Pages

Monday, August 21, 2006

Where is God?

George Frodsham from http://helpwithgod.blogspot.com/ has some questions about the Christian worldview. While many of his questions are built upon misunderstandings, I believe his questions to be genuine and will respond accordingly:

Where is God?

Let me preface this by saying that I am neither an atheist nor a Christian, and the questions and comments are not all originally mine.

I am somewhat confused about religion. I fully admit that I do not know much about it (indeed this is an attempt to find out), but what I do know makes it difficult for me to understand how people can be believers. So I ask one big question – how do you know that you’re right? Here are some questions/problems I have about Christianity:

1. The Bible: many take the bible to be the word of God – most of the religious beliefs and practises are based on it. However, changes (accidental and deliberate) to the bible over the last 2000 years mean that less than half of the words now there are the original ones. So is God changing the bible to fit the times? That’s the only explanation I see, but we have stumbled across a problem. Not only do we have hundreds of different versions of the bible, but we have also become so good at copying it that we don’t make ‘mistakes’ anymore. So how will God modify it?

1. I'm not very certain where Mr. Frodsham is receiving his information, but the assertion that "less than half of the words" in the present Bible are found in the original autographs simply betrays an ignorance of the manuscript tradition and the tenacity of the copyists. For the sake of space, I won't here present an apologetic for the reliability of the Scriptural documents, but will refer Mr. Frodsham to free online works where the issue has been extensively handled.

2. No, God is not changing the Bible to "fit the times." He has preserved his Word from the time it was first spoken.

3. Saying there are "hundreds of different versions of the bible" confuses transmission with translation.

2. Selflessness: from what I understand, one of the most important things about living a Christian life is being ‘good’, and that often means being selfless. So doing things only because you benefit from them is a sin. But why are people ‘good’? To go to heaven. Ask any Christian why they follow God’s word and the answer is so that they can go to heaven. Isn’t this the same thing as saying ‘I’m only good because I get a reward’? Sounds a little bit selfish to me… Those of you thinking that you are not ‘good’ for selfish reasons answer me this: would you still be ‘good’ if doing so sent you to hell?
1. Goodness is to be defined by God's revelation of goodness. We should do good in obedience to God's command and with a desire to bring him glory. It is not necessarily wrong to desire to receive benefit from doing good, as long as the desire is framed by the greater desire to bring glory to God. So it is a simplistic understanding of the issue to say that "doing things only because you benefit from them is a sin."

2. Scripture tells us that no one is good (Romans 3:9-23), and the basis for our salvation is Christ's work, not ours. We are justified by a righteousness that is extra nos--outside of us, imputed to us. If any Christian obeys God's word expecting that his own works can merit him salvation, he lacks a fundamental understanding of the gospel.

3. Consequently, our doing good is a response to the gospel. Thus, we do not do good in order to merit salvation, but we walk in sanctification as an appropriate response to what Christ has already done.

3. Different interpretations: everybody interprets the bible differently. Is this ok? Christians with the same fundamental beliefs live their lives in very different ways. Not all believe that premarital sex is wrong, not all believe that being homosexual is wrong, some think that you should go to church every day etc… So where is the line? Are there some basic beliefs that if you hold, you will go to heaven, as long as you’re ‘good’? Come to that, is it enough to just be ‘good’? Are these the basic beliefs:
a. God exists
b. Jesus was the son of God
c. He saved us
d. We should be nice people
If they are, what was the big deal about the Da Vinci Code? Surely it’s anyone’s right to believe that as much as the bible – the evidence for both is about the same anyway. And they are upholding the basic beliefs.
1. Church history tells us that orthodox Christianity has interpreted Scripture fundamentally the same way for centuries.

2. Often, the issue isn't one of interpreting Scripture, but a lack thereof. Often, people don't want to let the text itself inform them of their doctrine, but rather allow their own traditions to be read into the text.

3. Again, "goodness" is not the criteria for going to heaven. Before Mr. Frodsham can proceed with his questions, he needs to acquire a basic understanding of the gospel.

4. The "big deal" about the Da Vinci Code isn't so much a doctrinal issue, but a factual issue. The Da Vinci Code involves a twisting of history and a deceptive approach to basic facts, resulting from Biblical and historical illiteracy.

