God and the Promised Land: A War to remember

     In my last two posts, we have looked at two major topics that I have done research on for my senior research paper in college. In the first post, the idea of divine command ethics was discussed and then in the second, the problem of evil. I would now like to move on to my third and final part of the research, and that deals with the issue of the Canaanite extermination in the Old Testament. Many modern scholars such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others attack Christianity in this way and argue that the God of the Old Testament cannot be the God of the New Testament. In what follows is my brief and introductory attempt at answering this question. After reading, if anyone would like to discuss further, please email or message me because this issue can go so much deeper.

     I would like to remind everyone that in this section specifically, I have quoted some work by Dr. Paul Copan and an Old Testament scholar by the name of Richard Hess. They make some interesting claims about the Canaanite issue, but in the end I am not sure I totally agree with them. It will take more study on the matter.

     The attack on God’s morality does not stop with the problem of evil however, but continues with the question of how a loving God can permit a moral atrocity such as genocide? In the Old Testament book of Joshua, readers can find God commanding the Israelite army to basically exterminate a group of tribes collectively known as the Canaanites. “Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword” (Joshua 6. 21). How could an all-loving God that Christians so often talk about be so harsh and destructive in the Old Testament?

     Just like the problem of evil, the issue of the Canaanite annihilation is not easy to deal with, even for a strong Christian believer. Since this is such an extreme situation in the biblical narrative, it has been ammunition for some of the world’s leading opponents of the Christian faith. Take Richard Dawkins for example, an Oxford University distinguished professor, he states, “The ethnic cleansing begun in the time of Moses is brought to bloody fruition in the book of Joshua, a text remarkable for the bloodthirsty massacres it records and the xenophobic relish with which it does so” (247).

     This quote from Dawkins is not even the most aggressive when it comes to display of emotions from people towards this situation. Consider what Dr. Mirabello has to say about this issue, “Joshua, the legendary warlord who led the armed forces of the “children of Israel” into Palestine, committed war crimes and genocide and destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded” (1). Consider also, another quote from Christopher Hitchens, a journalist who wrote a book titled, God is not Great, “However, one mutters a few sympathetic words for the forgotten and obliterated Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites, also presumably part of the Lord’s original creation, who are to be pitilessly driven out of their homes to make room for the ungrateful and mutinous children of Israel” (101).

     Every one of these quotes convey detailed emotion and dedication to the position they hold. These quotes, however, do not fully communicate the raw passion as well as Richard Dawkins himself does. Again, consider Dawkins on this issue, “The point is that, whether true or not, the Bible is held up to us as the source of our morality. And the Bible story of Joshua’s destruction of Jericho, and the invasion of the Promised Land in general, is morally indistinguishable from Hitler’s invasion of Poland, or Saddam Hussein’s massacres of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs” (247).

     With unsympathetic acquisitions such as these, how can the Christian worldview possibly give an acceptable answer to a situation of this magnitude? There have been a great number of writings dedicated to answering this topic from a Christian perspective. There are several ways in which an answer can be given, but there are two that prove to be beneficial in trying to give an answer.

     In the book of Deuteronomy, the writer engages the reader with information as to how the Canaanites were dealt with, “And we devoted them to destruction, as we did to Sihon the king Hesbon, devoting to destruction every city, men, women, and children” (Deut. 3. 6). This passage seems to clearly communicate that every person associated with the Canaanite tribes was executed and that there were none left alive.

     In an article by Dr. Paul Copan, a philosopher of ethics from Florida, he suggests that maybe when the Bible speaks of the annihilation of every person, it could be nothing more than just a type of war hype. Consider what Copan says, “I observed in my previous essay that the language of total obliteration is an Ancient Near East rhetorical device, an exaggeration commonly associated with warfare”. If what Copan is saying is true, his analysis proves to be pivotal in answering this objection.

     Copan goes on in his article to back up what he is saying by using the Bible itself, “After all, the books of Joshua and Judges themselves make clear that many inhabitants remained in the land”. What Copan is saying becomes evident from a biblical passage found in the book of Judges, “But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites who lived in Jerusalem, so the Jebusites have lived with the people of Benjamin in Jerusalem to this day” (Judges 1. 21).

     Copan’s argument, though persuasive, does not fully do the trick. So what if everyone was not killed, what about the ones who were? Were small children and women included in the killings? Copan, in the same article, quotes and Old Testament scholar named Richard Hess. Copan suggests, “Hess’s research has led him to conclude that the ban (war commands from God) refers to the ‘total destruction of all warriors in the battle not noncombatants”.

     It seems now that Copan’s argument comes full circle. Copan suggests that the command to “kill all” in the Old Testament does not literally refer to all, but is a “rhetorical device”. If Copan’s biblical interpretation holds together then it becomes difficult to label what happened to the Canaanites a true genocide as critics suggest. However, though Copan’s argument is good, it only holds up on one front. There is still the question of why God would command the Israelites to go to war with the Canaanites and cause intense fighting in the first place. How does a Christian answer this question?

     There are many Christian scholars who say that in order to answer an objection of this magnitude; it is wise to call upon a method of theological study known as “Biblical Theology”. C. Stephen Evans, a professor of philosophy at Baylor University defines Biblical Theology as, “An attempt to develop theology out of the study of biblical texts” (114). When applying his definition to the Canaanite issue, it would be wise to see what the biblical narrative as a whole has to say about the problem. Once the broader picture of the Bible is seen, then it will clear up any misconceptions that people may have of the issue.

