Some time ago I was working through CS Lewis’s classic, The Problem of Pain. In it there is one line that I lifted out of its pages and plugged into my Twitter timeline – and shortly after that there started some dialogue with a fellow (we’ll call him Pete) who believed that the statement I offered was contradictory and he subsequently mocked it as such.

Well, either this Pete is a very intelligent man and CS Lewis was an idiotic fool or, quite probably, the quote I tweeted was most likely misunderstood.

Speaking on the necessity of God’s love for us and of the characteristic of God’s love for us, I echoed Lewis’s sentiment and tweeted:

[It is because God] already loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable.

Moments after I shared this on Twitter, I received this reply from Pete: “lol contradiction is faith”.

When I inquired as to how the statement was contradictory, Pete wrote back that “If you’re lovable, you don’t need to be made lovable. You already are”.

Now that might sound reasonable, but I believe it misses the point entirely, let alone misreads what was actually tweeted (which was that God’s love for us compels him to make us even more lovable). Lewis was not stating that God already saw us as lovable. In an effort to correct Pete and to point this out, I tweeted: “Love seeks to perfect the object of its love”.

What did I mean by this? Parents know this all too well. When your child is born you love your child not for anything that your child has done, nor even for how adorable your child may be. I should think that you love your child simply because you choose to love your child – the word “lovable” doesn’t really come into it at this point. When your child wakes crying at 1am in the morning, then again at 2.30am, and yet again an hour later, as a parent, the word “lovable” isn’t the exact word that enters your head. But as a parent you do attend to your child out of the love you have for him / her – again, not for anything your child has done to deserve it.

Where I believe Pete erred is that he equated the term “lovable” to be a prerequisite in order to love. In other words, on his view, you cannot love someone unless that someone has a quality that you find lovable. Another problem in defining the term “lovable” in this fashion is that the definition is purely arbitrary – what I find lovable might well be unlovable to you.

God does not see us as “lovable” in this sense at all. In fact, God has some pretty strong words for how He does view us: He hates the sinner; we are far from being lovable (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Leviticus 20:23).

Paradoxically, God loves us immensely (John 3:16, John 15:13). He cannot love us for what we are – rebellious, wanton, unruly, sinful – for God is holy and his holiness will not tolerate what is impure. So what does Lewis’s statement, it “[is because God already] loves us [that] He must labour to make us lovable” then actually mean?

Part of the implication of Lewis’s statement is that discipline is involved in the act of love. It has to be: without discipline, love is not love at all. Without discipline, love morphs into an act of, as Lewis says elsewhere in The Problem of Pain, a Benevolent Grandfather who’s sole intent is to please his grandchildren; this type of love leaves unruly behaviour unchecked; and unruly behaviour left unchecked leads to the development of selfish and self-centred adults.

God’s love for us is far removed from that of the Benevolent Grandfather’s; God’s love is richer and purer. God’s holy love entails discipline. As the writer of Hebrews writes:

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, 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? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he [God] disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:7-11, emphasis mine.)

So this is what Lewis means when he says that it is out of God’s love for us – his desire to see us develop into an upright and holy people – that God must work at making us lovable, more perfect, more like his son Jesus. This is why I responded to Pete that Love seeks to perfect the object of its love, to desire the very best – God requires that we be perfect for he is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Yet the only way we can be perfect is for God to work on us to become so and it is out of his love for us that he “labours” to achieve this (Heb 12:5-8).

God so loved us that he sacrificed his only son, Jesus Christ, so that through Jesus’ cleansing blood we become perfect in his eyes and, as a result, become truly, purely, lovable through and through.

(The following is my response to @JohnHileman who sent me a message on Twitter earlier this evening.)

Thank you for raising those questions to me on Twitter and directing me to your article (Hileman, 2011). You asked me two questions; first, whether or not I believe in miracles, and second, what I think of your story about faith.

