Richard Baxter on Body Worship

III. I am next to show you the evil or malignity of predominant flesh-pleasing: for if the greatness of the sin were known, it would contribute much to the cure. And, 1. Understand that it is the sin of sins the end of all sin, and therefore the very sum and life of all. All the evil wicked men commit, is ultimately to please the flesh: the love of flesh-pleasing is the cause of all. Pride, and covetousness, and whoredom, and wantonness, and gluttony, and drunkenness is, and all the rest, are but either the immediate works of sensuality and flesh-pleasing, or the distant service of it, by laying in provision for it. And all the malicious enmity and opposition to God and godliness is from hence, because they cross the interest and desires of the flesh: the final cause is it for which men invent and use all the means that tend to it. Therefore all other sin being nothing but the means for the pleasing of our fleshly appetites and fancies, it is evident that flesh-pleasing is the common cause of them all, and is to all other sin as the spring is to the watch, or the poise to the clock; the weight which giveth them all their motion. Cure this sin and you have taken off the poise, and cured all the positive sins of the soul: though the privative sins would be still uncured, if there were no more done; because that which makes the clock stand still, is not enough to make it go right. But, indeed, nothing but the love of pleasing God, can truly cure the love of flesh-pleasing: and such a cure is the cure of every sin, both positive and privative, active and defective.

 

2. Flesh-pleasing is the grand idolatry of the world; and the flesh the greatest idol that ever was set up against God. Therefore Paul saith of sensual worldlings, that “their belly is their god,” and thence it is that they “mind earthly things,” and “glory in their shame, and are enemies to the cross of Christ,” that is, to sufferings for Christ, and the doctrine and duties which would cause their sufferings. That is a man’s god which he taketh for his chief good, and loveth best, and trusteth in most, and is most desirous to please: and this is the flesh to every sensualist. He “loveth pleasure more than God,” 2 Tim. iii. 2, 4. He “savoureth” or “mindeth” the “things of the flesh,” and “liveth” to it, and “walketh after it,” Rom. viii. 1, 5- 8, 13. He “maketh provision for it to satisfy its appetite or lusts,” Rom. xiii. 14. He “soweth to the flesh,” Gal. vi. 8, and fulfilleth his lust, when it “lusteth The Sinfulness of Flesh-Pleasing lusts,” Rom. xiii. 14. He “soweth to the flesh,” Gal. vi. 8, and fulfilleth his lust, when it “lusteth against the Spirit,” Gal. v. 16, 17. And thus, while concupiscence or sensuality hath dominion, sin is said to have dominion over them, and they are servants to it, Rom. vi. 14, 20. For “to whom men yield themselves servants to obey, his servants they are whom they serve or obey,” Rom. vi. 16. It is not bowing the knee and praying to another, that is the chief idolatry. As loving, and pleasing, and obeying, and trusting, and seeking, and delighting in him, are the chiefest parts of the service of God, which he preferreth before a thousand sacrifices or compliments; so loving the flesh, and pleasing it, and obeying it, and trusting in it, and seeking and delighting in its pleasures, are the chief service of the flesh; and more than if you offered sacrifice to it, and therefore is the grand idolatry. And so the flesh is the chief enemy of God, which hath the chiefest love and service which are due to him, and robs him of the hearts of all mankind that are carnal and unsanctified. All the Baals, and Jupiters, and Apollos, and other idols of the world set together, have not so much of the love and service due to God, as the flesh alone hath. If other things be idolized by the sensualist, it is but as they subserve his flesh, and therefore they are made but inferior idols. He may idolize his wealth, and idolize men in power and worldly greatness; but it is but as they can help or hurt his flesh: this hath his heart. By the interest of the flesh, he judgeth of his condition; by this he judgeth of his friends; by this he chooseth his actions or refuseth them, and by this he measureth the words and actions of all others. He takes all for good which pleaseth his flesh, and all for bad that is against his pleasure.

 

3. The flesh is not only the common idol, but the most devouring idol in all the world. It hath not, as subservient, flattered idols have, only a knee and compliment, or now and then a sacrifice or ceremony, but it hath the heart, the tongue, the body to serve it; the whole estate, the service of friends, the use of wit and utmost diligence; in a word, it hath all. It is loved and served by the sensualist, as God should be loved and served by his own, even “with all the heart, and soul, and might:” they “honour it with their substance, and the firstfruits of their increase.” It is as faithfully served as Christ requireth to be of his disciples: men will part with father, and mother, and brother, and sister, and nearest friends, and all that is against it, for the pleasing of their flesh. Nay, Christ required men to part with no greater matter for him than transitory earthly things, which they must shortly part with whether they will or no; but they do for the flesh ten thousand thousandfold more than ever they were required to do for Christ. They forsake God for it. They forsake Christ, and heaven, and their salvation for it. They forsake all the solid comforts of this life, and all the joys of the life to come for it. They sell all that they have, and lay down the price at its feet; yea, more than all they have, even all their hopes of what they might have to all eternity. They suffer a martyrdom in the flames of hell for ever, for their flesh. All the pains they take is for it. All the wrong they do to others, and all the stirs and rums they make in the world, is for it. And all the time they spend is for it: and had they a thousand years more to live, they would spend it accordingly If any thing seem excepted for God, it is but the bones, or crumbs, or leavings of the flesh; or rather, it is nothing: for God hath not indeed the hours which he seems to have, he hath but a few fair words and compliments, when the flesh hath their hearts in the midst of their hypocritical worship, and on his holy day; and they serve him but as the Indians serve the devil, that he may serve their turns, and do them no hurt.

