Randy – Wisdom From the Word

The Glory of His Inheritance Part 3

I previously wrote about what Abraham long anticipated and noted that it was tied to what Yahweh wanted, a dwelling place. The time and place where Abraham will see his dream realized is recorded for us in scripture. We find it in Revelation, and more importantly, we find that it is also what Jesus has been longing for and anticipating.

² Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. Revelation 21:2 (NKJV)

Aside from it being a theme in scripture, the most significant thing about what Abraham was seeking is that it was and is what Jesus is seeking. The consummation of Jesus desire will be found in this city, ‘whose builder and maker is God’ (Hebrews 11:10b). My friend Evelyn stepped from time into eternity many years ago but she often referred to ‘the church which Jesus is building.’ This church is His city, the new Jerusalem, which is also His bride.

⁹ Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” ¹⁰ And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, ¹¹ having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Revelation 21:9–11 (NKJV)

While the church is often referred to as the ‘bride of Christ,’ in scripture the bride is also the city, the new Jerusalem. Whether or not it is a literal city is not the point of John’s vision. The primary message is that it is His dwelling place. That has always been the cry of His heart since He created the earth with Eden, an open dwelling place in and with His people. When Yahweh began His redemption plan for humanity He expressed His desire to Moses in Exodus. The Law, as we know it, was a marriage covenant between Yahweh and Israel. After the giving of the Law the next step was the construction of the Tabernacle. We are told why it needed to be constructed.

⁸ And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. Exodus 25:8 (NKJV)

His heart has always been to dwell with and among His people. Creation started this way in the garden, was broken through Adam and Eve partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the release of sin throughout creation. Yahweh immediately began the restoration process He had planned (the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world 1Peter 1:19-20, Revelation 13:8). When this plan reaches completion, we hear a cry of triumph ringing forth in Revelation in relation to Jesus’ bride.

⁶ And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! ⁷ Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” ⁸ And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Revelation 19:6–8 (NKJV)

From the birth of the church Jesus has been actively working to conform His church to His image, a helpmate and suitable bride.

In the coming forth of the bride Jesus has always been faithful to do His part, yet we also have a part. It says, ‘His wife has made herself ready.’ This is why in his ministry Paul was so focused on seeing the church come to maturity, being conformed to the image of Jesus. This is the bride making herself ready. We enter into the proper preparations when we embrace His call to spiritual maturity, the laying down of our agendas and the taking up or His cross. Let’s all do our part to see Jesus receive the glory of His inheritance!

The Glory of His Inheritance Part 2

Think back to something you waited for with great anticipation – it may be a thing or an event. We have all had moments in our lives. I know in my experience the event sometimes matches the anticipation and at other times it doesn’t. I know a common experience in our culture is that many things are promoted via empty hype, the phenomenon of over promising and under delivering. Yet I am confident it is not going to be that way for Jesus. As previously noted, He went to the cross, ‘for the joy set before Him,’ and Isaiah wrote of Jesus being satisfied by the travail or anguish of His soul (Isaiah 53:11a). Now we will look at what will satisfy Jesus, what will being Him joy, the one thing He is anticipating.

To understand what Jesus will receive we need to understand what He is looking for. This is revealed in scripture. It starts with the following statement about Abraham in relation to his sojourning and searching.

⁹ By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; ¹⁰ for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews 11:9–10 (NKJV)

In faith Abraham dwelt in the land that would become Israel never finding what he was ultimately seeking. This city he was looking for was tied to a memory of Eden and a prophetic glimpse into what was to come. A paradise and city constructed by Yahweh with Yahweh dwelling in it. We will eventually come to the consummation of this theme.

After Abraham the theme of a dwelling place is picked up in Yahweh’s interactions with Moses then later also presented by Paul and Peter in expressing the purpose of the church.

