TwitterFacebookYouTubeEmailRSS

Monthly Archives: June 2012

The Supreme Court, Arizona Law, Health Care and the Gospel

Posted on by

With the recent rulings of the Supreme Court, significant decisions that drastically effect your life have been made. Most people have strong opinions on the subject, but a lot of people also don’t even know what to make of all this. The question that is at hand is, for the Christian, what does all this have to do with the gospel?

The gospel is what transforms people into new creations; it gives them new identities. But believer it or not, one thing that the gospel does not do, is assign people to political categories. Christians do not have to vote Republican or Democrat. They don’t have to be conservative or liberal. Christians don’t have to have a political identity.

What the gospel does do is allow us to see the world from God’s perspective. As it regards the Arizona immigration law, the gospel would call Christians to treat others as they would want to be treated. My wife and I live in China as missionaries, we are always so glad when we think about how the government and people treated us with such kindness. We know that we enjoyed the kindness shown to us in China, we know that other immigrants would appreciate the same kind treatment. While it is true that most immigrants are not fleeing life threatening situations (and therefore, in the opinion of some, do not deserve amnesty), they are fleeing to a better life in America, which are the ancestors of 99% of Americans the descendants of ancestors who fled here simply for a better life?

As regards the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Obama Health Care law, the same principle of the gospel applies. Loving your neighbor as yourself. Whatever political motives may have been behind the passing of the Obama Health Care law, the idea and guiding principle of the law is to provide health care coverage for those who could not otherwise afford it. Now, as to the question of whether or not this law actually accomplished that or not is something political ideologues are still debating. I do not wish to enter into such debate. The bottom-line is, that the gospel calls Christians to live in such a way that promotes the general welfare of society, and not the destruction of it. I think everyone can agree that society as a whole would be better off if everyone had affordable health care; the debate is as to the means.



Here is the bottom line for these political issues and, indeed, all political issues, the gospel calls the Christian to help, love, and serve the poor and unfortunate in our society. It is the Christian who should be at the forefront of these issues crying for and demonstrating kindness, care, and love to those in need. For in showing such kindness, care, and love the power of the gospel and God’s glory is also, and more importantly, shown.

_

The New Atheists’ Straw-Men

Posted on by

Hitchens echos the argument that originated with 19th century philosopher Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach. He states that God did not create man in his image, but that man created God in his image.

However, through out the rest of his book and in fact at the heart of most of his arguments, Hitchens claims that God cannot exist because of the different religions of the world whose followers portray him so badly through their behavior. In essence, Hitchens is guilty of his own accusation. He claims that religious people have created God in their own image, yet he uses the “bad” behavior of religious people to reflect the character of God and thereby establish the basis for declaring God nonexistent. If God does not exist because religious people have created him in their own image, than Hitchens cannot use the bad behavior of religious people to claim their is no God. In other words, Hitchens would like to have his proverbial cake and eat it too. On the one hand, he wants to claim that God is created as a result of the reflection of man’s character, and on the other hand, he wants to claim that man’s character is the reason why God can’t exist.

It is true that some religious people have created a god in their own image. But by accepting this premise (or even by this premise being true) does not mean that Hitchens can build his argument against the existence of God from it because, at times, a god has been created as a reflection of self. In other words, if I create a god, it does not mean that there is not a God who created me.  It would be like saying: “The reason people believe in God is because they have created him in their image. Therefore, God does not exist because he has been created by man in his own image.” Mankind may create gods in their own image, but that does not in anyway discredit the claim that their is One God and He has created all man in his image.

Moreover, this argument can also be used against atheism (or non-theism). Just as atheists and non-theists alike validly claim that gods are created in man’s image, so too the idea of “no god” is created in man’s image. Just as man is capable of looking at his own father and projecting that existence onto the sky, as it were, and saying “there is a god,” so too man is also capable of looking at the absence of his own father and projecting that nonexistence onto the sky, as it were, and saying “there is no god.” Whatever absurdity Hitchens may want to accuse religious people of thinking in this area can and should be applied to his thinking as well.

