Objection four was as follows...
"Could the people of God during the times recorded in the Old Testament (B.C) have even believed in Jesus? They could not even be saved if Jesus is the only way, but the New Testament itself says they are in heaven."
This is a good question also. After all, since Christians push so strongly that Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God (i.e. to be saved from God's eternal wrath), why didn't he make himself known way before he did so that all the people before his time could believe in him?
Let's start the response by looking again at what the book of Hebrews has to say about this matter of faith.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation."
Romans 4:1 "What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.'”
Romans 4:20 [Still speaking of Abraham] "No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was 'counted to him as righteousness.' 23 But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."
Clearly, these Scriptures say that it is faith that enabled salvation for the people of the Old Testament, and Romans 4:3 makes it clear that the faith is in God. Further, Romans 4:20 makes it evident that Abraham's faith in God was in the promise of God - that God "was able to do what he had promised".
Now, we might ask, "What has God promised to us in these days since Jesus' incarnation?" Simply what has been revealed to us in Scripture, namely that He has promised forgiveness of sins to all who believe in the work Jesus did on the cross - that Jesus' death alone is the means of forgiveness.
But, apparently, God required faith during Old Testament times too, and the required faith was in the promises he had given. Did they say the name Jesus or an equivalent in another language? Not exactly, but we now know that Jesus and Yahweh (one of God's names throughout the Old Testament) are one and the same God, so technically they did have faith in Jesus, but without all the details of what would happen on the cross. As history continued, more and more began to be known about what the Christ would do, and thus mankind became more accountable for believing each revelation.
One other thing I feel is important to mention is that Jesus' death was absolutely necessary for the people of the Old Testament to be saved. I won't go too deep into this, but the Old Testament saints had to wait for Jesus' resurrection to be in the presence of God (Ephesians 4:8-11, Luke 23:39-43). Observe the following:
Hebrews 9:24 "For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Hebrews 10:1 "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
To sum up then, Jesus took away the possibility of condemnation from the faithful people in the Old Testament times - a condemnation they deserved as a result of their sin. By "faithful people" I mean those that believed the promises coming from the one true God, who we now know is Jesus himself. Some people who lived prior to Jesus indeed had faith in Jesus, but did not have the complete revelation as we now do. We are now responsible for believing very specific things about Jesus, his work on the cross, his subsequent resurrection, and his bodily ascension to the right hand of the God the Father.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
An Objection to Exclusivity - Response Part 3
Here again is the third of four parts to my friend's objection:
If we're ever going to move toward world peace, we have to quit this "my view is better than your view" stuff and realize we're all moving toward the same goal. In other words, exclusivity is out, and inclusivism is what we really need.
The overwhelming mood in our culture today when it comes to worldviews and morals seems to be one of pragmatism and relativism. By that I mean it is often said by those in step with the current philosophical mood that "what is true for you may not be true for me." Now, what my friend is saying is not that exactly, but it is related. I understand that the main emphasis in my friend's mind is probably that we would be better off without biggotry, condemnation of those who are of differing worldviews, etc., and I agree with him strongly on that.
However, I have come to realize that what is said by the in-vogue philosophers cannot hold its own water. If a person claims that anything is able to be true and untrue at the same time, they are not listening to themselves. Why? Because, their statement must include itself (is their sentence both true and untrue?). For example, if I say "there is nothing that is totally (absolutely) true," I am contradicting my own statement, for I am saying essentially "I (truly) know (absolutely) that there are no absolutes." See what I mean?
Now, that's the extreme relativism position. My friend however is not at that extreme, but is instead saying "one worldview is no better than another," or "one person's opinion of what is true is no better than anyone else's." In some circumstances that may be so, but not always. An opinion, or even an entire worldview, is simply an attempt at stating the truth. So, here's the obvious: If the person correctly states the truth, their opinion or worldview is correct (true); otherwise, the opinion is false. If one person's opinion is that an Aluminum Alloy has a higher ultimate strength than that of 4340 steel, another person of the opposite opinion can be shown to be right through simple tests. This is just one instance in which two opinions not always equally true.
So is the same true in "non-scientific" matters? Of course. Take for instance emotional states. If one person claims to have been emotionally wounded by a comment someone made to them, and the someone is totally unaware of the pain they caused, the pain is real, not true for one and not the other. Rather, one person is simply oblvious to the facts.
