As to be expected, our friend Matthew has followed up with some kind and tenderhearted responses. I was really hoping that we would receive some kind of significant and meaningful response to the question I have been posing, but that was wistful thinking I suppose. Notice the hubris that seems to be emanating from these kind of replies. It is almost as if he has dismissed any possibility that belief in the Christian God and Christian religion could be at all intelligbly defensible. You can gather from how he approaches this subject that he must think that to adhere to orthodox Christianity or the integrity of Scripture, one must be a neanderthal. He continues to launch these, shall we say, guerilla attacks on the integrity of Scripture. Yet all the while he is avoiding a simple, direct yet important question. As usual, my comments are in bold:
"Wait... you require evidence for God to exist before you believe in him? Now who's pooing on faith? I personally think that God can't be known through experiences, evidences, or proofs; to do so would eliminate the need for faith, and thus the need to believe in God. If you can PROVE he exists, no faith is required to "see" God's influence in the world."
I was making a play on words. I do not believe that you prove the existence of God the same way that you prove that there are crackers in the pantry. This is not to say that there are not EVIDENCES for God. I have never said that there were no evidences for God. The problem is that no one interprets those evidences neutrally. We all interpret evidence through a conceptual framework called a worldview. This is why evidence alone will not lead one to belief in the Christian God because all have that evidence and suppress it (cf. Rom. 1:18-21). My point is that you operate upon a rational, logical basis and yet your worldview destroys the very foundation for logic and reason.
"Actually, "sir," you are using an argument from authority that is fallacious. "The Bible claims that [blah blah blah]... The reason that FALSE religions exist is because man is incurably (interesting word choice... like an incurable disease?) religious and in their mutiny against the Maker they have gone after false gods" (my emphasis, your grammatical errors). The Bible is not an authority for anything except itself. The bible is not an authority on other religions, nor is it even an authority on Christianity--the vast majority of the bible is a Jewish text, often wrongfully interpreted by Christians who do not practice the Jewish rituals nor have the Jewish education required to understand the book. False, false, false!"
Again, everyone has an absolute to which they appeal to in their worldview. You can reject absolutes and still be appealing to an absolute. It's called relativism. The statement "all truth is relative" is itself self-refuting because it is absolute. The absolute of your worldview seems to be "only statements that are empirically verifiable are legitimate." Yet you cannot test or verify scientifically that statement! The question is: does this statement best account for reality? Does it best account for human experience, your human experience Matthew? When you go to a musical performance, do you come away saying it was "beautiful"? If so, how do you account for beauty? Is it empirically verifiable?
Secondly, the Bible is not a Jewish text hijacked by Christians. The 39 books of the Old Testament were written in mostly Hebrew and some Aramaic. However, it is anachronistic to speak as if Christianity emerged out of Judaism when really, historically speaking, you have Christianity and Judaism both emerging out of ancient Israel religion.
"If I were to say that the Constitution is the authority on government, and that every other country must follow American constitutional laws or suffer the consequences, you would think me mad! But because it's a "religious" document, suddenly it sprouts wings and is given clear majority over other religions (including Judaism) that were around earlier and themselves improved on Christianity (to their thinking)? I think not!"
I am not appealing to the U.S. Constitution as the absolute standard in my worldview. I am appealing to the Bible. You are making a categorical error. Every worldview has an absolute standard to which it appeals and to which it interprets experience. The problem is you have elevated epistemology above metaphysics and said that it is not even important to address questions accounting for the nature of reality. This anti-metaphysical epistemology prevents you from seeing the fact that you operate in your everyday experience as if there was some rational basis for filling up your gas tank or kissing your loved ones goodbye. The question is: how, in your worldview, do you account for reality? You say you are not a logical positivist but when you approach the question of God you become one. You make claims like, "There is no evidence" or "until science proves", all the while not even realizing that God is the basis for believing you can even prove anything!
"Let me clarify something for you, since you obviously have a problem here: neither of these words, "Trinity" or "triune," appears ANYWHERE in either the Old or the New Testament. I DEFY you to find an example of this. Seeing as your very document undercuts your argument, perhaps maybe your dogma is creeping in, your factionalist training?
Nice False Dilemma there, as well! "Either God made everything orderly, or there is no order at all!" Well, there's order, but there's no evidence for God in that order. If you want to BELIEVE that God created such an order, go for it! Rock of our country, the ability to believe anything you want. But if you won't allow anybody else to believe anything else about the universe, say that THEIR god made it, or that NO god made it, then you've got a problem."
Wow. Matthew O'Donnell has informed me on something I did not know! The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible? Really? The hubris that is oozing from his replies is almost unbearable. Matthew, I, nor any informed Christian, ever claimed that the term "Trinity" ever appeared in the Bible. This does not mean the concept of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. Just because the word "Trinity" does not appear in Scripture, does not mean we cannot employ extrabiblical language to articulate more clearly Biblical meaning. The term "rapture" does not appear in the Scriptures either but it does not negate the fact that the New Testament teaches that Christ will return to gather believers with him in the air.
Again, you misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that apart from belief in the Christian God, no worldview can account for the order we see in the universe. If you want to tell me how macroevolution or the big bang theory can account for order, I'm all ears. And I never said anything about not allowing anyone else to believe as they choose. I'm not militant.
"I guess I don't have a worldview, since my worldview doesn't appeal to a universal standard. Could it be that it is only YOUR worldview that appeals to such a restrictive and reductive standard? Can you provide any examples as to what possible "standard" i could be following, other than the very random and lucky occurrence of my thoughts at the time? Is that not enough of a worldview for you? I apologize for your disappointment. :)"
Denying you have a worldview is akin to denying the fact that you breathe oxygen. Again, I have suggested the standard you have been appealing to: empiricism. You may claim that you are not a logical positivist but you approach the question of God as a logical positivist. If the standard for determining truth is nothing more than "the very random and lucky occurrence of my thoughts at the time" then we might as well end this debate, as we have no rational or logical foundation to continue it.
"And again, i DON'T FRICKIN' KNOW how to account for the laws of logic. Unlike you, i choose to withhold judgment on the nature of the universe until such time as more concrete and conclusive evidence sways me in one way or another! Laws of mathematics exist independent of me, represented as laws of gravity, radiation, thermodynamics, electricity, etc. Are you really asking me to morally justify the rising of the sun, or the condensation on my windows in the morning? Sounds pretty stupid to try and map human morals onto non-human events!"
Herein is the heart of the matter: you do not know how to account for the laws of logic. You presuppose their existence in your speech and actions but the very foundation of your worldview destroys them. Let me ask you this: do you look both ways when crossing the street? If so, why? Why do you think that because I drop a ball 1,000 times that it will always drop to the ground? Why wouldn't it shoot back up or move horizontally? If the universe is based on randomness and chance, how can you justify these universal, invariants?
