Karma Misses Misuses

Got Karma? Misses and Misuses

By Marcia Montenegro

The Hindu word “karma” is used more and more often with a Western twist in meaning. Often people say it to mean “luck” (good or bad) or even as a gleeful expression of revenge. I myself once held a belief in karma when I was following Eastern and New Age beliefs and often thought of how someone who had wronged me would eventually suffer karma for what they had done.

Others try to justify the term karma, loosely or strictly, with the idea of consequences, as seen in Galatians 6:

“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Galatians 6:7, 8).

So, how to view “karma?” First, what is karma?

Karma and Reincarnation

Karma in Hinduism means “action,” and the law of karma refers to the consequences of action. However, although there is a karma relating to consequences of actions in the present life, the usual meaning has to do with the consequences of previous lives (reincarnation) and actions in this life that sow the seeds for consequences in future lives (if interested, see explanations on Christian site Karma2Grace and Hindu site Hinduwebsite.) Reincarnation is:

“Generally speaking, the belief that one lives many lives, returning after death to life in another body, time, and place. This belief is an essential part of Hinduism. One accumulates karma, which are the actions of a person in life, which will influence the person’s subsequent lives… In Hinduism, one can return as an animal or insect (called ‘transmigration’), but in Western views of reincarnation, one returns as a person.”[1]

Reincarnation, a doctrine of Eastern belief systems, is however opposed to Scripture:

“For it is appointed unto man to die once, and then the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).

Penance, Forgiveness, and Karma

For the purposes of this article, the focus is on reincarnation as part of non-dual Hinduism, not dualistic Hinduism. Non-dual Hinduism is the view that there are no distinctions and all is ultimately one. This type of Hinduism is what has influenced the New Age Movement, and it is the primary Hindu spiritual influence in the West.

The consequences, in karma, are mechanical and ongoing; there is no forgiveness or way to avoid such consequences except, according to some teachings, through the specific actions of a guru or possibly by performing a ritual. Even then, while a temporary erasure has been done, karma continues and will continue in future lives.

Here is advice from a Hindu site on Prayaschitta, which is penance:

“In the broadest sense, the entire system of reincarnation is an elaborate form of penance, for we are born with the body, family, circumstances and even longevity and propensity toward disease brought about by our past actions. Prayaschitta is, however, an act of limited aim, intended only to mitigate or avoid altogether the karmaphala, “fruit of action,” of some action we have taken in this lifetime. Actions from our past lives are not considered within reach of ordinary prayaschitta. The karmas of past lives can only be assuaged or erased altogether by intense tapas or austerities under the guidance of a guru, or by the extraordinary grace of God. Manu Dharma Shastras 11.54 states, “Penances, therefore, must always be performed for the sake of purification, because those whose sins have not been expiated are born again with disgraceful marks.”[2]

Also, one must ask, on what values or standards is karma based? It is based on the values found in Hindu teachings, which are diverse and complex. Hinduism is not one monolithic religion but rather a network of wide and multifarious beliefs depending on from which particular texts, gurus, sects, schools of thought, or region of India they stem. Also, each Hindu can choose which deity they prefer as a main deity (the one god is believed to appear as numerous deities). In New Age beliefs, teachings on karma can vary according to the one teaching it.

The need for a sinless sacrifice of another to pay the penalty for sin is absent in Hinduism; if there is any penalty or consequence, it is paid by each person through karma. The only release is moksha — liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth – dependent on one’s actions and spiritual progress through many lives.

Sowing and Reaping in Galatians

What is the meaning and point of the Galatians verses about reaping what one sows?

“Every action produces an effect on the character of the actor corresponding as exactly to its motive as the fruit to the seed. If it springs from selfish desire, it stimulates the growth of evil lusts, and issues in a harvest of inward corruption. If, on the contrary, it be done in obedience to the spirit, it quickens spiritual growth, and issues eventually in a harvest of eternal life. The heart of man resembles a field in which he sows, by the mere exercise of his will, a future harvest of good or evil.”[3]

This passage in Galatians is written to Christians and is part of an exhortation as we see in the next two verses:

“Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. So then, while we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Galatians 6: 9-10).

This has nothing to do with the popular notion of “what goes around comes around,” but rather that our deeds are either undertaken to gratify the flesh, that is, the fallen nature, and will end destructively, or they are done according to the power of the Holy Spirit and for God’s glory, leading to results that have eternal value in accordance with eternal life.

The contrast is between sowing to the flesh (fallen nature) and sowing to the Spirit, the flesh vs. the Holy Spirit being a common theme in Paul’s letters. “Flesh” here does not mean the body, as though the body is bad, nor is it about one’s spirit being good since it’s about the Holy Spirit. Nor is it denouncing pleasure. Rather, this is about living by the fallen nature, that is, the sinful nature, vs. living by the Holy Spirit. The results will be different depending on which way one chooses.

Karma and Christ

In Hinduism and Hindu-based New Age beliefs, the way out of karma and reincarnation must be through one’s deeds and realization of one’s true nature (which is allegedly divine), among other possible paths and complex teachings. This realization only comes after many lifetimes and is dependent on one’s own actions to reach moksha, liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth, both in Hinduism and in Buddhism.

In contrast, God tells the man that due to man’s separation from God due to sin and man’s inability to bridge that gap by his own deeds, Jesus came once for all to offer Himself on the cross to pay the penalty for sins. Through faith in Jesus, knowing that His payment makes the way to God possible, one has forgiveness of all sins and inherits eternal life.

God sent Jesus who willingly laid down His life on the cross to take the penalty for sins so that all who believe in Him have eternal life. Jesus died “once for all.” It was a final act that brings eternal results. Even if one were to hypothetically have thousands of reincarnated lives, he or she could never be good enough or do enough good things to earn salvation.

Christ and karma cannot co-exist. Karma would make Christ’s sacrifice of no import, and Christ nullifies karma.

Should Christians Use the Word Karma?

While it is certainly true that there are consequences for one’s actions and often one does “sow what one reaps” in this life, equating karma with the concepts found in Galatians of sowing and reaping, or elsewhere in Scripture, is invalid.

Moreover, using the word karma may give others the idea that the Christian agrees with the Hindu concept of karma or somehow endorses it. Using the word karma lightly may insult someone who believes in karma and thus alienates that person from hearing the truth. There is no good reason for Christians to use this word except as a platform to contrast it with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disclaimer: The beliefs about karma and reincarnation are complex, and differ in many ways in the New Age from Hinduism. I realize what is written above are simplified explanations and I do not claim to be giving an all-encompassing summary.

Notes

[1] Christian Answers for the New Age, The Occult: Brief Explanations of Various Terms and Concepts, (accessed 10/13/2017)

[2] http://bit.ly/1Rd42Sr

[3] The Expositors Greek New Testament comments on verse 8; see this and other commentaries at The Expositors Greek New Testament

 

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

/by
Christians Science

“Christians Are Opposed To Science!” What Do You Mean By That?

By Evan Minton

In any debate or argument, it’s very important that you understand the terminology that your opponent is using and that your opponent understands the terminology that you’re using. If you don’t define your terms, you’ll just end up talking past each other and you’ll end up attacking straw men. As the philosopher, Voltaire put it: “Define your terms or we shall be like two ships passing in the night.”[1]

Often, you’ll hear atheists and anti-theists say things like “Christians don’t believe in science” or “Christians are anti-science!” or “You can believe in God or you can believe in science, but not both.” or “You can believe in The Bible or you can believe in science, but not both.” Atheists claim to be the champions of science and they deride Christians and Christianity for being opponents to science. But, in order to respond to the secularist’s claims, one has to ask a very important question: “What do you mean by that?” It’s one of the questions of The Colombo Tactic, a debate tactic talked about in Greg Koukl’s Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions. 

What do you mean by that? What do you mean by “science”? What definition are you ascribing to that term? Because how the secularist is defining “science” will determine whether or not I agree with his claims. In my experience debating atheists on the internet and in real life, I have found that “science” can mean many different things to many different people, and when they claim “Christianity and science don’t mix” or “God and Science don’t go together” or “You can believe in The Bible or believe in science, but not both”, while all of the atheists are using the same words and are phrasing their arguments the same way, they don’t actually all mean to convey the same message.

