So the anti-Christian rhetoric is heating up even more. I don’t actually see it as much as I could. I mean, I get told by others what they have read and what they experience in school in this regard, so it’s even worse than I know, apparently. But click on the link in the sources area for a video of a professor’s talk summarizing his study of anti-Christian bias in academia – you’ll feel like you need to take a shower after hearing what many so-called educated and tolerant people say about Christians.
It never ceases to amaze me (to use that over-used phrase) how so many people on the internet criticize “Christians” with knowing virtually nothing about them. I can claim that since it’s really very obvious from what these vitriolic critics write (or say) that they don’t know the Bible at all (nor history) and they don’t know all the unselfish and kind-hearted Christians that actually exist out in the real world. They don’t have a mind-set that says, “Let’s make sure I know what I’m talking about, let’s make sure I’ve looked at the various sides of this issue in a fair and serious way.” There is a whole lot of idealistic hate speech going on out there aimed at Christians.
I write this because I just came across this article: The Shameful Republican Criminalization of the American Dream. You can’t get from the title that it’s anit-Christian, but these are the first lines: “The idea of punishing children for “sins of the father” is deeply rooted in four places in the Christian bible, but like many concepts in that archaic rule book . . .” Really??? I don’t know how writers like this get published, but then maybe that web site is like a blog or something.
One, how can, all of a sudden, “Republican” be equated with “Christian”? I am very fed up with Republicans (I’m an independent voter), and I’m a Christian, yet somehow I’m just lumped in this writer’s kindergartenesque stereotype. And, from what I read in the main stream media, many Catholics are activists for the liberal immigration cause (for lack of a better way of putting it). How has the writer missed that? This writer is just like the Muslims who say that America is a Christian nation, and therefore all actions our government does reflect the Christian faith. (LOL.)
Two, just as a note, there are a whole lot of people – myself included – that have found the “American Dream” to be very elusive. Doesn’t matter when you came here, or if you were born here – in fact, I’ve met many immigrants who are wealthy.
Three, Christians think (and the Bible conveys) the complete opposite of what the author is claiming about sin. Sin is individual and children are not spiritually punished by God for the sins of their parents or other ancestors (God does tell us that there are consequences for some held-on sin, however). We must all confess and repent of our own sins, and our attitude and actions regarding those will lead to salvation, or no (whether we believe we sin or not will of course guide us in acknowledging the need for a savior, or no). It’s just such a bizarre claim. Have you witnessed in our country, coming from Republicans or anyone else, the jailing of kids for things their parents did wrong?
Continuing with number three, the reader can take a look at a number of online articles on the subject of sin not being inherited, as provided in the Bible. One is: Are Children Responsible for the Sins of Parents? Here are some summaries with additional information.
Spiritual condemnation for sin cannot be inherited – it’s based on what we do as individuals. Ezekiel 18:20: “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 James 14-15, Romans 2:6-11, and other verses, affirm this.
People cite Exodus 20:5 as a contradiction to Ezekiel 18:20, but ignore the verses around it and the context, and then don’t try to figure out why it seems to contradict all the other verses that say the opposite thing. Exodus 20:5-6: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them [idols, false gods]; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” So why did God say this when He states clearly elsewhere in the Bible that He does not punish kids for their parents’ sin?
For one, He was talking to the nation of Israel; God was telling His people how to live, and what will bring blessing and what will bring punishment to the nation. God talks of those who hate Him and those who love him. I like how this author puts it (see Hard Sayings of the Bible, below):
“As for the commandment that has the sins of the fathers visiting the children to the third and fourth generations, we can only observe that the text clearly teaches that this happens when the children repeat the motivating cause of their parents’ sin–that is, they too hate God. But when the children love God, the effect is loving kindness for thousands of generations!”
God would not punish Israel for one, two, or maybe three generations of haters, but He would be patient with the nation and he would thoroughly bless those who love Him. There are more verses and examples in the history told to us in the Bible of God’s punishment that critics may point out. Contextual study will show how these unique examples, that seem to go against God’s view and teaching that individuals alone are responsible for their sin, do not contravene Ezekiel 18:20 (and other verses). God does not contradict Himself, but provides loving guidance while still remaining God.*
Happy Easter everyone! Or, if you don’t like to call it that, Blessed Resurrection Day! Thank you Lord for all that you did and are doing! Here is a link to a very informative and I’d say concise treatment of the meaning of, and verses relating to, Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. The web site it’s on is distractingly and annoyingly messy (to me, anyway), but hey . . . it’s meant as a basically informational site for pastors, I guess.
I’ve seen that question asked so many times on the internet, and it surprises me that more people don’t know the answer. But then again, I always have to check my surprise because, really, the answer isn’t taught much in churches, it seems. I had always gone to Bible teaching churches, and the subject just doesn’t come up much (or at least it didn’t in the past). Maybe, in a way, it just seems too obvious to pastors, but then why do people keep asking? One law that will get a sermon now and then, since it specifically relates to non-Jews, is whether keeping the “Sabbath” “holy” is still required (this is from one of the Ten Commandments), but that specific subject is for a future post.
So what is the answer? As so many ask, why don’t we stone homosexuals anymore? Implying, I guess, that since we no longer stone them, then we should no longer think their actions sin anymore either. Of course, the one action or lack thereof (capital punishment) doesn’t change what God thinks of the crime (homosexual acts); what has changed between the Old and New Testaments was the timing of judgement. A major part of the Old Testament covers the time of the Jews, the history of the nation of Israel. God made the nation of Israel to be a human group that was governed by God’s laws, and His specific revelations would come through Israel during that time. They were an example that the pagan nations around them could see, and for future peoples to learn from.
But we – Christians – are not the nation of Israel and so we don’t mete out punishments to people that sin against God. We are to convey God’s plan of redemption to all peoples. God’s plan is redemption, it isn’t punishment, per se. His focus, as it was at the beginning and as it will be in the future, is for humans to have a wonderful life in fellowship with Him. God is extending His hand to all who will accept Him during this church era, and is reserving judgement until later. Sin is still sin. Just because God doesn’t zap people from heaven when they sin doesn’t mean He doesn’t see it or that He has changed His mind about it. Consider these quotes from two of the sources provided below:
The New Testament gives us further guidance about how to read the Old Testament. Paul makes it clear in places like Romans 13:8ff that the apostles understood the Old Testament moral law to still be binding on us. In short, the coming of Christ changed how we worship but not how we live. The moral law is an outline of God’s own character–his integrity, love, and faithfulness. . . . The New Testament continues to forbid killing or committing adultery, and all the sex ethic of the Old Testament is re-stated throughout the New Testament (Craig).
