Well last night the interwebz was set aflame because of a dress. Yes, it's a fab dress. But more importantly, people throughout the country could not agree on the color of the dress.
I won't speculate here about what color it is (it was blue and black), but rather I want to focus on what this tells us about the mind and consciousness.....woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *explodes*.
Qualia
We need to lay out a few definitions. Qualia is subjective experience/sensations. They are the experiences your self conscious self (your "ego", or your "I"). So everything I feel, touch, here-all experiences of my consciousness are "qualia". The sensation of redness, the feel of the cold wind, my emotions-all of the experiences.
Leibniz Law
(I posted this in an earlier blogpost about consciousness)
Who was Leibniz? Well, he's an old dead dude. But he came up with a lot of neat math stuff...you know, Calculus? He was one of the key people in advancing mathematics to the modern place. He was also a kick-butt philosopher. He came up with a very intuitive law called "Leibniz Law" (-_-). It goes like this:
Let A be some entity/property/process. A = whatever placeholder you want it to be.
If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A. Shocked? It goes on.
If A = A, whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A. Shocked yet? Just wait.
Really quick, we need to understand what philosophers mean by "possible worlds". Possible worlds are the way the world could have been, or the way the world may be. They are semantic tools for philosophers to describe possibility. So, for example, if I say "it's possible that in the future, I may buy a dog", I can say that because in my mind, that's a perfectly coherent scenario. That is, there is nothing internally contradictory about the possibility that I may buy a dog sometime in the future. Thus, because this is possible, there is a possible world where I own a dog. Let's make one more application. Suppose I say "it's possible that God exists." That's because I can envision that as a possible scenario in my mind, and there's nothing logically incoherent about that possibility (all attempts to prove God to be logically incoherent have been abject failures). Hence, there is a possible world where God exists. This is the essence of modal logic-the logic of possibilities. So let's apply that Leibniz Law. If A = God, whenever I talk about God, God must be God in all possible worlds (duh). I can't envision any non-God entity and call that God (duh). So here's what that means for Leibniz's Law:
If A = A, then whatever is true of A will be true of A.
If A = A, then whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of A.
If A = A, in all possible worlds, A will always be A.
This is intuitive enough. As a side note, if something is true in all possible worlds, it is necessarily true. That is to say that there is no other possible way it could have been. For example, take 1 + 1 = 2. We could have had any symbols we wanted to represent that, but as for the concept itself-one object plus another object equaling a consistent quantity of two objects-there is no other way the world could have been. One object could never have equaled two objects, etc. Back to Leibnuts, suppose you have A and B. If someone claims they are identical, then this is what should follow:
If A = B, whatever is true of A will be true of B
Whatever is possibly true of A will be possibly true of B
In all possible worlds, A = B
Felica and Her Fancy Dresses
Okay, so Felicia is wearing a blue and black dress that everyone thinks is white and gold or whatever. She insists "nah foo. You been dranking all dat drank." But everyone else in the party swears she's wearing a white and gold dress. So she whips out a bazooka and says "DON'T BE LYIN' TO ME. I WILL END YOU."
Well, how can Felicia determine whether the others are just screwing with her? Is it possible?
Let's say Felica (and her loyal posse) wants to test what everyone really sees. How is she to do this?
"Put them all under a brain scanner, and tests their brain patterns!" says physicalist Patty (hehe). Well, Felica does that. And she realizes something. "I know jack-diddly-squat about what they're actually seeing!" It's possible, for all she knows, that they could be having a particular brain pattern and yet they'd be seeing something completely different than her.
Braainzzzz
Here's the trouble. Felica could know all the physical facts about the brains of these guests (hostages?) at her party (she happens to have 5 PhDs in science, and so has one in neuroscience), and still she'd know nothing about what they're seeing. If they said "I really do see white and gold!"-they very well may be! It's possible.
Let me come at this from the perspective of Zombies. David Chalmers, a philosopher, came up with the idea of philosophical zombies (p-zombies). These are people who look just you and me, have the brains of you and me...but there's a catch. These people have no subjective experience. They have no consciousness-they're just pieces of meat reacting to electrical signals. These entities are conceivable-there doesn't seem to be anything about the existence of these beings that is logically incoherent. In fact, for you all you know, I could be one....whoa.
This is where the fun begins.
1.) It's possible that p-zombies exist (they are conceivable-I could be one for all you know)
2.) There is a possible world where p-zombies exist. (Modal possibility)
3.) You could learn all the physical facts about the p-zombies' brains, and that wouldn't tell you about there subjective experience (because they have none)
4.) There is a possible world where physical facts don't equal mental facts (since you could learn the physical facts about the p-zombies' brains, and that wouldn't tell you about their subjective experience)
5.) Conclusion: Mental facts and physical facts are not identical (since if they were, they'd be identical in all possible worlds, and everything that is possibly true of one would be possibly true of the other. Also, if they were identical, learning everything about physicality should yield everything about mentality, since they're supposedly identical. Leibniz Law's a butt face. bam.)
Now, I am not suggesting there is no correlation between Brain States (BS) and Mental States (MS). There undeniably is. However, I'm suggesting that the assumption of our culture, which wants to reduce MS to BS (hehe) is flat out wrong. MS isn't identical to BS.
Let's contextualize this. Felica is contemplating these things and constructs an argument.
1.) If MS = BS, then whatever is true and possibly true of MS should be true and possibly true of BS (Leibniz Law)
2.) She could learn all she wants about BS, and still not know about the MS of her guests
3.) There's something possibly true of MS (you can't learn everything about it by learning everything about BS) that's not possibly true of BS (you obviously would learn everything about BS by learning everything about BS)
4.) There's something possibly true of MS that's not possibly true of BS
Conclusion: MS ain't BS by Leibniz Law (hehe)
Concluding Thoughts
Felica realizes that materialism/physicalism (the assumption that everything in reality reduces to matter/space/energy/time and the rearrangements of it-i.e everything can be described in terms of the natural) is wrong. So she lets her guests go and becomes an idealist (if you have no idea what that is, I'll tell you when you're older. Or click on my post on consciousness that I wrote in November)
Consciousness is undeniably correlated to brain states...but correlation sure has heck doesn't equal identity. More than that, we've learned something interesting from Felicia. Consciousness emphatically isn't reducible to brain states. Consciousness isn't identical to stuff going on inside your head. However, that means the physicalist assumption of our culture is wrong.
Further Resources
This blog post was more philosophical in nature...but if anyone is interested in how I view the interaction between mind and matter, see here. This to me goes far in explaining why people see different things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Edit: One of my friends has informed me: The idea of zombies did not originate from Chalmers. It was around during the time of Rene Descartes. So p-zombies go back waay before Chalmers.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Divine Concurrance Defended
What is Divine Concurrance? It is the doctrine that God, at all moments, sustains creation. He sustains the laws and the operations of creation, and thus holds all things together. If God did not actively "concur" with the law of gravity, for instance, it would not be efficacious. That means that in a sense, God causes the law of gravity. He operates with the law He has established. Apart from Him, physical laws would have no effects. As an Idealist, I understand that God sustains the universe by actively willing it. It is a projection of His consciousness; an emanation outward from His essence. This brings us to an uneasy conclusion, however: God sustains the laws that cause a knife to go through a victim's throat. In a sense, God causes a knife to cut open a body, because He is actively sustaining the laws that produce such an effect. So how is this moral for God to do?
1.) Moral Responsibility and the Will
If I was under body-control, and someone controlled me to punch Lil'Timmy in the face, would I be responsible? No, because the action wasn't directly connected to MY will. God does not directly will our evil actions. He does not move our wills to do evil; that happens of our own accord. Hence, moral responsibility for rape and murder lie with the one performing the action, because those actions are directly connected to the will of the agent, not God's.
2.) Moral Obligation
God's commands ground moral obligation on Christianity. That is to say that God's commands are why we OUGHT to do something. God has commanded us to love each other-hence, because we have a command from God to do so, we have an obligation. God, however, doesn't issue commands to Himself (besides promises He makes to man-which He intends to fulfill). Hence, God has no moral obligation to abstain from sustaining creation, or sustaining evil actions. As I've argued from 1.), God's not responsible for the action itself. Nor is it immoral for Him to sustain the action or its effects, since God has no obligation that would forbid Him from doing so.
3.) The Good of Moral Agency
Additionally, God's concurrance with human actions renders them efficacious. This is actually a great good. God is The Good-the grounds, source, and origin of all goodness. Thus, to be conformed to God is to be conformed to goodness. God's actions have actual effects, since God is a free and moral agent. Thus, if God makes people who are moral agents, He shares a bit more of who He is with them. In other words, moral agency is part of what it means to be made "in the image of God"-to reflect God back into the world. To have the capacity to reflect God at all is a great good. Since God's own moral agency implies that His choices have actual effects, for God to render the choices of free agents efficacious makes those agents more accurate reflections of Him. The responsibility of using the good of efficacious moral agency to reflect God lies with the agent-but simply having it at all is a great good, since having it makes one more of a picture of who God is (since God has moral agency and His actions have consequences).
4.) It highlights the ugliness of sin and our need for a Savior
Having established that it is not wrong for God to sustain an evil action, or render it efficacious, I want to prove that this is good in another way than I have argued in 3). Namely, rendering our actions efficacious highlights the reality of the ugliness of sin. That we bring about such horrors by OUR will highlights the stark depravity of man. That ISIS beheads 21 Christians on a beach, sawing them in two, more clearly displays the ugliness of the actions their will has brought about. We don't live in a cartoon universe, but a moral universe with actual consequences for our actions. Those consequences demonstrate that mankind is a jacked up race. And hence, we need a Savior. We need Jesus Christ.
