You can't say that!

Anyone wanting to invent a religion would surely never say anything that might cause problems for your future devotes.  Would you want to have any embarrassing sayings?  Would you want to mention that the leader of your religion is ignorant in a certain area?  Would you want to have confusing statements that are not crystal clear to the masses?  The answer to all of these questions is, surely not!  If one is to invent a religion, it should be expected that the religion answers all questions, without embarrassment, and the leader(s) would be be completely above reproach and knowledgeable of all facts.

The above mentioned problems are exactly what we see in the New Testament.  Consider the problem of embarrassment.  In the 1st century, a woman's testimony was considered invalid, but yet we see that the discovers of the empty tomb of Jesus are all women (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20).  Why would the writers of the gospels include this embarrassing situation?

What about ignorance?  Ignorance simply means to lack knowledge.  Most would agree that Jesus was not ignorant, but there is recorded an incident where Jesus lacked knowledge of an event.  When Jesus was speaking about the end times he said concerning this event, "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Matthew 24:36)."  Why would you want to include this fact of ignorance about the leader of your religion?

What about difficult statements?  One of the most bizarre statements of the New Testament occurs in Matthew 27:52-43.  In this passage Matthew notes that the tombs of Jerusalem were breaking open and holy saints of the past were entering the holy city.  This is the only mention in the entire New Testament of this event.  Why include this difficult statement if all you are trying to do is invent a religion?

What about Peter, one of the closest disciples of Jesus?  Peter is mentioned in the New Testament (Mark 14, John 18) as denying that he even knew Jesus.  Why would one want to include this character flaw of an early leader of the church?  How about the brother of Jesus, James?  James did not even believe in Jesus at one time (Mark 6:3), so why would anyone want to include this damaging statement?  Even Paul, the great apostle responsible for much of the New Testament and spread of Christianity said this, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing (Romans 7:19)."  Again, Paul says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15)."  Why would anyone who is inventing a religion want to portray severe character flaws with the individual leaders of the movement?

The New Testament presents itself in an honest and open way.  If one is to make the charge that the New Testament is a later invention, then why do we have embarrassment, difficult passages, and ignorance from the founder of Christianity?  The New Testament documents can be trusted because of these difficulties that are included.  In other words, in trying to invent a religion, one would never have the damaging statements that are presented in the New Testament.  Instead, if a religion is invented, the leaders of the religion would be fluffed up without the appearance of any flaws.  The embarrassing and difficult passages of the New Testament only validates the fact that the writings cannot be an invented religion.

The dangers of apriori thought

The famous atheist, Bertrand Russell was once asked how he would respond to God in the afterlife if God existed? Russell's response was, "Not enough enough evidence, God!" Many in our culture want God to spell everything out in crystal clear terminology, not realizing what they are asking. Even those in the Church take the same view and therefore run into difficulties when trying to reconcile the Bible with science. Concerning the evidence, Jesus said that some individuals would not even consider the most blatant evidence (Luke 16:31).

In Isaiah 55:8, God declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways." I'm afraid if God were to unleash all of his knowledge on us, our heads would explode. Humans are the only beings with the ability to ponder and reason. If God exists, then there are some things that will never be known here on earth. For example, we will never know exactly how God created the universe from nothing, and this is also true for science. But, we are a group of beings that desire to know the answers to all of life's questions, and this many times causes us to jump to preconceived ideas.

Science is not immune from preconceived ideas. "Piltdown Man" is just one example of science's rush to judgment. Aspects of naturalistic science today consider some views (such as Darwinian Evolution) as settled law, when it is impossible to test this view in the lab. In other words, parts of science cannot meet its own criteria for what should count as truth, because it cannot be tested. Having the ability to test is one of the central tenants of naturalistic science. Science, however, does have aspects that can show physical truths to how nature operates.

Preconceived ideas also prevail within the interpretation of the Bible. Of course, those who see God's word in one particular way don't believe they are misinterpreting the Bible. All Christians, can agree on the essential doctrines, but rifts develop when the non-essentials are considered. For example, how are individuals to interpret the flood of Noah? Most Christians would see this as a literal story of history, but problems develop when the extent of the flood is discussed. In Genesis 7, the flood is described as covering the entire earth. Many interpret this as being a universal catastrophic flood, when read in English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a different interpretation can be rendered. The actual Hebrew for Genesis 7 concerning the entire earth is kol erets, which literally means, "all lands." However, other indications of kol erets as used in the Genesis 7 flood story clearly do not indicate a global event (Genesis 2:13, Genesis 41:57). The point is, the Hebrew has to be viewed in context as opposed to arriving at a preconceived notion by looking only at the English rendition. Besides Scripture, science can be used to verify the validity of Noah's flood. According to science, there is no indication of a universal flood anywhere in the earth's past rock record.

Those who hold a Christian worldview need to do so without preconceived notions. If science is helpful with interpretation, it should be used (Psalm 19:1-2, Romans 1:20). Science, likewise handcuffs itself when it takes an only naturalistic view. If science is interested in truth, then it must not be limited to only naturalism, for there are truth's such as mathematics, logic, and moral laws that can't be explained by testing.

Intelligent design provides a balance between the two extremes of Creationism and Naturalism. Creationism starts with the assumption that God created, where naturalism assumes that any supernaturalism can not be considered. Intelligent Design begins with looking at the scientific evidence to determine if the created order is the product of design. ID is open to the possibility of truth without restrictions on either side. According to ID, all evidence should be considered, whether philosophical or scientific before any conclusion is made. Settling on a preconceived idea is dangerous because truth is not necessarily what one will find.

