In logic and debate, they teach various techniques that are considered to be logical fallacies. One of these is to attack your opponent rather than attacking your opponent's arguments. So, for instance, if I am presenting a case against global warming, and my opponent responds to my argument by saying "Yeah, but you never graduated high school, so what do you know?" his response may be convincing at an emotional level, but it does nothing to disprove my premise.
When it comes to presenting a case for the Christian faith, however, this idea of attacking the opponent actually DOES hold some water. Not on the side of the Christian, but on the side of the non-believer. The reason I say this is that one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that it is supposed to change the believer. If I profess to believe in Christ and his teachings, but I act no different than I did when I was an unbeliever, my claim looks suspicious at best.
The best apologetic is a life well-lived. One of the main reason that Jesus is such an intriguing figure to all people-groups the world over is that his life was lived so purely. Even the most ardent atheist must admit that he was "a great moral teacher."
On the flip-side, one poor choice can utterly ruin the testimony of the most well-intentioned apologist.
In the twenty-third psalm, the psalmist says, "He leads me in paths of righteousness for His name's sake." What the Psalmist is saying here is that God keeps His followers pure because they are representatives of Him. They reflect his name and reputation, and so He keeps them from straying. I think this should be the first prayer of any minister, and of believers in general, that God would purify their actions so that they may properly represent Him to the world.
A poorly educated person who is unable to make a verbal defense for his faith, through living out the Christian life in a faultless way, may do more to redeem those around him than the most silver tongued theologian.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
God and Time
One of the classic arguments for the existence of God has to do with the origins of the universe. Briefly stated, this argument says that it is logical nonsense to believe that the universe has existed forever, because if something exists forever into the past, you never reach the present moment. Therefore, the universe had to have a beginning in time, and if it had an origin, it must have an originator.
The classic skeptical response to this is to turn this line of logic around on God himself. That is to say, if the universe cannot logically exist forever into the past, neither can God, and therefore God must have an origin and originator, in which case you have an infinite regression of Gods: also logical nonsense.
This is, in fact, a sound argument as far as it goes. God cannot exist forever into the past, but neither can he have a beginning. So where does that leave us?
The answer is that time itself had an origin, and that God exists in eternity, or put another way, He is not subject to the dimension of time.
This may be a concept that is difficult to wrap your mind around, but is the only conclusion we can make about God's existence. If God were subject as we are to the progression of events from past to present to future, then He would be limited in some way. That limitation would be a force greater than God, and therefore Time itself would be God.
We can see God's eternality reflected in the nature of biblical prophesy. The prophetic books of the Bible, beginning with Isaiah and ending with Malachi, can be some of the most difficult books of the Bible to read and to understand. They seem somewhat jumbled in their progression, for a moment reflecting past events, then jumping to some highly symbolic imagery and then speaking about the end of time. Many people define "prophesy" to mean predictions about the future. However, from a Biblical perspective, a prophet was simply a man or woman who brought a message from God. And so, in a way, the books of the prophets reflect the thought processes of God Himself. If God exists outside of time, then it is little wonder that his thoughts flow through past, present, and future events in a way that is difficult for our lesser minds to follow.
I also firmly believe that God's existence outside of time does a great deal to reconcile the apparent differences between the free will of man and the sovereignty of God. Theologians state that one must necessarily limit the other. However, given the fact that we reflect on the past to make decisions in the present that effect the future, whereas God's actions are based on an absolute knowledge of past, present, and future, and those actions can affect any and all points along the timeline, I am not certain that man's free will and God's sovereignty DO limit one another.
The classic skeptical response to this is to turn this line of logic around on God himself. That is to say, if the universe cannot logically exist forever into the past, neither can God, and therefore God must have an origin and originator, in which case you have an infinite regression of Gods: also logical nonsense.
This is, in fact, a sound argument as far as it goes. God cannot exist forever into the past, but neither can he have a beginning. So where does that leave us?
The answer is that time itself had an origin, and that God exists in eternity, or put another way, He is not subject to the dimension of time.