1.) Moral Responsibility and the Will
If I was under body-control, and someone controlled me to punch Lil'Timmy in the face, would I be responsible? No, because the action wasn't directly connected to MY will. God does not directly will our evil actions. He does not move our wills to do evil; that happens of our own accord. Hence, moral responsibility for rape and murder lie with the one performing the action, because those actions are directly connected to the will of the agent, not God's.
2.) Moral Obligation
God's commands ground moral obligation on Christianity. That is to say that God's commands are why we OUGHT to do something. God has commanded us to love each other-hence, because we have a command from God to do so, we have an obligation. God, however, doesn't issue commands to Himself (besides promises He makes to man-which He intends to fulfill). Hence, God has no moral obligation to abstain from sustaining creation, or sustaining evil actions. As I've argued from 1.), God's not responsible for the action itself. Nor is it immoral for Him to sustain the action or its effects, since God has no obligation that would forbid Him from doing so.
3.) The Good of Moral Agency
Additionally, God's concurrance with human actions renders them efficacious. This is actually a great good. God is The Good-the grounds, source, and origin of all goodness. Thus, to be conformed to God is to be conformed to goodness. God's actions have actual effects, since God is a free and moral agent. Thus, if God makes people who are moral agents, He shares a bit more of who He is with them. In other words, moral agency is part of what it means to be made "in the image of God"-to reflect God back into the world. To have the capacity to reflect God at all is a great good. Since God's own moral agency implies that His choices have actual effects, for God to render the choices of free agents efficacious makes those agents more accurate reflections of Him. The responsibility of using the good of efficacious moral agency to reflect God lies with the agent-but simply having it at all is a great good, since having it makes one more of a picture of who God is (since God has moral agency and His actions have consequences).
4.) It highlights the ugliness of sin and our need for a Savior
Having established that it is not wrong for God to sustain an evil action, or render it efficacious, I want to prove that this is good in another way than I have argued in 3). Namely, rendering our actions efficacious highlights the reality of the ugliness of sin. That we bring about such horrors by OUR will highlights the stark depravity of man. That ISIS beheads 21 Christians on a beach, sawing them in two, more clearly displays the ugliness of the actions their will has brought about. We don't live in a cartoon universe, but a moral universe with actual consequences for our actions. Those consequences demonstrate that mankind is a jacked up race. And hence, we need a Savior. We need Jesus Christ.
Monday, February 16, 2015
My God is in the Heavens and He Does All that He Pleases
I've been seeing a common atheist line around for a while. Namely: "your God is a psychopathic maniac who kills babies and sanctions rape." Right. Let's take this out.
God and "The Good"
When Christians say "God is The Good", here's what we mean. We mean God is the source an origin of all goodness in reality. His being grounds right and wrong. His characteristics determine right and wrong-the characteristics He has had from eternity by necessity. Therefore, love, justice, peace, kindness, etc are all good because they belong to God's being. God is also the Creator of all reality, and God is the source of life.
What I want to emphasize is that God is also just. Here's what I mean. If a Judge sees a rapist, and then lets the rapist go off scott free, in what sense is that Judge just? If God is Just, He cannot let violations of His own nature go unpunished. When people go against His nature, He cannot just dismiss that as though it's a non-trivial action. To do so would be to fail to uphold the worth of goodness...to fail to uphold the worth of God's own nature. Thus, it would be unjust. God would be saying "yeah violations of goodness is a-okay". In spite of the fact that His nature is intrinsically infinitely valuable-since God Himself is the source and origin of all value in the Universe-God would be denying that value in dismissing sin. He'd be colluding with evil.
The Holiness of God
Unless people understand this (and I get it-Dawkins and Harris CANNOT because no one wants to), they will never understand why God's judgments are so severe. If a man were to commit genocide, I would argue that the death penalty is viable. For a murderer who goes on a killing spree and refuses to stop killing, I don't think executing him is an immoral option. This is my point: the severity of the crime determines the severity of the punishment. If God is the source and origin of all goodness and all life, then to sin against Him and to rebel is to commit a crime INFINITELY heinous. It is to reject the sum total of all goodness, and to reject life itself (since in rejecting God, we reject the source of life). Hence, it is to embrace death.
If God is infinitely Holy and infinitely valuable, then the failure to honor Him is infinitely evil. Sin is infinitely evil precisely because in sinning, we reject the One who is the source of all good. That is why the Bible says that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). We are so morally perverse that we have no sense of the seriousness of sinning against the infinitely Holy I am. This is why God judged the Canaanites. This wasn't an act of genocide. It wasn't as though God said "well I hate those Canaanites because they're Canaanites so imma take them out". God judged the nation because of the rampant sin. God is diametrically opposed to anything that defaces His value. And He must be if He is to be considered good; for if God is the embodiment of all good, then He cannot let His own value in creation be mocked and trampled upon. He cannot let crime go unpunished-this would be unjust, and God is perfectly just.
This means God is just to strike anyone down the moment they sin. That's how serious and offensive sin is-until people feel the weight of their sin, they won't get it. The punishment for sin is death. Man may mock that all he wishes-his mocking and his whining does not for a SPLIT SECOND constitute a rational argument.
God and Babies
Okay, so that works for why God has the right to judge sinners. What about babies? And if I say God can take the lives of babies, why am I opposed to abortion? I do want to affirm God's right to take the life of a baby. Why does God have said right? If God is the Creator of all life, He has total rights over all life. Why? Because God Himself is the One who assigns the rights and the value to His creation. He is the One who designates it's purpose-all things belong to Him. We are not our own. Yes, man HATES that idea-but we are not the captain of our own soul.
An inventor has all rights over his invention-his creation. Since God alone creates sentient life, God alone has rights over it. Thus, only God has the right to revoke and give life as He pleases. It should be mentioned that I think babies who die enter the presence of God for reasons mentioned here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUAi8JfWk0
So why am I opposed to man taking lives-be it baby or not? What distinguishes this God from the God of ISIS? To the first question: because God alone has the right to take life and give as He please, man has no such right. Man has no right to violate the creature-Creator distinction.
To the second question, multiple layers of answer. For one, Allah isn't the right God. Sure, ISIS could say the same-but if Christianity is true, then Allah doesn't exist, and ISIS has therefore acted not in the name of God, but in the name of their own passions. Second, God's command to kill the Canaanites was not indefinite as ISIS's command to kill others is. Rather, because of the seriousness of the sin of the Canaanites, God decided to act. He had waited four hundred years, and extended repentance THAT long. He waited for the measure of their sins to fill up such that when they were so thoroughly corrupt, He acted in judgment.
Let me give an example. Suppose you have a maniac people out to kill others and live in depravity (*cough cough ISIS cough cough*). I think it would be just to take out such a people in judgment. The government has been given the power of the sword (not the individual-which is why this squares with "love your enemy"), and thus can and should act in justice. Given that ancient Israel was structured in such a way that God was the immediate king, He WAS the governing authority. Israel was in a unique time and place wherein they served as God's direct arm of judgment. As I've argued, God has the right to execute His wrath on rebel sinners whenever He pleases. That being said, the church is NOT ancient Israel, and lives under the new covenant. Thus, God's purpose for His people under the old covenant has been fulfilled, and God's purposes in the new covenant have come to take place in Christ. Hence why the church cannot act as Israel did. Christians cannot take up the sword, because the kingdom of God is not from the world, and thus is not of the sword. God's purpose for using the sword was fulfilled, and Christians are to lay down their lives to spread the Gospel.
Of course, the atheist will object: well God's being inconsistent with Himself to act differently in these times of history. Of course, this is a lousy objection of the Dawkinsian variety. If a parent institutes a curfew, the curfew isn't meant to be perpetual. Once the purpose for the curfew is fulfilled (to mature an individual into a responsible adult), it is no longer immoral for the kid to go out past curfew. It no longer applies to Him. Similarly, God's purposes under the old covenant were designed to be fulfilled in Christ, and thus does not apply to the church (which I believe is the continuation and the expansion of Israel).
Concluding Thoughts
I know some of what I've said might unsettle people, or might make people emotional or whatever. Emotional outrages over God's right to judge holy, lofty humanity do not constitute rational arguments. This seems to be all the New Atheists have: empty rhetoric that, while puffing up the egos of the hordes of young people who worship the ground Dawkins walks on, has no substance and reveals the foolishness, emotionalism, and anti-intellectualism of anyone who goes that route. Yes, God's judgment over man is tough. And it's tough because we don't like to be told the truth: we are sinners in the hands of a Holy God. Apart from Christ, that's not a nice place to be.
God and "The Good"
When Christians say "God is The Good", here's what we mean. We mean God is the source an origin of all goodness in reality. His being grounds right and wrong. His characteristics determine right and wrong-the characteristics He has had from eternity by necessity. Therefore, love, justice, peace, kindness, etc are all good because they belong to God's being. God is also the Creator of all reality, and God is the source of life.
What I want to emphasize is that God is also just. Here's what I mean. If a Judge sees a rapist, and then lets the rapist go off scott free, in what sense is that Judge just? If God is Just, He cannot let violations of His own nature go unpunished. When people go against His nature, He cannot just dismiss that as though it's a non-trivial action. To do so would be to fail to uphold the worth of goodness...to fail to uphold the worth of God's own nature. Thus, it would be unjust. God would be saying "yeah violations of goodness is a-okay". In spite of the fact that His nature is intrinsically infinitely valuable-since God Himself is the source and origin of all value in the Universe-God would be denying that value in dismissing sin. He'd be colluding with evil.