You have claimed to not filter everything through the lens of empiricism but here again you say "i choose to withhold judgment on the nature of the universe until such time as more concrete or conclusive evidence sways me." Two things here. One, you are operating on the basis that the only facts we can know about the nature of the universe are those that come from observation, again showing your reliance on empiricism. Secondly, the ironic thing is that you DO NOT withhold judgment. You do not withhold judgment before you go home at night and say, "I probably should not leave a porch light on as there is not concrete or conclusive evidence that sways me that because the sun went down yesterday evening, it will go down today." You have no "concrete or conclusive" evidence swaying you to believe that tomorrow will be like the past. The only reason you have for believing that the sun will set tonight is because that is what happened last night. This is just one of a dozen of things that you do without having a scientific reason or empirically based explanation for why you do it! So, Matthew, how do you account for the uniformity of nature?
"As for human morals, yes, there are societal conventions. Slavery was one of them. It still is. Fortunately, some very liberal guilt was responsible for the attempted eradication of slavery here in the west, and so we have less of it than say, Indonesia or India today. And don't forget that YOUR FRICKIN' BIBLE was used to justify slavery, to JUSTIFY THE ENSLAVEMENT OF HUMAN BEINGS, OF CHRISTIANS!!"
Human morals are societal conventions? So if they are societal conventions does that mean that if our entire society (that is the U.S.) got together and said, "It is moral to enslave black people" or "It is moral to torture gay people" that it would suddenly be moral? Here is a biased view of slavery in the United States if I ever heard one: "some very liberal guilt was responsible for the attempted eradication of slavery." You act as if every Bible-believing Christian was for slaves! If you take the time to study this issue, you will find that there were many Christians who lobbied for the eradication of slavery both in the States and in Great Britain (example from U.S.: Harriet Beecher Stowe; example from Britain: William Wilberforce).Just because the Bible was used to justify slavery, does not mean the Bible contains error. Just because someone abuses the Bible, does not make the Bible evil. Just because someone wrongly interprets a text, does not mean that text is meant to be interpreted in that way? Got it?
"But morals are forever bound by their very human roots: flawed, yet uniformly so. If human beings were to "evolve," perhaps our morality would evolve as well, perhaps not. I've seen no evidence pro or con on that front."
This is quite an interesting statement. I would like to explore this statement in more depth: "But morals are forever bound by their very human roots: flawed, yet uniformly so." It is such a shame that Matthew has to keep diverting the subject at hand: account for the laws of logic, morality, beauty, uniformity of nature, etc. If morality is bound by our human roots and uniformly flawed, how come all humans do not agree on the same morality? How come some cultures still practice cannibalism and slavery and others female circumcision? If there are no moral absolutes, then we have no business attempting the eradication of these practices. If there are no moral absolutes to evaluate other cultures by, then sati would still be in practice today in India (by the way, it was William Carey, a Christian evangelist, who helped to get this abolished). If these moral absolutes are linked to our human roots and are "uniformly flawed", then we would all be morally flawed in the same way and there would be no reason to find cultures disagreeing on a moral practice.
"Added to this is the fact that no portion of a religious text is logically interdependent with axiomatic thought--namely, that all religious texts are allegories, stories to elucidate a deeper moral not necessarily found in the text (for instance, Jesus murdered by Romans --> salvation for Christians... no logical connection without further explanation). Therefore, you must PRESUPPOSE a logical framework by which to view Christianity's dictates--indeed, an actual framework UNDERNEATH Christianity is required to view the "proper" Presuppositionalist view of Christianity, as opposed to an "improper" view as taken by anyone who disagrees with Presuppositionalism. Not with Christianity, of course--just with the tenets that Presupps decide to abide by.
So YES INDEED, you are a hypocrite. You attempt to pry open others' epistemological frameworks while covering up the fact that you've cherry-picked an epistemological framework of your own, and a really shoddy one at that. I mean, taken as a whole, the Bible is actually contradictory in numerous places, and entirely uncertain morals and metaphors are numerous (Jacob cheats Esau out of his inheritance, and God therefore favors him? God kills 52 children using stampeding bulls for making fun of his prophet's bald head? ad nauseam...)."
A few final thoughts: In Matthew's closing comments, he mentioned the mystery of inquitiy. This is the infamous Acchiles' heel of Christianity according to atheists. The problem is Matthew has a greater one. If there is no God, how do you even account for evil? If the universe is based on randomness and chance, there is only human behavior, not evil. While Christians recognize the mystery involved in the presence of evil, the false syllogism of--God is benevolent, God is all-powerful, evil exists, therefore God must not be benevolent or all-powerful--does not hold. The Bible clearly states that it is good that evil exists. Note, I did not say that EVIL IS GOOD. This is a huge distinction. I said that the Bible states that it is good that evil exists. So a better syllogism would be:
1) God is all powerful.
2) God is benevolent.
3) Evil exists.
4) God in his sovereignty is all natural and moral evil to the greatest good and his highest glory.
Finally, not all of Scripture is to be interpreted "allegorically." There are times when the Bible is to be interpreted figuratively and times when it is to be interpreted literally. We know when to interpret figuratively and when to interpret literally the same way we know when approaching any other text. We examine the historical and literary context, the context of the passage within the larger book, syntax, grammar, and so forth. The way we understand the meaning of the narrative of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection found in the gospels is not because of some imposed conceptual framework but because of the didactic material that explains it (found both in the gospels and in the remainder of the New Testament). In other words, the didactic informs the narrative sections of Scripture. One remaining comment: if you suppose that the story of Jacob and Esau is meant to be read as a moral narrative suggesting that Jacob earns God's favor because he cheats Esau, you're off track entirely. The point of the narrative of Jacob and Esau (and all of Scripture for that matter) is that God chose Jacob in spite of all that he had done! God did not choose Jacob because he craftily outwitted his older brother. God chose Jacob because he was the most unlikely of people to receive the favor of God. In ancient cultures, the rite of primogeniture meant that the eldest received the inheritance and the land. The story of Jacob and Esau shows that God chose one who is the least deserving and least worthy. This is so that no one can boast in the presence of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26-31).
More to come...
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
The Birth of the King: Isaiah 9:1-7 - Part IV
Having seen the historical and the literary context of Isaiah 9:1-7, and having elucidated the specifics of what would constitute fulfillment of this messianic prophecy, I now turn to a theological exposition of the passage.
Isaiah 9:1-7 has one main purpose. Here it is - the birth of the Messiah will bring light to a people walking in darkness. "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined" (verse 2). The great light will be the birth of a great King: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given...Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from this time forth and forevermore" (verses 6-7). The people of Judah and Jerusalem dwelt in a land of darkness, a land darkened by gross immorality (Isaiah 1:2ff.), political upheaval (Isaiah 7:1-2), impending war, and economic instability (Isaiah 8:21). However, in the midst of the darkness, God would give his Son to bring light.
Specifically, there are three ways in which this coming King (i.e. the Messiah) brings light:
(1) He fulfills the messianic promise.
(2) He fits the messianic profile.
(3) He finishes the messianic program.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Does God Love Everyone Equally?
