Miracles and the Mercy of God

A miracle, as defined by Webster’s dictionary is

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs

2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

Throughout both the Old and New Testament, a reader is confronted with events and phenomena which fit the above description. From the book of Genesis when God created a spring for Hagar and Ishmael to more commonly known miracles like the parting of the Red Sea.  In the New Testament, Jesus proves to all who will see that he is the promised Messiah by fulfilling a prophecy from Isaiah 29:18.  One of the oldest and most popular attacks on Christianity is that miracles simply cannot occur.  There have also been many champions of miracles, who understood the consequences of a world without such occurrences.  Below we have listed a few of our favorite.

“The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the miraculous also.” ~Fyodor Dostoevsky

“What was wonderful about childhood is that anything in it was a wonder. It was not merely a world full of miracles; it was a miraculous world.”~G.K. Chesterton

"There are only two ways to live life: as if nothing is a miracle or as as if everything is a miracle." ~Albert Einstein

"It is in the ordinariness of the events of life, and in the ordinariness of people that God unfolds His plan for you and me." -Alistair Begg

“Sometimes we get caught up in trying to glorify God by praising what He can do and we lose sight of the practical point of what He actually does do.”  ~Dallas Willard

“Jesus' miracles provide us with a sample of the meaning of redemption: a freeing of creation from the shackles of sin and evil and a reinstatement of creaturely living as intended by God.”~Randy Alcorn

This last quote will be the jumping off point for our defense of miracles.  Our goal is to show the compatibility of this intuition with God.  In doing so, we will address the two main conjectures to the reality of miracles: the impossibility of existence of miracles, and the impossibility of identification of miracles.

The existence of miracles was popularly criticized in the early 17th century by Baruch Spinoza.  He had numerous arguments for the nonexistence of miracles, the most convincing of which was the proposition that a world with miracles was imperfect, for it meant that God would not have created a perfect world, meaning He was not All-Powerful.  A flurry of responses came quickly after this claim.  
To generalize a few centuries worth of arguments, I’ll just list them:

1. Who is to say that God did not just create the world precisely so that miracles would occur. This is to say that assuming the plan for the universe was a consistent, law driven machine is to beg the question in opposition of God’s proposed intention.

2. A world with miracles is intuitively better with respect to perfection, for miracles are a certain presentation of God’s power, both proving His existence and demonstrating His glory.
3. The points in time when miracles occurred were important for a number of historical, cultural, and theological reasons, justifying logically the rare (or never before seen) nature of each particular miracle - God may have intended to “really make a splash” when it was necessary.

Each of these arguments presupposes God’s existence, for Spinoza was a deist, and contentions against miracles is by definition a critique of a theistic worldview.  It would be circular and invalid to say “There is no God, so miracles are impossible.”  This is much different from “If there is no God, then miracles are impossible.”  The first assumes what is trying to be shown to be false.  As you can see, for Christianity, those three simple contentions give good reason to think, given God, miracles are possible and likely from an Omnipotent Creator.

With regards to the identification of miracles, the champion has been, and perhaps will always be David Hume.  In his essay “Of Miracles” Hume proposes an In Principle, In Fact argument.  In other words, he aimed to show that given the Best conceivable scenario for miracles, the conclusion would still be uncertainty, but that in reality, there have been and cannot be any such circumstances, implying absolute uncertainty with regards to miracles.  

Hume claims that, In Principle, the evidence for any particular miracle is in direct clash with all of time and the experience therein.  That is to say, to confirm a miracle happened, you must deny all of the evidence you have, namely, the entire past of your life and others.  Thus, even if the instance was such that you would be certain, no wise man could believe it in confidence, for it is only equal with the supposed certainty of the reality of the past.