If we are to understand the application of the Law to ourselves, we must understand its purpose. The law was never intended to be a permanent and full revelation of God’s mind to man but was given for the express purpose of preparing the way for Christ (Galatians 3:23-25). Furthermore, the law given through Moses was never intended for any people except the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 5:1-3; 6:6-7). Thus, with the death of Christ upon the cross, this impermanent law, the Old Testament, was taken away (Colossians 2:13-17). Now instead, God “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son.” (Hebrews 1:2; cf. Matthew 17:1-5) One who goes back to the Old Testament and tries to be justified by it has “become estranged from Christ” (Galatians 5:4) (Sharp).
So, in response to the original question, we don’t “pick and choose” which laws to follow, since those laws aren’t for us to enforce. We do, however, acknowledge as sin what God tells us is sin, and we convey it to others since “the Good News” is that Jesus died for our sins. If there was nothing for Him to die for, then obviously He died for nothing. If people don’t or won’t recognize their sin, then they will not see why Jesus had to die for them. So, if you don’t know what sins are or don’t think that you’ve sinned, why would you think Jesus relevant? The gospel would be pointless.
If homosexual sins, or any other sins, are said to be forgiven and thus accepted by God, it makes a mockery of the whole actions of Christ. Christ said to the adulteress, “go and sin no more.” We are to strive to live sin free; to continue to live a life of sin, purposefully, is to deny Christ’s work. It’s like saying I can go out and murder, and the whole time Christ is at my side smiling, knowing He’s got me covered. Yes, we all sin, but the point is to recognize sin and repent of any sinful actions, so that we can have relationship with God; God will forgive the repentant, but to be unrepentant means to be unforgiven.
For a more detailed presentation of the subject, please read one or more of the sources listed below.
Honestly, I never thought it would be so difficult to find a good summary of the various theological views on Christ’s second coming, or what is more technically called parousia. By this I mean a summary of the liberal view, and who promoted it and why, that proclaimed that Christ’s second coming was a misinterpretation of scripture – that despite the incredible amount and quality of verses to affirm that Christ and Paul and everyone else actually meant what they said – but that really Christ’s parousia is only His presence with us (so they tried to claim). So, that means, basically, I guess, that there’s no rapture (no glorified bodies, ever . . . .?), no hope that Christ will actually reign amongst humans, that we can build up His kingdom now and that’s about it, etc.
When I look around, when I experience my daily life with other people, when I read history, I suuuurrrre don’t see that Christ’s kingdom is blooming, growing, and all that. It seems to me that the opposite is true, that the great apostasy is upon us. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4) (kind-of sounds like the liberal theology teachers themselves). Not to say that Christ isn’t among us doing His work, and we with Him. The Lord is indeed showing His love and Himself to many in many ways.
So what is my point? Well, I am doing some research for an extensive blog article that involves (it is not at all the main topic) this liberal, anti-parousia, “we can usher Christ’s kingdom in ourselves since that’s all the New Testament says anyway,” idea, and it’s just sad and difficult dealing with it. But the main thing is that I wanted to pass on some reading materials to show what is actually in the New Testament, and that our hope is not in man and what he obviously can’t do– that our hope is not misplaced in an elaborate myth (what some “Christian theologians” insist the New Testament is). The number one source is the Bible itself. Read the entire New Testament a few times and tell me if you really think it’s basically “made up.” Here is a good short but information packed essay on Christ’s second coming: Second Coming of Christ. This is a short, easy read on it: What is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? And, I don’t necessarily agree with all that is in this article – maybe I just don’t know the right Christians – but it’s contents are worth considering: The Theology of the End and the End of Theology.
Christ is the suffering servant and the King, as outlined in the Old Testament. He was the suffering servant during His time on earth, and when He returns it will be in His role as King. Jesus said, “I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am” (John 14:3). “Men of Galilee . . . why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Act 1:10-11; see also Matthew 24:29-30). “And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming” (1 John 2:28; see also John 3:3).
Good Shepherd fresco from the Catacombs of San Callisto under the care of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archeology (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Below is half of a relatively long (but actually concise) treatment of evidences or evidential steps for the view that the Christian faith is rational, and even desirable, to hold. Thanks for reading, and may the God of all creation bless you.
______________
For the person who wants to know that there is reason to believe a holy book–that there is evidence to back it up–different areas of apologetics have those answers. In fact, there is more evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible today than ever before, excepting when the events actually occurred. This essay assumes that the person searching for a legitimate holy book already believes that there is a deity of some sort; it does not cover arguments for the existence of God. What this essay does cover, in concise form, are the issues of reliability of the Old and New Testaments, fulfilled prophecies, miracles, and Christ’s resurrection.
Old Testament Reliability
How was the Old Testament written and copied? What we Christians refer to as the Old Testament is the same as the Jewish Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, called the Tanakh. The content of the Tanakh and the Septuagint is the same, but the two are formatted differently. The Old Testament follows the same formatting as the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from about 250 BC to 150 or 100 BC and was used by the scattered Jews of the diaspora.
The Tanakh itself was written from about 1400-400 BC. Moses and other prophets were believed to possess the word of God because of the signs (miracles) they did, coupled with their openness (“transparency”). Moses was obviously literate, and because of his high upbringing, may have been literate in three languages. He no doubt, along with the people in general, knew the stories of other cultures and had copies of various source documents. Moses’ telling and retelling of events was considered God inspired.
At the time of Christ, the books of the Tanakh were established and accepted as canon. Those who copied the Tanakh beginning AD 70 (after the destruction of the temple) were called Talmudists. They had very specific rules for transmitting the Tanakh. Because damaged copies of the Tanakh were purposefully destroyed, very old copies do not exist. The Massoretes (or Masoretes) were the copyists for the Tanakh from AD 500 – 900. They, too, had very specific rules for copying, and any imperfect copies were destroyed. They are noted for adding marks to the text that represent vowels, as Hebrew did not have vowels and concern was growing over the continued pronunciation of the language. Whoever the copyists were through time, they all took God’s command in Deuteronomy 12:32 very seriously: “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.”
