Tag Archive for: theology

God Omnipotence

The Omnipotence of God

By Tim Stratton

One of my primary goals is to help others comprehend God accurately. I have previously written about the attribute of God’s perfect love for all people (See The Omnibenevolence of God). I spend much time on this specific attribute because so many people (Christians and non-Christians) have a faulty and low view of God. While understanding God’s perfect love is vital, it is also of importance to grasp other truths about the Maximally Great Being! The next attribute of God that is vital to comprehend is called omnipotence. This is referring to the power of God. If you do not like the word “omnipotence,” you can simply say, God is “all powerful!”

What do we mean when we say that God is “all powerful”? Does this mean that God can do anything and everything?

Many people in the church today think that is the case, but they are wrong! In fact, it was not until just a few years ago that I realized that although God is omnipotent, this does not mean that God can do ALL things!

Allow me to clarify by offering some questions for you to consider: Can God create a married bachelor? Can God create a triangle with four corners? Can God create a stone that is so big that even He cannot lift it? Can God create something that is not contingent upon Him? Can God sin?

In Titus 1:2 the Bible indicates that God cannot lie.

What about this: Can God force someone to freely choose to love Him? Of course not — that is logically impossible!

So, if there are clearly things that God cannot do, then why do we say He is all-powerful or omnipotent? Let me give you a good definition of omnipotence:

God can do all things that are logically possible.

So, if a being can do all things that are logically possible, that would include many things that are scientifically impossible (these are different categories) – like creating a universe from nothing and raising a man from the dead. These are called miracles (See Are Miracles Metaphysically Impossible?)!

The Bible teaches that God is All-Mighty. It says,

“Oh, Lord God, it is you who made the heavens and the Earth by Your great power! Nothing is too hard for You” (Jeremiah 32:17).

The Bible is clear that “nothing is too hard for God.” But when you contemplate and study “triangles with four corners” and “married bachelors,” they are not really things at all. As William Lane Craig states, “they are nothing but an inconsistent combination of words.”

So, when thinking about it *that way*, then, God can do ALL things, but if it helps, just remember that God can do all things that are logically possible.

Do you know what is exciting about God’s omnipotence? If you have a personal love relationship with God then the omnipotence of God lives within you too! Think about that — this means you practically have super-powers! As my parents used to teach me:

“The same power that created the universe and raised Jesus from the dead is the same power that lives in you through the Holy Spirit! That is the ultimate Force.”

With God’s power working in you and through you, you can do “all things” that are logically possible too (Philippians 4:13)!

This passage of Philippians is often taken out of context (for a short and humorous example click here). However, the truth of my prior statement remains: If an omnipotent God chooses to use you — and you do not choose to resist His will — then God can use you to do all things that are logically possible.

It is important to realize that this is only in regards to the things that God wants you to accomplish. For example, you cannot choose to use God’s power to rob the bank, but if God desired you to walk on water or to simply love an unlovable neighbor then God’s power is available for you, and He wants you to choose to use it!

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

 

Tim Stratton (The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North-West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.

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

/by
Debating Atheists Biological Information

Can Science Explain Morality? No!

,

By Sean McDowell 

Human beings have a universal belief in right and wrong. As C.S. Lewis has observed, moral codes from cultures throughout world history vary over what specific behavior they consider moral, but there is an underlying agreement that objective moral values and duties exists.

As my father and I state in the introduction of the updated Evidence that Demands a Verdict, any adequate worldview must be able to explain this feature of reality.

Science and Morality

In his book The Moral Landscape, atheist Sam Harris claims science can provide a basis for objective morality. But in his recent book Stealing from God, my friend Frank Turek has written a piercing response:

“Science might be able to tell you if an action may hurt someone—like giving a man cyanide will kill him—but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to hurt someone. Who said it’s wrong to hurt people? Sam Harris? Is his nature the standard of good?”[1]

In other words, science is a descriptive discipline, but morality is a prescriptive discipline. Science can describe how things work, but it can never tell us how we ought to behave.

Another popular explanation for morality is evolution.

Evolution and Morality

A few years ago, I participated in a public debate on the question of God and morality. My opponent argued that evolution explains morality better than God. But this explanation also fails too. Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl offer two reasons:

First, evolution doesn’t explain what it’s meant to explain. It can only account for preprogrammed behavior, not moral choices. Moral choices, by their nature, are made by free agents. They are not determined by internal mechanics. Second, the Darwinist explanation reduces morality to mere descriptions of behavior. The morality that evolution needs to account for, however, entails much more than conduct. Minimally, it involves motive and intent as well. Both are nonphysical elements that can’t, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense. Further, this assessment of morality, being descriptive only, ignores the most important moral question of all: Why should I be moral tomorrow? Evolution cannot answer that question. Morality dictates what future behavior ought to be. Darwinism can only attempt to describe why humans acted in a certain way in the past.[2]

Science and evolution simply cannot adequately explain the origin of right and wrong. They are both incapable of offering a robust account for why humans have moral obligations.

And yet theism offers a much more natural explanation. Think about it: Valuable human beings don’t come from purposeless, random processes in nature. Rather, they come from a personal, good God. God Himself is the source for right and wrong, and we ought to follow His guidance because He is the one who created us.

Even those who don’t believe in God, still believe in objective morality, because the moral law is written on their hearts (See Romans 2:14-16). Belief in objective morality is ultimately inescapable.

Science can explain many things. But it will never be able to adequately account for morality. To explain real right and wrong we need a source beyond human efforts – namely, God.

Reference:

[1] Frank Turek, Stealing from God (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), 100.

[2] Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 164.

 

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
Symbolism of colors

Reference Guide to the Biblical Symbolism of Colors

By Brian G. Chilton

Understanding portions of Scripture, particularly prophecy and apocalyptic literature, requires the reader to understand the symbolic meaning of the devices used by the prophet or apostle. Last week, I posted a reference guide describing the symbolic meaning of various numbers. In Revelation, John describes Jesus’s appearance as having hair as “white as wool—white as snow—and his eyes like a fiery flame. His feet were like fine bronze as it is fired in a furnace, and his voice like the sound of cascading waters” (Rev. 1:14-15).[1] Did John mean that Jesus literally had ultra-white hair, had fireballs for eyes, and metallic legs? If so, then John presented Jesus in such a way that would remind us of James Cameron’s Terminator. While Jesus did tell the disciples, “I’ll be back” (using my best Arnold Schwarzenegger voice), John used symbolism to describe the presence of Jesus. How do we understand the biblical use of colors? Let’s take a look. Afterwards, we’ll come back to John’s description of Jesus to show how this information is helpful in interpreting prophecy and apocalyptic literature (e.g., Daniel, Revelation).

