Previous Post of the Week: 5:23-29

This week's highlighted previous post: Whatever Happend to Sin?

When we preach the Law, people come to see their own sinfulness. They see they are liars, thieves, murderers (at least in their heart, cf. Matthew 5:21-22), adulterers (at least in their heart, cf. Matthew 5:27-28), coveters, blasphemers (they use God’s name as a curse word), idolaters, and in fact, completely worshipers of false gods (at least when we show them the spirit of the Law as Jesus did, and not just the letter). We can then show them that “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23), that “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Hebrews 11:6), and that they have not done anything for the glory of God (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:31), so all their works were done in vain. When they see this, it is a relatively small step for them to go from, “Wow, I sin all the time,” to “I’m a slave to the power of sin and in need of someone to raise me from the deadness of my sinfulness!” They’ll see they have broken the whole Law, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” Why is this so? Because “He who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not commit murder.’” If a person does not commit adultery but does commit murder (or does not steal but does tell a lie), such a one “has become a transgressor of the Law,” God’s perfect Law (James 2:10-11). The Law is a unity of ten; it is one. This person has not broken an inanimate Law, but has figuratively given God the middle finger and has said, “No, I will not keep this one law.” They have transgressed the holiness of God and have spat in His face, calling Him imperfect.

Read more »

Libertarian Free Will: Does This View Uphold Human Responsibility?

Libertarian Free Will (Indeterminism), the view held by the majority of people today, sets forth the notion that the human will is completely autonomous. In other words, the human will is completely free from any determining factors (including personal motives, inducements, or the person's settled character). The human will is seen as acting "independently of determining causes or influences, whether they be external or internal." (Nash, Ronald H., Life's Ultimate Questions, 329) This is the "Arminian" view of the human will that is taken to its logical conclusions (or nearly) by "Open Theists."

Nash tells us that there are two views of human liberty. One is the liberty of indifference, and the other is the liberty of spontaneity. The liberty of indifference is the view advocated by libertarian proponents. Human freedom in this view is "the ability either to do something or not." (Nash 327) The liberty of spontaneity is "the ability to do whatever the person wants to do." (328) This is the view of freedom upheld by compatiblists (those who believe determinism and human free will can both be true at the same time--incompatibilists are those who believe determinism and human free will cannot coexist at the same time--this is the libertarian model).

In liberty of spontaneity, humans do what it is that determining factors (internal causes--such as inducements, settled character, or motives) cause the person to do--it is what the person wants to do. Liberty of indifference, on the other hand, the human agent has the ability to make decisions without them being caused by any prior conditions--it is the "equal ability, under given circumstances, to choose either of two courses of action. No antecedent power determins the choice." (329).

In libertarian free will, human actions, because they have no antecedent determining factors, internal or external, are therefore not conditioned upon "any prior condition, state, thought, feeling, emotion, or whatever... ask yourself, how does this kind of uncaused action differ from pure chance?" (330).

The fact is, this type of freedom is just that: pure chance. It is random. Therefore, since it is random (unavoidable and unexplainable), this is not an act of free choice, and it is not responsible conduct. Yes, that is correct, Libertarian Free Will leaves humans unresponsible for their actions. So consistency in this view, requires that in Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve ate from the fruit, because they were acting in libertarian freedom, they were not responsible for their actions. Why? Because their action was not caused by them, but by a completely chance response of the will to outside stimuli.

But, I have never heard anybody actually hold to this. Rather, when faced with this issue, those who seek libertarian freedom will say something along the lines of "they wanted to do it." But wait, there is your determining factor: Desire--an internal motivation/character trait. Thus, those who adopt this view must modify it and accept some type of determinism. God cannot rightfully judge those who did not act out of their own volition (though I have heard people say that determinism leads to people not acting from their own volition--this however, is a misunderstanding of the will). Thus, the will never acts from a completely neutral state.

Compatibilism (in some sense) is therefore the only tenable option (there are serious issues with complete determinism with the denial of the human's willing as well). "Free and responsible behavior must be conduct that can be causally traced back to my inner states. Erratic and impulsive behavior and random behavior is neither free nor responsible." (Nash, 331) Though I have not quoted the Bible here, this is what the Bible teaches (I should have a post coming soon about Open Theism that touches more on this).

What has this accomplished? Well, I've shown (thanks to Mr. Nash, who I'm sure would give God all the credit) that true libertarian free will is untenable. Though libertarian free will was conjured up for the purpose of making humans responsible for their actions, it actually negates their responsibility. Thus it follows that Arminians and Calvinsts fall into the same camp when it comes to the so called "problem of evil." Every human action (seriously, every single one) flows from some cause/influence. What is the determining cause of Adam and Eve's sin in the garden? I could make conjectures, but I do not feel that this is the proper time (so don't bring this question up in any of your responses to this post--I won't answer it).

Let us also not forget that the fall served a greater purpose: Through the fall, Jesus has become the new Adam, and therefore the Lord of all. The greatest of evils (the foreordained death of the Son of God at the hands of sinful men--cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:23-31) was meant by God to bring about the greatest of goods, namely, the exultation of Jesus Christ, the righteous.

I leave you with Paul's infallible proposition in Romans 9:

So then [God] has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even [Christians], whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:18-24)

Read more »

The Duty of a Christian Man: The Delight of a Husband

Do not misinterpret the title; I am in no way implying or asserting that every Christian man has to get married/be married. I hold a great respect for those who remain single for the service of the kingdom; and the Bible does also. The reward in heaven for such self-sacrificial service is great.

The Bible is clear, however, that a married man’s chief responsibility and ministry for the kingdom is to his wife. His actions toward her and their relationship are to be an image of the relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church. The marriage relationship is to be a reflection of the eternal, mysterious truth that has been revealed, and it is to be a witness (though quite imperfect) to the watching world of this unique union of God and His covenant people. Thus, this union and covenant relationship that exists is not to be undertaken lightly, but with the utmost sobriety and wisdom.

(I will not make too many practical applications as I write this—not because I lack pastoral concern, but because each husband, with the loving, submissive, gentle help of his wife, must discern what the Spirit’s guidance in living out this truth is for his marriage. I do not have all the answers. As one of my friends once said, I am like a man who has read the VCR manual, but I have never encountered the VCR. Also, in case the future Mrs. Tavernelli ever happens to read this (if God has created this most humble, patient, kind-hearted woman), I do not want her to think I will be the perfect husband, or set myself up for any more standards (especially my own) that I will be unable to keep—I’m a sinner.)

Let me clarify this with an exposition from Ephesians 5. Paul’s actual exhortations to husbands and wives do not begin officially until v. 22. There is, however, applicable truth from v. 21 to our discussion. Here Paul tells the Ephesians believers, “be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” The Bible makes clear that Christians are to only marry other Christians—to go against this is to disobey a direct commandment of God (2 Corinthians 6:14ff). Since Paul is here in this letter to the Ephesians talking to the believing community as a whole, it is only right to apply this verse to husbands and wives. So, husbands and wives should therefore be subject to one another—or, in other words, each one should humble him/herself and honor and love one another, putting/thinking of one another first (cf. Galatians 5:13-14, Ephesians 4:2, 32, Colossians 3:12-14, etc).

Now, wives are to be subject/submissive to their own husbands in the same way that they are subject to the Lord (v. 22). This, however, is not part of my discussion here. For a good, biblical discussion on this topic, see Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (http://www.cbmw.org/rbmw/). Wives are to be subject to their husbands in everything, just as the church is subject to Christ (24).