     Dr. Iain Duguid, professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, states, “the Israelites acted as the agents of God’s righteous judgment against sinners” (107). Taken at face value, this statement seems a bit judgmental on the part of Duguid, but this is an example of how the practice of good biblical theology will help. Just as it is explained in the beginning of this essay that human nature, according to the Christian perspective, is naturally prone to evil, this same concept is also applied to the Canaanite tribes. Just every person born throughout all of history is born at enmity with God; there is no difference for the Canaanite people.

     When considering possible reasons for why God would command such an order for the Israelites to do, the primary question that comes to mind is why God would do this to innocent people. Though this is a great question, it assumes that the Canaanites were in fact, innocent people. Just by nature the Canaanites were evil and in active rebellion against God. Furthermore, the Canaanites we involved in some nasty practices that anyone would see as evil. Dr. Walter Kaiser, academic dean, professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, suggests,

     “Why then were the Canaanites singled out for such severe treatment? They were cut off to prevent Israel and the rest of the world from being corrupted (Deut. 20. 16-18). When a people starts to burn their children in honor of their gods (Lev. 18.21), practice sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of loathsome vices (Lev. 18.23, 24, 20.3), the land itself begins to “vomit” them out as the body heaves under the load of internal poisons (Lev. 18.25, 27-30)” (268).

     As a holy God, just as the Bible suggests God is, it is by His holy nature that God is in total opposition to evil and rebellion. This is why the Bible makes the claim that God is a just and righteous God. By the very fact that the Canaanites were evil, makes it perfectly clear as to why God would pronounce judgment on them. The Canaanites were deserving of a just judgment.

     This brings this third objection to its final question. Why did God use Israel to execute judgment? Was it because there were better than everyone else? The answer to that is no, and the bible actually makes it clear as to why God used Israel. This passage comes from the book of Deuteronomy,

     “Not because of your righteousness of the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” (Deut. 9.5).

     The answer becomes apparent now, it is not that the Israelites are better, but that God is actively and rightfully judging the nations as they deserve. The same goes for the nation of Israel to at the time. They too, for practicing evil deeds, are judged by God. Just as Dr. Tremper Longman, a professor of Old Testament, suggests, “It would be wrong to say that God was on Israel’s side pure and simple” (175). Israel was in covenant with God and if Israel somehow “broke” covenant with God, they too would be judged for their wicked ways. Consider what would happen to Israel in the event of breaking covenant with God,

     “The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. You shall go out one way against them and flee seven ways before them. And you shall be a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” (Deut. 28. 25).

     In review of this last section, many concepts have been learned. It is very difficult for any reader of the Old Testament to breeze by stories of war and extermination without questioning, but a deeper look into the matter reveals true facts of the matter. It is quite possible that not every person from the Canaanite tribes were wiped out, but only the combatants fighting the war. It has also been made clear that not one person is innocent to begin with and that God is a righteous judge who judges truthfully. With these ideas in mind, a light in the distance can be seen to make way out of this problem.

a quick defense against the problem of evil

     Every single human who is alive and fully aware of the world today knows that there is seemingly a problem of evil all over. Everything from sickness, natural disasters, and even moral evils plague or earth everyday and people are powerless at times to stop it. The question though, is how do we provide an answer for why this is happening? In what follows is a second section from my senior research paper in which I engage the problem of evil. Just as a to reminder readers, I engage the problem of evil a philosophical and theological basis and attempt to provide an answer to skeptics who are against the Christian faith.

     Another quick reminder is that in writing this section, my intention was to show two of the most popular answers to the problem of evil from the Christian faith. Though, these two answers do work, my convictions are more towards the greater good defense rather than the free will defense, especially when it comes to libertarian free will. I am not a proponent of the libertarian view. With those thoughts in mind, here we go! 

     A second common assault on the idea of God’s morality comes from both a philosophical and personal slant. This objection is universally known as the problem of evil. The question is always asked, if there is an all-good and all-powerful God who really exists, then how could He allow so much evil to exist in the world? This question is such an important issue, that the very outcome of this argument may persuade a person to belief or non-belief in God. Timothy Keller, a pastor and theologian, quotes a woman on this issue,

     “I just don’t believe the God of Christianity exists. God allows terrible suffering in the world. So he might be either all-powerful but not good enough to end evil and suffering, or else he might be all-good but not powerful enough to end evil and suffering. Either way the all-good, all-powerful God of the Bible couldn’t exist” (22).

     It becomes clear from a testimony such as this why the problem of evil even matters. Every human being on the face of the planet has to deal with evil of some kind in their life. Evil can result from an event in nature, such as the 2004 tsunami, or evil can be caused as a result of an action or lack of action by another human. This kind of evil is known as moral evil.

     The problem of evil, though very emotional, has also been at the forefront of heavy academic debate by many scholars across the academic spectrum. In one specific essay by the late contemporary philosopher J.L. Mackie titled, Evil and Omnipotence, Mackie lays out a massive case for why the problem of evil is logically inconsistent with the belief in Christian theism. Mackie’s argument for his thinking is stated in this way, “In its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false” (305).

