Dang. That was an offensive title. I'm going to get so much flame for that.
So what do I mean? Let me be clear. I'm not suggesting that all atheists are immoral people. There are plenty of likeable secular humanists out there. Just look at Joel Osteen!
What I'm arguing is this: atheism, if carried to it's logical conclusion, destroys the foundation for morality. That is, moral nihilism-the belief that there is no right and wrong-is the logical conclusion of atheism. Before I continue, I strongly suggest you watch this video to understand the argument. If you do not view this video, methinks that you won't understand the argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewTj1dzTdDg
Meaning of the word "Objective"
I will be using "objective" to describe "that which exists independently of the human mind". So, for example, the fact that my body is 6 feet tall is an objective fact. It is true independent of human subjectivity. It's part of the "third-person" perspective on reality. To give another example, think of the sun. The objective facts concerning the sun-it's physical composition for example-are true independent of the human mind. (And for all you smart-butts out there, no, this does not conflict with idealism. Key word: human mind. For the rest of you who have no idea what idealism is, smile and nod. Or click on my blog post from November on consciousness. #shamelessselfpromotion)
Objective Morality
So objective moral facts are moral facts that are true independent of the human mind. What the monkey butt? Here's how that works. For example, take murder. Objective morality allows you to say that the murder is wrong to think he's right. Why does that matter? Only through an objective moral framework can you say that. Think about it. When you attempt to draw a straight line, in order to determine if that line is actually straight or not, you have to compare it against an objective standard of what a straight line is. You have to compare it to the objective "straightness" as it were. If you are to say that someone else's moral worldview is more perverse than your own (for example, Stalin's), you have to say that yours more closely conforms to an objective standard. Or if you think we've made moral progress (Civil Rights), your saying that our societal norms today are better than they were 60 years ago in that regard. I'd definitely affirm that (with respect to Civil Rights at least). I think there are right and wrong answers to the question of morality.
Moral Relativism
What is moral relativism? Well, let's think about ice-cream for a second. Suppose my brother George likes chocolate ice-cream. It's brown, he's brown. It fits. Plus, George just likes the flavor a ton. I don't think anyone in their right mind would ever say that George is wrong to like chocolate ice cream. You may have a different preference, and George's preference wouldn't align with yours. But he isn't wrong to like chocolate ice-cream. If you called his choice "dumb" or if you said he was "wrong", you would either be joking, or you wouldn't be using wrong in the normal sense of the word. You'd be using it to describe the fact that George's preference is different than yours. Why is it that George isn't wrong when you have a different preference? Because there is no objectively "best" ice-cream flavor. Ice-cream preferences are totally subjective, and totally relative because there is no objective standard.
Moral relativism says morality reduces to a matter of preference. You have your moral worldview, and Stalin has his. Neither moral worldview is more right than the other. You can beat the crap out of the other guy all you want-that doesn't make your moral worldview better. So here's the fun part.
Atheism Implies Moral Relativism
Let's assume there is no God. Take a birds-eye view of the human race. If we think about morality, then the sense of morality would be purely a product of human minds. They wouldn't have any sort of existence outside of human minds-rather, they'd be creations of the human race. From this birdseye perspective, let's consider all people. You would see a bunch of different ideas of right and wrong depending on the person. However, in the absence of God, there is no objective standard by which to measure these ideas of right and wrong. The universe doesn't care about what happens on the planet. Platonism in and of itself certainly doesn't make a lick of sense (I've never seen an atheist with the gall to affirm that some abstract form of "goodness" exists out there...even I don't know what the heck that means...). Think about ice-cream flavors again. Preferences of ice cream flavors are purely relative precisely because there is no objective standard. If there is no objective standard for morality, then the same follows: you have just as much of a basis to condemn someone else's moral worldview as I do to condemn your preference of ice cream. There is nothing that makes your ideas of good and evil more or less valid than another persons. That means if a murder thinks he ought to murder people because it gives him pleasure, he has no better or worse of a moral worldview than your own. He just has a different preference.
Objections Considered:
Literally. It's 1AM (not figuratively. Literally). Here's a video I made months ago dealing with some objections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m8n1d3Yu9g&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvtzp3WlK-XwDAU93BzxbdRq&index=4
Practical Implications
Ok, so let's take the one of the worst case scenario. If you see a murderer murdering people, why ought he not murder people? He's just doing what he thinks is right. What makes your view of right and wrong more valid than his? And if you say, with Sam Harris, that it produces human flourishing, what if the murderer doesn't care about human flourishing? In fact, see the video above.
The trouble is that if you're a consistent atheist, you'll have to deny that "right" and "wrong" actually exist, since both are objective terms. Morality, rather, reduces to a matter of preference. So...why should you oppose him? On what grounds do you condemn his actions? After all, he's not doing anything actually wrong. His preference is just different than yours, not more or less good. Suppose we say "well, it makes me feel good to punch rapists and murderers in the face and put them in jail." Well and good-the problem is that the evildoer in question is operating under the exact same principle. So you're condemning him for acting under the very same operating principle you are: self-pleasure.
This is the problem. Condemning someone else's actions becomes either hypocritical, or just flat out impossible. Moral progress is also impossible. On moral relativism (and therefore, on atheism), the Civil Rights movement wasn't an improvement from ante-bellum slavery. Why? Because both groups just had a different preference of right and wrong. No one group in history had a better sense of morality, as that would assume an objective standard. Given moral relativism (given atheism), there is no objective standard. Again, moral choices reduce to a matter of subjective preference. Moral judgments become impossible-and I think this is too high of a price to pay.
Bonus: Why Morality is Objective, and why Morality implies God's existence
If you agree that that's way too high of a price to pay, see here for why Morality is objective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVw24cKPdH4&index=5&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvtzp3WlK-XwDAU93BzxbdRq
And this is why it implies the existence of God. Let's look at the premises leading to the conclusion of moral relativism.
P1.) If there is no God, there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
P2) There is no God.
C1) Therefore, there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
The logic is impeccable. The conclusion follows inescapably given the truth of the two premises. The only question is: are the two premises true? I think we can all agree that the conclusion is a false. One-it's absurd to think that Stalin's sense of morality was no more right or wrong than Mother Teresa or *insert exemplar human here*. And for those who don't, see the video link on why morality is objective (above). I've given reasons to justify P1. In fact, the reasons I gave are why most atheistic philosophers are also moral nihilists and deny the existence of right and wrong. So P1) is true. However, the Conclusion is false (I think we can safely say that moral nihilism/moral relativism is false). And as I've said earlier, the only way for the conclusion to fail is if there's something wrong with one of the two premises (since the conclusion follows inescapably from the two premises). That leaves Premise 2; premise 2 must be false. Therefore, God exists, and is Himself the objective standard of good, by which all other standards must be measured.
Bonus #2: Euthyphro Dilemma considered and Refuted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq-LYeAuhTE&feature=autoshare
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Saturday, December 27, 2014
Why I am a Calvinist
For anyone interested, this is my theological position. I hold to something called "Reformed Theology" (aka Calvinism). In this post, I aim to argue that the five-points are true for some of my apologist friends.
TULIP
Total Depravity
Unconditional election
Limited (Definitive) Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Total Depravity
Total Depravity argues that (surprise) mankind is totally depraved. That is, man is completely unable to come to God of his own volition at all. Were man given the opportunity, we'd spit in God's face and curse Him. " For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:5-9 ESV)"
TULIP
Total Depravity
Unconditional election
Limited (Definitive) Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Total Depravity
Total Depravity argues that (surprise) mankind is totally depraved. That is, man is completely unable to come to God of his own volition at all. Were man given the opportunity, we'd spit in God's face and curse Him. " For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:5-9 ESV)"
Note the flow of thought. The mind set on the flesh cannot please God. So if you imagine a set of people named "in the flesh", who belongs to this set? "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you." So the people who belong to that set are those who do not have the Spirit of God. Aka those who do not belong to Christ. Thus, there are only two categories of people in the world: in the flesh or "belonging to Christ". Those who are in the former do not AND cannot submit to God's law. To be sure, this capability isn't a corruption of rational faculties. We have all the rational/physical faculties we need to choose God. It's one of desire.
Suppose I push Stephen Hawking to the ground. I cannot command him to get up, because he's physically incapable. However, suppose we encounter a dude who just loves floors so much. His love for the floor is such that he doesn't want to get up. We can hold that guy accountable. So it is with sin. Sin is a corruption of our desires-we are so thoroughly corrupt, that though we have everything we need physically to choose God and live, we will not because we want everything but God. This is the plight of mankind.
