What comes below are some random thoughts – to address this properly and fully is probably a book in and of itself, and I don't have all of my thoughts together on it yet. I tend to come back to most of my posts from time to time, to fine tune them. I will probably need whole new replacement parts for this one. But as they say, nothing ventured nothing gained, so “whatever” here goes:
There is something wonderful about “creation” and something terrible about it too. There is such beauty and such destruction. I will not repeat the well know arguments about design pointing to a creator, but I do want to say that “the evidential power of beauty” is not usually included in this argument, and it should be. There is a book by this tile, and it's worth reading. I do not by any means want to deemphasize any of the wonder of it all. If I appear to do so, it is only for the sake of brevity but see also “A trinity of revelation IV”– September 19th 2010.
So then there is such beauty, such wonder, but no matter which way you look at it there is something that is not quite right about the World we live in. Well actually this is British understatement (You can take the boy out of Britain, but you can't take Britain out of the boy). I mean consider nature red in tooth and claw. How come it's dog eat dog, and not cat love cat? Why is Murphy's law not “If anything can go right it will”? How come bad habits are easy to get into and hard to get out of, while good habits are hard to get into and easy to get out of? How come we blame others first and ourselves last? How come we minimize our own faults and maximize the other buddies? How come its so hard to say sorry and to take responsibility for our actions? How come we do the bad things we don't want to do, and don't do the good things we know we should? How come its so difficult to live up to even our own standards? How come its so hard to get ahead? Why is it that if you add a thimble full of fine old scotch to a barrel of sewage it remains sewage, but if you add a thimble of sewage to a barrel of fine old scotch, it becomes sewage?
The positive and the negative do not balance out. Hate begets hate, and hate destroys love. It's true that love can overcome hate, but how much more love does one have to exhibit to overcome it? How much fine old scotch does one have to add to a barrel of sewage before it becomes drinkable? You know it has to be less than so many parts per billion before you can't taste it! You may want to point to the principle of the survival of the fittest, the principle of natural selection. But describing a principle does not explain why it is, and survival of the fittest and love seem to be incompatible. Look at the drug cartels in Mexico, or the street gangs in most major cities in the States. Over and over the bad seems to trump the good. So why is this, and in light of it, how come anyone manages to get ahead at all?
So part of what I am saying, is that it is not a level playing field, there seems to be something diabolically wrong (negative) about reality. You could almost believe that there is some malevolent force behind it all, orchestrating the negative and undermining the positive. And yet, there also seems to be a force for good too that at times, against all odds and in spite of it all comes through. It's good material for conspiracy theorists! Actually I have one, it is this: Earth is the battle field for unseen forces in heavenly realms. On one side there is an enemy of our souls who is determined, subtle, who lies to us, who seems to know our weaknesses and uses them against us. This enemy (so the “theory” continues), has an agenda to kill and to steal and to destroy. Well you guessed it, it is not my conspiracy theory at all, it's the Bible's (see Ephesians 6:12ff; John 10:10). And if it is true (and it is), it explains the evil that is in a way no other “theory” does. By the way part of his strategy in the West is to spread the lie that He does not exist. In Africa on the other hand, he likes to display his raw power, ask those who have lived there!
But what about the other side, the question of how any of us manage to get ahead at all? Well continuing, with the Biblical explanation, there is One who is all powerful, who loves us, who for a season is at some level restraining the evil and who can be called upon to help. In many ways this raises more questions than it answers, but is this not the case with all knowledge? What I want to say here is that as He explains in what He calls His Word, He too has an agenda, a plan. It is to unite all things together in Himself (Ephesians 1:10). He has gone to extraordinary lengths to rescue those of us who choose to turn to Him, acknowledge our faults and our need of Him and then to put our trust in Him. He is waiting for us to ask Him to rescue us, but the reality of it is that we are stubborn and take forever to even come to the place where we are willing to admit that we need to be rescued, to discover how much we need Him. But He is patient and waits to be gracious to us (Isaiah 30:18). This thing called free will, our ability to choose, seem to be incredibly important to Him. So He allows us to choose to spend eternity with the Evil one if that is what we choose. As I say He has gone to incredible lengths (even death on a cross) to show us His love (Philippians 2:8; Romans 5:8). It is as if Christ spread wide His arms on the cross and declared “You will go to hell over (by going round) my dead body!” It should break our hearts, and it is a measure of the hardness of our hearts that so few respond.
So He works with those who are willing to follow Biblical principles (even some those who do not acknowledge Him), and as I say, He is even at this moment at some level restraining the evil. Things would be much worse if He were not. He will not always do so, and He tells us there is coming a time (before the very end) when the One who is currently restraining things will be taken out of the equation (see 2 Thessalonians 2:7 and context). He delays because He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should find life in Him (John 3:16; 10:10).
So the Biblical explanation for the current imbalance of good and evil is that we are in a war to the death with the enemy of our souls, but there is a force for good that with His help can and will in the end overcome even the greatest evil, and will in the end triumph. He has given us glimpses of this. Most of the great advances were instigated by those who love Him. The abolition of slavery followed the Wesley revival in England, the Universities were started by the Church. Modern Science began because Christians believing in a God of order, reasoned that it made sense to study creation in an orderly and systematic way. Modern Science began this way but did not continue this way. But if it all came by chance (as many are now saying), we would expect chaos. If it all came by chance why would we expect what is, to be governed by laws in the first place? If it has all evolved from chaos, why would we even spend time and energy looking for laws that speak of order?
I don't want to get into a big debate here into the variegated many sided debates over faith/science, evolution/creation. I have argued earlier that all world views are positions of faith (June/July 2010). What I want to say here is that any theory that automatically excludes a pre-existing primary cause of all that is, is first and foremost unscientific, and secondly is it not unbiased (as it claims to be). The one basic presupposition of Science upon which we all agree is the uniformity of cause and effect, that is every effect has a cause. You cannot (or rather you must not) talk about the uniformity of cause and effect and then simply throw the principle out when it comes to origins. There basically are only two possibilities: Either some pre-existent primary cause created everything that is out of nothing, or “nothing” created everything that is out of nothing. Neither view is unbiased. The first view postulates some form of god, and the second postulates “not God” (see the faith of the atheist July 2010). Both positions are positions of faith, neither position is provable in Scientific terms. To claim that the second view is Scientific and the first is not, is simply nonsense! You may not like it, you may not understand it, you may not want to believe it, it may contradict your faith position (especially if you are an atheist), but the most logical explanation of the fact that there is something there, and that it had a beginning, is that there is a pre-existing first cause. To say this another way, someone or something was there in the beginning.