Do I believe in miracles? The short answer is yes. However, I do not really look at miracles in the way they are most commonly supposed, as violations of nature by an act of God. On the one hand, I tend toward a view that is most succinctly captured by Augustine who said, “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us in nature,” such that the term ‘miracle’ is sort of shorthand for our ignorance of how God accomplished some extraordinary thing he did. On the other hand, I tend toward a view of the Creator and the cosmos that the Israelites of the ancient Near East held, in that everything is an act of God. As noted by John Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, there was no concept of a ‘natural’ versus ‘supernatural’ dichotomy in their world view. That is a relatively modern invention. God revealed to them—and to us through them—that everything is a product of him acting. “Every plant that grew, every baby born, every drop of rain and every climatic disaster was an act of God,” Walton observed. “There were no ‘miracles’ (in the sense of events deviating from that which was ‘natural’), there were only signs of [God’s] activity (sometimes favorable, sometimes not). The idea that deity got things running then just stood back or engaged himself elsewhere (deism) would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable. As suggested by Richard Bube, if God were to unplug himself in that way from the cosmos, we and everything else in the cosmos would simply cease to exist. … The categories of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ had no meaning to them, let alone any interest” (2009, pp. 20-21). The universe would not exist but for the providential sustaining power of this covenant God. All of creation exists by him, through him, and for him; by his word all things were created and have their being; all things are held together in him. This is the biblical world view to which I am committed.

What do I think of your story of faith? Well it is edifying, first of all, and I thank you for sharing it. Although there were fewer players involved, I experienced something that was not too unlike your story. My wife and I along with our newborn daughter had gone for a long drive away from civilization; we were looking to enjoy a warm Sunday afternoon at a lake someone had told us about. At the end of the day, as we started to make our way back toward civilization our car got stuck, and quite badly. It was just the three of us, in the middle of nowhere and very alone as the afternoon was creeping toward evening. This was a few years before the ubiquity of cell phones, and it would have taken several hours of walking before reaching any signs of civilization. There was nothing we could do but pray, and we certainly did. About 30 minutes later a tow truck showed up. In the middle of nowhere. On a single-lane dirt road in the woods. Several miles from anything. A tow truck. Did I mention that our car was badly stuck? How perfect is a tow truck? Later that night after our daughter was asleep in her crib, my wife and I grabbed the telephone book to find the number for the towing company whose name was on the side of the truck. We wanted to get the name of the gentleman so we could send him some kind of thank you gift. There was no listing for a towing company by that name. We called a couple of listed numbers and were told they had never heard of a company by that name. It was a mystery. I am not suggesting that he was an angel who specially appeared from God in answer our prayer, but to my wife and I that man certainly was an angel, even if metaphorically. I have no idea who he was, where he was from, or what he was doing with a tow truck in the middle of nowhere, just what we needed and at just the right time, but I do give God all the glory for that answer to our prayer.

Is there a plausible and perfectly ‘natural’ explanation for our experience? Maybe. I have a very good imagination and can think of any number of perfectly ‘natural’ explanations for a tow truck being in the woods miles away from civilization as evening was drawing near. Perhaps he worked for a local towing company and had recently purchased this tow truck from another town and was just taking it for a drive to check it out. Who knows. But as I indicated earlier, I reject the notion that miracles are violations of nature by an act of God. At the most profound end of the spectrum, miracles are events which contradict what we know about nature—and when it comes to nature we have more ignorance than knowledge, a fact which our scientific pursuits keep humbling us with. We have no idea how Jesus walked on water, for example, but we cannot on that basis conclude that it therefore violated the laws of nature. Maybe there is a scientific explanation for how he did that, which we have yet to discover. We have such a long, long way to go before we truly understand the laws of nature. As I said, ‘miracle’ in this sense is shorthand for our ignorance of how God accomplished some extraordinary thing he did. He is a covenant God of promise: he will not violate the laws of nature (cf. Jeremiah 33:25-26, “But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. Just as surely as I have done this, so surely will I never reject the descendants of Jacob. Nor will I ever refuse to choose one of my servant David’s descendants to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”).