 

4. How base an idol is the flesh! If all the derision used by Elijah and the prophets against the heathenish idolatry be due, is not as much due against the idolatry of all the sensual? Is it so great a madness to serve an idol of silver, or gold or stone, or wood? what better is it to serve an idol of flesh and blood; a paunch of guts; that is full of filth and excrements within, and the skin itself, the cleanest part, is ashamed to be uncovered? We may say to the carnal worldling, as Elijah to the cleanest part, is ashamed to be uncovered? We may say to the carnal worldling, as Elijah to the Baalists, and more; “Call upon your God in the hour of your distress: cry aloud, perhaps he is asleep, or he is blowing his nose, or vomiting, or purging: certainly he will be shortly rotting in the grave, more loathsome than the dirt or dung upon the earth.” And is this a god to sacrifice all that we can get to? and to give all our time, and care, and labour, and our souls and all to? O judge of this idolatry, as God will make you judge at last!

 

5. And here next consider how impious and horrid an abasement it is of the eternal God, to prefer so vile a thing before him! And whether every ungodly, sensual man, be not a constant, practical blasphemer? What cost thou but say continually by thy practice, This dunghill, nasty flesh, is to be preferred before God, to be more loved, and obeyed, and served? It deserveth more of my time than he: It is more worthy of my delight and love. God will be judge, (and judge in righteousness ere long,) whether this be not the daily language of thy life, though thy tongue be taught some better manners. And whether this be blasphemy, judge thyself. Whether thou judge God or the flesh more worthy to be pleased, and which thou thinkest it better to please, ask thy own heart, when cards, and dice, and eating, and drinking, and gallantry, and idleness, and greatness, and abundance, do all seem so sweet unto thee, in comparison of thy thoughts of God, and his holy word and service! and when morning and night, and whenever thou art alone, those thoughts can run out with unweariedness or pleasure, upon these provisions for thy flesh, which thou canst hardly force to look up unto God, a quarter of an hour, though with unwillingness.

 

6. Think also what a contempt of heaven it is, to prefer the pleasing of the flesh before it. There are but two ends which all men aim at; the pleasing of the flesh on earth, or the enjoying of God in heaven a sensual life hereafter too, as well as here). And these two stand one against the other. And he that sets up one, doth renounce (or as good as renounce) the other. “If ye sow to the flesh, of the flesh ye shall reap corruption; but if ye sow to the Spirit, of the Spirit ye shall reap everlasting life,” Gal. vi. 8. Your wealth, and honour, and sports, and pleasures, and appetites are put in the scales against heaven, and all the joys and hopes hereafter, (to say you hope to have them both, is the cheat of infidelity, that believes not God; and is not heaven most basely esteemed of by those that prefer so base a thing before it?

 

7. Remember that flesh-pleasing is a great contempt and treachery against the soul. It is a great contempt of an immortal soul, to prefer its corruptible flesh before it, and to make its servant to become its master, and to ride on horseback, while it goes, as it were, on foot. Is the flesh worthy of so much time, and cost, and care, and so much ado as is made for it in the world, and is not a never-dying soul worth more? Nay, it is a betraying of the soul: you set up its enemy before it; and put its safety into an enemy’s hands; and you cast away all its joys and hopes for the gratifying of the flesh. Might it not complain of your cruelty, and say, Must my endless happiness be sold to purchase so short a pleasure for your flesh? Must I be undone for ever, and lie in hell, that it may be satisfied for a little time? But why do I speak of the soul’s complaint? Alas! it is itself that it must complain! For it is its own doing! It hath its choice: the flesh can but tempt it, and not constrain it: God hath put the chief power and government into its hands, if it will sell its own eternal hopes, to pamper worm’s meat, it must act accordingly. You would not think very honourably of that man’s intelligence or honesty, who would sell the patrimony of all his children, and all his friends that trusted him therewith, and after sell their persons into slavery, and all this to purchase him a delicious feast, with sports and entertainment for a day! And is he wiser or better that selleth (in effect) the inheritance of his soul, and betrayeth it to hell and devils for ever, and all is to purchase the fleshly pleasure of so short a life?

Ethics Lecture

Here is another hypothetical class on ethics which I did as a Philosophy assignment

Christian Ethics in Today’s World

Dr. Norman Geisler defines ethics as, “the study of what is right and what is wrong”[1] . Essentially, in ethics we are attempting to determine what is good. This becomes critical in our day and age, as our pluralistic society has many varying opinions on abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and assisted suicide. Most often people take varying positions on these topics based upon varying underlying presuppositions. Very rarely are these presuppositions discussed in the open and opposing parties end up going head on creating more heat than light. First we must examine the definition of good.

            Language in our culture is becoming increasingly meaningless as we discard the notion that words ought to represent specific abstract principles or concepts. Therefore, initially it may seem as if we are splitting hairs by defining what good is, but ultimately we will conclude that the Christian concept of good is the one that accounts for the motioning within our souls toward righteousness and justice. The Greek philosopher Thrasymachus held to the concept that “justice is the interest of the stronger party”[2]. In other words, might makes right. Those who hold to a naturalistic worldview may throw up their hands at this point and exclaim, “the winning party decides how things are to be and that’s all there is to morality!” If we briefly observe history we notice the winners do not make the rules. However, ethics deal with the issue of how things ought to be not how they are.