We can call this pre-existent primary cause “God,” or “the Force,” and so far in my argument, either is equally logical. But we must not, in seeking the best explanation of reality, stop there. We need to take into account what Francis Schaeffer calls “the mannishness of man”. Suppose for openers we go with “a Force,” (as opposed to the full fledged Judea o Christian God). We need to ask, is the Force personal or impersonal, does the Force have personality or not? If we go with the impersonal, then we need to explain how on earth that which is impersonal “gave birth” to the personal (humankind). Of course we can deny that man is personal, and many do, but it's part of our problem, part of what ails us, for we do not know who we are. We can ask many similar questions of “The Force” is he (it) moral, intelligent, creative, and if not, how come mankind is moral, intelligent and creative etc.. etc. If it is the Force, what is his or its attributes, and would it not make a lot of sense for reality to somehow reflected some of these attributes?
Let me come at this from a different angle. Many have problems with the concept of God as Trinity (Three in One – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit – One God, three hypostasis - as the creeds have it). They don't understand it! I have to admit that is is difficult to comprehend. But if God is God would He not be difficult for finite man to understand? I have blogged this in more detail (July/August 2010), but roughly it occurred to me one day that if God is Trinity (unity in diversity) then we would expect to see reflections of Him in creation, and we do. What exists is matter residing in space and time. Each of these is itself trinity: matter is liquid solid and gas, space has three dimensions and time is past present and future. These are pale reflections of Trinity, they are not Trinity themselves. Matter is not God (clearly). But the pinnacle of creation is mankind (we can debate this too, and many do), and so we can expect that mankind is the best reflection of Trinity. And He is, in that he is body soul and spirit. Only man (the Bile tells us) is created in the image of Trinity. Man is what I call true trinity (with lower case t). Just as Trinity is not three separate independent aspects of the Godhead, so body soul and spirit are not thee separate independent aspect of mankind, there are intricate interconnections between them. So for example we need to study Psycho-Somatic (soul - body) illnesses, that is our Psychological health affects our physical health and vice versa. In my early blogs I have also argued that we are spiritual beings and when we try to live our lives without that aspect we are impoverished. There is much to say here!
There is one objection I feel I must address. It is the objection that there has been more evil committed in the name of religion than any thing else. And it is true, so how does this reality fit into what I have been saying? Again the Biblical explanation is that religion is part of the battle field, and that where God is at work Satan is at work too. That is how war works is it not? Where the enemy attacks you counter attack right? And religion can be and often is used as a cloak to mask who we really are, and what are our real intentions. It was, after all the religious who crucified Christ. Not every one who names the name of Christ is Christian. I can go to the garage every day but that does not make me a car. The parable of the wheat and the weeds shows not only that there are true and false believers, but that God's intention is to separate them at the end of the age (Matthew 13:24ff). On top of this the Church is intended to be a hospital for the sin sick. I have a potential post entitled “I won't go to that hospital, there are just too many sick people there.” Do we criticize a hospital for admitting the sick? Well I think you get the point. It is surely to the credit of the Church (hospital) that it is willing to admit so many sin sick people!
The Bible further explains this by saying that “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matthew 20:16). He chooses us when we choose to surrender and to follow Him. The default is that many of us (even in the church) are trying to choose not to choose. But there is no fence, and the choice not to choose is in and of itself a choice. So the default is to “let her slide by'” (as we say here in Newfoundland). In the body of the book that is coming I have a section entitle “Radical but not fanatical”, or to put this in the language of 12 step programms “Half measures profited us nothing.” Too many of us have just enough religion to make us (and everybody else) miserable! The first part of the great commandment is that we are to love the Lord with all that we are and have (Mark 12:30). When we are lukewarm, it makes Him want to puke (Revelation 3:16)! Perhaps we are all deserving of this rebuke at times!
As I said above there is material here for a book, but I want to conclude this post with one last aspect of the reality we see in the mannishness of man, and that is his duplicity. This is part of Creation being both wonderful and terrible. What I am saying is that there is something noble about mankind, and there is something devious and depraved about him (I am aware that some Christians acknowledge only the latter, but this I believe is wrong!). Mankind is noble because he is made in the image of God, and we catch glimpses of this nobility in the Terry Fox's and the Mother Theresa's, the Gandhi’s and the Erin Brockovich's of this world. Yes there is a nobility (at times), but there is also a depravity. We see this in the Stalin's, in the Hitlers of this World, in the Pol Pot's, in religious fanatics, in the religious leaders who crucified Christ. The Biblical explanation of this, is that while man is created in the image of God and so noble, that image is marred by the fall. Roughly speaking the fall describes the universal phenomenon among us that we have all chosen and all choose to act in accordance with what we know is wrong. These wrong choices have consequences and change our nature. And because of this God changed the nature of reality, and He did this in order that the consequences would point us back to Him (Genesis 3, see also “For you sake I cursed the earth” August 2010).
So then the reality is that there is something noble about mankind but there is also something depraved about him. If we are honest, we see this in ourselves too. Not seeing it is part of our duplicity. We certainly see it in others, and as I said last day "What are the odds." We see it, but how do we explain it?
There is so much more to be said, but my point is in the title of the post: The Bible has the best explanation of reality of what is, of the way things work, and of the dilemma of our duplicity. Fortunately the Bible also has points to the way of rescue, of salvation. For God so loved the World that He send His one and only Son, so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have fulness of life in the here and now, and in the hereafter, life everlasting.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
This book (the Bible) knows me!
For me one of the convincing proofs that what the Bible claims about itself is true, is summed up in the title of this post. In particular it knows my propensity to rationalize and to deny, to blame others before I blame myself, to see the speck of dust in the other person's eye but not see the plank in my own (Matthew 7:3) etc., etc.
I didn't always know these things about myself. I can't say I ever felt I was a good person, but neither did I think of myself as evil. The Scriptures tell us that one of the Holy Spirit's jobs is to convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:8). I need to say more about this. I have a whole chapter in my coming book entitled “We may not want to know what we need to know”. But in any case, Holy Spirit did a good job on me, and there was a timing to it. Let me ask you, have you ever wanted to murder someone? I have! We say it glibly “I could have murdered him (her)”. Have you ever had murder in your heart? Again I have, and the scarey thing is that I am not at all sure I would not have done it if I had thought I could have gotten away with it. What I was sure about (at the time) was the rightness of my cause.
They tell me that at the break up of a marriage, it is common for both parties to place 100% of the blame on the other party. This is not of course, possible. We are talking about perceptions, and they can be (and often are) wrong. When we know its the other person's fault and they blame us, we explain it by saying that they are blind (or worse). Well everyone is blind at some level. We see it so clearly in others. They are all bind and they don't see it! So when we look at ourselves, do we see that we are blind, did I? No! Think about it from a statistical point of view. Out of over six billion people, can I be the only one who is not blind?
So I knew (at the time) where to place the blame, but my life was falling apart and I become desperate enough to try anything, even God. When I say this I like to add, that if He had not been there for me in a very tangible and helpful way, “it” would never have held me. When my life started to fall apart though, and I started to seek God, He met me where I was. But He loved me to much to leave me where I was. I started to see that I have this ability to minimize my own faults and maximize the other buddy's. How easily I make excuses for my behaviour. If I want to do something, I will find a thousand reasons to do it, but if I don't want to do the very same thing, I will find a thousand reasons not to do it (October 1, 2010). What I am saying, is that in my own eyes I was blameless, but as the Scriptures put it “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. (Romans 2:10,11). Half the time we don't see it. We see it in others, but in ourselves? Well again, what are odds?
