Why Did God Create Anything At All?

This is a question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

Why did God create anything? By creating something apart from Himself that can sin, aka humanity, is He not making reality worse? If God is making reality better by introducing humans into a relationship with Him, this also brings up issues. How can making humans make reality better if reality was just God in His perfection? If it is going to be better then would not have humans been necessary within God's being? I can see one possibility: that the creation of humanity is a neutral act when it comes to better or worse. This seems weird then that God would limit non-essential aspects of His being (entering time) to slide sideways on the scale of better or worse reality. I know my thinking is wrong somewhere, but I need someone else to show me. Thanks

RESPONSE-

We love to hear from people who are thinking about these questions! You said, "I know my thinking is wrong somewhere..."  I think we can help! The problem seems to be in your underlying definition of "reality" and the ensuing confusion of that with God.  Let's explore that a little more and hopefully it will help clarify your thinking on this issue.

Your opening question is great! Your second question: "By creating something apart from Himself that can sin, aka humanity, is He not making reality worse?"   Here is where I think the confusion creeps in. Your question seems to confuse reality with God as you ask the question, "...is He not making reality worse?" I say that because the rest of your letter struggles with why would he do that when he, himself is perfect. You ask, "How can making humans make reality better if reality was just God in His perfection?"

The clarification I think you are seeking is this. The reality of God alone, before he created anything apart from himself is just that, God alone. There is no "other". When God creates, he brings into existence something other than himself. So, while he, himself is perfect, that which he brings into existence apart from himself is not perfect in the same sense that he is perfect. Indeed, in Genesis 1 God declares that what he created is "good". That in no way implies perfection in the absolute sense that God alone is perfect. Therefore, there is no logical or theological issue in saying that God chose to create another reality, apart from himself, and that reality is "improved" by introducing humans. Why is it improved? Because humans are created in God's image and thereby reveal his glory in this new reality. I don't think there is any reason or need to evaluate whether or not the new "total reality", i.e. God + his creation is "better" than God alone. However, the answer would be that the newly created reality is not "better", only different. God alone is perfection as you noted. When he creates he is not attempting to improve anything. He, in himself, is total perfection. He is creating something other than himself which cannot be perfect as he himself is perfect. But, the creation certainly can be "better" or "improved" by God introducing his image-bearers into that creation. The end result is a new reality that perfectly embodies God's will for his decision to create is necessarily perfect. Even though the created reality is not perfect in the same sense God is perfect, it is the result of his perfect will to create and includes the reflection of his perfect glory through his image-bearers.

In more technical terms, the clarification I am making is that of categories. In your original formulation, you were making a category mistake which basically means you were equating the category of the Divine reality with that of the created reality. Yet, they are completely different categories of things. The Divine reality is utterly unique and singular, there is nothing else in that same category. Created reality is completely different than the Divine reality, and it is not singular, for there are many examples of created things within that category.  Yet, there is only one example of the Divine reality, God himself.

So, in summary, God creates a completely different reality than himself. The created reality is good but not perfect and of a completely other kind of thing. The Divine reality is perfect and always will be perfect. The created reality could be said to have been improved when God chose to add humanity to it because humanity bears God's image and thus introduces reflections of his glory (the original of which is perfect) into the created reality. The new "total reality" (God+created reality) as a whole is not worse because the Divine reality remains perfect. His will to create was necessarily perfect, and thus the created reality, while in and of itself is not perfect in the same sense as the Divine reality, is a perfect expression of his creative will. Especially when considering the incarnation (God entering time) to redeem the creation through Christ, we can see the whole of the created reality as a perfect expression of his will - both to create *and* to redeem!

Hopefully, this helps to clarify. God bless, and keep asking such good questions!

Original Sin

This is a question I received with my response.

QUESTION-

I would like to know what your position is on the doctrine of original sin and how we are guilty of Adam's sin. I think that Adam's fallen and sinful nature has been transmitted to us, just as a virus that manifests itself and inevitably takes over like a zombie virus or vampirism. So it would be impossible to fight against it, unless some force outside of us frees us from this curse. I do not see that we are guilty of sin until the moment we sin, but we are bound to sin as having the virus of sin, at some point it will manifest. So I don't see that we are guilty of birth, but heirs of a nature with the incubated virus. but that does not make us sinners until the moment we actually commit sin, only at that moment are we guilty and responsible for what we practice. I see that unless someone dies as a newborn, they will sin. I would like to know your thoughts on this.

RESPONSE-

Your question is a good one! The doctrine of Original Sin is an important doctrine in the history of the Christian faith. However, there is substantial variety in the understanding of the doctrine by the major Christian denominations, and in fact, the doctrine is not even universally held. The underlying assumption that seems to be present in your question and analogy of virus transmission, is the understanding of imputed sin nature. As you state in your question, "I think that Adam's fallen and sinful nature has been transmitted to us, just as a virus that manifests itself and inevitably takes over like a zombie virus or vampirism."  This understanding is akin (although not identical) to the view historically held by many in Western Christianity whereby we inherit the sin nature from Adam's commission of the first sin in the Garden as well as Adam's guilt for his sin. In this view, most prominently proposed by Augustine, humanity cannot not sin, it is inevitable. This is similar to your view I think, although you disavow the personal guilt aspect. Additionally, Augustine would have been favorable toward your virus analogy as he felt that original sin was passed along biologically. However, in Eastern Christianity, a "softer" view prevails whereas the doctrine is seen more along the lines of our environment that has been tainted. Adam and Eve sinned, thereby tainting our environment, and to some degree our nature in that now we experience death, creating a context that we inherit in which we are now more likely to commit personal sin. In Eastern Orthodoxy, one would say that we all inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, but not the personal guilt. 

It is important to note that this doctrine is not typically considered a core or essential doctrine, meaning it is not required to believe in the doctrine or a particular version of the doctrine, to be considered a Christian. This is an in-house debate that is important, but not essential to the core gospel. What is core to the gospel is that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and "... there is no one righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:10). But the idea of the human race inheriting the original sin and guilt of Adam in some fashion is not an essential.

Dr. William Lane Craig has written and spoken fairly extensively on this topic. I particularly commend his "Defender Series"/Doctrine of Man on the topic to you and one of his answers to a previous "Question of the Week" - links to both are below. May God bless you richly Luis and thank you for reaching out!

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s10
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/original-sin/

The Kalam Argument for the Existence of God

This is a question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

"I wanted to get your opinion on something. I recently watched a clip of Graham Oppy talking about the Kalam Cosmological argument. He says that when you pose God as a solution you are adding a new “substance” or “thing” or assumption to the argument. So since we know the universe exists it’s simpler to say that the universe is the necessary cause. Now the clip I saw was taken from another video so I don’t get the whole context. But basically, how would you respond to someone saying it’s best to assume a unknown naturalistic cause for the universe (even if it’s a universe before ours) verses God creating it?"

RESPONSE-

Josh, I know you said you really don't have the full context of Graham Oppy's comments so it's a little difficult to be sure I'm addressing his point. If his point was that positing God as the cause of the universe is not justified simply because God is not part of the universe...well that is essentially saying it's not justified to say the universe has a cause. But, that's the entire point of the Kalam argument! So I'm not sure that is what he was driving at but if so, it's begging the question. If on the other hand, his point was that by introducing God as a supernatural cause one is introducing a more complex solution thus violating Ockham's razor, then I would say it only violates Ockham's principle if positing a cause within the universe makes sense. I believe we can say no, it does not make sense. For it to make sense we have to posit that the universe is the cause of itself which is patently nonsensical! Again, such a proposal actually runs contrary to the Kalam argument. Premise 2 of the argument states, "the universe began to exist". Thus P2 precludes the idea that the universe itself is necessary or eternal. Rather, unless one can defeat P2 of the argument, the conclusion (C1) follows logically and necessarily. One cannot say P1 is true and P2 is true yet claim the universe is necessary or eternal!  If P1 and P2 are true, the universe is clearly not eternal and therefore must have a cause. The current scientific consensus is that P1 and P2 are true. But what about your explicit question?

