Trusting Reason

I have reposted the article below from one of my past entries. I do so because as of late, I am fascinated with God all over again. One of the greatest powers that man possesses is his ability to reason. One of the greatest gifts that can happen to you and I is that - from time to time - we step back and take a look at this power, and we come face to face with that divine "mind behind the curtain." I say it is a gift, because without it, we could not even begin to perceive the greatness of it. Enjoy the read:

I have sat in wonderment while listening to someone attempt to assert that "It is logical to deduce that one can understand that everything around us comes only from materialism." For many years this statement felt wrong to me, but I wasn't sure why. Then I was introduced to the following bit of reasoning by a little known Evangelist named Don Johnson (no, not the actor - the minister!).

It goes something like this: If we assert that everything we know comes from the logical grouping of materialistic evidence, then how can we trust logic or reason in general? In other words, if everything came into being via random chance, evolution, and/or materialism, then there is no reason to think that 'reason itself' is exempt from this randomness. Or think of it this way; if you maintain that logic and reason provide to us a way of manipulating different hypothesis and premises in a way that surpasses the premises themselves (a.k.a. "thinking"), then how can you trust that the reason or logic you are using to think about those premises is sound? If you are a strict materialist, you cannot!

Think about it, this isn't a slight of hand trick. Let's look at one more example to drive the point home. We will do it by way of a fictional narrative. Let's say that Bill claims that we exist in a closed system that only consists of material, and that there exists no supernatural component. Bill then says that he came to this conclusion by checking out all of the scientific data around him, and making reasonable and logical conclusions based on that data. He then came to the conclusion that given what he knows - there is no God. Only atoms and particles and matter.

Bill symbolizes many modern day thinkers that throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. How can Bill possibly trust that his use of logic is correct, if there is nothing outside this closed natural realm governing it? In other words, if logic doesn't exist apart from (and outside of) this closed system, then it cannot be used as a trustworthy means by which to make any valid judgements about that system. It is simply also part of the system. Of course no one really believes this. Most of us know that logic and reason are in fact more significant than this, so much so that we take if for granted.

You can argue possibly that straight logic (A, then B, then C) is a result of our experiences within this materialistic system. But we cannot assert that this other thing, this function of our existence that can take two or more separate premises or ideas and then decide between them is just instinct or experience. It is more like a governor or an overseer. It is that faculty within us that can step outside of the boundaries of the material only world, and guide our decisions with something more like a consciousness than a reaction or an instinct. It is reason in this sense of the word that is our signpost pointing to something greater, something beyond the normal everyday chain of events we see around us. I believe God has given us this gift of truth. It is what separates us from all other species of animal.

It would be easy for someone to get this one wrong. If they maintain that they are fearfully and wonderfully made; intelligent, logical, and capable of great reasoning skills which far surpass that of any other creature, and that they possess all of this on their own - then they are only half right. We are not our own creators. We have free-will sure enough. God did not create a legion of robots or automatons. But the vehicle for interpreting our world is much more than just a physical brain full of firing neurons and synapses. The brain is the house, what lives inside is different.

.

Truth Quote

"All who call on God in true faith, earnestly from the heart, will certainly be heard, and will receive what they have asked and desired."

— Martin Luther

.

Can You Hear the Still, Small Voice?

Do you pray in fast forward? Click below to find out!:

http://www.godtube.com/featured/video/coffee-jesus/comedy

.

Hitchens is Hedging his Bet

I have recently learned (along with the rest of the world) that the famous, outspoken atheist and author Christopher Hitchens has cancer. His prognosis isn't good. Hitchens maintains that there probably is no God, and even if He did exist, His creation and endeavors are nothing to brag about. In one of his books he refers to Faith and religion as poison. He is published, successful, and adored by his fans -- and now he is dying.

I do not think this is good news, nor is it humorous. It is not a check in the "win" column for theists by any means. Hitchens was a good debater and a formidable opponent. Let's face it, he sharpened the Christians apologists. I have included the video below because in it (I think) he begins to drop the "atheism routine" to a degree, and simply expresses those same emotions and thoughts that anyone in his situation would have. He is the most subdued and reserved that I have ever seen him here.

At the end of the interview he maintains that he will in no way become "redeemed." He will never accept God. There are hundreds of prayer groups wishing him well. I will also wish him well. In Christ, death has no victory, and true believers have experienced the difference Faith can make. May God perform a small miracle for this man who has berated His good name at every turn, and in so, showing that no one is outside of the Hope of salvation until they take their last breath. There is still time for Christopher Hitchens to repent. Let's pray that he listens to God in the weeks to come.

