General

We Use Faith Everyday

March 15, 20090

The world is full of modern day Thomases.  You remember Thomas; he’s the one who has gone down in history as ‘Doubting Thomas’.  How would you like to have that tag?  Its somewhat of a bad rap.  How many have never doubted God?

In the story where Thomas got his moniker, Jesus says, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.”  John 20:29b  He is challenging Thomas, as well as the rest of us to believe beyond what we can see.

Whether we realize it or not we exercise “faith” everyday in all manner of things:  things spiritual as well as things routine.  Lets look at some examples.  When you walk into a dark room the first thing you do is locate the light switch and flip it on.  Did you make sure the wires were connected properly?  Did you make sure electricity was flowing through the wires from the utility company?  No you just flipped the switch.  You had confidence, you had faith in the technology we call electricity.  Do you fully understand how electricity works?  Could you wire a house?  When you enter a room for a meeting, you select a chair and you sit down.  How many of us look under the chair and examine the construction of the chair to make sure it will hold us?  No, you just sit down.  You have confidence, you have faith in the people who built the chair.    You sit in the driver’s seat of your car and you turn the key or push the ignition button fully believing the car is going to start.  You have confidence, you have faith in the manufacture of the car.

We exercise ths kind of faith everyday yet we struggle to believe God, the creator and sustainer of all that we see, know and more.  Sometimes we exhibit more faith in the creators of our everyday appliances and items than we do in God.

General

Mercy Rather than Merit

March 5, 20090

I have recently had a few people half-sarcastically ask me if certain ‘sacrifices’ would get them into heaven.  They had to put up with difficult people and/or difficult situations.  Their comments were made out of frustration and part in jest, but they do reflect a common mindset.   “What must I do to obtain eternal life?”, with the emphasis on “do”.

Is there some minimum level of sacrifice, giving, or good deeds that will meet the criteria for entrance into heaven?  Obviously to get a reward such as heaven one must do sufficient good things to earn it.

Heaven cannot be obtained by merit, but by mercy.  Not in acts of mercy that we might perform to our fellow man.  That would be another form of giving or doing good deeds.  No, our acts of mercy cannot earn heaven for us.  Nothing can earn eternal life for us.

We all have failed to live up to God’s perfect moral law – even the best of humanity.  There must be an atonement for our failure.  God has acted in mercy toward us through the atonement of the suffering and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.

General

, , ,

The Law of Nature – Part 2

March 2, 20090

Many will claim that what we refer to as the law of nature or the moral law is merely our instincts and the Herd Instinct. We all know about instincts like feeling hungry, or motherly love, or sexual instinct. Sometimes we may feel the desire to help another person in agreement with the herd instinct; but feeling that desire and choosing it are two different things. What happens if you hear a cry for help from someone in danger; helping them will place you at risk. You will be conflicted with two desires; one to provide assistance and another to keep out of it due to the instinct for survival. Yet something inside of you tells you that you should follow the instinct to help and deny the urge to keep out. What is this? It is the moral law. You probably want to be safe more than you want to help the person in trouble, but yet something inside you causes you to follow the weaker instinct. It is the moral law.

Throughout history we have viewed some instincts as better than others. As in the example above we may say that the instinct to help someone in trouble is better than others. But instincts themselves are neither good or bad. Certainly instincts such as the sexual instinct or the instinct to fight must be restrained more often than an instinct such as motherly love. But a husband must follow his sexual instinct with his wife at certain times and a soldier must follow his instinct to fight at the right moment while the instinct of motherly love may have to be restrained in order to be fair to other children, and can even in and of itself be perverted.  Even the mere idea that an instinct can be perverted tells us it can be good, pointing to good and bad, or right and wrong – a standard.

To choose the right instinct at the right time requires something other than the instincts themselves. It is much like the keys on the keyboard I am using to type this. The keys themselves do not determine which should be typed when. Something above them does. In order for what is typed to make words and sense something other than the keys must determine which key should be pressed and when.