The Holiness of God
Unless people understand this (and I get it-Dawkins and Harris CANNOT because no one wants to), they will never understand why God's judgments are so severe. If a man were to commit genocide, I would argue that the death penalty is viable. For a murderer who goes on a killing spree and refuses to stop killing, I don't think executing him is an immoral option. This is my point: the severity of the crime determines the severity of the punishment. If God is the source and origin of all goodness and all life, then to sin against Him and to rebel is to commit a crime INFINITELY heinous. It is to reject the sum total of all goodness, and to reject life itself (since in rejecting God, we reject the source of life). Hence, it is to embrace death.
If God is infinitely Holy and infinitely valuable, then the failure to honor Him is infinitely evil. Sin is infinitely evil precisely because in sinning, we reject the One who is the source of all good. That is why the Bible says that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). We are so morally perverse that we have no sense of the seriousness of sinning against the infinitely Holy I am. This is why God judged the Canaanites. This wasn't an act of genocide. It wasn't as though God said "well I hate those Canaanites because they're Canaanites so imma take them out". God judged the nation because of the rampant sin. God is diametrically opposed to anything that defaces His value. And He must be if He is to be considered good; for if God is the embodiment of all good, then He cannot let His own value in creation be mocked and trampled upon. He cannot let crime go unpunished-this would be unjust, and God is perfectly just.
This means God is just to strike anyone down the moment they sin. That's how serious and offensive sin is-until people feel the weight of their sin, they won't get it. The punishment for sin is death. Man may mock that all he wishes-his mocking and his whining does not for a SPLIT SECOND constitute a rational argument.
God and Babies
Okay, so that works for why God has the right to judge sinners. What about babies? And if I say God can take the lives of babies, why am I opposed to abortion? I do want to affirm God's right to take the life of a baby. Why does God have said right? If God is the Creator of all life, He has total rights over all life. Why? Because God Himself is the One who assigns the rights and the value to His creation. He is the One who designates it's purpose-all things belong to Him. We are not our own. Yes, man HATES that idea-but we are not the captain of our own soul.
An inventor has all rights over his invention-his creation. Since God alone creates sentient life, God alone has rights over it. Thus, only God has the right to revoke and give life as He pleases. It should be mentioned that I think babies who die enter the presence of God for reasons mentioned here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUAi8JfWk0
So why am I opposed to man taking lives-be it baby or not? What distinguishes this God from the God of ISIS? To the first question: because God alone has the right to take life and give as He please, man has no such right. Man has no right to violate the creature-Creator distinction.
To the second question, multiple layers of answer. For one, Allah isn't the right God. Sure, ISIS could say the same-but if Christianity is true, then Allah doesn't exist, and ISIS has therefore acted not in the name of God, but in the name of their own passions. Second, God's command to kill the Canaanites was not indefinite as ISIS's command to kill others is. Rather, because of the seriousness of the sin of the Canaanites, God decided to act. He had waited four hundred years, and extended repentance THAT long. He waited for the measure of their sins to fill up such that when they were so thoroughly corrupt, He acted in judgment.
Let me give an example. Suppose you have a maniac people out to kill others and live in depravity (*cough cough ISIS cough cough*). I think it would be just to take out such a people in judgment. The government has been given the power of the sword (not the individual-which is why this squares with "love your enemy"), and thus can and should act in justice. Given that ancient Israel was structured in such a way that God was the immediate king, He WAS the governing authority. Israel was in a unique time and place wherein they served as God's direct arm of judgment. As I've argued, God has the right to execute His wrath on rebel sinners whenever He pleases. That being said, the church is NOT ancient Israel, and lives under the new covenant. Thus, God's purpose for His people under the old covenant has been fulfilled, and God's purposes in the new covenant have come to take place in Christ. Hence why the church cannot act as Israel did. Christians cannot take up the sword, because the kingdom of God is not from the world, and thus is not of the sword. God's purpose for using the sword was fulfilled, and Christians are to lay down their lives to spread the Gospel.
Of course, the atheist will object: well God's being inconsistent with Himself to act differently in these times of history. Of course, this is a lousy objection of the Dawkinsian variety. If a parent institutes a curfew, the curfew isn't meant to be perpetual. Once the purpose for the curfew is fulfilled (to mature an individual into a responsible adult), it is no longer immoral for the kid to go out past curfew. It no longer applies to Him. Similarly, God's purposes under the old covenant were designed to be fulfilled in Christ, and thus does not apply to the church (which I believe is the continuation and the expansion of Israel).
Concluding Thoughts
I know some of what I've said might unsettle people, or might make people emotional or whatever. Emotional outrages over God's right to judge holy, lofty humanity do not constitute rational arguments. This seems to be all the New Atheists have: empty rhetoric that, while puffing up the egos of the hordes of young people who worship the ground Dawkins walks on, has no substance and reveals the foolishness, emotionalism, and anti-intellectualism of anyone who goes that route. Yes, God's judgment over man is tough. And it's tough because we don't like to be told the truth: we are sinners in the hands of a Holy God. Apart from Christ, that's not a nice place to be.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Free Will and Sin
Okay, so a bunch of atheists argue, "God didn't have to grant us free will. Or if He did, He could have limited the options to only good options. Hence, He is responsible for evil."
Let's leave aside the fact that the conclusion is a non-sequitur. First of all, is it true that God could have limited the options to only good options? Nope. Does the fact that we can freely will evil and God can't make us more free than God? Nope.
The Definition of Goodness
I argue that God is "The Good". He is the source and origin of all goodness in reality. Thus, to be "good" is to be conformed to God's character. So to choose the good is to choose to be conformed to God's character. Hence, an action is "good" because it aligns one with God's character.
Free Will
For our purposes, "free will" is the ability to select between possible outcomes. If the choice to do the good is the choice to be conformed/to manifest God's character, it should become clear why evil is logically incoherent for God. God cannot be not-God. He can't ever not be conformed to His own character. However, for a creature, this is a viable option. A creature can indeed choose not to be conformed to God's character because a creature isn't God. Thus, it's a legitimate possibility. This doesn't make the creature more free, since again, God's actions aren't limited in this case. For Him to choose evil is simply logically incoherent.
Note: The character of God is not His Divine omniscience, ominpotence, etc. The character of God refers to the dispositions of God. They refer not to His abilities that define His being, but rather His dispositions that yield actions in accord with these dispositions. His "character" is what we normally mean by the term "character". I'm not talking about His Divine nature-though His character is a subset of His nature (the subset that the creature ought to strive to be conformed to).
How can God give us Free will?
Under idealism, the world exists in the mind of God. God could simply "loan" us the ability to do so. That is, God sustains our ability to make free choices in His own. He, as it were, roots our freedom to choose in His own freedom to choose, "loaning" that ability out to us. It flows from Him and into His creatures.
It doesn't seem impossible that a Mind much more powerful than our own would be able to do something like this.
Moral Choices
I think it is therefore the case that moral choices entail the possibility of evil under this definition of free will. An action is good NOT because an agent could have done otherwise (as some people suggest). It is good because it conforms to God's nature. Thus, whenever making morally significant choices, free will entails the possibility of evil (until we submit ourselves to God's Spirit), since not being conformed to God's nature remains a viable option for anything "not-God".
Tautology?
So what does it mean when I say "God is good"? Is this mere tautology? Am I saying "God is God?" Nope. I'm saying something actually extremely profound I think. When I say God is good, I am expressing praise for all that He is. I expressing my delight that God's goodness consists in manifesting His own fullness. To praise God by saying "God is good" is to delight in the perfection of His attributes.
Conclusion
Okay, so that should put that objection to death. Bam.
Let's leave aside the fact that the conclusion is a non-sequitur. First of all, is it true that God could have limited the options to only good options? Nope. Does the fact that we can freely will evil and God can't make us more free than God? Nope.
The Definition of Goodness
I argue that God is "The Good". He is the source and origin of all goodness in reality. Thus, to be "good" is to be conformed to God's character. So to choose the good is to choose to be conformed to God's character. Hence, an action is "good" because it aligns one with God's character.
Free Will
For our purposes, "free will" is the ability to select between possible outcomes. If the choice to do the good is the choice to be conformed/to manifest God's character, it should become clear why evil is logically incoherent for God. God cannot be not-God. He can't ever not be conformed to His own character. However, for a creature, this is a viable option. A creature can indeed choose not to be conformed to God's character because a creature isn't God. Thus, it's a legitimate possibility. This doesn't make the creature more free, since again, God's actions aren't limited in this case. For Him to choose evil is simply logically incoherent.
Note: The character of God is not His Divine omniscience, ominpotence, etc. The character of God refers to the dispositions of God. They refer not to His abilities that define His being, but rather His dispositions that yield actions in accord with these dispositions. His "character" is what we normally mean by the term "character". I'm not talking about His Divine nature-though His character is a subset of His nature (the subset that the creature ought to strive to be conformed to).
How can God give us Free will?
Under idealism, the world exists in the mind of God. God could simply "loan" us the ability to do so. That is, God sustains our ability to make free choices in His own. He, as it were, roots our freedom to choose in His own freedom to choose, "loaning" that ability out to us. It flows from Him and into His creatures.
It doesn't seem impossible that a Mind much more powerful than our own would be able to do something like this.
Moral Choices
I think it is therefore the case that moral choices entail the possibility of evil under this definition of free will. An action is good NOT because an agent could have done otherwise (as some people suggest). It is good because it conforms to God's nature. Thus, whenever making morally significant choices, free will entails the possibility of evil (until we submit ourselves to God's Spirit), since not being conformed to God's nature remains a viable option for anything "not-God".
Tautology?
So what does it mean when I say "God is good"? Is this mere tautology? Am I saying "God is God?" Nope. I'm saying something actually extremely profound I think. When I say God is good, I am expressing praise for all that He is. I expressing my delight that God's goodness consists in manifesting His own fullness. To praise God by saying "God is good" is to delight in the perfection of His attributes.
