Archive for the ‘ Christian ’ Category

If you’ve read the Da Vinci Code or listened to Skeptics and Muslims giving objections to the Christian faith, one argument that you might hear is that doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the Holy Trinity were completely foreign to the New Testament Church and was an invention of Nicea. As an example of how this argument is frequently employed, a certain booklet published by the Islamic Circle of North America contains the following statement in one of its notes:

It was in the ancient city of Nicea (which was located in modern-day Turkey approximately 700 miles or 1100 km NNW of Jerusalem near the eastern Roman capitol) that the First Council of Nicea convened, 325 years after the birth of Jesus. It was at this council that Jesus was declared by the majority of the council members to be divine rather than God’s Prophet and Messenger. The concept of the trinity was established by declaring that Jesus was the same as and equal to God. This is in direct opposition to the Abrahamic principles of monotheism, which Jesus himself called people to and affirmed.[1]

In addition, one can find the following on one of the pamphlets that they often distribute:

With their teacher gone, the devoted followers of Jesus tried to maintain the purity and simplicity of his teachings. But they were soon besieged and overtaken by a flood of Roman and Greek influences, which eventually so buried and distorted the message of Jesus that only a little of its truth now remains. Strange doctrines of Jesus being a man-god, of God dying, of saint worship and of God being made up of different parts came into vogue and were accepted by many of those who took the name “Christians” centuries after Jesus. [2]

Of course, all of this is a misrepresentation of what Christians actually believe, not to mention of the history of the faith. The New Testament provides a wealth of evidence that the followers of Jesus believed He was God from very early on, as can be seen in John 1:1-18, John 20:27-29, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:6-12 and 1 John 5:20. These scripture passages are well-attested not only in the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today, but also in the citations of them by th early church fathers. Now, undoubtedly there are those who will try to skirt around the obvious by attempting to explain away these passages. Their explanations cannot stand without twisting the scriptures, but that will be for another time.

There is also the testimony of the Apostolic and Ante-Nicene fathers, who lived during the first two centuries after Christ walked upon this earth. The Trinitarian formula is clearly present in the writings of Saint Clement of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch frequently refers to Jesus as God in his epistles. The anonymous second century epistle known as 2nd Clement states that “we ought so to think of our Lord Jesus Christ as of God, [and] as of the judge of quick and dead…”[3]. But I believe that the clearest testimony comes from Melito of Sardis, who identifies Christ as God who made the heavens and the earth. This is clear from his Paschal homily, where he writes:

The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel.

This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.

This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.[4]

All of the early church fathers I have mentioned lived during the first two centuries of Christianity, so it is clear that the beliefs that they have espoused are not the fabrication of a later age.
Read the rest of this entry

Salvo - Issue 4This is the continuation of my survey of Issue #4 of SALVO Magazine, as it relates to creationism. If you missed part one it might be worth your while to familiarize yourself with the first post before continuing, as I will dispel with the background already covered in part one and get straight back into it.

There is a small section refuting three main accusations against the Intelligent Design movement called What ID is NOT (p.36). Under the sub-heading of ID is Creationism is the following response:

“You’ve no doubt heard this one numerous times. In reality, this is flat-out false. The average creationist believes in a young earth, biblical literalism, and the complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes. The ID proponent, on the other hand, rejects – or at the very least suspends speculation on – all three of these convictions, maintaining only that there are reasons to conclude that life was designed; how it was designed or by whom lie beyond the ID theorist’s field of inquiry.”