In addition, a standard determines the quality of the output of that decision. We call some documents and stories good while others are not. Even simpler, for a word to be a word the letters must be typed in a certain order. As our instincts are used there is a standard we use to determine when they should be followed and when they should be restrained.   We do not merely follow them or restrain them, we choose to do one or the other.  Our instincts cannot choose themselves which to follow.  Something above them must make this choice – the moral law.

credit to C.S. Lewis – “Mere Christianity”

General

, , , ,

The Law of Nature – Part 1

February 26, 20090

We have all stated things such as “how would you like it if anyone did the same thing to you?”, “That’s my seat, I was there first”, “Leave him alone, he didn’t do anything to you”, “Come on, you promised.”

What is interesting about this is that the person saying them is not merely saying there is something inconvenient about the act or it does not happen to please them. They are appealing to some standard of behavior which he expects the other person to know about. They are appealing to a sense of fairness.  The other person is not apt to reply, forget your standard. Rather they will seek to justify their actions with some reason or excuse. They will try and come up with some reason as to why this particular instance is an exception to the norm and why they are justified in their action. It appears that both persons acknowledge the existence of this standard of behavior. The very fact that we will attempt to justify our actions proves our belief in an acceptable standard of behavior. We use the very same standard of behavior to defend our exception to it in certain cases. The mere fact alone that we debate in such instances shows that we acknowledge the existence of this standard of behavior. Debating is an attempt to prove that you are right and the other is wrong, and vice-versa. There can be no right and wrong if there is no standard of what is right.

In older days this was called the law of nature. It has more recently become known as the law of human nature or the moral law. In modern times we tend to identify the law of nature with such things as gravity, or if you mix certain chemicals they will produce certain things, or like will beget like, etc. Those of older times recognized that man’s existence was governed by the moral law just as he was governed by the law of gravity. I will discuss the differences and similarities of these laws more fully in a future article.

One of the objections to the Law of Nature being an absolute in mankind is the differences in what is right and wrong from age to age, civilization to civilization, and various cultures. If you actually examine these different ages, civilizations and cultures what you will see is there are actually far more similarities than differences. For example, selfishness has never been admired. Men may have disagreed whether a man may have one wife or three, but they have always said you cannot have whatever woman you want. A soldier who runs from the battlefield has always been looked upon as cowardly.

Some will argue against the presence of an absolute moral law by stating that as man evolves he simply evolves to a ‘better’ or more civilized creature. First, in doing so he undermines his own argument. For what is he measuring against to determine that man’s actions are ‘better’ or more civilized at one time or another. In order to do a comparative he must have a standard to measure against as an absolute. Secondly, quite often the ‘better’ or more civilized notion comes merely from an understanding of fact rather than an improved morality. For example someone may say mankind burned witches at the stake years ago as an illustration of how we have evolved. The reality is that the reason we do not put witches to death today is because we do not believe witches exist (at least as thought of in days past). We have not ceased putting to death witches based on a new or improved moral understanding but rather because we do not believe there are witches. Certainly if we did believe there were witches who used their powers to kill or drive others mad or other similar things many would feel that if anyone should be put to death, they should. This does not stand as an argument against a moral law and in favor of the evolution of man’s thought but rather it actually again argues in favor of an accepted standard of behavior – for how would we determine that it was wrong to burn these people at the stake and we should no longer do so?

General

, ,

God and other gods

February 12, 20090

In my previous post I began addressing the question(s) posted by Brian from Kentucky.  I wrote about intelligent people and their belief or lack of belief in God.  In this post I will address the second part of Brian’s question which regards people believing in a god other than the one presented in the scriptures – the God of Christians and Jews.

The question asked, “if we were born in another culture that believed in something else, do you think it would make just as much sense? Did we just get lucky to be born in the right culture with the right beliefs around us?”