Is There a God? (Part 2)

Posted on by

Many atheist object to a belief in God because they say we cannot actually see Him. But we do not have to see God in order to know that He exists. For example, a company like Federal Express; the CEO (Fred Smith) invented door-to-door overnight express package delivery and founded the named company. Fred Smith doesn’t deliver the packages to anyone’s door. Instead, he initially designed and “commanded.” He built an entire system of planes, trucks, hubs, warehouses, sorting facilities, customer facilities, drop boxes, information systems, and tens of thousands of employees to perform the task of picking up and delivering millions of packages each day. Fred Smith does not personally handle or deliver every package each day to keep his business going. He created a system that functions each and every day and is governed by the laws that he established.

This is like the system God has put into place, and he designed it so it would run on its own. He gave man dominion (just like Fred Smith gave authority to his management team) and man has invented things, etc. However, Fred Smith can reach into his business and make minor or major changes if he sees a certain business unit is in need of it, like firing the management team of a customer location that persistently produces a high number of customer complaints. God does the same thing as he sees the need, like destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).

But few customers have ever met Fred Smith, and certainly were not on hand as witnesses when he designed his business, so anyone could easily say Fred had nothing to do with designing anything. Yet to deny Fred the credit for designing a brilliant world-altering system that runs by itself today, would take a blind fool.

Is There a God? (Part 1)

Posted on by

Essential to this discussion is whether or not God exists. There are many pages we could spend arguing epistemology before we ever get to the question at hand. However, such discussion would not serve the purpose of this paper. However, it is necessary to establish the validity of a belief in God before venturing further.  Therefore, we will briefly discuss some reasonable arguments for the existence of God.

There are many sides to the debate as to whether or not science can tell us anything about the existence of God. On the one hand, there are those who argue that the entire physical universe is like a black box and science is great for investigating whatever is inside the black. However, God does not belong to the realm of the black box, but exists outside of it. Science cannot investigate what exists outside of the black box, and therefore is extremely limited in what it can tell us about God’s existence.

On the other hand, there are those who would hold to the position that forensic science is all about finding evidence of unknown persons. That “person X poisoned person Y with arsenic,” or that “person A killed person B by shooting him in the head.” Natural causes cannot account for person Y’s body containing arsenic, or person B’s head containing a bullet, so someone, an intelligent agent, was responsible. Also, archaeology is all about recognizing man made structures and instruments from natural ones. An excavated axe-head or ancient city was created by an (unseen) intelligent agent, because the structure of an axe-head or design and architecture of an ancient city is so unlikely to arise from natural chemical and physical processes. Therefore these things demand an origin and, thus, an originator.

A Response to Christopher Hitchens and the New Atheism Movement

Posted on by

I have finally finished reading Christopher Hitchens’ book “God is Not Great.” I would like to offer a detailed, though not exhaustive, rebuttal of his book and the New Atheism movement as a whole. Of all the approaches one could take in developing an apologetic against New Atheism, I will argue from a presuppositional method. The main thesis I am operating from is that Hitchens’ rejection of God is not because of insufficient proof, but because of his sinful heart.

Ultimately, all men know God exists, some simply choose to be foolish and reject the knowledge they inherently know to be true. They exchange the “truth for a lie” and “the wisdom of God for the wisdom of man.” In other words, unbelief exists, not because of insufficient proof or improper reasoning, but unbelief exists because of sin; not only in the case of Hitchens, but of every individual who every lived.

Since this is the case, rational arguments will be of some help in evaluating Hitchens’ New Atheism, but ultimately they must be evaluated in light of what Scripture says. This paper ultimately seeks to argue against the presuppositions and assumptions of New Atheism, rather than its conclusions. For in so doing, the conclusions will be directly voided.

The crux of Hitchens’ (as well as others) argument for atheism, as well as his reasons for painting “religion” as poisonous, is that if God were to exist and interact in the physical world then God, visa-vise his actions and his followers, should be testable, observable, and falsifiable. For Hitchens’ science has more than enough to say to religion, especially to a God who supposedly interacts with the physical world. He thinks of science and religion as holding conflicting claims about the world. Hitchens would most likely classify himself as a New Atheist under the rubric of “anti-religion” that comes to terms with what “science” tells us about God.

