As you read through the answers to these questions posted so far, I realize that first, I have not answered each question in its entirety. I will continue to post various thoughts in the days ahead as well as respond to questions that will hopefully come.
Second, I understand that these six questions are not the only questions that are being raised. These are just some of the more popular ones. I welcome other questions and discussion.
So as you read these answers feel free to respond and discuss. I look forward to our dialogue!
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Isn't the Bible just a bunch of made up stories? (part 2)
Reflect on the following statement by Voddie Baucham:
The Bible is a life-changing collection of historical documents, written by eyewitnesses who reported the occurrence of supernatural events; these events took place as fulfillment of specific prophecy, and point to the Bible’s divine origins.
There is much to unpack in Voddie's statement, but I want to just highlight one thing. What are we to make of the fact that the Bible is a life-changing document? What of the life change of those who not only wrote the Bible, but also those of the first generation of Christ's followers? In Cynics and Christian Origins, Francis Downing writes that it's only what happens next that you can make sense of Christian origins. What he means by "what happens next" is the explosion of the church despite opposition. If what was recorded in the Bible was false, why did it affect so many?
Questions?
Isn't the Bible just a bunch of made up stories?
An old preacher said one time that we defend the Bible like we defend a lion, we turn him loose. So I guess the first question I have for you as we consider this question is that do you read the Bible? If you do, do you read more as a moral code book or as a story about the God and creator of the universe reforming a relationship with his creation? I hope you will consider reading the Bible as a story of what God has done through the nation of Israel to reach the world.
There are two questions that need to be addressed in answering this question concerning the reliability of the Bible. First, were the authors of the Bible able to tell us about the events that were recorded? Second, were the authors willing to tell us about these events? I would like to specifically write about the book of Mark in the New Testament concerning these questions which means that we will be asking was Mark able to tell us about Jesus and was he willing?
In dealing with the first question, we seek to answer if what Mark wrote about Jesus is reliable for us. As we deal with this issue of reliability, we must remember that we do not have the original document Mark wrote, nor do we have that of any ancient document. So let's compare Mark's gospel with some other ancient documents. Consider Thucydides' History or Tacitus' Annals. These have at least 1000 years between the writing of the original and the earliest copy, yet we trust them to accurately record history. They also only have only 8 to 20 copies.
In comparing this with Mark's gospel, Mark only has 140 years between the original and the earliest copies. In addition, thousands of copies exist. So as a result, we have an accurate rendition of what he actually wrote.
Concerning the second question, the issue is whether or not we can trust Mark to tell us the truth about Jesus as he was not on the scene during Jesus' ministry. With this we need to compare the interval between the event and its being recorded by an author in other sources. In other words, how long after Jesus did Mark record his Gospel?
Let's compare Mark with Livy's report of the Law of the Twelve Tables, or Plutarch's record of the life of Alexander the Great. Both of these were written 400 to 450 years after the events yet both are valued as key sources. In contrast with Mark, there are only 25-30 years between Jesus' earthly ministry and Mark's writing. This should hold it as fairly reliable.
In terms of reliability of ancient documents, the Gospel of Mark passes the test with high marks. Though Mark is just one Gospel account, it does help show that the Bible is not just a bunch of made up stories.
Questions?
There are two questions that need to be addressed in answering this question concerning the reliability of the Bible. First, were the authors of the Bible able to tell us about the events that were recorded? Second, were the authors willing to tell us about these events? I would like to specifically write about the book of Mark in the New Testament concerning these questions which means that we will be asking was Mark able to tell us about Jesus and was he willing?
In dealing with the first question, we seek to answer if what Mark wrote about Jesus is reliable for us. As we deal with this issue of reliability, we must remember that we do not have the original document Mark wrote, nor do we have that of any ancient document. So let's compare Mark's gospel with some other ancient documents. Consider Thucydides' History or Tacitus' Annals. These have at least 1000 years between the writing of the original and the earliest copy, yet we trust them to accurately record history. They also only have only 8 to 20 copies.
In comparing this with Mark's gospel, Mark only has 140 years between the original and the earliest copies. In addition, thousands of copies exist. So as a result, we have an accurate rendition of what he actually wrote.
Concerning the second question, the issue is whether or not we can trust Mark to tell us the truth about Jesus as he was not on the scene during Jesus' ministry. With this we need to compare the interval between the event and its being recorded by an author in other sources. In other words, how long after Jesus did Mark record his Gospel?
Let's compare Mark with Livy's report of the Law of the Twelve Tables, or Plutarch's record of the life of Alexander the Great. Both of these were written 400 to 450 years after the events yet both are valued as key sources. In contrast with Mark, there are only 25-30 years between Jesus' earthly ministry and Mark's writing. This should hold it as fairly reliable.
In terms of reliability of ancient documents, the Gospel of Mark passes the test with high marks. Though Mark is just one Gospel account, it does help show that the Bible is not just a bunch of made up stories.
Questions?
If you're a God of love, why send someone to Hell?