It is the object of this blog post to look at the various definitions of “science” and talk about whether or not Christianity (and Christians by extension) are truly “Anti-Science”.

Definition 1: Science = Science Is The Only Way To Know Truth. 

Some people confuse “science” with a philosophy called “scientism.” Scientism asserts that the only way to know what is true and what is not is through the scientific method. If you haven’t reached a conclusion through the scientific method, the conclusion can only be believed on blind faith or superstition. Scientism means that it can’t be known through science, it simply cannot be known.

If this is the definition of “science” that the skeptic says is incompatible with Christianity, then I would agree. Scientism and Christianity do not go hand in hand, for Christianity asserts that there are various roads to discovering the truth. For example, Romans 8:16 says that the way in which we know we are children of God is through the inner witness of The Holy Spirit. Hebrews 11:1 says “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of things we do not see.”[2] We can know that we’re truly born again by The Holy Spirit witnessing to our hearts, telling us so. We can have confidence that God will always keep His promises by having faith in Him. Faith in Him is the evidence of what we do not see. What do we not see? His promises being fulfilled. We will see them in the future (e.g our entrance into Heaven because we placed our faith in Christ, Jesus’ return), but we don’t see them now. We trust that God will do what He says. Neither of these avenues to knowledge are through scientific means. The first is through spiritual, the second is through faith. One cannot be a Christian and believe that science is the only way to know truth.

On theological grounds, we must reject scientism. Since some atheists take scientism to be the same as science, they see a rejection of scientism as a rejection of science.

Of course, I would reject scientism even if I were not a Christian or even a theist at all. Why? Because the philosophy of scientism is logically self-refuting. A self-refuting claim is one that is refuted merely by asserting it. Such as examples would be “I can’t speak a word in English” spoken in English, or “My parents had no kids that lived” or “Everything I say is a lie”. If someone said to you “My parents had no kids that lived”, you would say “Well, that can’t be true. At least if they’re really your parents, since you’re alive.” If someone said “Everything I say is a lie”, you would know that if this statement is true, it’s false. If it’s true, at least one thing this person says is true, so not everything is a lie. But, if the statement is false, then it also isn’t true that everything he says is a lie since not everything he says is a lie. Either way, the statement cannot be affirmed without being undermined. If it’s true, it’s false, and if it’s false, it’s false.

Scientism is self-refuting in the same way. When someone says “Science is the only way to know truth”, I ask them “How did you come to that conclusion?” (another example of The Combo Tactic). How did you come to the conclusion that science is the only way to know truth? Did you come to that conclusion using the scientific method? How could the scientific method even be used to test that statement? What procedures would be involved in testing, scientifically, the claim “Truth can only be known through science”? The statement “Truth can only be known through science” is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. It cannot be tested using the scientific method, and therefore, it collapses under its own criteria.

1: Truth can only be known through scientific testing.

2: Scientism cannot be known through scientific testing.

3: Therefore, scientism cannot be known.

For this reason alone, even atheists should reject scientism, at least if they want to remain logical. Are Christianity and Science opposites? Only if you’re using “science” as a synonym for “scientism”. But, by that definition, science and logic are opposites as well.

Definition 2: Science = An Old Earth and Darwinian Macro-Evolution 

I’ve come to learn that one big reason Christians are labeled anti-science, why Christianity is seen as being undermined by science, and why belief in God and belief in science are seen as incompatible, is because many Christians reject the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe and the validity of Darwinian macroevolution. Being anti-evolution is seen as being anti-science.

Now, first of all, there are many, many Christians who accept the various dating methods and agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is around 14 billion years old.[3] There are also Christians who accept Darwin’s theory of large-scale evolution and believe that that was the process God used to bring about all of life.[4] Where I stand on this issue: I don’t know. I am definitely an old earther of some sorts.

So, even given this definition of “Science”, it would only follow that some Christians are anti-science, but certainly not all. On this definition of “science”, only a portion would be anti-science. This charge wouldn’t affect Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, N.T Wright, Peter Enns, or others. They would not be opposed to science under this definition of the word.

Would The Bible be opposed to science? Well, this would depend on whether concordism is true or whether accommodationism is true. Does The Bible actually intend to teach us how old the universe is and the precise method and order God brought everything into being? If The Bible’s goal isn’t to convey cosmology or biology to us, but instead used the scientific understanding of its initial recipients (ancient Jews) to get theological and moral truths across, then even if we find scientific nonsense in The Bible, that would be no grounds for disavowing biblical inerrancy or concluding that scripture isn’t inspired. So which is it, concordism or accomodationism? Richard Bushey wrote an article he wrote making the case that God never intended to teach His readers science: see “Why The Biblical Flat Earth Model Doesn’t Flatten Christianity”. 

For further reading, see “Hermeneutics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context”  and my blog post “Why Did God Write A Book?” 

There are many interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with an old earth and even evolution. For a treatment of The Day-Age View, I recommend reading Hugh Ross’ “A Matter Of Days”, for The Functional Ontological Interpretation of Genesis, read John Walton’s books “The Lost World Of Genesis One” and “The Lost World Of Adam and Eve”. Deborah and Loren Haarsma’s book “Origins: Christian Perspectives On Creation, Evolution, And Intelligent Design” is also a source I’d recommend.

Is God incompatible with evolution? No. Christians have always held that God can work through natural processes as well as through miracles. If a man goes into surgery, and people pray that the surgery goes well and it does, they don’t say “Well, God didn’t do it. It was the surgeon and his skills”. They would say something like “God guided the surgeons’ hands so that they wouldn’t screw up” or, if one is a Molinist, “God placed just these surgeons in these circumstances knowing that they would perform the surgery successfully”. For some reason, a lot of Christians just don’t apply that same reasoning to evolution. Evolution no more replaces God as an explanation for the existence of the animal kingdom than a vacuum replaces a maid as the explanation for why the floor is clean. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for why life exists any more than an oven replaces a chef as the explanation for how dinner was cooked. Evolution doesn’t replace God as an explanation for life any more than a surgeon replaces Him as an explanation for why a surgery went well.

Is evolution incompatible with the epistemological justification of God’s existence? I don’t see why that would be so. Biological design arguments aren’t the only arguments for God’s existence, you know. There’s The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument, The Local Fine-Tuning Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontological Argument, The Argument From Desire, The Argument From Science’s Doability, The Transcendental Argument, and there’s plenty of historical evidence indicating that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross and rose from the dead (see here, here, and here). All of these arguments are, in my judgment, sound, and none of them depend on the truth or falsehood of Darwin’s theory. One can concede evolution and all of these arguments would still need dealing with.

I’d like to point out though, that just because one is opposed to a scientific theory, that doesn’t mean one is anti-science. That would be like saying that because a Christian disagrees with a particular interpretation of a passage of The Bible that he’s therefore “Anti-Bible”.

Definition 3: Science as defined As Philosophical Naturalism.

If what one means by “science” is the philosophical worldview called Naturalism (i.e nothing exists but the natural, physical world), then Christianity is definitely incompatible and opposed to “science”. There’s no such thing as a naturalistic Christianity. Naturalism rules out anything supernatural, by definition. It doesn’t allow for God, angels, or demons, and since it doesn’t allow for God, it doesn’t allow for miracles, and since it doesn’t allow for miracles, it doesn’t allow for a bodily resurrection.

Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, all of these are anti-science if science is used as a synonym for atheism.

Definition 4 and 5: Science = (A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.

This is one of the definitions that Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives. It defines science as “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :natural science”[5]  Definitely not opposed to this. I speak for myself and many others when I say that learning things about the universe is a good thing. I am very pro-science under this definition of the word, and many other Christians are as well. Some Christians are scientists themselves. In fact, historically, the scientists who made the most groundbreaking discoveries and ergo were remembered for generations held to the Christian worldview. Do names such as Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Robert Boyle, and Johannes Kepler ring a bell?  Modern day examples would include Francis Collins, who worked with the team that successfully mapped the human genome in its entirety. Under Marriam-Webster’s number 3, we can say that Christians are not anti-science. Christians have actually made great contributions to science.