Creationists’ Clarification:

In reality, it is this characterization that is flat-out false! While it is important to distinguish between creationism and ID, the more I read this issue the more I began to wonder if they had gone out of their usual way to build a subtle case against the reasonableness of creationism. In fact throughout the entire 96 pages, I have struggled to find a single positive comment about it and just about every attempt to define it is false on some level. The only thing missing from this caricature on page 36 is that the average creationist is a flat-earther! That certainly would’ve helped to drive the wedge deeper between the two positions… but of course, that would be misleading. Three main points to make here:

  1. It’s true, ID is not Creationism and the average creationist may indeed believe in a young earth. But;
  2. As pointed out earlier (see part one) creationists are not biblical literalists. To suggest otherwise is sloppy, and grossly misrepresents the position that YECs actually hold.
  3. To say that YECs believe in a “…complete absence of evidence for evolutionary processes”, really depends on how you define an evolutionary process. For example, mutations and natural selection are part of the supposed evolutionary process and yet creationists accept both of them.[1] Why wouldn’t they? These are observable phenomena, otherwise known as real science! Instead they reject the notion that these processes are evidence for the evolutionary worldview depicted in the typical monophyletic Darwinian tree. Creationists hold this view for two main reasons: 1) they believe the Bible – which is held in the highest authority – provides enough information about the origin of life on earth to make a distinction between it and an evolutionary world view; 2) they are far from convinced that mutations and natural selection constitute the observable modus operandi of evolution – a function that would need to alter an organism so that it gains the new genetic information required for new body parts or plans.

So if creationists are not biblical literalists and do not deny observable “evolutionary” processes such as mutations and natural selection then the characterization of the view presented on page 36 is seriously misleading. In fact other than the age of the earth and the universe, the only key distinction between ID and Creationism mentioned on p.36 would appear to be how and by whom life was designed.

Read the rest of this entry

Salvo - Issue 4I think SALVO Magazine is a great publication and nothing I am about to say here changes that. I think it’s so great in fact that after subscribing for one year on the recommendation of a friend [thanks Rick], I purchased all the back issues I could get my hands on. I think the mag is worth every cent. But it is because of one particular issue of SALVO that I decided to spend some time clarifying a view that is often misrepresented, even by Christians. That view is creationism, particularly the “young-earth” kind. 

Introducing Issue #4 (Winter 2008) – dedicated to the topic of Intelligent Design. Understandably I had a great time reading this! It includes some great articles that address questions like; Why is ID so important? What is the argument for ID from DNA? What does ID have to say about Biochemistry? What does Information tell us about ID? How can ID help us understand Living Cells? Can ID contribute to our understanding of Genetics? and; How does observability evidence Design? 

Conversely it addresses questions such as; What exactly is the problem with Evolutionary Theory? and; What can Evolution really do? It also delves into the political with articles like; What do ID proponents want taught in Public Schools? Has ID been banned in Public Schools? and; What happens when you challenge a school’s Science Curriculum? 

All very thought provoking articles to be sure. But throughout the magazine I was disappointed at times to find what I believe is an inaccurate characterization of creationism. As a relatively well-versed creationist myself, I decided to do a survey of this issue for references to creationism to highlight the nuances of the view and the ways in which it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.[1] 

Read the rest of this entry

I was inspired to post this following the conversation about grace on an earlier post.

I heard the song East to West by Casting Crowns for the first time on a myspace site a few years ago and became addicted to it almost instantly. The lyrics will really hit home for those of you who know what it means to struggle with sin everyday. But it also touches very personally on many truths at the heart of Christianity and paints a vivid picture of Christ crucified for the purpose of separating us from sin as “far as the east is from the west”.

For example, you may recognise the reference in the song to this passage from Scripture:

‘as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.’

Psalm 103:12

The significance of the comparison of East with West being that the two are mutually exclusive; necessarily separate; the one can never unite with the other.

I think the writers of this song (Mark Hall and Bernie Herms) demonstrate – not just through this song, but many others they write – a proper attitude to sin and to Christ, as well as the ability to capture, through the lyrics, imagery and music, the anxiety that Christians face every day about their sin. Don’t be afraid to allow this song to stir the emotions. You may just find that it brings you to tears as it does me.