This is because the husband “is the head of the wife” (23). Husbands, you have a great responsibility and privilege. You are held to the standard of Christ—you are to lead your wife just as Christ leads the Church. Your role is to lead her in following and obeying God in everything—as her “head,” you will give account for how you have led her, just as you will give account for how you raised your children.

As the head, husbands are to love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church” (25). What does this love look like? It is sacrificial, her-centered love. For Christ loved the Church “and gave Himself up for her.” It is putting her needs and desires (in social situations) ahead of your own. It is a love that is intended to “sanctify her.” It is to be both an example for her, and it is to be a love that covers all wrongs. For example, today I spilled coffee grounds all over my printer and counter (I live in a dorm, so my kitchen counter doubles as my desk). Now, let’s say for a moment that your wife spills coffee grounds all over the counter. How should you react? As Christ did—be an example to point her to the supremacy of God’s grace in Christ Jesus. Do not grow angry with her and yell at her—rather, tell her you would like to clean up the mess she has made (on the cross, Christ cleaned up the mess of the Church). Go about that in a gentle-spirit. While your relationship may allow you, in a flirtatious manner, to say, “Smooth, honey,” or something similar (in a loving, gentle, playful tone), do not grumble, but show her the unconditional love between Christ and His bride.

Use every opportunity to both set her apart from other women and to cleanse her. As Christ did this “by the washing of water with the word,” so she has been set apart from other women to be in an unique union with you. This is so that you may present her to yourself as spotless and blameless—she is set apart to have marital relations with you, and you alone, and so you with her. In loving her, you are doing this much for your own benefit as well. You should receive great joy in bringing this woman happiness. Also, I think this is a good point to say that these marital relations include a spiritual relationship between you, her, and God. Thus, lead her spiritually, sanctifying her in the faith—helping her to draw closer to God. As you both grow together with God in your one relationship with God, you will also grow together as a couple. The husband’s relationship with the Lord thus becomes even more important, for he is no longer leading merely one, but now two. Thus, cultivate your own relationship with God, and your relationship together with God, for your individual and combined sanctification.

Listen to this carefully, husbands: Your wife is as your own body. As you are the head, so she is the body. Thus, as you care for your body (“for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church”), so you are to care for your wife. If you do not, then you are in sin. You have a responsibility to love your wife and give her the same treatment that you would give to your body. As Russell Moore has said (this is not an exact quote), nobody would give a standing ovation to the man who brushes his teeth in the morning, or to the man who puts on a sweater when it is cold out, or to the man who bathes himself, so the man who cares for his wife is not to be seen as some kind of hero. Rather, he is the one who is doing his job (though, it should be more than his duty, it should be his delight—he should make much of his wife, for she is a gift from God); others are living substandard.

As you put the health of your body as a high priority, so you should put the love and care for your wife as a high priority. That means putting her ahead of ministry in the local church. That means spending time with her, showing her you love her, and not letting other things usurp all of your time and energy. You have made a covenant with her that you have not made with others. As Christ’s first and foremost love and goodness is for the Church, so yours is to be for your wife. Do not overwork her, as you would not your own body. Encourage her; do not discourage. And do not be lazy, but self-sacrificing.

As Paul points out, in the beginning, it was ordained by God that the reason that a man was to leave his parents was for joining together with his wife. The two become one flesh. They are no longer to act as two, but as one. The husband is to look out for the good of both of them—for they are no longer separate, but one. When one hurts, so will the other. When one rejoices, so will the other. Parents no longer take priority, neither do friends, neither does work, neither does ministry—a husband is to put his wife first.

This is the husband’s greatest ministry. How he ministers to his wife is a reflection of his true commitment to God and his maturity in the faith. Elders especially are to put their wives first—Christ will take care of the Church, and they will see how the relationship between Christ and the Church is to work through the husband’s relationship with his wife. This is why God created marriage. It is to reflect the union of Christ and the Church. She is His body, and He is her head. Even before the fall, this is the intended purpose of marriage. Adam and Eve were to be witnesses of the coming Christ, and His covenant union with His people. It is for this reason that a husband is to love his wife and a wife is to submit herself to her husband.

Thus, to reflect the relationship of Christ and the Church, a woman is not allowed “to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12). The created order is to reflect the lordship of Christ over His Church. When the created order was not followed in the garden, the woman was deceived and fell into transgression, and the man with her (1 Timothy 2:14). Man was created first because he is to have the position of authority over his wife (v. 13)—just as Christ is before the Church and has authority over her. Therefore husbands, be certain to lead your wives—but in love (and by leading her you do love her).

While there is much more in the Bible that speaks concerning this issue, I have made my point; and so, for the purpose of brevity, I will stop here, reminding you of my main point. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church and gave Himself up for her. Love her with a sacrificial, gentle love. Delight in her and in her companionship alone—cultivating your relationship together and with God. She is your greatest ministry. Your love for her and your relationship with her is to be the image of Christ and the Church. Soli Deo Gloria!

Read more »

An emerging waste of time?

Weblogs... they are kind of like local newspapers. You get news/stories quickly, but they are all with a slant (you can see the writer's agenda, worldview, and views on the issue without even trying), and they come at a sacrifice of confirmed facts (not always, but they aren't quite as solid as say, a magazine or a text book). So should we give time to this art of weblogging? Or should we give it up and turn to better mediums?

I've been reading the book, The Younger Evangelicals: Facing the Challenges of the New World, by Robert E. Webber. I've only made it through three or four chapters, and I have learned a few surprising things about this Emerging/Emergent Church (or, "the younger evangelicals").

One thing is that the younger evangelicals (the emerging twenty-first century evangelical movement) are very postmodernistic. In other words, evangelicalism is once again about 25 years behind the world. But evangelicalisms slow uptake is hardly my main concern. This turn of evangelicalism seems to be in light of the "'epistemological shift' from the reason-based theology of the fundamentalists to a more experience-based faith, 'grounded in the whole person, in both body and mind.' Spirituality, mocked by the secular humanists of the sixties, is now a common quest and a respectable topic of conversation." (Webber, 45) No doubt a shift from just logic to a whole-person, integrative faith is ideal--that is true Christianity. However, is this what is really occurring? Or is the reasonableness of Christianity being sacrificed for emotional/experience driven relgion--a mystical faith that rivals the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner?

The younger evangelicals are very community drivien. This is very good. Christianity is not merely about the personal relationship with God--though that is an essential element that is not to be downplayed. Rather, as the New Testament makes witness, Christianity is also much about the communal relationship of the New Covenant people (the Church) to one another and to God. This is needed after the twentieth century's me-centered/market-driven church attitude.

Now, younger evangelicals, according to Webber, unlike everybody I talk to when I go out sharing the gospel, "are attracted to absolutes." However, "they don't want to arrive at absolutes through evidence or logic." Rather, they want truth that is a matter of both heart and mind (52). Such truth is essential--but at the sacrifice of logic, such truth is unattainable. Relativistic truth, or the myth syndrome, as is true of all post-modernity, will be all that is attained. While the younger evangelicals are ready and willing to commit whole-heartedly to anything with purpose, without reason, such a committal will be blind obedience--a mere leap of faith. As Webber points out, they may even commit "to a Hitler-like leader" (52). They commit with passion and their whole life, but will a commitment based upon blind obedience truly last? Or when a logical argument comes along (even if it is not completely logical--such as naturalism), since the human mind has been programmed by the Creator to embrace and love logic, will their faith crumble and leave them distraught and without an understanding of life/Christianity?