A prevalent misconception in the evangelical church today is the teaching that God loves all people in the same way. Proponents of this view often quote the ever popular John 3:16, placing added emphasis on the universal term: "For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." However, does the term "world" or kosmos in the Greek mean "every single individual who ever lived, without exception" as most evangelicals claim? Let it first be noted that the term "kosmos" has at least seven distinguishable definitions within the New Testament. With that in mind, consider the words of the late scholar and teacher A.W. Pink:
Yet, if anyone will take a Concordance and read carefully the various passages in which the term "world" (as a translation of "kosmos") occurs, he will quickly perceive that to ascertain the precise meaning of, the word "world" in any given passage is not nearly so easy as is popularly supposed. The word "kosmos," and its English equivalent "world," is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. -"The Meaning of 'KOSMOS' in John 3:16", A.W. Pink
Pink then proceeds to unpack those seven different meanings. Unlike most evangelicals today, Pink is actually concerned with being lexically faithful to the Greek in John 3:16. The problem with preachers in the church today is not so much that they are propagating straightforward lies (though in some cases they are), but that they are presenting an assortment of "half-truths." They are not preaching the "whole counsel of God" as Paul did in Ephesus (see Acts 20:27ff). God does have a general good will towards all his creation (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:27-36). This is called common grace. However, God has a special, distinguishing love for the church (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 9:6ff). This is God's special grace. God has a salvific love for the ones he foreknew in eternity past. The distinction between this love and his general goodwill to all of creation is that it guarantees and secures the salvation of all the elect (Romans 8:29).
To which an objector may reply, "That's not fair! God cannot go about loving some and not loving others!" First, I will answer with a short, but needed response. God is obligated to no man but does whatever pleases him (Psalm 115:3, 135:6; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:21, 11:34-36). The main problem with this kind of objection is that it presupposes that God is obligated to save sinners. However, God is not bound by any such stipulation. Instead, Ephesians tells us that it is because of God's rich mercy and unconstrained love that he chooses to save some (Eph. 2:4). Therefore, God has every right to love some and not others. This is the very logic behind Paul's analogy of the potter and the clay in Romans 9. A potter has every right to make some vessels for destruction and others for life, and so in the same way, God has every right to make some humans to be recipients of his saving love and others to be recipients of his damning wrath. Though some reject the notion that God has hatred towards any human, the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise (Psalm 5:5; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13).
It is interesting to note that the same evangelicals who object to God having a distinguishing love for his people whom he foreknew from eternity past (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 8:29, 9:6ff) have no objection to this kind of love existing among humans. After all, which of these evangelicals would ever claim to love criminals, strangers, or even their most friendly neighbors in the same manner that they love their own children? Such a practice if ever performed would be deemed neurotic, demented even and rightly so. Yet, if we are truly to be imitators of God as Paul tells us in Ephesians 5:1, then such a view of God as having only one kind of universal love would lead us to conclude that we should do the same. The thought itself borders on absurdity.
Praise God that he is no less than his creatures and he is capable of having a particular, distinguishing love for his own! Soli deo gloria!
Yet, if anyone will take a Concordance and read carefully the various passages in which the term "world" (as a translation of "kosmos") occurs, he will quickly perceive that to ascertain the precise meaning of, the word "world" in any given passage is not nearly so easy as is popularly supposed. The word "kosmos," and its English equivalent "world," is not used with a uniform significance in the New Testament. Very far from it. It is used in quite a number of different ways. -"The Meaning of 'KOSMOS' in John 3:16", A.W. Pink
Pink then proceeds to unpack those seven different meanings. Unlike most evangelicals today, Pink is actually concerned with being lexically faithful to the Greek in John 3:16. The problem with preachers in the church today is not so much that they are propagating straightforward lies (though in some cases they are), but that they are presenting an assortment of "half-truths." They are not preaching the "whole counsel of God" as Paul did in Ephesus (see Acts 20:27ff). God does have a general good will towards all his creation (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:27-36). This is called common grace. However, God has a special, distinguishing love for the church (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 9:6ff). This is God's special grace. God has a salvific love for the ones he foreknew in eternity past. The distinction between this love and his general goodwill to all of creation is that it guarantees and secures the salvation of all the elect (Romans 8:29).
To which an objector may reply, "That's not fair! God cannot go about loving some and not loving others!" First, I will answer with a short, but needed response. God is obligated to no man but does whatever pleases him (Psalm 115:3, 135:6; Daniel 4:35; Romans 9:21, 11:34-36). The main problem with this kind of objection is that it presupposes that God is obligated to save sinners. However, God is not bound by any such stipulation. Instead, Ephesians tells us that it is because of God's rich mercy and unconstrained love that he chooses to save some (Eph. 2:4). Therefore, God has every right to love some and not others. This is the very logic behind Paul's analogy of the potter and the clay in Romans 9. A potter has every right to make some vessels for destruction and others for life, and so in the same way, God has every right to make some humans to be recipients of his saving love and others to be recipients of his damning wrath. Though some reject the notion that God has hatred towards any human, the Scripture clearly teaches otherwise (Psalm 5:5; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:13).
It is interesting to note that the same evangelicals who object to God having a distinguishing love for his people whom he foreknew from eternity past (Ephesians 1:4ff; Romans 8:29, 9:6ff) have no objection to this kind of love existing among humans. After all, which of these evangelicals would ever claim to love criminals, strangers, or even their most friendly neighbors in the same manner that they love their own children? Such a practice if ever performed would be deemed neurotic, demented even and rightly so. Yet, if we are truly to be imitators of God as Paul tells us in Ephesians 5:1, then such a view of God as having only one kind of universal love would lead us to conclude that we should do the same. The thought itself borders on absurdity.
Praise God that he is no less than his creatures and he is capable of having a particular, distinguishing love for his own! Soli deo gloria!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Still barking up the wrong tree...
It appears that our friend Matthew has responded. I have not the time at the moment to provide a detailed rebuttal of everything he has said but I do want to provide a brief response. Unfortunately, there is still no meaningful discussion of the subject at hand: how to account for the laws of logic. Sigh. My responses are in bold.
"Ha! You believe me an atheist? I do not fit your definition of gnosis of the one true faith, of the true son of the all-Father, unchanging and unalterable from now until the end of Ragnarok?"
No-I believe you defined yourself at the onset of the debate by claiming that there was NO EVIDENCE for God. If you suddenly want to change your position, then that's fine.
"A question for YOU: why do not all men agree on God? For if you are to put logic into the crosshairs, it is only fair for you to put its' replacement there as well. Why are there religions that also preach their unity, their righteousness, their indefatigability from now until their end of time, and why YOU are going to hell (or its equivalent) if you do not obey their dictates?"
