Harry Potter, God's Nature and Christian Pacifism
In this podcast, Jim answers listener email related to the nature of God (as derived from the arguments for God's existence), our Christian response to secular media and movies like Harry Potter, and the Biblical evidence for the use of deadly force.
Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.
I had the privilege recently of meeting a World War II fighter pilot. Now in his late 80’s, in 1944 he took part in a key battle of the war in the Pacific, a last ditch effort by the Japanese to repel the American reoccupation of the Philippine Islands. Known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf, it pitted the last remnants of Japanese naval power against a vastly inferior American force. The men who fought that day, on ships and in the air, exhibited much gallantry in facing a determined enemy. Though time had ravaged this man’s body, his mind remained sharp, and before long he was recalling details of that October day those many years ago. As our conversation came to a close, I took a moment to express my thanks for what he did during the war. I thanked him for his service and his courage, and for the opportunity to live in a more peaceful world.
Thank God for the Holy Bible.
As a country, we celebrate a day of thanksgiving today. Thanksgiving has been a part of our country since its founding and was declared an official national holiday by George Washington in 1789. Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation is a reminder of our deeply Christian roots as a nation and the true purpose of this unique tradition. Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness”:
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
George Washington
Darwin's theory of evolution is what makes modern atheism "respectable." It creates the appearance that science, with all its authority and practicality, stands behind the notion that the complex life we see all around us can be - indeed, has been - explained by scientists throwing off the shackles of primitive superstition.
Reasoning the Nature of God
In this podcast, J. Warner examines the nature of God from the arguments typically used to argue for God's existence. Do the four most common arguments for God's existence tell us anything about His nature? If God exists (as these arguments seem to indicate) what is He like? Also, J. Warner answers another atheistic claim that Jesus is merely a recreation of prior Egyptian mythologies.
Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.
I attended a funeral last week. It was a sad affair, as the passing of a friend always is, but tempered by the fact that he had lived a full and vibrant life, dying peacefully in his sleep at age 90. What saddened me more, in fact, was a comment the priest made in his homily. Many in the congregation that morning were in their 50’s and 60’s, children of the turbulent 1960’s, which brought fully into the mainstream scientific secularism and the popular notion that “God is dead.” Though many left their hippie days behind, they did not leave behind the belief that God was simply a crutch for those who refused to accept what Science had shown.
So, it saddened me to hear the priest say that our faith is “rooted in mystery.” He was trying to give comfort by bridging the gap, by trying to harmonize faith and science in a way that would resonate with his listeners. He went on to express the great comfort that our faith brings, and the need for that comfort, despite the increasing importance of science and the vast increases in knowledge that science has brought. He seemed to be saying that religion didn't need to be true - the mystery at its root could simply be accepted and embraced - because religion's role is not to bring truth, but to bring comfort.
I know the priest meant well. Perhaps he believed what he said. But this is not the message of historic Christianity. Christianity does contain mystery, that much is true. We accept without fully understanding that our God is one but consists of three persons. We affirm that Jesus was born of a virgin. But our faith is rooted in history and in truth, not in mystery. A common definition of mystery is something that is kept secret or remains unexplained or unknown. The Christian faith is not rooted in secret or unknown things. It springs from the testimony of those who knew Christ, who witnessed His death and the events surrounding His resurrection. Its foundations are the oral and the written accounts of these witnesses, whose credibility was forged in blood and whose words and actions, without weapons or conquest, transformed a world.
As the Apostle Paul said, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is also in vain… and if Chirst has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 15:14-19) But if Christ is raised from the dead, then science and religion are not at odds. Science may describe how things occur, but giving meaning to them requires knowledge that only the transcendent source of Truth can provide.
Christ does not ask that we suspend reason to accept Him. His life, death and resurrection are historical events, as are the miracles He performed. He did these things so we can know the truth, so that we can love Him with our minds, as well as our hearts and souls. Our faith is rooted - indeed anchored - by these historical events, so that when our lives wind down, as they inevitably will, we can have confidence that our final resting place will be with Him.
