Fatherly Discipline

We have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? (Heb. 12:9 ESV)

This verse stuck out to me the other day, mainly because it just makes sense. It causes me to think not only of myself, but also of the world.

It causes me to think of myself because I have found myself under what I would call God's discipline at times. Thanks be to God for those times, especially when I recognize what is happening. I realize I have been sinning in some way or have some particularly un-Christ-like attitude that needs to be done away with, and I begin to pray about it. I see it in myself and, by God's power, resist the urge to indulge in it. I think of God's discipline as one of the ways in which he sanctifies us. "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:28, 29). "All things" includes the things we would see as bad. Those things are meant to conform us more and more to the image of Christ. In other words, they are meant to sanctify us.

On the other hand, the verse makes me think of the world because the world, despite its general unbelief, so often blames God when bad things happen. What strikes me about this verse is the contrast between our reactions to our earthly fathers and our Heavenly Father; when the earthly father disciplines his son, his son respects him more. When an earthly judge punishes a murderer for his crime, we call him a just judge. When God disciplines people or brings punishment that they deserve on them, we spit on his face and call him evil. What sense does that make?

"God's kindness is meant to lead [us] to repentance" (Rom. 2:4), yet we think that, since he hasn't disciplined us, it's all good. There's no need to repent because he's so kind. But when he does discipline us, we yell at him and refuse to acknowledge that we deserve it. There's no need to repent because he's so cruel. How fallen are we?

Creation is Proof

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about truth and the fact that we can know full well that our faith is true. This is not a new or revolutionary idea; this was the general consensus of the church for a very long time. St. Thomas Aquinas is widely known for his advocacy of natural theology, or the idea that we can know God through nature and reason. It was only more recently that the church generally abandoned this view in favor of saying, "We can't know, it's all just blind faith." I don't know for sure, but I personally believe this is because the church wound up being influenced by skeptics who said the same thing.

Aquinas' view that man can, and does, know God through nature wasn't really new when he espoused the idea either. In fact, this idea goes all the way back to the Apostle Paul:

[W]hat can be known about God is plain to [men], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. (Rom. 1:19, 20 ESV)

In other words, we can be certain of our faith because of the world around us. We can look at trees, rocks, and birds and be reminded of the ultimate Cause of their existence. In fact, R.C. Sproul puts it this way: because his shoes exist, God exists. His argument is that, if there ever was a time when absolutely nothing existed, not even God, there would still be nothing, because nothing cannot create anything. Therefore, if anything exists, then something has to have always existed.

From there there is the argument from design; the world, one could argue, displays far too much intentional design to have been created randomly. We happen to be on a planet that is perfect for supporting our existence. We have water and food, we have the means to replenish all of our essential nutrients so we don't die. These nutrients can be found easily in parts of nature that are not human, such as in fruits and vegetables; in other words, it's almost as if food was made specifically to for us to consume and replenish nutrients with. Nature, for the most part, cooperates with itself; bees taken pollen from flowers and pollinate other plants, and without this process plants would die. Our world is far too orderly for us to reasonably say it was created randomly!

So if this is true, if we can know God through creation, why doesn't everyone know the Gospel? Well, as Aquinas put it, natural revelation, though true, is incomplete and indirect. In the Bible, God reveals everything he wants us to know directly, in clear terms. In nature, however, God reveals himself indirectly, and nature does not tell us of the Gospel. On the other hand, the Bible tells us nothing about photosynthesis. However, natural revelation is still true, and should still cause all people to fall on their faces in worship.

To tie this to the older post about truth, I'll point out that Paul says this clearly and with absolute certainty. In other words, the created order is not merely evidence of God's existence, but proof of it. In fact, he finishes verse 20 with this statement: "They are without excuse." In context, he is talking about the unrighteous and ungodly who refuse to acknowledge God's existence and lordship. But because they have seen the proof in creation and have chosen to ignore it, they have no excuse to do such a thing. There is no reason we should not all worship God every time we step outside and behold creation, or even every time we wake up to a new day.