The Bible claims that man, in his suppression of the truth and rebellion against Almighty God, exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images (i.e. idols)-cf. Rom. 1:21-23. The reason that false religions exist is because man is incurably religious and in their mutiny against the Maker they have gone after false gods. The real question, Matthew, is how do YOU account for the practice of religion? If we are just the products of Darwinian evolution, why are humans religious? Certainly, it is not a trait that aids survival. How do you account for it? I can account for religious worship and why every culture has a mysterium tremendum or sense of the holy. You sir, cannot.
"'Logic exists because God exists'? Logic = God? Are you just defining God into human affairs, like saying 'Nuts exist because God exists. God is nuts.' You can say that ANYTHING exists because 'God' exists, but without a coherent definition of 'God,' you have no logical basis upon which to make your claim. What, in your argument, is 'God'?"
Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. God is the glorious, Triune being as revealed in the Bible. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immutable, sovereign, merciful, just, holy, benevolent and wise. He created the universe and works all things to the counsel of his will (cf. Eph. 1:11). The reason I say logic exists because God exists is because apart from God there is no reason to believe in something like logic. If the universe is based on randomness and chance, then we have every reason to believe that it would operate APART from scientific laws and apart from logic.
"Is 'God' known by anything other than a text which purports to be the 'Word of God'? Which text is authoritative, and what parts of it?"
God reveals himself through both the book of nature and the book of Scripture. The book of nature reveals that there is a God, that he created everything, and that we owe him thanks (cf. Rom. 1:20-21). This knowledge is not enough to save a man, however, it is only enough to condemn him for all reject it (cf. Rom. 1:18b). While natural revelation tells us there is a God, special revelation tells us who this God is. The Bible is self-authenticating and it is not circular to appeal to that to account for logic, rationality, scientific laws and so forth, because both the Christian and the atheist appeals to an absolute standard. You have missed the debate entirely, Matthew. Your position fails to live up to its own claims as it destroys the very foundation for logic, rationality, scientific laws, etc.
"These can be pretty reductive, so i'll give a non-fallacious example first:
1) Trevor Almy reads the Bible.
2) The Bible says God exists.
3) Trevor Almy believes the Bible.
4) Trevor Almy believes God exists.
Now let's make that something so fallacious that it literally begs the question of how it could possibly be true!
1) The Word of God says that the Word of God is factually true.
2) The Word of God says that God exists. Therefore,
3) God exists.
See the problem with premise 1 up there? Not hard to point out, and again, i'm not a philosopher or logician, but it sounds like you're allowing a freedom of fallacy among yourself and your followers that you do not allow of the "unbelievers," or whatever you call your political enemies. Do you still think it's a good idea having me rant along here to my heart's content?"
Again, you are missing the point entirely. All worldviews are circular in that there is an absolute standard to which one is appealing. The question is how does your absolute hold up against my absolute? Which worldview makes best sense of reality and experience? Does believing in the god of randomness and chance and empircism account for all of human experience? Or does the Christian God better account for reality? That really IS the question, Mr. O'Donnell. And I do wish we could begin discussing it. Oh, and you are welcome to rant for as long as you like... I am really ready to hear you account for the laws of logic...
"Ha! You believe me an atheist? I do not fit your definition of gnosis of the one true faith, of the true son of the all-Father, unchanging and unalterable from now until the end of Ragnarok?"
No-I believe you defined yourself at the onset of the debate by claiming that there was NO EVIDENCE for God. If you suddenly want to change your position, then that's fine.
"A question for YOU: why do not all men agree on God? For if you are to put logic into the crosshairs, it is only fair for you to put its' replacement there as well. Why are there religions that also preach their unity, their righteousness, their indefatigability from now until their end of time, and why YOU are going to hell (or its equivalent) if you do not obey their dictates?"
The Bible claims that man, in his suppression of the truth and rebellion against Almighty God, exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images (i.e. idols)-cf. Rom. 1:21-23. The reason that false religions exist is because man is incurably religious and in their mutiny against the Maker they have gone after false gods. The real question, Matthew, is how do YOU account for the practice of religion? If we are just the products of Darwinian evolution, why are humans religious? Certainly, it is not a trait that aids survival. How do you account for it? I can account for religious worship and why every culture has a mysterium tremendum or sense of the holy. You sir, cannot.
"'Logic exists because God exists'? Logic = God? Are you just defining God into human affairs, like saying 'Nuts exist because God exists. God is nuts.' You can say that ANYTHING exists because 'God' exists, but without a coherent definition of 'God,' you have no logical basis upon which to make your claim. What, in your argument, is 'God'?"
Now you are getting to the heart of the matter. God is the glorious, Triune being as revealed in the Bible. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, immutable, sovereign, merciful, just, holy, benevolent and wise. He created the universe and works all things to the counsel of his will (cf. Eph. 1:11). The reason I say logic exists because God exists is because apart from God there is no reason to believe in something like logic. If the universe is based on randomness and chance, then we have every reason to believe that it would operate APART from scientific laws and apart from logic.
"Is 'God' known by anything other than a text which purports to be the 'Word of God'? Which text is authoritative, and what parts of it?"
God reveals himself through both the book of nature and the book of Scripture. The book of nature reveals that there is a God, that he created everything, and that we owe him thanks (cf. Rom. 1:20-21). This knowledge is not enough to save a man, however, it is only enough to condemn him for all reject it (cf. Rom. 1:18b). While natural revelation tells us there is a God, special revelation tells us who this God is. The Bible is self-authenticating and it is not circular to appeal to that to account for logic, rationality, scientific laws and so forth, because both the Christian and the atheist appeals to an absolute standard. You have missed the debate entirely, Matthew. Your position fails to live up to its own claims as it destroys the very foundation for logic, rationality, scientific laws, etc.
"These can be pretty reductive, so i'll give a non-fallacious example first:
1) Trevor Almy reads the Bible.
2) The Bible says God exists.
3) Trevor Almy believes the Bible.
4) Trevor Almy believes God exists.
Now let's make that something so fallacious that it literally begs the question of how it could possibly be true!
1) The Word of God says that the Word of God is factually true.
2) The Word of God says that God exists. Therefore,
3) God exists.
See the problem with premise 1 up there? Not hard to point out, and again, i'm not a philosopher or logician, but it sounds like you're allowing a freedom of fallacy among yourself and your followers that you do not allow of the "unbelievers," or whatever you call your political enemies. Do you still think it's a good idea having me rant along here to my heart's content?"
Again, you are missing the point entirely. All worldviews are circular in that there is an absolute standard to which one is appealing. The question is how does your absolute hold up against my absolute? Which worldview makes best sense of reality and experience? Does believing in the god of randomness and chance and empircism account for all of human experience? Or does the Christian God better account for reality? That really IS the question, Mr. O'Donnell. And I do wish we could begin discussing it. Oh, and you are welcome to rant for as long as you like... I am really ready to hear you account for the laws of logic...
