Of First Importance

 1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

3 παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς ⁴  καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς

This is the beginning of Paul's argument about the resurrection which will go through this whole chapter. Near the end we will see the statement that if Christ is not raised then we are the people most to be pitied. After all, if the resurrection didn't happen then we are just following stories.


I think that we must note that Paul described this as being ἐν πρώτοις. This is the most prominent place. It is the front of the train, as it were. In other words, everything begins with this fact.


Why is this so important? Put simply, it is because this is what makes Christianity unique. Lots of people around the world follow a great teacher. There are plenty of good examples that we can choose to emulate. If we ignore the supernatural claims of Jesus then we see someone who at least acted in a commendable manner. Of course, with Jesus you are then left with the problem of Him being a liar or a lunatic because of His claims of deity, but the way He loved people was certainly laudable.


That is where the liberal stops. But for those of us who believe the Bible we have so much more. We see a man who died and rose again. Everything hinges on this fact. If this is not a real historical fact then Jesus is indeed just a man to be admired, but He is not really anything special beyond that.


So what do you think of the resurrection? If you don't think it happened, why? I'd love to read your ideas and dialog about it. After all, if I'm wrong about this I'd like to know. I could sure save a lot of time and money if I am.

Waiting for Judgment

Habakkuk 2:2-4

(2) And the LORD answered me: "Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it.

(3) For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end--it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay.

(4) "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith.

I'm having a conversation over at this blog about the nature of God's judgment and how we respond to the problem of evil. There are some obvious theological differences that I am going to have with that blog's author, but I don't think that we're too awfully far apart. At any rate, I think it is interesting to find myself in Habakkuk today in light of that discussion.

Habakkuk lamented to God about the problem of evil. He also wondered why the wicked were allowed to perish. He saw the Babylonians and wondered how God could allow such things to happen to His people. The verses above are God's response.

Basically, God is telling Habakkuk and us that we need to wait and trust in His timing. He will take care of the wicked. If we are righteous then we will have to live by faith. Of course, we are not righteous except for the imputed righteousness of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. That's important to note lest we become puffed up in our pietism.

At any rate, the answer is not that we need to understand. In fact, I don't think that we will ever really understand why things work out the way we do. I think it is foolish to attribute reasons to a Hurricane Katrina or the bridge collapse in Minneapolis. What I do know is that all deserve to die, but it is by God's common grace that we do not. I'm going to trust the God who saved me that He has a plan bigger than I can get my mind around. Besides, who wants to worship a God that he can completely understand?

My Conversation

John 8:58-59

(58) Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

(59) So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

We had a knock on the door just after lunch yesterday. Lily and Grandma were out shopping. Amanda and Noah were on the couch reading. I had just got my ice cream freezer bowl out and was ready to make a batch of ice cream. Amanda asked me to answer it.

I found a well-groomed man in a shirt and tie carrying a small binder, a paperback copy of the New World Translation, and a copy of Awake! magazine. I went out on the porch and let him start his talk. He presented the Bible as having lots of answers for the pressures that come with raising a family. I told him that I completely agreed and that we tried to make the Bible the basis for our household. I also tipped my hand that I'm going to seminary.

We had a nice chat for about 15 minutes. We talked a little bit about how the Bible is translated into English and I proposed that many translation decisions are based on theology, such as their translation of John 1:1. I also brought up John 8:58. He had never considered that Jesus saying "I am" was a reference to Exodus 3:14 and we had a good chat about that too.

I don't think that anyone can argue a Jehovah's Witness out of his belief system. They are all too well-grounded in their apologetic. However, I did want to challenge his presuppositions. He is going under the assumption that The Watchtower organization is worthy of his trust. I am trusting what the church has considered orthodox over the centuries. We also talked a little bit about Arius with regards to that. Overall, I think that we all need to know what we believe and why. We also need to be honest about where there are some thin areas in our theologies.

I am praying for that nice man and I am sure that he is praying for me as well. We both think that the other has a wrong view of God and it is impossible for us both to be right. Let's see what God does in our respective hearts.

