sixversesseven

[sixversesseven]

28 I Just Wanted to Say It

How often do you pray and truly mean the words you say?

When you spend enough time praying and hearing other Christians pray, you begin to realize that prayer can be filled with formula and common phraseology. Now there is nothing wrong with praying something you have prayed or heard prayed for in the past. And if your prayers are dogmatic (core Christian principles and truths), then you are bound to repeat yourself.

A sermon I heard recently made me ask myself the question, ‘are my prayers catchphrases, words I have learned would sound meaningful but I myself did not really mean?’. Then I realized that, if I were being honest with myself, many times when I prayed I just wanted to say it.

When I said I was repentant of my sin and needed God’s forgiveness, sometimes I just wanted to say it. When I said I was thankful for the sacrifice of God’s Only Son, Jesus Christ, sometimes I just wanted to say it. I was just going through the motions. Just saying it allowed me to continue to be my old self while feeling good that I expressed the correct sentiment in prayer. Just saying it allowed me to appear spiritual to others while remaining unaffected by my own words.

In my opinion this issue stems from much deeper problems and leads to very important questions which I am sure many Christians struggle with:

Do we need God? Apatheism is the apathetic attitude toward the belief in the existence or non-existence of God, specifically because God’s existence does not appear to affect the tangible universe. Sometimes, we as Christians live as practical apatheists: we know what to pray for, but we do not believe that it has any influence in our actual daily lives. When you pray, is it out of need? Not necessarily a need for answered prayer, but a need to just pray and fellowship with God? Is the gospel actually real to us?

Do we believe God listens to prayer? If we believe that God hears our prayers and answers them according to His will, then do we pray for the things that concern us and Him? If I am dealing with sin, or if I have friends in need, or if I see a spiritual issue around me, do I pray for that? Do we believe that God has the power to respond to our calls?

Do we find God and prayer embarrassing? (Prayer can take many forms that are personal or public, silent or spoken. Therefore, I do not want to appear legalistic in defining what prayer should look like.) Can we pray with boldness for things we and God care about in the public square? Or are our public prayers just token prayers while we reserve our true prayers for a later time? Is our discomfort or embarrassment greater than our will to come to and represent the Almighty God? If so, why would we rather please man than God? Do we fear man’s wrath rather than God’s wrath?

I believe we need to be more careful with how we pray, because prayer should not only be a familiar and intimate conversation but also communication that is deeply intentional and informed by the truth and calling of the gospel.

We can pray about it.

Soli Deo gloria

[sixversesseven]

27 ... And the Gospel Was Not There

It is always encouraging to see fellow Christians expressing their faith shamelessly in a public forum. However, I believe that when sharing one's faith to others - especially when attempting to describe what Christianity is and is not - the gospel is of absolute importance.

There are too many instances where people attempt to defend their beliefs by espousing the ‘good’ virtues of the Christian faith - love and acceptance - while ignoring its good and very core: the gospel. There are too many times where we try to compare the church and the world on moral grounds and completely miss the point of man’s sin and God’s grace.

We can talk at length about how Jesus takes us as we are, but do we talk about how we must take up our cross in following him (Matt. 16:24-26)? We can share how even the worst sinners can come before God, but do we acknowledge that He also calls us to be holy just as He is (1 Pet. 1:16)?

People have become so sin-averse that it is no longer a part of their evangelical rhetoric. We are so afraid to offend and be offended that we dilute the truth forgetting that the truth can be, by its nature, offensive. The point where the gospel becomes comfortable to us is the point where we start losing sight of it.

So what is the gospel? Paul describes it plainly in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

What does this mean?

Christ died for our sins, being the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 10:12-24). This means that Christ shed his own blood for us, without which there is no remission of sin (Heb. 9:22). This also means that God loved us enough to deliver us from our sin (John 3:16).

Sin exists in us; its presence is inherent in the fact that we fail to live up to our own moral standards (let alone the absolute standards of an Almighty God).

Sin demands punishment (Rom. 6:23); this truth is inherent in that man longs for justice, and that justice must have eternal equality. If this were not the case, then Christ would not have needed to die.

Christ was raised, without which there is no justification for sinners (Rom. 4:25). Therefore, it is through the redeeming work of Christ that man can be delivered from punishment.

For some more notes on this, please refer to my earlier post: 23 Easter: Death and Resurrection.

Let us make an effort to always be gospel minded, especially in our conversations with the world.

Soli Deo gloria

[sixversesseven]

26 Pre-Determined Talent

God-given talent...or pre-determined talent?

We have all heard the phrase - at least the former one. 'This person has God-given talent!' or, 'God has blessed you with this ability!'. It is always amusing to see the immediate backlash - if not from the recipient of the 'compliment', then from those observing. In essence, they state that attributing talent to God not only discounts the hard work of the individual, but also attributes the talent to an entity that the individual does not believe exists.

