Monthly Archives: March 2016

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 30, 2016

Posted under

Jesus, The Bible

Why do the gospels have different accounts of Jesus’ life?

Some skeptical about the truth of the Bible claim the four gospels are filled with contradictions. These apparent contradictions are offered as proof the Bible is unreliable. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, each present an account of the life of Jesus. If all four gospels are true accounts why do they offer differing versions of the same events in Jesus life. Examples of these differences can be found in the number of demoniacs healed in Gederah- Mark and Luke say there was 1 but Matthew says there were 2; the order of events at the crucifixion; the people Jesus stood before in His trial- John says Annas and Caiaphas, the other gospels just say Caiaphas. The gospels offer a wide selection of these kinds of differences. Why do the gospels at times present events in different ways?

To answer this question several things need to be remembered. The gospels are not biographies. This does not mean the gospels are fictional accounts, but the purpose of the writing of the gospels was not tell the life story of Jesus. The gospels are presentations of doctrinal truths about Jesus. The events contained in the gospels are not given for biographical but theological purposes. The gospel are not laid out in a precise chronological fashion. Though all four gospels move from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to His death, none of them attempt to present an exact timeline of the events in Jesus’ ministry. This is why the gospels present the events in different orders. The miracles, teachings and significant events are arranged in thematic fashion which seeks to drive home a particular doctrinal point without entirely disregarding the broad chronology of Jesus’ life.

The gospels are not histories. The authors are not interested in detailing a precise historical formulation of Jesus. Generally a historian would seek to arrange things in a very orderly and sequential fashion and to include as many details as possible. The gospel writers are presenting the message of salvation to their readers. Historical details are the means of communicating rich gospel truths. The records of Jesus’ travels from place to place are not a description of the way of life of first century Palestinians, but the evidence that Jesus is the Son of God who came to bring salvation. Critiquing the gospels for their failure to be biographies or histories is to misunderstand the goals of the authors.

All other considerations aside, the reality is none of the supposed contradictions are actually contradictory. Some portions of the gospel may require more effort to correlate together, but in all cases no account excludes the information contained in another account. They offer additional details to the record. When Mark says there was a demon possessed man living in the tombs, he does not exclude the existence of another. The purposes of the narrower account is served with the discussion of the deliverance of the one man. The details of the gospels simply do not contradict one another. The gospels are complementary accounts that present the wonderful truth that Jesus God made flesh, the promised Messiah, who died and was raised to life for the salvation of men.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 25, 2016

Posted under

God

What is the moral argument for the existence of God?

In classical apologetics there are four common philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The first argument is entirely cognitive, the ontological argument. The cosmological and teleological arguments formulate their first premises from nature. The fourth argument does not rely upon reason or creation but conscience. The moral argument says that because everyone has a perception of right and wrong, there must be One who has created in all humanity an understanding of morality.

The moral argument has the briefest formulation of all the philosophical arguments. An objective morality exists in this world. The best explanation for this objective standard is God. Therefore, God exists. A variation of this argument is seen in the existence of measures of goodness. Humanity makes determinations about the goodness and excellence of things. Since there exists the ability to measure excellence, there must be that which is of highest excellence. This highest good is God.

The most common expression starts with the recognition that generally all human populations hold to similar standards of right and wrong. For example prohibitions against murder, theft and deception are common. Even in those situations where a people group holds a different standard of right and wrong, there is still a recognition of some standard of right wrong. Because everyone knows some things are right and some things are wrong there must be a universal basis for the existence of the human conscience. The best explanation as the basis of the conscience is God.

Natural explanations for morality struggle to explain the conscience of man, especially the existence of an altruistic standard. The selfless sacrifice for the benefit of others doesn’t quite fit in a system in which a species is best helped by the fittest members surviving to pass on their genes. Altruism is undeniably common in humanity and can often be found in the animal kingdom. Naturalists have offered varying explanation for the existence of altruism. Many of them offer models by which altruism benefits the survival of the species. For many observers the naturalistic explanations of altruism are not very convincing. A Divine, moral being best explains the existence of selfless love found throughout much of humanity.