The Impossibility of the Contrary
Recently, I have been engaging in an online discussion on the topic of the existence of God with a man named Matthew O'Donnell. The discussion began when I posed the question, "How do you account for morality?" The following is an excerpt of our interaction, indicating once again the impossibility of the contrary and just how unwilling the unbeliever is to give an answer for the laws of logic, morality, uniformity of nature, etc.:
Trevor Almy:
I agree with you that men are not inherently good. But how do you account for pervasive evil of men? I can account for it because God has revealed that "there is no one good" (cf. Rom. 3:10-18). An even more important question for you to grapple with is: how do you account for evil?
You are absolutely correct in saying that I presuppose the Christian worldview. I presuppose the Christian worldview because apart from it I cannot account for anything. Every day you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of your life. If you did not, you would not be bother to type out meaningful sentences to me in this forum. You would not attempt to argue your points. If the universe were really based on randomness and chance, you have no foundation for your belief in the laws of logic and no rational platform for our discussion.
The truth is that no one is objective. No one is neutral in how they approach the facts. We all have basic, core beliefs that determine how we interpret reality. The problem is, given your presuppositions, how can you consistently live and behave in a coherent, rational way? I have only asked you to account for one thing: the laws of logic. I have given you answer and I eagerly await yours.
Matthew O'Donnell:
False, false, false! You're proselytizing again.
To quote from your above passage, "Every day you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of your life." Patently false. In fact, the major precepts of western logic and rhetoric were established hundreds of years before Christ was even born, and largely forgotten during the 1000 years of the Middle Ages after he died. Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Epicurus; any philosopher you wish to study on the nature of existence, epistomology, and ontology ultimately derives his core argument NOT from the bible, which has no philosophical argument, but from the very pre-Christian Greeks.
Secondly, you make a disgustingly false dichotomy by saying either A) the Christian worldview forms the foundation of logic, or B) there are no laws of logic. FALSE! In fact, you would find this argument inherently insulting if you were Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc., because it again enforces a false reading of Christian ethics as...inherently human ethics, which implies that other religions' ethics are inherently inhuman, or sub-human. How much more bigoted can you be? Are you next going to tell me that Muslims don't deserve to go to school because they won't understand our way of thinking? Because revelation hasn't taught them the structure of logic?
In fact, were it not for the medieval Arabs, we would not have a single original work of Plato! Homer would be known only through epigrams, and the histories of Greek and Latin scholars by which we know the ancient world would be lost to the destructive force of time. It was Arab scholarly culture that learned Greek, Arab translators who saved the Odyssey and other great works, and Arab mathematicians who added their own philosophical underpinnings to Euclid and the logical works of the ancients, from which we derive our number and mathematics system, called Arabic numerals!
But beyond correcting you, I'm finished attempting to prove to you your own ignorance. If you had half the philosophical knowledge you pretend to have, you would know immediately that the only philosophical thrust of the Bible is as an allegory, and that is only if you do not take the events of the bible as historical fact. Otherwise, you are attempting to argue a fallacy from history, saying that what happened in the past is what ought to happen in every case, which is patently false.
The idea that morals could be inherently Christian is simply ludicrous, since Christianity has existed for only a definite span of time, but human morality has existed before Christianity and independent of Christianity to this day. I have already explained this elsewhere, and your tired protestations are simply no excuse for your ignorance. Be quiet already, if you can't have an original thought that doesn't reek of hegemonic propaganda.
Trevor Almy :
Matthew, Matthew, Matthew...your special pleading and playing to the crowd may fool others but it does not fool me. I have asked you one simple question that you still have not answered: how do you account for the laws of logic? I am NOT saying that you must be a Christian or read the Scriptures to think logically. I am saying that the mere fact that LOGIC exists presupposes the Christian God. In my worldview, I can account for the existence of logic. You may not like my answer but at least I have accounted for it. You cannot give me one answer aside from "They just simply are there!" I hope others will see who is focusing on the issue at hand and who is diverting the discussion to other issues.
You accused me of anachronism when I said you must borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of your life. You pointed to Plato and Aristotle to validate your claim. However, the Christian worldview does not begin with the coming of Christ. It originates in our antediluvian ancestor Trevor Almy December 6 at 12:15pm
Adam who walked with God in the cool of the garden, experienced the Fall, and redemption in the same day. As such your accusation is unfounded.
My thesis still stands: There is no other system of thought that is internally coherent or cohesive outside the Christian worldview. In order for you to account for the laws of logic, you must presuppose a rational God who runs the universe in a predictable manner. You must, to quote Van Til, "climb into God's lap before you slap him in the face."
Matthew O'Donnell:
Ugh. You want God to be at the center of everything? Good for you. God for you. You can have him. But you certainly can't write an engineering equation with God as a variable, can you? I certainly hope you're not an engineering major attempting to prove the existence of god through thermodynamics or some such nonsense.
I certainly can and i certainly DO say that laws of logic "just simply are there". In fact, i defy you to give me an example of where the laws of logic are NOT. Mathematical structuring, orderliness, and conservation of matter/energy are spontaneous, unprovoked, diffuse workings of the system of the universe, and as such need no piddling definition from a hairy biped 3 million light-years from nowhere to define. If you persist in saying that laws of logic "have" to be defined, i'm going to have to internet-slap you. NO SUCH DEFINITION IS REQUIRED. End of question.
As for your infantile argument about God-as-universal-lawmaker, you really can't sustain it. It's just not possible. Either you have to accept that you don't KNOW what God is, or you have to admit that God is flawed, based on accounts given in the Old and New Testament. What is your choice? And no saying "i talk to God, and i believe he exists!" Fairy dust won't help you fly away from factual logic this time.
If God is indeed some grand planner, why does he hate mollusks? They are, after all, an "abomination." Would he really have made something he intended to be damned from the get-go? Also, why did he fake his own death? Obviously, either Jesus (eli, eli, lamma sabachthani!) had no frickin' clue he was God, and died unawares of his nature, or God essentially lied and used his get-out-of-death-free card on account of the fact that he's inherently immortal. After all, he created man, in all his complexity, sees everything of man, and even lived as a man. But he never...gave up his POWER as God. Otherwise, he would have really been in danger of dying, really dying! Universe would have flown to pieces, in your estimation, if he had actually died. So you must admit, logically, that either God truly had no actual Passion (just a fake one, for our benefit, since he was going to survive anyway), or Jesus is not God. Remember, no points for trinitarianism, because power is power, regardless of whether it's split or whole! Either God died and the universe didn't need God for three whole days (upsets your apple-cart of logic) or Jesus didn't actually ever fear death or have passion for our sins. Are you willing to give up the greatest sacrament of your faith for logic?
But ultimately, you must realize that the Christian God is eminently irrational, if you follow the dictates of logic. Hell requires it. Souls are punished in hell for eternity. Yet the sins required for exit from grace and entrance to Hell are temporal, literally temporary...
God is either cutting off his own people and (if you believe the divine spark is the Holy Ghost, part of God) part of Himself for all eternity, simply for things that his own creations did in a temporal space of which he was not a part. He lives outside of time, so he is able to see everything we will do in the future. In this way he is premeditatively injuring himself for all time by sentencing certain people to hell forever, certain bits of the Holy Spirit to eternal punishment. Unless, of course, you hold to the belief that no souls are in Hell as of yet, which is consistent with Jewish beliefs.