Response to Folly

Jeremiah 28:10-11
(10) Then the prophet Hananiah took the yoke-bars from the neck of Jeremiah the prophet and broke them.
(11) And Hananiah spoke in the presence of all the people, saying, "Thus says the LORD: Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all the nations within two years." But Jeremiah the prophet went his way.

Jeremiah had made it very clear that the people should expect to be taken captive to Babylon. He even put a yoke on his neck as an object lesson for the people. Then this false prophet Hananiah came along and told the people what they wanted to hear.

I find the end of verse 11 to be a bit surprising. Were it me I would have wanted a fight. I would have brought out all my verses to show that Hananiah was wrong. I would have wanted to prove him wrong before all the people so that they could see the truth. And, frankly, so that they could see that I was right.

Jeremiah didn't do that. He just walked away from the situation. He was willing to wait the two years for vindication. After all, it would be easy to see who was right at that time. If the people came back then Hananiah was right.

I don't think that there is a universal application to this, but I do think that there is a lesson for those of us who feel a calling to fight for the truth. Sometimes we just need to walk away. I don't necessarily have a cheat sheet to show the situations when it is better to fight and when it is better to walk away, but I do think that there are times where one response is appropriate and the other isn't. I do think of the Jehovah's Witnesses and all of their prophecies. They can talk about "new light" all they want, but in the end they have to deal with following false prophets.

Ultimately, I think we need patience. That's something I know that I need a lot more of.

Bring it On

Isaiah 41:21
(21) Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.

This is a direct challenge to all the idolaters in the region. Basically, it is an invitation to show what their gods were made of. Would they stand the challenge of debate? The passage goes on to challenge them to prophesy. Obviously they would fail at these challenges.

I think that our tendency is to shrink away from guys like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They come with their hubris and refined accents. It's only natural for American Christians to be a bit intimidated. However, if we are following the true God of the universe we have nothing to fear from them. We have nothing to fear from atheists, liberals, or anyone else who would challenge our faith. We can stand on the solid rock of the Logos.

Of course, we still need to learn apologetics. We need to be ready to obey the command of 1 Peter 3:15-16. We can do so with the confidence that we are speaking from a position of real authority if what we say is grounded in the truth of Scripture. Don't let anyone scare you. Bring it on! What better way to get to give a clear gospel presentation?

You Want Proof?

Note: I finished my read through the NLT, so I plan to go slowly through the prophets in the ESV Study Bible.

Isaiah 1:2
(2) Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the LORD has spoken: "Children have I reared and brought up, but they have rebelled against me.

Skeptics are famous for demanding proof. How can we say that there is a God when we can produce no proof? I would submit that this verse points to the proof. The fact that there is a created order indicates some kind of driving force. At least that works for me.

However, that does not convince everyone. For example, here is an email I got from the owner of a skeptic website when I asked about what I consider the need for first causes:

The problem of trying to explain first causes with a god is that it doesn't explain first causes. Even in your own logic, if there has to something "eternal" to the reality then the same goes for god. It's the same problem! If god is real, then what is that something external to "Him"? Moreover, you can't explain the origin of a complex entity by introducing even more complexity. Humans (and all life forms) are complex entities and if a god created them, then that god would have to be even more complex. It doesn't work.

Moreover, the idea of something existing outside time and space doesn't make sense. Reality is *composed* of matter-energy and time-space. The only thing outside of reality is unreality! Things outside of reality don't exist! So if you want your god outside of reality then you have to concede that he doesn't exist. Your own logic proves that god doesn't exist! It also agrees with observation (or more accurately non-observation). No one has ever detected a god.

