Colossians 1:24-29

24Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of His body, which is the church. 25I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness-- 26the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. 27To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28We proclaim Him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

It has been awhile since we've looked at Colossians, but in this passage Paul elaborates on his comment from v23 (that you are to continue in your faith). He wants the fact that he is a servant for the gospel to be a motivator for the Colossians to hold fast to their hope and endure firm in their faith. So he decides to further explain his labor, the motivation for it, and the power behind it. And the truths he declares here are not only true for Paul; they are true for all of God’s people as they, as we, live for Him.

First, as a result of our union with Christ, we share in His sufferings. Paul rejoices in his sufferings, which are clearly on behalf of the Church. Paul says in v24, “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions.” What does that mean? It does not mean that Christ’s sufferings on our behalf were insufficient. Paul has spent the last 20 verses showing Christ’s sufficiency; he’s not changing that stance now. He’s saying that the sufferings that the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ, has suffered are still impacting the Body, which is the Church. Though this may be hard for us to understand, Paul had experiential understanding of this concept. In Acts 9:1-4, we read of Saul’s conversion. Jesus asked him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” Of course, Saul was not throwing Jesus in prison, so why would Jesus say that he was persecuting Him? Jesus was in heaven seated at the right hand of the throne of God. But His body was still on earth, and it is still on earth. And Saul was attacking, punishing, hurting, the Body of Christ. And so, as long as Christ’s body – the church – is still on earth, there will be suffering (see 1 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Corinthians 1:5, 4:7-12; Philippians 3:10; 2 Timothy 2:10-12). Later in Acts 9, Jesus tells Ananias that Saul will be shown how much he must suffer for the sake of Jesus’ name. Calvin says, “As, therefore, Christ has suffered once in His own Person, so He suffers daily in His members, and in this way there are filled up those sufferings which the Father hath appointed for His Body by His decree.”

Ligon Duncan says, “Paul is telling the Colossians, ‘Look, I have been appointed to suffer for you. I have been appointed to be your apostle. Why would I possibly not tell you some part of the truth that you need to know in order to grow in Christ? Surely if I’m going to suffer on your behalf, I’m going to tell you the whole of the truth.’ Paul was writing from prison, saying to them, ‘I am suffering on your behalf. I am not atoning for you. Christ has already done that. You’re already reconciled. But I am participating in the suffering of the body of Christ.’ And Paul doesn’t just mean that for himself. He intends us to understand that we participate in the suffering of Christ. Philippians 1:29-30 says, ‘For to you it has been granted, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, experiencing the same conflict that you saw in me and now hear in me.’ The Apostle Paul is reiterating that because we are united to Christ, because we are His body and He is our head, we join with Him in the fellowship of His sufferings. We participate in the sufferings of Christ. We do not atone by those sufferings, but we [edify the Body by sharing in the fellowship of His suffering].”

Second, the gospel is a revealed truth, an open mystery, made known by God. Paul speaks of the mystery that has been hidden from the past ages and generations and made known among the Gentiles. Paul is contrasting two ideas of mystery. The false teachers were claiming that they had a mystery, a secret knowledge, a secret code that could be purchased and unlocked with a secret code to have a deeper knowledge of God. Paul had a mystery too, but it cannot be purchased and doesn’t require a secret code to unlock. It’s not something that only a few people can know; rather, it has been revealed to all kinds of people, even the Gentiles, from whom it had been hidden (Ephesians 2:12). For Paul, a mystery is truth once concealed but now revealed, something we couldn’t have known unless God revealed it.

Notice, however, that the gospel has been revealed only to the saints (v26-27) – both Jews and Gentiles worldwide. This teaching has particular implications for my recent conversations with a group of anti-theists. Paul says this to magnify God’s grace. It was His good pleasure (Luke 10:21). Unbelievers still don’t get the gospel. It’s foolishness to those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18,23-24), a mystery by their definition. But to those who are being saved, this mystery by Paul’s definition has been revealed as the power to save us (Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:9).

Paul has been given the task, as a form of stewardship, to preach that mystery. Paul says in v28 that the goal of his preaching the mystery of the gospel is that believers would be perfect, or complete, in Christ. He doesn’t mention evangelism or conversion, but his focus is sanctification through discipling by means of intellectual communication – the spoken or written word, just as Jesus “made known” the Father (John 17:3). Our purpose ought to be the same. Paul is saying to the Colossians, ‘My job is to preach the gospel to make you complete in Christ, so would I hold something back that you need to know in order to be complete in Him?’ That makes no sense. Paul, who prior to his conversion would have despised these people as unclean Gentiles and unfaithful Jews, is loving them by assuring them that his gospel is the full truth. And this is his struggle (v29), to faithfully communicate the gospel to all.

