theology Archives - Page 37 of 46

Tag Archive for: theology

Could The Universe Be Eternal?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

One of my favorite arguments for God’s existence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. While this argument has historical roots, contemporary Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has popularized it more recently. The argument goes like this:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This is a logically airtight argument. That is, if we can demonstrate that both premise (1) and (2) are true, the conclusion (3) necessarily follows as true. Let’s consider the premises in turn.

(1) Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause.

This first premise seems intuitively obvious. To reject it, one would have to posit that something can come from nothing. But that view has to be the height of absurdity. Nothing can’t produce anything. After all, our own experiences and scientific observations tell us that things just don’t pop into existence uncaused. None of us, for example, have ever experienced a new Corvette popping into existence in our driveways, as nice as that would be. Additionally, if things can pop into existence uncaused, then it remains inexplicable as to why this doesn’t happen all the time.

As one might imagine, most embrace this premise, although a few have sought to refute it over the years. Quentin Smith, for example, suggests that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”¹ But I must confess, I’m not sure I understand how this is possible. How did we come from nothing? How did nothing have the capability of causing anything at all?

If prior to the existence of the universe, nothing existed – including space, time, matter, or God – how did the universe come to be? People, like Quentin Smith, must violate everything we know about the cause and effect relationship in our universe to adopt this position. Even the great skeptic David Hume once remarked, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.”²

To get around this metaphysical impossibility, skeptic Lawrence Krauss suggests that the universe came into being from nothing. But then he goes on to explain that “nothing” is really a quantum vacuum of fluctuating energy. And as many have already pointed out, Krauss equivocates on the word nothing. After all, a quantum vacuum of fluctuating energy isn’t no-thing. It’s something. One still needs to explain how this vacuum came to be.

Additionally, others have adopted the position that premise (1) is true for all things inside the universe, but it’s not necessarily true of the universe itself. The problem with this view is that it commits the taxicab fallacy. That is to say, it adopts the standard cause and effect principle when it’s convenient but then hops off — like one would a taxi — once it gets to its desired destination. Not only is this view logically inconsistent, it assumes that the causal principle is only true of the material world. But the cause and effect principle is a metaphysical principle, in that it’s true for all reality. Being cannot come from nonbeing.

Finally, the last objection to premise (1) usually comes in the form of a question: “Who caused God?” But this misunderstands the premise. The premise doesn’t state that “whatever exists has a cause.” Rather it states that “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” And theists have maintained that God has never had a beginning. He exists eternally by necessity. If he doesn’t, then he’s not God. This is what we mean when we say “God.” If he owes his existence to an external cause, that external cause would be God. So asking the question, “who caused God?” doesn’t help the skeptic get around premise (1). Theists have maintained for millennia now, that God is necessarily eternal. And to ask, “what caused him?” misunderstands our position.

(2) The Universe Began To Exist.

Since it’s difficult to disprove premise (1), many skeptics set their sights on premise (2) which asserts that the universe began to exist. In a previous post, I laid out scientific evidence which suggests the universe is not eternal. In this post, however, I want to focus on the philosophical reasons for rejecting a past-eternal universe.

To get around premise (2), the skeptic must maintain that the physical universe has existed for all eternity and has thus existed for an infinite number of moments. However, while we use infinity in mathematical or theoretical worlds, infinity, in reality, is impossible as it results in all sorts of logical absurdities.

Think, for example, about a meter stick that you divide in halves forever. Could you divide the meter stick in half an infinite number of times? How do you know the point at which you cross the threshold of a natural number to infinity? And if you reach infinity, isn’t it true that you could subdivide the meter stick one more time?

Perhaps the most famous example demonstrating the absurdity of infinity, in reality, is David Hilbert’s thought experiment — Hilbert’s Hotel. Hilbert told us to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. Additionally, he said to imagine that all the rooms are occupied so that not a single room is vacant. Now, suppose a guest comes to the check-in desk and asks for a room. The manager says, “yes, of course, you can have a room.” He then proceeds to move the person in room #1 to room #2, and the person in room #2 to room #3, and the person in room #3 to room #4, and so forth to infinity. He then takes the new guest and places them in the vacant room #1. But remember, before the guest showed up, the infinite number of rooms were already occupied.

Now, Hilbert says to suppose an infinite number of guests show up to a fully occupied hotel asking for a room. “Of course, the manager says.” He then proceeds to move the person in room #1 to room #2, and the person in room #2 to room #4, and the person in room #3 to room #6, and so forth to infinity, always putting the previous occupants in a room number twice their original one. Because all the former occupants now reside in even-numbered rooms, the infinite number of new guests all go into the odd-numbered rooms. Remember, though, before the infinite number of guests arrived, all the infinite number of rooms were occupied.

In the first example, we already had an infinite number of guests, but we were able to add one more. So, the equation would look something like this: infinity + 1 = infinity. In the second example, we had an infinite number of guests already staying in the hotel before adding another infinite number of guests. This equation would look like this: infinity + infinity = infinity. Despite adding a different amount to infinity in both equations, we still ended up with the same sum of infinity. The mathematical impossibility of such a hotel demonstrates the absurdity of an actual infinity in reality.

Consider another example. The medieval philosopher al-Ghazali asks us to imagine both Jupiter and Saturn orbiting the sun from eternity past. If for every time Saturn orbits the sun, Jupiter orbits it 2.5 times, which planet has orbited the sun more times? Well, if both planets have been orbiting from eternity past, the answer is that they’ve both orbited the sun the same amount — infinity. But doesn’t that seem absurd? In fact, we know that the higher the number of orbits, the greater the discrepancy that exists between the two. But if Saturn has orbited an infinite number of times, even though Jupiter has been orbiting 2.5 times for every Saturn orbit, they’ve both orbited the sun the same amount.

These illustrations help demonstrate that an actual infinite number, in reality, is impossible. And if an actual infinity is impossible, the universe could not exist for an infinite number of moments.

These absurdities raise another significant problem for the person who wants to reject premise (2). And that problem is that it’s impossible to traverse the infinite. Put another way; if the universe has existed for an infinite number of days, we could never arrive at today because that would mean infinity came to an end. But infinity can’t come to an end. That’s what it means to be infinity.

Or think about it another way. Before we can arrive at today, yesterday would have to occur, and the day before that, and the day before that, and so on to infinity. But how does one know when we’ve reached infinity in the past? There’s no point at which we could start counting the days backward to today. That would be like counting all the negative numbers from infinity back to zero.

Interestingly, many skeptics acknowledge our universe isn’t past eternal based on the scientific evidence. A lot of these same skeptics, however, attempt to get around this problem by suggesting an eternal multiverse. But the absurdity of infinity still applies to a multiverse. It’s impossible to traverse an infinite number of points in any physical universe, even one beyond our ability to detect. So, the skeptic still faces the same problem.