If a talent is not God-given, where does it come from? Surely, talent - the natural ability to or aptitude for performing some sort of action - is genetic. Even the ability and drive to work hard is pre-determined by genetics. (Therefore, those without 'talent' but with the ability to work hard are indeed still talented.) This is surely a basic tenet that any secular humanist must admit.

Yet, if talent - and indeed all things - are deterministic, then talent itself can only be attributed to the individual in the most loose sense of the word. How can we give praise or have respect for someone who has talent if they had no choice but were pre-determined to have that talent? They did not ‘earn’ it through hard work, nor did they even ‘decide’ to pursue it (because determinism does not allow for intention or decision making). There is nothing commendable because there is no volition.

(NOTE: certain definitions of free will do solve this problem to a certain extent, yet only in superficial ways. In my opinion, quantum indeterminacy - though interesting - does not solve this problem.)

Yet we continue to praise. And so we really must praise based on the fact that causation is true - which sounds silly. If you believe in naturalism - and to a certain extent, even compatibilism - then you just accept the illusion that hard work and talent are praiseworthy things. But using this same line of reasoning, God-given talent can also be praiseworthy! Therefore, there is no effectual difference between God-given and determinism-given talent.

Or, at least, that is what I think.

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

25 A High View

...And we’re back! It has definitely been a long time since I have set my mind to write and finish a thought for this blog.

With the start of a new year marks the somewhat arbitrary beginning of new year’s resolutions and plans. Yet, it seems common that these new resolutions are often the same old resolutions we failed to achieve in the previous year. The world strives for personal gain and societal progression - and the world often fails to achieve these goals. The Christian strives for spiritual growth in bringing glory to Christ - and they too fail. However, as the great Bob Carlisle says, ‘the saints are just the sinners who fall down and get up’. As believers, we are called to persevere therein to the end (Matthew 24:13).

So what is something that we as Christians can strive for this year, and the countless years after that? How about: a high view.

But a high view of what?

Of God's sovereignty.

If God is sovereign, then He is in control of everything: The good times and the bad times; the trials and the blessings - God has ordained it all (Ephesians 1:11). When we find ourselves complaining about our situation and even lashing out in anger, we show that we have a low view of God’s sovereignty. God’s will is good, pleasing, and perfect (Romans 12:2). God works all things for the good of those who love him (Romans 8:28) and perhaps more importantly for His own glory (Ephesians 1:11-14). It is okay to be upset or discouraged about things in life, but we must trust that God is truly working out His purposes regardless of how we feel about or view the situation.

This also applies to how we interact and minister to others. We need not fear when we speak to others about Christ. Not only is God’s plan perfect, but Mark Cahill (but really, the Bible) also points out that there is no losing situation in evangelism. Whether it’s conversion, seed planting, or rejection (1 Peter 4:14, Luke 6:22-23), the outcome is good!

Of God's holiness.

God is perfectly holy, and he also demands that same holiness of us (1 Peter 1:16, also Leviticus 20:26). This is a big deal and is something we often subconsciously neglect. We have such a low view of God’s holiness that we daily turn aside after things that do not profit or deliver us (Samuel 12:20-21) and see holiness as a hopeless journey. Whether it is lust, pride, or just failing to do what we know we ought to do, it shows that we are still in a real battle over our bodies in order to submit them to Christ.

It is important to note that Jesus was truly human his incarnation. When we are called to be like Christ, we are actually called to be like Christ. Whether it is possible for us to achieve perfection in this lifetime has no bearing on our will to pursue it. God calls us to holiness, and we are destined for perfection (Philippians 1:6; Hebrews 10:14).

Of God's Word.

God’s Word is His special revelation to us and our guidepost to Christ. If we do not believe in its authority, how can we believe and follow the God of the Bible? If we pick and choose what we like from Scripture, we have effectively chosen to follow a different gospel. However, in order to make proper judgment of Scripture, one must truly understand the Scriptures. The Word of God is apt in defending itself if we have the patience to search its truths.

To have a high view of God’s Word is to come to the Word as the first line of defense and the first point of reference in any discussion (2 Timothy 3:16). To have a high view of the God’s Word is to respect the Word is the final authority against any lofty opinion or selfish desire (ala 2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

These are things that we fail at miserably every day. This is why we need a high view of the person and work of Jesus Christ. As the perfect and ultimate high priest, he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified through his death on the cross (Hebrews 10:14). Therefore, his grace is sufficient for us in our weakness (2 Corinthians 12:19). Look to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2).

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

24 When Occam Begs the Razor

Occam's Razor is a heuristic that is most often stated as:

'entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity'

(version of Occam's Razor)

or, in the case of two competing hypotheses, the hypothesis that makes the least number of assumptions should be chosen, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal). I am sure some of you have heard the argument:

P1: Both theism and naturalism can be used to explain the world. P2: Explaining the world using theism is less parsimonious than using naturalism. P3: Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. (Occam's Razor) C1: Therefore, naturalism is more likely than theism and should be adopted.

