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

Richard Dawkins was recently challenged to a debate with William Lane Craig. He declined. Craig, he said, was a “deplorable apologist for genocide” with whom he would not share a platform. The genocide in question is that of the Canaanites in the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy (see link).

One of Richards more famous quotes from “The God Delusion” on this issue is:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

One of the biggest problems that many people have with God as detailed in the Bible, which Richard has so clearly demonstrated above, is that of His judgment against nations like the Canaanites. One only has to read Biblical history to find God commanding the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women and children. Not even the livestock are spared. So what are we make of this? Is God a moral monster?

Paul Copan has attempted to answer this challenge in his book “Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.” His answer to the charge that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites is that this was not the genocide that it appears to be from a simple at face value reading of the text; that the text is hyperbolic and an exaggeration of what actually happened; that these were more like disabling raids of the military bases/cities and religious centers and not the leave no survivors destructive conquest that one might assume from a face value reading of the text. The passages on the women and children are just sweeping language being used as a disabling metaphor where central structures are undermined so that the Canaanite influence is disabled. For a more thorough explanation you can check out this interview (3rd hour) with Greg Koukl on his radio show at STR or their blog. Otherwise you can get his book.

While Paul Copan’s explanation on the issues of slavery, bigamy, child sacrifice and the treatment of women in the Old testament seems sound to me, I think Clay Jones comes to the correct conclusion on the issue of the “divine genocide” of the Canaanites. He argues in his treatise, “We Don’t Hate Sin. So We Don’t  Understand What Happened to the Canaanites”, that the face value interpretation of the text is the correct interpretation. Clay also appeared on Greg Koukl’s radio show in an interview that can be found here (3rd Hour) which is where I got most of his answers for the rest of this blog post.

The first thing that needs to be examined is the culture and behavior of the Canaanites to see if there could be any justification for their obliteration as described in the Old Testament. Archeologist William Allbright tells of an ancient Canaanite poem where the Canaanite God Baal, rapes his sister while she is in the form of a calf 77 even 88 times. We have here rape, incest and beastiality in the same act. Baal also has sex with his mother and daughter. If this is who the Canaanites worshiped, if this is their God whom they emulate, then according to Jones, this is certainly what they themselves are doing. And these acts are borne out with further study of Canaanite culture. God outlaws these practices in Leviticus and this sin is punished when both the Canaanites and Israel committed them. And that punishment was harsh. Sodom and Gomorrah were examples of Canaanite cities who were judged by God with good moral justification.

So how does Clay Jones answer the complete destruction passages of the Canaanites in the Old Testament? Clay starts off by making an observation of our own culture. We seem to have been inoculated to sin. Average people just does not care anymore about many sins. Our culture does not even recognize them as sin, let alone understand what the term sin actually means. We have become so Canaanite-like in our own culture to the point where, as Clay put it, “Studying these things over the years has led me to wonder if the Canaanites might stand up at the Judgment and condemn this generation”.

Livestock

Why kill all the livestock? You do not want to be around animals that are used to having sex with people. In Clay’s article he gives an example of a female gorilla sexually attacking a psychologist.

Women

If you want to erradicate these practices from a culture, then why would you leave women who were just as guilty and as equally dangerous as the men in participating in these practices.

Children

Yes the children too. Firstly what age do you start separating children from adults? 18? 12? Clay tells of fostering children because he and his wife could not have their own children. They learned that kids coming into your house at from as young as 4 years old were bringing their culture with them. Now, what if you had killed their parents? What would teenage rebellion look like for those children who were spared. Certainly they were exposed to a highly sexualised culture and were very much likely to have been molested by that time.

So how do you stomp out that culture in order to prevent if from affecting the Israelites adversely? If you want to erradicate the sinfullness of the Canaanites, how else can you do it?

But wait, I hear you say, the Bible talks of the continued Canaanite presence in the region after this “divine genocide” occurred. How does Clay answer that? Clay directs our attention to those “divine genocide” texts and points out that Gods command was only for a specific region. There was still a Canaanite presence outside the region that the Israelites were to inhabit and that’s why there were commands still in place not to take wives from outside the Israelite culture etc. But as we read further into the text, the likes of Kings David and Solomon did not uphold these commands perfectly (by taking wives from outside the Israelite community) and thus the Canaanite culture was reintroduced into the Israels culture and corrupted them to the point where God then dealt harshly with the Israelites via the Assyrians and Babylonians.

