Some of you have asked me questions about why I skipped over John 7:53-8:11 and didn't preach from it on Sunday. Well, I skipped over it because it is most likely NOT a part of John's Gospel, or any other Gospel account for that matter. Let me explain why:
1. This story contains several words that do not occur anywhere else in any of John's writings. Although this is not definitive in and of itself, it is suggestive of the fact that the story does not seem to fit with Johannine authorship.
2. The oldest and most reliable manuscripts we have of the New Testament do not contain this story.
3. It is not until the late Greek manuscripts and medieval manuscripts (12th century) that we see this narrative appear, and, even then, it is oftentimes marked as being questionable.
4. All of the early church fathers omit this story in their commentaries and sermons. Again, the first time this narrative is mentioned in commentaries or sermons is the 12th century.
5. Some of the manuscripts that do contain this account do not place it in John 7:53-8:11 but after John 7:36 or after John 21:25 or after Luke 21:38. All of which suggests that this pericope is not originally a part of the Gospel of John or any other Gospel either.
6. Among the manuscripts that do contain this account, many contain variations in the text of the story itself.
For all of these reasons, it seems best to conclude that this story was not part of John's Gospel or any other book of the Bible.
Eusebius does note that Papias, in the early second century, told a story of a woman who was accused of sin and brought before the Lord. But his story differs in at least two ways from the account we "have" in John: 1) he says the woman was accused not of one sin (adultery) but of many sins; and 2) he says the story was contained not in John but in the "Gospel according to the Hebrews."
Thus, the story itself may be true. It may really and truly have happened. But it doesn't appear ever to have been a part of John's Gospel or the Bible as a whole.
The reason the English translations place this passage (and others like it) in brackets is because the scholars responsible for the translations want us to know which passages may be somewhat questionable and which are beyond any doubt at all. They are not trying to hide anything or pull anything over on us Christians. They are trying to be completely open and transparent with the facts as we know them. There is not one doctrine of Christianity that would be affected in the least by removing this story from Scripture. There is not one doctrine that would be affected in the least by removing ANY of the extremely small number of passages that have questions attached to them.
Our discussion of John 7:53-8:11 should not cause you to doubt but to be assured all the more of the utter reliability of Scripture. The vast majority (something like 99.99% of the New Testament) is completely without question or doubt of any kind. Passages like John 7:53-8:11 are marked off by brackets and warnings so that you and I will know that the rest of the New Testament passages--that are not so marked off--are utterly reliable and trustworthy!
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
5th reason to pray in private!
Here is a fifth reason for why we should get alone to pray each day for an extended period. It's a reason that really is convicting and motivating!
God Most Manifests Himself in Secret.
"Consider that God has usually let out himself most to his people when they have been in secret, when they have been alone at the throne of grace.
"Whilst Daniel was at private prayer [in Dan. 9], God, by the angel Gabriel, reveals to him the secret of his counsel, concerning the restoration of Jerusalem, and the duration thereof, even to the Messiah; and whilst Daniel was at private prayer, the Lord appears to him, and in an extraordinary way assures him that he was 'a man greatly beloved'....God loves to load the wings of private prayer with the sweetest, choicest, and chiefest blessings."
See also the examples of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-4), Peter (Acts 10:9-13), Paul (Acts 9:12), John (Rev. 1:9ff; 5:1-9).
"Private prayer is a golden key to unlock the mysteries of the Word to us. The knowledge of many choice and blessed truths is but the outcome of private prayer....Certainly that Christian or that minister that in private prayer lies most at the feet of Jesus Christ, he shall understand most of the mind of Christ in the gospel, and he shall have most of heaven and the things of his own peace brought down into his heart."
"[Martin] Luther professes, 'That he profited more in the knowledge of the Scripture by private prayer in a short space, than he did by study in a longer space.'"
"Wise men give their best, their choicest, and their richest gifts in secret; and so does Christ give to his the best of the best, when they are in a corner, when they are all alone. But as for such as cannot spare time to seek God in a closet, to serve him in secret, they sufficiently show that they have little fellowship or friendship with God, whom they so seldom come to."