⁸ And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. Exodus 25:8 (NKJV)

¹⁹ Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, ²⁰ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, ²¹ in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, ²² in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19–22 (NKJV)

⁴ Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, ⁵ you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Ephesians 2:19–22 (NKJV)

In each of these three passages from scripture we see expressed the desire of Yahweh for a dwelling place and the fulfilling of it in the how He is building His church. He is shaping us as living stones into a spiritual house, His dwelling place. Next time we will look squarely at the deeper identity of this dwelling place and the fulfillment of what Jesus has long anticipated.

The Glory of His Inheritance Part 1

What does Jesus get out of all of this? I don’t know how many of us have considered that question but we see something of the importance of this issue in Hebrews. After showcasing the heroes of the faith and their sacrifices the writer of Hebrews encourages us to follow their example and then transitions to why Jesus endured the cross.

¹ Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, ² looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:1–2 (NKJV)

Jesus endured the cross because He saw joy beyond it. In Ephesians we get a glimpse of that joy in something Paul wrote about and prayed that we would each have enough revelation to grasp.

¹⁷ that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, ¹⁸ the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, ¹⁹ and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power ²⁰ which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, ²¹ far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. ²² And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, ²³ which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. Ephesians 1:17–23 (NKJV)

Here in our western Christianity the passage above is frequently turned into a present-day prayer, the general theme being our seeking a spirit of wisdom and revelation. We want to grow in our Christian experience, which is a good thing. Yet there is more here. The passage is really about having a spirit of wisdom and revelation from the Father so we would grasp,

the riches of the glory of Jesus inheritance in the saints,
the exceeding greatness of His power toward us, the power that resurrected Jesus, and
Jesus’ authority over all the spiritual opposition in the heavenly places, now and forever.

The aspect we are going to focus on is “the glory of His inheritance in the saints.” What Jesus receives. To understand this, we need to look at a related scripture passage.

²⁸ And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. ²⁹ For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. ³⁰ Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Romans 8:28–30 (NKJV)

What Jesus gets out of this, His inheritance, is believers conformed to Himself and ultimately glorified. Next time we will dig a little deeper into what that means and our role and responsibility in the process. For now, please pray for a spirit of wisdom and revelation to understand what Jesus receives.

Apologetics Part 6

Scriptural Timelines

As we conclude this series, I want to bolster our faith by looking at the timeline for the writing of the New Testament (NT). The Old Testament (OT) was translated to Greek about 150 years prior to Jesus beginning His ministry and there aren’t really any substantive challenges to the OT as a whole, though there are scholarly disagreements, more on timelines than the content. What is frequently challenged is the timeline of the writing of the NT. Many who disagree with the NT allege the books were written long after the events and not by the authors we have named. For example many deny the writers of the gospels were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even though we have historic testimony to their authorship. They also allege the books of the NT were altered over time. I have asked many who make the assertion for evidence, none has ever been presented.

To respond let’s look at what we know about the timeline of the writing of the NT. We begin with two important passages.

¹⁶ All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (NKJV)

¹⁵ and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation – as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, ¹⁶ as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15–16 (NKJV)

In the first passage Paul informs us that all scripture is inspired, literally ‘God breathed.’ In our second passage Peter informs us that Paul’s writings are scripture. This is foundational in concluding that the NT is scripture. There are additional criteria the church has historically used, such as being written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle.

There have also been issues raised about how the NT books were selected by the church councils and how the Canon (rule) was finally established at the Council of Hippo in the 393, including modern criticisms about what books were left out. In a Remnant Radio podcast Craig Keener (Asbury Seminary professor and scholar) noted that the books weren’t so much selected as received. This is an important point. Some contend that truth was filtered out and certain ideas filtered in based on what books were accepted and rejected. However, that was not the criteria. The books that were received and incorporated as the NT were the books already in use by the church. The early church fathers in the second and third centuries quoted so extensively from the NT books in their writings that except for a handful of verses, if we had none of the thousands of manuscripts that we do have, we could reconstruct the entire NT except for these few verses. Astonishing for any ancient manuscripts. With our abundant NT manuscripts, we have an embarrassment of riches compared to any other ancient documents.