4. Lack of miracles: miracles were the evidence that Jesus provided to show he was the son of God. A miracle, by definition, is something occurring that should be impossible (not unlikely). So when was the last miracle? Has one ever happened to you? Was it what made you a believer? A disease being cured doesn’t count – that is merely unlikely, and just as many people have died even though people were praying for them. However, something like an amputee’s leg growing back – that works.
1. A miracle, as Biblically defined, is not "something occurring that should be impossible." That simply begs the question against supernaturalism in favor of naturalism. Rather, a miracle is an extra-ordinary working of the providence of God as a unique means of revelation. Miracles shake us up and blow our minds because they are contrary to what we are used to. What is different about a miracle is not who is acting (God is equally active in both ordinary and extraordinary providence), but how ordinarily the action occurs. There's also the revelatory and redemptive purpose of the miraculous: something about the character and redemption of God is made known.

2. Why does a disease being cured not count? That simply begs the question regarding rules of evidence.

3. In any case the Church has, and even my local church has, experienced the miraculous on the level that Mr. Frodsham is alluding to. Does an eye-less girl instantaneously growing eyes count?

5. Talking to God: many believers say that they believe in God because he talks to them. If someone says that they hear voices telling them what to do, we usually send them to an asylum. How do you know you are different to them? Secondly, why is it that God hasn’t spoken to billions of people, including me? This seems a little unfair considering he is supposed to love all humans equally.
1. God communicates with his people primarily, objectively, and infallibly through Scripture.

2. In believers, in addition, there is the inner working of the Spirit. We wouldn't expect to find this in unbelievers, however, who do not have the Spirit (Romans 8).

3. Saying that God "talks to us," on the other hand, is ultimately subjective. I'm not saying that such a thing isn't real, but that it is non-revelatory (in the technical sense), fallible, and subject to the objective revelation of Scripture.

4. The assumption that God is "supposed to love all humans equally" is an unbiblical assumption.

6. Other religions: if Christianity is the one true religion (and believers of other religions are going to hell), God is again being unfair to the billions of people who are never educated about Christianity, and never have a chance to believe in it. And it works the same the other way around. How many of you have been educated about every different religion and still choose Christianity? If you are brought up as a Muslim, you will be a Muslim. If you are brought up as a Hindu, you will be a Hindu. Or is it that it doesn’t matter which religion you believe in, just that you believe in a higher power? If that is the case, why do we have a bible?
1. "Fairness" is all being justly condemned to hell, and none being saved.

2. Justification is in Christ alone, so the basis of our justification is his work, not ours.

3. Regeneration is a monergistic work of the Spirit, and because salvation is a result of God's elective purpose, it is able to transcend all cultures and backgrounds.

Evan May.

15 comments:

  1. -"Church history tells us that orthodox Christianity has interpreted Scripture fundamentally the same way for centuries."

    This is news to me. Which Church? The one that excommunicated Galileo or the one that burned Servetus at the stake? The one that thinks that Christ is "really present" in the Eucharist, the one that thinks that speaking in tongues is one of the few reliable indicators of salvation or the one that takes literally the passages about handling snakes? By the way, I believe Calvin AND Luther questioned the canonicity of the Book of Revelation.

    -"Again, 'goodness' is not the criteria for going to heaven. Before Mr. Frodsham can proceed with his questions, he needs to acquire a basic understanding of the gospel."

    Of course not. One's only "virtue" must be to have the exemplary sense of timing to repent of any and all sins before expiring (or at least say the "Sinner's Prayer" and tell Jesus you like Him all of a sudden). Sounds fair to me.


    -"Why does a disease being cured not count? That simply begs the question regarding rules of evidence."

    Because diseases are cured "miraculously" whether people are prayed for or not, whether people are believers are not, at about the same rates. These "cures" are always very ambiguous, as well. Now, should an amputee suddenly sprout a limb, THAT would be a miracle, indeed!

    -"In any case the Church has, and even my local church has, experienced the miraculous on the level that Mr. Frodsham is alluding to. Does an eye-less girl instantaneously growing eyes count?"

