Month: January 2011

The Amazing Atheist On Aquinas: The First Way

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re spending our time now looking at a video by “The Amazing Atheist” where he thinks he’s debunked Aquinas. Last time, we laid down a preliminary and then noted how TAA thinks that he’s smarter than Aquinas by an order of magnitude. (That’s not me saying it. He says it himself in his video of “Thomas Aquinas Sucks.” Be warned he does use profanity.)

Having laid a background for our study, we are now going to see how badly TAA does not understand them.

Let’s look at how he summarizes the first argument.

#1-objects are in motion.
#2-If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
#3-There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees
#4-So there is a first unmoved mover.
#5-Therefore, God exists.

Before we go on then, let’s see if this is a fair summary. Here is what Aquinas himself says in the Summa Theologica.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Aquinas calls this the argument from motion. Remember that as we said yesterday, motion is the actualizing of potential. Aquinas says that our senses tell us that some objects are in motion. What is he getting at? For one thing, he’s making it clear that he needs something itself that is not part of the problem, something that is not being actualized. Second, he is dealing with the problem raised by Parmenides centuries before. How can change be possible? Parmenides was a monist who did not believe in the reality of change.

For instance, imagine something existing. How does it change? Does it change by being or by non-being? It cannot change by non-being, because non-being is nothing and nothing cannot change something. It cannot change by being because that would mean that being is changing into being. Aquinas’s answer to this ultimately was that there were degrees of being whereby things change.

Aquinas also starts with the senses because for Aquinas, knowledge begins with sense experience. He also does this since he is doing natural theology. He is not wanting to say at this point “Well the Bible says such and such.” This is what someone was to use when interacting with the person who did not accept Scripture.

For Aquinas, the putting of something into motion is due to the recipient’s potentiality, whereas putting something into motion is based on the agent’s actuality. The only way something can pass something on to something else is if that something somehow has the power to cause the effect.

You will not freeze something by putting it in fire because fire does not have the power to produce cold. Fire does have the power to produce heat. Two sticks being rubbed together also have the power to produce heat. God has within Himself the power to produce fire if need be as well. Thus, something must exist in the agent actualizing the potential either formally, based on its form, or as is sometimes said “virtually.”

Aquinas also says something cannot be something in actuality and potentiality both in the same sense. Now of course something could be hot and be potentially hotter, but it cannot be both hot in actuality and potentially hot. If it is hot, it is hot. Something cannot be both light and dark at the same time and in the same sense. This is simply the Law of Noncontradiction at work.

In reviewing how TAA describes this argument, he says nothing about what motion is and I have no reason to think that he has any clue how Aquinas refers to motion. One could speak of Newton’s laws of motion, but remember that Newton is speaking as a physicist and about how matter moves, and while Aquinas’s ways can include that, they do not limit themselves to only that.

This is a mistake many modern critics make as they go from metaphysics to physics and think that they’re disputing the metaphysics of Aquinas by arguing physics. Consider it part of the mistaken image that we have that because someone is a scientist, they are automatically an authority on anything that they comment on.

TAA is willing to grant his first and second premises listed above. The problem comes when he objects to the third premise in his way of looking at the argument. This is dealing with the infinite regress.

To begin with, he does not refer to the kind of infinity he is dealing with. TAA’s statement is simply “How does he know? We’re still trying to understand it today.” This is not an objection however. For one thing, it is a certainty as far as I’m concerned that TAA has never read Question 46 of the Prima Pars of the Summa which we pointed to yesterday to understand the kind of infinite regress that Aquinas speaks of.

Why does TAA not mention the two kinds of regresses that Aquinas knew of? It is because he does not know about them. In my last post, I referred to a number of works that one could read to further understand Aquinas. It is likely that TAA knows nothing of any of these people. One would hope he would at least read Anthony Kenny, an atheist critic of Aquinas, and get some idea of better arguments against Aquinas. (Although better is not saying much in this case)

We move on to step four where he says that this one is ridiculous since it contradicts the so-called second premise. What is ridiculous really is thinking that no great thinker throughout the ages who looked at Aquinas’s arguments failed to notice such a thing. In reality, TAA has made a simple mistake that most atheists make when attacking the horizontal cosmological argument. (Remember, this guy is supposed to be smarter than Aquinas by a magnitude)

When you read atheists, their literature will often say that the Kalam argument states that everything that exists has a cause. No Christian writer I know of defends such a premise. They say that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That which exists by nature does not need a cause.