So in conclusion, I think we can accept the text at face value. The question that remains is what do you think of God for commanding such a thing? Does God have a right to do with His creation as He pleases? If you have a problem with the selective judgment of the Canaanites then how do you feel about the almost complete destruction wrought by God of the whole world during the Flood? And how do you feel about the impending destruction of everything at Armageddon?

In the lead up to the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) National Conference this coming weekend, at which will be tabled a discussion to change the Party’s official policy from supporting traditional one-man, one-woman marriage, this exhortation from preacher John Piper is a stirring reminder for Christians to weep with sorrow and compassion over the sins of their cities. No less ought we in Australia weep if God’s natural law of traditional, monogamous marriage is ever legislated out of existence.

Jesus died so that heterosexual and homosexual sinners might be saved. Jesus created sexuality, and has a clear will for how it is to be experienced in holiness and joy.

His will is that a man might leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and that the two become one flesh (Mark 10:6-9). In this union, sexuality finds its God-appointed meaning, whether in personal-physical unification, symbolic representation, sensual jubilation, or fruitful procreation.

For those who have forsaken God’s path of sexual fulfillment, and walked into homosexual intercourse or heterosexual extramarital fornication or adultery, Jesus offers astonishing mercy.

Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).

But last weekend {at a gay pride event held in Minneapolis last June} this salvation from sinful sexual acts was not embraced. Instead there was massive celebration of sin …

The Bible is not silent about such parades. Alongside its clearest explanation of the sin of homosexual intercourse (Romans 1:24-27) stands the indictment of the celebration of it. Though people know intuitively that homosexual acts (along with gossip, slander, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, faithlessness, heartlessness, ruthlessness) are sin, “they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Romans 1:29-32). “I tell you even with tears, that many glory in their shame” (Philippians 3:18–19) …

Not only that, we are moving from celebration to institutionalization. On June 24 the New York legislature approved a Marriage Equality Act. This makes New York the sixth state where so-called homosexual marriages will be institutionalized: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, (and the District of Columbia).

My sense is that we do not realize what a calamity is happening around us. The new thing—new for America, and new for history—is not homosexuality. That brokenness has been here since we were all broken in the fall of man. (And there is a great distinction between the orientation and the act—just like there is a great difference between my orientation to pride and the act of boasting.)

What’s new is not even the celebration of homosexual sin. Homosexual behavior has been exploited, and reveled in, and celebrated in art, for millennia. What’s new is normalization and institutionalization. This is the new calamity.

My main reason for writing is not to mount a political counter-assault. I don’t think that is the calling of the church as such. My reason for writing is to help the church feel the sorrow of these days. And the magnitude of the assault on God and his image in man.

Christians, more clearly than others, can see the tidal wave of pain that is on the way. Sin carries in it its own misery: “Men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27).

And on top of sin’s self-destructive power comes, eventually, the wrath of God: “sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Colossians 3:5–6).

Christians know what is coming, not only because we see it in the Bible, but because we have tasted the sorrowful fruit of our own sins. We do not escape the truth that we reap what we sow. Our marriages, our children, our churches, our institutions—they are all troubled because of our sins.

The difference is: We weep over our sins. We don’t celebrate them. We turn to Jesus for forgiveness and help. We cry to Jesus, “who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10).

And in our best moments, we weep for the world. In the days of Ezekiel God put a mark of hope “on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 9:4).

This is what I am writing for. Not political action, but love for the name of God and compassion for the city of destruction.

“My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.” (Psalm 119:136)

Taken from John Piper’s blog, Desiring God: “My Eyes Shed Streams of tears” – Thoughts on the new Calamity

Not because of who I am, but because of what you’ve done
Not because of what I’ve done but because of who you are

(lyrics from “Who Am I?” by Casting Crowns)

In the comments area to a previous article I had written last year about Christianity being singularly unique in its salvation by grace (and not of works), a visitor left the following question (emphasis mine):

This does not help. I need to believe in Christ in order to receive what he did for me. Okay. But if I don’t believe and repent, then I can’t be saved. Correct? So when it comes down to it, I have to do a work in order to be saved. Please don’t change and switch words around in order to fit a point of view. This is a very serious matter. So, how am I to truly receive salvation?

I need to believe in Christ in order to receive what he did for me.