I think the difficulty of this question lies in our understanding of God. We are told that God is a God of love and this is true, but that is not all that God is. We must also realize that he is holy, righteous, and just. As much as God is love, he is also just as holy. As much as God is merciful, he is also just as righteous. As much as God is forgiving, he is also just as righteous.
What this means is that in knowing that God is holy, we should also ask why God should allow anyone in to Heaven who has sinned against him? If God is righteous, then how can we who are unrighteous expect to avoid Hell?
The truth is that since God is holy and just, those who disobey him must be punished. Otherwise, he would not be just. Suppose that someone broke into your house and stole your most valuable possessions. Thankfully, three days later this thief was caught and appeared before a judge. You wait anxiously for justice to finally be handed down when the unthinkable happens. The judge lets this criminal who ravaged through your house go without any penalty. The one who caused tremendous cost to you now go free. This all due to the judges decision. Now what would you think of this judge? Would you think he is just? Why not? Isn't he just being loving?
When we say that God is just, he cannot overlook the wrongdoing we have done in this world. If he did, he would no longer be just. But because of the grace, mercy and love of God, he sent his Son to be the one who paid the penalty for our sin. God cannot let sin go unpunished. Therefore, Jesus went to the cross for it as at the cross that justice and mercy meet.
It is written in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that for our sake he [God] made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. God has made the provision that was needed! Will you trust in what he has done? Will you believe in what Christ did on the cross? For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God (1 Corinthians 1:18)
If you are really there, God, why on earth don't you prove it? (part 4)
I have one final thought before I leave this question and go to the next. What about Jesus? If he is who he said he was, does not he offer not only proof, but an understanding of the God of the universe. Most specifically, he is not just proof of God, but is God in the flesh.
Now I know what some are going to say. Where is the proof that he was God? True, it was recorded in the Bible, but I know some may not believe the Bible is reliable (see question concerning the Bible's authenticity). But let's suppose for a moment that I have proved to you that the Bible is trustworthy and that it meets all of the external and internal criteria needed to be a historically reliable document of antiquity. Knowing what you know about the need for a self-existent being, and also knowing that the Bible is authentic and thus records the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, who claims to be God, would not these two criteria answer one's question to the existence of God? Give it some thought!
I want to end by asking: If you are wanting proof for the existence of God, what kind of proof are you looking for? Are you open to the type of proof you claim to need? I know some who have said that if God would just perform a miracle, they would believe. My fear is that if he were to do some miracle in front of them that they would just rationalize it away. So how open are you to the truth that there is a God who is personal and one in whom not just created us, but also is the one in whom we are held accountable?
Now I know what some are going to say. Where is the proof that he was God? True, it was recorded in the Bible, but I know some may not believe the Bible is reliable (see question concerning the Bible's authenticity). But let's suppose for a moment that I have proved to you that the Bible is trustworthy and that it meets all of the external and internal criteria needed to be a historically reliable document of antiquity. Knowing what you know about the need for a self-existent being, and also knowing that the Bible is authentic and thus records the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, who claims to be God, would not these two criteria answer one's question to the existence of God? Give it some thought!
I want to end by asking: If you are wanting proof for the existence of God, what kind of proof are you looking for? Are you open to the type of proof you claim to need? I know some who have said that if God would just perform a miracle, they would believe. My fear is that if he were to do some miracle in front of them that they would just rationalize it away. So how open are you to the truth that there is a God who is personal and one in whom not just created us, but also is the one in whom we are held accountable?
If you are really there, God, why on earth don't you prove it? (part 3)
The final possibility for the existence of the universe is that a self-existent being created it. The question that we must ask is that is it rational to believe that an uncaused being exists? When some think about this they misunderstand the law of cause and effect. This law says that for every effect there must be a cause, but does NOT say that there must be a cause for everything. So it is logical for a being to exist that is self-existent.
But not only is it possible for a self-existent being to exist, it is also necessary. Because something exists now, we can reason that something has always existed for something cannot come from nothing unless it creates itself. So there has to have been something that is self-existent. But this being is also ontologically necessary, which means that "he exists by the necessity of his own being." This being cannot not exist.
The question is, is this being God? To further make us think about this being we need to understand that this being, whom I will call God, is more than an unmoved mover. He is a one with purpose and personality. Therefore, creation is not just a random accident that is going nowhere, but has purpose and design.
A man by the name of R.C. Sproul wrote the following: Self-existent, formless, eternal matter has no personality. Impersonal forces have no mind, no will, and therefore cannot design anything. We recognize that personal reality exists in the universe. But it is precisely because God is personal and has a mind and will that his very existence is attacked. If God were conceived of as an amorphous, undefined "higher power" or impersonal force, there would be little theological fuss about him.
Now I realize that I skipped some steps in this process of moving from a self-existent being to that being actually being the God of the Bible who created with purpose, but in some ways it is a short step between the two. Basically, what I have deduced is that there is an uncaused cause that began the universe and this universe was not an accident, but has purpose. So because it has purpose, this self-existent being must have personality as was mentioned above.