Unconditional Election
This deserves a whole exegesis of Romans 9, but I'll keep it brief (that's not our only text for this anyway). We believe that mankind freely wills his own rebellion. However, this is the only thing he can freely will-not because he's physically incapable of willing otherwise, but because sin is the only thing we want to freely will apart from God's grace. Thus, God would be just in damning us all. However, before the foundation of the world, God chose to save some (not all) from their rebellion, and chose to pass over others. The language is key here. God does not Himself produce evil in anyone. Rather, He gives man over to his own sinful desires. Thus, God predestines some to eternal life and predestines some to damnation. This isn't a symmetrical action, however. In the former, God chooses to actively cause people to believe. He chooses to regenerate their hearts. God does not do this based off of anything good He sees in the elect. I wasn't saved because I was somehow better-but I was saved according to God's grace, and according to God's purposes. It had nothing to do with my own merits. In the latter, God simply permits the non-elect to engage in their own freely willed rebellion. God doesn't damn them because they are MORE deserving of it than the elect-all people deserve to be damned to hell. God passes over them according to His Sovereign purposes. It's just because everyone deserves hell in the first place anyway.
I'll mention a few brief notes on Romans 9 (I'll deal with that at length another time). The first view verses of Romans 9 are clearly talking about salvation ("I could wish that I myself were cut off and accursed"). Romans 9 talks about how God's promises to Israel have not failed. Why? Because "not everyone who belongs to Israel is Israel." The Gospel went out and saved everyone God intended it to save. This is reflected in God's choice to include Jacob in the promise and not Esau. Ultimately, God chooses "not based off of human will or works", but off of His sovereign mercy. Here are the other verses:
If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.
(1 John 2:29 ESV)
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.
(1 John 5:1 ESV)
This is key. Note the flow of thought. In 1 John 2, John isn't saying that practicing righteousness causes you to be born of God. Rather, it's evidence of it (has been born). Likewise, the grammatical parallel is 1 John 5. Believing evidences being born of God. That means that being born of God precedes belief, just as being born of God precedes practicing righteousness. As a Calvinist, I believe that the moment God regenerates your heart, you believe. However, regeneration is the logical foundation of belief. We all know causes and effects can be simultaneous (just think a ball weighing down a cushion from eternity). However, the ball logically, not temporally, precedes its effect. That is, the ball's weight is the cause of the impression on the cushion. Likewise, the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration, while temporally co-extensive with the effect, is logically prior to believing. That means the Spirit's work brings about new birth which brings about belief, not the other way around.
Regeneration (the Holy Spirit's work of giving us a new heart) --> born of God --> belief.
There's more. John 6:37 teaches that "all that the Father give will come, and those who come [Jesus] will never cast out." There is a chain that goes on here.
Those who the Father gives comes --> those who come Jesus never casts out.
John 6:44, Ephesians 1 (God predestined us for adoption before the foundation of the world), and a bunch of other texts could be placed here. I'll address one more.
" Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”
(John 10:25-30 ESV)"
Note: "oneness" here denotes one in being and power, not "same Person". But that aside, Jesus says "you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." Again, note the flow of thought. He doesn't say "you are not among my sheep because you do not believe", but rather, "you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." Jesus knows His sheep-the Pharisees weren't part of the flock. That was the reason they didn't believe. And the Father is the one who gives the sheep (who, as we've seen, are not the set of all people in the world).
Limited (Definitive) Atonement
I don't like the the word "limited" atonement. I don't really think that's a good way of putting it. Everyone believes the atonement is limited in some sense (namely, in it's application). This doctrine is saying something more...but TUDIP would've been awkward.
Definitive atonement asks the question "for whom did Jesus die?" Yes, I believe that Jesus made salvation possible for every single person on the planet. I really do. However, did Jesus have a particular people who He was going to definitively secure in His death and Resurrection? Absolutely. Jesus, while making salvation possible for all, also secured His elect people.
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
(Romans 8:31-33 ESV)
Who is the us in the context? The elect. How do I know that? Note the flow of thought. "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" The "us" in context must be the elect, because the only way you inherit the benefits of being in Christ (i.e the only way you will be "graciously given all things") is if you belong to the elect (i.e if all charges of your sinful past are removed-who shall bring a charge against God's elect?).
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
(John 10:10-11 ESV)
He lays down His life for the sheep. And as we've seen, Jesus knows who His sheep are. That's not to say He doesn't make salvation possible for all. I truly believe He does. But that is to say that Jesus also secures the salvation of His elect. Thus, He definitively accomplishes something in His death, rather than just offering a potentiality to the world.
Irresistible Grace
Perhaps the 1 John texts would've gone better here. There is strong overlap. This doctrine, contrary to William Lane Craig, does not say you can never resist the grace of God. Rather, it says that when God so chooses, He can regenerate your heart and cause you to believe. He can (and will), when He chooses to, overwhelm and overcome the deadness of the human spirit and revive it with new life in Christ. His call is irresistible-because of the power of God's saving grace, those who are called cannot resist but to come. Again, the 1 John texts would've been nice. But also, see this text: And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
(Romans 8:30 ESV)
Again, note the flow of thought. All of those Predestined are --> called --> justified --> glorified. The chain cannot be broken.
Perseverance of the Saints
Romans 8:30 could go here. Philippians 1:6 also belongs here-he who began a good work in you will see it through to completion. God starts the work, and finishes. Note, this is not "once saved always saved." In other words, it doesn't mean that you can believe in the Lord and then live like the devil. Those who are in Christ fight sin! (Romans 8) The evidence of being born of God is that you pursue Jesus. But what it does mean is that I can have confidence that I will grow in my conformity to Christ, and that God will bring me through to salvation. I can be confident that God will be faithful to me to complete what He started in me. That doesn't mean I don't work-oh, there is a good deal of fighting and effort and Spirit-empowered striving after God. But that's the key: the Holy Spirit is the one who drives the whole Christian life.
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
(Philippians 2:12-13 ESV)
I am a Calvinist because it's Biblical. I love the sovereign, merciful, gracious Lord of all!
Thursday, December 25, 2014
How to Get Saved
What do Christians believe about salvation? Well, here it is.
God
We believe that there is one, good, sovereign God. This God exists as one being in three Persons. What does that mean? The word "being" denotes what I am. That is, I am a human being. The word "Person" denotes who I am-my center of consciousness. My own individual self. So within the One being of God-His one mind-there are three centers of consciousness (i.e three Persons). One God who exists as Father, Son, and Spirit. (See my Mind-Model post on the Trinity for more on this) And this sovereign God existed in a state of perfect delight. Out of the overflow of His heart, not because of any deficiency in Him, He created the world.
Original Sin
We believe that when God created the world, it was good (Genesis 1). He created waterfalls, and elephants, and rainbows, and He knows what else. He saw it all and said it was good. And God created man in His image. This image wasn't a physical image-God isn't like anything in creation. Rather, it's a vocational term. Man was created to reflect God back into this world. We were meant to participate in stewarding creation with Him-to reflect His tenderness and His goodness into this world. Yet man, being endowed the freedom to love their Creator, abused that freedom to rebel against God. This original sin resulted in the corruption of man's nature, and the corruption of creation.
When we look around us, we know something is fundamentally jacked up. Our own hearts have deep, deep darkness that few of us are wont to admit. Yet pretending that darkness isn't there will not change it. It doesn't take too much honest introspection to realize that we are not exactly great people. In fact, the heart of man is dark. We believe this darkness can be traced right back to our choice in Adam to rebel against our Creator.
And thus, death ensued. Whereas Adam and Eve lived in the loving protection and sustenance of their Father, they now separated themselves from God via their sin. Whereas the Giver of Life would have given them life forever, they rejected that free gift for the sake of being the gods of their own lives. This is their story...and in turn, our story. This is the plight of the human race.
Total Depravity
We believe that as man multiplied, he spiraled deeper in his depravity. See, Adam was our "Federal Head" before God. That means that Adam was the representative of the human race. Adam was chosen to perfectly represent and embody the will of his constituency-his descendants-such that his choice to rebel was humanity's choice to rebel. That Fall from perfection is evidenced by our individual choices to do evil everyday. Murder became genocide, lust became rape, disobedience became scheming, and life became death. Man was dead to God, and in turn, dead to each other. If we're honest with ourselves, we know that there are people we hate for being better than us in some way. There are times when we get pleasure out of doing evil-when we yield to that unyielding darkness that infects our entire being. As man multiplied on the face of the Earth, so did our evil. The darkness of our hearts covered the face of the Earth.
A Promise
Yet God was not done with mankind. Yes, God is just. Yes, God must judge crime. But He had a plan that would satisfy the demands of justice, and show His boundless love. God called a man out of idolatry named Abraham, and made a promise. Through Abraham, all the families of the Earth would be blessed. Abraham had no idea what that promise entailed. Out of Abraham, God built a nation for Himself: Israel. This nation was to be a light in a world of darkness...however, the people of Israel often rebelled against God. Rather then being the light they were called to be, they caved to their own darkness. Yet God put up with them. God extended countless pleas to return, even though they burned their children in sacrifice to false gods, and engaged in horrible evils that defiled God's image in them. Israel's story is a microcosm of the story of humanity. Israel reflects the story of a race of creatures who, though they are ruled by a patient Creator, show steadfast hate and evil. And though mankind engaged in all sorts of evil, God delayed judgment.
God was intent on fulfilling His promise.