TAA is making the same kind of argument here. Aquinas is talking about an unmoved mover. The unmoved mover is that which is not put into motion as it does not have any potential. This is a being of pure actuality. There is no contradiction as the argument talks about that which is put into motion and not that which is in motion by nature.

As for unmoved, this means unmoved by another. God is the most moving of all because it is by Him that all actuality is possible and he is the fundamental mover. Note Aquinas does not need God to be a first mover chronologically as he is open to a past without a beginning. Note also that TAA refers to the infinite chain again, the chain that he does not know about.

It is no shock that TAA refers to Aquinas as some moron living in the 13th century with no concept of modern science. Again, this is a problem that is frequently made as a metaphysical argument is made to be a physical argument. This is a sad condition many scientists get themselves into in that they can only think about something in scientific terms.

When TAA comes to the conclusion, he asks that even if we accepted everything before, why is it God. Why can’t it be a blueberry muffin?

And I thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster idea was dumb.

To begin with, a blueberry muffin is a material object and that which has some material component to its being always has potential to its being. Also, keep in mind that in order for something to actualize potential, it must exist in the agent actualizing either formally or virtually. Could the TAA tell me what actualizing he expects a blueberry muffin to do?

At least the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be an agent that could supposedly act of its own volition seeing as all living things are soulish to some degree. Plants have a soul that can take in nutrients. Animals have that power plus that of movement. Humans have those powers plus those of rationality. All other beings that are not soulish depend on something else entirely for their movement.

For TAA, a blueberry muffin sounds more plausible than God since he’s seen a blueberry muffin. I’ve also seen blueberry muffins, but I’ve never seen a blueberry muffin capable of creating a universe or capable of actualizing potential or possessing pure actuality. Maybe TAA has a recipe for blueberry muffins he needs to share.

Of course, we could say that if we are basing this on only objects we’ve seen, then we will need to throw out much of science since no one has ever seen many particles that we say are absolutely essential to the functioning of our universe. Does TAA think we need to replace those with blueberry muffins?

TAA says he has never seen God however. So what? Since God is not material in nature according to Thomistic thought, then of course God will not be seen. We only see God in an analogical sense. One will see God much the same way one sees that 2 + 2 = 4. How did we ever get to the point of “I’ve never seen God” somehow counts as an argument?

I conclude that TAA, again, does not have a clue about the arguments he critiques. Of course, he is more than welcome to come to TheologyWeb and challenge me on this if he disagrees.

The Amazing Atheist vs. Aquinas: Preliminary

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We have before gone over the five ways of Thomas Aquinas on this blog. However, on TheologyWeb, I was shown a link to a video on YouTube where The Amazing Atheist chose to take on Aquinas with the title of “Thomas Aquinas Sucks.” Well this was a challenge I could not turn down. Unfortunately, I could not put my own comments on the video, but I do know someone who wants to make a video in response to that and use some of my material. If anyone can let TAA know that I am dealing with what he said here, that would be fine.

To begin with, I just want to give a preliminary and then each day, we’ll look at one of the ways as TAA miserably fails to understand it, and then we’ll wrap it up with a conclusion.

TAA’s position in the video is one that it’s so bad I even hesitate to call it wrong. That would be granting the position some sort of substance which it does not have. In this preliminary, I intend to give some brief definitions of terms in Aristotlean-Thomistic thought and then give some more information on the five ways and how they ought to be approached by atheists today, including the new atheists who do not understand them.

The sad danger with someone like TAA making a video is that his opinion will be taken for granted since for some reason, I suppose he is seen as an authority on The web. Any Thomist watching the video would know that TAA did not have a clue. In fact, my own wife watching me watch this video said at one point, “You don’t have to scream.”

His cluelessness, to be blunt, will be repeatedly shown throughout my review as TAA claims that he is smarter than Thomas Aquinas by an order of magnitude and he can prove it.

So let’s see, Thomas Aquinas wrote around 80 books in his lifetime, was highly educated, knew Aristotle, Scripture, and the church fathers, interacted with the Muslim philosophers of his time, and yet, TAA is smarter than him?

Now keep in mind, you can admit someone is smarter than you and think that they are wrong. For instance, I would not hesitate to say Plato was a far greater thinker than I am. He was just wrong. The audacity of the claim that TAA is making should indicate to us that he has not done his proper study.