The subtitle of his book is the best summarization of his point; religion is wrong because it ruins everything. It is the purpose of this paper to show the flaws in reasoning and argumentation that comes from the New Atheism movement, in particular those reasonings and argumentations as put forth by Christopher Hitchens. This series of post over the next several weeks will show that God does not only exist, but that Christianity has the best to offer the world.

The Rest of Rest

Posted on by

The rest of God is distinctively His own rest which He offers to share his people and through them with all the sons of men who enter into this rest by faith. While there were precursory aspects of that final rest to come (mainly in the divine rest provided by the inheritance of the land of Canaan), because it was not accompanied by the inward response of faith to the whole promise of God, of which this rest was just a part, the land of Canaan still awaits Israel and the people of God.

Christ became our Sabbath rest in the New Testament. We no longer have a Sabbath day.  We honor the Lord on the first day of the week because that was the example set by Old testament Israel and the early church, but there is no special significance to one day over another. Rather, everyday we strive to enter into the rest (from our works of righteousness and sin) with the hope of one day attaining on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. The believer can celebrate the Sabbath every day as a perpetual celebration of rest. Six days he has labored in his own selfishness, pride and sin, but God by His grace has given him rest. Now he can rest from his sin and find grace in the arms of Christ. The believer in Jesus is no longer trying to do something to impress God. He is resting in the finished work of Christ. As Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”

Lastly, Jesus did not come to destroy, but to “fill up” the law and the prophets.  The Scribes and Pharisees had compartmentalized the commandments and missed their true meaning.  For example, they overlooked anger as long as they refrain from murder and justified lying by creating a hierarchy of oaths. Jesus pulled back their facade, and rather than relaxing the law, internalized, intensified and filled it up!  He equated anger with murder and lust with adultery.  Jesus fulfilled the true meaning of the Sabbath; “Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt 11:28). Eternal, true rest from sin in the presence of God is what Jesus offers. Believers live in that perpetual Sabbath today with a longing for the eternal experience of the Sabbath celebration.

Rest: The Already but Not Yet

Posted on by

While the rest promised to Israel was a definite immediate, it was also a promise of ultimate future rest. Rest is Yahweh’s gift to his people, from journeying or warfare, in the land of promise, Israel’s “resting place.” This theme constitutes a powerful affirmation of Yahweh’s continuing faithfulness and is a summary of his good gifts to his people. In no way is the image one of blissful inactivity; rather it is one of unhampered constructive activity that is to be fulfilled in this age, and the age to come.

The Garden Rest is also linked to the Sabbath rest. Such rest reorients a person’s values, taking attention off the workday preoccupation with getting and spending and onto God and spiritual realities.

In the Bible willingness to engage in such rest is nothing less than a covenant sign or “a perpetual covenant” and “a sign” between God and his people (Ex 31:16–17).

Yet another part of the symbolism of sabbath rest was that it pictured release from the bondage of Israel in Egypt (Deut 5:15). Rest is a form of freedom-from work, from human striving and acquisitiveness, from worldly preoccupations. If willingness to rest is a sign of commitment to God, it is elsewhere viewed as a freedom from anxiety. Moses paints a picture of “the beloved of the Lord” as someone who “rests in safety” and “rests between [God’s] shoulders” (Deut 33:12). Here is a picture of what rest ultimately involves in the Bible—a relinquishing of human self—assertion and a trust in God.

The soteriological use forms around the theology of the sabbath. In Gen 2:2–3 šābat (cessation from labor) describes God’s rest, but in Ex 20:11 the word nûah is used. Hence, man is not only to cease from his worldly pursuits (Ex 31:12–17; cf. Isa 58:13–14), but he is to enter into a state of victory/salvation rest (Josh 1:13; cf. Deut 25:19).

It is only the presence and favor of God that makes this rest (as well as martial rest) possible (Ex 33:14; cf. Isa 14:3, 7).