We now look more closely at when the books of the NT were written. It is often asserted that we don’t have evidence for the early writing of the NT. In fact, contrary to the assertion we do have evidence. We don’t possess the original manuscripts; they would have worn out through use, but they were copied and widely distributed. To understand the evidence, we start with something Paul wrote.

¹⁷ Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. ¹⁸ For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 1 Timothy 5:17–18 (NKJV)

You have likely read this passage, what you may not have noticed is that the final phrase is a quote from Luke.

⁷ And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. Luke 10:7 (NKJV)

What this means is that Luke’s gospel had to be written and in circulation prior to Paul writing 1 Timothy in the mid 60’s AD. Acts ends with Paul in prison. Historically we know he was released in late 62 or early 63 AD, then rearrested and subsequently beheaded in 66 AD. This means he wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus between 63 and 66 AD.

Strong attestation of the early writing outside of scripture is found in the quotations. Three of the early church fathers, Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp often quoted the NT. Writing between 95 – 110 AD they quoted from 25 of the 27 books of the NT.

For internal evidence Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24:15-28, Mark 13:14-23 and Luke 21:20-24. The Romans besieged Jerusalem in 69 AD and in 70 AD the temple was destroyed. Rather a big deal in the Jewish world. Yet not a single NT writer references this fulfillment of Jesus prophecy. Imagine someone writing a history of modern Israel from 1948 to the present day and not referencing the horrors of October 27, 2023 and you get the idea.

Now we follow our timeline trail a little further. Luke completed Acts by 62 AD. Given his dedication of it to Theophilus and his reference to Theophilus of his earlier writing (Acts 1:1) we know Luke was written prior to Acts. Mark is generally viewed by scholars as the earliest gospel, though some claim it was Matthew. In any case we then have the synoptic gospels written within three decades of the events and Luke says he interviewed witnesses to the events (Luke 1:1-14). Galatians is dated to about AD 49, the Corinthian letters it the mid 50’s. In fact, with the exception of the Pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, all of Paul’s letters were written by 62 AD. Given that none of the NT books reference the destruction of the temple we are safe in holding that the NT writings were complete prior to 70 AD. The one exception being Revelation. Some hold it was written early; most date it to near the end of the first century AD. While it does not mention the destruction of the temple John was recording a vision so only included the details given to him by Jesus in the vision.

As an additional historical detail, we know the following. I mentioned Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp writing between 95 – 110 AD. More specifically, Clement wrote about AD 95 from Rome, Ignatius about 107 and Polycarp 110 (the latter two from Smyrna). The location is important as Rome was 100’s of kilometres from Smyrna. Geisler and Turek reference it this way, “Since Clement was in Rome and Ignatius and Polycarp were hundreds of miles away in Smyrna, the original New Testament documents had to have been written significantly earlier, otherwise they could not have circulated across the ancient world by that time.” [1]

We can now see that the NT was written early and used broadly by the church around the end of the first century so we can be confident that what has been passed down to us is scripture. We can be confident in our faith.

NOTE for those of you who would like to dig a little deeper here are some book/author/speaker recommendations. A very good one is I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek, Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer, or any of his other works. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, or his other works. William Lane Craig is an expert on the Cosmological Argument, there are theological points where I disagree with him but in this area, he is very sound. Can Science Explain Everything by John Lennox. J. P. Moreland makes great philosophical arguments and cuts through pretensions. Two of his great books are Love Your God with all your Mind and Scientism and Secularism. Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution is another worthwhile read. You can find many online presentations and debates by these authors as well and most have their own websites. Additionally, I referenced Craig Keener in this final portion. Keener has written extensively but I deeply appreciate his writing on miracles. He has written and documented miracles in church history but also wrote an excellent book, Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World.

[1] Geisler, Norman L.; Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Foreword by David Limbaugh) (p. 236). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

Apologetics Part 5

Science or Scientism?