This appears to be a powerful argument that appeals to intuition and pragmatism. However, there are some issues with the way this argument is presented against theism, or God. (NOTE: I take absolutely no credit for the argumentation presented here. What I have written here is the result of various readings on the topic.) The key feature of Occam's Razor concerns the number of assumptions. However, in order to do this it is assumed that all other things are equal - namely explanatory power - and that the criteria by which explanatory power is determined are also known.

And here arises the problem: if all identified explanations are not known to be equal in explanatory power (e.g. theism better explains the world than atheism), or if the necessary explanatory criteria are not properly identified (e.g. the origin of the universe and life), then Occam's Razor cannot be used.

It is not enough to say that God is not necessary to explain the world because that begs the very question we are dealing with. One cannot simply assume that God is not necessary and then argue using Occam's Razor. One must first argue that God is not necessary! In addition, the use of Occam's Razor to undermine the necessity of God is redundant and meaningless.

Therefore, using Occam's Razor as a stand-alone argument fails because it begs the question by assuming that God is unnecessary without previously substantiating this non-necessity.

Therefore, the pertinent questions become:

By what criteria do we judge explanatory power? Are there coherent explanations for both the origin of the universe and life?

Are theism and atheism equal in explanatory power? Can both belief systems provide logical explanations for these phenomenon that are consistent within the worldviews they propose?

For those interested in discussions of necessity and the origin of the world, you may find this technical discussion on Uncaused Causers helpful.

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

23 Easter: Death and Resurrection

Christ is risen, he is risen indeed!

Two significant events occur and are celebrated during Easter. You guessed it: the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Death of Jesus

Someone once told me that the greatest miracle of Easter was not that Jesus rose from the dead, but that Jesus died. Jesus - being God: omnipotent, eternal, perfect and holy - actually died. Resurrection is not difficult for God since He can do all that power can accomplish. However, death does not naturally follow from an eternal God. Jesus chose to die on the cross.

And this choice was consistent with his perfectly just and loving character. God would be perfectly just and holy in judging all sinners (which is everyone) to hell. However, in His perfect love, He allowed Jesus to take our place as an atoning sacrifice so that we could be made right with God!

The Resurrection of Jesus

1 Cor 15:12-19 says that if Jesus was not raised, then our faith is futile and we are still in our sins. It is true that Jesus' work was accomplished once and for all on the cross. His death was the payment for our sins, and that is why he said it was finished in John 19:30. But if he was not truly God (and perfect in holiness), then his sacrifice would have been futile. If he was not raised from the dead, then all prophecies of his resurrection would be false, he would be made a liar, and we would still be in our sins.

This is why both events are significant and so crucial to the Christian faith. Another thing to consider is that the only reason Jesus was there on the cross was because of our sins. All the mocking, beating, spitting, and eventual crucifixion (Matthew 27:24++) was for us. It is not our fault that Jesus died in the sense that Jesus had no choice and we are to blame for his inevitable death. But we are at fault in the sense that we are horribly wicked and need reconciliation with God - and Jesus chose to be the means for the reconciliation.

Under the Old Testament theocracy, it was very plain how sin was a serious offense in the eyes of God. People were killed because of their sin. However, presently it is very easy to become comfortable with sin and forget the cost that came with our freedom.

Therefore, let us remember the place from which we came, the infinite cost of Jesus' sacrifice, and the fact that we are no longer dead in sin but alive with Christ.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

(Romans 5:12-17, ESV)

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

22 Giving Them Too Much Credit

Over the Christmas holidays I attended a service at The Meeting House where the pastor (Bruxy Cavey) was addressing the question, 'Why doesn't God intervene to prevent bad things?' Although a strange topic for a Christmas service, it is definitely a question on the minds of many - Christian and non-Christian alike. Some people have formulated their own answers, while others still struggle to find any answers whatsoever. Here I will be addressing this question as asked by the non-believer.

First, I will provide and critique the answers given by the pastor:

Standard Christian Answer #1: God does intervene. Just not the way you want.

Standard Christian Answer #2: God intervenes as much as possible. If he intervened more, he would overthrow our freedom to choose.

Bruxy Cavey's Answer: God intervenes as little as possible. Because he has given us the role of taking care of this planet, and each other. God wants to partner with his image-bearers. He has given us this planet. He has made us in his image. He has remade us through Christ. He has given us his Spirit. It’s our move now (see Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5, 15).

(Bruxy Cavey from The Meeting House)

In my opinion, the first standard answer provides the most biblical response to the question. You can define the word 'intervene' however way you wish, but you must understand that God's will - which encompasses all that comes to pass - must happen. Therefore, using the common definition of the word, it is not that God intervenes in our lives but that God must orchestrate everything in existence for His glory (Ephesians 1:11-12).

