Apologetics – Snapshots

The Whole Law

During the apostolic era, Christians were viewed as members of a Jewish sect, a subset of Judaism; the Twelve Apostles and their disciples were passionately Torah-observant (Ac 21:20), including the Apostle Paul. (24) As the Holy Spirit lead them to delight in Torah as the law of God (Ro 7:22), the early church remained Torah-centered; except for their love for Messiah, they looked and acted Jewish.

The distinct religion which we now call Christianity began to emerge late in the 1^st century, distinguishing itself from Judaism by rejecting Torah as God’s Law. Though Christ plainly warns against this (Mt 5:17-18), and though Paul anticipates this type of apostasy (2Ti 4:3-4), desperation to escape the devastating Fiscus Judaicus, the additional tax imposed by Rome upon all Torah-keepers, beginning shortly after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE and continuing for hundreds of years, opened the door wide to deception. The relentlessly crippling financial burden — imposed simply for being Torah-observant — drove post-apostolic leadership to wrest key Pauline passages (2Pe 3:16) to decouple the burgeoning, predominantly lower-class gentile Christian population from its biblical foundation. (Ps 11:3)

Since no reasonable soul would believe all of Torah has been abolished, especially laws such as Do Not Kill, Do Not Commit Adultery, etc., key figures such as Justin Martyr and Ireneus began to arbitrarily partition Torah into moral and civil or ceremonial laws, claiming ceremonial commands were temporary shadows fulfilled by Christ and civil laws were only for Jews. They started encouraging believers to cease sabbath observance, abandon God’s feasts, ignore dietary laws, leave their children uncircumcised, etc. Conveniently, as it turns out, they began teaching precisely what suffering believers were desperately wanting to hear: how to stop being identified as Jewish and avoid debilitating taxation without renouncing their faith in Christ.

Thus the “itching ears” predicted by Paul a few decades earlier played itself out in the churches (2Ti 4:3-4), corrupting the faith and starting yet another false religion. The burdensome tax continued right up until just before this new religion, Christianity, was officially recognized as the state religion under Constantine (380 CE). Evidently, this is no coincidence, but calculated extortion and deception. In retrospect, we should expect as much; as God further reveals Himself (1Co 2:8) Satan strategically creates the clever counterfeit. (2Co 11:13-15)

Yet the trained soul perceives that dismissing parts of Torah as civil or ceremonial openly contradicts the plain teaching of Christ Himself (Mt 5:17-18) and changes the very definition of sin (1Jn 3:4), amounting to a radical departure from the faith which was once delivered onto the saints. (Ju 3) We know Torah is spiritual (Ro 7:14); it is all good if we use it lawfully. (1Ti 1:8) Rejecting this arbitrary partition of Torah collapses the entire superstructure of Christian dogma like the proverbial house of cards and exposes Christianity as a massive fraud. (Mt 7:26-27)

Even so, most Christians accept this artificial classification of Torah as a given, mentally substituting whatever definition of the law they happen to prefer in any biblical context. They instinctively dismiss the parts of Torah they despise while thinking they are respecting God’s law as a whole, and they do not even seem to realize they are doing so. (I certainly didn’t.) Pointing it out and challenging this key step might be a gamechanger for the elect: challenge them to show from scripture where and how God partitions His laws like this. When we stop doing so, Torah-relevance becomes an all-or-nothing proposition (Mt 22:40), as it should be (Is 8:20), exposing biblical objections to Torah observance as inherently inconsistent: they simply cannot stand. (2Ti 3:16-17)

The reality is that deliberately and routinely breaking any part of Torah defines one as a lawbreaker. (Ja 2:10-11) Intentional, willful disobedience is the defining characteristic of Satan and his own. (1Jn 3:8)

Yet God’s mercy towards sins of ignorance (1Ti 1:13) is evidently graciously extended to those who remain blinded by the enemy (2Co 3:14), who literally cannot see what they are doing. It is no small thing to acknowledge this level of deception and repent; it effectively amounts to following another Jesus, a very different one, evidence that the Jesus preached in Christianity since the 2^nd century is not the Jesus of the Bible. The same language is used, but the actuality is quite different.