            Adolf Hitler imposed his form of morality upon the European nations he conquered, but the allies fought against him and won upon the conviction that the way he ran the show is not how things ought to be. Hitler had to justify his position on morality to his population through manipulative propaganda because even those under him needed a reason why things ought to be that way. By observing this we see that the human sense of ethics goes deeper than the picture often presented of various cultures as mere biological and environmental stimuli resulting in a world that is simply dominated by the winner. Our striving for “the good” is an internal striving for something morally objective, just as science is an expression of our want of objective knowledge. The fact that we may never attain perfection or all agree on such topics does not prove that these attempts are futile; we must find the basis of such unavoidable concepts in our minds. From a practical standpoint on the attempts of ethics to find the objective good we will consider an armed attack. Imagine you are held at gunpoint by a crazed mad-man. What would you say to him? Most of us would reason with him as to what would be a good decision (not pulling the trigger) in hopes that his conscience would stop him. In fact, hostage negotiators make their livings off appealing to the human conscience.

            Along with the discounted view that human might makes right we can also ignore ethical views which place societies, personal pleasures, or humanity as a whole as the source of ethics. Such views would render it impossible to judge how an individual, society, or humanity ought to act. Therefore, if we truly look at our motioning towards good we must find a transcendent source. This topic can be investigated more in-depth, which goes beyond the scope of this discussion. To summarize that thought: the only source that can justify our concept of “good” or “ought” is the God of the Bible. Because the concept of good comes from a spiritual source, as God is Spirit[3] (Jn 4:24) good cannot be defined in terms of its occasional effects such as feelings, pleasure, or communal code. Rather it is good in and of itself and is known intuitively through the conscience. However, since we are fallen and alienated from God (the source of good) we need assistance in clarifying this idea in our heads which have a darkened reasoning (Rom 1:21). Therefore, God has given us written commandments expressed as the Law throughout the Old and New Testaments. Here we find the reason why the good seems so elusive to man in all his strivings throughout history, because he already failed at the “ought” in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3). The Bible is the story of fallen man’s moral failings and the redemption that is given through Jesus Christ because of those failings. Far from abolishing God’s Law, Jesus came to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). How then do we build an ethical system off such a worldview in contrast to what other worldviews say?

            Most ethical systems today operate off some form of utilitarianism. In other words, what is good is what works. Again though, we run into the example of Nazi Germany as it was a society that “worked”, but that is considered evil. With this in mind utility seems to be separate from what is good. As Christians we recognize that the two great commandments which sum up the 10 Commandments are to love God with everything in us and to love our neighbors as ourselves. What this means in its entirety is a whole other class, but roughly it means we love the source of good which causes us to be good relationally. It is upon this foundation that those who are redeemed and can therefore love God can move forward with ethical decisions knowing that they will never achieve perfection in this life yet. It is from the Bible that we truly understand how these commandments specifically break down and must be our guide as we apply Christian ethics into our context today.

            One example we can see today is the debate over abortion.  Very rarely will you find those of the pro-choice persuasion publicly claim that abortion should happen whenever a woman wants.  Most pro-choice activists will point towards extreme situations such as rape, and the potential death of the mother, as cases which call for the legal option of abortion.  It is interesting to note that even here we have a case where the pro-choice advocates are trying to make a reasoned case to the conscience to persuade those of undecided or opposing viewpoints.  This is further evidence for the objective reality of right in wrong within the human mind.  However, due to our darkened, self-absorbed minds we are easily deceived by false argumentation[4] especially those which encourage our sin.  It must be shown then that the pro-choice advocate’s appeal to the conscience is faulty in its underlying presuppositions and is not a moral argument, but a utilitarian one. 

As I stated at the opening of this class, what we have in our society today is a culture war where people butt heads over issues such as abortion without bringing to the table their underlying presuppositions and opening them up to examination.  This is normally to the Christian or the conservative’s disadvantage because as they agree that there is a neutral meeting ground between them and the secularist or liberal, they are actually conceding to and giving ground to their biased presuppositions which are definitely there.  This normally leads to the demise of the Christian or conservative’s case in most peoples eyes today as they have been indoctrinated by the media and education system to simply accept the secular humanist worldview that is propagated through them.  So with an issue such as abortion we need to recognize they are appealing to the conscience through an “ethical” argument, and confront them there.  How do we know what is right and what is wrong?  Just as I have demonstrated briefly in this essay, absolute moral truth can only have its basis in a transcendent reality which should cause us to appeal to that, not to our feelings, economic situation, or whatever will work out best for us.  However, your pro-choice friend that you are debating may immediately protest that appeals to the Bible are to take a religiously biased stance, one which is unacceptable in our “secular” society.  It must be shown that even secularism is a religious stance, because it claims that either there is no God to listen to in the affairs of our society, or that what He says is irrelevant to how we live our lives.  We are not concerned with what appears to be fair, but what is right and true. 