There have been archaeological finds in recent centuries to confirm the historicity of the Old Testament, and the Dead Sea scrolls additionally confirm accurate copy transmission. With the 200+ scrolls that date from approximately 250 BC to AD 125, we have the oldest copies of scripture, and these tell us that the accuracy of transmission is nearly 100%. A Qumran copy of Isaiah 53 has only three truly variant letters from the more recent Massoretic text, and these three letters do not change the text meaning in any real way.
There are many archaeological finds that corroborate the OT, with these representing only a sample:
The Moabite Stone. Mentions “Yahweh” and events in 2 Kings 3.
The Taylor Prism. From Nineveh, it describes the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib an corresponds to 2 Kings 18-19, 2 Chronicles 37, and Isaiah 36-37.
The Cyrus Cylinder. After Cyrus began ruling Babylon (539 BC), he ordered that Babylonian captives could return home. This is told of in Ezra 1:1-3 and 6:3 (see also 2 Chronicles 36:23 and Isaiah 44:28).
The Tel Dan Stele. This is an Aramaic inscription found in Israel. It is about Hazael’s victory over Ramoth Gilead, as in 2 Kings 8:28-29, and conveys that David’s dynasty ruled in Jerusalem.
The Gilgamesh Epic. Found in the great library of Nineveh, it in part describes a flood not unlike that in Genesis 7-8.
New Testament Reliability
There has been a plethora of interest in “lost gospels,” which leads some to doubt the manner in which the New Testament (NT) was put together. Then there are those who also question the accurate transmission of the words in the NT, saying that parts were added or taken away at later times. All these issues are really non-issues, promulgated by detractors of the faith and sometimes believed by neutral parties who simply don’t take the time to look into these matters further. Concerning when the books of the NT were written and how they became canon, providing a chronological order seems like it would be clearest, and that is provided below. As for the accuracy of textual transmission, however, here is a good summary:
“A simple comparison of the text of the Bible with the text of other religious, historical, and philosophical documents from the ancient past proves the vast superiority of the biblical record. Less than one tenth of one percent of the biblical text is in question, whereas no such accuracy of transmission exists for the Qur’an, the Mahabharata, or the Iliad. Some ancient records such as Caesar’s Gallic Wars of Tactitus’ Annals, exist in less than ten copies, and these copies date from 1,000 years after their originals. By contrast, over 5,000 copies of the New Testament exist, the vast majority of them dating less than 200 years after the original text and some fragments less than 50 years after the original text. No book from ancient history has been transmitted over the centuries with greater clarity and accuracy than the Bible” (Geisler and Hindson p 100).
So when was the New Testament written? The books that were considered canon and that make up the New Testament were written not all that long after Christ’s death and resurrection, by those who were Christ’s disciples/apostles or associates of the apostles. In other words, by close eye witnesses of Jesus, or persons who learned directly from those eye witnesses. Jesus lived from about 4 BC to AD 33. The book considered earliest in the NT is James, written around AD 45-48, and the most recent book is Revelation, written by AD 100. In light of the prior quote regarding biblical transmission, it is known that the copies that now exist reflect the originals very reliably. That is, what is used for our bible translations today can very confidently be considered “original.”
But how do we know that the books of the NT are the ones that the early church read and thought reliable (had divine inspiration), and that important books weren’t left out? The books of the NT had been circulated and read amongst the widespread churches (in Europe and the greater Middle East of today), and certainly not in the region of Rome only! Books considered scripture had apostolic authority, which was important very early on because of the rapid development of false teachings. So, we know that the books were all written by AD 100, and that they were widely circulated (and copied); there are codices of the gospels and of the letters of Paul from the early 2nd century.
Partly as a result of some influential persons (such as Marcion) trying to redefine and delete parts of scripture, “lists of canon” began to be written down. The first generally accepted one dates to the late 2nd century and is known as the Muratorian Canon; it had excluded Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, and 3 John. The early church father Tertullian (c. 150 – c. 229) had quoted 23 of the 27 books that became the NT. Those excluded or disputed on some lists were done so for various reasons, but not because some churches thought they were inauthentic; often it was because a heretical group happened to like the book, so then some questioned it. The Eastern and Western churches differed early on and this is reflected in the books supported or unsupported at different times (examples are Hebrews and Revelation). Later, most believers accepted James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, yet some did not want to accept these. However, the Eastern church accepted an official list in 367 which includes all the books of the present NT. In 393 and 397, councils of the western church also accepted the NT canon as it is today.
What of some books that weren’t included in canon? From the church father Eusebius, who had investigated possible canonical books, we know of some old “spurious” books. The Didache had instruction in it and was used by the early church, but it faded from use and its authorship was in severe doubt. The Acts of Paul had been written by an overzealous admirer, not Paul. The Epistle of Barnabas was read and admired, but it was not written by Paul’s partner Barnabas. The Shepherd of Hermas was widely read and may be all true, but it was written in the early 2nd century by someone other than an apostle or an apostle’s associate. The Apocalypse of Peter was written in the first half of the 2nd century, so Peter the Apostle was not the author. Other books that some critics like to bring up, like the Gospel of Thomas, were written far later and were never considered apostolic whatsoever; they are simply made up, forgeries, etc.
Now, are there historical or archaeological evidences that corroborate the NT? While not everything can be corroborated, there are outside sources that confirm aspects of NT writings. These help to show that the texts are indeed historical and not made up later. Written sources for Jesus and Christians are (1) the Roman historian Tacitus (55-117) in his Annals (15.44); (2) Pliny the Younger, a Roman Governor, in a letter to the Emperor in about 112; (3) Josephus, a 1st century Jewish historian (some of his writing or copies of it are questioned, but others are not; there is definite reference to Jesus in Josephus’ writings); (4) Jewish Rabbinical writings called the Babylonian Talmud; and (5), the 2nd century Greek satirist Lucian.
Archaeological finds also corroborate the NT, and they continue to grow in number. Here is a small sample:
The ossuary of Caiaphas (Luke 3:2 and others), discovered in 1990.
The Pilate Stone, discovered in 1961, has Pontius Pilate’s name on it and where he governed.