So if this is all so clear, why doesn't everyone believe? Why doesn't everyone worship God and pray to him and ask for his mercy? Well, this post is getting pretty long, so I'll talk about that in a later post. But for now, remember that faith is based in truth. Whenever you look at nature, whenever you see existence surrounding you, remember that there is a God who created it, and remember that creation is proof.

Scripture's Claims About Itself

Recently I started listening to Handout Apologetics, a short series by the late Dr. John Gerstner about, well, apologetics. In this series, much like he did throughout his life, Gerstner advocates for the classical method of apologetics, which involves attempting to prove God's existence as opposed to merely positing it. This involves proving the reliability and inspiration of Scripture, arguing for how there cannot possibly not be a God, proving that Jesus is the Son of God, etc. In Gerstner's own words, "You don't have an excuse not to believe" (which is quite Pauline; see Rom. 1:20).

If you've been keeping up with the blog this month, you probably realize that I agree with Dr. Gerstner. I need to finish his teaching series before I can really argue for myself, but based on the fact that God is the God of truth, and all truth is God's truth, I see no reason why any truth wouldn't point to God.

However, there is one argument that Gerstner makes that I'm personally unsure of. I don't remember the exact quotations, but he argues that, just because the Bible says it is the Word of God, it does not prove that it is. He argues for this by pointing out that other holy books make the same claim. He says that the only thing the Bible's claim proves is the fact that it claims to be the Word of God.

Now, from a purely logical standpoint, I agree completely. Something making a claim for itself doesn't actually prove anything; it just claims it. I could say I'm a dog; that doesn't make it true.

I guess my question is this: if the Bible really is the genuine Word of God, shouldn't that claim be good enough? The Bible says that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17 ESV). It also says that God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (Rom. 9:18). God said to Isaiah: "My word...shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (ch. 55:11). All these verses add up to this fact: God's Word will always accomplish exactly what he plans for it to accomplish in the hearts of everyone who hears it, whether it means it saves them or hardens them. So it seems to me that, at least for the purposes of evangelism, pointing to the claims of the Bible should be good enough, or at least where we start.

I'm not saying we shouldn't argue for the validity and inspiration of Scripture; I've benefited greatly from the testimonies of those who have studied the historical and scientific evidence and thought about it from a logical, philosophical standpoint. But I see no reason why, if the Bible is the true Word of God, its claims to be so should not be enough on their own. I think that, to the one who sees no reason why this should be valid proof, we can present evidence and argue for it. But I would think that, at least to some of God's elect who haven't yet been saved, this would be enough. They would hear their shepherd's voice and follow him (John 10:27). God's call will always accomplish exactly what it sets out to do, historical evidence or otherwise.

Tabletalk Magazine

At the beginning of the year, I started reading Tabletalk magazine, a magazine of daily devotionals produced by Ligonier Ministries. It also contains several articles written by pastors and theologians. Thus far, I have loved working my way through it. It has two overarching themes per issue: one for the month and one that goes through the year.

The theme through the year spans all the daily devotionals except the weekends, which are standalone articles. This year the theme is all of the Prophets of the Old Testament in chronological order. That's one thing I really like about the magazine. We often think of devotionals as inspiring little things to read every day about how God is always there and he loves you. That is true, and I'm not criticizing those types of devotionals, but if you know me at all, you know they don't suit me very well. I like Biblical theology and teaching. I like learning and understanding the Bible. That is what Tabletalk offers: deep devotionals that I feel like I really learn from, things I can meditate on and absorb that help me gain deeper understanding of the Bible and God. They also do systematic theology; last year's theme was the Heidelberg Catechism.

Then there is a monthly theme that unites most of the articles. This month's theme is thinking, listening, and meditating, something that I have greatly benefited from recently. Past themes have included topics like the Five Solas, The Church and Israel, and so forth.

Finally, another reason I love Tabletalk so much is that it comes from a Reformed perspective. Some people may accuse me of making far too much of Reformed theology or making too much of a distinction between it and Arminian theology. But the only reason I care is because I earnestly believe that Reformed theology, as Spurgeon once put it, is nothing other than Biblical Christianity. It comes from reading and understanding the Bible. If I believed differently, then I would never subscribe to such a view.