When we start looking at the five ways, we need to realize that these are summaries. Aquinas is assuming that you are familiar with the ideas of the time. To treat them as the argument entirely is like saying that William Lane Craig’s entire argument for Kalam can be contained in the syllogism of “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause.” That is the argument of course, but it can be unpacked so much more than that. The same follows for Aquinas’s arguments.

Another mistake often made in looking at the Five Ways is to state that they do not lead to the God of Christianity who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Aquinas would say that they are not meant to. They are based on natural theology, what we can find about God from reason alone unaided by revelation. When you read an atheist or hear one making this argument, you can sit back and laugh some then and be assured this person has not read the Summa. After all, right after this, Aquinas spends hundreds of pages describing the God whose existence has been shown.

Why does he use the term God then? Aquinas is referring to that which is ultimate. He can say that whatever is at the end of the chain in each of his arguments, that is ultimate, and that is what will be called God.

Another mistake is to say that Aquinas assumes an infinite regress. In fact, he does no such thing. Consider what he says in the Prima Pars in answering article 2 of question 46.

I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (32, 1). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from “here” and “now”; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (Question 19, Article 3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

Aquinas’s statement is that reason cannot demonstrate if the universe had a beginning or not. The reason he believes it did is because of Scripture. Aquinas makes a distinction between what can be proven by reason and what cannot be. Therefore, an infinite regress as often spoken of does not concern him and he thinks it is possible. (For the record, I do disagree here with Aquinas even. However, my position is irrelevant as it is not mine called into question but Aquinas’s.)

That’s because there are two kinds of regresses. The first which is found in traditional arguments to show the universe had a beginning is the per accidens chain. For instance, my wife and I both exist in this world because of sexual activity between each set of our parents that produced us. We love our parents, but if somehow, they all died suddenly, that would not mean that my wife and I could not produce children together. Our being able to bring children into the world does not depend on our parents. Once we are brought into existence and are on our own, then we are not dependent on them for that function.

On the other hand, there’s a per se chain. Consider a rock next to a leaf. A stick moves the rock. A hand moves the stick. The rock because of this movement moves the leaf. If you take out any part of the chain, the leaf cannot move. The movement of the leaf is dependent on the chain as a whole and the chain as a whole is dependent on a fundamental movement. Why? All agents in movement in the chain are dependent on something else for their power to move. You can’t have a chain of instruments without someone playing them.

Speaking of movement, let’s talk about that. Before we can however, we need to be clear on the idea of actuality and potentiality. Actuality is simply put, that which is. In actuality, I am sitting down right now. Potential is capacity for change. I have the potential to stand. If I stand, I am standing in actuality and have the potential to sit. There is nothing in Thomism that is pure potential as it would not then “be.” There must be something actual about it for it to be.

Motion then is the actualizing of a potential. This does not just apply to physical motion, although it does include physical motion. Thus, those who reduce the argument of the First Way to physics are simply mistaken. Aquinas has motion with the angels as an example and he does not believe angels are material. Now the atheist can say “There are no angels!” Very well. That may be said. However, if you argue against Aquinas’s view, understand that he allows for angels and if they have any change in any way, then motion is not purely material.

One must also understand causality in Aquinas which comes from Aristotle. Aristotle had four causes in his system. The first cause is the material cause. What is the object made of? The second is the formal cause. What is the form of the object? (A cat has the form of a cat.) The next is the efficient cause. What caused it to be as it is? The last is the final cause. Why is it the way it is? The medievals added two more. The instrumental cause is that through which something is. The exemplar cause is that after which something is, say a house is based on blueprints.

What about the transcendentals? These are aspects that all things have insofar as they have existence. Edward Feser in his excellent book Aquinas, which I recommend to everyone wanting to learn Aquinas, lists five transcendentals. They are thing, one, something, true, and good. Some Thomists add beauty to the list. Some include beauty under goodness. Each of these are convertible with being insofar as they cover some aspect of being.

For instance, something is true if it is real. God is the most real of all since He is being supreme and thus in turn the most knowable, as one can only know that which is true. Something is good if it is that at which all things aim. All things aim at perfection in accordance with their mode of being. Therefore, perfection is good and the most perfect is God who lacks nothing.

Being is of course the most important aspect of Aquinas’s thought. It is that which we have the most examples of and that which we know the least about. For Aquinas, all forms that exist in the real world are those forms that are conjoined with existence. Clark Kent can exist in the comics and TV shows and movies, etc. and in our minds, but does not in reality.

Also, keep in mind that in each of these, I am giving a brief synopsis. I encourage the reader to go out and do fuller study. I will be recommending books shortly.