The Son of God
As I mentioned before, God existed as a Trinity. God exists as God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. These Persons, while distinct, exist as one Divine Being. They are not parts of God, they are each fully God. (Again, see my "Mind-Model" post on the Trinity) God sent His Son into the world-the one through whom He made all things. We believe Jesus is God the Son. That is, Jesus fully shares the Divine nature. Thus, in Jesus, the Creator-the one through whom all things were made-entered into the world. Jesus, conceived from the womb of the Virgin Mary, is God's Son. When God the Father sees Jesus, He sees His own perfections-the fullness of His own being-reflected back to Him. God's love for the Son, therefore, is limitless.
Why send Jesus? "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
The Gospel
We believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, fed the hungry. All of that was part of this central proclamation: in Jesus, God was making all things new. God is doing away with sickness and disease. God is doing away with death.
The fundamental plight of man-the one disease that wrought all other disease-is sin. Sin corrupted our hearts and the creation. In Jesus, God is putting that to rights.
We believe that Jesus obeyed God's will perfectly. We believe that, "though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited for His own benefit, but made Himself of no repute, taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a Cross." (Philippians 2) Why did Jesus have to die?
See, God is Just. A Judge cannot look at a rapist and let the rapist go off scott-free. That would be unjust! So Jesus, in an act of amazing love, willingly chose to pay the penalty we incurred on ourselves. He chose to take on the sins of the world on Himself, and bear the wrath of God for them. And Jesus completely absorbed the wrath of God on behalf of His people, that all those who believe in Him would be reconciled to God.
This is the light that was revealed at Christmas. Though we were so far lost in our own darkness, God made a way so people could return to Him. Jesus, upon taking the sin of His people and being crushed under the weight of God's just and holy wrath, died. And three days later, He rose from the dead. Why? Because Jesus had destroyed death. Death had no hold over the Son of God. Since Jesus dealt with sin, He dealt with death-for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The Lord Jesus did this so that you could know Him.
See, the one thing standing between man and God is sin. Yet the Cross bridges that infinite chasm. Jesus removes that obstacle by bearing our penalty and paying with His life. And He crushes death by absorbing sin onto Himself, dying (thereby destroying sin and death), and rising from the dead.
Jesus rose so that all those who have faith in Him would live, and one day be raised from the dead too. What is faith? Faith isn't just assent to propositions. Faith is child-like dependence on the One who you know is TOTALLY dependable! Faith is the embrace of all that God is for you in Christ-Savior, Redeemer, friend, King-and banking on Him. As Martin Luther said: "Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. "
When you embrace Jesus, you are united to Him such that God sees Jesus's obedience as your own. On the basis of what Jesus has done-on that basis alone!-you are counted perfectly righteous in God's sight. In God's courtroom, you are declared perfect solely because Jesus is perfect. Jesus's perfection is imputed (i.e credited) to your account. And when you embrace Jesus Christ, God puts His Holy Spirit in you to transform you. And the Spirit is your personal guarantee that one day, you will inherit new life through Jesus.
See, the Gospel isn't about dying and going to heaven. God is making all things new. The Cross is the point at which heaven and earth, God and man, wrath and love all kiss. The fruit is the renewal of all things. The Cross is the beginning of new creation. When Jesus rose from the dead, He prefigured what will happen to everyone who trusts Him, and to the whole creation. There will be no more decay, no more sorrow, or no more pain. There will be infinite joy in the kingdom of an infinitely lovely God.
The best part of it all is this: you can know the One who made you. That doesn't sound like a lot at first. But consider who God is. Look at the stars in the sky, and think of every blade of grass. Think of the sea, and all the creatures of the deep. Think of the whole cosmos. God created those by simply thinking them into existence. Think of all good things-they flow from God Himself. When you enter into a relationship with your Creator, you find a love so sweet that you will spend nights crying for joy! You find a King so real that you can bet your life on Him a thousand times over.
You can know the God of the seas and the stars and the galaxy! You can know the sovereign God! You can know the One who loves you so much, that He'd take your place, die on your behalf, and give you new life! You can know God! So the question is this: will you? Will you go on the craziest, most joyful ride of your life? Will you embrace the One who is all-satisfying? Will you embrace the King who loves you? Will you die to yourself, that you might live forever?
Those are questions you have to ask yourself. They cannot be put off. If you answer yes to them, then here is what you must do to be saved.
How to Get Saved
Look at your own heart. Be honest with yourself! Stare your own darkness straight in the face and do not sugar coat it. Confess your sin before God. Pray something along the lines of this (note: these words will not magically save you. The heart behind it-yielding to Jesus as Lord and Savior-will. Therefore, this is a suggestion/a template):
"Lord, I know I am a sinner. I know I have violated your law. I have tried to be the god of my own life, and it has failed. Lord, I confess my sinfulness before you. I confess that I am broken. And I repent of it all. I turn away from my own efforts, and my own sin-I turn away from everything that I am and I cast myself at your feet! I cannot save myself. I cannot know you by my own effort. So Lord, I embrace your love for me you showed at the Cross. I surrender my life to Jesus Christ, and I trust Him. Thank you for your boundless love and amazing grace!"
What must you do to be saved? There are no works that can save you, nor is there a magic sequence of words. No, this is what you must do: But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Romans 10:8-13 ESV)
So please, do not hesitate. Do not put this off. If you are interested in knowing God and have any questions, ask them here: ask.fm/SeanLuke
Or email me at: mrmanwookie@gmail.com
Or most ideally, contact me. If you know me personally (or even go to Neuqua!), I'd love to talk to you. I'd love to grab Starbucks or something with you and share Jesus. I can testify: knowing Him has been the sweetest, most beautiful reality in my life. There is no one like Him. My heart belongs to the King, and I'd like to share my heart with anyone who is seeking.
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:7-11 ESV)
God
We believe that there is one, good, sovereign God. This God exists as one being in three Persons. What does that mean? The word "being" denotes what I am. That is, I am a human being. The word "Person" denotes who I am-my center of consciousness. My own individual self. So within the One being of God-His one mind-there are three centers of consciousness (i.e three Persons). One God who exists as Father, Son, and Spirit. (See my Mind-Model post on the Trinity for more on this) And this sovereign God existed in a state of perfect delight. Out of the overflow of His heart, not because of any deficiency in Him, He created the world.
Original Sin
We believe that when God created the world, it was good (Genesis 1). He created waterfalls, and elephants, and rainbows, and He knows what else. He saw it all and said it was good. And God created man in His image. This image wasn't a physical image-God isn't like anything in creation. Rather, it's a vocational term. Man was created to reflect God back into this world. We were meant to participate in stewarding creation with Him-to reflect His tenderness and His goodness into this world. Yet man, being endowed the freedom to love their Creator, abused that freedom to rebel against God. This original sin resulted in the corruption of man's nature, and the corruption of creation.
When we look around us, we know something is fundamentally jacked up. Our own hearts have deep, deep darkness that few of us are wont to admit. Yet pretending that darkness isn't there will not change it. It doesn't take too much honest introspection to realize that we are not exactly great people. In fact, the heart of man is dark. We believe this darkness can be traced right back to our choice in Adam to rebel against our Creator.
And thus, death ensued. Whereas Adam and Eve lived in the loving protection and sustenance of their Father, they now separated themselves from God via their sin. Whereas the Giver of Life would have given them life forever, they rejected that free gift for the sake of being the gods of their own lives. This is their story...and in turn, our story. This is the plight of the human race.
Total Depravity
We believe that as man multiplied, he spiraled deeper in his depravity. See, Adam was our "Federal Head" before God. That means that Adam was the representative of the human race. Adam was chosen to perfectly represent and embody the will of his constituency-his descendants-such that his choice to rebel was humanity's choice to rebel. That Fall from perfection is evidenced by our individual choices to do evil everyday. Murder became genocide, lust became rape, disobedience became scheming, and life became death. Man was dead to God, and in turn, dead to each other. If we're honest with ourselves, we know that there are people we hate for being better than us in some way. There are times when we get pleasure out of doing evil-when we yield to that unyielding darkness that infects our entire being. As man multiplied on the face of the Earth, so did our evil. The darkness of our hearts covered the face of the Earth.
A Promise
Yet God was not done with mankind. Yes, God is just. Yes, God must judge crime. But He had a plan that would satisfy the demands of justice, and show His boundless love. God called a man out of idolatry named Abraham, and made a promise. Through Abraham, all the families of the Earth would be blessed. Abraham had no idea what that promise entailed. Out of Abraham, God built a nation for Himself: Israel. This nation was to be a light in a world of darkness...however, the people of Israel often rebelled against God. Rather then being the light they were called to be, they caved to their own darkness. Yet God put up with them. God extended countless pleas to return, even though they burned their children in sacrifice to false gods, and engaged in horrible evils that defiled God's image in them. Israel's story is a microcosm of the story of humanity. Israel reflects the story of a race of creatures who, though they are ruled by a patient Creator, show steadfast hate and evil. And though mankind engaged in all sorts of evil, God delayed judgment.
God was intent on fulfilling His promise.