Primary Colors

Red: Red is the color of blood. In the New Testament, Jesus’s sacrifice, often employing the imagery of blood (e.g., John 6:55). In the Old Testament, oudem is translated “red clay.” Oudem is the root word indicating mankind. Thus, red represents humanity. But, on a larger scale, red represents the love of God represented in and through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. *Red is an official church color representing the Church itself. Red cloths are used during special festivals celebrating saints, Holy Week, and Pentecost.

Yellow/Gold:  Yellow is represented by two Hebrew words: charuts, referring to gold alloyed with silver or of sick skin (Ps. 68:13); and tsahob, referring to the color of hair or a patch of skin indicating leprosy (Lev. 13:30). Gold was a precious metal valued for its beauty and workability.[2] The temple was arrayed in gold, so it is no surprise that the New Jerusalem is described as being made of gold (Rev. 21:18, 21). Yellow and gold are also the color of fire. Fire represents the presence of God (Dt. 4:24; Heb. 12:29) and God’s refining process. Therefore, yellow represents the joy, the presence of God, and God’s anointing, whereas gold represents God’s holiness, divine nature, and his majesty. *Gold/yellow cloth is sometimes used in the place of white to celebrate the holiest days of the year (i.e., Easter and Christmas).

Blue: Blue is obviously the color of the sky, so the color holds some connection with the heavens. The Hebrew term for “blue” is tekelet which is sometimes translated as “purple” (Eze. 23:6) or “violet” (Jer. 10:9). Blue dyes were inferior to royal purple, but still a very popular dye and quite expensive. Blue was used on the clothing of the priests and aligned the hem of the priests’ garments (Ex. 28:5-6, 8, 15).[3] Blue was used in the tabernacle (Ex. 25:4; 26:1, 4) and in the temple (2 Chr. 2:7, 14). Blue indicates heaven, the Holy Spirit, and truth. Lighter shades of blue are sometimes used to represent the Virgin Mary. *Blue cloths are often used to represent the season of Advent, although purple is the official color.

White: White is used often to depict purity, holiness, and the redemption of sin. For the forgiven, sin is said to be washed as white as snow (Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18). White also represents the absolute purity of God (Dan. 7:9), of Christ (Rev. 2:17), of God’s judgment (Rev. 20:11), as well as God complete victory over the powers of evil (Zech. 6:3, 6; Rev. 6:2; 19:11). *White is an official color of the church. White clothes are used for holy days on and surrounding the Easter season, Christmas season, and other special occasions.

Black: Black symbolizes evil, gloom, judgment, and death (Lam. 4:8; Mic. 3:6; Zech. 6:2, 6; Rev. 6:5, 12). Hell is described as a place of “the blackest of darkness” (Jude 13; 2 Pet. 2:17).

Green: The color green is usually associated with vegetation. As such, green represents life. Cedars were popular especially in Lebanon and were valued as building material.[4] Cedars played some role in the purification rites of Israel (Lev. 14:4; Num. 19:6). Cedars represented power and wealth (1 Kgs. 10:27), growth and strength (Ps. 92:12; Eze. 17). Green is associated with the evergreen that does not lose its foliage. Thus, green represents life, eternal life, restoration, and a new beginning. *Green is an official color of the church, used during times where there is no official time of celebration. The church calls this period ordinary time.

https://i1.wp.com/bellatorchristi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/

Cedar of Lebanon

Purple: Purple dyes were the most expensive and most highly treasured in ancient times. The Phoenicians developed purple dye which came from several predatory snails living in the Mediterranean Sea (i.e., murex brandaris, murex trunculus, and purpura haemostoma).[5] Purple became an official color of the tabernacle and of Aaron’s priestly garments (Ex. 26:1; 28:15-33). As such, purple represents royalty, priesthood, and wealth. *Purple is an official color of the church and used to symbolize the Advent (sometimes replaced with blue) and Lent seasons.

Bronze: Bronze is a hard metallic alloy composed of copper and arsenic, antimony, lead, and silver alloys. Bronze is extremely hard and durable. Bronze was often used for objects in the temple and tabernacle (1 Chr. 15:19). Jesus is described as having feet as bronze (Rev. 1:14-15). Bronze represents strength and durability.

Other Colors

Silver: Used to describe the word of God, divinity, purity, salvation, and truth (e.g., Jer. 6:30).

Amber: Like yellow, amber is a color of fire which represents God’s glory, judgment, and endurance.

Orange: Like amber and yellow, orange is a color of fire which represents the power and presence of God.

Pink/Fuchsia: Indicates a person’s right relationship with God. Pink is sometimes used by the church for the third Sunday of Advent and the third Sunday of Lent.

Scarlet: Sometimes indicates sin. But, scarlet can indicate royalty.

Sapphire: Indicates the law, commandments, grace, revelation, and the Holy Spirit.

Turquoise: Indicates the river of God, sanctification, the New Jerusalem, and God’s healing.

So, using the tools we have in this reference guide, we can denote that in Revelation 1, Jesus’s white hair represents his purity and holiness. His eyes of flaming fires symbolize his divine judgment. Finally, Jesus’s feet of bronze represent his great strength. An understanding of the symbolic meaning of colors can greatly help one interpret the imagery used in prophecy.

Notes 

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

[2] Daniel C. Browning Jr., “Minerals and Metals,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1131.

[3] The hem of Jesus’s garment could have been blue. Thus, when the woman touched the hem of Jesus’s garment, it could have been blue if Jesus was able to afford a strip of blue cloth.

[4] Chad Brand et al., eds., “Cedar,” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 274.

[5] Mary Petrina Boyd, “Purple,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck,Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1100.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently a student of the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

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

/by
God Forgive

Why Can’t God Just Forgive Us?

, ,

By Evan Minton

Some non-Christians, mainly Muslims, ask why Jesus had to die on the cross in order for us to be saved. “Why does God need a blood sacrifice?” They’ll ask, “Why can’t He simply just forgive us?”