I love learning science. I can’t get enough of it, to be honest with you. I initially dove into scientific research as part of my apologetics training (i.e to learn how to defend the Cosmological and Fine-Tuning Arguments), but as I learned more and more, I actually became interested in learning science for the sake of science itself. In fact, if I hope to some day buy all the seasons of How The Universe Works and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s show Cosmos: A Space-Time Oddysee on DVD. I greatly enjoyed those programs.

I find the information in scientific books, journals, and TV programs fascinating. Not only that, but I consider it a form of worship. Jesus said to love God with all of our minds (Matthew 22:37). To learn how creation ticks is one way to pay this intellectual homage Jesus was talking about. When I hear scientists on TV talk about what goes on inside of a star, I cannot help but think “What an awesome God I serve! He made that!”. When I hear of astronomers describe the conditions on Saturn’s moon Titan, even if I never open my mouth, I at least inwardly praise God for making such a fascinating system. Even with evolution, If I fall off this fence I’ve been sitting on, I would say alongside Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Priest, and a friend of Darwin: “We knew of old that God was so wise that He could make all things; but behold, God is so much wiser than that, that He can make all things make themselves.”[6]  I believe God loves science, and I believe it makes Him happy the more we learn about this big, beautiful world He created. When the Higgs-Bozon (a.k.a The God Particle) was discovered, I saw a meme that was captioned “‘Hey scientists, thanks for finding my particle’ – God” and although it was intended to be humorous, I personally think it reflected the truth. When Higgs first predicted that such a particle existed, I can imagine the Father turning to The Son and saying giddily “This particle We created, they’re close to finding out about it!” I like to think of it as like a father giving his children a large jig-saw puzzle, then he sits back and watches in gladness as His children piece together more and more, getting a fuller picture the more pieces they successfully fit together.

When I use the word science, I never use definitions 1-3. I always use 4 and 5: “(A) Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. (B) Such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science.” Christians, Christianity, The Bible, God, none of these are incompatible or opposed to science by these meanings of the word. And if you’ll click the link in Footnote number 5, I think you’ll find the Christian worldview isn’t incompatible with any of the other 3 definitions Marriam-Webster gives either. It is certainly incompatible with some of the definitions secularists often ascribe to it.

Conclusion

“Christians are opposed to science!”, “God and Science and mutually exclusive”, “You can believe The Bible or science, but not both.”. To my Christian readers, when you hear these statements, you need to first understand what they mean by the word “science”. Do they mean “Scientism”? Do they mean acceptance of an old earth and evolution? Do they mean it as a synonym for atheism? Or do they use it to mean an investigation into how the universe works? Depending on what they mean by it will determine what kind of response you should give. Not getting a definition out of them will likely result in you and the atheist talking past each other. Does he mean the same thing as you do when he says the word “science”? Find out. Ask the question “What do you mean by science?”

Footnotes 

[1] Or at least he’s been attributed as saying this. It is uncertain whether he ever did.

[2] I don’t believe that Hebrews 11:1 is teaching blind faith. Fideists will use the verse this way, but I really don’t think that’s what the verse is actually saying. For one thing, the context of this verse includes examples of people who had very strong evidence for God’s existence (e.g Abraham, Moses) and praises them for their great faith. Hebrews 11 is a sort of “Faith Hall Of Fame”. Faith is a synonym for trust. To have faith in God means to have trust in God. You can trust in God while having evidence for His existence. Inversely, you can have evidence for God’s existence and not trust Him at all (cf. James 2:19).

[3] Most of the Christian Apologists I’ve learned from over the years are Old Earth Creationists, such as Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, J. Warner Wallace, Sean McDowell, and Neil Mammen. While they reject evolution, they do agree that the universe and Earth are billions of years old, and would agree that young earth creationism defies sound science. For those interested in this position, I suggest Reasons.org. Also, see my blog posts on this on the “The Creation Controversy” page.

[4] These Christians call themselves Evolutionary Creationists. For those interested in investigating this position, I suggest BioLogos.org.

[5] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

[6] Charles Kingsley, The Natural Theology Of The Future, 1871

 

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

/by
Dan Brwon's Origin God

Dan Brown’s Origin: No God Required?

By Timothy Fox

“Where do we come from?” and “Where are we going?” These are the two big questions Dan Brown explores in his latest novel, Origin (Doubleday, 2017). (Minor spoilers ahead.) This is the fifth book in the series starring Harvard professor, Robert Langdon, the most famous being The Da Vinci Code. While many of them have explored religion – mostly Christianity – his later books feature science more prominently. A major theme in this book, however, is science versus religion. Can science explain away the superstitions of religion, or even take the place of religion in people’s lives? This is the hope of computer scientist, Edmond Kirsch.

Kirsch is a vocal, New Atheist-type who would make Richard Dawkins proud. He believes he has made a discovery that will rock the major religions, answering two major questions that humanity has always pondered: “Where do we come from?” and “Where are we going?” Without getting too spoilery, Kirsch “proves” that life arose naturally on Earth without any supernatural intervention. Thus, he has squeezed God out of an explanatory gap, making his existence that much less necessary.

But that got me thinking. Suppose God really was unnecessary for the origin of life. After “Where do we come from?”, are there any other questions that science must answer to eradicate the need for God? I thought of a few:

Why is the universe here?

After Kirsch’s presentation showed that the laws of physics alone are sufficient for creating life, Professor Langdon ponders: “If the laws of physics are so powerful that they can create life… who created the laws?!” (p. 420). This question is huge. It’s one thing to explain where life came from. But what about the universe itself? Why is there something rather than nothing?[1] If life naturally arose from the primordial ooze, where did the ooze come from?

How did consciousness arise?

So Kirsch proved that life can naturally arise from non-life. But at what point in the evolutionary process did life become conscious? How does the mind form from purely naturalistic processes? What are the components of consciousness? Honestly, I think this is a far bigger (and more interesting) problem than the origin of life.

Is morality real?

On the news following Kirsh’s presentation, a viewer response reads “RELIGION CANNOT CLAIM MORALITY AS ITS OWN… I AM A GOOD PERSON BECAUSE I AM A GOOD PERSON! GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!” (p. 418 – emphasis and CAPS original). But if God has nothing to do with morality, then how do we define good and evil? Is there a real and objective moral standard that is binding upon all people across all time or is it merely a social construct?

Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?

This goes beyond basic theism into Christianity. If Jesus did rise from the dead, we get a two-for-one: Christianity is true, and, thus, God exists. To kill Christianity, you must simply disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then:

  • How did the belief in the resurrection begin in Jerusalem, the same place where Jesus was publicly executed and then buried?
  • Why did many of Christ’s followers – including his disciples and former persecutor of Christians, Saul of Tarsus – claim to have a genuine experience of the risen Christ?
  • Why were these same followers willing to suffer and die for a belief they would have known was false?

Yes, Origin is just a fictional work that cannot possibly explore every question regarding God’s existence. But still, above are just a few that need to be fully explained before we can proclaim “God is dead.” Even if a real-life Edmond Kirsch can someday prove that life originated naturally on Earth, the universe still requires a First Cause that is outside of time and space. I’m highly skeptical that consciousness can arise naturally from matter. A moral law requires a Moral Lawgiver. And if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, it vindicated all of his teachings, including the authority of the Bible, the message of his followers, and, of course, the existence of God.

I’m sorry, Edmond, but God’s death has been greatly exaggerated.

Notes

[1] This is briefly addressed by a quote from Stephen Hawking: “It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe going. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing” (p. 418). But if the universe can spontaneously create itself, why not other things, like food in my refrigerator, money in my pocket, or hair on my head?

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2z3WpuH

/by
Christianity Service Teaching

What Christianity Teaches About Service

By Al Serrato

I attended an awards assembly recently with my teenage son. He had written an essay on the value of military service, so the speeches and theme this night had to do with the traditions of service. And though this assembly was conducted at a Christian school, none of the comments made addressed the question of why people are willing to sacrifice in service to another. As I sat listening, a comment I had heard many years ago occurred to me: we are living on the fumes of past generations. Especially in the United States, many of us are living out the finest traditions of service, but few seem to remember what the generations that came before us – especially that first group of Patriots that set this great experiment in ordered liberty into motion – knew. Not only do our freedoms derive from the God that created us, but the idea of “service” makes the most sense within the context of a Christian worldview. Their vision of the benefits of service lingers with us, but many seem to be forgetting the reason – the value – behind service.

