Responding to NY Times Article Saying the Concept of God is Incoherent

Responding to NY Times Article Saying the Concept of God is Incoherent

By J. Brian Huffling

In a NY Times article titled “A God Problem: Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent,” Peter Atterton argues, well, that the concept of God is not coherent. Atterton describes God in the classical sense as his subtitle suggests. He argues that such a view of God is logically incoherent because assuming one attribute, a problem seemingly arises with the others. I will briefly summarize his arguments and respond to them, focusing on his arguments about omniscience.

Atterton’s Argument

Atterton wants to “first consider the attribute of omnipotence.” After considering the cliché question, “Can God make a rock bigger than he can move,” he points to the way Thomas Aquinas’ would answer this question, namely, that such a thing would be a contradiction and even God can’t do what is contradictory (such as making a square circle).

Atterton then moves to question whether it is contradictory for God to create a world in which there was no evil. He avers that it should be possible to do so. So why didn’t God do that? This is basically where he leaves it and moves on to God’s omniscience.

He states,

“Philosophically, this presents us with no less of a conundrum. Leaving aside the highly implausible idea that God knows all the facts in the universe [yes you read that right], no matter how trivial or useless (Saint Jerome thought it was beneath the dignity of God to concern Himself with such base questions as how many fleas are born or die every moment), if God knows all there is to know, then He knows at least as much as we know.”

Atterton believes that if God does, in fact, know what we know; this is a problem. This is the case because we know what lust and envy are; thus, God must know what lust and envy are. However, he says, “one cannot know lust and envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case, God cannot be morally perfect.” Such can’t be the case, he claims, if God is morally perfect. So God does not know what we know. But then he is not omniscient, “and the concept of God is contradictory. God cannot be both omniscient and morally perfect. Hence, God could not exist.”

Atterton ends his article by referencing Blaise Pascal’s rejection of philosophy and taking God’s existence on faith alone. It is not clear to me from this article whether Atterton believes in the existence of God or whether he merely thinks that “the God of the philosophers” doesn’t exist or can’t be proven to exist. It is to the alleged incoherence that I wish to respond.

Response

Atterton does not make too much about God’s omnipotence other than casting doubt on it, so I’m going to focus on his objection to God’s knowledge, which is what he seems to think is a stronger point. My overall critique is that Atterton over-anthropomorphizes God. This is very typical of how people think of God. We usually think that because we do things a certain way, like know, then God must do them the same way too.

For Atterton, if God knows something, then the way in which he knows it must be similar, or the same, with how we know it. We know things passively through experience, such as a thing’s existence. For example, we know of a flea’s existence because we experience fleas and can sense them. We are creatures just like fleas. But should we think God knows in the same way as us?

Atterton references Aquinas regarding God’s omnipotence but doesn’t cite what Aquinas says about the way he believes God knows the world. This either betrays ignorance or negligence. Historically, classical theism (that teaches that God is all-knowing, powerful, etc.) has taught that God is impassible and yet all-knowing, infinite, and perfect. This means that God is not affected in any way, does not learn, for an infinite amount of knowledge cannot be added to, and he cannot gain in perfection.

It also means that God is not passive in his knowledge. As Aquinas teaches in Summa Theologiae part 1 question 14, God’s knowledge is not like ours. And why should it be, he’s not a limited, passible, changeable, material, temporal, finite, contingent human. Rather, he is the unlimited, impassible, unchangeable, immaterial, eternal, infinite, necessary Creator. How this detail escapes Atterton and others who over anthropomorphize God is nothing short of perplexing?

Rather than God’s knowledge being reactive and passive like ours, it is active and causative. We know imperfectly and through the effects of nature. God knows perfectly; not through effects, but through the cause of those effects. Such is surely a more perfect and complete knowledge. God does not have to “look at” something to know it as if the thing exists apart from God’s knowledge or sustaining power. God actively causes all things to exist and sustains those things for as long as they exist. So, contrary to Atterton and Saint Jerome, God not only has knowledge of seemingly trivial things like fleas, God upholds those fleas in existence as their cause of being. They, as contingent being, cannot account even for their own present existence without an efficient cause. God thus knows all of the universe simply by knowing himself as their cause.

Atterton’s “God” is more akin to a view of deism rather than classical theism. Many holds to such a view of God. This view of God that makes him dependent, passible, changeable, etc., sees God more as a creature rather than the Creator.

When it comes to imperfections such as lust, Atterton doesn’t even ask the question if it is possible for God to do such things. (He leaves the question of the incarnation of Jesus out of his discussion.) Rather, God must know lust since he knows what we do, and since we know lust, God must as well. However, we know lust through experience and because we have the capability to be imperfect. Lust is something that humans can do, which is imperfection. However, God is not human. Historically it has been held that such passions as lust are tied to a physical body. Since God does not have a physical body, he can’t lust. Further, lusting would require a change. If God is unchangeable and eternal, then he can’t lust. Further, such would require God to have the potency to lust; however, if such classical attributes of God as simplicity, then he has no potency to become anything other than he is. Finally, again, God does not know via experience, but by being the perfect cause of all contingent being. He thus knows his effects (i.e., the universe) by knowing himself as their perfect cause.

Rather than the concept of the classical view of God being incoherent, Atterton’s own view demonstrates either a complete lack of familiarity with classical theism or simply neglects to inform his readers of such views.

While Atterton’s attempt at killing the traditional concept of God is DOA, the God of the philosophers lives on.

 

J. Brian Huffling, PH.D. has a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Oy0ShT

/by
What Every Apologist Needs to Know About 1 Peter 3:15

What Every Apologist Needs to Know About 1 Peter 3:15

By Mikel Del Rosario

Rules of Engagement

1 Peter 3 is about Apologetics and Cultural Engagement

What should our interactions with people look like as ambassadors of Jesus? Peter talks about both apologetics and cultural engagement in 1 Peter 3—the chapter where you find that famous apologetics memory verse, 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV):

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.

We need to know what we believe and be prepared to respectfully explain our faith and the hope that we have in Jesus. Peter says this because our faith isn’t just about philosophical ideas. It’s about hope. What’s this hope about? It’s about how people can discover a loving relationship with the God who made everything that exists.