Hume takes it a step further claiming that, in fact, no miracle has such evidence.  Claiming :

1. Miracles are only believe by barbarous peoples.  

2. They have never been confirmed by nobles, or someone that had something to lose by believing in them.  

3. People are prone to believe the incredible.  

4.  Miracles are confirmed by all religions, so they contradict each other and must be false

My response:
To the in-principle argument, his characterization of probability is just wrong.  The advent of Bayes theorem (an important theory in statistics and set theory applicable to conditional probability) allows us to reason through broad, supposed “intuitive” claims like that of Hume.  People much smarter than Athanasius and I have proved this.  I recommend Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig (he proves the theorem and applies it to Hume’s argument).  If you have no money (like us), email us and I will write it up for you to see.  Furthermore, this doesn’t even seem intuitively right.  For example, if you saw someone die, and then later heard that that person was alive again, you would be skeptical. But of what?  Not their death for you saw it with your own eyes, but of the truth of that report.  Now if you saw someone that was alive, and later heard they had died a month ago, you would be skeptical; not of their being alive, but of the report of them being dead.  However, this has nothing to do with sense perception, but of reports.  We are perhaps inclined, therefore, to oppose miracles because the difficulty in believing the reports, not our senses.  This seems to align very much with the Dostoevsky quote above.  Identifying a miracle is no more difficult than being able to tell an alive person from one dead.  Just because something is contra-experiential doesn’t mean it is a logical contradiction.  The only way one could say a supposed miracle is impossible is if they confirmed it to be false.  

Consider this powerful illustration.  Imagine twelve men, among them a doctor, a lawyer, a laborer, a scribe, and all noble, respectable, and honest.  Further imagine them all claiming to have seen a man die, then after three day claim He had returned to life.  You have no reason to doubt they cannot tell someone’s being alive from them being dead.  Furthermore, you know for a fact they all witnessed the once-dead man at different times,and reported the incident indepently.  You finally observe them all subsequently put to death for affirming this miracle, denying the right to retract their claim to stay alive, all the while losing all they had (even while alive) and going against the state that ruled them.  No reasonable person could deny the certainty of their identification.

 Hume’s In Fact argument is more insulting than anything.  

1. False. For example, at least four philosophy professors at Oxford are Christians.
2. With respect to Christianity, this is blatantly wrong.  If you didn’t recognize the above illustration as the Biblical story of Christ’s resurrection, then now you know, and can appreciate the loss and seriousness with which the disciples of Christ treated their sightings.
3. This is the genetic fallacy.  The truth of something or some claim cannot be refuted by its origin.  For example, babies are genetically predisposed to believe that when something goes behind a wall or out of sight that that particular thing still exists, but just isn’t visible.  The fact that they did not “decide” that or even think about it has no effect on the truth of the perception.  In effect, (3) is just a surface claim.
4. In a lot of ways, this needs to be handled case by case.  If you want to read a refutation of each of Hume’s examples, email us for some suggested readings.  However, just in itself, this claim isn’t really true.  Christianity is the only religion that I am aware of that precisely claims that miracles are attestation of the Divine.

In scripture, there are two kinds of Miracles:

1) Supernatural Miracles- ie Lazarus being raised from the dead, world-wide flood, etc.

2) Natural Miracles- ie You just took a breath, gravity is working, the sun is shining, etc.

Most people don’t have a problem with the second type of miracle and simply call them scientific laws without a second thought.  These are just as much miracles and the second type however, and we ignore this to our peril.  Science can and does describe to us the how of such natural phenomena, but it cannot tell us why such events occur.  Primary causation is not a question which science can answer.  The simple miracle of existence is most complex.

In regard to the second type, it has been said that the exception proves the rule.  And he who creates laws may bend them to accomplish his will since he is above his own laws.  In the end though, Jesus' miracles were not an aberration of the created order, but the beginning of its' restoration.  Creation was meant to be perfect, untainted by death, disease, or sin.  WIn many ways, Prophecy (which we will have a post on soon) and Miracles fulfill similar purposes; they are a sign and remembrance that the world will not always remain as it is, that Hope is coming and will not put us to shame.  Miracles are brief moments when God shows us that the world will be made right.  We do not see it at present, but if we look there are hints and whispers of the world that will be.  Christ is not actually violating the laws he put in place when he does miraculous works.  Instead, he is beginning to bring the world back to the state of being it is supposed to be. (Heb. 2:6-11)

Many people’s conception of miracles can be shown by the diagram below.

Miracles => Faith  
If they are shown miracles, then they will have faith and believe.

However, this is exactly the opposite of how Jesus works.  As we are faithful and have faith, he reveals miracles to us.

Faith => Miracles

Miracles do not come to us when we want them, but rather when we need them.  Not when we think or believe we need them, but when we actually need them.