The second standard answer ventures more explicitly into the realm of freedom of choice. If you have read my previous posts, you would know that I believe we as humans have no freedom of choice but only apparent freedom as a result of our finiteness.

Based on my responses to the first two answers, I must disagree with Bruxy's answer. This is due in part to our fundamental disagreement on how God interacts with his creation and on the question of free will. However, I also disagree because I believe his answer - or the very fact that he gave an answer - gives the questioner too much credit.

I have to be careful when I explain what I mean by 'too much credit'. I do not mean that the person asking the question is necessarily insincere or overconfident. Nor do I believe everyone asking this question intends to aggressively challenge the Christian. Instead, I mean that by answering the question you concede a point of the discussion that was never explicitly made - intentional or not.

Let us say that you wish to answer the question in its current form. This means that you have accepted the premises that come with the question. These premises could include, 'God should or must intervene to prevent bad things,' or, 'an all-loving Christian God must [desire to] prevent bad things.' Therefore, when you attempt to answer the question, 'Why?', you have chosen to answer on the basis of these premises. You have accepted the scenario presented to you, and now you must attempt to explain and justify.

But what are you justifying? That God is all-loving and should therefore intervene to prevent bad things... but appears not to do so? This is not even biblical! (Or, at least I cannot find any Bible passage to support this claim. Do share if you can!) The question implicitly and falsely characterizes the Christian God, and your reply does the same. So why would you support this?

Please understand that I am not trying to paint a picture of the cunning non-believer and the heretical Christian. I just want to make you aware of the presuppositions and implications that hide behind questions and answers, and the message you could be communication in your evangelism.

Here is my answer - a question, actually: 'What do you mean?' I honestly do not understand what the question is asking. I need more information about what the person means by their question and what they believe about the Christian God. Or else, how can I answer the question?

'Why does God need to intervene? Where in the Bible does it say that God, being all-loving, must prevent bad things? What do you mean by "all-loving?" ' (This is to understand what the person believes about God's characteristics and how the all-loving Christian God may differ from a person's definition of all-loving.)

'Why is it bad or wrong if God chooses not to intervene? How do you know this is wrong?' (This is to understand what the person believes about morality, whether they believe it is absolute, and why.)

I hope this does not sound too academic; I want to provide a framework with which to work with questions like this. Humility is important here because it prevents you from believing that you know exactly what the person is asking and where they are coming from. Even if you are confident of where the question is leading, ask questions anyway. Use questions to help both you and the non-believer better understand each other and the Christian faith. This is something I also must learn to do...

...though I am nothing but dust and ashes,

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

21 Pascal's Wager And 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

Some of you may be familiar with Pascal's Wager. For those of you who are not familiar or need a refresher, it can be found in Pascal's Pensées (Part III, Section 233).

When people, non-believers and Christians alike, think of Pascal's Wager, they usually think one of two things:

Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument that fails to prove the existence of any particular god and, if anything, encourages an insincere belief in God.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 shows that Pascal's Wager is misleading and false.

Regardless, I must say that I do not understand the animosity toward Pascal's Wager from either side of the argument, nor do I believe Pascal's Wager to be a proof in itself for the existence of God.

Here are some things to consider regarding Pascal's Wager:

Pascal's Wager is not a proof but rather a necessary decision. Pascal presents that one must wager that God either is or is not, and there is no definitive reason to decide either way. 'If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing,' provides a favourable cost-benefit analysis, so-to-speak. But again, this has nothing to do with proofs. Rather, one must decide - explicitly or implicitly - and it appears most advantageous to believe in God.

Pascal's Wager does not point to any particular God. Although true, Pascal's intention was never to prove the existence of the Christian God. Pascal found this 'many-religions' argument to be [generally] disingenuous. A person who presents the 'many-religions' argument is content not to pursue truth, or else they would examine these religions in greater detail. If they had carefully examined these religions and came to the conclusion that none of them were worthy of belief, then their issue would no longer be 'many religions'.

Pascal's Wager does not encourage insincere belief. I said earlier that Pascal concluded that belief in God was most advantageous. Most Christians understand the insincere belief is impossible due to God's omniscience - God looks at the heart. However, Pascal still qualifies his statements on this issue. He encourages people who agree with the wager and yet cannot believe to go to walk in the shoes of a Christian anyway. Pascal does not mean to masquerade, but to go to church, read God's Word, and to surround yourself with godly people. This is not a definitive catch-all solution but rather encouragement and, frankly, good advice!

Pascal's Wager has little to do with 1 Corinthians 15. In 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, Paul is responding to believers who believed in Christ but were saying there was no resurrection of the dead. His argument was that they would not have hope and salvation in Christ if he was not resurrected - the Christian faith hinged on Jesus rising from the dead. I can think of one way to connect this passage to Pascal's Wager, and that is to say that a rational notion of justice presupposes that objective moral wrongs must be punished. In this way, 'if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.' (1 Cor. 15:17, ESV). This statement holds much more weight since losing the wager does not solve the problem of justice if Jesus was not truly God.

