The Moral Argument for God

The Moral Argument for the Existence God

A topic of hot debate in the intellectual world is that of the existence of a superior being or force. The specific and name and nature of this being are always debated, however the secular world refuses to give the God of the Bible a fair chance in the debate. In light of observations on the matter, Angus Menuge has said that "a sure sign that the West had lost its transcendent moorings is its frenetic search for secular God-substitutes." # It is a bizarre phenomenon that people will lay aside their intellectual integrity to presuppose that God cannot be the answer, all the while spending their time and energy attacking others, for what they see, as having their own biased presuppositions.

It is important to note that Christianity stems from ultimate truth. Though some Christians come to the Faith from a biased environment, this does not necessarily negate the fact that Christian truth claims stem from an unbiased source, God’s specific and general revelation. For the certain truth claim that there is a singular omnipotent being, there are many arguments for a such as the ontological and the cosmological argument. There are various proofs deriving from design, consciousness and anthropological studies. This essay will serve to specifically look in depth at the moral argument, and show that the best explanation for morality is, not only a single superior being, but this being is the God of the Bible. In an effort to retain intellectual integrity, this essay will not build from any suppositions biased towards Christianity.

Morality

Existing in every person and every culture, lies a moral code. Some have ventured to claim these morals are simply relative, but regardless, these morals are inescapable. Though specific applications of moral principles may look different in each scenario, the concept more generally refers to good and bad human behavior.# In light of this, the very concept of moral relativity should be disregarded, because the idea of relativity does not leave room for a measurement of good versus bad, because there is no ultimate standard to which to appeal. "All human beings...believe that there are standards ‘that exist apart from us’ by which we evaluate moral feelings." # The questions that logically follow are in regards to this standard.
The moral relativist, holding fast to their belief in spite of the obvious refutation stated above, could simply suggest that culture should be credited for the existence of morals, and should be the rod of which they are measured. As Russ Shafer-Landau stated, "why require moral truths to best explain our moral views, if we can cite the social, parental and psychological factors that appear to so heavily influence their content?" # Shafer-Landau basically summarizes the dependency thesis which “asserts that morality inherently depends on cultural factors and no other factors...there can be no cross cultural and objective moral truths that apply to all cultures”#

The problem with this view, is that it can so easily flow from cultural relativism to individual relativism, leaving no authority to judge one individual's morals over another. When people pit their morals against each other, each claiming that their own are right, the very foundation of their relativity is knocked out by their allusion to the fact that one is ultimately wrong while the other is ultimately right. They are simply "appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which [they] expects the other man to know about." # Tim Keller eloquently summarizes that

"Though we have been taught that all moral values are relative to individuals and cultures, we can't live like that. In actual practice we inevitably treat some principles as absolute standards by which we judge the behavior of those who don't share our values.What gives us the right to do that, if all moral beliefs are relative? Nothing gives us the right. Yet we can't stop it. People who laugh at the claim that there is a transcendent moral order do not think that racial genocide is just impractical or self-defeating, but that it is wrong. The Nazis who exterminated Jews may have claimed that they didn't feel it was immoral at all. We don't care. We don't care if they sincerely felt they were doing a service to humanity. They ought not to have done it." #

This reveals that this moral relativity is“unlivable and contradictory, and therefore false." # Building on the argued point that a moral standard does exists, the next questions that presents themselves are: Is the standard arbitrary? If not, what is the nature of the standard? Where does this standard come from? These will each be examined in turn.

Is the standard of morals arbitrary?