Consider: many people draw satisfaction and a sense of purpose from serving others. They may never wonder why this is so, but simply recognize the satisfaction it allows them to feel. Others seek out and enjoy – whether secretly or not – the recognition that service to others may entail. However worthy their efforts, they are being done not exclusively for the benefit of the other, but also for the benefit of the doer. This may seem an unfair criticism, especially when one considers that a growing number of people seem to have no interest in serving others, regardless of motivation. But this comment is an observation, not a judgment. It is simply the case that in serving others, we usually obtain some level of reward, whether purely psychological or not.

If, then, these efforts are but an approximation of something else – some purer sense of service that we approximate but never quite reach – just what is that something else? In the Christian tradition, it is referred to by the label agape love: the love of the other for the sake of love. It is a love freely given, a love that seeks no reward. In its highest forms, it manifests in acts of great self-sacrifice, such as when a person lays down his life for the safety of – for the sake of – the other.

And where do we learn about the value of such love? Where does such love find its grounding? Certainly not in the world of Darwinian evolution, a world characterized by random selection and the “survival of the fittest.” No, it is from Jesus’ own lips that we hear these stirring, yet challenging and troubling, words:

“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:12-13)

Consider also the Christian command to love one’s enemies:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matt. 5:43-45)

Finally, what example does Jesus give during his last hours on Earth? He could not have made the point clearer, as he washed the feet of his disciples, an act of profound humility and love (John 13).

The apostle John said that all things that have ever come into being have come through the Logos, the son of God. (John 1) So perhaps it is to be expected that we, the image-bearers of God, would have within us the seed of such great love. Perhaps there will always be something tugging at us, that God-shaped whole in our heart that draws us out of ourselves and toward others in acts of loving service. That draws us ultimately back to the One who created us.

But to an increasingly secular world that has forgotten its roots, the debt owed to Christianity for improving our world is worth noting. From the hospitals and other institutions that bear the names of Christian saints to the great universities that were founded to train up new generations to bring the message of Christianity to a fallen world; from the many people of faith who have fallen in the service of this great country to those faithful still among us serving unnoticed wherever there is need – we owe indeed a great debt of gratitude for a faith that inspired such selfless love.

Vigilance is said to be the price of freedom. But that vigilance cannot be directed solely outside the gates. We must look inward and return our hearts and our minds to faith in the One who emptied himself to become one of us and who took on our sins to restore us to right relationship with God.

And showed us the true meaning and value of service in the process.

Notes

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

 

 

/by
Apologetics Twitter Social Media

How Can Apologists Best Use Twitter? 6 Ideas

When my father first released Evidence that Demands a Verdict in 1972 there was very little popular apologetics materials available, and so it was an instant success. But now with the recently updated edition, and the growth in the apologetics industry over the past few decades, there is an abundance of material. The challenge today is not the availability of material, but how to make the material accessible, interesting, and relevant to people through the variety of means that people access material.

While there are a variety of different social media platforms, Twitter is one of my favorites. Here are 6 ideas and principles for apologists to effectively use Twitter.

  1. Have A Long-term Perspective. Effective ministry through Twitter is not built overnight. It takes time to develop a unique voice and to grow followers. But here’s the bottom line: If you provide quality tweets, and stick with it over time, you can influence people positively with apologetics. Don’t give up if you don’t get instant followers. Unless you have an existing platform that you bring to Twitter, it will take time and commitment. But it can be done.
  1. Be Positive. We live in an argumentative culture (and this can be especially true for apologists!). People seem to have no problem saying things on Twitter that they would never say in person. It’s easy to be negative. And yet people generally don’t listen to those who are critical, snarky, and condescending. While I have had my moments (and had to delete a few tweets), my goal is to be positive. Even when trolls hound me, I aim to respond with kindness and grace (see Proverbs 15:1). This is not always easy, which is why I give myself time before responding to negative critiques so I can hopefully respond in a positive manner.
  1. Provide Value. There are endless voices competing for our time and allegiance. I want to use my time well. And I assume most people do also. My goal is that people come to my Twitter feed expecting to find apologetics material that provides value to their lives. Thus, I post articles that I find helpful, insightful quotes, quality resources, shout-outs to people who encourage me, and occasionally personal experiences or humorous incidents to (hopefully) give people a good laugh.
  1. Champion Others. Not only do I want to provide value on my blog and Twitter feed, I want to help promote others who also provide value. That could certainly be I use the app Reeder app to follow dozens of blogs and articles every day on topics such as culture, leadership, youth, relationships, theology, and apologetics. If you write something of value, then I will likely tweet it. My goal is to help promote material that is beneficial, and I am more than happy to use my platform to champion others when they produce quality content. We, apologists, need to lock arms with others who share a common passion so we can have an exponential impact.
  1. Don’t Over-Tweet. Few things frustrate me more (on Twitter) than people who over-tweet. In fact, the quickest way I unfollow someone is if they tweet too much. No one is that important that we need to know what he or she is doing every five minutes! Personally, I have found about 6-8 tweets per day to be a good balance. In his book Platform, Michael Hyatt encourages people to tweet about 10-12 times per day. If you have good content, then go for it.
  1. Be Personal. Trust is one of the most important commodities today. Why should people trust you? In general, if people realize there is a real person behind the Twitter account, who has common dreams and struggles, and who is authentic, they will be much more likely to trust you. Don’t be afraid to share personal experiences from time to time—it will help humanize you. I enjoy reading occasional funny incidents, personal updates, and interesting experiences from people I follow. And I try to provide that for my followers as well. Also, I often add brief comments about blogs that I post so readers know what I think about it.

Twitter is a great form of social media. And apologists should use it as a medium to help positively advance the conversation. If you use it, and you want to genuinely influence people for good, then my encouragement is to have a long-term perspective, be positive, provide value, champion others, don’t over-tweet, and be personal. If you follow these ideas (or ones like it), you just might be surprised at how many people you can positively influence for the kingdom.

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

/by
8 Predictions Future Sex Gender Marriage America

8 Predictions about the Future of Sex, Gender, and Marriage in America

,

Recently I was reading sociologist Mark Regnerus’s insightful new book Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. His premise is that the Pill and ubiquity of pornography have caused sex to be more widely available, which drives the cost of sex down and makes real commitment more “expensive” and difficult to navigate. Essentially, Regnerus examines sex in America today through an economic lens.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the book was his final eight predictions for 2030 in regard to sex, relationships, and marriage. He admits that these are “educated guesses” and that the evidence for some is better than for others. Even though he is confident they won’t all come true, they are based on his best reading of current numbers and trends.

Prediction #1: Sex Will Get Even Cheaper. Regnerus considers this one “easy.” Fertility control is improving and there is little risk of pregnancy with sex. Porn use also continues to grow and shows no signs of declining. The continued growth of erotic experiences through porn will continue to cheapen the real thing. Eventually porn will be taken for granted. And as a result, there will be more loneliness, since solitary sexual experiences simply cannot fulfill our deepest needs.

Prediction #2: Enforcement of Age of Consent (Sexual) Laws will Decrease. This is perhaps one of the most startling of his predictions, but Regnerus does note that the age of consent is up for grabs. He is not predicting that American parents will embrace adolescent sex, but that there will be less enforcement age of consent laws near the legal age. In fact, he predicts that prosecutors will not wish to press charges unless the victim is clearly pre-pubescent.

Prediction #3: The Percentage of Unmarried Americans Will Increase, but the Age of First Marriage for Women Will Slow. Demographers predict that the share of Americans who never marry will continue to increase. Women no longer need men for social, cultural, and economic reasons, and men no longer feel the need to act “nobly” towards women and their interests. Regnerus predicts we are moving towards a nation that increasingly replaces marriage relationships with partnering singles (and he believes this will make our nation remarkably lonely and vulnerable).

Prediction #4: Same-Sex Marriage Will Decline Among Gay Men. Regnerus believes the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015 was more a sign of deinstitutionalization than the revitalization of marriage. Given the propensity of men towards non-monogamy, he believes far fewer gay couples will choose marriage (unless, of course, in the unlikely event that marriage is transformed to integrate non-monogamy). Regnerus concludes, “By 2030, there is a good chance that a look-back at June 2015 will reveal same-sex marriage as a quest for rights and a cultural land grab rather than a product of the genuine desire to access a historic institution” (p. 207).