When the Holy Spirit came and started to show me my sin, I fell apart. He started to show me my side of the blame, how much what I said and did was destructive (to both others and myself), and I started to see how self centred I was etc. etc. The Bible knew I needed to be forgiven, and since in the end God is the one we have most offended, and also since He is God, He has the right to offer forgiveness. The Bible knew I needed God, needed His forgiveness, His love, His acceptance and His grace. I needed to be saved (rescued) most of all from myself.
The fact of the matter is that we all desperately need to be rescued (saved). We all need to be saved from each other and from ourselves. Even when the other person has done incredible wrong (as in abuse and the like) too often our response to that wrong is wrong too, and because it is wrong it keeps us stuck. We need to forgive, but that can be hard, really hard. So this book knows we need help: we need to be forgiven (the true cure for guilt); we need help to forgive others; help to love when it is withheld from us; help to get out of our addictions; help to live lives that do not tear ourselves and each other down. After all as one book title puts is “hurt people, hurt people,” ourselves included!
Thankfully, the Bible not only knows us where we are wrong and where we need help, but it also shows us the way forward. Jesus invites us to go to Him when we are weary and burdened, and He has promised to give us rest (Matthew 11:28). He goes further, He promises that when we surrender and continue, He will set us free (John 8:31), and give us a fulness of life in the here and now that we cannot imagine (John 10:10).
Yes, this book knows me, knows my weakness, knows what I need, and knows that if and when I surrender, that I will find all and more in Him than I ever (often without knowing it) wanted. He is inviting us (you and me) even now. What is your (my) response? Here is mine:
Prayer: Father thank You for reminding me of my ongoing need for You. Once again I surrender to you. Give me what I need to live the life You are calling me to. Thank You that You know me, and love me anyway. Thank You that You sent Your Son to save me, and lead me into fullness of life. Come, and continue to come into all that I am, each and every day. In Jesus name Amen.
I didn't always know these things about myself. I can't say I ever felt I was a good person, but neither did I think of myself as evil. The Scriptures tell us that one of the Holy Spirit's jobs is to convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:8). I need to say more about this. I have a whole chapter in my coming book entitled “We may not want to know what we need to know”. But in any case, Holy Spirit did a good job on me, and there was a timing to it. Let me ask you, have you ever wanted to murder someone? I have! We say it glibly “I could have murdered him (her)”. Have you ever had murder in your heart? Again I have, and the scarey thing is that I am not at all sure I would not have done it if I had thought I could have gotten away with it. What I was sure about (at the time) was the rightness of my cause.
They tell me that at the break up of a marriage, it is common for both parties to place 100% of the blame on the other party. This is not of course, possible. We are talking about perceptions, and they can be (and often are) wrong. When we know its the other person's fault and they blame us, we explain it by saying that they are blind (or worse). Well everyone is blind at some level. We see it so clearly in others. They are all bind and they don't see it! So when we look at ourselves, do we see that we are blind, did I? No! Think about it from a statistical point of view. Out of over six billion people, can I be the only one who is not blind?
So I knew (at the time) where to place the blame, but my life was falling apart and I become desperate enough to try anything, even God. When I say this I like to add, that if He had not been there for me in a very tangible and helpful way, “it” would never have held me. When my life started to fall apart though, and I started to seek God, He met me where I was. But He loved me to much to leave me where I was. I started to see that I have this ability to minimize my own faults and maximize the other buddy's. How easily I make excuses for my behaviour. If I want to do something, I will find a thousand reasons to do it, but if I don't want to do the very same thing, I will find a thousand reasons not to do it (October 1, 2010). What I am saying, is that in my own eyes I was blameless, but as the Scriptures put it “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. (Romans 2:10,11). Half the time we don't see it. We see it in others, but in ourselves? Well again, what are odds?
When the Holy Spirit came and started to show me my sin, I fell apart. He started to show me my side of the blame, how much what I said and did was destructive (to both others and myself), and I started to see how self centred I was etc. etc. The Bible knew I needed to be forgiven, and since in the end God is the one we have most offended, and also since He is God, He has the right to offer forgiveness. The Bible knew I needed God, needed His forgiveness, His love, His acceptance and His grace. I needed to be saved (rescued) most of all from myself.
The fact of the matter is that we all desperately need to be rescued (saved). We all need to be saved from each other and from ourselves. Even when the other person has done incredible wrong (as in abuse and the like) too often our response to that wrong is wrong too, and because it is wrong it keeps us stuck. We need to forgive, but that can be hard, really hard. So this book knows we need help: we need to be forgiven (the true cure for guilt); we need help to forgive others; help to love when it is withheld from us; help to get out of our addictions; help to live lives that do not tear ourselves and each other down. After all as one book title puts is “hurt people, hurt people,” ourselves included!
Thankfully, the Bible not only knows us where we are wrong and where we need help, but it also shows us the way forward. Jesus invites us to go to Him when we are weary and burdened, and He has promised to give us rest (Matthew 11:28). He goes further, He promises that when we surrender and continue, He will set us free (John 8:31), and give us a fulness of life in the here and now that we cannot imagine (John 10:10).
Yes, this book knows me, knows my weakness, knows what I need, and knows that if and when I surrender, that I will find all and more in Him than I ever (often without knowing it) wanted. He is inviting us (you and me) even now. What is your (my) response? Here is mine:
Prayer: Father thank You for reminding me of my ongoing need for You. Once again I surrender to you. Give me what I need to live the life You are calling me to. Thank You that You know me, and love me anyway. Thank You that You sent Your Son to save me, and lead me into fullness of life. Come, and continue to come into all that I am, each and every day. In Jesus name Amen.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Can't you make the Bible say anything you want?
Well yes, and using the same rules of interpretation I can make the dictionary say the very same thing. In fact since I discovered this, I have stopped using the dictionary :). I am of course being deliberately silly (my grand kids will tell you it's what Grandpas do best!). You would not stop using the dictionary because some abuse it. The subject of interpretation is a huge subject. I gave some guidelines in the February posts 2011. It's only a start, but one which I hope can be helpful. Those posts start with the same title as thins one. However in the context of the posts of this month, I have a different agenda than outlining how to interpret the Bible. My goal here, as with the rest of this month's post, is to point out that the questions raised here are part of the propaganda and/or the excuses that are used to dismiss, without real investigation, the issues that pertain to faith and the Christian life. Having said this, I need to acknowledge that those of us who name the name of Christ, have given lots of ammunition to those who do not want to believe. We in the Church are far from perfect. Authentic Christianity does not claim that it is! For my own part, I apologize and repent for the times this has been me!