Another statement I wish to make first however is that Aristotle and Aquinas did believe some things that were wrong scientifically. While this is true, for our purposes, it is also irrelevant. The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas do not depend on the physics. The physics can be wrong entirely and the metaphysics sound. However, the physics does depend on the metaphysics. Those who wish to attack Aquinas should not attack his physics but his metaphysics.

I have already recommended the work by Edward Feser. In fact, if I could recommend just one work, this would be it. I also recommend works by Joseph Owens such as “An Elementary Christian Metaphysics,” and “An Interpretation of Existence,” There’s also Father John Wippel’s “The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas,” “An Introduction To The Metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas,” translated and edited by James Anderson, and G.K. Chesterton’s excellent biography of Thomas Aquinas to know the man better.

Tomorrow, we will try to keep these ideas in mind and see how badly TAA botches the arguments.

Don’t Touch God’s Anointed!

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’d like to wrap up our look at Christian sound bites tonight. Right now, my plan is starting tomorrow that I’d like to look at a video put out by “The Amazing Atheist” on YouTube called “Thomas Aquinas sucks.” From my viewing, what’s amazing is that TAA actually thinks he’s refuted Aquinas. I hope this will be a good object lesson also in properly studying a worldview.

Speaking of YouTube, one of my favorite videos right now has been the one of Benny Hinn as the Dark Lord of the Sith. If you haven’t seen it, you need to go and watch it. It’s hysterical! However, as I was reading over the comments, I did read someone saying “Well you don’t want to touch God’s anointed.”

What does it mean to say that?

To begin with, God’s anointed in biblical times was a king. The first case we have of this is Saul. There are numerous cases in 1 Samuel where David has a chance to kill Saul. He not only has a chance, it would practically be a slam dunk. He could have done it and got away with it and he had the support of his men to do so.

Every single time, he refused. He would not touch God’s anointed. In fact, when people claimed to have killed Saul or even when they did kill his son who was on the throne for a short time, David had them killed. He knew that God had appointed Saul to be king of Israel and while David knew his time was coming, it would come on God’s time and not his own.

And yet in many of these cases, David also criticized Saul. He pointed out to Saul that Saul had been trying to kill him and that this was wrong. He wanted Saul to not waste his time out in this chase since David had done nothing wrong. Did he view Saul as God’s anointed? Yes. That did not stop him however from telling him, “You’re doing wrong.”

To say when someone speaks against a speaker like Benny Hinn, “Don’t touch God’s anointed,” is first off to assume that God has anointed Benny Hinn. However, let’s assume that for the sake of argument, and I know this will seem a huge leap to many readers, that Benny Hinn does have “anointing.” (Rest assured, I don’t think this for a second.)

All the text means then in saying “Don’t touch him” is “Don’t kill him.” Thus, as long as you’re not making death threats against Benny Hinn, you’re okay. By the case of Saul and David, you are entirely allowed to criticize Benny Hinn. If you think he is in the wrong, by all means speak up.

In fact, this is good for anyone in a leadership position. You should always feel free to come and be able to say how you think they’re wrong. In fact, God Himself allows this for Him in the Bible. He invites us to make our case before Him. If we think He is not doing right, in what way? This kind of questioning goes on regularly in the Psalms.

No leader in the church today should be immune to questioning. None of us are going to get it all right. We’re all going to have mistakes in our thinking. Questioning allows us to keep things right. When we say a leader is above reproach, we are well on the way to surrendering our thinking and forming a cult leader. We all know how God views idolatry and we can make an idol of a living human being.

Let’s not do so.

You Can’t Put God In A Box

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve lately been looking at Christian sound bites, a series we’re almost done with and while I had another target in mind for a next mini-series, I have elsewhere where I plan to go, but it should prove to be entertaining.

With my viewpoints on God not speaking today being normative, one common argument I often hear is “You can’t put God in a box!” Someone who says this believes that when I make my claim, I am saying that God cannot speak to someone today and therefore, I throw out any attempt to show that He has done so a priori.

Such an objection however shows a lack of thinking again. Why would someone like myself hold to the position that God speaking today would not be normative. Is it because I believe God was capable in the Old Testament and the New Testament of speaking to people but somehow over time He has lost this ability? Surely not! If He has done so before, He can do so again.

It’s not something in God’s nature that is an inability on His part but by looking at the way God acted in the Old Testament and the New Testament. When did He speak? Why? What was the purpose of the revelation? I take the same approach to miracles. They can happen today, but I do not think we should expect them to be normative. In fact, I think we can expect God more often to work through non-miraculous ways.