This objection was recently posed to me in the comment section in another article in this sight. This fellow said “God is the one who set up this system of sacrificial atonement. This is where I began to have serious doubts about the authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God. I can see a primitive sect of people setting up a system this way since they were familiar with various tribes that thought sacrificing a baby or a virgin would appease the gods. But it is hard for me to accept that the real God of the universe who has all knowledge and power would ever resort to such a bloody, painful and grotesque practice. It makes no sense that he would require the death of someone to atone for the sins of the world. He could have set this system up anyway he wanted to. He could just forgive us like we forgive others. When someone wrongs me, I do not require a blood sacrifice. Generally a simple ‘I’m sorry, please forgive me’ will do. But that is not good enough for God. He requires death.”

How should we answer this?

I think this makes more sense if you think of God’s ridding our sins as a discharging of debt. Imagine you have violated the law and face a $50,000 fine. You tell the judge that you are truly sorry for your crime, but the judge responds “I certainly hope so. You’ve violated the law. Now, pay this fine.” You respond “No, I cannot. This debt is too much for me to bare. I promise I won’t do it again. Just please forgive me.” and the judge says “I can’t do that. The law requires that you pay this fine or face prison. I would be a corrupt judge if I just let you off Scott free. Someone has got to pay the penalty.” You begin to despair because you know the judge cannot just simply forgive you, but neither can you save yourself from this massive debt. Suddenly, something takes you by surprise. The judge steps down from his bench and walks over to you. Then he reaches into his pocket and takes out his wallet, handing you $50,000 in cash saying that he will pay the fine for you (should you accept his offer).

This is analogous to our sin situation. We have all strayed from God’s laws (Romans 3:23), and are therefore guilty before Him, deserving death (Romans 6:23a). God has to punish evil because He is just (Psalm 9:7-8, Psalm 9:16, Psalm 11:16). If He did not punish us, He wouldn’t be a just judge, just as the judge in the illustration above wouldn’t be just if he had let the fine go unpaid. So God must punish us. However, God is also loving (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16) and therefore desires not to punish us for our crimes. Just like the judge in the above illustration, God stepped down from His throne, taking on human flesh (John 1:14, Philippians 2:5-8), and was punished in our place. He accrued the penalty to Himself by being crucified.

However, Jesus’ death is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for salvation. Repentance is required for Christ’s death to be efficacious (Isaiah 55:7, Acts 3:19). If we reject Him, God’s wrath will remain on us (John 3:18, John 3:36). Just as if you were to reject the judge’s offer to pay your fine for you, if one rejects Christ, our sin-debt will remain unpaid.

Regarding animal sacrifices prior to Jesus’ death, I think these are analogous to credit cards. Credit cards don’t actually pay for anything, but they allow you to walk out of the store with your desired object until you have the money to pay for it. Likewise, animal sacrifices never discharged our sin-debt before God (Hebrews 10:4), but they were a sign to God that you were repentant and trusted in Him for salvation. God retroactively applied Jesus’ sacrifice to these Old Testament individuals.

 

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

/by
Debate Atheism Arrival Evil

Why Evil Disproves Atheism

,

How can a good God exist when there is so much evil in the world?

Many people doubt the existence of God because of the existence of evil.  But evil doesn’t disprove God—evil disproves atheism!

How so?

Evil can’t exist on its own, it only exists as a parasite in good.  Evil is like rust in a car; if you take all the rust out of a car you have a better car; if you take all of the car out of the rust you have nothing.  Evil is like cancer—it can’t exist alone, only in a good body.  Therefore, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God’s objectively Good nature exists. If evil is real—and we all know it is—then God exists.

We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can’t be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can’t be evil without good; and there can’t be objective good without God. So evil may show there’s a devil out there, but it can’t disprove God. Evil actually boomerangs back to show that God exists.

While evil can’t disprove God, one can legitimately ask the question why does God allow evil to continue?  That’s one of the topics I cover in the book, and the new Stealing From God online course I’m hosting that beings January 15 (you can start the self-paced version any time after that too).  The course includes ten hours of video, and several live video conferences where I’ll be answering questions.   Since we limit the size of the live classes to ensure every student has an opportunity to ask questions, you’ll want to sign up soon if you want to be a part of this.

In addition to the details on that link, I’ll be discussing some of the course content right here on this page in the few weeks leading up to the course.  So keep checking back here for more.

 

/by
Christ Death Sacrifice

Was Christ’s Death A Sacrifice?

,

By Al Serrato

The blood-curdling scream signaled that she had not yet given up. Hours of pushing and the baby had still not descended. The OB was weighing her options, while dad wiped mom’s forehead and encouraged her on. She screamed again, pushing and puffing and praying that this agony might soon draw to a close. The pain was so… intense, so utterly mind-numbing that she wondered, for the thousandth time, why she had wanted to have another child…

This is a scene that plays out day after day in hospitals all over the world – women experiencing extreme pain as they do their part to bring new life to – and into – the world. But what does this have to do with Christian apologetics?

Recently, I corresponded with a skeptic who posed some interesting questions about the Christian faith. She began by arguing that if indeed Christ rose from the dead, this would have been no sacrifice on his part, but a bargain, as he traded a normal body for a perfect one.

This, I responded, misses the point of what Jesus did: because his body was human, he experienced the pain and suffering that the crucifixion brought with it, in the way that any flesh and blood human would. There are many things that may result in the eventual gain that is exceedingly painful. You wouldn’t tell a mother who is about to deliver that her “sacrifice” and pain are any less real because she will be getting a healthy child “in return.” The mother’s suffering doesn’t “cause” the child to be born; it simply accompanies it, a feature as it were of the nature of things. But willingly enduring pain or suffering, in the service of others, is worthy of recognition and praise. What she endures still constitutes a sacrifice for her, even if she too gains in the process.

So too for Christ: though something better was in store, it nonetheless was a sacrifice for him to go through the steps necessary to complete his “substitutionary atonement.” And it wasn’t the pain that brought salvation; like the child birth referred to above, pain isn’t the point of the process; it is simply, and sadly, a byproduct of it.

Christianity does not teach that Christ’s suffering “caused” our salvation as if he needed to satisfy the whims of some sadist. The mistake implicit in the challenge is the assumption that God is some kind of monster, who measured the pain Jesus suffered until it reached some point where he was finally satisfied. No, it was not Jesus’ experience of agony that God was measuring. It was, instead, Jesus’ perfect life, while a man, that put him in a position to accept in our stead what we in fact deserved. Many people have suffered similar, or even worse, deaths, but they could not take on for others what they themselves deserved based on their own conduct. Since sin is something that we all do, and since sin results in separation from God, then a sinless man would be the only kind of man who could take, on our behalf, the consequences that we merited. This is why Jesus made a point of saying that no one took his life; he did what he did voluntarily, which is the only way it would, or could, have been accepted.