In sum, since it’s absurd to suggest that the universe has existed for an infinite number of moments, the universe must have begun to exist a finite time ago.

(3) Therefore, The Universe Has A Cause.

Since whatever begins to exist has a cause (1), and the universe began to exist (2), it follows necessarily that the universe has a cause (3). Based on this argument, what can we know about the nature of this cause?

First, whatever caused the universe must come from outside the universe itself. That is to say, it must transcend the natural world.

Meaning, this cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial since space, time, and matter all came into existence at the beginning of the universe. Especially relevant to this argument is that the cause is timeless and, therefore, never had a beginning. Now, the skeptic might object that a past eternal cause faces the same dilemma of a past eternal universe. But he would be mistaken because the cause of the universe exists outside of, or independent of, time. That is to say, this cause existed in a timeless state and thus hasn’t traversed over an infinite number of points.

The cause must also be personal. We reach this conclusion based on the fact that there are only two possibilities for a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial entity — either an abstract object like a number or an unembodied mind. But abstract objects don’t possess causal power. They can’t do anything. This leaves a conscious mind who made a free will choice to create as the best explanation.

Finally, based on the size and complexity of our universe, this spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal being must be all-powerful and extremely intelligent. And this being is what theists refer to as God.

The Impact of Divine Omnipresence to a Believer’s Life and Beyond

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

While God used apologetics to bring me back to faith, God uses theology to humble, awe, and comfort me before his amazing presence. Theology is a passion of mine. My resume will show how much I love theology. As I mentioned in a previous post, I realized that schools hiring teachers desire applicants to possess 18 hours of graduate study in a chosen field. Curious as to what hours I held, I began to investigate how many hours I possess in different fields. I realized that by the time I finish my Ph.D., I will carry 30 hours of theological study. I guess you could call me an overachiever. I certainly don’t say this to sound braggadocios. I merely mention this to note the great impact theology has made in my life.

Even while I have devoted much of my time to theological studies, I still find the words of Dr. Daniel Mitchell, Professor of Theology at Liberty University, to ring true, “The more we study God, the bigger God becomes.” I asked him about what he meant by that statement in a class that I had with him. Mitchell noted that he did not mean to say that we make God bigger in our imaginations, but rather we begin to understand how big God truly is the more we study him. When we understand the grandeur of God, our worries tend to fade away in the warm, strong arms of God.

One divine attribute that provides both awe and serenity is God’s divine omnipresence. The word omnus means “all.” We all understand what the term presence means. Thus, God has the capacity to be in all places at all points of time. There is not a place where God’s presence is not found. Scripture indicates the omnipresent nature of God in many locations, but it is most explicitly found in Psalm 139. David writes as he speaks to God,

“Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I live at the eastern horizon or settle at the western limits, even there your hand will lead me. If I say, ‘Surely the darkness will hide me, and the light around me will be night’—even the darkness is not dark to you. The night shines like the day; darkness and light are alike to you” (Ps. 139:7–12, CSB).

From the text at hand, God is shown to be present in every location at the same point in time. Wayne Grudem defines God’s omnipresence as the following: “God does not have size or spatial dimensions and is present at every point of space with his whole being, yet God acts differently in different places” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 173). Divine omnipresence impacts the believer in multiple ways, but for the sake of space, I will concentrate on only five.

God is with you when no one else can be. Often, people feel alone. Widowers who lost their spouses may feel an overwhelming sense of loss. When my wife left on a business trip, I was overwhelmed with the sense of loneliness that overtook me, even if for a little while. People who must reside in assisted living homes or nursing facilities may feel like they are the loneliest people on earth. However, when we understand God’s omnipresent nature, we understand that none of us are ever truly alone. God promises that he will be with you now and for all eternity. Jesus says, “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, CSB). God promised Abraham to be with him, saying, “Look, I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go” (Gen. 28:15, CSB). God’s presence accompanies us wherever we may go. This is only possible because of God’s omnipresent nature.
God is with your loved ones when you cannot. God’s omnipresent nature holds that God can protect your loved ones from afar. Israel (aka., Jacob) told his son Joseph that he knew that God would look after him even though he was about to die (Gen. 48:21). Consider also the Roman centurion. He had faith that Jesus could heal his servant even when Jesus was not present (Matt. 8:5–14). The centurion had faith in God’s omnipresent power to heal. Perhaps this was one of the things that startled Jesus about the depth of the centurion’s faith. Even when you are not present with your family members, God is. God can help those who suffer in distant areas far greater than you or I ever could.
God is with your loved ones who have already passed. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). Jesus uses this argument to defend the reality of the afterlife (Matt. 22:32). Jesus understood that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in the spiritual watch care of God. Some of your loved ones may have died. However, with God, death has died. For those who died in Christ, they live in eternity. This indicates that God is with our loved ones in eternity. If we grasped this reality, even the fear of death dies in the omnipresent love of God.
God is working in creation even when you cannot see it. God is beyond the scope of creation but is always working in creation (Ps. 147:4). God is the One who established the sun, the moon, the stars, the galaxies, and even the universe itself (Jer. 31:35). God’s omnipresent nature indicates that he is in all places at all times in the universe and even beyond the universe. He does not depend on the universe, but the universe depends on God. There is not a molecular change in the far reaches of the universe that leaves God unaware. God knows when, if, how, and where the star Betelgeuse will explode into a supernova or transform into a neutron star.
God’s presence is with the believer in a personal fashion. While God is everywhere, God personally relates to those who receive Christ (John 5:38; 8:31; 15:4-9). Consider this: The God of all creation—the transcendent, magnificent, holy, righteous, loving, omnipresent Creator of all things—desires to have a relationship with you. Oh, that is so profound yet so difficult to grasp. What would God desire to love someone like us? I don’t know. But God does.

I write this being unaware of what you the reader faces as you read this post. But the amazing facet of this divine attribute is that no matter where you are, God is there with you. Paul said to the Athenians at the Areopagus that God had established from one man every person, nation, and language. God established boundaries and determined appointed times and seasons. God did this, Paul says, “so that they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find him, though he is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27, CSB). Amazingly, God has blessed Bellator Christi Ministries to reach almost all the nations on our beloved Earth. No matter where you may be reading this, God is near you. God is willing to receive your worship. God is willing to forgive you by the sacrifice that Jesus made on your behalf. By his omnipresent nature, God can fill you with God’s Spirit. God is with you. God is always near you. What could be better than that?