Preaching Christ as Messiah offering to save us from breaking Torah, equipping and enabling us to live in obedience to Torah (Ro 8:4), reveals who is willing to receive the true King and who is content to follow the counterfeit. (Ro 8:6) The foundation of God stands sure, having this seal: Jesus Christ knows those who are His (2Ti 2:19), and He is saving us from our breaking of Torah. (Mt 1:21)

articles ♦ blog

Flee From the Wrath

audio

The Bible says God is very angry with all who aren’t believing on Christ (Jn 3:36), and that Christ Himself is angry with all who aren’t worshipping Him. (Ps 2:12). How do we flee from the wrath of God and of His Son? (Lk 3:7)

Whether one believes in God or not, the possibility God might exist and that He might be angry ought to be sobering. (Ac 17:30) If God might exist it is rational to act as if He might, and if He might be angry then acting accordingly is likewise rational.

This follows from Pacal’s Wager: given the remotest prospect (any non-zero probability) of suffering the infinite fury of an angry God, the expected loss of neglecting to avoid it is infinite. (2Co 5:11) What does this look like in practical terms?

We might try to flee from God, but how does one flee Omnipresence? Presuming there’s a place where God is not is foolish at best. (Ac 17:28)

The only rational response is to order our lives to please God as well as we can (i.e. repent) (Lk 3:8-9) and search for a way to be reconciled with Him. No other path is acceptable. (Ro 1:18-19)

Once we start looking in earnest for evidence of God and of His ways, it’s not so difficult to find. Irreducible Complexity in Nature becomes sufficient proof of God’s existence, power and wisdom: only those blindly presuming Philosophical Materialism as a faith-axiom can miss this. (Ro 1:20)

Acting as if God exists also implies giving Him the benefit of the doubt regarding His nature: acting as if God is good – that He’s both loving and just. For if God is not good there’s no rational way to minimize our expected loss (i.e. all bets are off). Presuming God is good is rational since this minimizes the likelihood of offending Him.

Following this reasoning, seeking reconciliation with God is also straightforward: only Christianity portrays God as both just and loving; all other religions both downplay the potential of human sinfulness and offer reconciliation with divinity apart from justice, as if repentance and personal merit can somehow atone for eternal sin — all the while rejecting this concept in all of our civil institutions: no one really believes proper order can exist in the universe without justice.

And no other religion addresses how any sin against an infinitely good and holy God can be less than infinite … or justly atoned for without paying an infinite penalty. Christianity offers us both.

As we earnestly seek, we find we’re all guilty before God: He is justly angry with us for our sin and will punish us eternally unless we flee to His Son as our propitiation (1Jn 2:2), God Himself suffering the infinite penalty for our sin (1Jn 3:16), and hide ourselves in Him. (Ps 119:114) This is the only way to flee from the wrath to come.

articles ♦ posts

Jehovah by Wisdom

audio

The vast wisdom and understanding Jehovah God displayed in creating the universe is indeed profound (Pr 3:19); His works are manifold, all designed with infinite precision. (Ps 104:24) One way to explore them lies in what physicists call the fine-tuning of the universe.

Pillars of Creation, J. Webb Space Telescope

For example, the gravitational force G, describing how objects are attracted to one another, must be within a range of one part in 10⁶⁰; if it were slightly stronger or weaker, the universe would not support complex life forms. This is like randomly selecting a particular atom out of all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy.

There are evidently at least a dozen other parameters, such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force and the cosmological constant, which must each be set within a very narrow range (say 2-5%) along with G in order for the universe to support human life. If any of these values are not set correctly, our universe doesn’t work for us.

The obvious implication of this fine-tuning is that there is an omnipotent Creator Who very wisely designed the universe for a specific purpose (Ro 1:20): to support human life so He can reveal Himself to us and through us. While this conclusion isn’t scientific per se (since it isn’t an experiment we can repeat), it is exceptionally strong circumstantial evidence, especially when considering similar arguments in Origin of Life research, that should be a slam dunk in any rational discussion attempting to account for our existence.

The reason this particular evidence is so strong is that there are only two basic alternatives here: either the universe is designed by God, or it isn’t, in which case it happened randomly by mere chance. Since atheists typically reject the first option a priori, they try to explain how the apparent design of our universe could be the result of purely random processes.