So, is God a cutter? Is he emo? Of all the things he does, he certainly does not conserve his own matter/energy matrix as the Holy Spirit--he violates his own laws, upon which you lovingly base "his" logic! The universe does not operate in such a wasteful fashion, so either A) God does not operate the way the universe operates, a theory which disproves your notion of...God as a foundation for logic, or B) the relationship is inverse--logic existed before God, and God is inferior to the logic of the universe. After all, how could an imperfect being create a perfect system? It's beyond him!
And, my usual rejoinder stands, which is that God didn't exist until 3000 years ago, but humans (in some form) existed for 3,000,000+ years prior to that. God was invented at a certain point in the timeline, so any argument about God-as-logician ultimately rests not with God (who isn't answering calls at the moment), but with the people that invented him. Not to say that some "God" figure might be out there, but again, NO EVIDENCE. And without evidence, there is no logical support for the conclusion. And if that's God's law, then by that very basis God disappears in a puff of logic, as Monty Python would want to say.
Trevor Almy:
Matthew, your response tells me either A) You do not understand the question that I am asking or B) you do not have an answer for the question I am asking. I am not an engineer major attempting to prove God through thermodynamics (I am actually out of college, by the way) but I can at least ACCOUNT for the existence of scientific laws. I also did not appeal to experience (which makes your "fairy dust" refutation sound rather absurd).
The question I keep asking and which you keep diverting the discussion away from is this: how do you account for the laws of logic? You said, "They just simply are there" which amounts to little more than, "I don't know." If you don't know the answer, just say so! You said, "Just because I have a thought, doesn't mean I have to justify that thought." That would be the same as me saying, "You're wrong and I'm going to hit you. I don't have to justify why you're wrong or why I have a right to hit you." This line of thinking is absurd.
If we had begun this discussion and you had asked me why I believe in God and I just said, "Because I just do. He is simply there" you wouldn't have been satisfied with this line of reasoning either.
At the end of your post, you said there was no EVIDENCE for God. Yet I ask you, what kind of EVIDENCE are you seeking? Are you seeking empirical evidence? Again, what basis do you have for believing that the only kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge? Did you empirically test that presupposition? Everyone knows that there are certain things that you cannot determine their existence empirically. I suppose in your worldview love does not exist because it cannot be tested empirically.
Finally, your diatribe against Christianity raises too many issues to address in this post. I will say one thing though: it demonstrates your widespread ignorance of the Christian religion. Your argumentation against the death of Christ indicates that you have no understanding of the hypostatic union-the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man inseparably united in one person without separating or confusing the two natures. Christ was able to experience all the suffering of a man while still being fully God. In Christianity, death does not mean you "cease to exist" so when the God/man died, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, didn't suddenly stop existing.
And no God is not emo. The Holy Spirit does not inhabit the reprobate who are sent to Hell. Only are believers indwellt by the Holy Spirit. His indwelling does not mean he is "cut off" from God for God is omnipresent. His indwelling also does not mean he is confined to the believer (like some kind of quasi-pantheism) but that he exists there because it is his gracious purpose to do so.
Trevor Almy:
I agree with you that men are not inherently good. But how do you account for pervasive evil of men? I can account for it because God has revealed that "there is no one good" (cf. Rom. 3:10-18). An even more important question for you to grapple with is: how do you account for evil?
You are absolutely correct in saying that I presuppose the Christian worldview. I presuppose the Christian worldview because apart from it I cannot account for anything. Every day you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of your life. If you did not, you would not be bother to type out meaningful sentences to me in this forum. You would not attempt to argue your points. If the universe were really based on randomness and chance, you have no foundation for your belief in the laws of logic and no rational platform for our discussion.
The truth is that no one is objective. No one is neutral in how they approach the facts. We all have basic, core beliefs that determine how we interpret reality. The problem is, given your presuppositions, how can you consistently live and behave in a coherent, rational way? I have only asked you to account for one thing: the laws of logic. I have given you answer and I eagerly await yours.
Matthew O'Donnell:
False, false, false! You're proselytizing again.
To quote from your above passage, "Every day you must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of your life." Patently false. In fact, the major precepts of western logic and rhetoric were established hundreds of years before Christ was even born, and largely forgotten during the 1000 years of the Middle Ages after he died. Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Epicurus; any philosopher you wish to study on the nature of existence, epistomology, and ontology ultimately derives his core argument NOT from the bible, which has no philosophical argument, but from the very pre-Christian Greeks.
Secondly, you make a disgustingly false dichotomy by saying either A) the Christian worldview forms the foundation of logic, or B) there are no laws of logic. FALSE! In fact, you would find this argument inherently insulting if you were Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, etc., because it again enforces a false reading of Christian ethics as...inherently human ethics, which implies that other religions' ethics are inherently inhuman, or sub-human. How much more bigoted can you be? Are you next going to tell me that Muslims don't deserve to go to school because they won't understand our way of thinking? Because revelation hasn't taught them the structure of logic?
In fact, were it not for the medieval Arabs, we would not have a single original work of Plato! Homer would be known only through epigrams, and the histories of Greek and Latin scholars by which we know the ancient world would be lost to the destructive force of time. It was Arab scholarly culture that learned Greek, Arab translators who saved the Odyssey and other great works, and Arab mathematicians who added their own philosophical underpinnings to Euclid and the logical works of the ancients, from which we derive our number and mathematics system, called Arabic numerals!
But beyond correcting you, I'm finished attempting to prove to you your own ignorance. If you had half the philosophical knowledge you pretend to have, you would know immediately that the only philosophical thrust of the Bible is as an allegory, and that is only if you do not take the events of the bible as historical fact. Otherwise, you are attempting to argue a fallacy from history, saying that what happened in the past is what ought to happen in every case, which is patently false.
The idea that morals could be inherently Christian is simply ludicrous, since Christianity has existed for only a definite span of time, but human morality has existed before Christianity and independent of Christianity to this day. I have already explained this elsewhere, and your tired protestations are simply no excuse for your ignorance. Be quiet already, if you can't have an original thought that doesn't reek of hegemonic propaganda.
Trevor Almy :
Matthew, Matthew, Matthew...your special pleading and playing to the crowd may fool others but it does not fool me. I have asked you one simple question that you still have not answered: how do you account for the laws of logic? I am NOT saying that you must be a Christian or read the Scriptures to think logically. I am saying that the mere fact that LOGIC exists presupposes the Christian God. In my worldview, I can account for the existence of logic. You may not like my answer but at least I have accounted for it. You cannot give me one answer aside from "They just simply are there!" I hope others will see who is focusing on the issue at hand and who is diverting the discussion to other issues.
