Do We Need the Originals to Trust the Gospels?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 232

Can we trust the gospels if we don’t have an original copy until the 4th Century? How can we build a circumstantial case for the reliability of Christianity if we don’t have the original copies of any of the Gospels? Also, are Jehovah’s Witnesses properly quoting the Early Church Fathers when they argue that the Father’s did not believe in the Trinity?

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Do We Need the Originals to Trust the Gospels?

Should God Have Created At All?

My last two posts (here and here) have considered a skeptic’s challenge that a “loving” God would not have exposed his children to the pernicious powers of the Devil. Yes, God could have better “protected” his children, but to have done so would have deprived us of true free will. And yes, God knew that much of His creation would reject Him, but again if He fashioned things in such a way that no one rejected Him, where in that would there be room for freedom? So, if God does allow His children to experience temptation, and if the consequence of rejecting God is “eternal torment,” how can Christians maintain, nonetheless, that this was an act of love? With consequences of this magnitude, how could God have acted consistent with His loving nature, and not sadistically, as some would contend? Would it have been better for God to have never created us?

This challenge strikes me as a bit ironic. We live, after all, in an era in which individualism is of paramount importance. Whether it’s the call for “less government” or the demand for greater sexual freedom, we find ourselves ensconced in an “age of consent,” in which giving expression to our choice is all that really matters. The abortion industry has made amazing use of this theme, deploying the euphemism “pro choice” to dress up a barbaric act that runs counter to a mother’s basic human nature. Everywhere we look, the desire to give free reign to our “free will” is a driving force.

Clearly, free will matters to us, and it matters despite the consequences that are built into our nature. Sexually transmitted disease reaches epidemic proportions, yet we, as a culture, insist that science save us from these consequences. A change in behavior is simply not in the cards. Is it not built into the very nature of things that we defy what is expected of us, what we know we “should” do, in favor of what we want to do - regardless of the ultimate consequences of our choice? We don’t want to worship God; we’re too busy trying to be Him.

This is the nature of man, and the nature of free will. There are no half-measures. Either a person is free to reject God, or he has limitations placed upon his will. But such limitations eliminate the freedom of the choice, just as a drop of poison deprives a glass of water of its purity.

With this as backdrop, let’s consider God’s choices. We say that God "loves" us, which means that He wills our ultimate good. If He takes away the freedom to reject Him, he can make us perfectly good and content, in the fashion of a cherished pet. But if He gives us intelligence and the freedom to act against His wishes, then the meaning of love cannot be to domesticate us as pets. Love, in this setting, must mean what it means for human beings in proper relationship with each other: the desire for the other to achieve his best destiny. A free will being freely choosing God achieves the highest good imaginable – eternal union with the source of all that is perfect and excellent. Those who direct their will against God do not want union with Him. They want separation from Him. So a perfectly loving God gives both categories what they have been seeking – union or separation.

The skeptic will no doubt object that separation involves punishment. But what would he have God do? Force the unbeliever to spend eternity with Him against his will? Force him to love God by stripping away his freedom, while in his heart he wants only to go on defying God? Force God to reward those who defy Him, even if that is not what God wills? Does the skeptic not see that he is speaking a contradiction?

Would it have been better, then, for God to not have created at all? Many skeptics insist this is the case. I submit that they do not really mean what they say. After all, if they could wipe out all of humanity with the push of a button - eliminate the good and the evil so that no future generations of humans could be lost - I seriously doubt they would do so. And here's why: because the potential for infinite good outweighs the consequent bad. Consider how the scales are balanced in the end: the many who are received into God's presence experience eternal - and infinite - joy; the created order therefore experiences an infinite increase in joy. The rest experience what they sought through the use of their wills. Certainly not positive, but consistent with the desire of their wills.

God creates, then, an infinite increase in joy and perfections if He creates, or He creates nothing at all. Doesn't the right choice seem perfectly obvious?

Should God Have Created At All?

Why God Allows Temptation

My last post discussed an unusual twist on a familiar challenge to the "goodness" of God. Analogizing to a parent allowing hardened criminals into his home, the skeptic asked why God would allow Satan - the ultimate deceiver - to have access to His "children" in the Garden. The implicit emotional impact of an analogy such as this must be recognized, but the challenge nonetheless remains. How can Christians make sense of temptation, and of the freedom the "tempter-in-chief" has been given?