There is also a return to tradition. I consider this a good thing. I think we ought to return to ways that are truly Christian, such as those of the Awakenings and the Reformation, as to "would you like to accept Jesus"ism, and the megachurch movement. However, maybe I'm just opposed to everything new (like the internet, and the telephone, and the breakfast cereal), but I think what Webber is calling a return to Christian orthodoxy (I think he should have used "orthopraxy") does not seem to be true/historic/apostolic Christianity. The Christianity being proposed is not one to be accepted because it is a rational worldview, but one that is based upon "an ontological change in the human heart" wrought by the Holy Spirit (55). While that is necessary, and I believe whole-heartedly in Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace, the gospel is a rational message. The gospel, that through which the Holy Spirit works, is a logical, coherent worldview...it is just the wisdom of God, and not the works-based wisdom of mankind.

Christianity has always been upheld because of its reasonableness. The great apologists of the first/second centuries (such as Justin Martyr, Iranaeus, etc) all used Christianity's logical coherence as the reason that the Romans should not persecute them. If Christianity is not reasonable, then it should have been done away with, and Rome was right to persecute them. Also, Christianity is completely based upon eyewitness reports of the risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now, I am not saying that we should return to modernism. Far from it. Modernity put too much of an emphasis on the abilities of the human intellect. However, to join with postmodernity in rejecting the necessity of logical coherence is not the answer. Christianity must have a both/and attitude. We must seek to understand and show Christianity's reasonableness as a worldview and we must also allow our theology and understanding transform us and conform us to the image of Christ.

Now, I'm not saying that this movement among younger evangelicals is all bad (I've named a few positives above). This movement in and of itself is not heretical, but those involved need to be careful. A rejection of reason, if it becomes a radical rejection, will lead no where but to an embrace of relativism and a loss of anything that is truly meaningful to historic Christianity. This movement needs to be monitored closely and constantly conversed with (D.A. Carson has a book out now that I hope to read later this summer titled Conversing with the Emerging Church that I'm sure will prove a beneficial read to all who pick it up).

The younger evangelicals are marked by there willingness to live radical Christian lives as is set it in Scripture, according to Webber. They are missions-focused, geared toward innercity ministry, and willing to be "real" (that's one of the catch-words). They are the "twenty-something" generation--they grew up with mass media and technological break-throughs (such as television constantly, ipods, and the internet). This in itself could lead to a lot of problems, as this constant stream of noise, flashy pictures, and constant drama has been shown to lead to depression, hyperactivity, and an inability to live in quiet (that is probably why they enjoy simple group settings so much, as they never experience such a relaxing atmosphere anywhere else).

So, since the younger evangelicals are going online (if it hasn't occurred yet, I'm sure that a weblog explosion will soon take place among this techno-savvy group), it seems to me that this is probably the medium that may reach them the most. This is a people that direly needs good theology, a proper perspective on Christianity, and a return to the embrace of reason as a necessary component of life. We must also remember that nonbelievers are online too. Weblogs may be a useful tool in this fight of the faith. There needs to be truth online.

Read more »

20/20: Was Jesus Really Resurrected?

This Friday, May 20, at 10:00 pm EST (that's 9:00 pm Central, and sometime after that for those of you on the other half of the country), ABC's program, 20/20, will be considering the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ--probably the most central tenet of the Christian faith.

In a special hour on "20/20," Elizabeth Vargas and ABC News take viewers on an extraordinary journey into the heart of the debate where it all began in Jerusalem in search of the truth about the story that is at the core of the Christian faith … the Resurrection.

Vargas asks scholars, theologians and archeologists the questions millions of faithful and interested Americans might have pondered: Was the tomb empty? Did Jesus physically walk the Earth after his death? Or were his followers just dreaming?

Apparently Vargas will be talking to "experts" about the resurrection from Lee Strobel and William Lane Craig, to Bishop John Shelby Spong (my personal favorite), to Daniel Schwartz.

If you want my opinion, I think they should've just gotten John Dominic Crossan (former co-chair of the Jesus Seminar) and Robert H Stein (former SBTS Professor and all-around Gospel Stud) to debate the issue.

Buy on to the issue at hand.

I personally doubt that ABC is going to hold up to FOX's claims of being "fair and balanced", but they will probably conclude by saying something like, "The evidence is inconclusive, and so it all comes down to faith." I'd suggest watching it, but only for the purpose of finding out what people will be asking in work on Monday.

ABC's choice of scholarly experts is no real surprise. People like Strobel are well known for evangelical apologetics works, Spong is known for his liberal lack of concern for any historicity--people like him are only concerned with the moral Jesus, and and Schwartz is a Hebrew scholar who is going to give the modern Jewish perspective (he is quoted as saying, "So the people who wanted very much to believe that Jesus was the coming redeemer of Israel, saw something perhaps as minimal as an empty tomb and it fit into what they wanted to believe. And when people want to believe things, they believe it. Beyond that, I have no idea. There are lots of mysteries in this world.")

NowI'm going to take a radical turn from all of this (I could not come up with any way of shifting topics without being dramatic) and examine the veracity of the resurrection and the liberal perspective.

First let's look at the Liberal perspective.

Spong is quoted as saying:

"I don't think that most of the Resurrection narratives in the New Testament are historical at all. But I don't think there would have been a New Testament or a Jesus movement had there not been some astonishing experience of power. That caused these people to see Jesus in a way they had never seen him before."

To see why such a view is absolutely problematic to Biblical/historical Christianity, check out my post: Why the Resurrection?

Kathleen Corley is quoted as saying:

"I think that his women followers would have looked for his body to give him burial rites as much as they possibly could. I think they were unsuccessful in finding his — the location of his body because I think Jesus was probably buried in a criminal's grave that would have been a large pit for a large number of people."

Arthur Dewey says:

"As a historian, one could say, that there was no Resurrection as a fact. What we can say is that, people claim to have visions. People claim to, uh, have as it was — sightings — post-mortem sightings, of Jesus."

Luke Johnson says:

"I must respectfully suggest that those who are obsessed about the physicality of the resurrection don't really understand what they're talking about. Because if they really get a purely physical resurrection, then all they have is a resuscitation, and that's not good news."

So the claims made, in summary, are:

1. Jesus was not physically resurrected, and that doesn't matter (it's just myth).

2. The women went to the wrong tomb.

3. People just had visions.

Other theories not mentioned include:

4. Someone stole the body.

5. Jesus really wasn't dead.

6. The resurrection was just made up at a later date (thank you Mr. Bultmann).

Now, before I look at apologetical evidence, let's consider the weight/issue with what has been said.

Probably the weightiest measure hanging upon the historical resurrection of Jesus is what it means to Christianity. Every meaningful doctrine of Christianity depends upon the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus (Why the Resurrection?) If Jesus was not resurrected, He is clearly not God (for a number of reasons, one being that Jesus promised He would rise again on the third day, and if He was not resurrected, He lied, and God cannot lie (cf. Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18), there is no resurrection from the dead, and there is no forgiveness of sin (for example).

Another issue is that most who deny the resurrection are really denying the miraculous. Thus, to deny the resurrection, one is also denying that Jesus is the Word incarnate--i.e. the Christ. Even if a person does claim that Jesus is the Christ and yet denies the resurrection, that person does not really believe Jesus is the Christ--this person is contradicting him/herself (see my point above).