God Most Manifests Himself in Secret.
"Consider that God has usually let out himself most to his people when they have been in secret, when they have been alone at the throne of grace.
"Whilst Daniel was at private prayer [in Dan. 9], God, by the angel Gabriel, reveals to him the secret of his counsel, concerning the restoration of Jerusalem, and the duration thereof, even to the Messiah; and whilst Daniel was at private prayer, the Lord appears to him, and in an extraordinary way assures him that he was 'a man greatly beloved'....God loves to load the wings of private prayer with the sweetest, choicest, and chiefest blessings."
See also the examples of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-4), Peter (Acts 10:9-13), Paul (Acts 9:12), John (Rev. 1:9ff; 5:1-9).
"Private prayer is a golden key to unlock the mysteries of the Word to us. The knowledge of many choice and blessed truths is but the outcome of private prayer....Certainly that Christian or that minister that in private prayer lies most at the feet of Jesus Christ, he shall understand most of the mind of Christ in the gospel, and he shall have most of heaven and the things of his own peace brought down into his heart."
"[Martin] Luther professes, 'That he profited more in the knowledge of the Scripture by private prayer in a short space, than he did by study in a longer space.'"
"Wise men give their best, their choicest, and their richest gifts in secret; and so does Christ give to his the best of the best, when they are in a corner, when they are all alone. But as for such as cannot spare time to seek God in a closet, to serve him in secret, they sufficiently show that they have little fellowship or friendship with God, whom they so seldom come to."
Friday, April 20, 2007
A 4th reason to engage in private prayer
Here is a fourth reason to engage in private prayer:
"Secret duties shall have open rewards. Matt. 6:6, 'And thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.' So, verse 18, God will reward his people here in part, and hereafter in all perfection. He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him in a corner. They that sow in tears secretly, shall reap in joy openly. Private prayer shall be rewarded before men and angels publicly.
"How openly did God reward Daniel for his secret prayer! (Dan. 6:10, 23-28). Mordecai privately discovered a plot of treason against the person of King Ahasuerus, and he is rewarded openly (Esther 2:21-23, with chap. 6). Darius, before he came to the kingdom, received privately a garment for a gift of one Syloson; and when he came to be a king, he rewarded him openly with the command of his country Samos. God, in the great day, will recompense his people before all the world, for every secret prayer, and secret tear, and secret sigh, and secret groan that has come from his people. God, in the great day, will declare to men and angels, how often his people have been in pouring out their souls before him in such and such holes, corners, and secret places; and accordingly he will reward them.
"Ah, Christians! did you really believe this, and seriously dwell on this, you would,
1. Walk more thankfully.
2. Work more cheerfully.
3. Suffer more patiently.
4. Fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil, more courageously.
5. Lay out yourselves for God, his interest and glory, more freely.
6. Live with what providence has cut out for your portion, more quietly and contentedly. And,
7. You would be in private prayer more frequently, more abundantly."
"Secret duties shall have open rewards. Matt. 6:6, 'And thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.' So, verse 18, God will reward his people here in part, and hereafter in all perfection. He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him in a corner. They that sow in tears secretly, shall reap in joy openly. Private prayer shall be rewarded before men and angels publicly.
"How openly did God reward Daniel for his secret prayer! (Dan. 6:10, 23-28). Mordecai privately discovered a plot of treason against the person of King Ahasuerus, and he is rewarded openly (Esther 2:21-23, with chap. 6). Darius, before he came to the kingdom, received privately a garment for a gift of one Syloson; and when he came to be a king, he rewarded him openly with the command of his country Samos. God, in the great day, will recompense his people before all the world, for every secret prayer, and secret tear, and secret sigh, and secret groan that has come from his people. God, in the great day, will declare to men and angels, how often his people have been in pouring out their souls before him in such and such holes, corners, and secret places; and accordingly he will reward them.