However, we can even demonstrate through general revelation without appealing to the Bible that abortion immoral.  First of all, who is to say that a human embryo is not a human?  How many organs must you have, what state of consciousness must you be in, IQ points must you score, or your age be in order to be considered human?  Shall those responsible for the disabled, maimed, retarded, mentally ill, or elderly have the authority to kill them?  Are these people not humans and worthy of dignity?  The question of what makes a human, a human, was asked by philosophers for centuries.  This is because of the fact that we all have the concept of an ideal human who is in tact and fully functional, yet we still consider an amputee to be human.  Aristotle would logically infer that a human embryo has the potential to be a human like me and you, and therefore it is a human.  The only thing that separates it from you and me is time and the right conditions.  Therefore, it can be argued that we should give it time and those conditions lest we be guilty of murder.  Once we change our focus as a society from how things ought to be to what we prefer or think would be best for us, we open up a Pandora’s box of possible unethical behaviors that can be accepted on the basis that they help us to self-actualize our personal ambitions and desires.  Therefore in instances of rape, the same principle that say the rapist ought not to have raped the woman, also says that the woman ought not to kill the life growing within her.  However, we must also strive to fulfill the law of love when dealing with such situations and as a society put our efforts into caring for, supporting, and being compassionate and understanding to such women.  In instances of a dangerous pregnancy our stance should be that the doctor should do all that he can to save both lives, but if the child dies in the process then we weep over it. 

There is much more we can say on this topic, and I encourage you to study and understand such debates from a Christian worldview so that you can better understand your position when dealing with your non-Christian friends.  You also want to understand the worldview your opponents are coming from so that you can better point out their underlying assumptions to them (in love of course), and more effectively communicate and dialogue with them.

---

[1] Geisler, Norman L., and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980.)  Pg. 353

[2] Ibid

[3] Jn. 4:24

[4] 2 Thes. 2:11

The Defense of the Faith

This is a paper I had to write for my summer philosophy class.  It is supposed to be a script for a class I would teach at a youth camp on apologetics.  I basically used a presuppositional apologetic, and focused upon some of Francis Schaeffer’s methods.

Being a Witness to the God Who is There

            There is a particular reason why I have titled this presentation the way that I have.  Several decades ago a Christian apologist known as Francis Schaeffer wrote a book entitled “The God Who is There”.  In his context, he was speaking to a rising theology known as neo-orthodoxy, which is not entirely different from today’s emergent church movement.  The neo-orthodox theologians taught that man cannot rationally or reasonably know God, and that the Bible does indeed have errors, while simultaneously being the authoritative word of God.  Such theologies lead to an irrational mysticism that divorces God from the operations and phenomena of this world.  This sort of thinking did not just exist in Schaeffer’s day, but continues in our day in Christian and non-Christian circles.  Like Schaeffer, today I am going to argue that not only is there a God, but there couldn’t possibly be a world without God, and in particular, the Christian God.

            First of all we must recognize that the Bible states in many places that God has revealed himself to all people, but they refuse to accept his revelation.  This can be found particularly in Romans Chapter 1 which states:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.[1]

 

Here we find that all mankind knows God, but due to their moral rebellion, they suppress the truth in their unrighteousness.  This is due to the quest for moral autonomy that led to mankind’s fall[2] which leaves Him dead in transgressions and sins today[3] being unresponsive to God’s revelation.  An example of this text in daily life can be observed in the homosexual rights movement of today.  In fact, Romans 1 will continue on to show how mans rejection of God’s revelation due to his depravity leads to such acts has homosexuality along with all other immorality[4].  An argument that is often advanced by gay rights activists is that animals are frequently observed engaging in homosexual activities; therefore, such acts are natural and healthy.  Just as Paul writes in verse 25 they exchange the truth about God for a lie, and elevate the creation above the creator, therefore they are left without any moral bearings and end up sliding into depravity as nature becomes their model.  But some may say, “What of it? I believe that man is just an animal and should act as such, therefore the analogy from nature does give credibility to the homosexual lifestyle”.  If this is the case then why am I not aloud to kill when someone makes me angry, or when I have a desire for more food, territory, or women?  Aside from the fact that most animals engage in homosexual acts to achieve dominance, posing such an extreme to an opponent of the Christian faith is useful in apologetic arguments.  Francis Schaeffer called this tactic “taking the roof off”.  Concerning what it reveals, he stated, “The more logical a man who holds a non-Christian position is to his own presuppositions, the further he is from the real world; and the nearer he is to the real world, the more illogical he is to his presuppositions”[5].  That is precisely what we did with the example of the homosexual rights activist.  Most definitely such an individual is against the act of beating or even killing a homosexual simply because someone disagrees with him, however, his very own presuppositions about human nature will tend to a conclusion that such behavior is ok!  In every single argument with a non-Christian you must show them the tension which their worldview places them in.  We can then demonstrate that the opposite pull in their experience of reality comes from the Christian worldview, because it is that God which is revealing Himself to them, and whom they are rebelling against with their opposing presuppositions, thus demonstrating the truth of Romans 1 before their very eyes.  We are then in a position to demonstrate that this is God’s universe in which they are living, as Francis Schaeffer said, “[h]ence, the person before you is not a vacuum.  He knows something of the external world, and he knows something of himself”[6].  Which brings me to three simple evidences which you can give to your non-Christian friends to demonstrate the truth of God’s existence.  These are the moral argument, the epistemological argument, and finally the argument from revelation.