EDIT: By resurrection of the dead I mean the physical resurrection of Jesus, and not necessarily resurrection itself.

Pascal's Wager is existential in nature. I will end with some thoughts inspired by Ravi Zacharias. When I see this wager, I see it from a secular humanist worldview. If we look at the Christian life as a purely existential pursuit, then regardless of whether God is or is not the Christian is existentially satisfied in their belief. Therefore, there is no existential disadvantage for the believer.

I speak within the secular humanist worldview because I see the wager as a response to the non-believer within their worldview. Therefore, I believe that Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of God but rather a claim to the existential sufficiency of believing in God to the non-believer.

Ravi Zacharias explained it well when he said this (by empirical test, Zacharias is referring to the evidential test for Christianity):

Pascal was declaring that if the existential test for finding meaning in life was the only position left to him, the hungers of his heart had been met in following Jesus and thus he was fulfilled. In worst-case scenario, where the atheist is right and death is oblivion, Pascal had still met the only test the atheist has for belief and had found his relationship with Jesus to be existentially fulfilling. As a Christian, he met both his own test for truth in the person of Jesus - the empirical test - and the existential test posed by the atheist. It was for that he reason he could say he could not be a loser, and the gamble was not a gamble he could lose, no matter which test he used.

(taken from The End of Reason by Ravi Zacharias)

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

(1 Corinthians 15:20-22, ESV)

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

20 The Existential Bible Study

Existentialism, specifically of the Christian variety, can be thought of as a philosophy that stresses the superiority of human experience and the relational aspects of God over any prescribed morality or truth. (Soren Kierkegaard and Karl Barth come to mind as references for this kind of thinking.) I propose that there is a potential of falling into existentialist thought, which I believe to be theologically dangerous. In the Bible study, the dangers of Christian existentialism often appears when experience is used to validate biblical truths. The Bible is not a tool for validation, but rather a message of truth. The truth of the Bible is not validated by human experience, but rather human experience should be guided and molded by the truth of the Bible.

For example: Murder is not sinful because a murderer feels regret after committing the act; Murder is sinful because the Word of God - equated to God himself - declares it so and a murderer's experience [possibly] reflects that truth. This is a sometimes small distinction that must be recognized. In this same way, it is not that wives should submit to their husbands because women are physically inferior and biologically better equipped for child-bearing and raising. It is also not the case that women should not submit to their husbands because this represents gender equality and progressive social reforms. Rather, wives should submit to their husbands because the Bible declares it to be the order (not hierarchy or ranking) in which they were created - in order to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church. I believe this is one reason why people, even Christians, have issues with what the Bible says.

The Bible teaches that whoever does not believe and follow Jesus Christ will go to hell, but it does not make sense that people I know who are morally upstanding would not go to heaven. How can homosexuality be sinful? I know many homosexuals who are so nice and had no choice in choosing their orientation. How can someone born this way be punished for something they had no control over?

Unfortunately, this leads to the church changing its doctrine to match that of society or experience. One example is the production of the 'gay-friendly' bible, or the Queen James Bible. (Perhaps this is also a result of social pressures and the desire to remain culturally relevant and modern, but that is a topic of discussion for another day.)

As Christians we rely on the Bible as the Word of God and of truth, and as a standard that does not change with time. When we read the doctrinal truths of the Bible and we realize that it does not match up with what we see and experience in the world, we should see that as a sign that there is something extremely wrong with what we are seeing and experiencing.

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

19 Biblical Claims to New Testament Inspiration

I have already discussed the canonicity of the Bible in a previous post, however I would like to present another simple thought regarding New Testament inspiration:

The Bible is quite good at establishing Old Testament inspiration, either through the use of God's very own words or through the words of prophets - who were given the same level of authority as God (or spoke the very words of God Himself).

In almost all the cases in which the New Testament refers to Scripture, such as Romans 15:4 and 2 Timothy 3:16, it is referring to the Old Testament. This is clearly because, at the time of writing, there was no New Testament with which to refer. Therefore, using something like 2 Timothy 3:16 as a prooftext for the inspiration of the New Testament is a little tricky, if not incorrect.

  (NOTE: You could say that Paul was divinely inspired to refer to 'all' Scripture in order to encompass all future writings that would eventually become the New Testament. You could also say that much of the New Testament was written by the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy.)

  However, there are in fact places in the New Testament where New Testament writings are referred to as Scripture. First, Peter references Paul's letters and considers it Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. Second, Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18.

Paul also considers his writings to be divinely authoritative in 1 Corinthians 14:37. Lastly, Peter puts it plainly in 2 Peter 1:21 when he says, 'no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.'

I hope you found this to be a useful perspective on New Testament inspiration!

