

2011-02-21T23:36:00.000-05:00

What do you do when you're an accomplished atheist author who has written books saying the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels were snatched from pagan deities, and then when you are doing research to demonstrate these claims in a debate you find out you're wrong? Well, here's what Dan Barker did...

"Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" Blog Debate Listing

2011-02-03T15:05:00.006-05:00

I recently engaged in a blog debate with an atheist friend, Ben Doublett, on the question, "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" I posted my portions of the debate on my blog Argue With a Christian, and he posted his on his blog-- Fool of Psalms. I thought it might be helpful for those who are interested in the debate to see all of the posts listed in one place.

Ben's Opening Statement

My Opening Statement

Ben's Rebuttal

My Rebuttal

Ben's Cross-Examination Responses

My Cross-Examination Responses

Ben's Closing Remarks
My Closing Remarks

Debate to Take Place January 24th-- Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

2011-01-16T16:52:00.002-05:00

WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?

An atheist/Christian debate by Ben Doublett and Cody Cook taking place on

http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/ and http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/

beginning January 24th at 11 p.m. EST

The rules:

Both debaters will post on their respective blogs an opening statement making a positive case for their viewpoint not exceeding 1,200 words.

Within 72 hours, both debaters will post rebuttals not exceeding 1,600 words.

Within another 72 hours, both debaters will post a three question cross-examination they have done of the other debater, questions not exceeding 50 words and answers not exceeding 200 words.

Within another 72 hours, 400 word conclusions will also be posted by each debater.

Links to the post responded to and the response posted (when they are submitted) will be placed in text of each post.

The debaters:

Ben Doublett is the owner of a small business and a British citizen living in the United States. He spends his free time volunteering with the business program at Mason High School, mentoring aspiring entrepreneurs and, most relevantly, as an amateur atheist and rationalist polemic.

In his new blog, Fool of Psalms, he criticizes all kinds of irrational belief, including alternative and faith-based healing practices and (coming soon) astrology, but mainly he focuses on dispelling the reasons given for religious belief and providing reasons for disbelief. This blog has attracted nearly a thousand unique visitors from all over the world in less than three weeks.

While he is definitely not reserved in his criticisms of beliefs he considers irrational, Doublett always tries to remain as respectful as possible in debates with the faithful. He is a strong advocate of the notion that one should attack the belief and not the believer.

To read more about Doublett’s positions on religious faith and other issues, check out his blog at http://foolofpsalms.blogspot.com/

Cody Cook is a theology student specializing in apologetics. He seeks to follow the biblical command to, "sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" and seeks to dialogue with non-Christians about the truths of the Christian faith. He believes that since reason and morality come from God, they cannot be consistently used against Him by the atheist/agnostic/skeptic. As a result, he seeks to demonstrate circular reasoning, unfounded assumptions, and faulty reasoning in atheistic thinking, while at the same time seeking to maintain a friendly and generous spirit. He has two blogs which he uses to encourage dialogue with fellow Christians as well as non-Christians: http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/ andhttp://codysblackbox.blogspot.com/

The Necessity of the Atonement

2011-01-12T23:46:00.003-05:00

A friend of mine recently asked me why God, since He is sovereign, would require the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to atone for humanity's sins. Why would He not simply forgive without requiring a sacrifice of atonement? To begin to give an answer to this question, I would like to provide two quotations from Scripture to illustrate that this is in fact it's teaching. If more are needed-- from the Old Testament, the mouth of Jesus, or the apostles-- I would be happy to provide them. But for now these two will suffice to prove that this is a biblical principle:

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith..."
Romans 3:21-25

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."
Isaiah 53:6

The teaching of these passages is that Jesus took our place (substitutionary atonement) by receiving God's wrath (which we deserved), and that by doing so God was satisfied and was able to look upon those who believe in Christ as if they were not sinners (propitiation). We accept this salvation by faith. We do not earn it by good works. Now to the main question-- why is this so?

The Reason

We all fall short of God's law. The Bible tells us that the penalty for disrespecting God's holiness is death-- separation and alienation from God that leads to eternal destruction. Within God's character is a holy anger at sin. That which deviates from the pure must be destroyed. Sin must be dealt with because God is righteous and can't allow it to go undealt with, as Romans 2:5 tells us: "because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." This is key for properly understanding the atonement. Without it, the atonement won't make sense to us.

Yet also in God's character is a deep self-giving love. This can be shown in the being of God itself-- God is triune community, and each Person in the Trinity loves and gives to the others. It's no mistake that the most famous verse in the Bible describes God as giving-- "For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son." God in His love desires for us to be in communion with Him, but this communion has been broken by us.

Athanasius, in his work, On the Incarnation, sums up the problem:
"For death, as I said above, gained from that time forth a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly. For it were monstrous, firstly, that God, having spoken, should prove false—that, when once He had ordained that man, if he transgressed the commandment, should die the death, after the transgression man should not die, but God’s word should be broken. For God would not be true, if, when He had said we should die, man died not. Again, it were unseemly that creatures once made rational, and having partaken of the Word, should go to ruin, and turn again toward non-existence by the way of corruption..."

Athanasius elsewhere speaks of the work of salvation as God becoming man to bring us back to God. In other words, God condescends to our level, becomes one of us, and as a human, bears our sin so that we can be brought back into communion with God.

I go a step further than Athanasius did, suggesting that God wasn't simply held to His word (knowing all things, He could have decided to not give the sentence), but to His character-- sin cannot survive in His presence. If God were to forgive us without dealing with sin, this would do injustice to God's holiness and teach that sin really has no meaning, which is to say that goodness has no meaning, which is to say that God is not good.

So then, sin must be paid for. If we are to be pardoned and not receive our sentence, we must be joined to Someone who can bear the just punishment for sin-- God Himself. If we choose to be in Christ, our sins can be passed onto Him because we are one with Him. As a result, we receive his righteousness and He receives our punishment. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." The doctrine of the atonement then, as I will soon demonstrate, is that we are crucified with Christ and resurrected with Him. In other words, we die to sin and are raised to life by our participation in Christ.

"Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his... Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him" (Romans 6:3-9).

This passage suggests that when Christ faced God's wrath, those who are in Christ faced it with Him. If we were to face the wrath of God on our own, it would destroy us, but because we are joined to Jesus Christ, we are able to face death as He did, and defeat it through Him. In other words, when Christ faced death, we faced death. When Christ defeated it, we defeated it. When Christ was raised back up, we were raised back up. In Christ, our sin was punished, and in Christ, we receive His perfect righteousness, the righteousness of the unblemished Lamb of God who gave Himself for the sins of the world.

Romans is not alone in saying this. It is a recurring theme in the New Testament. Colossians 3:1-11 likewise tells us:

"If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. [You] have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him."

Finally, 2 Corinthians 5:14-18 says:
"For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ..."

So, to re-cap, humans deserve death for separating ourselves from the only source of life. God cannot simply wink at sin, but must show that sin contradicts His nature and destroy it by His holiness. Our God is too holy to not deal with sin. For God to sweep sin under the rug would be to undermine His holiness and the very idea of goodness. But since God is also love and desires to forgive us and bring us into fellowship with Him, He must find a way that pays the penalty of sin while bringing repentant people (people who do not claim to earn their relationship with God by good works but cast themselves on God's mercy by putting their trust in Him) back to Him. The only solution was to come in the flesh, pay the penalty of sin, and overcome the power of death by being raised to life and joining the repentant to Jesus Christ so that His eternal life and goodness could become theirs because they are one body with Him.

Lessons of the Atonement

Another way to look at the necessity of the atonement is to examine the lessons that it teaches us, which we could not learn if God had used any other mechanism.

The atonement...

1. Teaches us that God is forgiving.

2. Teaches us that sin deserves God's wrath.

3. Teaches us that we do not save ourselves, but God alone is our Savior. Our salvation is not by our works, so no man can boast, but by God's sacrifice of Himself. God receives all of the glory.

4. Teaches us that we are TRULY forgiven. Knowing that ALL of our sins were punished in Christ makes us aware that there is nothing keeping us away from God.

5. Gives us the ability to forgive, knowing that either God has paid the penalty for sin (knowing that sure can shut a mouth!) or that God will punish the one who has sinned against us. In any case, sin will be dealt with. There is no unaddressed sin-- it has consequences and there is justice. This makes it our duty not to seek vengeance but forgive, knowing that God will repay.

6. Teaches us that self-sacrificial love is central in our lives and in forgiveness. It's amazing that so many Christian pacifists are liberals who reject this substitutionary view of the atonement. They ought to love it because it grounds self-giving love and suffering in the very being of God. Without the cross, we have no ground for non-violence or forgiveness.

Stephen Colbert on Liberal Jesus

2010-12-21T00:02:00.002-05:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jesus Is a Liberal Democrat

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>

March to Keep Fear Alive

Jesus Was a Wimp

2010-12-20T22:43:00.004-05:00

"Live by the gun, I'mma die by the gun. A n*gga shoot at me so you know I'm shootin' back."

- American Christianity... I mean Waka Flocka Flame!

Assignments for My Systematic Theology Class

2010-12-18T21:03:00.005-05:00

I had the opportunity to take a seminary level Systematic Theology course this semester. It was a challenging but fulfilling class. I'm testing out the Google Docs system because I need to have a portfolio with my work set up soon, so I thought I'd do a test run here with all of the written assignments I did for the class. Some of them are essays and others are forum posts where I was required to interact with a certain subject. Feel free to look through if you like. I was able to glean some good insights from the lectures and books from the class, so you might at least benefit from some of the sources I quoted. :-)

What Is Dogma? -- essay

Discerning a Biblical Worldview -- forum posting

The Place of Christ in Theology -- essay

The Importance of the Doctrine of Innerancy -- essay

Cumulative Essay

Case Study -- interview with a non-christian on the subject of dogma/presuppositions

Loss of the Image of God -- forum posting

Theological Sermon on the Image of God

Glenn Beck's 9 Principles-- A Christian Examination of Conservative Political Philosophy

2010-12-09T19:04:00.005-05:00

I know I'm late on this, but I only recently carefully reviewed Glenn Beck's "9 Principles" for the 9/12 Project he did. I had some thoughts about what he shared there, and I thought it might start an interesting discussion if I shared them here. My responses are tabbed and below each point of Beck's.

1. America Is Good.

No one is good but God alone, and a country is merely made up of its people. The only sense in which a person can call themselves good is the sense that they have received Christ's goodness and been justified by Him. Could we honestly say that most Americans have been justified by Christ? If not, we can't even use the term in that sense. America is made up of bad people and bad leaders, and we are just as sinful as any other nation. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that we sometimes make poor choices as a nation for selfish reasons. To say that America is good is as meaningless as saying that Iraq is good. They may have a constitution, they may vote, and they may have some people who mean well or who are filled with God's Spirit, but they are sinners in need of a savior just as much as we are.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.

This sounds good, but it's really a vague and meaningless statement. Glenn Beck's god is the god of Mormonism, and insofar that Beck's views are uniquely Mormon, this is not particularly a good thing, though certain values passed down from Christianity into Mormonism are definitely positive. To say that, "well, we're all Muslims, and Mormons, and Hindus, and Jews, and Jehovah's Witnesses. That's all that matters! At least we're not atheists," falls short of the standard of God. This kind of unifying statement is about binding people together politically, not bringing people under the blood of Jesus Christ.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.

Great. I agree with this.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

God is the ultimate authority. Government has authority from God as well (when it doesn't contradict God's authority), and parents also have authority over their family. However, the family only has the right to disregard government insofar as government is contradicting God (see Romans 13 and Acts 5:29)

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

Of course this contradicts point 4 which says the family has authority over the government. If one of my family members committed a crime then, I should be able to overrule government's right to punish. So point 4 and point 5 are in conflict, though it isn't my goal here to point out internal contradictions. I'm concerned with the moral correctness and biblicality of the 9 Principles. I like the idea of justice being blind, but it's important to emphasize "fair" and "right" as well.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

I wonder what it means to say one has a "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who guarantees these rights? God does not guarantee these, so it seems like Beck is saying that government does. Or at least that OUR government SHOULD. Who says government should guarantee these rights? God? Where does He say this? If it's in His Word, does His Word not also say that He created laws specifically targeted toward taking care of the poor, the widows, the foreigners, the abused, and the fatherless that the people of Israel were held to? The answer to this is yes, so unless we have a good reason to think God would be against these laws now, Beck and his supporters must temper the libertarian undertones of this point if they are to be consistent with biblical Christianity. Furthermore, all of us would agree that the individual's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness ought to be curtailed in certain circumstances, and those of us who believe in the death penalty (an idea which has its biggest supporters on Beck's side of the political spectrum) would argue that one's right to life is not really a right, but a limited privilege. In other words, this statement doesn't mesh with what any Christians, let alone Americans, actually believe. We believe that government should protect liberty and the pursuit of happiness in many circumstances, and some of us even believe that government should only protect life in certain circumstances as well (the death penalty, abortion, war, or when someone is freezing to death because they can't pay their electric bill being some circumstances where people might not ask government to protect life).

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

Government CANNOT force us to be charitable? Why in the world not? If government writes charity laws (remember that these existed in the Old Testament) that we support through our taxes, and Jesus and Paul tell us to pay our taxes, where does the "government cannot force me to be charitable" part come in? I suppose from a Locke-ian philosophy of government. But this view of government is not necessitated by the Bible, so "cannot" is not an expression of Christian values.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

True.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.

Not true. Even in Beck's view of government this is clearly false. When Beck gets a traffic ticket, he answers to government, not vice-versa. The major instance in which this principle is true is when it comes to election time and we choose our representatives. I do believe that they OUGHT to listen to and consider what we think at any other time. However, they may choose to do something which is unpopular but which they feel is necessary (like pass civil rights legislation). This is not necessarily wrong, though it does conflict with Beck's political perspective.

Would Jesus Be a Libertarian?

2010-10-30T12:17:00.009-04:00

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”

- Martin Luther King Jr.

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? ...Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. "

- Mother Teresa

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest"

- Exodus 22:25

"At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands."

- Deuteronomy 14:28-29

What Does It Mean That God Is "Holy?"

2010-10-30T12:09:00.003-04:00

Psalm 99:3 says, "Let them praise [God's] great and terrible name; for it is holy" (KJV). When we see verses like this, we read certain meanings into the word "holy" that we have picked up over the years during sermons and group prayers. To some, the word may mean that something is very spiritual. To others the idea of "sinless" may come into their heads. As an adjective, the Hebrew word kadosh is often translated as sacred or holy. However, as a noun, it may even refer to a temple prostitute (Deut 23:17)! It is because this word points to something that is set apart, something separate and different from everything else, particularly in a spiritual sense, that it can be used so widely. The temple prostitute, like the city of God, is separated from everything else that can be called common or ordinary.

Yet even though this word is so imperfect and imprecise, when Israel came face-to-face with the God of the universe, they could only find one word even close to suitable enough to describe Who they saw-- holy. The God of Israel is unique, special, set apart, entirely different from everything else. He can't be compared to anyone else, and his uniqueness lies in His transcendence over and separateness from the universe He created. Unlike us, He is not held to time or space. Unlike us, He is not imperfect, infallible, or incomplete. He is perfect, beautiful, sinless, and completely fulfilled in Himself. As such, His holiness is not an attribute, like His eternality, but a way of describing His person and character as a whole. Everything that He is is holy.

Emphasizing God's holiness to the unsaved encourages the hearer who is open to the things of God to be impressed with the idea of God as One who stands over us and judges us because He is perfect and separate from our fallen world. To think of God as holy means to take into account all of His attributes and acknowledge how different we really are from Him, and how short of Him we all fall. This rude awakening prepares us for the message of the Gospel-- that God became incarnate. That the Son became a man in order to accept the wrath of the Father against sin, because God's holiness would not allow for sin to go unpunished, but His love would not allow Him to leave His people unredeemed.

Is Isaiah Teaching About a Jesus-like Figure? (Isaiah 53 and the Jewish Publication Society Bible Translation)

2010-10-13T23:38:00.011-04:00

Note: The reason I'm examining Isaiah 53 here is because it is an oft quoted passage in the Old Testament (hundreds of years before Jesus) that Christians claim is a prophecy about Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Isaiah 53 we have today is the same Isaiah 53 that we had BEFORE Jesus was born, so Christian tampering cannot be alleged here, as it once was by secular scholars before we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. What follows is pre-Christian and was accepted by pre-Jesus Jews as the Word of God. I am using a popular Jewish translation to show that Christians are not engaging in faulty translations to try to force Jesus into the Old Testament. It's also important to note that Jews in the day of Jesus were not expecting a suffering Messiah, though there are a handful of exceptions in Jewish tradition that can be pointed out (nearly all AFTER Jesus, however). In other words, it would be quite bizarre for Jewish followers of Jesus to attempt to apply this passage to the Messiah, and it is also bizarre how closely it matches the life of Jesus and what He taught about what would happen to Him. With that, I'll move onto the JPS translation of Isaiah 53, along with my notes.