Is Hell Torment or Torture and Is there a Difference?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Making a case for Christianity can be challenging in this secular culture. And what can be more challenging than explaining –no, than defending – the existence of a place of eternal punishment? It’s easy to be placed on the defensive, with an aggressive challenger deriding how a good and loving God could be so vindictive or petty as to subject his children to eternal torture simply because they didn’t “believe” the right things.

But Jesus himself repeatedly spoke of Hell, so however difficult a conversation, it is one we cannot evade. Indeed, in some passages, Jesus likened Hell to the perpetual fires burning in the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, in the place called Gehenna. The Book of Revelation leaves us with the jarring image of the lake of burning fire, a place of perpetual torment.

Is the challenger, right? Is Hell, in fact, some arena of sadism in which a cruel and unloving God derives pleasure by inventing ways to torture his children? Or can we make sense of it, at least intellectually, if not emotionally?

The first step in assessing this issue is to tease out the underlying assumption that is at play. If God actively causes someone to burn eternally, if He inflicts agony upon the souls in Hell, then yes, we would have to concede that this would be torture. The real issue, then, is whether God does those things to the souls in Hell, or whether those lost souls experience an everlasting torment that is a consequence – and not a separate goal – of the fact that they are in Hell.

An example may help place this in focus. In the Civil War, doctors treated most bullet wounds to an arm or leg by amputating the limb, no doubt an excruciating experience in the days before anesthetics. But these actions were done not to torture the patient but to accomplish some good purpose – namely, to save him. The patient no doubt felt tormented, but this was a natural consequence of the necessary action that was taken; it would not be fair to say the doctor had engaged in torture. On the other hand, if one side had taken perfectly healthy prisoners of war and amputated a limb to inflict pain, either to coerce cooperation or as a method of terror, this would indeed be torture. Similarly, if a modern surgeon decided to amputate without anesthetics, it would be fair to characterize such actions as torture.

With this distinction in mind, we must next consider whether Hell serves a legitimate purpose. Christians contend that God is all good and that whatever He creates must also be good. Hell is a place – or perhaps more precisely a state – of separation He has created for those deserving of such separation. And who is deserving of separation? Well, if we take God at His word, it is for those who die in rebellion against Him, who, through their thoughts and actions, have asked for that separation. This is intuitively understandable: a parent may seek separation from a rebellious child without wishing to inflict pain upon them. The judge who grants a restraining order, or who imprisons the offspring guilty of elder abuse, accomplishes a purpose that is in no way similar to inflicting torture.

Let’s take this analogy a step further. Imagine that the rebellious offspring insists on living in his parents’ home while refusing to follow any of the rules. Or commits a crime against his parents and is sentenced to prison? The prison sentence is meant to separate the abuser from society, and separating him in this fashion is indeed a form of punishment. But the punishment we speak of is, in essence, the incarceration, the very same act that accomplishes the separation. We do not first separate the wrongdoer from society and then inflict additional punishment; there are no medieval tortures that await the prisoner, no mistreatment that is deliberately inflicted to further the pain the inmate feels, no chain gang to make his daily life unbearable. In a very real sense, the punishment is the product of the incarceration, not an additional purpose.

Now let’s move to the final step. God does not inflict temporal separation or temporal punishment, as in the example of a prison sentence. He is an eternal being, and He made us for eternity as well. And when you grasp that distinction, you can begin to see that forcible separation from God is the absolute worst thing that can befall any soul. There is nothing more to be done, nothing that could increase the pain that such a soul would experience. By the same token, however, there is nothing to be done that would lessen that pain, short of the annihilation of that person. There is no way to make separation from the source of all that is good, more bearable.

Why is this so? Well, consider for a moment of what the pain of separation consists. Do you remember your first love? Or the way you felt when you beheld your first child? Or reuniting with your spouse after a period apart? Conversely, can you recall the first time you felt lost and alone, or were homesick or the first time you experienced the death of a close loved one? Even for the most hardened of criminals, there are people to whom they are attached, with whom they wish to spend time, even if they are simply fellow inmates. These others have some quality, some attribute, which makes them attractive, makes them desired. That is why solitary confinement is such an extreme form of punishment. We were not meant for isolation; however, hardened and lost a person may appear.

Now magnify these feelings – not by a hundred, a thousand, or even a billion, but by infinity, and by eternity. Why should this be so? Because God is… perfection…absolute, unlimited, infinite perfection, the kind that we as human beings, cannot even begin to fathom. Start to get the picture? If the goodness and beauty of the people we love can cause us such torment when we face separation from them, and if that goodness is a mere shadow of the infinite perfection of God, that I shudder to imagine what knowing but not be able to experience God would be like.

Consider finally then the soul in the abyss, facing eternal separation and eternal alone-ness, isolated and embittered, aware of but forcibly separated from the God against whom his rebellion rages? What a human being feels on a limited and temporal basis, such a soul feels magnified an infinity of times. And he is not contemplating separation from a limited and flawed human being, but from the source of all life, all goodness, all joy. Can we even find words to describe what infinite emptiness feels like?

No, God does not actively torture souls in Hell. But he does not change His nature to suit those who shake their fist at Him, who reject the offer He is extending. The separation that He imposes, just though it is, is indeed terrifying.

But it is not torture. It is the nature of things.

Richard Dawkins’ Warnings Of A Godless Society

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that the notorious atheist Richard Dawkins may be changing his tune regarding the necessity of belief in God in human society (click or tap text to see the article). I do recall hearing winds of this change a couple of years ago when he seemed to make a distinction between the religions of Islam (threatening) and Christianity (benign). It seems that Dawkins recognizes that without the belief that people will be held responsible to a higher power, those people who are in power (the State) will push society further and further into harmful and devastating behaviors, but he recognizes the dangers of certain theistic religions. Dawkins seems concerned that without the (false on his view) belief that the Christian God exists, then society will crumble, yet with the (also false on his view) belief that the Islamic god exists, then society will be destroyed. Dawkins seems to be now telling people to not be concerned with what is true, but be concerned with what is pragmatic. Unfortunately, this is nothing new and seems to have been the strategy of many States for quite some time. Allow me to explain.

Theism vs. The State

If God is the source of all moral duties and obligations, then the State can not be. Thus if a State wishes to legislate moral obligations (such as that people who offer a service are morally obligated to act against their moral conscience) or freedoms (such as pedophilia), then State must eradicate God from the conscience of those it governs. With God still in the cultural picture, there is an Authority to which the government is subject and is obligated to align laws with. However, if no God exists (or a State’s citizens do not recognize that God exists), then the State has no one and nothing to challenge its authority or the laws it legislates. Without any external source (God) for the citizens to hold the State accountable to, the State’s authority and legal commands will be understood as absolute.