Yet John, in 1 John, says that they physically heard, touched, looked upon, and saw "What was from the beginning," the Word of God come in the flesh (1 John 1:1-2, 4:14). They are denying that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Christ has come in the flesh. In denying this many things occur:

1. Liberals fall out of fellowship with the true Church and God Himself (1 John 1:3, 2:23).

2. They are liars and yes, antichrists (and children of the devil) (1 John 2:22, 3:10, 4:2-3).

3. They are claiming God to be a liar (1 John 5:10).

4. They do not have eternal life (1 John 5:11-12)

Thus, in a selfish attempt to save Christianity, Liberals are actually seeking to destroy Christ and true Christianity. They have become enemies of the cross.

(I do not say this lightly. In fact, I honestly do not like making statements like this, because it appears that I do not love these people. However, this is an extremely serious matter, and so I must speak as the Bible speaks. I believe that I have represented the Liberal views fairly, and so I must also give their implications fair/full treatment from the Scriptures in a Scriptural manner.)

Now, to give some support for the historicity of the resurrection.

Objection 1. The women went to the wrong tomb.

A. Could they seriously have forgotten where the tomb was in only 36-48 hours? Kathleen Corley, who proposed this above, is a woman. I would assume that she would give these women more credit than this. Women of this social status back then may not have been well educated, but they certainly were not idiots.*

B. According to Biblical narratives, the body was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. He was obviously well known, and so people could have either asked Joseph himself or his close acquintences if he had buried the body of Jesus of Nazareth (if no such man existed, surely this would have been brought up by the Jewish leaders as evidence that Christians were liars--yet it never was). His tomb was not a public burial place. We have no reason to believe that there were even other tombs in the area that could have been mistaken as the tomb in which Jesus was buried.*

C. Matthew 26:62 tells us that there were soldiers placed at the tomb. Seriously, how many tombs would have had soldiers guarding them?*

D. There is no doubt that, because of the growing of Christianity, the opponents of Jesus would have checked out the tomb to see if the tomb really was empty. They certainly would have known where Jesus was buried. If they find the body, Christianity is immediately stamped-out!*

E. These people can't even agree on their theories as to what happend to the body. Crossan says Jesus was eaten by dogs and never placed in a tomb; Corley says he was placed in a criminals tomb. Which one was it!? The fact is that, as noted in point B. above, anybody could have asked Joseph of Arimetha or people who knew him if he had buried the body. The most reliable texts we have (the New Testament Gospels) all claim Jesus was buried. And besides, wouldn't the women have known this?

Objection 2: Jesus wasn't really dead.

A. Crucifixion kills people. Now we have to say that Roman soldiers, trained killers, could not tell the difference between someone who is wounded and someone who is dead. Yet they were so confident that Jesus was dead that they did not even break His legs.*

B. It is physically impossible to go through the beatings and crucifixion and live (see Mel Gibson's the passion for a descently accurate portrayal of what this would have been like).

C. If Jesus was able to roll away the stone, walk past the guards, and somehow make it to the disciples, they would have pitied Him and given Him medical attention, not gotten the impression that this Man had conquered death and was the Lord of all. This would incite sorrow, not worship and enthusiasm. Truly this would not have given them the confidence they had to stand before Roman and Jewish courts, to be beaten and killed, and yet to go on themselves, or those who remained with the confidence to proclaim the gospel. Why die for something you know is a lie? Especially when the disciples could easily have gone back to being fisherman, tax collectors, etc. All they had to do was repent, sacrifice in the Temple, and rejoin the Jewish community from which they had come.*

Objection 3: Someone stole the body.

-Joseph of Arimathea (There is no historical evidence for this--in fact, not even Jesus' opponents came up with this one).*

A. Why would Joseph do this? Jesus had been buried in a noble fashion, worthy of a good rabbi. To steal the body would be to dishonor it.*

B. The guards were stationed at the tomb to make sure nobody took the body. Why didn't the guards just report to the leaders that Joseph had taken the body? This would have been a very logical and realistic explanation. Yet they didn't, and so this argument is ridiculous.*

-The disciples stole it. (This is the oldest theory, and it is located in Matthew 28:11).

A. If the guards were sleeping, how did they know the disciples had stolen the body? And come on, who could sleep through the noise of a stone being rolled away? And if the soldiers were asleep, the penalty was death (which is why those who stationed them at the tomb promised to help the soldiers, if they kept to this story and kept it quiet).*

B. Why would the disciples steal the body? It received a noble burial--more than they could have afforded. And they certainly would have still held some kind of hope that Jesus would be resurrected on the last day.*

C. Why would they have stolen the body? Did they want to make up some kind of myth? These men weren't deceivers--in fact, from the Gospel narratives, they seem to hardly believe in the resurrection themselves. What is the point of making up this myth anyway? Why die for something that you know is a lie?*

D. Where did they get this courage all of a sudden? The narratives report them as hiding and frightened. Only an encounter with the risen Christ gives them any real courage.*

Objection 4: Those who saw Jesus were just having visions. (I think this one is probably the most popular today--it seems like almost everyone with whom I speak about the resurrection (unbelievers that is) bring this one up.

A. The conditions for visionary experiences were not present. Neither the disciples nor the women were expecting the resurrection (the women went to annoint Jesus for burial, the disciples were hiding away, scared to death). They were not in a highly anticipatory mood of expectation at all. If they would have heard sounds they would have been frightened, not induced into a trance-like state.*

B. Visions are generally individual experiences. Yet Paul claims that 500 saw Jesus at one time--and if people wanted to find out if this report was true, most of the people were still alive while Paul was writing (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:6). Also, Matthew, Mark, Luke (and Acts), and John all record incidences of Jesus' appearances (11 in all).*

C. Thomas was skeptical; as were probably most of the disciples. This skepticism demanded objective, physical proof. *

Objection 5: The Resurrection was just made up by later Christians.

A. The story is found in at least three strata of the Gospel narratives (Mark, M, John), and in all four Gospels.*

B. Preaching could not have occurred in Jerusalem if there was not an empty tomb. Yet the Jews did not question the empty tomb.*

C. The stories are semitic--so Jews were their authors.*

D. The early Christian tradition of worshiping on the first day of the week was tied to the empty tomb/day Jesus was resurrected, not to the resurrection appearances.*

E. The fact that women were the first witnesses. Women were not respected as witnesses to the degree men were at this time.*

Objection 6: This is just myth/Jesus was not physically resurrected (it doesn't really matter anyway).

A. The word "resurrection" implies physicality.*

B. Paul was ridiculed on Mars Hill by the Greeks because he preached the physical resurrection from the dead. Greeks believed in the eternality of the soul, so this clearly was not what Paul was preaching.*

C. Again, the disciples were not deceivers. They would not have died for a craftily developed lie. After all, myths were seen as immoral by early Christians (cf. 2 Peter 1:16).

D. As I have pointed out and written about, the physical resurrection of Jesus is absolutely essential to key doctrines of the Christian faith.

*Denotes that the argument has been adapted from Dr. R H Stein's class notes.

So, was Jesus physically resurrected from the grave? Look at the evidence--you be the judge. I have handled all the objections of which I know, and they all fall short when one honestly looks at the evidence.

-A word to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Pray for such people as these mentioned who deny the resurrection. As I have pointed out, they are deceived and under the influence of the evil one. May God grant them faith in Christ, the risen and reigning Lord of all.

