"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" - Jeremiah 17:9
"This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead." - Ecclesiastes 9:3
Whatever the cause, the effect is very clear: man is guilty of evil. This statement is essential to today's ministry. Man-kind no longer accepts the responsibility! We live in a nation of non-commitment, where marriage is not sacred, sex is not sacred, life is not sacred, and ultimately God is not revered.
I fear my culture, and myself, are completely giving ourselves to visual stimuli. Movies like Watchmen, a complete cesspool of sexual and violent imagery, inundate our theatres; YouTube brings us almost any event we want; in the wider Web, anything can be found in abundance. We give ourselves over to the senses and eradicate the intellect in an attempt to hide from God. Post-modernism, quasi-existentialism, are not new, but simply a more visible representation of man's heart as it has existed since the Fall. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hebrews while Moses was on the mountain, the Hebrews throughout history between Judges and prophets, and on, give us dramatic presentations of sin.
Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;" and Jesus instructed not only the salvation He offered, but the sin that man needed salvation from. Only a sinner needs a Savior, even atheism does not argue this; the real argument is that there is no sin, and thus no there are no sinners. Our generation, our time, is different in this aspect. C.S. Lewis writes it like this, " The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock" (emphasis added). The modern Christian must confront the modern Man where he is trying to escape to: morality (or the non-existence of it).
Satiating our stimuli can be said to be wrong at certain times, because we can point out that the horror, or for some the enjoyment, of a type of movie or scene is horrifying or enjoyable for a definable reason. That what we are engrossed by is a deviation from what we know to be "unnatural." William Hazlitt once said that "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." That is the comparison we function by; we see bodies torn up in gruesome horror films and are shocked, dismayed, frightened! - if we realize that this is a perversion and pain, or some are disgustingly satisfied, entertained, curious - if they have no reverence for the body. Either way, the mind is reacting to a clear deviation from Nature, it is obvious!
Even in morality, we find atheists who expect others to act a certain way. In American culture today we find more and more people stressing "tolerance" and "acceptance" and yet quickly change face and reject, even ridicule Christians. Lewis makes the point in Mere Christianity, "I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people." Post-modernists may claim that Christianity is intolerant, but whatever the content of the claim these are still claims of morality. The important point to make is that when we adhere to a moral ideal, we make our statement based on a Standard. When we bring that thought full-circle, it is simple to see that whatever we say in reference to right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, we say against a higher Standard that we are trying to come into line with. And if there is a Standard, there must be a Giver of the Standard. Man is evil; all have sinned whether it be against God's Law or his own; if there is any morality whatsoever, there must be a measure of it; because we judge based on a standard and measure each others' morality, there must be a Being above the world who set the standard. It is here that God takes His place as the Creator, the Giver, and the necessary Savior for fallen sinners in this fallen world.
In faith,
Jason
Friday, March 6, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Wages of Sin
Before I try to determine what sin is, and therefore who is guilty of sin and can be "labeled" a "sinner," I want to examine the second sin (or Adam's sin, the first being Lucifer's). Adam obviously disobeys God's specific commandment; as a result he and Eve gain knowledge of good and evil, or Morality, and with it the responsibility to do good while knowing evil. But most importantly, at least for our purpose, is Genesis 3:17,19: "Then to Adam He said, 'Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it...In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.'" To summarize, death is imputed to Adam for his act of disobedience. Besides facing an end to physical life, Adam and Eve are furthermore cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24).
Adam's sin is his failure to obey the 'law of works' that was set to him by God. Ironically, in breaking this first law, or commandment, Adam brought upon the 'law of works' to all men in revealing to Man morality. Moses later gives a more defined Law to the Jews, but the 'law of Nature' continues to exist in the Gentiles (Romans 2:15). God also can give specific instruction to Man, which then becomes added to the 'law of works' for the people in question, as with the Jewish political and religious law, or when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Disobedience to this natural law is punishable by death, as with Adam. Adam is made mortal and becomes capable of death by being removed from the presence of God.
This relocation carries two consequences. First, Adam is physically relocated, and as is logical, his posterity is physically born apart from God's presence in the Garden. Likewise, Adam's posterity acquires the same mortal characteristics as Adam in that they too will die. But in reality, being born mortal is not so much a punishment as a circumstance. It is not something being taken away, but something not being given. Immortality is no more our right than it was Adam's; God gave it to Adam and for his sin took it away. The second consequence is that of Morality, or knowledge of good and evil, while at the same time lacking the local example of God. Man knows God with his mind but does not experience Him with his heart, and chooses to act according to evil rather than good (Romans 1:20-21).
As for the judgment of this sin, I'm not sure I can admit to being born worthy of eternal damnation. That Hell exists, no reasonable man or Christian can disagree; that all men deserve Hell's torment due to another man's transgression, and furthermore deserve that torture simply by their being birthed, no just man can agree. John Locke writes it in this way:
It is not unjust for God to remove immortality from Man, who received it as a gift anyway. But for God to punish Man in such a way that all men should only act in ways that deserve further punishment, what good is life in that sense? Being mortal is better than not being. But receiving "life" with the inherent desert of hellfire is unjust, and it would be better not to live (Matthew 26:24). That is not to say that men do not at some point become deserving of Hell (James 2:10-11). And in fact, being given freedom to live righteously and choose good over evil, yet lacking the present goodness of God (as per Adam's removal from the Garden), "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). But we must note the key terms in Paul's writing. "All have sinned," not "Adam has sinned" or "Eve has sinned" but ALL, meaning that we are guilty of our sin, not another man's. Also, "sinned" is important, because it implies that action was necessary to deserve punishment. Paul has not given us "all were born and fall short of the glory of God," but "all have sinned." Lastly, we read "and fall short of the glory of God." By this is meant eternal torment in fire? It seems to me that falling short of the glory of God (namely freedom and holiness) is equivalent to man's loss of immortality, and his loss of the LORD's consistent presence that enabled him to do good.
Man is guilty because he transgressed against the Law (whether of conscience or Moses), but not because he was born. Jesus is asked how to inherit eternal life and replies "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?...You have answered rightly; do this and you will live" (Luke 10:25-28). Romans 2:13 tells us, "for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." And God says directly in Leviticus 18:5, "'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.'" Again in Revelations 22:14, "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." If a man were to follow the Law entirely, perfectly, he would live. That warrants that man has the opportunity to be obedient unto God, and that he is not born into uncontrollable perpetual sin.
It follows, that if man may receive life by following the law perfectly, that when he fails to follow the law, he should be counted guilty for his actions. But it must be noted, the judgment is for his actions, not the failure of another. Jesus says that when He returns with the Father, "He will reward each according to his works" (Matthew 16:27). Even more examples of personal judgment for workers of iniquity can be found in Matthew 7:23, Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 13:27, Matthew 5:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Revelation 14:9, Revelation 20:10 and John 5:29.
Now I must entwine these statements. Scriptures show that if man follows the Law perfectly he will live; if man fails at any point to follow the Law his just desert is death and he will be punished according to his transgressions. To these truths, it must also be reconciled that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Man is not born into a state of perpetual sinning; it would be better for him not to live, but receiving life is not in man's control - thus God would be considered unjust for forcing upon man a state of being which was torment. Yet even being born with the opportunity to obey, Man cannot of his own will. Granted with the terrible result of God's trust in, and love of, man, that is Freedom, having obtained knowledge of good and evil by Adam's action, and being removed from God's presence as a consequence, Man is unable to live without choosing evil. It is different than being predestined to evil, or being born into punishment. Man acts of his own will and receives consequences for his iniquity. That he is unable to perfectly do good (which is equal to holiness, or the glory of God which we all fall short of) is logical in that he has no Presence, Power, or Example of Good by which to adhere.
Here enters Jesus Christ with a new Law. By obeying the 'law of faith' and believing in the redemptive grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the gap between the Law's standards and Man's obedience is filled. Furthermore, God's grace forgives man his failings, both past and future; for, being outside of time, all of man's failures simply represent a difference between God's standard and man's adherence. Jesus Christ makes up the difference (it is a complete and total difference) so that no work of man has an affect on his claim to eternal life any longer. Instead, being faithful to Christ grants eternal life. In His own words, Jesus says, "'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill'" (Matthew 5:17). What is Christ if not the great Mediator? Between God and Man, disobedience and Law, sin and sanctification?
In addition to being justified in Christ, Man receives the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the restoration of God's presence to man as Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden. Just as they did good while walking with the LORD, so followers of Christ may do good. John 14:23-26, "Jesus answered and said to him, 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.'" Through faith alone we fulfill the Law, and by faith in Christ alone do we receive the Holy Spirit which empowers us to live in accordance to God's nature. I pray, for the reader who does not know our mighty Savior, yet who tries to adhere to the Law without the Presence of God, or who simply chooses evil over good. There is nothing more necessary than relationship with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.
In faith,
Jason
Adam's sin is his failure to obey the 'law of works' that was set to him by God. Ironically, in breaking this first law, or commandment, Adam brought upon the 'law of works' to all men in revealing to Man morality. Moses later gives a more defined Law to the Jews, but the 'law of Nature' continues to exist in the Gentiles (Romans 2:15). God also can give specific instruction to Man, which then becomes added to the 'law of works' for the people in question, as with the Jewish political and religious law, or when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Disobedience to this natural law is punishable by death, as with Adam. Adam is made mortal and becomes capable of death by being removed from the presence of God.
This relocation carries two consequences. First, Adam is physically relocated, and as is logical, his posterity is physically born apart from God's presence in the Garden. Likewise, Adam's posterity acquires the same mortal characteristics as Adam in that they too will die. But in reality, being born mortal is not so much a punishment as a circumstance. It is not something being taken away, but something not being given. Immortality is no more our right than it was Adam's; God gave it to Adam and for his sin took it away. The second consequence is that of Morality, or knowledge of good and evil, while at the same time lacking the local example of God. Man knows God with his mind but does not experience Him with his heart, and chooses to act according to evil rather than good (Romans 1:20-21).
As for the judgment of this sin, I'm not sure I can admit to being born worthy of eternal damnation. That Hell exists, no reasonable man or Christian can disagree; that all men deserve Hell's torment due to another man's transgression, and furthermore deserve that torture simply by their being birthed, no just man can agree. John Locke writes it in this way:
...nobody can deny but that the doctrine of the gospel is that death came on all men by Adam's sin, only they differ about the signification of the word death, for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherin not only he, but all his posterity was so involved that every one descended of him deserved endless torment in hellfire. I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above, but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could anyone be supposed [to understand], by a law that says, 'For felony thou shalt die,' not that he should lose his life, but be kept alive in perpetual exquisite torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?
To this they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning and provoking God in every action that men do, a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says that, 'in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die,' i.e., thou and thy posterity shall be ever after incapable of doing anything but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as the punishment of one sin wherein he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. (Reasonableness of Christianity, 3-4)
It is not unjust for God to remove immortality from Man, who received it as a gift anyway. But for God to punish Man in such a way that all men should only act in ways that deserve further punishment, what good is life in that sense? Being mortal is better than not being. But receiving "life" with the inherent desert of hellfire is unjust, and it would be better not to live (Matthew 26:24). That is not to say that men do not at some point become deserving of Hell (James 2:10-11). And in fact, being given freedom to live righteously and choose good over evil, yet lacking the present goodness of God (as per Adam's removal from the Garden), "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). But we must note the key terms in Paul's writing. "All have sinned," not "Adam has sinned" or "Eve has sinned" but ALL, meaning that we are guilty of our sin, not another man's. Also, "sinned" is important, because it implies that action was necessary to deserve punishment. Paul has not given us "all were born and fall short of the glory of God," but "all have sinned." Lastly, we read "and fall short of the glory of God." By this is meant eternal torment in fire? It seems to me that falling short of the glory of God (namely freedom and holiness) is equivalent to man's loss of immortality, and his loss of the LORD's consistent presence that enabled him to do good.
Man is guilty because he transgressed against the Law (whether of conscience or Moses), but not because he was born. Jesus is asked how to inherit eternal life and replies "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?...You have answered rightly; do this and you will live" (Luke 10:25-28). Romans 2:13 tells us, "for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." And God says directly in Leviticus 18:5, "'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.'" Again in Revelations 22:14, "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." If a man were to follow the Law entirely, perfectly, he would live. That warrants that man has the opportunity to be obedient unto God, and that he is not born into uncontrollable perpetual sin.
It follows, that if man may receive life by following the law perfectly, that when he fails to follow the law, he should be counted guilty for his actions. But it must be noted, the judgment is for his actions, not the failure of another. Jesus says that when He returns with the Father, "He will reward each according to his works" (Matthew 16:27). Even more examples of personal judgment for workers of iniquity can be found in Matthew 7:23, Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 13:27, Matthew 5:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Revelation 14:9, Revelation 20:10 and John 5:29.
Now I must entwine these statements. Scriptures show that if man follows the Law perfectly he will live; if man fails at any point to follow the Law his just desert is death and he will be punished according to his transgressions. To these truths, it must also be reconciled that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Man is not born into a state of perpetual sinning; it would be better for him not to live, but receiving life is not in man's control - thus God would be considered unjust for forcing upon man a state of being which was torment. Yet even being born with the opportunity to obey, Man cannot of his own will. Granted with the terrible result of God's trust in, and love of, man, that is Freedom, having obtained knowledge of good and evil by Adam's action, and being removed from God's presence as a consequence, Man is unable to live without choosing evil. It is different than being predestined to evil, or being born into punishment. Man acts of his own will and receives consequences for his iniquity. That he is unable to perfectly do good (which is equal to holiness, or the glory of God which we all fall short of) is logical in that he has no Presence, Power, or Example of Good by which to adhere.
Here enters Jesus Christ with a new Law. By obeying the 'law of faith' and believing in the redemptive grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the gap between the Law's standards and Man's obedience is filled. Furthermore, God's grace forgives man his failings, both past and future; for, being outside of time, all of man's failures simply represent a difference between God's standard and man's adherence. Jesus Christ makes up the difference (it is a complete and total difference) so that no work of man has an affect on his claim to eternal life any longer. Instead, being faithful to Christ grants eternal life. In His own words, Jesus says, "'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill'" (Matthew 5:17). What is Christ if not the great Mediator? Between God and Man, disobedience and Law, sin and sanctification?
In addition to being justified in Christ, Man receives the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the restoration of God's presence to man as Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden. Just as they did good while walking with the LORD, so followers of Christ may do good. John 14:23-26, "Jesus answered and said to him, 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.'" Through faith alone we fulfill the Law, and by faith in Christ alone do we receive the Holy Spirit which empowers us to live in accordance to God's nature. I pray, for the reader who does not know our mighty Savior, yet who tries to adhere to the Law without the Presence of God, or who simply chooses evil over good. There is nothing more necessary than relationship with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.
In faith,
Jason
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Sin
Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?
We sin because by nature we are totally deprived from God. Our natural state is to sin. I can’t remember the reference, but there is a verse that says something like “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, thus death came to all men because all have sinned.” All have sinned.
The reason we sin is because on our own, our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God. Of course totally depraved men can be very religious. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18). (I’ll go easy the issue of those who aren’t saved doing “good” because that can lead into election, predestination, and other things that we’ve already tackled.) But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God. Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23).
The totality of our rebellion against God is seen in Romans 3:9-10 and 18. "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes." No one seeks God. It doesn’t say, “After the first sin humans commit, they are then under the power of sin.” No, from conception on our hearts are corrupt and sinful.
I would even contest that in mans total rebellion from God, everything man does is sin (apart from God). I think of Romans 14:23 when Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot bring honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil. Follow?
Because of that, man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.
In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. That also makes grace all that much sweeter and the Ultimate gift given to us all that much more central. It creates complete and utter reliance on the atoning work of Christ.
Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment. On our own, there is nothing we can do to reach God and nothing we can do that is “good.” Ephesians 2:3 goes on to say that in our deadness and separation, we were "children of wrath." That is, we were under God's wrath because of the corruption of our hearts that made us as good as dead before God.
The reality of hell is God's clear indictment of the infiniteness of our guilt. If our corruption were not deserving of an eternal punishment God would be unjust to threaten us with a punishment so severe as eternal torment. But the Scriptures teach that God is just in condemning unbelievers to eternal hell (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Matthew 5:29f; 10:28; 13:49f; 18:8f; 25:46; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). Therefore, to the extent that hell is a total sentence of condemnation, to that extent must we think of ourselves as totally blameworthy apart from the saving grace of God.
I’d be very interested in hearing your response to this. I know we have some conflicting views on this subject. I just hope and pray that both of us will be able to be humble enough to realize any possible error in thinking. It’s hard to sharpen iron if it doesn’t want to be sharpened, right? Let’s be sharpenable.
Lemme know what you think. Can a non-believer do good with pure intentions?
Because of Him,
Joe Hylander
Monday, February 16, 2009
A Closer Look
Recently I attended a lecture that was held in honor of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of the publishing of The Origin of Species. The speaker's focus was on "Neandertals" and recent biological work that is attempting to recreate the DNA of a Neandertal. What struck me first was the clear distinction made between Neandertal and Human; each is considered a different species, a separate creature, individual branches on the 'tree of life'. However, the speaker's interest was on the degrees of variation (in the DNA) between these two "species." It's thought that perhaps by finding the genetic material that Neandertals had, and that Humans lacks, we can discover how we transitioned, or "evolved." Apparently the answer to the change from Ape to Human is all in the DNA, and the way that evolution caused the re-arranging of it.
And here is where I give pause to my thought. Hold on now, I think, why is it we are studying a single foundation of life? Evolution certainly separates Neandertal and Human, but only as Dogs and Cats are separated, not as Beast and Man are (by some) separated. The whole crux of evolution is that everything is natural, is matter, is not special, nor created, nor purposed, nor distinguished. Dirt is a dog is a tree is a virus is a man. And logically, if everything evolved from a single substance, nothing should have significance.
But then, how is it that a distinction can be made between what does and does not evolve? Suppose we (as the evolutionists must do) avoid the logical impossibility of a natural substance simply existing, without cause or creation; to explain how this first substance becomes what we see around us today, it's believed that it lived and grew and developed more advanced life processes. What evolution seems to do today, is to study all the ways that one species becomes another, and to examine the DNA structure as if some progress is being made by doing this research compared to past observations. It's said "X became Y because the DNA was re-arranged and came to include characteristic A." And this is done for every species along the timeline, they all have their differences in DNA that show a story of evolution.
The problem, is that the base substance-what is said to have originally existed and evolved to create life-isn't evolving, isn't even said to have evolved. Miniscule proteins and DNA molecules as a single, unchanging entity are the only basis scientists have for studying changes in creatures, and yet it cannot be found that DNA itself changes. DNA is rearranged, sure, but that's the case even today, and is not a question of evolution, of change, but simply of diversity.
This distinction is like this: a young child takes out his building blocks and constructs a small house for himself. After a few days he gets tired of playing with the house and knocks it down, and then rearranges the blocks to build a tower. Technically, the boy's outer creation has changed; the order of the blocks has changed, the height of the structure, etc. But, he's still using building blocks. The blocks haven't evolved to become steel, which would then yield to entirely new building possibilities. So it is with DNA. The essential determinent of genetics may be rearrranged from creature to creature, but Nature is still being built by DNA.
Logically, if everything is the same natural material, as evolution must postulate, then if one living thing can evolve, anything can. In fact, nothing is 'living' aside from the fact that some matter is charged with electricity and thus moves, and through millions of years of evolving cause and effect patterns, 'life' has occurred. It's reasonable to think that if a cell can become a fish, then DNA can become a more advanced molecule. But really, if that was the case, evolution would be near impossible to study, much less prove. Instead, scientists must admit to a common Design before quickly moving on to individual branches on a tree. Therefore, we must not forget that it is a common Tree that all creatures, and Man, stem from. Common function, and common structure, lend themselves very well to common Designer.
Jason
And here is where I give pause to my thought. Hold on now, I think, why is it we are studying a single foundation of life? Evolution certainly separates Neandertal and Human, but only as Dogs and Cats are separated, not as Beast and Man are (by some) separated. The whole crux of evolution is that everything is natural, is matter, is not special, nor created, nor purposed, nor distinguished. Dirt is a dog is a tree is a virus is a man. And logically, if everything evolved from a single substance, nothing should have significance.
But then, how is it that a distinction can be made between what does and does not evolve? Suppose we (as the evolutionists must do) avoid the logical impossibility of a natural substance simply existing, without cause or creation; to explain how this first substance becomes what we see around us today, it's believed that it lived and grew and developed more advanced life processes. What evolution seems to do today, is to study all the ways that one species becomes another, and to examine the DNA structure as if some progress is being made by doing this research compared to past observations. It's said "X became Y because the DNA was re-arranged and came to include characteristic A." And this is done for every species along the timeline, they all have their differences in DNA that show a story of evolution.
The problem, is that the base substance-what is said to have originally existed and evolved to create life-isn't evolving, isn't even said to have evolved. Miniscule proteins and DNA molecules as a single, unchanging entity are the only basis scientists have for studying changes in creatures, and yet it cannot be found that DNA itself changes. DNA is rearranged, sure, but that's the case even today, and is not a question of evolution, of change, but simply of diversity.
This distinction is like this: a young child takes out his building blocks and constructs a small house for himself. After a few days he gets tired of playing with the house and knocks it down, and then rearranges the blocks to build a tower. Technically, the boy's outer creation has changed; the order of the blocks has changed, the height of the structure, etc. But, he's still using building blocks. The blocks haven't evolved to become steel, which would then yield to entirely new building possibilities. So it is with DNA. The essential determinent of genetics may be rearrranged from creature to creature, but Nature is still being built by DNA.
Logically, if everything is the same natural material, as evolution must postulate, then if one living thing can evolve, anything can. In fact, nothing is 'living' aside from the fact that some matter is charged with electricity and thus moves, and through millions of years of evolving cause and effect patterns, 'life' has occurred. It's reasonable to think that if a cell can become a fish, then DNA can become a more advanced molecule. But really, if that was the case, evolution would be near impossible to study, much less prove. Instead, scientists must admit to a common Design before quickly moving on to individual branches on a tree. Therefore, we must not forget that it is a common Tree that all creatures, and Man, stem from. Common function, and common structure, lend themselves very well to common Designer.
Jason
Friday, February 13, 2009
Sin
What are thoughts, Joe, on the action and judgment of sin? What is man's error, and what is the consequence of it?
And that chicken-egg question: Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?
Jason
And that chicken-egg question: Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?
Jason
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Prayer
First, in reference to the predestination discussion, I do not think I misinterpreted your thoughts; at least, I attempted to argue against God's total control over our spiritual "decisions" (they are only decisions if we have a choice), and perhaps the derivative of the predestination belief is that God also directs our every physical action. That inquiry in metaphysics and dualism is best saved for another time, as you said. I simply wanted to close that off on my end as you did on yours.
As for prayer, I'd like to start off with a little bit of Lewis myself, as is found in God in the Dock ("Scraps" p. 217).
This idea goes along with a longer essay in the same book entitled "Work and Prayer." The thing we forget, is exactly what you asked of me Joe, "How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God?" If God made the both the spiritual and the physical, then our actions on earth are as much a manipulation of events as our prayers to Heaven. Yet, no one will argue that we, in almost all cases of history, are acting on conscience, emotion, our own thoughts, rather than waiting for things to happen on their own, or for something out of our control to carry out our wishes. It's in the nature of God that we choose to eat the hamburger instead of the pizza, or decide to run instead of walk. It is His nature, and within God, in that He has given us the bodies that we use to interact with the physical world, and also that His very nature, the quintessential element of God, is that He is free. God, being holy, being the Holy One, is able to act in whatever way He deems best that also is in accordance with His goodness and love. In the same way, we are free to act within the laws of nature, and those spiritual laws that govern our amount of power and ability - both placed on us by God.
This could be a much larger subject, let me abruptly try to end that train of thought and respond to the three situations you presented.
1. When we ask, we receive what God deems appropriate. I think that is why He "only hears the prayers of the upright" as you said. On earth, our actions are more immediate and ruthless, because the effects directly follow the cause. When I punch you in the face, you immediately feel pain. However, when we attempt to affect the design of Heaven, we are acting in a realm above time and space, and calling on a power without limits. That is why God is the mediator of our prayers, that in His goodness and wisdom He is able to hear us, and yet not 'grant' our every desire. It would be a horrible world if prayer was an instantaneous success for lunatic and saint alike.
2. These questions are where predestination and prayer are linked in my reckoning, and why the idea of God bringing men to Himself (without fail), removes the necessity of Christ. If God is going to do it anyway, outside interaction in the process is unnecessary. Lewis phrases it such: "Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise." That is not to say that Jesus is an 'outside source' in the same way as man is a separate entity from God. But, if God is going to directly connect to man anyway, He doesn't really need to provide a facade for how He's going to do it. Just like if He's in full control, without variation, there's no reason to present prayer as an illusion of human influence. But, we certainly do have prayer, and God certainly sent Jesus.
I think the larger picture in both issue, prayer and predestination, is of direction. Predestination and the idea of inept (or unnecessary) prayer, is a belief that God is directly acting towards man, and that is it. Salvation is from God to the men He selects, and God's will is enacted on man without man's influence. However, the view I hold, is that salvation and God's plan are both in need of, or at least subject to, reciprocity from man's end. To be sure, both still start with God, but in the sense that He offers and provides salvation, yet requires man's acceptance. He has a plan and acts out His will, but offers man a method of response and communication. And here, Jesus is necessary. Christ is both the method and message of our salvation, and He is also the avenue of communication to the Father. Throughout the Old Testament, the story of interaction with God is one of specially chosen middle-men: Noah, Moses, priests, judges, kings, and finally, Jesus, that Judge, King and High Priest who ascended above all previous mediators to be the Mediator. I don't know (and correct me if I'm wrong) of any stories where an Israelite suddenly repented of His sin outside of a prophet's message, and without being directly spoken to by God (in essence, made to be the next prophet, such as Moses being spoken to by God through the burning bush). There is always someone sent by God, like Jesus was sent by God, to speak to the masses and require a message of repentance to be sent back to God, through the messenger, just as Jesus requires us to request forgiveness from God, through Him.
This point is probably the longest, because as I said, it parallels two questions. I'm not sure I've fully presented all there is to this point, but I hope I have added some clarity. In essence, interaction between God and man is defined by communication, and relationship, not control and disassociation. God commands, persuades, and directs man, and allows man to respond with obedience, questions, and requests. As to whether the ability to change minor events removes God's ability to know the future, no. That is placing God within time, as if He only knows events in chronological order. Perhaps, if man comes in to change some part of the reel, God will have to watch the movie again to find out what effect the switch had. There is a distinction between knowing events, and causing them. I can watch a fight, and know who's in it, and yet not have had anything to do with it. In the same way, God is present in every moment, ever, and yet may not have directly caused each. That is what we mean by disobedience, is it not? That God is watching some moment of our lives where He wishes us to do one thing, and yet we cause another to happen. If God only knew the future because He was directly causing each event, there would be no sin (James 1:13). Freedom of the angels, and of man, is the only Scriptural precedent for sin.
3. Prayers surely change us. They do so in the way that we've talked about, that prayer is communication with God and as much listening to Him as speaking to Him. Ultimately, listening to God may be considered the highest form of prayer. Lewis writes that "To be in the state in which you are so at one with the will of God that you wouldn't want to alter the course of events even if you could is certainly a very high or advanced condition." Yet even the Lord's prayer asks for bread, forgiveness (remember that we are called, required, to ask for forgiveness; how so, and why, if forgiveness is predestined?), and escape from temptation. Asking of God is equivalent to recognizing the power of God, and His position as the Sustainer of our lives. In that sense, by silencing our own requests, we better understand God's.
As a closing, I'd like to make an observation. If either of us truly believed in predestination of knowledge or events, this blog would not exist. Should we hold the belief that God pre-designed whether or not we would know who He is, and how He works, we would not take it upon ourselves to discover it. Action, request, question, these are not sinful, they are God's nature; they are Freedom.
Jason
As for prayer, I'd like to start off with a little bit of Lewis myself, as is found in God in the Dock ("Scraps" p. 217).
'Praying for particular things', said I, 'always seems to me like advising God how to run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume that He knows best?' 'On the same principle', said he, 'I suppose you never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an umbrella, because God knows best whether you ought to be wet or dry.' 'That's quite different,' I protested. 'I don't see why,' said he. 'The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events at all. But since He lets us do it in one way I don't see why He shouldn't let us do it in the other.'
This idea goes along with a longer essay in the same book entitled "Work and Prayer." The thing we forget, is exactly what you asked of me Joe, "How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God?" If God made the both the spiritual and the physical, then our actions on earth are as much a manipulation of events as our prayers to Heaven. Yet, no one will argue that we, in almost all cases of history, are acting on conscience, emotion, our own thoughts, rather than waiting for things to happen on their own, or for something out of our control to carry out our wishes. It's in the nature of God that we choose to eat the hamburger instead of the pizza, or decide to run instead of walk. It is His nature, and within God, in that He has given us the bodies that we use to interact with the physical world, and also that His very nature, the quintessential element of God, is that He is free. God, being holy, being the Holy One, is able to act in whatever way He deems best that also is in accordance with His goodness and love. In the same way, we are free to act within the laws of nature, and those spiritual laws that govern our amount of power and ability - both placed on us by God.
This could be a much larger subject, let me abruptly try to end that train of thought and respond to the three situations you presented.
1. When we ask, we receive what God deems appropriate. I think that is why He "only hears the prayers of the upright" as you said. On earth, our actions are more immediate and ruthless, because the effects directly follow the cause. When I punch you in the face, you immediately feel pain. However, when we attempt to affect the design of Heaven, we are acting in a realm above time and space, and calling on a power without limits. That is why God is the mediator of our prayers, that in His goodness and wisdom He is able to hear us, and yet not 'grant' our every desire. It would be a horrible world if prayer was an instantaneous success for lunatic and saint alike.
2. These questions are where predestination and prayer are linked in my reckoning, and why the idea of God bringing men to Himself (without fail), removes the necessity of Christ. If God is going to do it anyway, outside interaction in the process is unnecessary. Lewis phrases it such: "Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise." That is not to say that Jesus is an 'outside source' in the same way as man is a separate entity from God. But, if God is going to directly connect to man anyway, He doesn't really need to provide a facade for how He's going to do it. Just like if He's in full control, without variation, there's no reason to present prayer as an illusion of human influence. But, we certainly do have prayer, and God certainly sent Jesus.
I think the larger picture in both issue, prayer and predestination, is of direction. Predestination and the idea of inept (or unnecessary) prayer, is a belief that God is directly acting towards man, and that is it. Salvation is from God to the men He selects, and God's will is enacted on man without man's influence. However, the view I hold, is that salvation and God's plan are both in need of, or at least subject to, reciprocity from man's end. To be sure, both still start with God, but in the sense that He offers and provides salvation, yet requires man's acceptance. He has a plan and acts out His will, but offers man a method of response and communication. And here, Jesus is necessary. Christ is both the method and message of our salvation, and He is also the avenue of communication to the Father. Throughout the Old Testament, the story of interaction with God is one of specially chosen middle-men: Noah, Moses, priests, judges, kings, and finally, Jesus, that Judge, King and High Priest who ascended above all previous mediators to be the Mediator. I don't know (and correct me if I'm wrong) of any stories where an Israelite suddenly repented of His sin outside of a prophet's message, and without being directly spoken to by God (in essence, made to be the next prophet, such as Moses being spoken to by God through the burning bush). There is always someone sent by God, like Jesus was sent by God, to speak to the masses and require a message of repentance to be sent back to God, through the messenger, just as Jesus requires us to request forgiveness from God, through Him.
This point is probably the longest, because as I said, it parallels two questions. I'm not sure I've fully presented all there is to this point, but I hope I have added some clarity. In essence, interaction between God and man is defined by communication, and relationship, not control and disassociation. God commands, persuades, and directs man, and allows man to respond with obedience, questions, and requests. As to whether the ability to change minor events removes God's ability to know the future, no. That is placing God within time, as if He only knows events in chronological order. Perhaps, if man comes in to change some part of the reel, God will have to watch the movie again to find out what effect the switch had. There is a distinction between knowing events, and causing them. I can watch a fight, and know who's in it, and yet not have had anything to do with it. In the same way, God is present in every moment, ever, and yet may not have directly caused each. That is what we mean by disobedience, is it not? That God is watching some moment of our lives where He wishes us to do one thing, and yet we cause another to happen. If God only knew the future because He was directly causing each event, there would be no sin (James 1:13). Freedom of the angels, and of man, is the only Scriptural precedent for sin.
3. Prayers surely change us. They do so in the way that we've talked about, that prayer is communication with God and as much listening to Him as speaking to Him. Ultimately, listening to God may be considered the highest form of prayer. Lewis writes that "To be in the state in which you are so at one with the will of God that you wouldn't want to alter the course of events even if you could is certainly a very high or advanced condition." Yet even the Lord's prayer asks for bread, forgiveness (remember that we are called, required, to ask for forgiveness; how so, and why, if forgiveness is predestined?), and escape from temptation. Asking of God is equivalent to recognizing the power of God, and His position as the Sustainer of our lives. In that sense, by silencing our own requests, we better understand God's.
As a closing, I'd like to make an observation. If either of us truly believed in predestination of knowledge or events, this blog would not exist. Should we hold the belief that God pre-designed whether or not we would know who He is, and how He works, we would not take it upon ourselves to discover it. Action, request, question, these are not sinful, they are God's nature; they are Freedom.
Jason
Predestination, Prayer, and Confusion (on my part)
Dear Mr. Nack,
First off I would like to apologize for not keeping up with replying to you. The past several weeks have been exhausting for me; however, that is a poor excuse not to reply.
I love your introduction to your post. That verse from 1 Corinthians is one that is true of myself. Your argument is well taken. As with much of theology, it is wrong for one to become too dogmatic regarding their beliefs. That is not to say that we should hold on to our beliefs loosely, as they could be wrong in some regard. I consider myself a Calvinist, but not to the point where it would be an unhealthy belief. Obviously, we are children of Christ and followers of God. Let’s make sure that that is the center of our thought process, not Calvinism. Does that make sense?
I feel like you may have misinterpreted my position on predestination. I believe that God sovereignty and justly choose those who will be saved. However, I do not believe that we have our ever move dictated to us by God. Any sense of “free will” (however you define it) is under God’s sovereign control. How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God?
I found your argument compelling, but it did not persuade me (it would be boring if we agreed on everything right? What would we write about?). Your argument seemed to be too heavy on the philosophy and reason and less on theology (I could be wrong though…obviously). Sometime I would like to have the time to be able to pick apart each of the passages both of us used in presenting our side of thinking. Maybe some other time, eh?
As for now, I would like to take apart Romans 8:29 a bit. The following breakdown is borrow from John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1985/512_Those_Whom_He_Foreknew_He_Predestined/):
1. The connection with verse 28.
“FOR whom he foreknew…”
2. The meaning of God’s foreknowledge.
“For whom he FOREKNEW, he also predestined…”
3. The aim of predestination for our good.
“…to become conformed to the image of his Son…”
4. The aim of predestination for Christ’s glory.
“…that he might be the first-born among many brethren.”
…I encourage you to read the rest of the outline to his message. Perhaps the area of predestination is something that we’ll have to agree to disagree on. To be honest, I haven’t thought much about predestination as of late. I’ve been studying the purpose of prayer again…to which I am thoroughly confused.
If you don’t mind, could we change gears to discuss prayer a bit? I know I’ve already talked to you a bit about it in person and the likes, but I am still confused as to the purpose (speaking mainly of petitionary prayer). I believe that to a degree, predestination and prayer are connected. However, I don't know where that degree is. I found this “conversation” once and find it fascinating; I want to know what you think about it:
Prayerless: I understand that you believe in the providence of God. Is that right?
Prayerful: Yes.
Prayerless: Does that mean you believe, like the Heidelberg Catechism says, that nothing comes about by chance but only by God's design and plan?
Prayerful: Yes, I believe that's what the Bible teaches.
Prayerless: Then why do you pray?
Prayerful: I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't we pray?
Prayerless: Well, if God ordains and controls everything, then what he plans from of old will come to pass, right?
Prayerful: Yes.
Prayerless: So it's going to come to pass whether you pray or not, right.
Prayerful: That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer.
Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?
Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.
Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?
Prayerful: That's right.
Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?
Prayerful: Yes. I take it that by contingent you mean prayer is a real reason that the event happens, and without the prayer the event would not happen.
Prayerless: Yes that's what I mean. But how can an event be contingent on my prayer and still be eternally fixed and predestined by God?
Prayerful: Because your prayer is as fixed as the predestined answer.
Prayerless: Explain.
Prayerful: It's not complicated. God providentially ordains all events. God never ordains an event without a cause. The cause is also an event. Therefore, the cause is also foreordained. So you cannot say that the event will happen if the cause doesn't because God has ordained otherwise. The event will happen if the cause happens.
Prayerless: So what you are saying is that answers to prayer are always ordained as effects of prayer which is one of the causes, and that God predestined the answer only as an effect of the cause.
Prayerful: That's right. And since both the cause and the effect are ordained together you can't say that the effect will happen even if the cause doesn't because God doesn't ordain effects without causes.
Prayerless: Can you give some illustrations?
Prayerful: Sure. If God predestines that I die of a bullet wound, then I will not die if no bullet is fired. If God predestines that I be healed by surgery, then if there is no surgery, I will not be healed. If God predestines heat to fill my home by fire in the furnace, then if there is no fire, there will be no heat. Would you say, "Since God predestines that the sun be bright, it will be bright whether there is fire in the sun or not"?
Prayerless: No.
Prayerful: I agree. Why not?
Prayerless: Because the brightness of the sun comes from the fire.
Prayerful: Right. That's the way I think about the answers to prayer. They are the brightness, and prayer is the fire. God has established the universe so that in larger measure it runs by prayer, the same way he has established brightness so that in larger measure it happens by fire. Doesn't that make sense?
Prayerless: I think it does.
Prayerful: Then let's stop thinking up problems and go with what the Scriptures say. Ask and you will receive. You have not because you ask not.
Let me ask you, what is the purpose of prayer? I’m sure things are popping to mind about how we pray to give thanks to God and to offer Him praise. I wholeheartedly agree with that; however, my confusion comes in the area of petitionary prayer. This type of prayer is in which I request something from God. Don’t get me wrong, I pray (although not enough) and ask that God give me things or that God will give me safety, or that God will bless a friend or something.
My question is this: what is the point of praying if God already has a plan in mind for us? Why interject our own desires into prayers of petitions if we are expected to pray for His will to be done? If I pray for something so earnestly all my life and it is not what God has in mind for me, then I have wasted thousands of prayers in vain. What I desire may or may not be what God has in mind for me; I have no way of knowing. So I ask, why bother?
I’ll offer 3 possible thought processes:
1. We pray and then we ask and receive (Luke 11:10) or we do not ask and do not receive. I do not contest that the purpose of prayer is to use God as our servant boy to do whatever we ask. It says that He only hear the prayers of the upright and those earnestly seeking Him (Philippians 4:6-7; Matthew 6:5-8; 2 Chronicles 7:14)
2. If God will do His will, than the purpose is lacking for us ask. If he will accomplish His will in his own time and way, why would we ask Him to do something our way? Or do we ask and due to us asking, He changes His mind? If He changes His mind, does He really know the future? Or does He base His decisions on our requests or lack of requests? What makes us think that we know better than God in some area to ask the Creator of the world to change his plans for us?
3. C.S. Lewis once stated that he prayers not to change God, but to change himself. This is the view I hold to. We know that our thoughts are not God’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8), but shouldn’t it be our daily intent of making our thoughts those which God would have us think? We are told to be transformed by the renewal of our minds so that we can test and know what God’s will is (Romans 12:1-2)
Because of Him,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)