Before I show you how the JPS renders this passage, I want to note that this IS in fact a translation done by orthodox, conservative, and reform Jews (in other words, NOT Messianic or Christian Jews). This is the newer updated JPS translation which was finished in the 1980s. Other than changes in capitalization, punctuation (I've removed some of the quotation marks), line spacing, and adding some of the translators' footnotes INTO the text via parentheticals, I have not made any changes to their translation.

After their translation I will add a few notes of my own. I will admit that I am sharing thoughts I have gathered from others or had myself, but I am not surveying any commentaries for my notes. I may be missing or misunderstanding something because of my lack of knowledge. Please let me know if I'm not on-point on anything.

I am also going to begin in Isaiah 52:13 because that's where most scholars agree this passage starts.

Isaiah 52

13 Indeed, My servant shall prosper, be exalted and raised to great heights.

14 Just as the many were appalled at him (translators' note: Hebrew reads "you")-- so marred was his appearance, unlike that of man, His form, beyond human semblance--

15 Just so he shall startle (translators' note: Meaning of Hebrew uncertain) many nations. Kings shall be silenced because of him, for they shall see what has not been told them, shall behold what they never have heard.

Isaiah 53

1 Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 For he has grown, by His favor, like a tree crown, like a tree trunk out of arid ground. He had no form or beauty that we should look at him: No charm, that we should find him pleasing.

3 He was despised, shunned by men, a man of suffering, familiar with disease. As one who hid his face from us (translators' note: i.e., as a leper) , He was despised, we held him of no account.

4 Yet it was our sickness he was bearing, our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, smitten and afflicted by God;

5 But he was wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, and by his bruises we were healed.

6 We all went astray like sheep, each going his own way; and the LORD visited upon him the guilt of all of us.

7 He was maltreated, yet he was submissive, He did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to slaughter, like a ewe, dumb before those who shear her, he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppressive judgment he was taken away, who could describe his abode? For he was cut off from the land of the living through the sin of my people, who deserved the punishment.

9 And his grave was set among the wicked, and with the rich, in his death though he had done no injustice and had spoken no falsehood.

10 But the LORD chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, He might see offspring (translators' note: emendation yields "His arm," i.e. His vindication) and have long life, and that through him the LORD's purpose might prosper.

11 Out of his anguish he shall see it. He shall enjoy it to the full through his devotion.

"My righteous servant makes the many righteous, it is their punishment that he bears;

12 Assuredly, I will give him the many as his proportion, he shall receive the multitude of his spoil. For he exposed himself to death and was numbered among the sinners, whereas he bore the guilt of many and made intercession for the sinners."

My thoughts:

We first read of the servant in this passage as someone who WILL BE raised up to great heights. But the following verses suggest that something must happen first, something that brings him low.

The translators' note in verse 15 which points out that the Hebrew says "you" seems preferable to me. Just as the Jewish people had suffered so much, so also would this servant who represents them.

The word "startle" in 52:15 is given as an alternative in many Christian translations, but here is given as the main translation with the note that the Hebrew is uncertain. And yet, in EVERY other place where the word "nazah" is used in the Hebrew Bible, it doesn't mean "startle," but "sprinkle," and is usually used of sprinkling sacrificial blood (see for instance Lev 16:15)! Isaiah uses the word in 63:3 as well, where it is also clearly a reference to sprinkling blood. It seems that startle is suggested because afterwards it is said that kings would shut their mouths at him. However, the overall thrust of the passage is about someone who dies as a guilt offering for the people. While the 53rd chapter focuses on this death as being for the atonement of the Jewish people, 52:15 says that this blood effects atonement for the nations as well.

53:1-3 points out that this servant of the LORD would suffer greatly and not be held in high regard by the people, but looked over. However, verse 4 tells us something quite unexpected. It was for the sins of those who rejected him that he was suffering. Though they assumed that he must be undergoing a just punishment from God, Isaiah tells us that this servant was in fact paying the price that those who taunted him should have been paying for their sins! Verses 5 and 6 re-emphasize these points. His suffering is to make us (in particular the Jewish people, but gentiles who become part of the community of God are also in view) whole, and the guilt we acquired for turning away from God was placed on him. HE took the punishment.

Verses 7-9 tell us a few things. First of all, they reiterate that he suffered for sins he did not commit. Those men who sentenced him did so unjustly. Secondly, he viewed it as proper to accept this undeserved punishment, so he did not defend himself. Third, he suffered the fate that was reserved for criminals, and his place of burial was reserved for a rich man (see Matthew 27:57-60 in the New Testament).

Verse 10 puts this event into view from God's perspective. It was part of God's purpose to crush His servant, so that he would be an asham, a guilt offering, for the sin of God's people (that's what is meant by calling the servant the "Arm of the LORD"-- the one who accomplishes God's purposes. By dying for sins, the servant would see offspring. While the JPS emphasizes that this means he would be vindicated, I think it's important to suggest that the servant would truly see offspring through dying, but that they would not be physical offspring. After all, these are offspring that come about through his DEATH. It is after his death that he is exalted, as Isaiah 52:13-15 suggests (note the tenses). It is through his atoning death, and his being raised up which comes after it, that he is able to see SPIRITUAL offspring-- those who become children of God because they are atoned for by his servant's blood.

Verse 12 uses an important word-- intercession. Though the people have turned away from God and deserve death, God punishes His servant in their place. The servant of the LORD has interceded for them. He is able to do what they cannot-- serve as a sinless mediator between God and mankind.

For information on Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53, please check out my post on this subject.

Hawking Says Philosophy Is Dead

2010-10-07T19:30:00.003-04:00

Thanks to Glenn Peoples and Adam Santibanez for directing me to this info! What I've written below is based on reviews of Hawking's new book, which I haven't yet read, so please let me know if I've misunderstood him (or rather, if the reviewers and I have misunderstood him):

Stephen Hawking (and/or his co-author) writes on page 5 of his new book that: "Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

I wonder when philosophy died. Maybe it died right after atheist scientists like Hawking and Dawkins determined that philosophical naturalism should be the presuppositional underpinning of all science. Or maybe it was merely dying, and actually bought the farm pages later after Hawking had quoted his share of philosophers and gave his support to an epistemological view called model-dependent realism. In any case, it's dead now so let's stop asking questions about meaning, truth, beauty, and knowledge and just let Hawking tell us what the truth is, or rather, what the truth is "for him" since model-dependent realism suggests that:

"there is no one model, but in fact a lot of different ways in which one could predict the same situation; and if two different theories are able to forecast same events, none of them could be called wrong. Anyone who feels more convenient with a specific theory is free to use it and no one has the right to question their choice" (http://topnews.us/content/225376-stephen-hawking-introduces-model-dependent-realism-world).

In any case, God is absolutely NOT necessary to explain the universe... at least for him.

‎"The professional philosopher can only roll his eyes at the effrontery and condescension of such a statement. Two scientists who have, to all appearances, little acquaintance with philosophy are prepared to pronounce an entire discipline dead and to insult their own faculty colleagues in philosophy at Cal Tech and Cambridge University, many of whom, like Michael Redhead and D. H. Mellor, are eminent philosophers of science, for supposedly failing to keep up. I couldn’t help but wonder what evidence our intrepid authors have of Mr. Redhead’s laggard scholarship? What recent works in philosophy have they read that form the basis for their verdict? Alas, they do not say.

"The professional philosopher will regard their verdict as not merely condescending but also as outrageously naïve. The man who claims to have no need of philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it. One might therefore anticipate that Mlodinow and Hawking’s subsequent exposition of their favored theories will be underpinned by a host of unexamined philosophical presuppositions. That expectation is, in fact, borne out. Like their claims about the origin of the universe from “nothing” or about the Many Worlds Hypothesis to explain fine tuning, their claims about laws of nature, the possibility of miracles, scientific determinism, and the illusion of free will are asserted with only the thinnest of justification and little understanding of the philosophical issues involved."

--William Lane Craig, Question 181

Rosh HaShanah - The Feast of Trumpets and the Inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom

2010-09-21T23:42:00.003-04:00

Joel 2:1 Blow the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For the day of the Lord is coming, for it is at hand…

As Passover was the first of the thre Spring Feasts (four if one counts Pentecost, which takes place 50 days after the Passover Feasts), Trumpets is the first of the three Fall Feasts. The first three Feasts prophesied the first coming of Messiah, the fourth Feast prophesied the coming of the Holy Spirit, and these last three Feasts prophesy His second coming. The first of these last three Feasts, Trumpets, takes place on the first day of the seventh month (Tishrei)—

"Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a sabbath-rest, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall do no customary work on it; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord''” (Leviticus 23:23-24).

This Feast is called by Jews today Rosh HaShanah, which means the head or beginning of the year. Although it is not really the beginning of the new year on the Jewish calendar (after all, it takes place in the beginning of the seventh month), they see something in it that points to a new beginning. In accordance with this understanding, it is also traditionally believed to be the anniversary of creation. Many Messianic Jews prefer to emphasize the more Scriptural understanding of this Feast, calling it Yom T’ruah—Day of the Trumpet Blast. In Rabbinic times, it was also called “Yom HaDin” (Judgment Day) and “Chevlai shel Mashiach”-- the birthpangs of the Messiah.

Ariel ben-Lyman, a Messianic teacher, says, “In Scripture the shofar [ram’s horn trumpet] is used as follows: to muster an army (Judg. 3:27; 6:34); to frighten the enemy (Judg. 7:8,16-22); to proclaim victory (I Sam. 13:3); to terminate a battle (2 Sam. 18: 20-22); to proclaim rebellion (2 Sam. 20:1); to warn of an approaching enemy (Jer. 4:21; Hos. 5:8; Neh. 4:12-14); to install the Ark in David's tent (2 Sam. 6:15); and to proclaim the coronation of kings (2 Sam. 15:10; 2 Kings 9:13; cf. Ps. 47:6; 98:6)” (Yom T’ruah, http://www.graftedin.com).

Admittedly, there isn’t a lot of prophetic material in the introduction to this Feast in Leviticus 23, where the method of keeping the Feast is given. For this reason, one must examine other passages in the Bible to get a clearer picture of what this Feast is pointing toward.

A Biblical Picture of the Day of Trumpets

"And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord will thresh, from the channel of the River to the Brook of Egypt; And you will be gathered [literally “picked up”] one by one, O you children of Israel. So it shall be in that day: The great trumpet will be blown; They will come, who are about to perish in the land of Assyria, And they who are outcasts in the land of Egypt,

and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem" (Isaiah 27:12-13, see also Isaiah 56:8)

In this passage, the Trumpet is connected with the end times— there is a “picking up” of the children of Israel, and other nations come to worship God in His temple-- this is the start of the Messianic kingdom.

“As for you also, because of the blood of your covenant, I will set your prisoners free from the waterless pit... Then the Lord will be seen over them, and His arrow will go forth like lightning. The Lord God will blow the trumpet, and go with whirlwinds from the south. The Lord of hosts will defend them… The Lord their God will save them in that day, as the flock of His people" (Zechariah 9:11, 14-16).

We are given an additional detail here—when the Trumpet is blown, God defends Israel. Later, in Zechariah 14, the prophet is more specific about how God will defend His people Israel at His coming:

"Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations [which have surrounded Israel to destroy them], as He fights in the day of battle. And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, from east to west, making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north and half of it toward the south…Thus the Lord my God will come, and all the saints with You" (Zechariah 14:3-5).

The New Testament also offers reflection on what happens in conjunction with the day of the great trumpet blast:

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matthew 24:29-31).

“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

It is no wonder that the Rabbis of old have considered this day to be figurative of a new year, as well as a day of judgment. The concept of Trumpets as a day where God defends Israel as their King is found, among other places, in the Siddur, a commonly used Jewish prayerbook. For instance, on the night of Trumpets, prayers are recited over various foods relating to the destruction of Israel’s enemies. Also, the regular Sabbath prayers, when said between Trumpets and Atonement (the Feast following Trumpets), are changed to emphasize the kingship of God. Of course, in the Jewish mind, God is always King. But during this time, special attention is drawn to this attribute of His. Why? Because the Feast of Trumpets points to God coming to destroy Israel’s enemies (whom, according to Zechariah 12-14, are destroying the people of Israel at this time) and showing Himself to be their King:

"It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn" (Zech 12:9-10).

It is significant that the haftarah portion (the traditional Jewish reading of the Prophets) on the Feast of Trumpets is Jeremiah 31:1-19—

Jer 31:1 'At the same time,' says the LORD, 'I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people.' The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying: 'Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you...' For thus says the LORD: Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations; Proclaim, give praise, and say, ‘O LORD, save Your people, The remnant of Israel!’ …They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, in a straight way in which they shall not stumble; for I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn. Hear the word of the LORD, O nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him as a shepherd does his flock.’ For the LORD has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of one stronger than he... There is hope in your future, says the LORD, that your children shall come back to their own border. I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself: ‘You have chastised me, and I was chastised, Like an untrained bull; Restore me, and I will return, For You are the LORD my God...'" (Jeremiah 31:1-18).

Why Should There Be Two Distinct Comings of Messiah?

Earlier, we mentioned that the first three Feasts prophesied the Messiah’s first coming and the last three His second. Many Jews who are skeptical about Yeshua make the claim that He did not fulfill that which is to them His central mission—a new kingdom, ruled by Messiah, which is peaceful and free from war. Is it nonsensical for followers of Yeshua to teach that He will fulfill this aspect of prophecy in His second coming? To answer this question, it may be helpful to examine what the Rabbis have believed about Messiah.

The Rabbis debated in what way Messiah would come. Early in their debate, they realized that there was a problem— there were two different descriptions in the Tanakh (Old Testament) of how Messiah would come. They sought to find solutions for this dilemma:

“If they will be righteous, [the Messiah will come] on the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13); if they will not be righteous, [he will come] as a poor man riding upon an ass (Zech 9:9)” (B. Sanh. 98a).

It was also difficult to reconcile passages that taught Messiah would die for Israel’s sins (Isaiah 53) and those that taught He would rule an eternal kingdom (Psalm 45:6-7, Daniel 7:14). Eventually, the idea that there must be two Messiahs emerged—Messiah son of Joseph (who would suffer as Joseph suffered) and Messiah son of David (who will rule as David ruled). It was believed that in the end of time, Messiah son of Joseph would be slain and Messiah son of David would then rise up:

“And he (Armilus—anti-Messiah) will slay Messiah ben Joseph and it will be a great calamity for Israel… [Those of Israel who have no faith will say], ‘this is the man for whom we have hoped; now he came and was killed and no redemption is left for us…’ And to those who are left… Messiah ben David will reveal himself” (Hai Gaon, Responsum).

Instead of two different Messiahs, why not one Messiah with two different missions and thus two different comings? Interestingly, some contemporary Jewish scholars who have examined these texts about the two different Messiahs believe that the two may be considered one—

“Messiah ben David will come after [Messiah ben Joseph and] in some legends will bring him back to life, which psychologically hints at the identity of the two” (Patai, Messiah Texts).

As we examine the Feasts, we note that the three Passover Feasts take place 6 months before the last three Feasts, separating them as two different times, and that the blowing of Trumpets signifies an event which relates to the end of this age. We believe that the beginning of salvation happened in the first month of the year (prophetically) when the lamb was slain for us. We look forward to the seventh month when the act of salvation will be completed, and we will be raised incorruptible at the sounding of the Trumpet. I look forward to seeing you all there!

Some Epistemological and Presuppositional Difficulties with Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

2010-07-27T12:53:00.002-04:00

Presuppositions-- underlying assumptions with which we view the world around us.

Epistemology— the means by which we gain knowledge (for instance, and empirical epistemology believes that we receive trustworthy knowledge through the senses and would answer major epistemological questions such as "how do we acquire knowledge" and "how do we really know what we know" from that framework).