"Ah, Christians! did you really believe this, and seriously dwell on this, you would,
1. Walk more thankfully.
2. Work more cheerfully.
3. Suffer more patiently.
4. Fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil, more courageously.
5. Lay out yourselves for God, his interest and glory, more freely.
6. Live with what providence has cut out for your portion, more quietly and contentedly. And,
7. You would be in private prayer more frequently, more abundantly."
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Reason #3 for why we should pray
Why should we pray in private? Thomas Brooks' 3rd reason is, Secret Prayer Distinguishes Sincerity from Hypocrisy.
"Consider, next, that the ordinary exercising of yourselves in secret prayer, is that which will distinguish you from hypocrites, who do all they do to be seen of men...Matt. 6:2."
"Closet duty [i.e., private prayer] speaks out most sincerity....The more sincere the soul is, the more in closet duty the soul will be (Job 31:33). Where do you read in all the Scripture, that Pharaoh, or Saul, or Judas, or Demas, or Simon Magus, or the scribes and Pharisees, did ever use to pour out their souls before the Lord in secret? Secret prayer is not the hypocrite's ordinary walk, his ordinary work or trade."
"There is great cause to fear that his heart was never right with God, whose whole devotion is spent among men, or among many; or else our Saviour, in drawing the hypocrite's picture, would never have made this to be the very cast of his countenance, as he does in Matthew 6:5. It is one thing to be hypocrites, and it is another thing to be as the hypocrites. Christ would not have his people to look like hypocrites, nor to be like hypocrites. It is only sincerity that will enable a man to make a trade of private prayer. In praying with many, there are many things that may bribe and provoke a carnal heart, as pride, vainglory, love of applause, or to get a name. An hypocrite, in all his duties, trades more for a good name than for a good life, for a good report than for a good conscience."
"Consider, next, that the ordinary exercising of yourselves in secret prayer, is that which will distinguish you from hypocrites, who do all they do to be seen of men...Matt. 6:2."
"Closet duty [i.e., private prayer] speaks out most sincerity....The more sincere the soul is, the more in closet duty the soul will be (Job 31:33). Where do you read in all the Scripture, that Pharaoh, or Saul, or Judas, or Demas, or Simon Magus, or the scribes and Pharisees, did ever use to pour out their souls before the Lord in secret? Secret prayer is not the hypocrite's ordinary walk, his ordinary work or trade."
"There is great cause to fear that his heart was never right with God, whose whole devotion is spent among men, or among many; or else our Saviour, in drawing the hypocrite's picture, would never have made this to be the very cast of his countenance, as he does in Matthew 6:5. It is one thing to be hypocrites, and it is another thing to be as the hypocrites. Christ would not have his people to look like hypocrites, nor to be like hypocrites. It is only sincerity that will enable a man to make a trade of private prayer. In praying with many, there are many things that may bribe and provoke a carnal heart, as pride, vainglory, love of applause, or to get a name. An hypocrite, in all his duties, trades more for a good name than for a good life, for a good report than for a good conscience."
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Reason # 2 to engage in prayer
Here is reason #2 for why we should pray privately each day, according to Thomas Brooks:
Christ Engaged in Secret Prayer.
"Consider, next, that when Christ was on earth, he did much exercise himself in secret prayer; he was often with God alone, as you may see in many well-known Scriptures: Matt. 14:23...Mark 1:35...Mark 6:46...Luke 5:16...Luke 6:12...Luke 21:37...Luke 22:39-45...John 6:15-17.
"Thus you see, by all these famous instances, that Christ was frequent in private prayer. Oh, that we would daily propound to ourselves this noble pattern for our imitation, and make it our business, our work, our heaven, to write after this blessed copy that Christ hath set us, viz. to be much with God alone. Certainly Christianity is nothing else but an imitation of the divine nature, a reducing of a man's self to the image of God, in which he was created 'in righteousness and true holiness'. A Christian's whole life should be nothing but a visible representation of Christ."
Brooks then follows this with the question: "But why was our Lord Jesus so much in private prayer? Why was he so often with God alone?"
To which he gives six answers:
1. "First, It was to put a very high honour and value upon private prayer."
2. "Secondly, He was much in private prayer, he was often with God alone, that He might not be seen of men, and that He might avoid all shows and appearances of ostentation and popular applause."
3. "Thirdly, To avoid interruptions in the duty [of prayer]."