But even apologists can miss the context of this famous Bible verse. And it’s that context that shows us what our engagement should look like as ambassadors of Jesus. What every apologist needs to know about 1 Peter 3:15 is that it appears in a text that is not only about defending the faith. It’s also about the way God wants us to engage. In this post, I’ll share seven key lessons from this passage that should inform the way we operate as ambassadors of Jesus [1].

1. Expect Suffering and Blessing

Apologists talk about an objective standard of goodness, a moral “oughtness” that points us to God. In 1 Peter 3:13, Peter alludes to that outghtness—how the world should work. People should love each other, not hurt each other: “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?” Of course, people don’t always choose to do the right thing. That’s why Peter says, “But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed…” (14a).

That’s the first part of the lead-up to our famous apologetics verse—knowing that we’re going to suffer for doing the right thing as ambassadors of Jesus. Jesus was very real about this: “In the world, you will have tribulation” (John 16:33) and “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). So the push-back comes with the territory. But we’re blessed anyway because God sees when we’re being faithful in the midst of the tension. And we care more about his approval than other people think. This idea goes back even to Psalm 1. You also see it in the outcome of Paul’s engagement with the people in Athens (Acts 17).

2. Have No Fear

The second part of the lead-up to our famous apologetics verse says, “Have no fear of them, nor be troubled” (14). People you follow on social media probably show you how troubled Christians respond to what’s going on in the public square. When we’re overwhelmed with fear, we can say things that aren’t helpful and are tough to take back. It’s easy to feel pressure when our faith is challenged. Still, we don’t need to be afraid if our hope and identity are linked to God’s sovereignty in this world[2].

3. Make a Defense

This is where 1 Peter 3:15 comes in. We need to be prepared to engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith. Our ultimate message is a positive one about our hope in Jesus. But there’s a tension between how the gospel challenges our beliefs and actions on the one hand, and the invitation to know and experience God on the other.

Unfortunately, sometimes the “hope” part gets lots in the “challenge” part. New apologists can tend to emphasize what is wrong with society or various belief systems to the virtual exclusion of our hope in Christ. Others seem to portray our hope as only a future thing rather than explaining how that hope can be present in our lives today. Let’s never lose the message of hope in the midst of defending the faith. After all, the faith we defend is good news. And yes, truth matters. But tone matters, too.

4. Be Gentle and Respectful

The rest of Peter’s command tells us how we must defend the faith: “with gentleness and respect.” Not with fear, anger, or resentment. Part of the evidence for our hope should be the way we engage—not like people who feel threatened or get all defensive. There’s a good kind of meekness and humility that goes along with actually loving the people we challenge with Christian truth claims. Before walking into a spiritual conversation, ask God to help you care about the person and minister to them.

5. Prepare to be Slandered

Paul goes on to say, “…having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1 Peter 3:16). It’s no surprise that good behavior bolsters our case, while behaving badly undermines it. This is why holy living is key. Even when we engage with a clear conscience, though, we’re still going to get push-back. People don’t like to question their beliefs. But the challenge is an unavoidable part of our message. Still, the challenge should never drown out the very message of hope we are trying to defend. When they are rude to us, God sees it. When we respond with kindness, God sees it, too. And this is one reason we don’t need to be afraid.

6. Rise Above Evil

In verse 17, Paul says: “For it is better to suffer for doing good if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” The character we display when we are being treated unfairly matters. Spiritual conversations aren’t very productive when either participant gets mad. Rather than harbor evil thoughts or respond in anger, Christian apologists must rise above evil and show a different way of relating to people who reject our message.

7. Follow Jesus’ Example

All of these lessons are based on the example Jesus gave us. Paul says, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” When we suffer, let’s suffer with Jesus’ example in mind. Don’t ever forget how God took the initiative to reach out to us while we had our backs turned to him. Even in this verse, Paul mentions the resurrection.

Conclusion

What every apologist needs to know about 1 Peter 3:15 is that it appears in a text that is not only about defending the faith. 1 Peter 3 is an important cultural engagement text, too. Let’s engage the culture, make the case for Christianity, and defend the faith while remembering the gracious way God treated us before we embraced him and his message.

Notes

[1] I’m indebted to my mentor, Darrell Bock, who helped me think through the context of 1 Peter 3:15 as it applies to dialogical apologetics and cultural engagement.

[2] And, in fact, in all possible worlds.

 

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2YvQLd3

/by
Dos argumentos contra el Kalam

Dos argumentos contra el Kalam

Mientras revisaba uno de los tantos correos que recibimos, en uno de ellos se planteaban dos objeciones en contra del argumento cosmológico Kalam, en específico al argumento ofrecido para Dios como la causa del comienzo del universo. Una versión del argumento cosmológico kalam se puede formular de la siguiente forma:

1. Todo lo que comienza a existir tiene una causa de su existencia.

2. El universo comenzó a existir.

2.1. Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de un infinito actual:

   2.1.1. Un infinito actual no puede existir.

   2.1.2. Una regresión temporal infinita de eventos es un infinito actual.

   2.1.3. Por lo tanto, una regresión temporal infinita de eventos no puede existir.

2.2. Argumento basado en la imposibilidad de la formación de un infinito actual por adición sucesiva:

    2.2.1. Una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas no puede ser actualmente infinita.

    2.2.2. La serie temporal de eventos pasados es una colección formada por adiciones sucesivas.

    2.2.3. Por lo tanto, la serie temporal de eventos pasados no puede ser actualmente infinita.

2.3. Confirmación basada en la expansión del universo.

2.4. Confirmación basada en las propiedades termodinámicas del universo.

3. Por lo tanto, el universo tiene una causa de su comienzo a la existencia.

4. Si el universo tiene una causa de su existencia, entonces existe un Creador personal incausado del universo que, sin la creación, es imprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial, y enormemente poderoso.

4.1. Argumento de que la causa del universo es un Creador personal:

   4.1.1. El universo fue creado por un conjunto de condiciones necesarias y suficientes de funcionamiento mecánico o por un agente libre personal.

   4.1.2. El universo no pudo haber sido creado por un conjunto mecánico de condiciones necesarias y suficientes.

   4.1.3. Por lo tanto, el universo fue creado por un agente libre personal.

4.2. Argumento de que el Creador sin la creación es incausado, inprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial y enormemente poderoso.