Prediction #5: Men’s Sexuality Will Become More Malleable. According to Regnerus, scholars are beginning to reveal that men exhibit a greater degree of sexual malleability than previously thought. He expects men to increasingly experiment with same-sex sexual behavior while not identifying as exclusively gay. He believes this is due to the declining stigma of non-heterosexual identities, increasing emphasis on a variety of sexual experiences, and the ubiquity of pornography that blends straight, gay, lesbian, multi-partner, and other forms of sexuality.

Prediction #6: Organized Christianity Will Not Stem the Retreat from Marriage in the U.S. While American Christians value lifelong monogamy, according to Regnerus, few have the commitment to make a significant cultural difference. One reason is that the evangelical church is decentralized. And the other reason is that many Christians have bought into the cultural emphasis on individualism and self-fulfillment at the expense of biblical teaching.

Prediction #7: Polygamy Is Not Coming Back, but Polyamory May Become an Accepted Minority. According to Regnerus, long-term legal shifts in family laws favor the individual, not the kinds of unions they form. Americans are more interested in fleeing marriage than having multiple marriages (at least in significant numbers).

Prediction #8: Efforts to Abolish Gender Will Not Succeed. Such efforts may have some success, but ultimately Regnerus concludes, “Because while the globe’s inhabitants may exhibit sympathy for the equal treatment of its citizens, and perhaps efforts to ensure equal economic access, they have much less patience for efforts aimed at obliterating all sexual difference—that is, eradicating the truth of sexual dimorphism” (p. 212).

Even though these are reasonable predictions, it is impossible to know what the future will hold. I have some intuitions about these trends but don’t have a crystal ball.

Nevertheless, they will certainly be on my personal radar as I both study and have conversations about the future state of love, sex, and marriage in America. I hope you will be following these trends as well, and be thinking about what they mean for Christian faithfulness and cultural engagement in the years to come.

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.

/by
Tornado, Simulation, Tyson and God

Tornado Simulations, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and God’s Existence

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

For nearly all my life, I’ve had a fascination with the physical sciences. Meteorology and astronomy were two of them that always caught and kept my attention as a kid. In my teens was when I started to focus more on information technology, and in my twenties, I was drawn to defending the truth of the Christian worldview through science, philosophy, and other knowledge disciplines. Living in Oklahoma, the weather is always in the news, and being that I frequent philosophical and scientific sites, popular astronomer Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson comes across my screen once in a while as well. In the last year, a few different articles have shown up from the meteorological, astronomical, and philosophical worlds, which the combination is what caught my attention. Today, I want to take some time to show how technology, being used to simulate natural phenomena, can be used to show that God exists, and I will address a popular naturalistic alternative explanation that was proposed by Tyson (and others). Let’s start with the weather and super-computers.

Tornadoes And Technology

One of my earliest memories was that of a weather event in Lubbock, TX in the mid-to-late 80s. I was about five years old, and my brother was only two. We were with our parents at the local mall on a spring afternoon. This was pretty typical and nothing exciting, but what happened that afternoon seared this memory into my brain for life. As we were wrapping up our trip and on our way out, nearly everyone in the mall started running frantically, screaming and crying. My parents grabbed my brother and me, and we ran outside to see what was going on. All I remember once we were outside was seeing traffic stopped on an overpass not far from the parking lot and an odd funnel-shaped cloud connecting the sky to the ground. As a five-year-old, I had no idea what was going on, but I knew that that funnel was the cause, and it terrified me. Later, it was explained to me that what I saw was a tornado. Since then, I have had a great fascination with tornadoes, and living in Oklahoma has definitely provided a great opportunity to feed that fascination. Over the years, like most mid-westerners, I have had a few close calls with tornadoes, including one that inspired a blog post a few years ago about God’s potential purposes for allowing natural evil.

While I never went to school for meteorology, I did get to take one meteorology course at the local college one spring semester. That same semester I had the opportunity to watch a supercell develop overhead. While that also is nothing odd for a mid-westerner, this was the first time that I purposely went outside to watch it and was actually paying close attention. Seeing the rapid circulation of the dark clouds around me and the scuds develop and get sucked into the circulation was astonishing. Luckily, no tornado developed, but we did get some nice-sized hail. This particular experience in my mid-20s was one of my turning points for realizing the incredible beauty and power of one of nature’s most destructive forces (at least for my area). If you’ve never experienced a storm this way, take a look at this time-lapse video of a supercell and imagine yourself watching it develop from directly below it:


Nebraska Supercells – 4k StormLapse from Chad Cowan on Vimeo.

Historically, weather has been quite challenging to predict despite the continued increase in power of today’s super-computers and the amount of data that they process in the latest models. In early 2017 atmospheric scientist Dr. Leigh Orf at the University of Madison released a video produced by the most extensive and precise simulation of a real supercell that became tornadic. The EF-5 tornado struck Oklahoma in 2011, and Dr. Orf’s team reproduced the entire supercell for the life of the tornado. Here is the simulation video he released:

The enormity and beauty of the storm astound me which creates a sense of wonder and worship of the Creator (not the creator of the simulation, but the Creator of nature which produced the storm). But something else does as well. The amount of time required, on our fastest computers to simulate the visuals of such a small portion of our universe for such a short period of time with precision orders of magnitude less than what this universe exhibits, created that same sense of wonder and worship in me. Some naturalists have posited that perhaps this universe is a simulation, much like what was explored in the movie trilogy, “The Matrix.”

What If We Live In A Simulation?

Popular astronomer Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson moderated a scientific debate a couple years ago where he suggested that science lends credit to the idea that we live in a simulation. Being that he is an agnostic (if not an atheist) he proposes this idea as a possible naturalistic explanation for the evidence coming from the sciences. The idea that this universe may be a simulation presses the bounds of the word “ludicrous” for a naturalist to make for three reasons.

First, the fact that a naturalist would even suggest such a thing is a philosophical concession to intelligent design on two levels. We know that simulations can only be the product of intelligent designers: the designers of the hardware and the designers of the software. To suggest this universe is a simulation is to suggest the universe was intelligently designed. Let us also not forget what a simulation is: an imprecise representation of something else. So, not only has the naturalist conceded intelligent design but they have merely pushed back the explanation, for they must then assume a universe of greater complexity and precision is what is being imprecisely simulated in the designed hardware by designed software. If this universe is, indeed, a simulation then it has a Designer.

Second, just as the 2011 Oklahoma City tornado was more complex than Dr. Leigh Orf’s simulation, the universe that this universe is imprecisely simulating would be more complex as well, so the naturalist has inadvertently increased the difficulty level of the problem of design because they now need to explain the complexity and design in the universe that our universe is simulating.

Third, all simulations (once the hardware is designed, programmed, and put together, and the software is designed and loaded) must begin. Someone must be there to start the simulation. If the universe is a simulation, all simulations begin, and anything that begins has a cause outside itself, then the simulation (universe) has a beginning outside itself. The universe, if a simulation, indeed must have a Beginner.

If the naturalist wishes to posit that our universe is a simulation, then they have conceded that our universe is designed (thus has a designer), that there exists another universe of greater complexity and design, and that the universe has a beginning (thus a beginner). If a naturalist proposes the option of a simulation, these three issues can be used to show how they have actually granted God’s existence.

Do We Live In A Simulation?

The but the question remains: “Do we live in a computer simulation?” The latest research published in the journal Scientific Advances addresses this possibility. According to one summary of this paper,

“The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.”

In other words, not a chance! Lucky for the naturalist the problem is not actually more difficult due to our universe being some big simulation. But they are still stuck with the universe’s beginning and the universe’s design and fine-tuning. The naturalist simply cannot escape these two realities. The possibility of the universe being a simulation appeared to explain these realities (the agent could have been an alien race in the multiverse, or intelligent machines like in “The Matrix,” after all), but when working out the logical implications, it did not, and recent research shows that the whole discussion is moot anyway. So, the naturalist, even if they were right, is still stuck. Evidence for design in the universe is so strong that the naturalist cannot reasonably appeal to an “appearance of design;” they know that they must come up with a way to affirm that the design is real, and they almost (not really) had a way to affirm actual design via the simulation hypothesis, but now they must deny it yet again.