Did these brief few paragraphs answer everyone's questions. I do not expect they did as there is much more that can be written. So, any questions?
But not only is it possible for a self-existent being to exist, it is also necessary. Because something exists now, we can reason that something has always existed for something cannot come from nothing unless it creates itself. So there has to have been something that is self-existent. But this being is also ontologically necessary, which means that "he exists by the necessity of his own being." This being cannot not exist.
The question is, is this being God? To further make us think about this being we need to understand that this being, whom I will call God, is more than an unmoved mover. He is a one with purpose and personality. Therefore, creation is not just a random accident that is going nowhere, but has purpose and design.
A man by the name of R.C. Sproul wrote the following: Self-existent, formless, eternal matter has no personality. Impersonal forces have no mind, no will, and therefore cannot design anything. We recognize that personal reality exists in the universe. But it is precisely because God is personal and has a mind and will that his very existence is attacked. If God were conceived of as an amorphous, undefined "higher power" or impersonal force, there would be little theological fuss about him.
Now I realize that I skipped some steps in this process of moving from a self-existent being to that being actually being the God of the Bible who created with purpose, but in some ways it is a short step between the two. Basically, what I have deduced is that there is an uncaused cause that began the universe and this universe was not an accident, but has purpose. So because it has purpose, this self-existent being must have personality as was mentioned above.
Did these brief few paragraphs answer everyone's questions. I do not expect they did as there is much more that can be written. So, any questions?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
If you are really there, God, why on earth don't you prove it? (part 2)
In terms of proving the existence of God, we start with the origins of the universe. We know that we exist (if you don't then that is another argument) and so the question is, why do we exist? Why is there something rather than nothing?
There are basically 4 possibilities to explain the reality of our existence. First, everthing is an illusion. We are not real. Second, everything is self-created. Left up to chance, the universe formed. Third, the universe is self-existent. It has always been. Or fourth, the universe has been created by something that is self-existent. Something eternal, uncreated, and outside of time and space formed our world. Each of these possibilites are indepent of one another. In other words, if one is true, then the others are false.
As I mentioned earlier, we know we exist, or rather, I'm going to go ahead and make that assumption to make this post a little shorter. So, this basically means that either the universe is self-existent, self-created, or it has been created. Let's take a quick look at the idea that the universe is self-created. By looking at the both the law of causality and the law of non-contradiction, the idea of self-creation is not logical. The law of causality states that for every effect there must be a cause which means that for the universe to be self-created, it would have to exist before it existed. But it cannot exist before it existed because that breaks the law of non-contradiction. The universe cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time. So, logically speaking the universe could not have been self-created. Granted, there is more that could be said and if questions ensue, I will definately be willing to answer.
So now, what about the idea that the universe is self-existent? This basically means that the universe has always been. Or at least there must have been eternal matter in which it one day exploded or something of the like and the earth was formed. This is basically the "Big Bang" theory. The question that must be asked is was the Big Bang possible without an outside force? What caused it? How was matter acted upon in order to move? It comes back to the law of cause and effect. And, the law of inertia also comes into play. The law of intertia claims that a thing in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force and that things at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force. This brings us again to what started the Big Bang?
Now I know this most likely has raised more questions, but this is good. So, what are your thoughts?
For the final possible reason why the universe exists, I will start a new post!
There are basically 4 possibilities to explain the reality of our existence. First, everthing is an illusion. We are not real. Second, everything is self-created. Left up to chance, the universe formed. Third, the universe is self-existent. It has always been. Or fourth, the universe has been created by something that is self-existent. Something eternal, uncreated, and outside of time and space formed our world. Each of these possibilites are indepent of one another. In other words, if one is true, then the others are false.
As I mentioned earlier, we know we exist, or rather, I'm going to go ahead and make that assumption to make this post a little shorter. So, this basically means that either the universe is self-existent, self-created, or it has been created. Let's take a quick look at the idea that the universe is self-created. By looking at the both the law of causality and the law of non-contradiction, the idea of self-creation is not logical. The law of causality states that for every effect there must be a cause which means that for the universe to be self-created, it would have to exist before it existed. But it cannot exist before it existed because that breaks the law of non-contradiction. The universe cannot "be" and "not be" at the same time. So, logically speaking the universe could not have been self-created. Granted, there is more that could be said and if questions ensue, I will definately be willing to answer.
So now, what about the idea that the universe is self-existent? This basically means that the universe has always been. Or at least there must have been eternal matter in which it one day exploded or something of the like and the earth was formed. This is basically the "Big Bang" theory. The question that must be asked is was the Big Bang possible without an outside force? What caused it? How was matter acted upon in order to move? It comes back to the law of cause and effect. And, the law of inertia also comes into play. The law of intertia claims that a thing in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an outside force and that things at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force. This brings us again to what started the Big Bang?
Now I know this most likely has raised more questions, but this is good. So, what are your thoughts?
For the final possible reason why the universe exists, I will start a new post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)