But as I also indicated earlier, everything is an act of God. As such I glorify him for the entire experience—for our getting stuck, for the tow truck appearing, for the lessons of faith that we learned, for however it edifies those I share the story with and so forth. And the same should apply to the story that you shared. You are a writer so you also have a very good imagination and could probably think of any number of perfectly ‘natural’ explanations that would account for the various elements in the story. But even supposing one of those explanations being the case, would that mean that it was not an act of God in answer to your wife’s prayer? According to the biblical world view to which I am committed, it certainly was an act of God in answer to her prayer; as such I would say her attitude (and yours) and what she said to your daughter was right and entirely consistent with what God reveals about himself and his creation. Like I said to you over Twitter earlier, “I think you and your wife glorified God for his providential care.” I appreciate your story, particularly the way it made me reflect upon my own similar experience and motivated me to thank him all over again.

References:

John Hileman, “Is it really God?” John Michael Hileman [blog] (2011, August 2).

John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2009).

I don’t often make reviews of debates, but when I do, it’s usually when I hear a debate that was exceptionally good and is worth commenting on. Perhaps one of the best debates I’ve heard this year was the one between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde on the doctrine of the incarnation. The debate took place in Australia back in September 17 of this year. The video of the debate can be viewed below:

Read the rest of this entry

God does not change. His nature is the same now as it as has ever been and will ever be throughout eternity. What this means is that the God who reveals Himself in the New Testament is the same God who reveals Himself in the Old. And while the New Testament gives a fuller explanation His nature, aspects of these revelations are nonetheless present in the Old Testament. This is particularly true of God’s triune nature. Even back in the time of Moses and his contemporaries, aspects of the Trinity are already partially revealed in the pages of the Torah.

This does not mean that the Israelites in those days had the exact same understanding of God that Christians do today. The Israelites were limited to what God has chosen to reveal about Himself at that point in time. This is true even today, as even with the fullness of revelation, we continue to be limited to what God has revealed in the books that today comprise the Bible. The reason why the Trinity will always be mysterious and paradoxical to us is that God does not reveal everything that there is to know about Himself, but chooses only to give us what we need to know about Him. As the Torah states: “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29). We shall speak only where He speaks, and we shall remain silent where He remains silent.

That being said, it is worth looking at what is contained in the Torah in order to see what can be gleaned from it regarding the Triune nature of God. In doing so, it must be confessed that we are approaching it in hindsight: we are interpreting it in light of what has been revealed later on in the rest of the Bible. This is not an invalid approach, since truth is necessarily consistent, and the fact that something wasn’t noticed before doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there prior to its being noticed. What matters is that we are being true to the real meaning of the text, and are not merely attempting to import foreign concepts into it.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the Trinity has always been there from the beginning. Even in the opening chapters of Genesis, one can see that when God decrees creation, when He says “let there be” it is His Word that brings about the creative acts. Moreover, we are told that His Spirit hovers over the face of the unformed world just prior to the six days of creation (Genesis 1:2).[1] This same Spirit gives life to creation, as seen when God puts His breath in the first man, and he is said to become a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

It is interesting to note as well that in the sixth day, when God decides to create man, He says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). The usage of the first person plural here is very intriguing, and implies that personal self-distinctions exist within the Being of the Creator. Now, there are alternate ways of attempting to explain this passage. Some say that God is addressing His angels, or that He is speaking in the plural of majesty (just as how the queen of England would say “We are not amused.”) Needless to say, these explanations do not really work, as they cannot be substantiated by the rest of scripture.[2] The best explanation remains that God speaks in the first person plural because He is multi-personal in nature.

One other piece of information to take into account is the appearance of God to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1ff). As He converses with Abraham, He discusses His plans to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:17ff). In the next chapter, God walks towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and their destruction is described. Interestingly, it is written towards the end of the account that “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” (Genesis 19:24). Here, there appear to be two Yahwehs present simultaneously; one on earth and one in heaven. If we read this passage in light of the Triune nature of God, the appearance of more than one person who are both regarded by scripture as Yahweh make perfect sense.

Finally, a word must be said regarding the oneness of God, as it is always important to connect the oneness of God’s Being with the threeness of His person: Every practicing Jew is familiar with the words of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). What is interesting is that the Hebrew language has two words for “one.” The first one is the word yakhid (יְחִֽידְ). This word is used to denote absolute oneness. In the Torah, it is used to refer to a child who has no siblings.[3] If the Hebrew author wanted to indicate that God was an absolute, homogenous unity, he would have used this term.