J. Warner filled in for Greg this weekend on Stand to Reason Radio for 3 hours. J. Warner spoke on Tools to Study the Bible and Is there a Biblical Case for Using Force? J. Warner also interviewed author Brett McCracken about his book, Hipster Christianity: When Church & Cool Collide.
Some of the caller questions were: Can you recommend a book on the Biblical canon? How do you deal with theological differences with loved ones? How do you decide on a religion? Does God have free will?
Listen here to the podcast (mp3) and here for the enhanced version (AAC format - chapters and higher-res m4a audio).
Links Mentioned on the Show
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig
The Theology Program by Credo House Ministries
The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce
Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley
How the Evidence Becomes Proof by J. Warner Wallace
The Problem of God's Sovereignty by J. Warner Wallace
The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul
What God Says about War by J. Warner Wallace
Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide by Brett McCracken
The Search - Brett McCracken's blog
Weightier Worship by Brett McCracken
Bulletproof - Links to Brett's new podcast, Bulletproof, to equip parents, youth leaders, and educators (RSS and iTunes)
"Don't judge me" seems to be an increasingly uttered, and accepted, refrain in our society, reflecting what appears to be a universal and deep-seated human tendency. Even Christians, who should know better, seem to be jumping on board, believing somehow that Christian compassion requires us to be more understanding and more accepting of bad behavior.
But when you think about it, the phrase is not quite apt. Most people don't really mean that they don't want to be judged. In fact they do. What they mean is they only want to be found worthy and praised, and then be rewarded. What they are really saying is that they do not want to be condemned. They don’t want to be judged and found wanting. Whether its sports or academics or work, again and again we see that people want to compete, want to be praised and want to come out on top. It’s losing - being told that they didn’t measure up - that they seek to avoid.
This inclination is apparent from a child's earliest days: praise him and he smiles, admonish or scold him and he cries. He doesn't need to be taught how to react; he simply knows it. And when he learns to express himself, one of the first things he will intuitively grasp is that there is this thing called "fairness" by which all behavior is judged. He will make use of this early and often, as he condemns behavior that does not meet his expectations. And when he is accused of being unfair, he will not respond by saying that it's okay to be unfair; instead, he will say that he is being fair, as he attempts to justify his conduct. It's only as he gets older that he will learn the clever parry that is so popular today of claiming that judging itself is wrong.
What explanation does atheism have for this obvious human condition? Since the vast majority of people seem inclined to want to shake off judgment and be free to do what they wish, wouldn't natural selection have eliminated this condition long ago? What evolutionary benefit would derive from feeling guilty about not acting as we should? What sense does "should" make in a universe in which we are simply an accident of evolution? With survival of the fittest as the rule, behaviors that limit our choices and prevent us from putting ourselves first make us weaker, not stronger.
The Christain worldview, by contrast, can and does make sense of it. We intuitively know that there is a right and wrong, that there is good and evil and fairness and unfairness, because the absolute standard for goodness made us in His image. He left within us - written upon our heart as it were - intuitive access to this standard and a desire - a need - to conform to it. Our fallen nature prevents us from ever fully achieivng this, but the knowledge of it, and of our need to yield to it, is part of the very fabric of our minds.
God left within us the desire to find our way back to Him, and an innate fear of condemnation. Though we may not realize it, we long to hear Him welcome us home with words of praise. What we seem to have forgotten is that we cannot find our way to Him on our own.
The Burden of Proof, Truth, Gluttony, Pacifism and Atheist Pastors
In this podcast, Jim answers listener email related to Ayn Rand's claims related to the burden of proof, the nature of objective truth and the Christian Worldview, the manner in which the Church seems to promote gluttony, and reactions to the case for the Christian use of deadly force. In addition, Jim addresses a recent ABC.com story discussing two pastors who are atheists.
Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.
Is there a way to use the Bible to get someone interested in knowing more about the Bible? I’ve thought about this question for many years. As I learned more about the Word, and spoke more with people who called themselves Christian but knew little or nothing about what the Bible teaches, I wondered about the best approach to take. Here, in a nutshell, is one possible approach to make the case for studying the Bible from the Bible.
Most nominal Christians will acknowledge that the Bible is the inspired word of God. What this means to them varies. Usually they will insist that the Bible is not literal, leaving them free to add meaning as they choose, and to ignore passages that are difficult. But why do such people seem to have no interest in ever learning scripture? Even if the Bible is not literal, after all, it must mean something. There are many possible answers, the most likely being that they don't see the need to do the hard work of learning not just what the Bible says, but also its history and context.
So, I begin by asking such a person who Jesus might have been referring to in Matthew 7:21-22, where He warned about false prophets and added that not all who “prophesied,” “cast out demons” and “performed miracles” in His name will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, it is “he who does the will of My Father.” In John 8:12, Jesus calls himself the light of the world; “he who follows Me will not walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life.” And then in verses 31-32: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." It seems pretty obvious that Jesus is saying there are those who know of Him, who may even invoke His name, who He will not recognize, because they have not in truth followed Him.
If invoking His name, or calling oneself a believer, is not enough, what then must one do to follow Him? Scripture provides the answer: we must love God not just with our heart and soul and strength, but also with our mind. (Mark 12:30) We must study and know the Word of God. How else can we be "salt and light" to a fallen world (Matt. 5:13) or represent Christ as His ambassadors (2 Corinth. 5:17)?
The Bible tells us that we should “not be conformed to this world” but instead “transformed” by the renewal of our minds, that by testing we can discern what is the will of God, “what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). We must “abhor what is evil and hold fast to what is good" (Rom. 12:9). God intends the Scripture to be this source of the knowledge of good, as it is “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
In studying the Word, we are to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Writing to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul thanked God that when they received the word of God which they heard from him, they “accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13). And to Timothy, Paul urges him “retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me” and to “guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” (2 Tim 5:13-14).
In short, as the Apostle Peter wrote, we are to always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, doing so with gentleness and reverence. (1 Peter 3:15) It takes knowledge, and thoughtfulness, to do this. Studying and knowing the Bible is, necessarily, the first step.
Changing someone's view of the importance of Scripture is easier said than done. This approach may be a start, but there are no doubt many other, and better, ones. If you've had some success in this endeavor, write me at Al@pleaseconvinceme.com with the approach you took.
J. Warner will be guest-hosting again on Stand to Reason radio this Sunday from 2-5pm PST. J. Warner will be talking with Brett McCracken, author of Hiptster Christianity: When Church & Cool Collide.
Listen live on (KBRT 740AM), Facebook or streaming using STR's new iPhone/iPod Touch app.
The numbers to call in and ask J. Warner a question are (800) 227-5278 and in the Southern California area (714) 754-4150.
If you follow on Twitter, there will be listener discussion and a giveaway on STRtweets. (Search for #STRtalk to engage other listeners about the show and miscellaneous other topics that pop up in the discussion.)
Every year in America, thousands of crimes occur in which there are no witnesses and very little evidence. Sometimes, the perpetrator leaves behind a fingerprint impression - a latent print -somewhere at the crime scene. In the past, these prints possessed little value in identifying the offender; before a comparison could be conducted, the police would have to already have a known suspect.
Today, law enforcement officers have access to much better technology, in the form of AFIS - the Automated Fingerprint Indentification System. Maintained by the FBI, it houses the data for millions of fingerprint impressions, allowing an unknown latent print to be compared to millions of known offenders. In a matter of minutes, the AFIS computer can spit out the top twenty possible matches to the unknown latent print. But this is only the beginning of the analysis, because with only one latent print at the scene, there is but one actual source for the print. A trained analyst must then spend the time examining in fine detail the patterns of each suspect - the whorls and arches and loops, the ridges and furrows - to determine whether an exact match can be made. The top twenty possible matches have much in common, but on further examination, differences will emerge in the ridge pattern and detail until the one actual source can be identified.