Since atheists can’t rationally expect anyone to believe an entire universe (ours) exploded spontaneously out of nothing with all of these parameters randomly set perfectly correctly on the first go-round under such astronomically low odds, they ask us all to believe there must be an infinite number of universes randomly springing spontaneously out of nothing. An infinite number of randomly generated universes is evidently the only way to overcome the fine-tuning argument, to get a universe with all the right physical properties without a Creator.

But there is no scientific evidence of the existence of any other universe except our own, and it would appear there never could be, by definition.

There is also no scientific explanation for how any universe springs into existence ex-nihilo (out of nothing) all on its own without an independent causal agent to create it. Merely claiming an infinite number of such events doesn’t solve the problem. The very concept is inherently self-contradictory on a fundamental, basic level.

So, the only way to evade the fine-tuning argument for an intelligent Creator God appears to be to presume the existence of a mindless, inert machine (effectively, a sort of god) randomly creating universes with no purpose or intent. In other words, we can believe in a living God or a lifeless, mindless one.

Why would anyone cling to the baseless and unscientific concept of a lifeless, mindless god rather than trust in the Living God? Perhaps it is an unwillingness to submit to the living God and honor Him. (Ro 1:21) I don’t see any other reasonable way to account for such behavior.

articles ♦ posts

The Foundation of the Earth

audio

The debate over the age of the earth is significant because it profoundly intersects both physical and spiritual reality. A literal reading of Scripture places the beginning about 6000 years ago, while almost all scientists claim the planet is several billion years old. Where we land on this key scientific question has tremendous spiritual implications. (1Ti 6:20-21)

As in most debates, our ideology, world view or general narrative determines how we interpret reality (Mt 6:22-23), and this particular debate appears to be no different. Young Earth Creationists use a consistent, well-established biblical hermeneutic, respecting the Creation narrative in Genesis at face value. Old Earth proponents tend to align with Philosophical Naturalism, that Earth and all life forms have arisen from random, purely natural causes over long periods of time.

While there is plenty of scientific data available to help us estimate the age of the earth (Ro 1:20), each world view finds ways to interpret the data according to its own general narrative. The consequences of allowing the data here to actually fundamentally change the way one perceives reality are indeed profound. (2Th 2:10-12)

The stakes are perhaps highest for the atheist: accepting a young earth eliminates Darwinian Evolution as a plausible explanation for our existence, leading us to wrestle with Divinity defining a moral standard and holding us all accountable for our actions. This is so offensive and unpalatable to hardened atheists it blinds their minds, literally rendering them incapable of rationally evaluating the facts. (2Co 4:4) So, when we discover soft tissue in dinosaur bones, for example, any explanation at all, even if it’s a wild stretch, satisfies sufficiently to dismiss the evidence. (2Pe 3:5)

Yet decades of extensive Origin of Life research now demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that life could not possibly have evolved naturally, exposing Darwinian Evolution as an elaborate hoax and eliminating any rational basis for Philosophical Naturalism. (Ps 139:14) Consequently, an old-earth interpretation of the scientific data no longer supports any rational world view (Ps 102:25); we should all be free to consider faith-based, young-earth interpretations of the scientific data without being mocked and ridiculed.

Even so, many Christians depart from a biblical hermeneutic in Genesis to accommodate an old earth, hoping to be respected by the general scientific community. However, in doing so they unwittingly undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith: that God actually made Man in His own image from the dust of the earth; that He actually formed Woman from the rib of Man (1Ti 2:13); that God actually rested on seventh literal 24-hour day of Creation and sanctified it (Ex 20:11); that Adam actually brought sin into the world by eating of the forbidden fruit (1Ti 2:14), and death by sin, actually passing spiritual death on to all of us, who are all his descendants (Ro 5:12); that God actually cursed the ground for Man’s sake, and prophesied that the Seed of Woman will bruise His heal while bruising the head of the serpent who deceived them. Allegorizing the Creation story leads one to presume all of these foundational historical events didn’t actually happen as they are recorded, but that they merely evolved over millennia as pre-historic humanoids passed on oral traditions trying to make sense of their chaotic world.