This is not quite right, for that very belief—if it is a saving faith—is itself something that one receives by what Christ did. That is to say, the very act of believing in Jesus Christ savingly means that you are already in receipt of what he did for you; for God removing your heart of stone (that hated God and loved sin) and replacing it with a heart of flesh (that loves God and hates sin) is a product of the redeeming work that Christ did. It is called regeneration and is a work of God, not of one’s self, by virtue of the fact that it is a change wrought in us and not an act performed by us. If a person believes in Jesus as the Christ for the salvation of his soul, then we can know that such a person has been born of God (1 John 5:1, literally “out of God has been born”). The 1689 London Baptist Confession states that “the grace of faith by which the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls is the work of the Spirit in their hearts” (14.1), and that “the principal acts of saving faith relate in the first instance to Christ, as the believer accepts, receives and rests upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life; and all by virtue of the covenant of grace” (14.2). Repentance and faith are gifts of grace from the Father in heaven bestowed upon all those who he gives to the Son for his sake and glory. No one can come to Christ unless it is granted him by the Father and everyone whom the Father gives the Son is certain to come to him. So the very act of believing in Christ savingly means that you are in receipt of what he did for you already.

(And do not get too hung up on that clause, “if it is a saving faith,” for it is meant to simply distinguish between true belief and false belief, the latter signifying a bare intellectual assent that is not a product of regeneration by the Spirit, and thus that person neither properly apprehends his sinful condition before an holy God nor fully surrenders himself to Jesus as Christ and his sovereign Lord.)

If I don’t believe and repent, then I can’t be saved. Correct?

That is not so. The question of whether or not you can be saved is answered by what Christ did, not by what you do. Because of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice you can be saved. So if you do not believe and repent, then you are not saved; but from the fact that you aren’t saved it does not follow that you can’t be saved. You can be, and what Christ did is the reason—not what you do. In Christ alone by grace through faith alone for the glory of God alone.

So when it comes down to it, I have to do a work in order to be saved.

Incorrect. To repent and believe is a fruit of salvation, not the cause thereof. It is not faith that saves, but Christ who saves through faith. There is no work you can do in order to be saved; that is the very reason for and necessity of the faithfulness of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice, apart from whom no one would be reconciled. It is by grace that we are saved through faith—which is the glorious gift of God, so that no one can boast. As Paul writes in Titus 3:4–6, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior” (see also Rom 9:16; cf. v. 11).

So how am I to truly receive salvation?

Through the faithfulness of Christ and his perfect atoning sacrifice; “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). If anyone thinks there is even a shred of anything they can do in order to be saved, then that person understands neither the unmitigated holiness of God nor the depth of their own sin and their desperate condition apart from the faithfulness of Christ Jesus. The gospel is not a slogan or a simple decision or a formulaic rite that will only take a minute of your time; it is the consuming fire and everlasting power of God under which we recognize with contempt and loathing the black filthiness of our sinful condition and with unquenchable joy and love the inexpressible beauty and glory of Christ, who he is and what he does. An eternity spent at his feet will not be enough to comprehend the depth and scope of the gospel of our Savior King.

“When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God. For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling. My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God. … God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. … so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people” (1 Cor 2:1–13; emphasis mine).

“For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit” (1Thess 1:4–6; emphasis mine).

Update (26 Nov 2011): Evidently Matt Oxley has taken issue with being described as “a former charismatic Christian from the Word of Faith movement” and wishes for that to be changed. Unfortunately, I do not yet understand how it is an inaccurate description nor do I know what to change it to. Consequently, I have written a letter to Oxley asking for clarification on this matter and will modify this article appropriately upon receiving that clarification.)

~ * ~

Matt Oxley, a former charismatic Christian from the Word of Faith movement who is now an evangelist for atheistic skepticism at RagingRev.com, had thrown down the gauntlet to Christians at his web site. When it comes to his writing and other efforts, his goal is not “to simply debate and argue,” he said. “I’m holding the believer to the standards and expectations set forth in the New Testament,” a goal he tries to pursue by asking people the sort of questions he found himself asking not too long ago as he spiraled into the depths of doubt, in order to challenge the beliefs Christians hold to (Oxley, 2011, para. 2). He then points to 2 Peter 3:15 to make his case, suggesting that it is in fact the duty of Christians to provide an answer for the sort of objections raised by such people as himself (para. 4). At the risk of disappointing Oxley, this may be yet another circumstance in which he has not understood the context of the passage he is drawing upon, for it does not say that Christians are called and duty-bound “to answer the objections that people like [him] have to [our] faith.” Rather we are called to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess.