This may be a concept that is difficult to wrap your mind around, but is the only conclusion we can make about God's existence. If God were subject as we are to the progression of events from past to present to future, then He would be limited in some way. That limitation would be a force greater than God, and therefore Time itself would be God.
We can see God's eternality reflected in the nature of biblical prophesy. The prophetic books of the Bible, beginning with Isaiah and ending with Malachi, can be some of the most difficult books of the Bible to read and to understand. They seem somewhat jumbled in their progression, for a moment reflecting past events, then jumping to some highly symbolic imagery and then speaking about the end of time. Many people define "prophesy" to mean predictions about the future. However, from a Biblical perspective, a prophet was simply a man or woman who brought a message from God. And so, in a way, the books of the prophets reflect the thought processes of God Himself. If God exists outside of time, then it is little wonder that his thoughts flow through past, present, and future events in a way that is difficult for our lesser minds to follow.
I also firmly believe that God's existence outside of time does a great deal to reconcile the apparent differences between the free will of man and the sovereignty of God. Theologians state that one must necessarily limit the other. However, given the fact that we reflect on the past to make decisions in the present that effect the future, whereas God's actions are based on an absolute knowledge of past, present, and future, and those actions can affect any and all points along the timeline, I am not certain that man's free will and God's sovereignty DO limit one another.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Beginning of Wisdom
The first documented western philosopher was a guy named Socrates. He founded the Grecian school of philosophy which is still the foundation of western thought.
Socrates founded his school of thought on a seemingly simple question: where does wisdom come from? In his quest to answer this question, he interviewed poets and politicians, scholars and playwrights; in short, all the respected men of knowledge of his day. One at a time he probed them with queries as to the foundation of their knowledge and brilliance. What he discovered was startling and disturbing: none of these men had any real explanation for their success. In every case, when Socrates questioned back along their line of reasoning, their reasons dissolved into irrational speculation, assumption, or ignorance.
This led to the foundational statement of the Socratic school of thought: "Wisdom starts with the realization of how ignorant you truly are."
Five hundred years before Socrates came to this conclusion, the King Solomon came to a different conclusion about the start of wisdom. He said, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Like most of his proverbs, Solomon does not greatly expand on this statement, leaving the reader to wonder in what way is the fear of God the beginning of wisdom, and what does he mean by fear of God?
Fear is typically a force that drives one away from something. If I fear the woods, I am not going anywhere near the woods. Yet coming from a Jewish vantage, and in light of his other writings, it is fair to assume that Solomon would advise wisdom seekers to pursue God, not to flee from him. What kind of fear drives you toward the object of your fear?
In Jesus' famed Sermon on the Mount, he begins by blessing a number of pitiful groups: the poor in spirit, the meek, those who mourn, etc. We are told these people will, among other things, inherit the earth and see God. However, as the sermon proceeds, the people are told that unless their righteousness exceeds that of the holiest group in Israel, the Pharisees, that they will not enter the kingdom of God. The people are shockingly advised to remove any body parts that are causing them to sin, and finally they are told that they must be perfect in order to enter the kingdom.
Was Jesus harsh advice to, among other things, pluck out your eye or cut off your hand if they are causing you to stumble, rhetorical?
In the most famous section of Dante's Divine Comedy, the writer tells of his journey through Hell as he makes his way to Heaven. The writer had a very specific purpose for taking his readers through Hell first: for Dante, Hell represented the recognition and rejection of sin. God is not kidding around. Sin really IS that serious to God. And Jesus advice to cut off your hand was no mere rhetoric. If that's what it takes to free you from sin, it is worth every drop of blood.
However, Jesus also knew that self-mutilation would not remove the problem. Because the eye-less, hand-less man would still be thoroughly corrupt through every cell of his body.
These words of Jesus were intended to drive the hearer to despair. It is a technique he employed more than once.
People are quick to find solace in the first part of Jesus' sermon where the poor and meek are given glorious blessings, but rarely do we find anyone enthusiastic about the second part of the sermon.