4. "Fourthly, To set us such a blessed pattern and gracious example that we should never please nor content ourselves with public prayers only, nor with family prayers only, but that we should also apply ourselves to secret prayer, to closet prayer."
5. "Fifthly, That He might approve Himself to our understandings and consciences to be a most just and faithful High Priest (Heb. 2:17; John 17)."
6. "Sixthly, Christ was much in private prayer to convince us that His Father hears and observes our private prayers, and bottles up all our secret tears, and that He is not a stranger to our closet desires, wrestlings, breathings, hungerings, and thirstings."
Tune in tomorrow!
Christ Engaged in Secret Prayer.
"Consider, next, that when Christ was on earth, he did much exercise himself in secret prayer; he was often with God alone, as you may see in many well-known Scriptures: Matt. 14:23...Mark 1:35...Mark 6:46...Luke 5:16...Luke 6:12...Luke 21:37...Luke 22:39-45...John 6:15-17.
"Thus you see, by all these famous instances, that Christ was frequent in private prayer. Oh, that we would daily propound to ourselves this noble pattern for our imitation, and make it our business, our work, our heaven, to write after this blessed copy that Christ hath set us, viz. to be much with God alone. Certainly Christianity is nothing else but an imitation of the divine nature, a reducing of a man's self to the image of God, in which he was created 'in righteousness and true holiness'. A Christian's whole life should be nothing but a visible representation of Christ."
Brooks then follows this with the question: "But why was our Lord Jesus so much in private prayer? Why was he so often with God alone?"
To which he gives six answers:
1. "First, It was to put a very high honour and value upon private prayer."
2. "Secondly, He was much in private prayer, he was often with God alone, that He might not be seen of men, and that He might avoid all shows and appearances of ostentation and popular applause."
3. "Thirdly, To avoid interruptions in the duty [of prayer]."
4. "Fourthly, To set us such a blessed pattern and gracious example that we should never please nor content ourselves with public prayers only, nor with family prayers only, but that we should also apply ourselves to secret prayer, to closet prayer."
5. "Fifthly, That He might approve Himself to our understandings and consciences to be a most just and faithful High Priest (Heb. 2:17; John 17)."
6. "Sixthly, Christ was much in private prayer to convince us that His Father hears and observes our private prayers, and bottles up all our secret tears, and that He is not a stranger to our closet desires, wrestlings, breathings, hungerings, and thirstings."
Tune in tomorrow!
Friday, April 13, 2007
Blogs on Prayer
I have just returned from a few days absence, during which I attended the Twin Lakes Fellowship at Twin Lakes Conference Center in Florence, MS. And, now that I'm back, I'd like to devote some blog space to a topic we just finished in Sunday school...PRAYER. My thoughts are to use a book provided to us at the TLF by Banner of Truth, namely, Thomas Brooks' The Secret Key to Heaven: The Vital Importance of Private Prayer. In the second part of this work, Brooks gives 20 arguments for why we should engage in private prayer. I wanted to pass them along to you (not necessarily verbatim). We'll look at them one by one over the next few weeks.
Here is Brooks' first argument for why we should engage in private prayer:
1. The Most Eminent Saints Engaged in Private Prayer.
"The first argument is that the most eminent saints in both the Old Testament and the New applied themselves to private prayer. Moses was alone in the mount with God forty days and forty nights (Exod. 34:28). Similarly, Abraham fills his mouth with arguments, and reasons the case out alone with God in prayer, to prevent Sodom's desolation and destruction, and never leaves off pleading and praying till he had brought God down from fifty to ten (Gen. 18:22-32); and in Genesis 21:33, you have Abraham again at his private prayers: 'And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.' Why did Abraham plant a grove, but that he might have a most private place to pray and pour out his soul before the Lord in?
"So Isaac: Gen. 24:63, 'And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at even-tide.'"
"So you shall find Jacob at his private prayer: Gen. 32:24-28, 'And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.'"
"So David, Psa. 55:16, 17, 'As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me. Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud; and he shall hear my voice.'"
"So Daniel was three times a day in private prayer: Dan. 6:10, 'Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.'"
