Tessellation

Losing the lost; non theism or atheism. - R Boshoff

2012-02-05T05:56:00.000-08:00

A few years back the Church converted the lost and the non-religious! Today the new atheism is converting the saved and the non-religious! To some people the Christian faith seems irrational and inconsistent. They see faith as a whole as an escape from the “real world”. Modern Atheism would like us to believe that the crying need today is not for more intelligent people or even more gifted people but rather for more reasonable and scientific people. A people who are free from the system of religion, free thinkers, normal everyday people that can clearly determine the premise of the obvious revealed by mathematical calculations and scientific reasoning.

Sadly, many Christians watch more TV in a week than they’ll spend in a year preparing themselves to answer questions about God and the Bible. Don’t leave defending the faith to your pastor. The church needs an army of saints who are able to articulate the truth persuasively and graciously. We are all called to “contend earnestly for the faith”.

The stark reality for the believer in the pew and the Chaplain in the street is we are under the same attack from a new Atheism and enquiring minds from all walks of life. Never before has the world been so desperately asking for answers to crucial questions of faith, and never before has the world been so frantically committed to the idea that no answers are possible from Christianity. The reality for the Church is the Christian Faith is not finding itself in a Judeo/Christian environment anymore; the world around us is greatly relativistic and seriously agnostic. Trickle answers and uneasy gesticulations will just not engage the secular mind anymore.

What is happening in our world today? There is a general “zeitgeist” or spirit of our times cast a long shadow into the fate of the Christian faith. Non-believe seem to be more logical than some believe. Norman Geisler says “we live in a strange world where the relativity of Einstein is considered to be absolute, and the absolutes of the Bible are considered relative.”

Jesus makes a startling promise to his disciples in John 4 He says: “Open your eyes and look at the fields, for they are ready for harvest. The reaper is already receiving pay and gathering fruit for eternal life, so the sower and reaper can rejoice together. For in this case the saying is true: ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap what you didn’t labor for; others have labored, and you have benefited from their labor.” Jim Patrick “A Christian must keep the faith, but not to himself.”

What is the mission of the Christian? To live comfortably for the rest of their lives until death comes or the Savior arrives? No! What did Jesus ask us to do? Charlie Campbell laments “Can you imagine being an ambassador for your country and neglecting to prepare yourself for the common questions that people ask about your homeland? That would be irresponsible. You’d be without a job very quickly. God tells us that we are His ambassadors. Seeing that that is the case, I think it is important that every Christian consider the following question: Am I ready to answer the common questions people ask about God? Am I ready to explain to someone why I believe the Bible is trustworthy? “

Matthew 28:16-20 emphasizes “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This is even what the promise of the Holy Spirit entails, Luke reminds us in Acts 1:8 “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem (your family or city,), and in all Judea and Samaria (your state and country), and to the ends of the earth.”

The reality is we do witness, if we know it or not! We are a witness everywhere at any given time to all given people! Martyn Lloyd-Jones reminds us that “The main trouble with the Christian Church today is that she is too much like a clinic, too much like a hospital; that is why the great world is going to hell outside!... Look at the great campaign, look at it objectively and look at it from God's standpoint. Forget yourself and your temporary troubles and ills for the moment; fight in the army. It is not a clinic you need; you must realize that we are in a barracks, and that we are involved in a mighty campaign.”

What is going on in our world today?
It was the great English author & theist G.K. Chesterton that remarked that “These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.”
Noted Atheist/Philosopher Sam Harris writes “The problem with religion, because it's been sheltered from criticism, is that it allows people to believe en masse what only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation…faith does not offer a strong link between our beliefs and actual states of the world.” He goes further in his book letters to a Christian Nation “An average Christian, in an average church, listen to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse…”
He says “If I had a choice to clear out rape or the Christian religion, I would clear out Christianity.”

The author of the God delusion Richard Dawkins writes “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
The Richard Dawkins foundation in their mission statement declares “The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.”

Even recently in the news we hear about atheists becoming more evident!
Clyde Rathbone South Africa under 21 Captain and Australian Rugby player said in a recent News article “I feel enormously enlightened and humbled by the works of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.”

Dr George Claassen Journalist from the popular newspaper “Die Burger” brother of old Springbok captain Wynand Claassen wrote a popular book titled “Faith, superstition and other wishful thinking – perspectives on discoveries and irrational things.” And he is currently petitioning religion and the bible to be removed from all schools in South Africa.

South African Atheists
Zackie Achmat, AIDS activist, (born 1962) David Benatar, professor of philosophy, Barry Duke, activist, journalist, editor of The Freethinker (born 1947) ‘Nadine Gordimer, activist, writer, Nobel laureate (born 1923), John Odendaal, surveyor of Biblical hermeneutics (born 1980), Ronnie Kasrils, politician, Jacques Rousseau, activist, social commentator (born 1971) Harold Rubin, visual artist, musician (born 1932) Joe Slovo, politician (1926–1995) Lewis Wolpert, author, biologist, broadcaster (born 1929).

Reasons we do not witness:
Behavioral psychologists tell us that there are only two primary and dominant motivational factors at play in our lives; the fear of loss and the hope of reward. There could be a few remarks that take the “wind out of our sails”.
First, the fear of loss when we hear the following questions:

“That’s true for you but not for me” (Relativism)
As long as you keep your opinions to yourself then we'll all get along. But does the relativist stay behind the line when he tells you to? If my belief is only true for me, then why isn’t your belief only true for you? Aren’t you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do? You say that no belief is true for everyone, but you want everyone to believe what you do.

“Who are you to judge others” (Judgmentalism)
What is interesting in these charges of arrogance and judgmentalism is this: Besides failing to define what is meant by “judgmentalism,” the accusers often act just as “arrogantly” and “judgmentally” as the “judgmental” ones. If the Christian (or any exclusivist) is denounced for judgmentalism, he can respond that his accuser is judging him for being judgmental!

“All religions are basically the same” (Pluralism)
All religions are not the same—Biblical Christianity is absolutely unique among all the religions and philosophies of mankind. Only in the Bible is God revealed as the one eternal, personal Creator, who brought the entire universe into existence by His own Word. Christianity alone is centered in the historical events associated with a Person—the birth, death, resurrection, and imminent, glorious return of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ alone, of all men in history, has conquered man's greatest enemy—death. All other religions of the world are fundamentally just one religion—one of salvation by works. The man Christ Jesus, alone of all men who ever lived, maintained in every respect a life of perfect holiness and full obedience to the Father, thus demonstrating that He was the God-Man. Christ alone offers salvation by grace alone, to be received only through faith in Him.

“The Bible is not reliable” (Fallibility)
Yes, the Bible is reliable. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks.
They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure.
This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation.
The variants are very minor. Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.
When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did.
They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ.
Do you?

“It’s not my calling, gifting or passion”
What does the Bible say about our calling?

2 Corinthians 6:1-2 says “As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. For he says, “In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you.” I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor and now is the day of salvation.” We are His fellow workers!

Jude 1:3 says “Dear friends, although I was eager to write you about the salvation we share, I found it necessary to write and exhort you to contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints once for all.” We need to content for the faith!

Titus 1:9 Paul says the Elders of the Church should be the ones “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” We need to refute and give an account!

Peter encourages us in 1 Peter 3:15 “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” If Jesus is Lord the natural result would be to give an answer why!

Listen to Clark Pinnock said that "an intelligent Christian ought to be able to point up the flaws in a non-Christian position and to present facts and arguments which tell in favor of the gospel. If our apologetic (defence of the faith) prevents us from explaining the gospel to any person, it is an inadequate apologetic."

Are you ready?

The Princeton theologian and apologist Benjamin Warfield suggests "we believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in him, not though it be irrational." We as Christians need to provide reasonable answers that makes sense to the audience we are speaking to. As the Church of Jesus we should “go into the entire world” to present a Gospel that speaks for itself.

Early friend of AA Samuel M. Shoemaker said that “most people are brought to faith in Christ not by argument for it but by exposure to it.” We need to set apart in our heart Jesus being Lord of our time, will, energy and witness as a Church! F.R. Beattie reminds us that "Christianity is either everything for mankind, or nothing. It is either the highest certainty or the greatest delusion. ... But if Christianity be everything for mankind, it is important for every man to be able to give a good reason for the hope that is in him in regard to the eternal verities of the Christian faith. To accept these verities in an unthinking way, or to receive them simply on authority, is not enough for an intelligent and stable faith."

My heart is broken for the lost and searching, and the question I ask every day is “Is Jesus visible in our community?” Do we provide people the opportunity to “Ask, seek and to knock?” Do we make sense or are we an exclusive franchise that clusters around our preferred groups. I see around our community with 24 Churches the timid struggle for Churches to “re-invent” itself, to find its niche, to make things more vibrant and even relevant. In contras I see Churches becoming places where ministers preach to itching ears gathering a people that are consumers rather than disciples.

I want to be part of the harvest! God makes the promise in Psalm 2:8-9 “Ask of me, and I will give [You] the nations [for] your inheritance, and the ends of the earth [for] your possession. 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; you shall dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel.”

Will we dare to ask?

True for You But Not for Me - Paul Copan.

2011-11-29T03:22:00.001-08:00

ABSOLUTELY RELATIVE

PART ONE

IMAGINE A MULTIPLE-CAR COLLISION at a busy intersection near your home. It’s an occurrence that shouldn’t be hard to picture. It may, in fact, strike a little too close to home, as it did for my family and me in June of 1997.

Now stretch your imagination further. Assume we live in a less lawsuit-happy world. Instead of all parties silently exchanging license and insurance information and driving away without admitting even a sliver of blame, everyone runs into the intersection to explain his or her side of the story: “You pulled in front of me!” “But I had the right of way. Don’t you know red means stop?” Pedestrians who witnessed the accident from the curb interject what they saw. A trucker with an elevated, commanding view of the intersection weighs in. Then perhaps the guilty party steps forward: “Well, actually, it was my fault. I was talking on my car phone. I wasn’t paying attention to what I was doing. I caused the accident.”

For all the post-accident debate, when a police officer arrives and begins taking notes, one truth will be clear: An accident happened. And in time, other truths will be determined. Ultimately, a description of the accident will emerge that corresponds to reality.

We live our lives relying on the belief that objective truth exists—if only we can find it. We gather evidence. Weigh credibility and truthfulness. Make difficult judgments. In the end, we arrive at a close proximity to truth. We can make truthful statements that describe with reasonable accuracy how events really happened. (Or, given the right evidence, we can determine truth regarding whether the car we bought was a lemon, or how our major life decisions were right or wrong, or if God is real.) We believe that if we had a helicopter over every intersection and a video camera inside each car—to see who is on the cell phone, or shaving, or twisting up the volume—we can even discover truth about “accidents.”

Truth is more than our subjective reporting of a car crash. It has objective existence. It has universal application.

Truth is true—even if no one knows it.

Truth is true—even if no one admits it.

Truth is true—even if no one agrees what it is.

Truth is true—even if no one follows it.

Truth is true—even if no one but God grasps it fully.

Although some states have given up trying to figure out whom to blame for car accidents—hence “no-fault” insurance—truth matters. And when the stakes are raised—when a child crossing the street is struck and killed, for example—finding the truth becomes essential. Serious circumstances remind us that the difficulty of finding truth is no excuse for not looking.

Enter the relativist. To the relativist, no “fact” is in all times and places true. He argues that because everyone’s point of view is different, we can’t ever know what really happened at the accident scene. In fact, the hard-core relativist says that given the slippery nature of what the rest of us mistakenly call “truth,” we can’t even settle on the fact that the accident actually happened.

As absurd as that viewpoint seems, it has arisen as a formidable opponent to the cause of truth.

Truth Wars
So deep is the struggle over truth beliefs that many see our country entrenched in a “culture war.” Old divisions like Catholic versus Protestant are dissolving, with new divisions emerging on the basis of competing sources of truth. One side—dubbed the “Orthodox”—maintains that there are objective standards of truth and morality, stemming from God, the Bible, or the moral order of the universe. With regard to abortion, for example, this side claims that God’s law declares the fetus is a human being whose life should not be taken. Christians aren’t the only ones in the Orthodox camp. Muslims, conservatives, and traditionalists of all stripes claim to possess the truth. Whatever our other disagreements, we share the belief that a universal truth exists.

In contrast, the other side—the “progressives”—says that personal, subjective judgment defines right and wrong, truth and untruth. Choices aren’t made with regard to God’s existence. They defer to an “autonomous self,” like the woman who assumes the absolute right to make a choice about what she does with her body, or to individually and independently decide if a fetus is a human person.

The two sides fighting the culture war are becoming increasingly polarized. There’s little room left for a middle ground. This deep struggle, however, isn’t a war over far-off social issues. The “culture war” takes place daily at work, home, and school. It is at the heart of heated battles over right and wrong in sexual morality, business ethics, sportsmanship, and a thousand other everyday arenas.

We need to remember that the culture war isn’t all that new. The belief that universal, objective truth (1) does not exist (“alethic skepticism”) or (2) cannot be known (“epistemological skepticism”) is certainly no newcomer to Western civilization. The sophist Protagoras (born approximately 500 b.c.) maintained that the human community is the standard of truth. Plato cited him as saying that “man is the measure of all things.” Consequently, any given thing “is to me such as it appears to me, and is to you such as it appears to you”— a surprisingly modern sound!

Although relativism has intermittently appeared and reappeared throughout history, its dominance of a culture is new. As Christians, we are likely most aware of how a relativistic view of truth has soured society’s attitude toward religion and its truth claims. Today religion is increasingly pushed aside by secularizing influences such as the university, the media, and politics. Rather than having a major voice in public life, religion has been relegated to the private and the personal. Rather than being a matter of truth, it is all just opinion. But looking beyond the religious domain, relativism implies that the pursuit of any truth is an exercise in futility. It clearly entails the obliteration of all knowledge, including scientific, moral, and historical truth.

The Many Faces of Relativism
Relativism is everywhere. Although the list is certainly long, we’ll select some of the main manifestations of relativism within our society.

Objective relativism is the view that the beliefs of a person or group of persons are “true” for them, but not necessarily for others. Ultimately, says this brand of relativism, no truth is universally, objectively true or false. One person’s “truth,” which really amounts to opinion, can conflict with another’s “truth” and still be valid. Objective relativism (also known as “epistemological relativism”) challenges the very existence of truth. (Epistemology is the study of knowledge—an examination of how we know what we know, our underlying assumptions, and the validity of our knowledge.)

Religious relativism maintains that one religion can be true for one person or culture but not for another. No religion, therefore, is universally or exclusively true. Religious beliefs are simply an accident of birth: If a person grows up in America, chances are good that he might become a Christian; if in India, that he will be a Hindu; if in Saudi Arabia, that he will be a Muslim. If what one believes is the product of historical happenstance, the argument goes, no single religious belief can be universally or objectively true.

Moral relativism maintains that there are no moral absolutes, no objective ethical right and wrong. Moral values are true—or “genuine”—for some, but not for others. Since there are differing expressions of morality in the world, there is no reason to think that one is any more true and objectively binding than another. The implication is that statements of value (for example, “adultery is morally wrong”) can be true for some but false for others. Something is wrong—sleeping with the boss, stealing paper clips, or leaving work early—only if you think or feel it is wrong.

Cultural relativism says that what is immoral in our culture is not necessarily immoral in another culture. No one, therefore, can judge another culture’s moral values. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse illustrates this view well. Ruse refers to the once widespread Indian practice of suttee, the burning of a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre, which was later outlawed by the British: “Obviously, such a practice is totally alien to Western customs and morality. In fact, we think that widow sacrifice is totally immoral.” That may be what Westerners think, yet Ruse says it is wrong to judge suttee as a bad thing. Obviously, the same principle means we shouldn’t condemn slavery in America, genocide in Africa, or female infanticide in China.

Historical relativism maintains that historical truth differs over periods of time. The interpretation of historical “truths” in one generation may be replaced by a subsequent one. As an example, consider Columbus Day. A generation ago students wrote reports extolling the discovery of America by Columbus. Today—if the holiday is observed at all—Columbus is cast as an evil conqueror. Historical relativists believe that researching and debating the facts of the matter would be futile.

Scientific relativism asserts that scientific “progress” is nothing but one theory being replaced by another. It is best exemplified by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who maintains that Einstein’s physics replaced Newtonian physics not because Einstein’s theory was closer to correct or a truer description of reality, but merely because paradigms shuffled. In scientific relativism, there is no such thing as objective truth, even in the “hard” sciences. There is no common language between proponents of one scientific theory and those of another, and what is true or rational in one scientific perspective is not so in another.

Aesthetic relativism is most easily understood as “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Recalling the litter of student-produced “art” scattered around the grounds of his university campus, one friend points out the remarkable ability of contemporary artists to produce works that even the artist’s mother doesn’t like. One person’s trash might be another person’s art, and one observer’s standards for art are just as valid as another’s. Going far beyond relativism, postmodern art abandons truth and utterly devalues human beings and the created order. Rather than being merely provocative, postmodern “art” can at times be destructive or degrading. Postmodern artists (can we call them all artists?) consider the emotional reaction of their audience to be part of their work of art—such as an artist’s photograph of his own bowel movement or a crucifix submerged in urine. Artistic standards such as technical excellence, creativity, and the capturing of universal and enduring human experience are shunned by postmodern artists.

The Implications of Relativism
In the middle of a war—whether in the broader culture or around the water cooler—no one goes on with life as normal. Society’s battles over truth have far-reaching effects. Given the pervasiveness of relativism in our society, we ought to briefly consider some of its implications. Having noted the examples of relativism above, you have no doubt also noticed the following effects.

One implication—at least on the religious front—is that persuasion is prohibited. On many university campuses, evangelism—the taboo word is “proselytizing”—is viewed as “cramming your religion down someone’s throat.” Obviously, trying to persuade or evangelize another implies you have truth to proclaim—and that you think your listeners may well be wrong.

This brings us to a second implication: To be exclusivistic is to be arrogant. Given the number of different religious beliefs in the world, to claim to know something that others are ignorant of therefore must be wrongheaded and erroneous! Moreover, exclusive claims—especially about the uniqueness of Christ for salvation—are often confused with Western colonialism and imperialism—nothing more than bigotry and narrow-mindedness, a Western imposition of ideas upon unknowing or unwilling hearers. (To be sure, non-Christians have in some cases good reason to be critical of us. Christians invite hostility when they shout that Christianity is true and exclusive—and equally loudly proclaim that other views contain no truth at all. Christians can indeed appreciate much of what is true within other faiths. Since all truth is God’s truth, moral truths, for instance, can be found outside the Bible—just as truths from mathematics, history, and science can be. Exactly what or even whether the Christian should seek to learn from or imitate ethical non-Christian religions, however, is another, more complicated, matter.)

A third implication is that tolerance is the cardinal virtue. To imply that someone is wrong is terribly intolerant, especially when tolerance is popularly but erroneously defined as being open to and accepting of all ideas. What homosexual activists call tolerance, for example, is unconditional acceptance of their lifestyle as legitimate and right. As we will see later, this attitude of open-mindedness actually turns out to be empty-headedness. It lacks discrimination and any criterion for acceptability. In the words of Allan Bloom, “Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power.”

Might Makes Right
A final implication of relativism perhaps best explains how our arguments over truth can begin to feel like a war: In the absence of the possibility of truth, power rules the day. That is, once truth is whatever we say it is, asserting power over others is a natural next step. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) wrote that the obliteration of God—and therefore all objective standards for truth and morality—would usher in an age of nihilism, the rejection of all objective meaning and value. All that is left is the will to power, by which only the fittest survive.