The Son of God
As I mentioned before, God existed as a Trinity. God exists as God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. These Persons, while distinct, exist as one Divine Being. They are not parts of God, they are each fully God. (Again, see my "Mind-Model" post on the Trinity) God sent His Son into the world-the one through whom He made all things. We believe Jesus is God the Son. That is, Jesus fully shares the Divine nature. Thus, in Jesus, the Creator-the one through whom all things were made-entered into the world. Jesus, conceived from the womb of the Virgin Mary, is God's Son. When God the Father sees Jesus, He sees His own perfections-the fullness of His own being-reflected back to Him. God's love for the Son, therefore, is limitless.
Why send Jesus? "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
The Gospel
We believe that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life. He healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, fed the hungry. All of that was part of this central proclamation: in Jesus, God was making all things new. God is doing away with sickness and disease. God is doing away with death.
The fundamental plight of man-the one disease that wrought all other disease-is sin. Sin corrupted our hearts and the creation. In Jesus, God is putting that to rights.
We believe that Jesus obeyed God's will perfectly. We believe that, "though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited for His own benefit, but made Himself of no repute, taking on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a Cross." (Philippians 2) Why did Jesus have to die?
See, God is Just. A Judge cannot look at a rapist and let the rapist go off scott-free. That would be unjust! So Jesus, in an act of amazing love, willingly chose to pay the penalty we incurred on ourselves. He chose to take on the sins of the world on Himself, and bear the wrath of God for them. And Jesus completely absorbed the wrath of God on behalf of His people, that all those who believe in Him would be reconciled to God.
This is the light that was revealed at Christmas. Though we were so far lost in our own darkness, God made a way so people could return to Him. Jesus, upon taking the sin of His people and being crushed under the weight of God's just and holy wrath, died. And three days later, He rose from the dead. Why? Because Jesus had destroyed death. Death had no hold over the Son of God. Since Jesus dealt with sin, He dealt with death-for "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). The Lord Jesus did this so that you could know Him.
See, the one thing standing between man and God is sin. Yet the Cross bridges that infinite chasm. Jesus removes that obstacle by bearing our penalty and paying with His life. And He crushes death by absorbing sin onto Himself, dying (thereby destroying sin and death), and rising from the dead.
Jesus rose so that all those who have faith in Him would live, and one day be raised from the dead too. What is faith? Faith isn't just assent to propositions. Faith is child-like dependence on the One who you know is TOTALLY dependable! Faith is the embrace of all that God is for you in Christ-Savior, Redeemer, friend, King-and banking on Him. As Martin Luther said: "Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. "
When you embrace Jesus, you are united to Him such that God sees Jesus's obedience as your own. On the basis of what Jesus has done-on that basis alone!-you are counted perfectly righteous in God's sight. In God's courtroom, you are declared perfect solely because Jesus is perfect. Jesus's perfection is imputed (i.e credited) to your account. And when you embrace Jesus Christ, God puts His Holy Spirit in you to transform you. And the Spirit is your personal guarantee that one day, you will inherit new life through Jesus.
See, the Gospel isn't about dying and going to heaven. God is making all things new. The Cross is the point at which heaven and earth, God and man, wrath and love all kiss. The fruit is the renewal of all things. The Cross is the beginning of new creation. When Jesus rose from the dead, He prefigured what will happen to everyone who trusts Him, and to the whole creation. There will be no more decay, no more sorrow, or no more pain. There will be infinite joy in the kingdom of an infinitely lovely God.
The best part of it all is this: you can know the One who made you. That doesn't sound like a lot at first. But consider who God is. Look at the stars in the sky, and think of every blade of grass. Think of the sea, and all the creatures of the deep. Think of the whole cosmos. God created those by simply thinking them into existence. Think of all good things-they flow from God Himself. When you enter into a relationship with your Creator, you find a love so sweet that you will spend nights crying for joy! You find a King so real that you can bet your life on Him a thousand times over.
You can know the God of the seas and the stars and the galaxy! You can know the sovereign God! You can know the One who loves you so much, that He'd take your place, die on your behalf, and give you new life! You can know God! So the question is this: will you? Will you go on the craziest, most joyful ride of your life? Will you embrace the One who is all-satisfying? Will you embrace the King who loves you? Will you die to yourself, that you might live forever?
Those are questions you have to ask yourself. They cannot be put off. If you answer yes to them, then here is what you must do to be saved.
How to Get Saved
Look at your own heart. Be honest with yourself! Stare your own darkness straight in the face and do not sugar coat it. Confess your sin before God. Pray something along the lines of this (note: these words will not magically save you. The heart behind it-yielding to Jesus as Lord and Savior-will. Therefore, this is a suggestion/a template):
"Lord, I know I am a sinner. I know I have violated your law. I have tried to be the god of my own life, and it has failed. Lord, I confess my sinfulness before you. I confess that I am broken. And I repent of it all. I turn away from my own efforts, and my own sin-I turn away from everything that I am and I cast myself at your feet! I cannot save myself. I cannot know you by my own effort. So Lord, I embrace your love for me you showed at the Cross. I surrender my life to Jesus Christ, and I trust Him. Thank you for your boundless love and amazing grace!"
What must you do to be saved? There are no works that can save you, nor is there a magic sequence of words. No, this is what you must do: But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
(Romans 10:8-13 ESV)
So please, do not hesitate. Do not put this off. If you are interested in knowing God and have any questions, ask them here: ask.fm/SeanLuke
Or email me at: mrmanwookie@gmail.com
Or most ideally, contact me. If you know me personally (or even go to Neuqua!), I'd love to talk to you. I'd love to grab Starbucks or something with you and share Jesus. I can testify: knowing Him has been the sweetest, most beautiful reality in my life. There is no one like Him. My heart belongs to the King, and I'd like to share my heart with anyone who is seeking.
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:7-11 ESV)
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Does God love Everyone The Same Way?
The default evangelical answer to this question is: duh, foo. However, the issue is a lot more complex then most evangelicals are wont to admit.
First of all, what does it mean for God to love? Let's consider this from two angles. If God is Himself infinitely worthy, and in all of His actions seeks to exalt that which is infinitely worthy, then God must seek to exalt Himself in all of His actions. That is, if God is to regard Himself properly (that is, in accord with His value), He must regard Himself infinitely (since He is of infinite value).
Let's consider this from a second answer. If God is The Good-the source and origin and sum of all goodness in reality-God, in order to display maximal goodness in all of His actions must display Himself maximally in all of His actions. Why? Because God Himself is the highest good. Thus, God, in seeking to exalt and display the highest good, must exalt and display Himself.
So when God acts to create, God is acting to display and exalt Himself. Creation, then, is a communication of God's own perfection. So let's consider the love of God.
The Love of God
God's love therefore is His delight in His own internal fullness. This makes sense-God's love He experiences in the Trinity is His own internal delight in His own perfection. His love for the world is, as Jonathan Edwards put it, His love for "his own internal fullness diffused and communicated throughout the world". God's love is His delight in His own perfections. So God's love for the creature is God's love for His own perfection as expressed in and through that creature. Should that make the creature feel as though its a means to an end? Not at all. The creature itself exists as a communication of the worth of God. Thus, when God loves the creature, God loves Himself. When God sees the goodness of the creature, He sees the goodness of Himself, given that the creature is a small picture of Himself. His love for the creature and His love for Himself is one and the same end. So this is where the debate my brother and I had (and are having).
God's love for the elect
The Bible is clear that God predestines some to salvation before the foundation of the world (Romans 9, Romans 8:28-29, Ephesians 1, John 6:37, and many more). That is, all people are in willful rebellion before the foundation of the world. If God were to merely offer salvation, we would all reject it because of our depravity. So God, in kind mercy, chooses to regenerate the hearts of some and give them a heart that will choose Him. God then is the reason why anyone believes at all-not our freely willed choice. That means God decides who is saved and who is left in their sin. He is just to do so because salvation is an issue of grace-unmerited favor. This also entails God loves the elect in different sense than He loves the non-elect. Jesus says "no greater love is there then this: that one lays down His life for His friends." John 10:15 is clear: Jesus lays down His life for the sheep. In John 10, those are the ones that has been given to Jesus. Ephesians 1 is equally clear: in love God predestines us before the foundation of the world. He predestines us for adoptions as sons. This is a kind of love He shows the elect that He does not show the non-elect, given that His predestination of the elect is an expression of love. Does that mean God doesn't love the non-elect? Not at all.
God's love for the non-elect
The Bible is also clear that God loves the non-elect. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:43-48 ESV)
First of all, what does it mean for God to love? Let's consider this from two angles. If God is Himself infinitely worthy, and in all of His actions seeks to exalt that which is infinitely worthy, then God must seek to exalt Himself in all of His actions. That is, if God is to regard Himself properly (that is, in accord with His value), He must regard Himself infinitely (since He is of infinite value).
Let's consider this from a second answer. If God is The Good-the source and origin and sum of all goodness in reality-God, in order to display maximal goodness in all of His actions must display Himself maximally in all of His actions. Why? Because God Himself is the highest good. Thus, God, in seeking to exalt and display the highest good, must exalt and display Himself.