Shafer-Landau has tried  to argue that there is no outside reality of what is good and bad, to which present day morals ban be examined against. His argument states that:

- If there is no reason to believe p, and some reason to deny p, then there is most reason to deny p.
- There is no reason to believe in moral or divine facts, and some reason to deny their existence.
- Therefore there is most reason to deny the existence of divine and moral facts. #

Even though his first premise can be granted, his second premise has been proven false by the counterexamples listed above which prove that there are reasons to believe in moral facts, and therefore his argument fails.
If morality is found in the tension of good versus evil, the natures of both good and evil must be addressed before the argument can proceed. C.S. Lewis insightfully pointed out that "wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way...badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” # For morals to be arbitrary, good and evil would have to each be given an equal weight, but it is obvious upon reflection that good can exist alone whereas bad is only a lack of goodness. Therefore, for morals to run parallel to what is good, it is impossible for them to be arbitrarily decided by "social, parental and psychological factors." # This implies that the nature of goodness necessarily is beyond the individual, and therefore also beyond a specific society or culture.
To summarize: Morals exist and are inescapable. There also exists an ultimate standard, and this standard is not arbitrary. The nature of good goes beyond how it serves the individual. It is "something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us." #

The nature of the moral standard

Is the nature of this standard that of an a force or of an actual being? I think it best to examine this in light of what I will call our consciousness; we know what is right yet sometimes we feel as if we do not do it. We clearly have choices, and there are choices made which are obviously not ultimately good. If this outside standard were simply a mindless force, we would either always do what is right, or we would not be able to reflect on the fact that what we have done is wrong.

The answer of the standard being a force proves too simple because it does not explain our conscious. If this standard must be a force or a being, and it has been argued that a force is too simple an explanation, it must logically be a being.

This being must necessarily be separate from the world as argued above, and it must also be singular. The argument against the plurality of ultimate beings states that if there is more than one, one must be better than the other. This would regress the conversation because, as we have argued above, for one to be better than the other there would have to be something outside of the two which would determine this fact.
Some find the idea of the Trinity, God existing in three persons, a stumbling block because they feel it is disproved by the argument that only one ultimate being can exist. An in-depth explanation to this is outside the scope of this argument, however, suffice it to say that there is only one mind of the Trinitarian God, and out of His ultimate goodness he reveals Himself in three different forms in order to reach a people whom have gone astray.

Where does this standard for measuring morals come from?

A specific question which cannot be ignored is that in spite of how well we adhere to them, how did we come to possess these morals? One explanation, is that the standard of morals is found in the actual creator of the human beings who possess them. This section will show why this is the best answer to this question.
If morality parallels what is ultimately good, then the being behind morals would also have to be ultimately good. “Objective moral values have their sources in the eternal character, nature and substance of a loving, just and self-sufficient God.” # Evidence of his goodness would be revealed through his creation, and this would then serve as a way to point back to himself through his creation. In his ultimate goodness, he would be a being of ultimate love, and would therefore give choices to his creation in regards to their behavior in light of good and bad choices that present themselves. In his ultimate goodness, he would also be forgiving, and would therefore provide some sort of system to right the wrongs of his created beings.
Here we see the whole story of ultimate reality which lies up with the good news found in the Bible. A singular, good and holy god, created a harmonious world with free will and revealed Himself to his creation. However, the created beings chose ways which opposed His ways, breaking the harmonious relationship and leaving the created beings with a singular hope in the creator to restore it, because the created had been tainted by sin. As Chesterton said, “Christian theology is the best root of energy and sound ethics.” #

Conclusion

Reflections on morality open the conversation to a discussion of the Gospel itself.

Certain thoughts and questions present themselves, usually for the first time. As Keller states,

"Our culture differs from all the others that have gone before. People still have strong moral convictions, but unlike people in other times and places, they don't have any visible basis for why they find some things to be evil and other things good. It's almost like their moral intuitions are free-floating in midair - far off the ground." #

This is clearly a good starting place for arguing the existence of God, because everyone can relate over the sense of having a conscious revealing “both a transcendent goodness and our own violation of this goodness.” # Without God as an explanation, people are caught in a tension of recognizing a problem but not being able to argue for an answer to it. “He has argued himself into a corner, but from that corner he cries out for something he cannot reach, given his Godless presuppositions.” #

The few arguments that do exist against the existence of God should be challenged and debunked by using counterexamples to prove one or more of the premises as false. One of the best counterexamples is the inner turmoil Paul talks about in his letter to the Romans. Without the God of the Bible and the story of His fallen creation, there is no way to explain the tension one experiences of knowing what is right, yet finding themselves repeatedly doing what is wrong.