Philosophers of science are often more open about the difficulties with evolution than many scientists are. For instance, Samir Okasha admits that Darwin’s theory is “non-deductive,” that the “data doesn’t guarantee the truth of Darwin’s theory,” and “Darwin’s theory is not logically entailed by the data.” However, he also asserts that all scientific theories are non-deductive and yet we accept many of them as unquestionable truths, such as the theory that unsupported objects tend to fall. If we accept this view even though it cannot be absolutely proved, why not accept evolution? Of course, there are huge differences between these two theories. The theory about unsupported objects tending to fall is based upon observation, although its universal application is based on inductive reasoning and thus cannot be demonstrated to be an absolute law (there may after all be exceptions, regardless of whether or not we’ve seen them). Macro-evolution on the other hand is not a theory based on observation or testing, nor does it consistently line up with all of the data we have, yet many scientists would be far less comfortable entertaining the idea that Neo-Darwinism may be wrong than the theory relating to unsupported objects. Why is this?

The answer lies in the philosophical presuppositions which many scientists are taught to hold, and not in the evidence itself. The insistence that Neo-Darwinian theory is an unquestionable truth, held by many in the scientific community, is essentially a value judgment. Okasha admits that science often works this way when he asserts that, “a scientist’s choice of theory will… never be uniquely determined by his data.” In other words, the scientist is not a machine of pure logic. He/she is motivated by personally held values and presuppositions which can get in the way of following the evidence where it leads. The reason that this theory is valuable to many scientists is not found in its unassailable consistency with the data, but in its consistency with philosophical naturalism. In other words, it is the only plausible theory that can make some kind of sense of complex, organized life, and still be made to fit into a naturalistic framework. Other explanations, no matter how consistent with the data, lead to the conclusion of purposeful design, and this cannot be tolerated. What Dawkins calls “the appearance of design” cannot really be design, no matter how “natural [the] temptation” may be after we examine the evidence to conclude that it is. The presuppositions which Dawkins insists we all MUST accept will not allow for it.

Other scientific theories with the problems that macro-evolution has would be held to far more tentatively in the scientific community, and rival theories would be welcomed. But when your deeply held presuppositions are at stake, you are far less willing to listen to alternatives. This type of scientist does not hold macro-evolution as a tentative theory, but as an unassailable metaphysical proposition that must be held onto by faith. This type of philosophical bias stops the empirical nature of science from functioning properly. The data cannot be followed wherever it leads when an external worldview has placed a blockade in the middle of the highway of free inquiry and the pathway of evidence. As I demonstrated in my last blog, evolution is a reasonable, though troubled and incomplete, explanation of the data, though it is not the ONLY reasonable explanation of the data, and other explanations based on intelligent design can make just as much or more sense of the evidence we have. Though these theories are scientific in that they are empirically based, they are not accepted as even possible by many scientists on the basis that they do not sync with the arbitrary unthinking naturalism which some assert that scientists in our culture must believe in.

Some Evidential Difficulties with Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

2010-07-22T16:08:00.003-04:00

Most critics of Darwin’s theory are critical only of the portion of it which has not been observed, and is merely a suggested extrapolation of what HAS been observed. This is often called macro-evolution, to distinguish it from micro-evolution, which merely describes simple and observable changes that occur from generation to generation. Macro-evolution suggests that if enough small changes are allowed to accumulate (via natural selection and random mutation), single-celled life can evolve into (for example) complex human life. One of the strongest arguments against macro-evolution is found in the fossil record itself, and even Darwin acknowledged it:
“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

While some suggested intermediates (such as Archaeopteryx ) have been found since Darwin’s time, the overall impression from paleontologists is that the situation hasn’t improved that much. Niles Eldredge observed that, “gaps in the record continue (to this day) to be invoked as the prime reason why so few cases of gradual change are found,” and that conventional neo-Darwinian theory offers a “rather poor fit of the fossils.” His colleague Stephen Jay Gould admitted that:
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic [small changes accumulating over time] accounts of evolution.”

This glaring issue of the significant lack of evidence in the fossil record for the neo-Darwinian scheme led these two paleontologists to theorize an explanation which could fit the data and also fit into a macro-evolutionist framework. Their observations were thus:
“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear. Morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”

One might expect this type of data to lead the disinterested scientist to theorize that neo-Darwinian evolution was not tenable. Gould and Eldredge proposed another theory—punctuated equilibrium. In punctuated equilibrium, rapid changes would occur in a small population of a given species. The changes would be so rapid that the species would leave behind no evidence of having evolved. In other words, macro-evolution has such poor data to commend it that we can only theorize ways it could have happened without leaving a shred of evidence behind for us to observe. Such theorizing sets up neo-Darwinian macro-evolution as unfalsifiable and points to the utter lack of support this theory has in the fossil record. If macro-evolution has such awful support in the fossil record, one might think it has some data elsewhere to commend it. Maybe in the field of biology?

Sadly, the evidence of macro-evolution is greatly lacking here as well. There have been no solid scientific tests to show us that evolution on this scale is even possible, even though there are numerous tests which can be performed to determine whether or not macro-evolution could occur. For instance, Ralph Seelke has created experiments involving e Coli, where portions of the sample are brought into new situations where they must evolve or die out. What he has observed is that small changes can occur-- when one of these organisms has to go through only one change to survive, it can often do so. However, as Seelke pointed out, “two is an evolution stopper.” This experiment has been important because e Coli can produce 6.64 generations every day, or 20,000 generations in ten years—roughly equivalent 600,000 years of human evolution. In other words, conditions which would be ideal for macro-evolution to occur were created in a laboratory setting, and yet macro-evolution couldn’t happen—more than one change at a time was impossible. If macro-evolution could depend on one change at a time (as is usually alleged), this wouldn’t be such a huge deal, but many of biological structures require dozens or more pieces for the structure to even be useful.

Biochemist Michael Behe has referred to this type of complexity as “irreducible complexity,” meaning that in a specific body structure, numerous parts are necessary, so adding one at a time would not be beneficial to the organism. He has used examples such as the 40+ complex protein part bacterial flagellum, where each part is necessary to do the job. Thus, evolution must have numerous helpful, constructive mutations at once in order to do what macro-evolutionary theory asks it to do. There is not only no evidence that it CAN do these things, it is so unlikely as to almost be considered impossible, that it could occur millions of times over to create a species as complex as human beings, nevermind the 5-30 million other species on earth.

Since neo-Darwinian macro-evolution cannot adequately account for the data in the fossil record, or do what it claims to have done throughout history in a laboratory setting, it cannot be held with any certainty, and thinking people are completely entitled to reject it.

Salvation Chart-- How Much Various Religions Claim to Be Able to Save

2010-07-21T18:54:00.003-04:00

Think anything should be added? Disagree with the arrangement? Let me know.

"At the Instigation of Christ"

2010-07-04T14:58:00.008-04:00

The Roman historian Suetonius, reflecting on the period when Claudius was Emperor (41-54 A.D.), shares an interesting tidbit about an event that happened during his reign:
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."

Interestingly, Acts 18:2 in the New Testament also gives an account of this event:
"There [Paul] met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

It seems clear that the Jews were in fact expelled from Rome by Claudius on account of one Suetonius called Chrestus, but who is Chrestus? Many have pointed out that Chrestus is an alternative spelling of Christus, or Christ. So it seems that Jews were causing disturbances in Rome on account of a Christ-figure (Christ being the Greek version of the Hebrew Mashiach or Messiah). Many have suggested that this refers to Jewish mobs coming against those who preached Christ Jesus. This is not an unreasonable interpretation of Suetonius' words. After all, there clearly was outrage from Jewish mobs over Paul's preaching of Jesus which are recorded all throughout the book of Acts. In the chapter previous to the one quoted above, there is an account of a Jewish mob organizing in Thessalonica in response to Paul's preaching of Christ, and even the chapter the quotation is taken from gives an account of a Jewish mob bringing Paul before the authorities because they are offended at his preaching. Based on just these bare facts, it seems very reasonable to assume that a number of Roman Jews as well were being brought to violence over the preaching of Jesus, and that Claudius might have expelled them from Rome because of it.

One difficulty with this is that Acts 18 never explains why the Jews, along with Christian Jews like Priscilla and Aquila, were expelled. Based on the purpose of Luke in writing the book of Acts (to give an account of the earliest preaching of the Gospel after Jesus' ascension, and of the difficulties the disciples encountered), it would seem that he would be interested in sharing this information. This provides one piece of evidence that Claudius was not concerned about violence over the preaching of the Gospel, but it certainly doesn't destroy the case for the position that he was. Luke could have had any number of reasons for not feeling that it was necessary to give details here.

There is other evidence that Claudius was concerned with the "Christian problem" and particularly how it created difficulties among the non-Christian Jewish population of the empire. The Nazareth Inscription is among this evidence. While there are numerous opinions on how the inscription should be dated and understood, Clyde E. Billington PhD lays out a very convincing case that it was written by Claudius in response to the Jewish claim that the Christians had removed Jesus' body from the tomb, which is why they believed it couldn't be found there. Billington's translation of the Inscription reads, in part:
"if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a judicial tribunal be created..."

Billington also speculates as to what the impact this inscription might have had on Christians. He suggested that Herod Agrippa I, a lifetime friend of Claudius who provided priceless information to him about how to govern the Jews in a way which would be least likely to incite violence and respect their traditions, promptly responded to this edict with what we read in Acts 12:1-3:
"It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread."

If Billington's understanding of this inscription, posted in Nazareth where Jesus lived (and after which His disciples were called Nazarenes), is correct, then it becomes clear that Claudius was concerned with the issue of Rabbinic Jewish and Christian Jewish relations, and that he very reasonably could have expelled all of the Jews (whether Rabbinic or Christian) from Rome because of the conflicts that were erupting in response to the Gospel being preached there.

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Deity of Jesus Part 2

2010-06-02T22:44:00.001-04:00

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST--

A recent issue of Watchtower magazine, a publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was entitled "The Man Who Changed the World" (April 1, 2010), and it focused on the person of Jesus Christ.

For those who are unfamiliar with the view that Jehovah's Witness have of Jesus, they believe Him to be created by the Father. They also believe that He was formerly Michael the Archangel and that He took on flesh to become a man. Finally, they believe that He suffered death to pay for the sin of Adam, which releases Adam's descendants from the effects of sin. Thus, those who "take in accurate knowledge" about God and Jesus can be saved.

For this post, I simply want to examine the claims they make about Jesus not being divine. Centered quotations are from "The Man Who Changed the World," with paragraphs aligned left being my responses.

"The idea that God came to earth and lived as the man Jesus, which is central to the doctrine of the Trinity, has been around for a long time--but it does not date back to Jesus. Rather, the Encyclopedia Britannica observes: 'Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries...'"

Before I address this claim, I want to give some clarity to what the doctrine of the Trinity is. The Trinity is the concept that there are three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) sharing the one substance of God. They are all equal and eternal. Jehovah's Witnesses reject off-hand that the doctrine of the Trinity was understood from early days, opting instead for a view that it developed over hundreds of years. It is true that the Bible does not use the word "Trinity." However, it also never uses the word "Theocratic" a concept which is central to the Jehovah's Witness religion. They would respond to this by saying, "yes, but the concept is clearly in the Bible." This is also the case with the Trinity.

Evidence from the Early Church Fathers

I'd like to go backwards from early church history to the New Testament, to show how the early church viewed the Trinity. The word Trinity was first used by Tertullian in the late second to early third century A.D. It was not a word from the Bible, but it was helpful for him to explain the doctrine that Christians then assumed the Bible taught.

In 150 A.D., Justin Martyr wrote in his 1st Apology:

"Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught."

The earliest church fathers made less systematic claims, but their view on the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is clear. For examples, see these quotations from Ignatius of Antioch, one of the earliest Church Fathers we have writers from, who died in 108 A.D.:

"There is only one Physician-- Very Flesh, yet Spirit too... God-and-Man in One agreed..." (Ignatius to the Ephesians).

"For God was now appearing in human form" (Ignatius to the Ephesians).

"Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the Spirit of God" (Ignatius to the Ephesians).

"[There exists] one sole God, who has revealed Himself in His Son Jesus Christ" (Ignatius to the Magnesians).

"Keep your eyes on Him who has no need of opportunities, being outside all time. Whom no senses can reveal was for us made manifest; whom no ache or pain can feel was for us by pain opprest." (Ignatius to Polycarp)

If these Church Fathers felt so confident that Christ was divine, one might suspect that such a doctrine could be found in the Scriptures. Is it?

Evidence for the Deity of Jesus from the New Testament Writings

"In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). NOTE: a better way of translating this verse might be "and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine," or "pertaining to His nature, the Word was everything that God is." This is because the first part of the sentence, "the Word was with God," has the article before "God," as if to say, "the Word was with THE God." The second part of the sentence, "the Word was God," lacks the article, which suggests that the Word had the nature of God the Father, but was not the same Person. John wanted to show that the distinct Person of the Son had all of the characteristics of God. Thus, he did not say that "the Word = the God," which suggests that the Son and the Father are interchangeable terms for the same Person, but that the Word was distinct from the Father and that everything the Father was, the Son was also. Another interesting side-note is that the word "was" in Greek (en) has much more content to it than our English word. It refers to a continuous action in the past. Thus, a better translation would be, "In the beginning, the Word was already in existence."

In reference to Jesus claiming to forgive a man's sins, some of the Jewish leaders said, "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7). Jesus proceeds to heal that man of his inability to walk to prove His point.

"Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed'" (John 20:28-29). Jesus does not correct Thomas, but encourages him to believe in this confession.

"[Jesus], although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Phil 2:6-8).

"Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." (Titus 2:13).

The doctrine of the Trinity also teaches that the Holy Spirit is a Person and God. As this post focuses on Christ, I won't go into the doctrine of the Holy Spirit here, though I recommend reading Matthew 28:19, John 14:16-17, Acts 10:19-20, 1 Cor 12:4-6 and 11, and Romans 8:9 for some teaching on this.

Conclusion

As I hope I have demonstrated, the doctrine of the Trinity was not made up by pagans centuries after the New Testament. It was believed by the Apostles and the early church, even though the earliest writers in the church didn't systematically define it.

"[Jesus told the Apostles]: 'This sitting down at my right hand and at my left hand is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.' [Jesus deferred] to the One with Greater authority.... and he showed that he was not equal to God."

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society misunderstands this text. There is a difficulty for some readers of the Bible because the New Testament on the one hand clearly teaches that Christ is divine, but then on the other that God the Father has authority within the Trinity (see also in regard to the Holy Spirit-- John 16:13). This authority does not mean that the Son or the Spirit are less in nature than the Father, any more than an earthly father/son relationship makes the son less of a human being (I heartily recommend an article by Dr. Mark Bird on this subject). Jehovah's Witnesses feel that they must choose one of these truths over the other. So they ignore the clearest portions of Scripture, which teach that Jesus is God, in favor of less clear Scriptures which refer to authority within the relationships of Father, Son, and Spirit. This leads to numerous major errors on their part.

I hope this has been informative or helpful for anyone who's read through it! I hope to do another post soon on the view which Jehovah's Witnesses teach that believers in Jesus are not in the body of Christ and are outside of the New Covenant. Thanks!

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Deity of Jesus Part 1

2010-06-02T22:08:00.003-04:00

A recent issue of Watchtower magazine, a publication of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was entitled "The Man Who Changed the World" (April 1, 2010), and it focused on the person of Jesus Christ.

For those who are unfamiliar with the view that Jehovah's Witness have of Jesus, they believe Him to be created by God the Father, and not God at all. They also believe that He was formerly Michael the Archangel and that He took on flesh to become a man. Finally, they believe that He suffered death to pay for the sin of Adam, which releases Adam's descendants from the effects of sin. Thus, those who "take in accurate knowledge" about God and Jesus can be saved.

"He lived before he was born on earth. Jesus once said: 'before Abraham came into existence, I have been...'"

This is in reference to John 8:58, and follows the New World Translation, a Bible version the Jehovah's Witnesses have produced themselves in order to have a Bible which more closely resembles their theology. The NASB, a fairly literal rendering of the original Greek, reads this way:

"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM [in Greek, 'ego eimi'].'"

This matches the Greek version of Isaiah 43:10-11, which Jesus and the Apostles were very familiar with and quoted numerous times:

"that ye may know, and believe, and understand that I AM [ego eimi]: before me there was no other God, and after me there shall be none. I am God; and beside me there is no Saviour."

Many have also compared this verse to Exodus 3:14, where God refers to Himself as "I AM." Later, John 13:19 has Jesus giving the disciples a prophecy so that when it was fulfilled, they would know that "I AM." He is not simply saying here that Him prophesying would prove to the disciples that He had a finite pre-existence (what would that prove?), but that He was divine.