You asked, "...how would you respond to someone saying it’s best to assume a unknown naturalistic cause for the universe (even if it’s a universe before ours) verses God creating it?" My first response would be derived from what I explained above, the whole point of the Kalam argument is to present the logical, inescapable conclusion from P1 and P2. You cannot assume an unknown naturalist cause for the universe if you agree to P2 because a naturalistic cause means a cause that is of nature which by definition is within the universe! And, P2 is the scientific consensus so one would need to provide a defeater for that premise. In your question, you introduce a potential defeater which is the multiverse theory. Nevertheless, my first response to someone who objects that a naturalistic cause is best is to say, the universe cannot cause itself. The idea of self-cause is nonsensical.

But what about the "multiverse" theory to which you refer when you say, "even if it's a universe before ours"? There are various permutations of the multiverse idea but suffice it to say none have gained consensus, all are highly speculative, and anything but simple as an alternative to divine causation! To propose a multiverse construct to explain the existence of our universe certainly doesn't qualify as a simpler solution. The *only* thing that it might possibly "buy" the objector over a Divine causation solution is that it could be called "naturalistic". So, if one is operating from a naturalistic presupposition, it will be more appealing. However, the multiverse theories are so speculative I think a case can be made they are more in the realm of metaphysics than in the realm of physics. But, even assuming they are squarely in the realm of physics a multiverse theory really just begs the question. Where did the multiverse come from?! Unless one can demonstrate with more probability than P2 (which enjoys current scientific consensus) that the multiverse is necessary/eternal, then one must also posit a cause to the multiverse. Thus the multiverse fails as an ultimate cause for the universe.

The genius of the Kalam argument (beyond being most aligned to the empirical evidence of course) is that its conclusion is logically inescapable if P1 and P2 are true. P1 is virtually undisputed and P2 enjoys current scientific consensus. Further, the logic leads to additional conclusions that are very difficult to dispute leading to specifically a Divine cause. This of course is why many go to such extreme speculative measures to propose a naturalistic cause. Building upon C1 we can say, (C2) the cause must be outside the universe, i.e. independent from the universe in order to be a cause of the universe, (C3) and if the cause is "prior" to the universe, i.e. no time and space yet existed, the cause must be timeless and spaceless, and (C4) the cause must be immensely powerful, with (C5) immense intelligence to have caused a universe of such amazing fine-tuning to support life, and finally (C6) the cause must be personal to best explain the act of causing "prior" to time itself because that implies a decision and a decision implies a mind. So as we can see, many subsequent conclusions flow from C1 of the Kalam argument. This expands the scope and explanatory power of the argument helping to establish it as a superior or more plausible explanation for the universe than a purely naturalistic explanation.

Josh, I hope this helps. God bless you!

God's Sovereignty

This is a question sent to me and my response.

QUESTION-

"I am a Pentecostal Christian. At times, I think God is very passive in a submissive Christian's life. Why not? I know He is sovereign, but yet He doesn't take control of situations. I love a very deep answer please."

RESPONSE-

I am a bit confused by the way your question is worded so I will need to make an assumption on what you are really asking. What's confusing is that you say, "Why not?" immediately after the phrase, "I think God is very passive in a submissive Christian's life."  What you seem to be asking in context though is, why is it that God sometimes seems passive in a Christian's life? Even though we know he is sovereign over all creation, why does he not "take control of the situation"? I will assume your "why not?" question applies to, why does God not take control of the situation. So I apologize if I have misunderstood the intent of your question.

The key to the answer is found in your very question when you say, "I know he is sovereign". Yes, he is sovereign! We know this from scripture. "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases (Ps 115:3)  "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose" (Is 46:10)  "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Dn 4:35) "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Ac 2:23) "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." (Ro 8:28)  "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will..." (Ep 1:11) and I could go on and on! Scripture clearly reveals and proclaims the absolute sovereignty of God, meaning that he alone has the ability to do all that he desires, to accomplish all his purposes.

However, that in no way implies that he will intervene in our individual situations in a manner that we would prefer. Not at all! In fact, God's sovereignty means that he will accomplish *his* purposes completely and perfectly and that means allowing or ensuring our situations play out just as they do! If we truly believe God is sovereign over all things then it includes our lives and situations. God knows you perfectly. He knows your current situation perfectly and he knows every future event perfectly. Part of God's sovereignty is that perfect knowledge which includes what is often called "middle knowledge". God's middle knowledge means that God not only knows the beginning situation perfectly (i.e. the "now"), and the end (i.e. the future) perfectly, but he also knows everything in the middle perfectly. He knows what decisions you would make given any possible situation you could face in the world that God himself created and arranged. This is how God works all things together for your good and for his glory. This is referred to as God's providence and is what scripture clearly teaches. Therefore, far from passive, God is intimately active in every event and every situation such that Paul could make that amazing claim in Romans 8:28 - "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."  So we must be careful not to confuse situations and outcomes that don't please us with God being passive! This is where Christian faith comes into play. As the writer of Hebrews explains in chapter 11 by reminding us of the great heroes of faith. God made promises to them. But their life situations appeared not to be coming out as God promised. God appeared to not be giving Abraham the land he promised for example. But Abraham believed God, trusted in God's goodness and his sovereign purposes, and that was accounted to Abraham as righteousness. So it is with everyone who follows God. He wants us to trust him and believe in his goodness and sovereign purposes that, while it might appear God is not actively fulfilling his promises in our lives, he is indeed working all things together for our good and his glory! This is the essence of faith, what it means to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Co 5:7).

Russell, I hope this helps and may God richly bless you!

God and Morality - The Divine Command Theory

This is a question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

"As I understand it, you are a defender of the Divine Command Theory, that is, the idea that morality comes from what God commands. I heard an argument against said theory that I can't seem to get around. I would like to know your thoughts. The argument stems from the fact that there are verse in the Bible where god commands evil things. For example, in Deuteronomy chapter 13 verses 13-16 he says "that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt" In that verse, God commands the slaughter and total destruction of a town because they do not believe in God, and he says to do this "as a... offering to the Lord" This verse as well as other verses would certainly offend our moral sensibilities. The argument, then, is that because of this verse and others like it you can not get morality from the Bible. Let me explain. When confronted with this kind of verse, one has two options. One is that that kind of verse is not an expression of God's will, and one that it is. If we go with the former option, that it isn't an expression of God's will, then it's impossible to extract any value from the Bible as a moral document because we are simply choosing which verses are God's will and which aren't subjectively, and if we can do that the Bible stops being morally useful. What is stopping someone from using only the Bible verse we think of as evil and constructing a moral theory around that. If we still want to hold on to the idea that morality comes from the Bible, one must say that the verse I cited and others like it are an expression of God's will. That leaves us with two more options, either that the verse I cited and others like it are moral, and that they are not moral. If we choose the former option, then we are degrading the entire concept of morality into simply what God commands. God could command anything and it would still be moral under this view, thus making the entire concept meaningless. If we choose the latter option, than what good is a moral theory if it produce immoral outcomes? Why would any chose to get their morality from said source? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the argument. It seems inescapable to me, but I don't know if I'm missing something. Thanks! Sincerely, -Matt"

RESPONSE-

Matthew, this is a good question and one which Dr. William Lane Craig deals with extensively. I will include a couple of reference links at the end of my answer for your further consideration. To begin let's review the Divine Command theory basis for morality to make sure we are on a level set regarding the claim. On Divine Command theory, moral values are derived from the *nature* of God who, as the greatest conceivable being, is the sum, definition, and ground of all moral values. By this, we mean that our values regarding good and evil, right and wrong, are derived from and grounded in, God's very nature. Moral duties refer to our obligations to act and behave in ways consistent with our moral values. These duties are derived from the commands of God, that in turn are grounded in and flow from his nature. So, in summary, our moral values are grounded in God's nature and our moral duties are derived from God's commands, and God's commands are grounded in and flow from his nature.