The Gallio (or Delphi) inscription (dated to about 52) speaks of Gallio, the same being mentioned in Acts 18:12; discovered in 1905.
Sergius Paulus inscriptions (there is more than one inscription bearing that name) confirm the proconsul of Cypress, as is mentioned in Acts 13:7.
The Pool of Siloam, excavated in 2004. As recorded in John 9:1-11, Jesus did a miracle there.
Fulfilled Prophecies
When considering the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Christ, it is exciting to simply read over an annotated list of them. There are different lists, however, with the highest number of fulfilled prophecies going up to 400. The listed number of “major” fulfilled prophecies varies as well, ranging from about 61 to 121. In MacDonald’s list of chronologically ordered fulfilled prophecies, he presents 44 (he does not say that these are the only ones he considers “major,” however) (MacDonald 1995). Here is one list just for your quick online reference: Prophecies that Jesus Christ Fulfilled.
One of my favorite lists is by D. James Kennedy – not because of the list itself, but because of the story around it. He had spoken to a highly educated man, a writer, who thought that the bible was simply written by man; he had no knowledge of the evidences for the validity of the scriptures. So Kennedy asked the man to tell him who it was he had read about, after reciting many verses to him. The man said that the verses clearly referred to Jesus Christ. But the man was completely surprised when Kennedy told him that all the verses he read were from the OT, the last book of which was written 400 years before Christ. He went on to tell him, “No critic, no atheist, no agnostic has ever once claimed that any one of those writings was written after His birth. In fact, they were translated from Hebrew into Greek in Alexandria some 150 years before He was born.”
So it is that verses such as (1) Micah 5:2, “But you, Bethlehem, Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” (2) Isaiah 53:3, “He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him. He was despised, and we did not esteem Him,” (3) Psalm 22:16, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” (4) Psalm 22:18, “They divided my garments among themselves, and they cast lots for my clothing,” and (5) Psalm 34:20, “He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken,” refer to Jesus though written centuries before His birth.
One of the most fascinating prophecies of the Messiah is found in Daniel 9:24-27, and it concerns the timing of His coming. It is not in some of the basic lists, no doubt because it is not easily deciphered or shown in a few words. To put it very briefly, this prophecy provides a window of time as to when the Messiah would be around. When the Hebraic terms are taken into account, and then taking into account which possible scripture(s) is meant by the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and then also taking into account the different calendars (ancient calendars kept 360-day years), a time frame emerges that encompasses the time that Jesus lived (and was crucified) (Powell 2006).
There is so much more that can be known concerning the fulfilled prophecies of Christ that cannot be easily shown in a list, such as Christ in the meanings and symbols of things, like the lamb and shepherd, and symbols and events related to the feast days of Israel. Unique among religious faiths is the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old and New Testaments. “You will find no predictive prophecies whatsoever in the writings of Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, or Hinduism. Yet in the Scripture there are well over two thousand prophecies, most of which have already been fulfilled” (Kennedy xxix).
Chong, Timothy. “Bible, Canonicity.” In The Popular Encycolopedia of Apologetics, by Ergun Caner Ed Hinson, 101-102. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011.
Dowley, Tim, Editor. Eerdman’s Handbook to The History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.
Garrett, Duane A, General Editor. NIV Archaeological Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Geisler, Norman, and Ed Hindson. “Bible, Alleged Errors.” In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, by Ergun Caner Ed Hindson, 97-100. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
Hart, David Bentley. Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2009.
Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008.
Kennedy, D. James. “Christ: The Fulfillment of Prophecy.” In The Apologetics Study Bible, by Ted, General Editor Cabal, xxviii-xxix. Nashville: Holman, 2007.
MacDonald, William. “Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ.” In Believer’s Bible Commentary, by William MacDonald, xviii-xxiii. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995 (1989).
Nappa, Mike. True Stories of Answered Prayer. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 1999.
Powell, Doug. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics. Nashville: Holman Reference, 2006.
Ricci, Carla. Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women Who Followed Jesus . Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1994.
Sailhamer, John H. Biblical Prophecy. Grand Rapids: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1998.
Yates, Gary E. “Bible, Transmission of.” In The Popular Encycolopedia of Apologetics, by Ed, and Ergun Caner Hindson, 107-110. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
This is from a very short article in Bloomberg online, and there are other articles to be found by googling:
Nigeria has protested to Saudi Arabia’s authorities over the detention of more than 1,000 female pilgrims who arrived in the kingdom for the annual Hajj pilgrimage without male guardians, state-run Radio Nigeria said. . . . Saudi Arabia enforces restrictions that are interpreted from the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam. Women can’t travel or get an education without male approval or mix with unrelated men in public places.
As a Christian, I am at a loss as to why anyone would voluntarily become a Muslim in the first place, but when I see stuff like this, I am out-and-out flummoxed. So, women must be controlled and herded like lesser beings, AND, they can’t even be in public with other men because . . . why??? Oh, men can’t control themselves. They’ll just start doing some Mardi Gras moves in the street. Really?? Belong to a religion that is so controlling, that seems to acknowledge and even promote the idea that human males are as good as randy rabbits, and that seems to not control its tyrannical and extremely violent members no matter what it does? (And I won’t even get into all the persecution that goes on in the world against Christians at the hands of Muslims.)
Wow. Sorry, but there is simply no comparison between Christianity and Islam. And don’t go whining (atheists) about ancient pockets of “Christian” history (a lot of actual Christians died in trying to get false and violent actions to stop). Sure, there have been wolves in sheep clothing that have done bad things in the name of Christianity. It happens everyday in every area of life – I mean, charlatans seeking power and all of that, using whatever thing people have positive feelings about. What you do is look at the founder of the faith. Is s/he like that (false, after power, money, etc.)? I won’t get into Muhammad here and the history of Islam, but I think it worth looking at Christ and the history of those who actually follow Him and his teachings.
Christ was sin-free and was not married; he didn’t go after multiple wives or even minor wives; he didn’t leave any heirs for everyone to argue about or over. He lifted women UP from their low status at the time He visited us here on earth. Women could follow Him and learn from Him. In fact, He said it was better for a woman to learn from Him, to take the time and do that – as it was more important – than to serve Him or other men!!! Wow!! Why would any woman NOT want to follow Jesus? If you want to know more and discover some pretty cool information that you just don’t hear about all that often, see New Testament Views of Women. You may want to read about the woman at the well whom Christ talked with too.