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

18 Testimonies and Justification by Faith

I like listening to testimonies. It is great to hear how God has worked in the lives of others to the praise of His glory. However, there is a certain element, or lack thereof, in testimonies of salvation which poses for me a red flag. This is the element of justification by faith. Testimonies that lack a 'justification by faith event' and skip to church attendance, service, and a relationship with God worry me because this event is a pivotal part of the Christian's faith. Perhaps what is even more worrying is the fact that some people believe a definitive point in one's life where one becomes saved (or, God regenerates His elect) is not important or necessary. The reason for this may be the confusion between justification and sanctification. Justification is the legal declaration that we are righteous in the eyes of God - made possible through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 2:24). We are justified by grace through faith, which is the gift of God (Romans 5:1, Gal 3:11, Eph 2:8-9). On the other hand, sanctification is the process of being conformed into Christ's likeness and holiness (Phil 2:12-13, Eph 5:25-26) which is completed at the day of Jesus Christ (Phil 1:6). This distinction is important for the follow two reasons:

Justification is by faith alone and not by works. And because even our faith is a gift (as cited from Eph 2), justification is not something we earn by our own merits but solely on the merits of Christ. Truly, without the regeneration of God, we would never choose to approach Him (Romans 8:7-8).

Justification is a legal declaration that is effectual in an instant. There is no process of justification. If this were true then there would be no assurance for the believer, which is contrary to Scripture (Romans 5:1, 8:1; John 1:12, 5:24). Additionally, the efficacy and sufficiency of present justification (as previously cited) rejects justification in the future. Therefore, one should not describe justification as a process or as a future event.

Some would argue that many people cannot recall the point when they were justified by faith, or 'saved'. I do not believe this is truly relevant, but only that one acknowledges that there was indeed a point in time when regeneration occurred.

2 Corinthians 4 it says:

Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence. For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

(2 Corinthians 4:13-15, ESV)

We are assured in our salvation and resurrection with Jesus because we have been justified by faith. So let us proclaim this truth of God's grace, so that it may multiply to more and more people - to the glory of God, or:

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

17 Morality Part II: The Problem of Evil and Suffering

One year after Part I... here is Part II!

When people discuss the problem of evil and suffering, the topic often leads to obscure grey areas and abstract questions (such as 'why do people suffer from natural disasters?' and 'how about infant deaths?'). I feel that this is unnecessary, since the questions are built on epistemological presuppositions that have not been substantiated. If we tackle the questions at their root, then we can avoid much of the ambiguity and trouble that comes with it.

So let us start with the famous moral argument from Epicurus, which is roughly stated as:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The argumentation appears sound. This is because his assumptions are hidden in his phrasing. By using an alternative form of the argument, these assumptions become more clear:

The Christian God is all-powerful and all-loving.

If he is all-powerful, then he is able to end all evil.

If he is all-loving, then he wants to end all evil.

But evil still exists.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

The first statement is indeed true: the Christian God is all-powerful and all-loving. However, the argument falls apart by the third premise. The Christian God with the aforementioned characteristics does not necessitate His prevention of or ending of all evil.

The first premise states characteristics of the Christian God. In order to be true, these characteristics must be biblical (indeed they should as they are about the biblical God). If they are not, then the whole argument is a straw man and does not concern or effect the Christian's beliefs.

The third premise is an assumption based on a non-biblical definition of love. Assuming the biblical God is being called into question in the first premise, the argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, where multiple meanings of the same word are used. Therefore, the first and second premises are true but the third premise is false, making the conclusion untrue (as a conclusion, but not necessarily as a statement). I hope this can now be seen in the second line of the first form of the argument, where God's unwillingness does not necessitate malevolence.

Even if we were to assume that the third premise was true, the conclusion is still not necessarily true. If we substituted the last line with:

Therefore, the Christian God has a good purpose for evil and will eventually destroy evil.

the syllogism would still hold.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with these arguments is the presupposition of objective morality. Consider more contemporary forms of the argument:

If God is all-loving and all-powerful, then why do natural disasters happen? Why do people suffer? Why won't God heal amputees?

We often let people off the hook by allowing them to take their morality for granted. However, clarification is necessary: Why are natural disasters bad? What is wrong with suffering? Why is it that being an amputee is not a good thing? If you consider these things bad or wrong, then how do you know that? What is your standard for morality? Is it relative? If so, then your issue with these apparent problems is also relative. If not, then how is it objective?

Answers like, 'because it just makes sense,' or 'because society tells us through evolutionary process' are arbitrary and not good enough to adequately explain the issue. These explanations all imply that morality can change. If it can change - if man can decide at any point that an action is no longer moral or immoral - then it is subjective  and you cannot say objectively that anything is right or wrong.

This does not mean that these moral stances are wrong or subjective, but that they need to be based on an objective moral truth. Therefore, as per my argumentation in 09 Jesus Week F11: Christianity 101 Q&A, God must be presupposed in order to make the argument against God.

I hope this sheds some light on the very popular argument.