From that understanding of Divine Command theory, we can draw one important conclusion that is relevant to your question. Namely, that God cannot command something inconsistent with his nature, otherwise he would cease to be the greatest conceivable being and the supreme good thus undermining his own essential nature. Therefore, God's commands are consistent with his nature. So if we properly understand his commands we can be assured that those commands are consistent with his nature as the supreme good and ground of our moral values. But, clearly, this does not mean that your or my, or any other particular person's sense of what is moral, will agree with God's definition! When we consider a command that God gives, such as the command found in Deuteronomy you referenced in your question, we should rightly ask, "Is this a true and accurate representation of God's command?" If it is a true representation of God's command, then it is morally right whether you agree with it or not! That is the essence of the Divine Command theory. God is the definition of morality and from his character/nature, he commands. We are imperfect, limited, conflicted, and impure in our natures and understanding thus a very flawed moral agent. But as you noted this leaves us with some interesting, perhaps troubling, options in the face of such commands that offend our moral sensibilities. But my point here is to remember our moral sensibilities are flawed and corrupt! They exist, as reflections of our Creator and definition of moral values and duties to be sure, but our sensibilities are by definition *ours* and therefore limited and flawed.

Remembering the above, let's tackle the potentially troubling options you mention. It is certainly possible that the Bible is not presenting a true and accurate representation of God's command. But, as you note that would certainly open up some difficulties hermeneutically. But those difficulties can be addressed by proper hermeneutic principles and techniques to include textual criticism, for example, that might enable us to determine the passage in question had been corrupted over time. Manuscript evidence might show an alternate reading that resolves or relieves some of the issues. These types of tools are required to get an accurate reading and understanding of the text throughout scripture so this is not any form of "special pleading" it is simply the appropriate way to handle any ancient text in order to derive an accurate reading and understanding of the text. But, this is not our only option regarding the reading of the text. The text may be giving a perfectly true and accurate recounting of God's command but simply not providing all of the background details that would put the command in an adequate context for a modern reader to properly understand. This I believe to be the case in the passage you mentioned and the other similar passages to which you allude. This explanation assumes that there are adequate reasons and context details that would make a command to kill people morally acceptable. Dr. Craig deals with this in his explanation regarding the "slaughter of the Canaanites" to which I include a reference at the end of my answer. For example, would we consider it morally just to kill another human being to defend ourselves or a loved one? Would we consider it morally right, to kill in the case where an enraged man was beating a baby and the only way to save the baby was to kill the man? Was killing justifiable to stop the Nazis? It is clear that, given sufficient justifying details of context, the act of killing other humans can be morally justifiable. Therefore, the command from God to kill could certainly be justifiable. Consider further that God is omniscient. As much as you or I might know about a situation, God knows *all* about a situation! He not only knows all current facts but also knows the hearts of each individual completely. He also knows what free choices each person would make given any future situation (middle knowledge) and what future situations those people will encounter, and he knows all this perfectly. So, if God is the very definition of goodness, mercy, justice, love, etc then when he commands he is commanding in perfect consistency with those attributes of his nature, and he is commanding with the perfect knowledge of the entire context. While we cannot possibly have the full context in a few verses of scripture, God has absolutely perfect knowledge of the context and of all hearts and minds involved.

In light of the above, we do not have to choose between, God is giving immoral commands, or scripture is flawed in its representation of God's commands. Rather, scripture is providing an accurate, but necessarily limited, description of the context in which the Divine command is given. Were we to know and understand *all* factors that God knows, we would find sufficient justification for the command to be morally acceptable. Now, to refer back to a previous point, that does not mean you will agree! As we both know, there are people who would say there is never any justification to kill another human being. They believe capital punishment is immoral. They believe self-defense is immoral. But that is their subjective moral position that is clearly not in alignment with God's revealed nature and commands. His justice and even mercy dictate that in certain cases it is justifiable to kill. Individual human beings can have their moral sensibilities troubled by the perfect moral nature of God!

Hopefully, this helps Matthew. Please see the two below references for what Dr. Craig has to say about these issues. God bless you!

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/whence-moral-duties/

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/slaughter-of-the-canaanites

Slaughter of the Canaanites | Reasonable Faith In the forums, there has been some good questions raised on the issue of God commanding the Jews to commit “genocide” on the people in the promise land. As you have pointed out in some of your written work that this act does not fit with the Western concept of God being the big sugar daddy in the sky. Now we can certainly find justification for those people coming under God judgement ... www.reasonablefaith.org

Whence Moral Duties? | Reasonable Faith Hi Dr Craig, I just wanted to start my question off by assuring you of just how revered and appreciated you and your work is in the UK. Your work is considered of the utmost standard by those of us living across the pond! Recently there has been rather a lot of online hullabaloo regarding a new series of videos on morality (in which the presenter frequently cites your moral argument) by the ... www.reasonablefaith.org

Faith and Reason

A question I received and my response.

QUESTION-

"1) What is the relationship between faith and knowledge? Which verses in the Bible show that this is the correct view of the relationship between faith and knowledge? 2) How should we interpret Proverbs 3:5-6? How do these verses relate to the answer to 1) above? "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths." 3) How should we interpret Hebrews 11:1? How does this verse relate to the answer to 1) above? "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Hope you can help. God bless"

ANSWER-

It's a great question! And it is a question that has been debated, discussed, and analyzed for most of Christian history. Faith is by no means contrary to reason or knowledge. Martin Luther's description is a very helpful way of looking at it. Martin Luther identified three elements of Christian faith to be 1) Understanding. This is to say that one must have a basic knowledge and understanding of the propositions or realities that ultimately become the object(s) of faith. 2) Assent. An intellectual assent or agreement to the propositions, facts, etc regarding the object of faith is necessary before one can have 3) Trust/confidence. One cannot trust or have confidence in something or someone that is unknown. Nor can one trust in something or someone without an intellectual agreement regarding specific propositional truths about that someone or something. So Luther would say that Christian faith (we could also refer to it as saving faith) in Jesus involves understanding some basic level of information about Jesus, such as that he lived, died, and rose again. But Christian faith in Jesus would also need intellectual assent to that information, meaning that one needs to agree that Jesus did in fact live, die, and rise again - not only understand the informational claim but also intellectually agree with its truth. But that's not enough. In addition to understanding the information or claims about Jesus, and agreeing that those things are true, authentic Christian faith must also trust in those things about Jesus and in Jesus himself. The final element of trust in Christian faith is built upon the first two elements but moves beyond them to a state of trust, confidence, and dependence upon and in the truths. If one understands the claim that Jesus actually lived in history, died on the cross, rose from the grave, and agrees those claims are true, and puts his or her trust in Jesus, his death and resurrection, he or she has Christian faith! This is a biblically aligned definition and description of Christian faith. And I believe it describes the relationship between faith and knowledge. Christian faith is not a blind leap or a nondescript sense of "believing" in something. No, it is an agreement to and trust *in* objective propositions and ultimately the person of Jesus Christ. So faith and knowledge work hand-in-hand. Someone who says that Christians simply believe without knowledge or evidence, or take a blind leap, is very misguided.