Have you ever wondered if science has all the answers? If you have explored the question, I trust that you have realized that the answer is no, it doesn’t. At the same time, a pervasive message we receive from our culture is that science does have all the answers. Here I am going to address the broader cultural message that science can answer and solve everything. I will also address another message we often hear in our culture, that science and faith, I am focusing on Christianity here, are at odds. Another falsehood.

Though the idea has been around for decades I first came across the concept of scientism through J. P. Moreland’s work. He said of the distinction between science and scientism, “In scientism, therefore, science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality.”[1]

Moreland is not a disparager of science. He was heading into a career as a respected chemist when he encountered Jesus. He says of science, “It would have been a wonderful calling to be a Christian chemist. Science is a noble and strategic vocation. And far from fearing science and what it will reveal, I regularly pray that God will send many Christians into the sciences to conduct their work and make discoveries with humble Christian confidence.”[2] Though he loved science Moreland’s encounter with Jesus led him into apologetics, theology and philosophy (he became a philosophy professor). As his journey shifted, he says he encountered scientism, “…the view that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality.”[3] He further noted of the issue, “Because scientism is in the air we breathe, we consider it both normal and essential. Very few people are aware of what it does to a culture and to the church. It puts Christian claims outside of the “plausibility structure” (what people generally consider reasonable and rational), which has led to a number of shifts in how our culture processes reality.”[4]

Of course, the irony here is that the belief that only science can answer the important questions about life is not a scientific statement – it is a philosophical and faith statement! Science can tell us what, it cannot tell us why or whether or not we should. Science cannot tell us how much love weighs or the scientific formula for hate because these things fall outside the purview of science. To understand love, hate and morality we need to turn to ethics, theology and philosophy.

Another man who recognized the errors of scientism is John Lennox. He is now Professor Emeritus at Oxford and spent his career in science and mathematics. Outside of his formal work Lennox was a very effective Christian apologist. Without using the term ‘scientism’ Lennox describes the issue in his summary of how many view science in our western culture, “Science is an unstoppable force for human development that will deliver answers to our many questions about the universe, and solve many, if not all, of our human problems: disease, energy, pollution, poverty. At some stage in the future, science will be able to explain everything, and answer all our needs.” [5] While deeply appreciating science, as a scientist and mathematician Lennox’s book is about refuting this false view that science has all the answers.

In his book on the issue Lennox shares about lecturing some decades ago at a university in Siberia on why he as a scientist believed in God. He writes, “I spoke about the history of modern science and related how its great pioneers—Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday and Clerk- Maxwell – were all firm and convinced believers in God.”[6] He says he detected anger in the audience in response to his statement so paused his lecture and asked what the anger was about. It turned out that these Russian scientists were all angry that they had never heard this before as they had been taught that science and faith in God were at odds. Through Lennox they learned the truth that committed Christians were the majority of the chief architects of modern science in the west.

What does this mean for us? We need to appreciate both science and our faith. Think of driving on the highway. There are lines to demarcate the lanes where we should be driving. Science is a very important lane, yet science needs to stay in its lane. Theology is another lane and on a four-lane highway they drive side by side and observe one another. Theology can be informed by science. Science can tell us something about what David wrote.

¹³ For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. ¹⁴ I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. Psalm 139:13–14 (NKJV)

Through science we can make many amazing discoveries about the intricacies of the human body and marvel at how we were created. Theology can tell us that we were created, that human life is of infinite value, that a baby in the womb was created in His image and is not merely ‘fetal tissue.’

If we learn to operate in this way and honour what each discipline has to offer, we avoid the terrible error of scientism and can embrace what Jesus said when asked what the most important commandment in life was.

³⁷ Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and great commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matthew 22:37–39 (NKJV)

Let us love Him passionately with our hearts, wisely with our minds, and give our all to Him.

[1] Moreland, J. P.. Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (p. 29). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[2] Moreland, J. P.. Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (pp. 22-23). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[3] Moreland, J. P.. Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (p. 23). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[4] Moreland, J. P.. Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (p. 31). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[5] Lennox, John. Can Science Explain Everything? (Questioning Faith) (pp. 4-5). The Good Book Company. Kindle Edition.