In considering the question of temptation, two possibilities appear: God could have created beings that He shielded from temptation. Such beings would remain "good" but their goodness would be programmed and not the product of free will. Love that is programmed, however, is not really love at all; it may on the outside appear like love, but love without choice is meaningless. The second possibility is for God to create free-will beings capable of true love. But to do so, they must also be capable of not loving; they must be subject to the temptation to reject God, because absent any such temptation, they would in fact be in the first category - good, and "loving," but only because they are following their programming. There is no middle ground; God could not do both - not because God lacks power - but because doing so is essentially a contradiction. It’s like asking God to create a circle with four equal sides. The very question betrays the questioner’s lack of conceptual understanding of what free will and love are.

Let’s consider some basic definitions. Temptation, in the more specific religious sense, is a desire or craving to do wrong. Some things are wrong in and of themselves in a way that we all intuitively realize but perhaps would have difficulty explaining. “Malum in se” is the way it is expressed in Latin; murder and rape are classic examples of such wrongs. By contrast, some things are “malum prohibitum” – wrong not because they are inherently evil but because they are prohibited by law or by consensus. Taking game out of season or driving 50 in a 35 mph zone are examples. But these are earthly concepts. Why should anything be wrong, even things that we say are somehow wrong “inherently?” The answer to the question lies within these ancient legal descriptions. Created beings recognize that their creator sets the rules - He embedded them into the nature of things. Some things He prohibits, some things He specifically commands, and the rest remain in the category of neither prohibited nor commanded; this vast middle category is left for society and for government to define and enforce, for the common good.

What was the basic temptation in the Garden? Was God a crazed arborist who was concerned about the health of a particular tree? Was he worried that Adam and Eve would suffer indigestion if they partook of the "forbidden fruit?" Or was He encapsulating in His prohibition the very basic rule that lies at the root of the human condition: “there cannot be two Gods, and I will not share my authority – my 'god-ness' - with you. Are you willing to abide by this and to freely enter into relationship with me? But be aware: this requires that you obey my commands.”

Each of us knows the answer to this question. We may complain that we were not given a choice; after all, we “inherited” this “sin nature,” didn't we? But we know at our core that this nature is not forced upon us against our will. We did not inherit a craving for odd or distasteful things, or for being altruistic and self-sacrificing. No, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that each of us, to some degree or other, wants to throw off the shackles of creature-ness - with its frailty and limitations - and step into God's role. We crave autonomy and power, over ourselves, our environment, and others. That’s why songs like “I Did It My Way” resonate so much with us. In fact, we go so far as to put God himself “in the dock,” demanding that He account for the many perceived “wrongs” of which He stands accused by modern man.

Yes, God knew that we would sin in this way. He knew that this sin nature would eventually require that He separate Himself from some of His creation. So, let’s consider for a moment His options. If He prevented this most basic craving – the desire for total autonomy – to enter our thought processes, how could anyone conclude that they are “free?” Keep in mind that we are not discussing here trivial or irrational desires – this one is central to the very concept of freedom. If he allowed this most basic temptation, but prevented anyone from ever triggering it so that it would always lay dormant, then, again, we could not call ourselves “free.” If he allowed some “lesser tempters” to trigger this desire, once again there would be a limit on the freedom of the choice. So, in the end, He allows the ultimate “tempter” to take his best shot. Not because He wants us to fall but because He wants our choice - and our love - to be genuine, and the product of free will. Sadly, for many, as the 17^th century poet Milton penned, “it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven.”

This, then, is the basis of true freedom. A basic choice that goes to the heart of man, and to the root of the most important question there is: how will I relate to my maker? Will I turn toward Him with bended knee, willing to recognize and embrace His kingship? Or will I stick my finger in his eye, kicking and screaming the lyrics to “My Way?” If I choose to respond to Him on His terms, He will do the necessary work to make relationship with Him possible; if by contrast I reject Him, well, what more is there to be said?

My next post will consider how a choice of this magnitude – with such dire consequences – could ever be considered part of a loving act of a loving Creator.

Why God Allows Temptation

Is Extraordinary Evidence Needed to Prove God’s Existence?

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 231

Skeptics sometimes argue that an extraordinary claim (like the existence of God) requires extraordinary evidence. Is this true? In this episode of the PCM Podcast, we present an excerpt from Jim’s guest host appearance at Stand to Reason Radio. Jim talks with Al Serrato about the need for extraordinary evidence and they respond to a challenge offered by an atheist who calls the show.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Is Extraordinary Evidence Needed to Prove God’s Existence?