"So Jonah keeps up private prayer when he was in the fish's belly, yes, when he was in the belly of hell (Jon. 2:1-2ff)."
"So we have Elijah at prayer under the juniper tree (1 Kings 19:4)."
"So Hannah (1 Sam. 1:13). Now, Hannah speaks in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard. The very soul of prayer lies in the pouring out of the soul before God, as Hannah did, verse 15."
"Neither was Rebekah a stranger to this duty, who, upon the babe's stuggling in her womb, went to inquire of the Lord (Gen. 25:22)."
"So Saul is no sooner converted, but presently he falls upon private prayer: Acts 9:11, 'And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus; for, behold, he prayeth.' Though he was a strict Pharisee, yet he never prayed properly before, and never prayed in private before. The Pharisees used to pray in the corners of the streets, and not in the corners of their houses. And after his conversion he was frequently in private prayer, as you may see by comparing of these Scriptures together: Rom. 1:9; Eph. 1:15, 16; Phil. 1:3, 4; 2 Tim. 1:3."
"So Epaphras was a warm man in closet prayer (Phil. 4:12, 13); so Cornelius had devoted himself to private prayer (Acts 10:2, 4); and so Peter gets up to the housetop to pray."
"Eusebius tells us of James called Justus, that his knees were grown hard and brawny with kneeling so much in private prayer. And [Gregory of] Nazianzen reports of his sister Gorgonia, that her knees seemed to cleave to the earth by her often praying in private."
"And Eusebius reports of Constantine the emperor, that every day he used to shut up himself in some secret place in his palace, and there, on bended knees, did make his devout prayers and soliloquies to God."
"Oh friends! These pious examples should be very awakening, very convincing, and very encouraging to you. Certainly it is as much your duty as it is your glory to follow these pious patterns that are now set before you....Oh, that we were as much in love with the examples of good men as others are in love with the examples of bad men; and then we should be oftener in our closets than now we are!"
Here is Brooks' first argument for why we should engage in private prayer:
1. The Most Eminent Saints Engaged in Private Prayer.
"The first argument is that the most eminent saints in both the Old Testament and the New applied themselves to private prayer. Moses was alone in the mount with God forty days and forty nights (Exod. 34:28). Similarly, Abraham fills his mouth with arguments, and reasons the case out alone with God in prayer, to prevent Sodom's desolation and destruction, and never leaves off pleading and praying till he had brought God down from fifty to ten (Gen. 18:22-32); and in Genesis 21:33, you have Abraham again at his private prayers: 'And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.' Why did Abraham plant a grove, but that he might have a most private place to pray and pour out his soul before the Lord in?
"So Isaac: Gen. 24:63, 'And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at even-tide.'"
"So you shall find Jacob at his private prayer: Gen. 32:24-28, 'And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.'"
"So David, Psa. 55:16, 17, 'As for me, I will call upon God; and the Lord shall save me. Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud; and he shall hear my voice.'"
"So Daniel was three times a day in private prayer: Dan. 6:10, 'Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.'"
"So Jonah keeps up private prayer when he was in the fish's belly, yes, when he was in the belly of hell (Jon. 2:1-2ff)."
"So we have Elijah at prayer under the juniper tree (1 Kings 19:4)."
"So Hannah (1 Sam. 1:13). Now, Hannah speaks in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard. The very soul of prayer lies in the pouring out of the soul before God, as Hannah did, verse 15."
"Neither was Rebekah a stranger to this duty, who, upon the babe's stuggling in her womb, went to inquire of the Lord (Gen. 25:22)."
"So Saul is no sooner converted, but presently he falls upon private prayer: Acts 9:11, 'And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus; for, behold, he prayeth.' Though he was a strict Pharisee, yet he never prayed properly before, and never prayed in private before. The Pharisees used to pray in the corners of the streets, and not in the corners of their houses. And after his conversion he was frequently in private prayer, as you may see by comparing of these Scriptures together: Rom. 1:9; Eph. 1:15, 16; Phil. 1:3, 4; 2 Tim. 1:3."