Such a view is encouraged by the State through the promises of the legalization of many people’s sinful desires. Everything from autonomous sexual freedom to drug use is dangled in front of the populace to entice them to rid their worldview of a God that is a “party pooper.” For the State knows that with the eviction of God from the cultural mindset to allow people to explore their wildest and most debauched fantasies also goes the God that would place limitations on the State to control the masses.

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

While many atheists would have no problem with (even a belief in) God having no part in government (“separation of Church and State” and all), there are some serious consequences that some atheists (including Dawkins) have detected and are warning against. For instance, the reformer has nothing to appeal to in order to demand change in the government. Great reformers, such as those who challenged the government’s permitting the owning of slaves, would ironically be standing in the wrong and would have no objective grounding on which to stand against the government. In such a world, the State is a god; no one has any grounds to challenge it; it maintains absolute authority. If there is no external source for morality to hold the government accountable to, then no reformation should ever take place. If such a world truly existed (one without God), then Africans could still be enslaved in America today.

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

If the State already legislates, executes, and adjudicates according to an individual atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong,” then things are okay with that particular atheist. However, if the State does not align with the atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong” 100%, it would be wrong (on the view that there is not God- that government is the absolute moral authority) for the atheist to attempt to change the State’s position on anything, for submitting to the absolute authority of the State is legally (not “morally” since morality is not objective on this view) obligatory. If the State is the absolute authority for how its citizens should act, then if the State is Christianized (or becomes a theocracy), then the atheist is legally obligated to act according to the laws and not attempt reform government. Again, to attempt to reform would be a violation of the legal obligation to submit to the absolute moral authority of the State.

Ironically, when a naturalist stands against the State today, they are in violation of this legal obligation. If the State were to criminalize abortion, the atheist would be legally obligated to comply. In a socialist country, the capitalist would be the criminal for standing against socialism, and in a capitalist country, the socialist would be the criminal for standing against capitalism.

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

This type of world is quite scary for both atheist and theist alike. Neither truly believes that the State is the ultimate authority of morality. This is evidenced by both sides’ reservation of the right to attempt to reform the State should a law be legislated that does not align with their idea of right or wrong. Ironically for the atheist (but consistent with the theist), God (as the objective standard of morality) must exist for the reservation of that right to be legitimately justified. I’m not saying that the atheist cannot exercise this right, but they have no foundation for it in their own worldview; they must borrow from the theistic worldview to justify any governmental change or reformation.

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

We see almost daily how politicians throughout our government are working diligently to remove God from the culture. When they accomplish this, their citizens will have no choice but to submit and never attempt to change or reform the government.

This is nothing new. Politicians have been working at the grassroots level with our education system for decades. By trying to eradicate God, they not only take away any moral authority over the State, they also eliminate any ability to ground reasoning or to have knowledge. So, even if someone decided to challenge the State, they could never use reasoning or claim to have knowledge that the State’s position was objectively wrong. I go into more details of this in my post, “Is Education Overrated?“

An Even More Dangerous Game

With the destruction of reasoning and knowledge, we will see another devastating and logical implication of eliminating God- the destruction of the academy. Without knowledge even being possible, all knowledge disciplines are ultimately useless. If a would-be reformer were to use the knowledge disciplines to evidentially challenge the State, it would be pointless, for the reformer could not lay claim to having knowledge from any discipline. Further, without a grounding for logic, they could not even reason from the evidence to the guilt of the State and the need for change or reformation.

When I see politicians trying to remove God from America, I see them setting up their dictatorship in my back yard. This should not just concern theists, but it should (and does) concern atheists alike. We have to remember that there is no single “atheistic” ethic or belief, so the chances that the views of the one who is in charge aligning with that of any other atheist in this country are slim. Most atheists will desire reform, but they not only have a legal obligation not to challenge the State, they would not have any moral, evidential or logical grounds on which to do so.

Conclusion

With atheists such as Richard Dawkins now telling us that while theism is false, we cannot remove it from society, there is a great deal of irony and even absurdity. They recognize that atheism is not a livable worldview for society, and they recognize that in order to survive, we must believe something that is false (theism, on their view). If, in order to survive, we must believe what is false about the world we live in, then how can they claim that what they have come to believe, in order to survive, is true? If atheism is true, then knowledge is an absurd concept, and no one can claim to know anything true about our world, and worse off, we have reason to doubt everything that someone else tells us is true!
Ironically, Richard Dawkins, by his own recognition that God is not just a “useful fiction” but a “necessary fiction” for the very survival of society, has given us every reason to toss his entire life’s work (everything from his scientific research to his philosophy of atheism) into the garbage can! At this point, if Richard Dawkins wants to salvage any portion of his life’s work, he needs to recognize the existence of God (and not just any god but the Christian God) and do what he can to reconcile God’s existence with his work in biology and biochemistry (maybe recognize that nature appears and measures to be designed because it is designed); but his atheism is a failed hypothesis no matter which way he goes. Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins is making the case against his own atheism using the immorality of modern culture. To understand this argument better, check out this video from Reasonable Faith and the links to books below:

The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Skeptics accuse Christians of not paying attention while they’re reading their Bible. If they didn’t rush through their daily devotional, they’d catch some obvious contradictions. One of the more famous of these contradictions is the two accounts of the death of Judas. Here’s Biblical scholar and critic Bart Ehrman:

“The two reports give different accounts of how Judas died. However mysterious it may be to say he fell headlong and burst open, at least that is not “hanging” oneself. And they are flat out contradictory on two other points: who purchased the field (the priests, as per Matthew, or Judas, as per Acts?) and why the field was called the field of blood (because it was purchased with blood money, as Matthew says, or because Judas bled all over it, as Acts says?”

Jesus, Interrupted p. 53

Ouch. Both of these accounts can’t be reconciled. Or can they?

Reading the Texts

Let’s read the passages for ourselves. Here’s Matthew’s account:

“Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is blood money.” So, they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore, that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.” –Matthew 27:3-8

And here’s Luke’s version:

“Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” — Acts 1:18-19

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Noted New Testament Scholar I. Howard Marshall suggests the following solution:

Judas hanged himself (Matthew.), but the rope broke, and his body was ruptured by the fall (possibly after he was already dead and beginning to decompose).
What the priests bought with Judas’ money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency. (Acts)
The field bought by the priests (Matt.) was the one where Judas died. (Acts)

Now you might say that this scenario smacks of harmonization, but is it really all that implausible? Let’s think about it for a sec.

Dealing with Judas’ Death

Judging by the text, Matthew seems to focus on Judas’ suicide. Luke’s focus is on the final state of Judas’ body. According to Jewish laws and customs, the Jews would not have wanted to go near a dead body. (Numbers 19.11) This would be especially true when that dead body belonged to a traitor.