And we certainly ought to be ready to give an answer or a defense (pros apologian) when we are asked about the hope we possess—and that hope is nothing other than the faithfulness of Christ Jesus, whose perfect atoning sacrifice redeemed us from death and brought us to the eternal light of reconciliation with God. As those purchased by Christ in the covenant of grace we overflow with love and praise for God and all his handiwork, glorifying his name in everlasting thanksgiving. And all of it, that love and gratitude and hope, rests upon our sovereign Lord and Savior. And this should not be unfamiliar to someone like Oxley who has devoted so much time to the study of Scripture, especially in reference to this very passage which begins with the following statement, “Set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts.” In other words, not only is Jesus Christ the hope we possess but he is also the reason for it; so when we as Christians give an answer or a defense to those who ask, we will do so by setting apart Christ as Lord in our hearts in defending and confirming the gospel. Everything begins and ends with Christ Jesus, including our very reason; that is, we will not reason apart from him, but in everything set him apart as Lord.

Oxley seems to either ignore this or fundamentally misunderstand the passage, for he lurches suddenly beyond its context to suggest Peter is saying that Christians should provide “empirical evidence and sound logic” when asked for (para. 6). Although Oxley seems to think Peter is saying that Christians should be ready to defend their faith in terms that are consistent with the worldview of their objector, Peter is actually saying something that is entirely antithetical. Indeed we are to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess, but it is in the context of setting apart Christ as Lord in our hearts; in other words, we are to defend the faith in terms that are consistent with the biblical worldview that has Jesus Christ at center. This is how every single apostle and disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ engaged people; they never took their eyes off the gospel or compromised the centrality of Christ in all things, even when it meant their imprisonment or being put to death. Their every proclamation and every defense was given in the context of Jesus Christ as Lord. And that is what Christians are called to imitate, that is how they are to engage. And indeed “very few today are willing to engage in such a way.”

I am just telling you what the Bible says. No one has to like it (cf. para. 8).

Christians should certainly be willing and ready to give an answer or defense for the hope they possess, but people like Oxley should not be surprised that Christians will set apart Christ as Lord in their hearts when they do so. He is their hope, their reason, the very ground of all reality, their everything. He is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. All things in heaven and on earth were created through him and for him; he is before all things and all things are held together in him. Such is also what the Bible says, as well as:

“Therefore, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him and firm in your faith just as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority” (Colossians 2:6–10).

Incidentally, there was a bit of irony in Oxley’s post that was too good to pass over. In addressing the charge that he has taken some scripture or other out of context, Oxley says that it comes from people who have not spent one-tenth of the time that he has in Bible study; so it amounts to “blind faith about my understanding,” he said (para. 1). But how does he know that they did not spend as much time as he did on studying Scripture? Does he have evidence for this claim that others can corroborate? He must, for surely he is not making a “blind faith” assumption about their time spent in study; that is, surely it is a conclusion drawn from empirical evidence which others can corroborate. Or is this indeed a delicious bit of irony?

References:

Matt Oxley, “Taking the Bible out of context—apologia,” RagingRev.com [blog] (2011, October 18). He has also started a new web site for preaching atheistic skepticism at EmbracingDoubt.com. Although he claims that the target audience is believers “from any faith at all” who are struggling with doubt and difficult questions, it is by no means a Christian apologetics resource; his aim is to encourage doubt, not to provide empowering answers that alleviate it. For believers who actually want answers for their doubts and questions, I encourage you to write me and ask. You are not the first to struggle with perplexing questions, and there are solid answers to be had.

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

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard atheists characterize Christians as “wasting” their lives. Some mean it as a pejorative, others are quite sincere about it, but in every case there is some kind of concern about Christians reaching the end of their lives and discovering it was all such a waste. By and large atheists of this sort have a desire to draw the Christian away from his or her faith and into a perspective that will not waste this supposedly one and only life. So there are two thoughts I have had with respect to this notion that I wish to share. And instead of speaking broadly for Christians everywhere, which obviously I cannot do, I will speak for myself.