"So Epaphras was a warm man in closet prayer (Phil. 4:12, 13); so Cornelius had devoted himself to private prayer (Acts 10:2, 4); and so Peter gets up to the housetop to pray."
"Eusebius tells us of James called Justus, that his knees were grown hard and brawny with kneeling so much in private prayer. And [Gregory of] Nazianzen reports of his sister Gorgonia, that her knees seemed to cleave to the earth by her often praying in private."
"And Eusebius reports of Constantine the emperor, that every day he used to shut up himself in some secret place in his palace, and there, on bended knees, did make his devout prayers and soliloquies to God."
"Oh friends! These pious examples should be very awakening, very convincing, and very encouraging to you. Certainly it is as much your duty as it is your glory to follow these pious patterns that are now set before you....Oh, that we were as much in love with the examples of good men as others are in love with the examples of bad men; and then we should be oftener in our closets than now we are!"
Monday, April 09, 2007
Resurrection blog
As I mentioned on Sunday, there are at least three modes of attack against the atheist/naturalist who seeks to deny the resurrection (like the guy we have been talking about in the paper who said, "There is not a person on earth who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead."). The first is to refute the atheist's own worldview and show that it doesn't hold water; the second is to show that the Bible actually is a reliable and authoritative document (and, thus, what it says is also reliable and authoritative); and the third is to give supporting evidences for the factuality of the resurrection itself. To this, I would add a fourth mode of attack: the life of the Christian! It's when we Christians live as Christians OUGHT to live (as those who have been redeemed from the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light, who know that God delights in them through faith, who have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them as a deposit guanteeing what is to come, and who live joyfully in dutiful obedience to our Father) that we are an apologetic in and of ourselves--and the most convincing one at that!
I mentioned Sunday that I would tackle the first of these in a blog this week....so, here goes...
We can prove that miracles like the resurrection are possible and not just fictitious events by proving that the supernatural worldview is the only valid and consistent worldview, i.e., that the naturalistic worldview is inconsistent and absurd. So that is what we will do here...
In the most basic sense, two worldviews vie for supremacy: Supernaturalism, the belief that there is something above and beyond nature that is itself not bound by nature; and Naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is. Atheists and agnostics fall into the latter category, while theists of every kind fall into the former.
Naturalism is problematic and self-defeating, for three reasons (not, by any means, a comprehensive list). First, it gives no meaning or purpose to life. Why not eat, drink, and be merry? Why not live as you please? In other words, why be concerned for anyone other than yourself? This life is all there is...what you see is all there is. So, carpe diem! for yourself. Survival of the fittest would be the naturalist's only possible purpose, if you can truly call that a purpose.
Second, naturalism gives no basis for objective morality. The naturalist has no basis and no right to say that objective morality exists. Let me explain: if we say that there is such a thing as "right," then we also have to admit that there is such a thing as "wrong." One cannot exist without the other. If there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong," then we also have to admit that there is a moral law, by which we can differentiate between right and wrong. If there is no standard by which we can differentiate one from the other, then there is no right and wrong or it is simply our opinion that differentiates between them. And if we say that there is a moral law that differentiates between right and wrong, then we also have to admit that there is a moral law Giver, who transcends humankind and gives us the moral laws. Otherwise, the moral law is simply a human concoction and is purely subjective.
This means that naturalists cannot say objectively that what Hitler did to millions of Jews was evil. They can only say that they think that it was evil (i.e., that it is their opinion). The naturalist cannot say that it WAS evil, because this would admit that there is such a thing as "evil," which would admit that there is also such a thing as "good" and, then, a moral law to differentiate and a moral law-giver, which the naturalist seeks to deny. Naturalists also cannot say that cannibalism is wrong (they can only say that it is not their preference!). And naturalists also cannot say that what happened in 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland, when a crazed person walked into a primary school and cruelly murdered 16 children (all but one of which were 5 years old) and one adult, is undeniably evil. They can only say that it is not what they would like to see happening in our society or that it is not what our society has deemed to be acceptable behavior.