In the future, I’ll try and post an article about the good in the history of Christ’s true followers, like those who founded hospitals (hospitals that were free) and universities. People seem to have forgotten the parts of Christian history, too, when Christians died in order to stop those who did violence in Christ’s name. In the meantime, if any Muslims come here, don’t go hatin’ on me. Actions are actions, and the action reported on in the press was done and promoted by a whole country, and a whole section of Islam. It’s no secret. If you want to explain how your own sect of Islam is not like that in the comments, go ahead, but know that WordPress comments are always moderated.
Rare early picture of CS Lewis, on the cover of “All My Road Before Me” — from his early and agnostic or atheistic days.A Christian Conversion Experience: C.S. Lewis
Contemporary apologetics so often focus on the issues of biblical reliability and understanding in relation to science, and on the question of evil, as these are the currently contested concerns. One apologetic that points towards the existence of God, however, is one that is generally not “scientific” enough, and that is a changed life. Not a temporary change, which can indicate a simple excitement of a person’s will, but a permanent change evidenced by the long term. So let’s look at the conversion experience of a well-known person, C.S. (Jack) Lewis. Lewis was an Oxford and Cambridge Professor (English and Philosophy) and the well-known author of both fictional works like The Chronicles of Narnia and of highly valued scholarly works.
To anyone who comes in contact with atheistic thought, what Lewis wrote to his best friend in 1916 (below) will seem quite familiar. What made him come to that conclusion, and what made him change his mind?
“I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention” (Hooper p. 9).
Lewis, or Jack, was brilliant from early age, having been tutored at home until he was nine, when his mother died. As if this great sorrow was not enough, Lewis’ dad sent him away to school, from their home in Ireland to England. Lewis’ older brother, Warnie, attended the very small school with him, but Jack hated it, and with good reason. The headmaster, a Reverend, was abusive and eventually deemed insane. At his next school, Lewis experienced an occultist head matron.
One can see the progression of Lewis’ road to apostasy from his parents’ Anglican faith: God did not heal his mother, one school leader was a cruel and crazy believer, and the other was a non-believing occultist. By the time Lewis attended his third school, he was an atheist. Hating this school as well, Lewis’ father sent him to learn under a distinguished tutor, who happened to be an atheist also. Lewis was superb at languages and translating. As his tutor wrote, Jack had “a sort of genius for translating . . . . He is the most brilliant translator of Greek plays I have ever met” (Gromley p. 36).
He went on to learn and teach at Oxford, with WWI service (and related injury and recovery) sandwiched in. After the war he lived with his adopted family, a much older atheist woman and her daughter.
So what would cause Lewis to stray from his atheism? A couple of strongly held ideas played their parts. One was the concept and experience of what Lewis termed “joy” – a pang of intense bliss and longing, followed by a strong desire to experience it again. The other was his concern, from an early age, that if Christianity were true it could be shown that paganism prefigured it, or that Christianity fulfilled paganism. Indeed, Lewis felt his pangs of “joy” when reading the northern pagan mythologies that he loved so much.
Jack Lewis wanted to be his own man; he did not want to acknowledge a power or diety that demanded loyalty. Through the years, however, seeking truth and being drawn to authors and friends who helped him with answers to his search for “joy” as well as his concern over God’s communication with the pagan world, Lewis’ heart and mind opened enough to hear God give him a choice.
“. . . a fact about myself was somehow presented to me. I became aware that I was holding something at bay, of shutting something out. . . . I felt myself being, there and then, given a free choice. . . . I could unbuckle the armor or keep it on. . . . The choice appeared to be momentous but it was also strangely unemotional. I was moved by no desires or fears. In a sense I was not moved by anything. I chose to open . . . . Then came the repercussion on the imaginative level. I felt as if I were a man of snow at long last beginning to melt. The melting was starting in my back – drip-drip and presently trickle-trickle. I rather disliked the feeling” (Lewis p. 123).
This experience of Lewis’ happened in 1929, and it was “conversion” to belief in God, not in an afterlife or in Jesus Christ. Lewis still thought that parts of Christianity were a kind of myth, yet he wanted to know the truth and to live truth. God gave Lewis many nudges, even via an ardent atheist who thought that it really did seem as though God made the pagan myths come true through Jesus Christ. This atheist’s admission shocked Lewis. Jack’s good friend J.R.R. Tolkien helped him with this issue, too, as did Hugo Dyson, on a pivotal walk in September 1931:
“Tolkien was convinced that myth, such as the Norse myth of the death of Balder, or the Greek myth of Psyche and Eros, was not the opposite of fact. These stories were a way of expressing truths deeper than fact. . . . [Tolkien declared that] not only did the truth in myths come from God, but a writer of myths could be doing God’s work in the world.1 As Tolkien talked, there was a sudden rush of wind out of nowhere, as if to underline the message. The three men held their breath, feeling the importance of the moment” (Gormley p. 95).
Later that month Lewis had a second, more subtle, conversion experience.
“As I drew near the conclusion, I felt a resistance almost as strong as my previous resistance to Theism. . . . Every step I had taken, from the Absolute to ‘Spirit’ and from ‘Spirit’ to ‘God,’ had been a step toward the more concrete, the more imminent, the more compulsive. At each step one had less chance ‘to call one’s soul one’s own.’ . . . I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade [Zoo] one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion. . . . It was more like when a man, after long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake” (Lewis pp. 129-130).
So, finally, Lewis found that myth had become fact (that is, Jesus was “the god that died”) and that the pangs of “joy” had been sign posts to God.
As Lewis had written in Surprised by Joy, “all” is required of a person who acknowledges and worships his maker, and Lewis gave his all. He is considered to be the greatest apologist of the 20th century, having written Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, The Screwtape Letters, and more. In addition, he was a very popular layman preacher in Oxford. As a “secular” scholar and author, he wrote poetry, the highly regarded “A Preface to Paradise Lost,” The Discarded Image, and others. Lewis was the president of Oxford’s Socratic Club from 1942-1955; this was a philosophy group that delved into the pros and cons of the Christian faith.