Interesting Quote

"You cannot follow God in neutral."

- Erwin McManus

.

Am I Lukewarm?

Certain statistics claim that something on the order of only 10% of all new churches in America are growing. The Faith in America is facing a crisis, and in Europe Christianity is effectively dead. I remember having a conversation with one of my friends on the subject of churches, and I made the statement that there seemed to be a church on every street corner. She responded, "Yes, but there are only 10 or 12 people in each of them!" Where have our believers gone?

The idea of lukewarm Christianity comes from Revelation 3:14 - 16, which says "To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation (Jesus). I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm -- neither hot nor cold -- I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Now personally I don't want to ever hear this from God about myself.

No one person fits conveniently into a category, and some of us may fit a handful of the items below. But the question is, do we fit all of them? Or most of them? Lukewarm Christians tend to:

* Crave acceptance from people more than God

* Rarely share their faith in Christ

* Do whatever it takes to alleviate their guilt

* Think more about life on Earth, than eternity in Heaven

* Gauge their morality by comparing themselves to other people

* Want to be saved from the penalty of sin without changing their lives

* Only turn to God when they are in a bind

* Give whenever is doesn't hurt their standard of living

* Are not much different from the rest of the world

* Want the benefits of Christ, without submitting to Him

There are, I think, 2 types of lukewarm Christians. Those who are lukewarm and don't know it, and those who are lukewarm and don't care. There is hope for the first group. The second group is in serious trouble.

As for me when I read the list above, I am filled with the desire to repent of the things I fall short on, and rekindle the fire for God. What is the best way to do this? Pray earnestly that God gives you the Spirit to be an effective Christian, and second -- make some sacrifices. Sacrifice seems to lead directly to faith-building. Talk to that co-worker or neighbor about Jesus. Drop a check in the church offering basket. Repent anew today of that same old stupid sin that continues to creep into your life and rear it's ugly head.

Christ is real and He demands things from us. Not simply to make us feel guilty, but to give us a better life. I want to be a part of that better life. Don't you?

.

Do SOMETHING...

We have Netflix, we get children’s movies all the time. My wife and I watch them with the kids, and sometimes we make mistakes on which films to get! But we watch them WITH our kids usually, and if the content isn't suitable, we are present in the room and we can turn the TV off.

Mark Batterson (Lead pastor, National Community Church), quotes the following statistic; he says “70% of non-believers worship and get their theology from movies & music.” This is staggering to me. At first I thought it was silly, but if we stop and think about it a while... is it so silly? Think of the way we react to the Harry Potter series, or young tween-age girls respond to the Twilight films.

Proverbs 19:18 says “Discipline your son, for in that there is hope; do not be a willing party to his death.” Now the key word in this piece of Scripture is "discipline." It assumes an action on the part of the parent. The point is, I think, that we need to do something with our kids to help fight against the prevailing culture. We cannot - I'm afraid - do nothing! Parking them in front of the television for hours at a time, sending them to their room just to get them out of our hair, or relinquishing them over to their friends without supervision are all examples of transferring the duties of parenting. Now please don't assume that I am completely clean regarding all of this when it comes to my own kids. I have 3 young ones, and it can get overwhelming. Compromises are sometimes made.

Everything in this world either belongs to God, or to the Devil. The Bible tells us there is no middle ground. If we are right in line with popular culture, then we are playing for the wrong team. We must actively instill in our kids, therefore, a value system (preferably by example)… or the culture will win.

It is easy to float into autopilot with our full-time jobs, our children’s sports, our busy summers, etc. But children WILL be influenced by something, so try not to miss out on being the one who does the influencing - especially when they are young. What a gift this responsibility is.

.

Interesting Quote

"The thing that impresses me most about America is the way the parents obey their children."

- Edward, Duke of Windsor

.

Food for Thought...

"The most ancient records we have not only mention but take for granted things like kings and priests and princes and assemblies of the people; they describe communities that are roughly recognisable as communities in our own sense. Some of them are despotic; but we cannot tell that they have always been despotic. Some of them may be already decadent and nearly all are mentioned as if they were old." - The Everlasting Man, pg. 61-62.