"I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" #

The moral argument is a good place to start for the existence of God, because it is logically credible, can be easily understood by any audience, and starts from the point of tension to which people can relate. It can naturally be followed up by additional arguments which point out other logical and scientific details regarding the existence of God, and my hope is that these arguments can be appropriately grouped to build the credibility of and support each other. In addition, I hope that the point is clear that these arguments are additional ways in which He has revealed Himself because of His ultimate goodness in drawing his fallen creation back to Himself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. Lexington: Feather Trail Press, 2009.
2) Groothius, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
3)   Keller, Timothy. The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2008.
4) Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
5) Menuge, Angus. “God on the Brain.” Christian Research Journal, v33 (2004): 18-26.
6) Shafer-Landau, Russ. “Moral and Theological Realism: The Explanatory Argument.” Journal of Moral Philosophy (2007): 311-329.

The Task of Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World

Apologetics is needed for the Christian task of evangelizing in a postmodern world. In this essay, the nature of truth will be presupposed as being absolute, as is the definition of the word. Truth must not and cannot be used in the irrational sense that multiple truths can exist.

Nature, Purpose, and Justification of Christian Apologetics

Christian apologetics involves establishing logical, historical, and scientific facts that correspond with reality. As believers, we presuppose that all general revelation in our world points back to God. However, this presupposition is not necessary for God to be revealed as single Lord of the universe. With this understanding grasped, apologists are able to proceed confidently because they can know that even from an unbiased perspective, the truth of the Christian Faith is still apparent.

The purpose of Christian apologetics is both offensive and defensive. The defending of the Christian faith is in regards to its rational and compelling Biblical claims, and the presentation of them as absolute. On the offensive front, apologists must become and remain intentional to point out contradictions and inconsistencies of other various arguments which are leading others astray. Compassion for the lost is key. Both defending Christian claims and debunking false truth claims can be done through logical thought, and historical and scientific proofs.

The justification for the task is found in the scriptures, God’s specific revelation to his people. Solomon expresses reality in his statement "This only have I found. God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes," # and Paul gives us the exhortation to demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. # As believers, we should heed Paul’s words in our own lives, as well as our outward efforts in evangelism.

The Importance of Worldview for Apologetics

Worldview is crucial to apologetics. “A worldview is, first of all, an explanation and interpretation of the world and second, an application of this view to life. In simpler terms, our worldview is a view of the world and a view for the world." # Worldviews are not reserved for formal philosophers, but rather are apparent in the convictions of every person. "Some convictions are conscious, while others are unconscious, but together they form a more or less consistent picture of reality." #

Before I approach the reasons for the importance of worldview, let me stress my belief that regardless of which Faith people prescribe to, they have a worldview which is logically implied. However, "many people fail to bring their worldviews into critical focus." #

But this should not be, faith and worldview should flow back and forth, interpreting and affirming each other.

My question is, what is the point of faith if it does not dictate the worldview? Many moderns, or more accurately postmodernists, would ask that faith be kept to oneself and practiced only inside the home. If all Faith leads to worldview, then by privatizing it, (i.e. taking out the worldview) the Faith loses its essence.

Here lies one importance of worldview for apologetics. If Christianity is the only Faith which offers a true, logical and non-contradicting worldview, then the request to privatize Faith can only be seen as an attack on Christianity. Through apologetics, we must present the fact that any and all actions imply a worldview and therefore a faith, and then challenge that faith until the point of inconsistency is exposed.

As Francis Schaeffer stated, many non-believers cannot live within the logical implications of their beliefs,# and I think one of the major worldviews that needs to be challenged is postmodernism.

The Christian Worldview

The Christian worldview is a "Christ-centered, Spirit-led, Bible-honoring way of being," # and as the apostle John tells us that it “sets people free.”# It is the logical worldview that follow the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith affirms the supernatural creation through a single god existing in three forms, the fall which placed us “under God’s righteous condemnation and without hope in ourselves,” # redemption through the atonement and defeat of death, and hope in the eschaton that we will see God face to face and be ultimately perfected. Evangelism happens in light of the reality of what has happened and in the hope of what is to come.