As if the schedule demanded by all that was not enough2 – don’t forget that he taught as well – Lewis was kind enough to answer all his letters (as he became “popular” he had the help of his brother, and then his wife). He always helped those in need–in a very personal way when the opportunity arose–and in a more general way through significant monetary giving. His apologetics show a concern and love for the common man, being theological and philosophical explanations open and accessible to all. Jack’s life was one humanly lived and beautifully lived.
_____________
Notes
Indeed, as probably all of you readers know, J.R.R. Tolkien wrote the great “modern myth,” The Lord of the Rings. It’s likely that many fewer are aware of Lewis’ re-told myth of Psyche and Cupid (or Eros) in Till We Have Faces.
Lewis had a truly unbelievable photographic memory, easily quoting pages from books that someone happened to mention. This gift was obviously a very great help to his studies, writing, lectures, etc.
____________
Sources
Gormley, Beatrice. C.S. Lewis: Christian and Storyteller. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Books for Young Readers, 1998.
Hooper, Wlater. C.S. Lewis: A Complete Guide to His Life & Works. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.
Lewis, C.S. “Surprised by Joy.” In The Inspirational Writings of C.S. Lewis, by C.S. Lewis, 1-130. New York: Inspirational Press, 1994 (1955).
Adad Gate, Nineveh (northern Iraq). Partial reconstruction of one of the 15 gates into ancient Nineveh.
“The atheist has it almost right: humans regularly do make gods in their image. Yet the biblical God isn’t the kind we make up. He refuses to be manipulated by human schemes. He makes us all—including his true devotees—uncomfortable, which in the end is what we truly need to overcome our self-centeredness. ‘Whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it’ Matt. 16:25)” (Copan p 193).
Many today find fault with the God of the Old Testament (OT) because they read of the violence He commanded, or they read and accept unlearned and biased commentary about it. Yet they ignore all that God presents about Himself, the contexts of the situations, and the hugely over-riding context of God’s benevolent plan for mankind. If the critics used such thought processes with their family and friends, they would have no relationships! Their assertions and arguments are unscholarly and simple, stemming from an ideology that seeks to eliminate God.
Is God mysterious and some of His ways unknowable? Yes. But is God compassionate? Can we discern that He is compassionate by what is presented in the OT (since God’s compassion is very clear in the New Testament, we are focusing on the OT here) without being accused of only wishful thinking? Yes, and we can know that God’s compassion was not for the Israelites only. Perhaps the most obvious example of God’s love and patience outside of Israel involves the Ninevites, since a whole book—Jonah—provides the evidence. (This book also foreshadows Jesus and His work.)
Now, Jonah is a fun book, especially if you take the time to imagine what is going on and maybe do some research in commentaries. The gist of the story is that Jonah is called by the Lord to go and convey to the Ninevites—a cruel people and bitter enemies of Israel—that God has seen their evil and it has gone on long enough. Judgment is coming. Jonah, knowing that God might be compassionate towards them (instead of destroying Israel’s enemy), ran from the Lord’s calling; “you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jonah 4:2b).
Indeed, after Jonah finally gave the Ninevites the message of God, the Ninevites repented and God did not harm them. Jonah was so upset about this that he told God that he wanted to die. This represents man’s view. But God answered with His view: “Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?” (Jonah 4:11).
At least some of you came here thinking, “OK, but how can the Canaanites be an example of God’s compassion?” After all, God commanded the Israelites to destroy many of the Canaanite groups: Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-5; they were to leave alone Moab, Ammon, and Edom). God commanded this through Moses, prior to Joshua leading the Israelites into the “promised” land around the Jordan River.
This command of God’s seems out of character to many people. The God of the New Testament would not command such a thing . . . would he? Jesus’ disciples understood that God had made judgments in the past, and when a Samaritan town would not help them at a certain time, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” “But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village” (Luke 9:54b-56). Jesus provided another example about how, during this new era, God’s judgment is postponed. As part of His instructions when sending out his disciples, Jesus said: “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (Matthew 10:14-15).
As we saw earlier, the sin and cruelty of Nineveh had gone on long enough when God decided to judge them. He sent Jonah beforehand, however, to preach to them God’s thoughts, and the Ninevites actually repented. God therefore held off judgment. A far different example is that of Sodom and Gomorrah, as mentioned above by Jesus. God knew those towns were devoid of righteous people, and so they were eventually destroyed because of their overall wickedness. Yet another example commonly known of is the great flood. God found the people evil and corrupt, so he gave Noah 120 years to build the ark before the flood waters came. In all that time, the earth’s inhabitants did not repent. God is very patient and longsuffering, and does not execute judgment until He knows the point of no return has been reached.
Which now brings us back to the Canaanites. Way back before the Israelites even traveled to Egypt and subsequently became slaves, God knew of the Canaanite’s evil ways. While God was making his covenant with Abram (later called Abraham), He told him this prophecy:
“Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites ¹ [Canaanites] has not yet reached its full measure” (Genesis 15:13-16; emphasis added).
The Exodus out of Egypt took place around 1446 BC, and they entered Canaan round 1406 BC. To be clear, Israelites were not being given the land around the Jordan River because they were righteous, but because they were to be an instrument of judgment and because they serve an ultimate future purpose (Deuteronomy 9:5). Also, since Israel did not keep a standing army and did not pay any soldiers, God was proving to the other nations that He is God and more than able to overcome their “gods.”
But what did the Canaanites do that was so bad? They did those things God forbade in Leviticus 18: incest, sodomy, bestiality, and sacrificing children (by burning them alive) to the god Molech. The Amalekites had done additional damage by murdering the slower persons at the end of the Israelite line while they traveled from Egypt; the Amalekites had acted wickedly and purposefully worked against God’s reputation. It should be noted that God did not order the destruction of any people for a lack of faith in Him, but for horrendous moral behavior (see Amos 1 -2 for more on God’s thinking).
The judgment of God against the peoples of Canaan had at least two purposes, and His purposes have compassion. One is that, sooner or later, evil needs to be dealt with and justice served, and the Canaanites were given plenty of time to change their ways. A great deal of wickedness was removed from the earth, or would have been sooner, if God’s commands were actually carried out. A great compassion, as I see it, is that God was trying to put a stop to the systematic and torturous murder of innocent children. Second, God’s compassionate plan for the redemption of all willing humans rested on the survival of Israel. God warned again and again that if the Canaanites were allowed to survive, and if Israel intermarried with them, that they would sin and turn from God. This indeed happened often, as God said.