That is not to say that faith in God or Jesus Christ specifically, requires external evidence and argument. Philosophers (Dr. William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga for example) talk about belief in God as a "properly basic belief". What is meant by that, is that knowing and believing God exists can occur without a mental process of examining evidence and arguments, then arriving at the conclusion that God exists. Rather, a properly basic belief is an assumed belief that someone has derived without the need for such external evidence or argumentation. An example would be the belief that the external world is objectively real and not just a figment of one's imagination. People don't go through a logical process of examining evidence and argumentation and then conclude the external world is real! Rather, we assume the objective reality, and such properly basic beliefs are warranted. In a similar fashion, a person can arrive at the conclusion God exists by simply knowing, being convinced, that he exists. This is rationally appropriate because if indeed God does exist, he is a person with the ability to directly testify to someone of his existence. Similar to the way in which a child knows his parents exist without the need to prove it or gather evidence to conclude his parents exist, a person can know that God exists. This is a properly basic belief. In such cases, it may or may not lead to the element of trust, so may or may not be authentic Christian/saving faith. But if not, it certainly is a legitimate belief that is derived in a manner apart from external evidence and argumentation. Such a faith is not irrational as it is not necessarily opposed to knowledge or logic but simply derived in an immediate manner through a personal encounter with the living God. In such cases, it is highly likely, indeed probable, the person seeks to understand and even verify the belief with external evidence and argumentation. As the great theologian, Anselm stated it, fides quaerens intellectum "Faith seeking understanding". For Anselm, this would apply to the one who had authentic, "saving" Christian faith and seeks deeper knowledge of God.

Now, to the other part of your question. Is this understanding of the relationship between faith and knowledge biblical and how does it align (or not) with the passages you specifically mention? The biblical support for a properly basic belief in God (whether "saving" faith or not) seems to be rather obvious so I will refer to one passage but many could be cited. The call of Abraham seems to be such an example in Gen 12:1-7. The narrative could certainly be said to pick up in mid-stream in verse one without providing some set of previous events that could indicate this encounter with God was more in line with a culmination of external evidence and argumentation. We see such encounters with God of course, such as the case of Moses where the burning bush and turning the staff into a serpent function as external evidence and argumentation to convince Moses. But here in Gen 12:1 the text simply says, "Now the Lord had said..." (NKJV) or "Now the Lord said..." (ESV). Further, in verse 7 we see that God appeared to Abraham and "said".  There is no indication in these texts of external signs and wonders as we see in other places. Yet Abraham built an altar to the Lord and moved on as God had commanded so clearly Abraham believed. And of course, we're told in Rom 4:3 that Abraham believed God. Many more passages likewise seem to indicate an immediate, personal experience with God that results in belief.

But does the Bible support the idea that faith relates to knowledge as described above in regards to external knowledge and argumentation? Yes, I believe it clearly does. Again, there are many passages that could be cited but I will only cite a couple of key passages that illustrate the point and then address Proverbs 3:5-6 and Heb 11:1. First to consider is the passage describing Moses' encounter with God at the burning bush in Exodus 3-4:17. This encounter is clearly an encounter with God in which God appears externally rather than in a purely internal manner. Moses obviously saw a bush burning but not being consumed, he heard an audible voice, God reasoned with him and gave him signs to help assure and convince him, and God even said the signs he promised would be used to convince Israel so they would believe (4:4-9). God uses the external testimony of reason by way of signs and argumentation to convince Moses so he would ultimately have faith to carry out God's plan. And God told Moses that he would give him powerful signs so Israel would believe that the God of their fathers was real, had seen their suffering, and was with Moses to deliver them.

Another great example of the relationship between knowledge and faith is seen in John 11, the narrative of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Here, Jesus makes it very clear he wants to use this situation as an external sign for people to see and believe. He tells his disciples this in verse 15. He then says it in prayer to the Father in verse 42, and then we see John tell us in verse 45 that many believed because of the things they saw Jesus do. Without a doubt, this is a great example of how people often arrive at authentic Christian faith in a manner that aligns with the human faculty of reason. People see the miracles performed by Jesus, understand what they see, agree that, as he had claimed, he must be more than just a mere man, and then trusted in him.

But does Proverbs 3:5-6 mitigate against this understanding? Not at all. We must see 3:5-6 in the context set by the passage in the first 4 verses. The key is verse 1 - the writer is admonishing his son to *not* forsake the commandments that he had passed on to him. That's the point of the passage. It takes the faculty of reason to understand that instruction and those commands! Then the writer is encouraging his son to trust the Lord and be humble. The admonition to "lean not on your own understanding" in this context is not meant to discourage thinking or reasoning. Rather, it is meant as a warning the son to not allow his reasoning to lead to a rejection of God and his commands. The admonition is to not be arrogant and think that his understanding and wisdom is greater than his father's and God's. So this passage seems to offer nothing contrary at all to the concept of reason working hand-in-hand with faith but instead functions as a warning against arrogance. Arrogance is actually a dangerous state of mind that obscures one's rational thinking!

But what about Heb 11:1 and how are we to understand it in the light of this question? To understand Heb 11:1 we need to examine also 11:6, 13, and 19. By taking these 4 verses together from Heb 11 we see that the writer is focusing primarily on that third element of faith, the element of trust and confidence. In the case of Heb 11, the writer chooses to provide numerous examples of historical figures who put their confidence in God's promises to such a degree they were willing to sacrifice and do great things based on that confidence. In verse one, that confidence is so strong it is as if it's a tangible possession of the thing hoped for. The one who has this kind of faith is so confident, trusts God so completely, it is as if he has the promise when in fact he does not yet have it. But the one with faith trusts God completely to deliver on his promise. Such trust motivates one to act as if he or she already possesses the promise but simply hasn't received it yet. That kind of faith is what James talks about being accompanied by works because it apprehends the thing hoped for, trusted in, and believed in, to such a degree that it changes one's life to become oriented around the object of faith. This is exactly what the writer of Hebrews is demonstrating with the "faith hall of fame". These heroes of faith so believed God that it changed how they lived. They lived not by sight because God had not yet delivered on his promise. Rather, they lived by faith having such confidence in God that he would deliver on his promise, it was as if they had already received it or had solid, tangible evidence of it.

Verse 6 is fascinating in that it reveals two elements of faith explicitly and implies the first element. The person of faith can please God because he comes to God (this is the implied first element because obviously such a person has understood certain things in order to come at all) believing that God exists demonstrating the intellectual assent that what he or she has heard is indeed true, that God exists! Then the third element of faith is demonstrated when the person with God-pleasing faith trusts that God is good and is a rewarder of those who diligently or sincerely seek him as previously demonstrated by the heroes of faith. This verse is a very nice explanation of the three elements of Christian faith.  Verse 13 demonstrates what the writer mentioned in verse one. The people with faith saw as it were the fulfilled promises of God from afar. They didn't have the promises of God in the here and now but had such trust and confidence in God they lived as pilgrims simply passing through this world on their way to receive the promises of God. It changed their perspective and how they lived. They were assured of receiving the promises, they had complete trust and confidence. This is the key third element of saving faith.