Therefore, one cannot simply say that all worldviews are equally valid because they are all just opinions of the truth at some level. Some opinions are true to the facts, others are not. Further, I would say that it is more reasonable to say that all the religions of the world (including those held by only one individual) have a better chance at being wrong than it is to say that all of them are equally true. Why? Because they contradict one another on the major points. Not on what is right and wrong morally so much as on the issues of "who is God and what is He like?" "who are we?" "why are we here?" "how do I obtain fellowship with God?"
Now the question is, "Do the claims of the Bible measure up with the facts?" If so, then it is true that Jesus is the God-man who has done everything man needs in order to have fellowship with God forever, and the only way man can obtain that fellowship is by accepting the free gift by simply believing (not blindly, but based on what they know) -- no work to be done, no morals to be followed, no penance to be paid, etc. If it doesn't measure up to the facts, then let's just call it a lie and find out what the truth really is - let's stop trying to make each other feel good about believing lies by saying "that's great for you, but it's not for me."
Truth really matters to world peace (and I'm not even going to talk about peace in the context of eternity). A religion that promotes forced conversions is not peaceful, but a God who teaches his followers by example to lay down his life for others is promoting peace. The God who utters no objection when He is being slaughtered by His own creation is exemplifying love and promoting peace. But, let's not take a naive approach to promoting peace and general welvare by ignoring whether or not what we promote is based on truth. If our goal is simply to get all the people of the world to the finish line well fed, clothed, with decent shelter (general welfare) and dieing of natural causes (peacfully), we are a pitiful creature. Where is the meaning in that life? I would say that is not peace, but some perversion of it and that it is instead nearly sinister. Thankfully, I think we are something far greater, and have a wonderful role to play in the universe.
If we're ever going to move toward world peace, we have to quit this "my view is better than your view" stuff and realize we're all moving toward the same goal. In other words, exclusivity is out, and inclusivism is what we really need.
The overwhelming mood in our culture today when it comes to worldviews and morals seems to be one of pragmatism and relativism. By that I mean it is often said by those in step with the current philosophical mood that "what is true for you may not be true for me." Now, what my friend is saying is not that exactly, but it is related. I understand that the main emphasis in my friend's mind is probably that we would be better off without biggotry, condemnation of those who are of differing worldviews, etc., and I agree with him strongly on that.
However, I have come to realize that what is said by the in-vogue philosophers cannot hold its own water. If a person claims that anything is able to be true and untrue at the same time, they are not listening to themselves. Why? Because, their statement must include itself (is their sentence both true and untrue?). For example, if I say "there is nothing that is totally (absolutely) true," I am contradicting my own statement, for I am saying essentially "I (truly) know (absolutely) that there are no absolutes." See what I mean?
Now, that's the extreme relativism position. My friend however is not at that extreme, but is instead saying "one worldview is no better than another," or "one person's opinion of what is true is no better than anyone else's." In some circumstances that may be so, but not always. An opinion, or even an entire worldview, is simply an attempt at stating the truth. So, here's the obvious: If the person correctly states the truth, their opinion or worldview is correct (true); otherwise, the opinion is false. If one person's opinion is that an Aluminum Alloy has a higher ultimate strength than that of 4340 steel, another person of the opposite opinion can be shown to be right through simple tests. This is just one instance in which two opinions not always equally true.
So is the same true in "non-scientific" matters? Of course. Take for instance emotional states. If one person claims to have been emotionally wounded by a comment someone made to them, and the someone is totally unaware of the pain they caused, the pain is real, not true for one and not the other. Rather, one person is simply oblvious to the facts.
Therefore, one cannot simply say that all worldviews are equally valid because they are all just opinions of the truth at some level. Some opinions are true to the facts, others are not. Further, I would say that it is more reasonable to say that all the religions of the world (including those held by only one individual) have a better chance at being wrong than it is to say that all of them are equally true. Why? Because they contradict one another on the major points. Not on what is right and wrong morally so much as on the issues of "who is God and what is He like?" "who are we?" "why are we here?" "how do I obtain fellowship with God?"
Now the question is, "Do the claims of the Bible measure up with the facts?" If so, then it is true that Jesus is the God-man who has done everything man needs in order to have fellowship with God forever, and the only way man can obtain that fellowship is by accepting the free gift by simply believing (not blindly, but based on what they know) -- no work to be done, no morals to be followed, no penance to be paid, etc. If it doesn't measure up to the facts, then let's just call it a lie and find out what the truth really is - let's stop trying to make each other feel good about believing lies by saying "that's great for you, but it's not for me."