[6] Lennox, John. Can Science Explain Everything? (Questioning Faith) (p. 14). The Good Book Company. Kindle Edition.

Apologetics Part 4

The Fine-Tuning Argument

In looking at the Fine-Tuning argument we begin with the two scriptures I referenced for the Teleological Argument. Yet we dig a little deeper.

³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3 (NKJV)

² has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; ³ who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, Hebrews 1:2–3 (NKJV)

The phrase we are zeroing in on is, “upholding all things by the word of His power.” While some translations say ‘powerful word’ or something similar the NKJV, ESV and NASB all correctly use the literal phrase in Greek, ‘word of His power.’ It is the continual release of Jesus power through His spoken word that both created and sustains the universe. As Paul put it under the inspiration of the Spirit.

¹⁶ For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16 (NKJV)

Jesus is the source and sustainer.

Now to look at the Fine Tuning Argument using an analogy. Imagine I hand you what looks like a puzzle box but there is no picture on the cover of what the puzzle is supposed to look like and when you open it you find random pieces of cardboard with no rhyme or reason and no pictures on them. I assure you that if you simply put the pieces in the box, shake it vigorously and dump it on the table the puzzle will form and there will be a clear picture. Instead of shaking the box you might be tempted to tell me to give my head a shake since what I have proposed is ridiculous. Which of course is true. If we want a puzzle to put together, we need a picture that tells us what it will look like and pieces cut with interlocking shapes so that when they are put together, they will reflect the picture on the box.

Now we consider the universe. The generally accepted theory for the beginning and creation of the universe is the Big Bang model. Whether one believes in the concept of a singularity or the idea that everything came from nothing, the basic concept is that matter exploded and expanded and time, space and matter now exist. The big question is whether the universe could have been created by a random unintentional explosion and planets just happened to form or whether a divine intelligence was behind it all.

This takes us to the cosmological constants. In brief, if the constants were different, if the universe had expanded more quickly or slowly than it did then the planets would never have formed or it would have collapsed back on itself. Even atheist Stephen Hawking acknowledged the importance of fine tuning, noting, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron …. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”[1] On their website, using a conservative approach, the Discovery Institute provides a list of 22 fine tuning parameters (List of Fine-Tuning Parameters | Discovery Institute).

One argument some present in seeking to refute the idea of a fine-tuned universe is the idea of the multiverse. The theory being that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that supports life as we know it. The problems of course are many. First, we have zero evidence for other universes. Next, for any other universe to exist it would be subject to the same cosmological constants to exist and last, where is this universe generating machine? It isn’t a tenable position.

Another term that highlights fine-tuning is the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ is a term used by some to describe where we live, earth. The term is drawn from the children’s story where things needed to be ‘just right’ for Goldilocks. If earth were closer to or farther from the sun all of our water would either freeze or evaporate. We can thus conclude that we are simply ‘lucky’ to have the orbit we do around the sun or we can conclude that Jesus ‘upholds all things by the word of His power.’ I choose the latter.

[1] A Brief History of Time, Hawking, Stephen, p. 125

Apologetics Part 3

The Teleological (Design) Argument

Imagine something with me for a moment. It is summer and my car is very dirty, I go to the hardware store and when I return to the parking lot, I find the phrase ‘wash me’ written in the dust on the back window. In telling you about this incident I comment and say, “Isn’t it strange how the wind spelled ‘wash me’ on my back window while I was in the store.” Would your first thought be that I was being rational and logical? I think not.

Yet many evolutionists would have us place our faith in something incredibly more complex than my strange assertion about ‘wash me.’ We now look at design. An early proponent of the design argument was philosopher and clergyman William Paley. In the late 18^th century he used the analogy of divine watchmaker and compared the regular workings of the solar system to the coordinated and designed movements of a clock or watch. Which led to atheist Richard Dawkins 20^th century work, The Blind Watchmaker. We will come to Dawkins shortly.