“But when first the two black dragons sprang out of the fog upon the small clerk, they had merely the effect of all miracles – they changed the universe. He discovered the fact that all romantics know – that adventures happen on dull days, and not on sunny ones. When the cord of monotony is stretched most tight, it it breaks with a sound like song.” ~G.K.Chesterton

Love in Christ,
Athanasius 

Excelsior
P.S. For further reading, check out C.S. Lewis' indispensable book, "Miracles."

Popes, Priests, and the Price of Salvation

Christians often take lightly or entirely disregard the diversity of doctrinal beliefs between Christianity’s various denominations.  As a few of our blog posts have hopefully illustrated, we believe very strongly and try to show that the truth is important, and thus defending and clarifying the truth has great value.  Some views are apparently Christian, but some digging reveals disparities between these views and orthodoxy (e.g. Mormonism; see our post about it here).  However, some groups aren’t usually questioned.  In the spirit of the Lord’s commandment to test things so that we may know the will of God, and what is holy, acceptable, and perfect, (Romans 12:2)  This time we’d like to step out into troubled waters. Is Catholicism orthodox Christianity?

We know, this may seem a bit unorthodox (haha get it?).  Perhaps it goes without saying, but we feel that many Catholics are saved and love God with all their heart, and love their neighbors as themselves.  It is important to us that we further clarify our utmost respect for many Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, including respectable churches trying to do what they believe is the true will of God.  However, it is concerning how little Christians today know of Catholic doctrine - even those who consider themselves Catholic.  In this post, we aim to briefly examine and explain some of the differences between orthodox Christianity (as explained in our blog post here) and Roman Catholicism, with a few reasons we think orthodoxy is more consistent.

Popes, Creeds, and Councils

The great reformer, Martin Luther in his defense before the Holy Roman Emperor at Worms said the following.  

“I can not submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his conscience. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen.” 

Although I disagree with Luther on quite a few points and several of his methods, one cannot help but be blown away by the courage of this lone man standing before the might of both the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman church.  Furthermore, his critique of Popes and councils is quite correct.  A first major difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is where absolute truth is to be found.  Protestants traditionally hold to a doctrine known as “Sola Scriptura” (Latin-Scripture Alone) and thus that all authority on doctrine and theology come directly from Scripture as the inspired word of God.  The Roman Catholic Church holds that in addition to scripture, there is a sacred Church  tradition which is also infallible.

    “Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churches. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible. The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church, who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church. The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption.”

 We are going to have a post soon explaining why we believe Sola Scriptura; however, for now this will have to suffice.  There is no place in scripture where God gives infallibility to anyone or their teachings.  We realize this is apparently circular on our view - assuming scriptural authority, then recognizing that scripture gives authority to itself and not the view the Roman Catholic church holds.  But reflect on this a bit.  Our presupposition is the Bible.  We deduce from that basis all that we know, and find a beautiful consistency, including knowledge of our Lord, teachings on all aspects of life, and confirmation of our presupposition in practice.

Priests or the Priesthood of all Believers?

Another big question between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is how the believer approaches God.  Roman Catholics believe that it is often necessary to reach God through the intercession of one more holy.  This may be a Saint, Mary, or a priest.

"As the prayers themselves witness, the Church teaches us that we should pray not only directly to God, but also to those who are close to God, those who have the power to intercede upon our behalf. Indeed, we pray to the angels to help and watch over us; we pray to the saints in heaven to ask their intercession and assistance; we pray to the Blessed Mother to enlist her aid, to ask her to beg her Son to hear our prayers. Further, we pray not only on our own behalf, but also on the behalf of those souls in purgatory and of those brothers on earth who are in need. Prayer unites us to God; in doing so, we are united to the other members of the Mystical Body."

To the protestant, this belief is nullified by the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.  Since Scripture specifically says in Revelation 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:4-12 that Christians are a nation of priests to God this seems logical.  Further proof comes from book of Hebrews and the Gospels.  In Hebrews 4, there is a rather extensive demonstration of the fact that since Jesus is our high priest we need no other.  In my opinion, one of the most extraordinary events during Jesus crucifixion is the tearing of the Temple veil.  All three of the synoptic Gospels record this magnificent event.  The veil of the temple dividing “the holy place” from the “holy of holies” was 80 ft high by 30 ft wide and 4 in thick.  Every year it was tested by tying a horse to each end and having them try to break it.  Then in a moment, as the Son of God died it was ripped from top to bottom; that those who have been brought near by his death may enter the Holy of Holies crying out “Abba Father.”  There was only  a need for an intermediary until Christ came.