However, as anybody who can read the shema in Hebrew knows, the word that is used is not yakhid, but rather ekhad (אֶדחָֽ). This is a word that is used to simply mean unity, without the connotation of homogeneity or aloneness that comes with the first word. It is interesting to see how this word is used elsewhere in the Torah. For example, in Genesis 2:24, when a man leaves his parents to become joined to his wife, it is said that they become “one [אֶחָֽד] flesh.” And when the spies are sent by Moses to survey the promised land, when they come to the valley of Eshcol, it is written that “[they] cut down a branch with a single [אֶחָ֔ד] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs” (Numbers 13:23). As is clear from the way the word is used in these two instances, the word Ekhad can be used to denote a compound unity. That is exactly what the Trinity means: That God is a compound unity of three persons Who together constitute One Being.

Thus, it can be seen that belief in God as a Trinity is perfectly compatible the confession of faith found in the Shema. Furthermore, we can see how this teaching is found embedded in the pages of the Pentateuch. Although it is nowhere near as clear here as it is in the New Testament, we see that even then, God has already provided hints of His Triune nature.

Endnotes

1. Some translations (such as the NRSV and NEB) render the word Ruwakh (ר֣וּחַ) as “wind” rather than “Spirit,” but this makes little difference, since in the Hebraic conception, wind and spirit are one and the same concept.
2. Biblical scholar Dr. Gleason Archer notes concerning Genesis 1:26: “This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this ‘us’ and ‘our.’ It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: ‘and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them’ (NASB). God—the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural—now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together—without ceasing to be one God” (Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. p. 359.).
3. It is used this way three times in Genesis 22, where Isaac is said to be Abraham’s “only [יְחִֽידְ] son” (verses 2, 12 and 16).

Further Reading

• James White – A Brief Definition of the Trinity
• Rich Deem – The Triunity (Trinity) of God in The Old Testament

One of the saddest things I’ve experienced recently in praying for people-I keep getting this question so I feel compelled to answer it publically. A lot of people coming up with their lives in very difficult circumstances, asking, “Is God punishing me? Is God punishing me?” I’ve had so many women I’ve prayed for recently, struggling with infertility, they’ve had abortions in their past, “Is God punishing me?” No. Because that would be unholy. If you’re a Christian, that means all your sin was placed on Jesus, he suffered and died in your place, for your sins on the cross. For the Father to punish the Son and punish you, that would be unholy. Because that would be unjust. (If we remove Christ that means punishment)

Now, when we sin, there are consequences. If you eat too much, drink too much, and spend too much, you’ll be unhealthy and broke. You reap what you sow. But that’s not God punishing you, that’s just consequence of folly. But no, God doesn’t punish you. God loves you. He does great things for you. Holy, all together good, that’s who he is.

See, Satan would whisper in your ear, when you’re suffering, struggling, sinning, and he would tell you, “God is hurting you.” And he’s a liar. God does great things. “Holy”-not unholy-“holy is his name.” See, what Satan wants you to do, he wants you to run from God rather than to him. He wants you to be worrying rather than worshiping.

Author Unknown

Just wanted to take a moment to let you know about an invaluable resource from which I have benefited for many years. It’s called BiblicalTraining.org. It’s free to join and access their huge library of audio lectures/courses on a range of topics.

The classes available for download from their site (some of which include prepared study notes – how cool is that!) are broken up into streams based on your level of progression through the curriculum. Here is a snapshot of a mere fraction of the available courses:

Now that I Believe. Your First Steps with God – Dr. Bill Mounce
How to Study your Bible (Hermeneutics) – Dr. Mark Strauss
The 52 Major Stories of the Bible – Dr. Bill Mounce
New Testament Survey – Dr. Craig Blomberg
Old Testament Survey – Dr. Miles Van Pelt
Biblical Theology – Dr. Miles Van Pelt, Dr. Craig Blomberg, Dr. Thomas Schreiner
Communicating the Gospel – Dr. Gary Parrett, Dr. Ron Pyle, Dr. Bryan Chapell
Systematic Theology – Dr. Bruce Ware
World Religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, African) – Dr. Timothy Tennent
Church History - Dr. Gordon Isaac
Greek Tools for Bible Study - Dr. Bill Mounce
Inductive Bible Study – Dr. George Guthrie
Apologetics – Dr. Ronald Nash
Advanced Worldview Analysis – Dr. Ronald Nash
History of Philosophy – Dr. Ronald Nash

If you do benefit from their resources, please consider a donation, as these courses are made freely available because of the generous donations of others.