    Really? Show me a link to this. I'd be willing to take a look, but I'm honestly doubting it. This would be huge medical news, and I've never heard of it.

    -"God communicates with his people primarily, objectively, and infallibly through Scripture."

    Is this why no two Christians can agree on every matter of Scriptural exegesis? The Spirit must be sending out some conflicting messages, don't you think?

    -"The assumption that God is 'supposed to love all humans equally' is an unbiblical assumption."

    So what's your point? Good for you if you hold a winning ticket. But what about those poor saps who don't? Are you gloating, or do you just feel relieved? As long as your tiny little soul gets to Heaven, to heck with everyone else, I guess. Or are you just pretending to care? If you do actually care, would you change things? If so, are you more merciful than the God you worship?

    -"Fairness" is all being justly condemned to hell, and none being saved."

    Are you saying this because you believe you are saved? Would you say the same if you believed you were damned? Fair in what way? How does one "earn" eternal retribution for a "sin" that cannot harm, inflict damage on, or in any lessen the well-being of a supposedly benign Being? Is God very sensitive or is He just irritable?

    - Todd

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is news to me.

    That doesn't surprise me.

    Apparently, you misunderstand what I mean by "fundamentally."

    In any case, much of the examples you cited involve a category error. Issues of Roman Catholic dogma aren't entirely an issue of the intepretation of Scripture, but of the authority of Scripture. If you accept "tradition" as a doctrinal informant on the level of Scripture, then of course your doctrine is going to differ.

    Of course not. One's only "virtue" must be to have the exemplary sense of timing to repent of any and all sins before expiring (or at least say the "Sinner's Prayer" and tell Jesus you like Him all of a sudden). Sounds fair to me.

    This is a strawman, and more gospel-ignorance.

    Really? Show me a link to this. I'd be willing to take a look, but I'm honestly doubting it. This would be huge medical news, and I've never heard of it.

    A link? No link. This was a personal experience on one of our mission trips in Mexico.

    But even if I were to give some form of documentation, would you believe it? I highly doubt that. In fact, the truth is that even if you were to experience this before your own eyes, you would have a rationalistic way of explaining it away, or you'd conclude that you were going insane. What you need is not more miracles. History is replete with miracles. What you need is your unregenerate heart to be regenerated by the Spirit.

    Are you saying this because you believe you are saved? Would you say the same if you believed you were damned?

    I'f I were damned I'd have a reprobate heart and would despise God's justice.

    But, nevertheless, God is, objectively, just.

    How does one "earn" eternal retribution for a "sin" that cannot harm, inflict damage on, or in any lessen the well-being of a supposedly benign Being?

    God isn't merely a "benign" being; he's a righteous being that has imposed his laws upon the universe and rightfully required man to be subject to them.

    In any case, the above questions and answers were directed toward an honest inquirer, not a hardened apostate like yourself. So I wouldn't expect them to serve your demands.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That was quite a tap dance, but you didn't really answer anything. In fact, your answer was pretty much "I don't have to talk to you, you're an APOSTATE. So nyah!"

    1) What are you considering orthodox Christianity? Are all of these various denominations figments of my imagination? If they're not, I'd suggest that "orthodox Christianity has NOT interpreted Scripture fundamentally the same". People have been murdered over these disagreements, you know. Sounds like some major disagreement to me.

    2) In regards to the eyeball being "regenerated" ... I'm more than willing to look at evidence, but please understand if I don't take your word for it. Why should I believe you any more than the word of that con artist Benny Hinn? (Unless you want to insist that he's for real.)

    3) You state: "I'f I were damned I'd have a reprobate heart and would despise God's justice. But, nevertheless, God is, objectively, just."

    Okay, that's fine. So you "LOVE" His justice. Forget about me. I'm not pretending to be as saintly and "virtuous" as John Calvin (for example). What about those nice little Buddhist children who were raised in a foreign country? When Jesus roasts them over hot coals for all eternity, will that make you smile? Will you roast marshmallows on their burning flesh? Will you lean off your cloud to catch a whiff of their singed hair?

    I'm just trying to get an idea of what appeals to you about this "Justice" thing.