Saving Ourselves or Saved in Spite of Ourselves?

One of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics is the understanding of salvation.  Protestants believe in Faith-based salvation, concluding that the Bible’s various teachings of our fallen nature imply that we lack the power to live the life necessary to be seen as pleasing to God.  As explained before, this really is the essence of Christianity.  Despite our radically depraved nature, and inability to do anything right, Christ still came and died for our sins.  We are justified by works, but not our works -  because ours could never be enough.  It follows logically then that is not our works that save us, but rather faith in Christ, whose death atoned for ours.  Roman Catholicism teaches a different understanding.  In the Church’s conception, our good works coupled with Christ’s death cause us to earn salvation.  Works such as belonging to the Catholic Church, doing good things as taught in the Bible, or even following the Pope on twitter (see this link; or a more precise source here; we know that bringing up "indulgences" will strike a cord with some Catholic readers - we encourage you to research history and their current standing, for they are very much still an aspect of the church) can earn one’s salvation, or even do things like take “time-off” purgatory, a place Roman Catholicism teaches exists as an intermediary before Heaven for those that are saved (see explanation here).    The definitions can be explained by these two equations (note from Athanasius: See Excelsior? I can use math words too)

Catholicism:

Good Works + Faith = Salvation

Protestantism:

Good Works + Salvation = Faith

For these reasons and others, we would argue that Roman Catholicism teaches another gospel from that found in scripture, and thus should be rejected as Paul told the Galatians. (Gal 1:8-9)  This does not mean we are hating on those who are catholic or that we condone any hatred toward them.  It simply means that they are being led astray by false teaching.  But for the Grace of God, we would all be in the same place.  This is a controversial question and answer.  If you have any questions or concerns, please comment or email us!  Also, a special shout out to Kevin, a reader who is currently serving America overseas.  Please keep Kevin  in your prayers!

In Christ Alone,

Excelsior

Athanasius

What's a Cult Wednesday: Unitarian Universalism

What’s a Cult Wednesday returns!  We rather neglected any introduction to the idea behind this series of posts in our original, so we’ll try to explain our vision for them and then, this week’s installment: Unitarian Universalism!

How do I get to Heaven?  Does everyone go to heaven?  What is the nature of God?  Where should I look for guidance and revelation on this life?  These are central questions to any set of theological and philosophical beliefs for dealing with life, but they are especially important when evaluating whether a position or group is orthodox in their beliefs.  For a brief explanation of orthodoxy see this post. A quick answer is that orthodox Christianity agrees with the Nicene and Apostles creeds.  A cult is any form of religion which takes from Christianity but does not follow scriptural doctrine as explained in these creeds and the Bible.  What’s a Cult Wednesday will hopefully help you to evaluate whether a group is a cultish or orthodox.  Hopefully, it will equip believers to discern between truth and falsehood as well as searching scripture to know the Truth. (Gal 1:6-10, Acts 17:11)

Before we critique this view, we wish to express our humble appreciation for such a loving worldview - one in which each person ends up in paradise.  Although we’ll argue true love must coincide with justice, the idea of people being punished is sad and heart-wrenching.  In no way do we aim to put-down or belittle anyone holding these views - we merely intend to love well and 1 Corinthians 13 tells us love does not rejoice with wrongdoing, but rather with truth.   The following is taken from Unitarian Universalist Association website here.

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:

• Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;
• Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;
• Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;
• Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
• Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;
• Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Our goal in  discussing ‘cults’ is twofold: 1) Show disparities with orthodox Christianity.  2)Show inconsistencies logically.

I. Universalism and Christianity:
The theological belief of universalism is distinct from the denomination or cult of Unitarian Universalism (UU). The easiest way to examine universalism (or just the simple claim “all people go to Heaven”) with respect to Christianity is to check scripture directly.  In Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount, he claims:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The key to this teaching is “leads to life,” a common New Testament euphemism for salvation.  It isn’t the teachings of Jesus that gives salvation, but His life.  This is clear in the exclusivity of Jesus claim in the Gospel of John 14:6 “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; nobody comes to the Father except through me.”  These two passages alone give us very good reason to believe that Jesus taught Christian Exclusivism, or the idea that only disciples of Jesus Christ will be saved. (note: this does not [necessarily] cover everything completely - a post for another day, email with questions).