Conclusion
Okay, so that should put that objection to death. Bam.
The Justice of God in the Death of His Son
If you were look at my youtube video recommendation page, you'd think I was a flaming atheist. Seriously. I try to watch DA Carson or some dork (aka awesome brother) like him, and then I see an atheist argument on the side bar. And I click it. Well, I shouldn't have. Why? It was good ol' Richard Dawkins.
"Isn't the Cross the most disgusting thing about the New Testament?" He asks in snide derision, as if no one has ever thought about this for the past 2000 years. Ever. Now, I admit, the theologian he was talking to struck me as a bit of a tool (he avoided the fact that God DOES pour out His wrath on the Son). Dawkins' objection is that the Cross doesn't really do anything. If God wanted to forgive He could have just done it. Therefore Christians, pack up and go home, God is a maniacal bully. Well, so how does the Cross make sense?
Well, I give an answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Op8GaQnlAo
But I'll summarize it here ;)
The Dilemma
Suppose you got Judge Bobby and murderer Felicia and victim Lil'Timmy. Felicia killed Lil'Timmy. Now if Bobby is a just Judge, is he going to just "forgive" or excuse Felicia? THIS is actually the great dilemma of the Christian faith. For the Apostle Paul, the issue was NOT how can a good God allow bad things to happen to good people? The issue was: how can a good God forgive thoroughly jacked up rebels? So how is God to be simultaneously just, and merciful?
Justice
Okay, so let's think about what justice is. If Felicia stole Lil'Timmy's car, she'd get in trouble. However, if she murdered Lil'Timmy, she'd get a more severe punishment. Why?
I assume we all agree that people matter. People have intrinsic value. Stealing someone's car devalues them because it ignores that person's ownership of property. Stealing, in essence, says that the person's ownership doesn't matter...which devalues the person himself. However, shooting Lil'Timmy devalues him MUCH more than stealing his car. Rather than denying his right to ownership, one devalues the worth of his life by taking it. Should Felicia go free if she's really really sorry for it the next day? Of course not! The judge must deal justice.
So what is justice? Well, suppose Felicia gets a life sentence. What does the life sentence demonstrate? When the perpetrator is punished, it demonstrates that the victim mattered. In other words, the penalty of a crime says this: you ignored the worth of this person, and thus in order to honor the worth of said person, we will uphold it through punishment. The purpose of punishment, then, is to emphasize and uphold the worth of the victim of a crime.
Objections Considered and Smashed John Cena Style
But of course, someone will object: doesn't the punishment devalue the worth of the criminal? Not at all. Tied into our worth as human beings is an obligation to honor the fellow man. In other words, part of my value consists in my obligation to honor others. Thus, when I fail to uphold those obligations, to deal punishment actually respects my worth as a human being. Punishment treats me as a moral agent. Let me use an analogy.
Suppose you have a kid named "Obnoxious Punk-butt Jr. III". We'll call him "Kanye". Now, Kanye is at his sister's art competition as a five year old. His sister is about to win, but before she accepts her away, Kanye steals the mic and says, "yo sis, you did good and imma let you finish, but BEYONCE HAD THE BEST PAINTING OF ALL TIME." At that moment, you scream "SHE'S NOT THAT KIND OF ARTIST. HOW DID YOU COME OUT OF MY BIRTH CANAL?" But more than that, you're at a cross roads. You love this kid. He is, after all, your son. So what do you do?
Let me ask this question. Is it loving to punish a disobedient son for failing to uphold his moral obligations, or is it loving? Of course, one would immediately point out the flaw in this argument: judgment here is meant to be restitutional, not retributional! Well, let's take this one step further. If your son rapes and kills someone (yup that changed quickly), do you turn him in? I'd argue that it would be right AND loving to turn him in. Why? Because in treating him as a moral agent, you a.) do not trivialize his role as a human being and b) you emphasize the seriousness of devaluing another person.
In other words, a punishment doesn't devalue the worth of the perpetrator because the perpetrator's worth (in part) demands that he keep his obligation to the fellow man. In inflicting punishment, that failure is acknowledged. In a sense, the worth of the perpetrator is being upheld (in a different way than the victim, of course). The perpetrator's worth is being upheld in that he's being treated as a moral agent. So punishment does not devalue the perpetrator, but rather properly treats him in accord with his intrinsic worth.
Why is the Cross Just?
My definition still stands, then. Justice is to uphold the worth of the victim devalued in the crime. Now, suppose our sin devalues and dishonors God. Then God is the victim here. HIS worth was trampled on. So if Jesus is dying p for us, then the charge holds. Jesus's death was not just.
So how exactly was God's worth mocked? If God is the source and origin of all goodness, He is therefore the embodiment of all goodness. When we sin, we pretty much give God the finger. We say "honoring you doesn't matter!" Hence, we are rejecting the embodiment of all goodness in reality. Thus, if God is to be just with how He relates to rebel sinners, He must uphold His worth. He must demonstrate His opposition to all that opposes and mocks His value. He must vindicate His infinite worth in light of how it is being mocked by sinners. Therefore, God must deal with sin in such a way that shines forth His infinite value. This is where the Cross comes in.
The Cross
On the Cross, Jesus (who, remember, shares God's own Being, and thus is Himself fully Divine as well as fully Human) takes sin on Himself. He takes the full weight of evil, and conquers it in His death. God the Father pours out His infinite wrath against sin in the flesh of Jesus (not against Jesus Himself, but against sin. Jesus bears God's wrath because He bears our sin), and thus destroys evil in the willing, obedient death of His Son. In light of crushing evil under His wrath (which is His intense anger and judicial action against all that defaces His value in creation), He vindicates His worth because His glory is the only thing left standing. When Christ takes on sin onto Himself, dies, and is raised, Jesus conquers the sins of His people. He conquers and triumphs over death, and initiates God's new creation. Hence, sin, suffering, and brokenness is dealt the death blow at the Cross. This leaves God's beautiful worth vindicated in how it stands victorious over those things in the risen Christ. Not only does it display the worth of God's value in opposing evil, but it also displays God's worth in His infinite grace and mercy. See, the Cross also kills the old nature of those who are united to Christ by faith. The Cross purchases a particular people for Christ, such that God ensures His people (the people of faith in Christ) new life.
What does that mean? When one believes in Christ, He is united to Him. His old man dies in the death of Christ, and the new life Christ obtained in Christ is shared with those who are adopted in Christ. So God, when He unites someone to Christ, places His Holy Spirit in that person. He's not releasing criminals back onto the population. He also destroys their old identity and restores them. Hence, God displays the riches of His grace; He would have been totally just to damn said sinner to hell. However, He doesn't. So God is just because He upholds His infinite worth. God is merciful because He doesn't damn sinners He had every right to. And THAT'S the brilliance of the Cross!
Human Analogies Smashed John Cena Style
Now of course, Shabir Ally (a famous Muslim apologist) argues that this is still cruel. He says it's like a human judge who, seeing a bunch of criminals, brings out his son as the son begs for mercy, and gives him the death penalty while letting the criminals going free. Never mind that Jesus's death was completely willing. This parallel fails for one key reason: when a criminal commits a crime, he is not defacing the worth of the judge. Yet, whenever we do evil-because God is the source and origin of all goodness in reality-we are defacing His worth every single time. Additionally, because Jesus shares the being of God, Jesus Himself vindicates God's worth by taking evil and gloriously triumphing over it. He shows the worth of His superiority to it and power over it.
Suppose we modify the example so that the criminals are being tried for an attempted murder attempt on the judge. Is it right for the judge to impute the crimes of the criminals to the son? Well, we know there are cases where such an imputation would be just. Suppose the criminals had a big ol' fine for blowing up the Liberty Bell. The son offers to pay the fine-we're all good!
Similarly, Jesus makes a "payment". "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). What does that mean? Jesus Himself made the payment for us. Justice had to be satisfied, and Jesus footed the bill.
It also means something much more profound. I'm an idealist. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it. I think God has the power to make an actual, ontological transfer of evil onto Jesus. That is, whereas a human judge cannot in any sense take the crimes or the evil inherent in a crime and place it onto a human, God has said power (I think because the world exists in His mind-it would be as easy as transferring the information that constitutes a particular evil and imputing it to Christ by just thinking it), God absolutely can. So because God ACTUALLY DESTROYS evil in the death of Christ, it is right for Him to vindicate His worth by imputing sin to Christ.
Concluding thoughts
God must judge sin because He is just. Anything less than that, and God would not be God. Yet, because God is also unspeakably merciful and loving, God redeemed a people for Himself, and made salvation available to all. Oh the riches of His grace! May my God be glorified through Jesus Christ. Because of the Lamb, your crimes can be forgiven-He knocks at the door, willing to grant new life to all those who rest in Him!
"Isn't the Cross the most disgusting thing about the New Testament?" He asks in snide derision, as if no one has ever thought about this for the past 2000 years. Ever. Now, I admit, the theologian he was talking to struck me as a bit of a tool (he avoided the fact that God DOES pour out His wrath on the Son). Dawkins' objection is that the Cross doesn't really do anything. If God wanted to forgive He could have just done it. Therefore Christians, pack up and go home, God is a maniacal bully. Well, so how does the Cross make sense?
Well, I give an answer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Op8GaQnlAo
But I'll summarize it here ;)
The Dilemma
Suppose you got Judge Bobby and murderer Felicia and victim Lil'Timmy. Felicia killed Lil'Timmy. Now if Bobby is a just Judge, is he going to just "forgive" or excuse Felicia? THIS is actually the great dilemma of the Christian faith. For the Apostle Paul, the issue was NOT how can a good God allow bad things to happen to good people? The issue was: how can a good God forgive thoroughly jacked up rebels? So how is God to be simultaneously just, and merciful?