It is mentioned above that not all Canaanites were killed, even though God commanded their destruction.² This is where it becomes imperative that God’s word is read carefully. While God commanded the destruction of seven Canaanite tribes in Deuteronomy 7:1-5 (and other places), a bit further down in Deuteronomy God said: “The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you” (7:22). Indeed, archaeological evidence shows that Canaanite culture and religion were nonexistent in Israel by 1000 BC, about 400 years after Israel entered that land.
To conclude, God is the God of all and God loves all, not just Israel (or Christians). However, He is also just and knows of the suffering people experience from evil. In Old Testament times God pronounced prophecies and judgments, oftentimes with warnings. In the case of Nineveh, the people repented and God did not execute judgment. At other times, Israel itself committed evil, did not repent, and God judged them. In the case of the Canaanites, God saw their evil ways and also foresaw their lack of repentance; He used Israel as His instrument of judgment against them. In this Christian era (the beginning of which depended on the survival of Israel), God seeks to save the lost prior to His judgment and eventual renewal of the whole earth. Since Adam and Eve fell from grace, God has been working on His plan of redemption for all willing humans and even nature itself. His periodic elimination of evil historically, and His compassionate interventions otherwise, all work toward drawing His rebellious but beloved creation back to Himself.
Notes
Amorite and Canaanite are basically interchangeable, referring to peoples that lived in the “land of Canaan.” Canaan was a son of Ha, who was a son of Noah. Amorite could more specifically refer to those dwelling in the hills, while Canaanites were those in the valleys.
So what do we make of the book of Joshua, then, where in contradiction to other biblical passages, it is claimed that Joshua destroyed the Canaanites? Bible scholar Nicholas Wolterstorff has studied Joshua and it’s relation to other biblical passages that clearly indicate that Canaanites survived Joshua’s attacks (Flannagan 255-286), and came to a number of instructive conclusions. Foremost is that Joshua is hagiographic and includes hyperbolic war language that is basically identical to that used by other regional nations, and thus should not be taken literally. When reading Judges and other books that mention the Canaanites, books that read like regular history, we can take them literally as opposed to Joshua’s military claims.In addition, the words used for “destroy” and “drive out” are interchangeable and perhaps confused. The same language was used of Adam and Even being driven out from the Garden of Eden; obviously, they weren’t destroyed (other similar passages involve Cain and King David). Leviticus 18:26-28 also mentions the driving out of the Canaanites, not their destruction. Yet another consideration is what the bible says about the Amalekites. In 1 Samuel we read of God ordering the utter destruction of the Amalekites, and then King Saul carrying that order out. However, later in the same book (!), we read of King David running into living Amalekites–there was even an Amalekite army! It becomes obvious that the bible contains the exaggerated war rhetoric of those times. However, while these explanations serve to placate critics over issues of God-ordered genocide, they seem to overly dismiss God’s legitimate role of all-knowing judge.
This article was edited at various times and expanded in January 2015. It was originally published by the author at Examiner.com.
Sources: Copan, Paul, Is God a Moral Monster? (Baker Books 2011); Flannagan, Matthew, “Did God Command the Genocide of the Canaanites?” in True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism (Kregel Publ.s 2013, pp 255-286); Kaiser et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible (InterVarsity Press 1996); The Bible (NIV 1984). Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nineveh_Adad_gate_exterior_entrance_far2.JPG
As a Christian, I believe John’s statement: This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all (John 1:5). Yet, there are verses in the Bible—mostly in the Old Testament—where God says He causes calamity, the hardening of hearts, even sinful behavior. Critics and skeptics ask about these, and in light of the evil and suffering in the world, wonder at the goodness or even existence of God.
So which verses are we talking about? Here are some of them:
Exodus 9:12: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had told Moses.
1 Kings 22:23: You see, the Lord has put a lying spirit into the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has pronounced disaster against you.
Isaiah 45:7: I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.
Mark 4:11-12 (verse 12 is from Isaiah 6:9-10): He answered them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been granted to you, but to those outside, everything comes in parables so that ‘they may look and look, yet not perceive; they may listen and listen, yet not understand; otherwise, they might turn back—and be forgiven.”
So does God really, purposefully, harden people’s hearts to that they won’t listen to Him or come to Him, tell people or spirits to go and lie for Him so that they (or others) do the wrong thing, and/or simply cause disasters?
The basic answer to all of these is that since God is sovereign and He made everything, He is ultimately responsible for everything that happens. That’s how the Hebrews saw it and that’s how they wrote, though to us today it seems odd or unsatisfactory. The Hebrews knew that persons and spirits were responsible, yet they emphasized God’s role. As is stated in Hard Sayings of the Bible, “What is reflected here is the lack of precise distinction in Hebraic thought between primary and secondary causes. Since God is sovereign, human will and freedom to decide for or against God were often subsumed under divine sovereignty” (Kaiser et al, 620).
Let’s look at each of the above verses separately, while keeping in mind the general explanation already stated by Kaiser et al. Regarding Exodus 9:12, MacDonald briefly writes: “The more Pharaoh hardened his heart, the more it became judicially hardened by God” (96). The concern is recognized in Kaiser et al.: “. . . it appears God authors evil and then holds someone else responsible. Did God make it impossible for Pharaoh to respond and then find Pharaoh guilty for this behavior?” (142). No, since Pharaoh hardened his own heart during the first five plagues (Ex 7:13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34, 35; 13:15). After this, as MacDonald so concisely stated, God helped the process along since it was already what Pharaoh had decided himself.
1 Kings 22:23. In considering this verse and its context, the Hebrew habit of ignoring secondary causes is significant. There are other verses in the Bible where a command is given, but it is an affirmation of permission – as is the case when Jesus tells the demons to enter a herd of pigs (Matt 8:31), or when he tells Judas to get going with his plans (John 13:27). In the case of 1 Kings 22, King Ahab was listening to false prophets and the false prophets were responsible for their own lies; God allowed it and used it for His plans, and God even warned Ahab.
. . . the passage in question is a vision that Micaiah reveals to Ahab. God is telling Ahab, “Wise up. I am allowing your prophets to lie to you.” In a sense, God is revealing further truth to Ahab rather than lying to him. If God were truly trying to entrap Ahab into a life-threatening situation, he would not have revealed the plan to him! Even so, Ahab refuses to heed God’s truth, and he follows his prophets’ advice (Kaiser et al, 231).