‘East to West’ – Casting Crowns
(Album: Altar & the Door)

Here I am, Lord, and I’m drowning
in your sea of forgetfulness
The chains of yesterday surround me
I yearn for peace and rest
I don’t want to end up where You found me
And it echoes in my mind, keeps me awake tonight

I know You’ve cast my sin as far as the east is from the west
And I stand before You now as, as though I’ve never sinned
But today I feel like I’m just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

~Chorus~
Jesus, can You show me just how far the east is from the west
‘Cause I can’t bear to see the man I’ve been come rising up in me again
In the arms of Your mercy I find rest
‘Cause You know just how far the east is from the west
From one scarred hand to the other

I start the day, the war begins, endless reminding of my sin
Time and time again Your truth is drowned out by the storm I’m in
Today I feel like I’m just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

[To Chorus]

I know You’ve washed me white, turned my darkness into light
I need Your peace to get me through, to get me through this night
I can’t live by what I feel, but by the truth Your word reveals
I’m not holding on to You, but You’re holding on to me
You’re holding on to me

Jesus, You know just how far the east is from the west
I don’t have to see the man I’ve been come rising up in me again
In the arms of Your mercy I find rest

‘Cause You know just how far the east is from the west
From one scarred hand to the other
One scarred hand to the other From one scarred hand to the other

Honoring God

From an old Table Talk article posted by Douglas Wilson, titled ‘Sanctified Apathy’

When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were commanded to bow down to the Babylonian idol, they refused. They knew that God was able to deliver them, and they said as much to the king. “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up” (Dan. 3:17-18). They said that their God could deliver them. But even if He decided not to, as far as they were concerned, the king could throw them into the furnace. They didn’t care. Of course they didn’t care about the furnace because they did care, and deeply, about honoring God. And this is the basis for sanctified apathy.

The more we care about honoring God, the less we will care about receiving honors from men. This is important because if we care about the opinions of men in the wrong way, it keeps us from being able to believe in Jesus (John 5:44).The more we care about being approved as a faithful workman by God, the less we will care if others condemn or oppose us on their own puny authority (2 Tim. 2:15).

Modern Christians are constantly exhorted to care. This is legitimate, indeed it is inescapable. But the problem is that we are regularly told to care about all the wrong things. “If we continue to maintain that God created the world in six days, we will not be granted academic respectability.” To which we must reply, well, who cares? Why should we care that the guardians of the academy believe that we are not intellectually respectable? They believe that the moose, the sperm whale and the meadowlark are all blood relations. Why do we want their seal of approval on our intellectual abilities? It is like asking Fidel Castro to comment on the economic viability of Microsoft.

Full article available here

Twitter debate with Sinasohn

On Tuesday of last week I had posted on Twitter the following introspection:

“Atheism is conceit in ignorance. Christianity is humility in knowledge.”

Now it seems that an atheist named Roger Sinasohn, who I do not know, discovered my post and decided it deserved a critical response, and soon we were engaged in what can be called my first Twitter debate. (Let me tell you, nothing can force you to articulate and defend your position with succinct clarity like a 140-characters restriction!) The following is the material content of that debate. I hope you enjoy it. It will be updated until completed.

 

8 December 2009 — Present (updated 16/Dec/09)

Sinasohn: Thinking that the entire universe was created just for you is humility? Wow. I’m sure glad you’re not conceited.


davidinbc: God did not create the universe for the universe (‘we’ are part of it). He created it for himself.


Sinasohn: I see. You’re saying god is the conceited one. All this is just his playground & we’re one of his toys. Makes sense.


davidinbc: Given the word’s definition, God can’t be conceited. Still waiting for a reply that can stand rationally.


Sinasohn: You believe in an all-powerful god. You think he likes you (humans/christians) best. You think that makes you humble.