Had he been a sinner himself, this “sacrifice” would have been of no avail, as he would have had his own debt to pay. Had he been simply another man, chosen at random to be the scapegoat for God’s wrath, a colossal act of unfairness would have resulted. But God took the punishment upon himself. Since God the Father and God the Son are “consubstantial” – of the same essence – God’s infinite wrath is absorbed and balance by an infinite and all-powerful being.

Skeptics often claim that perfect justice and perfect mercy cannot coexist; one or the other must give way. But hasn’t God done just that? Has he not balanced perfect justice and perfect mercy through his perfect love – satisfied for eternity within the persons of the Godhead? Those who accept God’s gift receive forgiveness through Christ, while those who die in rebellion receive the just consequence of their choice.

In dying for our sins, Jesus did more than “sacrifice.” He demonstrated the sublime elegance that can solve even apparently insoluble problems, and open for us a path back to the Father.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zbCw1v

/by
Science Doctrine Creation

Should We Let Science Influence Our Doctrine Of Creation?

By Evan Minton

Science is an amazing thing! It’s enabled us to transcend so many of our previously existing barriers, from being able to walk on the moon to being able to carry on a live conversation with someone on the opposite side of the planet, from helping us know what makes fevers run hot to knowing what makes stars hot, from giving us the flashlight to the strobe light to the blacklight. It’s an amazing thing, but unfortunately, many seem dedicating to pitting science against Christianity and vice versa.On the one hand, you have the atheists who have tried to monopolize science as theirs and nobody else’s (Their symbol is an atom for Pete’s sake). On the other hand, you have Christians who insist that a strict, literal, face value reading of Genesis is the only way to read it, and if you deviate from the 7 24-hour day view, you’re a man pleaser and a compromise.

The Bible and Science both talk about our origins, so it’s no wonder that people would wonder if they’re simpatico. I would affirm that there is no conflict between God’s world and God’s word. There may be a conflict between science and theology, but not between the world and The Bible. Science and theology are both interpretations of God’s world and God’s Word respectively. If the universe and The Bible have the same author, then when both are interpreted correctly, there won’t be any conflict. If there seems to be conflict between our interpretation of Genesis or any other biblical passage with what the scientific evidence seems to be saying, then we should either (1) go back to the biblical passage and re-evaluate whether it seems to be saying what we initially thought it said or (2) carefully consider whether the scientists somehow erred in interpreting the data.

When it comes to apparent conflicts between The Bible and the universe, many Christians will gladly do 2, but scorn anyone who does 1 on the basis that they’re convinced that 2 is not the case. For example, if someone is convinced that the universe and Earth are both billions of years old on the basis of powerful scientific arguments, they may begin to reconsider whether the Callendar-Day view of Genesis 1 is actually correct. Perhaps The Day-Age view, championed by people like Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe, is the correct way to interpret the text. Maybe The Framework Hypothesis, defended by people such as Kirk MacGregor and Brad Kramer is the correct interpretation. Or maybe The Bible isn’t talking about material origins at all, but functional origins, as argued by Old Testament scholar John Walton. I think all 3 of these views have their strengths and weaknesses, and these views are totally compatible with what prevailing scientific thought says about the age of the universe and the Earth.

However, young earth creationists like Ken Ham would object to this. Ken Ham, in particular, would and has argued that we shouldn’t “Take man’s word over God’s word” and that allowing science to influence our interpretation of The Bible is putting God’s infallible word in submission to man’s fallible word. Ken Ham has said specifically “Talking about the six days, what we’re really talking about is does it really matter what God says. It’s an authority issue,” and “There has been a battle ever since the beginning between man’s word and God’s Word,”[1]

I think one can come to The Day-Age view, The Framework Hypothesis, and The Functional Creation view on exegetical grounds alone (see here, here, and here), but let’s leave the question of whether any of these (or others) are exegetically justified aside. The real question here is this: should we give science any voice whatsoever when it comes to formulating a doctrine of creation? After all, if God’s word is infallible and man’s word is fallible, then why should we care what the latter has to say? Should our interpretations of creation passages be hermeneutics-only, completely void of any scientific input? I’d like to argue that the answer is “no” and give a few reasons why.

Everyone Has Already Allowed Science To Color Their Doctrine Of Creation To Some Extent

First of all, for any YEC to say that his theological views on creation are 100% hermeneutics and 0% is outright false. He may not realize it, but he’s already allowed science to color the way he sees the doctrine of creation to some extent. For example, when he reads John 1:3 which says “Through Him [The Word a.k.a Jesus] all things were made through Him and without Him, nothing was made that has been made”  what does he think this means? Obviously, it means that anything that exists exists because Jesus Christ created it. But what encompasses “all things”? The YEC will most likely say that it encompasses atoms (and the protons, neutrons, and electrons that comprise them), spiral galaxies, DNA, the bacterial flagellum, and many other things. These exist, and according to John 1:3, anything that exists exists because Jesus created it, so that means Jesus made atoms, spiral galaxies, DNA, and the bacterial flagellum.

However, for most of human history, no one even knew these things existed. Concordism VS. Accomodationism debates aside, no one knew anything about atoms or DNA or even spiral galaxies prior to the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Science discovered these things. The Bible never mentions them. If you believe Jesus created molecules, you’re holding a theological belief affected by scientific data. If you believe the billion trillion galaxies are an invention of God’s, then you’re holding a theological view that most people throughout church history have not held to.[2] If you believe that that the uncannily computer-code like genetic code, known as DNA, was programmed by God, then you are holding a theological view that was not held throughout most of church history. Did Peter believe God created DNA? Did Paul believe God created DNA? Did the apostle John believe that God created the bacterial flagellum? No, because no one knew these things existed until relatively recently.