The Christian worldview that follows this Christian faith, affects theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics, and history. # What this implies, is that it is not appropriate for any believer to become, nor to remain, a relativist in any of these areas, although sadly, this is where so many remain. (I am not implying that by having differing views in these areas, one is considered a relativist. I am simply stating all of the views cannot be true at the same time.) 

Basic strategy for defending the christian worldview

In a world of so many different beliefs, and different concepts in regards to those beliefs, Christians must not underestimate their apologetic task. When evangelizing, we must always be aware of our we are being interpreted. In light of our postmodern culture, or more accurately our relative culture, we now have to start “the conversation” by taking a step back and discussing the concept of truth as being absolute, before delivering the truth that is Christianity.

It is crucial to understand and to not ignore the perspective of our audience. If we do, we run the risk of our audience misinterpreting our message. We must understand the context into which we are speaking, so we may proceed in an effective way. So many times we let ourselves get in the way, whether that be our arrogance in wanting to appear in a certain way to our audience, not ever stopping to think our audience actually might want to hear what we have to say, or letting our insecurity get the best of us. We need to meditate on the fact that God does not give us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and self-control. #

We must remain prayerful, begging that the Holy Spirit would give us words that would penetrate the hearts of the lost. That we would be able to “hit home” in a way that stresses the importance of this life giving and life saving message of the cross. Finally, we must commit to do everything in our power to not allow any trace of apathy or indifference to be left in the person. Intellectual sloth can be considered one of the major hindrances to people  receiving the gospel. It must not be taken lightly but rather should keep us on our knees as we remember we, too, were once lost. #

Paul writes in his second letter to Timothy that servants of the Lord “must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” # He goes on to say that perhaps God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of truth, and my hope is that we are ready and available when this happens.

Conclusion

As Jeff Ventrella of the Alliance Defense Fund once said, we must give enough apologetics to clear the path, then get back to the Gospel. In our modern world full of distractions, agendas, confusions, and contradictions, we must remove any obstacles keeping anyone from humbly coming to Faith in the Lord. As Paul tells, we are Christ’s ambassadors, through which He makes His appeal, to beg others to be be reconciled to God.#

We must continue doing our part through discipleship, and becoming more competent in our witness for Him. If while evangelizing, or simply leading our lives as followers of Christ, we do not insist upon what God has to say about a certain realm as crucial, we will encourage the misimpression that it falls outside the command and will of God, and that Christianity deals with private concerns only. # This will only fuel our current culture of relativism and shallow Christians who are unequipped to face the challenges that present themselves daily.

We must be on our guard to expose what is happening in our world, all the while remaining aware of the end goal. One very important fallacy that the postmodernists evoke is the fallacy of self-refutation. They are making an absolute truth claim that absolute truths do not exist. We must point this out intentionally while remaining gentle. If in the midst of proclaiming the message of Christ we seccum to worldy ways, we have effectively done nothing but to make the evangelistic task harder on ourselves as a whole because we will have perpetuated a culture which is basically void of Christ-likeness. We also need to take very seriously that we are being representatives of Christ, and strive in every means possible to do this with the utmost focus and dedication to the work and drawing people to His kingdom.

Bibliography

1) Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
2) Henry, Carl F.H. Twilight of a Great Civilization. Westchester: Crossway, 1988.
3) Noebel, David A.  Understanding the Times. Manitou Springs: Summit Press, 2006.
4) Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth. Westchester: Crossway, 2004.
5) Phillips, Brown, John Stonestreet. Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview, 2nd Ed. Salem: Sheffield Publishing, 2008.
6) Schaeffer, Francis A.  The God Who Is There, 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

The subject of war has always been a topic of debate, but since the attacks on September 11th in the United States, the subject has become more highly debated as a matter of immediate security. As humans coexisting in a world of many different agendas and ideals, we must find the best solution which affirms the right to life and to freedom. As believers, we must find the way of which our Lord commands us, and then accept the duty to which we are called.