Finally, verse 19 is very instructive in showing the link between this kind of trust and confidence to the human faculty of reasoning. Abraham "concluded" that God could even raise Isaac from the dead if need be. This indicates intellectual deliberation or reasoning. The Greek word used here is "logizomai" coming from the root "logos" from which we get the word logic. It is a verb in this verse indicating the act of reasoning, thinking through, considering something. The writer of Hebrews is telling us that Abraham thought about it, reasoning that based on what he knew of God, his past experiences, God's promises, etc, he could trust God's ability, willingness, goodness, and faithfulness, to fulfill his promise even if it meant raising Isaac from the dead! Far from blind, unreasoning faith, Abraham's faith was a rational faith. It was a faith that was interrelated to Abraham's knowledge of God based on experiences (evidence), and his rational processes of reasoning, but also a faith that went beyond intellectual assent to a profound trust and confidence in God. It was a trust and confidence growing out of his knowledge of and experience with God, not in spite of it.

Anonymous, hopefully, this helps put the pieces together for you. Thanks again for writing. God bless you!

A Jesus Conspiracy Theory!

The following is a question I received and my response:

QUESTION-

"Could the prophesies from the old testament have been fulfilled not only intentionally by Jesus, but a wider organization as well? I know this sounds ridiculous, but I was bothered by the possibility that Jesus could have been part of a larger conspiracy to fulfill the prophesies and appear as the Messiah. If there was a hypothetical organization, and it's members included Mary and Joseph, couldn't they have chosen to go to Bethlehem to fulfill the prophesy of the Messiah's birth? Additionally, this secret organization was cult-like, then Jesus might have been willing to give his life to support the goal of the organization. Finally, a piece of strong evidence in favor of the resurrection of evidence is that he not only appeared to his disciples, but that he was perfectly healthy, leading them to believe in him and spread the news of his resurrection, even though they would die for it. But what if the disciples were all part of the organization as well? Then they might have made up the appearance of Jesus, and if they were members of this hypothetical organization/cult, they might have had incentive enough to die for spreading the message. Is it also possible there was simply a Jesus look-alike? I know this sounds ridiculous and it's definitely a conspiracy theory, but it has been bothering me, and I'd love if you could address it. Thank you."

ANSWER-

Thanks for your question...and I must admit it does sound a little far fetched! It's certainly possible that such a scenario could have happened, in a logical and physical possibility sense. But, there is really no evidence to suggest that it did. Whenever we think about historical events we can always let our imaginations run wild and conjecture about any number of possibilities. But, we should reign in our imaginations with logic, evidence, and in the case of scripture, the leadership of the Holy Spirit. If we do that, it will keep us from being troubled by outlandish possibilities.

Regarding the conspiracy you imagine in your question, I think you will see if we apply some critical historical discipline, it crumbles rather quickly. First, your imagined conspiracy seems to contain the idea of intentionality on the part of Jesus and possibly others who would be choosing to do certain things intentionally in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecies. You should not be troubled by the idea of intentionality. In fact, we can be quite confident that Jesus did certain things intentionally to fulfill OT prophecies. Scripture (Mat 5:17) tells us this explicitly! Jesus, being God incarnate, inspired the prophets to write what they wrote, he obviously knew what was intended and knew why he came - it was to fulfill the prophecies that he himself caused to be proclaimed. He told the religious leaders that the Old Testament scriptures in which they search for eternal life testify of him (Jn 5:39). So we see clearly that Jesus would be expected to "intentionally" fulfill the Old Testament prophecies. That certainly should not trouble you.

Secondly, what about others who may have also been intentional in their activities to fulfill prophecy. We have no indication that any of the others had such intentionality. In fact, prior to Jesus' resurrection, all scriptural evidence indicates that his followers, family, and others did not realize the true nature of his messiahship. Specifically, they did not expect or anticipate a suffering servant Messiah who would suffer and die a vicarious death for the atonement of sin. The idea of Messiah as a suffering servant may not have been completely absent prior to the post-resurrection understanding of Jesus by his followers, but it is greatly debated among scholars that such an idea existed at all. And it is almost certain, that no idea of a Messiah who would die a vicarious, atoning death existed prior to Christianity. This is strong evidence that the followers of Jesus would not have expected anything like what Jesus indeed was, a Messiah who would willingly sacrifice himself as a vicarious sin offering to the Father on behalf of his people. This, of course, would make it untenable that they were involved in a conspiracy to "fulfill" Old Testament prophecy in such a manner as to make Jesus appear to be the Suffering Servant of Isa 53 as a divine/human, Messiah who would suffer for the atonement of sin. Because there is no evidence that this understanding existed until after the resurrection of Jesus! It took a radical, transformational event to change the thinking of Jesus' followers in order for them to understand this new revelation of Messiah as One who would suffer for them and die as the atonement for their sin.

And thirdly, that leads to the final element of your concern. Could the disciples have been part of a conspiracy to fake the death and resurrection of Jesus? This objection has been around from the beginning! In fact, it is referenced in the New Testament itself, see Mat 28:13-15. There is a reason this objection has not ever gained much of a following. It is because it is not very plausible. As noted above, Jews of the day did not expect such a Messiah as Jesus. Instead, they expected an anointed servant of God with special abilities who would come and deliver Israel and establish an earthly kingdom in which Israel would be preeminent under the rule of Messiah. Obviously, a suffering, dying, resurrecting, and ascending to heaven type of Messiah whose rule was in the hearts of mankind, and would be for Gentiles as well as Jews, was a total non sequitur! If they were going to concoct a conspiracy in order to establish a successful cult or organization, this is definitely NOT the one they would concoct! Additionally, why would they concoct a conspiracy that would ensure their own persecution and death? This would be utterly counterproductive.  Further, if the disciples were in on the lie, then why sustain the lie in the face of persecution and death? You said, "they might have had incentive enough" to die for the lie...but what could that have been? This in fact is one evidence for the validity of the resurrection itself, that the actual resurrection of Jesus provides the powerful incentive that would be needed to face persecution and death - not only for themselves but also for their families. They lost everything of worldly value - ostracized, persecuted, loss of reputation, and ultimately death and the probable destruction of their families. The actual resurrection of Jesus which validated his teaching about who he was, the kind of Messiah he was, and provided the hope of eternal life with him in glory, would be the incentive needed for what the disciples did. It seems inconceivable that they would have endured all that for a known lie which they themselves perpetrated!

 C**** hopefully, this helps to address your concerns. God bless you!

Can a Christian Lose Salvation?

This is a very important question and has been hotly debated within Christianity for centuries. Perhaps you know a bit about the ongoing debate and positions that have been defined in it, but to make sure we have at least a basic context let's consider a very brief summary.

Typically the answer to this question has fallen into two opposing camps. On one side is the Calvinist or Reformed position and on the other side is the Arminian position. The Calvinist position proposes an answer of "no", a true Christian cannot lose his or her salvation whereas the Arminian position proposes a "yes" answer to the question. Both of these positions would be considered within the pale of orthodoxy. However, there are people in each of these groups who would be considered of the more "radical" adherents, that would say the opposing position is heresy. However, throughout the history of the church either of these positions, as long as they were not accompanied by some other recognized heretical doctrine, was considered acceptable.