The given objection rules out debate. It centers on God’s abilities vs. God’s methods. Now there are some things I do not believe God can do and some would say this is putting him in a box. For instance, I do not believe that God can make a contradiction true. He cannot violate the laws of logic. If someone disagrees with this, the best approach is to discuss the objection rather than say “You can’t put God in a box.”

Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason has also pointed out that saying this in reply to being concerned if some “new movement” is of God would ultimately be a way to justify anything no matter how crazy. “Who are you to say that God cannot act in this way? If God wants his children on all fours barking like dogs, who’s to say he’s not going to do that?”

Well if God can take King Nebuchadnezzar and give him the mind of a beast, I have no problem saying that this can be done. The question to ask is not can it be done, but rather, is God doing this? What some Christians need to realize is that to say “God can do X” is not the same as saying “God is doing X.” If you are claiming that God is doing something, you need to have a reason why. If I think He is not, I will give a reason why I think He is not.

And you know what? It could be that we’ll end up having what the sound bite is meant to avoid, a real discussion on the nature of God, and surely some fruit will come of that.

Let God Defend Your Faith

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. First off, a lot of you have been wanting me to get things more organized here and thankfully, someone from my church is willing to work on my computer and to help with that. Thus, you and I both get our wish. To continue with where we’re going, we’re looking at Christian sound bites now and as an apologist, this next one I find quite annoying.

There have been a number of times when people have heard me speaking about the need for Christian apologetics and have said “Don’t defend your faith. Let God do that.” I always ask the same question in response when I hear someone say that. “Do you take the same approach to evangelism?”

To begin with, we are to defend our faith because God told us to. When we do evangelism, we are going to confront people of different viewpoints and we need to show why our viewpoint is correct and theirs is wrong. We are told to contend for the faith in Jude 3. In Philippians 1, Paul says he is in chains for the defense of the gospel.

However, let’s look at this from another perspective. One question often asked is “What about those who’ve never heard?” One reason I don’t believe this is answered is because God has given us the Great Commission. There is no plan B. God doesn’t say “I want you to do the Great Commission, but if you don’t, I’m going to handle things this way.” Now I do believe he will handle things in a just and right way, but we are not given any excuse to not perform the Great Commission.

God has given us a task. We are to do it. Thus, my biggest objection to this is that it justifies laziness again. We could use it in all manner of ways.

“Don’t donate to the church or give to charity. If God wants them to have money, he’ll get it.”

“Don’t pray. If God wants you to have something, he’ll give it.” (Mind you I don’t think such is the only purpose of prayer anyway)

“Don’t study the Bible. If God wants you to know something, he’ll tell you.”

“Don’t go to the grocery store. If God wants you to eat, he’ll feed you.”

“Don’t go to work. If God wants you to have money, he’ll give it to you.”

The idea is that God is supposed to do everything for us. Now there’s no denial that God can do what has been said above. If God wanted to, he could have food brought to any of us every day so we would never have to go to the grocery store. That has not been his plan however and considering the way the Jews and ancients as a whole viewed deities, that shouldn’t surprise us.

We have this view that God is to do our work for us. This even gets to where we want God to make our decisions for us today. It gets us from the holy view of God where He is not meant to serve us but we are meant to serve Him. (Consider this when The Shack has at the end the main character saying “God, my servant.”)

What is most often the case I would say is people wanting to justify laziness. Yes. Being an apologist requires work and there are many times I do not desire to be reading and it takes discipline, but the results are worth it. Even if you do not do apologetics to the degree a lot of us do, you should be studying to show yourself approved in knowing what you believe.

There is no valid excuse for laziness at the throne of God after all.

Super Spirituality

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Lately, we’ve been examining the Christian church and considering sound bites that are used in the culture of the American church. While we have often dealt with slogans, tonight, I’d kind of like to deal with an attitude prevalent in the church. That is what I think of as super spirituality.

My current church is an exception, but I know a lot of churches can refer to me as “brother” and yet, they are so often not there. I am thinking right now in contrast of a kind lady whose helped my wife and I out and yet has never met us and as I thanked her she said “We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ. It’s good to help out.”

Now that is the real attitude I think we should have. However, we can often say “Well brother, I’ll be praying for you.” I’d really like us to consider something like this. How many of us when we say something like that actually do pray about that person that we said we would?