Truth really matters to world peace (and I'm not even going to talk about peace in the context of eternity). A religion that promotes forced conversions is not peaceful, but a God who teaches his followers by example to lay down his life for others is promoting peace. The God who utters no objection when He is being slaughtered by His own creation is exemplifying love and promoting peace. But, let's not take a naive approach to promoting peace and general welvare by ignoring whether or not what we promote is based on truth. If our goal is simply to get all the people of the world to the finish line well fed, clothed, with decent shelter (general welfare) and dieing of natural causes (peacfully), we are a pitiful creature. Where is the meaning in that life? I would say that is not peace, but some perversion of it and that it is instead nearly sinister. Thankfully, I think we are something far greater, and have a wonderful role to play in the universe.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
An Objection to Exclusivity: Response Part 2
I phrased the second part of my friend's objection to the exclusivity of Christ in this way: If God is Love as the Bible claims, how can he condemn anybody that did not have a snowball's chance in Hell to believe in Jesus?
Recall that he felt it was "ridiculous" that Christians would think that everyone besides Christians will have no righteousness on which to stand before God, and will thus be eternally separated from the all righteous God. So, this Part 2 was not something my friend said explicitly, but it is at least one of the arguments for "why might exclusivity be 'ridiculous?'" and/or "how can Christians be consistent in saying 'some people will be damned' while also saying God is love?'"
First, two fundamentals for understanding God's love:
I. God's love is by necessity first for Himself, and only when that is so can He truly have love for mankind. I won't go into this much now (unless someone asks me to), but simple reason will enable you to understand I believe. If God did not first and foremost love the greatest thing in all of existance, then He would not be doing things perfectly - and a being that does not do things perfectly is certainly not the true God. So, if God did not love Himself first and us secondly, but instead "loved" us in some other order, it would be a tainted and imperfect love, not the love of God. All this just to say that whatever we call love in this ponderance must be first loving toward God, then secondly loving toward people.
II. God is not love to the exclusion of or at the expense of His own holiness, righteousness, justice, or glory. Rather, He is truly love, truly holy, truly righteous, truly just, and truly glorious because He is all of these to the greatest degree all the time. So, it is not the love of God that would make all men clean of their sins without somehow executing the just penalty (on someone or something) for those sins as well.
Okay, that's the foundation. Now let's suppose that God let someone into heaven that had no faith in God for providing forgiveness for the debt owed by sinners for their sin. If that were to happen, wouldn't God be unholy and unrighteous for saying something different would happen to those people when He inspired the Bible? Wouldn't He be unjust in not getting recompense for the sin? Wouldn't His glory be immensly diminished for having become unjust, unholy, and unholy. In reality, His glory is great for having both protected His own justice (and righteousness, holiness) and provided for the justification (legal term meaning removal of guilt) of sinners. This means is Jesus Christ, for our righteousness can come through faith in Christ's atoning (cleansing) sacrifice.
Now one might ask, "Then does everyone get a chance to have this faith in Jesus? After all, doesn't everyone deserve a chance to hear the good news of Jesus being the way, the truth, and the life and thus avoid the awful eternity of Hell?" Well, regardless of whether we deserve it or not, Romans 1 and Psalm 19 show how it is that everyone does in fact get that chance. These verses say that all of nature around us proclaims the work and attributes of God, so that by them we can come to know Him. They further say that anyone who doesn't know the truth about God (as accords with the Bible) from the evidence in nature has only themself to blame, for it is because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness that they do not understand.
I actually know a guy who came to know Christ because of the witness of nature, just like these verses say. His name is Dien Nygun, and he started his journey to faith in Christ while in Vietnam with no one first telling him of Christ. He saw nature and knew there was a god, began an earnest search for God, and his eyes were opened to see Jesus as the answer to the longings of his heart and mind.
Couldn't God just force the unbelievers to worship Him and thus keep them in Heaven? It would be unjust of God to force someone to worship Him if they did not want to.
Then couldn't God just teach everybody the truth in Heaven, bring them to faith there, and then not have to send anyone to Hell? Not if He is going to be righteous and tell us the truth in His inspired Bible, wherein He says that some people will be condemned.