The Calvinist position holds that God converts the soul, causes the rebirth and transforms the nature, writing the law on the heart of the believer, and as such, the believer cannot "unconvert" him or herself. The believer now has a new nature and will act according to that new nature just as an unbeliever can only act according to his or her sinful, corrupt nature. Therefore, as a new creation, the believer will be faithful unto the end. But what about the passages of scripture that warn believers not to fall away, that seem to indicate a true believer can turn away from the faith? Heb 3 and Heb 6:4-12 are perhaps the classic passages to which most turn to make the claim that true believers can fall away. There are others as well but these seem to be the most significant. The Calvinist proponent tries to make the case these passages are really addressing the "pseudo-believer" and not a truly born again person. Additionally, some Calvinist would claim that, even if they are addressed to true believers, God uses these kinds of warnings to keep the true believer in the faith, as a means of sustaining or preserving grace. More about this later.

The Arminian position would say we must take the warnings at face value and if they appear to be issued to true believers, we should assume the audience is the true believer and therefore, true believers are authentically subject to falling away. Of course, this view is built upon the foundational view of libertarian free will that is key to the Arminian theology. And, conversely, the Calvinist view is built on their foundational view of total depravity and the bondage of the will. On the Arminian view, the will remains free to simply walk away from Christ, and thus conditions could occur that would result in a true believer walking away, committing apostasy. God works in the life of the believer to sustain and keep the believer but in the end, the believer has libertarian freedom and can use that freedom to turn away from God's grace.

But, something on which both Arminians and Calvinists agree, is that if a true believer were to ultimately and finally reject Christ there would be no hope for repentance per Hebrews 6:4-6. This would be the "point of no return".  Some ask if a true Christian can lose their salvation "due to repeated disobedience". There is scriptural evidence, specifically Heb 3, that indicates continued disobedience and rebellion, and "the deceitfulness of sin" can lead one to unbelief and a final rejection of Christ. But it is the final rejection of Christ that dooms one. It's not the disobedience or even denials like Peter's three denials, it's the unbelief. It is the rejection of Christ as our Savior that dooms us to the judgment of God because there is no other solution for our sin (Heb 10:26) and anything left to provide reconciliation to God! So both Arminians and Calvinists agree that to be saved, one must continue to believe in Christ unto the end. The difference is that Arminians believe a true believer can ultimately and finally turn away from Christ and fall into unbelief whereas the Calvinist believes that God will work to maintain the true believer in faith unto the end. On Calvinism, a true believer might turn away for a time but will ultimately return in faith.

As mentioned above, some Calvinists would claim that various warnings we see in scripture are indeed aimed at true believers. But, the warnings do not mean that a true Christian can ultimately turn away from Christ, rather they function as a means of God's grace to maintain the true Christian's faithfulness so they don't turn away. They function to help sustain saving faith. This actually assumes a Molinist understanding of God's middle knowledge. The idea here is that believers have the ability to turn away from Christ if it were not for God's sustaining activity. God knows exactly what each of us would do under any given circumstance so, in his providence, he arranges the lives of his elect in such a way that will sustain their faith. While the true believer *could* turn away, they are not being coerced against their wills or forced in any way to stay with Christ, God knows if circumstances are arranged in a given manner, they *will* not turn away from Christ. In other words, God's providence based on his omniscience, which includes middle knowledge as described, is the method he uses to sustain and preserve his elect in faith without violating their free agency.  This is the position I hold.  I am reformed in my theological position but adopt Molinism as the *way* God ensures his purposes are achieved without violating human freedom. And, using his middle knowledge, he sustains and preserves his elect in faith unto the end.

In summary, the key points on which most all agree are: 1) one must continue believing in Christ until the end. When Peter asked Jesus how many times he should forgive someone who wronged him, he assumed Jesus might say as many as 7 times! That would be generous for sure. But Jesus said 70 times 7! In other words, there is no limit to forgiveness for those who come back to Christ in repentance and faith. And 2) the only way to lose one's salvation is to finally reject Christ, to simply turn away from him and never return. As long as you are trusting Christ, asking him for forgiveness for your sin and disobedience, you are by definition in faith.

Bathrooms, Bakers, and...Bigots?

Who would have thought that we would have knock down, drag out cultural debates about whether a biological male or female ought to be able to go into the restroom of "their choice"?! Below is a comment I made in reply to a comment on my original comment to a Yahoo! news story about Ringo Star cancelling his concert in NC as a protest against their "restroom law". My original comment received over 800 likes and over 600 comments/replies. One common type of comment to which I responded was with the explanation below because it gave an opportunity to correct a common misunderstanding AND more importantly an opportunity to share the Gospel. Keep in mind, for those who choose to engage in online witnessing/apologetics we typically aren't expecting to convince hardcore "opponents" although we recognize God can change anyone's mind! Primarily we are trying to give a good answer so those who are "on the fence" and watching the back and forth will be positively influenced to the truth. So this might be helpful for someone else to think through this specific issue and objection to be better prepared for the next time it comes up...

The below response to Catherine was in response to her "question" of why don't Christians object to participating in weddings (to cater or photograph for instance) of adulterers, or child molesters or people who've had sex prior to marriage since all those things are considered sin by Christians.

"Catherine Gauthier This is a common rebuttal that I hear. But here is the difference and it is a massive difference. Christianity is at essence God coming to man, in the person of Jesus, to provide forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God. It is not man getting to God because man is utterly sinful and broken and cannot be good enough to "earn" forgiveness or reconciliation to God. We are ALL sinners and not just because we do those bad things you listed but because we don't love God above all else and honor Him in everything we are and do. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with your whole being...we ALL fail at that and so we need God's grace to forgive us and set us right with Himself. He does that through Jesus alone. SO, of course Christians don't refuse to relate to and work with sinners because we're all sinners! The homosexual sinner is no worse than I am in God's eyes. And the adulterer who is getting married is simply a sinner getting married.

Now, many Pastors will not marry people for a variety of religious/biblical reasons because the Pastor is actually solemnizing the marriage and will not put his blessing on something unbiblical. But for caterers etc there is a significant difference. The adulterer doesn't come into the bakery and say, “oh by the way, I am an adulterer and I would like you to bake a cake for my wedding and have it say, ‘adultery is beautiful and now we’re going to make it official by this marriage’, ok?” No, that never happens. If it did, those same Christian caterers and photographers would undoubtedly refuse.

What happens with a gay wedding is that the gay couple comes in for such wedding services and the ENTIRE point is that they are going to have a wedding to celebrate the union of two people of the same sex which is fundamentally a rejection of God’s definition of marriage and a fundamental rejection of God’s created order for male and female humans. This is in essence an utter rejection of God’s purpose for humanity in every sense and thus SIN and cannot under any circumstances be embraced and celebrated by Christians. If the adulterer or person who had premarital sex were getting married in such a way that was celebrating that sin it could not be embraced. But that’s not what they do, they are actually embracing God’s design for human relationship by entering into a covenant with one another to have a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. In a very real sense they are turning away from those previous sins (adultery or premarital sex) by entering into a marriage.  So again, this is a completely different scenario from two people of the same sex entering into "marriage" - such a thing is a complete rejection and aberration of the biblical design and definition of marriage. 

So the difference between those scenarios could not be more clear…"

Significance of a Christian Marriage

There are few things more important to the married Christian's walk with Christ than how we relate with our spouses. As I approach my 32nd year of marriage to my beautiful wife and God's greatest gift to me (outside of the gift of Himself in Christ) I've been thinking a lot about this.

We're told in Eph 5 that marriage is wrapped up in a great mystery that reflects the great mystery of God in Christ and how He relates to the Church. In that passage Paul links it back to Genesis 2 and the original mandate from God for the husband and wife, two individuals, to become so united to become as "one flesh". How do we achieve that incredible oneness? Paul says that the husband, as head of the wife, is likened to Christ who is Head of the Church, and so like Christ should love His wife. And the wife, like the Church, should submit to His leadership and respect her husband. That's the process. Since I'm a husband, I've been reflecting on my part of that process...