Stanley Fish at Duke University, well-known for his repudiation of objective literary or moral standards, has said, “Someone is always going to be restricted next, and it is your job to make sure that the someone is not you.” Many special interest groups today, though certainly not all, operate on this principle: Because they have no objective standards by which they operate—no evidence that what they advocate is good or right—they can only exert power to legitimize their views, to let their voices be heard and provoke change. Government or other social structures become weapons of power, wielded by the cultural elites and interest groups that have grabbed more influence and power than the other side.

Again, this has been observed from long ago. In another of Plato’s dialogues called the Gorgias, a man by the name of Callicles asserts that justice is really only the rule of the powerful over the citizens of a state. Whatever is best for the rulers is naturally just for Callicles. Morality is arbitrarily reduced to power.

This is the environment into which we speak—relativistic, power-conscious, hostile to truth claims, especially those that flow from faith. Though relativists claim to own the label of “tolerant,” as we critique objective and moral relativism we will see how this incoherent, self-contradictory philosophy is far more dogmatic and narrow-minded than Christianity is. It is strangely ironic that, despite allegations that Christians are bigoted and narrow, the Christian’s absolutist position is not only true but consistent and compassionate.

"That’s True for You, But Not for Me.”
ON ITS SURFACE, relativism sounds relaxed and easygoing. Only when we think through the implications of relativism and apply them rigorously to life do we see the hidden dangers of being so “accommodating.” As Alister McGrath writes,

It is utterly wrongheaded to say that something is “true for you but not for me.” For example, what if I think fascism is true and you think liberal democracy is equally true? Should the fascist’s repression be tolerated by the believer in liberal democracy? If not, on what grounds? Why not permit Stalinism or Satanism or Nazism? Without criteria to determine truth, this relativism fails miserably.

Most of us don’t want to live in that world. Relativism, however, isn’t merely emotionally offensive. It doesn’t hang together logically. As a worldview, it cannot be sustained.

At the beginning of his letter to Titus, the apostle Paul gives some advice to his “son in the faith” Titus, who is ministering to the people of Crete. Titus is facing a fair amount of hostile ideas. As if to say, “What did you expect?” Paul quotes Epimenides, a Cretan. He tells Titus, “Even one of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ ” Most Bible readers catch the irony of the statement. If all Cretans are liars, then can Epimenides himself really be trusted?

The statement of Epimenides and relativism suffer from the same flaw. Epimenides claims to speak truth about the people of Crete. Yet he contradicts his truthfulness by calling himself a liar. Why believe Epimenides? Relativism claims to speak truth about at least one thing—namely, that truth can be “true for you but not for me.” Yet it contradicts itself by claiming nothing is really true or false. Why believe the relativist if he has no truth to utter?

The claims of relativists are like saying, “I can’t speak a word of English” or “All generalizations are false.” Our most basic reply to the relativist is that his statements are self-contradictory. They self-destruct. They are self-undermining. The relativist actually falsifies his own system by his self-referential statements like “Everyone’s beliefs are true or false only relative to himself.” If claims are only true to the speaker, then his claims are only true to himself. It is difficult to see why his claims should matter to us.

To be consistent, the relativist must say, “Nothing is objectively true—including my own relativistic position. So you are free to accept my view or reject it.” Of course, usually when the relativist says, “Everything is relative,” he expects his hearers to believe his statement and adjust their lives accordingly. And he expects his statement concerns all statements except his own! Of course, the relativist doesn’t likely believe that his relativistic position is simply true for himself. Thus, the relativist commits a second error—“the self-excepting fallacy,” claiming a statement holds true for everyone but himself. Oddly, the relativist is unwilling to relativize his relativism. And he is also unwilling to generalize his relativism since he makes himself an exception.

It’s fair to point out to the relativist that statements like “That’s true for you, but not for me” are not only self-contradictory but guilty of this self-excepting fallacy. While this statement often shuts the door on further conversation, it need not. An appropriate response to such a relativistic statement might be this: “You obviously assume the universal validity of the statement ‘Something could be true for one person but not for another,’ but you imply that it is applicable to everyone’s beliefs but your own. But if you are being consistent—if your statement is only true for you, then I see no reason to think it applies to me.”

Relativism misses on a crucial test of internal consistency. “Something can be true for one person but false for another” fails to meet its own criterion for truth. Think about it: While a worldview can be internally consistent or logical yet still be false, no worldview can be true if it contradicts itself.

Deflating “That’s True for You, But Not for Me”
If my belief is only true for me, why isn’t your belief only true for you? Aren’t you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do?

You say no belief is true for everyone, but you want everyone to believe what you do. You’re making universal claims that relativism is true and absolutism is false.

You can’t in the same breath say, “Nothing is universally true” and “My view is universally true.” Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true—relativism!

You’re applying your view to everyone but yourself. You expect others to believe your views (the “self-excepting fallacy”).

Which Jesus is the answer to man's questions? - PS R Boshoff.

2011-10-23T14:59:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the Christian post just recently:

The Christian Post > U.S. Tue, Oct. 18 2011 02:57 PM EDT
One in Four Believers Are 'Christians in Name Only,' According to Survey

By Allison Summers

Christian Post Contributor Changing the Face of Christianity Inc., a non-profit corporation dedicated to reversing negative Christian stereotypes, has released the results of a quiz designed to determine how well Christians live the teachings of Jesus Christ. Through the quiz, the organization found that one in four self-proclaimed Christians admit that they do not live according to Christ's teachings. The anonymous assessment consisted of 10 multiple choice questions that returned a score to the participant at the end, which then indicated to that participant if he was 'Far from Christ," a "Worldly Christian," "A Good Christian," or a "Spiritually Mature Christian," which was the highest rank possible.
The responses, which were collected over a seven-month period from January 2011 to July 2011, indicated that 23.7 percent of Christians in the pool of over 2,000 questioned were classified as "Worldly Christians" or Christians in name only, as defined by R. Brad White, the founder of Changing the Face of Christianity Inc.
"When posed with a real world situation which tests their faith, they tend to do what the rest of the world does, instead of living as Jesus instructs," White said about "Worldly Christians." "To be clear, these aren't 'bad' people. The score results suggest they think much more about themselves than they think about God and other people. Reading the Bible and praying aren't a common practice. These are people that you would probably be surprised to find are Christian, if it weren't for the cross around their neck. These people are in the sweet spot of where we need to do our work. We are here to walk along side them, love them, educate them, mentor them, and guide them into living their faith through their words and actions."

I can remember one day driving past a concrete bridge where somebody spray painted in black "Jesus is the answer" and just under the statement someone else wrote "What the heck was the question?" Funny enough as this might sound. We as the Church stand in the face of a quiet reformation. The Judeo/Christian worldview we based our evangelism and Church programs on have changed! We are no longer dealing with a Judeo/Christian worldview; but rather a pagan world. The really confussing thing is to see the influx of "false christ" as Jeus foretold!

In 2 Corinthians 11:1-6 (MSG) Paul speaks to the Corinthian Church and says: “Will you put up with a little foolish aside from me? Please, just for a moment. The thing that has me so upset is that I care about you so much—this is the passion of God burning inside me! I promised your hand in marriage to Christ, presented you as a pure virgin to her husband. And now I'm afraid that exactly as the Snake seduced Eve with his smooth patter, you are being lured away from the simple purity of your love for Christ. It seems that if someone shows up preaching quite another Jesus than we preached—different spirit, different message—you put up with him quite nicely.”

The problem with the Church today is we have preached a Jesus that is quite foreign to the Gospel. The apostle Paul spoke of those who would come preaching another Jesus; of those who would receive another spirit and accept another gospel. The question we need to pose is:‘Which spirit have you received, which gospel do you believe and which Jesus have you accepted?

Our Savior Himself warned us in Matthew 24:1-5 (HCSB): “As Jesus left and was going out of the temple complex, His disciples came up and called His attention to the temple buildings. Then He replied to them, "Don't you see all these things? I assure you: Not one stone will be left here on another that will not be thrown down!" While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Then Jesus replied to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah,' and they will deceive many.” Verse 23-27 "If anyone tells you then, 'Look, here is the Messiah! ' or, 'Over here!' do not believe it! False messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Take note: I have told you in advance. So if they tell you, 'Look, he's in the wilderness!' don't go out; 'Look, he's in the inner rooms!' do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

The Other Jesus?

The Jesus of the Jesus Seminar

The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms. An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God") as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders. According to the seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.

The Jesus of Mormonism:

There is currently a debate in the American Church whether Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney can be called a Christian. The jesus of Mormonism is not the Second Person of the Trinity, as there is no Trinity at all according to Mormon doctrine. The Mormon jesus was a pre-existent spirit, the spirit-brother of the Devil and was married to both Mary and Martha! Brigham Young, the successor to Mormon founder Joseph Smith, declared that the Mormon jesus‘ sacrifice on the cross was ineffective for the cleansing of some sins. Man himself has to atone for those sins that the blood of the Mormon jesus could not atone for. The Mormon jesus is a false jesus and no Savior at all.

The Jesus of the Jehovah Witnesses:

The jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not God but only a god. He is the Son of God but not God Himself. This jesus was resurrected a divine spirit creature and his birth on earth was not an incarnation according to JW doctrine. The jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not coming again but is already on earth, only invisibly.
This jesus ‘...removed the effects of Adam’s sin by his sacrifice on Calvary, but the work will not be fully completed until the survivors of Armageddon return to God through free will and become subject to the Theocratic will of Jehovah’ (‘The Kingdom of the Cults’, p.99). The JW jesus is a false jesus and no Savior at all.

The Jesus of Modern Roman Catholicism:

The jesus of Roman Catholicism is another whose death upon the cross was insufficient of itself to atone for the sins of all those for whom He died.
This jesus died to redeem all mankind from sin but his death alone was not sufficient enough to fully atone for all sins, thus there is a need for men to suffer punishment in Purgatory in order that they may become fully purged of their sin and, therefore, pure enough and acceptable enough to enter heaven. The Roman Catholic jesus appears on Roman Catholic altars as bread and wine and is continually being offered to God as a sacrifice for the sins of man. The Roman Catholic jesus is a false jesus and no Savior at all.

The Jesus of the Hyper Faith movement:

The jesus of the Faith Movement did not atone for man’s sins upon the cross. His physical death alone accomplished nothing. This jesus needed to go to hell and suffer torment there and be tortured by the Devil and his demons in order to complete the Atonement. This jesus had to die spiritually. The death of this jesus did not atone for the sins of man on the cross but in the pit of hell. The atoning sacrifice of the Faith Movement’s jesus was not finished upon the cross but was merely the beginning of the complete work of redemption (K. Copeland, ‘Believer’s Voice of Victory’, April 1982, p.10). The Faith Movement jesus is a false jesus and no Savior at all.

The Jesus of Seventh day Adventism:

The Seventh-Day Adventist jesus bears some similarity to the true Jesus, but being similar is not the same as. According to Seventh-Day Adventist prophetess, Ellen G. White, ‘The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin....it (the blood) will stand in the sanctuary until the FINAL atonement’ (E. G. White, ‘Patriarchs and Prophets’, p.357). The jesus of Seventh-Day Adventism ‘...gave his life that man should have another trial. He did not die on the cross to abolish the law of God but to secure for man a second probation’ (E. G. White, ‘Testimonies to Ministers’, 1953, p.134). The Seventh-Day Adventist jesus is a false jesus and no Savior at all.

The Jesus of Christian Science:

The jesus of Christian Science did not atone for man’s sins upon the cross at Calvary. Founder, Mary Baker Eddy, emphatically and blasphemously stated that, ‘The material blood of jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon the accursed tree than when it was flowing through his veins...’ (‘Science and Health’, p.25). This jesus was born of the Virgin Mary’s spiritual thoughts of Life and its manifestation. The ‘one sacrifice’ of this jesus, ‘however great, is insufficient to pay the debt of sin’ (‘Science and Health’, p.23). The jesus of Christian Science is a false jesus and no Savior at all.

The type of Jesus you preach will largely be as the result of the concept you've got of Him? And G. K. Chesterton reminds us that “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” False concepts of Christ are usually spawned because of a lack of the full information or the true facts on the Biblical Jesus.

The Question is "What Gospels have these different Jesuses spawned?"

Trevin Wax in his book “Counterfeit Gospels: Rediscovering the Good News in a World of False Hope” gives the following information on what Gospels have been preached even in good Churches due to a lack of discernment and a desire to be relevant:

 Therapeutic Gospels – We make the gospel psycho-analogical. More “pscycho” and terribly “analogical”. We have exchanged revelation for self-realization.

 Judgementless Gospels – We say “Jesus say in Matt 7 “Judge not!”. Yet, He tells us not to judge the motives in others hearts; but He does tell us to Judge:
Matt7:16- Judge or weigh His words.
Matt19:23- We will Judge the 12 tribes of Israel.
1 Tim 5:20 – We are to judge those who sin habitually publically.
1 Cor 14:29- We should Judge what prophets say!
1 Cor 6:3- We will judge angels.
2 Tim 2:17-18 – We are to judge the teaching of others!

 Moralistic Gospels - Reduces humanity’s sinful condition by ignoring our deeply sinful condition and focusing on certain specific sins.

 Quietist Gospels - Reduces the gospel by making it applicable to the personal and immaterial aspects of our lives, but not to the public and material aspects. Once the gospel has been tamed in this manner, Christians will care about their morning devotions and their personal feelings about God, but not about their vocation, their leisure, or their social and cultural contexts.

 Activist Gospels - Reduces the gospel community by finding its greatest unity not around Christ, but around political causes or social projects.

 Churchless Gospels - Warps the biblical teaching by focusing on individuals to the exclusion of the community. In so, doing the church becomes an optional aid to one’s personal spiritual formation & perhaps even an obstacle to one’s personal pursuit of God.

Who is the true Jesus & how can we know the true Gospel.

The Reason I trust in the revelation and teaching of Jesus Christ of the Bible apart from all the Historical & philosophical aspects are:

1. Only Christ accuracy describes the Human condition.

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has noted, “The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in his state of spiritual alienation from God.” For centuries we’ve got on hand His opinion on what my heart and your heart is like and it is the most explanatory and exhaustive explanation of the human condition. Jesus requires for man to see the evil within his own heart, and contrary to the “tubla rasa” or the blank slate that philosophers would like for us to look for, we can see evident all around us that it is a myth.

2. Only Christ made a provision for our sinful malady.

It’s not merely in education & instruction or witnessing evil or growing up asking the question but in recognizing in the need individually and corporately as a society that the human heart needs to be transformed. The human heart needs to find a higher moral law which to bend its knee!Watchman Nee said "Our old history ends with the cross; our new history begins with the resurrection."

• Another reason I trust in the revelation and teaching of Jesus Christ apart from all the Historical & philosophical aspects is:

3. Only Christ gives the best account of reality to me.

In the perceptions that I think touch at the nerve of our present existential struggles He gives the most substantial answer. In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined. Paul spells is out in Ephesians 1:11 (M.S.G.) he writes “It is only in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for.” The Truth is that which corresponds with reality. Religion is the opium of the masses according to Karl Marx. Escapism, a self soothing reality, a Benidorm of ideas. But Jesus says to Pilate “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” And Pilate answers “What is truth?” For Christianity Truth is incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, and there is no higher reality that the visible manifestation of who He is!

4. Only Christ transcends over and in human history.

Have you ever realized how specific the Bible’s co-authors are? This is just so important! The Bible says about Jesus in the Old Testament in Isaiah9:6; “Unto us a child is born and unto us a Son is given”. It does not say the Son is born because the Son has always existed! To us a Child was born but the Son was given as the Father promised Abraham. You see the existentialist lives for the moment, the Utopian lives for the future, and the traditionalist lives for the past! Jesus when He took the bread and broke it with His disciples He said “As often as you break this bread and drink of this cup now you proclaim the Lords death in the past, until He come in the future. He fused every moment in History with meaning. The Eternal contemporary, as Leki in those words has pointed out! In Daniel 8 we see how he talks about the “He goat from the west” that will be strong and decimate to all that is in his path. This “He goat” will be suddenly cut down and his kingdom will be split into four. Those four will merge into two and ultimately become one. Daniel wrote this in the mid 500’s before Christ!No commentator could understand then what he was talking about. Now when you read it you can understand what he was talking about, he was talking about the emergence of Alexander the Great!The “He goat” from the west destructive in His path, he would be suddenly cut of as he was in his 20’s, and his kingdom would be divided into four. Then they were blended into two; the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid and these two merged into what was known as the Roman Empire. This happened 400 years before the actualizing of the events! This really upset liberal scholars! Because it proofs a supernatural ideal in the history of time that predicted the event and knows the future.

5. Only Christ can truly equip us in our suffering.

The apostle Paul understood this quite well. In his second letter to the Corinthians, he described himself as a servant of God who had suffered afflictions, hardships, beatings, imprisonments, labors, sleeplessness, and hunger (2 Cor. 6:4-5). In spite of this, however, he did not lose heart. He famously wrote that “momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison” (2 Cor. 4:17). But how could Paul describe his sufferings as just a “momentary, light affliction”? Because, says William Lane Craig, he had an eternal perspective. “He understood that the length of this life, being finite, is literally infinitesimal in comparison with the eternal life we shall spend with God.”
Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written “As the Christian sees things; God does not stand idly by, cooly observing the suffering of His creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his son, the second person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. Some theologians claim that God cannot suffer. I believe they are wrong. God’s capacity for suffering, I believe, is proportional to his greatness; it exceeds our capacity for suffering in the same measure as his capacity for knowledge exceeds ours. Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself; and God, the Lord of the universe, was prepared to endure the suffering consequent upon his son’s humiliation and death. He was prepared to accept this suffering in order to overcome sin, and death, and the evils that afflict our world, and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine.”

Another reason I believe the true Christ of the Bible is the answer to man's questions is:

6. Only Christ have triumphed over death.

Pastor Erwin Lutzer has written “Thus the resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Standing at the empty tomb, we are assured of the triumph of Jesus on the Cross; we are also assured that He has conquered our most fearsome enemy. Yes, death can still terrify us, but the more we know about Jesus, the more its power fades.” Jesus prophesied His own resurrection and the Apostle Paul says “If He did not rise from the dead our preaching is in vain and we are yet in our own sin.” Paul hung the coat of his future on the resurrection of Jesus! It’s incredible to see how secularists and atheists try to debunk the resurrection of Jesus! There are numerous theories that try to explain it away and if you really have an appetite for mythology and unreasonable inquiry read all these theories they try to explain away the resurrection? If the disciples wanted an easy way out them could have rather acknowledged Christ’s death but professed that He only rose spiritually! They put themselves in a hard position! All that had to be produced was Christ’s body as evidence to the contrary.

7. Lastly, only Christ embodied every ideal of what every culture had ever pursued.

The pursuit of the Hebrews was symbolised by light! Psalm 27:1 “The LORD is my light and my salvation--whom shall I fear? The LORD is the stronghold of my life--of whom shall I be afraid?” This is the light that lighted every man that comes into the world. The pursuit of the Greeks was symbolised by knowledge! That they might know…The pursuit of the Romans was symbolized by glory! The Glory of the Roman Empire!
So these ideals were : Light to the Hebrews
Knowledge to the Greeks &
Glory to the Romans.

These 3 ideals summed up the pursuit of man in those days and largely summerize the desire of modern man today! And only in Christ do we find all of them! He is the embodiment of these ideals! The Apostle Paul who was Hebrew at birth raised in a Greek city being a Roman citizen says the following in 2 Corinthians 4:6 “For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus our Lord.” Only the Christ of the Bible can honestly be the answer to man's questions!