So can we make the Bible say anything we want? Well yes, but not without twisting what is says. Peter warns that we do this to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Not even among those who name the name of Christ are immune from this. Some have taught that Christians cannot be deceived. It's like being in denial that you are in denial. We are all in denial at some level and we are all deceived at some level. Otherwise (Christian) why would we be admonished not to be (Galatians 6:7)? The real issue, more than 'can we make it say anything we want', is surly 'what does it say?'
The Bible has a central theme, a central message, and it has to do with the need and the means God has provided for us, to get right with Him. Then having done so, the what and the how of living life to the full. It is summed up in just a few words at the end of John's gospel “these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). The phrase “life in His name”, is not just talking about eternal life when you die, but as the context of John's gospel clearly shows, is it “life in all its abundance” - life in all its fulness in the here and now (John 10:10). We need to understand that ”getting saved” is not just something that happened (or didn't happen) in the past, with little or no implications for life in the present. It is every bit as much a journey as it is a destination, and that is in many ways, what the book I am writing is all about.
The foundation of our getting right with God, and being able to live life to the full, was laid down for us at incredible cost by Christ on the Cross. Most know of John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” They (you) may not know the two verses that follow “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son”.
Part of what this is saying is that the heart of the issue, the one to which we will all in the end be called to give an account, is about what we do, are doing or have done with Christ. Never mind how good or bad are those who call themselves Christians, never mind how the Bible is used and abused, never mind all the rationalization and denial, never mind how much better you are than buddy who lives down the street, the real issue is what we do with Christ. We read “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
When I appear at the pearly gates (if this is indeed how it will happen) my entrance pass, my passing grade if you like, has to do with what Christ has done for me and my response to that incredible sacrifice. Am I trusting in my own goodness (fail) or am I trusting in the shed blood of Jesus as necessary and sufficient substitute for my goodness (pass with flying colours)? How about you? What have you, will you do with Christ? And how about you, how about me? Am I (are you) showing by my (your) life that it's all true? I am saved by faith without works (Ephesians 2:8,9) but my works are evidence of my faith (James 2:18). The journey and the destination are both important!
So can we make the Bible say anything we want? Well yes, but not without twisting what is says. Peter warns that we do this to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). Not even among those who name the name of Christ are immune from this. Some have taught that Christians cannot be deceived. It's like being in denial that you are in denial. We are all in denial at some level and we are all deceived at some level. Otherwise (Christian) why would we be admonished not to be (Galatians 6:7)? The real issue, more than 'can we make it say anything we want', is surly 'what does it say?'
The Bible has a central theme, a central message, and it has to do with the need and the means God has provided for us, to get right with Him. Then having done so, the what and the how of living life to the full. It is summed up in just a few words at the end of John's gospel “these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). The phrase “life in His name”, is not just talking about eternal life when you die, but as the context of John's gospel clearly shows, is it “life in all its abundance” - life in all its fulness in the here and now (John 10:10). We need to understand that ”getting saved” is not just something that happened (or didn't happen) in the past, with little or no implications for life in the present. It is every bit as much a journey as it is a destination, and that is in many ways, what the book I am writing is all about.
The foundation of our getting right with God, and being able to live life to the full, was laid down for us at incredible cost by Christ on the Cross. Most know of John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” They (you) may not know the two verses that follow “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son”.
Part of what this is saying is that the heart of the issue, the one to which we will all in the end be called to give an account, is about what we do, are doing or have done with Christ. Never mind how good or bad are those who call themselves Christians, never mind how the Bible is used and abused, never mind all the rationalization and denial, never mind how much better you are than buddy who lives down the street, the real issue is what we do with Christ. We read “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
When I appear at the pearly gates (if this is indeed how it will happen) my entrance pass, my passing grade if you like, has to do with what Christ has done for me and my response to that incredible sacrifice. Am I trusting in my own goodness (fail) or am I trusting in the shed blood of Jesus as necessary and sufficient substitute for my goodness (pass with flying colours)? How about you? What have you, will you do with Christ? And how about you, how about me? Am I (are you) showing by my (your) life that it's all true? I am saved by faith without works (Ephesians 2:8,9) but my works are evidence of my faith (James 2:18). The journey and the destination are both important!
Friday, February 10, 2012
They were naive in those days, they would believe anything!
It would be futile (and wrong) to suggest that some of us are not naive. There are naive people here today, and there were naive people at the time the Scriptures were written. However equally so there are skeptics today and there were skeptics then. In Acts 17:32 we read “And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, 'We will hear you again on this matter.'”
So the issue is not really about the existence of either the naive or of the skeptic. Actually, the verse just quoted points to a pivotal issue, the question of the resurrection from the dead. If you can prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead, you have disproved Christianity and the Bible. Many have tried, and finding a grave with the name “Jesus” on it, won't do it. There are probably thousands in south America, where Jesus is a common name, perhaps as many as those that contain the name Mohammad in the Middle East. I mean what would it really prove? A DNA test on the bones won't work will it? And Dan Brown's doubts and (silly) theories won't either!
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we can safely dismiss His claim to be the Great “I Am” (John 8:58; Exodus 3:13,14). In the words of John Stott's trichotomy Jesus was either a lunatic or a liar or He is who he claimed to be, Lord (see post of March 7, 2011). It is nonsense to claim that He was just a good teacher when He made such extravagant claims about Himself. He claimed, for example “I am the way the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). There is no possibility of being neutral here. Jesus does not give us that option. If He is not who He says His is, He is either a liar or a megalomaniac. If you reject these last too options you are left only with the possibility that He is Lord.
There is much written about these things. But to come back to the resurrection, one of the questions we need to ask is, if Jesus did not rise from the dead what was it that changed the disciples from a bunch of cowards who ran and even denied their Lord, into a bold and fearless group that turned the World upside down? Some scholars have suggested that the disciples did not want to give up the cushy lifestyle they had enjoyed with Jesus, so they invented the story of the resurrection. But with the possible exception of John they all died for their faith. But who would die for a lie?
As I say there are books that are written about these things. As I also said there were and are naive people, and there are and were skeptics, but the Acts reference points to a third group of people, those with open minds, people who are willing to check things out. Which are you a mocker or one who “will hear you again on this matter”.
The fact is that most who do not believe, have not investigated the claims of Christ period, or if they have, they have not done so with their adult mind. There are some real questions that need to be wrestled with. I want to say this gently but I do not believe it is honest to simply dismiss these things with the sweeping assumption that people were (or are) naive! Some of the greatest minds that walked the earth, believed in God. How about you? Have you ever seriously investigate the claims of Christ? What if it's all true? You can know. More to come on this!
So the issue is not really about the existence of either the naive or of the skeptic. Actually, the verse just quoted points to a pivotal issue, the question of the resurrection from the dead. If you can prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead, you have disproved Christianity and the Bible. Many have tried, and finding a grave with the name “Jesus” on it, won't do it. There are probably thousands in south America, where Jesus is a common name, perhaps as many as those that contain the name Mohammad in the Middle East. I mean what would it really prove? A DNA test on the bones won't work will it? And Dan Brown's doubts and (silly) theories won't either!