Conclusion

If we conclude from the design in the universe that it is a simulation (based on what we know about the origins of computer simulations), but we discover that the universe is real (not a simulation), shall we then deny the design of the universe again just to avoid the notion of a cosmic Designer and Creator? Shall we further deny the design of the computer simulation by the scientists and say that the simulation was nothing special and just a “chance” occurrence? I do not believe that Dr. Orf would appreciate such a conclusion. Let’s now apply this to the universe.

Rather than denying the evidence, there is an option that has been established, not only through the process of elimination (a negative argument) but also through argument by analogy (positive argument): God. Just as we know that purposeful designs created by human designers exhibit lesser levels of complexity and specificity that we see in the universe and we know that those levels are the product of designers, so too we can know that the greater levels of complexity and specificity that we see in the universe are the products of a Designer. We can either follow the scientific evidence where it leads, or we can continue to deny it, even though we know deep down that to do so is a denial of all that is rational. Given the numerous other positive arguments for the God of the Bible, when the whole of reality is considered (quoting homicide detective J. Warner Wallace from his book Forensic Faith– “Everything counts as evidence”), only the God of the Bible stands as the logical explanation. We can either follow the evidence and logic and surrender our lives to Jesus Christ, or we can deny reason and the evidence and live our lives in opposition to our Creator and Savior. It is our free choice, and no one is morally responsible for making the wrong decision but us.

For more on God’s existence from the Sciences, I recommend:

Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home by Dr. Hugh Ross

Where The Conflict Realy Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Dr. Fazale Rana and Dr. Hugh Ross

Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy by Dr. Norman Geisler

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2gNtq3R

/by
Coexist Biblical Comand

To COEXIST Is A Biblical Command

Along with my regular blog here at seanmcdowell.org, I am now featuring occasional guest posts from some students in the Biola M.A. in Christian Apologetics that I personally had the privilege of teaching. This post is from my friend Tim Stratton, who has an excellent and growing ministry of his own. I simply asked him to write anything on his heart and mind. Check out his ministry and enjoy this post! Sean McDowell.

To Coexist Is A Biblical Command

By Tim Stratton

Almost every time I go for a drive these days I can count on seeing at least one bumper sticker with only one word on it — “COEXIST.” According to Wikipedia, the bumper sticker typically spells “COEXIST” using an Islamic crescent moon for the “C,” a peace sign for the “O,” a combination of the male and female symbols for the “E,” a Star of David for the “X,” a pentagram for the dot of the “I,” a yin-yang symbol for the “S,” and a Christian cross for the “T.”

The meaning is quite clear: “We all should get along!” No matter what worldview one holds, we ought to get along, live peacefully among each other, and help neighbors of a different religion, belief system, or worldview flourish.

Who could argue with that message, right? Well, you might be surprised!

The message of COEXIST implies that no matter what worldview one holds, there is a “Law above the law” that supersedes an individual’s subjective beliefs — an objective truth that it is really wrong not to get along! This statement can only make sense if humanity was created on purpose and for the purpose of “getting along.” This would be something true of humanity irrespective of the opinions from humanity.

Atheism and Coexist

Some views deny that it is objectively true that humans ought to “get along” and love each other. Atheism, for example, contends that since God does not exist, humans were not created on purpose or for a purpose — we are nothing but a happy accident — nothing more than dust in the wind. If atheism is true, there is nothing really wrong with not co-existing and getting along.

Islam and Coexist

Another worldview to consider is Islam. Although Muslims believe that Allah created humans for a purpose, not all Muslims believe this purpose is to “get along.” In fact, according to the final commands of Muhammad, Muslims ought to kill all infidels and non-Muslims (Quran 2:191; 9:5; 9:73; 9:123, etc.)! Accordingly, many who affirm the “crescent moon” on the COEXIST bumper sticker also believe they ought to kill everyone else who affirms one of the other symbols of the same bumper sticker. (Nabeel Qureshi is a former devout Muslim. Click here to watch him explain why Islam is not a peaceful religion.)

Christianity and Coexist

The message of Jesus Christ is radically different from the final teachings of Muhammad! In fact, the idea of COEXIST is a biblical command! Jesus summarized the entire purpose of human existence in two simple and easy to remember commands in Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39:

  • Love God first!
  • Everybody loves everybody (from your neighbors to your enemies)!

Jesus even hammered his second command home by offering the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) as an example of how humans ought to go out of our way to make sure an individual of a different “people group” thrives and flourishes (even though these different people groups were previously hostile to each other).

The apostle Paul echoes the commands of Jesus in Romans 12:18: If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

And the author of Hebrews commands us to COEXIST with everyone in Hebrews 12:14: Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

The idea behind the COEXIST bumper sticker is awesome — it is a biblical concept! However, each symbol represented entails beliefs which logically contradict the beliefs of other worldviews. Therefore, they cannot all be true! Moreover, not all views affirm that all people ought to get along.

Bottom Line: If you think all humans ought to COEXIST, then you should be a Christian!

/by
Why did God write a book

Why Did God Write A Book?

By Evan Minton

Why did God write a book? By that, I mean why did God inspire authors to write documents which make up a compilation we call The Holy Bible? What were God’s purposes in doing that? Obviously, He had reasons of some sort. All authors write books for reasons. For example, when I sat down to write Inference To The One True God, my purpose was to give arguments for why belief in the Christian God is warranted as opposed to any other so-called deity. In my book A Hellacious Doctrine, my purpose was to establish that God’s love and justice aren’t incompatible with The Bible’s teachings on Hell. My purpose in Inference To The One True God wasn’t to tell my readers about agriculture, or whether abortion is morally permissible, or what the health benefits of a glucose-free diet are or are not. I had a specifically stated purpose: to give reasons to believe that The God of The Bible exists, and by extension, The Bible’s truth, and by even further extension, Christianity’s truth.

Likewise, The Bible’s divine author (God) had a purpose for inspiring the authors of the 66 books and letters which comprise it. It’s important that we know an author’s purpose for writing because if we don’t, we may wrongly accuse him of error, or criticize him for not talking about something or mentioning something in his work. If we don’t know an author’s reason for writing, we may also have unreasonable expectations which, if not met, will cause us to be disappointed or to doubt the author’s credibility.

Through reflection on this subject, I’ve come to the conclusion that God had 3 reasons for inspiring the 66 books and letters which comprise The Holy Bible.

1: To Teach Us Theology

The most obvious reason God inspired The Bible was to reveal to us truths about Himself. Through The Bible, we learn that God is omnipotent (see Genesis 18:14, Job 42:1-2, Matthew 19:26, Luke 1:37), omniscient (see Job 34:21, 1 John 3:20, Proverbs 15:3, Psalm 147:5, Psalm 139:1-4), omnipresent (see Psalm 139:7-12, Joshua 1:9, Jeremiah 23:24, Acts 17:27), morally perfect (see Deuteronomy 32:4, 1 John 1:5), all-loving 1: John 4:8, John 3:16), and so on.

We learn that God is a Trinity from the inference of 5 biblical facts: 1) There is only one God (see Isaiah 44:8, Isaiah 45:5, Isaiah 43:10, 1 Corinthians 1:8, 1 Timothy 2:5), that 2) The Father is God (1 Corinthians 4:8), that 3: Jesus is God (see John 1:1-3, 14, John 10:30, Isaiah 9:6, Philippians 2:5-8, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1), that 4: The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4), and 5: That The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons (as evident from the fact that Jesus often talks to the Father, that John 1 said the Word was with God, that Jesus said He would send The Holy Spirit when He Himself departed  in John 14:26, etc.).

We learn that Jesus’ death on the cross was to pay for our sins in passages like Isaiah 53, 1 John 2:2, Romans 4:25, and 1 Peter 3:18. Moreover, Romans 4:25 tells us that not only did Jesus die to bring us justification, but He was resurrected from the dead as well. Jesus’ resurrection was part of His atoning work.

So, theological truths, doctrine, is why God inspired The Bible. The Bible was written so that man would know He is a sinner who has broken God’s laws, and that God became incarnate, took the punishment on his behalf, and will apply that shed blood if he only places his faith in Him. The Bible was written so that we would know what God is like, who God wants to save, who Jesus died for, and much more.