     Just by reviewing what Mackie is trying to say, it may not be clear as to why his point even matters at all. How could Mackie’s conclusion show that belief in the Christian God is incoherent? In his book, Letter to a Christian nation, Sam Harris, an avid writer on issues concerning the validity of religious worldviews states, “If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil” (55). Along with Mackie’s philosophical definition and Harris’ practical application, a picture of why the problem of evil presents a problem for rational belief in God becomes clear.

     Though the problem of evil is simple is description, the path that seeks to find an answer is a tough one to travel. Even the late great Christian philosopher Dr. Ronald Nash agrees, “Every philosopher I know believes that the most serious challenge to theism was, is, and will continue to be the problem of evil” (177). This is an extraordinary claim coming from an academician who was himself an ardent believer in the Christian God.  How then does the Christian answer the objection of the problem of evil?

     Throughout the course of theological and philosophical history, there have been many theories presented that try and deal with the problem of evil. Of the several arguments offered, there are two that seem to fit the bill when providing an answer for this dilemma. They are known as the “Free Will Defense” and the “Greater Good Defense” arguments. Both will prove to be satisfactory answers to the question at hand.

     The first objective is to take another in depth look at the argument that Mackie and others make. Mackie suggests that if God is all-powerful, if He is supremely good, and evil does exist in the world, then belief in God is logically inconsistent. However, just as big time philosopher of religion Dr. Alvin Plantinga suggests, “One wonders, therefore, why the many atheologians who confidently assert that this formulation is contradictory make not attempt whatever to show that it is. For the most part they are content just to assert that there is a contradiction here” (323).

     Plantinga’s assessment is right. Why must the argument that Mackie defends lead to a contradiction for the Christian? Could it be that the human mind cannot possibly contemplate the way God works due to God’s position in eternity? Christianity affirms that God is, “Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying ‘My counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purpose”, (Isaiah 46.10). If Christianity is true in its claims then, how can humans argue that the way in which God is dealing with the problem of evil is not the best way possible? If God exists, it would be purely self-centered of humanity to claim that they know better than God on an issue like this.

     Could it also be stated that, if Christianity is correct, then humanity is to blame for why there is evil in the world?  If these questions are right, then just as the Christian worldview suggests, God is still all-powerful because He has set in motion a plan of “redemption” to eradicate evil. God is also supremely good in the fact that He has established an arrangement to make “right” what is morally “wrong”, and evil does exist in the world now because of human free will. If all three can be proven to be true, then Mackie’s argument and the alike contain no positive arguments for their case.

     The first of the two major Christian defenses is what philosophers call “The Freewill Defense”. Nash explains this position well, “According to this argument, God has good reasons for creating a world containing creatures that are significantly free, that is, free with regard to actions that have moral significance. To say that they are significantly free means that these creatures are free either to do A or not to do A, where A is a morally significant action” (189).

     If one were to apply this argument to the Christian worldview, it is not hard to see how it would work. When God created humanity, He created them with the ability to make morally free decisions. From the book of Genesis, we see that God gave a command to humanity that in the event of disobedience, the result would be death. “And the Lord commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day that you eat of it, you shall surely die” (Gen. 2.16-17).

     As the book of Genesis progresses, the outcome would end in the human’s disobedience to God, thus the reason for evil and corruption entering the world is given. Due to human’s free action of immorality against the command of God, the world now has the problem of evil as a result of humanity’s actions. One arguably could then make the counter that if God knew this would happen, why did He create humans in the first place?

     This is the logical response to the free-will defense, but it too does not prove to be effective. God obviously saw that the value of human life is worth more than the corruption it caused. This would make sense given the Christian perspective since God Himself ends up dying on a cross to redeem a fallen humanity. The Free Will Defense then seems to work despite the problems that opponents bring to the table.

     The second of the two Christian responses is known as the “Greater-Good Defense”. Dr. John Frame, a philosopher at Reformed Theological Seminary, states in his book, “Another approach to the problem of evil is to claim that the presence, or at least the possibility, of evil in the world is good, when seen from a broader perspective. Such observations have been called “The greater-good defense” against the problem of evil” (169). This argument against the problem of evil seems to carry extreme promise in answering this dilemma.

     When Christians present this argument, there are normally two examples from biblical literature that are used. The first is the story of Joseph being sold into slavery from the book of Genesis. Dr. Keller in his book, simply and accurately summarizes Joseph’s story,

     “Joseph was an arrogant young man who was hated by his brothers. In their anger at him, they imprisoned him in a pit and then sold him into a life of slavery and misery in Egypt. Doubtless Joseph prayed to God to help him escape, but no help was forthcoming, and into slavery he went. Though he experienced years of bondage and misery, Joseph’s character was refined and strengthened by his trials. Eventually he rose up to become a prime minister of Egypt who saved thousands of lives and even his own family from starvation. If God had not allowed Joseph’s years of suffering, he never would have been such a powerful agent for social justice and spiritual healing” (24).

     In the Bible, this account is summed up very well by the very words of Joseph when he interacts with his brothers’ years after the act of violence they had done. “As for you, you meant this for evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Gen. 50.20). An example would be a surgeon who cuts a person ultimately not to harm, but to heal. God intended for Joseph to go through major suffering for the later saving of thousands from death. Evil was permitted to happen for sake of a greater-good being brought about.