    4.2.1. El Creador es incausado.

       4.2.1.1. No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de causas (2.1.3, 2.2.3).

    4.2.2. El Creador es imprincipiado.

       4.2.2.1. Cualquier cosa que no esté causada no comienza a existir. (1)

    4.2.3. El Creador es inmutable.

       4.2.3.1. No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de cambios. (2.1.3, 2.2.3)

    4.2.4. El Creador es inmaterial.

          4.2.4.1. Lo que sea material implica un cambio en los niveles atómico y molecular, pero el Creador no cambia. (4.2.3)

    4.2.5. El Creador es atemporal.

          4.2.5.1. En ausencia total de cambio, el tiempo no existe, y el Creador no cambia. (4.2.3)

    4.2.6. El Creador es inespacial.

          4.2.6.1. Lo que sea inmaterial y atemporal no puede ser espacial, y el Creador es inmaterial y atemporal (4.2.4, 4.2.5)

    4.2.7. El Creador es enormemente poderoso.

          4.2.7.1. Él creó el universo de la nada. (3)

5. Por lo tanto, existe un Creador personal e incausado del universo, que sin la creación es imprincipiado, inmutable, inmaterial, atemporal, inespacial y enormemente poderoso.

Ahora veamos la siguiente objeción a la que he llamado Argumento de la Inmutabilidad Contra una Causa Personal (AICCP):

1.Si Dios es atemporal, entonces es inmutable.
2.Si Dios es inmutable, entonces Dios no puede actuar para traer el universo a la existencia.
3.Dios es un ser personal que sin la creación es atemporal (otorgado por el Kalam).
4.Dios es inmutable (de 1 y 3)
5.Por lo tanto, Dios no puede actuar para traer el universo a la existencia (de 2 y 4).

Como pueden ver, el argumento ataca las premisas (4.1.3), (4.2.3) y (4.2.5) de nuestra versión del Kalam al intentar demostrar que existe una incoherencia entre las propiedades de Dios de ser personal, inmutable y atemporal.

¿Qué tan sólido es el argumento? Pues no mucho. Primero, el detractor parece pensar que, dado que no hay tiempo sin el universo, Dios es inmutable, pero este no es el caso. Lo que al argumento realmente dice, es lo siguiente:

(a) En ausencia total de cambio, el tiempo no existe y el Creador no cambia. (4.2.5.1.)

(b) Por lo tanto, Dios es atemporal (4.2.5.)

Y

(c) No puede existir una regresión temporal infinita de cambios. (4.2.3.1)

(d) Por lo tanto, Dios es inmutable (4.2.3)

Observa que el argumento no dice que la inmutabilidad de Dios se infiere de su atemporalidad; sino que la inmutabilidad se infiere de la imposibilidad de una regresión infinita de cambios, y la atemporalidad se infiere de su inmutabilidad. ¿Pero qué queremos decir por “ausencia de todo cambio”? Simple, es no hacer algo diferente. Es claro que hay actividades que no requieren ni cambio ni tiempo, por ejemplo, tener conocimiento de algo (Dios puede conocer todas las verdades en ese estado inmutable sin tiempo). Y lo mismo podrías decir sobre nuestras intenciones: mientras estas no cambien, podemos sostenerlas atemporalmente. Por lo que podemos decir que (1) del AICCP es falsa.

Segundo, (2) es falsa también. La premisa parece afirmar que la inmutabilidad de Dios es equivalente a inmovilidad, lo cuál sería cierto si habláramos de una causa impersonal, pero hemos visto que podemos inferir que la causa es personal, por lo que tiene volición para simplemente decidir crear el universo desde la eternidad. Tal como William Lane Craig explica cuando utiliza el ejemplo de un hombre sentado desde la eternidad:

[…] mi experimento mental sirve para ilustrar un punto sobre el libre albedrío. Una persona puede existir inmutable y entonces libremente ejecuta una cierta intención porque el libre albedrío no requiere alguna condición antecedente determinante. La misma naturaleza del libre albedrío es la ausencia de determinantes causales. Así que una acción libre tiene la apariencia de un evento puramente espontáneo. El hombre puede simple y libremente desear levantarse. Por lo que puedes obtener un efecto atemporal de una causa inmutable, si esa causa es un agente libre. Ahora, en el caso de Dios, Dios existe inmutablemente sin el universo. La creación es un acto del libre albedrío que, cuando ocurre, trae el tiempo a la existencia junto con el universo. Por lo tanto, decir que “desde un tiempo finito un Creador dotado de libre albedrío podría haber querido traer el mundo a la existencia en ese momento” no implica que había tiempo previo a ese momento.[1]

Ahora, en este punto existe la objeción de que entonces el tiempo no comienza con el inicio del universo, sino en el momento en que Dios decide traer el universo a la existencia, lo cual es contradictorio que las implicaciones del inicio del universo del Big Bang. Ahora, incluso cuando el Dr. Craig no sostiene que Dios tenga que deliberar temporalmente, él ha respondido a objeciones similares haciendo distinción entre el tiempo físico y el tiempo metafísico:

El tiempo metafísico es independiente de los procesos físicos, por ejemplo, si Dios estuviera haciendo una cuenta regresiva, él podría decir: “3, 2, 1, ¡que se haga la luz!” Y en este caso tendríamos una secuencia de eventos mentales, tendríamos tiempo previo al comienzo del universo. Lo que iniciaría al comienzo del universo sería el tiempo físico, el tiempo que es objeto de estudio en el campo de la física.[2]

Así que, con todo esto, podemos decir que el AICCP no es un argumento sólido después de todo.

Ahora pasemos al siguiente argumento al que he llamado Argumento de la Atemporalidad Contra la Causación (AACC):

1.Causa y efecto requieren intervalos temporales respectivamente para que pueda darse dicha relación.
2.El estado en el que se encuentra Dios no existen los intervalos temporales (otorgado por el kalam).
3.Por lo tanto, en el estado en el que se encuentra Dios no puede darse la causa ni el efecto.