Sinasohn: I don’t believe in god. I think the universe is huge and that I am not even as important (in the grand scheme of things)…

Sinasohn: …not even as important as bellybutton lint. And you say that atheism is conceited. See No. 1: http://bit.ly/8gXjPr


davidinbc: Christianity confesses that mankind are sinners deserving of God’s wrath, the antithesis of that definition you cited. Next?

davidinbc: (P.S., That you don’t believe in God proves the conceit, not refutes it.)


Sinasohn: I am no sinner; I’ve done nothing wrong. What did you do? And why do you think god cares?

Sinasohn: There are billions of people on this planet alone — what makes you so special that god gives a rat’s ass about you?

Sinasohn: Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Ra? Ganesh? No? Does that make you conceited?


davidinbc: The definition of ‘sinner’ is one who disobeys God’s commands; ergo, you are a sinner by definition. We all are, including me.

davidinbc: And there is nothing special about me. God’s love is in the context of Christ alone, about whom much is special.

davidinbc: And my disbelief in idols has nothing to do with my self-estimation. A brutal non-sequitur, there.


Sinasohn: But you are claiming it is my disbelief in idols that makes me conceited. How is your god any different from anyone else’s god?

Sinasohn: So you’re are saying that god knows nothing of you, cares nothing about you, doesn’t even notice you, tiny speck in the universe?

Sinasohn: If that’s the case, why notice him? Why care about, let alone worship god? Or are you saying that god does pay attention to you?

Sinasohn: If you think god cares about you, then you are conceited, like an obsessed fan thinking a rockstar notices them in the crowd.


davidinbc: God cares about me because of who Christ is and what he did, not because of who I am or anything I’ve done (not conceited).

davidinbc: Either God is the authority over human reason (not conceited), or human reason is the authority over God (conceited). So, next?


Sinasohn: You’re saying that god (or his kid) cares about you personally out of the billions on this planet, not to mention elsewhere?

Sinasohn: Again, that’s like being in the crowd as the president drives by and thinking he’s smiling at you specifically. That’s conceit.

Sinasohn: And if you’re going to say god (all-powerful, ‘member?) can care about everyone, then I’ll ask why doesn’t he?

Sinasohn: god is auth over humans or humans over god… or god don’t exist. I’ll take door no. 3.


davidinbc: It’s conceit only if God’s caring has to do with who I am or what I’ve done, which it doesn’t. Look at the definition again.

davidinbc: And he sent his only Son to justify the ungodly, even though we deserved condemnation. How much more caring do you need?

davidinbc: Door 3: human reason is the authority over God, by assuming him out of every category.


Sinasohn: god sent his son to be killed just to absolve you? Wow. He likes you more than his own kid. You both sure think a lot of you.


davidinbc: God’s love for anyone is BECAUSE of Christ. He thinks highly of the Son, in whom sinners are saved because of it.

Terminal Indifference

‘Twas the night before Jesus came, and all through the house
Not a creature was praying, not one in the house.
Their Bibles were lain on the shelf without a care
In hopes that Jesus would not come there.

The children were dressing to crawl into bed,
Not once ever kneeling or bowing a head.
And mom in her rocker with baby on her lap
Was watching the Late Show while I took a nap.

When out of the east there arose such a clatter,
I sprang to my feet to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

When what to my wondering eyes should appear
But angels proclaiming that Jesus was here.
With a light like the sun sending forth a bright ray
I knew in a moment this must be The Day!

The light of his face made me cover my head.
It was Jesus, returning just like he had said.
And though I possessed worldly wisdom and wealth,
I cried when I saw Him in spite of myself.

In the Book of Life, which he held in his hand,
Was written the name of every saved man.
He spoke not a word as he searched for my name.
When He said, “It’s not here,” my head hung in shame.

The people whose names had been written with love
He gathered to take to his Father above.
With those who were ready, he rose without a sound,
While all the rest were left standing around.

I fell to my knees, but it was too late;
I had waited too long and thus sealed my fate.
I stood and I cried as they rose out of sight.
Oh if only I had been ready tonight.