Quantum mechanics has the best chance to explain existence and the origins of complexity. If there was a Big Bang, it had to have started out in a quantum state. Physicists know that quantum particles come into existence and and out of existence by pure chance. Quantum particles leads to atoms and molecules. Molecules lead to suns and planets, etc. Order and complexity comes out of chaos (galaxies, solar systems, planets, stars, etc.), and out of order comes evolution and natural selection. This explains first causes out of less complexity rather than more complexity. Less complex entities evolve into more complex entities. It is self consistent and doesn't require an infinite regress as does the god hypothesis. Lastly, (and more importantly) this agrees 100% with observation.

I'm not sure how this jives with the laws of thermodynamics. Nor does it explain to me how this first quantum particle came into being. I thought that matter and energy were sort of two sides of the same coin, but could be neither created nor destroyed.

Does this make sense to you? Which is the more satisfying explanation?

More Apologetics

It's been a great week of conversation with an old friend from high school who is perhaps a more devout atheist than I am Christian. It takes me back to my apologetics class and reminds me that there are a few ways to go about the business of talking about God. The three that I have in mind are:

1. Argue from creation
2. Cumulative case
3. Presuppositionalism

When I had to do a paper on this I argued in favor of cumulative case. However, the more time I spend in the Word and the more time I spend chatting with my friend I think I am becoming more of a presuppositionalist. For example, I wrote this:

If I understand the materialist view correctly (please correct me if I don't) then through random chance some amino acids came together and become something that we call "life." This first single-cell organism somehow managed to do the things that living creatures do including reproduce itself, which it did when the conditions were right. Of course, if the conditions weren't right the first time then random chance had to bring more amino acids together again and so on. Now these organisms kept reproducing and of course the numbers get big very quickly when you multiply by 2. Over time some mutations of these organisms started forming multicell organisms and they were able to thrive in their environment. I think of sponges for example. Over time through random chance and mutation some of the cells started to differentiate and you have the earliest systems in animals (i.e flatworms). As time wore on this happened again and again. Eventually you end up with mammals. Through chance the species started to differentiate because of their environment. Over time members of these different species, which only exist through random chance, happened upon each other as male and female and were able to reproduce. This means that these random chances had to happen in duplicate, but with different sexes. Also, as those male and female animals happened to evolve in the same general area so they could find each other neither one managed to fall off a cliff, get eaten, etc before their first encounter.

And he wrote back saying that I pretty much had it right, though apparently there are ways to explain the problem of the male and female of the new species. He then went on to make the point that what I see as preposterous he sees as what must happen given enough time for it all to cook.

So clearly the argument from design isn't working. We've had some similar discussions about the problems of good and evil.

What this is boiling down to is our presuppositions. He admits that he does not have total knowledge, but chafes at the idea of a "black box" to explain anything. On the other hand, I know that I do not have total knowledge and I assume that there must be someone out there who does that I can trust. This is the fundamental key to faith, I believe. Either we are willing to take that step or not.

Personally, I think that the Christian worldview does have some problems to resolve such as the problem of evil. Playing the "God's will" card seems weak to the skeptic. However, I still think that is more plausible than dirt + water + time = everything.

At the very least, I am very glad to reconnect with an old friend even if we have to park this discussion at some point. I have sometimes wondered how to differentiate friendship from evangelism targets. Now I know.

Apologetics

Psalms 119:41-48
(41) Waw. Let your steadfast love come to me, O LORD, your salvation according to your promise;
(42) then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me, for I trust in your word.
(43) And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in your rules.
(44) I will keep your law continually, forever and ever,
(45) and I shall walk in a wide place, for I have sought your precepts.
(46) I will also speak of your testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame,
(47) for I find my delight in your commandments, which I love.
(48) I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statutes.

When I took apologetics at seminary it was my first course. I was wide-eyed and just blown away by what I was learning. We got into philosophy. We studied concepts that I couldn't quite grasp (something about infinite hotel rooms). At the core, we discussed theories of apologetics.

I won't go into all of them, but I will say that I settled on what is known as cumulative case apologetics. The idea is that no one thing is compelling enough to convince someone to be a person of faith, but the evidence eventually becomes so overwhelming that they have to concede the point.