     Another example, and the most important within Christianity, has to be the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. Frame states, “But the chief example of God’s astonishing ways is found in the cross of Jesus” (172). It is through the death of Jesus that the greater-good model is truly displayed. The Bible claims that God sent Jesus to endure some of the cruelest and most abusive punishment that eventually leads to His death. All of this was for the purpose of redeeming humanity’s fallen nature. Inside Christianity, the death of Jesus results in the ultimate good for humanity.

     In review of all that has been addressed in this section, it is clear to see that J.L Mackie’s formulation of the problem of evil does not stand in light of careful theological and philosophical evaluation. Not only does Mackie’s argument fail to prove the inconsistency of the existence of both God and evil, it cannot account for humanity’s free-will or God using evil for a greater-good. Just as Paul says in his letter to the Roman church, “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8.28).

The Reality of Divine Command Ethics and Euthyphro’s Dilemma

     The society we live in today is filled with differing views and opinions about the religious pluralism throughout the world. Of the many world religions, there is much debate over the issues surrounding each system of faith, and debates over the validity of the Christian faith seem to be at the forefront everywhere. In what follows, is a section of my undergraduate research paper in which I dealt with three issues surrounding the nature of morality when it comes to the God of the Christian faith.  Being a Christian myself, I am defending the claim that God from the Bible is in fact a morally sound agent who loves and cares for His creation. Please consider the following argument as it deals with heavy philosophical and moral implications.       

     One of the major attacks on God’s morality comes from a strong moral and philosophical angle. This objection takes in to consideration a theological theory known as “Divine Command Ethics”. Within the Christian circle, there are many scholars who hold to this view. Among a few would be Dr. William Lane Craig from Biola University, Dr. John Frame professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, and Greg Koukl the president of Stand to Reason. All three advocate the idea of Divine Command Ethics.

      Divine command ethics is a view that seeks to formulate the true basis for morality, namely, that it comes from God Himself. Consider what Dr. James Rachels, a moral philosopher who was University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, has to say when defining this concept, “Essentially, this theory says that “morally right” is a matter of being commanded by God and “morally wrong” is a matter of being forbidden by God” (54). In other words, morality results specifically from what God commands.

     Rachels goes on to point out in his book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, that the concept of Divine Command Ethics “has a number of attractive features” (54).  One of these “attractive” features would be the solving of the problem of morality being objective. If God does exist, then there is no reason to think that morality is subjective because there is a higher authority giving morality a true objective grounding in reality.

     Another striking quality about Divine Command Ethics is the fact that it answers the question of why anyone should trouble themselves with morality in the first place. Again, just as Rachels states, “If immorality is the violation of God’s commandments, there is an easy answer: On the day of final reckoning, you will be held accountable” (54). If God does exist then that should be enough motivation for anyone to get their “act” together morally.

     Though the theory of Divine Command Ethics seems attractive at first glance, there seems to be an apparent fallacy within the theory itself that seems to present a problem for the Christian worldview.  As Rachels explains further, “The main problem was first noted by Plato, the Greek philosopher who lived 400 years before the birth of Jesus” (55). But what exactly is this problem?

     The predicament that Rachels is referring to has come to be known as “Euthyphro’s Dilemma”. Several hundred years before the Common Era there was a major philosopher named Plato and some of his writings were in the form of conversations that took place between another philosopher known as Socrates and other thinkers. “In one of these dialogues, the Euthyphro, there is a discussion concerning whether “right” can be defined as “that which the gods command” (Rachels 55).

      This discussion in Plato’s writings would eventually lead to a question that Dr. James Rachels and other skeptics use to show how God’s concept of morality is flawed. Consider how Gregory Koukl, a strong evangelical Christian and president of Stand to Reason states this problem in his own words, “Is a thing good simply because the gods say it is? Or do the gods say a thing is good because of some other quality it has? If so, what is that quality”?

     Rachels, being a skeptic of Christianity, takes these two questions and applies them in the same way that Plato did, but in this case to Christianity. Rachels point in doing this is to show that morality from the Christian perspective has no ground if ethics are commanded by God. So the problem is now presented as, “Does God make moral truths true or does he merely recognize that they are true” (Rachels 55). In other words, is morality good because God commands it, or does God command morality because He recognizes morality as good?

     Rachels, in his book, focuses on both questions and shows how the Christian, if asked these questions, cannot seem provide adequate answers. As for the question of if God commands morality because He sees that morality is good, if the Christian accepts this view then the implications are devastating. If God commands morality because it is good, then this means there is a higher standard to judge morality than God Himself. As Rachels states, “When we say that God commands us to be truthful because truthfulness is right, we are acknowledging a standard of right and wrong that is independent of God’s will” (57).

     Rachels actually makes a valid point here. If the Christian believes this to be true, then they are not staying true to the theological convictions of historical Christianity. In this circumstance, God would be an inferior being even to morality. Just as Koukl states and agrees with Rachels, “If the standard itself is absolute such that not even God can violate it, doesn’t this make the Almighty Himself beholden to a higher law? The sovereign becomes the subordinate”. The Christian in turn would be forced to give up the belief that, “you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him” (Deut. 4.35). If God recognizes that there is some kind of higher moral standard, then not even God is the final authority, there is something else co-eternal or even above God Himself.