So when God acts to create, God is acting to display and exalt Himself. Creation, then, is a communication of God's own perfection. So let's consider the love of God.
The Love of God
God's love therefore is His delight in His own internal fullness. This makes sense-God's love He experiences in the Trinity is His own internal delight in His own perfection. His love for the world is, as Jonathan Edwards put it, His love for "his own internal fullness diffused and communicated throughout the world". God's love is His delight in His own perfections. So God's love for the creature is God's love for His own perfection as expressed in and through that creature. Should that make the creature feel as though its a means to an end? Not at all. The creature itself exists as a communication of the worth of God. Thus, when God loves the creature, God loves Himself. When God sees the goodness of the creature, He sees the goodness of Himself, given that the creature is a small picture of Himself. His love for the creature and His love for Himself is one and the same end. So this is where the debate my brother and I had (and are having).
God's love for the elect
The Bible is clear that God predestines some to salvation before the foundation of the world (Romans 9, Romans 8:28-29, Ephesians 1, John 6:37, and many more). That is, all people are in willful rebellion before the foundation of the world. If God were to merely offer salvation, we would all reject it because of our depravity. So God, in kind mercy, chooses to regenerate the hearts of some and give them a heart that will choose Him. God then is the reason why anyone believes at all-not our freely willed choice. That means God decides who is saved and who is left in their sin. He is just to do so because salvation is an issue of grace-unmerited favor. This also entails God loves the elect in different sense than He loves the non-elect. Jesus says "no greater love is there then this: that one lays down His life for His friends." John 10:15 is clear: Jesus lays down His life for the sheep. In John 10, those are the ones that has been given to Jesus. Ephesians 1 is equally clear: in love God predestines us before the foundation of the world. He predestines us for adoptions as sons. This is a kind of love He shows the elect that He does not show the non-elect, given that His predestination of the elect is an expression of love. Does that mean God doesn't love the non-elect? Not at all.
God's love for the non-elect
The Bible is also clear that God loves the non-elect. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(Matthew 5:43-48 ESV)
Jesus's exhortation for us to love our enemies is rooted in the fact that God loves His enemies. How does God the Father express this love? By making His sun to shine on the just and the unjust. Why is that a deep expression of love? If it's true that God is infinitely holy, then sinning against Him is infinitely grievous. Sinning against the One who is the embodiment of all goodness in reality-rejecting this God is infinitely evil. It's a rejection of all goodness in reality, since God's being sums up all good in reality. God is also a just God. Thus, God cannot let go crime go unpunished-not eternally. He cannot indefinitely extend repentance. Sin has to be judged-either on the Cross, or in hell. So for a holy God to sustain rebel sinners who trample His glory is incredible. The fact that God sustains people who curse Him, and gives them many good gifts in life is an expression of deep love for them. Our conscious experience of all good things in life is granted to us by God. God also has no delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:32), and there is a sense in which God desires all to come to repentance. However, God's greater desire is for His glory, and thus God decrees history to that end.
Does God hate sinners?
For you are not a God who delights in wickedness;
evil may not dwell with you.
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.
You destroy those who speak lies;
the LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
(Psalm 5:4-6 ESV)
Yup. Is God's hatred the opposite of His love? No (though man's hatred may sometimes be). God's hatred is His intense disdain and opposition towards all that is evil. Outside of Christ, that includes all of humanity (outside of Christ is key). Evil isn't something outside of us-it has become a part of who we are. It is true God has nothing but hatred for sin, and has love for the sinner. It is also true that God hates sinners-which is expressed in His holy wrath against sinners (not just the sin!).
Concluding thoughts
So God loves the elect in a different sense than the non-elect. God's hatred is removed in Christ, since Jesus absorbs the wrath of God. That means God's hatred for the elect is completely removed. However, for the non-elect, "the wrath of God abides on them." Nevertheless, God still expresses a deep love towards them. Complex? Totally. Worth contemplating? Totally. When we understand God more clearly, we can communicate who He is to the world better.
This part of the discussion is setting me up for a question I'm not decided on yet. I will post some reflections on own wrestling with the question tomorrow. And here's the question: does God love those in hell? I don't think the answer is at all simple. In fact, I'm not even sure I know the answer. I know whatever the answer is, God is good, and He is King.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
The Evidence for the Resurrection (1)
Okay, here we go. This is where I try to show that the historical evidence best favors the Resurrection. When accounting for the facts of Christianity, we have to account for several historical facts affirmed by the majority of new testament scholarship. I'll give supporting evidence for each fact, and rebut the positions offered from various critics of Christianity. I will not presuppose that the NT documents are inspired-in fact, I will assume they have errors (even though I don't believe that for a second).
A word about using New testament sources. When we evaluate information about any figure from antiquity, we use historical sources written at or around the time. Even if these sources are written by the followers/admirers of said figure, they still provide some evidence that historians have to separate from embellishment. Atheists seem to think that the New Testament documents, when assembled into an anthology called "The New Testament", magically loses all credibility. They say "it's biased!" and throw out the whole thing. The problem is that we don't do this for any figure of antiquity. Followers of a figure often write information about said figure...and practically every source on the planet for anything has biases. So, we must reason and argue about which facts can be considered historical. For the case I'm making, I will use facts supported by 90+% of Biblical scholarship (which is not universally Christian. There are "liberal" Christians-whatever the heck that means-as well as atheists, agnostics, and Jewish scholars). The one fact that is not supported by 90+% still is supported by 60%+ according to a survey of the literature by Gary Habermas (the empty tomb). In any case, I will provide argumentation supporting each fact.
Fact #1: Jesus was crucified.
This is not disputed by any historian teaching at any accredited university in the Western world. Just ask Bart Ehrman (see his book: "Did Jesus Exist?"). The reasons are several. In the first century, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, as well as the Torah itself all point to Messianic expectations of a triumphant Messiah, not one who would get killed by the enemy. It's nonsense to think that the disciples would invent the crucifixion, accuse the Jews of orchestrating it (crucifixion was a very public event), and then try to convince people that a crucified Messiah was the Savior of God's people. This fact is attested, obviously, by all our Gospels, as well as Tacitus and Josephus. The idea that Tacitus was reporting heresay is unsupported-he didn't hesitate to bash Christian "myths" when he could. The Josephus passage related to Jesus's crucifixion is considered by most scholars to have a historical core, while interpolations by Christians have been made.
Fact #2: Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
First of all, Joseph of Arimathea is attested by all four Gospel sources. Why is this significant? First of all, Joseph was a member of the council that ordered Jesus's death. Why, if the church wanted to emphasize the point of Israel's guilt and punishment via the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in AD70, would they invent a pious Jewish man who was part of the religious elite? Secondly, Joseph is attested in all four Gospel sources. Remember, these sources are written in the style of ancient biographies-which means the authors intended to write history. We know Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, since they copy some stuff verbatim (or they used the mysterious "Q" document...but whatever). However, in the reporting of the Passion narrative (the narrative of Jesus's betrayal, crucifixion, death and resurrection), they diverge in wording. That means that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all provide independent and multiple attestation to Joseph of Arimathea as a character in the narrative. Additionally, Paul indicates that he is aware of the burial in 1 Corinthians 15, in the creedal statement he provides.
Fact #3 The tomb was empty
The empty tomb is somewhat controversial. I'll only add some stuff here, but this article actually sufficiently explains my reasoning: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-historicity-of-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus
I'll add a few notes. Without an empty tomb, no one would have been convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead. Meetings with a recently deceased person was proof that the person was dead. See below.
Fact # 4 the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead
To this, I will add a few notes. The Jewish view of Resurrection was corporate-that is, everyone would be raised from the dead at the end of the world. Apart from that, resurrection to new life (that is, new, bodily existence free from the decay of sin) didn't happen. The Greeks didn't believe in Resurrection at all. Why bring that up? Because unless the tomb was empty, the disciples never would have been convinced Jesus rose from the dead. This is because, if they had merely hallucinated, they never would have been convinced Jesus rose from the dead.
First of all, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the twelve saw Jesus, James saw Jesus, and 500 people saw Jesus after He had risen. As I demonstrate in the post "Can I prove the Resurrection?", to claim that they were flat out lying is absurd. They certainly genuinely believed they had seen Jesus-that is admitted by scholars from Bart Ehrman (rampant agnostic) to Gerd Luddeman (staunch German atheist new testament scholars). They claim that the disciples hallucinated.
Not only is this scientifically implausible (hallucinations are subjective and not shared...there's not one recorded instance of a shared hallucination), this is historically fanciful. People in the ancient world knew about seeing dead people after they had died. That's why necromancers existed. Homer records Greek views of the after life in the Odyssey. Namely, seeing someone after they had died was not proof that the person was alive again, but was actually proof that the person was dead. Thus, a vision of Jesus alone wouldn't have convinced the disciples that He had been risen-it would have convinced them that He was dead. They may have said "Jesus has been exalted with the martyrs and awaits resurrection"-but they never would've said He'd already been risen, because that wouldn't make sense given the views of the afterlife present at the time.