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we can safely dismiss His claim to be the Great “I Am” (John 8:58; Exodus 3:13,14). In the words of John Stott's trichotomy Jesus was either a lunatic or a liar or He is who he claimed to be, Lord (see post of March 7, 2011). It is nonsense to claim that He was just a good teacher when He made such extravagant claims about Himself. He claimed, for example “I am the way the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). There is no possibility of being neutral here. Jesus does not give us that option. If He is not who He says His is, He is either a liar or a megalomaniac. If you reject these last too options you are left only with the possibility that He is Lord.
There is much written about these things. But to come back to the resurrection, one of the questions we need to ask is, if Jesus did not rise from the dead what was it that changed the disciples from a bunch of cowards who ran and even denied their Lord, into a bold and fearless group that turned the World upside down? Some scholars have suggested that the disciples did not want to give up the cushy lifestyle they had enjoyed with Jesus, so they invented the story of the resurrection. But with the possible exception of John they all died for their faith. But who would die for a lie?
As I say there are books that are written about these things. As I also said there were and are naive people, and there are and were skeptics, but the Acts reference points to a third group of people, those with open minds, people who are willing to check things out. Which are you a mocker or one who “will hear you again on this matter”.
The fact is that most who do not believe, have not investigated the claims of Christ period, or if they have, they have not done so with their adult mind. There are some real questions that need to be wrestled with. I want to say this gently but I do not believe it is honest to simply dismiss these things with the sweeping assumption that people were (or are) naive! Some of the greatest minds that walked the earth, believed in God. How about you? Have you ever seriously investigate the claims of Christ? What if it's all true? You can know. More to come on this!
Thursday, February 9, 2012
What about miracles? How can you believe in miracles?
I was talking to this young man one day and he told me “If miracles were happening today, we would hear about them.” I told him “We do hear about them, but we don't believe.” He looked at me and said “You're right”. It happens occasionally :). I am not claiming that everything you hear is genuine. I have often heard “Two thirds of it is fake”. But if you think about it, one third genuine is a lot of genuine! I don't want to confuse you with the facts, but there are many carefully documented miracles. And they are happening today. Let me ask you, are you open to the possibility that there may be something in it?
There is a controversial move of God that has shown up in Toronto and other places. Check out http://www.catchthefire.com/ and/or what is happening at Bethel Church in Redding http://www.ibethel.org/. Years ago I went to Africa because I heard there was revival there, but it had moved on by the time I arrived. I would have gone to the ends of the earth to find something real. In the end all I needed to do, was to go to Toronto.
I said above that it is controversial, it is. The response of many Christians to some of the things that have happened there has been “That's not God”. There are couple (or three) things to say. The first is that not everything is genuine. That is what the parable of wheat and the weeds is all about. If you believe the Bible, you will believe in Satan, and wherever the Spirit of God is moving so is the fellow with the pitch fork. You can't read the New Testament without seeing that. The second point is that wherever the Spirit is at work there will be controversy. We are in a war to the death with the enemy of our souls. He is at work always, but especially where God is at work. Finally we need to be careful that we are not found opposing God. Too many of us confuse what is God with what we are comfortable with. But Christ did not come to make us comfortable, and religious people have a history of dismissing the work of God. We need to be like those we read about in the book of Acts who said “We will hear you again on this matter” (Acts 17:32), and like the Berean Jews who “were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (17:11).
The Bible tells us that Jesus could do no mighty works in Nazareth, because of their unbelief. Randy Clark of Global awakening, talks about the downward spiral of unbelief. We don't believe, so we don't expect, so (since it is by faith) we don't get. If you want to reverse this downward spiral, then take Randy up on his invitation to go on one of his short term missions where he promises that you will experience miracles. I have been to India with him twice, and I can tell you he delivers (well actually Jesus delivers :)).
One incident stands out. Actually there had been so much happening and so fast I had this sense of unreality about all the healings that were taking place. I prayed about it and asked the Lord to change that and He did. The man I shared a room with on the that trip, had a local contact and we went to the contact's church. My room mate preached that Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. He healed two thousand years ago and He heals today. He then released the team to minister to the congregation. Most of them just wanted to be blessed but they pantomimed to me that one man had a hearing problem. I put my hands on his ears and (as we had been taught) commanded his ears to be healed in Jesus name. I then used one of the Telegue phrases I had learned to ask him if it was better. He nodded in the Indian way, that it was. I had the same sense of unreality, but later saw him on the floor of the church holding his ears. I thought to myself “This man is not healed, he is in pain.” Anyway I got the interpreter to come and ask him about it. “Oh yes”, she told me, “He was 80% deaf.” Then we realized that the noise in the church was painful for him after being deaf for so long, and then the reality of it did indeed kicked in for me!
So for me, it is easy to take the stories of the miracles in the Bible literally, and as I was saying last day, to take the Bible seriously. Miracles are no problem for a God who spoke and stars were flung into space. For me a God who was not capable of miracles would not be worth believing in, and certainly not worth worshiping. On the other hand many of those who would ridicule my faith have an even more bizarre faith than mine: They belive “In the beginning nothing created everything that is out of nothing.” And they call my views unscientific! This is what people like Hawking and Dawkins and believe. In an interview, when Richard Dawkins was asked what evidence he had for this belief, he had to admit that he had none. When you clear away the clutter of the unbelief of our culture, you can start to see that it all makes sense. I will say more in the coming post “The Bible is the best explanation of reality.”
There is a controversial move of God that has shown up in Toronto and other places. Check out http://www.catchthefire.com/ and/or what is happening at Bethel Church in Redding http://www.ibethel.org/. Years ago I went to Africa because I heard there was revival there, but it had moved on by the time I arrived. I would have gone to the ends of the earth to find something real. In the end all I needed to do, was to go to Toronto.
I said above that it is controversial, it is. The response of many Christians to some of the things that have happened there has been “That's not God”. There are couple (or three) things to say. The first is that not everything is genuine. That is what the parable of wheat and the weeds is all about. If you believe the Bible, you will believe in Satan, and wherever the Spirit of God is moving so is the fellow with the pitch fork. You can't read the New Testament without seeing that. The second point is that wherever the Spirit is at work there will be controversy. We are in a war to the death with the enemy of our souls. He is at work always, but especially where God is at work. Finally we need to be careful that we are not found opposing God. Too many of us confuse what is God with what we are comfortable with. But Christ did not come to make us comfortable, and religious people have a history of dismissing the work of God. We need to be like those we read about in the book of Acts who said “We will hear you again on this matter” (Acts 17:32), and like the Berean Jews who “were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (17:11).
The Bible tells us that Jesus could do no mighty works in Nazareth, because of their unbelief. Randy Clark of Global awakening, talks about the downward spiral of unbelief. We don't believe, so we don't expect, so (since it is by faith) we don't get. If you want to reverse this downward spiral, then take Randy up on his invitation to go on one of his short term missions where he promises that you will experience miracles. I have been to India with him twice, and I can tell you he delivers (well actually Jesus delivers :)).