So, what does this have to do with the field of apologetics? Just this: living as we are in very pluralistic times, we often encounter people who believe that all religions are basically the same. Examining them superficially, they will see that religions share a number of features; for example, most teach the utility of treating others with respect, of being kind, of helping the poor. So, while acknowledging some differences in doctrines, people who hold this view believe they have arrived at a great truth: there is no one right religion, just people who mistakenly, and sometimes dangerously, think that they have the corner on truth.
But like fingerprints, religions can appear on the surface to be identical, or nearly so, when in fact they are not. And to determine where and how they differ requires a rigorous and close inspection. This of course is crucial in a fingerprint analysis because we know that for one print, there can only be one source. No analyst would stop when he or she narrrowed the search to three possible sources because common sense and reason dictate that two of the three - or perhaps all three - must also be excludable on further inquiry. It is the nature of thing examined.
So too with the knowledge of God. The major world religions make mutually exclusive truth claims about the nature and attributes of God. For one religion to be true, the others cannot be. While it is logically possible that all religions are false, it is not possible for contradictory positions to both be true. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and thereby provides salvation to a fallen world, as Christians claim, or he is not. He cannot be both savior and mere sage at the same time.
Critical and careful analysis of a latent fingerprint can lead to the discovery of the truth as to who left it behind. Critical and careful analysis can also lead to knowledge of the one God who left us behind.
Radio Interviews About The Virgin Conception and Early Gospels
This special edition podcast features two interviews with John and Kathy from WORDFM in Pittsburgh. Can you defend the virgin conception and the early dating of the Gospels in a conversational way? These two interviews may provide you with examples of how to make the case for an important Christian truth and how to defend the vital evidential nature of the Gospels.
Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.
In a recent post, I asked readers to consider the marvelous complexity of the human hand, one of a host of complex and interdependent parts that make up the human body. As Christians, we make sense of this stunning intricacy by recognizing that the human body was designed by an all-powerful Creator. Atheists, by contrast, insist that there is no God, and therefore no designer, and so they seek to explain the complexity of nature by appealing vaguely to "evolution." With sufficient time, they argue, and random selection, complex life just emerges from more simple forms.
This atheist viewpoint seems to be increasingly accepted, due perhaps to the way "evolution" is taught as a fact in high schools and colleges. So a recent comment on my post came as no surprise. After encouraging me to talk to a biologist (actually, I have), the writer said: "I don't think this challenge would cause any biologist to scratch his head and agree that evolution is washed up. In fact, I think they'd have a ready explanation. Given that this argument wouldn't convince someone in a position to know (a biologist), why should this convince a layperson?"
In a courtroom, where evidence gets tested, this question would be objected to as "assuming a fact not in evidence." After all, it assumes, without offering any evidence, that biologists "have a ready explanation" for such things as how life sprang from non-life and how the complex emerged from the simple, when nothing of the kind has yet been shown. This reliance on "science," without examination or critical inquiry, makes me wonder whether science has become the new secular religion, whose adherents have such faith in the pronouncements of its high priests that they don't even question what is being said.
But I digress. Lay people should be convinced that there is a God who created us because common sense and reason support such a conclusion. For a mindless, undirected process like "evolution" to explain how we arose from inert matter, scientists must prove their theory in some observable and objective fashion and not simply assert that nature is all there is and someday we'll have the answers. That requires, first of all, clarity in language. "Evolution" can mean one of two things: modifications over time in an already existing species (a fact that no thoughtful person disputes) and an explanation for how life arose from non-life (a theory and not a fact). Understanding how DNA responds to environmental challenges is a worthy pursuit and much knowledge is being accumulated. But to jump from that evidence to a conclusion that there was no original designer, that this incredibly complex information rich DNA assembled itself, does not follow.
This distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution is compelling. In other areas of science, testing of hypotheses is accepted and encouraged. But as many others have pointed out, the presupposition that nature is "all there is" underlies all of evolutionary biology, eliminating from consideration the possibility that all-powerful Creator designed us. Biochemist Fuz Rana from Reasons to Believe makes the case that the problem with evolutionary science is not that it is completely false, but that it doesn't allow for testing. And there are other biologists who disagree with the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory. Biochemist Michael Behe has written extensively on the issue of "irreducible complexity" which presents a substantial challenge to evolutionary theory.
Perhaps someday science will make its case; only time will tell. But in the best traditions of the scientific method, I will await that showing before accepting on faith the secular view of human origins.
Several years ago, when I was younger, and much less wise, I decided it would be a good father-son project to invest in an older car that I could restore. (Note to fathers: it’s a much better bonding idea to find something your kids like than the other way around). So, after some searching, and mindful of my meager budget, I ended up finding an ’87 Mustang convertible that was in pretty good shape overall. It wasn’t difficult for me to envision that with a little elbow grease, and a website that specializes in Mustang parts, I could make this car showroom quality in no time.
After the novelty wore off, and my kids’ interest waned from little to none, I found that I had a solitary project on my hands that had this very annoying habit of making negative progress. That's right. No matter how many items I crossed off the to-do list, more kept getting added. And I found that things always went from good to bad, from working to broken, from clean to dirty. Window switches that were working one day stopped working the next. Motors that keep the windows moving smoothly up and down began to groan, and then stopped. Fuses blew, over and over again. Amazingly, the process never worked the other way. No matter how long I waited, broken switches never fixed themselves. Cracked pieces of trim, or a broken taillight, never repaired themselves. Rust in the metal always appeared, where it wasn't before, and never gave way to clean and shiny metal. Yes, the law of entropy was fully in effect and the only way to reverse that process was to invest time, energy and money.
This of course comes as no suprise to anyone who has ever owned anything. Nor is it a surprise to anyone who has considered the way nature operates. Scientists tell us that this law - entropy - is a characteristic of the universe. Entropy is, put simply, a measure of disorder, and it seems that a universal law is in operation moving everything from states of higher to states of lower order. In other words, nature has a particular direction to it, and that direction is down.
Christianity and atheism are competing worldviews. Each claims to be able to make sense of the world so as to explain the way things really are. And despite the increasing popularity of atheism, it is utterly incapable of making sense of the world. As it relates to entropy, atheism must explain why it is that the "evolution" of life has escaped this universal law. How is it that incredibly complex human beings evolved from lower life forms? When DNA is subjected to random change, the result is more often than not lethal - it's called cancer. But somehow, atheists insist, given enough time, a simple single celled life form acquired the instructions necessary to produce a complete human life, instructions that must perfectly direct the assembly and interworking of dozens of systems. And if that were not hard enough, how can life have emerged from inert - lifeless - material? Leave a rock alone for a few millennia and you end up with, well, a rock.
The Christian worldview, by contrast, can provide that explanation. The Big Bang event that started this downward slide in progress is the result of a massively powerful and immensely intelligent being, who provided the laws we see in nature, and who wrote the instructions that scientists are beginning to decipher within DNA. The reason life "evolved" on earth is because an Intelligent Designer designed it to, and provided the energy source to power the process.
Fighting the obvious, as atheists do, is even less successful than fighting entropy. They would be better off using their time in more productive pursuits.
Who is Jesus According to Others?
In this podcast, Jim examines the way that major religious worldviews describe Jesus. Although they deny that Jesus is God, how do the world's religions describe Jesus? Why do they feel compelled to account for Jesus in the first place? Given that all major religions have a place for Jesus in their respective systems, shouldn't a true seeker examine what Christianity has to say about Jesus?
Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.
Posts