However, this also confirms the empty tomb. Meetings alone wouldn't have convinced them. The empty tomb alone wouldn't have convinced them either-grave robbery happened all the time. Only the empty tomb + meetings would have convinced the disciples. And not just any sort of meetings-they were so convinced that Jesus was risen from the dead, that they claimed God had initiated His new creation in Christ. That means that God had perfected Jesus's body, and had conquered the damage of sin. So how shall we explain these?
The Obvious Answer
The disciples did not lie about it, as that would be absurd. It's absurd to think they'd willingly go to their brutal deaths, or be beaten, persecuted, flogged, imprisoned for what they knew to be a lie. See my post "Can I prove the Resurrection" for more on that point. The disciples didn't suffer cognitive dissonance either. They didn't expect the Resurrection to happen, since no one was expecting a crucified, let alone risen, Messiah. The Christian belief is, as NT Wright says, a "radical mutation" of Jewish belief. It is new, and cannot be explained within the existing belief systems.
The obvious answer is so shocking that most people will refuse to go here. They will cling to radical fringe theories that scholars deride (i.e the disciples stole the body), and will ironically chide believers for questioning the consensus on evolution. They will try to deny Jesus's existence, rallying behind the likes of Richard Carrier and other unemployed historians with the title "PhD". They will do all they can to avoid the truth: the disciples and Paul really did see Jesus. He was thoroughly dead, and was thoroughly risen from the dead. And He stands ready to grant new life to all who come. He is the fountain of living water-LIVING water-and indeed, Jesus lives. So come, drink, and be satisfied in the love of the Lamb of God :)
A word about using New testament sources. When we evaluate information about any figure from antiquity, we use historical sources written at or around the time. Even if these sources are written by the followers/admirers of said figure, they still provide some evidence that historians have to separate from embellishment. Atheists seem to think that the New Testament documents, when assembled into an anthology called "The New Testament", magically loses all credibility. They say "it's biased!" and throw out the whole thing. The problem is that we don't do this for any figure of antiquity. Followers of a figure often write information about said figure...and practically every source on the planet for anything has biases. So, we must reason and argue about which facts can be considered historical. For the case I'm making, I will use facts supported by 90+% of Biblical scholarship (which is not universally Christian. There are "liberal" Christians-whatever the heck that means-as well as atheists, agnostics, and Jewish scholars). The one fact that is not supported by 90+% still is supported by 60%+ according to a survey of the literature by Gary Habermas (the empty tomb). In any case, I will provide argumentation supporting each fact.
Fact #1: Jesus was crucified.
This is not disputed by any historian teaching at any accredited university in the Western world. Just ask Bart Ehrman (see his book: "Did Jesus Exist?"). The reasons are several. In the first century, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, as well as the Torah itself all point to Messianic expectations of a triumphant Messiah, not one who would get killed by the enemy. It's nonsense to think that the disciples would invent the crucifixion, accuse the Jews of orchestrating it (crucifixion was a very public event), and then try to convince people that a crucified Messiah was the Savior of God's people. This fact is attested, obviously, by all our Gospels, as well as Tacitus and Josephus. The idea that Tacitus was reporting heresay is unsupported-he didn't hesitate to bash Christian "myths" when he could. The Josephus passage related to Jesus's crucifixion is considered by most scholars to have a historical core, while interpolations by Christians have been made.
Fact #2: Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
First of all, Joseph of Arimathea is attested by all four Gospel sources. Why is this significant? First of all, Joseph was a member of the council that ordered Jesus's death. Why, if the church wanted to emphasize the point of Israel's guilt and punishment via the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in AD70, would they invent a pious Jewish man who was part of the religious elite? Secondly, Joseph is attested in all four Gospel sources. Remember, these sources are written in the style of ancient biographies-which means the authors intended to write history. We know Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, since they copy some stuff verbatim (or they used the mysterious "Q" document...but whatever). However, in the reporting of the Passion narrative (the narrative of Jesus's betrayal, crucifixion, death and resurrection), they diverge in wording. That means that Mark, Matthew, and Luke all provide independent and multiple attestation to Joseph of Arimathea as a character in the narrative. Additionally, Paul indicates that he is aware of the burial in 1 Corinthians 15, in the creedal statement he provides.
Fact #3 The tomb was empty
The empty tomb is somewhat controversial. I'll only add some stuff here, but this article actually sufficiently explains my reasoning: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-historicity-of-the-empty-tomb-of-jesus
I'll add a few notes. Without an empty tomb, no one would have been convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead. Meetings with a recently deceased person was proof that the person was dead. See below.
Fact # 4 the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead
To this, I will add a few notes. The Jewish view of Resurrection was corporate-that is, everyone would be raised from the dead at the end of the world. Apart from that, resurrection to new life (that is, new, bodily existence free from the decay of sin) didn't happen. The Greeks didn't believe in Resurrection at all. Why bring that up? Because unless the tomb was empty, the disciples never would have been convinced Jesus rose from the dead. This is because, if they had merely hallucinated, they never would have been convinced Jesus rose from the dead.
First of all, the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 indicates that the twelve saw Jesus, James saw Jesus, and 500 people saw Jesus after He had risen. As I demonstrate in the post "Can I prove the Resurrection?", to claim that they were flat out lying is absurd. They certainly genuinely believed they had seen Jesus-that is admitted by scholars from Bart Ehrman (rampant agnostic) to Gerd Luddeman (staunch German atheist new testament scholars). They claim that the disciples hallucinated.
Not only is this scientifically implausible (hallucinations are subjective and not shared...there's not one recorded instance of a shared hallucination), this is historically fanciful. People in the ancient world knew about seeing dead people after they had died. That's why necromancers existed. Homer records Greek views of the after life in the Odyssey. Namely, seeing someone after they had died was not proof that the person was alive again, but was actually proof that the person was dead. Thus, a vision of Jesus alone wouldn't have convinced the disciples that He had been risen-it would have convinced them that He was dead. They may have said "Jesus has been exalted with the martyrs and awaits resurrection"-but they never would've said He'd already been risen, because that wouldn't make sense given the views of the afterlife present at the time.
However, this also confirms the empty tomb. Meetings alone wouldn't have convinced them. The empty tomb alone wouldn't have convinced them either-grave robbery happened all the time. Only the empty tomb + meetings would have convinced the disciples. And not just any sort of meetings-they were so convinced that Jesus was risen from the dead, that they claimed God had initiated His new creation in Christ. That means that God had perfected Jesus's body, and had conquered the damage of sin. So how shall we explain these?
The Obvious Answer
The disciples did not lie about it, as that would be absurd. It's absurd to think they'd willingly go to their brutal deaths, or be beaten, persecuted, flogged, imprisoned for what they knew to be a lie. See my post "Can I prove the Resurrection" for more on that point. The disciples didn't suffer cognitive dissonance either. They didn't expect the Resurrection to happen, since no one was expecting a crucified, let alone risen, Messiah. The Christian belief is, as NT Wright says, a "radical mutation" of Jewish belief. It is new, and cannot be explained within the existing belief systems.
The obvious answer is so shocking that most people will refuse to go here. They will cling to radical fringe theories that scholars deride (i.e the disciples stole the body), and will ironically chide believers for questioning the consensus on evolution. They will try to deny Jesus's existence, rallying behind the likes of Richard Carrier and other unemployed historians with the title "PhD". They will do all they can to avoid the truth: the disciples and Paul really did see Jesus. He was thoroughly dead, and was thoroughly risen from the dead. And He stands ready to grant new life to all who come. He is the fountain of living water-LIVING water-and indeed, Jesus lives. So come, drink, and be satisfied in the love of the Lamb of God :)
Why Did God Create People He Knew Would Reject Him?
I wanna answer this question because, as of yet, I haven't seen the solution I'm about to pose. The solution typically given is: God created the damned, but He is not responsible for their damnation because they freely choose to rebel. Creating them in and of itself is an act of grace, since they have the fortune of bearing His image. Whether they appreciate that or not is on them.
I have no problem with that answer, but I think something is missing. The question itself is a nonsense question given Reformed Theology. I'll write a post about this later, but for those of you who already know, I will appeal to the decree of God.
Logical Foundations
Let's talk about facts of knowledge. Suppose rainy days make me sad. And suppose we live in a possible world where my sadness happens simultaneously with my knowledge that it's raining outside. While my experience of sadness and my knowledge of raining would be temporally co-extensive, my knowledge that it's raining would be the logical foundation of my sadness. Here's what that means. If we consider a certain fact X, and a certain fact Y, if X is the logical foundation of Y, Y cannot exist without X.
Let X = my knowledge that it's raining.
Let Y = My sadness derived from a rainy day.
Y cannot exist without X, even though in this possible world, they are temporally co-extensive. So how does that apply to God?