Listen to these words from Dr. William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. “(In) Romans chapters 1 and 2 in the New Testament Paul says that salvation is available to any person who responds to the light of nature and conscience, if he hasn’t heard the Good News about Jesus Christ, say, a person living in North America during the Middle Ages, before missionaries came. If this person will respond to the witness of God in nature—he can see there’s a Creator God, say—and he senses the moral law of God written on his heart, and he responds, Paul says in Romans chapter 2 in verse 7, God will give that person eternal life. Now that doesn’t mean he’s saved apart from Christ, but it would mean that he may not have a conscious knowledge of Christ, which is the basis of his salvation. He would be like a person in the Old Testament who was saved through Christ, even though he hadn’t yet heard of Christ; he responded to the light that he had. So I think God gives sufficient grace or salvation to every person. God is fair and He’s loving and He wants everyone to come to know Him and be saved.”

Paul here shows us that God’s power and deity and His character are made known by the creation around us. In Romans 2:15 Paul tells us that the requirements of the law are written on the hearts of the Gentiles who do not have the written testimony. He continues by saying,”their consciences also bearing witness.” God has written His moral law on the hearts of all men. Therefore they are morally responsible before God.

From this witness of both creation and conscience man is compelled to believe in a creator God.  It is more reasonable to believe in the existence of God than it is to not.  Man must truly deny the nature imprinted on him in order to not believe in the existence of God.

One of the most common arguments against Christian singularism or particularism (ref: we believe in one God and one God only and believe He is the God revealed and identified in the scriptures and through His Son Jesus the Christ), is based on the tenet that religious beliefs are culturally relative.  In other words, someone born and raised in a culture that does not teach Christ cannot be expected to be saved by Christ.  Where this argument fails is that it attempts to invalidate the position of Christian singularism by criticizing the way a person came to hold that position.  The fact of where and when a person was born holds no relevance to the validity of one’s beliefs.  To give a non-religious example; if you had been born in ancient Greece you would have believed the sun orbits the earth.  Does that somehow imply that our belief that the earth orbits the sun is therefore false or even unjustified?

Part of the blame for Christian singularism being unpalatable to so many lies on the shoulders of those who hold that very belief.  The issue is, what shall be the fate of unbelievers outside of our particular religious tradition?  The Christian singularist too often consigns them to hell.  This is unacceptable to the conscience and reason of those both inside and outside of the Christian tradition.  It is always followed by the question of, “how can a loving God send them to hell?”   This goes against the very nature of God that we love to preach.  Stated simply, it doesn’t make sense and as we all know ‘God Makes Sense’.

Look in 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, and Ezekiel chapter 18.  In all of these passages of scripture we see where God wants all people to be saved; “The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”   In Ezekiel we read that God finds no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.  He would rather that all would turn from their wickedness and live.

So how does God accomplish this apart from Christ?  He doesn’t.  The atoning sacrifice of Christ is the only means of salvation for all.  It is a universal atonement, even for those who have never heard of Him.  His sacrifice on the cross and His resurrection are means of forgiveness and atonement for all people of all time.  Another way to help think about this is to consider those of the Old Testament.  The provision for their salvation is through Christ, even though they had never heard of Him.

God does not judge people who have never heard of Christ based on whether or not they have placed their faith in Christ.  Look at Romans 2:7, “to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life.”  This is a sincere offer of salvation.  This is not saying that people can be saved apart from Christ, rather it is saying that the benefits of Christ’s atoning death can be applied to people without their having a conscious knowledge of Him.  God judges people based on the light of revelation given to them.  As has been illustrated above this general revelation is available to all through nature and that which God has written on their hearts or conscience (Romans 2:15).

If any such person will respond to the witness of God in nature (for he can see there is a creator God, remember it far more reasonable to believe this) and as he senses the moral law of God written on his heart and responds, this person will be given the gift of eternal life (Romans 2:7).  The possibility of this is provided through the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

So, ‘God Makes Sense’ to people of all cultures.