Third, our hope is in our union with Christ. Paul has explained the mystery of the gospel, which has been made known, as “Christ in us, the hope of glory” (v27). Union with Christ is the only hope of glory. There is no other place where we can go to find our fruition, our satisfaction. People make two mistakes. They either seek the wrong hope or they seek the right hope in the wrong way. The only right hope is the hope of glory, which is in Christ. The only way to that hope is through Christ. The Holy Spirit uniting you to Christ is your hope.

Finally, in v29, Paul reveals the source of his energy to labor in this gospel ministry – Christ Himself. Paul struggles and labors to admonish and teach the truth in wisdom, so that they may be made perfect in Christ. It’s the same goal of God. He justifies in order to sanctify. Paul knows that he has been ordained as God’s instrument, as God’s means to that end, and so he takes hold of that calling, fully knowing that “it is God who works in [him] to will and to act according to His good purpose” (Philippians 2:13). What a great example of how we are to embrace our roles and responsibilities in this life in light of God’s sovereignty. Paul said, “By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them – yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10). Let us realize that truth and embrace it as Paul did.

Reason To Believe

Foreword: An Apology

During the past week or so, I have been engaged in conversation with some atheists on this blog. While many of my words have been kind and sincere, I have made a mockery of the Christian faith by use of caustic sarcasm and bruising banter. I have been too eager to defend my views (theism in general and Christianity more specifically) and lax to learn from those of my opponents. Rather than argue any further into a downward spiral where no value is affirmed and where little respect is gained, I’d like to offer an invitation. It’s an invitation to see theism, specifically Christianity, as a reasonable faith, in response to the statement from one atheist, who said, “No amount of rational explanation could ever break through the closely guarded minds of believers in the supernatural. After all, they didn’t get to that point by the use of reason (even though the tool was readily available) so why would they let reasoned discourse sway them now?” Though evidences for theism are not compelling in and of themselves, I hope to show that belief in the supernatural is rational, and that I arrive at theism based on reasoned thought. So please accept my apology and read on with virulence and presupposition laid aside.

A Reasonable Faith: My Argument for the Rationality of Belief in God

I’d like to begin this essay by considering Rationalism, which led during the European Enlightenment era to a rejection of gaining knowledge from mere authority in favor of gaining knowledge through mere reason. Among theologians of the era, the goal was to inject new life into dead doctrinal instruction. In other words, orthodoxy (right thinking) was not exciting mankind to orthopraxy (right living). According to Christian Wolff, a German rationalist who according to Kant was “the greatest of all dogmatic philosophers,” no theological principle that lacked a mathematical equation to demonstrate it should ever be taught. I had a rationalist mathematics teacher, who often said, “Don’t tell me; show me! I’m from Missouri” (the Show Me state). The response to the Rationalism of Wolff and others was Supranaturalism, which attempted to compromise the indemonstrable truths of Scripture (namely the revelation of the supernatural) with reason. The goal of Supranaturalism was to account for valued religious feelings, thereby doing justice to the subjective truths of personal experience.

This feeble attempt to downplay pure Rationalism was mocked openly and often. German theologian and philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher is considered a hero of this era for attempting to bridge the gap between Rationalism and Supranaturalism, having claimed that, under philosophical and rational convictions, “the Universe is God.” He “held that man’s consciousness of being springs from the presence of God within him. He believed that all morality is an attempt to unite man’s physical nature with his mind.” His explanation announced that God was not to be the object of thought, but rather something to be enjoyed in the depths of one’s feelings. To Schleiermacher, that enjoyment, which later included the ideas of complete dependence and, perhaps surprisingly, predestination, was the crux of religion.

The succinct overview of this recent historic period that undoubtedly has implications on our thinking today in one way or another – and that’s my point in bringing it up, that we all are products of our past, both positively and negatively, and that critical, indeed rational thinking enables us to determine the positive and the negative and move on from there – allows us to move on to consider several things in relation to the subject: In light of Rationalism, Supranaturalism, and Schleiermacher’s bridge-gap thinking, all en route to today’s post-modernism, what evidences support belief in God as rational?

David Robertson reports in The Dawkins Letters, a response to prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion, that a scientific study was performed by German science magazine P.M., concluding that there is a 62% chance that God exists. There you have it! A science magazine conducts a study and concludes that it is more likely than not that God exists. What more rational reason to believe do you need? Robertson also makes a great point asking Dawkins why he fills so many pages of that book with virulent words against Christianity’s God when whether God is good or bad is irrelevant to a high-minded atheist. Robertson also notes something I’ve had in mind for a while. Many atheists compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or Gnomes. But Dawkins didn’t write a book called The Tooth Fairy Delusion; and atheists are called atheists because they don’t believe in God. Otherwise, they’d be on a tirade against gnomes (some of them are!) and call themselves anta-Santa’s or something like that. In other words, if the evidence in favor of God’s existence was the same as the evidence for the Easter Bunny, then far less people would claim a belief in God. Needless to say, the evidence in favor of theism is far greater than atheists are willing to admit – they know what the consequences would be!