2: To Teach Us History

The Bible was also written to teach us history. Now, not all of The Bible’s books were written for this purpose (e.g Proverbs, Psalms), but undoubtedly many fall into the historical genre. For example, most scholars agree that the 4 gospels fall into the genre known as “Greco-Roman Biographies”, which is to say that they’re written to chronicle the events of a person’s life (in this case, Jesus’). The books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, etc. are also universally agreed by theologians to fall in the historical genre. These are records of events that happened in space and time.

One of God’s purpose in having His chosen authors accurately record history is that much of Christian theology rests on historical events having taken place. For example, if the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus did not actually occur in time and space, the entire Christian faith crumbles (see 1 Corinthians 15:4). If you don’t have a historical death and resurrection, you don’t have an atonement for mankind’s sins (Romans 4:25). Thankfully, the historical evidence is strong that Jesus did die on a cross and did subsequently rise from the dead (see “A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection”).

Moreover, almost anyone would admit that history can be learned from, even secular history. That’s why they say “If people don’t learn history, they will be doomed to repeat it”. We can learn from the lives of Moses, Samuel, David, The Apostles. For example, every time I read about the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness, and how they complained and distrusted God, how they accused Moses on more than one occasion of leading them out there to die, and so on, and how God never fails to provide for them, I am reminded that God is faithful. He will do what He says He will do. He will never leave us nor forsake us. I take a lesson from that. In the wanderings through the wilderness we call “life”, we should trust God to take care of us. Often times, many of us find ourselves in the same position as the complaining Israelites.

Moreover, the historical narratives strung together to tell a specific story: the story of God’s mission to rescue the world from Sin. It starts in the garden of Eden and climaxes in the death and resurrection of Jesus. “It is accomplished” (John 19:30) And now history continues, as followers of Christ spread all over the globe to tell others the way to salvation (Matthew 28:19).

3: To Teach Us Morality 

Obviously, God wants us to live moral lives. If He didn’t, He would not have given us The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), or told us “Be holy for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:16, cf. Leviticus 11:44, Leviticus 20:7), or “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). God wants us to live holy and upright lives. He wants us to produce the fruits of the Spirit which are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control, (Galatians 5:22:23) rather than the fruits of the flesh (i.e sinful nature) which are sexual immorality, drunkenness, outbursts of anger, hatred, idolatry, discord, factions, witchcraft, envy, orgies, etc. (Galatians 5:19-21).

God tells us what is right and wrong in The Bible, and He commands us to choose the right and refrain from the wrong. Now, of course, we can know right from wrong in many areas without scripture, as Romans 2:14-15 tells us that God wrote an awareness of morality on our hearts, but not everything can be read of “The Moral Law”. For example, in Romans 7:7, Paul says that if The Old Testament scriptures hadn’t told him that coveting was wrong, he would have never known it was wrong. I can say the same thing about looking at women with lust. If Jesus hadn’t told me that it was wrong in Matthew 5:28, I would probably do it and think nothing of it. I also probably wouldn’t think to get drunk was a sin had various verses in The Bible said so. I would think it unwise to get drunk, but not morally wrong. Crossing the street without looking both ways is unwise, but it’s not a sin.

4: To Teach Us Science? 

The 3 purposes God had for inspiring The Bible’s documents will be uncontroversial for any orthodox Christian believer. I think any Christian reading this would be in full agreement with me that doctrine, history, and morality are reasons that God wrote The Bible. We could probably include wisdom as well, given that that’s the explicitly stated purpose of the book of Proverbs, but one may possibly put that under the morality category. I don’t know, it’s up to you whether you think Wisdom fall under category number 3 or stands as its own category.

Anyway, there is a split in the church today over whether God intended His authors to convey accurate scientific information. By that, I mean that many Christians (in fact, I’d be willing to say most) believe that whenever a Bible passage makes reference to the natural world, the way it talks about it should correspond to the way the world really is. They think that if The Bible taught some scientifically ludicrous idea such as the Earth is flat or that the sky consists of a solid dome, then The Bible is in error and therefore not divinely inspired. The Christians would call themselves “Concordists” as they believe The Bible must be in concord with what science says about the universe.

However, we need to ask two questions: first: what is the definition of biblical inerrancy. Secondly: what would constitute an error.

My definition of inerrancy is this: “The Bible is inerrant in everything that it intends to teach.” If The Bible did not intend to teach something, then if the authors got it wrong when talking about that something, then inerrancy isn’t undermined. So, for me, I would accuse The Bible to be in error if it got it wrong in any of the three categories stated above: Theology, History, and Morality. I would also consider it to be in error if it got it wrong in describing cosmology IF God intended to teach the recipients of His book cosmology. However, if that wasn’t His goal, then no problem.

I am not a concordist. I am an accommodationist. I believe God did not intend to teach the Israelites Cosmology. In fact, the more I think about the idea of God conveying absolutely perfect scientific information in scripture, the less sense it actually makes. Here’s why I say it doesn’t make sense. I go back to that one question: “Why did God decide to write a book?” Was God really interested in teaching the ancient Israelites how the cosmos functioned? Was that really on His list of priorities? Did it matter to him whether they believed the Earth is a sphere or is flat? Did it matter to Him whether or not they believed the sky was solid? What was God’s purpose for writing a book? I think 3 reasons given above make perfect sense, but it makes no sense to think teaching them accurate cosmology and physiology was even on His to-do list.

For one thing: God has foreknowledge (Psalm 139:1-4). He knew we would figure out the truth about the universe eventually through the rigorous scientific method. It would have been redundant to tell us in His Word. God may have thought to Himself “There’s no need to correct my Peoples’ faulty cosmology. Humanity will figure it all out on their own in time. Besides, a lot of this would just confuse them anyway, and I already have a tough time getting them to trust what I say. Overturning their entire cosmological system with something foreign to their thinking would just be counterproductive. I’ll just use the cosmology they think is true to get my theological points across.”

On this view, God accommodated (hence the name) the scientific understanding of his original recipients to teach truths about Himself. I resisted this view for a long time because I thought to affirm that The Bible contained Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology was to affirm that The Bible is not inerrant. But I now see that’s mistaken.

It’s like this: imagine there’s a pastor teaching vacation Bible school, and he wants to teach the children about being charitable. It’s Christmas time and all the kids are talking about Santa’s supposed imminent coming. The pastor talks about Santa Claus and says “Santa Claus travels all over the world delivering lots of toys to good little girls and boys. You know why he does this? Because he’s loving and selfless. He gets nothing out of this global delivery except your joy and happiness. You should strive to be just as charitable and giving as he is”.

Now, the pastor’s point is not that there is actually a person called Santa Claus who delivers presents on Christmas Eve. His point is that the children should be just as charitable as they believe Santa is. In an analogous way, when The Bible says “The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure.” (Psalm 93:1, NIV), God’s point is not that the Earth doesn’t move, but that God’s throne (His sovereignty) is as established and unmovable as the ancients believed the Earth was. Just as the pastor could use a false belief of the child’s to teach a moral truth, God used a false scientific belief to teach His initial recipients a theological truth. Neither the pastor nor the Lord could be accused of being in error because the existence of Santa Claus and the immovability of Earth wasn’t what they were trying to teach. Indeed. Neither of them needed to teach such, for the child believed in Santa Claus prior to receiving the teaching. The Israelites believed the Earth was motionless prior to receiving the revelation. The pastor and God simply used false pre-existing beliefs as a springboard to teach something that is true.

Conclusion 

Why Did God write a book? To convey the history of his interactions with His people, to convey theological doctrine, and to convey morality. God could have used scripture to teach cosmology, but what motive would He have for doing that? I can’t find any motive. He knew we would figure it out on our own anyway, so why tell us thousands of years in advanced? One can have a spiritually fulfilling life and a strong relationship with God even if they’re the most scientifically ignorant person of all time, so why would correct cosmology be a priority at all? Moreover, one could argue that concepts like evolution, a spherical earth, a non-solid sky, would have just confused them at best, and made them distrustful of this God didn’t know anything about their “correct” science at worst.