So, for anyone looking for a devotional that is doctrinally sound, theologically deep, and hard-hitting, I heartily recommend Tabletalk. It's a great resource, and I thank God that such teaching is so readily available.

A Heritage of Faith

This week, Pastor Karl's sermon was on 2 Timothy 1:3-5:

I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. As I remember your tears, I long to see you, that I may be filled with joy. I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. (ESV)

(For those who read that and realize it sounds different from what Pastor Karl himself read, remember that he uses the HCSB and I use the ESV. Both are great in my opinion.)

After this, he went on an exposition of how Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him and built a foundation, then how Paul built on that foundation and helped to bring us Timothy, pastor of the Ephesian church. I'm not going to go on an explanation or criticism of the sermon; frankly, I think it was great and perfectly clear by itself as usual. Rather, I just wanted to post my own thoughts about how some of those things have applied in my own life.

One thing Pastor Karl talked about was how parents build a foundation for a child's life, then it is often built upon by others later on. I've seen that in my own life; although I strongly disagree with several of the theological distinctions my parents have, and still do, adhere to (Pentecostalism, for those who are curious), they still built a foundation in my life. I was raised in Christianity, in the church. Most of my friends from the old days attended the same churches I did as a kid, so I was generally surrounded by a church culture. I wasn't sheltered, but I knew a lot of Christian families who I learned from in those days.

In addition, I was homeschooled because my parents we're simply fed up with the public school system. My parents chose to give my sister and I an education from a Christian worldview, which I think was the right and Biblical decision (see Deut. 6:4-9). In my teenage years when I joined various groups outside of the church, and when I got a job, and when I went off to college, when I found myself surrounded by people my age who held to very different views than I did, that foundation held.

But that foundation is not all that I have had in my life. Later on, my family and I simply could not find a church to call home. When I started dating Sarrah, I decided to check out her church, and found it to be great. Over time, however, I realized this church held to very different views than the churches I had attended in the past with my parents: this church was Calvinist, which was a byword to other Christians I knew. I remember in school reading about Calvin and not liking him much, which wasn't my Mom's fault; it was what the school program we had chosen wrote about him. It was because I didn't agree with some things I remember learned that he taught (like dancing was a sin). I probably read good things about him too, but I didn't retain them if I did.

While attending this church, I found myself surrounded by people who were doing this thing I couldn't remember seeing before: talking theology. Looking back, I realize I was around this for most of my life, but at the time it was a novel thing to me. I realized there were a lot of things that people disagreed over, like Calvinism and Arminianism, baptism, etc.

I also remember having a conversation with my brother-in-law, who told me he was a neo-Calvinist (which I still don't quite understand the meaning of). This was odd to me because I thought that Calvinism was some weird, horrible, fringe, un-Christian thing, but I certainly didn't think that of him.

Sarrah and I got engaged around this time, which would entail having children someday, which would entail raising them in the Christian faith.

All of this led me to the conclusion that I really needed to get myself straight. I realized I had possibly misunderstood a lot of things about Christianity and I needed to learn what was right. I needed to actually start reading that book I had never been good about reading - the Bible - and figure out what the heck it actually taught. In addition, I deliberately exposed myself to the teaching of the other side - the Calvinists - so I could understand what it was they actually taught and find out if there was anything to it. It was when I heard John Piper reference Acts 13:48 that I became convinced there was:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

After I heard this, I grabbed my Bible to see if this verse actually existed. As it turned out, it did. I felt an interesting serenity at this; there was the answer. It was so clear, so simple. Later on as I read the Bible I became more convinced, and to this day I have found no reason to reject it.

My parents built the foundation of Christianity in general, and then the particulars were built upon by others later, all of which led to the theological titan you see before you (please read the dripping sarcasm in that last part).