Justice
Okay, so let's think about what justice is. If Felicia stole Lil'Timmy's car, she'd get in trouble. However, if she murdered Lil'Timmy, she'd get a more severe punishment. Why?
I assume we all agree that people matter. People have intrinsic value. Stealing someone's car devalues them because it ignores that person's ownership of property. Stealing, in essence, says that the person's ownership doesn't matter...which devalues the person himself. However, shooting Lil'Timmy devalues him MUCH more than stealing his car. Rather than denying his right to ownership, one devalues the worth of his life by taking it. Should Felicia go free if she's really really sorry for it the next day? Of course not! The judge must deal justice.
So what is justice? Well, suppose Felicia gets a life sentence. What does the life sentence demonstrate? When the perpetrator is punished, it demonstrates that the victim mattered. In other words, the penalty of a crime says this: you ignored the worth of this person, and thus in order to honor the worth of said person, we will uphold it through punishment. The purpose of punishment, then, is to emphasize and uphold the worth of the victim of a crime.
Objections Considered and Smashed John Cena Style
But of course, someone will object: doesn't the punishment devalue the worth of the criminal? Not at all. Tied into our worth as human beings is an obligation to honor the fellow man. In other words, part of my value consists in my obligation to honor others. Thus, when I fail to uphold those obligations, to deal punishment actually respects my worth as a human being. Punishment treats me as a moral agent. Let me use an analogy.
Suppose you have a kid named "Obnoxious Punk-butt Jr. III". We'll call him "Kanye". Now, Kanye is at his sister's art competition as a five year old. His sister is about to win, but before she accepts her away, Kanye steals the mic and says, "yo sis, you did good and imma let you finish, but BEYONCE HAD THE BEST PAINTING OF ALL TIME." At that moment, you scream "SHE'S NOT THAT KIND OF ARTIST. HOW DID YOU COME OUT OF MY BIRTH CANAL?" But more than that, you're at a cross roads. You love this kid. He is, after all, your son. So what do you do?
Let me ask this question. Is it loving to punish a disobedient son for failing to uphold his moral obligations, or is it loving? Of course, one would immediately point out the flaw in this argument: judgment here is meant to be restitutional, not retributional! Well, let's take this one step further. If your son rapes and kills someone (yup that changed quickly), do you turn him in? I'd argue that it would be right AND loving to turn him in. Why? Because in treating him as a moral agent, you a.) do not trivialize his role as a human being and b) you emphasize the seriousness of devaluing another person.
In other words, a punishment doesn't devalue the worth of the perpetrator because the perpetrator's worth (in part) demands that he keep his obligation to the fellow man. In inflicting punishment, that failure is acknowledged. In a sense, the worth of the perpetrator is being upheld (in a different way than the victim, of course). The perpetrator's worth is being upheld in that he's being treated as a moral agent. So punishment does not devalue the perpetrator, but rather properly treats him in accord with his intrinsic worth.
Why is the Cross Just?
My definition still stands, then. Justice is to uphold the worth of the victim devalued in the crime. Now, suppose our sin devalues and dishonors God. Then God is the victim here. HIS worth was trampled on. So if Jesus is dying p for us, then the charge holds. Jesus's death was not just.
So how exactly was God's worth mocked? If God is the source and origin of all goodness, He is therefore the embodiment of all goodness. When we sin, we pretty much give God the finger. We say "honoring you doesn't matter!" Hence, we are rejecting the embodiment of all goodness in reality. Thus, if God is to be just with how He relates to rebel sinners, He must uphold His worth. He must demonstrate His opposition to all that opposes and mocks His value. He must vindicate His infinite worth in light of how it is being mocked by sinners. Therefore, God must deal with sin in such a way that shines forth His infinite value. This is where the Cross comes in.
The Cross
On the Cross, Jesus (who, remember, shares God's own Being, and thus is Himself fully Divine as well as fully Human) takes sin on Himself. He takes the full weight of evil, and conquers it in His death. God the Father pours out His infinite wrath against sin in the flesh of Jesus (not against Jesus Himself, but against sin. Jesus bears God's wrath because He bears our sin), and thus destroys evil in the willing, obedient death of His Son. In light of crushing evil under His wrath (which is His intense anger and judicial action against all that defaces His value in creation), He vindicates His worth because His glory is the only thing left standing. When Christ takes on sin onto Himself, dies, and is raised, Jesus conquers the sins of His people. He conquers and triumphs over death, and initiates God's new creation. Hence, sin, suffering, and brokenness is dealt the death blow at the Cross. This leaves God's beautiful worth vindicated in how it stands victorious over those things in the risen Christ. Not only does it display the worth of God's value in opposing evil, but it also displays God's worth in His infinite grace and mercy. See, the Cross also kills the old nature of those who are united to Christ by faith. The Cross purchases a particular people for Christ, such that God ensures His people (the people of faith in Christ) new life.
What does that mean? When one believes in Christ, He is united to Him. His old man dies in the death of Christ, and the new life Christ obtained in Christ is shared with those who are adopted in Christ. So God, when He unites someone to Christ, places His Holy Spirit in that person. He's not releasing criminals back onto the population. He also destroys their old identity and restores them. Hence, God displays the riches of His grace; He would have been totally just to damn said sinner to hell. However, He doesn't. So God is just because He upholds His infinite worth. God is merciful because He doesn't damn sinners He had every right to. And THAT'S the brilliance of the Cross!
Human Analogies Smashed John Cena Style
Now of course, Shabir Ally (a famous Muslim apologist) argues that this is still cruel. He says it's like a human judge who, seeing a bunch of criminals, brings out his son as the son begs for mercy, and gives him the death penalty while letting the criminals going free. Never mind that Jesus's death was completely willing. This parallel fails for one key reason: when a criminal commits a crime, he is not defacing the worth of the judge. Yet, whenever we do evil-because God is the source and origin of all goodness in reality-we are defacing His worth every single time. Additionally, because Jesus shares the being of God, Jesus Himself vindicates God's worth by taking evil and gloriously triumphing over it. He shows the worth of His superiority to it and power over it.
Suppose we modify the example so that the criminals are being tried for an attempted murder attempt on the judge. Is it right for the judge to impute the crimes of the criminals to the son? Well, we know there are cases where such an imputation would be just. Suppose the criminals had a big ol' fine for blowing up the Liberty Bell. The son offers to pay the fine-we're all good!
Similarly, Jesus makes a "payment". "The wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). What does that mean? Jesus Himself made the payment for us. Justice had to be satisfied, and Jesus footed the bill.
It also means something much more profound. I'm an idealist. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it. I think God has the power to make an actual, ontological transfer of evil onto Jesus. That is, whereas a human judge cannot in any sense take the crimes or the evil inherent in a crime and place it onto a human, God has said power (I think because the world exists in His mind-it would be as easy as transferring the information that constitutes a particular evil and imputing it to Christ by just thinking it), God absolutely can. So because God ACTUALLY DESTROYS evil in the death of Christ, it is right for Him to vindicate His worth by imputing sin to Christ.
Concluding thoughts
God must judge sin because He is just. Anything less than that, and God would not be God. Yet, because God is also unspeakably merciful and loving, God redeemed a people for Himself, and made salvation available to all. Oh the riches of His grace! May my God be glorified through Jesus Christ. Because of the Lamb, your crimes can be forgiven-He knocks at the door, willing to grant new life to all those who rest in Him!
Monday, February 9, 2015
Personally Collected Miracle Accounts
So I decided that it would be neat if I asked a bunch of brothers and sisters from the Christian Apologetics Alliance if they could relate times they had personally experienced miracles. I will leave the reader to be the judge of whether they are. I personally believe that whether God acts in accord with His natural operations (what most people would call "natural cause"), or if He acts redemptively (what most would call "supernatural/divine intervention"...I don't use those words because I think it implies deism...but more on that in another post), all things are sovereignly governed by God. So here are the accounts I collected-many of whom are eyewitnesses to these things :)
1.) "My son was in the passenger seat of his dad's truck when they were in an accident. The dents in the truck went from the front end of the passenger side to the rear end of the passenger side...but skipped my son's door."
2.)
" I had kidney failure and a rare blood disease (Henoch-Schonlein Purpura) when I was 5 years old. The doctors told my parents that I would not survive. Miraculously, all the pain, symptoms, purpura, went away in a matter of just a couple days; all my bodily functions were restored to normal; white blood cell count increased; immune system functioned properly again... It was said to be nothing short of a miracle by the doctors, and I think I believe it was..."
3.) "Jesus saved me. That is a bigger and greater miracle that anything temporary that will happen on this Earth."
4.) " I have often thought when something happens like a "miracle" in my life... wow after all God has already done for me... the worm that I am... He is still personally involved in my life in so many ways..... there is NO GOD like the ONE TRUE GOD"
5.) "After a group prayed...myself included...I witnessed a mother who had her optic nerve severed after playing ball with her children, regain sight. In fact, the husband stated that she ended up seeing better after the event than she did before it occurred."