First we must examine the moral argument.  The moral argument has been advanced by almost all Christian apologists, and was made popular by author C.S. Lewis.  However, much of its development can be traced back to the philosopher Immanuel Kant.  Essentially he argued that the concept of human justice can only be justified if there is ultimate justice behind it.  In other words, unless we have a metaphysical basis for the universal human attempt to achieve justice, all of it is an illusion, unnatural, and futile.  Kant then argued that if there is a moral code of ethics, there must be an ultimate judge, because laws may as well not exist if they are not enforced.  However, this judge must be omniscience because if he does not know everything then there is a possibility that he might be ignorant of certain violations of the moral law, again rendering the law as essentially non-existent.  Finally, he must be omnipotent because the execution of sentence against law breakers must come to pass and be complete in order for justice to truly exist.  Therefore, Kant argues, if we simply reason from morality being “real” we find the existence of God to be necessary.  Kant, however, only argued that a world without morality would be horrible, and argued that we should live “as if there is a God”[7].  Kant’s arguments are useful to use in certain apologetic discussions, however I wouldn’t recommend throwing all the weight of your argument onto them.  They may be useful after you have established that a moral law does exist to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is necessary for such an entity to exist.

Essentially what you want to do at first is look for the motions within your non-Christians friend’s soul towards morality or justice.  This may appear in their desire alleviate world hunger, tyranny, oppression, or even within issues such as animal rights, gay rights, or women’s rights.  It may seem strange to seek common ground within the later three examples, but we are seeking after some motion within them that is moving them towards love, justice, or morality.  As we saw in Romans 1, mankind suppresses the truth about God wherever he finds it, and therefore they become darkened in their reasoning.  This often comes out as inconsistent forms of morality or justice, as was exampled earlier with the gay-rights argument, but they still are striving after justice.  Many times animal rights, gay rights, and feminist activists must smear their opponents to appear as hate motivated oppressors at best or violent people at worst.  The reason why they do this is because such actions are wrong, and everyone knows it, which makes such propaganda so effective for their cause.  Jesus said that mere hatred is enough to damn one to hell[8], and as Christians our motivation for confronting sin should always be out of love for God first, and people second.  So we see that even those who depart from traditional morality, must still appeal to the conscience to sway others to their particular perspectives.  We need to then question why such things are wrong.  If we are all animals, aren’t we just acting on impulse?  If to be human is to follow our desires then shouldn’t I hate when I feel it, and kill when I hate?  If I see I woman that I desire to be with, as an animal shouldn’t I just rape her if I can succeed?  The first thing your opponent may argue is that while we are animals, we have evolved to reason and communicate, and we should therefore only engage in pleasures which do not harm others.  First of all, if these other people are simply highly evolved amoebas who from the beginning of their lives until the end are meaningless, then who cares?  Second, even if such a “moral assertion” can be justified, what about the child whom no one wants, is mentally disabled, and whom is drugged up to feel no pain.  Would if be ok for a child rapist to have his way with him and then brutally kill him?  No one will miss him, he wasn’t conscious of what was happening, and didn’t feel a thing.  However, the rapist was able to fulfill all of his desires.  Was this a good action?  We must show our opponents where their presuppositions lead them, and very often you will find them thinking twice about their worldview.  Very rarely will you find an individual stubborn enough to say that such an example would be ok.  When we do, we must rest confident in that fact that the law is written on their hearts[9], and it is up to God to convert them as they will not see the Kingdom until they are born again[10].  From here we can demonstrate that the happiness an action produces is not the ultimate gauge of morality, as certain methods of attaining high feelings of “happiness” are simply immoral.  Therefore, something transcending happiness must be the standard.  The same goes for the argument that societies create morality, as that would prevent us from being able to transcend a given society and pass moral judgment upon its actions.  In the end morality is related to what is done with the will, which reveals one’s character.  Therefore, if morality is ultimate and transcends material impulses, happiness, and society, it must have its roots in an ultimate being that has volition and character.  That would be God as he has revealed himself throughout the Bible, and in the character of Jesus Christ.

The next evidence for God’s existence is the existence of logic and intelligibility within the universe.  This is where you can begin arguing from the high ground, because the non-Christian, especially the atheist, is going to have trouble accounting for such entities.  Logic, plainly put, are laws of thought dealing with cognition.  A basic example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction which holds that the antithesis of an observation cannot be simultaneously true with its counterpart at the same time and in the same way.  Such a law is self-verifiable without even demonstrating an example from nature.  The laws of logic impose themselves upon our minds, and upon reality and determine what is and isn’t possible within the physical universe.  Furthermore, these entities are abstract, universal, and unchanging.  If any of these attributes are missing, it renders the laws of logic as not absolute, and therefore not binding.  This would render truth, even the “truth” that there is no truth, impossible to discover.  Even if we did discover that the laws of logic were incorrect, that would only be discovered through the use of a higher law which would have to accounted for.  In a materialist worldview, where consciousness and thought are simply illusions of matter in the brain, how is it possible for such entities which place thought as ultimate exist without an ultimate thinker? 

Some atheists may claim that the laws of logic are simply convention of men, created due to the inherent order observed in nature.  First of all, it should be noted that the laws of logic are abstract entities which are articulated by man in their common languages, they are not created by them.  Secondly, without a prior internal framework through which man may make observations and come to conclusions, how would he be able to deduce any facts concerning the physical universe?  And even if such knowledge could simply be absorbed into the mind as a blank slate, it still begs the question as to how invisible “laws” governing nature can exist in a pure materialist universe.  Saying that logic is derived from the order of nature is to place the cart before the horse.