We begin our review of design with a couple of quotes from Stephen Jay Gould, an ardent evolutionist whose quotes are readily available on the internet. He said the following, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution.” He also said, “Charles Darwin viewed the fossil record more as an embarrassment than as an aid to his theory.” Obviously Gould responded by repudiating evolution right? No, he simply came up with new theories that he could also not prove.

We also have what the famous atheist Richard Dawkins said, “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” Gould was among other things an evolutionary biologist, as is Dawkins. Are their comments above any more credible than my assertion that the wind wrote ‘wash me’ on the window of my vehicle? We will see.

Biochemist Michael Behe, who wrote Darwin’s Black Box, highlighted for us the concepts of irreducible and specified complexity. The black box term comes from the idea that things are happening at a mysterious and unseen level. This of course aligns with scripture, which says the following.

³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3 (NKJV)

What Behe discovered is that the cells in our body are powered by microscopic machines. Machines he described as follows, “In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.”[1] These cellular machines demonstrate specified complexity. An example of specified complexity being our DNA code. DNA has a four-letter alphabet and the instructions contained within the DNA in every cell in our bodies are specific, written out in an ordered manner in this four-letter alphabet (the most well-known advocate of specified complexity is Willam Dembski).

We know that instructions don’t write themselves any more than the wind wrote ‘wash me’ on my car window. As Bill Gates of Microsoft fame said in his book The Road Ahead, “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” DNA contains specified complexity pointing to the designer of this complex code.

In addition to specified complexity, we have irreducible complexity. Behe described it in this manner.

“By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.“[2]

Here Behe directly refutes Darwin’s idea that organisms developed and became more complex through successive slight adaptations. What we have with irreducible complexity is molecular machines that have interdependent parts. One part cannot function without the others, meaning the parts could not have evolved gradually as the organism would then be nonfunctional. We go back to my dirty car. If I have an engine but am waiting for my driveshaft to evolve, I have a useless vehicle. If I want more power and create larger chambers for my pistons but don’t simultaneously include larger pistons I have a non-functional machine. In nature this would have meant creatures unable to survive while they ‘evolved’ the needed parts. In conclusion, what we see in all living creatures, from the single celled amoeba to the human brain, is function written into our DNA, in a word, design. This is a brief overview of the subject but enough to highlight and identify the importance of design. Next, we will look at fine tuning, another reality that points to both design and a designer.

[1] Behe, Michael J.. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (p. 14). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

[2] Behe, Michael J.. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (pp. 56-57). Free Press. Kindle Edition.

Apologetics Part 2

The Cosmological Argument

Have you ever wondered why there is something rather than nothing? While I cannot pretend to provide a complete answer to that question, we can answer the question in relation to why the cosmos and we as humanity are here. The Cosmological Argument, or as it is also known, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Kalam is an Arabic word meaning eternal), is generally stated as a logical syllogism.

Everything that began to exist had a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The obvious implication is that the source of the universe was uncaused and since space, time and matter came into being with the creation of the universe the cause must be timeless, spaceless and non-material. Another word for this description is of course God. We see this in the following scriptures.

¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)

²⁸ Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable. Isaiah 40:28 (NKJV)

³ All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

John 1:3 (NKJV)

We have in the first four words of scripture an anchor point for everything else we believe. Scripture doesn’t try to prove Yahweh’s existence, it assumes it. While the Cosmological Argument doesn’t get us to Yahweh, it does get us to a supernatural being creating the universe. Scripturally we know that Being is Yahweh.

Currently there are various ideas that seek to avoid the beginning of the universe and the resulting implications. The Steady State theory (an eternal universe) was believed by many scientists in the 20^th century, including Einstein. He built a fudge factor into his theory of relativity to accommodate his belief and when it was scientifically established that the universe was expanding, and thus had a beginning, he acknowledged it as his greatest scientific blunder.