-THE END-

Ravi Zacharias: Has Christianity Failed You?

2011-10-07T11:21:00.000-07:00

Ravi Zacharias sat down with Danielle DuRant to discuss his forthcoming book Has Christianity Failed You? (Zondervan: June 2010). This interview appears in the back of this book. Taken from Has Christianity Failed You? by RAVI ZACHARIAS. Copyright © 2010 by Ravi Zacharias. Used by permission of Zondervan. www.zondervan.com
Danielle DuRant: You’ve often said that you have a specific individual in mind—a particular person’s unique story and questions—when you write a book. Is this the case with this book? Ravi Zacharias: In this particular book, I think some of my own early challenges kept surfacing. My struggle came between fifteen and seventeen. In India, you’re forced to be much more mature in your thinking because life hits you in the face, especially as far as religion is concerned. You can’t escape it; the conflict between religion and culture underlies everything. You just take it day by day and don’t ask questions. Yet I had questions. I wondered how it was that tens of millions could believe certain things that I found utterly irrational or possibly much more ceremonially driven than intellectually driven. But now, many decades later, after having practiced apologetics for so long and meeting honest unbelievers who are not necessarily trying to be difficult but have genuine questions, I don’t think a day goes by when I don’t meet a believer who has struggled with very serious issues. So this book is a response to the honest questions about the intellectual credibility of the gospel and the pragmatic struggles that emerge when someone does believe. I think this may well be one of the most important books I have written. DD: Writing generally comes fairly easily for you, but you’ve expressed that this book was a difficult one to write. Was this a more personal book than you expected? RZ: Yes, it confronted me on two or three levels. First, with my travel—continually being on the road—it’s difficult for me to set aside time for the focused attention that a narrow subject such as this requires. But second, I think the range of the struggle in the subjects covered here is very real. Who among us hasn’t struggled with unanswered prayer? Also the problem of pain. We wrestle with this every day— not just the intensity of it, but the volume of it. It’s all around us. Finally, I interviewed people who had walked away from their belief in God. I think it is crucial that the reader understand this: I’m not dealing with this subject theologically per se; for instance, the issue of eternal security is not a theme of this book. That requires rigorous theological discussion that looks at both sides of the questions. This book aims at people who have experienced what they feel is God’s failure in their lives, people who said they once believed and now don’t, or are straddling two worlds, trying to find answers to their questions. The questions asked in this book are real questions, not imaginary. This book is relevant to most people, if they are honest; and because there are faces behind these questions, it was much more difficult to deal objectively with the subject. If we as Christians don’t allow people who are angry with God or feel disappointed in him an honest venue in which to talk and share, I think we may become quick to hide behind words and not come out into the open light. DD: Have you ever felt that Christianity has failed you, and have you struggled with some of the points of tension you address in your book? RZ: The answer to the sharp edge of the question is No. I don’t feel that for a moment, and I do not mean to sound very spiritual—I recognize my own failings and shortcomings before the Lord. The two things I need in my itinerant ministry are a very strong back and a very strong voice—and I have neither of those. I could ask God why he has allowed me to struggle in these two areas that are so necessary for me to fulfill my calling, but you know, in the real drama of existence, they are minor issues. There are many more challenging questions than that. Personally, I don’t think I’ve had a moment of doubt about God since the day I came to know the Lord. The encounter I had with Christ was so revolutionizing that no matter what arguments fail me, I always go back to what happened on that suicide bed as a young teenager with nobody to help me understand what life is all about. There is no other way to explain what happened in my life than divine intervention. As I look back, I can see how God has used me in both the East and the West. Of course, I have run into situations where I can see why there are questions. Perhaps I see more of that than the average human being. When I was in my twenties, I was in Vietnam and in Cambodia—places in which people witnessed the elimination of thousands and thousands of people. I remember looking at all of that and wondering, Where is God in all of this? Then in the early days of my ministry when I was speaking in Poland and going through Auschwitz, I noticed the silence. Not a word was said as we walked through that place; the only sound was the sound of weeping. I’ve looked at all that and I think the darkness of sin is daunting to me. So yes, I would have to say that I have asked questions—and still do. To not ask questions would actually be to disengage from reality— but I have never doubted God. DD: You seem very familiar with suffering. You’ve been afforded a perspective through growing up in India and in your travels that many Westerners don’t have. Looking back at your own conversion, I think it’s fairly unique and special that you had such an amazing conversion experience and that it still carries you through to this day. RZ: And that I think is the clue to finding some answers, and I’ll tell you why. In India and in many other areas—for example, in Bangladesh or Pakistan or parts of the Middle East—you will see some pretty raw sights. Many who saw the movie Slumdog Millionaire have raised the question, “Is this for real?” People whom I’ve talked to, who work in that environment, will say, “If anything, it is made more palatable in the movie. The reality is even worse.” One of the most powerful movies ever produced in India is a movie called Mother India. Song after song in the movie asks: How do you cope with the poison of living when you have to drink it every day—you don’t die immediately, but you are dying a slow death? The Indian culture has learned to cope with the unfairness of life, and the odd thing is that, in spite of it, Indians are the most religious people in the world. Now a psychologist may have a field day with this and question it as a way of coping, along with all the other imaginary ways we look for help. On the other hand, it is a display of the human proclivity toward the spiritual in the absence of any material answers. Having said that, before I came to the West, I was under this illusion that I’ll have my own salary, my own home, my own car, my own everything—and I’ll have no questions about life. The Hindi songs became irrelevant to me. The truth of the matter is that if you read Western poets and listen to the country music artists, it becomes obvious that they are the real philosophers of society. They hide behind the poems and the music and tell it like it is: songs of betrayal, songs of brokenness, songs of loneliness, songs of giving up on life. All of them are the same. And to me this is a clue that what G. K. Chesterton said was right. Ultimately, meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain but from being weary of pleasure. Now if this is true, pain and suffering are not the problem. The problem is finding meaning in a world in which so much is available and yet where true meaning is still so difficult to find. DD: You write, “God does not disappoint us. We often disappoint him and ourselves.” This seems to suggest that our relationship with God is based on our performance rather than his grace. And if God is all-knowing, aren’t his expectations of us viewed through his promise that he who began a good work in us will be faithful to complete it? In other words, can we disappoint God? RZ: It’s interesting how we attribute emotions to God, whether it’s an effect or whether it’s an affection that he feels. We can only take God at his word. His analogical use of language is for us to understand God, such as, “How often I have longed to gather you together, but you were not willing. What more could I have done for you that I have not already done?” “If you crucify the Son of God all over again and subject him to public disgrace, no sacrifice for sins is left.” Jesus looks on the city of Jerusalem with compassion, and the entire appeal he makes is in the fact he has done so much for them and yet they have responded with so little appreciation and love. When you look at Old Testament books such as Hosea, Malachi, and Jonah, you see the disproportionate response of his people to the abundance of grace God bestows. I think that’s why even the story of the prodigal son does not have a happy ending. He has come back, all is well, let’s have a celebration. But now you’ve got the older brother, who messes it up. It’s sort of one of those good news/bad news situations. The good news is that my son who was lost has come back. The bad news is that the fellow who stayed with me is still messed up. So I think we must understand God’s feelings by analogy. In terms of disappointing God, I do not mean that we therefore catch him by surprise. Rather, he would have to say to us, “What was it that kept you away from me?” The emotions of adoration and appreciation are legitimate emotions for a returning child of God. That’s what I think we need to be thinking of. The analogical use is to evoke within us a sense of, “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, and grace my fears relieved.” I think that’s a marvelous use of language— using the one expression to show that God induces in us both fear and release from guilt. DD: You’re speaking of religion in terms of an inviting and intimate relationship with God rather than a performance. The relationship is essential in this question, is it not? RZ: Very well put. If our Christianity comes through as a performance, it is unfortunate because that is really not what is intended. The older I get, the more I learn by observing children—and they don’t even have to be your own children in order to make these observations. I may be sitting in a restaurant watching a parent-child interaction and notice the child taking advantage of the parent. Or I may go to a graduation ceremony. When a student is speaking, you can easily identify the parents. They are wearing the biggest smiles in the room. We see ourselves in children and in observing parent-child relationships. When I was struggling with my studies as a boy, my mother’s delight when I did well was part of my own reward. The thrill of doing well was not just in receiving a good mark but in going home and showing my grade to my mom. Her pleasure in my achievement was the affirmation I needed. So I think my relationship with God is not by any stretch of the imagination a performance for him. It would be like this: the first time you cook a meal for somebody you love, and if you burn it, you get really upset—not because they are going to love you any less for burning the meal but because you wanted to please them and do something to demonstrate that. DD: What do you say to the person who cognitively believes God is good and wants to trust him but, based on a past heartache or a present situation, still struggles to experience him as compassionate and trustworthy? RZ: These are what I call the rub questions. They are not easy to answer. And these situations are more often the rule than the exception in our experience. I think about this a lot, and I wonder how much we have been wrongly taught in these matters? Have our expectations for life as a Christian been wrong? In our efforts to be relevant, we have forgotten that some things are going to be irrelevant and unexplainable for us, and it is we who need to become relevant to the truth, not the other way around. We are not God. Imagine trying to force a square peg into a round hole—all you accomplish in the end is to damage the edges of the peg. Sometimes we try to force God to fit our mold for him, to fit our idea of how he should act, and then when he doesn’t meet these expectations, we blame him for not meeting our expectations. I have concluded that the greatest of loves comes at the greatest cost. The greatest of loves will never come cheaply. It takes everything you have to honor that love and everything you have to honor that trust. And the greatest love that any of us could have is our relationship with God. Look at any athletes who have succeeded. Discipline is an indispensable part of their lives— unless, of course, they cheat. And when you’ve got the discipline, you’ve got the marks on your body to demonstrate it. But we sit down Sunday after Sunday, in the West particularly, to a delicious buffet of programming. Then when the first temptation comes, we are walloped; we are thrashed, and we wonder where God is. God is exactly where we have left him—way behind, reshaped into our image. Something I heard from a Muslim doctor I met in Pakistan who had come to know Christ comes to my mind often. He told me about the two sentences he heard from a preacher that changed his life: “In surrendering, you win. In dying, you live.” This is the counterperspective. So when you say, “I don’t feel God here. I’m afraid to trust him here,” realize that there are many days when you don’t feel the love you want to feel from your spouse, your children, your family. But you have to be big enough to surrender your own needs and keep loving and “kicking against the goads,” as it were. I believe when it is over, you will discover that perseverance was what it was all about. DD: A number of individuals you allude to in your book are angry with God. Listening to you, I’m anticipating your answer, but I wonder if you ever get angry with God? And what do you do with this difficult emotion in relation with him? RZ: That’s a good question—do I ever get angry with God? I would have to say I am puzzled by him many times. I have to say that several years ago I would fairly quickly have said no, but in the last three to four years, I haven’t done well with the virtue of patience. I like to attribute it to this nagging back that gets me down quite often, and I think there’s something to that. But outbursts of anger have not been common for me. Silence, retreating into a shell— perhaps that’s been my way of dealing with anger. And this may sometimes carry over into my walk with the Lord too. My prayers become much more perfunctory rather than engendering a deep sense of communicating with God. It’s almost like I am saying to God, “You feel I should really be dealing with this. What’s the point in my even talking to you?” But I have to say that many times I have been really puzzled by God. When I look at some of the questions actually raised in the Bible (such as Why do the wicked prosper?), I have some questions for God.

Wisdom of Gandhi

2011-10-07T10:32:00.000-07:00

Gandhi practiced and advocated non-violence and truth in all situations. He lived simply, organizing an ashram that was self-sufficient in its needs. Making his own clothes — the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl, woven with the hand spun yarn he spun on a charkha—he lived on a simple vegetarian and, later, fruitarian diet.
Gandhi underwent long (at times over a month) fasts, for both self-purification and protest.

"Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well." - Mahatma Gandhi

"As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything, keep it." - Mahatma Gandhi
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress." - Mahatma Gandhi

"I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers." - Mahatma Gandhi

"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life." - Mahatma Gandhi

"I want freedom for the full expression of my personality." - Mahatma Gandhi

"In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth." - Mahatma Gandhi

"Indolence is a delightful but distressing state; we must be doing something to be happy." - Mahatma Gandhi

A Different Jesus : Children of an unknown God - R Boshoff

2011-10-02T13:01:00.000-07:00

Paul writes on False Apostles in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 he writes “I wish you would put up with a little foolishness from me. Yes, do put up with me. For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, because I have promised you in marriage to one husband—to present a pure virgin to Christ. But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be corrupted from a complete and pure [b] devotion to Christ. For if a person comes and preaches another Jesus, whom we did not preach, or you receive a different spirit, which you had not received, or a different gospel, which you had not accepted, you put up with it splendidly”.

We can see the congregation in Corinth suffered from the same lack of discernment and spiritual insight: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent [deceived] Eve through his [craftiness], so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, [you put up with it well]… For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no [wonder]; for Satan… [transforms himself] into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:2-4, 13-14; emphasis added).

From these scriptures it is evident that there are three main ways in which the truth of Scripture can be falsified by Satan to deceive Christians and lead them astray. These perversions involve crucial issues at the very core of our faith and are intended to deceive people into accepting another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel. Even our Lord warned us in Matt 24:4-5 He answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name... “ Paul speaks to the old Galatian Church in Galatians 1:6-10 “I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from Him who called you by the grace of Christ, [and are turning] to a different gospel not that there is another [gospel], but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than what we have preached to you, a curse be on him! As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him! For am I now trying to win the favor of people, or God? Or am I striving to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ.”

Familiar University professors on Jesus Christ:
It is sad to see that even in South Africa we are seemingly not exempt from different Gospels or obscure Jesus’s! There seem to be a deliberate attempt from our educational institutions to make us come to terms with a global “Zeitgeist” or “many paths’ one stream” spirituality.

G.A. van den Heever from Unisa University makes a strong plea for a multi-religious consideration of the position and role of Jesus. In this chapter, Jesus in the world religions, he says: “If it is true that the ‘construction’ of Jesus in early Christianity is similar to that of Buddha, Zoroaster and Krishna, then one needs to give an answer to the question of what possible gain there could be in a comparative venture such as this… It should encourage Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus towards a healthier, more tolerant interchange on the cultural and religious front. However much we like to believe in our own uniqueness, we drink from the same wells.”

Even well known author Prof. Elaine Pagels says “The resurrection was not a unique event in the past: instead, it symbolized how Christ’s presence could be experienced in the present. What mattered was not literal seeing, but spiritual vision....The disciples themselves often misunderstood what Jesus said: those who announced that their dead master had come back physically to life mistook a spiritual truth for an actual event. But the true disciple may never have seen the earthly Jesus, having been born at the wrong time, as Paul said of himself. Yet this physical disability may become a spiritual advantage: such persons, like Paul, may encounter Christ first on the level of inner experience.”

In his new book” Jesus van Nazareth” Sakkie Spangenberg writes “Jesus – stripped from dogma – is presented to us? Jesus was a Jew who practiced Judaism, who followed Jewish customs and traditions. In the tradition of the Old Testament he was a prophet and a wise rabbi who shared his life and revelations. The word he proclaimed was the “kingdom of God”, not in the future or supernatural, but concrete critique against the Roman kingdom of his time. The Christian tradition that evolved around Jesus only became popular a few years after his death…”

Abel Pienaar, follower of Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hann who is the founder of the Plum Village in France from Renaissance Church adds “the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus are seen as childhood myths and legend.

In an Interview He was asked “But what makes Jesus any more different than Gandhi or Buddha? Why don’t people worship them the same as Christ?

He answered “I don’t know if Jesus is any different from them. Other people well worship other “messiahs” like Christians literally Christ Jesus. 70% of the worlds population is not Christian… and Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed ex. are also for a lot of people (just like Christians) the personification of God in human form.”

The interviewer asked “and the Bible? What worth does that have for you and which authority does it hold for you. The word of God or people’s words about God?”

Abel Adds “The Bible is a book wherein people wrote about their
experiences with god and from god. They understood their own context colored it in. The Bible is a very valuable resource… but for me the Bible is not just the 66 books that are contained in our Biblia as well as the Apocrypha as well as the Nag Hammandi writings. I studied the Hindu Vedas and Sutras …and like our Bible, it also gives through wisdom, without which I as a Spiritual leader cannot see myself without.”

Some Professors that support these views wholeheartedly and belongs to this “Centrum of end time Spirituality:

• Prof. Kobus Krüger. University of PTA in Amsterdam.

• Dr. Piet Muller. University of Freestate

• Prof. Hansie Wolmarans. University of Johannesburg.

• Prof. Celia Kourie. Unisa department van Theology.

Another South African author Albert Nolan in haste to write on the radical Jesus wrote "Any attempt to practice the same Spirituality as Jesus would entail learning to speak out boldly as he did - and facing the consequences." (Jesus today Pg64).

The overwhelming theme of these “free thinkers” is “the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) As a result truth is most legitimate the more in tune your “heart” is with your inner spiritual rhytm. Truth is relative to ones own context and that which feels and seem right appears to be the most lucid and proper. They hold on to the words of Karl Rahner that says “The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all. ... “The mystical becomes the actual to these free thinkers, and the unknown becomes the evidence of their own inspiration. All truth is equally valid and all religions are equally true. The Bible are one of many books that consist of superstition and folklore that requires the “thinking” or “scientific mind” to scrutinize and bring perspective to all!

It was the philosopher Blaise Pascal the French philosopher and thinker who said "Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established, that unless we love truth, we cannot know it." Michael Horton asked the question “What would things look like if Satan really took control of a city? Over a half century ago, Presbyterian minister Donald Grey Barnhouse offered his own scenario in his weekly sermon that was also broadcast nationwide on CBS radio. Barnhouse speculated that if Satan took over Philadelphia, all of the bars would be closed, pornography banished, and pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say, “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am,” and the churches would be full every Sunday . . . where (the Real) Christ is not preached.” [Emphasis added]

I think the gospel makes it pretty clear! If you've been told that you can have Christ as Savior without having Him as Lord; if you've been told that salvation is as easy as ABC; if you were assured that a momentary decision would save your soul, you've been taught "Easy-believism". If you think that such believing will save you, you are deceived!

John 6:26-29 “Jesus answered," I assure you: You are looking for Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Don't work for the food that perishes but for the food that lasts for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal of approval on Him." “What can we do to perform the works of God?" they asked. Jesus replied, "This is the work of God: that you believe in the One He has sent."

Let us examine some of these various renditions and see how they differ from the Jesus of the Bible:

Some popular Jesus’s of today…
The following are the most common ways in which the Person, work and image of the Lord Jesus are distorted so as to present a counterfeit Jesus who is powerless to save lost sinners from the righteous judgment of a holy God:

• Jesus the human teacher
In sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and in other religions such as Islam, the deity of Jesus is denied. Most portray Him as a merely human prophet or unusually gifted teacher, while explicitly denying that He is the Son of God:

1 Jn. 2:22-23 “Who is a liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same hath not the Father”

Tragically, the antichristian denial of Christ’s deity is now common in many professedly Christian churches. Theologians also have an increasing tendency to deny His miraculous conception and virgin birth, thus attempting to reduce Him to an ordinary, fallible human being. A powerful movement promotes the deceptive idea that the historical Jesus (i.e. the so-called real Jesus) is to be clearly distinguished from the mythic Jesus (or cultic Jesus) which, they allege, the Church’s tradition has transformed Him into. If Jesus was not truly “God with us” (Mt. 1:23) and sinless He could not have offered Himself as the atoning sacrifice for the sin of Adam’s fallen race. In the first Adam we are all spiritually dead, as we inherit his sinful nature. A dying race needs a second Adam, a perfect God-Man, to re-create us in His image by imputing His righteousness and imparting His eternal life to us (1 Cor. 15:22,45; Rom. 5:14-21). Jesus is the God-Man – Himself God, Son of God and Son of Man. To deny His deity by depicting Him as merely a prophet is to rob the world of its only hope of a Divine Saviour.