God's Knowledge and Decree
God is omniscient, so He already knows everything-including His own actions. (For the record, this isn't a restraint on His freedom, as restraints on freedom are external in nature. God's foreknowledge of His actions derive from His decree of His actions from eternity past). Thus, God holds all facts of knowledge in His mind at any given moment. However, as I have discussed above, certain facts of knowledge are the logical foundations of other facts of knowledge. So let's first consider God's knowledge of the Cross. God knew that He would come to rescue us from eternity past. He predestined the Cross according to Acts 4. However, His knowledge of the Cross cannot exist without His knowledge that He will create-i.e, without His decree to create (since God's knowledge is contingent on what God decrees will happen throughout history). So if God's decree to create is the logical foundation of the Cross, then His knowledge of the events of the crucifixion exist only in light of His decree to create/His knowledge that there will be a creation. So let's apply this to the question at hand.
Answering the Question
Suppose Bob is a damned fool. Literally. That means from eternity past, God knows Bob will freely reject Him. However, the knowledge that Bob will freely reject God is only true in light of the fact that God has chosen to create Bob. (This is a reason I reject Molinism-but more on that in another post) In other words, it's not like there are a bunch of hypothetical people God didn't create because He knew how bad they would be. Hypothetical people who do not exist God knows nothing about-because there is nothing true about them. They are non-entities. Everyone who was going to exist exists. So when people ask "why did God create Hitler when God knew Hitler would do all those terrible things"-the question doesn't really make sense. God's knowledge of what Hitler would do is logically posterior to, not logically prior (i.e the logical foundation) of Hitler's existence. In other words, the fact that Hitler would exist is the logical foundation of God's knowledge of Hitler's actions. Thus, it makes no sense to ask "why did God create X if God knew X would do Y", because that assumes God's knowledge of what a person would do is logically prior to His knowledge that they will exist (which, again, is false given Reformed Theology).
Another Answer
The other question to be asked is: why did God create a world where He ordained that sin would be? The answer is: for His glory. God does not cause anyone to sin. Rather, He intentionally permits the rebellion of some. He lets people mock Him and spit at Him to both display the intensity of His justice and holiness in judging rebel sinners and not tolerating evil, and the riches of His mercy by saving these rebel sinners. His mercy shines all that more brightly against the backdrop of His wrath (see Romans 9). And for anyone who thinks this is egotistical, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SA9hokDLPo&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvvKJD0aQKlYjctTSlXFu9kA&index=2
I have no problem with that answer, but I think something is missing. The question itself is a nonsense question given Reformed Theology. I'll write a post about this later, but for those of you who already know, I will appeal to the decree of God.
Logical Foundations
Let's talk about facts of knowledge. Suppose rainy days make me sad. And suppose we live in a possible world where my sadness happens simultaneously with my knowledge that it's raining outside. While my experience of sadness and my knowledge of raining would be temporally co-extensive, my knowledge that it's raining would be the logical foundation of my sadness. Here's what that means. If we consider a certain fact X, and a certain fact Y, if X is the logical foundation of Y, Y cannot exist without X.
Let X = my knowledge that it's raining.
Let Y = My sadness derived from a rainy day.
Y cannot exist without X, even though in this possible world, they are temporally co-extensive. So how does that apply to God?
God's Knowledge and Decree
God is omniscient, so He already knows everything-including His own actions. (For the record, this isn't a restraint on His freedom, as restraints on freedom are external in nature. God's foreknowledge of His actions derive from His decree of His actions from eternity past). Thus, God holds all facts of knowledge in His mind at any given moment. However, as I have discussed above, certain facts of knowledge are the logical foundations of other facts of knowledge. So let's first consider God's knowledge of the Cross. God knew that He would come to rescue us from eternity past. He predestined the Cross according to Acts 4. However, His knowledge of the Cross cannot exist without His knowledge that He will create-i.e, without His decree to create (since God's knowledge is contingent on what God decrees will happen throughout history). So if God's decree to create is the logical foundation of the Cross, then His knowledge of the events of the crucifixion exist only in light of His decree to create/His knowledge that there will be a creation. So let's apply this to the question at hand.
Answering the Question
Suppose Bob is a damned fool. Literally. That means from eternity past, God knows Bob will freely reject Him. However, the knowledge that Bob will freely reject God is only true in light of the fact that God has chosen to create Bob. (This is a reason I reject Molinism-but more on that in another post) In other words, it's not like there are a bunch of hypothetical people God didn't create because He knew how bad they would be. Hypothetical people who do not exist God knows nothing about-because there is nothing true about them. They are non-entities. Everyone who was going to exist exists. So when people ask "why did God create Hitler when God knew Hitler would do all those terrible things"-the question doesn't really make sense. God's knowledge of what Hitler would do is logically posterior to, not logically prior (i.e the logical foundation) of Hitler's existence. In other words, the fact that Hitler would exist is the logical foundation of God's knowledge of Hitler's actions. Thus, it makes no sense to ask "why did God create X if God knew X would do Y", because that assumes God's knowledge of what a person would do is logically prior to His knowledge that they will exist (which, again, is false given Reformed Theology).
Another Answer
The other question to be asked is: why did God create a world where He ordained that sin would be? The answer is: for His glory. God does not cause anyone to sin. Rather, He intentionally permits the rebellion of some. He lets people mock Him and spit at Him to both display the intensity of His justice and holiness in judging rebel sinners and not tolerating evil, and the riches of His mercy by saving these rebel sinners. His mercy shines all that more brightly against the backdrop of His wrath (see Romans 9). And for anyone who thinks this is egotistical, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SA9hokDLPo&list=PLKG-HUiN5dvvKJD0aQKlYjctTSlXFu9kA&index=2
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Mind Model of the Trinity
This is part of an essay I co-wrote with my brother almost a year ago. It's a model of the Trinity that's helped me-though the Trinity still remains in large part a mystery. At least it's not a nonsensical mystery. So what follows is my portion of the essay, and the link to the larger essay (which includes my brother's part).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3PmOLVlCflxmhatVDEJTQHBuJrP769uTxvaYONvA2E/edit?usp=sharing
So, the Persons of the Trinity are distinct, yet they exist as one God, one Mind. They have distinct thoughts and emotions, yet the thoughts and emotions that they do have are never independent of each other. Nor are the Persons of the Trinity ever in conflict; rather, since God is one, the Persons of the Trinity act as one in all that they do. When one Person of the Trinity experiences something, this experience is never exclusive to one Person of the Trinity. I imagine then that in the Cross of Christ, when Jesus bore the wrath of God, there must have been both unimaginable joy (as God's purpose was being fulfilled) and incomprehensible pain in the being of God. The Persons would each be having distinct, distinguishable experiences, yet the experience would be fully known throughout the Godhead.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D3PmOLVlCflxmhatVDEJTQHBuJrP769uTxvaYONvA2E/edit?usp=sharing
George did a fantastic job of bringing up the relevant texts and Biblically explaining the Trinity. I think this video also gives a very solid, simple explanation of the Trinity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gCv-FAjgps&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWpnOJV09MuEAwbbQNCS6Qf&index=1
The purpose of this essay is to clearly explain a concept of the Trinity that has been beneficial to me. I will rely strongly on the Bible, Edwards, and the concept of God as the immaterial Mind that sustains all things.
The purpose of this essay is to clearly explain a concept of the Trinity that has been beneficial to me. I will rely strongly on the Bible, Edwards, and the concept of God as the immaterial Mind that sustains all things.
First, we start with God as an immaterial Mind. He is not His creation. He is not a man (Numbers 23:19), nor is He like any created things.
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." (Exodus 20:4)
This text can only mean that it is improper to worship created things because the created order is a shadow of the glory of God. God must not be in the "likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth, or that is in the water under the earth", otherwise this commandment would be rather confusing. This also must mean that even the spiritual beings in heaven do not fully resemble God; while they and us may be in His likeness, He is not in our likeness. He transcends it. Even when God reveals Himself in glory, only He will fully understand the mode of His own existence. This is where we must ground our discussion of the Trinity. We will not be able to posit an exhaustive model, because only God has exhaustive knowledge of Himself. Nevertheless, I'll give it my best shot :)
Now, according to the best theories of science (Bord Guth Velinkin, the Big Bang), all multiverse systems/ universes would have had to have a beginning. This means that matter itself would have had to have a beginning. We can deduce that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. If nothing existed before the created order, and the created order came into existence without a cause for no reason, then it becomes inexplicable why anything doesn't pop into existence without a cause. Why just universes? Why not two headed monkeys? Why not George? However, if matter had a beginning, then clearly it could not have been caused by something material (i.e matter causing matter). It follows then that the cause must be immaterial. If this cause is indeed God (which, I would argue elsewhere that strong evidence points in this direction), then it follows that God Himself must ultimately be immaterial (or of a substance that is non-material, a different kind of material then any material of the created order. Look up the essence/energy distinction in God). Here is where I conceive of God as Ultimate reality, the one reality in which all reality is founded. God is a Mind that exists, and is necessary for anything else to exist. I conceive of God therefore as the Divine consciousness that is self aware, supremely powerful, the source of all goodness (what Plato called "The Good"), etc.