Cuando uno analiza este argumento, notará que en esencia es similar al primero, solo se omite la inmutabilidad, pero el factor de atemporalidad sigue ahí, en específico, que se requiere de intervalos de tiempo para que exista una causa y efecto del tipo Dios tomando la decisión de crear el universo y luego otro momento en el que el universo llega a existir. Para esto William Lane Craig ha respondido en otra ocasión que:

[…]me parece que esta suposición es falsa. Porque en virtud de su omnisciencia, las elecciones de Dios no son eventos, ya que Él no delibera temporalmente ni Su voluntad se mueve de un estado de indecisión a uno de decisión. Simplemente tiene determinaciones libres de la voluntad para ejecutar ciertas acciones, y cualquier deliberación solo puede decirse que es explicativa, no temporalmente, antes de sus decretos.[3]

Regresemos ahora al asunto de que la causa debe preceder al efecto. Aunque el Dr. Craig ya abordando antes de que no existe ninguna razón para aceptar esa condición y de que es posible tener causa y efecto simultáneamente[4], también existe la posibilidad de que, de hecho, toda causa y efecto es en última instancia, simultaneo:

No veo ninguna incoherencia conceptual al pensar que una causa y su efecto pueden ser simultáneos. De hecho, los filósofos a menudo hablarán sobre cómo se percibe la dirección de la influencia causal entre A y B cuando A y B son simultáneos. A y B pueden ser al mismo tiempo, pueden ser simultáneos, pero ¿de qué manera trazas la línea de influencia causal? ¿Es A lo que está causando B, o B lo que está causando A? Los filósofos discutirán sobre eso. Así que no veo ninguna incoherencia en la noción de causación simultánea. De hecho, algunos metafísicos han argumentado que todas las causas son en última instancia simultáneas porque hasta que la causa realmente incida en algún otro objeto para producir un efecto, no hay forma de que la influencia causal pueda saltar a través del tiempo, desde t2 hasta t1, para producir el efecto en t1. Esa causa debe durar hasta el momento t1 y luego producir su efecto en ese momento. Pero no hay forma de que una influencia causal pueda viajar a través del tiempo y saltar de t2 a t1 para producir el evento. Así que muchos filósofos dirán que toda causación es, en última instancia, simultánea.

Creo que es un argumento muy persuasivo. No puedo ver cómo puedes tener influencia causal saltando en el tiempo. Me parece que el efecto no se producirá hasta que la causa realmente incida sobre la cosa para producir su efecto; por ejemplo, el taco debe golpear la bola de billar para ponerla en movimiento. Y hasta que no lo haga, no hay forma de que la influencia causal del movimiento del taco vaya a saltar en el tiempo para hacer que la bola se mueva.[5]

Conclusión

Hemos visto que el AICCP falla debido a un mal entendimiento del significado de inmutabilidad y de como se infiere la inmutabilidad. Por otro lado, aunque el AACC es un argumento mejor, no es del todo sólido; ya que no existen buenas razones para rechazar la simultaneidad de la causa y el efecto.

Notas

[1] William Lane Craig, “God and Time” en William Lane Craig: A Reasonable Response.

[2] An Explanation of Physical Time and Metaphysical Time.

[3] William Lane Craig, “Timelessness and Creation”.

[4] William Lane Craig, “Causation and Spacetime”.

[5] Misunderstandings About God and the Big Bang.

 

Jairo Izquierdo es parte del equipo de Social Media y autor para la organización cristiana Cross Examined.  Estudia filosofía y teología, siendo su actual foco de estudio la lógica clásica, epistemología, doctrinas cristianas y lingüística.  Es cofundador de Filósofo Cristiano. Es miembro en la Christian Apologetics Alliance y ministro de alabanza en la iglesia cristiana bautista Cristo es la Respuesta en Puebla, México.

/by
What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?

What Biblical Books are Included in the Earliest Canonical Lists?

By Ryan Leasure

There are two opposing ways to view the history of the canon. One would be to believe that the church, in its entirety, uniformly accepted all twenty-seven books of the New Testament as canonical from the very beginning. The other would be to suggest that the canon didn’t exist until an arbitrary church vote in the fourth or fifth century.

While either view might fit one’s preconceived agenda, the fact of the matter is that both views are terribly naive. The truth is, neither adequately deals with what history tells us.

I believe there’s a better, more balanced approach to the canon. It’s one that recognizes the canon’s development wasn’t as neat and tidy as some conservative scholars might think. Yet at the same time, it wasn’t a wild free-for-all like some other liberals suggest.

Instead, we find that the church affirmed a majority of the New Testament books at the beginning stages of Christianity. We might call these books the canonical core. Then as time progressed, the church, likewise, affirmed the peripheral books of the canon. To demonstrate this balanced approach, I want to highlight some of the early canonical lists from the first few centuries.

Irenaeus (AD 180)

While earlier church fathers quote New Testament books as Scripture, our first clear canon list comes from the Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. While he doesn’t include all twenty-seven books, Irenaeus gives us most of the New Testament. His canon includes:1Michael Kruger, The Canon Revisited, 228.

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Hebrews
  • James
  • 1 Peter
  • 1 John
  • 2 John
  • Revelation

While Irenaeus’ list excludes four New Testament books (Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude), his list is impressive nonetheless. He’s clear on the Gospels as evidenced by his famous yet unscientific quote, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds.”2Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.

Moreover, his list contains the entire Pauline corpus (minus Philemon), Revelation, and about half of the shorter general epistles.

Muratorian Fragment (AD 180)

Named after its discoverer, Ludovico Antonio Muratori, this canonical list dating to the later part of the second century also confirms a core group of canonical books. The list includes:

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Philemon
  • 1 John
  • 2 John
  • Jude
  • Revelation

Notice the similarity to Irenaeus’ list. Both include the four Gospels, Acts, and the entire Pauline corpus. It also includes 1 and 2 John and Revelation.

It’s worth noting that the Muratorian Canon includes the Apocalypse of Peter but with the caveat, “though some of us are not willing for the latter to be read in church.”3Muratorian Fragment, Line 72. Additionally, the fragment rejects the Shepherd of Hermas because it was written “quite recently, in our own times” and thus not backed by apostolic authority.4Muratorian Fragment, Line 74, 80.

There’s an important observation here. Both Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment indicate that the early church agreed on the core New Testament canon. And with that core agreement came an established theology.