    - Todd

    ReplyDelete
  4. What are you considering orthodox Christianity?

    I'm referring to what can be found in the creeds and confessions, which is, fundamentally, the same thing.

    Other than that, I can only give generic answers to generic questions. If it feels like I haven't answered anything, it's because you haven't asked anything.

    What you are attempting to do, essentially, is undermine the clarity of Scripture. But this isn't performed successfully by merely citing doctrinal differences. This lies in the actual exegesis of the text of Scripture, which requires specific examples.

    Why should I believe you any more than the word of that con artist Benny Hinn?

    I never asked you to believe me. Neither did I ever put forth my experience as an argument for Christianity. Rather, the original post was one that answered questions, and the question was a personal one ("Has one ever happened to you?").

    As far as God justly condemning sinners to hell, I am certainly grieved. I'm no grieved because God is doing anything wrong. Rather, I am grieved that the condemned failed to take their eyes of their sin for one moment to repent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Todd,

    I am a little bemused by your rhetoric. Instead of saying What about those nice little Buddhist children who were raised in a foreign country? , wouldn't swapping out the word "nice" for "innocent" and "children" for "babies" give more emotional impact to your invective? I mean What about those nice innocent Buddhist babies who were raised in a foreign country and have no chance of ever hearing about Jesus. is far more emtionally appealing, don't you think.

    Question. If you were the attending pediatrician at the nice little Hitler's birth and you knew the atrocities he would commit in the future, what would you do?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Todd, old chap. There is a certain level of basic Christian doctrine about which all agree. These are contained in the first four ecumenical councils. So, both Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church wanted to burn the unitarian Servetus (which was wrong), because he was not a Christian (which was right).

    There are also distinctives due to tradition (Espicopacy, the Real Presence) or perculiar interpretations of scripture (snake handling). Yes, Calvin & Luther had issues about the canonicity of some books. However, they did not want to add their books to the canon.

    No virtue, Todd, no virtue at all. I know that within me dwells no good thing. 'Nothing in my hands I bring/ Simply to thy Cross I cling;/ Naked, come to thee for dress;/Helpless look to thee for grace;/ Foul, I to the fountain fly;/ Wash me, Saviour, or I die.'

    Simply saying the 'Sinner's Prayer?' How's this for a 'sinner's prayer'

    'Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wikedness, Which we from time to time most grievously have committed, By thought, word and deed, Against thy divine majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us, the burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, Forgive us all that is past...' (General Confession, Book of Common Prayer, capitalisation in original)

    Unless that is what the sinner believes, there is no true repentance. I agree if your point was that lukewarm repentance and antinomianism are a plague.

    Todd, your problem is that you believe yourself to be fundamentally 'all right', rather than a sinner. Being told you are a sinner offends you. It offends all.

    As for miracles, of you was it said that an unbelieving generation looks for a sign.

    Lastly:

    'Is this why no two Christians can agree on every matter of Scriptural exegesis? The Spirit must be sending out some conflicting messages, don't you think?'

    Enough, already! I've addressed this at least five times, and you have not responded even once. 'We see in part, we prophesy in part' St. Paul was way ahead of you. 'Thrones, powers, dominions block the view', and, in the Church of Jesus Christ, so does tradition. In some cases, exegtical diagreement comes over tradition, in other cases it is the remaining sin in the believer. When I am cleansed of all my Sin, then I shall agree with all other Christians, 'til then , what I have is but a poor, fleeting shadow..

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh and, on your question:

    'Why should I believe you any more than the word of that con artist Benny Hinn?'

    May I suggest because Evan isn't asking you to send him a cheque?

    On denominations, again, this has been dealt with, but you did not answer. Denominations arose out the attempt of some Christians to recover the practices of the early Church, in the belief that the Church universal had departed into error. So, the Roman Catholic Church exists because it fell under the sway of tradition, as does the Church of England. The Presbyterians were expelled from the Episcopalians, and fell into the serious error of Arianism, then Socianianism (reason over revelation), so congregations and members left to join the Congregationalists, who had separated from the Church of England earlier believing that churches should be composed only of Christians with a credible profession of faith. The Baptists separated over the question of whether infants should be baptised (tradition) or adults. The Methodists were forced out of the Church of England, then split over questions of church order.