Yet Jesus Christ Himself evidently accepted the Genesis account as literally true (Mt 19:4-6), as did His apostles. (1Ti 2:13-14)

This debate is surely not without consequence. If we don’t take the writings of Moses at face value, how are we to believe the words of Christ? (Jn 5:46-47) Grounding ourselves in the facts and understanding how and why they are interpreted by each side, will help us be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks of us a reason for our hope with meekness and respect. (1Pe 3:15)

articles ♦ blog

Give an Answer

As we share our faith, we should be mindful of our objectives and motives. Trying to convince others through logic and evidence may lead to frustration, anxious tension, defensiveness and other uncharitable emotions. We’re called to present the evidence which convinces us, not necessarily change anyone else’s mind; repentance is God’s work, not ours. (2Ti 2:24-25)

God tells us to always be prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks us for a reason we believe, why we have hope of eternal life (Ti 1:2), and to answer them with meekness and respect. (1Pe 3:15) What evidence do we have for our faith? Why do we believe what we do? Why are we so convinced? We should be able to articulate this clearly and rationally.

Some may claim our reasons for faith are grounded in ignorance or lies, and we should listen carefully and try to learn, checking out the truth for ourselves. Everyone knows something we don’t, and no part of reality should intimidate us; we should try to reconcile all of our experience and knowledge into a coherent worldview. This is how truth-seekers live; asking God to reconcile apparent contradictions and inconsistencies (Mt 7:7-8) so we may live according to knowledge and understanding. (Pr 4:7)

But we should not be surprised or concerned when others remain skeptical, especially when this is not grounded in objective reality; unbelief is the norm: it is expected. Those who are not seeking truth are already blinded by a love for darkness (Jn 3:19); they cling to lies regardless what evidence is presented. Blind people can’t see light, regardless how brightly it shines into their eyes. They need to be given sight, to be regenerated, quickened. (Ac 26:18)

Trying to determine whether someone else loves the truth as we converse with them may also be inappropriate. If they do love the truth, and if our answers have merit, they will likely continue asking questions. If they don’t like our reasons, and have rational grounds for skepticism, perhaps we need to keep digging and ask them some questions.

Yet our focus should not be debate, but living so others can sense our hope; our joy in Christ should be evident. Hope is attractive in ways scientific, logical arguments aren’t. People without hope may be looking for rescue from the madness of this world. (Ro 8:24)

The more we seek the more we find (Pr 2:3-5), and the better answers we’ll be able to give to the next one who asks. It is a journey, and we must be patient with ourselves and others along the way.

articles ♦ posts

In the Beginning

audio

For life to begin to exist (an effect) it must be caused: either created supernaturally (by God) or arising spontaneously and randomly, by accident, out of non-living matter (i.e. random chemicals dissolved in water). By definition, these two explanations are our only reasonable choices to explain life on Earth.

For well over a century, scientists have desperately been trying to explain how life might have evolved on its own without a Creator; the entire evolutionary claim depends upon this.

Yet even the very simplest living things are so bewilderingly complex that the more we research the problem the farther away we find ourselves from discovering a naturalistic cause.

Every single-celled organism, as scientists imagine the first life forms to be, is like a tiny three-dimensional city, complete with streets, power plants, utilities, waste collection and removal services, factories, hospitals, food stores, repair shops, police, thousands of little robots automatically carrying out very specific functions all throughout the cell, and a governing center with little computers running it all, complete with extremely complex information encoded into unfathomably and irreducibly complex molecules capturing every detail and nuance of how the cell is constructed and operates.

It is not surprising that evolutionary scientists have a very difficult time admitting how vastly improbable it is for even one cell to ever come into being on its own; only Creation scientists appear willing to state the obvious.

For example, each cell contains all of these bewilderingly complex, interconnected and interdependent systems and components within a surrounding wall or membrane, keeping everything in place and protecting the inner workings of the cell from its external environment.

Just trying to explain a cell membrane, the little bubble surrounding the cell, is daunting all by itself. This membrane must keep the internal environment of the cell chemically stable while allowing nutrients to pass into the cell and waste to be expelled. It must keep all necessary cell components in their correct locations, so it must form around and enclose all of the internal, interdependent components only after they have all been co-located into positions which allow them all to interact seamlessly and consistently with one another.