6.) "Around 4 months ago 3 friends prayed for me in the car. After 3min of praying i start feeling a sensation of something really clean and holy entering my body. It feels as if im breathing a pure oxygen i never knew existed. My friends noticed how my breathing changed. After seconds my hands were filling sticky, as if they were sleeping but in a really good way. My hands automatically turned into the prayer position by my chest and as i looked at them, i asked myself "noooo waaay! Whats happening?!" The sensation got more and more intense and in the end i was looking straight up the roof of the car as if i were staring at God himself... it was one of the most euphoric happy holy awesome exoerienece i ever lived. It lasted for around 10 minutes. All the windows were fogged aswell because of my breathing and i was wondering "what did just happen?!" While knowkng the answer. It felt like this holy pressence cleaned my dirty sinful soul through holy water and i felt cleansed and euphoric. I understood why sin is bad and how God is good. After the prayer we talked about it and i had alot of energy and was really euphoric in ecstasy of what id call "filled with the holy spirit". I went home jumping on the side stones cause i was full of energy. I came home and told my dad. He also noticed on my face something extraordinary happened because of how happy i was. It was awesome. They were 3 ppl who prayed for me. The next day i continue reading Matthew, and coincidently, a verse struck me "wherever there are two or three gathered in my name. Therei will be among them"
Moral of the story; never underestimate the power of prayer"
7.) "I haven't had a drink of alcohol in 18 years by the Grace of God"
8.) "Years ago I was trying to find a Bible for my grandmother. It was Sunday and all the Christian book stores were closed. I was guided in a part of town I had never been in to a secular book store that had perfect Bible for her. I also have 12 years parole from the prison of alcoholism, by order of the King."
9.) "As a new Christian, went to bed with a cancerous inoperable tumor on temple. Woke up without it. God is marvelous!"
10.) "My mom didn't get married to my dad until she was about 37 years old. By that time, she already had severe endometriosis. She had me about 2 years later. A long time after, when she finally had a hysterectomy in order to prevent uterine cancer, the doctor said that, based on what her uterus looked like when it came out, having a child should have been a physical impossibility since her early 30s. This came after my grandfather (my dad's stepdad) confided in her privately that he thought I was special and wished he could be around to see what God had in store for me. He died in a hit-and-run not long after that. Honestly, re-remembering all this gives me the heebie-jeebies sometimes
I would consider a woman understanding me in her own language not as tongues, but a miracle of hearing that she was given to hear the gospel and me praying over her.
Also, a demonized man was barred from entering a fenced in area where Scripture was being read day and night (Genesis to Revelation). It was as though he smacked his head on a brick wall. When he was allowed to enter, the demon left and he was in his right mind.
There's more, but these are a few that stick out off the top of my head."
13.) " I was instantly healed of smoking cigs through prayer. No side affects, no desire. Done. Completely gone. I should add I had smoked at least two packs a day for 17 years."
----
One night around 9:00 pm I was at my computer desk. The Holy Spirit had came over me and I knew immediately what I had to do. I had to go to work and sit in my bosses chair to wait for a phone call. Before we leave work at 5:00 pm, we transfer line 1 to the answering service. I was there waiting for a phone call and it came in on line one and the answering service didn't answer it. I picked it up and stated my company name and and my name and a little old lady asked if this was the mowing company. I told her no, but I said that I will come and mow your yard tomorrow after work. She had dialed the wrong number to my work instead of the mowing company. After work the next day, I went and mowed her yard and it was pouring down rain but I was the happiest man on earth because I was smack dab in the middle of God's will. Then a song had came to my mind, "It's beginning to rain, hear the voice of the Father. Saying whosoever will, come drink of this water. I will pour my spirit out on my sons and my daughters. If you're thirsty and dry look up to the sky, it's beginning to rain".
----
When I was in Army in Germany back in the early 90's, I was doing CQ duty. In the morning one of the Sergeants came in with bite marks on his arm. I asked him what happened and he said "My wife goes into a fit of rage and attacks me and her eyes turn red." Well, I knew what that was. She had evil spirits in her. So I asked him if he could talk to his wife and come to our church for deliverance. He asked her and she said yes. That Sunday after church, we started praying for her and she began to manifest. She was cussing, spitting and writhing around on the floor. We commanded the demons to tell us how they got into her in Jesus Name and one of the demons stated 'through depression'. Then it started complaining about Matthew and Mark and how it was cast out by them also. She was set free. Times of refreshing had came to them.
There are alot of other stories I have and I give God the glory for His help.
My grandmother was told by the doctors that her daughter (my aunt) wouldn't live to see the end of the month. She's turning 65 in 4 days.
Prayer played a big part in both these events which I think required divine intervention.
22.) "My dad had terminal cancer most his life. It started about 17 years ago. Since my dad was 16 he was a militant Atheist. "Science will prove everything". He got cancer when he was 33 i believe. About a year later the doctors came to him and said he had to get surgery to take the rumor out of his neck. Since the rumor was attached to his spinal cord, the surgery was either gojng to kill him or paralyze him from the neck down. After my dad was told this, a couple nights before his surgery he prayed to God( he didn't believe in him, so he started it with sonething like "if there is a God), and he asked him to live long enough to see his kids go through college(in my case the military :D) and God shrank the tumor two nights later overnight. Me and my sister have the MRI'S and doctors testimony prove this physically impossible task. The Lord took my dad last April, but He was a walking miracle that brought many people to Christ."
23.) "When my youngest was born, she was put in the nursery on her back three hours before a physical exam. The doctor realized she had a cleft palate, a small chin, and tongue set too far back. This meant that when they bagan monitering, they could not stop the tongue from rolling back and blocking the airway for more than 2 and a quarter minutes. After this, she required surgery, and was never left on her back, yet somehow she survived. This got my attention, and I was converted 6 weeks later."
24.) "Science, or at least a few scientists, said that my wife wouldn't conceive. God said otherwise. My son turns 4 in March."
25.) " I have witnessed several miracles, but the one that comes to mind happened in Russia. I was there with Athletes in Action to teach American football to Russian kids while also sharing Jesus. Playing basketball with some of our translators resulted in a pretty severe ankle injury for me. As I hobbled back to my dorm, one of our translators asked permission to pray for my ankle. I consented. Before he finished praying I could walk on my ankle again with no pain at all."
26.) https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeff-howery/a-minor-miracle-a-long-time-ago-in-a-galaxy-20-miles-away/59357189384
1.) "My son was in the passenger seat of his dad's truck when they were in an accident. The dents in the truck went from the front end of the passenger side to the rear end of the passenger side...but skipped my son's door."
2.)
" I had kidney failure and a rare blood disease (Henoch-Schonlein Purpura) when I was 5 years old. The doctors told my parents that I would not survive. Miraculously, all the pain, symptoms, purpura, went away in a matter of just a couple days; all my bodily functions were restored to normal; white blood cell count increased; immune system functioned properly again... It was said to be nothing short of a miracle by the doctors, and I think I believe it was..."
3.) "Jesus saved me. That is a bigger and greater miracle that anything temporary that will happen on this Earth."
4.) " I have often thought when something happens like a "miracle" in my life... wow after all God has already done for me... the worm that I am... He is still personally involved in my life in so many ways..... there is NO GOD like the ONE TRUE GOD"
5.) "After a group prayed...myself included...I witnessed a mother who had her optic nerve severed after playing ball with her children, regain sight. In fact, the husband stated that she ended up seeing better after the event than she did before it occurred."
6.) "Around 4 months ago 3 friends prayed for me in the car. After 3min of praying i start feeling a sensation of something really clean and holy entering my body. It feels as if im breathing a pure oxygen i never knew existed. My friends noticed how my breathing changed. After seconds my hands were filling sticky, as if they were sleeping but in a really good way. My hands automatically turned into the prayer position by my chest and as i looked at them, i asked myself "noooo waaay! Whats happening?!" The sensation got more and more intense and in the end i was looking straight up the roof of the car as if i were staring at God himself... it was one of the most euphoric happy holy awesome exoerienece i ever lived. It lasted for around 10 minutes. All the windows were fogged aswell because of my breathing and i was wondering "what did just happen?!" While knowkng the answer. It felt like this holy pressence cleaned my dirty sinful soul through holy water and i felt cleansed and euphoric. I understood why sin is bad and how God is good. After the prayer we talked about it and i had alot of energy and was really euphoric in ecstasy of what id call "filled with the holy spirit". I went home jumping on the side stones cause i was full of energy. I came home and told my dad. He also noticed on my face something extraordinary happened because of how happy i was. It was awesome. They were 3 ppl who prayed for me. The next day i continue reading Matthew, and coincidently, a verse struck me "wherever there are two or three gathered in my name. Therei will be among them"
Moral of the story; never underestimate the power of prayer"
7.) "I haven't had a drink of alcohol in 18 years by the Grace of God"
8.) "Years ago I was trying to find a Bible for my grandmother. It was Sunday and all the Christian book stores were closed. I was guided in a part of town I had never been in to a secular book store that had perfect Bible for her. I also have 12 years parole from the prison of alcoholism, by order of the King."
9.) "As a new Christian, went to bed with a cancerous inoperable tumor on temple. Woke up without it. God is marvelous!"
10.) "My mom didn't get married to my dad until she was about 37 years old. By that time, she already had severe endometriosis. She had me about 2 years later. A long time after, when she finally had a hysterectomy in order to prevent uterine cancer, the doctor said that, based on what her uterus looked like when it came out, having a child should have been a physical impossibility since her early 30s. This came after my grandfather (my dad's stepdad) confided in her privately that he thought I was special and wished he could be around to see what God had in store for me. He died in a hit-and-run not long after that. Honestly, re-remembering all this gives me the heebie-jeebies sometimes
11.) "n 2004 I was diagnosed with an enlarged aorta. The cardiologist told me I had the same problem that killed John Ritter. I was on my way to the Utah-Idaho SBC meeting when I saw my cardiologist, so I continued on to the meeting after getting the news. I had a followup appt. set a week later. They prayed for me at the meeting and at the three churches that I pastored at the time. When I went for my followup test my aorta was normal. The doctors assumed that there was a problem with the first test, I call it a miracle."
