Archive for the 'Apologetics' Category

Christian “Manhattan Declaration” Hit and Miss

A group of Christian leaders from Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical churches have signed a seven page declaration which is supposed to affirm an adherence to certain biblical principles which have recently become hot button political issues in the United States:

  • the sanctity of human life
  • the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
  • the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Here is a short clip from Fox News:

The group argues that these are “fundamental truths” not so much about God or about conduct within his church, but rather pertain to: “justice and the common good… to human dignity and the well-being of society.”

This is the beginning of what is surely theologically dangerous language. Why do leaders in the church feel the need to make statements and adhere to declarations which apply to the entire secular culture? It is not our job as Christians to threaten civil disobedience for “the common good” - we are to do it for the glory of God and the magnification of his name - among the nations. We are not called to change the behaviour of the nations.

In fact, when a nation simply focusses on changing behaviour without conversion - this is called hypocrisy. When religions leaders are calling for changes of behaviour of non-believers without the essential and fundamental application of the gospel - it is Phariseeism.

I am not saying this declaration is “bad” or that there are not right principles in it. However, it is advertised as primarily a tool for social change, not for conversion of souls. That is a distraction.

It would have been much better to make a declaration affirming Christian’s responsibility to evangelise and to share the gospel, knowing that aside from the essential fruit of salvation and eternal life - believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin will necessary transform this world for the better.

What the Declaration Gets Right
There is also emphasis in the declaration on affirming our duty to God above the state. This is entirely appropriate - and can not be stated enough:

…that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

This is correct. The modern state, being an authority structure fundamentally and definitionally opposed to Christian principles and the authority of God, is always a threat to Christianity. It is not a complimentary organisation, as many misreadings of Romans 13 would indicate, but rather it is in direct competition with God. Christians should often assert their desire to follow God and his kingdom when these two entities inevitably come into conflict.

Most governments right now permit much religious liberty - but even this language reveals the problem: religious liberty is not a “permission” from the state. The right to worship God comes from him - and he rules over all the earth and all that is in it. The state has no right to dictate what is permissible or not in this arena. The state has no authority here.

Summary
Nevertheless, it is not good to confuse religious liberty, which is a negative right (being free from aggression against us) into a positive right (being entitled to force our customs and behaviours onto others). This declaration conflates these two kinds of rights. We should be affirming our right to not be aggressed against, but we must avoid language which changes “sharing the gospel” - an act consistent with salvation by faith, human freedom and voluntary choice - into “affirming the state’s role to enforce our values in civic life.” We have no right to do this. It is idolatry.

New “Christian Edition” of Darwin’s Origin of Species Well Motivated, But Problematic

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, who should be heralded for the wonderful approach to evangelism with Way of the Master, have been consistently underwhelming with their apologetics work. Their Nightline debate with Atheists was a disaster - however, they presented the gospel (which was their main aim - although a little dubious if they claimed they were going to debate evolution).

Their latest effort is a “Christian” edition of the Origin of Species, which they will be handing out on college campuses. Here’s Kirk explaining:

Cameron gets a few things wrong in this video. Children are allowed to open up bibles and pray in public - that is a complete fabrication. And yes, there is a lot of controversy over displaying the ten commandments, but Kirk himself (unintentionally) explains why this is irrelevant:

There’s only one way to change the heart of a nation, and that is to change the sinful heart of the individual. And that’s through the power of the gospel.

If there is any statement that I firmly agree with - it is that statement. But this truth is why battles over the ten commandments, public schools and even the theory of evolution itself should be generally left alone by Christians. It is our job to share the gospel - not to argue over monuments, public schools or debate the origin of man.

The reality is that these things will be changed only when men are converted to Christ. And regardless of whether they are changed or not - those things are all going to burn. People are all that we can take with us to heaven.

The new Origin of Species will have the gospel message in it - and this is great. But most of the book is the same kind of pseudo-science and sketchy logic which has defined the Christian effort to combat evolution in the past few decades. This confuses the gospel message for those who are outside of Christ. It is a detriment to the gospel.