Spirituality too often is not about lifting God up, but lifting ourselves up. How many times can we want to flaunt our spirituality before others. Greg Koukl has talked about the Christian who says “I was thinking about you during my third prayer time today” or “You were in my mind while I was memorizing Jeremiah.”

Of course, when this comes to a personal weakness, we often don’t want to show that. Why? Well that wouldn’t be spiritual. A true Christian cannot be depressed. (And if you are one who has said this, shame on you for causing further pain to one who is already suffering) True Christians should have constant happiness.

We say this while our Lord was described as a man of sorrows familiar with suffering.

Christian. It’s okay to suffer. It’s also okay to be upset with God. You want proof? Go to that book of the Bible called Psalms and look at how the Psalmist talks to God. Go read the book of Jeremiah and note the complaints that Jeremiah gives to God. These people were bluntly honest with what they were going through before God.

Something else to consider. How many times do you see someone share something in them that they are struggling with and you look at them afterwards and think “I really have a lot more respect for them now.”? Hence, I have a blog on here about Obama, Socialism, and my story. This was to let my readers know that I too bleed. I say that not to lift myself up, but I think some people reading this blog could view me in a leadership capacity and I want them to know that while they admire me perhaps, that I have many struggles as well and my wife can tell you I have a lot to work on.

Don’t put up a facade please, and I say this to myself as well. Be real. The kingdom is not about building you up. The kingdom is about bringing Christ glory.

Claiming Revelation

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we dive into the ocean of truth. We’ve been looking lately at Christian Sound Bites. The sad reality is that instead of studying like they should, Christians more often just tossing out little platitudes, sadly many of which they got from their pastor probably. (We do need better informed pastors leading the flock) Tonight, we’re not looking at a sound bite per se, but a kind of attitude Christians can have.

One term that should always put you on red alert when a fellow Christian says it to you is “God told me.” To claim insight into the mind of the Most High and that He has revealed information to you is a serious claim. How seriously you take it is an indication of how seriously you take God. If you toss it out casually, you have a low view of God.

Let me state upfront that I am not saying God cannot speak to someone and tell them something today. God can do what he wants. I’m saying it’s not normative. None of us doubt that God can raise the dead. However, that doesn’t mean we’re going to leave the casket open and keep praying. It’s not a lack of faith when we bury someone. It’s not putting a limitation on God. It’s saying that He has promised when He will do that and we’re waiting on Him to do so then.

In Old Testament times, the claim to speak for God was definitely taken seriously. People died when they said “God said” and God had not said. If you got one prophecy wrong, you were a false prophet and you were to pay the price with your life for attempting to lead Israel astray.

God is the God of all truth. Do you know what you are saying when you claim that He told you something? You are claiming that what you are saying is absolutely true and true on divine authority and not just that, but personally revealed to you. Now there’s nothing wrong with quoting Scripture as the Word of God, but there’s something wrong with going beyond Scripture and giving it divine authority. Are you so sure that God has spoken something personally to you that you’d be ready to die for the claim? You’d better be!

Consider also the damage this does. First off, new Christians can expect that they ought to hear from God when this is normative. If they don’t, they think there’s something wrong. Don’t tell me that this has no effect. I’ve read on the blogosphere of people apostasizing for reasons like this.

Second, you are being an embarrassment in the eyes of those who oppose us. Consider what happened when Pat Robertson spoke on TV after the Haiti earthquake and while what he said was supposed to have divine authority, it was all wrong. Now I do realize that a lot of these are the faith teachers that we Christians don’t take seriously, but many an opponent of the church is ready to lump us all together.

Personally, we have enough that we need to explain in the eyes of a watchful world. Now I do realize we’re not perfect, but we don’t want to add to our bad actions. If we don’t take God seriously, then pray tell why should anyone else? If we make conversation with Him to be something commonplace, we’d better be acting accordingly!

Of course, I think we should all be leading holy lives based on our being in covenant with YHWH, but if you claim to hear from God and half of what you say is wrong, what will people think about God?

Third, you are denigrating Scripture. In fact, this is what happens with many of these people where The Bible becomes a collection of dusty old books. These are the ones we know to be the Word of God that were handed down to us, often at the expense of the lives of several Christians.

If you’re your average American, do something right now. Go to your room and get your Bible and then come back here.

Got it?

Okay. Now consider this.