Whichever verse was in the mind of the Jews listening to Jesus (Isaiah 43:10 or Exodus 3:14), they understood His meaning. In the next verse, we learn that they picked up rocks to stone Him for blasphemy because of what He had just said. It is absolutely critical that we understand what Jesus means by these words. He Himself tells us that it is:

"And He was saying to them, 'You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He [better translated "I AM," Greek "ego eimi"], you will die in your sins" (John 8:23-24, NASB). If we do not take the time to pay clear attention to what Jesus is saying here, we are seriously missing out on His message and an eternal relationship with Him.

For more information regarding the use of "ego eimi" please check out this article by Dr. James White.

"Jehovah has many angelic sons. Jesus, however, is unique. He referred to himself as 'the only-begotten Son of God.' That expression means that Jesus is the sole direct creation of God. The only begotten Son is the one through whom God created all other things.--Colossians 1:16."

Colossians 1:16 is a very strange verse to quote here, as this Watchtower is for use in evangelizing, not for study inside the Jehovah's Witness organization. As such, anyone not reading a Jehovah's Witness Bible (the New World Translation), would not read this verse as a proof AGAINST the deity of Christ, but for it:

"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:16-17, NASB).

The New World Translation drastically changes this verse by adding one word not in the original text-- "other." In Jehovah's Witness theology, Jesus does not create ALL things, but all OTHER things, meaning that God created Jesus, but Jesus created everything else. However, Paul does not support such a view. He states clearly that Jesus is the cause of everything that has been created. As such, He is not a created being, because a created thing cannot cause itself.

Their interpretation of "only-begotten" (seizing on John 3:16) is also greatly lacking, as the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) illustrates:

"[Jesus is] very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

The men at this council saw a clear distinction between being made and begotten. The Son was not created by God at a point in time, but He was the eternal Son of God. I can "make" a burrito, or "create" a work of art, but I cannot beget them. Begetting indicates that the thing I am in relation to is just like me-- a son or a daughter. This is the language that is used by John for Jesus. No Jew would have claimed to have been begotten by God and therefore just like Him, as a son is just like His Father. John, however, IS claiming this for Jesus. He does not apply the definition of this word that Jehovah's Witnesses do. In fact, John argues clearly that Jesus is in fact God. It is in fact a major part of his central thesis from which the rest of the book flows:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being... He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name. No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him [other translations: 'declared Him' or 'made Him known']" (from John 1, NASB).

For more information on the concept of the eternal begottenness of the Son, please view Dr. Mark Bird's informative essay on the subject.

Continued on next blog...

Errors in the Biblical Chronology of the Kings?

2010-05-23T12:10:00.009-04:00

In the posts I've done lately relating to biblical archaeology, a common theme has been developing: your presuppositions dictate your conclusions. If you assume that the Bible can't be accurate, you will consistently reach that conclusion. If you are at the very least open to the possibility that the Bible could be accurate, you might surprise yourself by discovering just how true and relevant for history (as well as today) it actually is.

A lot of modern biblical criticism follows the methodology of the first. It is assumed off-hand that the Bible is a book riddled with errors that no modern person should take seriously. Much of this stems from liberal biblical criticism movements which developed in Germany, one of the most well-known being the documentary hypothesis, popularized by Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen suggested that the Torah (the five books in the beginning of the Bible) specifically is actually a collection of numerous sources (usually numbered at 4-- the Jahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source) which have been cobbled together and thus can give us no true historical data.

This position is also used to explain issues in the chronologies we find in the books of Kings and Chronicles in the Old Testament. As Theodore Robinson said, "Wellhausen is surely right in believing that the synchronisms in Kings are worthless, being merely a late compilation from the actual figures given." At first glance, these chronologies are confusing. They don't seem to fit together, or match with history correctly. The scholar predisposed to distrusting the Bible would (and has) immediately throw up his hands and say the Bible must be wrong. However, it is a widely accepted practice of reading both ancient and modern documents to give the writer the benefit of the doubt until we are sure that he/she is wrong. So is there another solution apart from that accepted by liberal theologians?

Edwin R. Thiele is one scholar who attempted to propose such a solution. He asked that we consider the cultural context of the people we read about in Kings and Chronicles, including the things not always explicitly stated in the text, but which those writing at the time might assume their readers would consider. His study ended up with some very interesting results.

Reflecting on the concept that the Jewish New Year technically began in the month of Nisan, though a tradition later developed which began the new year in the month of Tishri (6 months later), he considered the possibility that both calendars could have been used for dating the reigns of the kings, which could offset how the reigns of Israelite and Judahite kings lined up with each other and with outside events. He also considered the fact that co-regencies weren't totally uncommon (and are in fact mentioned in 1 Kings 1:34, 2 Kings 15:5, and I Chronicles 23:1), meaning that at times kings ruled with their sons, and this could be reckoned differently depending on how the chronicler began the reign of the son (as co-regent or sole regent). The question could also be asked regarding whether the year of the accession of the king was considered as year one or year zero, as both dating practices are found throughout the Near East.

Thiele was not the only scholar doing this type of work. Rodger C. Young, in his article "Evidence for Inerrancy from an Unexpected Source: OT Chronology," writes:

"In the 1920s Professor V. Coucke in Belgium determined from a careful analysis of the data in Kings and Chronicles that Judah began its regnal years in Tishri, whereas Israel began its regnal years in Nisan... He also determined that the reign lengths of the first kings of Judah and Israel were in harmony with each other if these first kings in Judah used accession reckoning while their counterparts in Israel were using non-accession reckoning to measure their years of reign. Some years later an American scholar, Edwin Thiele, discovered these same principles, although when he began publishing his findings he was not aware of Coucke’s earlier work."

While Thiele's reckoning did provide an alternative way of examining the chronology of the kings, he actually did not fully succeed in bringing these chronologies together to his satisfaction, and determined that on one point the ancient writer made a mistake. Young provides one possible solution to this problem:

"For the southern kingdom, Judah, Thiele failed to recognize that the synchronisms of Hezekiah of Judah and Hoshea of Israel in 2 Kings 18 imply that Hezekiah at this time was coregent with his father Ahaz. This was a blind spot on Thiele’s part, because he recognized that Hezekiah’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had coregencies with their fathers, and Hezekiah had a coregency with his son; why then rule out a coregency of Hezekiah with Ahaz?"

Minor revisions have been made to Thiele's chronology since he proposed it, but it has remained more or less intact.

Later in his article, Young also tells us that the bibilical chronology put together by Thiele also corresponds with fixed dates in Babylonian and Assyrian chronologies, adding further support to the idea that the bibilical historian(s) knew what he was doing. These dates are:

"1. The Battle of Qarqar in 853 BC, at which Shalmaneser III of Assyria listed Ahab of Israel as one of his foes (see the further discussion below).

2. The tribute of Jehu of Israel to Shalmaneser in 841 BC.

3. The invasion of Sennacherib in Hezekiah’s 14th year, 701 BC.

4. The death of King Josiah when he fought against Pharaoh Necho, who was on his way to take Carchemish from the Babylonians, in 609 BC.

5. Nebuchadnezzar’s initial capture of Jerusalem in 605 BC, at which time Daniel and other Judeans were taken to Babylon.

6. The second capture of Jerusalem and its king Jehoiachin by Nebuchadnezzar—the exact date of which is given in the Babylonian Chronicle as 2 Adar, i.e. March 16, 597 BC."

Preparing Our Hearts for the Gospel

2010-05-16T23:58:00.000-04:00

"There are few Luthers today. Isaiah seems passe. Now we medicate and analyze. Luther [the founder of the protestant movement who was stricken by guilt because of his sin until he read about the God who freely saves us apart from our works] would be counseled to stop being so hard on himself. Isaiah would not find a wide audience for his message and his confession that he lived among a people of 'unclean lips..' Both would be warned that their views would not be seeker-friendly, since they would involve the discussion of such turn-off subjects as sin, judgment, justice, wrath, and repentance... Society's constant emphasis upon self-worth coupled with its fervent proclamation of moral relativism ('Sinner? Are you kidding? You're the best you could be!') has resulted in a cultural inoculation against conviction of sin." - James White, The God Who Justifies

I just resonated with this quote. I've been thinking a lot about the Gospel lately and about how a lot of sincere Christians don't really understand it the way Paul and Jesus would have wanted us to. Many of us have a view of the Gospel that is far more legalistic than it is biblical. We tend to think that we are basically good people and we just need to work hard and God will save us. However, the message of the Gospel is that we DESERVE punishment from a holy and righteous God, and there is nothing that we can offer God so that we would be spared (what possibly could we offer to the One who owns the entire universe?). Because of God's deep love, God the Son took the penalty of our sin for us. Through faith and faith alone we are received by God and our debt is covered by Christ's blood. THIS is the message of the Gospel. Any time we take the credit away from God by speaking of our goodness or our ability to save ourselves, we do as the early legalists in the church did who taught salvation by Christ AND circumcision. Paul's response to this attitude was "Christ will profit you nothing" (Galatians 5:2). God deserves all of the glory in salvation, and it is a sin to take that glory away from Him and give it to ourselves. We must first understand our sinful nature and the penalty we deserve. Then we will have a heart that is aware that it has nothing to offer and cries out for God's mercy. And I am confident that in the day that we cry out to our God, He will answer us.

Is the Bible Wrong About the Philistines?

2010-04-12T20:39:00.009-04:00

The Philistines were a people we read about in the Old Testament. Many scholars agree that they were in the region of Palestine at least by the 1100s B.C. because of the Medinet Habu inscription of Rameses III. They are referenced in the biblical book of Joshua, Israel is at war with them when Samson comes into the picture, and David later slays the Philistine champion Goliath. However, the most controversial references we find about the Philistines in the Bible are in the book of Genesis, where it is said that Abraham and Isaac come into contact with them. This is a controversial assertion because most scholars don't believe they came into the land until much later.

The passages in question are Genesis 20-21 and Genesis 26. They provide us references to Abimelech who is said to be the king of the Philistines. There is debate over what these passages mean. Are they saying that the Philistines were in the land much earlier than scholars know from other sources? Is the author making up that the Philistines were there or did he not know they weren't in the land at the time Abraham supposedly lived? Was the author simply using the term Philistines to refer to the people of the land the Caphtorites (a people called Philistines in later writing) would soon after conquer?

Bryant G. Wood PhD, in his article "The Genesis Philistines," points to research which he believes suggests that the Philistines were simply in the land much earlier than many scholars currently believe, and that Abraham truly meets the king of the Philistine people. This is one possible way of reconciling the supposed discrepancy.

The secular person prefers to say that the writer of Genesis was either ignorant or lying. While there is room for all kinds of theories in secular scholarship, the one that seemingly CAN'T be true is that the Bible is accurate. However, until we have examined other reasonable perspectives, there is no reason to jump to this view.

A middle view, and one which I find to be reasonable, is that the author of Genesis was referring to the people which the Philistines would later conquer and integrate into, as Philistines.

The Bible offers a vague storyline about the origin of the Philistines:

"And the Avim, who dwelt in villages as far as Gaza-- the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and dwelt in their place" (Deuteronomy 2:23, NKJV).

Amos 9:7 refers to the Philistines coming out from Caphtor, thus closely identifying the two as does Jeremiah 47:4, so there is clear support for the Caphtorim being the Philistines. What about the Avim? Chullin 60b (from the Mishnah, Order Kodashim) offers an opinion that the Avim are the so-called Philistines at the time of Abraham and Isaac, where as the Caphtorim which take their place are those who are called Philistines later. The previous verses in the Deuteronomy passage seem to indicate that the Caphtorim took over the land sometime after Esau, one of Isaac's sons, had grown into a tribe. This might lend support to the idea that the Avim were the "Philistines" which Abraham and Isaac dealt with.

While this solution to the problem might be viewed as opening the Bible up to skepticism, this would only be so if one held a very rigid view of inerrancy. For instance, while it would be technically inaccurate to refer to Asian peoples settling "the Americas," since they were not called the Americas at the time, my listeners would know right away what land I was referring to. Because my desire is to communicate a story to my audience, and not to be rigidly and pointlessly time-accurate, I would be far more likely to use this term than the terms which might have been used at the time of the original settlement. For this reason, it does not destroy the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture if Moses (or a later editor) was simply using a modern term for the land he was referring to. This is an acceptable option and one which would not be difficult to support in dealing with a secular person who favors the current archaeological opinion.

Penn Jillette on Evangelism

2010-03-28T14:57:00.000-04:00

This has actually motivated me to stop worrying about offending people and do my job as a Christian.

The Amarna Letters-- An Early Reference to the Hebrews?

2010-03-28T14:47:00.000-04:00

The Amarna tablets record a correspondence in the mid-fourteenth century B.C. over a period of about 20 years. The Canaanite leaders were writing to the Pharaoh for help in difficult issues they were facing. One of those difficulties was that a people called apiru were taking over the land. The king of Gezer wrote, "so may the king, my lord, save his land from the power of the apiru" (EA271). The king of Jerusalem recorded that, "the war against me is severe... apiru has plundered all the lands of the king... if there are no archers, lost are the lands of the king" (EA286). Some have suggested that the apiru are actually the Hebrews, or Israelites. What are the arguments for and against this idea?

Michael C. Astour in "The Hapiru in the Amarna Texts: Basic Points of Controversy," writes:

"[T]hey were...semi-nomads in the process of sedentarization, who came from the semi-desert zone and entered civilized regions as strangers....they were members of tightly knit tribal units whose allegiance was determined by kinship and who had their own system of law... [Apiru] acted in large armed units which were not only engaged in plundering raids but were also seizing for themselves towns and parts of the lands under Egyptian rule" (p. 41, 31).

This sounds an awful lot like the Israelites when they went into Canaan to settle the land. The term apiru had been used long before the Hebrews came into the land, however, as early as 2000-1750 B.C. What many scholars have suggested is that the term does not describe one people, but a type of people. Nomadic invaders may have been called Apiru all throughout the Near East by those who were outside of the group. While some scholars have suggested that they were tight tribes with a common culture, others have suggested that they were simply lower class elements of society with no common affiliation other than being outcasts and/or criminals.

Eugene H. Merrill, in his book "An Historical Survey of the Old Testament," says that:

"It is not likely that the 'apiru of the Amarna texts were the Israelites of the conquest narratives, for the conquest under Joshua preceded the earliest of the Amarna letters by twenty-five years... It is best, no doubt, to conclude that the initial conquest was largely completed before the Amarna period and that the Amarna texts refer to struggles that followed Israel's unsuccessful attempts to subjugate and occupy Canaan. In that case, 'apiru in those texts could refer to both Israel and to other, non-Hebrew peoples" (2nd edition, p. 106).

Merrill is indeed correct. Because of timing difficulties (the letters being from around the 1350s B.C. while the conquest under Joshua was around 1400), it seems that the Canaanites are not referring to Joshua's initial conquest of Canaan. This leads Bryant G. Wood PhD, in his article, "From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period," to say that the Amarna letters may have been describing the conquests which took place afterwards, early in the Judges period of Israel when "the [Israelite] tribes were engaged in consolidating their hold on their assigned allotments." This would seem to correspond with what we read in Judges chapter 1:

"Then Judah said to Simeon his brother, "Come up with me into the territory allotted me, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I in turn will go with you into the territory allotted you." So Simeon went with him. Judah went up, and the LORD gave the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hands, and they defeated ten thousand men at Bezek... Then the sons of Judah fought against Jerusalem and captured it and struck it with the edge of the sword and set the city on fire. Afterward the sons of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites living in the hill country and in the Negev and in the lowland... Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who were living in Gezer; so the Canaanites lived in Gezer among them" (Judges 1:3-4, 9, 29 NASB).

Archaeology is a tricky business. In many cases, it's like having only a few dozen pieces of a puzzle that has over a thousand pieces in all. Archaeologists try to fill in the rest of the puzzle based on the few pieces they have collected. Sometimes, their attempts at discerning the rest of the puzzle seem more likely to be accurate than others. As Christians who believe in the Bible, we do our best to understand what archaeology can tell us about the world in which the Bible takes place. However, we, like the secularists, have our own framework. Many times secular archaeologists and historians assume from the beginning that the Bible is not trustworthy and will interpret data they encounter from that framework. Christians will likewise begin with the idea that the Bible is trustworthy, and the data we find is likely to confirm that concept in our minds.