     What about the second question that Rachels presents? Is morality good because God commands it? Even in this question the Christian appears to be caught by the powers of philosophical logic. On this view, morality is seen to be an arbitrary command. As Koukl states, “The content of morality would be arbitrary dependent on God’s whim”.

     Dr. Rachels continues in his book to give a great example of his argument. Rachels takes the example of child abuse and applies it, “God could make an instance of child abuse right—not by turning a slap into a friendly pinch of the cheek, but by commanding that the slap is right” (56). Most everyone would agree that child abuse is wrong and even if God commanded an act of child abuse to be “right”, people would still think it is wrong. If God could get away with what Rachels describes, then morality would be arbitrary and meaningless. This would go for any other concept of morality as well. Again, consider Koukl, “Though God has declared murder, theft, and debauchery wrong, it could have been otherwise had God willed it so. Any immoral act could suddenly become moral by simple fiat”.

     So it seems that an advocate of the Christian worldview is at a standstill at this point in the argument. Does Rachels make such a good argument that there is no answer to be given from the Christian on this issue? At first glance the apparent answer would be yes, Rachels does make a convincing argument that is logically consistent. In fact, it is such a good argument that Dr. Rachels is right. There is no way for a Christian to get out of this dilemma just by choosing one of these two options. What Dr. Rachels has not considered though, is the fact that neither of these two options describes Christianity in its true light.

     Rachels has missed the notion that within the Christian worldview morality cannot be seen as wholly separate from God rendering it arbitrary or higher in authority to God, but rather, God is the essence of what morality is. Consider what Koukl has to say concerning a new third option for the Christian to grasp, “The third option is that an objective standard exists. However, the standard is not external to God, but internal. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness”. If morality is “rooted in God’s holiness” then it cannot be arbitrary because God cannot make moral whatever He wishes. It would go against God’s character completely. Morality also cannot be separate from God either because God is not separate from His own character. God’s perfect goodness is a personal trait that cannot be taken away from Him.

     There is, however, biblical evidence to support what Koukl is saying. One example comes from the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament, “So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of His purpose, He guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6. 17-18). This passage seems to suggest that there is no way in which God could possibly lie. This biblical passage puts a damper on Rachel’s argument that morality is arbitrary when God commands it. If morality where arbitrary to God, potentially God could deem lying as morally “right”. Since within the Christian worldview God cannot lie, He could not change His mind on the issue of lying as Rachels suggests in the example of child abuse.

Habakkuk and the Character of God in the Bible

            One of the most interesting books of the Bible would have to be Habakkuk. This tiny writing sits at the end of the Old Testament containing much detailed information about who the God of the Bible is and what He looks like in relation to the entire created universe. Discussing the character of God seems to be a major point of dialogue in most theological and philosophical circles today. There are many opinions about who the God of the Bible really is, and many differing views are being taught within the Christian church itself. The point of discussion in this article is to focus on the true nature of God based on Biblical evidence, but first it would be wise to consider other views that are being held in the church today.

     Consider this quote from a “Christian” theologian,

     “The future is determined not by God alone, but in partner with human agents. God gives us a role in shaping what the future will be. He is flexible and does not insist on doing things His way. God will adjust His own plans because He is sensitive to what humans think and do.”

     What is particularly interesting about this quote is that it quickly diminishes the completely sovereign aspect of God’s character. This is not too far off from what is known as Open Theism, the view held by people like Gregory Boyd and John Sanders. Basically, this position holds that God does not know the future exhaustively and that He can only know what is knowable. This seems to be taking a step away from the historical view of who God is in the Bible.

     Considering the book of Habakkuk would, in my outlook, absolutely decimate this view of God, and Habakkuk does it biblically. The whole point of the book of Habakkuk is that God is completely sovereign in every aspect of life. One quick read through of Habakkuk would quickly put to rest the notion that “God is flexible and does not insist of doing things His way and that God will adjust His own plans because He is sensitive to what humans think and do”.

     In fact, the opposite is true. In the narrative of Habakkuk, the prophet Habakkuk goes before God questioning why God has not done anything to stop the wickedness that the people are committing. God answers Habakkuk and says that He is doing something, “A work in your days that you would not believe if told” (Hab. 1:5). God was referring to the raising up of the Babylonians to judge and destroy the wickedness of Judah, the very place where Habakkuk was at this time. Habakkuk then questions God as to why He would do something like this, but God answers with a rather astounding remark.

     “Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not right within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4).

     As Habakkuk is in immense fear of the Babylonian threat coming, but God answers by saying that the Babylonians will get their just punishment for destroying Judah, but the ones from Judah who have faith in the Lord of heaven will live. To me, this raises some considerable doubt about the nature of God as presented in the quote above. Will God really adjust His plans even if we humans do not think it is a good idea what God is doing? I think not, and Habakkuk clearly shows this.

     The ending of Habakkuk is what is truly amazing about this whole study. By the third chapter, Habakkuk is now singing a song of praise to God remembering all that God has saved His people from mainly focusing on the Exodus out of Egypt. Habakkuk concludes that though the army of the Babylonians is coming, he will rejoice in the God of his salvation because God still saves people. Clearly, Habakkuk did not want to endure hardship of war, but joyfully does because the true God, the Lord in heaven will deliver him.