In conclusion, “Without saying that God does evil that good may come, we can say that God overrules the full tendencies of preexisting evil so that the evil promotes God’s eternal plan, contrary to its own tendency and goals” (Kaiser et al, 230).
Isaiah 45:7. Much has been written on Isaiah 45:7, since part of the problem is that the King James Bible incorrectly used the word “evil” instead of disaster or some like word. The verse refers to natural “evil” (destructive forces) and not moral evil. God permits these things, and in fact natural destructive forces are a normal and necessary part of the earth’s balance and being. The verse is a strong declaration, however, that God is THE creator and that He is ultimately in control of all things, and not some other being.
Mark 4:11-12 (Isaiah 6:9-10). After having reviewed the other verses/passages, the meaning of this passage can almost be inferred. It may sound mean and controlling of God, but it is a reality that there are those people who go after and accept views and actions that are contrary to God. For those like this, God lets them continue; they have chosen their way, their path, and God does not force anyone to follow Him and accept Him as savior and Lord. (Interestingly, the author of the section on this verse in Kaiser et al. [417-419] does not agree, providing a minority interpretation that is something of a 180˚ turn.) MacDonald provides a generally accepted interpretation:
Verses 11 and 12 explain why this truth was presented in parables. God reveals His family secrets to those whose hearts are open, receptive and obedient, while deliberately hiding truth from those who reject the light given to them. . . . we must remember the tremendous privilege which these people had enjoyed. The Son of God had taught in their midst and performed many mighty miracles before them. Instead of acknowledging Him as the true Messiah, they were even now rejecting Him. Because they had spurned the Light of the world, they would be denied the light of His teachings (1330).
God is light; in him there is no darkness at all (John 1:5b). God is not evil and does not do evil, but He does “work around” the evil in this world to further His plans for human redemption. God loves us, and sent His son for us, so that we may have new life in Him (to not be controlled by the evil in the world). If you want that, you will find it. You will find God and He will know you. “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10); “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you” (Matt 7:7); “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor 13:12); “But the man who loves God is known by God” (1 Cor 8:3).
____
Sources: James Dunn and John Rogerson, ed.s, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Pub Co 2003); Tim Jackson, Did God Create Evil?; Kaiser, Walter et al, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1996); MacDonald, William, Believer’s Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub.s 1995).
Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, has written that C.S. Lewis’s “argument from desire” is, apart from Anselm’s “ontological argument,” “the single most intriguing argument in the history of human thought” (p 249). This is an argument for the existence of God (and heaven). St. Augustine and Goethe also used this argument.
So what is this argument that so many have claimed is actually the best one for God’s existence? Kreeft provides a concise description: “The major premise of the argument is that every natural or innate desire in us bespeaks a corresponding real object that can satisfy the desire. The minor premise is that there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature, can satisfy. The conclusion is that there exists something outside of time, earth, and creatures which can satisfy this desire” (p 250).
You experience hunger and desire food, and the object of your desire is naturally attainable. The same can be said of sleep, sex, and friendship. But what of pangs from joy and beauty? What of that inexplicable longing at the crashing of ocean waves, or from being immersed in certain music, or desiring a love that a sexual relationship does not fulfill? We experience a thing or person, yet instead of fulfilling desire, they create another – one that is not attainable on earth. In describing Goethe’s thoughts on it, Timothy Keller in The Reason for God wrote, “We not only feel the reality but also the absence of what we long for” (p 134).
The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing (Lewis, 29).
While Kreeft addressed the philosophical criticisms of the argument in his 1989 article (see sources below), Keller takes on the more recent science-oriented critiques in his 2008 book. Evolutionary biologists believe all that we are is based on natural selection, and so belief in God and all religious feelings are the consequence of adaptation. How our awe over a beautiful sunset could be explained in these terms is mysterious, but otherwise, there is a serious flaw in this line of evolutionary thinking that some have pointed out.
The flaw is that evolutionary theory says that we cannot trust our own senses or thoughts. Our brains are conditioned for survival (adaptive behavior), and not necessarily for reality or “truth.” Richard Dawkins, Patricia Churchland, and Thomas Nagel have all said the same, as well as Charles Darwin himself. So . . . by their own claims, there is then no reason to trust their thinking on the subject. As Wieseltier wrote in the New York Times,
. . . if reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? The power of reason is owed to the independence of reason, and to nothing else . . . . Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.
So what are you going to pay attention to? Your own inner voice and experience, or the assertions of those who claim that our thoughts are guided only by our body’s need for survival – and that “truth” isn’t necessarily beneficial? I’ll leave you with some of CS Lewis’ thoughts on this, from his “Weight of Glory” sermon (1941):
Almost our whole education has been directed to silencing this shy, persistent, inner voice; almost all our modem philosophies have been devised to convince us that the good of man is to be found on this earth. And yet it is a remarkable thing that such philosophies of Progress or Creative Evolution themselves bear reluctant witness to the truth that our real goal is elsewhere. When they want to convince you that earth is your home, notice how they set about it.
They begin by trying to persuade you that earth can be made into heaven, thus giving a sop to your sense of exile in earth as it is. Next, they tell you that this fortunate event is still a good way off in the future, thus giving a sop to your knowledge that the fatherland is not here and now. Finally, lest your longing for the transtemporal should awake and spoil the whole affair, they use any rhetoric that comes to hand to keep out of your mind the recollection that even if all the happiness they promised could come to man on earth, yet still each generation would lose it by death, including the last generation of all, and the whole story would be nothing, not even a story, for ever and ever.
If Lewis could say this in 1941, how much more could he say today, when Naturalism has had one or two more generations to influence the population? So many today don’t even try and pretend that there is an inner voice, an inner knowledge or longing, of a future beyond death. We are evolved,* purposeless, and mortal.
* For a treatment on the lack of evidence for human evolution, see Science & Human Origins (2012).
Sources: Timothy Keller, The Reason for God (Dutton 2008); Peter Kreeft, “C.S. Lewis’s Argument from Desire,” in The Riddle of Joy: G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis (M. Macdonald and A. Tadie, editors; Eerdmans 1989), CS Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Touchstone 1996).
[A version of this appeared previously in Examiner.com, by the author]
With Christian Eyes 