On the one hand, presumably as I am lying on my deathbed, exactly how do I come to the realization that it was all such a waste? Suppose I am lying on a hospital bed, perhaps overrun with cancer and death just a matter of hours away. I have lived my life according to my convictions of Christ’s redeeming grace, committed to a local church whom I have been lovingly devoted to and who has surrounded me in a warm community of support, edification, opportunity, and guidance. I have engaged my passions in learning and understanding, from theology to philosophy to science, through both self-reflection and discourse. I have pursued my appetite for reading, from captivating novels to academic textbooks. I have experienced family and friendship; I have experienced love and being loved, forgiving and being forgiven. I have known the rewards of success and the lessons of failure. I have loved those who hate me and served those who love me. And in every circumstance I have seen God’s providential hand and (even if not consistently) praised God for it all. I have known the God of all creation and have been known by him, through which I have had a scope of vision that transcends the limits of my self, humankind, or the place in history that my existence occupied. I have seen with reverential awe the breathtaking beauty and interconnected realities of God’s handiwork.

And yet somehow, as I lay here dying, I am supposed to realize this was a waste?

Exactly what might I have otherwise had or done? If I had not these Christ-centered convictions, would I have had friendships? But I had these. Would I have been able to enjoy great learning? Would I have had a rewarding career in a field I love? Would I have explored the halls of knowledge or the wonders of the cosmos? But I had these, too. Would I have loved and helped my fellow man? Would I have gained an understanding and appreciation for the views of others that differ from mine? But I have had and done all this—and much more. Given the sort of people that this expressed concern comes from, perhaps the waste they speak of is a life that was without an abiding wonder and intellectual curiosity about the natural world around us which we have explored and sought to understand through a web of scientific disciplines. But as someone with a profound appreciation and respect for such things, having consumed countless hours learning about cosmological and biological discoveries, my life was not lived without scientific wonder and curiosity. I could go on but at the end of the day I must confess that it escapes me just how I should realize my life was wasted.

On the other hand, what is it about lying at death’s door that is supposed to clue me in to it all being a waste? Granting the atheist his or her view that this life is the only one I have, that when I die there is nothing left but non-existence as my body decomposes in the ground, how am I supposed to realize this was all a waste? While I am yet alive but dying, there is nothing that would indicate that this life was the only one I had; in other words, I have not crossed the threshold of death yet so there is not anything that indicates those atheists were right. The irony which seems lost on them, however, is that even if they are right I will never know it—because as a dead and decomposing corpse I would not realize anything. On the atheist’s view, a corpse does not engage in acts of cognition.

Indeed, as I lay there dying I would not realize it was all a waste, for by the grace of God I did everything I desired to do. When you live the life that you want to, according to the values and passions you have, how is that a waste? Perhaps the things I value and desire to do is uninteresting or tedious to you, but what has that to do with me? For example, if I love to study God’s word and you do not, just how is that a waste for me? Am I supposed to live my life according to your values and desires? The way I see it, and perhaps even you as an atheist would agree with me, my life could be said to have been wasted if I didn’t do the things I value and desire to do; that is, if someone always wanted to do this or that but never did throughout his whole life, then maybe his life was wasted in at least that respect. But if he did those things which he valued and desired to do, if he lived his life fully—even if not always consistently—according to those commitments, pursuing his ambitions and passions, then exactly how was that all a waste?

If the atheist is right, if this life is the one and only life I have and I lived it according to what I value and desire to do, after which nothing but black non-existence awaits me, then my life was neither wasted nor could I realize anything about it. That’s the sheer irony of all this. About the only thing the atheist could say is that I did not live the one and only life I have according to that atheist’s values and desires—but so what? If I did that, then I would be wasting my life.

Although I appreciate the concern that such atheists have, I do have to point out the incoherence of it. Given their view, and especially their disdain for people shoving values down their throats that are not theirs, it quite literally makes no sense for them to suggest that I am wasting my life in any way. Thus their concern is misplaced and unintelligible at any rate. If you want to know whether or not Christians are wasting their lives, then ask them if they are living it according to their values and passions.

And do try being a little more self-consistent; if you are right, then my corpse would be incapable of realizing it.

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. ↩

“Harold Camping, the Family Radio evangelist who wrongly predicted doomsday back in May, says the real end of the world is now Oct. 21,” Elizabeth Flock reports for the Washington Post.^[1]

Apparently next Friday, “at this point, looks like it will be the final end of everything,” Camping prophesies.

“Those who weren’t saved on May 21, Camping says, ‘will be annihilated together with the whole physical world on October 21, 2011’,” Flock writes.

“But Camping isn’t making any big promises this time. ‘I really am beginning to think as I restudied these matters that there’s going to be no big display of any kind’, he said in an audio address after suffering a stroke in June. ‘The end is going to come very, very quietly’.”

1. ^[1] Elizabeth Flock, “Harold Camping says the end of the world is definitely Oct. 21,” Washington Post (2011, October 14). ↩