This membrane, even in the simplest living organism, comprises over a million complex molecules, each having a distinct function and arranged very precisely such that each segment of the cell wall works together seamlessly with the rest of the cell to keep the cell alive.

The membrane comprises two distinct layers which maintain the stability of both the interior and exterior wall surfaces while allowing fluidity, or lateral movement of the structural molecules (phospholipids), within the wall itself, which is crucial for the wall to function properly.

Very complex protein molecules must be precisely configured and correctly positioned within the cell wall to facilitate movement of the correct types of molecules through special corridors both entering the cell (nutrients) and exiting the cell (waste and toxins).

Further, the cell membrane must permit external environmental factors to influence the internal components of the cell such that the cell can respond favorably to environmental stimuli, yet without allowing the environment to compromise the integrity and stability of the cell’s infrastructure.

And finally, this membrane must be designed to allow the cell to replicate without destroying the cell itself, to split apart and form two completely new cells with all of the necessary internal components in each new cell without destroying any of these internal components or the cell itself in the process.

No living cell can exist without a fully functioning cell membrane, so how did the first cell get a membrane? Did over a million very complex molecules accidently compose themselves out of a random environment of naturally occurring chemicals (most of which happen to be hazardous to the cell’s internal components) into a very precise design around a mass of other precisely designed components for no apparent reason, creating a safe and amazingly complex barrier precisely suitable to sustain life?

The likelihood of a single such membrane actually forming by chance, even if all of the required component atoms are floating around in perfect concentrations just waiting to be used up, is unspeakably small. It is more likely that we could randomly select a specially-marked atom from among all the atoms in the known universe in a single trial event, and then repeat this feat trillions of times in a row and never miss a beat. This is statistically impossible, for all practical purposes.

This doesn’t even begin to touch the problem of how all the rest of the extremely complex components within the membrane get there: the random formation of the genetic programs precisely configured to produce and repair the necessary proteins and enzymes needed to carry out basic life functions of the cell, such as metabolizing nutrients and converting them into usable energy, repairing damaged cell components, and replicating the cell itself. Each one of these processes is incredibly complex, all on its own.

For a living cell to function all of these systems must be precisely engineered and interconnected within the cell in precisely the correct locations and configurations at the same time for each of them to function properly. We call this irreducible complexity.

Finally, for such complexity to arise randomly in a primordial soup, the entire process must occur within a very short time span (a few hours); most of the components within the cell decay and break down rather quickly if not stabilized in a very special chemical environment which is not found outside the cell. Even if all of these internal components were to form somehow and come together on their own, without the cell membrane to shield them most of the components would only last a couple of hours before breaking down and decaying into useless molecules.

The more we discover about the complexity of the cell, the more improbable it is that life evolved. Those who refuse to admit this and incorporate it into their world view are not following the science; they are being irrational and dishonest – hoping for a veritably infinite sequence of statistical miracles while denying the very possibility of miracles.

articles ♦ posts

My Father Worketh

audio

Science, particularly the physical sciences, can be thought of as a search for causes. We want to understand how things work, the interactions and interdependencies between events so we can better understand and predict our world.

When some particular behavior or event (effect) is observed there’s an implicit assumption it was caused. We call this the Law of Causality (Cause and Effect); it’s so fundamental to the rational mind that violating it is absurd. It’s not only true — it’s formally true by definition: an effect is by definition something caused.

However, as we pursue probable causes to find an initial root cause, especially when examining historical events which we cannot replicate, we inevitably go back in time until we reach an event or state where there seems to be no possible natural cause: we then deduce that there must be an uncaused Cause. We call this observation the Kalam Cosmological Argument; it is formal proof of God’s existence.

One need not go all the way back to the beginning of Creation to find God causing effects: God has continued acting since Creation. (Jn 5:17) While we should not presume God is the cause when we don’t yet understand how something works (God of the Gaps logical fallacy), we should be willing to acknowledge God as the Cause (a miracle) when this is implied by science itself: when any other probable cause violates scientific law.

Certainly, if we conclude a miracle has indeed occurred, we might later develop further scientific understanding and be able to explain it naturally, but this does not mean concluding an event is miraculous is unscientific any more than if we provide a plausible naturalistic explanation which later turns out to be false. In either case, we are being reasonable and honest based on our current understanding of science.