There are many examples of war in His specific revelation to His people, the Bible, to which we turn our attention. These stories are to be examined to shed light on current situations, but one must keep in mind the differences between the world in which the Hebrew people lived, and the modern times in which we find ourselves. All factors, such a differing methods of communication and weaponry, must be taken into account.

Overview of War in the OT

War was accepted as being part of the Hebrew world. The question was not “is war right”, but rather was “in which way is God commanding us to deal with it”. There are various stories represented in the Old Testament, however none of these may be taken out of context of the whole scripture. The war examples must be examined in light of the unchanging character of God, regardless of how an initial glance at the text could show otherwise.

The God of the the Hebrew people, Yahweh, is a holy god, and He carries out whatever means necessary to preserve His holiness.  His activity in the various wars the Israelite people enter into, are almost always a response to a people rebelling against Him. Even His chosen people are not immune to this.

Without a proper understanding of God’s holiness, the text could be misinterpreted as God not being a God of love or mercy. However, in the context of the grand narrative that is portrayed throughout the Old testament, God is continually forgiving and turning away His wrath. His mercy is even evident when He does release His wrath, because we can see that He is destroying a few as a means of preserving the ones who have not yet been enslaved by sin.

A New Testament reference, in John 15 verse 2, alludes to this. The author writes about a vine being pruned, and how the branches that do not bear fruit are cut off so that the whole vine may become more fruitful.  

Another characteristic of God that can be inferred from the war stories presented in the Old Testament, is his role as savior. "The greatness of Yahweh is described in terms of his role as Savior...the purpose of the victory is not the destruction of the enemy but the salvation of Yahweh's people." #

God has been described as the divine warrior, leading His people into battle, and possessing the only authority to set the terms of the battle. His people were never permitted to take more than what he allowed. As Hess stated, "the Bible prescribes for Israel neither a total ban on war not permission for the nation to fight however it wishes." #

In conclusion, “the Bible reflects a variety of reasons for war, but it does so with a moral tenor that ultimately recognizes battle as a necessary evil in the context of a great, cosmic struggle between good and evil.” #

Shalom by absorbing the violence

"The legacy of biblical monotheism is shalom, not violence" says Elmer Martens on page 33. # I would venture to say, there are many opposing view to this. However, I also believe these opposing views are based on taking stories out of context, not recognizing that apparent violence is actually a means in which God is using to establish His peace. This theme runs through the Bible and foreshadows what ultimately happens upon the cross.

"The cross both incorporates the message of peace and exhibits the method by which peace is made." # On the outside, even the cross has been criticized as being an act of violence, but again, ephesians 2:13-14 tells us “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility.” #

The peace which God brings must be “calibrated” as Martens says, with the means by which it is brought. In order to stop the spread of evil, God may take "drastic action to halt the downward spiral." # Again, the destruction we see from stories in the Bible must be interpreted in light of God’s holiness and desire for His people.

In application for modern times, it is necessary to notice how the Bible never teaches violence from personal vengeance. As believers, we aim to follow Christ’s example in absorbing violence, rather than instigating or allowing to perpetuate. We are promised peace in the eschaton, and in light of this “it is incumbent on God's people to work in the present toward this goal." #

In conclusion, "God's project, to restore shalom, involves God's ultimate offering of himself as the scapegoat, the ultimate absorber of human violence...sin-caused violence is intercepted by Jesus Christ. Shalom is the result, but it's purchase price is the total self-giving of the deity, the absorption of violence." #

Impulses toward Peace in a Country at War

Two questions we must ask ourselves, as encouraged by Daniel Carroll, are: who are we, and what are we to do.# As believers, our identity lies within Christ, and is therefore where we find what we are to do.