In the case of the Amarna Tablets, those who deny the historicity of the Bible are likely to support a view that Israel did not wage a campaign into Canaan, and so the Amarna Tablets couldn't possibly be a reference to Israel. Christians and Jews who take the Bible seriously find interesting parallels to the Amarna Tablets and the biblical accounts. New data could sway either side toward the conclusions of the other (that the Tablets are or are not referring to Israel). In the mean time, we must work with the information we have and come to the best conclusions that we can. If the Bible is truthful, the data which is irrefutable will support that, as it has consistently done in the past. Sir William Ramsay was a pre-eminent archaeologist who moved from an anti-biblical bias to accepting the biblical account as one that was highly trustworthy due to an over-whelming wealth of evidence in favor of the Bible's reliability:

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusions which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it [the historicity of the biblical book of Acts], for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely, but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations" (William Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 36). Let us open our mind as well to the truthfulness of the Bible.

Social Justice and Glenn Beck

2010-03-26T09:34:00.013-04:00

"Communists are on the left, and the Nazis are on the right. That's what people say. But they both subscribe to one philosophy, and they flew one banner. . . . But on each banner, read the words, here in America: 'social justice.' They talked about economic justice, rights of the workers, redistribution of wealth, and surprisingly, democracy."

-- Glenn Beck

"A general definition of social justice is hard to arrive at and even harder to implement. In essence, social justice is concerned with equal justice, not just in the courts, but in all aspects of society. This concept demands that people have equal rights and opportunities; everyone, from the poorest person on the margins of society to the wealthiest deserves an even playing field."

-- WiseGeek

"Social justice is the application of the concept of justice on a social scale... From their founding Methodism was a Christian social justice movement. Under John Wesley's direction, Methodists became leaders in many social justice issues of the day, including the prison reform and abolitionism movements. Wesley himself was among the first to preach for slaves rights attracting significant opposition."

-- wikipedia.org

"We have talked, dreamed, and prayed about the possibility and power of bringing together, from across the life of the churches, the many voices that are calling for social justice... focusing our personal faith on the most urgent public issues our world is now facing. From human trafficking to HIV/AIDS, from inner-city education to global poverty, from racial justice to nuclear weapons, from immigrant families to access to health care, from the status of women and girls to conflict resolution in the Middle East, from creation care to homelessness — Christian voices are being heard and people of faith are mobilizing."

-- Sojourners

"[Social Justice] is a perversion of the gospel."

-- Glenn Beck

It is fair and reasonable to debate on how much involvement or power the government should have in economic affairs. I can support social justice and still have reservations about how involved (or in what way) the government should be in issues like welfare, healthcare, etc. based on concerns about the best and most godly way to help those around us. That being said, the government of Israel in the Old Testament did have a strong role in social justice. It was dear to the heart of God that the people of Israel supported the least among them, and demanded through civil law that the poor were taken care of.

God commanded such social justice laws as:

"If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest" (Exodus 22:25, see also Leviticus 25:35-38). If this law was passed in the United States, it would be deemed unconstitutional, unamerican, and socialist.

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God" (Leviticus 23:22). It seems that God is against property rights! Moses was clearly some Marxist atheist!

"In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to his own property... The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants... " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. If, however, a man has no one to redeem it for him but he himself prospers and acquires sufficient means to redeem it, he is to determine the value for the years since he sold it and refund the balance to the man to whom he sold it; he can then go back to his own property. But if he does not acquire the means to repay him, what he sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and he can then go back to his property" (Leviticus 25:13, 23, 25-28). A conservative might respond: If some poor person can't afford to pay his bills and loses his house to me, why should I have to give it back to him later? What about free enterprise? What about pulling your own self up by your bootstraps? If this law were enacted in the United States, it would ruin our nation and destroy our freedom!

"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man. "Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets. But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets" (Luke 6:20-26). This is class warfare! Is this the Gospel of Luke or the Communist Manifesto?!

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches?" (Isaiah 10:1-3) Now this verse might talk about laws that deprive poor people of their rights and take advantage of the economically unfortunate, but I'm sure this couldn't apply to heavy interest on poor people, or taking away their houses, or not giving them food from my property. Isaiah MUST have been talking about something else entirely...

"With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need" (Acts 4:33-35). Okay, maybe the Apostles did this after Jesus, but there's no reason to think we should do things like this. And even if we did, it's not like the Apostles asked the government to do this-- they did it all by themselves. There is a clear separation of church and state... No, wait, I meant that there is a clear separation of church and state when it comes to taking care of the poor. When it comes to putting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms or in schools or banning gay marriage, there must be a marriage of church and state. It says that somewhere in the Bible, I think...

As I hope I illustrated (and which I in fact may have illustrated so clearly and sarcastically that you're annoyed with my hyperbole), these laws would not be welcome by free enterprise capitalists like Glenn Beck in our nation today.

In all fairness though, we have a different system today than Israel had when God gave them His Law. It is sometimes difficult to discern how God's commands to a nation that was structured very differently apply to us now. However, it would be difficult to show that the government has no responsibility to the poor and suffering if we are to believe that Christians are to have an influence over their government. If God cared about social justice so much that He put it into His civil law, along with moral commands against adultery, murder, and stealing, why should we think it no longer applies?

Beck argues that social justice is a perversion of the Gospel. It isn't. Those in the extreme left who preach a "social gospel" in place of Christ's Gospel have certainly perverted the truth, but it is not a perversion to reason that because Christ has condescended to our level to help us at expense to Himself, and because He has initiated a new kingdom with a heart for the least of those in society, we should follow His example in both our personal lives and influence the government to do the same.

The reality is that Beck is not attacking social justice from a religious perspective, but from a political one. The fact that honest-to-God Christians have followed him in his confusion of the two (the Word of God and political opinion) lets the world know just how little we are willing to think about these issues in a serious way.

Social justice is not a perversion of the Gospel, but a reflection of it in a political sense. The Gospel is the message of Jesus Christ redeeming us through his sacrifice, though we had no power of our own, and bringing us into the Kingdom of God. We declare this message by preaching salvation in Jesus Christ and by showcasing his love and mercy in more concrete ways (please read Matthew 25 if you would like to understand what I mean by that).

Is the Bible Right About the Fall of Jericho?

2010-03-15T23:23:00.002-04:00

In Joshua chapters 2-6, we read a now familiar story about the Israelite siege of Jericho. In it, we find a supernatural victory given to Israel by God over a city, the walls of which fall in an instant. The verification of an army coming into Jericho at the time described by the Bible (around 1400 B.C.) was supported by the findings of British archaeologist John Garstang in the 1930s. However, excavations later led by Kathleen Kenyon dated the destruction of Jericho BEFORE Israel would have come into the land according to the Bible (around 1550 B.C.) so there wouldn't have been a city to conquer at the time Israel entered the land. This casted serious doubts on the biblical narrative by those who followed her conclusions (which, in this case, would be a significant amount of liberal Bible scholars and archaeologists).

One might wonder why Garstang would date the destruction of this city at right around the biblical time frame, and why Kenyon would date it so much earlier. I would like to discuss some of the reasons for this, as well as look at some of the circumstantial evidence for the biblical account. As archaeology is not my field (nor a field I am extremely knowledgeable about even as a hobby), I may make mistakes due to my lack of knowledge. If I make any such mistakes that the reader is aware of, please let me know. I also encourage you to read through other sources. This is simply an introduction to this issue to get you started doing your own reading and thinking on this issue. The sources I used to write this blog are listed at the bottom of the page.

Garstang's conclusions which supported the biblical timeline were based on (among other things) pottery found in the debris and scarabs from nearby tombs which commemorated Egyptian pharaohs whose reigns we can pinpoint to specific time periods, and which end around the time that Israel is said by the Bible to have conquered the city.

Kenyon did not give an analysis of her findings in her excavation reports (which were published after her death), so those who would like to find her reasoning for the date she gives appeal to comments she had made elsewhere. It is based on these comments that many come to the conclusion that her dating was based almost exclusively on the absense of a type of imported Cypriote pottery which was common in the time period of 1550-1400 B.C. Since she did not find the pottery which she felt was typical of this time period, it was clear to her that the city must have been destroyed BEFORE said time period.

It is the conclusion of those who hold to the biblical dating scheme that Kenyon over-emphasized the absense of such pottery, or ignored other evidence which would support a later date. Since both Kenyon and Garstang dug in an area of Jericho which was poor, the pottery she was expecting to find (which was more exotic) would not likely be found. It would be like searching for an expensive big screen television manufactured in 2005 in order to date a poorer section of New York City, and then coming to the conclusion that because this television wasn't found, the section excavated must date to before 2005. Of even more significance, Garstang did discover this type of pottery at the site of his dig, but didn't understand the significance of it, as Kenyon later did. The section of Kenyon's dig was further north, away from where Garstang had found the Cypriot biochrome ware.

What is most interesting to me, however, is the circumstantial evidence that links this site to the destruction of Jericho described in the book of Joshua. For instance, both Garstang and Kenyon discovered large quantities of grain stored up. This is odd because in ancient times starvation sieges, where a city was blocked in by an invading army until they were out of food, were very common. However, Jericho didn't fall like this. The presence of so much grain indicates that Jericho fell very quickly. Not only that, but the invaders obviously didn't take the grain, which syncs nicely with the biblical account. "Keep yourselves from the things devoted to destruction," we read in Joshua 6:18. The major details also correspond. The walls were leveled, as we read in Joshua 6:20, and the city was burned, as we read in Joshua 6:20. These details correspond quite well with the account we read in Joshua. This, along with Garstang's work which suggests that Jericho fell right around the time the Bible claims Israel invaded, gives us good reason to trust the biblical account.

Sources used and recommended--

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/02/From-Ramesses-to-Shiloh-Archaeological-Discoveries-Bearing-on-the-Exodus-Judges-Period.aspx

Examining Evidences for Both Old Earth and Young Earth Views, Part 1-- The Flood

2010-02-05T10:39:00.004-05:00

Before I get into this, I want to make a few things clear. First of all, whether a Christian believes in an old earth or young earth, they may very well still roughly agree about when the flood transpired. However, a young earth Christian is far more likely to believe in a global flood which is responsible for producing most of the fossil record that we find. An old earth Christian, by virtue of starting with an old earth where animals live and die before humans (thus accounting for the fossil record in this way), might believe in a huge regional flood in the area of Mesopotamia which destroys all humans but Noah's family, but which doesn't cover the entire earth. These are the two perspectives on the flood I will be discussing (I will not discuss the secular "local flood" theory which posits a minor flood that effects only a small population of people as it disregards the truthfulness of the biblical witness).

Secondly, while I may refer to current scientific and archaeological opinion in this and (more particularly) future age of the earth blogs, it is just that-- opinion. Some theories in both the fields of science and archaeology may be able to marshal more evidences to support their claims than other theories might, but any theory can be overturned or greatly modified with new data. As someone who has been firmly convinced in the reliability of Scripture, if I find that Scripture is absolutely clear on a topic, I feel more intellectually responsible standing up for what I feel is clear in God's word than the contemporary and changing theories in any given science. I am currently somewhat agnostic on the subject of whether or not the flood was global or regional, but am open to hearing both sides of the debate. This is a journey for me and I hope that we can enjoy it together and help each other through.

I have given this topic much thought, but I am by no means an expert. If I misrepresent either side or any scientific claims, I hope my readers will correct me.

Was There a Flood?

Before discussing whether or not the flood was worldwide, we must first deal with whether or not it actually happened. I suspect my Christian readers won't struggle to answer this question, as they ought to already accept the authority of the Bible, and the Bible clearly teaches that a flood occurred. But what of those who think that Noah's Flood is just a fairy tale? I would suggest that outside testimony seems to point to a different conclusion.

This outside testimony is in the form of numerous cultures spread all over the world recounting a giant flood which wiped out the earth's inhabitants. While some might suggest that various cultures dreaming up a giant flood doesn't prove anything (even Alice in Wonderland had a giant flood), the details shared by many of these stories is uncanny (such as deity punishing mankind with a flood, a man and his family building a boat for themselves and animals, sending an animal to find out whether land was showing, and the man's ancestors building a tower to heaven and having their languages confused as a result). An article by a Young Earth Christian gives SOME examples of the cultures which had flood legends and what their legends consisted of. Numerous parallel accounts spread all throughout the world suggest that there may very well be validity to the flood story we find in the Bible. In her book The History of the Ancient World, Susan Wise Bauer tells us, "the historian cannot ignore the Great Flood. it is the closest thing to a universal story that the human race possesses."

A Global Flood?

The best thing the Global Flood theory has going for it is that Scripture, taken by us in its plainest sense, seems to suggest a flood of worldwide proportions.

"The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark."
- Genesis 7:19-23, NASB

While there are some scientific claims that can be made to support a global flood (and groups like Answers In Genesis would be glad to give them to you on their website, answersingenesis.org), most of the scientific community would say that the evidence is severely lacking. Once again, a new discovery could change all that, but the weight of evidence seems to suggest that a global flood never occurred. That being said, the fact that Genesis seems to be so clearly talking about a worldwide flood should give serious Christians pause. If all of the mountains under heaven are covered, and every living on the face of the land is destroyed, it would certainly seem that the flood was worldwide. Furthermore, the parallel flood stories which we find all over the world (not just in the Near East or even in the Eurasian continents) all talk about a WORLDWIDE flood. If the flood did occur, it would seem to almost HAVE to be worldwide with the biblical and historical data supporting it. Right? Well, some might disagree.

A Regional Flood?

"So what if all of the other flood legends say the flood was global?" asks the regional flood proponent. He believes that the flood destroyed all of mankind apart from Noah's family, but didn't have to be worldwide to do it. After all, what evidence do we have from Scripture that man had spread out past Mesopotamia? All of the events recorded in Genesis up to this point have taken place in the region, and even after the flood no one seems to want to leave (as the Tower of Babel account clearly teaches). God could have destroyed all of mankind and the world they knew and they wouldn't have known any different than to think of it as a worldwide flood. Furthermore, we find in the Bible that when man is punished, it is his land, his line, and his livelihood (including the animals he uses) that may fall under his curse. A global flood would be an interesting exception to this rule, where God destroys animals which man has nothing to do with in lands that he has never even traveled to.

This is an interesting line of reasoning, but it still doesn't answer the direct and seemingly clear words of Genesis 7, which say that every living thing was blotted out under heaven. How can an old earth proponent argue with that?

He might point to other Scriptures that use similar language. For instance, Acts 2:5 talks about devout men from "every nation under heaven" coming to Jerusalm for Pentecost. 1 Kings 10:24 refers to the "whole world" coming to speak with Solomon. Romans 1:8 describes the faith of Roman Christians being reported "all over the world." Clearly, in all of these cases, the entirety of the physical world is not in view. It is the world of the day that is in view, and for the one writing is the only world that matters. Couldn't this also be said for Noah? As for every living creature on "the earth" being killed, the Hebrew word we translate as "earth" is eretz, and refers specifically to "land, ground, the inhabitants of the earth, or the whole earth." The regional flood view would suggest that we should take eretz to refer only to the land in that region, not to the earth as a whole. If all of the living creatures in the land populated by humans died as a result of this flood, Scripture could still be correct in what it asserts, or so says the regional flood supporter. In any case, those who believe in a global flood are not convinced.

Which View Is Correct?

As I am currently seeking to answer this question to the best of my abilities, I cannot tell you with 100% confidence which view is the right one. However, I am committed to living a Christian life that both respects the intellect God gave me, and the authority of Scripture. What I am confident about is that we should not de-christianize others on this issue. Christians who believe in a global flood may disagree with those who do not, but they cannot call them heretics. Similarly, those who favor a regional flood should respect their global-flood counterparts and their commitment to believing in what they feel the Bible plainly teaches. As for me, I'll continue to think about these issues, read the word, and pray for God's guidance.

John Piper on World Peace / Obama on Non-Violence

2009-12-17T19:45:00.002-05:00

I just wanted to share a couple of good articles I read today on the subjects of peace and violence.

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Interviews/390_World_Peace/

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/12/17/obamas-nobel-speech-violence-and-nonviolence-naivete-and-realism/

True.

2009-12-08T18:00:00.001-05:00

"Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee."
--Augustine, Confessions

There Is No Such Thing As Intellectual Neutrality

2009-12-07T21:23:00.003-05:00

There is no such thing as intellectual neutrality.

The Christian accepts that God is the Lord of the universe, and the source of reason and morality.