Romans 2 appeals to the moral argument. Paul says when those who do not know the law of God do those things commanded in the law then they show the law of God is written in their hearts. However, Paul does not use this argument as proof of the existence of God. Paul presupposes the existence of God and the existence of an objective moral standard. Paul instead uses the moral argument to show the guilt of every person. Because everyone has a conception of right and wrong none can stand before God ignorant of the law or innocent according to the law. Everyone has done that which violates their own conscience and, more importantly, which violates the absoluate standard of God’s law. This leads to the inevitable conviction, “There is none righteous”. Because all are guilty before God the only hope for men is forgiveness of sin through faith in Jesus.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 23, 2016

Posted under

Creation, God, Origins

What is the teological argument for the existence of God?

Two major philosophical arguments from nature are proposed as proofs for the existence of God, the cosmological argument and the teleological argument. The teleological argument is probably the easiest of the major philosophical arguments. It seeks to show that because the world has the appearance of being designed, there must be a designer.

Many observers see the appearance of design in the universe. The orderliness and complexity of the universe is analogous to the complex orderliness of man made objects. As a result the universe has the hallmarks of being designed. If the universe has been designed, then there must exist a Designer great enough and powerful enough to produce all that exists.

Probably the most familiar expression of this argument is the watchmaker analogy. If a person walking through an empty field were to suddenly find a watch laying upon the ground, he would conclude the watch was designed by a watchmaker. He would not assume the watch formed by natural, unguided processes. Because the universe is vastly more complicated than a watch it is logical to conclude the universe was designed by a Creator of vast intelligence.

One common proof offered for the argument from design is irreducible complexity. The evolutionary hypothesis explains the growth of life by a gradual, step by step process. The premise of irreducible complexity is some things found in nature cannot be explained by a step by step process of adding onepiece of information at a time. For example, a mousetrap is a device that cannot function if only one small part is removed. Some examples of irreducible complexity in the natural world are the eye, the bombadier beetle and the cell. These things cannot have arisen naturally by gradually adding information. Without all the parts present the organism would not function.

This argument has some Biblical foundation because the Bible uses the argument from design in at least two places, Psalm 19 and Romans 1. An argument similar to the teleological argument can also be found in the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel to show God is Creator of all and consequently is greater than all idols. However, the Bible never uses the obvious reality of a Creator to prove the existence of God. The Old Testament argues from creation to show the greatness of God and the folly of worshiping other gods. In Romans 1 the teleological argument is used as an indictment against those who have rejected God. Instead of worshiping God as they ought, unbelieving men have rejected nature’s obvious declaration of God’s existence and power. Unbelieving men replace God with gods of their devising and are under the judgment of God. God is the only creator of all. He has made His power and Deity evident through the handiwork of His creation. He must be worshiped.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 18, 2016

Posted under

Creation, God

What is the cosmological argument for the existence of God?

In classical apologetics two major arguments for the existence of God are based upon observations of the natural world. The teleological argument argues that the evidence of design in the world is evidence of a God who created it all. The cosmological argument argues that because the universe exists it must have a beginning and a Being who brought it into existence.

The longer form of the cosmological argument begins with the statement that the physical universe exists. Everything that exists in the physical realm must have a cause. The cause cannot be the universe itself. The cause must exist outside the universe and have the ability to bring the universe into existence. The cause that brought the universe into existence is God. Because the universe exists, God exists.

This argument finds support in the observations of science. No natural mechanism is known by which something can arise from nothing. The normal arrangement of the world shows the things that exist in the physical world have their source in things with an earlier existence. Everything we observe is contingent upon an ancestor or a creator. The first law of thermodynamics seems to support this argument with its declaration that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Since the physical universe exists and it could not have risen from nothing it must have a source great enough to bring the universe into existence.