Third, and perhaps most damaging of all, naturalism, as a theory, says that my mental processes and thoughts are simply movements of atoms and chemicals (i.e., purely natural things) in my brain. But in order to come up with that theory I, or anyone else, would have had to use my/their mental processes and thoughts, which are supposed to be only movements of atoms and chemicals. There are at least two problems here: (1) There is no way to stand back from the vicious circle. It's like a mouse conducting an experiment involving himself! How do you validate the findings? And, (2) If the findings cannot be validated, then we have no way of knowing whether or not they are true. In other words, we have no way to know whether or not the thought processes of my brain, which are supposedly only movements of atoms and chemicals, actually are only movements of atoms and chemicals!
As George Roche has said: "Contriving the theory [of naturalism] required a great deal of thought and the finest scientific reasoning, only to conclude that thought and reasoning are meaningless. If the conclusion is correct, the theory is nonsense and no one need believe it. If the conclusion is false, it is just that, false; the theory is again non-sense. Naturalism, looked at philosophically, rather than through the truncated thought of science, is an insult to the intelligence."
For at least these reasons, then, I would suggest that it actually takes more "faith" (and here I'm using that word to mean "believing something when reason tells you not to") to be a naturalist than it does to be a supernaturalist. There is more REASON to believe the Christian position than the atheist's. Once we have established that the resurrection is perfectly reasonable, we can move on to talk about whether it is true or false, which is what I tried to do some of on Sunday morning.
I mentioned Sunday that I would tackle the first of these in a blog this week....so, here goes...
We can prove that miracles like the resurrection are possible and not just fictitious events by proving that the supernatural worldview is the only valid and consistent worldview, i.e., that the naturalistic worldview is inconsistent and absurd. So that is what we will do here...
In the most basic sense, two worldviews vie for supremacy: Supernaturalism, the belief that there is something above and beyond nature that is itself not bound by nature; and Naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is. Atheists and agnostics fall into the latter category, while theists of every kind fall into the former.
Naturalism is problematic and self-defeating, for three reasons (not, by any means, a comprehensive list). First, it gives no meaning or purpose to life. Why not eat, drink, and be merry? Why not live as you please? In other words, why be concerned for anyone other than yourself? This life is all there is...what you see is all there is. So, carpe diem! for yourself. Survival of the fittest would be the naturalist's only possible purpose, if you can truly call that a purpose.
Second, naturalism gives no basis for objective morality. The naturalist has no basis and no right to say that objective morality exists. Let me explain: if we say that there is such a thing as "right," then we also have to admit that there is such a thing as "wrong." One cannot exist without the other. If there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong," then we also have to admit that there is a moral law, by which we can differentiate between right and wrong. If there is no standard by which we can differentiate one from the other, then there is no right and wrong or it is simply our opinion that differentiates between them. And if we say that there is a moral law that differentiates between right and wrong, then we also have to admit that there is a moral law Giver, who transcends humankind and gives us the moral laws. Otherwise, the moral law is simply a human concoction and is purely subjective.
This means that naturalists cannot say objectively that what Hitler did to millions of Jews was evil. They can only say that they think that it was evil (i.e., that it is their opinion). The naturalist cannot say that it WAS evil, because this would admit that there is such a thing as "evil," which would admit that there is also such a thing as "good" and, then, a moral law to differentiate and a moral law-giver, which the naturalist seeks to deny. Naturalists also cannot say that cannibalism is wrong (they can only say that it is not their preference!). And naturalists also cannot say that what happened in 1996 in Dunblane, Scotland, when a crazed person walked into a primary school and cruelly murdered 16 children (all but one of which were 5 years old) and one adult, is undeniably evil. They can only say that it is not what they would like to see happening in our society or that it is not what our society has deemed to be acceptable behavior.
Third, and perhaps most damaging of all, naturalism, as a theory, says that my mental processes and thoughts are simply movements of atoms and chemicals (i.e., purely natural things) in my brain. But in order to come up with that theory I, or anyone else, would have had to use my/their mental processes and thoughts, which are supposed to be only movements of atoms and chemicals. There are at least two problems here: (1) There is no way to stand back from the vicious circle. It's like a mouse conducting an experiment involving himself! How do you validate the findings? And, (2) If the findings cannot be validated, then we have no way of knowing whether or not they are true. In other words, we have no way to know whether or not the thought processes of my brain, which are supposedly only movements of atoms and chemicals, actually are only movements of atoms and chemicals!