Think about it. Almost all of Christian theology can be established using the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, 1 John, and Revelation. Not to downplay the importance of books like 3 John or Jude, but Christian theology doesn’t hang in the balance without them. This canonical list, then, should give us confidence that the early church agreed on key Christian doctrines (Trinity, creation, fall, salvation through Christ alone, the deity of Christ, etc.).

Eusebius (AD 320)

While much canonical development occurred over the next hundred years — especially with Clement of Alexandria and Origen — we now turn our attention to Eusebius of Caesarea. Known for writing the first church history, Eusebius gives us a canonical list recognized by the church. What’s interesting about his list is that he breaks it down into four distinct categories.5Eusebius, Church History, 3:25.

The Recognized Books

This list includes the books universally received by the church:

  • Matthew
  • Mark
  • Luke
  • John
  • Acts
  • Romans
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Galatians
  • Ephesians
  • Philippians
  • Colossians
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • 1 Timothy
  • 2 Timothy
  • Titus
  • Philemon
  • Hebrews
  • 1 Peter
  • 1 John
  • Revelation

Disputed Books

Some disagreement surrounded the following books:

  • James
  • 2 Peter
  • 2 John
  • 3 John
  • Jude

While Eusebius included these books in his disputed list, he makes an important statement about their validity. He writes that these books “are disputed yet known to most.”6Eusebius, Church History, 3.25. In other words, Eusebius indicates that most regarded these books as canonical even if a few were doubtful. Therefore, we shouldn’t think that most were on the fence with respect to these books — just a small minority.

What we find here, then, is the complete New Testament canon when you combine both the recognized and disputed books. The recognized books are essentially the same canonical core from the second century, plus the disputed books which most recognized as canonical.

Spurious Books

These books were ones that early Christians found helpful, but not canonical. They included:

  • Acts of Paul
  • Shepherd of Hermas
  • Revelation of Peter
  • Epistle of Barnabas
  • Didache
  • Gospel of Hebrews

These books would have been considered orthodox in their theology (much like a modern book by an orthodox Christian writer), but they weren’t backed by apostolic authority, and thus not canonical.

Heretical Books

These books were universally rejected by the early church:

  • Gospel of Peter
  • Gospel of Thomas
  • Acts of Andrew
  • Acts of John
  • Gospel of Matthias

Eusebius goes so far to argue that these books “ought not be reckoned even among the spurious books but discarded as impious and absurd.”7Eusebius, Church History, 3:25. His sentiments seem to fly in the face of modern liberal scholars who argue that the Gospel of Thomas is just as credible and authoritative as our four Gospels.

The Canon and Beyond

Following Eusebius, Athanasius gives us our precise twenty-seven book New Testament in his Festal Letter (AD 367). Additionally, regional church Synods at Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) both affirm the twenty-seven book New Testament canon.

You might ask what took so long to get all twenty-seven books affirmed? There could be a couple of reasons for the delay.

First, the peripheral books were generally shorter and made less of an impact on the church than the core books. It’s not hard for us to see how the church read Romans or Luke more than 3 John. For this reason, peripheral books didn’t circulate around the Roman Empire with the same frequency as the core ones. The truth is, many in the early church probably never read Jude or 3 John.

Another possible reason for the peripheral book’s late acceptance is the persecution of the early church. For example, in AD 303, Emperor Diocletian ordered all Christians to sacrifice to the pagan gods and to hand over all their biblical texts to be burned. It’s easy to see how Christians couldn’t just circulate their books willy-nilly.

Once Constantine legalized Christianity (AD 313); however, Scripture circulation came much easier. And quickly after that, we start finding complete canon lists.

So, did the early church have a neat and tidy agreed-upon canon at the end of the first century? No. But was the canon like the wild-wild West? No again. Instead, the church recognized a core canon from the very early stages, and they came to recognize the peripheral books later once all the books had time to circulate the Empire.

 

Ryan Leasure Holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OsHxhX

/by

Leaving Christianity For Sex?

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

Pastor and author Joshua Harris recently announced that he has divorced his wife and left Christianity. He also has denounced Christian sexual morality. What can we learn from this? Here are some of the questions Frank addresses:

· What reasons did he give? Did he cite evidence that Christianity is false?
· By leaving Christianity hasn’t he adopted a new faith?
· By what standard does he support his new beliefs?
· Should we call out false teachers?
· According to the Apostle Paul and Thomas Aquinas, how does sexual immorality make us stupid and dismissive of those who disagree with us?
· Is this a choice between Christianity and the religion of sex?
· How is Mr. Harris being just as exclusionary as the Christians he now blames?

We need to pray for Mr. Harris and his family. But all of us have to make a choice: Are you going to trust your life and eternity to the sinless Jesus or the sinful culture?

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
Should Christians Abandon Social Media

Should Christians Abandon Social Media?

By Luke Nix

Introduction

With all of the recent news of various social media platforms purposefully hiding and censoring Christian and politically conservative content in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance,” many people have abandoned Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and other popular social media outlets in protest. While I have been tempted to do the same, because of their relative popularity (compared to more traditional communication media), I do believe that if we abandon these platforms, we will not only limit our audience but encourage the behavior of limiting reasonable content to and stifling intellectual discussion among the users of these platforms. The new generation of consumers prefers social media for their news, media consumption and discussion of various issues, so it cannot be abandoned by those who hold and can defend the truth with gentleness and respect.

The Liberal View of “Tolerance” and “Diversity”

I recently heard Candace Owens interview Lauren Chen about the modern liberal view of “tolerance” and “diversity.” They discuss the deliberate attempt to remove even the slightest (appearance of) disagreement from the public square. This attempted removal is targeting the internet and specifically, social media. If you are considering leaving popular social media platforms (or already have), I encourage you to listen to this discussion in full and consider that removing your voice of reason from today’s public squares may do more harm than good:

Christians Should Master The Media

The new culture primarily consumes image-driven messages, and social media is the primary avenue to get images before this audience. In his book “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels,” J. Warner Wallace encourages Christians to not just embrace new media but to master them. Christians must master the content itself, the presentation of the content, and the delivery mechanisms for the content.