Read more »

A Real Saab Story.

So I was walking from the Willow (that's the hip name for my work--1400 Willow) to my car after work and the only car parked anywhere near mine was a Saab. And, I made $11 in tips tonight.

(I'm actually testing to see if the "I made X amount of money" works as well at making lame stories socially acceptable as saying "And then I found X amount of money.")

Read more »

Previous Post of the Week

I will highlight one post that I posted previously each week. This will be so that those posts which I feel are relevant/important will be more easily accessible to all of you.

This week's highlighted previous post:

Take Up Thy Cross! A Call to Intamacy; A Command for Salvation

If a person wishes to save this life, the next will be forfeited. Only by hating this life and submitting to God’s sanctifying work can a person be saved. No person can pay for his/her own soul, though if a person understands the true value of his/her own soul, this life is not really a loss to lose, but a gain, since we will be living for and gaining Christ, rather than remaining dead and darkened in our sin. How is all of this not man’s working? How can this not be seen as works that are added to faith?

Read more »

Apostacy, Plague, and Propitiation: Numbers 16

Numbers 16

This is a simple exposition of Numbers 16.

The Rebellion

Korah, in his rebellion, opposed Moses’ and Aaron’s divine responsibility/position of authority and headship over the nation of Israel. Korah and his men claimed what was not rightfully theirs’—that is, the mediatorial (if that isn’t a word, I dub it a word, meaning, the role of being a mediator, or something like that) position between God and His people and the responsibility/prerogative to lead them.

Perhaps Korah was angry and opposed Moses (literally “assembled together against”) for the following reasons:

“The nation was under a sentence of God's judgment, and these men knew that they were a part of the doomed community. Perhaps they thought that by a forced change of guard they might even reverse the fortunes of the people. The verb translated "they came as a group" suggests an organized, well thought-out conspiracy. This was not just a momentary, casual play of a motley crew. They had not just come up to Moses and Aaron but "against" (NIV, "to oppose") them; the preposition is significant.”[1]

This was a planned attack against God’s agent, seeking to undermine God’s theocracy.

Here are some points of application and truth that we can glean from this passage.

1. Notice that those who came together said, “You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?” (v. 3).

This statement is at least partially true. The congregation of the sons of Israel was a “holy” congregation. They were set apart by God for His purpose: i.e. making His name/glory known. Moses earlier even wished that they were all prophets of the Lord (11:29)—a foreshadowing of the New Covenant and the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9-10).

However, Korah is absolutely incorrect in his accusation of Moses and Aaron. They had not exalted themselves, but in their humility were exalted by God (the Lord had chosen them and made them to be the leaders, and they had not taken advantage of their position to extort the people (v. 15).

There are many like Korah today, as there always have been (cf. Jude 8-12). They oppose God’s rulership, often seeking to exalt themselves to power or to have things the way they perceive they should be. Without fear they oppose the Mediator of the Most High. They exalt their own “gospel,” though it is damnable (cf. Galatians 1:8-9). They also oppose the true Church—God’s established order. They claim the Church to have usurped power that has not been granted it, preaching that the Church is not the rightful spiritual heir of Christ, or claiming the Church has no right to the actions it takes/claims it makes.

2. Notice Moses’ humility. Upon his face Moses said, “Tomorrow morning the LORD will show who is His and who is holy, and will bring him near to Himself; even the one whom He will choose, He will bring near to Himself.” (v. 5)

Moses, like the archangel Michael, does not exalt himself in his position (Jude 9). Rather, he leaves judgment up to the Lord, and so rebukes those who bring harassment by his humble trust in God’s supremacy. He let those in rebellion come before the Lord with offering in hand (vv. 12-14).

This is how we must respond. God will one day judge those who oppose Him—hopefully now, bringing them under the knowledge of their own condemnation and to acknowledge their need to repent and receive God’s gift in Christ, rather than on the Final Day. Let God be your vindicator (though this does not mean that you do not defend yourself against their accusations—but not for your sake, but for theirs’ and God’s glory, cf. vv. 7, 15).

3. There was envy among the ranks. The Lord had already separated those who rebelled even from the rest of the congregation. They were the sons of Levi, and so had a privileged position to minister before the Lord. (vv. 8-11).

Brothers and sisters, this can even be a problem today. Do not seek to exalt yourself to the position which is not your own. God has set you apart for a purpose; He has created the Body to be made up of many members to do His work and to fulfill His purposes. If you are not an elder, do not harass those who are. God has given them that responsibility and so help them, do not hinder them (Hebrews 13:7). If God has called you to a leadership position, and only if He has, fulfill it. Otherwise, fulfill your calling and you will be rewarded, living a simple, quiet life (1 Thessalonians 4:11).

Also, notice that the Lord does not play the favorites game. Though these were Levites, those who were set apart for special service, when they rebelled, the Lord, in His holiness, put them down. He consumed them with fire and swallowed them up in sheol alive. He did this to all who conspired against His established order (vv. 25-35).

“Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29). Though Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and the rebels offered sacrifices to the Lord, they did not offer their sacrifices in a pleasing manner. Though their offspring were guaranteed the promised land, yet they did not revere the Lord, nor did they show gratitude for His steadfast love. Thus, they were consumed, as will be all who oppose God. And yet He will use their wicked sacrifices for His purposes and glory (vv. 36-40).

4. The rebels did not trust God’s sovereignty and supremacy. They blamed God for not giving them what they did not deserve—in fact, what they had rejected (cf. 13:25-14:10) (vv.12-14). They rebelled because things were not progressing as they desired for them to progress.

5. In His timing, the Lord vindicated those who are His (vv.19-40). He destroyed those who rebel. This is God's divine right. He is sovereign. He is God. He has the right to destroy all who are against Him. This is part of what it means for God to be God. We have no rights before Him.

6. Those who are of the Lord should not associate with those who rebel (vv. 23-24). This does not mean that we should not be witnesses to the lost, or that we should not do anything with them (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Rather, it means that we must join them in their wicked ways. It means that we must not draw close theologically and in practice to their errors. We must stand firm, without wavering, upon the proven gospel of Christ. We must be separate and distinct.

7. We must act as mediators between God and those in rebellion. As Moses stood and made supplications before God on behalf of the rebellious Israelites, so too must we. This was part of God’s plan (While God did change His mind in a genuine relationship with Moses, Open Theists are wrong when they say that this was not God’s plan and ordination in the first place. If God were to destroy the Israelites, He would not be able to fulfill His promise to Abraham and His work of calling all nations to Himself under the Lordship of Christ, the Lion of Judah).

Dear Christian, pray for those who rebel against God’s gospel. Petition God that He might remove their hard hearts and give them hearts that will obey Him. Your prayers could be the means by which God accomplishes His will.

8. Those who have not been given the priesthood are not to fulfill it (v. 40). Do not look for the “liberal christians” or any other group to preach the gospel. It has not been given to them. They are laymen, and have not been given this responsibility/privilege.

However, let us also remember that the dispensation of Aaron’s priesthood has ended (I use the word “dispensation” with caution, for I know the connotations it brings). All believers, including the laity, are priests to our God. We can all come before the throne because we have our Mediator in heaven (Hebrews 4:15-16).

The Mediator and the Plague

9. The people grumbled against God and continued in rebellion. Though God had spared them, and Moses and Aaron had supplicated before the Lord to have the mercy He showed, yet the people blamed them (v. 41).