• Jesus the example
Preaching today in many formal and spiritually dead churches often presents the life of Jesus merely as an ideal example we should follow. In such moralistic sermons, no reference is made to His substitutionary death and shed blood which alone can cleanse from sin. Instead of the need for new birth, Christian virtues are taught, without the risen Christ who alone can empower us to “walk in the newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). People are only taught to be good citizens, love their neighbours and live morally good lives. The result of this kind of preaching is that Jesus does not become real to them as they only have a vague mental perception of Him. By mental effort they try to follow His example, but He is not a living, spiritual reality to them, because they have not yet become “new creatures” in Him (2 Cor. 5:17) through faith in His finished work. Though they speak of Jesus, they do not know Him personally and since they have been given a false ‘image’ of Him, their efforts to follow His example are misguided and flawed.

• Jesus the giver of gifts
Many people are attracted to Jesus because they feel they can derive various benefits from Him. He should heal them, bless them, prosper them and provide for all their material needs. They see Him as the One who restores to human beings the exalted position humanity had before the fall! They wish to regain dominion over creation, to wield miraculous powers and even to become ‘gods’ in their own right. Such people also end up serving ‘another Jesus’. They do not identify with the crucified Christ, and reject persecution, disease and suffering as being the consequences of weak faith. We see the using of visualization and positive thinking techniques they create their own reality, so becoming masters of their own destiny. By relying on various innate strengths in their own psyche, they fail to put their trust in the crucified Christ to sustain them by the power of the Holy Spirit.

• Jesus the political liberator
A Jesus who is a freedom fighter and who champions the oppressed is often proclaimed in the Third World. He came to set political captives free and to uplift them on the socio-economic level of existence. This Jesus is only concerned with their secular affairs. He did not come to liberate them from sin, but from governments which impede political, social and economic progress. He blesses them in the struggle against their oppressors without denouncing their amoral behaviour or stressing the need to engage in a spiritual struggle against the real oppressor of their souls, Satan.

• Jesus the sinner
The Jesus depicted in many Hollywood films is a fallen sinner like other human beings controlled by their fleshly passions. This blasphemous depiction of Jesus is the theme of films such as Jesus Christ Superstar, The last temptation of Christ, and Jesus of Montreal. In the last-mentioned film the counterfeit ‘Jesus’ is outrageously depicted as staying with other young people in a Montreal flat, where they live licentiously and overindulge in liquor. There are no limits to the evil imaginations of depraved, satanically inspired people who distort the image of Jesus. He is even depicted as a homosexual by some. On a painting exhibited in Archbishop Tutu’s Cape Town cathedral, Jesus was portrayed as an Aids victim full of sores. All such wicked misrepresentations of Jesus are part of Satan’s age-old smear campaign against Him. During His life on earth, He was branded as a sinner, blasphemer, glutton, drinker and friend of extortioners and immoral people: “Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of [tax-collectors] and sinners” (Mt. 11:19; see also Jn. 9:16,24).

The true Jesus whom we worship, is without sin. He is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Heb. 7:26; see also 4:15). Do not profane or mock the holy Name of God, or of Jesus His beloved Son: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7).

• The cosmic Jesus
The intensified campaign to misrepresent the Person, character, work and Name of Jesus is aimed at preparing the world for Satan’s great end-time counterfeit Christ, the Antichrist. Jesus Himself warned that the world will be deceived by this impostor and others who would impersonate Him: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and will deceive many” (Mt. 24: 4-5 NKJV). The New Age Movement presents a Jesus who is the personification of the messianic expectations of all the religions of the world. To the Christians he is the Christ, to the Jews the Messiah, to the Hindus Krishna, to the Muslims the Imam Mahdi, and to the Buddhists Maitreya Buddha. He is, therefore, the cosmic Christ, or universal Christ, of all faiths who will head up a spiritual hierarchy that unites, synthesizes and thus supersedes all the religions on earth.

• Gentle Jesus, meek and mild.
Some, apparently from their overindulgence in Sunday school and bedtime stories about Jesus, are so addicted to this myth about Jesus that they will even teach that Jesus' whip (when He "cleansed the temple" by roughly driving the merchandisers and animals out of the temple and forcefully overturning the moneychangers' tables - Jn. 2:15; top ), didn't actually touch anyone. To say that it did (thus saying that Jesus actually did violence to someone that day) is, according to these, to add to the meaning of Scripture. Unfortunately, since the Scriptures are silent on this matter, to say that He did not actually hit someone with His braided scourge is also to add to the meaning of Scripture!

.Jesus the fiery prophet.
Some see Jesus in this way, pronouncing woe upon almost everyone. This is the "Jesus" of those "churches" where the "pastor" feels that he must yell at you to get his point across. Exhortation (something which is to be done by "one another" and not by the "pastor" - Heb. 3:13 , etc.; top) and especially "fiery exhortation" (something which is not to be the usual diet of the sheep as it can cause severe spiritual heartburn, inner flatulence and indigestion!) is only one aspect of the whole counsel of God and is completely intolerable when the listeners know that the man yelling at them from up front has a lifestyle worse than their own!

• The Jesus who forgives all things & overlooks all things.
This "Jesus" doesn't really care what all you do with your six days so long as you attend "church," pay your dues and don't get into any trouble that would embarrass the "pastor" or the "church" one attends. So long as you don't do anything really bad, it's okay. (See 1 Cor. 5:9-11 , however) It's all about "grace," brother, so don't tell me about sin or law! This "grace" and tolerance club forgets that knowledge of the law is how we know what sin is. ( Rom. 3:20 , etc.; top) Any teaching or practice of "grace" that doesn't enable its practicers to fulfill the laws and ways of God and thus overcome the sinful ways of the flesh has missed something rather essential to the real gospel.

• A Jesus Who forgives nothing but enacts even more demanding laws.
This "Christian" legalists club has more rules than you can shake a stick at. Women must be silent always, must wear long hair and long skirts and wear no make-up ever, wives must submit to their husbands (but husbands need submit to no one except the "pastor" except where they can pay enough to be left alone) and divorce would seem to be the unpardonable sin, except perhaps when committed by a beloved "pastor."

• Yeshua, Yashua, Joshua or Yehoushua.
This group insists that we must return to the Hebrew pronunciation of the name of Jesus (and usually Yahweh for God as well) or we're not talking to or about the right Man or God. Some even say that the word "Jesus" is a Greek and Roman reference to pigs. Unfortunately these Messianic Hebrew "scholars" can't come into unity about which is the appropriate pronunciation and their return to the synagogue has also drawn a number of Jews and Gentiles to return to the law and depart from grace. (see Gal. 5:4 , etc.) God long ago made it clear that His word was even more important than His name. ( Psa. 138:2; top )

• A Jesus for intellectuals only.
While this club rarely excludes the ignorant and Biblically illiterate (after all, they do need passive victims to be their audience), only the brilliant orators and rhetoric-ticians, schooled in homiletics, hermeneutics and homey alliteration, get groomed for upward mobility on the "church's" corporate ladder. These will even boast of their "line upon line, precept upon precept" teaching methods but somehow have failed to notice that this method is a judgment from God. (see Isa. 2 Some popular Jesus’s of today…
The following are the most common ways in which the Person, work and image of the Lord Jesus are distorted so as to present a counterfeit Jesus who is powerless to save lost sinners from the righteous judgment of a holy God:

The Real search for the real Jesus.

In his book “searching for the Real Jesus” (1996) Dr. Douglas Groothuis clearly refutes the agnostic speculation and serious distortion of Jesus by modern theologians: “Jesus is not an ambiguous inkblot upon which we project our pet theories, hopes, or fears. He is a living reality who can be mastered by no one, since He is the Master of the universe. He challenges every counterfeit with His genuineness, every distortion with His veracity… The cross remains a fact of history, and the gospel continues to be the only means of setting people free” (Jn. 8:31-32).

To enable one to identify all the distorted images of the counterfeit Jesus as false, the true Jesus must be known, served and worshipped with an undivided heart.

Paul committed himself to gaining an intimate knowledge and relationship with Him: “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord… that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death” (Phil. 3:8,10). Peter says that we must grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18).

There is only one Jesus - any different "Jesus" is only a counterfeit and a lie, a pretender to the throne that is reserved only and always for the Lamb who was slain before the foundations of the world. ( Rev. 5:6; top ) Anyone whose life serves the interests and agendas of these usurpers and pretenders (fronts for the work of the devil and the demonic) does so at their own risk.

Let he who has ears hear.

Here are two critical tests:
Jesus is Almighty God!

• Anyone who teaches that Jesus is NOT Almighty God is a liar. Every Believer has God’s Spirit! The test is simple! The Bible tells us what the test is. If a person fails this test, they are NOT of God and have not His Spirit.

• The test is to ask the other person what they think about Jesus! Specifically, you want to find out if this person believes that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. “Every spirit that confesses that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is of God.”

• What does this mean? Nearly every false religion believes that Jesus had a fleshly body. This Scripture must mean something entirely different.

• Here’s the real question:

Do you believe that Jesus existed before He came to the earth?

Do you believe that the pre-incarnate Christ became flesh?

Do you believe that Jesus is Almighty God?

Do you believe that the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) became flesh?

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way to Heaven!

• Anyone who teaches that Jesus is NOT the Only Way to Heaven is a liar. We’ve often heard the saying, “all rivers lead to the ocean.”

• This simply is not so with salvation. It all depends which way you are going. Do all airplanes lead to Chicago? Of course not! There is a great danger in adopting the silly sayings of ignorant people concerning God and salvation.

• Another lie you may have heard is “We are all God’s Children.” That sounds cute but it’s NOT true! We are all God’s creation, but we are NOT all God’s Children. You are only a Child of God if you’ve been born-again into God’s Family.

Proverb 14:12... “There is a way which SEEMETH RIGHT unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” It is a dangerous and foolish thing to decide for yourself what is right and wrong.

The Unique Christ
Jesus speaks of Himself in Revelations22:13. “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

In his best selling book author Lee Strobel writes that “Faith is only as good as the one in whom it’s invested.” Clearly Christ demands our full attention and faith in Him our full obedience. Strobel remind us that “beliefs have very real consequences.”

Here are a few interesting facts about Jesus:

FACTS ABOUT JESUS CHRIST1) He was never created. Micah 5:2
2) His essence has never changed. Hebrews 13:8
3) He is God. John 1:1
4) He is the Creator of everything. Colossians 1:16
5) He is all-powerful. Matthew 28:18
6) He is all-knowing. Colossians 2:3
7) He is ever-present. Matthew 18:20
8) He is holy. Luke 1:35
9) He is righteous. Isaiah 53:11
10) He is just. Zechariah 9:9
11) He is guileless. 1 Peter 2:22
12) He is sinless. 2 Corinthians 5:21
13) He is spotless. 1 Peter 1:19
14) He is innocent. Matthew 27:4
15) He is gentle. Matthew 11:29
16) He is merciful. Hebrews 2:17
17) He is forgiving. Luke 23:34
18) He receives worship by demons. Mark 5:2,6
19) He receives worship by men. John 9:38
20) He receives worship by angels. Hebrews 1:6
21) He receives worship by disciples. Luke 24:52
22) He receives worship in heaven. Revelation 7:9-10
23) He will receive worship from everyone. Philippians 2:10-11
24) He was human. 1 Timothy 2:5
25) He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:34-35
26) He took on man's nature. Hebrews 2:9-18
27) He humbled Himself. Philippians 2:8
28) He was subject to human emotions. Hebrews 5:7
29) He raised His body from the dead. John 10:18
30) His blood brings reconciliation with God. Ephesians 2:13-16
31) His blood brings redemption for man. Romans 3:24-25
32) His blood allows man to be justified before God. Romans 5:9
33) His blood sanctifies man. Hebrews 10:29
34) His blood brings spiritual victory. Revelation 12:11
35) His blood brings eternal life. John 6:53-56
36) He came to save sinners. Luke 19:10
37) He will bring in everlasting righteousness. Daniel 9:24
38) He destroyed the works of Satan. 1 John 3:8
39) He fulfilled the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17
40) He gives life now. John 10:10
41) He is our advocate. 1 John 2:1
42) He gives eternal life. John 10:28
43) He is eternal life. 1 John 5:20
44) He sends the Holy Spirit to us. John 15:26
45) He will take His people to heaven. John 14:3
46) He will return to the earth after the tribulation. Matthew 24:29
47) He will return to the earth in power and glory. Matthew 24:30
48) He completes revelation. Hebrews 1:1
49) He will never send you away if you come to Him. John 6:37
50) He is the way, the truth, and the life. John 14:6

-The End -

Debate between Mike Licona and Yusuf Ismail

2011-09-27T02:16:00.000-07:00

On the 23rd of September this year at the University of Potchefstroom a debate took place between Mike Licona and South African apologist Yusuf Ismail. The theme focused on the 1st century fate of Jesus and promised to be ‘humdinger’ and an engaging encounter.
I went to hear the tussle on "if the death of Christ really took place". Islam teaches this did not happen like it is said in the Bible where Christianity believes it to be a necessary fact; also being one of the pinnacle axis of Biblical Christianity. Michael stuck to the agreed subject at hand where Yusuf tried to bring in diverse points because he found his arguments stale and seriously lacking coherency. I got the idea he was like a cat on a hot tin roof trying to jump for some toehold. Fortunately due to Dr Licona’s persistent focus Yusuf had to dance in circles to his own disdain. At least the most I got from the Islam perspective was a free Koran with some literature... All i can say in the words of Aristotle "the truth is always the best argument." Michael did the truth proud! Yusuf tried to base his arguments on ancient Mithras myths and obscure legends!He even tried to bring Christ's crucifixtion down to the same level as what we see every year in the philippines crucifixtions! Click here for the link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9IjbgHRwow

Ismail's points were poorly construed and substantially spurious! Unfortunately in the end he was masterly outclassed! On Michael I can only speak for his humility and open transparency! Before the debate he walked around and spoke to all the students and guests like an authentic person not an “American” superstar. That to me was the true reflection of Christlikeness and unashamed humility! We made good friends and will await his return to South Africa with great anticipation! Mike you are right when you told me to "watch out cause apologetics can be addictive!"I was deeply touched and my wife even more impressed! Mike....your Jesus looks like the right one...not like the one of the Koran....Thanks again!

PS Rudolph Boshoff
Tessera Church
Westonaria
Johannesburg!

Michael R. Licona (born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1961), is currently the Apologetics Coordinator at the North American Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention) and Research Professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary. He has a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies (University of Pretoria) which he completed “with distinction” and the highest mark and an M.A. in Religious Studies from Liberty University. A colleague of William Lane Craig, he is noted for several debates with notable individuals such as Bart Ehrmann, Richard Carrier, Stephen Patterson, Dan Barker, Shabir Ally and Elaine Pagels

Thornton Wilder - "The Angel that troubled the waters."

2011-08-11T11:21:00.000-07:00

Thornton Wilder’s one act play “The Angel That Troubled the Waters,” based on John 5:1-4, dramatizes the power of the pool of Bethesda to heal whenever an angel stirred its waters.

A physician comes periodically to the pool hoping to be the first in line and longing to be healed of his melancholy. The angel finally appears but blocks the physician just as he is ready to step into the water. The angel tells the physician to draw back, for this moment is not for him. The physician pleads for help in a broken voice, but the angel insists that healing is not intended for him.

The dialogue continues – and then comes the prophetic word from the angel: “Without your wounds where would your power be? It is your melancholy that makes your low voice tremble into the hearts of men and women. The very angels themselves cannot persuade the wretched and blundering children on earth as can one human being broken on the wheels of living. In Love’s service, only wounded soldiers can serve. Physician, draw back.”

Later, the man who did get to enter the pool first and was healed rejoices in his good fortune and turning to the physician says: "Please come with me. It is only an hour to my home. My son is lost in dark thoughts. I do not understand him and only you have ever lifted his mood. Only an hour... There is also my daughter: since her child died, she sits in the shadow. She will not listen to us but she will listen to you."

“Mystilogical” synthesis – R Boshoff

2011-08-07T04:24:00.000-07:00

Mysticism (Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight.

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.

What is a holistic pursuit? What is your spiritual dialogue? Are you a mystic or a logician? What about both? Can they be active in the mind of one person at once? Is the mystical for those who are right brained and logic for those who are left brained?

For a few months now I have been drifting into the direction of one and both of these streams. Some days my heart would yearn for that direct experience of the One, and some days my heart would content to find reason towards the Son. The sway of a burden crosses your heart when you try to predict where your longing will go. But there is no prediction for what is next? Legalism is when we try to make the connection between both streams, desiring to know when it’s our turn to know.

What is mysticism?
Matthew Fox asks “What is mysticism? Mysticism is our deep experiences of unity—with nature, with music, with friends, with truth, with God. It is a work of the right brain more than the left brain; it is the essence of authentic religion and it is about experiencing, not intellectualizing. “Taste and see the Lord is good” says the Psalmist. Mysticism is about tasting. No one can do it for you.”

Anthony De Mello tells the story “The master made it his task to systematically destroy every doctrine, every belief, every concept of the divine, for these things, which were originally intended as pointers, were now taken as descriptions.” He loved to quote the Eastern saying: "When the sage points at the moon, all that the idiot sees is the finger."

What is a logician?
As logicians we are not seeking to destroy concepts but rather we desire to affirm them. Logic is to affirm what corresponds with the didactic material collectively and to affirm what corresponds with the truth. Logic is simply that which corresponds with reality. Now we cannot explain everything that is perceived mystically. Nor do we seek to assimilate its conviction. Yet we are not looking to destroy our concept of our orthodoxy, nor are we called to lift one above the other in imbalance. We simply desire to see both “contentions” as one. Both equally necessary and equally belonging. We must not try to have a half half concept or a fifty fifty consciousness. I think it is enough to recognize both fields of intuition and to stay aware of it’s polarities but not to make predetermined judgments to it’s workings or inclinations. The point is simply to become aware not to necessarily be being aware to become. Fox answers to the question “What is the difference between Mystical Christianity and regular Christianity?” “Mystical Christianity begins with experience and leads to experience. It encourages creativity and the work of Spirit rather than excessive dogma and structure and control and institution-building. It honors the presence of Spirit in nature, in sexual sharing, in art and music and architecture and creativity in its multiple expressions. It practices silence and is not afraid of solitude. It is both personal and communal and it finds its full expression in service and work of justice-making and compassion. It also looks to make connections with the mystical practices (such as meditation) of other traditions than one’s own.”

What can distort the reality of the two concepts?

Functional Atheism. (Parker Palmer)
Richard Foster writes “For vast numbers today the ultimate goal is personal autonomy: the power to do my own thing, define my own future & determine my own fate.” Gerald May is incisive and humorous when he wrote “The Entire process (of self development) can be very exciting and entertaining. But the problem is there’s no end to it. The fantasy is that if one heads in the right direction and just work hard enough to learn new things and grows enough and gets actualized, one will be there. None of us is quite sure where there is…” Acts 21:11 “Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and said, "The Holy Spirit says, 'In this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.” Mysticism becomes warped when we incur our own concept of it, and logic stale when it’s birthed by our selfish reasoning. We need to have a mature vision of ourselves and our insufficiencies. Henri Nouwen wrote “Jesus had a different vision of maturity: It is the ability and willingness to go where you would rather not go.. The way of the Christian leader is not the way of upward mobility in which our world has invested so much, but the way of downward mobility ending on the Cross.”