In the words of this poem the meaning is clear;
The coming of Jesus is drawing near.
There’s only one life and, when comes the last call,
We’ll find that the Bible was true after all.

— Audrey Patricia Woolverton

Click here to read Dr. Albert Mohler’s explanation for why he chose to sign the Manhattan Declaration. In my estimation, it was a powerful testimony of the necessity, passion, and courage of this document which addresses three central issues that threaten the very stability of contemporary society. The thoughts which Dr. Mohler closed his article with were especially strong, which I have included here in the hopes that it compels you to read the full article.

Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge—that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth—and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.

There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

(Last updated: 21/Nov/2009)

Over at the blog of my new friend, Duane Proud, [1] I am having an ongoing discussion [2] with a fellow named Adam on what can be characterized as the necessity of salvation. I am publishing the contents of that conversation here at this site because I want to build a library of intelligent discourse on important issues related to salvation and apologetics, two of my favourite subjects, which will be published under Conversations With Christians on the one hand, and Conversations With Atheists on the other. It will be a work in progress for a while so don’t look for these sections yet.

The conversation was sparked generally by the response I had given to the atheist Fluke and his “ropes” analogy of salvation (read Duane’s post for the context). This led to an exploration of particular theological issues between myself and Marc, who is an apparent ‘open theist’, beginning at Comment #34 (after Duane had emailed me privately and asked for my thoughts on Marc’s arguments), which had prompted Adam to ask the following:

Does everyone get a choice? Do the non-elect get a choice to reject or accept God? Does God, knowing those who will not freely choose Him, deny them that choice? … I’m a little hazy on the issue but I thought that there is some sort of free-will choice made for God in the Calvinist view of salvation. God, knowing what that choice will be, acts accordingly by diving in to retrieve those corpses of the bottom of the ocean of those that choose Him.

Read the rest of this entry

A question about prayer

So what I’m wondering is, how do you ever have any idea whether or not your prayers are ever answered?

Quite honestly? At first you have no idea. You pray for things and look for the answer to it, hoping he bends to your will, but you never really know for sure. Sometimes you’ll experience a result that corresponds positively in some way to your prayer and you take that to mean God answered you. But in that quiet corner of the mind you don’t want to admit or talk about, there lies the festering doubt produced by your inability to distinguish between an answered prayer and a weird coincidence—a fire that gets fueled by the infuriating ratio between positive corresponding results and the far more frequent absence of discernible results. It’s a dissonance that cannot be tolerated long. You eventually reach a schism in your conscience and you can go one of two ways.

Most people call the positive results weird coincidences, shake their fist at what they consider divine silence, and eventually lose their faith. But some people find themselves struck by the epiphany that they are not infallible, that among the things possible for them to be wrong about, prayer might be included. So, questioning some of their basic assumptions, they decide to look up what God has to say about the nature of prayer. They might examine the template Jesus Christ provided, not only by what his own prayers looked like but also the nature of The Lord’s Prayer, which he described as "how you should pray" (see Matt. 6:5-15). They may even notice that he said, "This is how you should pray," and not, "This is what you should say." After a while they begin to realize that they had been treating God like some cosmic Santa Claus, going to him with a list of their wishes along with promises that, if he answers, they will be good little boys and girls. As they learn what authentic and genuine prayer looks like, they are struck by how absolutely backwards they had it. They finally understand that prayer is not a shopping cart or wish list. That God is not their butler waiting to do their bidding, nor sitting around waiting for someone to pray him into awareness of what he already knows. And perhaps most important of all, that prayer is not about seeking their will but God’s will. That he already has their best interest in mind. And that informing an omniscient being about something is sort of contradictory. Ultimately they begin to understand that authentic and genuine prayer is not a wish list but, rather, an act of worship, an intimate nexus of communion between them and their Father in heaven.

They know such authentic prayers are answered… because in that act of worship they experience the faithful presence of God.