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

16 Canon: A Logical Approach

I recently had a conversation with a friend regarding New Testament canon (specifically of all books apart from the gospels). An issue was raised (not by either of us but by a third party who is also a believer) regarding not its legitimacy but its merits - therefore not whether it is authentic or true, but rather whether it is necessary.

This is a very interesting view of biblical canonicity which I believe to be incorrect. Here I will present my personal opinion on the matter, and then additional thoughts on biblical canonicity, courtesy of Greg Koukl.

Biblical canon can be defined as a body of literary works considered to be authoritative scripture by a religious community. Its original Greek literally means a measuring stick, or a standard. The current Bible is the result of the work of men and ecumenical councils held after the time of Christ all the way up to the 16th century, specifically:

The Council of Jamniah (100 AD): forms the 39 books of the Old Testament (only books to be found in original Hebrew).

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (367 AD): mentions the 27 books of the New Testament in their entirety.

Council of Florence (1442 AD): the entire church recognizes the 27 books of the New Testament.

Catholic Council of Trent (1546 AD): the church reaffirms the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament (as well as 49 books of the Old Testament, including apocrypha).

(NOTE: I will not go into detail about the formation of the canon, nor will I discuss the interplay of Catholicism in the formation and authority of Scripture. This is partly because I know very little about these issues, but also because I feel the principle of canon does not require it.)

As a believer, the problem with rejecting the merits of certain canonized works is quite clear: it goes against the fundamental belief in the authority of Scripture (a sort of sola scriptura) and what is believed to be a divinely inspired formation of the canon. This, by definition, supplies the necessity of the canon in its entirety and makes the argument for necessity self-refuting.

Ultimately, to reject the inerrancy of Scripture is to reject the perfect and sovereign character of God - a dichotomy for any self-affirming Christian. There is no longer any foundation or framework with which to judge the validity of the rest of Scripture, and it is better to make the same claim from within a non-theistic worldview.

In Greg Koukl's article entitled 'No "Lost" Books', he provides a great discourse relating to this issue.

A secular definition of the biblical canon refers to the physical mechanism behinds its formation, mainly the consensus among the early church of a collection of works that reflected its beliefs. Criteria for this included: apostolic authorship, other eyewitness accounts, [wide acceptance,] and theological consistency.

Under this second definition the existence of 'lost' books is unreasonable. The canon was decided, at the whim of the councils, the books that best reflected their beliefs. Any books not included were excluded because they did not reflect those beliefs. Therefore, 'lost' books were indeed suppressed by the early church because they were not believed to be theologically sound.

To bring this back to canonicity, the addition or removal of any book from the current canon can be done based on the provided secular definition. However, it will no longer reflect the beliefs of the early church when forming the Bible.

The inerrancy (and thus completeness) of Scripture must be held within the Christian worldview in order to be consistent with God's perfect character. Any claim otherwise must be held outside this worldview. However the biblical canon would still stand as the foundation of the Christian faith.

Soli Deo gloria

[sixversesseven]

15 Sometimes I Think I Am Special...

... because of my sin.

Even though we would like to believe it - at least subconsciously - our sin is nothing special, and our sin does not make us special. Adam disobeyed, Eve was deceived, the Israelites failed to follow God over and over (and turned aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, 1 Samuel 12:21), Paul struggled with sin, and Jesus the man... was perfect. (And it is only through his holiness and perfect work on the cross that we have freedom.)

Sometimes we convince ourselves that we are the only ones struggling with our sin, that no one else understands or experiences - such pride and arrogance. There is nothing new under the sun. Hebrews 4 sums it up for me:

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

(Hebrews 4:14-16, ESV)

Our fear and arrogance prevents us from drawing near to the throne of grace.

Sometimes we convince ourselves that we are the only ones struggling with our sin, that Jesus is loving, but not that loving - that Jesus is long-suffering, but not that long-suffering. But it says in Romans 5:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person — though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die — but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

(Romans 5:6-8, ESV)

And in 1 John 3:

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us

(1 John 3:16a, ESV)

When we think this in our minds, then we do not fully grasp the love of God. Christ died in spite of our sin, and our salvation is based solely on the merits of Christ. Sadly, we often forget this.

Let us take our queue from Romans 6. As believers, we are dead to sin and should therefore not let sin have dominion over our lives - pray a prayer based on Psalm 19. Do not let sin fester in your life and convince yourself that what you endure is different. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them (Ephesians 4:17). Instead, take hold of the victory we have in Christ.

We are not special because of our sin, but solely because of God.

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

14 Don't Let Me Lose My Wonder

God continues to challenge me on my journey of knowing and loving Him more. It is a personal struggle and temptation of mine to give and pursue a purely academic treatment of my faith. Because of this, I often forget or neglect very basic aspects of my relationship with God that damage my perspective of Him.