Satan and the Garden of Eden

A recent caller to Stand to Reason challenged Greg Koukl regarding God’s goodness. Why, he asked, did God allow Satan to have access to the Garden when he knew that the man and woman he had placed there would undergo, and succumb to, temptation? Employing a clever analogy, the caller argued that he might tell his children not to touch a candy jar, but he would never allow a criminal – a consummate deceiver such as Satan – into his home to prey upon those children. The caller urged Greg to “stand against” this view of God, arguing that no moral justification could support God’s knowing choice to create people whom he foreknew would end up in Hell.

An apt analogy can not only convey a rational point, but it can do so with an emotional impact that is as substantial as it is disguised. The listener feels the injustice captured by the analogy and begins to shy away from his position. But analogies can be misplaced; when the thing compared is not like the thing at issue, it may be that the analogy simply has emotional power, and doesn’t really advance the position of the one who raised it.

On an emotional level, comparing God to a parent who allows a predatory criminal to have access to his innocent children is a masterstroke. Parents who would deliberately expose their children to such danger would be worthy of censure, if not criminal prosecution. How can we love, and serve, a God who is “guilty” of such horrendous behavior?

A parent’s job in raising young children is to shield them from harm, and from inappropriate temptation and danger, until they are old enough and sufficiently trained to properly handle the situation. Children lack wisdom and maturity, and have poorly developed capabilities to detect deception and to foresee the long term consequences of their choices. Moreover, the specter of a predator in one’s home is doubly horrific, as a parent cannot help but envision even greater – perhaps physical – harm that the criminal might inflict. But a parent's role is of limited duration - a fully grown and properly educated person should eventually be capable of recognizing and resisting the evildoer’s deceptions.

We do not, of course, have a full picture of what transpired in Eden. But we do know that Adam and Eve were not children who were invited to play with the neighborhood serial killer. They were fully grown and were instructed by God as to how things work – in short, that He was God and that they were not. He told them that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and that the consequence would be quite unfavorable. And what deception did Satan play on them? Did he trick them into thinking that they were eating of a different tree? Or that they were not eating at all? No. He simply contradicted God – he told Eve that God was afraid that they too would become Gods.

This is not the account of a criminal luring a child into a car with the promise of candy. This is instead the essential story of man – the struggle between two competing desires. On the one hand, will we submit to the God who breathed life into us, and respect his kingship as God? Or, on the other, will we shake off the shackles of God’s authority and insist that we are each our own God, capable of charting our own course, of knowing good and evil, unwilling to let God be God?

No, God is not a sadistic parent hoping to harm as many of his children as He can, and not caring about the consequences. He has something quite different in mind. And though the caller claimed he understood this – that he knew the Christian claim regarding the role of free will – his comments and conclusions reflected that he does not. To summarize, God could have created beings that he shielded from temptation; or he could create free-will beings that could enter relationship with him in a meaningfully loving way. But he could not do both. To assert that he should have is to hold, whether knowingly or not, to a contradiction.

In my next post, I will attempt to explain why this is so.

Satan and the Garden of Eden

What the Demand for Extraordinary Evidence Really Means

Recent posts (here and here) considered the challenge of many secularists that "extraordinary claims" - like the resurrection and other miracles of Jesus - require "extraordinary proof." While this phrase makes for a catchy jingle, it demonstrates, I tried to show, an underlying bias on the part of the person who adheres to it.

At one level, an extraordinary claim is simply one that is so out of the ordinary that the likelihood it actually occurred appears quite low. Winning the lottery, for example, would be difficult to believe, considering the one in a several million odds against bagging the big prize. But if you held the winning numbers in your hand, despite the quite ordinary nature of your proof, I have no doubt that you would expect this ordinary evidence to be accepted. Imagine your shock if you were to hear the lottery official demand something more "extraordinary" to support your claim. You would suspect a scam, and you would probably be right.

There are other "claims" that defy intuition and common experience. In the field of criminal law, it is exceedingly unlikely to find a mother who would torture and murder her own child. Common experience and a basic awareness of maternal instincts lead most to conclude that mothers simply don't engage in this type of behavior. Yet when an extraordinarily evil act such as this does occur, juries do not - or at least should not - expect some supernatural type of proof before they convict. Proof is proof, and with sufficient "normal" evidence, there is simply no reason to doubt that an historical event - whether a murder, a winning lottery ticket or a resurrection - can be established as factual, not fictitious.