So are all sinners. We too were once sinners/enemies, dear brothers and sisters. We too grumbled against the Lord.

10. The burning wrath of God was/is against all those who rebel. This is to you who continue to grumble and sin against the Lord. Those who are against Him, He desires to “consume them instantly.” (v. 45) His anger burns against you. It is only His merciful patience with you, bought by the blood of Christ, that gives you the breath to live and keeps Him from destroying you in Hell right now. He could take away your life at any moment, and He would be absolutely just in doing so; “for the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

Yet, Christians, notice that against Moses and Aaron plead on behalf of the people (v. 46). So must we. Though sinners refuse the gospel and continue to rebel, even in hostility, yet our response must be to plead for them—that God would have mercy.

11. The plague ravaged the people, just as sin and death do with all sinners. Because of their sins, God sent a plague among the people (v.46)—He administered justice. The plague of death, the wages of sin, will take the life of all who continue in it.

12. Aaron, according to the will of Moses, the one who sent him, took for a soothing aroma before the Lord to make atonement (46-48). He offered incense on behalf of the people to appease God’s wrath. On account of this atonement through Aaron’s mediation, “the plague had been checked” (50).

Aaron was a symbol of Him to come. Christ is our Mediator. He did the will of Him who sent Him (as Moses was “god” to Aaron and Aaron was Moses’ prophet—Exodus 4:14-16). Christ made atonement for the people of the Lord.

For His offering, Christ offered up His own life (cf. Hebrews 8:3, 9:28). Christ stood “between the dead and the living” (v. 48) just as Aaron had done. Thus He checked the plague of death. The power of death no longer has its reign over those whom Christ has separated to be alive. Thus, just as only those whom Aaron separated to be alive were kept from death by the plague, so also only those whom Christ makes alive will be spared from the wrath of God and ultimate death by the plague of sin.

---

[1] Gaebelein, Frank, The Expositor’s Commentary, Number 16:3.

Read more »

Is Theology Important?

(I have previously posted this elsewhere--but I feel that I should post it on this venue as well; and I should have done so long ago).

Theology has been given a bad name in the church today. Many people see theology as a weapon used by radical Bible-bashing-out-of-sync-fundamentalists who just want to win arguments and degrade people. It is seen as impractical, leading only to knowledge, and knowledge in itself, as the Bible is so very clear (1 Cor. 8:1), while love builds up (and so theology is seen to be the upset of Christian practice in love and compassion). But is this understanding of theology correct? I mean, after all, we have this forum on here that is titled "theology".

“Evangelical theology is not a popular cause these days. In many evangelical churches, theology of any stripe is something for which apologies are rendered from the pulpit whenever an intrepid preacher ventures onto its turf.” -John G. Stackhouse, Jr.

I believe, and have found this to be true in every single case, this is an absolute truth, that theology is an essential study of every Christian. Now, before you get angry, hear me out. I am not saying that every Christian should read Theological books every waking moment (though I think it would be beneficial for every believer to study good theological books, such as Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (it may be long, but each section is pretty short), Graeme Goldsworthy's According to Plan, and books such as these). So why study theology?

First of all, the Puritans, who were probably the people who knew the Bible inside and out, were heavy theologians. They knew theology as the queen of all sciences. This is because theology effects the whole of a person.

J.I. Packer, one of the most respected Christian teachers today says,

Quote:

“Having come to faith in my first term at Oxford, in 1944, I was nurtured in a fellowship where zeal for Christ and evangelism, and fortitude in the face of criticism, were magnificently present, but where the operative theology was limited to a few Bible-based, surface-level ideas about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and personal faith and faithfulness. The accepted view of theological inquiry was that it was an unspiritual and dangerous distraction from the real demands of discipleship, unfruitfully muddling the mind and hardening the heart. In my foreword to Bruce Milne’s fine little handbook of theology, Know the Truth, I recounted what a fool I had made of myself by explaining to my college chaplain that theology (not bad theology, but theology as such) is poison to the soil. I was at that time a very young convert, naively regurgitating what those teaching me to love and serve my Lord had told me. Though I soon saw the stupidity of thus rubbishing theology and started profiting from the Puritans, who were theologians to their fingertips, I never realized how theologizing can sanctify the mind and heart and deepen one’s doctrine, devotion, and doxology all together until I read the Institutes and found it happening to me as I followed Calvin’s argumentation.”

Theology comes from the Greek "Theos" = God and "Logos" = reason/understanding. So every Christian is a theologian.

Quote:

"The Bible speaks of us as knowing God and as being known by God. Both of these important facts are part of the theology that each of us builds up during the whole of our lives as Christians. Have you ever heard a person say (particularly in the middle of a discussion about the Bible), 'I'm no theologian, but...'? My answer to that is, 'Yes you are! All Christians are theologians, but some are more able theologians than others.' Every Christian by definition knows God, thinks about God and makes statements about God. So, you are a theologian. Part of being a Christian is that we do theology. That is, we put together different aspects of what we understand about God, and we build it into some kind of coherent understanding of our existence as God's redeemed peole living in the world."

-Graeme Goldsworthy

David F. Wells says,

Quote:

“Let us not think… that we really have a choice between having a theology and not having one. We all have our theologies, for we all have a way of putting things together in our own minds that, if we are Christian, has a shape that arises from our knowledge of God and his Word. We might not be conscious of the process. Indeed, we frequently are not. But at the very least we will organize our perceptions into some sort of pattern that seems to make sense to us. The question at issue, then, is not whether we will have a theology but whether it will be a good or bad one, whether we will become conscious of our thinking processes or not, and, more particularly, whether we will learn to bring all of our thoughts into obedience to Christ or not. The biblical authors had a theology in this sense, after all, and so too did Jesus. He explained himself in terms of biblical revelation, understood his life and work in relation to God, and viewed all of life from this perspective.”

Theology effects our view of the Bible and its coherence.

Quote:

"Biblical theology enables us to map out the unity of the Bible by looking at its message as a whole"

and

Quote:

"provides the basis for the interpretation of any part of the Bible as God's word to us."

-Graeme Goldsworthy

Quote:

"[Theology] is about seeing the truth of God, seeing the gaping chasm that lies between that truth and the nostrums of modernized society, seeing how to practice that truth in this world....Without theology, however, there is no faith, no believing, no Christian hope. And the Church's loss of preoccupation with theology goes a long way toward explaining its current weakness: it has inadvertently exchanged the sensibilities of modern culture for the truth of Christ."

-David F. Wells

Quote:

"Many doctrines of the Bible are intimately related. If a person holds to a deficient view of one doctrine, it will logically lead to a defective view of other related doctrines."

-Brian Schwertley

And good theology is important since human understanding can tend to deteriorate in proceeding generations.

Quote:

“All bad theology, it’s always like a bullet, bad theology for a generation goes in small, but it comes out that big.”

–Tommy Nelson

Quote:

“Stressing doctrinal identity will always be criticized by some as divisive and by others as non-relational. But for those who see beyond this generation and love the people in generations not yet born, clear doctrinal identity is a non-negotiable.”

–John Piper

So what about the Bible? Does the Bible say anything about the importance of good theology?

Quote:

“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”

–1 Timothy 4:16, NIV

Quote:

"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ"

-Ephesians 4:11-15

Jesus said,

Quote:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. Thsi is the great and foremost commandment."

-Matthew 22:37-38

Why study theology?

Wayne Grudem shows that part of the great commission is to teach new disciples to observe all that Christ has commanded us.