So what about my own kids? I'm gonna be a dad soon, so this sermon had other impacts on me as well. I particularly liked the term "heritage of faith" that Pastor Karl used in his sermon. I want to establish a Reformed heritage of faith in my family. As far back as I know, that hasn't existed in my family before now. I'm pretty sure any heritage of faith at all started with my grandparents, who are also Pentecostal, which is about as far from Reformed as you can get while still being Protestant. But I've been so convicted that Reformed theology is nothing other than Biblical Christianity that I want my kids to be raised in it and to learn it from the get-go. I want to instill them the love of reading the Bible regularly that I didn't have as a kid (which was due to my own laziness) so that they know these things to be true. I want them to read deeply and with understanding, and not only read but pray, and pray genuinely, realizing that there is a God who wants to save them, to justify them, to sanctify them for his work. I need to get to praying for all of that.

Revealing His Secrets to the Prophets

Observations From My Study (Amos 3:7)

At the beginning of the year I started working my way through Tabletalk magazine, a magazine of daily devotionals (which I'll write more about later). Along with the devotionals, the writers give a verse to meditate on during the week. This week, the verse was Amos 3:7:

For the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets. (ESV)

At first I thought, "What on earth am I supposed to learn from this?" But as I thought about it, I realized that this verse gives a reason for great joyfulness, thankfulness, and worship.

Let's think about this for a minute. What is a prophet? We tend to think that a prophet is no more than a fortune-teller, someone who predicts future events. But in the Bible, a prophet is really a spokesperson for God. A prophet's function is to relay the words of God to his people and the world. This does involve predicting the future at times, but that's only because God himself tells them what will happen in the future. But that's not all that God talks about.

What is the Bible? The Bible is the Word of God. God breathed out his word (revealed his secret) to people to write down for the world to read (to his servants the prophets, his spokespeople to the world). In other words, because God revealed his secrets to the prophets, we have the Bible! God, through the prophets and apostles, wrote the various books of the Bible that have been preserved and passed on through history to us, that we may read them and know his Gospel.

I don't know about you, but if you ask me, the fact that God has given us his Word and preserved it so we can read it today is cause for great joy, thankfulness, and worship.

Plato and The Good

It was one of Plato's ideas that really pointed out to me how close some ancient Greek philosophers came to a real concept of God. This idea is what I've heard defined as "The Good."

My understanding of this is that Plato had developed a concept in his system of thinking of something that was the source of all that is beautiful and all that is right. This makes sense in his system of thought; he believed that there was a supreme idea of everything in a non-physical world from which we get our ideas. From what it sounds like, he pretty much had a non-physical source for everything (like the definition of "chair," for example). So it makes sense that he would posit a source of all beauty and goodness and truth.

So, does that sound familiar to you?

Goodness

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (James 1:17)

"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:11)

Beauty

"Splendor and majesty are before him; strength and beauty are in his sanctuary." (Psalm 96:6)

"Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty." (Isaiah 33:17)

"And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord GOD" (Ezekiel 16:14). This verse, while talking about the beauty of Israel, states that her beauty came from God.

Truth

"The sum of your word is truth." (Psalm 119:160)

The Psalms call it God's truth (Ps. 25:5, 43:3, 86:11).

Isaiah 65:16 calls God the "God of truth."

God is "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life.'" (John 14:6)

The Holy Spirit is known as the "Spirit of truth" (John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13).

God's "word is truth" (John 17:17).

"In [God] there is no falsehood." (John 7:18).

Clearly, Plato was right about one thing. There is a source of all goodness, truth, and beauty. I don't know that he got the source right (he probably believed the source wasn't a person), but he was certainly close to some extent, wasn't he?

Listen or Be a Fool

Recently I've come to be convicted of an abiding sin in my life: the sin of not listening. I had already known about my tendency to do this; Sarrah has pointed it out to me some of the many times I've done so. But at the time I regarded it as more of a bad habit. I was later convinced that it was a sin when I read an article that cited two verses: Proverbs 18:2, which says, "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion," and Proverbs 18:13, which says, "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame."

When the Bible talks about hearing, it means much more than simply perceiving sound. "Hearing" in the Biblical sense refers to understanding. When Jesus says "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Matt. 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8; 14:35; see also Matt 11:15; Mark 4:23; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), he is basically saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him understand." So what I'm saying is that I'm guilty of hearing that something is being said to me but not bothering to try to understand it.

