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

My First Post!

Here is what I wrote on my myspace, it is an apologetic rank….

I am a Christian training for ministry. That does not mean that I am a republican, nor does it mean I am some flaky evangelical who waves his hands around while crying to some stupid praise song written by some quack who doesn’t even know who Jesus is… I am a Christian by God’s doing, not my own. I am not better than others who currently are without Christ, I am just a reciepient of His grace, and the glory goes to Him. So why Christianity? “Everybody knows” it’s outdated, disproven, and that its morals are repressive right? Wrong. Unfortunately, modern folks are almost never taught about Logic, Philosophy, or what constitutes a coherent worldview which makes it increasingly difficult to discuss Christian truth today. This is also why in our culture people are increasingly dependant upon talking heads, radio personalities, and charismatic-smart-sounding people (ie Richard Dawkins) to shape their thinking. In our day and age a university ‘professor’ can stand in front of his pupils and declare with absolute assurance, “THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH”, and rarely any students see the blatant logical cotradiction in that statement which renders the statements plausibility as impossible. Atheists can whine about there being no loving God in the world because of all of the evil and suffering, while the very existence of any objective morality depends on God’s existence in the first place to make moral distinctions possible. If there is no God, there is no morality, all you see around you are animals doing what they do. Saying morals are created by society or your own preferences is a non-statement, because that strips the very definition of morality of its ability to judge good or bad soceities or individuals orientations. I agree and know that evil exists, the only difference between you and I is that I (by grace) trust God’s wisdom and providence in allowing it, and finally judging it… you don’t. Concerning natural disasters; if for billions of years all there has been in the world is a massive orgy of death and sex, then why does nearly every human culture have a concept of a former paradise? Maybe the world used to be a paradise and now we deserve this traumatic world, a certain book seems to say so… Besides if there is no God, you would never be able know that He doesn’t exist anyways. If matter is ultimate, then my consciousness and yours is an illusion created by chemical reactions. My brain just so happens to “fizz” in a Christian way, and yours in a non-Christian way. The whole concept of thought and the ability to come to conclusions presupposes the ability of the mind to transcend. What room is there for transcendance in your worldivew? You say there is no logical reason to believe in God or the Bible, yet you first have to account for the laws of logic. How can universal, unchanging, abstract entities, which place THOUGHT as ultimate exist in a universe without a supreme thinking being (God), and consisting only of chaos and “chance” (as if thats actually a thing)? If you want to be stubborn and claim that the laws of logic AREN’T universal and unchanging then there is no truth. You cannot even know that there is no truth, because knowing that would be truth, get it? So before you start railing about the crusades, hypocrites in the church, how ‘mean’ God was in the Old Testament, or how hell is unjust, lets examine what foundation your standing upon because I guarantee that it’s the same one I’m standing upon, you just won’t admit it. In fact, you cannot avoid it because you are God’s creature, period (see my headline quote). There was a man who used to despise the Church and Christians more then you probably do, until he was converted by the ressurected Christ himself. He (named Paul) wrote this at the apex of his ministry to a group of Christians. “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.” (Romans 1:18-22) You see, this text says that all people everywhere know God. However, they suppress this truth until God’s grace overcomes their wills/thinking to turn them back to Him. God reveals Himself in scripture as an eternal, infinite, immutabile (unchanging), being who is one in essence yet three in person and therefore in a self-sufficient, perfect relationship with Himself. He provides the preconditions for the existence of life, personality, relationships, love, morality, logic, and knowledge within the world. Furthermore, one of Jesus’ disciples, named John, wrote in 90 AD that Jesus is the eternal logos (trasnlated: Word Jn 1:1-2) who “enlightens every man” (Jn 1:9). The Greek word Logos was used in Greek philosophy to refer to that ultimate principle or force in the universe which makes things orderly and rational, and therefore endows man with the ability to think and reason. However, John tells us that it is Jesus, the eternally generated Son of God who imposes His thoughts upon the world thereby giving