We also have the non-scientific idea of a continually expanding and contracting universe that ignores science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics notes that things tend to move toward a disordered state. Entropy is scientifically well established and our universe is using up energy and heading toward heat death without outside intervention (taking us back to God). Thus, it cannot have been forever expanding and contracting. This idea also has inherent in it the idea of infinite regress. The problem of course is that if we have no starting point it is impossible to ever arrive at today! Another idea is the multiverse theory that posits multiple universes, in spite of the fact that the only one we know of is our current one and ignores the science that any universe that came into existence would be subject to the same fine-tuning parameters as the one we do know exists.

Perhaps Einstein was right when he said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” More pointedly, James Tour, one of the top chemists in the world and a believer, said, “Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

Thus, in coming closer to God we come back to an uncaused first cause, a being not measured in terms of infinite regress but one who has always been, eternal. In their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Geisler and Turek provide the characteristics of this uncaused first cause. They say it must be,

self-existent, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite; unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing; supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision (we’ll see more of this in the next chapter); personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices). These characteristics of the First Cause are exactly the characteristics theists ascribe to God.

A scientist who was an agnostic, but who recognized the implications of his research was astrophysicist Robert Jastrow. A famous quote from his book God and the Astronomers, is below and provides a fitting conclusion to our look at the Cosmological Argument.

At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Let’s join them on this highest of peaks.

Apologetics Part 1

I am going to spend some time doing posts on apologetic points that support a scriptural worldview. The idea of apologetics is rooted in the scripture verse below. The word defense is the Greek apologia and means to ‘speak in defense of.’ Everyone who defends a position, even if they are not aware of it, is functioning as an apologist.

¹⁵ But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 1 Peter 3:15 (NKJV)

Our other term for this series is worldview. When I wrote my book on worldview, I defined it as The lens through which we view and interpret reality. Think of it as a pair of glasses. If you change your prescription what you see changes. Our worldview is the prescription.

Any worldview needs to address four key aspects, origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. We can assess any worldview by assessing how it addresses origin, meaning, morality and destiny. A failure to adequately address these issues highlights a worldview that lacks coherence.

Christianity answers these four questions in a coherent way, while materialism, more specifically scientific materialism, fails in this regard. Science itself aligns well with faith. Let’s take a look at materialism.

Origin – Scientific materialism promotes the idea that we are merely a cosmic accident and holds to the idea of abiogenesis in place of creation. That is, the idea that life began by a lucky accident. Abiogenesis has never been proven, and in fact if one of the many lab experiments were able to produce life from what scientists believe were the conditions early in the life of our planet, they would merely prove that intelligence is required to produce life.

Meaning – In materialism our origin is inconsequential and accidental. There is no inherent meaning in scientific materialism. Given we are assumed to be a cosmic accident we may choose to attach meaning to life or certain activities but there is no inherent meaning.

Morality – Ideas of right and wrong can be derived, but there is no objective standard, merely social constructs.

Destiny – We came from nothing and go to nothing.

When we apply these four points to Christianity, we have a coherent worldview.

Origin – In brief, God is the origin of what we see and of us.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 NKJV

²⁶ Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26 (NKJV)

Meaning – Our purpose and meaning are rooted in His calling on our lives.

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. ²⁹For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. ³⁰Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. Romans 8:28-30 NKJV

Morality – Morality is found in what God defines as right and wrong in terms of behaviour.

⁸Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. ⁹For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁰Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13:8-10 NKJV

Destiny – Our destiny is eternal, heaven with Jesus.

¹⁶For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 (NKJV)

Thus, we see that a Christian scriptural worldview is a coherent worldview. A key point is that our natural tendency is to think with our worldview rather than about our worldview. In this series my hope is that you will think about your worldview and how to align it with scripture.