I find the use of the word "fool" to be very interesting. It speaks volumes about just how bad not listening is. What else does the Bible say about the fool? "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 14:1; 53:1). Because of these verses¹, I've always equated foolishness with unbelief. That's not to say that Christians never act foolishly, but rather that foolishness is unbecoming of a believer. That's because, I believe Biblically, foolishness encompasses all sin. It goes the other way as well; that is, all sin is foolishness. So to call not listening foolish is to call it sinful.

So what do the verses themselves say? Proverbs 18:2 describes a guy who doesn't care what anyone else says and only wants to talk more, to hear the sound of his own voice. His eyes glaze over when someone else speaks because he himself is not the one speaking. Rather than paying attention to what someone is saying to him and really trying to understand it, he is busy thinking of what he's going to say next. Proverbs 18:13 speaks of the guy who talks before understanding what was said to him. He either thinks or pretends that he understands, and so replies, only to put his foolishness on display. He probably doesn't care though, so long as he is still talking.

These are foolish. These are sins. And these are both things I have done and still do all the time.

So what do I do about it? First, I should pray, and continue to pray, for God's sanctification in this area. Jesus always heard what was said to him. Santification is the process of God conforming us more and more into the likeness of Jesus. Thus, as God works in me, I should become a better listener. Next, I need to actually take interest in what people say to me. I should try hard to understand. I should fight my tendency to just think of what I'll say next before I hear what is being said, or to mentally check out when other people are speaking. Then, I should write a blog post in the hopes of exhorting others to do the same.

There is one other verse that should make us want to listen well: "The purpose in a man's heart is like deep water, but a man of understanding will draw it out" (Prov. 20:5). If you listen, you can understand. If you understand, you know what to say. If you know what to say, you will be able to dig deeper to get to the heart of the matter. You'll get to know someone better. Maybe this will bring you into greater fellowship with your spouse, your children, or other believers. Or maybe it will enable you to reach the lost more effectively.

So we have two choices: listen or be fools. Which one is it going to be?

Footnotes

¹ Psalm 14:1 and 53:1 start with the same phrase, so I guess saying "these verses" is appropriate, even though I'm only quoting one phrase.

Humanity and Deity

Observations From My Study (Matthew 8:23-27)

So while I was doing my daily Bible reading, I came to the famous story of Jesus calming a storm:

And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing.” And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?” Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?” (Matthew 8:23-27)

What strikes me about this passage enough to post it on the blog is that it displays both Jesus' humanity and deity in the same passage.

To start, look where Jesus is when the storm comes: "he was asleep" (v. 23). Sleep is, in my opinion, one of the biggest markers of human weakness there is. We spend one-third of our whole lives asleep. We can barely make it a full day before we need to fall asleep to restore our energy. Cars can go longer without needed to refuel than a human can before he needs to sleep. Here is Jesus, the Son of God, the Creator of the universe, giving himself up to such a human weakness as the need to sleep.

Then the storm hits. It doesn't wake him up. I wonder if he was so tired that the storm simply couldn't wake him, or if he was just that unafraid of it that it wasn't a big deal to him. The text doesn't say. But he remains asleep when the storm hits until his disciples, fearing for their lives, wake him up.

Then comes a startling and powerful sign of his deity. "He rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm" (v. 26). Jesus, the man who was asleep only moments before, commands the sea to calm down. And it obeys.

I suppose one could just say Jesus was a great miracle worker, that this is not proof of deity at all. But, in the Old Testament, power over the sea was attributed to God and God alone:

For he commanded and raised the stormy wind,
     which lifted up the waves of the sea.
They mounted up to heaven; they went down to the depths;
     their courage melted away in their evil plight;
they reeled and staggered like drunken men
     and were at their wits' end.
Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble,
     and he delivered them from their distress.
He made the storm be still,
     and the waves of the sea were hushed. (Ps 107:25-29; see also Ps 29:3-4; 89:9; 93:4)

Humanity and deity. Fully God and fully man. The Son of Man, Jesus the Messiah.