The question of combating evolution is best left to post-conversion conversation - it’s not anything that can save a person. No one is going to be saved by our (unconvincing) arguments against evolution. They are going to be saved by faith in Christ.

If there is anything I have learned in PhD study, it is that I know almost nothing substantial about anything. I have spent a lot of time learning about one narrow area of knowledge and yet I still feel like I am no expert on the subject. How much less do I know then about complicated things like biology, evolution and anthropology? Am I really so arrogant to think that I have a right (by wisdom or knowledge) to argue about these subjects on equal footing with people who have dedicated their lives to them?

But instead, I must trust in what I do know - that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. That God has saved me and made me righteous through the death of Jesus. It is this knowledge that enables me to deal with evolution and the issues of modern science - knowing unchangeable, unassailable truth about God. It doesn’t really matter to me what Darwin or other scientists have had to say about evolution because the knowledge of who God is and what he has done on my behalf is too overwhelming.

If Carmeron and Comfort want to make the biggest impact for Christ, then they will re-devote their energies to what is of first importance to the kingdom of God - boldly sharing the gospel.

The Traditions of Men and the Spirit of Antichrist

Classifying the Jewish faith is complicated. Because Judaism is considered an ethno-religious group, it is easy (and sometimes conveniently so) to confuse any criticism of Judaic theology with hatemongering. So before I incur the wrath of the Anti-Defamation League, let me be clear: the intent of this article is not to express hatred to those who consider themselves to be Jews by birth. Any person guilty of such a thing should not bear the name of Christ, who himself is a son of David, from the tribe of Judah.

Also let me say that the criticisms I will put forth in this article may not be representative of all adherents to Judaic faith. This article will, however, demonstrate quite clearly the incompatibility of Judaism with Christian faith on the basis of New Testament scripture and the Talmud.

Defining Judaism
Judaism has its roots in the Old Testament, or Tanakh. However, to say that Judaism is a religion instituted by God for the children of Israel would not be correct; Judaism itself does not even make that claim. The Law given to Moses is completely unenforceable today. While Judaic religious customs certainly existed in the time of Jesus when the Law was being practiced, it has continued beyond that time and has taken form among diverse sects of Jewish thought, being modified throughout centuries of the influence of rabbinic literature and tradition.

One of the rabbinic texts, considered among many Jews to be the central text of Judaism. The Talmud is a book of rabbinic law and literature, and also is a collection of rabbinic commentaries on the Old Testament. The traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees are a partial basis for many of the Talmudic teachings; whatever the extent of their influence over the course of centuries of religious practice, these historic religious societies cannot be removed from the traditions that followed them.

The Brood of Vipers
Jesus, the Son of God who spoke the words of his Father, and who is the sole embodiment of truth, did not mince words in his confrontations with Sadducees, Pharisees, and Scribes. Despite the fact that many prominent Jewish religious figures were no doubt convinced that Jesus is who He said He was, on the whole they rejected Him because of pressure from the Pharisees (John 12:42). This outright rejection of Christ is what John referred to as “the spirit of antichrist” (1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7). Here are some choice verses from Jesus’ rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23:

5“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. 25“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

I can scarcely think of a rebuke harsher than that. Jesus literally called them wicked children of hell. Now compare this rebuke to what Jesus said to John in his vision on the Isle of Patmos regarding the church at Smyrna.

I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days…” (Revelation 2:9, 10)

There seems to be a connection here between the church’s afflictions and their persecutors – the ones Jesus calls a “synagogue of Satan”.

The Hebrew of Hebrews
The Apostle Paul spoke at great length about his ethno-religious heritage. This is what he wrote in Philippians 3:

“   4 …If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.”