In the book of Isaiah, we see the prophet’s grief and anger regarding Judah’s leadership and arrogance in the context of their pact with the Egyptians. As the people of God, they wrongly took their focus off of God, separating them from their “divine warrior”, and leaving them with a “death sentence.”# "The prophetic evaluation of Judah's preparations for war is extremely negative... there is at the same time a word of hope for the people of God that lies beyond the affliction that would soon befall them."#

We see another foreshadow to a model king that will not make ungodly choices, but will rather “reign in righteousness.”#  In conclusion, "war is not God's final word: the promise of universal peace is a fundamental part of the text's eschatological hope." #

Modern Terrorism

For modern application, we must examine prevalent violence in our world. Terrorism has been defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."# We must recognize that terrorism is not so much a movement as it is an instrument, and the people who utilize it are considered terrorist. The next step is to categorize terrorist, either as criminals or enemies. They may represent an enemy, but it is not always the best option to pursue them in this way.

"If terrorist are simple criminals, then acting in a way that will lead to civilian deaths, even if unintentional, is morally impermissible."# However, sometimes they "may be more appropriately regarded as enemies, given the magnitude of the threat they represent... The fact that [destroying institutions that preserve civilian life] is their goal and that they have the capability of carrying it out is what makes them enemies." #

Conclusion

As followers of Christ, we must look to His instructions for how to deal with the idea of war. We can, and must, study the Bible to shed light on modern situations, both for establishing peace and for maintaining it. Our goal should be to defeat enemies and to establish credible institutions to maintain the order. As Tony Pfaff writes, "by enforcing laws, police maintain peace; by fighting was, soldiers establish it,"  we just need to be wary that the means of establishing and enforcing are appropriate.#

We have to take into account, that with modern advances with technology, communication, and weaponry, what could once be considered a potential threat has to be taken more seriously. If weapons are capable of mass destruction, the mere possession of them now has to now be seen as an actual act of aggression. Our role as shalom-bringers and peacekeepers, is to affirm human life, while following the Biblical example of destroying whatever remains a threat to this. At the end of the day, "as governments deal with terrorists in a way that is legal and just, it is vitally important for them to recognize and address the roots of opposition from which the terrorism springs." #

The God Who Is There

Reflections on Schaeffer’s Insight

In The God Who Is There,

Francis Schaeffer summarizes the thesis of his book in the first sentence, “The present chasm between the generations has been brought about almost entirely by a change in the concept of truth.”  [Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 25.] The first half of the book is dedicated to defending his claim, and the second half speaks to Christianity and the action of the Christian in light of this claim.

The Intellectual & Cultural Climate of the Second Half of the Twentieth Century

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it was presupposed that absolutes existed. Due to this, the notion of antithesis was implied and was a means of reasoning together.

Beginning in the realm of philosophy this notion was rejected. They “came to the conclusion that they were not going to find a unified rationalistic circle that would contain all thought... so they shifted the concept of truth.” [31] Relativism was the result, spreading geographically, through society, and from one discipline to another. Gradually trickling down from those consciously rejecting the concept, to those unaware of what was happening and being affected subconsciously.

Without antithesis, truth was to now be sought through synthesis, which disregarded any form of reason. [35-36] Soren Kierkegaard was perhaps the first to champion separating truth from reason, and faith was therefore conceptualized as being a blind leap. The philosophies of the day, had become more accurately considered “anti-philosophies” by Schaeffer. [37]

The next discipline to follow suit was art. Despairing artists of the century were channeling this concept of relativism through their art, almost as if they were saying “everything is chance. Change, the nothingness, is not just shut up in a framed picture, but it is the entire structure of life. You are in the chance, in the nothingness.” [53] Music closely followed, impressing upon the culture that “all is relative, nothing is sure, nothing is fixed, all is in flux.” [56] Homosexuality became more prevalent, because what is heterosexuality if not a fixed idea that needs to be challenged? Drama, poetry, and mass media were all being developed on this idea that if there is no certain truth, there can be no distinction between right and wrong. [61] A dialectical methodology tore through culture, leaving in its wake a despairing culture who had given up the means by which to fix it.

The New Theology

With the wrong concept of truth permeating culture, the next inevitable step was to have it permeate theology. Everything was reanalyzed through the lens of relativism. One could imagine what would happen when even the given theology of the day implies meaninglessness.