But how would someone who hanged himself have their guts burst out? This gruesome story doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Or does it? The Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology says:

“Between 3 and 7 days, ever-increasing pressure of the putrefying gases associated with colliquative changes in the soft tissues may lead to softening of the abnormal parietes resulting in bursting open the abdomen and thorax.”

P. 91

So, we actually do have some medical data that fits with what we read in Matthew and Luke. Someone eventually cutting Judas’ corpse down, or the rope giving out, would explain how his body would have burst on the ground. Therefore, Matthew and Luke aren’t contradictory; they’re better viewed as complimentary. Each account ties up a loose end of the other.

There are also cliffs that overlook the valley of Hinnom. Those cliffs could very well be the place where Judas hanged himself, and his dead body fell. Falling against the rocks, this could explain why he fell facedown.

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

Jewish law says that it was wrong for the priests to keep Judas’ blood money. (Numbers 35:31) Why then was it OK for them to buy a field with it? Luke’s story gives us a possible answer: it wasn’t. That’s why the priest bought the field in Judas’s name.

The priests were acting as intermediaries. Them purchasing the field in Judas’ name was as if Judas bought it himself. You might say this is special pleading, but we see this elsewhere throughout the Gospels. See for yourself:

Matthew 27:59-60 “And Joseph (of Arimathea) took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.”

Did Joseph, a rich man and a member of the Sanhedrin, bury Jesus himself? No, he had his servants do it.

Mark 15:15“So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”

Did Pilate, a Roman prefect, grab a whip and get himself bloody scourging Jesus by himself? Again, the answer is obviously no. He sent his soldiers to do it.

John 4:1-2“Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)”

Here John says that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John but then stops to clarify that Jesus didn’t himself baptize; it was the disciples. This type of “representation” speech is also found in the alleged contradiction of the healing of the Roman Centurion’s servant, which I wrote about here.

Plus, the priests had the motivation to do this. It avoids the paper trail that ties them to buying a field with blood money. This would have been a ritual impurity for all the public to have seen.

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

You might say this is all conjecture. But it’s impossible to avoid conjecture if you want to suggest what may have happened. But a classical historian wouldn’t see these discrepancies and be troubled by them. We have a strong historical tradition of the death of Jesus’ betrayer. And we have an event associated with a specific field named. These differences don’t undermine their historical value.

Notice also that each Gospel writer’s account is consistent with their profession. As a tax collector, Matthew is interested in legal and financial details that are involved with Judas’ death. He’s the only gospel writer that talks about the thirty pieces of silver. Luke’s a physician. He gives us more of an autopsy report.

These accounts aren’t hopelessly contradictory. In fact, they complement each other quite nicely.

10 Ways to Get Your Kids More Interested in Their Faith

Apologetics for Parents

By Natasha Crain

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to speak to four groups of parents during the Apologetics Canada conference (incidentally, if you live in the Long Branch, NJ, area, I’ll be speaking at the No Pat Answers conference on April 9). I ended up speaking with a lot of parents after these talks and heard some variant of one particular question repeatedly:

“I’d love to have deeper conversations about faith with my kids, but how do I get them more interested in sitting down and having those discussions?”

To answer that, I gave several of these parents a snippet of advice from my marketing background.

Every day you probably see or hear some kind of advertisement for buying a new car. If you aren’t currently interested in buying a new car, however, do you notice those ads? Can you even remember the most recent one you saw or heard? Probably not. But let’s say you’re suddenly in the market for a car. Do you pay attention to those ads now? Absolutely. You notice the cars around you on the road, you pay attention to the ads on the radio, and you start keeping an eye out for sales in your mail.

There are some people who just love cars and pay attention to car-related ads all the time. But for most people, car ads become relevant only when they’re in the market for a car. This is called situational relevance.

Similarly, there are some kids who are naturally interested in spiritual matters. But for many, we have to find ways of making faith situationally relevant based on whatever else is going on in their mental life at a given time.

So how do you do that? Here are ten ideas. Note that not all of these will work for all kids. Situational relevance is all about understanding where your kids are mentally right now and working with that. These are simply thought starters.

Before doing anything else, be sure to untangle God-interest from church-interest.

It’s extremely important to keep in mind that increasing your kids’ interest in God is NOT the same as increasing their interest in church. Those are two separate issues. Theoretically, your kids could be very interested in matters of faith but not like going to church for one reason or another. They won’t necessarily have processed that fact themselves, so you need to ask the questions necessary to differentiate the two. You may well find that your kids would enjoy talking about God with YOU even if they fight the trip to church every week.

Alternatively, your kids could love the experience of church but not be all that interested in God. Beware of having a false sense of confidence that your kids are actively developing their faith just because they like church. Atheists have churches now too. The real question is whether or not your kids are interested in engaging with you on the subject of faith at home.

If your kids are young, implement a scheduled family spiritual development time ASAP.

I strongly believe every family should be setting aside weekly, if not daily, time to engage together in spiritual development (studying the Bible, having conversations about faith, praying, etc.). That said, if your kids are at a certain age and you haven’t already set the precedent of doing this, it can be difficult to implement immediately. To drive their interest, you’ll probably have to work up to it using one of the other tips in this post.

For those with younger kids who are still happy to sit down with their parents at a given time, however, there’s nothing better you can do to develop their interest in faith from the very beginning; you can effectively create a natural interest by making faith an integral part of their lives from a young age. We’ve been doing this several times per week since our twins were 3. They now expect that discussions of faith are part of our everyday lives, and they (now 7) choose to read the Bible and their own devotionals without any prompting. The more they read, the more it leads to questions and conversations of interest to them. When you start early, you can create a snowball of interest.

Ask them what they believe about God, Jesus, and the Bible.

Parents spend a lot of time either telling their kids about Christianity or having other adults (e.g., at church) tell their kids about Christianity. But how often do we stop and flat-out ask our kids what they believe? How often do we take inventory of how they are actually processing all this information? When you find out what they think about God, Jesus, and the Bible, you’ll quickly see what topics they may be most interested in discussing. For example, you might ask, “Do you believe in God? Why?” If they do, press on to ask, “On a scale of 1 to 100, how sure are you that He exists?” If you find that the number isn’t as high as you would have imagined, it’s a perfect opportunity to have relevant discussions in this area. Or, if they don’t have very good reasons for why they believe (even with strong certainty), you can pique their interest in that area.

Consider what is of interest to them right now.