The atheist (or many atheists) accepts that reason and morality exist, but attempts to deny God-- the only possible source of reason and morality. Thus, the atheist is irrational. For the Christian to try to argue from a "neutral" perspective to convince the atheist is to stoop to the atheist's level. It is trying to prove God from the atheist's presuppositions, which are incoherent. For the Christian to agree with the atheist that reason and morality exist but God might not, and then trying to prove that God exists from reason and morality (which could only be meaningful if God exists), is irreverent and ridiculous. It affirms for the atheist that his reasoning is autonomous and that he can sit in judgment on God using the standards that God Himself created. Only a wretched, prideful man could think as the atheist does, and could be likened to an angry toddler screaming at his parents, trying to overturn their rightful authority over him.

If we are to argue with the atheist using evidence, we must first make it clear that in accepting the adequacy of evidence and his reason, he is affirming the existence of God.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man..." (Romans 1:18-23, ESV).

Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

2009-12-06T13:10:00.008-05:00

Does the Bible condone slavery? Yes. However, I think that it's appropriate for us to understand exactly what this means. In the Western world, we have a very specific idea about what slavery is. We will either link it to the African slave trade that plagued our nation up until the 1860s, or compare it to the cruel sex slavery that's still going on all over the world. However, I think it is important to note that while the Bible does condone slavery, it is a different kind of slavery than you and I are used to thinking about. I want to lay out just a few of the details from Scripture to paint a picture of what slavery looked like in ancient Israel, and then I would like to respond to some charges from skeptics that the kind of slavery the Bible allowed was as oppressive and dehumanizing as the slavery that took place in the United States.

Slavery in Old Testament times was quite different from American slavery up until the 1860s. In ancient Israel, slaves were acquired either from Israelites who had failed to pay their debts so sold themselves into slavery to regain financial freedom again, or from other nations, generally taken after war. It was forbidden, however, to kidnap men and sell them as slaves under penalty of death. Hebrew slaves were freed after 6 years (their masters were also ordered to provide them with enough financial security to start their lives over in Deuteronomy 15:12-18), or on the Jubilee which happened every 50 years, though foreign slaves could remain slaves and be passed down through the slave-owner's family. All slaves, whether Hebrew or foreign, were given the Sabbath day off to rest.

There is one law in the Old Testament that anti-Christian website religioustolerance.org has described as:

"[permitting] owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property."

How well does this description capture the original law?

"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property." (Exodus 21:20-21, NASB)

[NOTE: Before I begin to respond to this passage at it is laid out, I want to first note that some translators (including the NIV version of the Bible) interpret a phrase in it as, "if he stands after a day or two," not "if he survives a day or two." This would change the meaning of the verse significantly. However, I will, for sake of argument, deal with this passage as if it read "he survives a day or two," implying that the servant dies after a couple of days. Most of the arguments I use below would still apply to understanding the perceived cruelty of this passage, but the outcome of the slave-owner's strike would be different and certainly more morbid if the "survives a day or two" translation is accepted.]

First of all, it is misleading to translate the Hebrew word "naqam" as "punished" in verse 20, but "vengeance" in 21 (or "punished" in both places as the King James translates it). The word means something like "avenged" or "vengeance" everywhere else it is used in the Bible. Because of this, I believe the verse is saying that the man who strikes his slave so that he/she dies that day will be killed for what he has done to his slave. The fact that slave-owners would be punished for killing their slaves creates an incredibly important distinction between Israel and many other societies with slaves-- the slave was viewed as a human being with a right to life.

The Religious Tolerance author made another point also. The owner was not regarded as committing a crime if the slave died a few days later. Why is this? The text explicitly gives one reason, which is that the slave is under the authority of his master. This does in fact give a sanction to the idea that it was considered appropriate to use force against a slave who was (presumably) being disobedient or refused to work. This may sound harsh to modern ears, but this is what the Bible seems to indicate. But despite the fact that the Bible says it is sometimes okay to use force against your slaves to discipline them, it seems clear from the context of this verse that the slave-master who INTENDS to kill his slave is a capital criminal. If he had intended to kill his slave, the slave would have surely died that very day without the advent of modern medicine and life support. If he did not intend to, if a blow that lead to death was unintentional, the slave would have lived on, at least for a few days.

This is an important distinction because the Law of Moses elsewhere (in fact, only a few verses before this passage in Exodus 21:12-14!) defines murder as intentionally taking the life of another human being. Manslaughter, on the other hand, was not punishable by death. In this regard, this slavery law is not very different from the laws where non-slaves are affected. This would change how we might understand the verse to something like, "if a man purposefully hits his slave so that he dies, the slave will be avenged. But if it was an accident, he will not be avenged because it is not against the law to chastise a disobedient slave, nor is it a capital offense to kill someone on accident."

Some may accuse me of "reading into the text," however, I don't believe I am guilty of doing this. The laws of ancient Israel are not formulated like ours are. They show principles by giving examples, whereas we are much more specific in giving our laws. Because of this, we may come across a law in the Bible which forbids a man from taking both the eggs from a nest and eating the mother of the chicks, and totally misunderstand why such a law would be written. That is because this command is not a PRINCIPLE of morality, but an EXAMPLE of it-- do not destroy the environment around you, but take what you need to survive. We may also note the command to establish a fence around one's roof. Because people would often climb onto the roof to escape the heat of the house, a fence would be a way to protect people from falling and being hurt. This law does not only command that we build fences on our roofs, but that we secure our homes to protect our families and friends. To pull ONLY the words from these two texts and ignore the principles behind them would be to ignore the purpose behind what the author is writing. The same goes for the above verses on slavery. While it is accurate to say, "this passage says it's okay to kill your slave if they die a few days later," it completely misses the point of why the law was given. I am not reading into the text by discerning purpose, but attempting to handle the text according to why the author wrote it. It is the skeptic who refuses interpretation who is handling the text inappropriately (the examples I used are from Deuteronomy 22).

It is of course noteworthy that the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt and had been killed and abused. They themselves supported this law, which on one hand argued that it was okay to use force against a lazy or disobedient slave, while also supporting the other part of the law which argued that slave-owners who purposefully killed their slaves must be paid back for their sin. Furthermore, only a few verses later we see another law related to slavery which gives us a look into the heart of the same author who wrote the first:

"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)

This passage gives us irrefutable proof that the author of Exodus is concerned for the rights of slaves in ancient Israel. Not only is the kind of strike intended to kill a slave forbidden, but even a strike hard enough to knock out a tooth is forbidden. Using this kind of force against your slave would result in his automatic freedom. This seems to give strength to the above interpretation of verses 20-21 which argues that the main concern in view is protecting slaves from unnecessary violence, while still giving the slave-owner the right to discipline disobedient slaves who are benefiting from their master's financial support (through food, clothing, shelter, etc.) but refuse to earn it. Similarly (though not the same circumstances), a disobedient child could be punished via the "rod," and parents were actually explicitly encouraged to do so when the situation called for it (Proverbs 13:24, 22:15).

Not only were the rights to life and a non-abusive master extended to slaves, but the slave whose master was harsh and dangerous had the right to run away!

"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him." Deuteronomy 23:15-16

I think a clearer picture is emerging of what slavery looked like under ancient Israel (that is, if it was indeed following the Laws which God had given them). It was considered a necessary institution by society, but God placed laws on His people with the result that those those who fell into slavery were being treated with dignity and respect, as human beings just like their masters.

"The most astonishingly unique slave law in the Old Testament is the law of asylum in Deuteronomy 23:15-16. Runaway slaves, far from being punished or sent back, were to be given freedom of residence in a village of their choice. The universal law of the rest of contemporary societies (as indeed of modern societies before slavery was abolished) not only punished runaway slaves but also laid severe penalties on anyone who gave them refuge. Israel's law was the diametrical opposite, on of the most countercultural pieces of Old Testament legislation to be found. Israel's law not only allowed runaway slaves freedom; it went beyond that and commanded their protection."

(p. 336, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, Christopher J. H. Wright)

So yes, the Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery per se, though it would have an awful lot to say those who supported the African slave trade and much of the slave trade all over the world today. The Bible, as opposed to the godless institutions of slavery we have encouraged, supports the idea that slaves are human beings like their masters with rights to life and fair treatment, whether Hebrew or foreign, and allowed for abused slaves to run from their masters if they saw fit. It was a social practice that God allowed, though biblical principles such as the equality of all men (Acts 17:26, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:5-9, James 2:1-9, Philemon) would in time overturn it.

The Council of Nicea

2009-12-03T10:42:00.005-05:00

I plan on posting some new material soon, but in the mean time I wanted to post this terrific article from Dr. James White on the subject of the Council of Nicea. If you have heard (or have even made the claim that) this Council invented the deity of Christ, Roman Catholicism, or decided what books should be Scripture by destroying recognized Gnostic texts, then I strongly encourage you to read this:

http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-

What Really Happened at Nicea?

DN206

James R. White

Summary

The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity. But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.

The conversation intensified quickly. "You can’t really trust the Bible," my Latter-day Saints acquaintance said, "because you really don’t know what books belong in it. You see, a bunch of men got together and decided the canon of Scripture at the Council of Nicea, picking some books, rejecting others." A few others were listening in on the conversation at the South Gate of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. It was the LDS General Conference, and I again heard the Council of Nicea presented as that point in history where something "went wrong," where some group of unnamed, faceless men "decided" for me what I was supposed to believe. I quickly corrected him about Nicea — nothing was decided, or even said, about the canon of Scripture at that council.¹

I was reminded how often the phrase "the Council of Nicea" is used as an accusation by those who reject the Christian faith. New Agers often allege that the council removed the teaching of reincarnation from the Bible.² And of course, Jehovah’s Witnesses and critics of the deity of Christ likewise point to that council as the "beginning of the Trinity" or the "first time the deity of Christ was asserted as orthodox teaching." Others see it as the beginning of the union of church and state in light of the participation of the Roman Emperor, Constantine. Some even say it was the beginning of the Roman Catholic church.

THE BACKGROUND

Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, the Council of Nicea stands above other early councils of the church as far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it "the most sacred of all councils."³ When it began on June 19, 325, the fires of persecution had barely cooled. The Roman Empire had been unsuccessful in its attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. Fourteen years had elapsed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended. Many of the men who made up the Council of Nicea bore in their bodies the scars of persecution. They had been willing to suffer for the name of Christ.

The council was called by the Emperor Constantine. Leading bishops in the church agreed to participate, so serious was the matter at hand. To understand why the first universal council was called, we must go back to around A.D. 318. In the populous Alexandria suburb of Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Specifically, he disagreed with Alexander’s teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being "generated" eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that "there was a time when the Son was not." Christ must be numbered among the created beings — highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander defended his position, and it was not long before Arius was declared a heretic in a local council in 321.

This did not end the matter. Arius simply moved to Palestine and began promoting his ideas there. Alexander wrote letters to the churches in the area, warning them against those he called the "Exukontians," from a Greek phrase meaning "out of nothing." Arius taught that the Son of God was created "out of nothing." Arius found an audience for his teachings, and over the course of the next few years the debate became so heated that it came to the attention of Constantine, the Emperor.

Having consolidated his hold on the Empire, Constantine promoted unity in every way possible. He recognized that a schism in the Christian church would be just one more destabilizing factor in his empire, and he moved to solve the problem.⁴ While he had encouragement from men like Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine was the one who officially called for the council.⁵

THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR VIEWS

The Council of Nicea was mostly Eastern. According to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance, though most historians believe this number is a bit high. The vast majority came from the East, with less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire.

The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendance, at the command of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable of these were two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

The "orthodox" group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his brilliant young deacon, and later champion of the Nicene position, Athanasius⁶). They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance (Greek: homo-ousios⁷) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence that is God and in full deity.

The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called the "Eusebian" party), distrusted the term homoousios, primarily because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic⁸ heretic Sabellius and others who wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person. This middle group agreed with the orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea that the Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore presented the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.

Party/Leaders	View of Christ
Arian/Arius	of a different substance — heteroousios
Orthodox/Alexander, Hosius, Athanasius	of the same substance — homoousios
Eusebian/Eusebius of Caesarea	of a similar substance — homoiousios

THE ROLE OF CONSTANTINE

We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first "church historian," was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions. Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s "panegyrical flattery."⁹ Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms so as to enhance his own position.

What really was Constantine’s role? Often it is alleged (especially by Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) that, for whatever reasons, Constantine forced the "same substance" view upon the council,¹⁰ or, at the very least, insured that it would be adopted. This is not the case. There is no question that Constantine wanted a unified church after the Council of Nicea. But he was no theologian, nor did he really care to any degree what basis would be used to forge the unity he desired. Later events show that he didn’t have any particular stake in the termhomoousios and was willing to abandon it, if he saw that doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among the Gnostics...."¹¹ Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.

THE DECISION AND THE CREED

The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was limitedsolely to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of "reading" the statement so as to allow for agreement.¹² They were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.

The "orthodox" party had to express clearly to the "middle group" that by the use of the term homoousios they were not in any way attempting to give aid and comfort to the modalists and Sabellians in the East who continued to teach their errors even in the days of Nicea. They were not compromising the existence of three Persons, but were instead safeguarding the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son.¹³The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius and two bishops, was quite clear in its position:

We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made....

The creed also contained the "anathema" (i.e., condemnation) for those who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers were banished, even though for a short time. This set a precedent that eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is also a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the council.

Nicea did not come up with something "new" in the creed. Belief in the deity of Christ was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated this truth over and over again.¹⁴ References to the full deity of Christ are abundant in the period prior to the Council of Nicea. Ignatius (died c. 108), the great martyr bishop of Antioch, could easily speak of Jesus Christ as God at the opening of the second century. More than once Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ as "our God."¹⁵ When writing to Polycarp he can exhort him to "await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, (who for our sake became visible!), the Impalpable, the Impassible, (who for our sake suffered!), who in all ways endured for our sake."¹⁶ Ignatius shows the highest view of Christ at a very early stage, when he writes to the Ephesians: "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord."¹⁷

Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure, was tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church regarding the deity of Christ:

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed. Who was it? It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying. But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand.¹⁸

Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority.

This can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending the Nicene council, does so on the basis of its harmony with Scripture, not on the basis of the council having some inherent authority in and of itself. Note his words: "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture."¹⁹

The relationship between the sufficient Scriptures and the "Nicene Bishops" should be noted carefully. The Scriptures are not made insufficientby the council; rather, the words of the council "remind" one of the "religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." Obviously, then, the authority of the council is derivative from its fidelity to Scripture.

CANON #6

While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.²⁰

This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a "Roman Catholic" concept "forced" on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.²¹

THE AFTERMATH

Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made "the decision," the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures.

During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories. There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded "confession" from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.

Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, "The highways were covered with galloping bishops."²² Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter.²³

During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."²⁴

Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike — gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world." Convinced that Scripture is "sufficient above all things,"²⁵Athanasius acted as a true "Protestant" in his day.²⁶ Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: "If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude."²⁷

Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: "I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both — the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."²⁸

NICEA TODAY

Why do Christians believe in the deity of Christ today? Is it because they have been forced to do so by legislated theology from councils and popes? No, it is because the Scriptures teach this truth. When orthodox believers affirm the validity of the creed hammered out at Nicea, they are simply affirming a concise, clear presentation of scriptural truth. The authority of the Nicene creed, including its assertion of thehomoousion, is not to be found in some concept of an infallible church, but in the fidelity of the creed to scriptural revelation. It speaks with the voice of the apostles because it speaks the truth as they proclaimed it. Modern Christians can be thankful for the testimony of an Athanasius who stood for these truths even when the vast majority stood against him. We should remember his example in our day.

James R. White is Scholar in Residence at the College of Christian Studies, Grand Canyon University, an adjunct professor at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary (AZ Campus) and Faraston Theological Seminary, and Director of Ministries for Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona.