Quote from J. Warner Wallace from the book "Cold Case Christianity": "In a culture where image is more important than information, style more important than substance it is not enough to possess the truth. [Christian] case makers must also master the media."
Conclusion

Rather than abandoning popular social media channels, we should embrace them and utilize them to their fullest potential! If a challenge arises that limits our reach, it is not to be met with surrender, but with enthusiasm to reach the goal despite the challenges. I have written several posts and reviewed several books on the importance of discussing political and moral issues in a compassionate yet intellectual manner. I encourage you to read the posts and purchase the recommended books to equip you to “always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have…with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15):

Posts:

Quotes:

Books:

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GsTqy5

/by
Legado de Norman Geisler

Legado del apologista Norman Geisler, quien ‘no tenía la fe suficiente para ser un ateo’

Por Kate Shellnutt

El magistral teólogo deja tras sí casi 130 títulos y un impacto mundial.

Solo dos meses después de haberse retirado del ministerio público, el teólogo evangélico Norman Geisler falleció el lunes a la edad de 86 años. Había sido hospitalizado durante el fin de semana después de sufrir un accidente cerebrovascular.

Descrito como “una mezcla entre Tomás de Aquino y Billy Graham”, Geisler fue un escritor prolífico, apologista y profesor, además de ser el cofundador y expresidente del Seminario Evangélico del Sur (SES, por sus siglas en inglés) en Carolina del Norte y el cofundador de la Universidad Internacional Veritas en California.

Muchos líderes evangélicos consideran a Geisler uno de los pensadores cristianos más importantes de las últimas décadas, entre ellos el pastor Derwin Gray, quien lo consideraba “uno de los más grandes filósofos, apologistas y teólogos cristianos” y el presidente de Colson Center, John Stonestreet, quien lo recuerda como “una figura sobresaliente de la apologética y la filosofía cristiana”.

Geisler fue respetado debido a la amplitud y la profundidad de su carrera de más de 70 años y por su modelo de defensa de la fe y de la Biblia por medio de la apologética clásica.

“Cuando Geisler comenzó, había pocos filósofos que abrazaran la fe cristiana. Pero resultaba aún más raro encontrar a un filósofo capacitado que estuviera comprometido a ayudar a los creyentes comunes en la defensa del evangelio”, dijo Gregory E. Ganssle, profesor de filosofía de la Escuela de Teología Talbot de la Universidad de Biola. “Geisler preparó el camino para la apologética sofisticada que hoy disfrutamos”, al combinar el rigor académico con el deseo de capacitar a la iglesia y de escribir libros que “pudieran ser leídos y utilizados por los creyentes de todas las condiciones sociales”.

El presidente actual de la SES, Richard Land, lo describió como una voz potente y refrescante que inspiraba a los eruditos conservadores, a los ministros y a los colegas apologistas.

“Para nosotros, la más reciente defensa de la fe realizada por el Dr. Geisler fue como un largo trago de agua fría en medio de lo que a menudo era un paisaje teológico árido y estéril”, escribió Land. “El Dr. Geisler ha sido la autoridad a quien acudir para más de dos generaciones de estudiantes del seminario evangélico que buscaban una defensa firme, inteligente e implacable de la inerrante e infalible Palabra de Dios y de las doctrinas históricas de la fe cristiana”.

Él formó parte del equipo de teólogos que escribió la Declaración de Chicago sobre la Inerrancia Bíblica en 1978 y fue el coautor del popular libro “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” (No tengo suficiente fe para ser ateo) en el 2004.

“Norman Geisler fue una de las cuatro o cinco personas de mayor influencia en mi vida. Fue conocer a Norm y leer sus obras lo que despertó mi interés en la filosofía y el resto es historia”, dijo el profesor de filosofía del Seminario Talbot, J. P. Moreland a CT. “Él fue un trabajador incansable para el Reino y un hermano que fue fiel hasta el final. Hemos perdido a un gigante y el mundo estará peor por su partida”.

Además de su erudición y enseñanza, Geisler participó en debates teológicos con colegas eruditos, entre ellos un debate en el 2011 con Michael Licona con respecto a la resurrección corporal de los santos, que fue cubierto por Christianity Today.

Él es el autor, coautor o editor de 127 títulos, entre ellos un libro sobre el transhumanismo, previsto para el año que viene. Su libro “The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics” (La Enciclopedia Baker de Apologética Cristiana) fue nombrado por CT en el 2002 como uno de los libros sobre religión más importante, de entre los teólogos aún vivos.

Las obras de Geisler han sido traducidas a más de una docena de idiomas, y se han rendido homenajes en Internet por todo el mundo, desde Kenia hasta Brasil. El teólogo brasileño Roney Cozzer escribió: “A menudo, digo que Geisler fue una fuente de la cual bebí muchísimo” y alabo a Dios por su legado.

El erudito, quien nació en Michigan, recibió títulos del Wheaton College, William Tyndale College y del Loyola University.

William C. Roach, presidente de la Sociedad Internacional de Apologética (el cual Geisler fundó en 2007), fue apadrinado por Geisler y compartió lo siguiente en un homenaje:

Los dos crecimos en hogares no cristianos, nuestras madres no nos permitían jugar al fútbol cuando éramos niños, ambos tuvimos padres alcohólicos, nos esforzábamos significativamente en la escuela, y lo más importante: después de nuestra conversión a Cristo, ambos tuvimos que enfrentarnos a las objeciones en cuanto a la fe cristiana.

El Dr. Geisler solía decir que se introdujo en el mundo de la apologética porque se quedó perplejo al encontrar a un borracho en las calles de Detroit que decía ser un egresado del “Moody Instita Bibiltute”. Entonces, el Dr. Geisler comprendió que tenía que encontrar respuestas a las objeciones de la gente o bien, debía dejar de compartir su fe. Puesto que lo segundo no era una opción, el Dr. Geisler dedicó su vida a defender la fe cristiana histórica.

Luego de la noticia de su fallecimiento, su ministerio publicó 1 Tesalonicenses 4:13-14, uno de sus pasajes favoritos que solía citar cuando se enteraba de la muerte de alguien del cuerpo de Cristo: “Pero no queremos, hermanos, que ignoréis acerca de los que duermen, para que no os entristezcáis como lo hacen los demás que no tienen esperanza. Porque si creemos que Jesús murió y resucitó, así también Dios traerá con El a los que durmieron en Jesús”.