Pleasure programming.
Thomas Keating writes “The Spiritual life is a long and hard journey… we must dismantle ourselves from the emotional compulsiveness to be happy.” When pleasure becomes a right in the mystical we deny its full spectrum for the whoredom of our own appetites. Richard Foster writes “There is nothing wrong with good feelings… as long as it does not control us. Pleasure becomes an idol when it controls us & becomes our absolute right.” The goal of the mystical is not self satisfaction; it is rather a “kenosis”, a emptying of self, a cleansing and a catharsis. When religion, God and good becomes the empirical resolve of our pursuit we become disillusioned and even discontent. And we loose interest with first raised towards heaven asking “where are you God?”

Option fatigue.
Barry Scwartz wrote “as the number of choices grows further the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point; choice no longer operate but debilitate and tyrannize… choice overload will make us depressed and then dead.” Galatians 2:20 says “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. In a footnote in the Jerusalem Bible it adds: “The living acts of a Christian become somehow the acts of Christ.” Before we can be drawn to the power of Christ we need to be drawn to the person of Christ. The crown we wear is preceded by the cross we bare!

The Mystical is not to be distracted by the collectable but in the logical to be reasonable and truth filled by the fullness of what is His. It is to abdicate the freedom of your choice and to allow Him to be the recipient of your intentions. It is a coming together, to allow yourself to be led by the Spirit of God. To be called Sons and Daughters of God. And to reflect… to be ever changing, growing, seeking, loving and persisting. To be a Mystilogical unity undivided to Hid love.

Interview with Fr. Albert Nolan, O.P.

2011-08-03T14:28:00.000-07:00

Q. Could you tell us something about your background?

A. I was born in Cape Town, South Africa, and I am fourth generation South African-my parents, my grandparents, and my great-grandparents were all born in South Africa, coming from England originally.

Q. How about your past studies?

A. As far as academics are concerned, I did not do very much before becoming a Dominican. My studies really began after entering the Order.

Perhaps I should say a word about why I became a Dominican. I was going to become a diocesan priest, and then I read Thomas Merton. His revival of contemplation was of great interest to me. But I did not want to be a Trappist, and in any event there were no Trappists in South Africa. I wanted to be able to preach. I was attracted to the Dominicans by that, and also by the fact that Dominicans did study. So that combination of contemplation, study, and preaching is what attracted me to the Dominicans.

As far as my Dominican formation goes, I can say that I believe I had a very good novice master, Fr. Bernard Delaney, an English Dominican. He made a very deep impression and impact on me.

Q. How did you become interested in the topics of race and racial integration and the struggle against apartheid?

A. I think the first part of that is the Gospel itself. It was by trying to live the Gospel that made me realize, in fact, that what was happening in my country was unjust, unfair-cruel, in fact-to black people. I had not been quite so aware of that before I became a Dominican.

Q. Is there any precise event that was pivotal in this change in you?

A. No. I've often been asked if there was a precise event that changed me, and the answer is, No, there wasn't. It was gradual. Certainly, in our parish near the priory where I was educated, a place called Stellenbosch, I did meet poor people and people who were suffering, so gradually, yes, I came to realize the evil of apartheid.

The more political or social involvement came later, when I was a chaplain to university students, black and white, who conscientized me about a lot of things that were happening and why they were happening. So, that period of my life when I was university chaplain was very important for me as well.

Q. Do you distinguish between social involvement and political involvement?

Yes, I do, in the sense that it was not important for us to be part of a political party. We were not-people like myself, Dominicans, Christians, etc.-trying to gain power. We were working for justice. That's a social issue. We did work with political parties-in fact very much so-because it was necessary to do that in order to ensure that there was going to be social justice. So, while we worked with politicians, when the time came to have a democratic election, it was the politicians who became members of parliament and of government, but those of us who had worked on behalf of Christianity and because of our Christian faith, we continued working in the Church; we were not interested in political power. But there were a few people from the Churches who did go into politics, partly because there were not many people to take all the political posts of government that was necessary at the time.

Q. Did you ever see any conflict between your social activism and your vocation as a Dominican and religious?

The conflict was not so much with being a Dominican, but there was conflict with the Church and with other members of the Church, because there were many people who said that one should not be involved in politics, and that even issues of justice were not the kind of thing that a priest should be involved in. I was often accused of being a "political priest."

I was also accused of being a communist. If you were against the government-which was regarded as a Christian government, even if it did wrong-and if you wanted equality for everybody, then you were a communist. That was a criticism that I and many in Latin America put up with: the accusation of being a communist. All that is gone today, but it was a problem in the past.

Q. Do you really think that is all past?

A. Yes, in the sense that now we have democracy. In 1994 we had our first democratic elections. Up till then only white people could vote; black people could not. That meant that something like twelve percent of the population voted and dominated everybody else. Now we have a democracy. And now the accusation of being a communist is gone, because there is equality. There is still a communist party, but it is in alliance with the A.N.C. [African National Congress], the party that is in power, and everybody has now met the communists and knows that they are some of the best people in government, and in fact some of the best people in the country. So, the accusation of communism is gone.

What has not gone is the racism. The policy of apartheid is gone, and racial discrimination is outlawed, but many people are still racists at heart since you cannot change the heart as easily as you can change the constitution or the laws of the country. So, yes, you do still have racism. But what has happened is that we now have what is regarded as probably the most progressive constitution in the world, partly because we wrote our constitution only recently, and so could learn from every other constitution in the world. But not only that. It is also because the people wrote the constitution together. There was a constitutional committee that opened up the constitution to the whole country. Anyone could write in, anyone could say what he wanted in the constitution, or what he did not want in the constitution. So people participated in it, and that helps to make it a very good constitution.

It is also a good constitution because it is reacting to the discrimination of the past. In the constitution there is no racial discrimination. Nor is there any discrimination on the grounds of gender or sex; discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, as they say, is excluded, so that homosexuals, gays, and lesbians have equal rights and can appeal to the constitution. Even people who have AIDS and people who are disabled have equal rights and can appeal to the constitution if they are ever discriminated against. Of course that also means that other groups such as Muslims or Jews have equal rights. So, in that sense it is a very progressive constitution.

Capital punishment is also against the constitution, and that again makes it more progressive, I think, than countries that do have capital punishment. Some of the most famous countries in the world have it. Many African countries around us have it.

We have a very good constitution, but we do have problems. We have many problems, partly because of what we inherit from the past, and partly because of the world we live in. Because we have so much unemployment, there are problems with poverty, homelessness, crime-often very violent crime-and with corruption and fraud. But things are different inasmuch as all those problems are now public, they are known, they are exposed regularly. There was always corruption, but now corruption is exposed, people make a big fuss about it, they set up commissions to investigate it, especially in the government. So, while there is a good deal of corruption, there is also a lot of discussion and argument about it. Sometimes the government is not very good at solving the problems, but that the problems are discussed and opposed makes it a healthy democracy, I think.

Q. What can you tell us about being Provincial in South Africa?

A. Legally, I am a Vicar-General rather than Provincial, since technically we are not a province but a vicariate general. We come from two vicariates, the Dutch and the English which both had missions in South Africa. In 1968 they were amalgamated together with the South African Dominicans, and at that time one vicariate general was formed.

We haven't been able to form a province yet, partly because we lack the number of men and priories required. We could have two priories soon and become a vice-province, but it is difficult because we have had to reorganize all our apostolates in order to come together in one place to be a priory, and that has been difficult. I am not, therefore, a Provincial but a Vicar-General, although I am often called a Provincial.

I am currently in my third term. I had two terms from 1976-1984. Now I've been asked to come back to do it again. I am in my third term with a gap between the second and third terms.

Q. What are the needs of your Vicariate, as you see it now?

A. Well, we're only thirty-eight men. That's a very small number. Formation is a very important priority indeed. We get vocations, but not very many; it is slow. But that's good. That's how we must progress to the future. I think we will grow bigger, but not fast. I do not have a problem with that, because I think it is more important for us to have good quality than great quantity.

We emphasize spiritual renewal. It is the quality of our life that really makes the witness, rather than the numbers.

Q. How do you pray when confronting misery, suffering, injustice, and misunderstanding?

A. I think we have learned to live with that-not that we do not protest against it. It is very sad, and we continually try to change the country so that there will not be poor people, or fewer poor people. But I think we realize that this is very difficult with the kind of globalized economy we live in today. We have to realize it is a struggle that will take a long time. We cannot solve all these problems ourselves and need to trust in God and do the best we can. So, I think that would be more my prayer.

The virtue we need most of all, I would say, is hope. We need to teach people hope, and to be hopeful ourselves in one way or another.

Q. How can you teach hope?

A. Well, "teach" is entirely the wrong word. No, you can't teach hope. But if we are hopeful, and can give an account of our hope to others, as the Letter of Peter says, we can, by what we do and say, enable other people to be hopeful.

Q. Can you say something to us about your book Jesus Before Christianity?

Well, it has now been translated into nine languages. I wrote it many years ago, and in fact Orbis Books is publishing the twenty-fifth anniversary edition this year. I wrote the book when I was chaplain to university students. What happened was that I wanted to teach the university students faith and theology. That was something very difficult to do since they were not interested in the kind of theology we grew up with. So, I thought maybe the best way to talk to them about theology and about faith was to talk about the person of Jesus. So I tried to build everything around Jesus as a person, trying to make him a live and a loveable person. I found that was very successful. People listened when you were talking about a person. Also, remember this was the 1970s, so it was a time when there was a great deal of interest in Jesus-Jesus Christ Superstar and all that kind of thing. So, it went over very well. Then it was suggested that I take those talks and write them up in a book, so I did some more research then wrote it in a book which I called Jesus Before Christianity. I had no idea it would ever be a successful book. I thought a few people who had been listening to me at the university might read it, but I did not think it would be read much beyond that. It turned out to be a book that met a real need. I wrote it as simply as I could, taking what the scholars were saying and putting it very simply, since I had in mind university students who might well be Catholics but not theologians. I wrote it for students and it seems to have been successful.

Derren Brown - Miracles for Sale

2011-06-22T02:17:00.000-07:00

Christian Essentials : Why the God man - "Cur Deus Homo." - R Boshoff.

2011-06-12T10:32:00.000-07:00

What would the implications be if Jesus was not God?

1. If Jesus wasn’t divine, why should we particularly care what he said? Why pay any more attention to him than to any other ethical thinker?

2. Your sins would never be forgiven. (Psalm 49:7-9 & V/15)

NOTE: Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033- 21 April 1109 aged 75) undertook to explain the rational necessity of the Christian mystery of the atonement.His philosophy rests on three positions—first, that satisfaction is necessary on account of God's honour and justice; second, that such satisfaction can be given only by the peculiar personality of the God-man Jesus; and, third, that such satisfaction is really given by this God-man's voluntary death.

According to this view, sin incurs a debt to Divine justice, a debt that must be paid somehow. Thus, no sin, according to Anselm, can be forgiven without satisfaction.

The only way in which the satisfaction could be made that humans could be set free from their sin was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. He himself would have to be sinless, thus having no debt that he owed. His death is something greater than all the sins of all humanity. His death makes a superabundant satisfaction to the Divine Justice.

Only God can forgive sins, and only after the blood of a righteous man has paid our ransom. Only a man who has never sinned can be righteous, and only God has never sinned. If Jesus was not a man he couldn’t have been our kinsman, and if He wasn’t God He couldn’t have qualified as our redeemer. To be our kinsman redeemer, He had to be both.

3. There would be no Communion, Church, gathered people.

4. Heaven would not be an option! (John 14:2)

5. Death would be everlasting. (2 Tim 1:10)

6. If Jesus was merely a good man, then the bible is not the word of God but merely a good book on the same level as other literature.

Was Jesus God and Man?
The term hypostatic union is much easier than it sounds, but the concept is as profound as anything in theology. The English adjective hypostatic comes from the Greek word hupostasis. The word only appears four times in the New Testament—maybe most memorably in Hebrews 1:3, where Jesus is said to be “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.” Here the author of Hebrews uses the word in reference to the oneness of God. Both the Father and the Son are of the same “nature.” Jesus is “the exact imprint of his nature.”

However, in early church discussions, as Greek thinkers tried to find agreeable terms with those who spoke in Latin, the word hupostasis came to denote not the sameness in the Godhead (God’s one essence) but the distinctness (the three persons). So it began to be used to refer to something like the English word person.

The Personal Union of Jesus’ Two Natures.
So “hypostatic union” may sound fancy in English, but it’s a pretty simple term. Hypostatic means personal. The hypostatic union is the personal union of Jesus’ two natures. Jesus has two complete natures—one fully human and one fully divine.
What the doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches is that these two natures are united in one person in the God-man. Jesus is not two persons. He is one person. The hypostatic union is the joining of the divine and the human in the one person of Jesus.

What Is the Significance?
Why bother with this seemingly fancy term? What good is it to know about this hypostatic union? At the end of the day, the term can go, but the concept behind the term is infinitely precious—and worshipfully mind-stretching. It is immeasurably sweet—and awe-inspiring—to know that Jesus’ two natures are perfectly united in his one person. Jesus is not divided. He is not two people. He is one person.

As the Chalcedonian Creed states, his two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Jesus is one. This means Jesus is one focal point for our worship.

And as Jonathan Edwards preached, in this one-person God-man we find “an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies.” Because of this hypostatic, one-person union, Jesus Christ exhibits an unparalleled magnificence. No one person satisfies the complex longings of the human heart like the God-man.

God has made the human heart in such a way that it will never be eternally content with that which is only human. Finitude can’t slake our thirst for the infinite.
And yet, in our finite humanity, we are significantly helped by a point of correspondence with the divine. God was glorious long before he became a man in Jesus.

But we are human beings, and unincarnate deity doesn’t connect with us in the same way as the God who became human. The conception of a god who never became man (like Allah) will not satisfy the human soul like the God who did.

One Person, For Us
And beyond just gazing at the spectacular person of Jesus, there is also the amazing gospel-laced revelation that the reason Jesus became the God-man was for us.
His fully human nature joined in personal union to his eternally divine nature is permanent proof that Jesus, in perfect harmony with his Father, is undeterrably for us. He has demonstrated his love for us in that while we were still sinners, he took our nature to his one person and died for us.

The Incarnation
The doctrine of the incarnation in Christian teaching is that Jesus, who is the second person of the Trinity, added to himself human nature and became a man.
The Bible says that Jesus is God in flesh, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....and the word became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:1, 14); and, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). Jesus, therefore, has two natures. He is both God and man.
Jesus is completely human, but He also has a divine nature.

Jesus = Godman

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 20:28)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)
He worshiped the Father (John 17)
He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
He died (Rom. 5:8)
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

Was Jesus praying to Himself?

Jesus prayed to inform Christians about the importance of communicating with God. Jesus taught Christians how to pray (Matt. 6:9) and Jesus is our example. John 13:15 says "For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you." Why did Jesus need to pray at all? Why did Jesus pray out loud, audibly? Could God the Father hear his Son if He prayed silently? Of course. However, Jesus told us why He prayed right before He raised Lazarus from the dead: "Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me," John 11:41-42.

Jesus prayed audibly so that the people would believe and the Bible could be written. Jesus and the Father are one (John 8:58), that is one in purpose and one in essence. They are totally united, one in purpose, one in thought and one in deed. Jesus is very unique as God, the only human being who is God incarnate.

If Jesus is God, then why did He not know the time of His return?

In Matt. 24:35-37 Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah."

If Jesus is God in flesh, then shouldn't He know what the day and hour of his return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn't know all things, then He cannot be God.

Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. In Heb. 2:9 that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Jesus was both God and man at the same time.As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man.

That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man. Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it?

John 21:17 “He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep" Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true.

It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection.

Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and yet He knew all things.

If Jesus is God, then why did He say the Father was greater than He?

John 14:28 "You heard that I said to you, 'If I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I,” Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."

Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people.So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5).

God cannot be tempted. Jesus was tempted. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.
James 1:13, "Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone."
It also says in Heb. 4:15, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin."

Answering this objection is a bit more difficult than answering the other objections to Christ's deity because it deals with an area of scripture that is not explicitly clear: the relation between the divine and human natures of Jesus. We see that Jesus has two natures but how they related is not clarified in scripture.
We see from scripture that Jesus' human nature never existed apart from the union of His divine nature. We also see in scripture that God cannot sin and that in Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

Therefore, since we acknowledge that Jesus was divine, we could easily conclude that it was not possible for Jesus to have sinned. On the other hand, Jesus was truly man. Therefore, it is fair to say that Jesus could have been truly tempted. But, the question persists: if it was not possible for Jesus to have sinned then how could He be truly tempted? I do not know if I have a sufficient answer to this. But I will offer one anyway.

First of all, is it possible that God be tempted? Yes it is.

Psalm 106:13-15 says, "They quickly forgot His works; They did not wait for His counsel, 14But craved intensely in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. 15So He gave them their request, but sent a wasting disease among them," (NASB).
The Hebrew word of "tempt" here is "nasaw." According to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, it means to "to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test." The NIV says, "they put God to the test." The KJV says, "and tempted God in the desert." The NKJV says, "And tested God in the desert." The 1901 ASV says, "And tempted God in the desert."

Therefore, we can see that God was "tempted in the desert." Yet, this temptation in no way negates the divinity of God Himself. In the New Testament, when Jesus is tempted, in Matt. 4, the word for tempt is "peirazo." Again, according to the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, it means "to try whether a thing can be done, 2) to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself; 2c) to try or test one’s faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin."

We can see in both cases that it was God who was tested. In the Old Testament, God was being tempted, that is, being put the test in the wilderness even as Jesus was being tempted (put the test) in the wilderness in the New Testament.

This temptation can occur without God sinning. Furthermore, this temptation, this testing is not a challenge to the deity of Christ any more than it was a challenge the the divinity of God in the Old Testament.

In addition, all that Jesus did, He did by looking to the Father.

Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner," (John 5:19). Also, Jesus said, "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 5:30).

In Matt. 12:22-32, Jesus was casting out demons. The Pharisees accused Jesus of doing this by the power of the devil. Jesus replied to them that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven.

Why did he say this?
I believe that it is because Jesus did none of his miracles out of his own divine nature but did them as a man working through and by the Holy Spirit who indwelt Him. Therefore, Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the Holy Spirit. We see that Jesus' miracles began after his baptism and that is when the Holy Spirit descended upon him.

Jesus came as a man in order to fulfill the law of God and to be the sacrifice for sin. He did this as a man. When He resisted the temptations of the devil, He quoted scripture -- as a man. He did not at that time rely on His divine nature when going about His earthly ministry in Israel. As a man, He was tempted and as a man He resisted temptation by relying on God's word. He cast out demons by the Holy Spirit and not by His own divine nature.

Therefore, Jesus was tempted in His human nature, not in His divine. He did not rely on His divine "side" to help Him out. Instead, He completely relied on the Father, the Holy Spirit, and God's word to successfully resist the temptations that came to Him.

Therefore, I conclude that Jesus could not have sinned, but that He could be tempted; that is, He could have a sinful option presented to Him -- as was presented to God in the wilderness -- yet Jesus would not have sinned.

If Jesus were not God, then explain...
• Why Thomas calls Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.)

• Why does God call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8?

• Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1, 14)?

• Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (Greek, KURIOS)," applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) if Jesus is not God in flesh?

• Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was, "...calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God," (John 5:18)?