NOTES

¹The Council of Nicea did not take up the issue of the canon of Scripture. In fact, only regional councils touched on this issue (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) until much later. The New Testament canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as the Old Testament canon did. See Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995).
²See Joseph P. Gudel, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger, "Reincarnation — Did the Church Suppress It?" Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, 8-12.
³Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), 66.
⁴Much has been written about Constantine’s religious beliefs and his "conversion" to Christianity. Some attribute to him high motives in his involvement at Nicea; others see him as merely pursuing political ends. In either case, we do not need to decide the issue of the validity of his confession of faith, for the decisions of the Nicene Council on the nature of the Son were not dictated by Constantine, and even after the Council he proved himself willing to "compromise" on the issue, all for the sake of political unity. The real battle over the deity of Christ was fought out in his shadow, to be sure, but it took place on a plane he could scarcely understand, let alone dominate.
⁵Later centuries would find the idea of an ecumenical council being called by anyone but the bishop of Rome, the pope, unthinkable. Hence, long after Nicea, in A.D. 680, the story began to circulate that in fact the bishop of Rome called the Council, and even to this day some attempt to revive this historical anachronism, claiming the two presbyters (Victor and Vincentius) who represented Sylvester, the aged bishop of Rome, in fact sat as presidents over the Council. See Philip Schaff’s comments in his History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 3:335.
⁶Athanasius’s role at the council has been hotly debated. As a deacon, he would not, by later standards, even be allowed to vote. But his brilliance was already seen, and it would eventually fall to him to defend the decisions of the Council, which became his lifelong work.
⁷The Latin translation is consubstantialis, consubstantial, which is the common rendering of the term in English versions of the final form of the Nicene Creed.
⁸Modalism is the belief that there is one Person in the Godhead who at times acts as the Father, and other times as the Son, and still other times as the Spirit. Modalism denies the Trinity, which asserts that the three Persons have existed eternally.
⁹Schaff, 3:624.
¹⁰The only basis that can be presented for such an idea is found in a letter, written by Eusebius of Caesarea during the council itself to his home church, explaining why he eventually gave in and signed the creed, and agreed to the term homoousios. At one point Eusebius writes that Constantine "encouraged the others to sign it and to agree with its teaching, only with the addition of the word ‘consubstantial’ [i.e.,homoousios]." The specific term used by Eusebius, parakeleueto, can be rendered as strongly as "command" or as mildly as "advise" or "encourage." There is nothing in Eusebius’s letter, however, that would suggest that he felt he had been ordered to subscribe to the use of the term, nor that he felt that Constantine was the actual source of the term.
¹¹Schaff, 3:628.
¹²Someone might say that this demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church; that is, that it denies sola scriptura. But sola scriptura does not claim the Bible is sufficient to answer every perversion of its own revealed truths. Peter knew that there would be those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, and it is good to note that God has not deemed it proper to transport all heretics off the planet at the first moment they utter their heresy. Struggling with false teaching has, in God’s sovereign plan, been a part of the maturing of His people.
¹³For many generations misunderstandings between East and West, complicated by the language differences (Greek remaining predominate in the East, Latin becoming the normal language of religion in the West), kept controversy alive even when there was no need for it.
¹⁴Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, John 1:1-14, Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:5-11, etc.
¹⁵See, for example, his epistle to the Ephesians, 18, and to the Romans, 3, in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds., The Apostolic Fathers(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 141 and 150.
¹⁶Polycarp 3, The Apostolic Fathers, 161.
¹⁷Ephesians 7, The Apostolic Fathers, 139.
¹⁸Melito of Sardis, A Homily on the Passover, sect. 95-96, as found in Richard Norris, Jr., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 46. This homily is one of the best examples of early preaching that is solidly biblical in tone and Christ-centered in message.
¹⁹Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, as found in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), IV:453.
²⁰Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, XIV:15.
²¹For those who struggle with the idea that it was not "Roman Catholicism" that existed in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a "Roman Catholic" church? Of course not. Yet, the church of 325 had none of these beliefs, either. Hence, while they called themselves "Catholics," they would not have had any idea what "Roman Catholic" meant.
²²Ammianus Marcellinus, as cited by Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), III:632.
²³For a discussion of the lapse of Liberius, see Schaff, III:635-36. For information on the relationship of Liberius and the concept of papal infallibility, see George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 425-29, and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), I:176-78.
²⁴Jerome, Adversus Luciferianos, 19, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 6:329.
²⁵Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 4:453.
²⁶I credit one of my students, Michael Porter, with this phraseology.
²⁷Robert Vaughn, The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe (London: Holdworth and Ball, 1831), 313. See 312-17 for a summary of Wycliffe’s doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.
²⁸Augustine, To Maximim the Arian, as cited by George Salman, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 295.

New Blog

2009-11-06T22:40:00.002-05:00

Hey, everybody. I wanted to encourage everyone to check out a new blog I started-- "Argue With a Christian":

http://arguewithachristian.blogspot.com/

It is aimed toward those skeptical of Christianity. While this blog is a collection of my thoughts which could be targeted toward the church OR non-believers, the new blog is specifically targeted toward non-believers that want to engage the Christian worldview. Some of the posts here will also be on that blog. I will still post here, though. Feel free to check it out and refer non-Christian friends to it if you like what you see!

Comparative Religions

2009-11-04T20:02:00.002-05:00

Jesus said, "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you."

Toby Keith said, "we'll put a boot in your *ss, it's the American way."

Eh... what does Jesus know anyway?

The Christian Response to Sinners

2009-10-09T17:01:00.004-04:00

"I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

Romans 1:14-17

“Think of a cultured despiser of the Gospel... They hear the Gospel and like the Greeks, they say, 'foolishness.' Now, in our day, in America , our conservative lifestyle and our biblical orientation is in danger of being so politicized that our fundamental response to people like that is disdain, not debt. Test yourself right now. You watch the television, you look at political speeches, you walk the university campus and see how some may be dressed or whatever, and rising up out of your heart is not the feeling, 'I owe them grace,' but, 'yuck...' That's not Romans. That's not the Bible. If you come to the world with one colossal, well-argued 'yuck' upon your house, you won't win anybody to Jesus.”

-John Piper, in the sermon “Not Ashamed of the Gospel” (06/14/98)

Grandma Stops Robber By Shooting Him... No, Wait, By Witnessing to Him

2009-10-08T09:23:00.003-04:00

I would have just shot him. That's what Jesus would have done. Gotta protect yourself, you know.

E-mail I Sent to My Congressman About Current Healthcare Legislation

2009-10-06T11:20:00.003-04:00

Because there are some big issues out there right now, I think it's good that we voice our opinions to our congressperson to try to sway them to make the right choice. Here's a copy of an e-mail I sent to my Republican congressman on the issue of healthcare:

Sir, I'm a Christian, and as such I think that the 2,000+ verses in the Bible asking us to take care of the less fortunate (many of them in the context of asking government to do so) should be taken seriously by Christian voters and Christian representatives. However, I also believe in being fiscally responsible and in protecting the "least of these" whom many progressives who would support healthcare aren't concerned about-- the unborn. Because of these factors, I support a healthcare plan that will help to provide insurance to those who struggle to afford it (like many of the people whom I work with who can't afford to add insurance to their list of bills). However, I also want to be positive that such a healthcare plan will not provide government funding for abortion, and that it will be the most economically feasible plan that it can be. Instead of seeing so much partisan debate on whether or not we should support such a plan, I would like to see conservatives admit that healthcare is in shambles and that we should take care of the "least among us" by providing the OPTION for government healthcare which they can afford. However, I would also like to see them fight to cut out unnecessary and costly factors in this plan, and to guarantee that abortions won't be paid for. I suspect that conservatives will not admit the need for change on this issue, but I hope they WILL acknowledge that this bill could pass even without their support, and that they should do everything in their power to have influence over this bill to make sure that the unborn will be protected and that this plan will cost less. Thank you.

A Question on Killing for Pro-life/Pro-war Christians

2009-10-05T10:39:00.004-04:00

I had a thought about justice. We've seen in the news a handful of times where an abortion doctor is murdered. Pro-life/pro-war Christians are always quick to say that killing an abortionist is shameful, but I struggle to understand why. If Christians can justify killing in self-defense, in the defense of others, or in war, why shouldn't we be killing abortion doctors? They're murderers of the worst kind. Do we shun killing them because we are required to obey the laws, as Peter and Paul commanded? Fine.

But what about men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian who is considered a Christian hero because he was involved in a secret plot to assassinate Hitler? If we can call Bonhoeffer a hero when he broke the law and attempted to murder a killer, why shouldn't we consider a man like Paul Hill who chose to murder abortionists to be a hero also? I believe that Christ has called Christians to shun violence, so I have my answer, and while I consider a man like Bonhoeffer to be a giant of the faith, I consider his choice to be involved in assassinating Hitler to be unheroic and unchristian. I'm not sending this out to rant, but because I'm curious as to what you guys might think about this issue. I enjoy hearing people's thoughts on controversial issues, and I like starting discussions.

Some Arguing for "a Man's Right to Bruise"

2009-10-04T14:35:00.004-04:00

(I tried to be objective and not judge either side here, guys)

Cody Cook
Black Box Press

Cincinnati, OH-- A legal battle to defend "wife correction" (or as its detractors call it, "wife beating") has reached the United States Supreme Court, and surprisingly it has found a lot of support.

Stephen Gates, a proponent for wife correction, had this to say: "if wife correction is illegal, then men who correct their wives will be made into lawbreakers. We should tear down any laws limiting this practice. I think that we should trust men to know when they can make the decision to inflict pain on their wives, and believe that they will know when it will be for the good of themselves and their chattel-- er, spouse."

Gates proposal not only extends to repealing all "wife correction" laws, but also for the allowance of new facilities where husbands can "safely" correct their wives with the help of experts.

"We should not only make wife correction totally legal, but also provide safe facilities for husbands to do so. Husbands who physically correct their wives at home could be hit with a frying pan or stabbed with a steak knife if their wives don't accept the correction. This is very dangerous. We need to provide a safe environment for husbands who take on the very difficult decision to beat their spouse," Gates said.

Those who are against "wife correction" have argued that "safe wife beating" is a ridiculous concept because violating a woman's physical well-being can never be "safe," and that we shouldn't make it easier for men to abuse their wives.

"If a man gets hurt trying to inflict pain on his wife, that shouldn't move us with compassion to offering him protection and allowing him to keep doing this grave injustice to women," said Sen. Susan Ruth (D-NY) Monday during a congressional hearing on this issue.

I asked Gates how he felt about those who were against "wife correction," like Sen. Ruth who was arguing vigorously against what Gates was trying to do. I pointed out to Gates a quote from Ruth where she had said that, "as fellow human beings, women have the right to be protected from physical harm."

Gates gave the typical pro-correction response. "Well that's because she's a woman, isn't it? Why should I let women tell me what I can do with my property? Susan wants to make this all about a woman's right to protection from harm, but let's not forget that a woman belongs to her husband and that it's arrogant for her some senator in Washington to tell men what they can and can't do with what belongs to them."

I attempted to interview Sen. Susan Ruth to get more of her side of this debate, but she was unavailable due to a scheduling conflict-- she was speaking in support of abortion at a pro-choice conference.

Pro-choicers-- does this upset you? If so, why?

2009-09-30T12:42:00.003-04:00

The story below is about a woman in the U.K. whose child was born premature. The doctors refused to help the child but let it die because of medical guidelines which state that doctors shouldn't help a premature baby if it's born before a certain date (hers was born 2 days before this cut-off date). So the mother had to stand by and watch her child die, telling callous doctors, "you've got to do something!" and hearing in response, "no, we don't." She witnessed her baby moving around fairly well considering how weak it was, and surviving for two hours without medical care. I encourage you to read the article I posted below and visit the link to see images of the poor child.

My question to pro-choicers is-- how is this that much different than abortion? I have a feeling that almost anyone reading this is shocked and appalled at what these doctors did. But this baby was born in the second trimester, when abortion is legal in the United States. Isn't it a double standard to judge the doctors in this case but not those who profit from abortion? The only discernible difference is that in this case, the mother didn't want her child to die, which makes it all the more tragic. However, this doesn't change the fact that doctors left a human being to die. If you are pro-choicer and find this story to be appalling, can you explain why?

'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

by Vanessa Allen and Andrew Levy

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy - almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not 'standard practice'.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: 'Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.'

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

She said: 'When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a "little fighter".

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, "They won't come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him".'

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby's lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

She told how she begged one paediatrician, 'You have got to help', only for the man to respond: 'No we don't.'

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: 'I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn't even born yet, let alone dead.'

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother's pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: 'I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

'Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won't survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?'

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: 'When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.'

What the medical guidelines say...

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago. Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child's 'best interests'.

The guidelines said: 'If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.'

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a 'set of instructions', but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor's are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

Christians and Healthcare

2009-09-30T12:20:00.004-04:00

As someone who can be a little distrustful of government and their ability to use money efficiently, I have some reservations about a government healthcare plan. However, as a Christian commanded to love his neighbor and take care of the poor (see Deut 15:7, Deut 26:12, Isaiah 58:6, Luke 3:11, or any of the 2,000+ verses on the subject), I recognize that there is a need for reform. For all of my politically conservative Christian friends out there, I have this to say:

This is a moral issue. Saying "no" to any health care reform because of your political position is not what Jesus would want you to do. If you want to stay fiscally conservative and still remain a Christian, then you will look for another way to make sure that those who can't afford proper healthcare are taken care of. Simply opting out of trying to find a solution shows the world that American Christians are vastly different from Jesus Christ, and that we have no concern for the oppressed and no righteous anger toward insurance companies who are more concerned about making profits than helping people (they may claim that helping people is their mission, but this will always come as a DISTANT second to making money). Essentially, we have to do something. If you refuse to be part of the solution, then it seems to me that the most Christ-like thing any Christian can do is support a government option (of course, make sure there are no ambiguities in the bill which could be used to support tax-payer funded abortion).

"Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless."

Exodus 22:22-24

Tragic

2009-09-27T00:30:00.001-04:00

This may or may not be funnier if you've actually seen this clip from the "Sixth Sense" film.

A Question On Rationality for Atheists

2009-09-08T12:31:00.004-04:00

Anyone following my blog has noticed that I have gotten into some long debates with atheists on my argument for God from reason recently. This time around, I thought I'd ask a question and allow my skeptical friends to respond--

To be able to critique someone's reasoning ability, you assume that there is a "right way" to think about something. I would claim that this assumes God, because only an omniscient, eternal being can reason completely accurately, which makes God's thinking the standard for right thinking. If you do not believe in God, where does your standard for proper reasoning come from? Also, how can you know that you are reasoning correctly in postulating this alternative?

Bible Contradictions-- a Response

2009-09-04T15:41:00.001-04:00

I asked people to submit alleged Bible contradictions on a recent blog. I'm happy to note that the ones submitted are actually very reasonable and ask us to really explore the Bible and what it says about God. Some point to apparent contradictions within Scripture and others point to places in the Bible that don't seem to synch with reality. Here, in italics, are some of the contradictions people have posted both on my blog and on my Facebook, with my response below each objection--

"'The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong' (Psalms 5:5).

Here the text plainly says that God hated all who do wrong. It doesn't say that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. It says He hates all who do wrong. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God God must hate everybody. Yet in the New Testament we read that God showed His love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. The Bible clearly teached that God loves sinners yet in other places it says He hates them."

The concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner" is not specifically stated in the Bible, though it is a reasonable application of principles in the Bible-- we read that sin is against God, but that we are to love and reach out to sinners, just as God did in giving up His only Son. However, sin is not in a vacuum. It isn't something that afflicts us without our permission. We willfully sin. Since we are the source of the thing God hates, God must "hate" us, and He would do so righteously, with no wrong-doing on His part. However, He can also love those who rebel against Him, because love is not necessarily an opposite to hate. Love, in the biblical sense, is a choice to go out of your way to do the best for someone else, often at great expense to yourself-- this can be done out of pity, duty, or affection (in other words, love is not necessarily done because of positive feelings you have for someone). On the other hand, hate is a feeling of anger and disgust at a person because of what they've done. Are these necessarily contradictory responses to sin? I don't think they are. The Bible states that God was angry at us for our sin, but that He chose to show mercy to us. This is the kind of love that we are also called to. It is even more the case with us because God forgave us when we didn't deserve it, and we owe it to Him to show mercy and love to those who sin against us, because God forgave us a much greater debt. It is because God placed our sin on Jesus that we can repent and be forgiven, averting God's wrath. If love and hate are given the emotional connotation we give them in this culture, then this would be a contradiction. However, we must examine Scripture and what it means to say with the words it uses. For instance, the Greek word "agape" is used when Jesus tells us to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) or when we read that God so loved the world (John 3:16). Agape is a charitable love. When Peter tells Jesus that he loves him, he is using the word "phileo," which is an approving or affectionate love.

"Look at the stars chum: disproves every biblical claim regarding time and creation. Simple.

But you won't. You'll use fuzzy logic and pointlessly convoluted, vague reasoning to try to fit it to the confines of the bible. Which is only natural I suppose. Disappointing, nevertheless."

This is meant to say that distant stars argue for an old earth. Of course, there are old earth Christians who take the literature in Genesis 1 to be more poetic and less literal, and this argument wouldn't have any effect upon them. As for Young Earth Christians, there are some arguments that can be made (see this video for an example), though I haven't found them to be convincing, opting to interpret Genesis 1 as not referring to literal days, which I don't think is an abuse of the text.