Or what about the nature of the sky? Some argue that Genesis 1:2 is saying that God created the sky as a solid dome (what the word “firmament” means, raqia in Hebrew).[3] I know many YECs who would say that that can’t be what is being said in the text. Why? Well, because for one thing, The Bible is inerrant. For another thing, we know from science that the sky is not solid. If it were, the astronauts would have crashed into it in the 1960s. If the sky isn’t solid, then that can’t be what The Bible is saying. Is there any reason exegetically to reject the solid dome interpretation of Genesis 1:2? None that I can tell. It seems like a fairly reasonable interpretation to me, at least when viewing The Bible in a scientific void. This is, yet again, another theological view YECs hold on the basis of scientific evidence.

Many young earth creationists, including Ken Ham, are holding beliefs about creation that come from science and science alone. It would, therefore, be hypocritical to try to argue that science shouldn’t affect our views about creation. It would be hypocritical to argue that science shouldn’t have a voice in the creation controversy. It would be hypocritical for a YEC to say that someone is submitting God’s Word to “Man’s Word” when he concludes that God created over billions of years on the basis of science all the while believing that the reason Noah’s Ark could fit all of the animals was that a small number of “kinds” were put on the ark and then rapid micro-evolution occurred post-flood to give us the diversity of animals we see today. Moses wouldn’t have known anything about micro evolution, yet many YECs appeal to micro evolution to explain how billions of species of animals exist while Noah’s Ark could only hold thousands. Should we let science influence our interpretation of the biblical text? Many YECs are already doing this.

By the way, for reasons why the post-flood micro evolution explanation doesn’t work, see this blog post. 

The takeaway point is this: Every Christian allows science to affect their doctrine of creation, not just Old Earth Creationists, and Evolutionary Creationists. And I find nothing wrong with that. There is no biblical mandate that says we cannot take extra-biblical information into account in forming a robust view of reality.

The Bible Is Infallible, Biblical Interpretation Is Not 

Remember my contrast between The Bible and The universe with theology and science. The latter two are interpretations of the former. Neither are fallible. Young Earth Creationists are quick to point out man’s fallibility and the possibility that the prevailing scientific thought might be wrong, but scarcely do they consider that their interpretation of Genesis 1 may be wrong. It’s true that science is not always right. It’s true that scientists may possibly be wrong about something currently considered a fact. However, biblical interpretation is also fallible. There would not be an Arminianism/Calvinism debate or a pre-trib/post-trib rapture debate, or a Continuationist/Cessationist debate if our ability to interpret scripture was infallible. God’s word is infallible, but we can err when interpreting it.

Yet you can point this out to YECs time and again and they will refuse to recognize that they’re conflating their interpretation of scripture with scripture itself. Many will not see this as a matter of differing interpretations, but a matter of believing God’s word. In their eyes, to doubt the 24 hour day view is to doubt The Bible itself!

However, one could challenge the YEC by saying “you are holding up your fallible interpretation against God’s infallible universe.” But that wouldn’t be very helpful. In the case of God’s world and in the case of God’s word, we are dealing with interpretations. The data cannot be wrong, but our interpretations of it can be.

Should we let science influence our doctrine of creation? God has given us two books: the book of scripture and the book of nature. We should let there be a two-way conversation between God’s two revelations, not a one-way conversation.

To Adhere To A Bible-Only (read that as YECist-Only) Way Of Viewing Science Results in YECs Being Guilty Of The Very Thing They Accuse Secularists Of

To start with a preconceived interpretation of biblical passages and then force-fit scientific data to conform to that interpretation is to fall into the very trap creationists often accuse secular scientists of doing. You can find the claim all over the creationist literature that the primary reasons scientists adhere to an old earth and evolution is because they’re starting with atheistic presuppositions and then they interpret the data in light of those presuppositions, so it’s no wonder that they come to the conclusions that they do. Regardless of whether or not this is true of atheist scientists, for YEC scientists to start off with their interpretation of Genesis and other creation passages and then do science in light of that interpretation commits the exact same error. An old earther or evolutionist can say “Well, it’s no wonder that AIG scientists come to the conclusions that they do. They start off with the presupposition that The Bible teaches the universe is 6,000 years old and then they interpret the scientific data in light of that presupposition.”

I for one am opposed to starting off with any preconceived notions when interpreting scientific data, with the exceptions of presupposing the reliability of logic, our cognitive faculties, and the intelligibility of the universe (the prerequisites to doing science). YECs say “We need to let The Bible speak for itself” all the while not allowing nature to speak for itself. This is hypocritical. When AIG has their scientists agree to a statement of faith that says the universe is 6,000 years old, they are not letting nature speak for itself.

I would argue that once you do that, you’ll find that the heavens are declaring themselves to be billions of years old and that one has to resort to explaining things away and avoiding the plain reading of the data to maintain YECism.

Conclusion 

Should we let science influence our doctrine of creation? Why not? We all have already let it interpret our view of the doctrine in many areas, why not let it have a voice in figuring out how long it took God to create and what processes (if any) He used to do so? Additionally, our ability to interpret scripture is just as fallible as our ability to interpret the universe, therefore human fallibility cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring what the science textbooks say on any issue. You wouldn’t just completely ignore a biblical commentary on the grounds of human fallibility. Thirdly, to presuppose any interpretation of the way the universe has to be inevitably leads to biased conclusions. This is true of both naturalists and young earth creationists. Good science is objective science. Good scientists say “Where does the evidence lead?” not “How can we make the evidence fit X”?

Notes

[1] Ken Ham, as cited in “Ken Ham Says That Believing In 6 Days Of Creation Is ‘Litmus Test’ On Biblical Authority”, by Stoyan Zaimov, September 16th, 2016, The Christian Post. http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-believing-6-days-creation-litmus-test-biblical-authority-169673/ 

[2] Before the invention of advanced telescopes, people believed that our galaxy was the only one that existed. Before that, people didn’t even know that there was such a thing as galaxies at all! It was mainly thanks to modern telescopes that we not only discovered that there were other galaxies out there, but also what types of galaxies exist (such as spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies).

[3] As an accomodationist, I would agree with these scholars. The Bible is filled with what is called “Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology”. That is, the Bible reflects the cosmology of its day. I don’t think this calls the inerrancy of The Bible into question at all, as I don’t think it was God’s intention to teach the recipients of his word cosmology or any other science for that matter. He used the faulty science of the day to express theological truth. For more information on this, see my blog posts: “Hermenuetics 101 – Part 3: Understanding The Cultural Context” and “Why Did God Write A Book?” 

 

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

/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
Good God Hell

Why Did a “Good” God Create Hell?