• What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God (John 8:58)?

• How was it possible for Jesus to know all things (John 21:17)?

• How can Jesus know all men (John 16:30)?

• How can Jesus be everywhere (Matt. 28:20)?

• How can Jesus, the Christ, dwell in you (Col. 1:27)?

• How can Jesus be the exact representation of the Nature of God (Heb. 1:3)?

• How can Jesus be eternal (Micah 5:1-2)?

• How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life (John 10:27-28)?

• How can He be our only Lord and Master (Jude 4)?

• How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) if there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5)?

• How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and "God" also be called the Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21?

• How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19-21)?

• How can Jesus create all things (Col. 1:16-17), yet it is God who created all things by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)?

• How can Jesus search the hearts and minds of the people (Rev. 2:23)?

• Why was Jesus worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) when He says to worship God only (Matt. 4:10)? (Same Greek word for worship is used in each place.)

• In the OT God was seen (Exodus 6:2-3; 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-9; Acts 7:2), yet no man can see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). It was not the Father that was seen in the OT (John 6:46). Who, then were they seeing? See John 8:58.

• Then why did Jesus claim the divine name, "I AM", for Himself in John 8:58? See Exodus 3:14.

• Then why did Jesus say you must honour him even as you honour the Father (John 5:23)?

• Then why is it that both the Father and the Son give life (John 5:21)?

• Then why did Jesus bear witness of Himself (John 8:18; 14:6)?

-The End-

Does God Exist? - Dr. William Lane Craig

2011-06-09T00:55:00.000-07:00

C. S. Lewis once remarked that God is not the sort of thing one can be moderately interested in. After all, if God does not exist, there's no reason to be interested in God at all. On the other hand, if God does exist, then this is of paramount interest, and our ultimate concern ought to be how to be properly related to this being upon whom we depend moment by moment for our very existence.

So people who shrug their shoulders and say, "What difference does it make if God exists?" merely show that they haven't yet thought very deeply about this problem. Even atheist philosophers like Sartre and Camus—who have thought very seriously about this problem—admit that the existence of God makes a tremendous difference for man. Let me mention just three reasons why it makes a big difference whether God exists.

1. If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If your life is doomed to end in death, then ultimately it does not matter how you live. In the end it makes no ultimate difference whether you existed or not. Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.

Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing. Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.

2. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. If there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence.

For example, there is no hope for deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man's own inhumanity to man. The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century's naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.

Or again, if there is no God, there is no hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and death. Although it may be hard for you as university students to contemplate, the sober fact is that unless you die young, someday you—you yourself—will be an old man or an old woman, fighting a losing battle with aging, struggling against the inevitable advance of deterioration, disease, perhaps senility. And finally and inevitably you will die. There is no afterlife beyond the grave. Atheism is thus a philosophy without hope.

3. On the other hand, if God does exist, then not only is there meaning and hope, but there is also the possibility of coming to know God and His love personally. Think of it! That the infinite God should love you and want to be your personal friend! This would be the highest status a human being could enjoy! Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for you as well.

Now admittedly none of this shows that God exists. But does show that it makes a tremendous difference whether God exists. Therefore, even if the evidence for and against the existence of God were absolutely equal, the rational thing to do, I think, is to believe in Him. That is to say, it seems to me positively irrational when the evidence is equal to prefer death, futility, and despair over hope, meaningfulness and happiness.

But, in fact, I don't think the evidence is absolutely equal. I think there are good reasons to believe in God. And today I want to share briefly five of those reasons. Whole books have been written on each of these, so all I have time to do is to present a brief sketch of each argument and then during the discussion time we can go more deeply into any of them that you'd like to talk about.

As travelers along life's way, it's our goal to make sense of things, to try to understand the way the world is. The hypothesis that God exists makes sense out of a wide range of the facts of experience.

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

Have you ever asked yourself where the universe came from? Why everything exists instead of just nothing? Typically atheists have said the universe is just eternal, and that's all.

But surely this is unreasonable. Just think about it a minute. If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,

The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.1

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, "the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."2

Of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.3

That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."4 But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

We can summarize our argument thus far as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Isn't it incredible that the big bang theory thus confirms what the Christian theist has always believed: that in the beginning God created the universe? Now I put it to you: which makes more sense: that the Christian theist is right or that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing? I, at least, have no trouble assessing these alternatives!

2. God makes sense of the the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

During the last 40 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge. The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."5 And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Now there are three possibilities for explaining the presence of this remarkable fine-tuning of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first alternative holds that there is some unknown Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) which would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe's not being life-permitting. By contrast, the second alternative states that the fine-tuning is due entirely to chance. It's just an accident that the universe is life-permitting, and we're the lucky beneficiaries. The third alternative rejects both of these accounts in favor of an intelligent Mind behind the cosmos, who designed the universe to permit life. Which of these alternatives is the most plausible?

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,

Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.6

For example, the most promising candidate for a T.O.E. to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, fails to predict uniquely our universe. In fact, string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe's being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. Even though there will be a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Students or laymen who blithely assert, "It could have happened by chance!" simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives—for example, in order to explain how there came to be overnight a car in one's driveway.

Some people have tried to escape this problem by claiming that we really shouldn't be surprised at the finely-tuned conditions of the universe, for if the universe were not fine-tuned, then we wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that we are here, we should expect the universe to be fine-tuned. But such reasoning is logically fallacious. We can show this by means of a parallel illustration. Imagine you're traveling abroad and are arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. You hear the command given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" and you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 trained marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude? "Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss." Of course not! You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose, that the whole thing was a set-up, engineered for some reason by someone. While you wouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead, you'd be very surprised, indeed, that you do observe that you are alive. In the same way, given the incredible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not due to chance, but to design.

In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists an infinite number of randomly ordered universes composing a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of which our universe is but a part. Somewhere in this infinite World Ensemble finely-tuned universes will appear by chance alone, and we happen to be one such world.

There are, however, at least two major failings of the World Ensemble hypothesis: First, there's no evidence that such a World Ensemble exists. No one knows if there are other worlds. Moreover, recall that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that any universe in a state of continuous cosmic expansion cannot be infinite in the past. Their theorem applies to the multiverse, too. Therefore, since the past is finite, only a finite number of other worlds can have been generated by now, so that there's no guarantee that a finely-tuned world will have appeared in the ensemble.

Second, if our universe is just a random member of an infinite World Ensemble, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we in fact observe. Roger Penrose has calculated that it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. (Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison.7) So if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing a universe no larger than our solar system. Or again, if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since such things are vastly more probable than all of nature's constants and quantities' falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no World Ensemble.

So once again, the view that Christian theists have always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the universe, seems to make much more sense than the atheistic view that the universe just happens to be by chance fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.

We can summarize this second argument as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. And the claim is that in the absence of God, moral values are not objective in this sense.

Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J. L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted: "If . . . there are . . . objective values, they make the existence of a God more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a God." 8 But in order to avoid God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective moral values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution . . . ."9

Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, agrees. He explains,

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.10

Friedrich Nietzsche, the great 19th century atheist who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life.

I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right.

But we must be very careful here. The question here is not: "must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?" I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?" I think that we can.

Rather the question is: "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, human morality is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of evolution has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. The reasoning of Ruse at best proves only that our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved. But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm. Most of us think that we do apprehend objective values. As Ruse himself confesses, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."11

Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior—they're moral abominations. Some things are really wrong. Similarly love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.

We can summarize this argument as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

4. God makes sense of the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

The historical person Jesus of Nazareth was a remarkable individual. New Testament critics have reached something of a consensus that the historical Jesus came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, the authority to stand and speak in God's place. That's why the Jewish leadership instigated his crucifixion for the charge of blasphemy. He claimed that in himself the Kingdom of God had come, and as visible demonstrations of this fact he carried out a ministry of miracles and exorcisms. But the supreme confirmation of his claim was his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus did rise from the dead, then it would seem that we have a divine miracle on our hands and, thus, evidence for the existence of God.

Now most people would probably think that the resurrection of Jesus is something you just accept on faith or not. But there are actually three established facts, recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today, which I believe are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus: His empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances and the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection. Let's look briefly at each one of these.

Fact #1: Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers on Sunday morning. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "by far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb." 12 According to D. H. Van Daalen, it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.

Fact #2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to Gerd Lüdemann, a prominent German New Testament critic, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."13 These appearances were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.

Fact #3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus' crucifixion:

1. Their leader was dead, and Jewish Messianic expectations included no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel's enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal.

2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, states, "Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was."14 N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him."15

Attempts to explain away these three great facts—like the disciples stole the body or Jesus wasn't really dead—have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship. The simple fact is that there just is no plausible, naturalistic explanation of these facts. Therefore, it seems to me, the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.

We can summarize this argument as follows:

1. There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection.

2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

This isn't really an argument for God's existence; rather it's the claim that you can know God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing him. This was the way people in the Bible knew God, as professor John Hick explains:

God was known to them as a dynamic will interacting with their own wills, a sheer given reality, as inescapably to be reckoned with as destructive storm and life-giving sunshine . . . They did not think of God as an inferred entity but as an experienced reality. To them God was not . . . an idea adopted by the mind, but an experiential reality which gave significance to their lives.16

Philosophers call beliefs like this "properly basic beliefs." They aren't based on some other beliefs; rather they are part of the foundation of a person's system of beliefs. Other properly basic beliefs would be the belief in the reality of the past, the existence of the external world, and the presence of other minds like your own. When you think about it, none of these beliefs can be proved. How could you prove that the world was not created five minutes ago with built-in appearances of age like food in our stomachs from the breakfasts we never really ate and memory traces in our brains of events we never really experienced? How could you prove that you are not a brain in a vat of chemicals being stimulated with electrodes by some mad scientist to believe that you are here listening to this lecture? How could you prove that other people are not really androids who exhibit all the external behavior of persons with minds, when in reality they are soulless, robot-like entities?

Although these sorts of beliefs are basic for us, that doesn't mean that they're arbitrary. Rather they are grounded in the sense that they're formed in the context of certain experiences. In the experiential context of seeing and feeling and hearing things, I naturally form the belief that there are certain physical objects which I am sensing. Thus, my basic beliefs are not arbitrary, but appropriately grounded in experience. There may be no way to prove such beliefs, and yet it is perfectly rational to hold them. You'd have to be crazy to think that the world was created five minutes ago or to believe that you are a brain in a vat! Such beliefs are thus not merely basic, but properly basic.

In the same way, belief in God is for those who seek Him a properly basic belief grounded in our experience of God.

We can summarize this consideration as follows:

1. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted as basic beliefs not grounded on argument.

2. Belief that the biblical God exists is appropriately grounded.

3. Therefore, belief that the biblical God exists may be rationally accepted as a basic belief not grounded on argument.

Now if this is right, then there's a danger that arguments for the existence of God could actually distract one's attention from God Himself. If you're sincerely seeking God, God will make His existence evident to you. The Bible says, "draw near to God and he will draw near to you" (James 4.8). We mustn't so concentrate on the proofs that we fail to hear the inner voice of God speaking to our heart. For those who listen, God becomes an immediate reality in their lives.

In summary, we've seen five good reasons to think that God exists:

1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.

4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

These are only a part of the evidence for God's existence. Alvin Plantinga, one of the world's leading philosophers, has laid out two dozen or so arguments for God's existence.17 Together these constitute a powerful cumulative case for the existence of God.

Therefore, I think that Christian theism is a plausible worldview which commends itself to the thoughtful consideration of every rational human being.

Endnotes

1 David Hilbert, "On the Infinite," in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Introduction by Paul Benacerraf and Hillary Putnam (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 139, 141.

2 ABC Science Online, "The Big Questions: In the Beginning," Interview of Paul Davies by Philp Adams, http://aca.mq.edu.au/pdavies.html.

3 Alex Vilenkin, Many Words in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), p. 176.

4 Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence (New York: Schocken Books, 1969), p. 66.

5 Roger Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum Gravity 2, ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 249.

6 Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), p. 169.

7 See Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5.

8 J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982),pp. 115-16.

9 Ibid., pp. 117-18.

10 Michael Ruse, "Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics," in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269.

11 Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 275.

12 Jacob Kremer, Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49-50.

13 Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 8.

14 Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 136.

15 N. T. Wright, "The New Unimproved Jesus," Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p. 26.

16 John Hick, "Introduction," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 13-14.

17 Alvin Plantinga, "Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments," Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Conference, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, October 23-25, 1986. Available online at http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Theisticarguments.html.

Dr. William Lane Craig Gives 5 Things Science Cannot Prove

2011-06-08T05:09:00.000-07:00

People always say “I’m a very rational person” they then go on to explain that they’re smart because they live by the scientific method only believing in what they can see, touch, or feel. And I’m sure we have all met atheists who disbelieve in God because they can’t see, touch, hear, or feel him. Unfortunately for these want-to-be intellectuals Dr. William Lane Craig has listed 5 things that the scientific method can’t prove yet we’re all reasonable to believe.

1. Logic and Mathematics
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical beliefs
4. Aesthetic judgments
5. Science itself

1-You can’t prove that logic or math work because the only way to do so would be to use logic or math. If all you follow is reason then how can you prove that reason works? This doesn’t mean we should never use logic or math it just means that it’s reasonable to believe in some things regardless if they can be proven.

2-Many Metaphysical truths cannot be proven using science. For instance (and these questions have exist for a LONG time now) think about the Matrix how can I know that I’m not hooked up to a machine right now living in some virtual reality? How do you know you’re not dreaming right now? What if your mind is the only one that exists and your just imagining everyone else? None of these things can be proven but we’re not only reasonable for not believing them but believing one of them may land you in a mental ward.

3- Science can’t prove any ethical truths. There will never be a sufficient scientific reason for why what the Nazi’s did was wrong. Yet I think we’re all reasonable to believe they’re wrong.

4-Science can’t prove truths about beauty. Science, try as it might, can’t explain why I like one poem over another. Still we’re all reasonable to believe that some things are beautiful and that some things aren’t.

5-Science (as hilarious as it is) can’t prove itself. Similar to number 1, for science to prove that it works it would have to use science. It’s impossible, yet we all are reasonable to believe in science.

Christian Essentials: The Trinity - R Boshoff

2011-06-02T06:00:00.000-07:00

Dr Walter Martin wrote“Every major cult or non-Christian religion that seeks to deride orthodox theology continually attacks the doctrine of the trinity.” We can most assuredly say that the attacks these days are directed at the jugular vein of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Why is the Trinity Doctrine so important? Thomas Watson explains “If there be one God subsisting in three persons, then let us give equal reverence to all the persons in the Trinity. There is not more or less in the Trinity; the Father is not more God than the Son and Holy Ghost. There is an order in the Godhead, but no degrees; one person has not a majority or super eminence above another, therefore we must give equal worship to all the persons.”
Millard J Erickson adds “In the Doctrine of the Trinity, we encounter one of the truly distinctive doctrines in Christianity. Among the religions of the world, the Christian faith is unique in making the claim that God is one and yet there are three who are God… The Doctrine of the Trinity is crucial for Christianity. It is concerned with who God is, what He is like, how He works and how He is to be approached.” Bruce Milne ends off by saying “Just about everything that matters in Christianity hangs on the truth of God’s three-in-oneness.”

We must remember:
• The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it.
• The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. John Wesley said “Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the Triune God.”

Why is the Doctrine of the Trinity so important? (Dr Kenneth Samples)
1. The Trinity doctrine is crucial because it reveals what and Who God is (one God in three persons), and this insight allows Christians, though in an obviously limited way, to view the inner working of God’s nature and personhood.
2. The Trinity doctrine brings together in a coherent manner the great truths about God’s historical, redemptive actions (completed in and through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
3. The Trinity doctrine sets the Christian view of God apart from all other religious perspectives, including other monotheistic viewpoints (such as Judaism and Islam). Only the Christian God is one in essence but three in personhood (in philosophical terms: one What and three Who’s).
4. The doctrine of the Trinity reveals God’s very nature and personhood and sets the faith apart from all other religions. It also reveals God as an eternally relational being.

Note:
• The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God.
• The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.
• The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture.
• This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God.
• Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture.

Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
◦It is not mentioned in the Bible
◦It does not make philosophical sense
◦It is not compatible with monotheism
◦It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus

Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
◦It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
◦It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
◦It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
◦The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative

Objections to the Trinity:
This section provides a brief summary of groups and individuals who have rejected the Trinity, presented in roughly chronological order:

Judaism:
In the New Testament, Jews are described as rejecting Jesus' claims apparent claims to divinity, accusing him of blasphemy. In the Gospel of Mark, for instance, Jesus forgives a man's sins and some Jewish teachers thought to themselves: "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" In the Gospel of John, some Jews began to stone Jesus, explaining that they did so "for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Arianism:
Arianism is the name given to an anti-Trinitarian belief system taught by Arius, an elder in the Alexandrian church, in the early fourth century AD. Arius affirmed the uniqueness of God and denied the complete divinity of the Son (Christ).

He taught instead that Christ was a created and changeable being, who, while superior to humans, is not of the same order as the one God.

Arius and Arianism were condemned at the famous Council of Nicea in 325 AD, which proclaimed that the Son was of "the same substance" as the Father. After Constantine's death, however, Arianism flourished again for some decades and almost overcame the Nicene party. Arianism was finally condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

Islam:
Islam, the Qur’an explicitly denies the doctrine of the Trinity. It appears to understand the Christian Trinity as being the Father, Son and Mary.

Sura 5.116 - “And behold! Allah will say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?” He will say: “Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). . . . ”

Sura 5.72-73 “They do blaspheme who say: ‘God is Christ the son of Mary.’ But said Christ, ‘O children of Israel, Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.’ Whoever joins other gods with God, God will forbid him the garden, and the fire will be his abode… for there is no god except One God.”

Jehovah's Witnesses:
Charles Taze Russell says "Verily, if it were not for the fact that this trinitarian nonsense was drilled into us from earliest infancy, and the fact that it is soberly taught in Theological Seminaries by gray-haired professors, in many other ways apparently wise, nobody would give it a moment's serious consideration. How the great Adversary ever succeeded in foisting it upon the Lord's people to bewilder and mystify them, and render much of the Word of God of none effect, is the real mystery which will probably not be solved until we 'know even as we are known,' in glory" (Charles Taze Russell, "The Channel of the Atonement," Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 5, Study VIII, p. 166, emp. added).

• A Jehovah's Witness brochure entitled "Beliefs and Customs that God Hates" includes the Trinity, saying:
• Is Jehovah a Trinity-three persons in one God? No! Jehovah, the Father, is "the only true God." (John 17:3; Mark 12:29) Jesus is His firstborn Son, and he is subject to God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) The Father is greater than the Son. (John 14:28) The holy spirit is not a person; it is God's active force.-Genesis 1:2; Acts 2:18.

Mormonism (Latter Day Saints):
• Mormons believe that the Godhead is made up of three distinct beings who are "one in purpose" but not in being.
• Jesus is affirmed as Son of God, but not God himself. He is a created spirit.
• We can become god’s.

Unitarianism:
• Unitarian Universalists are defined by their rejection of the Trinity and their belief in the ultimate salvation of all humanity.
• "No record you will find that the New Testament Church ever believed or taught the doctrine of the Trinity. For the Scriptures prove that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are only manifestations (not three Persons) of the ONE GOD; and God is ONE IN PERSON" (The Truth About ONE GOD, United Pentecostal Church pamphlet, emp. added).

The Da Vinci Code:
• Although neither a scholarly nor a religious source, Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code is mentioned here because it has been widely read and it claims to present numerous "historical facts" about the development of the Trinity and other aspects of early Christianity.