     As for the character of God, we see that He works out all of history to His liking. Of course this does not mean that humans don’t have a free will, but rather that God’s sovereignty is compatible with the free will of humans. I think it would be wise to say that the God of the Bible is not the God of the quote from above. God does not dwell in systems of theology such as the Openness of God, but rather sits comfortably in the realm of biblical truth taught in Scripture. God is not a sucker sitting around for when we humans conveniently need Him, but rather God is actively working out all of history for His glory and liking. Truly we worship and amazing God that is still in the business of saving sinners from the just punishment we deserve.

Round Two, The Battle for the Big Bad Bus Ads Continue.

    

     As the battle for the bus campaign rages on, the war for space on the sides of city buses is by no means at a stand still. As of October 21, 2008 in London England, the atheist ad campaign was in full swing. Supported by the British Humanist Association (BHA) and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, the atheist bus campaign has received much publicity. And with a slogan that says, “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”, it is clear that hype is not hard to come by, especially with the Christian community.

     In response to this atheistic slogan being pushed, members of the Christian community are striking back with messages of their own. “There definitely is a God, so join the Christian party and enjoy your life”. This is an example of one of the several responses from Christian groups. Among other responses are ones that quote Psalm 53, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God”. On and on the battle continues, but what are we to think about this?

     No doubt this competition brings about mixed feelings of being patriotic to ones cause, but should this be the way to handle disputes on theology? That’s right, theology! At the most basic level of this argument is one of theology, but it’s whose theology is right that is in question. Is the atheistic theology, one that calls for the absence of God the right way, or could it be the Christian’s view of God who intervenes in the affairs of humans that is correct after all? I say that this is no way to be fighting for a truth that means so much for so many people.

     I have to admit that I am somewhat skeptical of this bus campaign stuff. As a Christian, spending our time and money combating atheism on the sides of city buses is not the way to go. We need to be devoting our time and energy into spending quality time with people who do not believe the Christian message showing them the true gospel of Jesus Christ. As Christians, we should be involved in our community helping those who are less fortunate and in dialogue with the people of our community to show them that Jesus came to save sinners. I am all for the apologetical approach to defending the faith, but wasting time with bus ads probably will not save anyone. I will also note that putting an atheistic slogan on the sides of city buses will probably not convince anyone either. We need to take another look at what the Bible says about defending the faith,

“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.” 1 Peter 3: 15-16

“For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.” 2 Corinthians 10: 3-6

     Know that I am not saying that there is not place for intellectual engagement, because as Christians we should be ready to engage this world intellectually at any moment, but there is a way that we should go about doing just that. Responding to an atheist bus campaign with ads of your own will not reflect the gospel accurately and that is what we should be doing. Rather than mocking the atheist position with words like theirs, we should take every thought captive for the sake of Christ. When it’s all said and done, my opinion is that overall; these bus ads will probably not matter much.

Consider these sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29662866/

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1877658,00.html

http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/faq/

What they wont preach…Who are the children of wrath? Pt. 1

    

          ”And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest”. The Apostle Paul- Ephesians 2: 1-3 (NASB).

     When it comes to the relationship between the church and the culture of our present day, so many times they tend to clash on many levels. The passage quoted above from Paul in the New Testament is an example of one of those situations in which the culture of today is in conflict with the truths taught in Biblical Scripture itself. This post is the first in a series of three articles where our focus will be on the topic of the wrath of God and those who are recipients of God’s wrath; Paul calls them, the “Children of wrath”.

     In this passage Paul is talking to the Christians at the church in Ephesus, whom he recognizes as true believers in Christ. Paul mentions first how they were once dead in their sin and they walked according to the course of this world and even according to “the prince of the power of air, and this is the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience”. When Paul says they were dead in their sin, he is meaning spiritually they were dead. While physically alive, God’s judgment was upon them (John 3: 36) rendering them spiritually dead in sin.

     So what? What could this possibly mean for anyone else since Paul was only talking to the Ephesians? It would do well for everyone to note that Paul is addressing them in the past tense in this situation. He says, “of which you formerly walked”. The Ephesians were once dead, but now are not. By stating this Paul is showing the state of all human beings before coming to salvation in Jesus. Consider Romans 5: 12 (NASB),

     “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”.

     According to Paul in Romans chapter 5, all have sinned in Adam and therefore just as Ephesians chapter 2 says, before salvation in Christ, we are all dead spiritually. Not only dead spiritually, but a slave to sinfulness and cannot be free of that until God intervenes (John 8: 34). On this topic pastor John Piper says, “There are three S’s to remember when dealing with this passage”,

1. We are sick unto death with sin.

2. We are sabotaged by Satan.

3. We are sentenced to an eternal hell apart from the grace of Jesus Christ.

     So as one can easily see, Paul provides no easy position for us to be in who are not true believers in Jesus. It is no wonder why the Bible clashes with our humanistic culture in so many ways. Just as everything in our culture is relative and we make it what we want, the Bible teaches otherwise and that there is something more than us out there. According to the Bible, you have it only two ways, either to be slave to sin or to be in submission to the God of the universe, Jesus Christ.