By Al Serrato

Many people today accuse God of unfairness.  Since God can foresee the future, they ask, why didn’t He simply never create all those he knows to be destined to spend eternity in Hell?   One skeptic I know put the question like this:

God supposedly knows everything that will happen before you are ever born, so if all your choices are set beforehand, how can they possibly matter? Furthermore, if God knows you will “choose” Hell before he creates you, why does he simply not create you? Personally, I would much prefer nonexistence to eternal torment. Is God deliberately creating people knowing they will end up in Hell? Then I would call him evil. Is he compelled to create people regardless of what he sees in their future? Then he doesn’t have free will, which would certainly be an interesting interpretation, but one I doubt many people share. Is there some other explanation? If so, I can’t think of it.

This challenge has a bit of intuitive appeal.  It seems to put God in a box, as it were, trapped between being “evil” for choosing to create rebellious creatures or lacking free will, by being unable to do otherwise.  Let’s take a closer look at the two horns of this apparent dilemma.

To the Christian, “evil” is the label we give to words, thoughts or actions that deviate from God’s perfect will.  If we were created robots, there would be no evil in the world; we would operate exactly in accordance with God’s desires.  But in creating man, God did something quite different. He gave us “free will,” the capacity to rebel against him in our thoughts, words, and actions. And rebel we did.  God “foresaw” this development, but only in a manner of speaking – a manner focused upon the waywe think.  This is because God is not bound by time. For him, there is no future to “foresee.”  There is only an eternal present.  All times – whether past, present or future – are accessible to him in this eternal present. Thus, at the moment of creation, God was aware that man would rebel, that he was rebelling, and that he had rebelled. He was aware of the acts and the consequences, the motivations, and the ultimate end, of everyone.  Consistent with his nature for perfect fairness, he created a means by which man – though in rebellion and deserving punishment – could nonetheless find reunification with him.  But in implementing this scheme, he did not force this choice upon us. He gives us the means to salvation but remains content in allowing us to choose which path we will follow.

Those who use their free will to turn toward him – more precisely, to accept his free gift of salvation – will find a welcoming father, ready to do the work needed to restore us. Those who use their free will to turn away from God – to reject his gift – will find that this choice too is honored.  Expecting God not to create those in this latter category would have two significant effects: it would show that God’s provision of free will is really a fiction, since only those who choose to do his will are actually created, and two, it would mean that Hell is a place of evil.  But Hell is a place – or perhaps more precisely a condition – which was created by God to serve a purpose. Since God does not create evil – i.e. he does not act against his own nature – then Hell cannot be a place of evil. Like a human prison, it may be inhabited by those bent on doing evil, but the place itself – and the confinement it effectuates – is actually a good, just as separating hardened criminals from society is a net positive for both the evil-doer and the society that is victimized.

Some will be tempted to argue that God should have forced this choice upon us anyway. Isn’t it better to be forced to love God than to spend eternity in Hell? Only, I suppose, if one believes it is better to be a robot than a thinking, self-aware and self-directed being.  There is no middle ground. Either free will is something real – with consequences attendant to the choices we make – or it’s a fiction.  One cannot have it both ways.

To recap: God is not trapped in an either/or dilemma. God is not “evil” for having created, because in the end, he treats his creation fairly, giving each what he or she deserves.  Since he values free will enough to have given it to us, he apparently intends to make that gift real by allowing some to reject him. Likewise, God is not lacking in free will, because he is not “compelled” to create against his will. Since Hell is not a place for eternal torture, but an appropriate destination for all rebellious human beings, God does not violate his own nature – does not engage in “evil” – when he separates himself from some of his creation.

What this challenge brings into focus is not some internal inconsistency in our conception of God. No, what it highlights is just how different our thinking is as compared to God’s. For like the skeptic, many would view the decision to create nothing all – neither good nor bad people – to be a better – a more noble – alternative.  Yet God sees things quite a bit differently, it seems.

In the end, that he views things differently should not really surprise us. Our judgment as to right and wrong, good and evil, has been corrupted by our rebellion. Since we all share this fallen nature,  we should realize that we are not in the best position to render judgment as to the way eternal things “ought to be.” We wouldn’t ask a group of incarcerated rapists for guidance on issues of sexual mores; nor would we consult death row inmates for advice on how best to treat one another. Perhaps, in the same way, God has little need to consult with us to determine what ultimate “fairness” demands.

No, the Creator of the universe may occupy a slightly better position to judge matters eternal. We might be wise to heed him, rather than try to ensnare him in a “logical” trap.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2yXda71

/by
Free Will Critics

Responding To Free Will Critics

By Evan Minton

My article “5 Arguments For The Existence Of Free Will” became very popular. Tim Stratton liked it so much that he featured it as a guest post on his blog FreeThinkingMinistires.com, Martin Glynn specifically asked me to post it to The Society Of Evangelical Arminians’ website, and Jairo Izquierdo published it as a guest post on CrossExamined.org. In the case of the latter, several comments came flooding in as pushback to the things I said in the article. This isn’t surprising given how popular CrossExamined.org is as an apologetics ministry. Instead of responding to the comments specifically and getting into long back-and-forth conversations with people, I thought it would be more edifying if I actually made a response article addressing a few of those rebuttals.

To the readers of this site, I will assume you have already read “5 Arguments For The Existence Of Free Will“, and the following content will assume that background knowledge. If you haven’t read it, go read that first. Moreover, I’ll address these rebuttals according to each specific argument that the rebuttal is aimed towards.

The Argument From True Love 

Rebuttal: You Can’t Choose Who You Fall In Love With.

Andy Ryan wrote “You can talk about ‘love freely given’ but does anyone believe they have a choice over who they love? It’s pretty much something that just happens. Many people wish they could stop loving someone they love or regain a love they’ve lost. But in vain. So I don’t get how you connect love to free will.” 

The problem with this response is that it’s equivocating “love” with “infatuation”. I’ve pointed out in other blog posts that love is not an emotion. It’s not a feeling. Love is an action or series of actions aimed at the wellbeing of the one being loved. You can choose who you love if love is an action or series of actions rather than a feeling. Obviously, you can’t control how you feel. If that were the case, I’d never feel worried, angry, or sad a single day in my entire life. When someone I love dies, I’d choose to just be giddy rather than heartbroken. While you can’t control how you feel, you can control how you act.