Most anyone in China would give anything to get what you have right there. If they had just one page from it, they would pore over it constantly. People in China still place great value on what God said. Our concept is really American and one confusing the rest of the world. My former roommate and I were both quite upset once at a church service with some teachers talking about going to the Middle East and having students there in their classes ask “How do you hear the voice of God?”

Makes you wonder why God would even bother giving us a book if He was just supposed to verbally tell us everything.

The result is that our Christianity becomes more centered on us and our experiences rather than on God and how He has revealed Himself to us in Scripture. This doesn’t mean our experiences are meaningless. However, we are to interpret our experiences by Scripture and not use our experiences TO interpret Scripture. Scripture is the authority. We are not.

The sooner Christians drop the idea that God is speaking to them on a regular basis and return to a view of the majesty and awesomeness of God, the better. Perhaps maybe we’ll actually study Scripture again then.

You Can’t Argue Someone Into The Kingdom

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re looking lately at Christian Sound Bites. Last night, we saw that you do in fact need theology if you’re going to be a Christian. Tonight, we are going to look at the saying that you can’t argue someone into the kingdom.

Now in a sense, this one is true. As an apologist, I know that there is no magic bullet argument that will cause someone to convert. I sure wish there were, but there isn’t. Different people have different objections and some are volitional doubters and because of this, they will not bend a knee to any argument.

I also give a warning to young people starting out in apologetics. Don’t go out there thinking that you’re going to convert the world with your new knowledge. In fact, you’re going to get your tail kicked for awhile. All of us have before. It’s normal. Just keep studying.

What concerns me is the implication that I’m supposed to draw from this statement. If it is simply that there is no magic bullet, all is good and well. However, too often, it’s given in a way that says that you should avoid argumentation because you cannot argue someone into the kingdom. Better to just love them.

For the first part, argumentation is not something to be avoided. The apostles and the early church fathers regularly engaged in it. Once again, when training young apologists, I often encourage them to find a place where they can argue. That’s where you can put to test the ideas you have and the more you argue, the better you will be at understanding your ideas and how they need to be improved.

A good Christian wanting to evangelize should know how to converse with people and with people who disagree. That means interaction. That means dealing with people who are absolute jerks and with people who have real questions and really want answers and it will take experience to know which one is which.

But what about love? After all, you can’t argue someone into the kingdom. Well you can’t just love someone into the kingdom. How many people left Christ without coming into the kingdom despite the love that he showed them? In fact, we are told specifically for the rich young man that Jesus loved him, and yet that rich young man did not choose to follow Jesus.

If the idea is that we shouldn’t use argumentation because you can’t just argue someone into the kingdom, therefore use love, then the same reality applies. “But the Holy Spirit can use your love!” Yes. Of course he can. The Holy Spirit can also use a good argument. It’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.

In fact, that’s the way it should be. We have to be people of truth and we have to be people of love. That’s biblical love however and not sentimentality. We are out to win the whole person. You don’t get their heart and you don’t just get their mind. We have to claim all of them for Christ. He does not want anything less.

I Don’t Need Theology

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve lately been looking at Christian sound bites. Why do this? Because Christians are supposed to be people of truth and it does not serve us to unthinkingly pass on cliches that are devoid of substance.

Somehow, many of the church have got the idea that it’s holy to believe something blindly. When Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris condemn believing something without evidence, I agree with them. Unfortunately for them, they also believe in a definition of faith without evidence.

This is common in the idea that we don’t need theology. We’ll just have Jesus and that will be enough!

Oh? Which Jesus? Do you want the Mormon Jesus who is the spirit brother of Lucifer?

Do you want the Jehovah’s Witness Jesus who is Michael the archangel and who became Jesus?

Do you want the oneness Jesus who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Do you want the new age Jesus who is an avatar?

Do you want the Muslim Jesus who is a great prophet and virgin born and the sinless Messiah but who is not God nor ever claimed to be?

Do you want a humanist Jesus who just went around doing good?

Do you want the Jesus of orthodox Christianity who is the second person of the Trinity?

All of that will depend on your theology. What role of Christ will you have? Will you have Christ as He is or will you find a Christ who suits your desires and longings?

And you know what? You might actually have to study a little bit about that. It’s amazing that when you send your kid to college, you’ll want them to study the colleges and choose wisely. When they have someone they want to marry, you’ll want them to really look at the person they’ve chosen and you’ll want to meet them and make sure they’re a good match.

When it comes to their faith, the substance doesn’t really matter however. Are you going to say that your child’s belief about God is less important than where he attends college or who he marries?

If you’re not teaching your child theology, you already have said that.