Quote:

"Now, to teach all that Jesus commanded, in a narrow sense, is simply to teach the content of the oral teaching of Jesus as it is recorded in the gospel narratives. However, in a broader sense, 'all that Jesus commanded' includes the interpretation and application of his life and teachings, because in the book of Acts is is implied that it contains a narrative of what Jesus continued to do and teach through the apostles after his resurrection"

.

He continues,

Quote:

"Although the basic reason for studying systematic theology is that it is a means of obedience to our Lord's command, there are some additional specific benefits that come from such study."

1. Helps us overcome our wrong ideas.
2. Helps us to be able to make better decisions later on new questions of doctrine that may arise.
3. It will helps us grow as Christians.
-Wayne Grudem

Yet the Bible is clear and all of these men whom I have quoted are convinced, theology is to be practical, not merely a head knowledge of facts. Theology can actually be harmful if it remains only as head knowledge, since it can cause us to be arrogant and it will not cause us to grow in our walk with the Lord Jesus Christ. So when studying theology we must make every effort to make our theology heart-knowledge, that it might cause us to walk closer to Christ and in His precepts. Theology is absolutely practical, it will effect every area of your life. Bad theology will cause you to have a deficient understanding of God and His ways and will cause you to teach falsehoods. We will all be held accountable on the day of judgement for our bad theologies, since they will lead us to transgressions, so let's root them out, and practice our theology.

Quote:

“Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.”

(James 1:22)

(I could quote many others upon this subject; but for the sake of brevity, I will leave this as it is--perhaps I will update this post down the road).

Read more »

Naturalism, ID, and Presuppositions

So, I'm going to accept the fact that most people aren't going to take the time to read my weblog because it's just too long (though Dr. Schreiner found the time to read my Resurrection post, and I'd personally suggest that you should too), and continue as usual. So to you all who don't read my posts just because they're too long, I guess just read the stuff that sounds interesting to you.

Clarence Page, a writer for the Louisville Courier Journal (or as some call it the Curious Journal), wrote an article titled: Debating Darwin, Yet Again. Page believes that knowing the truth about our orgin is not important. What does Page consider more important? He is far more concerned that we are losing jobs to India, Ireland, and other nations. According to Mr. Page, "some Americans would rather fuss and fret about whether man evolved from the apes," since this is a far less important issue, and apparently should be given the back-burner.

Why is Page upset? Because last week in Topeka, Kansas, the "Kansas state school board opened hearings... to hear new challenges to the teaching of Darwin." The topic on the menu: Intelligent Design--the insistence that there was an intelligent creator of the universe, rather than that the universe was created by random chance through mere evolutionary processes.

What is the big uproar? Shouldn't a logical, balanced approach to teaching be administered in America's schools? According to Page, when ID proponents say they want to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools, what they really mean is, "they want to impose their religious values on schools and everybody else."

But isn't that what evolutionists are doing? Do they really think that they are dealing merely with objectively scientific facts? If they do, they have deceived themselves quite nicely.

Now, Page does note that "the scientific community does not reject religion. In fact, many scientists are quite religious." Well, actually, all the scientists are religious. As Dr. Ronald Nash explains, "Religion is an inescapable given in life. All humans have something that concerns them ultimately, and whatever it is, that object of ultimate concern is that person's God [or rather, god]." (Life's Ultimate Questions, 19). In other words, all of these scientists have faith in something and they are all working to some ultimate end--otherwise, they are not human. As Nash further explains, "Whatever a person's ultimate concern may be, it will have an enormous influence on everything else the person does or believes; that is one of the things ultimate conerns are like." (ibid.)

All humans, even scientists, have presuppositions: "All human beliefs rest upon other beliefs that we presuppose or accept without support from arguments or evidence." (ibid. 19-20). These presuppositions affect how these scientists perceive and analyze that which they observe (I had a friend during my ungrad who was a graduate student and grader in Geological Sciences. While others observed things occurring and concluded evolutions, he observed them and concluded creation--and with good reason). Yet Page, writing for a very biased publication, states that though many scientists are religious (understatment), "Unfortunately, the theories and evidences put forth by the ID theorists have not held up under the rigor of peer review, publication in scientific journals and other standards by which the scientific establishment operates."

That's a very convenient and elusive statement he makes. Nowhere is there a mention as to what these scientists' religious beliefs/convictions are. How do we know that they aren't all liberal "Christians," or Buddhists, or that they worship themselves? If their presuppositions are off, everything they perceive will be skewed. It would be like a person with 20/20 vision looking through bi-focals--everything will be misperceived. Or it would be like looking through the top of the car windshield (the darkended part that is made to stop the glare from the sun) and concluding that a storm is coming because you seem some clouds in the sky.

Yet I think Page does give us a clue as to what the scientists' whom he notes religions are like: "When I was growing up back in the 1950s, my teachers never seemed to have much trouble reconciling science with our personal religious views. Both science and religion were ways for us to understand the universe, they said. The questions that rational science could not explain, we answered with our faith." So, according to Page, faith is not rational, for one. And for two, the people whom he is speaking about are not those who hold to a holistic Christian worldview, but rather those who have rejected portions of Biblical Christianity in order to hold to twentieth century scientific dogma. They only use religion to fill in the blanks because they don't want to accept the full-throttle naturalistic worldview because it leads to meaningless existence and the rejection of all ethical standards.

Why should ID be included in school curricula? Because, for one, post-modernity (going Mohler on you all) and its god (its own scientific observations) cannot answer some of the most basic questions. In fact, they need to act as though such questions do not exist, lest they have to reject their whole system because it does not stand up to logical scruitiny.

One problem is that, where did all of this come from? To accept that the universe has always just existed leads necessarily to an infinite-regress, and plenty of philosophers and mathematicians through history could tell you that real infinite regressions are impossible. So if the universe has a beginning, it has to have someone/something to create it--unless you want to take the absurd leap of faith and accept that something came from nothing.

Then there is the problem of where did life come from? Even if you could get past the dilemma of the universe, science has yet to actually answer how life started. We know that electricity will not bring things that have never been alive to life--neither will chemical reactions.

A third problem, and perhaps the most devastating of all, is that raised by Richard Taylor. You'll have to read Nash's book (54-57) to get a complete rundown of the argument, but I'll give you the summation.

While it could be perceived that, by a chance accident, though implausible, the natural order was brought about,

"It would be irrational for one to say both that his sensory and cognitive faculties had a natural, nonpurposeful orgin and also that they reveal some truth with respect to something other than themselves, something that is not merely inferred form them. If their orgin can be entirely accounted for in terms of chance variations, natural selection, and so on, without supposing that they somehow embody and express the purposes of some creative being, then the most we can say of them is that they exist, that they are complex and wondrous in their construction, and are perhaps in other respects interesting and remarkable. We cannot say that they are, entirely by themselves, reliable guides to any truth whatever, save only what can be inferred from their own structure and arrangement. If, on the other hand, we do assume that they are guides to some truths having nothing to do with themselves, then it is difficult to see how we can, consistently with that supposition, believe them to have arisen by accident, or by the ordinary workings of purposeless forces, even over ages of time."

"Natrualists seem caught in a trap. If they are consistent with their naturalistic presuppositions, they must assume that our human cognitive faculties are a product of chance, purposeless forces. But if this is so, naturalists appear inconsistent when they place so much trust in those faculties. But... they assume that their cognitive faculties are trustworthy and do provide accurate information about the world, they seem compelled to abandon one of the cardinal presuppositions of metaphysical naturalism and conclude that their cognitive faculties were formed as a result of the activity of some purposeful, intelligent agent." (Nash, 56-57).