One parent, I spoke with at the conference told me how her teenage daughter lost all interest in her faith after something terrible happened to a friend of hers. She was wondering what she could do to get her daughter interested again. I asked if her daughter still believed in God, and she said yes, but that she’s mad at how His world works. The obvious subject of interest for this girl right now (the one most situationally relevant) is the problem of evil and suffering. It wouldn’t make sense to try to get her interested in some random study on the fruits of the Spirit at this particular time. Meet her where she is. Sit and listen to her talk about the questions this event raised for her. Express your own sadness and questions. Tell her you’d like to learn more about it too. Then get a book on the subject to read together or read one on your own and use your knowledge to facilitate relevant conversations.

Find a quote from a favorite actor or musician about faith and discuss.

If your kids have a favorite actor or musician, it’s a situationally relevant opportunity to talk about that celebrity’s views on religion. You can Google the person’s name with the word “religion” to find quotes to discuss. If the celebrity you’re looking for doesn’t happen to have said something interesting about faith, Google “atheist celebrity quotes” or “atheist celebrity memes” and click on the image results. You’ll find many of them from people older kids will know, and it can make for a great discussion. Once you’ve opened some discussion that they find interesting, you can follow up with similar conversations.

Incidentally, here’s a great one from Natalie Portman (discuss what determines the best way to live).

Print out and discuss song lyrics from your kids’ favorite artists.

Most kids give the lyrics of songs they listen to no thought. Yet, those lyrics can offer all kinds of opportunities for relevant discussion, given that so many conflicts with a Christian worldview. It shouldn’t be a time to preach at them about how bad the stuff is that they’re listening to (if that is indeed a problem). If you do that, you’ll be closing future doors of conversation with older kids. But it can be a time to objectively look at the lyrics and talk about the worldview presented.

Pretend to be an atheist and have your kids try to convince you that Christianity is true.

If you really want to get your kids thinking, ask them if they want to take the “atheist challenge.” Tell them you’re going to pretend to be an atheist, and they’ll have to try to convince you that Christianity is true. The novelty of seeing parents take an opposing viewpoint can naturally drive interest in further discussion. Alternatively, the parents can take the “atheist challenge,” and the kids can pretend to not believe in God. You then have to convince your kids Christianity is true. You can bring up all kinds of interesting points they’ve never thought about (see how sneaky/brilliant that is?). (My book has 40 different subjects you could bring up in this context, with all kinds of quotes and examples from atheists!)

Play “What would you say if…”.

Certain personality types love intellectual challenges. My daughter, for example, loves open-ended questions that she can try to answer in the best way possible. If you have a child like that, you can facilitate conversations in a game format by asking, “What would you say if…” Here are a few examples:

What would you say if your friend’s mom said God doesn’t exist? What would you say if someone told you the Bible is 2,000 years old, so it’s not relevant for our lives today? What would you say if someone told you Christians are hypocrites, so they never want to be a Christian? What would you say if someone told you they believe in science, not God? What would you say if someone said they believe in God because their parents do? What would you say if someone said they don’t believe Jesus came back to life because we know that dead people stay dead?

Watch a video on space or biology from both atheist and Christian perspectives.

Older teens who are encountering issues of faith and science will appreciate your willingness to watch two different perspectives, particularly if they are struggling with faith doubts. They may not otherwise be willing to talk about faith matters, but would be interested to see your take when you watch an opposing viewpoint. That can then open the door for further discussion that wouldn’t have otherwise happened.

A great science DVD series from a Christian perspective is The Intelligent Design Collection – Darwin’s Dilemma, The Privileged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Visit a church of another religion.

Kids are very experientially-oriented. While they may be bored to tears if you try to talk them through the differences between Buddhism and Christianity, many would take an interest in learning about Buddhism after actually visiting a Buddhist temple. Take them to see one, and you can bet there will be a lot of questions to talk about. If they develop an interest in learning more about other religions, it’s a perfect opportunity to point the conversations toward understanding how we know Christianity is true.

Seeking Shalom: A Case for The Way Things Ought to Be

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

Sometimes defending God’s existence is easy. You don’t have to try to articulate some fancy philosophical or theological idea. And you don’t have to understand the intricacies of science. All you have to do is be a human being who observes the world in which we live. When you do that, there is no denying that something is drastically wrong. What we see around us is not the way things ought to be. Everybody from the most devoted religious believer to the most ardent atheist knows this. Our common human longing is for a world full of truth, justice, goodness, compassion, and charity. And while there are notable pockets of these things around us, they float in a sea of negativity and corruption.

The fact that everyone realizes this is proof of a powerful idea — that there must be some ideal kind of world we all wish we could experience. A place where things are the way they are supposed to be. And there is an old word the ancients used to describe a place like that. They called it Shalom.

Corrupted Culture

You don’t have to look hard to see a world gone mad. Just watch the news. Years ago, we had a plot by eight-year-olds to kill their teacher. A Google search of that topic today produces several pages of results.

We have researchers who have combined genetic materials to produce human-monkey hybrids — because they can. We have others who seek to push that envelope even further.

And speaking of messing with what it means to be human, how about the growing trend of men “giving birth”? Yes, you read that correctly. Freddy McConnell had a baby in England! Freddy is not really a man, of course. This is not debatable. But we live in a society that condones and patronizes those who demand that we all pretend otherwise, while actual women suffer the consequences.

We see video of people whose organizations generate profits by selling the body parts of aborted babies. But the culture and the courts find more fault with the journalists who expose this practice than with those who engage in it.

A World Gone Bad

Our world is filled with sex trafficking, wars, serial killers, terrorists executing Christians, pornography, oppression, and abuse. Our politicians and news media outlets lie to us. And, maybe most discouragingly, many of our most prominent churches and pastors seem more intent on accommodating the cultural madness than critiquing it.

All of these things make us cringe. Some are uncomfortably bizarre at best, malevolently evil at worst.

But there is a common theme here. Each of these is an example of a way human beings have corrupted the world. We are moral creatures. And we cannot help but recognize, and suffer from, the ramifications of our bad moral choices. The world we see is a reflection of our human nature seeking its own ends.

Crooked Creatures

In the second book of his “Space Trilogy,” Perelandra, C. S. Lewis’s main character, describes his encounter with an eldil — a term Lewis invented to describe something like what we might call an angel. When he first sees the eldil it appears to him as:

” … a very faint rod or pillar of light … [that was] not at right angles to the floor. But as soon as I have said this, I hasten to add that this way of putting it is a later reconstruction. What one actually felt at the moment was that the column of light was vertical, but the floor was not horizontal – the whole room seemed to have heeled over as if it were on board ship. The impression, however, produced, was that this creature had reference to some horizontal, to some whole system of directions, based outside the Earth, and that its mere presence imposed that alien system on me and abolished the terrestrial horizontal.”

Even though he couldn’t explain how, he could tell that the eldil was operating from some otherworldly frame of reference. And when compared to that, the Earth looked strangely crooked.