However, there is a “future sabbath” or “future rest” that awaits the New Covenant believer. As previously discussed, the understanding of rest is expanded by the book of Hebrews by the use of Psalm 95 to include an eschatological sense. Psalms 95 and 96 are a pair of royal enthronement psalms that speak of the future reign of Messiah over humanity and the earth. The promised rest in Hebrews is related to the Hebrew concept of  ׁ“sabbath”. The sabbath has the following meanings in the Hebrew Scriptures: (1) God’s rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen 2:2–3); (2) a day of the week in which to recall God’s role as Emancipator in bringing Israel out of Egypt (Deut 5:15); (3) an ordinance giving workers a rest (Ex 23:12); and (4) a sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Ex 31:13). Yahweh intended that man share in the creation rest (i.e., sabbath), but Adam’s fall occurred and the sabbath rest was forfeited. The way back to this rest is provided in the coming kingdom at Christ’s return.

 

Rest: The Almost but Not Yet

Posted on by

After Israel arrived at Kadesh Barnea (along the southernmost part of the promised land), the Lord said to Moses, “Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites. From each ancestral tribe, send one of its leaders (Numbers 13:1-2). So they went up and explored the land (13:21). After coming back, they confirmed that the land was good, saying, “it does flow with milk and honey!” (13:27). However, they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size (13:32). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (13:33b).

That night all the people of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron (14:1-2b). And they said to each other, “We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt” (14:4). But [Joshua and Caleb], who were among those who had explored the land … said … “If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land… Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us” (Num 14:6-9b). But the whole assembly talked about stoning (killing) them (Num 14:10a). The Lord said to Moses, “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me?” I will strike them down” (14:11a, 12a). But Moses interceded for Israel and asked God for forgiveness (14:13-19). God replied, “I have forgiven them, as you asked. Nevertheless, … not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers” (14:20, 23a). The Lord said to Moses, “[Tell them], ‘In this desert your bodies will fall – every one of you twenty years old or more … who has grumbled against me. Not one of you will enter the land … except Caleb … and Joshua (14:29-30). Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the desert” (14:33).

The next day, the Israelites decided to enter the land anyway (14:40). But Moses said to them, “Why are you disobeying the Lord’s command? This will not succeed! Do not go up, because the Lord is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies” (14:41-42). Nevertheless, in their presumption they went up toward the high hill country … Then the Amalekites and Canaanites who lived in that hill country came down and attacked them and beat them down all the way to Hormah (14:44-45).

The idea that God commanded Israel to take over an already inhabited land may be disturbing to some. The Bible’s claim that the inhabitants were extremely evil may help lesson that concern. The Bible is clear that particular people were enemies of God, not merely enemies of Israel. The battles for the “promised land” were part of God’s war, undertaken at a particular time in history according to God’s program of redemption.

However, the real point we are exploring is that Israel failed to enter into and enjoy the promised blessing of God, namely rest. As a result of their disobedience, Israel was forced to wander in the wilderness as a symbol of “work” as opposed to enjoying their rest.

In Psalm 95:7-11, the author writes: “For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness, when your fathers put me to the test and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work. For forty years I loathed that generation and said, ‘They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.’ Therefore I swore in my wrath, “‘They shall not enter my rest.’” This psalm refers to the Israelites having to wander in the wilderness for forty years for provoking God after He delivered them out of Egypt. Because of their unbelief and continual rebellion against Him, God would not let them enter into His rest – the promised land, Canaan – which He had given to them for an inheritance.

Toward the end of the forty years they come to Meribah in the wilderness of Zin. They again are in need of water. They again ask Moses, “… why have you made us to come out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? Where there is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink?” (Numbers 20:5) They mistrusted God’s provision.

It was a lack of confidence in God that denied these people the rest of God. Hebrews 3:6 gives us a clue that this was the issue for the readers of the book of Hebrews. Here the writer says: “But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence, and the rejoicing of the hope firm until the end.” It is the lack of assurance (confidence) that is the rest denied those who harden their hearts. The readers are told to “hold fast” (have a firm grasp) on, have glory in (“boast of”), hold firm to that confidence in God’s provision.