 

Publicado originalmente en Christianity Today: http://bit.ly/2Z0Oxnl

Traducido por Natalia Armando

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
Theres No Need To Apologize

There’s No Need To Apologize

By Alex McElroy

As an apologist, the most common joke I hear from Christians unfamiliar with Apologetics is, “do you go around apologizing to everyone?” In case you are wondering too, no, I don’t. In fact, I believe having a Christian worldview is nothing to apologize for. So, what does an apologist do? We provide credible answers to some of life’s most difficult questions and seek to uphold the Christian worldview through scientific, historical, archaeological, and philosophical evidence.

If you are unfamiliar with the term apologetics or have never heard of an apologist, that is understandable as we constitute a small portion of the total church. That being said, if you want to get your feet wet go read or listen to some of the most notable apologists – Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Sean McDowell or Jim Warner Wallace. I’m always blessed and enlightened by their robust and well-prepared thoughts and teachings.

Sometimes I do meet Christians who seem to feel as though they have something to apologize for because they are not equipped to answer questions their critics raise. This doesn’t mean an answer doesn’t exist. It just means they haven’t fully thought through the question. This is where apologetics comes in. Furthermore, the questions cannot simply be laid at the feet of the Christian as though they are the only one who needs to provide an answer. Everyone, whether they are Christian, atheist, or pluralist, needs to have a coherent answer to some foundational questions.

Let’s look at 3 of them.

Are There Reasons to Believe That God Exists?

Scientists largely agree that the universe had a definite beginning – meaning it is not eternal. For example, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the second law of thermodynamics and the radiation afterglow discovered in the early universe are all evidence that the universe had an uncaused first cause. This is also supported by general logic – something cannot come from nothing.

That being the case, there are two options: either something came from nothing or something came from someone. The issue is that there has never been an observed instance where something sprang forth from nothing. Aristotle defined ‘nothing’ as “what rocks dream about”. This leaves us with the other option: something came from someone. This is also supported by general logic – every creation has a creator. If the universe didn’t come from nothing, it had to have a creator, someone that pre-existed the universe and exists outside of the universe…that sounds a lot like God to me.

Is There an Objective Moral Standard?

I’ve talked with many people from many different worldviews. I’ve found that this line of argument seems to be the most overlooked by those that don’t believe in the God of the Bible. I know many atheists, most of whom are great, morally upright people. The issue isn’t that disbelief in God makes you evil, or that belief in God makes someone good. The issue is that in purely naturalistic worldview terms like good and evil are meaningless and at best, purely subjective.

C.S. Lewis, who called himself England’s most reluctant convert wrote, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Likewise, if objective evil exists, then an objective moral law must exist in order to have a basis upon which to differentiate between good and evil. In order for that law to remain objective, it must originate from a source that transcends those (us) that it governs. The only option here is God. There is no way to arrive at objective moral values from a naturalistic worldview. In the case for morality, it seems there is no reason to apologize for having a Christian worldview.

Does Life Have Meaning?

I like to play basketball. The shoes that I find work best for me are the “Kobe’s” (named for Kobe Bryant). If I go to the store and they have them for $100, I’ll probably buy them if I’m in the market for new shoes. However, if they were to tell me that the cost was $1,000, I would decline because that would not be an accurate assessment of their value. Only two people determine the value of an object – the creator or the purchaser. Value can never objectively be self-determined. If we apply this concept to humans, then the Christian worldview is wholly unique. Only in a Christian worldview are the purchaser and the Creator the same person. We have been redeemed (bought back) by our Creator. In an atheistic framework, we are the culmination of a random, unguided assortment of molecules. How can there be any value in that? This also means that only in a Christian worldview can we even begin to discuss concepts such as intrinsic value and inherent worth.

This understanding of our value is pivotal because without value, there can never be meaning. In other words, if something is of no value or no legitimate value can be attributed to it, then it in effect becomes a meaningless item. So, the fact that humans are given value by a Creator and a purchaser (redeemer) who is in the legitimate position to impute value to us is of utmost importance. Therefore, there is no need to apologize for adherence to a Christian worldview because only in this worldview does life have meaning because we are eternally connected to the One who gives meaning to all things.

 

Alex McElroy is an international speaker, author, blogger, leadership advisor, and the Pastor of Education at New Life Covenant Southeast Church, with over 20,000 members led by Pastor John F. Hannah.  Alex has been serving in both youth and teaching ministries at New Life for over 12 years. In his role, he teaches Discipleship class designed for adults to learn, fellowship, and grow in their faith within a small group setting. Alex also trains hundreds of teachers and ministers to deliver lessons in proper lifestyle, Biblical study, focused preparation, and Apologetics in order to maximize their effectiveness in and for the Kingdom of God.

/by
Handling Bible Questions You Can’t Answer

Handling Bible Questions You Can’t Answer

By Natasha Crain

During my Bible time with the kids, we turned to a story they hadn’t heard before – the passage from John 9 of Jesus healing the man born blind.

“…and then Jesus put mud on the man’s eyes and he was no longer blind! Jesus had made the man well.”

My 3-year-old twins, Kenna and Nathan, started laughing hysterically. “He didn’t put mud on his eyes!” They started running around the room, cracking up at what they thought was mommy’s joke.

At first, I thought they were just being silly, but then I realized that putting mud on someone’s eyes isn’t something you would expect, having never heard the story before! Still, I tried to preserve the point at hand.

“That does sound funny, doesn’t it? But can you imagine if you couldn’t see? Can you imagine how excited the man must have been to finally see after he met Jesus?”

They looked at me blankly.

Kenna: “Mommy, WHY did he put mud on his eyes?”

Sigh… Back to the mud! Hmmm. Why DID Jesus use mud? He certainly didn’t need to.

“Jesus could heal people any way he wanted. He could have used mud or water or nothing at all. What’s exciting about this story is not the mud, but the fact that Jesus made the man see!”

I missed a great teachable moment by brushing off their question. It’s a fantastic opportunity when our kids ask a WHY question about the Bible… especially one we don’t know the answer to!  There are (at least) two major things they can learn from us at those times.