The Problem of Evil

In his own unique way, C. S. Lewis paints a picture of what we know innately. We recognize that our world is askew, even if we don’t know why. It’s the reason that the “problem of evil” is the most obvious — and most difficult — challenge to the existence of God. Those who doubt God’s existence point to the crooked, corrupted world and ask, “If there is a good God, and He created this world, how can it be such a mess?”

It’s a question that everyone — atheists included — asks. But the answer to that question doesn’t undermine the case for God’s existence at all. It actually does the opposite. We wouldn’t even be asking that question unless we had some intuition about its answer — some notion of a world gone right. But if God does not exist, there is no solution to this “problem” because there is no problem. The world is just the way it is and we suffer in a vacuum of meaningless indifference.

What Do You Mean By “Ought”?

The key is that everyone knows the world is “crooked” — that things are not the way they ought to be. When we say “ought,” we are acknowledging that there is an ideal kind of world in which everyone longs to live. Ought implies a standard of goodness — “a whole system of directions, based outside the Earth.” And that standard is moral perfection. It has to be.

God’s nature is that standard. And a world that reflects that standard is exactly the kind of world we long to inhabit.

If only we could find a place like that!

Shalom

In his book, Not The Way It’s Supposed To Be, Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. offers an insight that I have never forgotten about all this. He defines the Hebrew word shalom. If you’re like me, you may have seen that word translated, “peace.” But Plantinga goes into detail about why that simple definition of the word doesn’t cut it. Shalom is more than just “peace.”

“The webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight is what the Hebrew prophets call shalom. We call it peace, but it means far more than mere peace of mind or a cease-fire between enemies. In the Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight — a rich state of affairs in which the natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.”

There was a time when we could have described the state of the world as shalom. But it didn’t last long. And when you’re living in a time like ours, shalom appears to be a phantom.

It’s not. It’s an ideal — a description of a place where every human being has always longed to live. And it’s a place that we will all be able to access again.

God Comes Down

God is a down-to-Earth kind of guy. He came down to Earth and took on human form once before. He experienced the pain and suffering of a world that is not the way it ought to be. But in doing so, He offered us a tangible foretaste of shalom.

And he’ll be back.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away … I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself with be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’” Revelation 21:1-4

Shalom.

Don’t be discouraged by the world. There are good ideas that long to be brought to fruition. And there are good people who strive to uphold and defend those ideas both now and in the future. But, more than either of those, there is a good God who is the Author of shalom. Though it sometimes seems elusive, there is a hope-filled time that’s coming for all who choose to seek it. And with that future comes a promise of shalom, unlike anything we can even comprehend.

William Lane Craig Lectures on The Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Here is Dr. William Lane Craig giving a long-form argument for the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus and taking questions from the audience.

The speaker’s introduction goes for 6 minutes, then Dr. Craig speaks for 35 minutes, then it’s a period of questions and answers with the audience. The total length is 93 minutes, so quite a long period of Q&A. The questions in the Q&A period are quite good.

Introduction:

Many people who are willing to accept God’s existence are not willing to accept the God of Christianity
Christians need to be ready to show that Jesus rose from the dead as a historical event
Private faith is fine for individuals, but when dealing with the public, you have to have evidence
When making the case, you cannot assume that your audience accepts the Bible as inerrant
You must use the New Testament like any other ancient historical document
Most historians, Christian and not, accept the minimal basic facts supporting the resurrection of Jesus

Fact #1: the burial of Jesus following his crucifixion

Fact #1 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #1 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
Fact #1 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it praises one of the Sanhedrin
Fact #1 is not opposed by any competing burial narratives

Fact #2: on the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by some women

Fact #2 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
Fact #2 is implied by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #2 is simple and lacks legendary embellishment, which argues for an early dating
Fact #2 passes the criterion of embarrassment because it has female, not male, witnesses
Fact #2 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it is reported by the Jewish leaders

Fact #3: Jesus appeared to various people in various circumstances after his death

Fact #3 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
Fact #3 is supported by multiple, independent reports of the events from all four gospels
Fact #3 explains other historical facts, like the conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother James

Fact #4: the earliest Christians proclaimed their belief in the resurrection of Jesus

Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians continued to identify Jesus as the Messiah
Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians were suddenly so unconcerned about being killed

Dr. Craig then asks which hypothesis explains all four of these facts. He surveys a number of naturalistic hypotheses, such as the hallucination theory or various conspiracy theories. All of these theories deny one or more of the minimal facts that have been established and accepted by the broad spectrum of historians. In order to reject the resurrection hypothesis, a skeptic would have to deny one of the four facts or propose an explanation that explains those facts better than the resurrection hypothesis.

I listened to the Q&A period while doing housekeeping, and I heard lots of good questions. Dr. Craig gives very long answers to the questions. One person asked why we should trust the claim that the Jewish leaders really did say that the disciples stole the body. Another one asked why we should take the resurrection as proof that Jesus was divine. Another asks about the earthquake in Matthew and whether it is intended to be historical or apocalyptic imagery. Dr. Craig is also asked about the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, and how many of the minimal facts he accepts. Another questioner asked about the ascension.

If you are looking for a good book to read on this topic, the best introductory book on the resurrection is “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” and the best comprehensive book is “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

How Understanding Divine Omniscience Helps Anxiety

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Chilton

While apologetics is a major focus in my life, it is only eclipsed by a love for theology. I am a big picture kind of guy. That’s why systematic theology has always intrigued me. Systematic theology examines the major themes of Scripture and organizes those themes into patterns and structures. One could say that I went a little crazy with my theological studies. While I have over 18 graduate hours in apologetics, biblical studies, and church history; I will have over 30 hours in graduate-level studies of theology by the time I finish my Ph.D. So, yeah. You could say that I like theology a little bit.

Another aspect of my life that is important to note for the sake of this article is that I also suffer from bouts of anxiety. My anxiety is not major. However, it is something that I have combated for years. Agoraphobia is one such area. I love people. I love being in the ministry. However, long bouts of extended social gatherings wear me down especially if those gatherings are loud and boisterous.

You may be left asking, “Why is this guy talking about theology and anxiety?” Theology has a major calming effect when a person understands certain aspects of God’s nature. One such calming attribute is God’s omniscience. Omniscience is a compound word consisting of two Latin words; Omnis meaning “all” or “of all things,” and Scientia meaning “knowledge.” Thus, omniscience indicates one’s ability to know all things. God is the only Being who could possess this level of knowledge. Millard Erickson links God’s omniscience with God’s infinite nature. By infinite, this means that “not only is God unlimited but that he is illimitable. In this respect, God is unlike anything we experience” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243). When God’s knowledge is linked with his infinite nature, one will note that God’s “understanding is immeasurable” (Erickson, Christian Theology, 243).