You accused me of anachronism when I said you must borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of your life. You pointed to Plato and Aristotle to validate your claim. However, the Christian worldview does not begin with the coming of Christ. It originates in our antediluvian ancestor Trevor Almy December 6 at 12:15pm
Adam who walked with God in the cool of the garden, experienced the Fall, and redemption in the same day. As such your accusation is unfounded.
My thesis still stands: There is no other system of thought that is internally coherent or cohesive outside the Christian worldview. In order for you to account for the laws of logic, you must presuppose a rational God who runs the universe in a predictable manner. You must, to quote Van Til, "climb into God's lap before you slap him in the face."
Matthew O'Donnell:
Ugh. You want God to be at the center of everything? Good for you. God for you. You can have him. But you certainly can't write an engineering equation with God as a variable, can you? I certainly hope you're not an engineering major attempting to prove the existence of god through thermodynamics or some such nonsense.
I certainly can and i certainly DO say that laws of logic "just simply are there". In fact, i defy you to give me an example of where the laws of logic are NOT. Mathematical structuring, orderliness, and conservation of matter/energy are spontaneous, unprovoked, diffuse workings of the system of the universe, and as such need no piddling definition from a hairy biped 3 million light-years from nowhere to define. If you persist in saying that laws of logic "have" to be defined, i'm going to have to internet-slap you. NO SUCH DEFINITION IS REQUIRED. End of question.
As for your infantile argument about God-as-universal-lawmaker, you really can't sustain it. It's just not possible. Either you have to accept that you don't KNOW what God is, or you have to admit that God is flawed, based on accounts given in the Old and New Testament. What is your choice? And no saying "i talk to God, and i believe he exists!" Fairy dust won't help you fly away from factual logic this time.
If God is indeed some grand planner, why does he hate mollusks? They are, after all, an "abomination." Would he really have made something he intended to be damned from the get-go? Also, why did he fake his own death? Obviously, either Jesus (eli, eli, lamma sabachthani!) had no frickin' clue he was God, and died unawares of his nature, or God essentially lied and used his get-out-of-death-free card on account of the fact that he's inherently immortal. After all, he created man, in all his complexity, sees everything of man, and even lived as a man. But he never...gave up his POWER as God. Otherwise, he would have really been in danger of dying, really dying! Universe would have flown to pieces, in your estimation, if he had actually died. So you must admit, logically, that either God truly had no actual Passion (just a fake one, for our benefit, since he was going to survive anyway), or Jesus is not God. Remember, no points for trinitarianism, because power is power, regardless of whether it's split or whole! Either God died and the universe didn't need God for three whole days (upsets your apple-cart of logic) or Jesus didn't actually ever fear death or have passion for our sins. Are you willing to give up the greatest sacrament of your faith for logic?
But ultimately, you must realize that the Christian God is eminently irrational, if you follow the dictates of logic. Hell requires it. Souls are punished in hell for eternity. Yet the sins required for exit from grace and entrance to Hell are temporal, literally temporary...
God is either cutting off his own people and (if you believe the divine spark is the Holy Ghost, part of God) part of Himself for all eternity, simply for things that his own creations did in a temporal space of which he was not a part. He lives outside of time, so he is able to see everything we will do in the future. In this way he is premeditatively injuring himself for all time by sentencing certain people to hell forever, certain bits of the Holy Spirit to eternal punishment. Unless, of course, you hold to the belief that no souls are in Hell as of yet, which is consistent with Jewish beliefs.
So, is God a cutter? Is he emo? Of all the things he does, he certainly does not conserve his own matter/energy matrix as the Holy Spirit--he violates his own laws, upon which you lovingly base "his" logic! The universe does not operate in such a wasteful fashion, so either A) God does not operate the way the universe operates, a theory which disproves your notion of...God as a foundation for logic, or B) the relationship is inverse--logic existed before God, and God is inferior to the logic of the universe. After all, how could an imperfect being create a perfect system? It's beyond him!
And, my usual rejoinder stands, which is that God didn't exist until 3000 years ago, but humans (in some form) existed for 3,000,000+ years prior to that. God was invented at a certain point in the timeline, so any argument about God-as-logician ultimately rests not with God (who isn't answering calls at the moment), but with the people that invented him. Not to say that some "God" figure might be out there, but again, NO EVIDENCE. And without evidence, there is no logical support for the conclusion. And if that's God's law, then by that very basis God disappears in a puff of logic, as Monty Python would want to say.
Trevor Almy:
Matthew, your response tells me either A) You do not understand the question that I am asking or B) you do not have an answer for the question I am asking. I am not an engineer major attempting to prove God through thermodynamics (I am actually out of college, by the way) but I can at least ACCOUNT for the existence of scientific laws. I also did not appeal to experience (which makes your "fairy dust" refutation sound rather absurd).
The question I keep asking and which you keep diverting the discussion away from is this: how do you account for the laws of logic? You said, "They just simply are there" which amounts to little more than, "I don't know." If you don't know the answer, just say so! You said, "Just because I have a thought, doesn't mean I have to justify that thought." That would be the same as me saying, "You're wrong and I'm going to hit you. I don't have to justify why you're wrong or why I have a right to hit you." This line of thinking is absurd.
If we had begun this discussion and you had asked me why I believe in God and I just said, "Because I just do. He is simply there" you wouldn't have been satisfied with this line of reasoning either.
At the end of your post, you said there was no EVIDENCE for God. Yet I ask you, what kind of EVIDENCE are you seeking? Are you seeking empirical evidence? Again, what basis do you have for believing that the only kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge? Did you empirically test that presupposition? Everyone knows that there are certain things that you cannot determine their existence empirically. I suppose in your worldview love does not exist because it cannot be tested empirically.
Finally, your diatribe against Christianity raises too many issues to address in this post. I will say one thing though: it demonstrates your widespread ignorance of the Christian religion. Your argumentation against the death of Christ indicates that you have no understanding of the hypostatic union-the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man inseparably united in one person without separating or confusing the two natures. Christ was able to experience all the suffering of a man while still being fully God. In Christianity, death does not mean you "cease to exist" so when the God/man died, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, didn't suddenly stop existing.
And no God is not emo. The Holy Spirit does not inhabit the reprobate who are sent to Hell. Only are believers indwellt by the Holy Spirit. His indwelling does not mean he is "cut off" from God for God is omnipresent. His indwelling also does not mean he is confined to the believer (like some kind of quasi-pantheism) but that he exists there because it is his gracious purpose to do so.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Was Satan Bound at the Coming of Christ?
When approaching the question of who reigns over the world currently, the New Testament is thoroughly clear: the Lord Omnipotent reigns. Christ in his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension has been exalted as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and "must reign until he (the Father) has put all enemies under his feet (cf. 1 Cor. 15:25)." Jesus erases all doubt about who is in charge when saying: "'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (cf. Matt. 28:18).'" Though his kingdom is not exclusive to this world, it does include this world. Though his kingdom is not consummated, it is already present. Though many men still submit to the prince of darkness, Christ is still the Sovereign. When wicked men ally with Satan, they do not do so as an autonomous empire. They do so as insurrectionists.