12.) " had my neck healed on the spot when a friend prayed over it (warming sensation then I felt great). A mans hand that was crushed by a car was restored on the spot outside the rescue mission in OKC. My eye was healed of a corneal ulcer in a matter of hours after prayer
even though the doc was convinced I'd lose my sight in that eye. 12.) " had my neck healed on the spot when a friend prayed over it (warming sensation then I felt great). A mans hand that was crushed by a car was restored on the spot outside the rescue mission in OKC. My eye was healed of a corneal ulcer in a matter of hours after prayer
I would consider a woman understanding me in her own language not as tongues, but a miracle of hearing that she was given to hear the gospel and me praying over her.
Also, a demonized man was barred from entering a fenced in area where Scripture was being read day and night (Genesis to Revelation). It was as though he smacked his head on a brick wall. When he was allowed to enter, the demon left and he was in his right mind.
There's more, but these are a few that stick out off the top of my head."
13.) " I was instantly healed of smoking cigs through prayer. No side affects, no desire. Done. Completely gone. I should add I had smoked at least two packs a day for 17 years."
14.) Every single christian has experienced atleast 1 miracle.
15.) Our little girl was sick and coughing alot for a few days. We decided to keep her in between us in bed one night. We put down a towel for her just in case she threw up. During that night and into the morning should would cough. Around 3:00 am I asked God to send a ministering angel (Heb 1:14) to come and minister healing to her. At around 3:30 am, my wife and I heard the sound of water in the room and someone putting something in the water and moving it around. The sound left and the room became peaceful and we went back to sleep. Little girl didn't cough anymore. Around 6:00 am, she was up and running around playing like she had never been sick. Her towel was wet with water but she was dry. Then the Lord had brought a verse to my mind, John 5:4,
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."----
One night around 9:00 pm I was at my computer desk. The Holy Spirit had came over me and I knew immediately what I had to do. I had to go to work and sit in my bosses chair to wait for a phone call. Before we leave work at 5:00 pm, we transfer line 1 to the answering service. I was there waiting for a phone call and it came in on line one and the answering service didn't answer it. I picked it up and stated my company name and and my name and a little old lady asked if this was the mowing company. I told her no, but I said that I will come and mow your yard tomorrow after work. She had dialed the wrong number to my work instead of the mowing company. After work the next day, I went and mowed her yard and it was pouring down rain but I was the happiest man on earth because I was smack dab in the middle of God's will. Then a song had came to my mind, "It's beginning to rain, hear the voice of the Father. Saying whosoever will, come drink of this water. I will pour my spirit out on my sons and my daughters. If you're thirsty and dry look up to the sky, it's beginning to rain".
----
When I was in Army in Germany back in the early 90's, I was doing CQ duty. In the morning one of the Sergeants came in with bite marks on his arm. I asked him what happened and he said "My wife goes into a fit of rage and attacks me and her eyes turn red." Well, I knew what that was. She had evil spirits in her. So I asked him if he could talk to his wife and come to our church for deliverance. He asked her and she said yes. That Sunday after church, we started praying for her and she began to manifest. She was cussing, spitting and writhing around on the floor. We commanded the demons to tell us how they got into her in Jesus Name and one of the demons stated 'through depression'. Then it started complaining about Matthew and Mark and how it was cast out by them also. She was set free. Times of refreshing had came to them.
There are alot of other stories I have and I give God the glory for His help.
16.) " I had epilepsy as a teen that was making me really struggle with my faith. Then I recall healing with it going dormant in a few months. I didn't know it at the time but I later learned my mom had the whole church praying for me."
17.) I was healed instantaneously of chronic bronchitis through prayer; another event here:http://www.thinkingchristian.net/.../E20061216.../index.html
17.) I was healed instantaneously of chronic bronchitis through prayer; another event here:http://www.thinkingchristian.net/.../E20061216.../index.html
I asked this one: instantly? He replied:
Instantly. And enduringly. I'd had that problem for years. It didn't come back.
18.) I'm alive - and not just a life form, but a multi-cellular, complex life form in the universe, a life form whose odds of existence are statistically essentially zero.
19.) Three different doctors from different agencies agreed the tumor in my leg was cancer; I still have the X-rays & reports but when they cut out the tumor, it wasn't a carcinoma. It was an angioma. Then in checking my lower torso to see if the cancer had spread from my leg, they accidentally scanned my lung where they found a mass on my lung that was Stage two cancer. The doctors said because I was asymptomatic (showing no symptoms whatsoever) it would have killed me
20.) I've experienced demonic supernatural events. Which isn't at all the same I guess but prayer plays a big role in most of the stories I have on the subject
21.) My mom and dad couldn't have children.
Instantly. And enduringly. I'd had that problem for years. It didn't come back.
18.) I'm alive - and not just a life form, but a multi-cellular, complex life form in the universe, a life form whose odds of existence are statistically essentially zero.
19.) Three different doctors from different agencies agreed the tumor in my leg was cancer; I still have the X-rays & reports but when they cut out the tumor, it wasn't a carcinoma. It was an angioma. Then in checking my lower torso to see if the cancer had spread from my leg, they accidentally scanned my lung where they found a mass on my lung that was Stage two cancer. The doctors said because I was asymptomatic (showing no symptoms whatsoever) it would have killed me
20.) I've experienced demonic supernatural events. Which isn't at all the same I guess but prayer plays a big role in most of the stories I have on the subject
21.) My mom and dad couldn't have children.
My grandmother was told by the doctors that her daughter (my aunt) wouldn't live to see the end of the month. She's turning 65 in 4 days.
Prayer played a big part in both these events which I think required divine intervention.
22.) "My dad had terminal cancer most his life. It started about 17 years ago. Since my dad was 16 he was a militant Atheist. "Science will prove everything". He got cancer when he was 33 i believe. About a year later the doctors came to him and said he had to get surgery to take the rumor out of his neck. Since the rumor was attached to his spinal cord, the surgery was either gojng to kill him or paralyze him from the neck down. After my dad was told this, a couple nights before his surgery he prayed to God( he didn't believe in him, so he started it with sonething like "if there is a God), and he asked him to live long enough to see his kids go through college(in my case the military :D) and God shrank the tumor two nights later overnight. Me and my sister have the MRI'S and doctors testimony prove this physically impossible task. The Lord took my dad last April, but He was a walking miracle that brought many people to Christ."
23.) "When my youngest was born, she was put in the nursery on her back three hours before a physical exam. The doctor realized she had a cleft palate, a small chin, and tongue set too far back. This meant that when they bagan monitering, they could not stop the tongue from rolling back and blocking the airway for more than 2 and a quarter minutes. After this, she required surgery, and was never left on her back, yet somehow she survived. This got my attention, and I was converted 6 weeks later."
24.) "Science, or at least a few scientists, said that my wife wouldn't conceive. God said otherwise. My son turns 4 in March."
25.) " I have witnessed several miracles, but the one that comes to mind happened in Russia. I was there with Athletes in Action to teach American football to Russian kids while also sharing Jesus. Playing basketball with some of our translators resulted in a pretty severe ankle injury for me. As I hobbled back to my dorm, one of our translators asked permission to pray for my ankle. I consented. Before he finished praying I could walk on my ankle again with no pain at all."
26.) https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeff-howery/a-minor-miracle-a-long-time-ago-in-a-galaxy-20-miles-away/59357189384
I'll also add this video by someone I consider highly reliable (as I consider all of these posters): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SK07TY1uh0
Now, of course, someone will look at these and say "oh those are just dishonest Christian apologists." Okay. Quite honestly, I can't refute that. But I'd also say that the burden of proof is on the one claiming such a thing.
Now many of these look ordinary (i.e "Jesus saved me"). But I judge that one the most extraordinary miracle of all. Really. That Christ would take a dead heart and breathe new life into us is AMAZING. That He would put His Spirit in us and call a rebel like me from death to life is wonderfully, beautifully loving and sweet. This is a God who has infinite power to heal and make new; so come to the infinite ocean of God's everlasting love, drink and be satisfied :)
Now, of course, someone will look at these and say "oh those are just dishonest Christian apologists." Okay. Quite honestly, I can't refute that. But I'd also say that the burden of proof is on the one claiming such a thing.
Now many of these look ordinary (i.e "Jesus saved me"). But I judge that one the most extraordinary miracle of all. Really. That Christ would take a dead heart and breathe new life into us is AMAZING. That He would put His Spirit in us and call a rebel like me from death to life is wonderfully, beautifully loving and sweet. This is a God who has infinite power to heal and make new; so come to the infinite ocean of God's everlasting love, drink and be satisfied :)
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Richard Carrier and His Sperm Problems
Richard Carrier is the most prominent proponent of Jesus-mythicism today. Out of all the mythicists, I will say he is the most capable. His ego certainly seems to reflect the fact that he's aware of it. However, his ego is over-inflated. I intend, over the next few weeks, to deconstruct several key arguments made in On the Historicity of Jesus. Deconstructing the whole thing would take an entire response. Here, I want to focus on his usage of the "sperma". He says in his book On the Historicity of Jesus that Paul uses a different word in Romans 1 to describe what is actually going on. Here's how the ESV translates the verse in question: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
(Romans 1:1-3 ESV)" Carrier believes that the word for "descended" should actually be "manufactured", and the word for "descended from David" should actually be "sperm of David. So, Carrier thinks that Paul was saying that the body of Jesus was "Davidic flesh"...i.e created from the sperm of Jesus. Seriously. To understand Carrier's theory, we have to understand his view of how the ancients viewed cosmology. Carrier states that there are three heavens. There is the our air-Earth. There is then the region right below the moon. There is then the firmament-which is kind of a fixed glass dome that surrounds us. So when Jesus was incarnate, he was an incarnate being in the second heaven-right below the moon. His followers received private hallucinations from this divine being.