The writer of Hebrews quotes the Psalm 95 passage, citing the Holy Spirit as the ultimate author. He uses it as a warning to New Testament Christians against hardening their hearts toward the Holy Spirit, and forfeiting their inheritance of eternal rest (Heb 3:12 – 4:1, 11; 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 12:14-16). Rest for New Testament Christians refers to the quiet abode of those who will dwell with God in heaven – the eternal life that God has provided in Christ.

What befell the generation of Israelites who died in the wilderness is an Old Testament type of what will also befall New Testament Christians who fail God’s grace (1 Cor 10:5-12 and Jude 5 with Heb 3:12 – 4:1, 11). Despite all their blessings, an entire generation of Israelites died in the wilderness because of unbelief and so failed to enter their promised land, so New Testament Christians for their part are exhorted to take warning lest they fail also.

Is Homosexuality a Sin? How Should I Treat Gays and Lesbians?

Posted on by

This is an incredibly important question to answer. Tim Keller does a very good job in a short amount of time trying to explain the biblical view of gays and how Christians should respond to their gay neighbors.

 

Rest: Promise and Partial Accomplishment for Israel

Posted on by

One of the new provisions added to the expanding revelation of the Promise theme was the provision of “rest” for Israel. Rest was promised and fulfilled by God. “And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand.” (Jos 21:44) “Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised; not one word has failed of all His good promise, which He promised through Moses His servant. (1 Ki 8:56). God is seen as a promise and covenant keeping God; to be contrasted with a promise and covenant breaking people.

But this only yields a conundrum. If Joshua fulfilled the promised rest, what is 2 Samuel 7:1 claiming? How often was this state of rest fulfilled? Not only must we work with Joshua and David as the fulfillers of the promise but even Solomon was included, for he was named the “man of rest” (1 Chron 22:9; 1 Kings 8:56). Even later this same divine rest appears after periods of bloodshed and trouble in the reigns of King Asa (2 Chron 14:5, 6; 15:15 ) and King Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 20:30).

The promise of rest God accomplished by His presence. This was mostly fulfilled in the  Tabernacle/Temple. This can be demonstrated from Ex 33.14: “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest”; referring to the roaming tabernacle. Psalm 95:11, which is important to the author of Hebrews, belongs to this tradition. “Rest” here is a tangible good rather than a personal entering into God; so also in the closely related Psalm 81 (esp. Ps. 81:13–16). The psalm’s oath therefore sums up the covenantal blessings promised to God’s people – blessings of secure life in the land – which were bound up with God’s presence among them.

In spite of all the emphasis on the promised land as the rest of God for Israel, the spiritual element also is prominent. This finds expression whenever this rest is connected with the themes of the ark of God or the temple. Rest is where the presence of God stops (as in the wilderness wanderings, Num 10:33) or dwells (as in Palestine, Ps 132:8, 14; Isa 66:1; 1 Chron 28:2).

God had provided the people with rest; a means for demonstrating their willingness to follow His commandment and laws. (Exodus 16:4). However, even after direct commands concerning the gathering of manna on six days, and rest on the seventh day, some of the people refused to rest and went out to gather manna (Exodus 16:27). After their failure they were still provided with the physical rest of the Sabbath day. It says in Exodus 16:30 “So the people rested on the seventh day. This event took place immediately proceeding the failure at Masah and Meribah.” Even after failure to obey, God’s people had enjoyed the rest provided by the Sabbath day.

The people of Israel failed to ultimately enter into God’s rest (Hebrews 3:11). The people in the wilderness failed to enter into God’s rest because they hardened their hearts. The rest spoken of here is the rest provided by the land of Canaan and not the eternal rest yet to come. The Psalmist says the invitation to enter into God’s Rest is still open (Ps 95:11). And that was where the writer of Hebrews boldly announced that the “today” of the ancient promise was still open even in his day. Therefore, that ancient aspect of the promise doctrine can be ours by faith even now in these “last days.”

CyberChimps