For example, a personal friend was shot in the chest multiple times at point blank range and survived. In analyzing his wounds, the attending surgeon found multiple instances where a bullet track terminated at the surface of a vital organ and the organ was undamaged; there was no bullet anywhere in the track, nor any alternate route found where the bullet might have exited the body. How does one explain the cause of such an event?

We may deduce the following: either [1] the surgeon lied (or was careless in his examination, which seems unlikely given his expertise, character and willingness to document and testify of the result – the x-rays are evidently still available), [2] bullets ricocheted off vital organs and exited the body through the same path they entered (violating the physics of bullets fired at bodily organs), [3] the bullets vanished naturally (violating the Law of Conservation of Energy), or [4] this is a miracle.

Once we eliminate [1] by having multiple, authoritative witnesses interview the surgeon and examine the x-rays (which should be done with rigor, given the significance of the event), we must either conclude the laws of physics have been violated or accept this event as a miracle. (Jn 3:2)

Refusing to acknowledge the miraculous based on an a priori presumption of Philosophical Materialism is dishonest and irrational (Jn 12:37-38); it is simply a stubborn, willful refusal to acknowledge evidence, which is unscientific. Such bias will eventually be exposed as enmity against God by God Himself and punished accordingly. (Ro 1:18-21)

articles ♦ blog

Let Us Reason

To read between the lines is to look carefully at what is written in order to infer truths which are not explicitly stated. We call this reasoning, and God invites to use it as we seek Him (Is 1:18), employing logic to expand from what is explicitly revealed to see what some might consider hidden, yet if one is paying attention and thinking deeply it becomes obvious.

To illustrate, the arrow in the FedEx logo may not be apparent until someone points it out; but once you see it you can’t stop seeing it. The arrow isn’t exactly hidden, but it isn’t exactly there either.

To see it you must look between the E and x at the resulting white space connecting them, which is really nothing by itself: the mere juxtaposition of the letters reveals a shape implied by what surrounds it, and this insight enhances the logo, making an impression which creates additional value.

There are many truths like this in Scripture; what is explicitly stated in the text often implies priceless truths which remain unwritten. We may consider what is unspoken, which we might think ought to have been spoken, or which is certainly implied by what is stated, to learn more about God and His ways.

For example, when Paul is meditating in De 25:4, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn“, he infers a principle for supporting Christian workers. (1Co 9:9-10) Paul reasons from the general context of scripture that God isn’t particularly concerned about the feelings of an ox, so He must be providing a general instruction in how we’re to treat those called serve in ways which make it difficult for them to earn a living in the traditional sense.

We often see this kind of reasoning explicitly stated in Scripture with the phrase how much more; when God shows us how to address the relatively unimportant, He expects us to reason similarly about more important yet related concerns. For example, if the saints shall judge angels, how much more are they qualified to judge temporal matters? (1Co 6:3) If we expect earthly parents to care for their children, how much more should we expect God to care for us? (Mt 7:11) If animal sacrifices sanctify the physical man, how much more shall the blood of Christ sanctify the spiritual man? (He 9:13-14)

We should certainly be careful when looking at the white spaces in scripture, but they’re indeed present and we should be on the lookout for them, meditating both on what’s explicitly written and prayerfully considering what’s implied.

articles ♦ blog

In Himself Alone

audio

Until quite recently, I’ve held what many might consider to be an extreme view of Total Depravity; I believed everyone (including myself) will always make the most evil choice God allows them to make every time they make a choice, and that the only reason we do not act like Satan at every instant is the restraining grace of God. I can no longer hold this position, partly due to this verse: “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.” (Ga 6:4-5) I am unable to make sense of this text, and many others like it, without abandoning my former position, so … I let it go, it’s history.

Evidently, there are degrees of real moral freedom within the boundaries of Total Depravity, such that we have some practical potential to do better or worse within these boundaries according to our own personal choices. Our depravity is evidently total in scope in the sense that all we do is tainted with sin (Is 64:6): we cannot ever do anything perfectly good (Ro 3:12), with 100% pure motives. (Pr 20:9)

However, while we may not be able to make any single choice with perfect motives, it is also evident we have some practical control of how far away we deviate from God’s perfect standard as we choose; we operate within some range of badness, and we can choose to be better or worse within this range. (2Ti 3:13) So, it appears that we are not totally depraved in degree, only in scope.