To these examples, the skeptic will no doubt reply that winning the lottery or killing a child - however out of the ordinary - do not involve "supernatural" acts. They can be explained, and accepted, as the result of purely natural forces. Trying to prove that Jesus died and then returned to life in a supernatural body is an event for which there is no "natural" explanation. Consequently, this historical "event" is not simply unlikely - i.e. having an extremely low probability like the probability of winning the lottery - it is impossible. It didn't occur, they will contend, not because a person doubts the witness' accounts or credibility, but because it was not possible for it to occur. And impossible things simply don't happen. This is really what the skeptic is saying, however obscurely he addresses the issue.

Getting the skeptic to see this underlying presupposition may be the first step in getting him to see this his doubt is not logically compelled. Here's why. The syllogism underlying the above goes something like this:

1. Events which are impossible do not occur.
2. Supernatural events are by definition impossible.
3. Therefore, supernatural events do not occur.

Premise 1 is of course true, by definition. However, premise 2 is not. Events that do not conform to natural laws can occur. They may occur infrequently, but neither "definitionally" nor otherwise are they "not possible." To conclude that a particular even is not possible, one would have to have total knowledge of both the laws and the full set things which are possible and not possible. A supernatural event is simply an event which cannot be adequately explained naturalistically; in other words, an event for which currently no adequate scientific explanation can be offered.

Let's take some examples. If modern scientists could go back in time and demonstrate atomic power to, say, a 17th century scientist, the viewer would no doubt believe that a "miracle" had occurred. There was, as yet, no adequate explanation available as to how something microscopic could contain such vast amounts of energy. But this primitive scientist would not need "extraordinary" evidence to believe that the demonstration had occurred. He would need the same kind of evidence that led the modern scientists to make their discovery.

If they could go back still further to the appearance of the first human brain, they would be witnesses to something quite extraordinary; they would view the transformation of something purely physical - a mass of cells and neurons - into a cohesive functioning brain capable of abstract thought. Would they not rightly conclude that they had witnessed a "miracle?" Even if one believed evolution to be the driving force, the first glimmer of intelligence and self-awareness, the first recognition of math or morality or beauty, would this magical transformation from animal to enlightened being be anything less than miraculous? No natural law can explain how inert material goes from "dead" to "living" to "thinking and feeling."

And if these scientists could travel yet farther back to the time of the singularity from which this universe somehow emerged, would they insist that natural laws could explain how nothing became something consisting of 10 or more dimensions which then became something with the familiar 4 dimensions?

By any other name, are these events any less miraculous? Any easier to explain?

In the end, a being capable of creating a universe and a human mind - as just two of many examples - is certainly capable of reanimating a human body. This would seem child's play by contrast to the miracles of nature around us.

Yes, a resurrection event is extremely unlikely. But so too was the creation of the universe, which also happened only once. So too was the appearance of man with his unique capacities to think and to reason and to love. Adequate explanations are lacking for these events, despite the efforts of scientists to make sense of them.

In the end, the skeptic may remain unconvinced that the Christians' showing is adequate. But what he can't do - logically at least - is to insist that Christian's case can only be made with evidence that is itself supernatural.

What the Demand for Extraordinary Evidence Really Means

Why I’m Not a Jehovah’s Witness

PleaseConvinceMe Podcast 230

Is the Jehovah’s Witness worldview true? What are the basic and important claims of all worldviews? Does the character of the founder matter when trying to determine if a worldview is true? What can we learn about discerning truth from an examination of the claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses? In this podcast, Jim answers listener email and examines the process through which he came to reject the claims of the Watch Tower Society.

Check out the podcast homepage for subscription information and archives.

Why I’m Not a Jehovah’s Witness

Are You Armed for Spiritual Warfare?

Since it first hit the big screen, the Star Wars movie series has wowed audiences with its spectacular special effects. In that galaxy far, far away, the ageless struggle between good and evil rages on, built around the story of a good “knight” who is seduced over to the Dark Side. It makes for great entertainment, as it re-tells a story that is as old as man.

But here, closer to home, are we engaged in that same kind of struggle? Are we in a spiritual battle, a battle being waged for our very souls, in a realm beyond that which our senses can perceive?