Finally, how can facts exist in an atheistic universe, or a universe not controlled by God?  Ephesians 1:11 tells us that God works all things “according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will”[11].  Therefore, we may have assurance that there are facts to be revealed to us within the physical universe for the mind to perceive.  This is because God’s mind is behind the universe and its history, therefore imposing His thoughts and plans upon it.  The supposed chaotic universe which the atheist believes he lives in can still be described and have intelligible events occurring within it, giving him the ability to demonstrate evidence for his beliefs.  However, all he is really doing is setting up a straw man by saying, “if there was a God is would be this kind of order, but in reality there is this kind of order, therefore, there is no God”.  Therefore, any ordered universe with abstract laws governing its behavior giving it intelligibility, can only be possible with God behind it.

Lastly we will examine the evidence from revelation.  In any discussion with a non-Christian you want to make God’s revealed word central to your discussion.  Do not think that you must present your arguments in the particular order in which I have presented them.  God’s word must come first, because ultimately you will be hoping that God uses you to bring your opponent to repentance.  Romans 10:17:  “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”[12].  You will want to demonstrate to those whom you witness to that the only possible explanation behind their human experience is the God who is revealed in scripture.  Many people today believe that the concept of revelation is primitive, or simply childish.  However, if you demonstrate that morality, logic, and knowledge only has a basis in reality if they are objectively revealed not created by man, then the doctrine of special revelation does not seem so ridiculous.  You can demonstrate how the Bible explains general revelation, or nature, in such an authoritative way by opening up texts such as Psalm 19 or Romans 1 to demonstrate that the Bible confirms nature is an inescapable revelation from God which gives man the ability to think, reason, and have concepts of morality.  This places the Bible as the hand inside the glove of creation, thereby giving it authority over it.  It will also be necessary to familiarize yourself with the Bible, and its theology, because most attacks against the Bible will be from a mischaracterization of its message.  You will want to use the Bible to demonstrate the historical reality of the person, work, and message of Jesus Christ through the apostle’s writings and the Old Testament prophets foretelling of Him.  You will also want to familiarize yourselves with the Bible’s historical and textual credibility, as these often are placed under attack as a last ditch attempt to hide from powerful message of the Bible.

Finally, you will want to remember that you are not arguing people into the kingdom but merely following what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:15, “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect”[13].  We simply are acting in obedience to be used as instruments by the Holy Spirit, as it is His internal work to bring them to salvation.  Our efforts, and the most cutting edge arguments will never produce spiritual life in someone as all who are saved are born “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”[14].

---

[1] Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001.) Rom. 1:18-25

[2] Gen 3

[3] Eph 2.1-3

[4] Rom 1:24-32

[5] Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who Is There. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.) Pg. 152

 

[6] Ibid. Pg. 151

[7] Geisler, Norman L., and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980.)  Pg.  259

[8] Mt. 5:22

[9] Rom. 2:15

[10] Jn. 3:1-8

[11] Ibid. Eph. 1:11

[12] Ibid. Rom. 10:17

[13] Ibid. 1 Pt. 3:15

[14] Ibid. 1 Jn 1:13

Fearful Majesty

            I am currently reading the Holiness of God by RC Sproul sporadically (I normally overwhelm myself with too many books), and I came across a passage which really struck me.  This is also my little selling point to urge you to read the book yourself, but I think it was quite thought provoking and brought my mind to the many times in which I have experienced this as reality…

 

In his study [speaking of Rudulf Otto] of the human experience of the holy, Otto discovered that the clearest sensation that a human being has when he experiences the holy is an overpowering and overwhelming sense of creatureliness.  That is, when we are aware of the presence of God, we become most aware of ourselves as creatures.  When we meet the Absolute, we know immediately that we are not absolute.  When we meet the Infinite, we become acutely conscious that we are finite.  When we meet the Eternal, we know we are temporal.  To meet God is a powerful study in contrasts.[1]

 

My mind immediately goes to texts such as Isaiah 6 (which Sproul goes on to use) which paint a picture of a God completely foreign to most Americans conceptions, whether they be Christians or not.

 

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts![2]

 

When the seraphim cry out “holy, holy, holy”, this is a Hebrew way of expressing emphasis, as they did not have punctuation marks like we do.  This means that God’s holiness is the focus of his attributes.  Most people today have no concept of such a God.  Isaiah was what society might call a “good person”, yet when he saw God and then saw himself he cried “Woe is me!”, and “I am lost”.  The NASB says “I am ruined”, showing that the prophet Isaiah could not stand before God and think highly of himself at all.  This is not because man is finite, because in the beginning man as a finite creature was designed to image and reflect the glory of an infinite God, and to progress throughout eternity in a relationship with Him.  There was complete peace and harmony between God, man, and creation, because man as the lord over creation (Gen. 1:28) gloried in the holiness of God and recognized his complete dependence upon Him, resulting in obedience.  However, Adam and Eve attempted to achieve equality with their Creator (Gen 3:5) thus erasing the Creator creature distinction in their minds.  This is at the root of all sin, and especially at the root of all idolatry.  Because if in the vanity of our own minds we believe that we are on par with God we will seek to mold and shape Him into our image.  We then create an idol, which is a sinful image of God, which only blinds us to the fact of who God is what who we are.  This can be seen in people like Oprah today, who preach a god who is not “holy, holy, holy”, but “love, love, love”, or “sky fairy, sky fairy, sky fairy”.  No matter how “good” people like Oprah and the rest of the religious world may appear, when they see God for who he truly is, their reactions will be no different.  In fact, one of the many visions in Revelation of what Christ’s second coming will be like states this:

 

I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?[3]

 

However, the same God who strikes such fear and terror into the hearts of sinful men also provides atonement.  Isaiah continues…

Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.[4]

Of course, the coal is merely symbolic, as this passage isn’t teaching salvation by mouth burning.  However, this is the same Isaiah who also prophesied about the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 who would be despised, beaten, and killed by men, yet he would bear the sins of God’s people.  He also prophesied about His virgin birth in chapter 9.  The point being, that God is love, and He is merciful, but all of these attributes are derived from and subsequent to His holiness.  This is why if God is going to be merciful to anyone, it must be in line with his holiness, meaning that justice must be served, which is why today the cross makes absolutely to sense to those who are “spiritual” or “religious”.  Why go to God, who exists outside of you for salvation, when you already have god within?  And if God is within you, then why do you need to be reconciled to Him?

---

[1] Sproul, RC. The Holiness of God. (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1985.) Pg. 67,68

[2] Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Crossway Bibles, 2001.) Isaiah 6:1-4

[3] Ibid. Rev. 6:12-17

[4] Ibid. Isaiah 6:5,6

Barak Obama and Biblical Misinterpretation

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

 

Here we go again politics and religion the two things I absolutely hate when they are put together.  Especially when politicians try and talk about religion, it is either funny, or stupid.  So stupid, that I have to turn off the television or put down the web article before I blow a gasket.  And here we go again, one of my pet peeves of interpretive fallacies was engaged in by none other than Barak Obama recently.  AH!  What Obama basically said is what I am hearing stated more and more these days by people thanks to the likes of Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.  That is, how can we believe or interpret the Bible consistently believing that it is all the Word of God, and yet Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount seems to contradict the Torah which supposedly endorses evils such as slavery, genocide, racism, revenge, and the execution of those engaged in sexual immorality.  Soooooooooo, just to clear things up with the 5 people who will probably read this, let me explain one at a time

 

Slavery

The Bible does not endorse slavery as you are probably thinking of it.  We all of course learned in our history classes about the type of slavery that was engaged in, in this country centuries ago.  That was known as chattel slavery, which is typically racially based, and is the complete dehumanization of those who suffer under it.  Those individuals no longer have any rights and are considered their owners property to be worked, beaten, raped, or killed.  The Bible does not endorse this kind of slavery, it actually condemns it in several places as we shall see.  The Bible gives guidelines (not endorsements), for the Israelites to engage in debt-bondage slavery when they entered the Promised Land.  Furthermore, in this type of slavery the only thing the master owns is his subject’s time and labor.  Debt-bondage slavery was an economic necessity in the setting of the Bible, and was often a refuge for those in poverty, or a way to work off debt.  However, like most forms of slavery it was abused which caused it to expand beyond reasonable limits.  God on Mount Sinai gave specific regulations for the Israelites concerning slavery which caused it to diminish as an industry as the Israelites obeyed God’s instructions.  Here are just some of the commandments. 

 

“When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” (Exodus 21:1-6)

 

Here we see that slaves were to be set free every six years, and would only remain lifetime slaves if they volunteered for it.  Sam Harris and some others have made quite a deal about the Biblical references to selling ones daughter into slavery.  This is portayed to be sick, barbaric and dehumanizing.  However, if we look at the cultural context of this type of slavery, it was not uncommon for a parent in debt and unable to work to sell their son or daughter into slavery for themselves.  The very passage which Harris and others have used to demonize the Bible actually prevents bond-servant slavery from turning into sexual abuse, ensuring that women were treated with dignity. 

 

““When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.” (Exodus 21:7-11)

 

Furthermore, the Bible strictly forbids the disciplining of slaves beyond the level of force given to ones own disobedient children.

 

“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.” (Exodus 21:26-27)

 

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”  (Exodus 20:20-21)

 

In the later quote given above, it is stated that if one beats his slave to the point of death and he survives, his blood is not to be avenged.  However, in light of the previous verses (26,27), the master would then be required to set his slave free for such treatment.  It is interesting to note that it says the slave is his money, not his property.  While slavery would certainly not be the preferred economic status for an individual in Israel, they were protected under the law, but did not have the exact same rights and standings of those not under slavery.  Again, this was not a lifelong position, unless one chose to be in that position.  There was, however, a more harsh form of slavery that was set aside for prisoners of war.  Given the nature of it, and those imprisoned under slavery, such individuals had less rights similar to how POW’s and prisoners do today.  However, the Israelites would still have been responsible to follow this command.

 

“You shall not wrong a sojourner (foreigner) or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.  You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:21-24)

 

Genocide

Does the Bible endorse genocide?  It certainly seems so upon first glance…

 

 “When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than yourselves,  and when the LORD your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.  You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.  (Deuteronomy 7:1-5)

 