Wouldn't a good (loving) God let good people into His presence, including those people who have faith in a different God, or those who have a different faith in the same God? Again, He has said in the Bible, which He inspired, that
1) no people are truly good enough by their own doings, but
2) there is one criterion on which to enter His Heaven - faith in Jesus - our trusting that Jesus' righteousness is credited to us by faith alone. Note that this makes all of the glory God's - for He provides free of charge the goodness by which He accepts people into His presence.
This has not been an exhaustive response and has been written in one sitting (though I've taken a month to write), but I think the foundation has been laid to provide the basis of an answer to most, if not all, of the arguments one might give appealing to God's love and grace. Let me know if I left any gaps.
As an aside, know that faith is not oppressive, but liberating! No longer does a follower of Jesus have to try his hardest to do right and therefore be acceptable. No, instead, one can come to terms with their shortcomings, realize they will never be good enough, and decide to trust that Jesus' goodness will be theirs if only they have faith. God then changes a person's desires so that they desire the things of God more and more, thus progressively becoming more and more like Jesus in the way they think, act, and feel. Gone are the days of "If I do this list of stuff, then God will accept me." In are the days of "Thank you God that you are not basing my acceptance on my merits or lack thereof, but on the merits of Jesus."
Recall that he felt it was "ridiculous" that Christians would think that everyone besides Christians will have no righteousness on which to stand before God, and will thus be eternally separated from the all righteous God. So, this Part 2 was not something my friend said explicitly, but it is at least one of the arguments for "why might exclusivity be 'ridiculous?'" and/or "how can Christians be consistent in saying 'some people will be damned' while also saying God is love?'"
First, two fundamentals for understanding God's love:
I. God's love is by necessity first for Himself, and only when that is so can He truly have love for mankind. I won't go into this much now (unless someone asks me to), but simple reason will enable you to understand I believe. If God did not first and foremost love the greatest thing in all of existance, then He would not be doing things perfectly - and a being that does not do things perfectly is certainly not the true God. So, if God did not love Himself first and us secondly, but instead "loved" us in some other order, it would be a tainted and imperfect love, not the love of God. All this just to say that whatever we call love in this ponderance must be first loving toward God, then secondly loving toward people.
II. God is not love to the exclusion of or at the expense of His own holiness, righteousness, justice, or glory. Rather, He is truly love, truly holy, truly righteous, truly just, and truly glorious because He is all of these to the greatest degree all the time. So, it is not the love of God that would make all men clean of their sins without somehow executing the just penalty (on someone or something) for those sins as well.
Okay, that's the foundation. Now let's suppose that God let someone into heaven that had no faith in God for providing forgiveness for the debt owed by sinners for their sin. If that were to happen, wouldn't God be unholy and unrighteous for saying something different would happen to those people when He inspired the Bible? Wouldn't He be unjust in not getting recompense for the sin? Wouldn't His glory be immensly diminished for having become unjust, unholy, and unholy. In reality, His glory is great for having both protected His own justice (and righteousness, holiness) and provided for the justification (legal term meaning removal of guilt) of sinners. This means is Jesus Christ, for our righteousness can come through faith in Christ's atoning (cleansing) sacrifice.
Now one might ask, "Then does everyone get a chance to have this faith in Jesus? After all, doesn't everyone deserve a chance to hear the good news of Jesus being the way, the truth, and the life and thus avoid the awful eternity of Hell?" Well, regardless of whether we deserve it or not, Romans 1 and Psalm 19 show how it is that everyone does in fact get that chance. These verses say that all of nature around us proclaims the work and attributes of God, so that by them we can come to know Him. They further say that anyone who doesn't know the truth about God (as accords with the Bible) from the evidence in nature has only themself to blame, for it is because they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness that they do not understand.
I actually know a guy who came to know Christ because of the witness of nature, just like these verses say. His name is Dien Nygun, and he started his journey to faith in Christ while in Vietnam with no one first telling him of Christ. He saw nature and knew there was a god, began an earnest search for God, and his eyes were opened to see Jesus as the answer to the longings of his heart and mind.
Couldn't God just force the unbelievers to worship Him and thus keep them in Heaven? It would be unjust of God to force someone to worship Him if they did not want to.
Then couldn't God just teach everybody the truth in Heaven, bring them to faith there, and then not have to send anyone to Hell? Not if He is going to be righteous and tell us the truth in His inspired Bible, wherein He says that some people will be condemned.