    Since 1914, splits in the churches have been mostly over error, the substitution of reason for revelation, rather than interpretation of the Bible. Modern liberals throw away the Bible when they don't like what it says, they do not, for the most part, re-interpret it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Evan,

    Could you elaborate a little more about this miracle you witnessed in Mexico? Are you saying this little girl had her eyes instantly regenerated in your presence? Am I misunderstanding you on this? Please advise...

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  9. As for miracles, of you was it said that an unbelieving generation looks for a sign.
    Ooops, another contradiction:
    According to John, Jesus performed signs SO THAT people would believe, and apparently his disciples will perform these signs as well, and do even greater things.

    Two thousand years later, and we are still waiting for a single sign. I have to admit, the girl sprouting eyes would have been a good sign, but we would need a whole lot more information before we can believe this tall tale.

    carey

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why oops? My dear, it WAS said. And are you saying you are not unbelieving?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why oops? My dear, it WAS said. And are you saying you are not unbelieving?
    Well, apparently you are too indoctrinated with “inerrancy” to see the contradiction. And no, I made no statements about what I believe – you teased that out all on your own.

    On the one hand people are “rebuked” for looking for signs, and on the other hand Jesus performed these supposed signs SO THAT people would believe. Which is it? Signs or no signs, or both?

    carey

    ReplyDelete
  12. Warren L asks: "Question. If you were the attending pediatrician at the nice little Hitler's birth and you knew the atrocities he would commit in the future, what would you do?"

    The problem with you Christians is that you are incapable of NOT applying moral equivalency to everything. "One sin is as bad as another ... they ALL lead to Hell."

    Really? So you wish to say that lying to your wife about her looking good in that dress is THE SAME, MORALLY, as the actions of a mass murderer?

    Give me a break.

    Most people aren't Hitler. You must THINK they are as a way of justifying the irrationality of the God you believe in.

    - Todd

    ReplyDelete
  13. In any case the Church has, and even my local church has, experienced the miraculous on the level that Mr. Frodsham is alluding to. Does an eye-less girl instantaneously growing eyes count?

    Wow, that is truly a miracle. Please post a link to the story because I'm sure this was plastered all over the media and was covered extensively in all the major science and medical journals. I must have fallen asleep for like a year straight because somehow I missed one of the biggest stories in modern history.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "roast marshmallows on their burning flesh?"

    I don't even know Evan, but I'm reasonably certain he isn't actually sending Buddhist babies to hell, so why are you attacking him in this personal manner? This sounds less like an atheist/Christian disagreement and more like an anger issue. If someone who professed to be a Christian has betrayed you in the past, they will have to answer for it before God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Evan,

    Since I've seen you responding to other posts, and you haven't responded to mine I assume a response is not forthcoming. Perhaps you just missed it, but could you elaborate on this miracle you witnessed in Mexico? When the Lord did miracles it was out in public and the healing was very obvious to all. The beggar at the door of the temple had been crippled his whole life, and everyone in town knew it. For some reason though, modern day miracles always seem to be done in the back woods of some third world countries, or some internal injury for some person picked out of a crowd who's healing is unvarifiable. This kind of stuff makes Christianity look foolish in the eyes of the world. Scam artists like Benny Hinn take advantage of people by doing this. Since the purpose of the miracles performed in the NT was to confirm that what was being spoken by the disciples was in fact the Word of God, and since in the Lord's case it was proof that He was the Son of God and it brought glory to God, it seems odd to me that some Christians go around today trying to perform miracles in Christ's name. Now I certainly wouldn't limit God's power to heal someone, even today, but I don't see the miraculous gifts extended beyond the life of the apostles. A lot of nonsense has gone on, but if God's hand was in it I don't think the world would have such a suspect view of healing miracles. In fact, in the NT the Pharisees were confounded by the obvious fact a miracle had been performed by God. Today, the Christian is confounded because of the spurious claims of the faith healer, that, if they were real, should be obvious to all (even unbelievers). What do you think?

    ReplyDelete