How could God order the slaughter of “innocent” women and children to be killed during these conquests (Deuteronomy 2:32-34, Josh 8:22-29)?  If we are to believe the Bible, does that mean that we must conduct warfare this way?  Not at all.  First we must consider who these people were that Israel was ordered to exterminate.  Most of these cultures, as archaeology has confirmed, were extremely depraved.  They served pagan gods which required the ritual rape of young women by priests beginning in their teenage years, under the complete support and endorsement by the parents.  The first child from such sexual behavior would then be offered up in infancy as a sacrifice to these gods by being burned alive, then there would be a ‘celebration’ involving drunkenness, drugs, and orgies.  These nations were given 430 years to repent from the time when Abraham lived amongst them in the land, until the Israelite conquest of Canaan.  We have to remember this is about 1450 BC, not 2008 when you can call the United Nations to help you deal with tens of thousands of widows and orphans.  The Israelites would have enough trouble taking care of themselves within the land, let alone thousands of refugees who would most likely end up revolting against them anyways.  This also is not to mention the fact that the Bible has a federal headship view of humanity, where the human race is viewed covenantaly as one unit.  This is why all humanity can be guilty because of one man’s (Adam) transgression, as he was representative of the entire human race (Adam=Humankind in Hebrew).  Also, unlike what you were told in Sunday school as a kid, Old Testament narratives, and narratives in general, are not to teach “good morals”.  They are to demonstrate God’s covenant faithfulness throughout history primarily, although we can learn lessons from the past.  So this part of the Bible was speaking to a particular context and is not endorsing genocide today.  Again this is not to mention the fact that before the Israelites attacked a city they were to give the option of surrender which under the stipulation that those surrendering would be their slaves and somewhat assimilate into their culture (which was far superior morally)(Dt. 20:10-15).  Far from endorsing racism, God gives the general commandment concerning foreigners, “So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Dt. 10:19).  Israelites were also commanded to show hospitality to visiting foreigners within the land.

Modern society takes issue with these texts today mainly because we do not believe ourselves to be sinners, or worthy of God’s judgment.  So to see God judging societies throughout history causes us to be disgusted, even though every single human being deserves to face God’s eternal wrath right now.  Even apart from the saving grace in Jesus Christ, there is common grace that is extended to each man as he is given a lifetime here that he doesn’t deserve which can often be quite pleasant even though he may be completely wicked.

 

Hatred

 

One sound bite which really irks me is the whole misunderstanding that “the Old Testament teaches eye for and eye, whereas Jesus says we should love our enemies”.  Apparently Obama said this in a speech where he cited this as evidence that we cannot take what the Bible has to say about morality seriously, especially concerning the topic of homosexuality.

 

 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.  Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. (Lev. 24:19-21)

From texts such as these it is then argued that the Old Testament and New Testament teach completely different ethical systems, because Jesus said that we shouldn’t seek revenge and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves.  However, Jesus was quoting Leviticus 19:18 from the Old Testament, which commands, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.”  So then why does God state that the standard for justice is an eye for an eye?  One commentator states:

“This was designed to curb exaggerated revenge, such as anger that led to murder (Ge 4:24), but it was not always enforced literally (Ex. 21:26-27).  As with other legal penalties, this was a statement of maximum liability rather than of mandatory retribution or compensation.  Jesus (and the apostles) affirmed this principle and encouraged that its application be tempered by love.  So for the sake of the kingdom, Jesus encouraged his disciples to deny self, to forbear and to forgive, rather than to seek revenge, recognizing that God will judge people on the last day for their works.”

Concerning the death penalty in the Old Testament for everything from adultery, homosexuality, and witchcraft, it must be understood that these people made a willing covenant with God.  They had witnessed His miracles and provisions, and before Mt. Sinai stated that they would follow all of His commandments and stipulations.  However, due to the fact that not all all of Israel was ‘Israel’ (Rom. 9:6) many were still dead in their sins and, like the rest of us, when they were told not to do something the first they wanted to do was engage in that behavior.  Marriage in the Bible is the first interpersonal human relationship established by God, and is the closest to reflecting His relational nature.  Of course it is completely jacked now due to sin (Gen. 3:16-19), but that does not excuse its abandonment or degradation.  Therefore, since the Israelites were to be used by God in his redemptive plan, them seeking self serving and perverted pleasures or contact with spirits through divination, was completely unacceptable.  In light of the fact that they had seen his goodness and provisions in the exodus and in their stay within the Promised Land, they had absolutely no excuse to sin blatantly against God.  However, these were stipulations given to a civil government, which was abolished in 70 AD due to their rejection of the Messiah (Mt. 23-24).  The church today is not a government and therefore does not follow God’s legal stipulations to Israel, as they have not been given that task.  Furthermore, many of the “weird” stipulations in the Law, such as the prohibition of wearing two different types of fabric or of eating certain foods, had to do with the surrounding cultures.  Wearing two types of fabric was a form of sympathetic magic which was intended to make crops be fruitful.  The Israelites were to depend on God in the Promised Land, not the occult, which is why such practices were banned.  This is why in our context today; Christians do not see the need to avoid such practices.   However, those immoral things which God abhorred in the Old Testament, He still abhors today, just under a different administration of the covenant.  So don’t believe it when some leftwing wing nut tells you that the church is the “American Taliban” and that we are coming for you with our stones and torches to set up a theocracy. 

Really this all comes down to the fact that as Americans, we feel ourselves to be entitled.  We figure that if there is a God, he should conform to our attitudes, desires, and views on the world.  Any God who requires us to conform to Him is often viewed as some petty rule maker, not as an awe-fully transcendent Holy God who deserves worship, adoration, and praise.  When we see God for who he truly is, we see ourselves for who we truly are.  When that happens all of the judgment and law in the Bible appears natural, and the grace… well it simply seems amazing that such a God would extend grace to us…

“Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,

that saved a wretch like me….

I once was lost but now I’m found,

Was blind, but now, I see….