Dan Brown writes, "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless." This is not historically accurate.

Preachers today:
Tommy Tenney - Who has written the best seller The God Chasers was raised in the United Pentecostal Church (UPC), His family is 4 generations in this church. UPC converts are to be baptized in Jesus’ name not in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit because all three mentioned in Mt.28 are suppose to be Jesus, God is only one person.

Creflo Dollar – “the trinity is of course God the father God the son God the Holy Ghost. God the father, one God, three functions one and different functions God functioning as a father- God functioning as a son -God functioning as the Holy Ghost. One God other functions.”(Feb.19, 2001 World Changers program)

T.D. Jakes – Does not confess an orthodox view of the nature of God but neither has he abandoned his oneness view. He continues to acknowledge the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as different functions.

Benny Hinn - “God the Father. Ladles and gentlemen, is a Person, and He is a triune being by Himself, separate from the Son and the Holy Ghost... God the Father 1s a Person, God the Son Is a Person. God the Holy Ghost Is a Person. But each of them is a triune being by Himself. It I can shock you- and maybe I should- there are nine of 'em...

Early Church on the Trinity:
Was the Trinity an early fabricated idea or an early affirmed doctrine?
There are cult groups denying the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.).This council "was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church."

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea:

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.
"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

What are some false views in regard to the Trinity? (Matt Slick)
• Adoptionism - God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
• Albigenses - Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
• Apollinarianism - Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
• Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
• Docetism - Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
• Donatism - Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
• Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
• Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
• Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
• Monarchianism - God is one person.
• Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature: divine.
• Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
• Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
• Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
• Semi-Pelagianism - Man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation.
• Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
• Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
• Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.
*((Monsterism - the believe that there is one god with 3 heads. (Jehovah Witness teaching on what orthodox Christianity believes)

II. Some proposed illustrations to explain the Trinity?
It should be said up front that there is no earthly example that fully explains the mystery of the Trinity. Yet, throughout church history various attempts have been offered. Some are totally unscriptural while others possess some limited possibilities.

A. Unscriptural examples:
1. A three-leaf clover— each leaf enjoys the same stem, but this is a poor illustration of the Trinity because these leaves can be separated one from the other, and you cannot separate the Trinity.

2. The three states of water (liquid, vapor, and solid) — in its natural form, water is liquid. When boiled it turns into vapor, and when frozen, it becomes solid. This, too, is a poor illustration of the Trinity.

3. The three-fold nature of man (body, soul, spirit)—Man possesses body, soul, and spirit, but they can be separated. At death the body is buried; the soul (the spirit) goes to be with the Lord. You cannot separate the Trinity. Therefore this, too, is a poor illustration.

4. The three parts of an egg (shell, white, yolk)—these three parts can be separated, thus making a bad illustration.

5. A tree— a tree has roots, a trunk, and branches. But as in the above examples, these three entities can be separated.

B. Possible (and partial) examples:
1. A triangle—this is a fairly good example of the Trinity because it has three sides, and yet, it is one triangle which is indivisible.
2. Fire—a fire must have three things to exist. They are not the same, but if any ingredient is absent the fire ceases to be. These are: fuel, heat, and oxygen.

a. Remove the fuel and the fire goes out.

b. Lower the heat and the fire goes out.

c. Take away the oxygen and the fire goes out.

3. The nature of light, consisting of three kinds of rays:

a. Chemical Rays—rays that are invisible, and can neither be felt nor seen.

b. Light Rays—rays that are seen, but cannot be felt.

c. Heat Rays—rays that are felt, but never seen.

Some have said this is a good illustration of the Trinity, because chemical rays are invisible and could illustrate a type of the Father (can neither be felt nor seen). Light rays can be seen but cannot be felt, thus illustrating a type of the Son. Heat rays illustrate a type of the Holy Spirit because they are felt but never seen. This is a possible illustration of the Trinity.

4. Time—Consisting of the past, present, and future.
5. The dimensional example:

For all practical purposes our world is a three-dimensional world (excluding the fourth dimension of time), where all objects possess height, length, and width. Thus, let us imagine a book which measures 9 inches long, 6 inches wide, and 1 inch in height.

We may correctly conclude:

a. There is but one single book involved.

b. There are, however, three separate but unified dimensions involved.

c. These dimensions are not the same, but cannot be separated from the other two without destroying the book itself.

The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking.

Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son.

Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God.
The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2).
The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20).
The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father.

This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God.

Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks.
The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate.

The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God.
The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

The Doctrine of the Trinity
The Doctrine of the Trinity teaches that within the unity of the one Godhead there are three separate persons who are coequal in power, nature, and eternity. This doctrine is derived from the clear teaching of Scripture, and is not a man-made doctrine as some (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) have claimed. Let us briefly examine some of the New Testament evidences for this important doctrine.

1. The Incarnation.

The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ as described in the accounts in Matthew and Luke show that the doctrine of the Trinity was not a later invention of theologians. Luke records what an angel said to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Since other passages of Scripture reveal that the term "Most High" refers to God the Father, we have in Luke a concrete instance of the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son all being mentioned together in the supernatural event of the Incarnation.

2. The Baptism of Our Lord.

When Jesus Christ was baptized, the heavens opened and the Holy Spirit "descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: 'You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased'" (Luke 3:21-22). In these verses we see the Son being baptized, the Spirit descending upon Him, and the Father bearing testimony.

3. Discourses of Christ.

In John 14--16 Christ speaks of the persons of the Trinity in His Upper Room Discourse. Jesus declared to the disciples, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever -- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you" (John 14:16-17). Our Lord here prays to the Father for the Spirit, and His emphasis on triunity is quite apparent. In John 14:26 and 15:26 Christ uses the same formula, mentioning the three persons of the Deity and indicating their unity, not only of purpose and will but of basic nature.

4. Paul's Letters.

The apostle Paul definitely taught the triune nature of God. He wrote: "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14). It would have been difficult for Paul to give this benediction if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not equal persons within the Godhead.

5. The Great Commission.

In Matthew 28:18-20 the Lord Jesus commissions the disciples to go out and preach the gospel and to make disciples of all nations. He commands them also to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Taken with the other passages bearing on the subject, this becomes an extremely powerful argument for the Christian doctrine of the trinity.

6. Creation.

Although the Bible does not explain to us how the three persons are the one God, it tells us most emphatically that the Spirit of God created the world (Gen. 1:2), the Father created the world (Heb. 1:2), and the Son created the world (Col. 1:16). If you check the creation references in the New Testament, you will see that these particular references are bolstered by several others teaching the same things.
The apostle Paul declared in Acts 17:24, "the God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands." This forces us to an irresistible conclusion. As creation has been attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit singly and collectively, they are the one God. There cannot be three gods. The Scripture declares: "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other" (Isa. 45:22). Hence there is unity in trinity and trinity in unity.

7. The Resurrection of Christ.

A final instance of Trinitarian emphasis is that of the resurrection of our Lord. In John 2 Christ declared to the Jews, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days" (v. 19). John hastens to tell us that Jesus was speaking of the resurrection of His earthly body (v. 21). Other Scriptures, however, state that Christ was raised by the agency of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 8:11). And Peter explicitly states that the Father raised the Son (Acts 3:26). So, again, God's Word affirms the triune nature of God. We may not fully understand the great truth of the Trinity. However, we can see the rays of light which emanate from God's Word and which teach us that, in a mysterious sense beyond the comprehension of man's finite mind, God is one in nature but three in person.

The End

How do I know the Bible is true? - Norman Geisler

2011-05-30T12:55:00.000-07:00

How do I know the Bible is true?Sound reasons to trust the scriptures
In Systematic Theology (Vol. I), Dr. Norman Geisler presents many lines of evidence supporting claims for the Bible as the Word of God. In unique fashion, he labels each line of evidence with a word beginning with the letter “S,” making his arguments relatively easy to follow and remember. This article borrows his headings and then incorporates some of Geisler’s research with numerous other sources, all of which are cited.

The testimony of science
Much in the Bible demonstrates advanced scientific knowledge – that is, God revealed through human scribes information that only He knew long before scientists discovered these truths. For example:

The exact order of events in the origin of all things. “In a day when the ancient polytheistic myths of origin prevailed, the author of Genesis declared that the universe came into being out of nothing by the act of a theistic God in the exact order that modern science discovered a millennium and a half later,” writes Geisler. “The universe came first (Gen. 1:1a), then the earth (1:1b), then the land and sea (1:10). After this came life in the sea (1:21), then land animals (1:24-25), and finally … human beings (1:27). This too supports the view that the author of Genesis had access to some intelligence as to how the Creator made the universe” (p. 545).

Reproduction after each creature’s own kind. This scientific fact runs contrary to many ancient and even early modern views. Observation and the fossil record demonstrate that each type of life produces its own kind.

The earth as the raw material of human bodies. Many ancient polytheistic beliefs claim that people cam from the gods; the Koran teaches that human beings were made from a blood clot (Sura 23:14); but the Bible explains that God made Adam from the earth (Gen. 2:7).

Rain water returning to its source (Eccl.. 1:7). Perhaps without even understanding it, the writer recorded the process of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation long before scientists figured it out.

The shape of the world as it hangs in space. Job (26:7) and Isaiah (40:22) make remarkable statements contrary to the ancient belief that the earth was flat, or square. Some myths held that the earth rested on the back of Hercules or on pillars, but the Bible states otherwise.

Life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11), a fact declared in scripture more than 3,000 years ago and only fairly recently attested to in science.

The sea’s paths and boundaries (Ps. 8:8; Prov. 8:29). The continental shelf that makes this possible is a fairly recent scientific discovery.

The laws of sanitation (Lev. 12-15). Long before there was scientific knowledge of bacteria and germs, God instructed His people through laws of sanitation to protect themselves from diseases spread by unseen organisms.

The testimony of the scrolls
While the autographs, or original manuscripts, of the Bible have not survived the ravages of time, no other book from the ancient world has more, earlier, or better copied manuscripts than the Bible. Examples abound:

The number of manuscripts and their age
Both the Old and New Testaments are attested by a large number of manuscripts in a variety of forms spanning many centuries. The word “manuscript” is used to denote anything written by hand, rather that copies produced from printing presses.

According to scholar F.F. Bruce, we have nine or 10 good copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars; 20 copies of Livy’s Roman History; two copies of Tacitus’s Annals; and eight manuscripts of Thucydides’ History. The most documented secular work from antiquity is Homer’s Iliad with 643 copies. But there are roughly 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, making this collection of 27 books the most highly documented book from the ancient world (The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?, p. 16).

Generally speaking, the older the manuscript copies, the better. The oldest manuscript for Gallic Wars is roughly 900 years after Caesar’s day. The two manuscripts of Tacitus are 800 and 1,000 years later, respectively, than the original. The earliest copies of Homer’s Iliad date from about 1,000 years after the original was authored around 800 B.C. But with the New Testament, we have complete manuscripts from only 300 hundred years later. Most of the New Testament is preserved in manuscripts less than 200 years from the original, with some books dating from a little more than 100 years after their composition and one fragment surviving within a generation of its authorship. No other book from the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest manuscript copies as the New Testament.

“In the original Greek alone, over 5,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments or portions of the NT have been preserved from the early centuries of Christianity. The oldest of these is a scrap of papyrus containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, dating from A.D. 125-130, no more than forty years after John’s Gospel was most probably written” (Craig L. Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, pp. 193-94).

“The versions and Church Fathers provide helpful early attestation that can aid scholars in reconstructing the most plausible original readings. The total tally of more than 6,000 Greek mss., more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate mss., and more than 9,300 early versions results in over 25,000 witnesses to the text of the NT” (“Is the Bible Today What Was Originally Written?” by Andreas J. Kostenberger, found in www.4truth.net).

The accuracy of the manuscript copies
Mormons and Muslims allege that the Bible’s documents were substantially corrupted as they were copied over time, but there is overwhelming evidence that proves these claims wrong.

Scholars of almost every theological stripe attest to the profound care with which the Old and New Testament documents were copied. For the New Testament, for example, the books were copied in Greek, and later translated and preserved in Syriac, Coptic, Latin and a variety of other ancient European and Middle Eastern languages.

The New Testament is the most accurately copied book from the ancient world. Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimate that only one-sixtieth of its variants rise above “trivialities,” which leaves the text 98.33 percent pure. Noted historian Philip Schaff calculates that of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 affected the meaning of a passage; only 50 were of any significance; and not even one affected an article of faith (Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, p. 177).

Sir Frederick Kenyon, a New Testament authority, writes, “The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, or early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities…. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world” (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, p. 55).

Many of the apparent discrepancies in the gospels, Acts and the writings of Paul – minor as they are – disappear once we judge ancient historians by the standards of their day rather than ours. As Craig L. Blomberg writes, “In a world which did not even have a symbol for a quotation mark, no one expected a historian to reproduce a speaker’s words verbatim” (“The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 207).

“The point is simply that the textual evidence for what the NT authors wrote far outstrips the documentation we have for any other ancient writing, including dozens which we believe have been preserved relatively intact. There is absolutely no support for claims that the standard modern editions of the Greek NT do not very closely approximate what the NT writers actually wrote” (Craig L. Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 194).

The only textual variants in the New Testament that affect more than a sentence or two are John 7:53-8:11 and mark 16:9-20. Craig Blomberg writes, “Neither of these passages is very likely to be what John or Mark originally wrote, though the story in John (the woman caught in adultery) still stands a fairly good chance of being true. But overall, 97-99% of the NT can be reconstructed beyond any reasonable doubt, and no Christian doctrine is founded solely or even primarily on textually disputed passages” (“The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 194).

“If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must … declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied – a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words…. The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use” (Benjamin B. Warfield, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 12-13, quoted in The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, p. 70).

The eyewitness accounts in the presence of hostile witnesses
The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus. For example, Luke probably wrote his gospel around 60 A.D., before he wrote Acts. Since Jesus died around 33 A.D., this would place Luke only 27 years after the events, while most eyewitnesses – and potentially hostile witnesses – were still alive and could have refuted Luke’s record.

The apostle Paul speaks of more than 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ when he wrote 1 Corinthians, which critics date around 55-56 A.D. John and Peter add similar testimonies (1 John 1:1-2; 2 Peter 1:16).

The testimony of the scribes
The 40 men who penned the scriptures over a period of 1,500 years insisted that their message came from God. Many were persecuted and even killed for their faith. Of the 11 faithful apostles plus Paul, only John escaped a martyr’s death, although he was boiled in oil and banished to Patmos; even at that, he continued to boldly proclaim divine truth.

The authors of the Bible claimed to be under the direction of the Holy Spirit (2 Sam. 23:2; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21).

The prophets ascribed their message to God. Phrases such as “Thus saith the Lord,” “God said,” and “the Word of the Lord came to me” are found hundreds of times in the Bible.

The prophets were convinced they were speaking and writing God’s Word. Near the end of the Old Testament, Zechariah mentioned “the law (and) the words that the Lord Almighty had sent by His Spirit through the earlier prophets” (Zech. 7:12). Peter wrote in 2 Peter 1:21 that “prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” Many of the prophets suffered and died for their belief that they were speaking God’s Word (Matt. 23:34-35).

Writing about the Old Testament, Paul declared that “All Scripture is God-breathed …” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). New Testament writers like Peter referred to the writings of Paul as “Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). And the author of Hebrews ranked the New Testament with the Old Testament (Heb. 1:1-2; 2:3).

Non-Christian ancient writings attest to the truthfulness of the eyewitness accounts of Christ. Ancient history dealt almost exclusively with political or military rulers, or with religious and philosophical leaders of established and respected religions. Since Jesus fits none of these categories, we would expect to see very little about Him in non-Christian writings. Yet the Jewish historian Josephus, in his Jewish Antiquities, written in the last third of the first century, corroborates the claims of the New Testament writers that Jesus was more than a man, was the Messiah, and rose from the dead on the third day (18:63-64, quoted in “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” Craig L. Blomberg, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 215).

The testimony of the supernatural
The Bible features nearly 300 prophecies of the Messiah, the latest of which dates to more than 200 years before the birth of Jesus. Every prophecy has been fulfilled, with the exception of those pertaining to His glorious return. Many are clear and specific, including:
† His virgin birth (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:21)
† His being “cut off” or killed 483 years after the declaration to reconstruct the temple in 444 B.C. (Dan. 9:24-26)
† His birthplace in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
† His miracle-working authority (Isa. 35:5-6; Matt. 9:35)
† His rejection by the Jews (Ps. 118:22; Isa. 53:3; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7)
† His suffering and death (Ps. 22; Isa. 53; Matt. 27:27ff)
† His resurrection (Ps. 2:7; 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31; 1 Cor. 15:3-8)
† His ascension into heaven (Ps. 68:18; Acts 1:9)
† His place today at the Father’s right hand (Ps. 110:1; Heb. 1:3)

Contrast these specific predictions and their fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth with the predictions of psychics today who, according to The People’s Almanac, 1976, are wrong 92 percent of the time. Even the highly reputed visions of Nostradamus are suspect. He often was wrong, especially when being specific, and his predictions were usually so vague as to be practically useless.

The Bible gives us many supernatural confirmations of its divine origin. For example, Moses, Elijah and other prophets were given the authority to perform miracles to confirm God’s sovereign power and divine message. Jesus, we are told by Luke, was “a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).

The testimony of structure
Even though the Bible was recorded by some 40 different authors – from different backgrounds, occupations and levels of education; who spoke in three different languages; who wrote over a period of 1,500 years – there is remarkable unity amid the vast diversity of scripture’s 66 books.

There is throughout scripture the unfolding drama of redemption, with Jesus Christ as its central person, seen in the Old Testament by way of anticipation and in the New Testament by way of revelation.

The Bible proclaims a unified message: Mankind’s problem is sin, and the solution is salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:16-19; Luke 19:10; John 3:16; 5:24; Rom. 3:10, 23; 4:4-5; 6:23; 10:9-13; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7).

The testimony of the stones
Geisler writes, “No archaeological find has ever refuted a biblical claim, and thousands of finds have confirmed in general and in detail the biblical picture” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 557).

Noted archaeologist Nelson Glueck states, “As a matter of fact … it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Rivers in the Desert, p. 31, quoted in Systematic Theology, p. 557 ).

Examples of archaeological confirmations include the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11); Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19); the fall of Jericho (Josh. 6); King David (2 Sam.); and the Assyrian Captivity (Isa. 20).

In the New Testament book of Acts alone there are hundreds of archaeological confirmations. During decades of research, Sir William Ramsay wrote, “I found myself often brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth” (St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, p. 8, quoted in Systematic Theology, p. 558).

The testimony of the Savior
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah / Christ, the divine Son of God and the divine Son of Man (Matt. 16:16-18; 26:63-64; John 8:58). He was confirmed by acts of God (John 3:2; Acts 2:22), and declared that He had been given all authority in heaven and earth to rule and to judge (Matt. 28:18; John 5:22). Therefore, His views on the Bible are extremely important. What did He have to say?

Geisler writes, “Jesus declared that the Old Testament was divinely authoritative (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10); imperishable (Matt. 5:17-18); infallible (John 10:35); inerrant (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17); historically reliable (Matt. 12:40; 24:37-38); scientifically accurate (Matt. 19:4-5; John 3:12); and ultimately supreme (Matt. 15:3, 6)” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 559).

Jesus also personally affirmed many things that Bible critics deny, for example: 1) God created a literal Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4); Jonah was actually swallowed by a great fish (Matt. 12:40); the whole world was destroyed by a flood in Noah’s day (Matt. 24:39); and there was one prophet Isaiah (not two or three) who wrote all of Isaiah (Mark 7:6-7; Luke 4:17-20).