Unity, Diversity, Trinity

The ancient Greek philosophers, in their search for ultimate reality, were looking for something that could account for both unity and diversity. Anyone can look at the world and see diversity in the things around us. But they believed there had to be some kind of substance, some thing, that unified it all. Personally, I'm not certain if this substance had to be in everything (that is, everything had to be made up of it) or if it just had to unify everything in some way. I think either one would satisfy the criteria.

This is another question that the God of Christianity answers. How? He answers through the Trinity, which in fact means through himself.

Look at the Trinity. The Trinity is composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Each of these persons is fully God, not a third of God. Each of them is also, altogether, one God, not three separate gods. R.C. Sproul describes him as three in person and one in essence. If that's hard to wrap your mind around, join the club. But the point is this: within the Trinity, within the very being of God, there is both unity (one God) and diversity (three distinct persons).

Another way God satisfies this criteria is that he created all things. He is the ultimate source of Creation. He also created a great many things. Unity and diversity.

Another question of ancient Western philosophy that God answers. While we must never ultimately compress God into the box of human philosophial systems - that is, he doesn't have to fulfill every human philosophical criteria because such things can be inherently flawed - it's fascinating to see how he answers the questions he does. It's also fascinating how human thinkers knew to think of such questions. In my eyes, it's proof of God written on the human heart.

Truth, God, and So Forth

On Saturday I was talking with a co-worker of mine about a book I was reading called Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists and Atheists. In that discussion I told him that I had a lot of interest in reasoned defense of faith. Apparently I was telling the truth, because along with that book I've also read Defending Your Faith by R.C. Sproul and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, both of which give such defenses. A few years back I also listened to the audiobook version of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. So apparently I've had an interest in this kind of thing for a while.

As a result, I firmly reject fideism, which is basically a "blind leap of faith" kind of view of Christianity (or any religion, really) that would say that everything in terms of belief must be taken on faith and faith alone. This worldview rejects reason or science or logic, calling such things "worldly" and seeing them as the enemies of Christianity. This is the main view of Christianity in the eyes of most American non-Christians, but shockingly a lot of Christians hold this view as well. But such things should not be.

Let's take a quick look at how the Bible defines faith: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). I'm also going to give the verse in two other versions:

• Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen. (HCSB)
• Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (NIV1984)

Look at those words: "assurance," "conviction," "reality," "proof," "sure," "certain." The Greek words mean "assurance" and "proof" respectively, but my point is this: faith is not simply "Oh, I hope this is true." Faith is rooted in fact. Faith is rooted in the truth. Faith is what we know. Yes, Hebrews 11:1 uses the word "hope," but hope doesn't necessarily equal uncertainty. Hope is what we want to happen in the future. We want to be saved. We want Jesus to reign over the earth and remake creation. What I'm arguing is that we can not only want that to happen, not merely hope it will happen with some degree of uncertainty, but rather be sure that what we hope for will in fact happen. As I said, faith is rooted in fact and truth.

So, what I don't understand is how any Christian can say that science and reason are the enemies of faith. If, in fact, our faith is rooted in fact and truth - if our God is the God of all truth - how can any truth from any discipline contradict it? Truth never contradicts truth. If any statement contradicts truth, that statement is not true. As Augustine once said, "Let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master."¹

Thus, if Christianity is true, and if it is to be believed, then ultimately truth, no matter where it comes from, will not contradict what God's Word has to say. God created all things. God does not and cannot contradict himself. If Christianity is true, all true reason and science and philosophy and logic and math will not contradict God's Word and are not its enemies; they are its allies. We have to be careful because a lot of disciplines make claims to truth that are ultimately false, but any real truth will not undermine faith. In fact, it should strengthen it. We should see that it points to the Creator of all truth.

Footnotes

¹Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 18. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.xix_1.html

Let's Make Things Easier

If you ever visit any Christian theological blogs or listen to certain podcasts, I'm sure you've noticed the technical jargon that they tend to use. Contrary to popular belief, this jargon isn't used for the purpose of confusing the masses and making the writers seem smarter than they actually are (that shouldn't be the reason, at least). In reality, people resort to this usage of jargon for precision's sake. It's much easier and more precise at times to use the word "apologetics" than it is to have to write out the definition each and every time.