Wouldn't a good (loving) God let good people into His presence, including those people who have faith in a different God, or those who have a different faith in the same God? Again, He has said in the Bible, which He inspired, that
1) no people are truly good enough by their own doings, but
2) there is one criterion on which to enter His Heaven - faith in Jesus - our trusting that Jesus' righteousness is credited to us by faith alone. Note that this makes all of the glory God's - for He provides free of charge the goodness by which He accepts people into His presence.
This has not been an exhaustive response and has been written in one sitting (though I've taken a month to write), but I think the foundation has been laid to provide the basis of an answer to most, if not all, of the arguments one might give appealing to God's love and grace. Let me know if I left any gaps.
As an aside, know that faith is not oppressive, but liberating! No longer does a follower of Jesus have to try his hardest to do right and therefore be acceptable. No, instead, one can come to terms with their shortcomings, realize they will never be good enough, and decide to trust that Jesus' goodness will be theirs if only they have faith. God then changes a person's desires so that they desire the things of God more and more, thus progressively becoming more and more like Jesus in the way they think, act, and feel. Gone are the days of "If I do this list of stuff, then God will accept me." In are the days of "Thank you God that you are not basing my acceptance on my merits or lack thereof, but on the merits of Jesus."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
An Objection to Exclusivity: Response Part 1
Here again is the first part of my friend's objection to the exclusivity of Jesus:
The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God." Since non-Christians have faith (though in something different), they should not be excluded from heaven even according to the statements the Bible makes.
I think this is a good question that deserves an honest answer. So, here it goes...
I see a problem with saying "non-Christians have just as much faith in what they believe as the Christian does in what he believes." The problem I think is that it ignores the object of the faith and assumes that the mere possession of faith is all that is necessary to achieve the goal of faith.
First from a simple philosophical perspective, I think everyone would agree that the object of one's faith (or trust) is VERY important. Take for instance two people racing. One is a teenager who is so psyched up about his new Honda Civic that he thinks he's the hottest stuff on the road. The other is an experienced driver in a Lotus Exige S2. The teenager has never heard of a Lotus S2, nor does he care to find out about one. Both are convinced they will win the race, but everyone that cares to honestly compare the two cars should come to understand the Lotus is most likely to win. So, though the teenager had full faith in his car, he loses - the object of the faith matters.
Second, the Bible says that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The meaning would be completely changed if in this sentence “Jesus” was replaced with “anything.” The point is that the Bible here and in many other places claims that the only saving faith is faith that trusts in Jesus Christ as the only means by which a person can be freed from the damnation he deserves because of his sin. So, the claims of the Bible are not that faith is the requirement, but rather that faith in Jesus is the requirement.
A second problem is also apparent to me, and carries what I've said a step further. Without a doubt, all of us respect sincerity, and with the low supply of it these days, we hate to see it not rewarded. So, when we come to the issue of religion, we tend to want to carry that sympathy with us. The religious person who comes to us without pretense or condemnation, expressing genuine concern for what we care about in this world, and being fully convinced of what he/she believes has much more sway with us than the average Joe. After all, that person would make a good neighbor. The problem with this is very similar to what I said above. Nothing I mentioned so far in what that religious person is bringing to us said they have brought us the truth! So, such a person can be ignoring something crucial to the foundations of what gives this life meaning – namely, truth. In other words, the worldview that fails to embrace the truth is incohesive to giving life meaning. See “Why I am a Follower of Jesus” for background on the tests for truth and components needed for meaning. We must bring truth along with sincerity if we are going to transform the world we are in and free mankind from that which binds us. Truth must be real, or we wouldn't be arguing about its existence. Life must have meaning, else my words would not and we are all just “empty bubbles floating on the sea of nothingness.”
So, in conclusion, the object of the faith matters, and that object must be consistent with the truth. I have found (by God's grace) the Bible's claims that Jesus is the proper object of that faith to be not only sincere, but also logically consistent, empirically adequate, and very relevant to my experience. And yes, it still requires faith, but so does any other worldview.
The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God." Since non-Christians have faith (though in something different), they should not be excluded from heaven even according to the statements the Bible makes.
I think this is a good question that deserves an honest answer. So, here it goes...
I see a problem with saying "non-Christians have just as much faith in what they believe as the Christian does in what he believes." The problem I think is that it ignores the object of the faith and assumes that the mere possession of faith is all that is necessary to achieve the goal of faith.