Like other arguments from classical apologetics the cosmological argument is primarily a philosophical argument. The proofs offered by this argument are not based upon physical evidences for an act of creation, but upon the logical necessity of a causative agent bringing the universe into existence. This argument is easier to understand and explain than the ontological argument because it is based upon premises which are more familiar to the average person. This line of reasoning may be reflected in Psalm 19, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handywork.” All creation speaks to the necessity of a Creator. Because this universe exists there must be One who brought it into existence. To know the nature of this Creator a person must turn to the Bible. Genesis 1:1 simply states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The reality of God can be glimpsed in creation, but the character of God is only found in the Bible. He has revealed Himself clearly through His Word. God’s command to all men is to believe His Word.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 16, 2016

Posted under

God

What is the ontological argument for the existence of God?

Those who attempt to defend the claims of the Bible generally use a couple major types of arguments. One group is called presuppositionalism, or presuppositional apologetics.  arguments. The person presupposes the claims of the Bible to be true and then offers evidences to support that starting principle. The other group is called classical apologetics. The person attempts to show evidences for the claims of the Bible or the existence of God by using independent arguments for the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible.

Classical arguments for the existence of God include the teleological, cosmological, moral and ontological arguments. The ontological argument is different from the others because it offers evidence for God based only upon the philosophical reasonings of man. No proofs outside the thoughts of man are offered. Because of this the ontological argument can be challenging to understand. It is a logical and philosophical argument likely to be appreciated by someone who has studied those systems. The ontological argument can be briefly stated.  Nothing can be imagined that is greater than God, therefore God must exist.

The ontological argument is not an empirical argument. It does not offer claims that can be examined using the scientific method. It does not make claims that can be supported by external evidence. The ontological argument seeks to show the existence of God based upon the definition of God. It is believed that Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury during the 11th century, first formulated this argument. The argument has been made in a couple different ways, but the strongest seems to be this:

  • God, by definition, is a being greater than any other which can be imagined (No one can imagine a being greater than God)
  • A being which exists in thought and in reality is greater than a being which exists only in the imagination
  • If God exists only in thought, then men can devise a being which is greater than God
  • No one can devise a being greater than God (we cannot imagine a being greater than the greatest being imaginable)
  • Because men have a conception of God and can imagine none greater, God must exist.

To state the argument another way; the God of the Bible is conceived as having all perfections. He is infinite in being, eternal in existence and limitless in knowledge, might and presence. None can imagine a being that is greater than God. If God is that which is greater than any imagination of man, God must exist.

This argument is limited by a proper definition of God- a person can easily imagine a being greater than the god Thor, but one cannot imagine a being greater than the infinitely perfect God of the Bible, and it is limited by the philosophical complexity of the argument. Some have accused the ontological argument of being little more than an elaborate word game. The biggest problem with the ontological argument is its total reliance on human reasoning to attempt to deduce the existence of God. Because of the corruption of sin upon the mind of men none will turn to God by the power of logic. The Word of God makes that clear the things of God cannot be discerned by the unsaved man apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 2:14) There is no being greater than God. We know of His existence and His greatness because He has made Himself known to man. In His grace God has given us His Word which tells us of His glory.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 11, 2016

Posted under

God

Arguments for God

Recent conversations with a reader of this blog have prompted me to mention several of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are not proofs in the empirical and evidential sense. They are philosophical proofs intended to show the belief in a supreme being is logical. There is, in fact, no direct proof for God’s existence. Instead there are logical deductions based upon reasonable inferences. These arguments seek to show the plausibility or necessity of a God by citing secondary evidences for God. These arguments are mostly cause and effect arguments that surmise because a particular reality is true there must be a Deity greater than reality who brought it into existence. In this article I will briefly explain four major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. These arguments merely argue for the existence of an all powerful deity without describing the character of God. I do not offer these explanations as an attempt to prove the existence of God, but to acquaint the reader with the basics of some of the most common arguments for God. Future articles will explain in more detail the particulars of each line of reasoning.