General

God and Intelligent People

February 4, 20096

Brian from Kentucky asked the following:

Something came up in my small group the other day – If God makes so much sense to us, then why are there so many smart people that believe in something else? There are plenty of people out there that are way more educated and way smarter than any Christian I know that believe in another God or believe in no God at all.
Also, if we were born in another culture that believed in something else, do you think it would make just as much sense? Did we just get lucky to be born in the right culture with the right beliefs around us?

There are actually two distinct questions here so I am going to treat them in two different posts.  First of all, thanks Brian for your questions.

The first question deals with the belief of intelligent people in regard to God.  Brian, you are absolutely correct in your assessment that a number of intelligent people do not believe in any God, while others believe in a different god than this site professes.  It is a common misconception though that intelligent people do not believe in God (or some god).  Throughout history some of the wisest and most intelligent people have professed their belief in a God of creation.  The bible tells us of the man Solomon and his legendary wisdom.  Certainly Solomon believed in God.  I will not focus on him to make this point since our knowledge of Solomon is primarily from the bible and we would in a sense be using the bible to support the bible.

Isaac Newton is regarded by many as one of the most intelligent people and most respected scientists to have lived.  During his lifetime Newton wrote over one million words regarding theology.  Indeed, he spent more time on theology than on science.

Another great man of science in history, Galileo Galilei, spent much of his life showing the harmony of the scripture and science.  While his scientific views seemed to have gotten him into hot water with the church, as he held to a Copernican cosmology, while the church had for years based their belief on Aristotelian cosmology (with the earth at the center of all things), it was probably actually his sharp sarcasm that got him into more trouble than his beliefs.  He never met a debate that he didn’t like and was quick to enter into argument where his intellect and knowledge, combined with his sharp wit would often humiliate his opponent.

Even well-known scientists of a more modern era, Einstein and Stephen Hawking have admitted that a creator God is the most plausible solution to the ultimate source of what we know – albeit Einstein admitted it begrudgingly, he admitted it none the less.  Great minds of other disciplines besides science and math have expressed their belief in God throughout history as well.

The perception that intellectuals do not believe in God is due in part to the fact that some are extremely vociferous in their objections.

Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Grahan Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia has been nominated for the Nobel prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world.  Dr. Schaefer states in regard to the resistance to the idea of a beginning of the universe and subsequently a belief that God is the author and origin of that beginning, “Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing–a direction of discomfort to some physicists.”

The direction Dr. Shaeffer refers to is the fact that if the universe has a cause, it must have a creator, and if it has a creator and a cause, people ought to be compelled to line up with that cause. For many, the idea of lining up with anything greater than themselves or their ideas is frightening at best.

This is supported by the Apostle Paul’s words in I Corinthians 1:18 thru 31.  In this passage of scripture Paul states, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ “  Paul has quoted Isaiah 29:14 in the last half of those verses above.  God predicted that those who are considered to be and who consider themselves to be wise would doubt His primary message, the gospel.

In verse 23 of the passage Paul writes, “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.  Why would it be “foolishness to the Gentiles?”  Man, by nature is an arrogant creature.  At the risk of painting with too broad of a brush, those who consider themselves wise are often the most arrogant.  It is utter foolishness to those who like to sit around and debate wisdom to consider that the answer to man’s problems is actually the act of self-humiliation by the creator, the very one who should embody wisdom.  The arrogance of man often gets in the way of him finding the real answers.  Paul, recognized this trait.  Solomon also recognized it as he wrote in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

Thirdly, would man really want a God who is no smarter than he is?  While we struggle in our arrogance to believe in Him, logic tells us that one who could and is charged with the creation and maintenance of the universe would need to be significantly wiser and smarter than any man.  This is part of what Paul means when he states in verse 25, “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength”

One cannot prove the existence of God, but logic leads one in that direction much more readily than it leads one to a void – which is what would be if God did not exist.
In my next post I will address the second part of Brian’s questions relating to people believing in other gods, especially other cultures.

General

, , , , , ,