II. Unitarian Universalism:

Beside the 7 tenets above, their presuppositions include:
- There exists an All-Powerful God (created the Universe)

- There exists an All-Loving God (hence salvation for all)

- There exists an All-Just God (tenets 2 and 6)

Can the view “everyone gets to heaven” be logically viable based on these presuppositions?

Here is something about how their theology begins to go wrong.  What is “evil”?  Is the claim, “only believers in x get into Heaven” evil?  If it is, then why should they go to Heaven, and there would certainly be a contradiction between the view of UU’s and the other religion.  If it isn’t, then why believe anything, including UU?  Why be moral at all?

The whole concept of “justice” is what irrefutably falls in this worldview.  
1. If everyone is saved, apart from action, why not do whatever you want (kill, steal, etc)?  Is there ANY justice from God in this view?  No.  It would be impossible for God to be All-Just if wrongdoing was left unpunished.
2. What is “right” or “wrong”?  If humanist teachings combine with, say, Christianity, there are serious contradictions.  The greatest commandment to Christians is “love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength, and all your soul.”  This would certainly be violated by any non-Christian view.  Similarly, every conflicting nuance between religions with respect to matters moral would render something uncertain - good or bad.  This LITERALLY undermines each tenet founding their belief system.  For example, what is “dignity” without an objective moral stanard? (1)  What is a “just human relation” (2)?  Do I kill the dissenters, or ignore them?  It wouldn’t matter. What IS justice? It’d be meaningless.  Do people of opinions contrary to the moral rules voted on in UU have to change? It wouldn’t seem so - the ends are the same.  

In other words, UU logically stops at a morally relative world, where distinguishing between murder and charity is a matter of imperfect views’ votes.  There cannot be both “justice” and “all aren’t punished.”  It’s simply definitionally contradictory.

In the Truth,

Athanasius

Excelsior

P.S. Sorry this post wasn’t actually posted on Wednesday.  We wanted to make sure to include everything. :)  Here’s an incredible gif as an apology:  

Faith, Hope, and Love: The Reality and Beauty of Truth and Meaning

It is easy amidst the logic, philosophy, and arguments pro and con of theology and apologetics to lose sight of the sheer beauty, hope, and power of a Real Truth.  By that I mean a truth that is active, living, and powerful.  Not only so, but this Truth has desired a personal relationship with us, and He has called us no longer servants, but brothers.  How incredible is that?  As awesome (worthy of awe and fear) and glorious as God is, He is also the most beautiful and comforting.  No matter what goes wrong, God's glory protects us for his love.  John Piper explains it this way:

Nothing ugly is ever called glorious in the Bible. There is “great sin” (Genesis 20:9), but never “glorious sin.” The evil one has “cosmic power” (Ephesians 6:12), but not cosmic “glory.” The reason for this is that sin and evil are not beautiful. But glory includes beauty. Glory includes more, but never less. Nothing ugly is glorious.

Therefore, the beauty of God is as pervasive and practical as the glory of God. If we admire the glory of God, we are admiring God’s beauty. If the glory of God has an effect in our lives, God’s beauty is having an effect. If God acts to magnify this glory, he is acting to magnify his beauty.

 Thus, when God saves us and works in us, His beauty is having an effect on us, the effect to be able to believe.  C.S. Lewis explains this beautifully in his work of fiction The Silver Chair.

  In the book, Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum have been captured and brought to an underground kingdom where they are enchanted and told their is no other world.

 "One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

An allegory, Lewis illustrates the hopelessness of a Godless world - the complete, awful, meaningless world rifled with pain and without "right" or "wrong."  It's not apparent that the superior quality of life in having faith qualifies as a good enough reason to believe, though. The brilliant French mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal argued that once at this conclusion, a wager results.

Make religion attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good...Between us and heaven or hell there is only life, which is the frailest thing in the world...Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

So we see from these two great men that we have good reason to wager in favor of faith - both because life's better with belief, but also because it's more probable it's (significantly) better after death.  The conjunction of these ideas from a powerful apologetic in our opinion.  God has not only made us in our image, giving us Faith, Hope, Love, and Meaning, but he has done it all despite our unfaithfulness toward him.  Rejoice!  Our God has blessed us beyond all imagination, and we have every reason to be joyful in even our worst hardships, for with God, we don't have to worry about any evil act going unpunished, any trial being in vain, or any person being worthless.  This means that no matter what, no matter how bad things appear to us, there will always be a better day ahead and the sun(and Son) will always rise again.  This is the grace and glory of God acting upon our lives.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Athanasius
Excelsior

P.S. We've made it a month, writing this blog. Praise God for his mercy!  If you've been following us this long, we'd like to say ('you' here being the strange English second person plural):

 

Apologetiception: An Apologetic for Apologetics (Part 2)

Disclaimer: We do not believe this sign depicts any official nor common stance of the Baptist church.

(This is a continuation of this post.)

Before I start this post, you, the reader, should know I just prayed that God would speak through me with wisdom and love.  I admit that I, Excelsior (such a great name, I know), really struggle with the appropriate approach to Christian Apologetics in practice.  In this post, I aim to show (giving Athanasius a break to read another dozen books) that Apologetics is Biblical, useful, and necessary, but only to a point.  I further aim to show where that point is. 

An "apology" is "a defense of."  Apologetics is a term almost always used in short meaning "Christian Apologetics" or "A defense of Christianity."  Thus it is in many ways an intellectual exercise, using reason as best one can to explain and make sense of all that Christianity teaches. 

In a previous post, Athanasius explained that above all else, love trumps.  This is the most important thing to keep in mind.  That any means one uses, it must be done with love to be of God and for God.  In that spirit, 1 Peter 3 (ESV)  commands a unique duty: "[13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? [14] But even if you should suffer for righteousness‘ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, [15] but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, [16] having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."

This is a great starting point: we now know 1) We are called to always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you. I.e. we ought to know and depend on the spirit to provide adequate reason for all that we believe.  This doesn't mean you need to be a philosopher - I think a simple "I have hope because of the truth confirmed in my heart through my relationship with Jesus" would more than suffice as a logical reason to have hope.  The point is we should have a reason. 2) The second point is simple, and follows from the first: that "reason" isn't ungodly, but necessary in this respect. It's true, we are supposed to have the faith of a child, with no doubt (Matthew 18-19, Mark 10, James 1).  So if the "reason" isn't apparent for certain questions, follow James 1 and ask God for wisdom in faith, but do not doubt that the answer will come.  3) Do it with gentleness and respect - this is where Athanasius and I can sometimes go wrong, especially with each other.  Intellectualism aside, love is always most important, and supersede's one's desire to reason in any situation.

Does the Bible have any examples of apologetics?
OH yeah.
a) Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord..." (Even God uses reason in his dealings with us)

b) Acts 17:2 "And Paul went in as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures."

c) Matthew 22:23-33 shows Jesus using arguments against the Sadducees, an inductive argument no less.

d) Luke 10:25-28 "And behold a lawyer stood up to put [Jesus] to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" [Jesus] said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do your read it?"  And he answered, "You shall love he Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."  And [Jesus] said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."
     This example is especially cool.  First of all, notice how Jesus cleverly speaks with this man Socratically, reasonably, and lovingly, - what a boss.  But furthermore, notice the four ways we should love he Lord - heart, soul, strength, and mind. It's actually sin to not worship God with your intellect.  I'm by no means an authoritative exegetitor (or someone who interprets scripture with few errors), but I think this implies that we always must have faith amidst doubt, and that we should seek the wisdom to satisfy our minds nonetheless.  James 1 would say to ask God for that wisdom.  Our last post mentioned the organization RZIM that proclaims "Helping the Thinker believe, helping the believer think."

e) Perhaps the best example of Apologetics in Scripture is found in Acts 17.  I encourage the reader to read this awesome chapter.  In verse 23, Paul uses reason to make an amazing point about the altar to "the unknown God" to the Men of Athens at the Areopagus (a forum for philosophical debate in Athens, Greece).  It's actually a pretty cool story.  Read it here.

There's other good biblical evidence to back-up this claim of using one's reason to find answers:
a) Philippians 4:5, "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand;"

b) Isaiah 26:3, "You keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on you, because he trusts in you."

c) 2 Corinthians 10:5, "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,"

d) Romans 14:5, "One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
e) 2 Timothy 2:24-26, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness,  God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

Conclusion:
Reason and logic are not unimportant or sinful, but necessary aspects of evangelism and the Christian life, and are required to love God the way we ought to love Him, completely.  However, if any instance of providing a reason leads someone to quarrel, or be unloving, not gentle, or disrespectful in anyway, it is best to avoid the issue and simply love without bringing arguments into it.  We cannot with logic convince someone to believe in God (Romans 1:17), but God may use us  to dissuade their doubts in some way so that they are more open to seeking a loving relationship with our God.  All in all, talking about God's reasonableness is just another way we can show God's love, and through that, we will plant seeds for God.

Takeaway:
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:2.

With love (Notice the English for once),
Excelisor.

P.S. please email us at theology.guys@gmail.com with any questions, concerns, or criticism!  We are not and do not believe that we are always right and simply hope that what we write somehow helps fellow believers in their eventful travels on the inter-webs.  God bless.

Morality and Reality: The Existence of God and Evil. (Of God's Love and His Logic Part 3)

This post hopefully takes up where the last Problem of Evil post ended.  We concluded with 3 ideas:
1. Morality is objective.  
2. Natural theories of morality do not give rise to objective moral systems.  
3. Divine Command Theory is a consistent, theistic moral theory allowing for and implying an objective moral system.  By this conclusion, we substantiate the claim that you must first presuppose God's actual existence in reality to even consider the moral value of the attributes that follow in this world.

From this point, we know that God must exist for there to be evil.  However, the question remains, "Even if God exists, how could he possibly be all-good (Omnibenevolent)?"  There are two matters which must here be considered.
The first matter is why God, in his perfect Justice, ever even allows our existence to persist.  In this way, the question then becomes, "how can God tolerate our heinous crimes and rebellion?"  Paul Washer explains it this way: 

 "God saved you from God. It was God who was arrayed in the armor and weaponry of a soldier. Coming after you. In His holiness, and His justice. God coming after you. To do vengeance against you. To cause you to pay for all that you have done against Him, and He is able to return His sword to the sheath now because Christ has died. Christ saved you from the wrath of an almighty God. Hell is just a revelation of that. I always tell people this. God saved you from Himself, God saved you for Himself and God saved you by Himself."

This first point doesn't answer 'why is there evil' but rather 'how does the presence of evil relate to God's perfect justice?'  Through our free choice, we've all sinned, as we explained in our "What is the Gospel anyway?" post.  By that sin, we are completely and entirely separated from God.  To be perfectly Just, God must punish wrong-doing.  How else would any wrong act that went unpunished be atoned for?  Through that lens of justice we can see that God would be and could only be perfectly just to punish each and every person for their respective transgressions.  However, we see action contrary to that conclusion.  In fact, He sacrificed Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only Perfect to ever exist, in order to perfectly atone for all of our wrongdoing.  By this means, Justice is preserved, and incredible, perfect love to humanity is shown.

The second matter is why does evil exist at all?  This question really can be answered in a number of ways.  With respect to human evils, it is sensible to understand them as actions according to our free will, especially in the beginning.  Having free choice is necessary.  The reason we were created was to exalt and glorify God, to love Him with all our heart, all our mind, and all our soul (Matthew 23:27, etc).  Well it wouldn't be exaltation if we were mindless, forcibly coerced robots, would it?  Thus non-God options must exist.  Since God is the essence of Good, not-God is evil.  Thus evil is all that deviates from God.  God did not create evil, but rather his creation willed himself to do things against God's nature (satan) and thus a choice, too, was possible for humanity.  (and we chose wrong, all of us.)  However, Paul argues that when looking at life that evil is not even worth considering.  "So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, ESV)

You as a believer may be thinking at this point, "Yes, it makes sense how God and evil can coexist, but how do I as a follower of Christ deal with the momentous pain of this life?"  This comes more to the problem of pain, which will be addressed soon, but for now here is a brief explanation.  Reread what Paul said: "So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:16-18, ESV)   