Again in Galatians 1 he writes,

13For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”

Aside from Paul’s own testimony of his religious life prior to coming to faith in Christ, we have the accounts Luke recorded in the book of Acts. In chapters 7, 8, and 9 of this book we see Paul involved in the murder of one Christian and the persecution and imprisonment of other Christians. Paul associated these violent acts against Christians, and therefore Christ, with the religious traditions of his forefathers. These are the actions that Paul was referring to in Philippians 3 and Galatians 1 when he spoke of his zealous “way of life in Judaism.”

Despite all of Paul’s ethno-religious ties to Judaism, he spent considerable time reasoning in synagogues, trying to convince his Jewish brothers that Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the Tanakh. It is clear that his opinions about Judaism had changed after his receiving the grace of Jesus Christ. This statement from Romans 10 demonstrates his view of Judaism in light of the Gospel:

“   1Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”

Paul identified Judaism, as it existed during that period, as a religious system of self-righteousness born out of rebellion against God, characterized by zealous ignorance.

Antichrist Sentiment in the Talmud
It is my personal belief that the Talmud specifically speaks about Jesus in a very negative light. Some Judaic apologists refute that by saying that “Yeshu” in the Talmud is not the Jesus of the New Testament; they say that the details of the Talmudic story of him are inconsistent with the historic accounts in the Gospels. However, the problem with that argument is that adherents to Judaism do not recognize the authority of New Testament. In fact, I was personally told by one rabbi that he believes the New Testament was contrived by Jesus’ followers after his death and is basically a collection of fairytales based on pagan traditions. At any rate, here is one passage from the Talmud about Yeshu; the reader can make his own judgments as to whether this refers to Jesus of Nazareth or someone else.

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not an “enticer,” concerning whom Scripture says, ”Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him? With Yeshu, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government.” ( Sanhedrin 43a)

According to some this passage refers to Mary, the mother of Jesus:

She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters.” (Sandhedrin 106a)

The Futility of Debate: Rethinking Acts 17

The speaker in church yesterday made an argument that I had never heard before, yet really caused me to reconsider an often cited portion of scripture. Acts 17 is a very popular chapter to cite in the argument of cultural sensitivity and reasoned debate for the purposes of evangelism. Paul is upheld as speaking in a very wise and clever way to the wishy-washy Athenians - using their own literature and even their own incorrect religion to wrangle a salvation message out of it.

In fact, to my own shame, I once used this passage to publicly confront a radical street-preacher who was challenging a crowd at the University of Oregon to repent. I argued that what he was saying was correct, but his message was not in the spirit of sensitivity and wisdom which Paul displayed in Acts 17.

But the speaker on Sunday made the argument that Paul was not successful in this method. There was no church ever established in Athens and the argument was likely forgotten in favour of the next new thing within a few days. I think this is a very reasonable argument. It has caused me to rethink Acts 17.

As we know the bible is impartial, and carries both the successes and mistakes of God’s people. We cannot assume that just because it is in the bible, that it is automatically correct and approved. Perhaps this is one of those failures that is recorded in biblical history. After all, we do not ever see Paul using this method again. The stinging indictments in places such as Romans 2 and 1 Corinthians 5 are in bold contrast to Acts 17.

I think that evangelists such as Ray Comfort have it right - that ultimately salvation does not some through arguing with the intellect, but by piercing the heart with the law. Charles Spurgeon made the same case:

If men do not understand the law, they will not feel that they are sinners. And if they are not consciously sinners, they will never value the sin offering. There is no healing a man till the law has wounded him, no making him alive till the law has slain him.

In this interview, Ray Comfort was being grilled a little on his message for not being sensitive enough to his audience. But really, an approach like the Way of The Master is an acceptable way to deal with those people who are just looking for endless philosophising.

The Athenians were aptly described by Luke as those who “spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21). These people were full to the brim with abstract knowledge, philosophy and theory on all manner of subjects. However, they were never convinced that they must do anything about it - but merely debated these things for entertainment.

In many ways, the church has adopted this attitude. We go to church on Sunday, not be stimulated to love and good deeds, but to hear some new thing. We want our speakers and music to entertain us, and the reason we open the bible is to seek after hidden knowledge (”God please reveal your truth to me”) rather than to obey what we already know.