As Christ loves the Church and gave Himself for her so the husband should love his wife in a self-sacrificial way. That provides us some definition of "love", being self-sacrificial, but still leaves it rather abstract. But God's word elsewhere provides ample definition of what Paul means here.

In 1Pe 3, Peter gives similar instructions to husbands and wives and tells the husband to live with his wife in an understanding way and in a way so as to honor her. So love is further defined here as understanding and honoring. And Peter also connects it to the spiritual saying that she is a fellow heir of God's grace such that if husbands don't live with their wives in an understanding and honoring way, their relationship with God will be hindered!

Then Paul provides perhaps the most complete and beautiful detailed definition of what he meant when he instructed husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the Church. He does this in 1Cor 13. In that passage Paul tells us what actual, day to day love looks like, how it sounds, how it behaves. If your "love" for your wife doesn't look and sound and "feel" like this then it doesn't meet the high bar of Christian love. Paul says that love is, "patient and kind; does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful...it bears all things, believes all, hopes all things, endures all things".

Wow, I know I fail at loving Terri that way all the time but the fact of my failure does not diminish God's word and its authority for my life. No, it simply means I'm sinful, in need of a savior and must fight against the flesh so that I CAN love her that way more often than not. And if I do, if Christian men do, I'm quite certain that more often than not our wives will respond with the respect and honor and love we crave. But here is the truth - even if they DON'T - we are STILL to love them that way. For after all, is that not what Christ does for us?

A Challenge to Christians in a Culture of Intolerant Tolerance

A profound change in attitude has taken place in our culture and it seems Christians have largely been unable or unwilling to responded to it. This change in attitude is a change in how our culture views Christian ideas and values. Christian values were accepted in the past without question in most cases. When the validity of a principle or idea was up for debate, it was assumed that the Christian value system would be the measuring rod. A great example of this is seen in the history of the founding of our nation. Generally, it was assumed that the fundamental principles upon which this great nation would be built were to be the laws of the Jewish/Christian God. Even those individuals who were not professing Christians assumed it to be the best and wisest plan. The point is that it was an assumption. Nobody had to argue that the Judaeo Christian value system was the "right" model on which to build a society.

But today this is certainly not the case! Modern culture no longer assumes that the Judaeo Christian value system is right or true. In fact contemporary culture now assumes that it is not correct in most cases. American culture has relegated religious faith to the strictly personal and private arena. Many even become angry when one attempts to make ones' faith something more than a privately held personal opinion. So, many other philosophies have attempted to claim the place of objective, universal standard that the Judaeo Christian value system once enjoyed. As a result there are so many competing "value systems" in our modern society, and American culture is so complex, that it's well beyond the scope of this article to even review them. Suffice it to say that in large part our American culture honors plurality and a perverted idea of freedom of choice. Cloaked in ideas such as "plurality" (which also goes by the term "tolerance") and "personal freedom" (actually a deficient view of personal freedom without responsibility), all manner of societal ills now beset us.

As a result of these various value systems that exalt plurality (or tolerance) and personal freedom , reaction to the traditional Judaeo Christian value system is one of antagonism. The Christian value system contradicts the modern interpretation of plurality and personal freedom. Contemporary reaction to Christian values goes something like this, "What do you mean homosexuality is wrong? How can it be wrong if it is something in which two consenting adults engage and nobody else gets harmed. Some people are heterosexual and some are homosexual its just personal preference -- an alternate life style (plurality). And anyway, who are you to be telling someone else what's right or wrong. They have the right to do whatever (Personal freedom). In fact, you're the one who is wrong and have a problem! Your problem is homophobia and some psychologists say it's a mental illness!"

In the face of this ever growing antagonism what is the Christian to do? Well unfortunately, the response from Christians has often been one of simply reasserting the Christian message or worse to shut up and pull back! Christians should indeed continue to proclaim the truth. God's word is "sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb 4:12 NIV). We must continue to proclaim his word and truth. But we must do more. Continuing to only proclaim the word is a one dimensional response. We must also defend the truth. It's rightly said “we will never argue anyone into heaven” however, "...do not be frightened. But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (I Pet. 3:14-15 NIV). We have clear and powerful examples from God's word to follow. John the Baptist preached and debated the religious and civic leaders of his time. Jesus debated and reasoned with the Pharisees explaining the truths of the Kingdom. Acts 17 states that Paul's custom was to reason with the Jews in the synagogue, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. Later in that chapter we see that Paul reasoned in the synagogue and the marketplace every day. He even used literature and arguments from the Greek's own philosophers to prove to them the truth of his message.

We have a reasonable faith. Christianity is not someone's personal private opinion or fantasy. Faith is not a blind leap. We have nothing to be embarrassed about! No, we have evidence, fact, proofs that what we believe is real and true. There is more historical evidence and proofs for the events of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ than for nearly any other event in antiquity. So, our response to a culture that wants to setup other standards of conduct must be bold and confident! There is no other standard that has fact and truth for its basis. Then we must be willing to defend and prove what we say with rational argument yet with a loving attitude. When we say "prayer should be in school and the ten commandments back on the walls of our schools" we must be willing to explain why. When we say "abortion is wrong" we must be able to explain why. We must be able to defend our belief that the theory of evolution is inadequate. It should be taught only as a theory along side creation in our schools. Our culture asks "why should sex only take place in a heterosexual marriage relationship?". We must be able to give a reasoned explanation and at all times it must be tempered with love. If we cannot answer these questions and issues with reasoned, logical explanations our generation will turn us off. The Church will enter a whole new era of irrelevance. We must step up without fear and say to our generation and culture "Jesus has the answers and they make sense and they work." Do we really believe it? I do!

Beyond Kim Davis - Thoughts on the Marriage License Controversy

Here is a prime example of the MASSIVE misunderstanding of the nature of the "marriage license" controversy. https://video-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xfa1/v/t42.1790-2/11932711_1904773503082181_613486052_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjQ1MywicmxhIjoxMTYyfQ%3D%3D&rl=453&vabr=252&oh=b9155f91ae4875ac191bbc7e9ec45ecc&oe=55F2D5FC

While this little video may be humorous it defines marriage as nothing more than a set of human traditions. And like all traditions they can change and flux with time and culture. So the point made by the videos is, "who are we to define what marriage is or is not for someone else".

The fatal flaw in this thinking is to think that marriage is up for definition! Just because cultures throughout history have had numerous traditions surrounding marriage (some of which come out in this video) one thing has remained constant -: marriage is between a man and a woman. This cultural consistency, while sometimes wavering from the ideal, is not defining but recognizing the nature of marriage. Marriage is a "metaphysical" reality meaning it has an essence. It is something independent of our definition. It is a reality of "nature" and more than that, a reality defined and provided by God as an essential part of the very nature and fabric of human existence.

Therefore, marriage cannot be defined or redefined by the Supreme Court or any other human institution. Sure, cultures and institutions can define various traditions AROUND marriage. And no, those traditions should never be imposed on others but rather adopted by people who see those traditions as helping to add meaning to the marriage process. BUT the essence of marriage remains unchanged. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman as defined by "nature and nature's God" to borrow a phrase from our nation's founders.