God’s omniscience means that God knows all there is to know and everything that can be known. So, how does understanding God’s divine omniscient nature help with anxiety? I contend that it helps in three areas.

Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of events in time. First, God is not bound by time. Therefore, God’s knowledge is not bound to the present time. David writes, “Before a word is on my tongue, you know all about it, Lord” (Ps. 139:4). God knows what David would say before he said it. People who suffer from anxiety often fear what may come. However, when a person couples God’s knowledge of what will happen along with God’s goodness and love, then anxiety should fade into the divine arms of God. Why worry about what could happen when God already knows what will happen?
Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of injustices. Second, a person’s anxiety lessens when one acknowledges God’s omniscient knowledge of all people. God knows what all people always do. People often place security cameras to catch criminals in their mischievous acts red-handed. While I am in favor of security measures as noted by the community watch group I support, it is a redemptive thought to consider that God knows everything that all people do. Solomon notes that “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, observing the wicked and the good” (Prov. 15:3, CSB). Many anxiety sufferers worry about what someone might do to them. Perhaps such attitudes come from a hyperactive imagination or viewing too often the crazed psychopaths on Lifetime Movie Network. Nevertheless, the believer can rest easy knowing that God sees the actions of all. No wrong deed escapes his sight. As the ultimate Judge of humankind, God will hold each person accountable at some point (Rom. 14:12). This is not to say that a person should not use good reason, establish security measures, and remain proactive in dangerous environs. Rather, a person can rest easy in knowing that every person will stand before God one day.
Anxiety lessens with God’s knowledge of purpose. Third, people often worry about whether their lives have any purpose or value. Social media has escalated this concern. People often compare themselves with others by a self-imposed competition. Trouble is, no one ever wins such comparative competitions. The person must eventually ask oneself, “How good is good enough? How much success do I need? How much money makes me the winner?” There is no answer. In stark contrast, when one understands the value that God places on all people, then such concerns should fade, and self-imposed competitions should cease. God told Jeremiah that he knew him before he was ever born (Jer. 1:5).

Jesus emphasized the peace that comes from understanding God’s omniscience, noting that if God could clothe the flowers of the field and feed the birds of the air, then God would most certainly care for his own in greater fashion (Matt. 6:25–34). If God knows all there is to know, if God knows all that everyone does, if he knows our future, and cares for us; then, what do we have to fear? For, if God is for us, then who can be against us (Rom. 8:31)? Human anxiety melts before the brilliant assurance of God’s omniscient nature.

Resources

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Timothy Fox

With the release of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, the “Skywalker Saga” is officially complete (for better or worse), and we can now examine all nine episodes as a completed whole. (Spoilers ahead!) While all of the Star Wars movies carry similar themes, such as hope, the importance of family, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil, I think there is one concept that rises above the rest: redemption.

Quickly defined, redemption is the act of making up for one’s past wrongs. The greater the wrongs committed, the greater the necessary actions to atone for one’s past. Redemption usually (always?) involves some sort of sacrifice, and so sacrifice and redemption are closely linked. The two greatest examples of this in the Skywalker Saga involve Darth Vader and Kylo Ren:

Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker – Darth Vader is the shining example of redemption in the original Star Wars trilogy. In spite of the great evils that Vader has committed, his son, Luke Skywalker, believes that there is still good within his father and that Vader could be turned back to the Light. At the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke rejects the Emperor’s temptation and refuses to kill Vader, so the Emperor decides to kill Luke instead. Witnessing the suffering of his son, Vader rescues Luke, throwing the Emperor to his death (or so we think!). The injuries sustained by Vader are fatal, but he still has the opportunity to thank his son for not giving up on him. As a sign of Vader’s ultimate redemption, he appears as a Force Ghost at the end of the film as his unfallen self, Anakin Skywalker, alongside his – and his son’s – former teachers, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda.

Kylo Ren/Ben Solo – Kylo Ren’s redemption story was a major arc of the sequel trilogy. Like his grandfather, Darth Vader, Ren was guilty of many wrongdoings, his worst (especially to us fans!) being killing his father, Han Solo, in The Force Awakens. Ren believes this action would fully push him over to the Dark Side; instead, it brings him massive guilt and inner turmoil. He wants to embrace the darkness fully, but the light within him does not allow that. In The Rise of Skywalker, Rey mortally wounds him, but in an act of grace and mercy, she heals him. This – along with a vision of his dead father – brings Ben Solo back from the darkness to the light. Ben then travels to Exegol to help Rey defeat Palpatine (once and for all!). But his true act of redemption is when he gives his life to bring Rey back from the dead.

Our Redemption

In these cases of redemption within the Star Wars universe, we see how characters sacrifice themselves to atone for their past evil actions. But while Vader’s and Ren’s sacrifices complete their turns from darkness to the light, does that truly make up for all of the evils they committed? Probably not. And it is the same for us. There is no amount of good deeds that will erase our sins and make us right in God’s eyes. But that doesn’t mean there is no hope for us. As noted earlier, sacrifice and redemption are connected. But it is not our own sacrifices that redeem us:

“In [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).

Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is what grants us redemption and forgiveness for all our sins – no matter how many or how terrible. Vader and Ren believed they were too far gone into the Dark Side of the Force, and yet they found their way back to the Light. Likewise, there is absolutely nothing that can separate us from God’s love (Rom. 8:38-39). But while none of our own actions can save us, we can be redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice.

Turn and Live

As satisfying as it was to see Emperor Palpatine meet his demise at the end of Return of the Jedi, and then ultimately in The Rise of Skywalker, I was far more pleased to watch Vader and Ren turn from the darkness back to the light. God feels the same way about us:

“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezek. 18:23)

Many people may view God as an angry old man in the sky, waiting for us to mess up so he can smite us and condemn us to hell. But as we see from the verse above, this cannot be farther from the truth. God desires us to repent of our wrongdoing and to choose life. Like the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32), God is waiting for us to return to him and will welcome us with open arms. He is desperate to save us from the darkness and bring us to the light:

“[The Father] has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14, emphasis mine).

Tag Archive for: theology

(1) Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause.

(2) The Universe Began To Exist.

(3) Therefore, The Universe Has A Cause.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Theism vs. The State

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

An Even More Dangerous Game

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Reading the Texts

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Dealing with Judas’ Death

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Corrupted Culture

A World Gone Bad

Crooked Creatures

The Problem of Evil

What Do You Mean By “Ought”?

Shalom

God Comes Down

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Resources

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Our Redemption

Turn and Live

Recommended resources related to the topic: