Category Archives: God

God’s view of prosperity

“Better a little with the fear of the LORD than great wealth with turmoil” (Prov. 15:16 NIV).

“Whoever loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and olive oil will never be rich” (Prov. 21:17).

“A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold” (Prov. 22:1).

“Humility and the fear of the LORD bring wealth and honor and life” (Prov. 22:4).

“The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it“ (Prov. 10:22).

“Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death” (Prov. 11:4).

“Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf“ (Prov. 11:28).

“He who works his land will have abundant food, but he who chases fantasies lacks judgment“ (Prov. 12:11).

“Lazy people want much but get little, but those who work hard will prosper” (Prov. 13:4 NLT).

“The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty“ (Prov. 21:5).

Why does the God of love commit genocide?[1]

A poster on a Christian forum made this comment:

“I just read Joshua 10 last night…I’ll be completely honest and say that it really hurts my faith to read such things about our God.
That said I believe God is the killer of all things. Since He gives them life, He also gives them death when His will for them on earth is finished. Death is not the issue for me, it’s the genocidal method of it all that bothers me”.[2]

A sympathetic response on that same Forum came with these comments:

“Same here. And that is why most Christians will not respond on this thread. They just dont (sic) have an answer for it. It’s not their fault by any means. But, we do need to confront issues like these”.[3]

It is true that many Christians did not provide adequate answers to these accusations against God and His actions in history. I supplied the following response:[4]

Some of the issues of God’s judgment through genocide include:

1.  The God of love, mercy and justice did give instructions to destroy whole populations (see Ex. 23:32-33; 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-5; 20:16-18). In many of these circumstances in the OT, God effected a herem, a curse, meaning “that which stood under the ban” or “that which was dedicated to destruction”. The root idea of this term is “separation” (for destruction).

2.  God effected the curse of destruction (genocide) on people and nations because they violently and consistently opposed God’s work over a lengthy period of time. See examples in southern Canaan (Num 21:2-3), Jericho (Josh 6:21), Ai (Josh 8:26), Makedah (Josh 10:28) and Hazor (Josh 11:11).

3.  Take the example of Abraham and his descendants who were exiled and mistreated for 430 years before God led them out of Egypt. Why did God delay for over 4 centuries? Gen. 15:13-16 tells us why: “The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (v. 16, ESV).So, God in his patience, waited for the Canaanites to slowly fill up their cups of condemnation through committing sinful behaviour. God was never precipitous (abrupt) in his actions. God’s grace and mercy were waiting for these evil nations to repent. We need to remember that the Israelites were not exempt from sin. Deut. 9:5 makes it clear: “Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” (ESV).

4.  We see from Deut. 20:16-18 that God cut off and judged the nations to prevent the corruption of Israel and the rest of the world. When a nation committed the horrible act of burning children as a gift to the gods (Lev. 18:21) and practised sodomy (homosexuality), bestiality and other gross sin (see Lev. 18:25, 27-30), God’s grace and mercy conclude and God’s judgment comes. It is a false emphasis to only promote the love and mercy of God without His justice.

5.  On the human level, my daughter suffers from a debilitating disease schleroderma and her surgeon did not hesitate to amputate part of her ulcerated left index finger so that it would not spread to the rest of her hand. In the process a slight amount of healthy flesh had to be amputated with the ulcerated portion. God did something similar with the Amorites, Canaanites, etc, by removing the sinful “cancer” that had the potential to infect all of society.

6.  For you to oppose what God did to the evil nations of the world through His judgment of genocide, you are claiming to have or understand God’s omniscience (all-knowing ability), which you and I do not possess. Systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem, defines “omniscience” as,

“God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act”.[5]

7.  It shouldn’t take much reason to understand that if God had saved the women and children in the Canaanite wicked nations, it would not have taken long before a new generation of wicked, pagan people would rise up who would be just like their pagan ancestors.

8.  God, in his omniscience, knows what He is doing in bringing judgment on wicked nations. How much longer will the love, mercy and patience of God continue before the same kind of judgment happens to my nation or yours?

To dwell only on the goodness, love and mercy of God presents an awfully skewed view of God. I am committed to belief in the goodness, love and mercy of God. But the Lord God Almighty has many mental and moral attributes that are omitted by those who dwell on the goodness and mercy of God. These attributes of God include:

  • Omniscience (God fully knows Himself and all things that are actual and possible in “one simple and eternal act” according to Wayne Grudem’s definition);
  • Wisdom (God always chooses the best goals and the best means to achieve those goals);
  • Truthfulness & faithfulness;
  • Goodness (God is the final standard of good and all that God is and does is worthy of approval — including judgment through genocide);
  • Love (God eternally gives of himself to others);
  • Mercy, grace and patience (God was patient with the Canaanites until the cup of his wrath was full and the judgment of God was effected through genocide);
  • Peace;
  • Righteousness and justice (God will always act in accordance with what is correct, God being the final standard of what is right). God’s exercise of occasional genocide is based on His standard of righteousness and justice and NOT on your standard or mine;
  • Jealousy (which means that God continually seeks to protect His own honour); and
  • Wrath (which means that God intensely hates all sin, including the sin of unrighteousness and rebellion of pagan nations).

When people oppose God’s acting in righteousness and justice in his genocide of some nations, they are opposing some of God’s nature where he manifests his attributes in time and space.

For how much longer will God’s patience extend to your nation and mine?

There are expositions, giving biblical reasons for God’s action in judgment, including genocide, on the Internet. See:

“Canaanite Genocide”;

“Completely destroy them” – 1 Samuel 15:18[6]

Notes:


[1] Much of the information in this article was gleaned from W. C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce & Manfred T. Brauch 1996. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, “I Samuel 15:18, ‘Completely destroy them!”, pp. 206-207, also available from Google Books at: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=2eT5CbuJCWoC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=If+the+women+and+children+had+been+spared+in+those+profance+Canaanite+nations&source=bl&ots=JJD0-ihP94&sig=4yt57x8uogQKt6VcDCsGj2VZKYo&hl=en&ei=4i_LTMWHLZOfcbqamd0O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false(Accessed 30 October 2010).

[2] Christian Forums, Christian Apologetics, “A lot of killing”, 98cwitr, #190, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7505663-19/ (Accessed 30 October 2010).

[3] Ibid., ke1985, #202, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7505663-21/ (Accessed 30 October 2010).

[4] Ibid., OzSpen, #215, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7505663-22/ (Accessed 30 October 2010).

[5] Wayne Grudem 1994. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, p. 190.

[6] Kaiser et al.

Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25
Whytehouse designs

Cessationists through church history

Gift
(image courtesy ChristArt)

Spencer D Gear

In my Contending Earnestly for the Faith[2] letter (March 2010, p. 25), I wrote that the following Christian leaders were cessationists (the gifts of the Spirit ceased when the Scriptures were complete). These include Athanasius, Luther, Calvin, Matthew Henry, C.H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, and a multitude of current leaders such as John MacArthur & Norman Geisler.

The editor’s note at the end of the letter stated: “I am not sure that you are quite right in labelling C. H. Spurgeon and possibly some of the others, whom you have named, as ‘cessationists’” (p. 26).

Let’s check the evidence. What did the people I mentioned believe about continuation or cessation of spiritual gifts?

John Piper, an outstanding expositor of the Scriptures from Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN, and founder of Desiring God Ministries, wrote: “Virtually all the great pastors and teachers of history that I admire and that have fed me over the years belong to the 
 group who believe that signs and wonders were only for the apostolic age (John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Benjamin Warfield, my own father). But I am not fully persuaded by their case”.[3] This is some of the evidence of cessationism from the history of the church.

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (north Africa) from 328 until his death in 373, was known for his tireless defense of the deity of Christ against the heresy of Arianism at the Council of Nicaea in 325. It is believed that he wrote his “Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit” while he was exiled in the desert between 356-361.[4] In those letters he wrote of “the blessed Paul who 
 did not divide the Trinity as you do, but taught its unity when he wrote to the Corinthians about spiritual gifts and summed them all up by referring them to the one God and Father, saying ‘there are different gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who works all of them in everyone’ (1 Cor. 12:4-6). For that which the Spirit imparts to each is provided from the Father through the Son. Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son (Jn 16:15, 17:10); thus what is given by the Son in the Spirit is the Father’s gifts”.[5]

In context of his writing to Serapion, Athanasius makes no direct commitment either way to continuation or cessation that I was able to locate. However, his quoting from 1 Cor. 12:4-6, and using the present tense, “that which the Spirit imparts to each”, does not seem to point to these gifts as having ceased. However, it is by inference only. I have not been able to find a direct quote from Athanasius affirming either way.

However, another early church father, Chrysostom (347-407), a name that means “golden mouth” as he was an eloquent speaker, had a cessationist perspective. He was a contemporary of Athanasius’s later life, was Archbishop of Constantinople and defender of orthodoxy. He wrote of spiritual gifts as being obscure in his understanding. In his homily on 1 Cor. 12:1-2, He wrote, “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity has produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?[6]

One of the greatest church fathers was St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo in northern Africa. He wrote that “in the earliest times, ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues’, which they had not learned, ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance’. These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away”.[7]

In his later life, Augustine returned to a belief in the Lord’s supernatural ability to heal. I have documented this in my article, “The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing”.[8]

Martin Luther, from whom we Protestants owe a great deal in his leadership of the 16th century Reformation. His teaching was a mixed bag concerning his statements on the gifts of the Spirit. He wrote of the continuation of gifts: “When you depart lay your hands upon the man again and say, These signs shall follow them that believe; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover‘“.[9] But he also wrote as a cessationist in his commentary on Galatians 4:1-9, “Paul explained the purpose of these miraculous gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 14:22, ‘Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.’ Once the Church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased”.[10] Which perspective belongs to Luther’s theology?

Another leader of the Reformation, John Calvin, wrote that “the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the new preaching of the Gospel marvelous forever
 It now has nothing to do with us, to whom the administering of such powers has not been committed”.[11]

In his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, writing of Mark 16:17[12] (“and these signs shall follow them that believe”), Calvin wrote, “When he says that believers will receive this gift, we must not understand this as applying to every one of them; for we know that gifts were distributed variously, so that the power of working miracles was possessed by only a few persons
. Though Christ does not expressly state whether he intends this gift [of miracles] to be temporary, or to remain perpetually in the Church, yet it is more probable that miracles were promised only for a time, in order to give lustre to the gospel while it was new or in a state of obscurity”.[13]

Calvin seemed somewhat arbitrary when he wrote of the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers in Ephesians 4. He believed that “only the last two [pastors and teachers] have an ordinary office in the church; the Lord raised up the first three at the beginning of his Kingdom, and now and again revives them as the need of the times demands”.[14] The functions of apostles, prophets and evangelists “were not established in the church as permanent ones, but only for that time during which churches were to be erected where none existed before, or where they were to be carried over from Moses to Christ. Still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own [Reformation] day.”[15]

How would Calvin interpret John 14:12, which states: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father” (KJV)?

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Calvin wrote of John 14:12:

“ And shall do greater works than these. Many are perplexed by the statement of Christ, that the Apostles would do greater works than he had done I pass by the other answers which have been usually given to it, and satisfy myself with this single answer. First, we must understand what Christ means; namely, that the power by which he proves himself to be the Son of God, is so far from being confined to his bodily presence, that it must be clearly demonstrated by many and striking proofs, when he is absent. Now the ascension of Christ was soon afterwards followed by a wonderful conversion of the world, in which the Divinity of Christ was more powerfully displayed than while he dwelt among men. Thus, we see that the proof of his Divinity was not confined to the person of Christ, but was diffused through the whole body of the Church.

Because I go to the Father. This is the reason why the disciples would do greater things than Christ himself. It is because, when he has entered into the possession of his kingdom, he will more fully demonstrate his power from heaven.[16]

One of the problems that I see with Calvin’s interpretation is that he makes John 14:12 as applicable only to “the Apostles”, meaning Christ’s apostles of the first century. They would see “many and striking proofs” when they no longer had Christ’s bodily presence and he had returned to the Father.

The “greater works” were spoken to the Twelve, but Philip specifically. However, John 14:12 states that ” He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also”. It does not state that the greater works would be done by the Apostles, but by “he that believeth on me”. That sounds very comprehensive and not limited to the Twelve. D. A. Carson says it well: “Jesus’ ‘works’ may include more than his miracles; they never exclude them”.[17] The “greater works” is not easy to understand as it is unlikely that Christ was referring to “more works” as though the church would do more of them, as there was a common Greek word for “more”.

It is hardly likely that “greater works” could refer to greater examples of the supernatural. What could be greater than the raising of Lazarus from the dead? The meaning seems to point to the fact that Jesus was returning to the Father and that those who believed in Jesus, the church, would become the new order through which God’s miraculous gifts would be channelled, by the Holy Spirit’s ministry. But the meaning is not crystal clear to me.

St. Augustine of Hippo, in the fifth century interpreted the “greater works” as:

“What works was He then referring to, but the words He was speaking? They were hearing and believing, and their faith was the fruit of those very words: howbeit, when the disciples preached the gospel, it was not small numbers like themselves, but nations also that believed; and such, doubtless, are greater works. And yet He said not, Greater works than these shall ye do, to lead us to suppose that it was only the apostles who would do so; for He added, “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do.” Is the case then so, that he that believeth on Christ doeth the same works as Christ, or even greater than He did? Points like these are not to be treated in a cursory way, nor ought they to be hurriedly disposed of”.[18]

A theologian such as Norman Geisler gets over this difficulty with his cessationist interpretation, “Jesus did promise that miracles would continue after His time, but not after the time of the apostles. In fact, it was specifically to the apostles with Him in the Upper Room that he made His promise that they would do greater miracles than He did (John 14:12; cf. 13:5ff)”.[19]

The Encyclopedia of Religion says that “both Luther and Calvin wrote that the age of miracles was over and that their occurrence should not be expected”.[20] This is a questionable statement, based on the above information.

What of Matthew Henry (1662-1714), the British Presbyterian Bible commentator? He stated in his concise commentary on 1 Cor. 12:12-26 that “spiritual gifts were extraordinary powers bestowed in the first ages, to convince unbelievers, and to spread the gospel”.[21]

Revivalist and theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-58), wrote,

“The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, such as the gift of tongues, of miracles, of prophecy, &c., are called extraordinary, because they are such as are not given in the ordinary course of God’s providence. They are not bestowed in the way of God’s ordinary providential dealing with his children, but only on extraordinary occasions, as they were bestowed on the prophets and apostles to enable them to reveal the mind and will of God before the canon of Scripture was complete, and so on the primitive Church, in order to the founding and establishing of it in the world. But since the canon of the Scripture has been completed, and the Christian Church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased”.[22]

Revivalist George Whitefield (1714-70) asked, “What need is there of miracles, such as healing sick bodies and restoring sight to blind eyes, when we see greater miracles done every day by the power of God’s Word?”[23]

John Owen, 17th century British non-conformist theologian and Puritan, wrote: “Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties” [tongues, prophecy, healing powers] belong to “that dispensation of the Spirit [which] is long since ceased, and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastical delusion”.[24]

One of the champions of cessationism was B. B. Warfield, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1887-1921. He is regarded by some conservative Presbyterians as the last of the great Princeton theologians before the split of the church in 1929. In his article, “Cessation of the Charismata”, he wrote that

“the theologians of the post-Reformation era, a very clear-headed body of men, taught with great distinctness that the charismata ceased with the Apostolic age. But this teaching gradually gave way, pretty generally throughout the Protestant churches, but especially in England, to the view that they continued for a while in the post-Apostolic period, and only slowly died out like a light fading by increasing distance from its source”.[25]

C. H. Spurgeon the prominent 19th century Baptist preacher and pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, for 38 years, wrote that

“those gifts of the Holy Spirit which are at this time vouchsafed to the church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts which are departed from us
 As you would certainly inquire whether you had the gifts of healing and miracle-working, if such gifts were now given to believers, much more should you inquire whether you have those more permanent gifts of the Spirit which are this day open to you all, by the which you shall work no physical miracle, but shall achieve spiritual wonders of the grander sort”.[26]

In my preparation of this article, I engaged in email discussion with my friend, Philip Powell, who alerted me to several incidents in the life of C. H. Spurgeon which indicate that he was not a cessationist. Spurgeon provided these descriptions and an explanation, as supplied by Philip Powell (I have located the following quotes from other sources):

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-92) was the prominent Baptist preacher in England during the 19th century, who spoke of a “sermon at Exeter Hall in which he suddenly broke off from his subject, and pointing in a certain direction, said, `Young man, those gloves you are wearing have not been paid for: you have stolen them from your employer’. At the close of the service, a young man, looking very pale and greatly agitated, came to the room, which was used as a vestry, and begged for a private interview with Spurgeon. On being admitted, he placed a pair of gloves upon the table, and tearfully said, `It’s the first time I have robbed my master, and I will never do it again. You won’t expose me, sir, will you? It would kill my mother if she heard that I had become a thief’.” (see HERE)

“On another occasion while he was preaching, Spurgeon said there was a man in the gallery who had a bottle of gin in his pocket. This not only startled the man in the gallery who had the gin, but it also led to his conversion.” (see HERE)

Spurgeon gives further examples of his prophetic ministry:

“While preaching in the hall, on one occasion, I deliberately pointed to a man in the midst of the crowd, and said, `There is a man sitting there, who is a shoemaker; he keeps his shop open on Sundays, it was open last Sabbath morning, he took nine pence, and there was four pence profit out of it; his soul is sold to Satan for four pence!’ A city missionary, when going his rounds, met with this man, and seeing that he was reading one of my sermons, he asked the question, `Do you know Mr Spurgeon?’ `Yes,’ replied the man `I have every reason to know him, I have been to hear him; and under his preaching, by God’s grace I have become a new creature in Christ Jesus. Shall I tell you how it happened? I went to the Music Hall, and took my seat in the middle of the place: Mr Spurgeon looked at me as if he knew me, and in his sermon he pointed to me, and told the congregation that I was a shoemaker, and that I kept my shop open on Sundays; and I did, sir. I should not have minded that; but he also said that I took nine pence the Sunday before, and that there was four pence profit; but how he should know that, I could not tell. Then it struck me that it was God who had spoken to my soul through him, so I shut up my shop the next Sunday. At first, I was afraid to go again to hear him, lest he should tell the people more about me; but afterwards I went, and the Lord met with me, and saved my soul.'” (See HERE)

How does Spurgeon explain this prophetic ministry?

“I could tell as many as a dozen similar cases in which I pointed at somebody in the hall without having the slightest knowledge of the person, or any idea that what I said was right, except that I believed I was moved by the Spirit to say it; and so striking has been my description that the persons have gone away, and said to their friends, `Come, see a man that told me all things that ever I did; beyond a doubt, he must have been sent of God to my soul, or else he could not have described me so exactly.’ And not only so, but I have known many instances in which the thoughts of men have been revealed from the pulpit. I have sometimes seen persons nudge their neighbours with their elbow, because they had got a smart hit, and they have been heard to say, when they were going out, `The preacher told us just what we said to one another when we went in at the door.'” (See HERE)

Noted Reformed theologian and defender of the orthodox faith at Princeton Theological Seminary, Charles Hodge (1797-1878), wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians that “[the word of] knowledge and prophecy are to cease. They are partial or imperfect”.[27]

The contemporary, famed Bible expositor from Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA, John MacArthur Jr is renowned for his promotion of cessationism. In his exposĂ© of the charismatic movement in Charismatic Chaos, he stated, “I am convinced by history, theology, and the Bible that tongues ceased in the apostolic age. And when it happened they terminated altogether. The contemporary charismatic movement does not represent a revival of biblical tongues. It is an aberration similar to the practice of counterfeit tongues at Corinth”.[28]

A leading contemporary exegete, theologian and apologist, Norman Geisler, teaches that “even though tongues are mentioned in the New Testament, it is possible that tongues are no longer for us
. Since apostles existed only in the New Testament (Acts 1:22) and since there were supernatural sign gifts given to apostles (2 Cor. 12:12), it follows that these sign gifts ceased with the apostles in the first century”.[29]

Cessationism is not a new development of the anti-charismatic movement. It has been evident throughout church history. However, there is another side to the cessationist arguments and it was provided by a very early theologian of the church.

Irenaeus was born in the first half of the second century (his birth date has been suggested between 115-125) and died towards the end of that century. As one of the first great theologians of the church, he was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons, Gaul (France today).

Irenaeus assures us that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit had not disappeared by the end of the second century. He wrote in a leading refutation of Gnosticism, Against Heresies (written about 180):

“Those who are in truth His disciples, receiving grace from Him, do in His name perform [miracles], so as to promote the welfare of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some do certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those who have thus been cleansed from evil spirits frequently both believe [in Christ], and join themselves to the Church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ”.[30]

So Irenaeus knew of the practice of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit in his day. Thus, they did not cease with the death of the Twelve and the formation of the New Testament canon of Scripture. It is estimated that the last book of the New Testament was written about AD 95-96 (the Book of Revelation). Thus, Irenaeus refutes John MacArthur’s statement that “once the Word of God was inscripturated, the sign gifts were no longer needed and they ceased”.[31] Irenaeus clearly shows the existence of sign gifts in the church over 100 years after the completion of the canon of Scripture.

Irenaeus also provided us with the earliest undisputed authority for the authorship of the four Gospels: Matthew issued his Gospel among the Hebrews; Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Peter; Luke was a companion of Paul and recorded a Gospel preached by Paul; John, a disciple of the Lord, published his Gospel while he was in Ephesus in Asia.[32]

With John Piper and Irenaeus, I am not persuaded by the arguments of the cessationists. For a defence of the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, I recommend Jack Deere’s chapter, ‘Were miracles meant to be temporary‘  (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, ch 8).

Endnotes


[2] CETF refers to the magazine, Contending earnestly for the faith, published by Christian Witness Ministries, available from: www.cwm.org.au.

[3] “John Piper on the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit”, available at: http://reformedandreforming.org/2010/03/31/john-piper-on-the-continuation-of-the-gifts-of-the-spirit/ [Assessed 20 June 2010].

[4] See Brian LePort, 21 April 2010, “An Introduction to the The Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit by Athanasius of Alexandria”, available at: http://westernthm.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/leport-an-introduction-to-the-letters-to-serapion-on-the-holy-spirit-by-athanasius-of-alexandria.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[5] p. 186, available at: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=KrvXjxlRsP0C&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=%22spiritual+gifts+Athanasius%22&source=bl&ots=bSy_5TDTTk&sig=M0eG3pAw_84LDTCcrR0aMmFZjh0&hl=en&ei=aTkdTLD7BIi8cY-4_P4M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[6] “Homily 29 on First Corinthians”, available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220129.htm [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[7] Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 6:1-14, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [7:497-98].

[8] This article was originally published as, “The man who dared to change his mind about divine healing,” in the Pentecostal Evangel, September 11, 1983, pp. 18-20. It is available at: The leading church father who changed his mind about the supernatural gifts. I have written about him in St. Augustine: The leading Church Father who dared to change his mind about divine healing [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[9] “Letters of spiritual counsel” to one of his followers, available at: http://www.pentecostalpioneers.org/gpage.htm20.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[10] Available at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal4-01.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[11] 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, p. 1467.

[12] Some of the earliest Greek manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20.

[13] John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark & Luke – vol. 3; Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.li.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[14] Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 1056.

[15] Ibid., p. 1057.

[16] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom35.iv.ii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[17] 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, p. 495.

[18] Homily on John 14:10-14, available at: http://153.106.5.3/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.lxxii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[19] Systematic Theology, vol. 4, pp. 673-75).

[20] Cited in: http://thisblogchoseyou.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/the-continuationistcessationist-debate-part-x/ [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[21] Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Bible, I Corinthians 12, “The variety of use of spiritual gifts are shown”, Bible Gateway, available at: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/Matthew-Henry/1Cor/Variety-Use-Spiritual-Gifts [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[22] Jonathan Edwards, “Love more excellent than the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit”, available at: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/charity2.htm [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[23] Arnold Dallimore 1970, George Whitefield: The life and times of the great evangelist of the eighteent-century revival, vol 1. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 348.

[24] The Works of John Owen, IV:518, cited in J. I. Packer, “John Owen on spiritual gifts”, available at: http://www.johnowen.org/media/packer_quest_for_godliness_ch_13.pdf [Accessed 20 June, 2010].

[25] Available at: http://www.the-highway.com/cessation1_Warfield.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[26] “Receiving the Holy Ghost”, sermon no.1790, vol. 30, Year 1884, p. 386, available at: http://adrianwarnock.com/2004/05/what-would-c-h-spurgeon-have-made-of-charismatics/ [Accessed 20 June 2010]..

[27] 1857-1859. I & II Corinthians (The Geneva Series of Commentaries). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 272.

[28] Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, p. 231.

[29] 2005. Systematic Theology vol. 4. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse, p. 192.

[30] Against Heresies, II.32.4, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxxiii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

[31] Charismatic Chaos, p. 199.

[32] Against Heresies III.1.1, available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html [Accessed 20 June 2010].

Copyright © 2010 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 22 May 2020.

Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25

Some of Antony Flew’s arguments for an uncaused God rather than an uncaused universe.

Image result for Clipart Big Bang public domain

By Spencer D Gear

I (OzSpen) started a thread, “There is a God” on Christian Forums, to point to issues raised by Antony Flew’s conversion from atheism to deism. In response, one person asked, “I’m wondering what argument Flew used to back up this claim, or is it stated as an axiom?” (#6 in the thread).

Here is my reply:

Science and religion writer, Roy Abraham Varghese, was influential in Antony Flew’s moving from atheism to deism. In Antony Flew’s (with Roy Abraham Varghese), There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind (2007. New York: HarperOne), Varghese writes the introduction and his article is included as Appendix A, “The ‘New Atheism’: A critical appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris and Stenger” (p. 161f). For an extensive, popular, newspaper article on Varghese’s defence of the existence of God, see, ‘God in the details‘ (Dallas Observer, 3 May 2007).

To give an overview of Antony Flew’s argument for the existence of the uncaused God rather than the uncaused universe, I must take steps not to violate copyright. Therefore, this will be in my own words (with some quotes) but it will be a brief overview of his reasoning with lots of details missed. In being brief, I must leave out some significant details. I highly recommend picking up a copy of the paperback edition of this book as it has some very tight reasoning. This is not a book for those who don’t want to think through cosmological implications.

These are some of the points from chapter 8 of Flew’s book, “Did something come from nothing?” (2007:133-145).

1. Can something come from nothing? In his atheistic writings (e.g. The Presumption of Atheism), Flew defended the universe and its laws as ultimate. But systems of explanation involve “some fundamentals that are not themselves explained” (134).

2. In debating theists, he tried to show that they faced the same problem: There were ultimates beyond explanation (135).

3. His two main anti-theological books were written prior to the development of big-bang cosmology and since the early 1980s he had been reconsidering and “confessed” that “atheists have to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmological consensus” which was providing a scientific version of what St. Thomas Aquinas had defended philosophically – the universe had a beginning (135). As long as he maintained the universe had no beginning, he was content with the universe as ultimate, brute fact.

4. But the big-bang theory changed all of that (136).

5. Modern cosmologists who promoted the escape route of “the idea of the multiverse, numerous universes” or “Stephen Hawking’s notion of a self-contained universe” (137), could not avoid “potential theological implications”. He found the “multiverse alternative” unhelpful as the existence of one universe requires on explanation, but multiple universes requires bigger explanations (137).

Antony flew.jpg

Antony Flew (1923-2010) (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

6. Physics must “remain radically agnostic” about what caused the big bang (138). The universe in flux rather than being statically, eternally inert, “made a difference to the discussion” (138), but all of this brought him back to the cosmological argument.

7. The main philosophical critic of the cosmological argument was David Hume. Previously, Flew had supported Hume’s arguments but he came to realise that there were “certain presuppositions in Hume’s thinking [that] resulted in crucial errors”, especially Hume’s view that “causes” only relate to the association of ideas or the absence of such associations. The origin or validation of a “mind-dependent world” lies in our experience of that world. He thus concluded that Hume’s theory (story) could not explain the meaning of “cause” and “the law of nature” (139).

8. He found David Conway’s, The rediscovery of wisdom (London. Macmillan 2000) and Richard Swinburne’s, The existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon 2004) were effective in refuting Hume’s and Kant’s opposition to the cosmological argument. These are some of the points of refutation:

  • Causal explanations of parts of the whole can’t add up to “causal explanations of the whole” (Conway) [140]. He saw Swinburne’s argument to reject Hume’s view as persuasive: “The existence of a complex physical universe over finite or infinite time is something ‘too big’ for science to explain” (Swinburne in Flew 141).
  • Once David Hume’s framework is rejected, it is possible to apply the cosmological argument in light of evidence from modern cosmology. Laws by themselves cannot explain things. Further explanations are needed. If we don’t have such laws, how can we explain the beginning of the universe? Even if one hypothesises “empty space” as necessary to give rise to matter, empty space is still something that is already there. We have to rely on laws even to get the universe started with empty space (141).
  • Thus, following philosopher of science, John Leslie (Infinite minds. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), there is no reason to pursue cosmological speculations of the universe coming from nothing. “If you had an equation detailing the probability of something emerging from a vacuum, you would still have to ask why that equation applies. Hawking had, in fact, noted the need for a creative factor to breathe fire into the equations” (143).

9. The old argument to explain the universe through “an infinite series of causes” is now in the new language of modern cosmology. Again, he refers to John Leslie’s argument that finds this infinite series unsatisfactory. Why? Leslie explains: “The existence even of an infinite series of past events couldn’t be made self-explaining through each event being explained by an earlier one” (Leslie in Flew 144). The entire series still needs an explanation. Which explanation best fits the facts and reason?

10. He affirms Richard Swinburne’s summary exposition of the cosmological argument: “There is quite a chance that, if there is a God, he will make something of the finitude and complexity of the universe. It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but more likely that God would exist uncaused. Hence the argument from the existence of the universe to the existence of God is a good C-inductive argument” [1] (Swinburne in Flew 145). Before the publication of Flew’s book, he had discussions with Swinburne in which Flew “noted that his  [Swinburne’s] version of the cosmological argument seems to be right in a fundamental way. Some features of it may need to be amended, but the universe is something that begs an explanation. Richard Swinburne’s cosmological argument provides a very promising explanation, probably the finally right one” (145, my emphasis).

Swinburne.jpg

Richard Swinburne (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Notes

[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s explanation of the “Cosmological Argument”, states that “Richard Swinburne contends that the cosmological argument is not deductively valid; if it were so, “it would be incoherent to assert that a complex physical universe exists and that God does not” (1979, 119). Rather, he develops an inductive cosmological argument that appeals to the inference to the best explanation. Swinburne distinguishes between two varieties of inductive arguments: those that show that the conclusion is more probable than not (what he terms a correct P-inductive argument) and those that further increase the probability of the conclusion (what he terms a correct C-inductive argument). In The Existence of God he presents a cosmological argument that he claims falls in the category of C-inductive arguments. However, this argument is part of a larger, cumulative case for a P-inductive argument for God’s existence”.

The New York Times (16 April 2010) reported, “Antony Flew, Philosopher and Ex-Atheist, Dies at 87” (died 8 April 2010, Reading, England).

 

Copyright © 2010 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 28 July 2016.

Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25Flower25

Who Made God?

Leading Christian apologists Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler, in their book Who Made God? And Answers to over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith (Zondervan 2003), address that title question the following way…

Who Made God?

“No one did,” write Geisler and Zacharias. “He was not made. He has always existed” (p. 23).

But, wait! Is this credible? If the universe has a beginning (and modern science has concluded that it indeed DID have a beginning), then wouldn’t God need a beginning as well?

According to Geisler and Zacharias, “Only things that had a beginning – like the world – need a maker. God had no beginning, so God did not need to be made” (p. 23)

Sounds a little like a cop-out, doesn’t it? Not so, say the authors. Here is more of their answer:

“Traditionally, most atheists who deny the existence of God believe that the universe was not made; it was just “there” forever. They appeal to the first law of thermodynamics for support: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,” they insist. Several things must be observed in response.

“First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion. Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic “can” and “cannot” implicit in this statement. It should read, “[As far as we have observed,] the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” That is, no one had observed any actual new energy either coming into existence or going out of existence. Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning” (p. 24, emphasis added).

In other words, the first law of thermodynamics does not require a cause or creator for God.

Moreover, if God IS, then He is a supernatural force. And the very definition of “supernatural” means that He stands OUTSIDE of nature. If God is God, then God needs no Creator.

As Zacharias and Geisler explain: “It is absurd to ask ‘Who made God?’ It is a category mistake to ask, ‘Who made the Unmade?’ or ‘Who created the Uncreated?'” (p. 24)

Atheists counter that this is a cop-out or that it’s illogical, but they say this ONLY because they either misunderstand the issue or they are deliberately shifting the boundaries and definitions of the discussion to suit them. If God is God, then God is eternal. That’s the nature of God. If God is eternal, then God needs no creator or cause.

The key is to determine whether the universe is eternal. “If the universe is running down [second law of thermodynamics], it cannot be eternal,” write Zacharias and Geisler (p. 25).  Since it is running down, “the universe had a beginning. And whatever had a beginning must have had a beginner. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginner (God)” (p. 25).

Does this make sense?

Flower17Flower17Flower17Flower17Flower17Flower17Flower17
Whytehouse designs

Are there degrees of punishment in hell?[1]

By Spencer D Gear

Hell is Real

(image courtesy ChristArt)

Some people object to the doctrine of hell, saying that it is not something a loving God would do. I do some blogging[2] on the Christian Fellowship Forum and there is a Seventh-Day Adventist, Harold, on that Forum. He wrote to me:

“Malachi states that the dead are ashes
. God states that there will be no tears in Heaven. Can you honestly state that you can stand there and know that some of your loved ones are burning and not shed a tear?  How can you? Is YOUR God that cruel?”[3]

He goes on further to give another emotional response that is not based on the exegesis of the biblical text:

“Eternal punishment  simply means that the results of it are permanent. They last forever.  Stick a piece of paper in a can. Light it. It burns ‘up’.  FOREVER. It is gone. Forever.
“What would the purpose be for God to punish anyone for the sin of one short lifetime?  They have thrown away their chance to be with God, forever. They are lost. They know that. Now. Why put them through something you wouldn’t do to a dog?
Your ‘doctrine’ has driven people to leave the church, some even to the point of suicide.  Is that God’s plan? THINK.”[4]

Others ask the honest question, “How can a God of love make eternal hell the punishment for all unbelievers?” Some have committed horrendous crimes and engaged in disgusting immorality, while others have not done that. Is it fair for God to treat all people in hell the same and give them equal punishment?

This very brief article is an attempt to answer this latter question, “Are there degrees of punishment in hell?”

1. Since God is “the righteous Judge” (2 Tim. 4:8), we would expect that sinners would be punished according to the extent of their sin. This is what the Bible affirms.

2. Matthew 10:14-15 states, “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (ESV).

So it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for those who do not welcome and listen to the apostles. This is an amazing statement: it is going to be fairer for those who committed sexual immorality in Sodom & Gomorrah than for those who rejected the gospel. What is this saying about punishment in hell?

3. A similar affirmation of degrees of punishment can be found in Matthew 11:21-24,

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you”  (NIV).

4. Luke 12:47-48 speaks of many blows and few blows: “And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (ESV).

The lesson is that where one has greater privileges, there will be greater responsibilities. J. C. Ryle warned: “The saddest road to hell is that which runs under the pulpit, past the Bible and through the midst of warnings and invitations.”[5]

5. When Jesus criticised the religious leaders at his time on earth, he said that “such men will be punished more severely” (NIV, see Mark 12:38-40). This clearly indicates degrees of punishment in hell.

6. John’s vision of the judgment against “Babylon” (Rev. 18:1-7) indicates degree of punishment in proportion to sin committed.

7. Other verses to contemplate include Mark 9:42 and Romans 2:5. John Blanchard writes: “Every day the sinner lives, every selfish penny he makes, every unholy pleasure he enjoys, every ungrateful breath he takes, are storing up God’s anger against him.”[6]

8. We need to remember that:

a. Only God’s kind of justice will be experienced in hell;

b. There will be degrees of punishment, but

c. That is nothing to gloat about because punishment in hell is eternal, no matter what it is like.

A red herring logical fallacy of infinite punishment for a finite sin

Those who claim that hell is an infinite punishment for finite sin, commit a red herring logical fallacy. This article, ‘Is hell an infinite punishment?’ shows the red herring nature of this kind of argumentation.

This article of mine, “Are there degrees of punishment in hell?’ also demonstrates the false nature of the infinite punishment vs. finite sin view.

The seriousness of sin against the Almighty God is what sends unbelievers to hell.  Degrees of punishment in hell do not lessen the eternal dimensions of hell and its suffering.  For a more detailed assessment of God’s view of hell, see my article, “Hell & Judgment.”

Notes:

[1] Many of the ideas in this article were suggested by Blanchard (1993:182ff). My article here was a response to a question by Claudette on the TDELTA Forum, “Are there degrees of punishment in hell?” This was posted about Thursday, 27 September 2001. This forum is not available to a public audience.  It is restricted to the students of Trinity Theological Seminary, Newburgh IN (where I was studying at the time).  For further support of degrees of punishment in hell, see Morey (1984:250); Peterson (1995:198-200). See also Peterson’s Index.

[2] I’m ozspen.

[3] Christian Fellowship Forum, Public Affairs, “Climate change worst scientific scandal,” 18 December 2009, #182, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=180&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=119873 (Accessed 25 December 2009).

[4] Harold to ozspen (me), Christian Fellowship Forum, ibid. #190, 20 December 2009, available at: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=180&nav=messages&webtag=ws-fellowship&tid=119873 (Accessed 25 December 2009).

[5] In Blanchard (1993:183).

[6] Blanchard (1993:185). This comment is based on what Blanchard considers are the “terrifying words” (p. 185) of Roman 2:5.

 

Works consulted

Blanchard, J 1993. Whatever Happened to Hell? Darlington, Co. Durham, England: Evangelical Press.

Morey, R A 1984. Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Peterson, R A 1995. Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing,

 

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 9 December 2017.

6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue6pointblue

Who created God?

I was talking to a group of teenagers about the things of God and of Jesus when one of them blurted out, “What stupid stuff you Christians believe. I can’t see your God but you want me to believe in him. Every thing I know was made by something else. Wood comes from trees which come from seeds. Human beings happen when Mum and Dad get together. Who created your so-called God?”

This is a reasonable question. God’s view is that “anyone who comes to [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him”(Heb. 11:6, NIV). Before we can approach God, we must believe that he exists. We Christians spend too little time helping people with something that God requires before we can even approach him. This is the existence of God.

What kinds of evidence would you accept?

I once lived in a house that had several mango trees in the yard. When the fruit was of reasonable size, each morning I could go to the tree and see that something had been destroying my fruit by eating bits and pieces out of the green and near-ripe fruit. I didn’t see the flying foxes, but I can infer their existence from the evidence.

It’s like that with God. There is evidence all around that shows his existence. It shouldn’t bother us that we cannot see him. I can’t see the wind. I can’t see your brain and you can’t see mine. Neither can I see the principle within me that gives me life. But I sure know the wind, my brain, and my life exist – from the evidence they produce.

We can see the effects of God around us if we care to notice. Let’s take a look at our universe. Examine the intricate design of a human eye. If this earth were orbiting closer to the sun, it would fry. If it were further away, it would freeze over.

Let’s look at some other evidence:

Consider the sun. It is monstrous when compared with the earth. It has a diameter of 864,400 miles and a volume that is over one million times that of earth. The surface of the sun has a temperature of 6,000 degrees C, but that rises to 14 million degrees C at its core. About 4 million tons of the mass of the sun is lost every second, but it is of such gigantic proportions that it has enough fuel for about another 5,000 million years.

But the sun is only an average-sized star in the Milky Way galaxy. This galaxy, shaped like a disc, is 621,000 million million miles in breadth. There are 100,000 million stars in this single galaxy. The nearest star in the Milky Way, Andromeda, is about 24 million million million miles away.

Doesn’t this boggle the mind? All of it is perfectly designed and holds together by something or someone.

Now consider the dimension of the universe in light years. Light travels at just over 186,282 miles per second, which means that light travels at about 5,878,000 million miles per year. At this phenomenal speed, how long would it take to reach the sun from earth? Eight minutes. The nearest group of stars in our galaxy, Magellanic Clouds, takes 170,000 light years of travel to reach them. It takes 2.2 million light years to reach the Andromeda Spiral.

We could go on and on about the time to reach Sirius, Polaris (North Star), and Ursa Major (Great Bear). But this is only in one galaxy. It is estimated that there are at least 100,000 million galaxies, and we haven’t discussed the size of stars.[1]

After considering these and other dimensions of our wondrous universe, British evangelist, John Blanchard, asked: “What exactly is it that we are seeing? How does it work? Has it always existed? If not, when and how did it come into being? Will it go on for ever? If not, when and how will it come to an end? Why is it there at all? Does it have any meaning or purpose?”[2]

If the known stars in the universe were divided among the present population of the world, one writer has suggested that each person would receive two trillion of them.[3] A trillion is 10 to the 9th power, or, one million millions.[4] There are so many stars in the universe that each person in the world could have two trillion of them. What an immense cosmos.

Examine the composition of just one cell of a human body.

“The DNA molecule inside each cell contains a three-billion letter software code capable of overseeing and regulating all the anatomy on display in Body Worlds [the human body]. Increasingly we are learning to read the code. But who wrote it? And why? Can anyone guide us in reading not only the microcode inside each cell but the macrocode governing the entire planet, the universe?”[5]

As I consider this information about the existence of the Creator God, a few passages of Scripture come to mind that confirm this kind of evidence. I’m thinking of . . .

Psalm 8:3-4:

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,

what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them? (TNIV)
[6]

Psalm 19:1-6:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.

4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

5 which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth (TNIV)

A verse from the NT confirms these passages from the Psalms: Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (TNIV).

Philip Yancey said: “In my lifetime, astronomers have ‘discovered’ seventy billion more galaxies, admitted they may have overlooked 96 percent of the makeup of the universe (‘dark energy’ and ‘dark matter’), and adjusted the time of the Big Bang by four to five billion years.”[7]

Today I’ve given a couple pointers to the existence of God, but . . .

Who created God?

I’m convinced beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, but how can I come to know who created God?

So, who made God?[8] The simple answer is: Nobody made God. God has always existed. The only things that are created are things that had a beginning – like you, me and our universe. All of us and our universe need a maker, a creator. Since God did not need to be created, the question, “Who made God?” is meaningless because he is not a created being but is the eternal being who eternally existed before he created the universe.

To ask, “Who created God?” is as illogical as asking, “Who is the bachelor’s wife?”[9]

However, there are questions that remain for those of us who do a little thinking. You might be asking questions like these: [10]

  • If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause?
  • If God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?

Please note that: “The word ’cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made.”[11]

A logical answer should go like this:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.[12]

Its important to emphasise the words “which has a beginning.” Our universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. Everything that had a beginning is caused by something. God is not like the universe. He had no beginning and therefore doesn’t need a cause.

In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which has a lot of experimental support, is “the geometric theory of gravitation that was published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the current description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time.”[13]

From this well established theory of Einstein’s, we can deduce that God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so He doesn’t need a cause. Einstein’s theory of general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.[14]

Thus, time, space and matter all had a beginning. The universe cannot be eternal.

God, by definition, is the creator of the entire universe, including time, space and matter. He cannot be limited by time. He created it. So, he had no beginning. There is an interesting verse in Isaiah 57:15a that confirms this: “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy. . .” (ESV).

Therefore, the eternal God does not have a cause.

It’s time to put on your thinking caps again. It’s a long while since I did science and I’m not a scientist. I did chemistry and physics in high school and a chemistry subject in my bachelor’s degree.

I want to introduce you to the term, “thermodynamics.” It is “a field of physical science that relates matter to energy. The principles of thermodynamics are regarded as inviolable and are applied constantly to engineering and the sciences, including origin science.”[15]

According to the first law of thermodynamics, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”[16] That really is a philosophical way of putting it. Since science is based on observation, the observational evidence for the first law of thermodynamics should read: “[As far as we have observed,] the amount of energy in the universe remains constant.”[17] i.e. scientists have not observed any new energy coming into existence or going out of existence.

This statement cannot affirm or deny that the universe was created. It simply states that, “as far as we can tell, the actual amount of energy that was created has remained constant since then.”[18]

That’s the first law of thermodynamics.

But there’s a second law of thermodynamics.

Are you ready to think a little more with me?

Remember the core of the first law of thermodynamics: “[As far as we have observed,] the amount of energy in the universe remains constant.”[19] i.e. scientists have not observed any new energy coming into existence or going out of existence

The second law of thermodynamics is another story. It can be stated this way:

“In a closed, isolated system, the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing.”[20] When I learned it back in my Grade 12 and university classes the term used was increase in entropy for decrease in useable energy.

Remember, the term is thermodynamics. By “dynamic” we mean that the amount of energy is being changed into unusable energy. This doesn’t conflict with the first law of thermodynamics, rather “it amplifies it.”[21]

Norman Geisler puts it this way: “If energy is constant, why do we keep needing more electricity? The answer is that entropy happens. The second law states that ‘overall things left to themselves tend to disorder.’ Overall, the amount of disorder is increasing. The entropy—that is, the disorder—of an isolated system can never decrease. When an isolated system achieves maximum entropy, it can no longer undergo change: It has reached equilibrium. We would say it has ‘run down.'”[22]

Put a cabbage in a closed system such as a glass house with no cracks and let it stay there for 6 months. What will happen to the cabbage? There will be an increase in entropy, or a decrease in energy. The cabbage will become putrid. Guaranteed. Think about this principle.

So, according to science, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that our universe is running down. If it is running down, it is running down from a higher position when it was created. It’s another way of showing that the universe cannot be eternal. It had a beginning; it had a cause and there is a decrease in useable energy.

But who is eternal and who caused the universe to come into existence. I put it to you that God Himself, the eternal one, created the universe. This is confirmed in the very first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1 NIV).

Here’s another searching question about God:

Since God is has always existed and was not created, what was he up to before the creation of the cosmos, the universe, the world?

One of the great Christian teachers of the fifth-century, St. Augustine of Hippo, had two answers to this question. One of them was humorous and the other was serious.

His humorous answer was: “God was spending his time preparing hell for people who ask questions like this!”

The serious answer was: “God didn’t have any time on his hands, since there was no time before time was created. Time began with creation. Before creation, time did not exist. So there was no time for God to have on his hands. The world did not begin by a creation in time but by a creation of time. But, you may think, if there was no time before time began, what was there? The answer is, eternity. God is eternal, and the only thing prior to time was eternity.”[23]

Our very question, what was God up to before the creation of the universe “implies that an infinitely perfect being like God could get bored. Boredom, however, is a sign of imperfection and dissatisfaction, and God is perfectly satisfied. Thus, there is no way God could be bored, even if he had long time periods on his hands. An infinitely creative mind can always find something interesting to do. Only finite minds [like yours and mine] that run out of interesting things to do get bored.”[24]

This is not the time or place to get into a discussion of the nature of the Christian God who has three persons, Father, Son & Holy Spirit, in perfect fellowship. There is no way that such a person could become bored or lonely. There would always be somebody with whom to communicate who would have “perfect understanding, love, and companionship. Boredom is impossible for such a being.”[25]

Conclusion

William MacDonald calculated this:

“If it cost a cent to travel 1,000 miles, a cruise to the moon would be $2.38. But if you wanted to go to the sun, the one-way ticket would cost $930. And a trip to the nearest star would be – hold onto your hat – $260 million. Yet a place in the heart of the One who made this vast universe is free, based on the priceless sacrifice of Christ. Have you reserved your place?

Wonder of wonders! Vast surprise!

Can bigger wonder be?

That He who built the starry skies

Once bled and died for me.[26]

Imagine your 5-year-old.[27]

“Daddy,[28] who made me?”

“God made you, darling.”

“Well, Daddy, who made the sky and the trees?”

“God made the sky and the trees. God made everything.”

“Daddy, who made God?”

What a good question? “What do you say? Who made God? is a natural question for a child. If we teach our children that everything in the world is made from something else, where do we stop this line of reasoning? If everything has a maker, then who makes the maker? We find clues to the answer in God’s curious name for Himself, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’

“The simple answer (try explaining this to a child!) is that God does not require a cause. He causes all creatures to be, but He Himself is caused by no one. He makes all things move, but He Himself is moved by nothing.

“God exists by His own power. He alone is self-existent.”[29]

This is a summary of what I have been trying to communicate:

1. I have tried to show that the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning.

2. It is unreasonable to believe that something that had a being could begin to exist without a cause.

3. Therefore, the universe requires a cause as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 confirm.

· God, as creator of time, matter and energy, is outside of time. God has no beginning in time. He has always existed, so he doesn’t need a cause.

· The end of the story is that God was never created. He is eternal.

 


Endnotes:

[1] This information is from John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000, pp.244-245.

[2] Ibid., p. 247.

[3] Ibid., pp. 245-246.

[4] A trillion is “a number represented as a 1 followed by twelve zeros (1,000,000,000,000) If you have a bucket that holds 100 thousand marbles, you would need 10,” available from: www.ncsu.edu/project/agronauts/workbooks/Mission_1_Glossary.doc [4 May 2009].

[5] Philip Yancey, Rumours of a Another World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003, p. 30.

[6] TNIV = Today’s New International Version, available from: http://www.tniv.info/bible/ [3 May 2009]. A hard copy of The TNIV Bible: Timeless Truth in Today’s Language (Today’s New International Version) 2005 is available from Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

[7] Yancey, pp. 29-30.

[8] With help from Norman Geisler, “Tough Questions about God,” ch. 1, pp. 23-32, in Ravi Zacharias & Norman Geisler (gen. ed.) 2003, Who Made God? And Answers to over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

[9] Ibid., p. 24.

[10] The following is based on Christian Answers, available from: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html [4 May 2009].

[11] Endnote #1 in ibid.

[12] “Who created God?” Christian Answers, loc. cit.

[13] “General relativity,” Wikipedia, available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity [4 May 2009].

[14] “Who created God?” Christian Answers, loc. cit.

[15] Norman L. Geisler 1999, “Thermodynamics, Laws of,” in Norman L. Geisler 1999, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp.723-724.

[16] Geisler, “Tough questions about God,” p. 24.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.,

[19] Ibid.

[20] Geisler, “Thermodynamics, Laws of,” p. 724.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Geisler, “Tough questions about God,” p. 28.

[24] Ibid., pp. 28-29.

[25] Ibid., p. 29.

[26] In “D.P’s Scrap Book,” New Life, 11th December 1997, p. 15.

[27] The following example is from R.C. Sproul 1987, One Holy Passion, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 15.

[28] Sproul used “Mummy,” but I changed to “Daddy” because this message was originally presented at a men’s breakfast.

[29] Sproul, ibid.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9
Whytehouse designs

Does God Exist?[1]

A W Tozer.jpg
A W Tozer (Wikipedia)

A.W. Tozer: “What we believe about God is the most important thing about us.”[2]

Philosopher, Mortimer Adler: “More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question.”[3]

A. Why we must start with the existence of God when witnessing to Aussies who do not believe in God.

1. The direct statement of the Bible:

“Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).

2. The Bible’s example of how to reach non-theists:

At the Areopagus (Mars Hill)–Acts 17:16-34, Paul used three principles for sharing the gospel with agnostics (those who did not know if God existed):

(a) Appeal to general revelation (e.g. creation) [vv. 22-29

  • God is the Creator of the universe (v. 24);
  • God is the Sustainer of life (vv. 25, 28a);
  • God is the Ruler of the nations (vv. 26-27);
  • God is the Father of human beings (vv. 28b-29);

(b) Argue the necessity of judgment [vv. 29-31a]

Judgment is an essential part of the gospel message.

  • It will be universal (will judge the world — v. 31);
  • The standard will be righteous (justice v. 31);
  • It is definite judgment; the day has been set and the Judge has been appointed (v. 31);
  • Christ’s resurrection is proof that He will be both Lord and Judge (v. 31).

(c) Announce the good news [v. 30, 31b]

Summary:

  • There is the God;
  • There is judgment;
  • There is the Saviour.

John Stott wrote:

“Many people are rejecting our gospel today not because they perceive it to be false, but because they perceive it to be trivial. People are looking for an integrated world-view which makes sense of all their experience. We learn from Paul that we cannot preach the gospel of Jesus without the doctrine of God, or the cross without creation, or salvation without judgment. Today’s world needs a bigger gospel, the full gospel of Scripture, what Paul later in Ephesus was to call ‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27, NEB, RSV).”[4]

B. What are some of the reasons people give for not believing in God?

  • He’s just a figment of the imagination–he’s an invented fantasy.
  • He’s a crutch.
  • How could you possibly believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God with all the evil, illness and suffering in the world?
  • Surely you can’t discount all the other great religions: Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.?
  • You can’t trust the Bible.
  • We live in a modern, scientific age when there is no room for this nonsense about a God whom you can’t see. What you see it what you get.
  • Evolution is a natural phenomenon, needing no room for a supreme being.
  • Besides science and the Bible contradict.
  • Jesus is just another guru.
  • There are far too many hypocrites in the church. Why would I want to join them?
  • To believe in God is irrational. I’m a reasonable human being. If you can’t prove it to me, I won’t believe in it. Christianity is unreasonable.
  • Then there’s this gobble-dee-gook about miracles.
  • I want no association with those holy-roller yahoos down the road.
  • God is in the same category as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
  • I used to believe in those things but now I have grown out of them.

C. What are the practical implications?

1. What difference will it make in life if human beings regard themselves as in charge of their own lives and so in charge of the universe? Or, on the other hand, what if there is a Supreme Being whom we fear, love, is a power to be defied, or is the Lord to be obeyed?

If I am in charge:

  • what happens when a loved one is murdered in cold blood?
  • What about disasters like September 11? What about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean?
  • What can I do about water in drought after the dams, barrages and wells have run dry?
  • What can I do to stop the horrible crimes in my city or elsewhere in the world?
  • Do I have the power to change a sexual abuser (perpetrator) into a law-abiding citizen?
  • Who causes the tides to rise; plants to flower; whales to return to Hervey Bay and turtles to Mon Repos every year?
  • What makes murder, stealing, lying, etc. wrong?

Photo of humpback in profile with most of its body out of the water, with back forming acute angle to water

Humpbacks frequently beach, throwing two-thirds or more of their bodies out of the water and splashing down on their backs (courtesy Wikipedia).

 

 

 

Turtle laying eggs (public domain)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freshly hatched turtles making their way back to the ocean after hatching (public domain)

 

 

 

 

2. If we acknowledge a divine being/thing, does it matter:

  • if the divine is just a concept of God (something in our head that is nothing more than an intellectual idea)?
  • does it matter if the divine is just something for us to speculate or argue about in the smoko room, over a beer at the pub, or in university philosophy classes?
  • does it matter if the divine is the living God whom people worship in all their acts of worship and who is the Creator and Boss of the universe?

D. People who reject God most often fall into two categories:

1. Atheists

Atheists believe that God does not exist.

Observations:

a. It is always more difficult to prove what is not than what is.

“Say, for example, I call downstairs to my wife in the morning telling her that I can’t find my socks. She says,

‘Fuzzy Wuzzy Was A Woman!’

‘They’re in the spare room.’

I look for a few moments then yell downstairs, ‘No they’re not!’

‘Yes they are,’ she replies.

“It’s much easier for her to prove her case. If she comes upstairs and finds them, she was right. Even if she can’t find them straight away, she may still be right if they are found later. To prove my case I have to search every inch of the room, leaving absolutely no space unexplored. She will only have been proved wrong when I have done all this.”[5]

Atheism is like that. It can only be proved true if every single piece of information in the whole universe is uncovered and all of it at the same time (just in case God hides from us in one place while we are looking in another). This is an impossible task.

Only the most arrogant human beings would claim to know everything. Yet without this knowledge, no atheist can say that he/she is absolutely sure that God does not exist.

The atheist can offer no leak-proof argument that God does not exist.

It’s a statement of faith supported by supposed philosophical arguments, personal experience, the informed opinion of experts, but in the end it falls flat because no absolute proof can be found.

So the statement, “There is no God,” has ‘UNPROVED’ written all over it.

b. Could you imagine living every day under the pressure of somebody finding evidence that God does exist and therefore foul up your entire way of living?

It’s a very insecure position. Like the socks, any moment could prove the wife right. I can only be right at the end of a long search.

George Bernard Shaw, an atheist and the mind behind My Fair Lady, illustrates just how insecure this position is:

“The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. I believed it once. In its name I helped destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now they look at me andwitness the tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith.”[6]

c. Where’s the power?

Since when has atheism changed a drug addict into a decent, law-abiding member of society. How many hospitals, retirement villages, leprosariums, humanitarian projects have been founded and continue, based on atheistic ideals?

Atheism has no moral power to change lives.

2. Agnostics

An agnostic is unsure whether there is a God or not. Maybe, maybe not! Some get quite aggressive about it: “We can’t be certain about anything, so I won’t make a decision either way.” This person is an agnostic who will not budge.

The agnostic sits on the fence.

“Imagine for a moment that you are drowning at sea and two boats arrive to rescue you. they arrive just as you are going down for the third time. You know that one of the boats has a bomb on it and will be blown up within minutes, but you don’t know which boat. Because you know only one of the boats can be trusted, you choose to stay in the ‘safety’ of the water. Sure enough, one of the boats sinks like a stone and the other sails off into the safety of a harbour. You drown! You were so right about only one boat being safe, but so wrong about your decision to stay in the water. Dead wrong! At least on the boat you had a fifty/fifty chance of success.”[7]

The agnostic is like that. He ignores the only two options: there is a God or there is not a God. So he always makes the wrong choice.

For people who want moral help, the atheist can say, “Forget it. Stand on your dig and get on with life.” The Christian says the loving, caring God is available now. But for the agnostic, there is only scepticism, confusion and doubt.

At some point in your looking for answers, not knowing is a reasonable place to be for a short time, but its a nightmare to live in.

E. Some Sign Posts to God’s Existence[8]

There are very few things in life that are as certain as 1+1=2. I know my wife loves me because she says so and does loving things to and with me, but I do not have a fool proof way of knowing she absolutely loves me. But I have the kind of proof needed in court, proof beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the kind of proof we need for life.

That’s all we need to know that God exists. God has left sign posts all over the world.

1. Order & design in the universe

If the earth were closer to the sun we would be fried; if further away we would freeze to death.

Think of life itself. Plants give off oxygen that human beings need. Human beings breathe out carbon dioxide that plants need.

Just think of the wonder of what happens when a woman’s egg (ovum) joins with man’s sperm. From that joining comes legs, hair, skin, blood, brain, heart and other organs of the body. Have you ever thought of the complexity of the human eye?

Chance seems a shoddy way to explain it. God’s designer label is spread out across the universe.

“Sir Isaac Newton, one of the great scientists of the seventeenth century, once built a model of the solar system to help him in his studies. One of his atheistic scientist friends came to see him one day and asked who made the model. ‘Nobody!’ Newton replied. When the scientist accused him of being ridiculous, Newton explained that if no one had a problem in realizing that a model needed a maker, why as it such a problem when confronted with the real universe?”[9]

The total lunar eclipse passed north of the earth’s central shadow on October 8, 2014 (courtesy Wikipedia)

2. Our desires

We get hungry, thirsty and cold. Even a deep search among primitive tribes in the jungle reveals that there is a belief in some kind of God or gods. We have a deep desire for worship.

In spite of Communists banning it, atheists rejecting it, dictators abusing it, intellectuals scoffing at it, and governments suppressing it–it is still there. As maths whiz and philosopher, Pascal, put it back in the 17th century: There’s a God-shaped vacuum in every one of us.

3. We know right from wrong

Don’t we agree that murder, rape, stealing, telling lies, greed, selfishness, and mugging are wrong?

Our daily talk gives it away: “How could he do such a thing to an innocent child?” Why is there such an outcry against juvenile vandalism and graffiti? When teenagers abuse their parents, why the protest?

When a father sexually abuses his 8-year-old, why the fuss if there is no God?

If the atheist is correct and there is nobody we are responsible to, why should we care about values? As Russian author, Fyodor Dostoevsky, said: “If God is dead everything is permitted.”[10]

“In other words, if there is no transcendent standard of the good, then there can ultimately be no way to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, and there can be no saints or sinners, no good men or bad men. If God is dead, ethics is impossible.”[11]

Where do these moral values come from?

4. The purpose of life

What are we on earth for? We have deep needs for purpose. If there is no God, the universe is just a huge accident. Our life is a fluke.

The average atheist lives life without an awareness of the awful consequences of atheism. Living life without purpose drives many people to suicide.

I find that this is the fundamental problem for our youth who are committing suicide. Hopelessness is what dominates their lives. Mum and Dad are splitting up. They go to school, TAFE (Technical & Further Education, Australia), university and there still might not be a job for them — on the dole for the rest of their lives. So they get into drugs, sex and thrash music. Nothing worth living for, except this moment. Life is without purpose. Hopeless.

This is the problem in Russia today–hopelessness.

I ask you: What answers can you give that will stop Australia from becoming another Bosnia, Syria or Iraq? What will stop another Hitler from arising on the world stage?

See, ‘Mass slaughter in a Bosnian field knee-deep in blood‘ (The Independent, 21 July 1995) and ‘Adolph Hitler: The Holocaust’.

As Ravi Zacharias puts it: “It is evident that life without God is not working. The question really should be, What is going to keep the whole world from becoming another Bosnia?”[12]

5. Somebody made the universe

Everything that is an effect was caused by something. Nothing just happens. We are forced to ask: who or what started the universe in the beginning? Chance or luck cause nothing. They are just a description when we don’t have any other answer.

The other alternative is that God started it. This world is here because God exists and he made it.

6. Many people have met him

Millions of person have met God and have a personal relationship with Him. They may be doctors or brickies, tribes people from Africa or sophisticated university intellectuals. He has changed crooks into law-abiding citizens. He specialises in taking rebels and making them submit to him. It is very difficult to write all of these people off as fanatics or cranks.

7. Meet Jesus Christ

He said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). God has come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. He lived among us. We know what God is like by seeing Jesus in action–healing, compassion on the destitute, chastising the religious self-righteous, and offering salvation to all by dying as a common criminal for the sins of the world.

I visited a prison and met a prisoner who had a reputation of being the “religious” one in the group.  He openly quoted Scripture.  When I spoke with him he told me that he had committed his life to Jesus Christ as Lord since he came to prison.  He is openly sharing Christ with all the prisoners he meets.  He told me of how his wicked life was turned around when he met Jesus Christ personally.

Notes


[1] With lots of help from Stephen Gaukroger (1989), especially chapter 1, “Can I really believe in God?”

[2] In Paul Little (1970:25).

[3] Mortimer Adler (in Little 1987: 21).

[4] Stott (1990:290).

[5] Gaukroger (1989:8).

[6] G. B. Shaw (in Gaukroger 1989:9).

[7] Gaukroger (1989:11).

[8] Adapted from Gaukroger (1989:12 ff).

[9] Gaukroger (1989:13).

[10] In The Brothers Karamazov (1880), cited in Sire (1988:118).

[11] Sire (1988:118).

[12] Ravi Zacharias (1994:51).

 

Works consulted

Gaukroger S 1989. It Makes Sense. London: Scripture Union.

Little, P 1970.  Know What You Believe. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books.

Sire, J W 1988. The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Stott, J R W 1990. The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Zacharias, R 1994. Can Man Live Without God? Dallas: Word Publishing.

 

Copyright (c) 2014 Spencer D. Gear.  This document is free content.  You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version.  This document last updated at Date:11 October 2014.

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6

Problems with the Trinity

File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg

(Trinity Shield of the early Western church, courtesy Wikimedia Commons)

By Spencer D Gear

A thoughtful person with whom I dialogued on a www blog site and through email said to me: “If you would like to know why I have rejected Christianity, I will be glad to tell you. Here are some [of my] reasons:” His questions are located HERE [1] and I’ve used his questions below in bold and marked as Q.1, Q.2, etc.

As a prerequisite to understanding my evangelical Christian worldview, I ask you to read my three part series, Can you trust the Bible? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Other questions are answered at:

Problems with Jesus,

Facts about hell,

Why the need for apologetics?

Religion and beliefs

Problems with the Trinity

Q.8  But, hold on. . . they [most Christians] thought they could solve the problem of their celestial mathematics, stating that one plus one plus one is NOT three, but one!

Let’s admit up front that the doctrine of the Trinity “is difficult and perplexing to us” (Sproul 1995, p. 35).  Another has said that “no man can fully explain the Trinity. . . the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man” (Martin 1980, p. 25).

The word, Trinity, does not appear in the Bible.

It comes from the Latin word trinitas, which means ‘threeness.’  But even though the word is not in the Bible, the trinitarian idea is there, and it is most important
  In the minds of some, the difficulty of understanding how God can be both one and three is reason enough to reject the doctrine outright (Boice 1986, p. 109).

Christianity does not teach the absurd notion about God that 1+1+1=1, which an unbeliever described as “celestial mathematics.”  That is a false equation because the term, Trinity, describes a relationship, NOT of three Gods, but of one God in three persons.  It is NOT tritheism (three beings who are God). Trinity is an effort to define God in all his fullness, in terms of his unity and diversity.

Historically, it has been described as one in essence and three in person.  “Though the formula is mysterious and even paradoxical, it is in no way contradictory” (Sproul 1986, p. 35).  Essence is used to describe God’s being, while the diversity is to express the Godhead in terms of person.

God’s unity is affirmed in Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”  God’s diversity is declared in Gen. 1:26, “Then God said, ‘let us make man in our image, in our likeness
”  After the sin of Adam, “The Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us
” (Gen. 3:22).  Concerning the tower of Babel, God said, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language
” (Gen. 11:7, emphasis added).

The OT prophets later confirmed this mysterious relationship within the Deity.  In telling of his call to the office of a prophet, Isaiah tells of how God asked, “. . . And who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8, emphasis added).  The use of the plural, “us” and “our,” must be noted.  It is a significant issue.

God could have been talking to himself (even Jewish commentators reject that interpretation), to the angels, or to other Persons who are not identified.  He was not talking to angels because the next verse (Gen. 1:27) gives the context.  While referring to the creation of human beings, the Bible declares, “So God created man in his own image.”  Human beings were not created in the image of angels, but in God’s image.  So the Father, in Gen. 1:26 is addressing His Son and the Holy Spirit.

This diversity in the Godhead is clearly identified in Matt. 28:19, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
”

Historically, the heresy of modalism has attempted to deny the distinction of persons in the Godhead, claiming that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just different ways in which God expresses himself.  On the other hand, tritheism, another heresy, has tried to affirm that there are three beings that together make up God.

All persons in the Godhead have all the attributes of deity.

There is also a distinction in the work done by each member of the Trinity.  The work of salvation is in one sense common to all three persons of the Trinity.  Yet in the manner of activity, there are differing operations assumed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  The Father initiates creation and redemption; the Son redeems the creation; and the Holy Spirit regenerates and sanctifies, applying redemption to believers (Sproul 1986, pp. 35-36).

The Trinity does not refer to parts of God.  It cannot be associated with the roles of God.  All analogies break down.  We can speak of water as being liquid, steam and ice, but all being water.  To speak of one man as father, son and husband does not capture the full mystery of the nature of God.  R.C. Sproul has rightly summarised:

The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God.  Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step.  It defines the limits of our finite reflection.  It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three (1986, p. 36).

God tells us why we cannot adequately express or explain certain dimensions of His nature: “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord.  ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts'” (Isa. 55:8-9).

Notes

[1] On 5 November 2016 the website to which I linked had blocked my access to the URL. This has happened to all of my links to that website, christianforums.com. I suggest that you copy my questions into your web browser to see the original questions and other content I have written. It’s a sad day when a Christian forum does not want me to link back to its website where I was a regular poster (over 10,000 posts in 11 years) and took some of this interaction for articles on my homepage, ‘Truth Challenge‘.

Works consulted

Boice, J. M. 1986, Foundations of the Christian Faith, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.

Martin, W. 1980, Essential Christianity, Regal Books, Ventura, California.

Sproul, R.C. 1992, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois.

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 26 April 2019.

Does God Create Evil?

 
(www.publicdomainpictures.net)

By Spencer D Gear

At a Christian Witness Ministries‘ outreach men’s breakfast, I spoke on the topic, “Can you believe in God after September 11 and the tsunami? Which ‘monster’ created evil?” [1] At question time, a thoughtful Christian asked: “How does your view of the creation of evil line up with God who said in Isaiah, ‘I created evil.'” My response was inadequate, so I have investigated further. The following is my understanding of this verse from Isaiah.

Isaiah 45:7 in the KJV states, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

In the NIV it reads: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.”

In the ESV, the translation is: “I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.”

The NASB translation is: “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

Here is the contrast:

  • “I make peace, and I create evil” (KJV);
  • “I bring prosperity and create disaster” (NIV);
  • “I make well-being and create calamity” (ESV);
  • “Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does these” (NASB).

 Does God, the Lord, create moral evil, i.e. does God create sin, or does he create calamity or disaster? There is quite a difference in the meaning. If God creates all the evil in the world, from the beginning of time until the end of this world, what kind of a God is he? If he creates calamities or disasters what kind of God is he?

The word translated “evil” or “disaster/calamity” is the Hebrew, ra. It is true that the word can be used to refer to natural disasters or calamities. It is a very common word for evil as a general description in the OT. The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” in Gen. 2:9 uses this word, as is the evil of the people that brought the judgment of Noah’s flood (Gen. 6:5). The evil of the men of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 13:13 uses this word (Grudem 1994, p. 326 n7).

Ps. 34:14 reads, “Turn away from evil and do good.” There’s that word, ra, again. We read of it again in Isa. 59:7, speaking of those whose “feet run to evil.” You can read it also in other passages in Isaiah (see Isa. 47:10, 11; 56:2; 57:1; 59:15; 65:12; 66:4)

There are many other OT passages that use ra to refer to moral evil (i.e. sin) and to disaster/calamity. How do we know how to translate? The context will tell us. Does God create evil/sin, or does God create disaster?

  • As Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest put it: “Isaiah does not teach the blasphemous idea that the Lord creates sin!” (1987, p. 312). If we look to the context of Isa. 45:7, this is what we find:

Isa.45:11, “Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel.” He is the God of holiness. So, God could not be the creator of sin. Sin is incompatible with God’s holiness.

  • Isaiah predicted that sudden disaster would come to Babylon: “But evil shall come upon you, which you will not know how to charm away; disaster shall fall upon you, for which you will not be able to atone; and ruin shall come upon you suddenly, of which you know nothing” Isa 47:11 (ESV).

 You can read a similar emphasis in Amos 3:6, which the KJV translates as: “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD has not done it?” The NIV translates as: “When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?”

It is only when there is judgment for sin that the prophets write as in Isa 45:7, “I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things” (NIV). “Like a just judge, God decrees punishment for sin but he does not decree acts of sin” (Lewis and Demarest 1987, p. 312).

Remember Jonah who was thrown overboard by men on that ship travelling to Tarshish? “Then they [the men on the boat] took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm” (Jonah 1:15, NIV).

However, five verses later, in Jonah 2:3, Jonah is praying to God, “You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me” (NIV).

How is it that the men on the boat threw Jonah overboard and that God hurled Jonah into the deep? The Bible can affirm that men did it and that it was God in action. God brought about his plan by using the men on the boat. In a way that we don’t quite understand, “God caused [the men] to make a willing choice to do what they did” (Grudem 1994, p. 326).

Alec Motyer observes:

Prosperity 
 disaster: the older, literal rendering ‘peace 
 evil’ caused unnecessary difficulties. Can the Lord ‘create evil’? Out of about 640 occurrences of the word ra’, which range in meaning from a ‘nasty’ taste to a full moral evil, there are about 275 cases where it refers to trouble or calamity. Each case must be judged by its context and NIV has done so correctly here. Cyrus was ‘bad news’ to the kings he conquered and the cities he overthrew. But Isaiah’s (and the Bible’s) view of divine providence is rigorous – and for that reason full of comfort. Sinful minds want the comfort of a sovereign God but jib at saying with Job (2:10), ‘Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble (ra)?’ (1999, p. 287).

How does this relate to Isa. 45:7? God used people in Jonah’s day to perform an evil action. In Isaiah’s day, God brought disaster on Babylon through the use of human means.

God does not create all of the sinful evil in the world, but God does bring disaster or calamity as his judgment. It was God who created “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9).

Notes:

[1] Spencer Gear is a retired counsellor and counselling manager who obtained his PhD in NT in 2015. He is an active Christian apologist and independent researcher based in Brisbane, Qld., Australia. He may be contacted through the Contact Form on this website.

References:

Wayne Grudem 1994, Systematic Theology, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest 1987, Integrative Theology, vol. 1, Academie Books (Zondervan Publishing House), Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Alec Motyer 1999, Isaiah (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England.

Copyright © 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 31 December 2015.