Of all the motives I can find for God to write a book, cosmology isn’t one of them. I can’t think of a single reason God would have to want to correct the ancient Israelites cosmology via divine revelation.

So, if God’s book doesn’t describe the world properly (and it doesn’t), I don’t find blame God. Teaching cosmology wasn’t one of Scripture’s purposes. Getting mad at God for not teaching cosmology would be like getting mad at me for not teaching quantum physics in A Hellacious Doctrine. Quantum Physics wasn’t why I wrote the book.

“The Bible shows the way to go to Heaven, not the way the heavens go.” – Galileo Galilei[1]

“I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption” – Billy Graham[2]

Notes

[1] Galileo Galilei, (n.d.) BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from BrainyQuote.com Web site: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/galileogal381320.html

[2] Source Book:  Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997.  p. 72-74

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2g9peKZ

/by
Faith Emotional Logical

Is Faith Emotional or Logical?

By Luke Nix

So many people, both religious and non-religious, believe that faith is purely emotional, and in most contexts people imply the word “blind” before “faith”. While few others believe that faith is logical- that it is firmly grounded on something. Lately, I’ve been reading the book “Emotional Intelligence” by psychologist Daniel Goleman and a few thoughts came to mind regarding this seeming dichotomy between faith being based on emotion versus being based on reason. Before I go into that connection or disconnection, though, I want to establish what I mean by “faith”.

Faith in Time

I hear people all the time say that they “have faith”. It seems to inspire them and those around them, but it often leaves me confused. Sure, someone can say that they “have faith”. But when I hear this, I am compelled to ask a few questions:

  • “What do you have faith in?”
  • “What makes you believe that thing is worth placing your faith in it?”
  • “Why do you need to put ‘faith’ in something anyway?”

Without answers to these questions, faith is empty, contentless, blind: merely a verbal platitude but ultimately vacuous. If faith is to be significant it requires content. From what I have seen, it appears that for faith to have content, three essential things must take place at three different points in time: the past, the present, and the future. All three are necessary; if one is missing, then we cannot say that someone has meaningful faith. So, if the “something” is identified at these three levels, this means that faith is not empty or contentless, there is something significant to it.

  • Past– Experiences with something or someone (foundation)
  • Future– The unknown (need)
  • Present– Trust (action)

Based on prior trustworthy experience, we must trust the person or thing in the present because the future is unknown. If we do not have any past trustworthy experience to justify trusting someone or something, yet we still say we have “faith”, then our faith is blind. If there is no future unknown, then trust is not really needed, thus any “faith” we say we have is imaginary. If we don’t actually place our trust in the person or thing with the unknown, yet we say we have “faith”, our words are not backed up by our actions. In all three of those cases, faith does not exist. All three -the past, present, and future- are required for faith to actually exist in a person.

Objects of Faith

Faith is that which is based on the rationality and the reasonableness of that which has already been revealed. What we decide to use as the object of our faith will depend on our experiences or revelations with different possible objects of faith. Some trust science. Some trust government. Some trust reason. Some trust themselves. Some trust God. Every one of these possible objects of trust is tested by the person. The test is as simple as reviewing past experiences with that object in situations when promises were made or understood. This is a very logical way to approach who or what to trust (or not to trust) with the unknown. Thus, we have a very reasonable and logical approach to faith.

Where The Emotion of Faith Meets The Logic of Faith
However, emotion plays a huge role here also. Goleman explains: “When some feature of an event seems similar to an emotionally charged memory from the past, the emotional mind responds by triggering the feelings that went with the remembered event. The emotional mind reacts to the present as though it were the past.” (Goleman, 295)

It is the emotional part of our brain that gives past experiences their thrust. We have a vivid recollection of experiences that impacted us regarding the trustworthiness of someone or something we depended upon. If we believe that something(one) followed through with the given or understood promise, then we associate positive emotions to that experience. But if we believe that something(one) did not make good on given or understood promises, we associate negative emotions to that experience. When faced with a similar future unknown, we will tend to act (place trust) based upon those previous experiences (revelations).

However, we are not stuck with certain emotions to certain objects once they are “written” in our memory. The brain is highly malleable. As we obtain more verifying experiences, the satisfaction with an object of faith grows, and our ability and willingness to trust it with the unknown future is more solidified. On the flip-side, As we obtain more experiences that confirm the untrustworthiness of a possible object of faith, the less we have the ability and willingness to trust it with the unknown future.

This has great implications for the Church in general and apologists specifically:

The Church– We need to be extremely careful in how we approach and treat people (believers or not). Every interaction that we have creates a memory with someone. If that interaction was negative, not only will people question your trustworthiness, but they will also question those you associate with (including your beliefs). We must take responsibility to properly represent Christ to everyone- even those in the Church. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one; they may be looking for a reason to reject Christianity, let’s not give them one by treating those we believe to be our brothers and sisters in manners that are not Christ-like.

Apologists– This is a critical point in our defense of Christianity. Many skeptics do not trust God and/or the Church due to painful experiences with Christians (and/or those they believed to be Christians). We have to understand that when we ask them to trust Someone they believe has failed them, to them we are making the most unreasonable request of them. We would be equally put off if they asked us to place our trust in someone who had failed us in the past. Goleman explains again:

“The emotional mind takes its believes to be absolutely true, and so discounts any evidence to the contrary. That is why it is so hard to reason with someone who is emotionally upset: no matter the soundness of your argument from a logical point of view, it carries no weight if it is out of keeping with the emotional conviction of the moment.” (Goleman, 295)

The brain’s malleability is not quick, but it is strong. This is both good and bad. What is good is that someone who is placing trust in something that actually is untrustworthy (though their experiences with it may point to trustworthiness) can still redirect their trust away from that unreliable object and place it in someone that is truly reliable. Also, if someone does not trust a potential object of trust due to perceived untrustworthiness, it can be reversed.When we present negative arguments, we are attempting to show the unreliability of their current object(s) of faith. When we present positive arguments, we are attempting to show the reliability of alternative objects of faith. This is gone into more detail in my post “Positive and Negative Arguments“.

Patience Is A Virtue

When damaged, trust is something that is rebuilt slowly- the emotional associations to a particular type of event must be changed. More damage requires more time and more effort. We must be patient. We can present logical arguments, but only in their due time. That time comes as the emotional connections are being changed and the heart is being transformed through Christ acting in our lives to establish the positive emotional connections. Which prepares the person to accept the logical arguments used to demonstrate the reliability of the Christian God as an object of faith.

When the time comes to give the logical arguments, we can demonstrate the unreliability in their previous object of faith (further challenging and changing the emotional ties): the negative arguments. At the same time, we must offer logical arguments to trust in Christ: the positive arguments.

Timing is Everything

Notice that this is quite dependent upon timing; timing we cannot possibly know because we do not know the state of the person’s heart at any particular time. We can get hints based on behavior and conversations, but those can be purposely misleading or misinterpreted. It is only through prayer and the willingness to let Christ guide our delivery of the Gospel that a person may be added to the Kingdom. As I have said in previous posts, we cannot argue someone into the Kingdom. It requires a change of the heart, that only God has the knowledge and the resources to accomplish. We, as the members of the Body of Christ, should feel humbled and blessed that God has chosen us to be one of his many resources.

Why Is Faith Emotional and Logical?

Faith in anything is not just emotional or logical, it is both. Faith also is not practiced only by a certain type of people, it is practiced by everyone. In the words of Ravi Zacharias: “God has put enough into this world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason alone.” (17:39) There is a very specific design and purpose in this reality: that we can possess knowledge of reality, but never enough that we become too prideful to stop searching for the Source of everything that we know, to discover that the Source of that knowledge is personal, loves us and is worthy of our worship and trust. God created us to be both logical and emotional. It is only in the discovery and knowledge of who God is, that our insatiable search for knowledge is completed; and our faith in Him, no matter how emotionally difficult and painful it may be, is eternally vindicated and appreciated in the presence of the Source of all knowledge, the Foundation of reason, the Creator of our emotions, and the “Finisher of our faith.”

Another great post is by Carson Weitnauer: Is Faith Opposed to Reason?

Sources

Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence: 10th Anniversary Edition; Why It Can Matter More Than IQ

Zacharias, Ravi, Scorned For God- Part 1 (Let My People Think Podcast)

 

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

/by