Famous Christian author G.K. Chesterton may have written this book as an ode to dispel the silly un-truths that many people take for granted about God. Recently I have been thinking about a particular form of bias as it concerns people trying to discount God, Jesus, and the miraculous. C.S. Lewis refers to it as chronological snobbery; and I have to admit that prior to becoming a Christian... I upheld it. This is basically the belief that ancient people were too primitive to know any better but to believe in some all-powerful Divine entity. That they were so afraid of the weather, the environment, and the like, that they huddled together seeking shelter from things they didn't understand. Man needed God 'back in the oldin' days' because he didn't know any better. Only Zues could have created lightening, right?

I like Chesteron's way of dispelling this myth in the passage above. Ancient man had societies, rulers, common sense, and intelligence. He was able to build and test things, and able to reason with the best of them (remember Plato?). No, I'm afraid that if and when something out of the norm and miraculous did happen, human beings were quite able to understand that it wasn't business as usual. A miracle was a miracle the same then as it would be now. When word got out that a former religious leader named Jesus of Nazereth rose from the dead after being publicly scourged and crucified, it was just as remarkable then as it would be today.

The food for thought is this: if we attempt to escape from the idea of God by dismissing Him as a primitive form of wish-fulfillment, then we need to be careful how we define the notion of primitive. Modern technology and science aside, people were still people - even back in 'the oldin' days.' God is more than wish-fulfillment. He is the very reason that we have wishes in the first place. Thank you Chesterton for reminding us of this.

.

Interesting Quote

"One of the great uses of Twitter and Facebook will be to prove at the Last Day that prayerlessness was not from lack of time."

- John Piper

.

Evidence vs. Conclusions

I recently viewed a debate between top-notch Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman. The topic of the debate was "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" The format of the debate was normal, both men spoke at a college, and had time for opening statements, 3 or 4 rebuttals, and then a Q&A session. Craig laid out his criteria in favour of the resurrection: 4 pieces of evidence that had to be refuted in order to disprove it actually happened. He cited the quick and large-scale spread of Christianity after the death of Christ, the multiple attestation of the 4 different gospel accounts (among other corroborative evidence from non-Christian writers outside the Bible), etc.

Dr. Ehrman offered the opposing view, that Jesus probably didn't rise from the dead because: the Gospels differed from each other by way of contradictions, they may have been recorded after some decades of verbal accounts handed down and possibly distorted, and that people don't rise from the dead generally speaking. In effect, Ehrman was attacking mainly the idea of something miraculous happening; namely that anyone (in this case Jesus) could be raised from the dead at all, because miracles just don't happen.

Now what was most interesting about this was that neither man attempted to erase any of the accounts in the New Testament. Ehrman didn't say, "well Jesus wasn't killed," or "Jesus was mythical." Instead, (and as Criag says in one of his rebuttals) the key points of evidence weren't being discredited, but rather Ehrman just concluded different things based on that same evidence. Two men who have studied the gospels in great detail, arrived at 2 different conclusions not based on what happened... but rather what those things that happened meant. Now this is an interesting concept because the Bible warns us that there are people who "see without seeing," and "hear without hearing." This I believe is how people can read the life-changing testimonies of the Bible, and get caught up in the fact that in one gospel Matthew refers to 10 disciples, but in another gospel Mark may refer to 11.

Ehrman was basing his conclusions about Christ rising from the grave based on his refusal to allow for the miraculous ever occurring. In short, by excluding God from the outset, he effectively removed God from the conclusion. Of course we could argue the same thing from Craig's perspective. Wasn't the fact that Craig was a believer from the outset influential in his acceptance of the resurrection as actually occurring? But think about this. If it never really happened, then what is all the fuss about? What was the big deal 2,000 years ago? Why are people's lives being changed every day by the power of the Gospel message? As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity, "Christianity is either the truth that we are blessed to have received from a gracious God, or a lie from the pit of hell." (paraphrased).

I come down on the side of believing that Jesus DID rise from the grave, that the Bible is actually more than a just a collection of stories from some wise people, and that miracles DO happen. What a cruel hoax it would be if there was no Christ, or if He hadn't actually been resurrected. If this were true, we would still be dead in our sins, and this life is all there really is. But if the reverse is true, then we are an incredibly blessed species, because something up there really does revere and love us. Make your own choice regarding Jesus, but make sure you look at the evidence fairly, allowing for both possibilities: that miracles couldn't possibly happen, or that they can and do happen. How much more sense the 4 Biblical accounts make in light of the supernatural, as they were always meant to.

.