One incident stands out. Actually there had been so much happening and so fast I had this sense of unreality about all the healings that were taking place. I prayed about it and asked the Lord to change that and He did. The man I shared a room with on the that trip, had a local contact and we went to the contact's church. My room mate preached that Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. He healed two thousand years ago and He heals today. He then released the team to minister to the congregation. Most of them just wanted to be blessed but they pantomimed to me that one man had a hearing problem. I put my hands on his ears and (as we had been taught) commanded his ears to be healed in Jesus name. I then used one of the Telegue phrases I had learned to ask him if it was better. He nodded in the Indian way, that it was. I had the same sense of unreality, but later saw him on the floor of the church holding his ears. I thought to myself “This man is not healed, he is in pain.” Anyway I got the interpreter to come and ask him about it. “Oh yes”, she told me, “He was 80% deaf.” Then we realized that the noise in the church was painful for him after being deaf for so long, and then the reality of it did indeed kicked in for me!
So for me, it is easy to take the stories of the miracles in the Bible literally, and as I was saying last day, to take the Bible seriously. Miracles are no problem for a God who spoke and stars were flung into space. For me a God who was not capable of miracles would not be worth believing in, and certainly not worth worshiping. On the other hand many of those who would ridicule my faith have an even more bizarre faith than mine: They belive “In the beginning nothing created everything that is out of nothing.” And they call my views unscientific! This is what people like Hawking and Dawkins and believe. In an interview, when Richard Dawkins was asked what evidence he had for this belief, he had to admit that he had none. When you clear away the clutter of the unbelief of our culture, you can start to see that it all makes sense. I will say more in the coming post “The Bible is the best explanation of reality.”
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Isn't the Bible full of errors?
When I have been asked this question my usual response is to answer with a one word question “Full?” The fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of people who have asked me this question have little or no knowledge of the Bible. They are just repeating what other people have said. Many have not so much as picked it up. It is the norm these days, especially among young people. If they are more familiar with it, I will ask them to give me a half dozen or so alleged errors. So far no takers (perhaps I have spoken to the wrong people!).
I don't know if you the reader, will allow me as a Christian to be skeptical. But in any case I am skeptical about a lot of research into the Bible. I have a post graduate diploma in Biblical studies, as well as a Masters in Theological studies (please don't hold it against me :) ). I did the former degree over thirty years ago, and since that time I have seen many of the so called “assured gains” of Biblical study, crumble in the light of further research (and in some cases in the light of sanity). I could see at the time that it had also happened and was happening to so called earlier “assured gains”, a lot of which, quite frankly were quite spurious. One of the big problems for me, is that a lot of scholars start off their research with the assumption that miracles don't happen (see coming post). So if miracles don't happen then we have to discount every miracle story in the Bible, and if not even God can predict the future, then any prophecy has to have been written after the event it “predicted” had already taken place. So that part of the Scripture that predicted the rebirth of Israel in a day (Isaiah 66:8), has to have been written after 1948 right? All such things are of course explained away, but there are just too many of them. In fact, if you have eyes to see it, the very existence of modern day Israel is a strong proof that the Bible is true. But on top of this there are multitudes of prophecies of Messiah that Jesus fulfilled, that He would have had no way of manufacturing (i.e. Micah 5:2). There are books written on these things!
Please note it is not that the things the above mentioned scholars say have been proved, but rather that they are the starting point of their study. It's called circular reasoning and it's all over the place in the discipline of Biblical studies. But of course it presents itself as truth (even if we don't believe truth exists). However, as any mathematician can tell you, if your assumptions are in doubt you can have no assurance about your conclusions. We need to be as skeptical about the type of statement that comes out of this kind of research as they are about the Bible. We need to doubt their doubts!
So is the Bible full of errors? Some Christians back themselves into a corner and declare loudly and firmly that the Bible is without error period. I found some printing errors recently in the version of the NIV that I was reading. But this of course is not what they mean. I know it wasn't the King James version :). Don't get me wrong, my short answer to the question of the title of this post is “no.” But in longer answers I want to avoid putting myself in the position of having to come up with plausible explanations of things that puzzle me. It may well be the case (I am not saying it is not) that these things that puzzle me were not in the original manuscripts. My problem though is that we are far from completely sure we what we have is the exact originals.
Again please don't get me wrong, there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that we are close enough to the originals that no major orthodox Christian doctrine is in doubt. Part of my problem is that I don't want to find myself trying to explain away things which in the end might just boil down to not having the originals. As I say there is remarkable agreement on what does indeed constitute the original tex. On the other hand there are things that puzzle me. How many blind beggars were there that Jesus healed at Jericho? Was Jairus's daughter dead before or after Jairus came to Jesus? I am supremely confident that Jesus healed at least one blind beggar at Jericho, that Jairus's daughter died, and Jesus did raised her from the dead.
I am aware that for some raising the sort of issue I just raised, is the wrong thing to do. But we don't need to be afraid of the truth. We are not real if we pretend that we have all the answers when we don't. The Scriptures tell us about two equal and opposite errors here. The first is never arriving at a knowledge of the basics (see 2 Timothy 3:7 and Hebrews 6:1,2), the second is presenting ourselves as if we know everything (1 Corinthians 8:2). This last error is a real turn off for many. There is an interesting point about the sort of issue the last paragraph raises, and it is this: in the law court if two witnesses' testimony agree too closely, it is usually considered to have been corroborated. Part of what I am saying is that we need to learn not to go beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). Not giving past and shallow answers to complex questions is part of this.
We are to love the Lord with all or our minds! When we do this there will be things we hold firmly (the basics), there will be things we are not sure of, and there will be things we do not know. It's alright to admit that we don't know when we don't. And we will not be seen to be real if we do not learn first to know when we don't know, and secondly to admit it.
So let me lengthen my short answer of “no.” At some level I am into the Bible every day, and have been for nearly 40 years. While I do not claim to fully understand it, I do trust it, and strongly affirm the “unique divine inspiration, entire trustworthiness and authority of the Bible”. This is part of the faith statement of Intervarsity Christian fellowship, a non-denominational student lead Christian organization associated with the larger World wide International Fellowship of Evangelical students. I have seen too much, and experienced too much of the Kingdom to allow some unbelieving Professor (or other unbelievers) to undermine that trust with statements and questions that proceed out of his (or her) underlying presuppositions that God does not exist. I needed to check it all out for myself, and not simply accept somebody else's opinion for example that it is “full of errors.” We are all sinners, we are all biased, and we all see through a glass dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12).