Despite what he might think, Jim Gardner has a long way to go before he understands presuppositional apologetics. Although I think he is making important strides in grappling with what is being argued, it is clearly evident that he is nowhere near to finding the source of that curious odor under his bed.^[1] While I certainly appreciate the kind words he had to say about me and our recent conversation, I have to expose a fundamental confusion he apparently struggles under.

Gardner admits that he does not understand how I can draw an inference from what science explains about nature to not only the existence of God but also that the proof of his existence is contained in Scripture.^[2] I can explain that for him very succinctly:

“I don’t.”

Despite how clearly I had said it, for some reason it has not yet sunk in. As I had said in that conversation, so will I state very clearly again: the truth of God and his word is a presupposition we reason from, not a conclusion we reason to. Gardner simply must accept what is being argued if he wants to interact with it rationally and honestly. When he describes his opponent’s position in a way that is unrecognizable to his opponent, that is a clear indication that he has not understood the position; and he is not going to understand the position until he is prepared to accept what his opponent is so clearly stating, which is again:

• The truth of God and his word is a presupposition we reason from, not a conclusion we reason to.

All attempts by Gardner and Alex Botten to treat that as if it is a conclusion instead of a presupposition are doomed as straw man failures, insofar as they are arguing against a position that is different from or weaker than the one their opponent actually holds. A person cannot be expected to defend a position they do not hold. What more can one do beyond what I have done here, which is, after digesting Gardner’s 2,000-word post, to simply respond with a two-word rebuttal.

Gardner demonstrates how poorly he understands presuppositional apologetics when he says things like, “Presuppositional apologetics … [says] that everything which stems from God—including Christianity and the Bible—is a statement about the real world but not a statement about God.”^[3] Presuppositionalism is Reformed theology applied to the enterprise of apologetics, and one of the most often cited passages of Scripture in that enterprise is Romans 1:18–21:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.

In case Gardner has missed it, verse 20 directly contradicts his statement—as does a host of other passages (e.g., Psa 19:1–3). In Reformed theology there are two sources of revelation: general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scripture); it all speaks to the nature and character of God. One must bear in mind, however, that Scripture is ultimate and authoritative, such that general revelation is subordinate to special revelation. As it says in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (1.1),^[4]

The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence give such clear testimony to the goodness, wisdom and power of God that they leave people without excuse, yet they are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and his will that is necessary for salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord to reveal himself at various times and in different ways, and to declare his will to his church. To ensure the preservation and propagation of the truth, and to establish and support the church against human corruption, the malice of Satan, and the world, he committed his complete revelation to writing. The Holy Scriptures are therefore absolutely indispensable, for God’s former ways of revealing his will to his people have now ceased.

But how poorly he understands presuppositional apologetics is made all the more clear when he portrayed it as being some kind of cosmological argument. He seems to think the argument goes something like this: the universe cannot come from nothing so it must have come from Something, and atheists willfully deny that the nature and character of that Something constitutes proof of God; moreover, atheists are unable to account for their own existence without implicitly acknowledging that Something (which is somehow God).^[5] I have a one-word response to that:

“Lolwut?”

I have no idea where Gardner got this from. Neither Sye nor Dustin have ever argued anything even remotely similar to this, nor can anything like that be found in the writings of Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Gordon Clark, Michael Butler, Vincent Cheung, John Frame, K. Scott Oliphint and so forth—all of them presuppositionalists of one camp or another (q.v. Van Tilian vs. Clarkian presuppositionalism). Gardner so poorly understands what is being argued that we can safely say that he does not understand it at all, much less poorly. His attempt at describing the presuppositional argument is utterly unrecognizable. It might be what a person would get if he threw William Lane Craig’s kalam cosmological argument and presuppositionalist jargon into a blender and hit purée—an epic mess that nobody would recognize. It is not what a presuppositionalist argues, it is not what an evidentialist argues, it is not what Craig would argue, it is not what an atheist would argue; literally nobody would recognize that reconstruction Gardner attempted.