I think this does a great job of bolstering my own faith, but I'm not sure that is the biblical approach when talking to someone. More and more I realize that my soteriology demands a presuppositionalist apologetic more than anything. That presumes that the Bible holds the answers and it is up to the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of the lost to give the Bible any credibility. At least that's the jist of it as I understand it.

This stanza of Psalm 119 would seem to support that as well. If we know our Bibles then we have everything we need. Now it is good to be armed with the philosophical and historical arguments. After all, it should be compelling to someone that the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any other ancient document. However, I find that nobody really cares about that because they know that by trusting the Bible they open themselves up to the conviction that they are sure it includes. They are right about that.

Verses 46-48 say it all to me. Am I delighting in His commandments? If so, I have nothing to fear from anyone. I don't care how many letters someone has after his name. If I trust Scripture as my defense then it is a matter of that person arguing with God and not with me. I much prefer that situation.

Worldview Consistency

When I took The Secret Message of Jesus back to my pastor I had a good chat with him about postmodernity. We agreed that postmoderns are here and that we need to find a workable apologetic for them because the stuff we learned in seminary doesn't work with postmoderns. They just don't care. He gave a great example to illustrate this.

He heard a radio show with a hardcore relativist defending his views. As the conversation progressed, the host challenged him with the fact that he had an inconsistent worldview since he could not say that anything was definitely right or wrong. He illustrated this by making the point that he could not say that Hitler's final solution was definitely wrong.

The guy thought about it for a few moments and then agreed. He decided that it was OK if he thought it was wrong, but no one else had to think that it was.

My pastor said that when he heard this he was practically shaking because this person should have had the foundations of his world rocked. However, he was find with the inconsistency. I remember explaining to a friend that all world religions are not the same and she said, "But that's what works for me." It's the same thing.

William Lane Craig's tactics aren't going to work with these people. Norm Geisler's aren't either. I'm not saying that McLaren has the solution, but what can you do if someone just doesn't care about reason? Does God give someone an appreciation for logical consistency as part of His supernatural work of election?

I'm not sure if Scripture addresses postmodernity directly other than to warn us that there will come a time when people will not stand for sound doctrine. It's good to have the warning, but what do we do then? It seems to me that we need an apologetic that will appeal to postmoderns. From what I understand, they care more about our stories than our doctrine. It's so hard for us moderns to wrap our minds around, but it's something we've got to deal with if we're going to evangelize to these people.

What's the Point?

I've meant to write about a conversation I had with Bob a couple of weeks ago. Bob is a devout Lutheran and a good guy. He works hard and doesn't slack off nearly as much as some of us. His life is a settled routine and he likes it that way. He does the same lifting workout every time he lifts. He doesn't vary the weight or the reps, but he's OK with that. He's built like a little fireplug and I wouldn't want to tangle with him.

I stopped into his cube one day after my lunchtime nap for a quick chat. I'm not sure how we got on the topic, but he told me about a conflict he had in a bible study one time about salvation. Someone in his study got quite upset when Bob proposed his idea that good, devout people from any religion are saved. I tried to handle this graciously and point out the logical conclusion to this line of thinking.

I said, "Bob, if you want to believe that, that's up to you. You do realize that is not at all supported by the Bible, right?"

He was OK with that.

Then I said, "You realize that, if what you believe is true, then the 911 hijackers must be in heaven."

He seemed a bit confused, so I expounded on that point. I explained that they were extremely devout in their faith and did what they believed to be right. He saw my point, but I'm not sure if it changed his thinking at all. I need to follow-up with him.

This also makes me think of the death and resurrection of Jesus. If we believe in the resurrection (which is hard to deny) then we have to see that as a strong argument for the exclusivity of Christianity. To believe otherwise would be to make God the worst child-abuser in history. Why bother sending Christ to die if it wasn't necessary for salvation?

I don't think we can put Jesus in a test tube and prove His existence or validity, but we can sure present a lot of evidence to get someone thinking. In the end I need to trust that the Holy Spirit has the job of conversion. That helps me to sleep better at night.