The idea that love is action and not an emotion is grounded in scripture. Let’s turn to one of the most famous passages on love; 1 Corinthians 13.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” – 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

This passage is a description of not just love, but perfect love. Go up and read the passage again very carefully. I want you to notice something. There isn’t much talk of warm, fuzzy feelings in this passage.

Kindness is not a feeling. Kindness is an action. If I buy you a house, it doesn’t matter how I feel about you. My action was a kindness towards you. My choice to buy you a house was just that: a choice. You can have very bitter feelings towards someone and will yourself to do something nice for them. Kindness does not have to be associated with feelings.

What about patience? Well, that might seem like an emotion, but in reality, patience itself is an action. I might be irritated that someone is taking a long time in doing something they said they were going to do for me, but I can choose to not to express my agitation. I can conceal it, and say “Take your time. There’s no hurry.”. An impatient person would say “What is taking you so long? Get on with it already!” I may be experiencing a feeling of impatience, but I can still express the action of patience. A friend and I may both be waiting on another friend to pick us up to take us to dinner, and I may say “What is taking him so long? He should have been here 20 minutes ago! This is going to screw up my whole schedule.” while my friend next to me may be experiencing the same emotion but keeps his impatient emotion to himself. So, although we’re both feeling the same emotion, I choose to express impatience while he chooses to express patience. When my future wife takes a long time in the bathroom getting ready, I may be irritated at that, but what will I express? Patience or impatience? The choice is up to me.

“It keeps no record of wrongs”. This is also a choice. You may incidentally remember wrongs done to you, but the one who loves will try to forget them. The one who loves will not purposefully keep a list so that he can keep throwing the misdeeds up in the misdeed doer’s face. I have been wronged by some of the people in my life, and while I can remember that I was wrong, I can’t remember very many of the specific wrongs (except when something triggers a memory). I’m trying not to keep a record.

“It does not dishonor others”. Is dishonoring others a feeling? Surely not.

“It does not boast” — regardless of what your emotional state is, you can choose not to brag about things.

“It is not self-seeking” — another action that’s not a feeling. You can choose to seek the good of others instead of your own good.

The only things resembling emotions in this passage would be the parts that say “It is not easily angered” and “rejoices in the truth”. Now, these are emotions. Does this contradict everything I’ve just said? I don’t think so. I don’t think love itself is an emotion, but that doesn’t mean it’s completely isolated from emotions. Love can invoke emotions. I’ve heard testimonies of Christians who have done kind things for their enemies. While initially gritting their teeth in distaste, over time, their continued choice to express love softened their hearts towards their enemies and they actually had emotional feelings towards them. One of my Bible teachers spoke of a man he worked for years ago who made his life Hell. The employer developed cancer and my Bible teacher reluctantly prayed for him over a long period of time. The more he prayed for his boss, the less hard feelings he had towards him. When he learned of his employer’s passing, he said that it actually broke his heart and he burst into tears. I have had similar experiences. Doing love can actually transform your feelings towards someone. This is why I think it’s entirely possible to learn to “love the one you’re with”. This would also explain why so many arranged marriages actually worked out in times past.[1]

In light of this, Jesus’ command in Matthew 5 to love our enemies makes a lot more sense. Jesus isn’t commanding us to have warm and fuzzy feelings towards the people who treat us horribly. Rather, he’s telling us to show them kindness, patience, to avoid dishonoring them, to not boast if you one up them, to seek their well-being. Most of Jesus’ examples of loving your enemies are *drum roll* actions: “ If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”(verses 39-42).

In conclusion: I can’t control who I become infatuated with, but I can control which woman I show love to. I don’t have to have warm and fuzzy feelings towards someone to love them.

The Argument From Moral Accountability 

Rebuttal: Your Argument doesn’t follow because you haven’t demonstrated that The Bible is true.

In one of KR’s comments, he said: “Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises since you haven’t established that what the Bible teaches is actually true. Your 2nd argument suffers from the same problem.” 

My article was primarily aimed at Calvinists, who believe The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant, and ergo true. So, I admit that I presupposed that The Bible was true in most of the arguments I used in my blog post. I wasn’t concerned with refuting atheistic determinists, but determinists who were Christians. The only argument in the blog post that would apply to both Christian and non-Christian determinists was The FreeThinking Argument. I’ve argued with KR in the comment sections of other blog posts on Cross Examined’s website, so I know that he isn’t a Christian. It isn’t surprising that he wouldn’t find the argument from moral accountability compelling since it does presuppose that The Bible is true.

The Appearance Of Free Will Problem

Rebuttal: I Feel Determined?

In the same comment, KR wrote “As for the appearance of free will, it may be the case that we have different experiences. While I certainly feel that I have a self and that this self-performs various actions and has various thoughts, it feels to me that these actions and thoughts are always a reaction to something that happened before. I don’t feel that I decide to perform an action or have a thought ‘ex nihilo'”.

I don’t like responding to arguments when I’m not 100% sure I understand. But I studied this response carefully and I think I know what he’s saying here. I suspect that KR may be misrepresenting what libertarian free will is when he says “I don’t feel that I decide to perform an action or have a thought ex nihilo.” It is a common misconception that libertarian free will asserts that our choices are “random” or “spontaneous”, like the appearance of a particle in the quantum vacuum. No one knows when and where one is going to pop up. I don’t think my choices originate “ex nihilo” either, at least if KR is using that term the way I think he’s using it. Certainly, there are previously existing factors inside and outside of myself that have an influence on my choices, but does this mean that they determine my choices? I would say no. My feeling of hunger may influence me to get up and grab something to eat, but the hunger doesn’t determine me to eat. My urge for sex may influence my decision to have intercourse with someone, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t have refrained from having sex with that person. Libertarian Free Will (LFW) neither asserts that our choices have no good reasons or motivations behind them. I may choose to eat because I’m hungry or I may choose to refrain from eating because I’m too busy working on a blog post, or maybe I’m in the middle of a fast, or maybe I’m dieting to lose weight. LFW doesn’t assert that our choices are without purpose, just that it laid within our power to choose the opposite of what we actually chose.

Does KR have an accurate understanding of LFW? If not, that might explain why he feels he doesn’t have it. If he thinks of free will as spontaneous actions devoid of any influences or motivations, then it’s no wonder why he doesn’t think he has it. I don’t believe I have that kind of free will either!

The Free Thinking Argument

Rebuttal 1: Computers Do Calculations And They Don’t Have Free Will.