The problem is that, most of the time, the terms remain undefined on the website. Not everyone who visits these sites has a PhD or has ever read or written something at the doctoral, masters, or even undergrad level. Not everyone who hears one of these weird terms that no one else uses knows exactly what it means. Or perhaps the authors defined the terms in previous posts two years ago and don't feel the need to define them again. But not everyone has the time to dive into two years of old posts to find the definition, especially if the author is someone who posts every day, or multiple times every day.

Although I don't want to imply that there's anything wrong with using these terms with my next statement, I'll say that I, too, am "guilty" of using these terms at times, honestly because I'm going for precision in what I say. But that doesn't mean that everyone who reads my blog knows what I'm saying, or even that I'm using the term correctly. What we need is some definition.

You may notice the top of my blog now has a page titled "The Jargon List." Yep, I'm going to start storing all the jargon I use right there for easy reference! Right now it's pretty short, but I realized when I first considered this idea that I could potentially just keep adding things before I post it and just never post it because I keep thinking of things to add. So I've decided just to stick with words I have used recently or do use often. I'll add any new terms in the future if they come up, or if I deem it necessary to do so.

In addition, you may notice the fun little dotted line under the word "apologetics" in the first paragraph. No, it's not a link. If you hover over it, you'll see a tooltip pop up. I've decided that, while the main page is a great idea for consistency and reference, not everyone will want to have to have two pages open to scroll through to understand my posts. So I've decided that, when a technical term comes up, I'll add the tooltip with the definition of the term so you can simply hover over it, see what it means, and continue reading. Yay for (hopeful) ease of use!

I hope this helps you all out. It'll help me for sure; it means I don't have to define a term in-post every single time I use it. I can define it once and then use tooltips later. That way, the flow of the post doesn't have to be interrupted by the need to define words, and you, the reader, can know what I mean by those terms. It's a great way to ensure original intent is preserved, and hopefully will help you understand me better.

Living, Moving, and Being

Recently I've been working my way through R.C. Sproul's The Consequences of Ideas lecture series. It's a series about the history of Western philosophy, examining the various philosophical systems from a Christian worldview and discussing, as the title indicates, the consequences of those systems of thought. Thus far this fascinating journey has taken me from the pre-Socratic philosopher Thales to "The Philosopher" Aristotle (I've watched further on to Thomas Aquinas, but there's a study guide with questions and I've only gone through those up to Aristotle). These various worldviews have mostly been responses to the question of ultimate reality.

What fascinates me is how some of these thinkers, who had no access to Sacred Scripture, came to at least semi-Biblical ideas from their thought processes. It's also interesting how the God of the Bible answers all of those questions.

One of those questions was this: what is ultimate reality? What is the ultimate substance, the stuff, that makes up reality? According to what I've learned, this substance had to have the attributes of life, existence, and motion in and of itself. In other words, it's life, existence, and motion had to be uncaused. It had to be the source of those three things.

Thales' solution to this question was water. He thought it through pretty well.

1. Everything living needs water to live. There is life.
2. Water can exist in the three basic forms of matter. Its ordinary form is that of a liquid. When frozen, it becomes a solid. When heated enough, it becomes a gas. There is existence.
3. Water appears to move on its own. This is where Thales' idea falls, but not for lack of trying. He knew nothing of the moon's influence on the tides. Water simply looked as if it moves with no other influence.

Other philosophers said that the substance was air, others earth, and still others fire. Some said it was all four.

But what was it that the Apostle Paul said to the thinkers in Athens? "In him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). He was quoting from a Greek poem, but he declared that this was true of Jesus Christ. He was directly answering this question. God is the source of all life, existence, and motion. He himself lives, exists, and moves by his own power, not influenced by anything or anyone else. The Bible says so in John 1:3-4: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." And for God to create, he has to first move. He begins all motion. He creates, beginning all life. And he sustains all of existence. He is sovereign over all life, motion, and existence.

I hope to talk more about this later on as I learn more about other ideas the philosophers have come up with. I think it would be interesting to do so. Later on in history we actually start seeing Christian philosophers such as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. I'm not sure what I'll do when I get to that point in history, but I'm sure I can come up with something.