Man struggled to live within this inconsistency. As believers, we know this is because we are created as rational beings. As Schaeffer puts it, they “fail to know and function on the level of the whole man.”[80] This is a potential starting point for sharing the truth of Christianity because it aids this tension. More on this below.

Christianity

“Rightly understood, Christianity as a system has the answers to the basic needs of modern man...certainly regarding the reality of individual personality.” [113]  The new theology cannot give adequate answers, because any form of communication would be meaningless, because with no fixed meanings there are no fixed meanings for words. Christianity claims the opposite because “within the Trinity, before the creation of anything, there was real love and real communication.” [113]

The scriptures are God’s specific revelation, communicating to His people who are created in His own image. In His Gospel we find the truth which corresponds to our reality, and are stirred to respond in light of His loving sacrifice. Without this truth, love would be meaningless. With no final antithesis between right and wrong, “there can be no such thing a true moral guilt; therefore justification as a radically changed relationship with God can have no meaning.[132]

Speaking Christianity into the Twentieth-Century Climate

A materialist or naturalist could (try to) make a case (built on words which are meaningless), but they are not able to live within the implications of their beliefs.[150] Most non-believers, however, are never pushed to the logical conclusion of their presuppositions. [156] As believers, can we push them to this point, with all gentleness and compassion? Considering the tension they are no doubt dealing with, they just might listen. [157] No one can live at ease within this tension, and this should work on our behalf.

We have the opportunity to offer those lost and enslaved by the ways of the world freedom from tension and despair; it is so much more than wanting to win an argument or point out a fallacy. This will undoubtedly be painful, as coming face to face with reality usually is. We must remind ourselves of the ultimate goal and pursue it unashamedly, embracing the tough love we must show, all the while remaining faithful to walk alongside our audience as they embrace reality.

Pre-evangelism

Schaeffer emphatically regards pre-evangelism as “no soft option.”[169] I would whole-heartily agree that this is a matter that must be taken seriously, and not considered optional in the evangelistic task that confronts us. This the responsibility of ambassadors in order to effectively beg others to be reconciled to God, [2 Corinthians 5:20]

As apologists, as evangelists, as Christians, we need to recognize the context into which we are speaking, and therefore how our audience is interpreting the gospel message we are offering them. If it is into a pantheistic (pan-everything-ism[79]) framework, we have essentially done nothing and our work will return to us void of changed lives.

We cannot simply offer “one more probability into the twentieth-century relativistic people to whom everything is only a probability” [202]. The starting point for conversation needs to be in reference to the concept of truth and establishing it as standing on the basis of antithesis. Without this concept grasped properly, the reality and the good news of a personal Savior has no place to penetrate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we must let the importance of the Christian task rest upon us, and become experts of our culture in order to understand and accomplish that task. We must acknowledge our culture of prevailing pantheism and relativism, and stop at nothing to challenge it.

We must developed a spirit of commitment to the task, while retaining a spirit of humility, gentleness, compassion, and perseverance. Humility in light of the fact that we were once also lost, compassion for our audiences who is dealing with despair and tension, gentleness in bringing them face to face with reality, and perseverance to do whatever the Lord calls us in order to reach the world for Him.

Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who is There, 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Penitentials

Psalms 51:10-12 has been a life verse, well verses, for me. A Prayer for a clean heart, a steadfast spirit full of Joy. Recently, I have really been looking at this passage in it's context of acknowledging one's transgression and begging for forgiveness.

Psalms 51 is one of seven poems referred to as the Penitential Psalms, made up of chapters 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130, and 143. David wrote 51 and 32 specifically referring to his affair with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, however all of them refer to confession of sin and God's forgiveness.

Looking back, the last post I wrote is more meaningful now than it was even when I wrote it, but I do have more of a follow up on my awe of God's forgiveness.