The basic concept of the Trinity can be summarized as such:
There is but one being of God.
There are Three Persons of God.
Each Person is fully God.
Let's examine the terms "being" and "Person". "Being" is what I am. I am a human being-a human flesh with bones, organs, blood, and a lot of other things I don't want to think about over dinner. It's my "stuff", my substance. Personage is who I am. It is my self-aware self, my center of consciousness so to speak. So there exists one being of God, yet three Persons of God.
I will repost that video link here. I will assume the stuff mentioned in the video in continuing. It's only three minutes, yet really really awesome! The dude has other stuff on his channel about the Trinity that might be helpful.
There is but one being of God.
There are Three Persons of God.
Each Person is fully God.
Let's examine the terms "being" and "Person". "Being" is what I am. I am a human being-a human flesh with bones, organs, blood, and a lot of other things I don't want to think about over dinner. It's my "stuff", my substance. Personage is who I am. It is my self-aware self, my center of consciousness so to speak. So there exists one being of God, yet three Persons of God.
I will repost that video link here. I will assume the stuff mentioned in the video in continuing. It's only three minutes, yet really really awesome! The dude has other stuff on his channel about the Trinity that might be helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gCv-FAjgps&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TWpnOJV09MuEAwbbQNCS6Qf&index=1
So, according to the concept of God as a Mind, God would be an eternally existing Mind with no "parts" so to speak, but rather as one undivided essence (or being) with three "points". In other words, God would be one Mind with three centers of consciousness. Within God's Mind, there would be three self-conscious selves. There are three "points" in God's mind where information is being processed-three selves who are self aware of themselves and each other.
The Father would be the source of the Godhead, pouring out His essence into the Son. The Father, in His eternal contemplation of His own perfections, beholds the radiance of His glory in His Son. All of God the Father's perfections are being reflected back to Him as He beholds the Person of the Son. The Spirit personifies the divine love existing between Father and Son. (I would look at Jonathan Edwards' essay on the Trinity for a fuller, more detailed explanation of this)
The Father's thoughts, then, aren't really independent of the Son's or the Spirit's, and vice versa. At any given moment, the Persons of the Trinity, being that they share the being of God, share a common Mind, know each others' thoughts in the most intimate way possible and yet are distinct centers of information (thought) processing for this mind. This implies that at any given moment, the Persons of the Trinity know what each other are thinking, feeling, and experiencing. It would also imply that the thoughts of the Persons, while distinct (as Christ has a will subservient to the will of the Father), are always in accord and are fully known in the Godhead. We can model the Trinity like this:
The Father would be the source of the Godhead, pouring out His essence into the Son. The Father, in His eternal contemplation of His own perfections, beholds the radiance of His glory in His Son. All of God the Father's perfections are being reflected back to Him as He beholds the Person of the Son. The Spirit personifies the divine love existing between Father and Son. (I would look at Jonathan Edwards' essay on the Trinity for a fuller, more detailed explanation of this)
The Father's thoughts, then, aren't really independent of the Son's or the Spirit's, and vice versa. At any given moment, the Persons of the Trinity, being that they share the being of God, share a common Mind, know each others' thoughts in the most intimate way possible and yet are distinct centers of information (thought) processing for this mind. This implies that at any given moment, the Persons of the Trinity know what each other are thinking, feeling, and experiencing. It would also imply that the thoughts of the Persons, while distinct (as Christ has a will subservient to the will of the Father), are always in accord and are fully known in the Godhead. We can model the Trinity like this:
The Persons of the Trinity are also fully God individually, and fully God collectively. I don't pretend to understand this mystery-however, while difficult to understand, this isn't impossible in theory. Consider H20. In order for hydrogen to bond with oxygen, it needs to fill it's shell of two electrons. Oxygen only has six, and wants to have eight. Therefore, one electron from oxygen and one electron from hydrogen is put in a "pool", and the same oxygen molecule does the same thing with a different hydrogen atom. The oxygen then draws on that pool of two electrons from one, and two electrons from another, and, having donated two electrons in total to the pools (leaving it with four), it draws on the two pools to reach 8 electrons. However, each hydrogen also draws on the respective pool to have two electrons. For all intents and purposes, it's as though the hydrogen is sharing the two electrons fully. Obviously, this is not a perfect analogy. However, it's not impossible to conceive that within the being of God, three points in the essence (substance) share the essence completely and fully, while still being distinct. To be sure, the Persons are not "separate individuals" in the sense that they exist separately. Rather, they exist as one, not in personage, but in being. They share a common essence; without any one Person, there would be no God, even though the Father is the source of the Godhead. This is because the Father shares and pours out His full essence into the other Persons of the Trinity.
Finally, it's important to remember that the Persons of the Trinity are always present in each other. When we behold Jesus, we behold the Father. This is not because Jesus IS the Father; this is because the Father is perfectly present in Jesus. Jesus does whatever He sees the Father doing-in Him, we see perfectly what the Father is like. The only way we can have communion with Jesus is by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the Spirit, God the Father and Jesus Christ are present. Yet the Holy Spirit is not identical to the Father or the Son-rather, He is the active agent of both Persons, and brings us into communion with the triune God.
So to summarize, God is a singular mind with three centers of self-consciousness. These three centers process information, have emotions, feel, experience-yet are not independent of each other, and are simultaneously aware of themselves (fully aware) and of each other (fully). The Persons have perfect, shared knowledge, since God is one. They are distinct and unique in function, yet are remarkably united in action, thought, purpose, and feelings. For example, the Father or the Spirit did not become incarnate; the Son did. However, the Father and the Spirit were working in and through, and were present in the Son throughout the incarnation. They were fully aware of the Son's feelings, doings, thoughts, deeds, and experiences. And Father, Son, and Spirit were always in accord in all things. Likewise, the Son and the Spirit are present in the Father, and the Father and Son are present in the Holy Spirit. God is therefore a unity, but complex in that unity. Yet, being that His Mind is One, so the Persons of the Trinity, while having distinct thoughts, they do not think separately and have "separate" thoughts. They always have thoughts, intents, and feelings that are in agreement and fully known in the Godhead.
When we behold God-incarnate, we cannot do that without God the Spirit. And we can never approach God-incarnate in spirit and in truth without glorifying and drawing near to the throne of God the Father. "Whoever has the Son has the Father." (1 John 2:23) The Father and Son must always be central to our worship, with complete dependence on the Holy Spirit to worship with proper affections. Therefore, aware of the tri-unity of our great God, we rejoice in the Father who has given us the Son, the radiance of His perfections. And let's do this in the power of the Spirit, and remember that true worship is Trinitarian, because the true God is triune. Of course, one can never solve all the mysteries of the Trinity. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God". A finite creature like myself could never hope to produce an exhaustive explanation of the nature of God. However, I hope this helped, and I hope the Spirit works through this :)
Finally, it's important to remember that the Persons of the Trinity are always present in each other. When we behold Jesus, we behold the Father. This is not because Jesus IS the Father; this is because the Father is perfectly present in Jesus. Jesus does whatever He sees the Father doing-in Him, we see perfectly what the Father is like. The only way we can have communion with Jesus is by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the Spirit, God the Father and Jesus Christ are present. Yet the Holy Spirit is not identical to the Father or the Son-rather, He is the active agent of both Persons, and brings us into communion with the triune God.
So to summarize, God is a singular mind with three centers of self-consciousness. These three centers process information, have emotions, feel, experience-yet are not independent of each other, and are simultaneously aware of themselves (fully aware) and of each other (fully). The Persons have perfect, shared knowledge, since God is one. They are distinct and unique in function, yet are remarkably united in action, thought, purpose, and feelings. For example, the Father or the Spirit did not become incarnate; the Son did. However, the Father and the Spirit were working in and through, and were present in the Son throughout the incarnation. They were fully aware of the Son's feelings, doings, thoughts, deeds, and experiences. And Father, Son, and Spirit were always in accord in all things. Likewise, the Son and the Spirit are present in the Father, and the Father and Son are present in the Holy Spirit. God is therefore a unity, but complex in that unity. Yet, being that His Mind is One, so the Persons of the Trinity, while having distinct thoughts, they do not think separately and have "separate" thoughts. They always have thoughts, intents, and feelings that are in agreement and fully known in the Godhead.
When we behold God-incarnate, we cannot do that without God the Spirit. And we can never approach God-incarnate in spirit and in truth without glorifying and drawing near to the throne of God the Father. "Whoever has the Son has the Father." (1 John 2:23) The Father and Son must always be central to our worship, with complete dependence on the Holy Spirit to worship with proper affections. Therefore, aware of the tri-unity of our great God, we rejoice in the Father who has given us the Son, the radiance of His perfections. And let's do this in the power of the Spirit, and remember that true worship is Trinitarian, because the true God is triune. Of course, one can never solve all the mysteries of the Trinity. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God". A finite creature like myself could never hope to produce an exhaustive explanation of the nature of God. However, I hope this helped, and I hope the Spirit works through this :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)