Jesus gave us a promise “If you continue in my Word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31). If you want to know if the Bible is true, try reading it. I will say more later, but the proof comes through reading and doing. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
I don't know if you the reader, will allow me as a Christian to be skeptical. But in any case I am skeptical about a lot of research into the Bible. I have a post graduate diploma in Biblical studies, as well as a Masters in Theological studies (please don't hold it against me :) ). I did the former degree over thirty years ago, and since that time I have seen many of the so called “assured gains” of Biblical study, crumble in the light of further research (and in some cases in the light of sanity). I could see at the time that it had also happened and was happening to so called earlier “assured gains”, a lot of which, quite frankly were quite spurious. One of the big problems for me, is that a lot of scholars start off their research with the assumption that miracles don't happen (see coming post). So if miracles don't happen then we have to discount every miracle story in the Bible, and if not even God can predict the future, then any prophecy has to have been written after the event it “predicted” had already taken place. So that part of the Scripture that predicted the rebirth of Israel in a day (Isaiah 66:8), has to have been written after 1948 right? All such things are of course explained away, but there are just too many of them. In fact, if you have eyes to see it, the very existence of modern day Israel is a strong proof that the Bible is true. But on top of this there are multitudes of prophecies of Messiah that Jesus fulfilled, that He would have had no way of manufacturing (i.e. Micah 5:2). There are books written on these things!
Please note it is not that the things the above mentioned scholars say have been proved, but rather that they are the starting point of their study. It's called circular reasoning and it's all over the place in the discipline of Biblical studies. But of course it presents itself as truth (even if we don't believe truth exists). However, as any mathematician can tell you, if your assumptions are in doubt you can have no assurance about your conclusions. We need to be as skeptical about the type of statement that comes out of this kind of research as they are about the Bible. We need to doubt their doubts!
So is the Bible full of errors? Some Christians back themselves into a corner and declare loudly and firmly that the Bible is without error period. I found some printing errors recently in the version of the NIV that I was reading. But this of course is not what they mean. I know it wasn't the King James version :). Don't get me wrong, my short answer to the question of the title of this post is “no.” But in longer answers I want to avoid putting myself in the position of having to come up with plausible explanations of things that puzzle me. It may well be the case (I am not saying it is not) that these things that puzzle me were not in the original manuscripts. My problem though is that we are far from completely sure we what we have is the exact originals.
Again please don't get me wrong, there is enough evidence to strongly suggest that we are close enough to the originals that no major orthodox Christian doctrine is in doubt. Part of my problem is that I don't want to find myself trying to explain away things which in the end might just boil down to not having the originals. As I say there is remarkable agreement on what does indeed constitute the original tex. On the other hand there are things that puzzle me. How many blind beggars were there that Jesus healed at Jericho? Was Jairus's daughter dead before or after Jairus came to Jesus? I am supremely confident that Jesus healed at least one blind beggar at Jericho, that Jairus's daughter died, and Jesus did raised her from the dead.
I am aware that for some raising the sort of issue I just raised, is the wrong thing to do. But we don't need to be afraid of the truth. We are not real if we pretend that we have all the answers when we don't. The Scriptures tell us about two equal and opposite errors here. The first is never arriving at a knowledge of the basics (see 2 Timothy 3:7 and Hebrews 6:1,2), the second is presenting ourselves as if we know everything (1 Corinthians 8:2). This last error is a real turn off for many. There is an interesting point about the sort of issue the last paragraph raises, and it is this: in the law court if two witnesses' testimony agree too closely, it is usually considered to have been corroborated. Part of what I am saying is that we need to learn not to go beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). Not giving past and shallow answers to complex questions is part of this.
We are to love the Lord with all or our minds! When we do this there will be things we hold firmly (the basics), there will be things we are not sure of, and there will be things we do not know. It's alright to admit that we don't know when we don't. And we will not be seen to be real if we do not learn first to know when we don't know, and secondly to admit it.
So let me lengthen my short answer of “no.” At some level I am into the Bible every day, and have been for nearly 40 years. While I do not claim to fully understand it, I do trust it, and strongly affirm the “unique divine inspiration, entire trustworthiness and authority of the Bible”. This is part of the faith statement of Intervarsity Christian fellowship, a non-denominational student lead Christian organization associated with the larger World wide International Fellowship of Evangelical students. I have seen too much, and experienced too much of the Kingdom to allow some unbelieving Professor (or other unbelievers) to undermine that trust with statements and questions that proceed out of his (or her) underlying presuppositions that God does not exist. I needed to check it all out for myself, and not simply accept somebody else's opinion for example that it is “full of errors.” We are all sinners, we are all biased, and we all see through a glass dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12).
Jesus gave us a promise “If you continue in my Word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31). If you want to know if the Bible is true, try reading it. I will say more later, but the proof comes through reading and doing. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Do you take the Bible literally?
We tend to be creatures of imbalance. When we see an error, we have this tendency to overreact. When we do this, we far too often go into an equal and opposite error. Take the reaction, in some circles, to the over allegorizing of the Scriptures. I am talking about those who take nothing literally. When we do this, we take the teeth out of both the positive and negative commandments and benefits. But some, in reaction to this, have taken the stand that whole Bible is to be interpreted literally. This too is wrong. Surly the truth is that in book as diverse as the Bible, some things are meant to be taken literally and some not! I have already hinted that interpretation is a huge subject, but we cannot escape without saying something about the literal or not debate.
Let's look at an example: “If your eye offend you cut it out” (Matthew 5:29). In a earlier post with the same title (February 18, 2011), I suggested that if the Church took this literally half the men would be walking round with just one eye, and the rest of us with neither! Do I take the Bible literally? Sometimes yes and sometime no, but I always take it seriously. So how do we take the above commandment seriously? They tell me that pornography is as addictive as heroine, so for me taking Matthew 5:29 seriously means, for example, looking at the parental guide before I decide to watch a movie. I don't want to make this into a new legalism, so I am saying this for me. I know myself well enough to know that I need to avoid movies with sex and nudity. I find it too hard to get rid of the thoughts and images that follow me after watching such things. And they keep me from His presence! Paul tells us that all things are lawful, but that not all things are helpful! So the principle is to take the Bible seriously but not always literally.
But there are many things that are intended to be taken literally, for example “do not murder”, “do not commit adultery”. So which is which? As I keep saying this is not a five minute discussion. I believe that we need to belong to a fellowship where the Bible is taken seriously, but not over literally, and certainly not legalistically. For me that also means a fellowship where we are firm on the basics, but do not act as if we have arrived, and also one where we are real with each other. We need both the Word and the Spirit. We need to think deeply about what Jesus meant when He told us that His Words are Spirit and they are life (John 6:63).
I say more on this topic in the original post (February 18, 2011).
Let's look at an example: “If your eye offend you cut it out” (Matthew 5:29). In a earlier post with the same title (February 18, 2011), I suggested that if the Church took this literally half the men would be walking round with just one eye, and the rest of us with neither! Do I take the Bible literally? Sometimes yes and sometime no, but I always take it seriously. So how do we take the above commandment seriously? They tell me that pornography is as addictive as heroine, so for me taking Matthew 5:29 seriously means, for example, looking at the parental guide before I decide to watch a movie. I don't want to make this into a new legalism, so I am saying this for me. I know myself well enough to know that I need to avoid movies with sex and nudity. I find it too hard to get rid of the thoughts and images that follow me after watching such things. And they keep me from His presence! Paul tells us that all things are lawful, but that not all things are helpful! So the principle is to take the Bible seriously but not always literally.