The title of this post is taken from the song of the same name by Keith and Kristyn Getty. I believe that in our imperfection, we need to continually remind ourselves of who God is, who we are, and what He has done and is still doing for us. The gospel is not just a mechanism for salvation, it is something we must preach to ourselves daily. The gospel is truly something of which we should find amazing and awesome. (It is interesting how easily we use those words on things that really do not deserve it.) It should fill us with wonder that a holy and perfect God would want anything to do with sinners like us. It should fill us with a sense of thankfulness and joy that permeates our lives and spurs us on to obey and love Him more and more.

Praise is due to you, O God, in Zion, and to you shall vows be performed. O you who hear prayer, to you shall all flesh come. When iniquities prevail against me, you atone for our transgressions. Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple! By awesome deeds you answer us with righteousness, O God of our salvation, the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas; the one who by his strength established the mountains, being girded with might; who stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of their waves, the tumult of the peoples, so that those who dwell at the ends of the earth are in awe at your signs. You make the going out of the morning and the evening to shout for joy.

(Psalm 65:1-8, ESV)

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

13 Because of Religion

"My friend also went on a missions trip. But he went to help other people, not because of religion."

And thus ended lunch with my coworkers.

The person and his friend, I assumed, were not Christians. However, what he said seemed to imply that Christians do not do good works because they love others, but because it is commanded of them.

What is the difference between his friend deciding to go on a missions trip and a Christian deciding to go on a missions trip? If a Christian goes on a missions trip because of what they believe, does that preclude their desire to help and love others? Of course not. And it should not.

There seems to be a misconception that because someone is religious, their actions are suddenly a result of divine command instead of their own moral convictions to do good. I think this displays a misunderstanding of how moral objectivity works. A Christian will do the morally right thing for both reasons:

because it is divinely command by God, who is the moral law giver and is perfectly holy; and

because that moral law resonates within them - there is a harmony between their, albeit fractured, morality and God's commandments and character.

How about the non-believer? With no moral objectivity, their actions are neither (absolutely) morally right nor wrong. Therefore, there is no difference between doing 'good' or doing 'evil' because all morality is relative and there is no basis for objective moral truth.

Within a atheistic framework, righteousness is applauded based on preference and social convention, which unfortunately can and is changing with time. In fact, the atheistic framework has no obligation nor authority to prescribe moral laws outside the realm of 'just because'. On the other hand, within our biblical framework we recognize that these virtues being applauded are ultimately rooted in the character of God.

God just makes sense.

Soli Deo gloria.

[sixversesseven]

12 Sovereignty; The Lord Takes Away, Active Reprobation, and The Author of Sin

Looking back to my previous post on Ephesians 1, I really took to thinking long and hard about God's sovereignty and what that truly means for us as humans. Along with some help from Vincent Cheung and discussions with friends, I have come to a few conclusions:

God's complete sovereignty implies a lack of freewill for humanity. I touched on this previously but I want to elaborate on the thought. When we speak of sovereignty, we speak (for example) of God's ability to do anything (Matthew 19:26), to choose at His [perfect] discretion (Romans 9), and to do as He pleases (Psalm 135:6). Therefore, any notion of free will for humanity puts God's sovereignty into question. When we speak of epistemic contingency we say that our future appears contingent to us, and so we exercise what appears to be an effective or practical free will. However, as soon we recognize our free will as only apparent, then we must acknowledge that it does not truly exist.

(Here is where I believe I erred in my previous post, or at best made a misleading statement. I justified morally responsibility with apparent freedom of choice using the model of Compatibilism. However, at the fundamental level, the lack of any freedom entails that moral responsibility does not require freedom of choice at all. I would again look to Romans 9:20-24 to support this.)

The Lord gives and takes away. This well known phrase, taken from Job 1:21, has sparked some disagreement in interpretation. Some would argue that the Lord gives, but does not actively take away. This is likely the result of verses such as James 1:17 ('Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above') and Matthew 7:11 ('...how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!'). However, we must acknowledge that if God is completely sovereign, then he is directly responsible for everything that occurs in the world, including any loss or unfortunate event in our lives (Lamentations 3:37-38).

Perhaps a more controversial topic is reprobation. Along a similar thought: If God is completely sovereign, He must be the immediate cause of reprobation. He does not only actively elect those He chooses, but He also actively reprobates those He chooses.

Then how about the origin of sin? Again, if God is completely sovereign then for sin to exist and arise out of anything other than God's divine will would be to put his sovereignty into question. Yet many are quick to challenge this by asking if this makes God the 'author of sin' (which is not found in the Bible). The answer to this question depends on the definition of the word 'author'.

We need to understand that God, being perfectly holy, by definition is not and cannot sin. If 'author' is meant to mean the physical production of the Bible, then we must say, 'no' - man was used for this purpose. If 'author' is meant to mean the origin of the content of the Bible, then we must say, 'yes'. In this same way we must affirm that God is not the perpetrator of sin, yet must remain the immediate cause of sin in the world.

Do not believe me; read with a Berean mentality (Acts 17:11).

Soli Deo gloria