     Friends, this is no easy topic to talk about and that is why it is ignored frequently in most churches (including evangelical churches as well) around America today. Though this is just an introduction to the topic that will be discussed more in detail in future posts to come, please consider my challenge to you. If you are not a believer in Jesus, this has eternal consequences for you. If you are already a believer in Jesus, take this time to reconsider the grace of God and join in with other believers in worshiping Him because He is worthy and has saved you. Remember just as John Piper says, “You will not find out about your true nature in the newspaper or TIME or NEWSWEEK”. You need to turn to God’s word to find out. Until next time…Grace and Peace in Christ Jesus!

John Piper on Obama.

     This is a video from pastor John Piper on challenging the newly president elect Obama to be courageous and lead this country.  I pray that all you will enjoy and hopefully gain something from the passion of John Piper. May God bless you and bless our newly elect president of the United States. To Christ be the glory forever! Amen.

 

Is Denying Jesus…Christian?

    

     “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple”- John 8: 58-59

     This is a quote from chapter 8 of the gospel of John and seemingly attests to what all orthodox Christianity believes; that Jesus is truly God! However, not all who call themselves “Christians” are in agreement over this belief. Does the Bible teach that Jesus is really God? Do both the Old and the New Testaments confirm this? Ultimately, can one be a “Christian” and deny the divinity of Jesus? My answer of course is that the Bible does teach the divinity of Jesus and that in order to be a Christian, based on Biblical evidence, ones needs to believe that Jesus is truly God, the second person of the Trinity along with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

     The whole reason for this discussion is based off of a conversation that I am currently having with an internet friend who does not agree with the notion that Jesus is God. This post is not in any way designed to attack this friend personally, but to merely discuss this issue and prove from the Biblical narrative that Jesus views Himself as God. But why the split among people who call themselves Christians? They both cannot be right, can they?

     No! Both sides cannot be right, Jesus cannot be both God and not God at the same time, so what are we to do with this issue? It would be wise to look at the split and to know where everyone falls on this issue. Of course, there are the Catholics and the Evangelical Protestant churches that hold to the divinity of Jesus, then you have the liberal protestants who are just confused about everything in Christianity and do not know where they stand half the time, but that is for another discussion altogether, finally you have the groups who claim to be true Christianity but do not hold to Jesus being God. These groups include the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Christian Science movement, and many more of the alike who all deny Jesus’ divinity. Why do they diverge away from traditional Christianity then? I think in all of these cases, the answer is simple; all have in some way been started by a person or people who, for personal reasons, whatever they may be, have not agreed with the traditional view of Christianity and turned true Biblical Scripture into what they want it to say. In fact, most of these groups have had so many problems with traditional Christianity that their own “Bible” has come from their thinking. That is why it is hard to talk with a person from one of these groups, because they argue from their Bible that is supposed to be the only correct version, but are not without many inconsistencies in the text. It seems that from each of these groups comes the claim that they are the true church (check out CARM for more information on this). Of course, this could be argued against evangelical Protestantism, but what has the church agreed upon over the course of its history? All of the essential Christian doctrines, the virgin birth, the Trinitarian view of God, Jesus being fully God and fully man, Jesus’ physical bodily resurrection from the dead, the ascension of Christ into heaven after being resurrected, and that Jesus will return at the end of time. These are all orthodox beliefs that are being challenged by many of these new groups, but what does the Bible actually say about Jesus being God?

     The Biblical passage that opened this post can be found in the gospel of John, and is one of many places in the Bible that Jesus’ divinity can be found. I would like to take a few minutes and discuss some passages from the New and Old Testament to establish my case for Jesus’ divinity. Consider these as Biblical evidence,

John 8: 58- Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am”. Jesus here in this verse is clearly claiming divinity by calling Himself the name that God in the Old Testament told Moses (Exodus 3: 14). Jesus is undoubtedly saying to the Jewish leaders that He is the one who was talking to Moses from the burning bush. The Jewish leaders respond by wanting to kill Jesus because they knew what He was claiming.

John 1: 1-14- This is another passage from the gospel of John in which Jesus is viewed as God. John here tells the reader that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word that John keeps referring to is Jesus. So in essence, in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. John then goes on to tell us that the Word came into the world. Does this sound like Jesus? I think this is very clear, don’t you?

Hebrews 1- This whole chapter is designed to portray Jesus as God. In the opening of Hebrews, the writer says this, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of His nature, and upholds all things by the power of His word. When He made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High”. This person that the writer of Hebrews is talking about is non other than Jesus Himself. Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father’s nature.

Psalm 110- This whole psalm is amazing to read! In the beginning of this psalm, David opens with this phrase, “The LORD says to my Lord: sit at My right hand”. This is a picture of Jesus interacting with the Father on the throne.

Daniel 7: 13-14- Here Daniel refers to some one “like s Son of Man coming”. Jesus often refers to Himself as the Son of Man, and this passage in Daniel shows the Old Testament existence of the Son of Man interacting in creation and the Son of Man is Jesus.