But there are many things that are intended to be taken literally, for example “do not murder”, “do not commit adultery”. So which is which? As I keep saying this is not a five minute discussion. I believe that we need to belong to a fellowship where the Bible is taken seriously, but not over literally, and certainly not legalistically. For me that also means a fellowship where we are firm on the basics, but do not act as if we have arrived, and also one where we are real with each other. We need both the Word and the Spirit. We need to think deeply about what Jesus meant when He told us that His Words are Spirit and they are life (John 6:63).
I say more on this topic in the original post (February 18, 2011).
Monday, February 6, 2012
The Bible? You've got to be kidding!
I didn't always believe what I now believe about the Bible, about God, Faith, reality etc. I came to where I am "at" (as we say here in Newfoundland) by process. There were periods when over a short time my thinking changed radically, but a lot of it was line upon line, line upon line, here a little there a little. I do not consider myself to have arrived by any stretch of the imagination. The more you know, the more you realize there is to know. I have not arrived, but I am more sure of the basics than I ever was. I don't know where you (the reader) are at, but I do know that many times (we) Christians have expected others to simply accept everything we say as gospel. It's not reasonable.
We live in a skeptical age, where everything that even smacks of faith is ridiculed and dismissed. It's not that Christianity has been weighed in the balance found wanting and then dismissed. It has been ridiculed and dismissed without hearing, without trial. In particular the Bible has come under heavy attack. Some Christians have overacted to these attacks and made claims that I find difficult to support. Some of them are just silly. There is, for example, the 'King James Bible only' movement. The claim is that only the original King James version of the Bible is inspired. The claim is of course completely arbitrary and comes from out of the blue! A missionary friend in Argentina was asked by his supporters if he only used this version. But there is no Spanish King James Bible! Of course the advantage of taking views like this, is that you don't have to think, but it does not go too well with the command to love the Lord with all of our mind!
It is not my intention to defend the Bible. I don't need to, it has survived all on its own down through the ages against countless attacks, and it's still the best seller of all time. You might as well defend a lion as defend the Bible. So “the Bible am I kidding?” No, I am not. I do defend my interpretation of it, but this is a long debate and not what I want to do here. It's a subject all on its own and it's huge. On the other hand, I do feel I needed say some things in response to what I have heard “out there” that seem to be oft repeated. Perhaps they are just questions! A lot of this “folk criticism” can, if we let it, undermine faith, and I want to at least start the process of showing that there are answers to these things.
Being in a University, I hear a lot of things Profs say about faith, both inside and outside of their disciplines. How people who don't believe in God can claim to be experts in the area is something of a puzzle to me! The problem though, is that for many students the Prof is like a god. They think that he (or she) must be right because he (or she) is smart, educated, articulate and supremely confident. In particular far too many simply take the Profs word as gospel, and they loose their faith as a result. Part of the problem is that some traditions do not allow you to question. It is regarded as doubt, and is considered wrong. However when difficult questions are raised (as they are at the University), people coming from such traditions are not used to thinking and wrestling things through, and most are essentially defenseless. As I said earlier though, most of the attacks on faith consist of ridicule rather than honest debate. I hear such things as “I know too much Science to believe in God.” My short answer to that is “No, you do not know enough science to make a statement like that.” I have addressed many of these things in the early posts on this blog (June-August 2010). But I am starting to digress.
What I want to do in the next few posts, is to answer some of things I hear that are directed against the Bible. I also want to suggest a way forward for those who are open to investigating the claims the Bible makes about itself. As I said above, I did not always believe what I now believe (about the Bible). It came by process. I will say more later in “the proof is in the pudding.”
I should confess I am using the blog to work on an appendix to my book. The title of the appendix is the same as the title to this post. I intend to address some (or all) of the following:
We live in a skeptical age, where everything that even smacks of faith is ridiculed and dismissed. It's not that Christianity has been weighed in the balance found wanting and then dismissed. It has been ridiculed and dismissed without hearing, without trial. In particular the Bible has come under heavy attack. Some Christians have overacted to these attacks and made claims that I find difficult to support. Some of them are just silly. There is, for example, the 'King James Bible only' movement. The claim is that only the original King James version of the Bible is inspired. The claim is of course completely arbitrary and comes from out of the blue! A missionary friend in Argentina was asked by his supporters if he only used this version. But there is no Spanish King James Bible! Of course the advantage of taking views like this, is that you don't have to think, but it does not go too well with the command to love the Lord with all of our mind!
It is not my intention to defend the Bible. I don't need to, it has survived all on its own down through the ages against countless attacks, and it's still the best seller of all time. You might as well defend a lion as defend the Bible. So “the Bible am I kidding?” No, I am not. I do defend my interpretation of it, but this is a long debate and not what I want to do here. It's a subject all on its own and it's huge. On the other hand, I do feel I needed say some things in response to what I have heard “out there” that seem to be oft repeated. Perhaps they are just questions! A lot of this “folk criticism” can, if we let it, undermine faith, and I want to at least start the process of showing that there are answers to these things.
Being in a University, I hear a lot of things Profs say about faith, both inside and outside of their disciplines. How people who don't believe in God can claim to be experts in the area is something of a puzzle to me! The problem though, is that for many students the Prof is like a god. They think that he (or she) must be right because he (or she) is smart, educated, articulate and supremely confident. In particular far too many simply take the Profs word as gospel, and they loose their faith as a result. Part of the problem is that some traditions do not allow you to question. It is regarded as doubt, and is considered wrong. However when difficult questions are raised (as they are at the University), people coming from such traditions are not used to thinking and wrestling things through, and most are essentially defenseless. As I said earlier though, most of the attacks on faith consist of ridicule rather than honest debate. I hear such things as “I know too much Science to believe in God.” My short answer to that is “No, you do not know enough science to make a statement like that.” I have addressed many of these things in the early posts on this blog (June-August 2010). But I am starting to digress.
What I want to do in the next few posts, is to answer some of things I hear that are directed against the Bible. I also want to suggest a way forward for those who are open to investigating the claims the Bible makes about itself. As I said above, I did not always believe what I now believe (about the Bible). It came by process. I will say more later in “the proof is in the pudding.”
I should confess I am using the blog to work on an appendix to my book. The title of the appendix is the same as the title to this post. I intend to address some (or all) of the following:
- Take away clutter add understanding
- Do you take the Bible literally?
- The Bible, isn't it full of errors?
- What about miracles? How can you believe in miracles?
- They were naive in those days, they would believe anything!
- Can't you make the Bible say anything you want?
- Do you take the Bible literally?
- The Bible has the best explanation of reality.
- This book knows me!
- This book knows me!
- The Bible has the best solutions for life
- Best Principles
- Best Promises and Power
- Best of the best, His Presence
- Best Principles
- The proof is in the pudding.
- If you continue in My Word ... then you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
- Is it real, is it relevant? By their fruits you will know them
- If you continue in My Word ... then you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