I think Gardner needs to first understand what he is objecting to before he attempts objecting to it. He might detect a curious odor, but he has no idea where it is coming from, much less has he determined that it is a stray sport sock or plucked it out to give it a wash.

~ * ~

There is one thing I would like to know. Gardner said quite frankly, “There is no God to deny or accept.”^[6] That is a very interesting truth claim, and I would really like to see the argument which produces it. I challenge Gardner to provide the premises which lead to that conclusion.

Gardner also said that he struggles to understand how people “who are so clearly capable of researching and understanding all of this for themselves still somehow manage to come to such obviously flawed assumptions about the validity [or even] the intellectual honesty of their own position.”^[7] That is another interesting truth claim, that my presupposition is invalid and intellectually dishonest. Is Gardner up to the challenge of providing the premises which lead to that conclusion?

1. ^[1] Jim Gardner, “I think Jim is getting closer to becoming a Christian,” How Good Is That? [blog] (2011, October 30). ↩
2. ^[2] Gardner, para. 4. ↩
3. ^[3] Ibid., para. 8. ↩
4. ^[4] Andrew Kerkham, 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd edition (2001). ↩
5. ^[5] Gardner, op cit., para. 11. ↩
6. ^[6] Ibid., para. 6. ↩
7. ^[7] Ibid., para. 7. ↩

It gets worse. In addition, an omnipresent and omniscient (all-observing) God, as bound into his creation as his creation is bound into him, must be able to observe everything. We know from quantum mechanics that observation collapses the wave-function of photons, leading to no superposition. But we know superposition exists, therefore this God with those attributes cannot.

Since I speak English and not mathematics I tend to avoid delving into quantum mechanics. This subject loses its precision when translated into English, and I am simply not fluent in mathematics. But I will indulge your point briefly in order to show how it fails to achieve the ends to which you put it.

First, we do not “know” that the wave-function collapses, much less due to observation. Although that is consistent with the familiar Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, it does not feature in the many-worlds interpretation, for example, nor the de Broglie-Bohm theory (in which the universal wave-function never collapses, only the conditional wave-function of a subsystem and is strictly an epiphenomenon) and so forth. As such, unless you are unfamiliar with epistemology, which is possible, it is disingenuous of you to pretend we “know” something that is theoretical—especially when it does not exist in competing theories.

Second, even granting you the Copenhagen interpretation, the observer effect in quantum mechanics is predicated on the ‘observer’ being constituted by matter—even if it is only a single electron. Thus the God of Scripture necessarily fails to represent the problem your point attempted to construct, for he is transcendent and immaterial.

One of the theological debates that takes place between orthodox Trinitarian Christians and heretical cultists and other non-Trinitarians of various stripes is whether the Old Testament confirms or contradicts Trinitarian doctrines such as the existence of plurality within the Godhead and the reality of the incarnation. A full treatment of this subject is outside the purview of this article, partly because there are already plenty of excellent articles that tackle this topic (Such as this and this), and partly because there are too many verses that are relevant to this, that we will only be focusing on one. In particular, there is one verse in 1 Kings that contains a statement by King Solomon which is sometimes cited by non-Trinitarians (particularly Muslims) against the idea that God could enter into His creation:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1 Kings 8:27).

As the argument goes, if God cannot be contained by heaven and earth, then it is impossible for God to enter into His own creation, since that would limit Him to a specific point in time and space.

Read the rest of this entry

Aaron from the Apologetic Junkie blog, and an associate in the Christian Apologetics Alliance, recently offered some thoughts on the question of whether or not all sin is the same, and I think it is well worth a read. He tells how the answer is both yes and no, depending on the context of the question. In the legal context of our guilt before a most holy God, the answer is yes. In the existential context of the damage sin does to others and the church and to our relationship with God, the answer is no.

Click here to read more from Aaron.