But what about verses like 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says that "the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers"? Doesn't that imply that Satan currently has dominion and reign over this world until Christ returns? Would this not indicate that the world is progressively getting worse until a cataclysmic, worldwide rapture occurs? Maybe not. Satan does have dominion in the lives of unbelievers, but this dominion is not exhaustive. This dominion is borrowed dominion. Satan is bound and only has as much power as our sovereign God allows him to have. In other words, the ferocious dog is on a leash.
The question then arises: when was Satan bound? I truly believe that the New Testament is clear that Satan was bound in the coming of Christ. When Christ arrived, the kingdom of God broke into this world. Prior to the Incarnation, the world was in darkness (cf. John 1:4-5). In the earthly ministry of Jesus, there was direct conflict between the evil one and his seed and the Seed. This is why in the gospels we have numerous records of Jesus casting out evil spirits. Satan knew the reason for Jesus' coming and became determined to deter Christ from the cross. During his temptation in the wilderness, Jesus was constantly asked to take any other road than the road to Calvary (cf. Matt. 4:1-11). Christ did not commend Peter for standing in the way of his death, but called it Satanic (cf. Matt. 16:23).
Finally, Satan gave up trying to prevent Jesus' death and instead entered the heart of Judas to betray him. If Christ had set his face like flint to die, Satan was going to make it the most miserable death that he could. How irrational sin is! Satan, as John Piper has noted, essentially committed suicide at the cross. The cross was a fatal blow and in the death of the eternal Son of God, the serpent's head was crushed (cf. Gen. 3:15). Then in the Lord's resurrection and ascension, he sent out the apostles who bore the message of salvation to the ends of the earth.
Thus, the entire scope of the Lord's life: his birth, active obedience, death, resurrection and ascension served to ruin the work of Satan. The works of Christ (healings, resurrections, exorcisms, etc.) themselves testify to the fact that Satan had been bound for Jesus "plundered his goods", meaning he "undid" the works of the evil one. As Christ said, no one can attempt these works unless "he first binds the strong man (cf. Matt. 12:29)." This is why I believe Satan was bound at the coming of Christ and why it is vital for us in understanding the eschatological implications of such a binding. First, Satan is bound not free. This means the gospel is having success throughout the world and that "even the demons are subject to us" in Christ's name (cf. Luke 10:17). Second, the world is being filled with the "knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (cf. Hab. 2:14)."
Finally, we are to recognize that God in Christ has given us authority to "tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy (cf. Luke 10:19)." Another way of saying this is that man is being restored to his original position as vice regent of creation. God has not abandoned the dominion mandate but is restoring it through the church! Let us rejoice then that we, as subjects of our Sovereign King, are advancing a message of grace that has had its success guaranteed. Soli deo gloria!
But what about verses like 2 Corinthians 4:4 which says that "the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers"? Doesn't that imply that Satan currently has dominion and reign over this world until Christ returns? Would this not indicate that the world is progressively getting worse until a cataclysmic, worldwide rapture occurs? Maybe not. Satan does have dominion in the lives of unbelievers, but this dominion is not exhaustive. This dominion is borrowed dominion. Satan is bound and only has as much power as our sovereign God allows him to have. In other words, the ferocious dog is on a leash.
The question then arises: when was Satan bound? I truly believe that the New Testament is clear that Satan was bound in the coming of Christ. When Christ arrived, the kingdom of God broke into this world. Prior to the Incarnation, the world was in darkness (cf. John 1:4-5). In the earthly ministry of Jesus, there was direct conflict between the evil one and his seed and the Seed. This is why in the gospels we have numerous records of Jesus casting out evil spirits. Satan knew the reason for Jesus' coming and became determined to deter Christ from the cross. During his temptation in the wilderness, Jesus was constantly asked to take any other road than the road to Calvary (cf. Matt. 4:1-11). Christ did not commend Peter for standing in the way of his death, but called it Satanic (cf. Matt. 16:23).
Finally, Satan gave up trying to prevent Jesus' death and instead entered the heart of Judas to betray him. If Christ had set his face like flint to die, Satan was going to make it the most miserable death that he could. How irrational sin is! Satan, as John Piper has noted, essentially committed suicide at the cross. The cross was a fatal blow and in the death of the eternal Son of God, the serpent's head was crushed (cf. Gen. 3:15). Then in the Lord's resurrection and ascension, he sent out the apostles who bore the message of salvation to the ends of the earth.
Thus, the entire scope of the Lord's life: his birth, active obedience, death, resurrection and ascension served to ruin the work of Satan. The works of Christ (healings, resurrections, exorcisms, etc.) themselves testify to the fact that Satan had been bound for Jesus "plundered his goods", meaning he "undid" the works of the evil one. As Christ said, no one can attempt these works unless "he first binds the strong man (cf. Matt. 12:29)." This is why I believe Satan was bound at the coming of Christ and why it is vital for us in understanding the eschatological implications of such a binding. First, Satan is bound not free. This means the gospel is having success throughout the world and that "even the demons are subject to us" in Christ's name (cf. Luke 10:17). Second, the world is being filled with the "knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (cf. Hab. 2:14)."
Finally, we are to recognize that God in Christ has given us authority to "tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy (cf. Luke 10:19)." Another way of saying this is that man is being restored to his original position as vice regent of creation. God has not abandoned the dominion mandate but is restoring it through the church! Let us rejoice then that we, as subjects of our Sovereign King, are advancing a message of grace that has had its success guaranteed. Soli deo gloria!
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Birth of the King: Isaiah 9:1-7 - Part III
It is important to consider what would constitute fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy to his original hearers without assuming knowledge of the NT or later developments in the redemptive story.
First of all, although the text does not specify the Davidic descent of the King, this is certainly implied in verse 6. Isaiah envisions a Davidic descendant ruling on David’s throne (cf. 11:1ff.).
Second, the King will expand Israel’s empire (“You have multiplied the nation” - v.2 ).
Third, this expansion will be progressive. Notice the word “increase” in verse 6.
Fourth, the expansion of Messiah’s kingdom must also be perpetual. This is proven by the use of the word “forever” in verse 6. Alexander says, “The prediction, if fulfilled at all, could only be fulfilled in a reign which, after it began, was never interrupted, and has ever since been growing in extent and power.”[1]
Fifth, in light of the nature of the King’s kingdom and the lofty titles given in verse 5, it is also clear that the coming King must be divine. He must fit the profile of verse 5. Although it is not clear exactly how Isaiah or the people of Israel envisioned a divine-human King sitting on David’s throne, it is clear that this is the teaching of this passage, and it is the dominant OT picture of the Messiah.
Sixth, as this divine-human son of David rules progressively and perpetually on his throne, the result of his rule will be justice, righteousness, and peace (v.6).
Thus, these are the six aspects of what would constitute fulfillment of the prediction of the coming King.
[1] Alexander, Commentary on Isaiah, Kregal: 1972 (original 1867), 207.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