Reconciling God and Hell

Visiting with a Christian friend a few years ago, he pointed out that one of the most difficult concepts of Christianity is reconciling a loving God with the concept of hell. There are many aspects of hell that people find disturbing in trying to understand why God would have such a place. What are some of the arguments individuals have problems with and how can these arguments be resolved?

1. Why hell in the first place, this seems contrary to God's nature?

• Hell exists because of sin. Sin literally means to miss the mark, but it is better understood as rebellion toward God. God cannot tolerate sin and, therefore, hell exists.
• Concerning God's nature, being a God of love is just one aspect of His nature. God also has the nature of being a just God.
• Is there justice in allowing the actions of Hitler to go unpunished? Being an unjust God would also mean that God is not loving and unworthy of worship. God's love and justice go hand in hand.

2. Why are people punished in hell?

• People are punished in hell, because they freely choose to rebel against a holy God. In essence, the punishment of being eternally separated from God is self-inflicted.
• God does not torture individuals. The suffering is due to an individual's eternal rebellious nature and the separation that exists from a holy God.
• God wants no individuals to go to hell (2 Peter 3:9).

3. Why can't God direct the actions of individuals? Why can't He keep them from sin?

• God will not violate a person's free will.
• Merely to override a human will...would be for Him (God) useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. [1]
• Forced love is not love; it is rape. A loving being always gives 'space' to others. He does not force himself upon them against their will. [2]

4. Why doesn't God allow second chances?

• The bible is clear that there are no second chances, "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27)."
• Everyday God gives second chances for individuals to accept Jesus.

5. Why is hell eternal? How do you reconcile finite sins with an infinite hell?

• First, God's word implies the eternal nature of hell.
• Second, We were created to live for eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
• Third, God does not want to destroy (annihilate) beings that were created in His image.
• Concerning finite sins with an eternal hell, finite crimes on earth are given life sentences. What is God to do for those who incessantly rebel against their Creator, except to confine them for all eternity away from Himself.
• To think that a person could go through their whole life constantly ignoring him (God), constantly mocking him by the way they choose to live without him, saying, 'I couldn't care less about what you put me here to do. I couldn't care less about your values or your Son's death for me. I'm going to ignore all of that' - that's the ultimate sin. And the only punishment worthy of that is the ultimate punishment, which is everlasting separation from God. [3]

6. Isn't there a better way God could have taken instead of sending people to hell?

• Again, God does not send individuals to hell, they freely choose to go there by rejecting God.
• No other options exist without God violating man's free will. Without free will man does not have the capacity to love God. God desires our love, but respects our right to reject Him.
• For those who reject God, "There is an increasing isolation, denial, delusion, and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven seems to them a sham." [4]
• The better way is found in the person of Jesus. No one has to go to hell, for God has opened the door to heaven for all who accept the free gift of Christ (Revelation 3:20).

[1] Lewis, C.S., The Screwtape Letters, p. 38

[2] Geisler, Norm, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 311

[3] J.P. Moreland quoted in The Case for Faith, p.252

[4] Keller, Timothy, The Reason for God, p. 78

How could God?

One of the more troubling aspects of the Bible is when God commands or approves the killing of individual people groups. How could God do such a thing? There are many factors to consider when God makes such commands.

Before getting to explanations, what exactly are we talking about? Consider 1 Samuel 15:3, "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " Numbers 31:7 states, "They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man." Again, we see in Numbers 21:3, "The LORD listened to Israel's plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns." Three passages in which God either commands or approves the destruction of entire people groups.

Before addressing the reasons for such commands, it must be understood that all three passages in no way disprove the existence of God. Individuals may not like the passages, but these verses cannot be used to say that God does not exist.

Three good reasons exist to show that it is within reason to justify the punishment of these people groups. The first reason deals with the nature of God. God is described as being a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. These people groups were completely vile and depraved. They were so vile that the sacrifice of their own children was a practice that was engaged in. Not only were they blood thirsty, but they were sexually depraved as well. In reality, no one is innocent in God's eye's and all deserve to be eternally separated from God. All of these people groups could have repented of their sinful lifestyle, but they were content in their evil ways. God foreknew they would never change and therefore called for their destruction.

A second reason for the destruction of these groups is found also in God's nature. God is completely and totally just. In fact, it would have been unjust for these people groups to live and infect the world with their evil practices. This is exactly what did happen to God's own people - the Israelite, after taking possession of the promised land. Because these evil people groups were not exterminated, they brought the Israelites down morally and ultimately led to events whereby the Israelites fell captive to the Babylonian empire. By God allowing evil to go unchecked, would make Him not only unjust, but unworthy of worship.

The third and final reason, deals with the sovereignty of God. The sovereignty of God speaks of his power and authority. If God exist, He and He alone has the ability to rule. God rules with justice and love. He loves all people, but cannot tolerate sin, especially the unchecked sin that existed in the groups God commanded to kill. 2 Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." God's love today is offered in the sacrifice of His son Jesus. Those who accept Christ will be saved, but those who do not will suffer in being eternally separated from God. If God exists, the created has no right to say to the Creator what He can do. God is completely justified in his command and approval in removing people groups of the past.

• A good article from an acquaintance at Biola dealing with the same subject manner.

Where did Cain get his wife?

I ran across an interseting article with the above title. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe supplied the article, but I found it through a blog that I follow called, Truthbomb Apologetics. As a pastor, I have often heard this question and knew the proper answer, but the article highlights just how fast the population could have grown during the lifetime of Adam. If you think about it, God gave only two commands to Adam. One was to not take fruit from the forbidden tree, and the other was to be fruitful and multiply. One command was kept and the other forsaken and it has made all the difference in the world.

• To access the article click here.