Jesus called the Old Testament “the word of God” (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:13; John 10:35). He introduced Biblical quotes with “It is written,” the standard Jewish introduction to Scripture. In Matt. 22:43, he referred to David’s words in Psalm 110:1 as spoken by the Holy Spirit. He also promised that the Spirit would bring more truth, referring to the New Testament (John 14:25-26; 16:13).

Jesus promised that the New Testament would be God’s Word. He told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them “all things” and lead them into “all truth” (John 14:26; 16:13). The apostles later claimed this divine authority for their words (John 20:31; 1 John 1:1; 4:1, 5-6). Peter acknowledged Paul’s writing as “Scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The testimony of the Spirit
The same Holy Spirit who authored all Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17) lives in the hearts of all believers and “testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Rom. 8:16). This means the indwelling Holy Spirit confirms the truth of God’s Word to us.

Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would convince unbelievers of their sin of unbelief, of the righteousness of Christ, and of the judgment they will share with Satan if they persist in their unbelief – all clear teachings of Scripture (John 16:7-11).

The testimony of the saved
The Bible’s life-changing power is widely known through the testimony of those who have come to know Christ. The apostle Paul, once known as a Christ-hating persecutor, declared, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

The writer of Hebrews declares: “For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating as far as to divide soul, spirit, joints, and marrow; it is a judge of the ideas and thoughts of the heart” (Heb. 4:12).

Peter added, “… you have been born again – not of perishable seed but of imperishable – through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).

The celebrated British archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, who began his studies as a skeptic, became a Christian after exploring the sites of Paul’s journeys firsthand and comparing them with the testimony of Acts (“The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” Craig L. Blomberg, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, p. 220).

Testimonies throughout the centuries and in this day speak emphatically and gloriously of the power of God’s Word to bring about a conviction of sin and forgiveness of that sin by faith in Jesus Christ.

Summary
Geisler concludes, “The Bible is the only known book in the world that both claims to be and proves to be the Word of God…. The testimony of science that demonstrates it, of the scrolls that transmit it, the scribes who wrote it, the supernatural that confirms it, the structure that manifests it, the stones that support it, the Savior who verified it, the Spirit that witnesses to it, and the saved who have been transformed by it. These combined testimonies confirm that the Bible is what it claims to be – the divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God” (Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 561).

Nothing but the truth…so help me God! - R Boshoff

2011-05-16T15:01:00.000-07:00

Neil Gershenfeld, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Centre for Bits and Atoms wants everyone to know that “truth” is just a model. “The most common misunderstanding about science is that scientists seek and find truth. They don’t – they make and test models,” he said. It just seem to me that a few years back we wholesomely asked “why does truth matter”; yet, today we just assert “why truth?” We regressed from “why truth is plausible and even relevant” to “why bother with any truth?” There is a natural resistance towards finding the truth in a relativistic society because truth is seen only as relevant to a given context. Truth is not universal but rather local, not myopic but grandiose. Truth changes every day. It is kinetic not static. It is morphing not familiar. What do I know about truth?

I’m a pastor of a small congregation. One of those churches where we are still close enough to know enough of each other. The last few months I have come to be two main things other than a shepherd, a beggar and a souvenir. I seem to find such little guilt and true zeal for the Lord’s cause and a wholesome need to hear the truth amongst Christians. If I mention man’s true condition or sin, half the Church drives to go get a dose or easy fix at another congregation. They want ointment for their wounds, not healing. People come expecting to be entertained rather to be sustained, waiting for some experience rather than His Holy appearance! Just a week ago I had to beg a Christian couple to accept “the truth” on their situation and not get a divorce. There was no reference to truth so in the end they will still go through with their initial decision. Nothings changed…His people die for a lack of knowledge…or shall we agree a lack of truth?

Thomas à Kempis (14th century) writes and observes; “Jesus hath many lovers of His heavenly kingdom, but few bearers of His Cross. He hath many seekers of comfort, but few of tribulation. He findeth many companions of His table, but few of His fasting. All desire to rejoice with Him, few are willing to undergo anything for His sake. Many follow Jesus that they may eat of His loaves, but few that they may drink of the cup of His passion. Many are astonished at His miracles, few follow after the shame of His Cross. Many love Jesus so long as no adversities happen to them. Many praise Him and bless Him, so long as they receive any comforts from Him. But if Jesus hide Himself and withdraw a little while, they fall either into complaining or into too great dejection of mind.”

Where is our capacity to receive truth? Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life”. (John 14:6) Later in the same gospel he adds "The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life." (John 6:63b). He adds in John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” In John 17:17 He says “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” He even states we need to worship Him in “Spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)

We love to do Spiritual activities to make ourselves feel close and warm. But He made it clear. “Spirit…..and truth…” There is simply no compromise. He is actually saying “the true worshippers have the capacity to excel in the Spiritual as well as the actual. No half way deals here! The way you embrace truth will determine your capacity for the Spiritual and vice versa.

Truth is not cunning; in the words of Dr R Zacharias “truth is that which corresponds with reality!” I dare you to not to just seek the truth about God and His benefits but also to seek the truth about yourself. "The unexamined life is not worth living" said the Greek Philosopher Socrates. King David of Israel prays in Psalm 139:23-24 “Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”

Religion is trying to convince oneself of his own goodness. Were we constantly have to be reminded we are the “righteousness of God” and where we “forget not all His benefits.” Christianity is an open confession of “who am I ….a man off unclean lips.” (Isaiah 6:5) Thank you Father for making me righteous, allow me not to forget your benefits because you addressed my brokenness. The more we move from self to Him….the more we receive His words, the more we move towards a frame of reverence that corresponds with His reality. And there He will become true.

Lead us to everlasting life Lord!

Selah

Rb

Contemplative curiosity - R Boshoff

2011-04-24T17:08:00.000-07:00

“What is the Divine Darkness? Trinity!! Higher than any being, any divinity, any goodness! Guide of Christians in the wisdom of heaven! Lead us up beyond unknowing and light, up to the farthest, highest peak of mystic scripture, where the mysteries of God's Word lie simple, absolute and unchangeable in the brilliant darkness of a hidden silence. Amid the deepest shadow they pour overwhelming light on what is most manifest. Amid the wholly unsensed and unseen they completely fill our sightless minds with treasures beyond all beauty.” Dionysius the Areopagite (The Mystical Theology)

Why am I so easily amused by the promptings from within? Alone, stammering as the soul pilgrim through the woods of my dreams by which my soul lament. Is this the end for me? Where are those who speak with clarity or words of surety? Why am I still so clueless? After all this time shouldn’t I be a splinter of the masters, a cad of the rule? The quest is not in my ending, the realization not in my mind. Richard Rohr writes “Our awareness of the supportive presence of God is outside of and beyond our power to express in word or conceive in thought. This gift of contemplative prayer is not a way of thinking. It's much more a way of not thinking. It's not a way of talking; it finally moves beyond words into silence. It moves into the mystery that is too deep for words.” (Everything belongs p. 149)

The Deeper we enter into the unknown, the surer we become? Have you ever felt clueless, there, sitting in the face of God; not knowing what to say? Maybe therein is our truest prayer. Where words cannot impress our hearts, nor where we can become victims of our own intent. There we clasp our sentiments together and suffocate in our own willingness to let go. This is prayer. To dwell beyond. To become… Thomas Merton writes “Then it was as if I suddenly saw the secret beauty of their hearts, the depths of their hearts where neither sin nor desire nor self-knowledge can reach, the core of their reality, the person that each one is in God's eyes. If only they could see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time, there would be no more war, no more hatred, no more cruelty, no more greed... I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other.”

I hope heaven is not what I have wished it to be! All my memories seem too weak, my recollection dull and my likes to prejudiced. Only when we don’t seem to know do we get surely surprised. And in that is our satisfaction. In that is our condescension. I’m a curious Contemplative. Limping at the seams, a pilgrim, a traveler, the one that always appears lost, the unquenched, the restless, the one who hates a straight answer. Why are we so sure of this journey? So convinced? So frail…So…So…what?

Helen Steiner Rice wrote in her poem entitled “The Mystery of Life”;

We walk in a world that is strange and unknown
And in the midst of the crowd we still feel alone,
We question our purpose, our part and our place
In this vast land of mystery suspended in space,
We probe and explore and try hard to explain
The tumult of thoughts that our minds entertain…
But all of our probings and complex explanations
Of man’s inner feelings and fears and frustrations
Still leave us engulfed in the “mystery of life”
With all of its struggles and suffering and strife,
Unable to fathom what tomorrow will bring –
But there is one truth to which we can cling,
For while life’s a mystery we can’t understand
The “great giver of life” is holding our hand
And safe in His care there is no need for seeing
For “in Him we live and move and have our being.”

Selah

"I cannot dance, Lord" - Mechthild of Magdeburg

2011-04-11T13:00:00.000-07:00

I scribbled this medieval mystic’s poem in my bible and reminded myself that only through my awareness can I see His presence clearly.

"I cannot dance, Lord, unless you lead me.
If you want me to leap with abandon,
You must intone the song.
Then I shall leap into love,
From love into knowledge,
From knowledge into enjoyment,
And from enjoyment beyond all human sensations.
There I want to remain, yet want also to circle higher still."

Mechthild of Magdeburg (c. 1207 – c. 1282/1294)

How curious the light behaves

2011-04-11T12:41:00.000-07:00

How curious the light behaves
Reflecting off the dancing waves.
Oh how my very being craves
A view from down below.

Suspended in my watery lair,
I would not need to gasp for air,
For I'm no longer human there
Beneath the icy flow.

It's peaceful there, but I have found
I still can hear the distant sound
Of voices of the souls who drowned
And left loved ones to mourn.

The lonely wails transmit the pain
Of those who just could not remain
So journeyed to the unknown plane
Of dead souls and unborn.

But in this world there still exist
Survivors who will always miss
The passion of their lovers' kiss
That warmed them night and day.

Though here above the vast, cold sea,
My heart is without tragedy,
For I have someone dear to me
Who hasn't passed away.

Never let that be untrue,
For I could not bear thoughts of you
Trapped underneath the ocean blue
Deprived of your last breath.

No harm to you would I condone,
For I'd be left here on my own
To face this tragic world alone,
A fate far worse than death.

"All Will Be Well" a book about the Revelations of Divine Love by Saint Julian of Norwich by Ellyn Sanna

2011-04-08T15:59:00.000-07:00

Modern life is hard. Everywhere we turn, our lives are filled with stress and tension. But imagine if half the people you know were to die! If you had lived back in the fourteenth century, during the years when the Plague swept through Europe, that would have been your reality. The sounds, sights and smells of death would have been everywhere. If you were one of the lucky ones who escaped the disease, you still wouldn’t have been able to escape the fear, the sorrow and the overwhelming, backbreaking labor of caring for the sick and dying.

Now THAT’s stress! This was the reality a woman named Julian of Norwich faced—and yet she was able to write (in one of the first books ever written in the English language), “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and absolutely everything shall be well.” Julian was a mystic, but hers is a practical mysticism, rooted in the ordinary realities of daily life. The fact that she could find peace in the midst of the terrifying stress of the fourteenth century lends her mysticism a powerful credibility.

Unlike many spiritual visionaries, Julian did not have ongoing mystical revelations. Instead, as a young woman, she had a single amazing experience that changed who she was for the rest of her long life. During this vision, she saw a small round object like a hazelnut, something so tiny she could have cupped it in her hand. As she looked at it, she wondered, “What is this?”

The answer came to me: “This is everything that has been made. This is all Creation.” It was so small that I marveled it could endure; such a tiny thing seemed likely to simply fall into nothingness. Again the answer came to my thoughts: “It lasts, and it will always last, because God loves it.” Everything—all that exists—draws its Being from God’s love.

. . . When we perceive the nothingness in reality, we find God there. This is why our minds and souls are often restless and uncomfortable, because we rely on things that are so small, which can offer us no real rest or security. The Divine One is the essence of rest and security, the Only Comfort. God wants to be known; the Divine One is pleased when we rest in the Spirit’s presence, since all that was created will never be enough in and of itself to give us what we need.

This is the reason why no soul finds peace until it achieves nothingness even in the midst of the created world. When we willingly, lovingly detach our minds from the world around us, we have the One who is all - and we find rest for our spirits.

It was this loving detachment from the world around her that became the foundation of Julian’s mysticism. It was the bedrock of her serenity in the midst of even the most unrelenting stress. After all, stress is what we feel when everything MATTERS unbearably. Our fingers are clutched tight around our lives’ countless details, our every breath labors to get everything right, to get it done . . . and we become exhausted with stress, overwhelmed with the sheer importance of our lives. Julian’s vision of all reality contained within a hazelnut helps us put things back in perspective.

Her mystical formula for stress relief did not mean she dwelt in some airy realm of angels and light, however. Nor did she follow saintly rules of self denial or practice a moralistic and rigid religion. Not at all. Instead, she believed wholeheartedly in the goodness of this world. The Divine Being she saw in her vision comes easily and naturally to human beings in the most intimate details of our physical lives.

Julian wrote:
God is pleased when we seek and worship the Divine Presence in whatever we can, understanding that God is the Unity in all things.

Resting in this Unity is the highest prayer, and it reaches down to our deepest needs. It brings our souls to life; it brings us more of life’s fullness; and our lives expand with grace and strength. This attitude of prayer aligns most easily with our very natures, and it requires the least effort to achieve, for it is simply what our souls already crave, and what they shall always crave until we truly understand that we are wrapped in the Divine Unity: The Goodness of God.

For God does not hold back from a single aspect of Creation, nor does the Divine One disdain to serve us in the simplest and most ordinary ways. Think how neatly our food is contained within our bodies, digested, and then is emptied out as needed. . . . God is completely comfortable with all our bodies’ activities; none of them offend the Divine Presence, for all our bodies’ natural functions are Divine vehicles, filled with the love God bears us whose souls are made in the Divine likeness.

Just as our bodies are clothed with fabrics; our blood and muscles covered with skin; our bones wrapped with blood and muscles; and our hearts hidden at the center of all these—so are we, soul and body, clad in the Goodness of God, completely enclosed and safe. This goodness is closer to us than our very bodies. Our Divine Lover longs for us to . . . identify ourselves with Goodness forever. Of all the thoughts that may occupy our minds, this one . . . makes our souls rush forward toward wholeness.

“Don’t stress,” Julian tells us. “Don’t focus on all the things that distract you from simply being. Relax. Stop clinging to the details. Let them go. Find yourself in prayer by simply seeing God everywhere (even in the bathroom!). You are clothed in God’s goodness, completely safe. There’s no need to strive so much, no need to hurry. Simply identify yourself with Divine Goodness—and your soul will move sweetly and easily away from stress, into a mystical wholeness.”

Ellyn Sanna is the Executive Editor of Anamchara Books. She is also the author of All Shall Be Well, a modern-language paraphrase of the Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich, part of Anamchara Books’ “Spiritual Classics for Modern Mystics”.

Religulous....DID U SEE IT!

2011-02-22T12:35:00.000-08:00

Just saw Religulous…ok, I admit that I laughed. I laughed a bunch because frankly we religious people are a funny lot and do many things that are worthy of ridicule and laughter. One of the things that differentiates much contemporary Evangelicalism and especially Liberal Evangelicalism from our traditionalist and Conservative forbearers, who opted for Fundamentalism, is that we are not as woodenly earnest about our religious lives.

The movie is worth seeing if only because all Liberal Evangelicals need to know about these sorts of cultural pieces on religion. I think I can predict the reaction among conservative Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Each group will be offended by what Bill Maher says about them, but they’ll simultaneously revel in the fact that he socks it to the other two groups. Take what you will from that observation.

However, I also think that, for moderate Christians, it is one of the most important films that has come along in years. If you distill Maher’s movie down to its essence it is an argument directed squarely at us. Maher isn’t the first to make this argument, Christopher Hitchens and others have made it before, but, thanks to his popular HBO show and stand-up comedy career, Maher has a much larger audience to which he can make his case. Here is his argument in bullet points.

•Religious fanatics have done some horrible things. Examples: homicide, genocide, rape, torture
•Religious people are not more moral than non-religious people, in fact the opposite may be the case.
•Many religious doctrinal claims are demonstrably false.
•Therefore, the world would be better off without religion.

This argument isn’t terribly new, and I can agree wholeheartedly with the first and third points, and will begrudgingly agree with the second point. I will not, however, concede the final point because I think it makes the mistake of treating all religious people as religious fanatics. If he were to suggest that the world is better off without religious fanatics then I would concur.

Oh, but wait. Maher is actually a couple of steps ahead of me, because he anticipates this reaction on the part of the vast majority of religious people who don’t molest children, cluster bomb villages, and build car bombs. Most religious people, according to Maher, aren’t particularly evil, we’re just happily delusional. No harm, no foul. Except, he suggests that we inadvertently cause harm and should be flagged for a foul because in so far as we lend plausibility to the basically implausible (wine = literal blood, wrestling with angels, talking snakes, flying prophets) we provide cover for murderous fanatics who count themselves among the believers. We moderates are the moral equivalents of kindly slave holders who didn’t beat, mutilate or rape their slaves.

By our very existence we provide a kind of apologetic cover for those slave holders who did all of these things. Uncle Tom’s Cabin begins with Uncle Tom living as a slave to a generously paternalistic family, but unfolds as his conditions and owners worsen each time he is sold and bought. Moderates, both Maher and Hitchens argue, are the moral equivalent of nice slave holders or sympathetic Nazis. We are the public face and voice, perhaps unwittingly, of a movement whose inner core is murderous, corrupt, and insane. Thus the film ends with a surprisingly subtle argument, though it is delivered in a kind of monologue that may cause many viewers to miss the point. Maher has given voice to the most potent criticism of religious moderation that I know of: we are enablers.

If you’re looking for an attempt at refutation, stop reading here. Others have gone in that direction, but I won’t?

Part of me wishes that the movie weren’t so funny because I fear that the humor may dull the edge of his critical point. Part of me thinks that synagogues, temples, mosques, and churches should be watching this film and wrestling with its accusations. Part of me wants to spend several pages dissecting and analyzing Maher’s arguments looking for loop holes and unwarranted logical leaps.

There are already plenty of counterarguments and counterattacks out there. So I suggest instead that we just sit on it for a moment. Let’s take his argument at face value and allow it to percolate and ferment for a while. Let’s not rush to defend ourselves and hastily construct argumentative walls and moats to keep out the tendrils of doubt. Instead, let’s sit with this argument for a bit and see what it does to us.

Might it make us more humble?

Might it cause us to turn our attention inward toward the planks in our own eyes and tares in our own fields? Might it cause us as Evangelicals to rethink the target of our evangelism?

Might we need to evangelize those Fundamentalists who’ve become fanatics and share again with them the Good News of Jesus?

It may sound strange to say it, but it may be that the people most in need of hearing Christ’s message of love, hope, and salvation are those who are most ardently claim to be Christ’s messengers and hands on earth. With Christian missionaries on every continent and in nearly every country, Moderate Evangelicals may need to ask difficult questions about the kinds of mission fields that remain.

Where is Christ’s message least heeded and most needed? Where do we see Christ proclaimed by name and on placards, even as his actions and teachings are ignored? Where is his overwhelming love absent and left without a public witness? Might these be the mission fields of the twenty-first century?

Franciscan Friars of the Renewal [PART 1]

2011-02-21T01:08:00.000-08:00

Franciscan Friars of the Renewal [PART 2]

2011-02-21T01:07:00.000-08:00

Traditional Catholic Monks of Papa Stronsay, Scotland

2011-02-20T23:56:00.000-08:00