First from a simple philosophical perspective, I think everyone would agree that the object of one's faith (or trust) is VERY important. Take for instance two people racing. One is a teenager who is so psyched up about his new Honda Civic that he thinks he's the hottest stuff on the road. The other is an experienced driver in a Lotus Exige S2. The teenager has never heard of a Lotus S2, nor does he care to find out about one. Both are convinced they will win the race, but everyone that cares to honestly compare the two cars should come to understand the Lotus is most likely to win. So, though the teenager had full faith in his car, he loses - the object of the faith matters.
Second, the Bible says that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The meaning would be completely changed if in this sentence “Jesus” was replaced with “anything.” The point is that the Bible here and in many other places claims that the only saving faith is faith that trusts in Jesus Christ as the only means by which a person can be freed from the damnation he deserves because of his sin. So, the claims of the Bible are not that faith is the requirement, but rather that faith in Jesus is the requirement.
A second problem is also apparent to me, and carries what I've said a step further. Without a doubt, all of us respect sincerity, and with the low supply of it these days, we hate to see it not rewarded. So, when we come to the issue of religion, we tend to want to carry that sympathy with us. The religious person who comes to us without pretense or condemnation, expressing genuine concern for what we care about in this world, and being fully convinced of what he/she believes has much more sway with us than the average Joe. After all, that person would make a good neighbor. The problem with this is very similar to what I said above. Nothing I mentioned so far in what that religious person is bringing to us said they have brought us the truth! So, such a person can be ignoring something crucial to the foundations of what gives this life meaning – namely, truth. In other words, the worldview that fails to embrace the truth is incohesive to giving life meaning. See “Why I am a Follower of Jesus” for background on the tests for truth and components needed for meaning. We must bring truth along with sincerity if we are going to transform the world we are in and free mankind from that which binds us. Truth must be real, or we wouldn't be arguing about its existence. Life must have meaning, else my words would not and we are all just “empty bubbles floating on the sea of nothingness.”
So, in conclusion, the object of the faith matters, and that object must be consistent with the truth. I have found (by God's grace) the Bible's claims that Jesus is the proper object of that faith to be not only sincere, but also logically consistent, empirically adequate, and very relevant to my experience. And yes, it still requires faith, but so does any other worldview.
Monday, February 18, 2008
When Missional Dating and Family Traditions Cross with the Crises of this Life
I know I have been slow in providing responses to the previous post I made, but know that it is because I am treating the objections to Christianity with seriousness and want to give them the attention they deserve - plus I've been busy.
But I can't wait to share this: God is doing some really neat stuff in our midst as we simply try to live out the gospel "as we go" (Matt 28:18). There are two ways that God has let us see His working this weekend.
1) Our family has a Saturday morning tradition of going to Waffle House to have breakfast. We have come to know all the employees there and love them, so it feels like home. In addition, we get to enjoy a delicious breakfast and establish some good traditions for the family. We have been praying for our waitresses for months now, usually asking them if we can pray about anything for them before we say our blessing. This not only brings the power of God into their lives when they may not seek it otherwise, but it gives us a point on which to connect with them the following week.
Well, here is the cool part: Saturday, the waitresses (even the ones that were not waiting on us that particular morning) came to us with prayer requests. We also talked about family issues we've been praying with them about for weeks. It was such a blessing to us to see this!
2) Sunday: What do you get when you have a great waitress that you have befriended over many visits, tornado warnings (for twisters in very close proximity to the resturant), and no power in the resturant? Well, my thinking was we had a good opportunity to talk about why we are at peace in the midst of the storm! So, while her other customers were walking out on her, we got a chance to share about the power of our Sovereign God who works all things for our good. Then we walked out too....... just kidding, we paid.
What a wonderful weekend, not to mention a great gathering with our church family this morning! Would it have happened if we didn't get out into the community, but rather waited on them to come to us first? Nope, not like this anyway! God is so gracious to use us.
But I can't wait to share this: God is doing some really neat stuff in our midst as we simply try to live out the gospel "as we go" (Matt 28:18). There are two ways that God has let us see His working this weekend.
1) Our family has a Saturday morning tradition of going to Waffle House to have breakfast. We have come to know all the employees there and love them, so it feels like home. In addition, we get to enjoy a delicious breakfast and establish some good traditions for the family. We have been praying for our waitresses for months now, usually asking them if we can pray about anything for them before we say our blessing. This not only brings the power of God into their lives when they may not seek it otherwise, but it gives us a point on which to connect with them the following week.