(Romans 1:1-3 ESV)" Carrier believes that the word for "descended" should actually be "manufactured", and the word for "descended from David" should actually be "sperm of David. So, Carrier thinks that Paul was saying that the body of Jesus was "Davidic flesh"...i.e created from the sperm of Jesus. Seriously. To understand Carrier's theory, we have to understand his view of how the ancients viewed cosmology. Carrier states that there are three heavens. There is the our air-Earth. There is then the region right below the moon. There is then the firmament-which is kind of a fixed glass dome that surrounds us. So when Jesus was incarnate, he was an incarnate being in the second heaven-right below the moon. His followers received private hallucinations from this divine being.
So, in order to fulfill the prophecy about the Messiah being from David, Paul started to believe that the body of Jesus in the second heaven was created from Davidic flesh...from David's sperm. Hence, Paul's really saying that Jesus was manufactured (ginomai) from (ek-out of, denoting origin) the sperm (sperma) of David. So what can we say in response? Carrier is a looney.
Ginomai
Ginomai
First of all, let's examine the word "ginomai". Carrier makes a big deal of this because, in Galatians 4, Paul uses gennao to denote birth (the son of the slave as born according to the flesh), but ginomai to denote Jesus's birth. Hence, Carrier thinks that since Paul normally uses gennao to describe when someone was humanly born, and ginomai to describe manufacturing, Paul's not saying Jesus was born from the seed of David. There's just one tiny teeny problem with his argument. Paul NEVER uses "ginomai" to mean "manufactured". The closest Paul comes to that is "become" (i.e 2 Cor 5:21-He made Him who knew no sin to be sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God). Carrier claims this kind of usage is normative.
So let's survey how Paul uses the term otherwise, shall we? (the underlined portions will show where the term ginomai is being used)
Romans 11:25-"hardening [over Israel] has happened
1 Corinthians 10:6 "Now these things happened as examples for us"
1 Corinthians 10:6 "Now these things happened as examples for us"
1 Corinthians 10:32: Give no offense
1 Corinthians 14:26 "Let all things be done for edifaction
2 Corinthians 1:8 "...our affliction which came to us in Asia"
2 Corinthians 1:8 "...our affliction which came to us in Asia"
2 Cor 3:7 "...ministry of death...came..."
2 Corinthians 5:17 "If anyone is in Christ He is a new creation. The old has passed away, the new has come"
2 Cor 7:14 "has proved
Galatians 3:13-3:14
Christ became a curse for us so that blessings might come
Galatians 3:17 "....which came 430 years later"
Alrighty. So I think it's clear that Carrier is off his rocker with this term. In John 1, when the author declares that all things were made through the Logos, it uses this term. Hence, the term carries the meanings of arrival, or coming into being. It does not mean "manufactured"-I could not find one instance where Paul uses it like that. Rather, it means "to come into being", or connotes arrival. Literally, the term means "emerge into existence" in these kind of contexts (i.e Rom 11:25, 1 Cor 10:6, 1 Cor 14:26, 2 Cor 3:7, and others), but that's not always the case (as in 2 cor 7:14). However, most of the time it is-especially when it fits the context. Now let's take a look at sperm.
Sperma
The word sperma (literally, "seed"), when used in connection with a person, ALWAYS references physical lineage...i.e progeny. It ALWAYS talks about descent if it's connected to a person. Throughout the New Testament, it's used 100% of the time to talk about human descent if it's connected to a human. Paul uses it like that in Romans 9:29, Rom 11:1, 2 Cor 11:22, Galatians 3:16, and Galatians 3:29. The author of Hebrews uses it like that in 2:16, 2:11, and 11:18. The Gospels use it like that whenever it portrays the Jews calling themselves "offspring (sperma) of Abraham. So Carrier is just flat out wrong here. What does the verse in context actually mean?
Jesus came into existence (ginomai) from (ek-denoting origin, as in "out of") the offspring of David (i.e the human descendants) according to the flesh.
Jesus came into existence (ginomai) from (ek-denoting origin, as in "out of") the offspring of David (i.e the human descendants) according to the flesh.
According to the Flesh
One more thing before I treat his reading of Galatians 4. That CANNOT mean what Doherty and co. think it does-namely, in the realm of flesh. It means according to Jesus's humanity. Hence, in Romans 9:3, when Paul says that the Israelites are his kinsmen "according to the flesh", that means "according to Paul's humanity". It doesn't mean "in the same sphere of reality"-otherwise, when Paul said that the Israelites are his kinsmen "according to the flesh", that "according to the flesh" bit becomes superfluous. Of COURSE the Israelites were his kinsmen the same sphere of reality. Rather, Paul's emphasizing the point that there are other kinsmen he has-namely, those not according to the flesh but in Christ.
Conclusion
Paul believed Jesus was of human descent from David (Romans 1:3), and was an Israelite (Rom 9:5). And that's because Jesus existed.
The Sovereignty of God and the freedom of man
I believe that every single molecule-every single event-is governed by my Almighty God. Every single action we ever do or ever will do is predestined by His hand. So how can I reconcile God's sovereignty and man's responsibility? Is man just a puppet in the hand of God? Nope. First, I will briefly set out to establish that this is a Biblical doctrine. Secondly, I'll explain how man can still be considered free.
"The die is cast in the lot..."
The first text I will focus on is Ephesians 1.
" In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
(Ephesians 1:11-12 ESV)"
"The die is cast in the lot..."
The first text I will focus on is Ephesians 1.
" In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
(Ephesians 1:11-12 ESV)"
This text seems to me to be clear. Paul says that we (those who have obtained an inheritance-i.e Christians) have been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will. So God's predestination of His elect is rooted in His character as the one who works all things according to the counsel of His will. That means that everything-every tragedy or triumph-is worked in accord with the counsel of God's will.
"The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord.'
Proverbs 16:33
Why the lot? The author is trying to think of the most random thing he can think of. Yet every decision is from the Lord. So even what seems random to us is sovereignly ordained by God. Lamentations 3:33 says "can a man speak and have it happen unless the Lord has declared it?"
I could quote other verses, but from these it seems clear that God decrees all events. Does this mean God causally determines all events? While He is the ultimate cause of all things,, He's not the direct and immediate cause of all things. I think these verses show that God has a specific intention for everything that occurs. They don't show that He's the direct-rather, everything has a purpose. So God doesn't simply permit an action to occur-all actions are woven into God's design in the creation of the world. (As I've said, this doesn't mean God is the direct cause of such actions)
Man's freedom
So how is this to be understood within the context of the freedom of man? The Bible understand man to be totally depraved (see my post on "Why I am a Calvinist"). That means that every single one of our desires is bent inward-apart from God's grace, we have no good. Our wills are enslaved to our own desires, and we seek to exalt ourselves in all of our actions. God, therefore, restrains our hearts (by grace-i.e unmerited favor...something He does not have to give) by impressing His law on our hearts (Romans 2), and keeping people from sinning (Genesis 20:6). So this is what this means.
Man does good only because God actively produces goodness in him. If God were to fully give mankind over to himself, we'd destroy ourselves in our evil. Thus, God, in decreeing evil events, needs only give man over to himself. This isn't like an adult leaving a child with a gun for two reasons. One: the gun is something outside of the kid that enables the kid to do wrong. Sin is something that is a part of the core of our being. It is something that is a part of us. Two, a parent has a moral obligation to his kid as his parent. God has no obligation to us because He is the Sovereign Creator-as the Creator of life, God has total rights over it. Additionally, because man has willingly rejected (from nothing outside of himself-but of his own volition) God in His entirety, God has the right to destroy them. And He doesn't by His good grace alone.
So the only thing man freely wills in and of himself is sin. Some liken this to being incapacitated-but it's not. If I were to push Stephen Hawking to the floor and then tell him to get up, I'd be irrational to do so. He physically can't. However, suppose some weird dude just LOVES floors! So he hugs it and refuses to get up because he's so in love with floors. No take out "floors" and put in "sin". We have the physical ability-the body parts, the rational faculties-to obey God. However, because our desires are so thoroughly corrupt, the only thing we can do is sin because the only thing we want to do is sin.
So the goodness that is a part of people, then, is what NT Wright calls "glimmers of God". Humans, although fallen, still shine forth glimmers of who God is in them, because God hasn't inaugurated (in full) the new age yet. He still extends grace to people so that more and more will come to be conformed to His image, and show forth His beauty. And if you think that's egotistical, see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SA9hokDLPo
Christian Liberty
The way the regenerate person (the person who is indwelt by the Spirit) lives is slightly different. The regenerate person's old nature has been crucified with Christ. So there's a reversal that takes place. Whereas the good in someone who is outside of Christ are "glimmers of God" in them-but they in and of themselves are given to sin, the good in a Christian is (more and more, day by day) fundamentally who they are. As opposed to the non-Christian, where any good reflected in them is destined to be overcome by their sinful nature in light of eternity, for the Christian the opposite is true. So sin is "glimmers of the old self" in a Christian person that needs to be (and will be) put to death. The good in a Christian is still the goodness of God being produced in them-but as opposed to the non-regenerate person, God's goodness becomes more and more a fundamental part of who the Christian is. However, this gives the Christian ZERO grounds for boasting in him or herself. Any good we have still comes from God, only the result of the Spirit bringing about conformity to Christ in us. If God hadn't definitively regenerated our wills and caused us to cast ourselves onto Him, we'd be utterly lost. It is all grace.
"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now am found
Was blind but now I see"
-John Newton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)