This is how we experience reality: we have moral freedom to make better or worse choices within some theoretical range of moral goodness, and this is also how God treats us (Mt 12:41); so, it makes sense that this is the reality, not just an illusion. Where these boundaries ultimately come from and how they appear within and impact each individual is mysterious, but a few things appear to be clear about it.

As a foundation, no human except Christ Jesus has ever been perfectly good at any moment (Mk 10:18); all the rest of us are rebels (Is 53:6), some more than others (Ge 13:13), but we’re all guilty (Ro 3:19), and God is perfectly just in punishing us in our rebellion. (Ps 145:17) We’re all sinners (1Jn 1:8) in need of a Savior to save us from this condition: we cannot save ourselves. (Ep 2:8-9)

That said, it is evidently also clear that we are not all equally bad; some of us make worse choices in our total depravity than others, and this difference is something we ourselves can and ought to control. God may even tend to reveal the gospel to those who are trying to make better choices within their unique range of moral ability (Ps 50:23), to those seeking eternal life. (Is 55:6-7)

This is not salvation by works; it is still God choosing to show mercy to the underserved (Ro 9:16), but it may also be God showing mercy to those who — though undeserving — are at least seeking mercy, trying their best (Ro 2:6-7), as bad as it is, within their own, unique degree of moral capability and freedom. (1Ti 1:13)

We perceive we are responsible to make the best choices we can, that it is up to each of us as individuals to do so, of our own free will, and that we don’t always want to make the most evil choice available to us, and that our actions are not all predetermined or compelled by any internal or external forces. Most importantly … we are commanded to live accordingly, and not assume we have no practical control or influence in determining our eternal destiny (Ps 50:23), but that we pursue God and His kingdom with all our might. (Lk 13:24)

If this is how we experience reality, and it is also how God describes reality, and it is also how He actually treats us, there’s sufficient reason to try to interpret all of scripture in accord with this perspective.

articles ♦ blog

I Create Evil

The problem of evil in the world is challenging; we recognize pain and suffering exists — bad things happen — and we often describe this as (empirical or natural) evil. And if we’re thoughtful, we also recognize we all do things we ought not — we do wrong: when people deeply and willfully violate the universal moral standard of human conduct, we call such behavior (moral) evil. If God can prevent evil and does not, or if God Himself actually causes evil, we have difficulty understanding how God can also be just, good and loving.

First, there’s a difference between saying God allows evil, and saying God causes evil. There’s also a difference between saying God causes human suffering, and saying God causes people to be morally corrupt and wicked.

The Bible clearly states God creates evil (Is 45:7), but the immediate context doesn’t tell us what kind of evil God creates. Does God cause people to be wicked, to break His Law, or does He merely cause some (or all) human suffering?

Scripture tells us plainly God often causes human suffering: He punishes Israel when she breaks His laws (De 28:21-22) and He chastens those He loves. (He 12:5-6) His motive is always good (Ps 145:17): God punishes evil righteously (Ps 9:7-8), and He chastens His children to cause them to be holy. (He 12:10, Ps 119:75) He does not cause all human suffering (Lk 13:16), but He does ordain all of it for His purposes. (Ge 50:20, Ep 1:11)

But scripture does not clearly state God causes people to be wicked; rather, God says He doesn’t even tempt us to do evil (Ja 1:13), much less cause us to be evil; people are wicked all on their own. (14) This is the fact of Free Will: God allows us to sin against Himself and each other. (Ro 1:24-26) In fact, unless God restrains us from being evil (Ps 19:13), evil is the default human condition (Ep 2:1-3, Mt 7:11) and it’s been this way ever since the Fall of Man. (Ge 6:5)

The alternative is a God Who actually causes us to do evil and then punishes us for doing what He makes us do. (Ro 2:8-9) God might indeed be so, in theory anyway, but I’d need to confess I know nothing at all of His moral character, having lost all hope I ever could.

articles ♦ blog