Andy Ryan wrote “You’ve not shown or demonstrated this. Why does the latter follow from the former?” Premise 3 of The Free Thinking Argument states that if libertarian free will does not exist, the rationality and knowledge does not exist. He says I haven’t demonstrated that this premise is true. Why does he think that?

The argument I put forth was a quote from Tim Stratton. Stratton said “Premise (3) is equivalent with ‘if all things are causally determined, then that includes all thoughts and beliefs.’ If our thoughts and beliefs are forced upon us, and we could not have chosen better beliefs, then we are simply left assuming that our determined beliefs are good (let alone true). Therefore, we could never rationally affirm that our beliefs are the inference to the best explanation – we can only assume it. Here is the big problem for the atheistic naturalist: it logically follows that if naturalism is true, then atheists — or anyone else for that matter — cannot possess knowledge. Knowledge is defined as ‘justified true belief.’ One can happen to have true beliefs; however, if they do not possess warrant or justification for a specific belief, their belief does not qualify as a knowledge claim. If one cannot freely infer the best explanation, then one has no justification that their belief really is the best explanation. Without justification, knowledge goes down the drain. All we are left with is question-begging assumptions.”[2]

Andy responded “Why does one have to ‘freely’ infer it? Do computers require free will to make accurate calculations? Evidently not – they seem to get by just fine! Imagine giving two computers sentience. They argue between them over a particular course of action and which option is the best. What’s wrong with describing what they have as ‘knowledge’?”

To hark back to Stratton’s explanation: knowledge is “justified true belief”. In order to have a belief that is both true and justified, one must be able to think freely. In order to think freely, one must have free will. You can’t be a free thinker without free will. In the case of computers, yes, they do mathematical calculations and they always come up with the right answer to the equation, but that’s because there were people who causally determined the computer to have an infallible calculator inside of it. The programmer just as well could have programmed the computer to come up with wrong answers, and the computer wouldn’t know the difference. Or perhaps someone hacked into the computer and infected it with a virus that causally determines it to come up with calculations. If human beings are causally determined, then how do you know that the beliefs you hold to aren’t irrational? How could you keep yourself from committing fallacies? How could you know whether or not the beliefs you were determined to hold are true? They could be true, they could have good reasons for them, but you wouldn’t be able to rationally weigh alternatives. If person 1 is causally determined to believe truth A, if person 1 was causally determined to believe lie B, he was determined to believe B.

Just as a computer will come up with the truth or a lie depending on how it’s wired, so we will come to true or false beliefs depending on how we’re wired. Can it really be said that someone possesses knowledge (i.e justified true belief) when the conclusions they came to were a mere matter of the molecules and chemistry in their brain + their environment? If the atoms in their brains bumped around differently, or if they had lived different lives in different circumstances and environments, their beliefs very well could have been different. What someone believes, on naturalism, depends on happenstance. If what someone believes depends on happenstance, how can that belief be said to be justified? It could, by happenstance, be a true belief, but it would not be a justified true belief. You would just happen to hold to the correct viewpoint.

The same problem affects theological determinism. If God causally determines everything we think, say, and do, then if we believe the correct theological doctrines or not just depends on whatever God decreed we would believe.

William Lane Craig said it well: “There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.”[3]

Rebuttal 2: What Is A Soul And How Does It Allow For Free Will but Physicalism Doesn’t? 

In that same comment, Andy Ryan said “What exactly is a soul and by what exact mechanism does it make libertarian free will possible where it is otherwise impossible? If one person has a soul and another person doesn’t, how does the soul lead to better or more informed decisions in the first person? If their brains are otherwise working exactly the same, I don’t see the difference.”

Andy is responding to the second premise of The Free Thinking Argument which states that if the soul does not exist, then no one has a libertarian free will. First, souls are immaterial entities that animate the physical bodies of humans and higher animals. It controls the brain and the brain controls the body. When a person dies, the soul leaves the body, leaving it lifeless. A soul isn’t something you have, it’s something you are. A body is what you have.

If people are merely physical organisms, then that means all of our thoughts, feelings, and actions are causally determined by brain chemistry, firing neurons, external environmental conditions and so on. How can free will exist if a man is nothing more than a collection of physical parts? Does a computer have free will? Does an amoeba have free will? Do thunderclouds have free will? No. All of the above react to physical cause and effect because they are purely physical things. I just took a swig of diet coke after typing that last sentence. If humans are purely physical creatures, then I don’t see how we can control what we do any more than my diet coke can control whether or not it fizzes.

Many atheists, like Francis Crick who I quoted in the article, are determinists precisely because they are physicalists. It’s their physicalism that drives them to the conclusion that we are merely organisms reacting to stimuli.  The assertion of premise 2 is that if the soul doesn’t exist, then free will doesn’t exist. I think I’ve done a pretty good job explaining that we have good reason to believe this is true. Now, how does the soul solve the problem? I’m not entirely sure what it is about a soul that gives it the ability to choose between alternatives, but I do know that it makes human beings more than mere physical objects. If I am a soul with a body, then there’s an aspect of me that transcends the natural realm, and that therefore entails that I am not necessarily subject to do whatever my environment and internal brain activity make me do. I have a mind, not just a brain. And while the brain can affect/influence the mind (e.g mental illnesses like schizophrenia), and the reverse is also true (e.g studies have shown that positive thoughts and negative thoughts can shape your brain), it is not the case that my brain makes me do anything.

Conclusion 
I don’t think any of the people in the comment section successfully refuted any of the arguments I put forth in libertarian free will.

By the way, there was a comment left by a person named John B Moore, but I didn’t address it because he didn’t get any rebuttals. All he did was essentially say “Your arguments are no good. You’re wrong”. Not a quote, but that’s the essence of his comment. He didn’t say which of the premises of which of the arguments were not true, nor did he tackle my arguments for the truth of the premises.

Notes

[1] I ‘m not advocating for arranged marriages. I’m just saying that maybe a reason so many of them actually turned out well was that the people realized “This is who I’m going to be stuck with for the rest of my life. I should make every effort to show love to him or her”.

[2] Tim Stratton, “The FreeThinking Argument In A Nutshell”, November 30th 2015, http://freethinkingministries.com/the-freethinking-argument-in-a-nutshell/

[3] William Lane Craig, from the article “Q&A: Molinism VS. Calvinism: Troubled By Calvinists”, – http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism 

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ku9IhP

/by