As George Roche has said: "Contriving the theory [of naturalism] required a great deal of thought and the finest scientific reasoning, only to conclude that thought and reasoning are meaningless. If the conclusion is correct, the theory is nonsense and no one need believe it. If the conclusion is false, it is just that, false; the theory is again non-sense. Naturalism, looked at philosophically, rather than through the truncated thought of science, is an insult to the intelligence."
For at least these reasons, then, I would suggest that it actually takes more "faith" (and here I'm using that word to mean "believing something when reason tells you not to") to be a naturalist than it does to be a supernaturalist. There is more REASON to believe the Christian position than the atheist's. Once we have established that the resurrection is perfectly reasonable, we can move on to talk about whether it is true or false, which is what I tried to do some of on Sunday morning.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
2007 Hurricane Forecast
We all remember the 2006 hurricane forecast. At least we remember that the actual storm count fell far short of hitting the number they originally had predicted (a welcome bit of news to those of us in south Mississippi, let me assure you!). Well, a team of university forecasters unveiled their 2007 hurricane predictions today. They expect that 2007 will be a "very active" year with 17 named storms, 9 of which will be hurricanes.
The magnitude of the predictions, however, is not what surprised me most in the news article. What surprised me most was the other long-term predictions that the university forecasters made. Get this one: they said that there is a 74% chance that the "entire" U.S. coastline will experience a direct hit by an "intense" hurricane and a 50% chance that the east coast will be on the receiving end of one of them. Whether they are right or wrong will be seen in time. What is interesting is that the experts are predicting that these storms will be more of a national problem rather than simply a local (i.e., Gulf Coast) one. This may put our insurance situation, and other situations, in a little different light.
The magnitude of the predictions, however, is not what surprised me most in the news article. What surprised me most was the other long-term predictions that the university forecasters made. Get this one: they said that there is a 74% chance that the "entire" U.S. coastline will experience a direct hit by an "intense" hurricane and a 50% chance that the east coast will be on the receiving end of one of them. Whether they are right or wrong will be seen in time. What is interesting is that the experts are predicting that these storms will be more of a national problem rather than simply a local (i.e., Gulf Coast) one. This may put our insurance situation, and other situations, in a little different light.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Tony Dungy back in the news
About two months ago, with all the hype surrounding the Super Bowl, there was much said in the papers and on line about the coaches of both teams and their public professions of faith in Jesus Christ. Back then, I put a couple of blogs on about Tony Dungy and his stand for Christ in an arena that is not overtly Christian. (Try January and February of 2007 archives, to read some of these posts.)
Well, Coach Dungy is back in the news again. And again it's for his public stand for Christ. The Indiana Family Institute (IFI) honored Dungy at its March 20th dinner with their "Friend of the Family" award. In accepting the award, Dungy responded to his critics who said that he should not be associating with such "bigots who allegedly hate homosexuals" by stating unambiguously, "IFI is saying what the Lord says....[and] I'm on the Lord's side"!
All this is when the state is in the midst of a debate over a traditional marriage amendment that has been passed by the Indiana state Senate and is now before the state House of Representatives. Dungy, at least on the face of things, appears to be quite willing to stand fast upon the Word of God! (See the article on World Magazine's website: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12821.)
Well, Coach Dungy is back in the news again. And again it's for his public stand for Christ. The Indiana Family Institute (IFI) honored Dungy at its March 20th dinner with their "Friend of the Family" award. In accepting the award, Dungy responded to his critics who said that he should not be associating with such "bigots who allegedly hate homosexuals" by stating unambiguously, "IFI is saying what the Lord says....[and] I'm on the Lord's side"!
All this is when the state is in the midst of a debate over a traditional marriage amendment that has been passed by the Indiana state Senate and is now before the state House of Representatives. Dungy, at least on the face of things, appears to be quite willing to stand fast upon the Word of God! (See the article on World Magazine's website: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12821.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