men the light to think. Maybe you heard some televangelist with a mullet and a southern accent once tell you, that you needed, a “personal relationship with Jesus”. Well, if he would actually read his Bible, rather then shine his chicklet teeth in the mirror all day, he would find out that every human being already does have one… and it ain’t good! Later in the book of Romans (what was quoted above) Paul said, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to (literally: ‘at war with’) God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot” (Romans 8:7) See, no matter what your worldview is, your problem is not that you lack proof for God, but that you want to be Him or at least close to it. “But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4). Man’s first fall came about for the quest for moral autonomy, and to this day the first forms of absolutes that man is willing to deny are moral absolutes. Why? So he can feel justified to do this… Paul continues… “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. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (Romans 1:24-32).” This can be seen in many of the thinkers and philosophers who laid the bedrock for secularism and university education such as; Marx, Darwin, Freud, Neitzsche, Huxley, and Dewey rejected God a priori and many of them lived lifestyles that would cause the average person to preclude them from even babysitting their kids. Yet, their thinking literally fills the minds of our society and young students today. So in light of this I must sound pretty pessimistic… Not at all. Is all hopeless? No. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:4). The Second member of the Trinity became fully human while remeaning fully God in one person, a mystery known as the hypostatic union. He then took the role as the 2nd Adam (Romans 5:14-20), or the new federal head for those who will be saved. Therefore, He being God could not sin, and therefore did not and fulfilled the righteousness that was lost by Adam’s transgression. Furthermore, He bore the wrath of his people setting them free from the eternal punishment that is due to rebellious finite creatures who owe everything to their infinite Creator. “But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Romans 5:8-10) You must repent (abhor sin) and place you faith in Christ ALONE for salvation. Your ‘good works’ will not get you into heaven, because you cannot bribe an infinitely Holy and Just judge to let you off. Even our good works are tainted with false motives and pretenses. The prophet Isaiah wrote in 750BC that all our good works are like filthy rags (Is. 64:6). The Hebrew literally means ‘used menstraul cloths’. So before God all you have is a bucket of used tampons. Good luck with that. But you say I cannot believe this gospel non-sense, because we cannot be sure what Gospels were included and excluded. Nice try. But Christianity as a historical movement is the belief that Jesus Christ is the redeemer of God’s people, and the fulfillment of the promises to the Patriachs and to Israel. It is a Messianic Jewish movement, and the earliest Christians believed in Christ’s substitutionary death and ressurection. The apostle’s and earliests Christians were willing to, and did die mercilessly for their beliefs. We have the writings of the early Christians descended from the Apostles, they only believe what is outlined in the New Testament, and in fact quote it so extensively, that we could reconstruct the New Testament from their writings completely. Gnostic gospels came in almost a century after the death of the last apostles. It is an attempt to infiltrate a Greek concept of God and reality that is completely antithecal to Judaism, into Christianity. THEY were the ones who wanted to “edit the Bible”, as they simply borrowed material from the first century gospels and epistles and injected their own philosophies into them. And just because some councils declared what the canon is officially in the 4th century, in no way shows sinister motives than if a bunch of artists got together and held a council officially declaring that Van Gogh was a great painter. The Da Vinci Code and all this other nonsense is a last ditch attempt at a centuries old effort to discredit historic Christianity. But you say, “I would rather believe that, then this gospel foolishness about a man dying for us.” Well the Bible is two steps ahead of you. “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-19) God has revealed himself to man through many different authors, in many genres of writing, over 1500 years. Its authenticity is demonstrated through its declaring the future before it happens, just read Isaiah 53 (www.biblegateway.com) for yourself and think about what I have told you of Jesus. So all I can say is what Dr. Cornelius Van Til said in his hypothetical conversation with an unbeliever, “So I can only undertake to show that, even if it does not appear reasonble to you, it is reasonable for you, to believe in God.” And it is with Him and His mercy that I leave you.