     In conclusion of this discussion, I would just like to say as a closing argument, to undermine the belief of Jesus being God, is to essentially destroy the gospel message. How can the message of the gospel be truly preached if Jesus is not God? It cannot be! As a reminder to those who do not understand what I mean when I say gospel, the gospel message is that God, being perfect and good in every way created the world and all that you see (Genesis 1). God then created man in His image, designing them to worship and love Him while loving them all the more (Genesis 1 & 2). Man in our folly rebelled against God’s decree and that threw all of creation into sin and sin explains all evil that we see (Genesis 3). Man being radically depraved and spiritually dead like spiritual corpses are deserving of Hell of our actions (Ephesians 2). God sent His perfect Son, Jesus the second person of the trinity who is fully God to become fully man and be offered as a sacrifice for the sins of His people (John 3: 16). Jesus was crucified and the sins of God’s people were placed on Jesus and Jesus bore the wrath of God to Himself to save His people (2 Corinthians 5: 21). By doing this, God has now worked through Jesus and by the Holy Spirit to save sinners like you and I (Ephesians 1). Jesus having been physically resurrected is now with the Father on the throne ruling and judging the nations (Colossians 1) and will return soon for His people (Revelation 3: 11). It would do well to consider the message of the Bible and believe Jesus is Lord. Friends, to deny Jesus’ divinity is to deny the gospel message in full. I challenge those of you who consider themselves Christian but do not believe Jesus is God to reconsider your claim. Anything that is not preaching Jesus as God is not the true gospel. Grace and Peace.

The Word Becomes Flesh.

    

          Well it looks like we all have made it to yet one more Christmas day and all the thanks and glory be to Jesus who is on the throne now. I pray that all of you are having a wonderful day with family and friends. Knowing that it is Christmas, it would be wise to talk a little about the one who Christmas is supposed to be about, the Lord Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully man. I am speaking of a very important view in the Christian faith known as the doctrine of the incarnation, but what does that mean?

     “The Incarnation of the Son of God is the terminology used to describe what happened when the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, “became flesh” as he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary according to the Bible. In the incarnation, the divine nature of the Son was perfectly united with human nature in one divine Person. This person, Jesus Christ, was both “truly God and truly man.” (Theopedia).

     As one can clearly imagine, the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus is severely important to the Christian faith and a doctrine that cannot be compromised. I am willing to go as far as to say that as a Christian, the doctrine of the incarnation is so important that to stray away from this doctrine is to leave the lines of orthodoxy and not be within the boundaries of the Christian faith. With that in mind, the doctrine of the incarnation is exactly what Christmas is all about and why Christmas is considered a Christian holiday. Consider with me John 1: 1-18,

     “1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (ESV Bible online).

     This rather lengthy passage is very important and plays a large role in understanding the doctrine of the incarnation. In fact, my study Bible, and I would assume most study Bibles, label this section “The Word made flesh”. While this entire passage is important, the focus will be primarily spent on the first part of the passages, namely verses 1-5, but the rest of the passage will be discussed in some detail as well.

     In the opening verses of the gospel of John, the writer keeps referring to this idea of the “Word”. John starts from the beginning and says that “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God”. This clearly echoes the opening phrase of Genesis chapter 1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”, but John shows that the Word was with God in the beginning. Not only that, John says that the Word “was God”. This is extremely important to understand!

     As John goes proceeds in his writing, the reader finds that the “Word” being discussed in the opening verses is none other than Jesus of Nazareth Himself. John is showing that Jesus was with God in eternity past and that Jesus is God. Hmmm, this is intriguing! Could it be that this is good grounds for holding to the view of a Trinitarian nature of God? I think so!

     The Greek word that is used for “Word” in this passage is Logos which “conveys the notion of divine self-expression or speech and has a rich Old Testament background” (ESV Study Bible). God’s Word is effective because God speaks and matter comes into existence, and also by speech, God relates personally to His people. By using the Greek word Logos in this passage, John is also showing that this concept of the Logos is even more superior to the way in which the Greeks would use the word Logos. In Greek culture, Logos is seen as an impersonal principle of reason that gave order to the universe. However, in the case of John’s writing, John shows that the Word was with God indicating a personal relationship with God. John also shows that the Word was God affirming that this Word is also the same God who created the universe. (Refer to Colossians chapter 1 for a cross reference). What an interesting concept!

     The next part of the passage (vv. 6-8) is important as well in understanding some Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming of Jesus. John goes on to write about John the Baptist who was prophesied about in Isaiah 40: 3 and sent from God to be a witness about the “light”, who is actually Jesus; so that many may be saved by the message of the gospel preached by John the Baptist. Remember however, John the Baptist is not the “light” but a forerunner of the light to come.

     As for the rest of the passage (vv. 9-18), this concludes the opening of John’s gospel with talking about the actual incarnation itself. We find that in this passage, the light comes into the world that He has made and yet those whom He has created did not receive Him. John, then goes to on to make a very important statement concerning the point of His coming into the world. He would give the right to become children of the Most High God to anyone who would believe, but not according to the person’s will, the person’s flesh, or blood, but according to the will of God (vv.12-13). Jesus came to save sinners!

     My friends, the point of Christmas is this; that God would send His son, the second person of the Trinity, a Savior, Jesus Christ to save a people for Himself. As we consider this day, December 25, 2008, please remember that this is more than just a baby being born in a manger, but that baby was and is the God of the universe who sits on the throne ruling the universe. Please also remember, that Christmas should not be the only day that we celebrate the events of the incarnation, but everyday should be considered a celebration for God because He would send His Son to die for sinners who do not deserve His grace and peace. It is through Jesus that we have true grace and peace for this season. God bless all!

William Lane Craig on Richard Dawkins Pt. 2.