Even in my own personal study, I have been convicted of this attitude. When I pray before I open scripture, I now pray that God would give me the courage to obey what I read, rather than asking him to reveal some new thing to me. If we cannot change our attitudes as Christians, then it will be even more difficult to apply this understanding to the way we speak to non-believers.

Macroevolution Demonstrated?

In discussing evolution, it is fairly common for Christians to distinguish between micro- and macro- evolution (an example of such can be seen here). Microevolution consists of changes within a species; for example, new breeds of cattle have been developed, but the new breeds are still cattle and not some other species. Macroevolution involves changes so great that that a new species emerges, a scientific theory which is rejected by many Christians that fully accept the idea of microevolution.

However, this is not a distinction that most scientists make. They tend to see all evolution as being the result of the same processes, and consider the difference between micro- and macro- evolution to be simply a difference in scale, as well as something that is a rather arbitrary difference.

As far as I know, the major problems (from a scientific standpoint) with macroevolution are that the support for it in the fossil record is very questionable, and that the actual process of one species evolving into another one has not been observed. The second problem may have just changed. According to an article in The Economist , scientists at Yale have become the first to “create a new biological species in a laboratory by encouraging the sort of ecological isolation that happens in the wild.”

The definition of species the article uses, which is what I learned in my schooling, is “a group of organisms whose members can breed with each other but not with outsiders.” I am not sure whether or not this experiment actually accomplished creating a new species by this definition.

The normal versions of Dr Turner’s phages are able to parasitise four types of bacteria. He and his team, however, found a mutant that could infect two additional species. They cultivated a population of this mutant in one of the newly available species and found that after 15 days it had adapted to its new host so well that it had lost the ability to infect other bacteria. It had thus become effectively isolated, because it could never hook up with individuals from other strains. It could therefore be considered a new species.

In any case, this is a development which merits watching. If science can produce observable examples of macroevolution, Christians may no longer be able to make the argument distinguishing between micro- and macro- evolution that is commonly used today.

[Note: My emerging impulses series is not finished and will likely return next week]

Atheism’s “Plus 1″ Argument

Rallying behind people such as Richard Dawkins, a more militant form of atheism is rising. Ironically enough, they often share the worst traits of the religious fundamentalists that they decry. Please note I’m using the term atheism as it’s commonly used today, and not as the original and dictionary correct meaning of “not theist.” Much could be said on this issue, but all I want to do today is to discuss an argument by atheists that seems to be becoming quite popular for them to use. Here’s a few brief quotes that demonstrate the argument.

The atheist argument begins by pointing out that Christians (or another variety of monotheist) do not believe in a large number of gods (Odin, Poseidon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). It then states that atheism merely takes that disbelief one god further and applies it to the monotheist’s god. Thus, beliefs are divided like this:

Monotheism - Denies the existence of “X” number of gods.
Atheism - Denies the existence of “X + 1″ number of gods.

The atheist argument then concludes that the monotheist position is actually quite close to atheism, but that atheists merely have disbelief in one more god (which of course is the reasonable thing to do according to atheism). This argument can get tricky for atheists if they instead face polytheists, and it would seem incapable of addressing other religious positions like pantheism, universalism, and others.

I would argue, however, that the atheist claim is a much larger claim than the mere disbelief in one more god than monotheism. It is the complete rejection of the supernatural. Despite huge differences in religious positions between groups diverse as Christianity, Wicca, Hinduism, and others, they all acknowledge the existence of something that is supernatural. Thus, beliefs can be divided like this:

Atheism - Denies the existence of the supernatural.
Everything else - Acknowledges the existence of the supernatural.

I think this shows why the atheist claim is a much greater claim than a mere “plus 1″ on the list of gods not believed in. The claim that no supernatural exists is an extraordinary one.


Recent Forum Topics

Archives

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the Apologetics category.

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the Apologetics category.

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

You are currently browsing the Zeal For Truth weblog archives for the Apologetics category.