Secularists, and sadly many modern “believers,” simply reject this view of reality. They insist that what can be perceived is all there is, as they place their "faith" in science to eventually explain away all mysteries. They don't believe in simplistic notions like Hell, and if it exists at all, they view it as a destination reserved for the very few, for the worst of the unrepentant. Evil, in their view, is an amorphous, faceless force and not reflected in an identifiable “person.” In sum, they hold to a modern notion that they are basically “good” and that their goodness will, in the end, be recognized by any God that might happen to exist.

These modern views on good and evil may be comforting, but they find no support in the teachings of Jesus, in the Bible or in the traditions of the Church. These sources tell us that Satan, the original fallen angel who inhabits the real Dark Side, is a person, and that Hell is a real and horrible place. Jesus clearly viewed reality this way. He knew Satan to be an actual person, and spoke directly to him when He was tempted him in the desert. Jesus also interacted with lesser demons, which recognized Him as the Son of God and which spoke to Him. In Matthew 8:28-32, Jesus cast a group of such demons into a herd of swine. (See also Mark 9) Jesus also spoke often of Hell as a real and horrible place, likening it to the perpetual garbage fires in the region known as Gehenna. Jesus admonished us not to “fear those who deprive the body of life but cannot destroy the soul. Rather, fear him who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.” Matthew 10:28.

The Bible also teaches that Satan acts purposefully and has each of us in his sights. In fact, the Bible warns us to “stay sober and alert. Your opponent the devil is prowling like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.” 1 Peter 5:8. It teaches that the battle we face here is not against human forces, as it may seem to us from the information provided by our senses, but against the “the principalities and powers, the rulers of this world of darkness, the evil spirits in regions above.” Ephesians 6:12. It tells us that salvation is not something we can earn through our own works or that we can merit through acts of goodness. The way to avoid condemnation is through belief in Christ, for “whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.” John 3:1-19

What are we to make, then, of this battle for our souls? Is there a “force” we can appeal to for salvation? Or are we left to trust our feelings and to make it on our own? Many people today have lost their way on this question. They speak of being “spiritual” but not “religious.” They feel free to pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe, what to accept as true and what to discard as outdated. They rationalize their immoral behavior and then convince others to join in their rationalization, as if, by force of democratic vote, God’s moral law could be changed. This form of false spirituality is quite seductive, as it responds to the inner desire to know God without requiring the effort to actually learn about Him.

So, how do we find our way out of the Darkness? The answer lies in learning about the true nature of God, as He revealed Himself to us through Holy Scripture. It begins with the central truth that God the Son, the Word, became flesh and made his dwelling among us. John 1:14. Christ is the original light that shines on in darkness, a darkness that did not overcome it. John 1:5. By taking up His cross, and shedding his blood for us, He “cancelled the bond that stood against us with all its claims, snatching it up and nailing it to the cross. Thus did God disarm the principalities and powers. He made a public show of them and, leading them off captive, triumphed in the person of Christ.” Colossians 2:14.

Jesus told his followers that if they lived according to his teaching, they will know the truth and the truth will set them free. John 8:31-32. And therein lays the rest of the answer. If we are to engage in this great spiritual battle, we must first become informed of the true nature of things from God’s perspective. Paul, in his epistle to the Ephesians, explains how to begin. Using imagery that would be familiar to his audience (but unfortunately not to us), he urges them to arm themselves for the battle by putting on the “armor of God” so that they can “resist on the evil day.” He encourages them to “stand fast, with the truth as the belt around your waist, justice as your breastplate, and zeal to propagate the gospel of peace as your footgear. In all circumstances hold faith up before you as your shield: it will help you extinguish the fiery darts of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, the word of God.” Ephesians 6:13-17. Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:9, we are told to resist the devil, “solid in your faith, realizing that the brotherhood of believers is undergoing the same sufferings throughout the world.” And again, in the Epistle of James, we are told to “resist the devil and he will take flight.” James 4:7.

So, there it is. The lion is stalking in the night, but the true Light can lead the way out of darkness. We need not seek out and attack Satan, but we must resist him. We do this by submitting to God’s will; by arming ourselves with truth; by leading honest and just lives; by not being ashamed of the Gospel but willing to proclaim it with zeal; by encouraging each other to grow stronger in the faith, and finally, and most importantly, by getting into and staying in God’s revealed word.

What's stopping you from stepping into the light?

Are You Armed for Spiritual Warfare?