NOTE – I do not have a set number of posts predetermined for this series as I have yet to write them. In the next two posts I will address the Cosmological Argument then the Teleological (Design) Argument. At the end of the series, I will provide a suggested list of books and authors to consider. This series will be a brief overview of each subject not an exhaustive study, as volumes have been written on each area that I will address. My goal is to provide you with some basic material to defend our common faith.

A Hearing Heart

As we conclude this year and prepare for the next, I thought it would be helpful to provide an area of focus given the transition to a new year is often a time of reflection for us. To that end we will look at the need to hear both Jesus’ voice and His heart and look at how our hearing requires a particular posture of our own hearts. We begin with a verse that is dear to me.

¹ The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. Proverbs 16:1 (NKJV)

Most translations have the word ‘plan’ rather than ‘preparations.’ Yet the Hebrew word means to arrange or set up, thus I think preparations is the better translation. Imagine inviting someone over for dinner. My wife prioritizes having everything ready before guests arrive, which means I need to have the same focus. So, there is a plan for the meal but most of the work is preparing more than planning. The table is set, the house is cleaned, and the food is ready, everything is prepared.

In the same way, Proverbs tells us that we need to prepare our hearts, get them ready for fellowship with Jesus. I recognize that we can pray at any time and place. The day before I wrote this I went for a walk with a friend. Afterward we stood on the edge of the parking lot with hands clasped and my hand on his shoulder and we prayed as people drove by. I thought, if someone asked what we were doing I would say, “We are praying,” as in, it should be obvious and normal, though it presently isn’t in our culture.

While acknowledging that we can pray at any time and place, there are times of prayer, our meetings with the Father, that require a different approach – preparation. That preparation may include the time we set aside, the place where we meet with Him, and very importantly in our culture, the distractions we avoid. Like much of our culture, I am prone to the distractions of social media. I know that if I want to sit with Jesus and hear His voice and heart, I need to deliberately set aside the things that can draw my heart away. In short, I need to obey the scriptural injunction and prepare my heart.

While preparation is important in terms of space and distractions, another aspect is hiding His word in our hearts so that when we need to hear from Him the Spirit can bring to mind and highlight scriptures that we know. David put it this way.

¹¹ Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You. Psalm 119:11 (NKJV)

We hide His word in our hearts by reading and meditating on His word and His character (Joshua 1:8, Psalm 1:1-13, Romans 12:1-2, Philippians 4:8).

An example for me that I seek to integrate into all that I do is a verse from Psalms that I meditate on, reading and reflecting on it pretty much daily.

¹⁴ Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer. Psalm 19:14 NKJV

Following David is a difficult task, and I find applying the first part of this verse much easier than the second. My words are generally just fine, my thoughts, not always the case. David began this Psalm extolling the grandeur of creation and then moved on to the immeasurable greatness of the Law before focusing in on how to walk uprightly before Him. Here is more context.

¹² Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults. ¹³ Keep back Your servant also from presumptuous sins; Let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, And I shall be innocent of great transgression. ¹⁴ Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer. Psalm 19:12–14 (NKJV)

David is saying that if the words of our mouths and the meditation of our hearts are focused on Yahweh we will be kept from presumptuous sins and not engage in any great transgression. For me the additional part is that I will hear His heart. Paul presented this quite clearly in Galatians. He gave two lists of what we could choose to meditate on and then pointed out that we will reap from the field in which we choose to sow.

¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, ²¹ envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. ²² But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ²³ gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Galatians 5:19–23 (NKJV)

⁷ Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. ⁸ For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. ⁹ And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. Galatians 6:7–9 (NKJV)

In conclusion, to hear His heart we need to prepare our hearts to hear and receive. That requires intentionality on our part, which includes setting aside undistracted times, hiding His word in our hearts, and cultivating an awareness of His presence in our hearts and minds throughout each day. This creates a prepared and properly postured heart.

A Note – In January I will present some apologetics material and anchor it in scripture. I present this to provide you with tools to defend our faith in a culture increasingly hostile to it and derisive of it. If there is a particular topic you would like covered, please comment and I will have a look and see if it is an area I have material on or can research.