Lewis put it this way, "They say of some temporal suffering, 'No future bliss can make up for it,' not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory."  This may seem like a cop-out.  But even Jesus was tempted and killed.  Surely that was bad.  Shouldn't we look at how he dealt with sin?  Since we are being conformed to his image, we should be becoming more like him.  The writer of Hebrews explains it this way:  "Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2, ESV)  Jesus was able to endure the scorn and pain of this life and the cross because he could see weight of glory which waited for him and us as his co-heirs.  In the end, this is how we learn to encounter and overcome evil. As we follow the example of our King, we can admit to the pain and scorn we sustain, but know that we are traveling to a better home and press on with confidence that our Lord has conquered. (John 17:14, Heb.11:14-16)


Disclaimer: Hey all, we just want to end every post with a reminder. These are our beliefs. We believe they are right and that’s why we believe them. It is not our goal to limit inquiry on these topics nor do we in anyway conceive our thought processes could always lead us to the right conclusion.  For example, we don't even agree about everything believed by the other. (Col 3:12-17)  It is our earnest hope this blog either helps or interests you, and we would love to discuss matters of questionable legitimacy or of great concern further.  As always, thanks for reading!!! Email theology.guys@gmail.com with any question, comment, or criticism whatsoever!

Grace and Peace,

Excelsior
Athanasius



P.S.  If one is particularly concerned with the existence of Natural Evil, please email us for our respective takes on dealing with this issue.  Specifically, Excelsior's account of the Problem of Natural Evil as explained by Molinism.  Molinism isn't necessarily correct, but it's explanation is (to some) consistent with Scripture and can give an account which satisfies the possible existence of an Omni-benevolent, All-Just God and natural evil.

Don't Lose Sight of the Goal: Using Apologetics and Theology

Hey Y'all,

This is Athanasius, Excelsior is really busy this week/end and so I am going to write today's post.  I'm also going to deviate a bit from our current trajectory.  We're both incredibly excited about our current series on God's love and logic, and an upcoming guest poster.  However, I think this short aside will be both beneficial in understanding our blog and future posts.

In this post, I'd like to briefly discuss how, why, and when to use apologetics and theology.  This will by no means be an exhaustive post.  Please feel free to email or comment with questions, comments, or "You're crazy!" haha

One of them men currently alive who I admire the most is Ravi Zacherias (for information on Mr. Zacharias refer to this page).  His ministry, RZIM has a simple, but profound mission statement.

HELPING THE THINKER BELIEVE. HELPING THE BELIEVER THINK.

I believe this idea is central to our understanding and use of the gifts God has given us.  Thinkers here is used to describe non-Christians who struggle to believe what Paul calls "the mystery of the gospel." (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 6:19)  For this occasion,we must show the Love of God, because this is the only thing that can save anyone.  The incredible love of God that transfers those who believe from the kingdom of death and darkness to that of His son's glorious life and light.(Colossians 1:13)

The believer is obviously a Christian, and many times needs to be taught to think.  Now, before anyone jumps up to say they think, hear me out.  I mean by "think" to think critically and understand in their own minds the truths and defense of Christianity so that they may give a defense of the hope within them.  (1Peter 3:15, Romans 14:5)  It is incredibly important that we understand how reasonable and logical the Scriptures and God's existence are.


This can often also be helpful in opening stages of helping unbelievers to give the Gospel a hearing.  In this though, we cannot get caught up in philosophy and logic and lose sight of God's love and his call on our lives.  Three scripture passages explain this better than I ever could:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2, ESV)

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.   (1 Corinthians 1:18-19, 21-25 ESV)

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20, ESV)

A future post will give an apologetic for apologetics and why we believe it is worth studying.  For now, I hope this serves to explain how we must be discerning and prayerful in our study and use of both theology and apologetics, because otherwise it is incredibly easy to make Logic and Philosophy our God and lose sight of the scandalous nature of the Gospel and God's love.

In God's Unsearchable Love,

Athanasius

P.S. John 13:1-19 is this lived out by Jesus just prior to the Last Supper.  As his disciples argue about who will be greatest and why, Jesus begins to wash their feet, and teaches them that if he as their Lord and teacher will wash their feet (aka serve and love them) how much more should we as the Body of Christ serve each other?