With that in mind, how can Kim Davis, or any other county clerk, or any Pastor or Judge or anyone else involved in the marriage process be compelled by any human authority to lie about or misrepresent the nature of marriage? It matters not what the Supreme Court says about marriage - they don't define it! Just like it matters not what the Supreme Court says about the nature and value of a pre-born human life in the womb. Can the Supreme Court or some human law compel a nurse or doctor to kill a child in the womb just because it's "their job"? What happens if Peter Singer and the more radical element of the Democrat party get their way and the Supreme Court decides the Constitutional right to privacy also allows the mother to kill her child anytime after birth up to one year? Will we comply simply because "it's the law"? God forbid! As St Augustine of Hippo said, "an unjust law is no law at all".

Brothers and sisters in Christ, these issues before us today are profound and we must think clearly and biblically. We must be prepared to answer and act in a Christ honoring way. We cannot afford to be sucked into the cultural muck of relativistic philosophy that claims reality is what we define it to be. Just because you say "I want to be a girl even though I am a boy" does NOT make you a girl! And just because you say, "We two women or we two men are married" does not make it true. And these two issues are critically and fundamentally linked as gender is integral to the nature of marriage. Gender is a reality not up for human redefinition and marriage is a reality not up for human redefinition.

SS Class Audio for 10-13-2013

http://tindeck.com/download/pro/siqo/%5Btindeck.com%5D+-+bclark_63%2B-%2BSS%2BClass%2BAudio%2Bfrom%2B2013-10-06.mp3

FBC SS Class Audio for 10-6-2013

http://tindeck.com/download/pro/avpd/%5Btindeck.com%5D+-+bclark_63%2B-%2BClass%2BAudio%2Bfrom%2B2013-10-06.mp3

ON GUN CONTROL

My response to a letter to the editor in the St. Louis Post Dispatch Dec 26, 2012 regarding gun control in response to the Newtown Ct. shooting:

"I think your comparison is good but a little bit off. You're exactly right that just because someone might perhaps own a Corvette they don't have a right to drive 150 MPH. They should obey the speed limits just like the rest of us. That's exactly right. In fact that's my exact position regarding assault style rifles or high capacity magazines. Just because I own an assault style weapon and high capacity magazines doesn't mean I should use them in an illegal or harmful way...but I still have the liberty to own them just like the guy who still has the liberty to own the Corvette. He should drive his Corvette responsibly and legally as I must use my assault style weapon and magazines responsibly and legally.


Also, just like the guy with the Corvette - his car looks like a professional race car and is a lot faster and more capable than a "regular" family sedan BUT it is NOT a professional race car. The corvette has very important features that make it road legal and safe vs a professional race car and it has limitations that a professional race car does not have. This is just like it is with what we call "assault style" rifles. They look like the guns used by the military but they have very important differences that make them legal and safer for public use. The main difference in what I own vs what the military uses is that my "assault style" rifle is semi-automatic only (just like most hunting rifles) whereas the military assault rifle is selectable between semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) and full automatic (multiple shots per trigger pull). There are other differences but this is the biggy.

There is widespread misunderstanding about guns and about these so called "assault style" rifles. The ONLY differences (in terms of lethality) between a citizen version of a typical "assault style" rifle and a typical semi-automatic deer rifle are two: 1) the deer rifle is usually much more powerful than the assault style rifle and 2) the assault style rifle can accept larger capacity magazines. Over the past 10 years the assault style rifles have become far more popular among sport shooters for shooting competitions and hunting. For hunting the high capacity magazines are usually illegal so they utilize lower capacity magazines. For shooting competitions however the high capacity magazines are most often utilized. So when you hear people say, "there is no legitimate use for these assault weapons and high capacity magazines...they are only for killing people" you now know that is untrue.

Finally, "assault style" rifles are utilized by citizens for home defense. They make an excellent home defense choice because, when using the correct ammunition, they are often safer than a pistol or shotgun in regards to "over penetration". By that I mean, if the unthinkable happens and I am forced to defend my family from home invaders and I have to shoot someone, and if I use my assault style weapon with good self-defense ammunition, the likelihood of that bullet continuing to travel and penetrate through multiple walls and perhaps exit my house and penetrate into my neighbor's house is greatly minimized.

MUCH more could be said but I wanted to respond to your comments because you made a reasonable comment and one problem with this debate is that too many people really don't want to talk. They want to simply scream their opinions. Hopefully this helps clarify some things for someone. The bottom line is that this country was established on the basis of personal liberty and limited government. Liberty by its very nature is dangerous because it allows people to do bad things as well as good things. If we try to control the bad things by removing some aspect of personal liberty from everyone then we transfer more control to the government and eventually we will be no different than any other country in the world who has lost their freedoms and suffer under a tyrannical government. Like our founders said, our form of government (constitutional republic) is designed for a religious and moral people and is wholly unfit for any other. If we don't have the internal governance required to handle our liberty we will certainly lose it".

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON THIS TOPIC

In the final paragraph above I touch on the 2nd amendment aspect of this issue.  In many ways I actually think this aspect is the most significant. It is very important that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  By so doing the founders were stating that this right, among others, was a fundamental right required to secure and maintain liberty.  Why?  Of course it doesn't really take much study to answer the "why" question.  If it were not for their possession of firearms in the new world they would not have been able to conduct a revolution and secure their own liberty from the England and establish the United States of America.  They understood this to be a key element in the realization of a free society and they understood this right had already been removed by the majority of "civilized" nations of Europe.  By removing firearms from the people, governments remove the power to overthrow the existing ruling elite who DO have firearms and thus concentrated, centralized power.  Such power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...to employ an oft used axiom.  The founders knew this because they were thinking from a Christian, at least biblical, world view.  Mankind is fallen, sinful, and therefore very susceptible to corruption and that corruption will inevitably result in the oppression of the people.

So the 2nd amendment was seen to be absolutely critical to a free society.  Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Papers) argued against a formal Bill of Rights.  His reasoning is fascinating.  Hamilton's position was that the Constitution was inherently limiting to the Federal government.  Its purpose was to invest only certain powers and rights to the Federal government and invest ALL other powers, rights, and liberty to the states and people.  If a Bill of Rights was added to the constitution, a future generation seeking to gather more power to the federal government may use its existence to argue that, because there is a Bill of Rights delineating specific limitations around particular rights, the federal government must have SOME jurisdiction regarding those rights!  And Hamilton was right, that's exactly what has happened regarding freedom of religion and the right to keep and bear arms.  For both of these rights in particular (I think because these two rights pose the most threat to a corrupt central government) the government has intruded and limited the rights of Americans. In fact, the constitution specifically denies the federal government ALL jurisdiction in regard to these fundamental rights. 

In the name of "safety", "security", and "tolerance" the federal government of the United States has taken prayer from school and banned numerous classes of firearms.  The government dictates that nativity scenes cannot stand in specific places and that specific citizens cannot own firearms.  I could go on and on listing violation after violation of amendments one and two.  Our society is once again ripe for another large "power grab" by the federal government in the form of new and stronger gun control.  At some point this will be deemed intolerable by enough citizens that it will be resisted in a highly confrontational manner.  It already is being resisted by various individuals who become frustrated and allow that frustration to overflow in anti-social ways.  As a Christian one must think about these things and determine how to act if (and most likely when) the government of the United States effectively eliminates the Bill of Rights in this country and abolishes the fundamental freedoms that our founders died to establish and preserve.  The guiding principle for every Christian MUST be, what will bring honor to Christ?  What would Jesus have me do in this situation?  Ultimately, if our Christianity and our patriotism comes into conflict our Christianity must prevail.  How that will look under specific situations must be determined by the individual believer in communion with his/her community of faith.  It will not be easy and it may not always be passive.  But it will always be difficult and will always require sacrifice.