Thus, naturalism must conclude that Science, the very thing it is dependent upon, cannot be perceived by man's rational capabilities--since those capabilities are mere chance.

So, who is lacking evidence? Sure, perceived scientific discovery by human rationale which is jaded by presuppositions seems to leave Intelligent Design and Creationism with some holes (one's that people in both camps have shown do not stand up to scruitiny), but evolutionists don't even have a leg to stand upon.

So why do people continue to hold to these views? It is because they know that if they accept that there is a creator, if they keep on searching for a coherent worldview, they will end up at Christianity. If they end up at Christianity, they must submit to Christ as Lord, they must admit their own sinfulness and their complete reliance upon God's grace, and they must give up the sins which they so passionately embrace. May God have mercy upon them--pray for them, my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Read more »

School's Out for Summer?!

I finished my exams this morning. Unfortunately, I don't think I did as well as I would have liked to have done... but I don't think it'll hurt my grade too badly.

Tonight I start my job as a valet at 1400 Willow. I start at Dick's on Monday.

So, what should I do now that it's summer...ah, vacation?

Should I:

Sleep in as much as possible, just read books for pleasure, and do as little as I can?

Look for a wife?

Or start studying and reading for my summer classes? I have two classes (one starting in 4 weeks and one in about 8 weeks), and for them I have to read a total of 7 books (I guess I'm either a glutton for punishment, or I'm just stupid and don't take into account that I need a break).

Hmmm... choices, choices...

Read more »

Pray or Praise?

Pastor Schreiner yesterday finished up Ephesians, starting from 6:18 and ending the book. Most of the time of the sermon was spent talking about prayer. In it he made some good points, but one struck me as alarming true.

I have heard it said, and Pastor Schreiner has as well, that the prayers of mature believers will be spent praising God rather than asking for things from Him. I agree with Pastor Schreiner that this certainly is not the case--in fact, I'd say it is deceiving.

While I believe that as we grow in the faith we should spend more time praising God (since we grow in the understanding of our own depravity and the greatness and fullness of God's effectual grace), it is not true that most of our prayer time is to be spent praising God--as this is found to be the case no where in Scripture.

First, when the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, the model prayer that He gave them was laden with requests of God. Our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread; forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors; lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one; for thine is the kingdom, power, and glory forever (requests in bold).

Second, in the Ephesians passage, Paul, continuing to speak of Spiritual warfare ("praying", as the ESV translates it, is a participle, continuing the thought from vv. 10-17 of how we are to "stand firm"), tell his audience to pray "with all prayer and petition." In other words, for the sake of being able to stand firm in the faith, we are to continually ("at all times in the Spirit") be on the alert spiritually, asking and pleading with God for such things as perseverence, guidance, boldness, etc for ourselves and others.

In Colossians, Paul speaks similarly when he says, "Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ" (Colossians 4:2-3). Paul is telling them, and therefore us, as well, to ask things of God--in other words, to be in complete dependence upon God.

And asking of God shows our complete dependence upon God; that is why we pray. When we are asking God for help in all things, we are acknowledging our depraved state and seeking His help, since it is by His grace that we are able to do anything good. To not ask God is to have reliance, or at least to claim reliance upon ourselves alone (even if this is done unintentionally). This is nothing short of blasphemy (though we are all guilty of such self-reliance)!

Third, Jesus commands us: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and he who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him?" (Matthew 7:7-11).

We are commanded to ask! (I could write a book exegeting passages on asking for things from God!) Jesus tells His disciples, "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it" (John 14:13-14).

We ask so that we will get what we need. God has made us absolutely dependent upon Him so that we will ask, and so that we will receive from His hand. If we do not ask, all that we receive will still come from God, but we will not acknowledge it as readily, and we will not give God the glory of the benefactor, as He deserves. Why are we to ask of Jesus? Why will He give whatever we ask in His name? "So that the Father may be glorified in the Son." When the Son gives, the Father gets the glory--and the Son lives for the Father's glory.

Returning to Matthew 7, we see that God delights to give good gifts to those who ask. He wants to do it! If God is the giver, then we must acknowledge Him as the benefactor. If He is the benefactor, and we are the beneficiaries, it shows that God is the greatest, and thus we must acknowledge Him as God Almighty.

Now, I'm about to wax Piper on you all (that's right, it's still "you all" and not "y'all"), so stay with me. Which gives more glory, to hall buckets up a hill and to dump them in a fresh-water spring, or to rush up the hill, plunge your face in the refreshing, cool water, and drink until your heart is delighted and your thirst is quenched? Which one truly shows the value of the spring? Obviously the latter shows how much we treasure the self-sufficiency of the spring. If we merely dump our own effort it, then we are glorying in our own efforts. But if we delight in the thing itself (here the spring, which is an analogy for God), then it shows the worth of the thing itself. It is the giver, we are the receivers.

Now, our praises do not belittle God, rather they show our appreciation of His goodness, kindness, and mercy--they reveal our gratitude of His willingness and ability to give. Thus prayer must have both asking and praising. To ask of God reveals how much we depend upon Him, like a helpless child depends on his/her parents for food, the bottle, and the occassional change. So ask, and give glory to the Giver of every good gift!

Read more »

Simple Exposition of Matthew 28:18-20

And Jesus spoke when coming to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and upon the earth is given to me. Therefore by means of going[1], make disciples of all the Gentile peoples, by means of baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, by means of teaching them to keep as much as I commanded you; and behold I am with all of you all the days until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20, LTT

---

[1] This could also be: “as you go”, indicating that this is what you are to do throughout your life, as you live the Christian life before the world.

What Must You Do? Make Disciples

What Is a Disciple? One who is a committed follower

Who Are They Disciples of? The Lord Jesus and yourself as their teachers

Make Disciples Of Whom? All the Gentile Peoples

How Do You Do This? By Going (or As You Go), By Baptizing, By Teaching

Where Do You Go? Both Where You Are (Going forth temporally, or throughout your life (until the end of the age or your life, whichever comes first)) and To Where God Leads You (Going Spatially to where God leads you, To all the lost sheep of the people groups of the world)

What Is Baptism? Immersing a person under water

How Do You Baptize? In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

What Does This Signify? The Making of True Converts, Those Regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto eternal life

What Are You to Teach? As Much as, and no more or less than all that Jesus has commanded you: i.e. the whole counsel of God in Scripture

Who Are You to Teach? All Those Whom You Are Making into Disciples

Why Do This? Because Christ has authority in heaven and upon the earth

Who Gave This to Him? The Father

How Much Authority Does He Have? All: He is the Sovereign Lord over all that takes place in heaven and upon the Earth: i.e. nothing happens except by His ordaining it

What Is Your Hope if Trouble Comes? Christ Has Ordained It

What Does This Authority Mean? Christ owns all, and so He has sovereign right over all, and He is staking claim of all the sheep that are His throughout the nations

What Is His Promise for Your Obedience? He will be with you

How Long? All the days

When? Until the end of the age

How Is He With You? By the Holy Spirit, whom He has sent

Read more »

The greatest rock band ever...graduating! From Left to Right: Chris, Lenny, and Nick. This pretty well marked the disbandment of Not I... or did it? 

Read more »