In light of God being all knowing, what does it mean to confess? In Chapter 32:5, David owns up to his transgression, and in chapter 51:4 he admits His sin is against God. Above any earthy earthly relationships, our sin is ultimately against God. This reality is crucial, because we see in verses 16-17 that ritual without genuine repentance is useless, and how can there be genuine repentance if we unaware of our separation from God? I'll speak for myself, but I am right there with David that separation from God is blatant, no chance of being unaware of it, it affects us physically. In 102:4 & 7, we see David's sleeping and eating affected.

"If you, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You, That You may be feared." 

Psalms 130:3-4

What a mouthful, what a reality check. All sin separates us from God, how can I put more weight on certain actions (based on my emotions that a certain sin is worse), without therefore putting less weight on other sin? All sin has separated us from God, and our only hope is that God has already forgiven us. He is all knowing, and yet He ran after us anyway? He continues to run after us, though He knows the future? The human in me trembles in fear that His patience is about to end.

I think of the Casting Crowns East to West lyrics:

Here I am, Lord, and I'm drowning in your sea of forgetfulness 
The chains of yesterday surround me
I yearn for peace and rest
I don't want to end up where You found me
And it echoes in my mind, keeps me awake tonight
I know You've cast my sin as far as the east is from the west
And I stand before You now as though I've never sinned
But today I feel like I'm just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

I start the day, the war begins, endless reminding of my sin
Time and time again Your truth is drowned out by the storm I'm in
Today I feel like I'm just one mistake away from You leaving me this way

I know You've washed me white, turned my darkness into light
I need Your peace to get me through, to get me through this night
I can't live by what I feel, but by the truth Your word reveals
I'm not holding on to You, but You're holding on to me

*   *   *   *   *

Bonhoeffer speaks to the contrast of cheap grace v costly grace, and defines cheap grace as "the justification of the sin without the justification of the sinner," pg 43, and that "Costly Grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: 'My yoke is easy and my burden is light,' " pg 45.

We are commanded, yet as Bonhoeffer says on pg 38-39, "Jesus asks nothing of us without giving us the strength to perform it...May we withstand out foes, and yet hold out to them the the Word of the gospel which woos and wins the souls of men"

This is the point, that God may be glorified. I don't know why, but he chooses to use us to reflect his glory, and to show the vastness of His love. Ephesians talks about this all over the place... to the praise of the glory of his grace (1:6), to the praise of his glory (1:12), that you may know the hope of His calling (1:18), because of His great love (2:4), He might show the exceeding riches of His Grace (2:7), You who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (2:13), He might reconcile (2:16), that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the Church (3:10), to comprehend the love of Christ (3:18-19), for the edifying of the body of Christ (4:12), that we should grow up in all things into Him (4:15), for the edifying of itself in love (4:16),

This is a serious, important, significant call. We are forgiven, but this is not where the story ends. We are called to now be imitators of His great love (5:1) - Walking in love (5:2), walking as children of the light (5:8), finding out what is acceptable and exposing evil (5:10-11), walking as wise (5:15), redeeming the time (5:16), understanding the will of the Lord (5:17), being filled with the Spirit (5:18), giving thanks in all things (5:20).

"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil...Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints - and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make know the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak" Ephesians 6:10-11, 18-20

false humility

"'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called you son,' ... But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him"

It's worth noting that there is no mention of how the son felt or what he did. Personally, I don't think there is even a need to do so, because we already know the answer from first hand experience.

As a believer, I find myself putting limits on God's forgiveness. I only allow myself to hope to be forgiven for the the actual sins I am guilty of, while never even fathoming that God would/could forgive me. 

Shame, ladies and gentlemen...This position before the Lord, where we cannot bear to look at Him. We close our eyes tightly hoping He holds back His wrath. Our total depravity affirmed, yet he is running towards us?  

What does the son do, how does he feel? This is opposite of everything innate to humans. We earn forgiveness, we make it up, we expect the record of wrong to be kept, we beat ourselves up, we run away, we hide.

"Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations...according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh"

The false humility part part is what gets me. In my "humbling" of myself, I am just beating myself up, and am therefore allowing sin more power over me than I am allowing God. I am in fact "humbling" myself to this idol I have created, because the one true God is all powerful. I sin, in my sin, because of my sin. Depravity, affirmed.