Ontological argument:
The ontological argument is an argument about the nature of being. This argument can be summarized as “nothing can be imagined that is greater than God, therefore God must exist.” The ontological argument relies on no outside evidences but draws its conclusion from what is possible for man to conceive. This argument is a proposition that is entirely conceptual, an argument from imagination. Because man conceives of an infiniitely perfect God who exists, and because it is impossible for man to conceive of anything greater than a a God of infinite perfections, then such a God must exist.

Teleological argument:
The teleological argument is also called the argument from design. The world shows evidence of design, therefore there must be a Designer. In daily living when one sees an orderly system that accomplishes a specific function the observer naturally concludes it has been designed. (A watch found lying in the woods is not believed to have evolved in those woods, but manufactured by watchmaker.) Randomness or lack of functionality shows lack of design. Because the universe as a whole and living creatures in particular are orderly and functional there must be a great Designer who created it all.

Cosmological argument:
The cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of a physical universe. Everything in the universe has to have a beginning, therefore there must exist a Being outside the universe that brought it into existence. Observational science has shown that something cannot come from nothing. The universe is something and thus could not have come from nothing. Because the universe exists, there must exist a Creator who brought all things into existence.

Moral argument:
The moral argument is an argument from the conscience of man. Since everyone has a perception of right and wrong, there must be a Lawgiver who has built into the heart of every person a basic moral understanding. Without a Supreme Being there would be no universal concept of right and wrong. Without a Lawgiver morals would be subjective and changing based upon the interests of the person or the society. Because there is cross cultural, multi-generational agreement upon basic concepts of right and wrong there must be One who placed the moral law in the heart of all men.

These logical arguments can help understand if belief in God is reasonable. Deductions from nature, reason and conscience can help discern the plausibility of asserting the existence of an all powerful Deity. While such arguments may be helpful, the Christian does not need to “prove” God exists. The Bible itself does not seek to prove God’s existence. Scripture declares the existence of God. “In the beginning God created.” The Bible asserts God’s existence and demands its claims be believed.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 4, 2016

Posted under

Christian living, Christianity, Current Events, Life Questions, Politics

Comments

2 Comments

What are the most important things for a Christian to consider as he votes?

Our nation is racing towards the climax of the election cycle. Right now we are in the middle of the presidential primaries. On Tuesday the states of Michigan, Mississippi and Idaho will be having presidential primary elections. Every election leaves the Christian with a some very difficult decisions. The Bible informs every area of the believer’s life. This includes electoral decisions. How does a careful Christian honor God in his voting choices? Because no election is a clear cut choice between good and evil the Christian has to give more weight to certain issues when casting his ballot. What does the Bible says are the most important things to consider when voting?

Proverbs 14:34 says, “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” Christians must consider which candidates will promote Biblical righteousness. The likelihood of finding a candidate with whom you agree completely is almost nonexistent. The possibility of finding a candidate who has a largely Biblical morality seems to be getting slimmer and slimmer. The reality is the Christian will probably have to chose the “lesser of two evils”. In doing so, much discernment must be exercised. The Christian must not vote for candidates who have built their political platform on the promotion of immorality and godlessness. Whenever possible, Christians should seek to vote for those candidates who have shown themselves to be promoters of Biblical righteousness (not necessarily of the ten commandments, but of those things which are in line with Biblical morality).

Romans 13 declares that God ordained the government to be a terror to evil doers. One must select officials who will punish evil. Government officials, from the lowest to the highest, are the servants of God. He appointed them, even the worst of them, to restrain evil. This means elected officials must be restraining evil in their own lives. Proverbs 29:2 says, “When the wicked bear rule, the people mourn.” A wicked man in power is not going to promote justice. He is not going to restrain evil. The Christian should seek those leaders who are honorable men of integrity that will uphold justice.