Those who find a shocking dichotomy between the God of wrath and judgement and the God of love are not wrong. Frequently God is both in a single breath.
There is another story that Jesus told. The story concerns two men praying in the temple. One is a holy man, a Pharisee, who thanks God for his virtue and for the fact that he is not like the lowly men. The other is a corrupt tax collector. This man, in contrast to the Pharisee, tears his clothes, falls face first on the ground and cries in misery "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" Jesus says, "I tell you, this man went home justified before God."
The same God who shows his wrath and judgement will heal and justify the man who acknowledges his corruption and helplessness. THIS is the God of Love. But the man unwilling to come to grips with the fact that he is truly hopelessly lost will never get to meet this God.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Socrates founded his school of thought on a seemingly simple question: where does wisdom come from? In his quest to answer this question, he interviewed poets and politicians, scholars and playwrights; in short, all the respected men of knowledge of his day. One at a time he probed them with queries as to the foundation of their knowledge and brilliance. What he discovered was startling and disturbing: none of these men had any real explanation for their success. In every case, when Socrates questioned back along their line of reasoning, their reasons dissolved into irrational speculation, assumption, or ignorance.
This led to the foundational statement of the Socratic school of thought: "Wisdom starts with the realization of how ignorant you truly are."
Five hundred years before Socrates came to this conclusion, the King Solomon came to a different conclusion about the start of wisdom. He said, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Like most of his proverbs, Solomon does not greatly expand on this statement, leaving the reader to wonder in what way is the fear of God the beginning of wisdom, and what does he mean by fear of God?
Fear is typically a force that drives one away from something. If I fear the woods, I am not going anywhere near the woods. Yet coming from a Jewish vantage, and in light of his other writings, it is fair to assume that Solomon would advise wisdom seekers to pursue God, not to flee from him. What kind of fear drives you toward the object of your fear?
In Jesus' famed Sermon on the Mount, he begins by blessing a number of pitiful groups: the poor in spirit, the meek, those who mourn, etc. We are told these people will, among other things, inherit the earth and see God. However, as the sermon proceeds, the people are told that unless their righteousness exceeds that of the holiest group in Israel, the Pharisees, that they will not enter the kingdom of God. The people are shockingly advised to remove any body parts that are causing them to sin, and finally they are told that they must be perfect in order to enter the kingdom.
Was Jesus harsh advice to, among other things, pluck out your eye or cut off your hand if they are causing you to stumble, rhetorical?
In the most famous section of Dante's Divine Comedy, the writer tells of his journey through Hell as he makes his way to Heaven. The writer had a very specific purpose for taking his readers through Hell first: for Dante, Hell represented the recognition and rejection of sin. God is not kidding around. Sin really IS that serious to God. And Jesus advice to cut off your hand was no mere rhetoric. If that's what it takes to free you from sin, it is worth every drop of blood.
However, Jesus also knew that self-mutilation would not remove the problem. Because the eye-less, hand-less man would still be thoroughly corrupt through every cell of his body.
These words of Jesus were intended to drive the hearer to despair. It is a technique he employed more than once.
People are quick to find solace in the first part of Jesus' sermon where the poor and meek are given glorious blessings, but rarely do we find anyone enthusiastic about the second part of the sermon.
Those who find a shocking dichotomy between the God of wrath and judgement and the God of love are not wrong. Frequently God is both in a single breath.
There is another story that Jesus told. The story concerns two men praying in the temple. One is a holy man, a Pharisee, who thanks God for his virtue and for the fact that he is not like the lowly men. The other is a corrupt tax collector. This man, in contrast to the Pharisee, tears his clothes, falls face first on the ground and cries in misery "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" Jesus says, "I tell you, this man went home justified before God."
The same God who shows his wrath and judgement will heal and justify the man who acknowledges his corruption and helplessness. THIS is the God of Love. But the man unwilling to come to grips with the fact that he is truly hopelessly lost will never get to meet this God.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)