"The Bible teaches that if we ask anything according to God's will we have the things that we ask. The revealed will of God (revealed in the form of a divinely prescribed prayer) is that God's perfect will be done on earth. Christians pray the prayer daily. Disgusting and evil things happen every day. Yet the Bible affirms that God is good."

This is related to the Problem of Evil, which I have dealt with in part in other blogs (see here). This question seems to argue that if God is good and His will is done, then His will must be evil, because evil things happen. The difficulty here is that it assumes that God could not allow bad things to happen for a greater purpose. If God can allow evil things which have very temporary effects, only to use everything for a much greater good in eternity, this dilemma is solved. Because the atheist cannot prove that this isn't the case, this fails to be an example of the Bible contradicting reality.

"Paul vs. James. Is salvation by grace alone through faith or by faith + works?"

This is a question about the word "justification," used in Scripture. Justification is a word that means "to be made right, or shown to be right/righteous." The place where a contradiction seems to come is that Paul argues we are justified freely by God's grace and not by the law (Romans 3:20, 3:24). However, James argues that we are not justified by faith only, but also by our works (James 2:24). The context of this passage in James tells us that James is not arguing that we must do good works to be saved, but that faith without works is a dead faith, comparable to how demons have faith that God exists but this most certainly doesn't save them, because they have no desire for godliness. It is the kind of faith that desires to follow and love God which truly saves. This is in agreement with Paul.

"'The Lord searches the hearts.' He also 'sought for a man.' 'Now I know that you fear me' (spoken to Abraham). Elsewhere he wants to see what Adam will name the animals. Yet, the Bible elsewhere seems to affirm that God possesses total and complete knowledge (omniscience)."

This is a fair question. I think this is a good example of using human language to communicate a point about God. When Scripture says that God searches the hearts, it is not saying that until God begins searching, He has no idea what is in your heart, but that God is able to peer into your innermost being. This affirms His omniscience. I think the other examples you cited are other places where God is communicating with man on man's level. So, when He tells Abraham "now I know that you fear me," He is affirming Abraham's faith for Abraham's sake, not pointing out that He has learned something about him.

"God has also appeared in person many times Cody -as I'm sure you know.

He shows his 'back side,'he comes to political meetings to discuss earthly affairs, he appears as an old man, and then he appears as a burning light 'cos no man can look on him' !

Of course this is very contradictory, but you can't say that God never appears physically - because he does."

John 1:18 says, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him."

This says clearly that no one has ever seen God the Father, though they have seen God the Son (Jesus). In Exodus, we have both accounts of God saying that He cannot show Himself to Moses, and accounts where He meets with Moses face-to-face. I think the answer here is in the details. We read that YHWH (God) led the Israelites in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night into the promised land. However, other verses state that this was "the messenger of YHWH." This is one who can rightly be called God, yet is sent by God. Unless we hold a trinitarian view of God, we can not make sense of this Bible difficulty. I believe John 1:18 gives us the answer-- no one has ever seen God the Father, but God the Son has declared Him to us. You can find the Messenger of YHWH appearing in other places in the Old Testament (Gen 16:7-13, Exodus 3:2, Judges 13, Zech 3), while simultaneously being called God. In Genesis 19, we even find God coming to Abraham in bodily form. Verse 24 in this chapter says YHWH rained down sulfur on Sodom FROM YHWH IN HEAVEN. This shows equality but distinction between two persons who are both YHWH, yet one sends the other. The answer to this question is that Jesus is God, but He also serves the Father in a Son relationship, sometimes bringing messages from the Father with the authority of God.

"[You claim] to be a pacifist christian. Excuse me, but isn't there a quote in the bible where the alleged jeesus says he's the sword and not the shield? What about his attack on the jewish money changers?"

The attack on the money changers never specifically says that Jesus whipped any of the money changers, but that he turned their tables and herded the animals out of the Temple. Either way, this isn't a patient thing to do, but then again, as God this was HIS Temple they were abusing, and He had the right to remove the idolators and thieves from it. I affirm pacifism because Jesus did not fight back at any point when He was being abused or when someone was attempting to arrest Him. He either took the abuse or ran away.

Taking a Break from Thinking to Share Some Stupid Funny Videos

2009-09-02T13:56:00.004-04:00

To clarify for noobs out there (aka non-1337 individuals), "pwn3d" is a way to say, "owned," as in "Tom got owned by that milk truck." Whenever something or someone gets the better of you, that means it "owns" or "pwns" you. In the above video, Jesus clearly pwns this kid at every sport the kid attempts. Pretty sweet.

What Are the Implications of the Universe Having (or not having) a Beginning?

2009-08-30T17:23:00.008-04:00

I recently found myself in an interesting discussion with a very intelligent skeptical individual commenting as "Cole" on one of my recent blog entries (http://codysblackbox.blogspot.com/2009/07/modified-argument-from-reason.html). I was making an argument for the existence of God based on the fact that the universe has a beginning point. If the universe began to exist, it must have a cause (or so says the Kalam Cosmological Argument which I was referencing). I pointed out that this conclusion cannot be swept aside. I argued that if the universe truly began to exist, then the atheist cannot make an intelligible argument against a Creator, though many have attempted:

1. Quentin Smith, reflecting on the big bang and its implication that the universe had a beginning but holding to naturalistic (read "atheistic") assumptions, suggests that, "the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." However, this is not a reasonable conclusion based upon facts related to what we know about causality (how certain agents cause certain events). It is instead a bias against a supernatural God which is so strong that even good evidence which necessarily leads to a Creator must be ignored for conclusions which are absolutely absurd (for a universe with no meaning and no purpose is the very definition of absurdity). In this case, "the universe is a free lunch" because we got something for nothing (though even common knowledge tells us that "there's no such thing as a free lunch"). It's obvious that the universe could not have caused itself, and since the universe is the entirety of the natural world, its Cause must be supernatural. Thus, the only two conclusions we could reach from atheistic thinking are that either that the universe doesn't exist, or a universe without a cause doesn't exist. No other conclusion is tenable for the atheist.

2. Some atheists have indeed opted for the second conclusion-- that the universe has no cause. The steady-state theory of the universe, which denies the evidence for the big bang, suggests an eternal universe. Much of the rise of this theory has been purely in opposition to the big bang and its theological implications. Fred Hoyle, one of the chief proponents of this theory, even referred to the big bang as the "Big Bang," poking fun at the necessary implications for a Creator which it carries. Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg has even remarked that "steady state theory is philosophically the most attractive theory because it least resembles the account given in Genesis," supporting the conclusion that the big bang supports the idea of a Creator. Steady-state theory has greatly fallen out of favor among scientists due to the remarkable evidence for a beginning. It is also worth note to point out that an eternal universe carries with it one very difficult problem-- if time never begins, there can be no events in time. For instance, I couldn't write this entry on August 31, 2009 because there would be an infinite amount of time to pass over before August 31, 2009 could happen. Like a universe with a beginning but no cause, an eternal universe brings us to absurdity.

However, Cole rightly pointed out that a universe with a beginning and a Creator carries its own difficulty. If God exists outside of the universe, He exists timelessly (on this most theists would agree with Cole). However, Cole argues that this would make God static, immoveable. Because there is no time without the universe, God cannot act (because this would assume that He can NOT BE DOING SOMETHING, and then choose to do it, invoking time), thus He cannot create the universe. We discussed this for some time, never reaching a conclusion which we could both agree on. I would like to share some of my thoughts on this problem:

1. When we discuss God, we are discussing a Person unlike human persons. God is a person like us because He has a will and intelligence. But unlike us, He does not change His mind or learn new information (He is, after all, outside of time). That being said, God could not decide to create the universe at any point, but would have to exist timelessly with a will to create a universe with a beginning. Time is not a factor of God's existence, but it is a factor of the universe's.

2. Similarly, God causing the universe is unlike any causal relationship we see in nature. In nature, one existing causal agent causes an effect on material which already exists. When God created the universe, He created it out of absolutely nothing. We are dealing with a very different causal relationship. However, there are still very clear distinctions between "cause" and "effect." For one, God exists necessarily, and has always existed. The universe has a beginning point, which makes it dependent upon God willing it to exist. God can exist without the universe, but the universe cannot exist without God. When we look at God, and then look at the universe, it is obvious which One is the Cause, and which is the effect. When we speak of a cause-and-effect relationship between God and the universe, we are talking about something very much like the cause-and-effect we see in nature, but still wholly different.

Considering these facts, we can try to delve into the difficulty that a timeless God creating a time-oriented universe brings about. First of all, time would begin at the first event of the universe-- the moment of it being created. Thus, the effect (the universe) would be simultaneous with its cause (God willing it into existence). If God does not decide at any point to create the universe (there is no point in time without the universe), He must (as I pointed out above) have an eternal will to create a universe with a beginning. That being said, God doesn't "wait" for any amount of time to begin creating, nor does He suddenly get the idea to do so. He brings the universe into existence out of nothing, and thus it begins to exist at that very moment, the effect occuring along with the cause. Some philosophers have compared this to a bowling bowl landing on a cushion, where the bowling ball hitting the cushion (cause) is simultaneous with the indentation on it (effect). This can be a helpful example, but is still not quite like God creating the universe out of absolutely nothing, so it is definitely limited.

When shopping for a theory about the origin of the universe that we'd like to take home and call our own, we are faced with a trilemma. We can believe in a universe with no beginning, which is not supported by the evidence and doesn't allow for events in time. We can also believe in a universe with a beginning, but with no cause and no purpose behind its coming into being. Both of these options are, frankly, a little ridiculous. Finally, we can believe in a universe with a beginning, which the evidence supports, and a Creator which brings it into being with a purpose. This third option brings with it a question as to how God can bring about time, but it still follows the evidence to an omnipotent God. A universe certainly cannot cause itself. However, it seems very likely that an infinite, all-powerful God could cause time to come into being, despite the difficulties we as humans living in time have understanding how He did it.

As usual, I hope this opens up some conversation. I appreciate Cole's comments and I especially appreciate him causing me to carefully think through my beliefs instead of letting me off holding an unexamined worldview. I'm typing this at 1 in the morning and I'm not one to carefully proofread so I hope you'll be patient with any typos I left behind. Thanks for reading! Hope I've shared something helpful with you.

What Should Christians Do About the Hitlers of the World?

2009-08-07T20:38:00.004-04:00

I have a bad tendency to pick up a book, read aways into it, and then get distracted and not finish it. Today, I picked up my forgotten "What About Hitler?" book by Robert W. Brimlow, determined to finish it (I made reference to certain passages from it in blogs from months ago).

After laying out the case that Jesus calls us to non-violence, and that a Christian cannot logically get around this difficulty, Brimlow finally (near the end of the book, in a very short chapter) tells the reader what Christians should do about the kind of evil which Hitler represents:

"We must live faithfully; we must be humble in our faith and truthful in what we say and do; we must repay evil with good; and we must be peacemakers. This may also mean as a result that the evildoers will kill us. Then, we shall also die. That's it" (p. 151).

While I would have enjoyed more elaboration on how we can be Christian peacemakers and still be capable of defeating evil via a Christian peace policy (I don't mean to say that we should focus on secular concerns, but that we should make our faith practical in daily life), I thoroughly enjoyed this answer. He's right. As difficult as it might be, we can't turn our backs on Christ and what He has called us to. If we would dare to implement Christian peace practice into foreign policy (because war has been SOOO effective in fixing our problems), I wonder what kind of change we might evoke. On the other hand, if this fails (from a secular perspective) just as war has failed, we must prepare to die and let God handle the consequences.

If I can say one thing about being a Christian pacifist, it has forced me to examine my faith and trust in God. I have become a better Christian in all areas of my life because of this. God is in control.

P.S.-- part of being a Christian pacifist is loving those who hate you in war or in peace. I became frustrated with some name-calling in some recent blog debates I engaged in, and I worry that I let anger get the best of me. I ask for forgiveness if I allowed this to show in any of my comments. Even though we disagree and may get frustrated with each other, I love you and want the best for you.

Challenge-- Bible Contradictions

2009-08-03T18:23:00.002-04:00

While I still seem to have a few atheists from "gods4suckers.net" reading my blog, I thought I might shift gears from the argument of reason to a more strictly Biblical topic. I hear a lot about Bible contradictions from atheists. Well, here is your opportunity to share one that you think is especially difficult for the Christian to get around. I am not asking for a big list you found online, but for one or two that you personally think that no Christian will be able to refute. I will post up to 20 of your alleged contradictions on my next blog, along with my response to your contradiction. While I can't claim that I will blow your "contradiction" out of the water, I will do my best to provide the best response that I can. So while you may benefit from making the Christian look stupid, don't get too excited if I don't have a good answer-- someone else might. Let the games begin!

Modified Argument from Reason

2009-07-30T15:52:00.002-04:00

I've been getting a lot of feedback on the Argument from Reason which I posted, which is essentially the AfR in the form Lewis proposed it. I think Tom brought out some of the strongest weaknesses in this argument, and while I still agree with what the argument says, I have decided to propose a version which eliminates the most controversial piece of it-- the concept that "No merely physical material or combination of merely physical materials constitute a rational source." Here is the argument I have proposed which does not depend upon an immaterial mind to make its point:

1. Reason (or logic) is absolute.
2. We as human beings USE reason.
3. Our minds do not make reason up, but we appeal to it as something which is outside of us and before us.
4. Reason, being objective and not created by man, requires a source.
5. God provides the perfect source for reason, being that He is an eternal and omniscient mind and not a material being held by time and space-- thus reason is absolute because it comes from the mind of one Being. On the other hand, materialism fails to account for reason in any meaningful way.

Now, if you would like to go through this new argument point-by-point showing me where I am being fallacious in my reasoning, I would truly appreciate it. If you can show me where I'm wrong, it would be a service to me (because I could stop using bad arguments) and to your free-thinking readers (because it would show them how dumb us theists are).

Now, I just want to make a quick couple of points before anyone tries to correct this argument. It could be stated that reason is what our evolved brain creates after noticing patterns in the universe based on the laws which the universe functions by. However, this only pushes the atheist back a step, and doesn't solve the dilemma. Now the atheist must account for the laws of the universe, which are so finely tuned (and rational themselves), that they now must account for something much bigger than human reason. Here, the materialist is at an even bigger loss.

But even if the atheist did try to give the aforementioned response, it wouldn't help him/her very much, because it wouldn't explain how our minds can notice patterns and draw logical conclusions from observing the universe.

If I have used flawed reasoning, I hope someone out there will correct me on it. If you do try to correct me, try to interact with the points I've actually made and not just assume that I'm dumb because I'm a Christian. If you want to show me that I'm dumb, show me why my points are bad and how materialism provides a better answer instead of just saying that I am.

Where Does Reason Come From?

2009-07-23T16:27:00.005-04:00

I have been thinking about the "Argument from Reason," which is similar to TAG (Transcendental Argument for God). I posted a sort of overview of this argument on a previous blog.

This argument seeks to show that if there is no God, there can be no rationality. If only the material world exists, we would not be able to trust our own thoughts, which are simply chemical reactions much like how our livers secrete bile. Why would we not, after all, trust the bile instead of the "thoughts" which our brains seem to secrete? However, if there were a Being which was pure reason and outside of the physical world, a mind above it all, He could choose to place some form of rationality in His creation.

The atheist might respond to this argument (as Richard Dawkins did in a recent discussion with John Lennox) by saying that reason would be the perfect thing for evolution to create in animals because it would help them to respond to their surroundings and thus live long and reproduce. Of course, this is beside the point because evolution cannot think to give any creature anything!

Dawkins does not answer how reason could come to be in an atheistic worldview, but gives natural selection its own rational abilities whereby it could purposefully give reason to animals. This isn't too far off from how theists argue God possessed reason from the beginning and bestowed it to us! Dawkins cannot help but assume that reason exists before rational creatures (because it does), which is the very viewpoint that Christians hold, but which no atheist can hold and be consistent with his/her worldview.

If any of my atheist friends have any responses, I would love to hear them.

UPDATE 9/02/09--

I thought I'd like to insert an interesting quote from Richard Dawkins here at the end...

"Neither Steve Pinker nor I can explain human subjective consciousness - what philosophers call qualia. In How the Mind Works Steve elegantly sets out the problem of subjective consciousness, and asks where it comes from and what's the explanation. Then he's honest enough to say, 'Beats the heck out of me.' That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it. We don't know. We don't understand it." (Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, "Is Science Killing the Soul?" The Guardian-Dillons Debate, Edge 53, April 8, 1999).