A Christian should not vote for a person just because the candidate professes of Christianity. While some politicians do have a credible testimony of salvation, far too many take the name of a Christian to attract Christian voters. A competent person of integrity may lead with greater ability and righteousness than a nominal Christian who crafted an identity to attract Christian votes. Nor should a Christian vote with the assumption that the right leaders will fix America. While our elected officials wield great influence over the direction of America, the needs of this nation are heart needs. The transformation of the heart is only accomplished by Christ. No elected leader, no legislative body, no judge and no system of laws will ever make a person truly righteous. Vote with hope but do not place that hope in men. Trust in Jesus, hope in the eternal kingdom He has secured and remember only the gospel will change this country.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 2, 2016

Posted under

Life Questions, Sexuality

Should Christains call transgender people by the pronoun of their choice?

Those who make the transition between genders often begin the transformation by changing their name and asking others to call them by a pronoun mathcing their newly chosen identity. This is a difficult issue for Christians who believe gender is a biological constant anatomically determined an unchanged by sexual, emotional or mental preferences. Some who advocate calling transgendered persons by the pronoun and name of choice have presented this as a matter of respect. We respect those who change their names by calling them the new name. If a man changes his name from “Tom” to “Zoltar the Great” most people respect his wishes despite their personal Those who make the transition between genders often begin the transformation by changing their name and asking others to call them by the pronoun of their choice. This is a difficult issue for Christians who believe gender is a biological constant anatomically determined regardless of sexual, emotional or mental preferences. Some who advocate calling transgendered by the pronoun and name of choice have presented this as a matter of respect. We respect those who change their names by calling them the new name. If a man changes his name from “Tom” to “Zoltar the Great” most people will respect his wishes, though they may think his choice of names is ridiculous. In many cases this is a matter of no consequence, and Christians can readily comply with the persons wishes on the matter. In some instances there are moral and theological issues with the name chosen. If Tom decides to change his name to Jehovah the Christian is going to refuse to address him by that title reserved only for the God of heaven.

What about honorifics? We respect someone’s preference to be called Doctor or Reverend instead of Mister or Missus. We do not reject as immoral the recent change in English grammar to use “they” as a generic pronoun instead of “he”. Should we not also respect someone’s request to be called Miss instead of Mister? The Bible presents God’s creative work as consisting of two distinct, unchangable genders. The willful rejection of ones biological sex by replacing he with she, or with the intentionally uncertain “xe” is a moral issue. In this case the choice of a pronoun reflects a rebellion against that which God created. This is a matter of acceding to a morality contrary to the Bible. The demand that we respect a person’s pronoun of choice is a demand we submit to their immoral worldview. Christians must not do so. We must submit to the Bible’s morality, even at the cost of offending someone we deeply love.

For obvious technological reasons the Bible does not address those who would surgically change their gender, but it does clearly address those who would attempt to make themselves appear to be a member of the opposite gender. The Bible unequivocally condemns such behavior. Ones gender is not a function of the mind, it is a product of biology. Despite what some today seem to suggest gender is deeper than ones external sex organs or ones perception of himself. The organs are attached to the body in such a way that changing their appearance does not their underlying functions. A transgender woman will never get pregnant and a transgender man can never father a child. The basic realities are unchanged by some creative cutting and pasting. God created maleness and femaleness. These are not arbitrary designations, but expressions of a reality defined by God and built into every person. The gender of a person is not liquid or malleable. It is fixed. In a bizarre, Dr. Moreau-esque fashion we are now able to reverse engineer biological parts to give the appearance of something else. No matter how much one changes his appearance or says to herself, “I am a man”, just like Dr. Moreau’s unfortunate experiments, the created order will win out. Self-deception will remain a lie even if all of society joins you in proclaiming a lie.

A lie repeated often enough and long enough may be believed by the majority of people, but it is still a lie. To treat gender as if it were multiple choice is to deny crucial aspects of God’s creation. To deny the binary nature of gender is to deny what it means to be an image bearer of God and to dishonor the person. It is not loving to help another live out self deception. The Christian should no more call a transgender person the pronoun of their choice than a doctor in a mental ward should call his patients by the name of the person they fantasize themselves to be. Calling a transgender person the pronoun of their choice does not show them respect. It disrespects them with the most callous disregard for their soul.