Of course, it helps if you’re living out that same lifestyle. Do you make it a point to study your religion, or did you put more effort into studying to buy a TV or automobile in Consumer Reports? You don’t want to spend that time thinking about religion, but you sure won’t stop thinking about what the season is going to look like for your favorite football team.

Of course, I fall too in some ways here as well. We all do. None of us think about God as we should.

However, the sound bite dealt with today is one plaguing our church. A people that are ignorant of what they believe are sitting ducks for the new atheists. In fact, the reason the new atheists are making any leeway at all is because Christians are too ignorant by and large to realize that straw men are being attacked.

I do believe that the world has lost its intellectual bearings and has moved into a position where metaphysical questions and such are too difficult to think about so we’ll just go with science and let it answer all our questions. We can rightfully condemn that. However, the reason I think the world lost its bearings in the intellectual world is because the church lost them first. We can talk about the mess the world is in today and what we can do about it, but let’s not act like we’re innocent.

Our laxity on such issues has led to the rise of atheism and secular morality. There is blood on our hands when we realize if maybe we’d never stopped fighting the battle that 4,000 babies would not die every day in abortion. Why did we get to the point where it was believed life was not valuable and good from conception? It is because we were not there. We were too busy feeling good about ourselves to make sure the world was good. But hey, we were safe. We didn’t have to enter that heavy intellectual stuff.

Theology is not just a nice little addendum to the faith. It is a necessity. It is not just a pastime. It is a lifetime work. I have often told my wife that theology and philosophy are not an option. We all do them. The question is if we will do them well or not. I pray that you Christian will start doing good theology because as Lewis would say with new atheists on the rise, bad theology needs to be answered.

I’m In Love With Jesus

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we dive into the ocean of truth! Lately, we’ve been walking down the path of bad argumentation and seeing how Christians use sound bites to argue. These are short little sayings that sound good enough that they get repeated often, but they’re just harmful to the Christian message.

Some of you might be surprised by tonight’s title. Aren’t we to love Jesus? Of course, and it should be our desire to love him more every day. However, what I am talking about is what I have heard often from young men seeking to date Christian girls. They will turn down a date saying something like “I’m in love with Jesus” or “I’m dating Jesus” or “Jesus is my husband.”

If you stopped to think for a moment about those sayings, just realize the conclusion. If you meet three different people who all say they’re in love with the same man, are dating the same man, or are married to the same man, what’s the view given of that man? He must be a two-timer or a polygamist or some other terms that would be even less charitable.

But aren’t we the bride of Christ? Collectively, we are. Jesus is not a polygamist. He has one bride. If you are a young girl, you are not married to Jesus. You are not in a relationship with Jesus in the hopes that that relationship will develop into the eros kind of love. You are sure not going to be having sex with Jesus, but your future husband will be hoping you’re having it with him.

Treating Jesus like this is treating him flippantly. It’s making the great Lord of the universe on the same level as the kind of person you’d date. I am reminded of how Christian comedian Brad Stine has said that if he gets behind a car with the bumper sticker that says “God is my co-pilot,” that he speeds up because he wants to see who’s driving. You have to be good if God is riding shotgun!

Another great danger is saying you’re in love with him. Why? I think it’s a great danger that too many relationships are built on a romantic feeling instead of a romantic devotion. Now you can have both, but let us not mistake the feeling for the devotion. The truly devoted person is the one who serves regardless of how he feels. If you feel great, great! If not, oh well. You have a commitment.

The Christian life is not always a feel good happy time. In fact, we’re promised the opposite. We are promised suffering. Didn’t Jesus say he came that we might have life abundantly? Oh yes he did, but don’t think he’s necessarily meaning what a 21st century American counts as abundant life. Too many kids seem to think love of Christ is all about getting a really good feeling. These kids think they’re being nourished by pizza parties at youth groups and going on these weekend big youth gatherings. They’ll come back really excited, and then a week or two later, it’s back to normal. Then they go off to college and it seems that feel-good has a hard time holding up against a professor with 25 years of atheism.

Finally, you’re also doing a disservice to the guy who’s asking you out. For all you know, this could be a man who will draw you closer to Christ. That’s something we marrieds need to be looking at more often. It shouldn’t just be “Am I having a good time?” It should be more importantly “Am I becoming more like Christ?” Marriage is great, but it’s also work.

By all means, love Jesus. Love him more every day. However, do realize he’s not like any love you will have down here. He is Lord. Treat him with the reverence he is owed.