1. It’s important to continually grow in our knowledge of the Bible.

When the answer to a question is not obvious, it’s tempting to brush it off as a simple fact of what happened. But we are to be spiritual warriors, ever-growing “in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).  We need to look for answers we don’t know (use a Study Bible or go online!). How wonderful that, as parents, we have the opportunity to consider questions from our kids that make us look at passages with fresh eyes. When we look deeper into a passage with and for our kids, we are teaching them that we can ALWAYS learn something new about God’s Word.

2.  We can’t always know answers for certain.

There are many things in the Bible that have multiple or uncertain interpretations. That doesn’t mean we should give up on seeking a deeper understanding of what those possible meanings are. In fact, we do a disservice to our children if we raise them to believe that there are always black and white answers. They will be better equipped to navigate faith questions when they grow older if they understand that some things will never be known for sure… And that this fact does not negate the truth of God’s Word.

Today’s Thought:

What is a Bible question you’ve always had but had never taken the time to find answers to? If you’re like me, there are many!

Today’s Action:

Find the answers to your question! Use a Study Bible, go online, or buy a book (if it’s a topic that requires a lot of thought!). The more we seek answers for our own spiritual development, the more we’ll be prepared to seek answers with and for our kids.

If you want to know the interpretations of Jesus’ use of mud, you can read several commentaries here (scroll to the bottom of page): http://bible.cc/john/9-6.htm

 

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Lno6VB

/by
We live in a beatiful world

We Live In A Beautiful World

,

By Bob Perry

In classical thinking, saying that something is beautiful is not a matter of subjective opinion. It’s a way to identify an objective feature of the world. We don’t construct beauty; we discover it. And we try to mimic it. A lot of ink has gone to a paper discussing this view when it comes to truth and goodness. In fact, Christians make the case that truth and goodness are grounded in the character of God. But there’s more to the story. The ancient philosophers who talked about those also included a third feature with them. They called it beauty. For some reason, we don’t talk the same way about beauty anymore. But don’t be confused. Beauty is in the same category. Classical thinkers have always linked truth, goodness, and beauty together as interdependent, objective features of the world.

The Ancient Idea of Beauty

The ancient Greek philosophers saw beauty in objects that displayed symmetry, order, balance, unity, and proportion. In fact, the Greek word we translated into “beauty” was hora. This is the root from which we have derived the word hour. That’s because beauty includes a sense of timing. It takes into account what we know about the purpose for which the object exists.

Think of a flower. The ancients saw beauty not only in the symmetry of the flower’s petals or the vivid colors it displayed. They also recognized that these properties became most prominent when the flower reached its prime – when it bloomed. In the same way, fruit was most beautiful when it ripened. A mature woman was beautiful – and a young girl was beautiful – each in a way that fulfilled their purpose for that stage of their being. There was no beauty in an older woman trying to look younger than she really was. Nor was it beautiful when a young woman tried to look older than she should.

In other words, the characteristics that made something beautiful were built into the object one was observing. Beauty was dependent on an object’s nature and purpose.

It had nothing to do with an observer’s opinion of it.

Recognizing Beauty

design in a Chambered Nautilus Shell
Photo by Pixabay

Scientists uncover evidence of this kind of beauty everywhere in nature. We see it in “eerie proportional coincidences” like the “Golden Number,” Phi (1.618), and the “Golden Triangle” derived from it. The ratio shows up in commonly-accepted shapes of rectangles used to frame pictures and in the triangle-faced sides of the Great Pyramids. Humans design things using these proportions because they make them look pleasing to the eye. The mathematician Fibonacci derived his infamous Fibonacci Sequence from it.

But this ratio also shows up in nature all on its own. The radius of a spiraling Chambered Nautilus shell expands in relation to it. The similarly appealing geometry of flower petals — and the radiating pattern of combs in a honey bee hive — grow by the same proportions. These kinds of forms and patterns appear so often in nature; we use them to our benefit … and for our pleasure.

Leveraging Beauty

In their book, A Meaningful World, Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt show how “the arts and sciences reveal the genius of nature.” One of the examples they use to demonstrate this is the Periodic Table of Elements. That table, we all learned about in junior high school is a snapshot of nature’s beauty. The chemists who developed it did so by finding “elegant mathematical relationships between atomic weights of elements and the properties of elements.” Doing so drove them to predict the existence of elements we didn’t even know to exist. It was the beauty that led them to fill the table in.

Resonant Beauty

The same type of patterns and relationships that led to the Periodic Table bring meaning and transcendence to our lives. Consider the relationship between mathematics and music, for instance. We can describe musical harmony using mathematical equations. But it works because it resonates with our souls.

The philosopher Leibniz described music as “the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.” But music has a way of moving more than just our feet to the beat of a song. It stirs our emotions. Tradition has it that when Handel was composing his epic Messiah, one of his servants walked in on him while he was writing the famous “Hallelujah Chorus.” The composer was weeping.

Handel is said to have remarked, “I do believe I’ve seen the gates of Heaven.”

Beauty Inspires Us

The beauty of a rainbow inspires us
Photo by Frans Van Heerden

The God-glorifying nature of music is just one of the many ways beauty is manifested in our world. The symmetry, form, and vivid colors of a butterfly enchant us. We marvel at the complexion and immensity of a rainbow, or at the power and majesty of a grand landscape.

These things elicit involuntary reactions in us when we experience them. They can take our breath away. They can make our feet start tapping. They can bring us to tears. They are the kinds of things that add richness and depth to our lives.

Reproducing Beauty

We discover beauty in our world and then try to reproduce it in the things we create. And we long to create things because we are made in the image of the ultimate Creator. Part of what it means to be “made in the image of God” is that we attempt to mimic Him. And when we’re successful, the results are stunning.

Today, we are beginning to use the digital capabilities we have discovered in biology to revolutionize our computers. We design airplanes based on the features we see in birds. We write literature and poetry that elevates our aspirations and invokes the divine. We paint landscapes to reflect the majesty of the world we live in.

We build cathedrals that point to the heavens.

And that’s the point.

Beauty Transcends Us

This all makes sense inside the Christian worldview because beauty is just another form of truth. And like truth itself, we don’t make it up. It draws us in. The character of God is the common reality that explains the trinity of truth, goodness, and beauty. They are the essence, character, and reflection of Him.

Beauty is not subjective. It’s part of the fabric of the universe. It inspires us to think outside ourselves.

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/30TeZzO

/by