Well, here is the cool part: Saturday, the waitresses (even the ones that were not waiting on us that particular morning) came to us with prayer requests. We also talked about family issues we've been praying with them about for weeks. It was such a blessing to us to see this!
2) Sunday: What do you get when you have a great waitress that you have befriended over many visits, tornado warnings (for twisters in very close proximity to the resturant), and no power in the resturant? Well, my thinking was we had a good opportunity to talk about why we are at peace in the midst of the storm! So, while her other customers were walking out on her, we got a chance to share about the power of our Sovereign God who works all things for our good. Then we walked out too....... just kidding, we paid.
What a wonderful weekend, not to mention a great gathering with our church family this morning! Would it have happened if we didn't get out into the community, but rather waited on them to come to us first? Nope, not like this anyway! God is so gracious to use us.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
An Objection to Exclusivity
In a recent conversation with a co-worker, he brought up a common objection to Jesus' claims of being the ONLY way to eternal fellowship with God. He worded the objection something like this: For Christians to claim that believing in Jesus is the only way to go to heaven, and to say that even the little boy whose parents raised him Muslim or Hindu or whatever else, who has never heard of Jesus will spend forever in Hell is rediculous. After all, they have just as much faith as the Christian does and are just as convinced that what they believe is the truth.
I really like this guy that told me this, and I really appreciated him opening up to me with his objections to Jesus' claims of exclusivity. I consider it a great priviledge to have had him share his thoughts, and it has helped me to think through the issue again. I will try to give the most honest assessment of the objection that I can. Note that when I say Jesus claimed exclusivity, I mean that he claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life" that all men must come to in order to be saved from the condemnation of God and allowed into eternal fellowship with the God who is Love.
So the objection has at least four parts, and I'll restate them:
1) The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God." Since non-Christians have faith (though in something different), they should not be excluded from heaven even according to the statements the Bible makes.
2) If God is Love as the Bible claims, how can he condemn anybody that did not have a snowball's chance in Hell to believe in Jesus?
3) If we're ever going to move toward world peace, we have to quit this "my view is better than your view" stuff and realize we're all moving toward the same goal. In other words, exclusivity is out, and inclusivism is what we really need.
4) [Not stated, but related to my friend's objections] Could the people of God during the times recorded in the Old Testament (B.C) have even believed in Jesus? They could not even be saved if Jesus is the only way, but the New Testament itself says they are in heaven.
I really like this guy that told me this, and I really appreciated him opening up to me with his objections to Jesus' claims of exclusivity. I consider it a great priviledge to have had him share his thoughts, and it has helped me to think through the issue again. I will try to give the most honest assessment of the objection that I can. Note that when I say Jesus claimed exclusivity, I mean that he claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life" that all men must come to in order to be saved from the condemnation of God and allowed into eternal fellowship with the God who is Love.
So the objection has at least four parts, and I'll restate them:
1) The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God." Since non-Christians have faith (though in something different), they should not be excluded from heaven even according to the statements the Bible makes.
2) If God is Love as the Bible claims, how can he condemn anybody that did not have a snowball's chance in Hell to believe in Jesus?
3) If we're ever going to move toward world peace, we have to quit this "my view is better than your view" stuff and realize we're all moving toward the same goal. In other words, exclusivity is out, and inclusivism is what we really need.
4) [Not stated, but related to my friend's objections] Could the people of God during the times recorded in the Old Testament (B.C) have even believed in Jesus? They could not even be saved if Jesus is the only way, but the New Testament itself says they are in heaven.
It will require quite a bit of space to respond well to these four parts of my friend's comment, so I will do it in subsequent posts. In the meantime, how would you address the issue? Do you struggle with some of the same things my friend dislikes about the claims of Christ? I for one have struggled with these things in the past, and the struggling has been fruitful.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Leaps of "faith" in science
Stand to Reason has a blog entry worth reading. Here is an excerpt which is a quotation of Robert Jastrow speaking. He was an agnostic astronomer:
Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.
There is a kind of religion in science...every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause....This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces of circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is know as "refusing to speculate" - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker.
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.
There is a kind of religion in science...every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause....This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces of circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is know as "refusing to speculate" - or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker.
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)