Until the Holy Spirit quickens and convicts the sinner’s soul, a natural explanation void of material evidence always trumps a supernatural explanation, even if the existing evidence leads one to see the supernatural explanation as the more likely one. Thus, as one atheist recently stated, it seems that all persons – theists, atheists, and agnostics – are in fact agnostics, at least as far as material evidence can take us. While this may be true – one cannot be certain of God’s existence (or subsistence – the proper term for an eternal, self-sustaining being such as the Christian’s God) or His non-existence – from a physical and material perspective, it remains rational and reasonable to be a theist. Both sides can and do use empirical science to justify their philosophy.

Theism and atheism, and agnosticism, are philosophical – even theological, if I dare say – positions, rather than merely scientific positions. Presuppositions get in the way. For example, if you have decided that miracles are impossible, then miracles won’t be acceptable proof. In fact, the human will gets in the way as well. Though atheists may deny or have trouble proving the existence of the will, they desire that God not exist, so they suppress the truth by unrighteousness and deliberately forget what they know to be true. Theists are in the same boat, desiring that the material evidence would be less ambiguous, hoping that as progress in science is made, the evidence will support their views more clearly.

The following twelve testimonies to God’s existence are treated with excellence elsewhere, namely in various systematic theologies and volumes of theological philosophy, and though I’d like to be, I am no schooled theologian and a novice philosopher at best. My efforts to summarize them are surely inadequate and may perhaps exhibit poor word choice at time, leading one to misunderstand my intended meaning. Once again, I apologize. Let it be known that theists do not need these testimonies since they have received the wisdom and knowledge of God through the power of the Holy Spirit. So, if an atheist feels justified in standing on their refutation of all twelve, so be it. Nevertheless, here they are:

12) The universe: The word literally means, “single spoken sentence” (and God said…); Ex nihilo nihil fit: Out of nothing, nothing comes. The cosmological, or first-cause, argument suggests that everything that has a beginning must have had a cause. Kant and Hume both call into question the law of causation; others posit that the universe is indeed eternal. With the assumption that the universe is not eternal, it would appear to require a cause or a birth. That first cause would need to be an eternal uncaused cause, namely God.

There is no material evidence for an eternal universe, though this is the only option for a rational atheist to take. Thus right off the bat, we see that faith is a requirement for atheism as much as theism. But an atheist, thinking that a natural explanation without material evidence trumps a supernatural explanation every time, responds that a natural explanation (quantum mechanics, though quantum vacuum fluctuations involve the transfer of pre-existing energy into material form) for the possibility of an eternal universe does in fact exist (even that is questionable). In reality, science, the flagship of atheism, is abandoned with this proposal and philosophical metaphysics is adopted as the rationale for atheism.

We must also mention the teleological and transcendental arguments for God here. Since the universe reveals order, purpose, and intelligence to a mesmerizing degree, and implies a being who could have created such a world, it is perfectly logical to believe that being does exist. Chaos does not bring order. Kant says that these arguments for God are the best of the arguments for theism, though they are still inconclusive. No well-established fact of observation or repeated testing supports macroevolution, especially on a universal scale. Thus, there are a number of evolutionist scientists who support or at least acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design, and many others, like Kenneth Miller, who are comfortable as theists, even Christians (Francis Collins). And you can even consider the recent defection of once-prominent atheist Antony Flew to theism a reason to believe. The perfect order of the universe cannot be explained naturally; the only effort made here is to appeal to quantum mechanics, but even that difficult field of study does not denounce theism (it actually supports it!). Blind chance is no evidence against theism. Rather theism (speaking of a Creator God) is clearly the more reasonable option here.

11) Life: If for the sake of atheistic faith and metaphysics, we allow the universe to be eternal and ignore the known and unforeseen problems that would exist if that were so, we still have reason to believe in God. For the Big Bang leaves us with a universe void of life. Once again, a natural explanation is offered apart from material evidence for the existence of life. Spontaneous generation falls short, and the irreducible complexity of a cell is such that design is reasonable (see Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box) – evolution is mathematically impossible. As with the universe requiring eternality, for the atheist, life must have arisen from abiogenesis. Sadly for the atheist, this field of science is sporadic in progress and slow moving despite the importance it holds for their position. The multiple hypotheses that exist within this field can’t prove that it works. On the other hand, DNA structure reveals the greater likelihood that abiogenesis couldn’t possibly work.

Scientists have never observed abiogenesis (life erupting from non-life) happening in nature, nor have they been able to create life through laboratory experiments. In fact, controlled experiments have not even come close to creating any sort of self-replicating life form. In addition, because nature cannot even produce the most basic homochiralic protein molecule (what life is “made” of), the intelligent design necessity model is more reasonable than the evolutionary model, though both lack material observation and experimental abilty.

Finally, just in case atheists had hope along with their faith, and just in case theists were somehow worried about what might come to pass, one website added, “If indeed a self-replicating lifeform is, at some future date, created in the lab, it’s plausibility and actual manifestation of a mechanism for the origin of life was made possible through deliberate design of intelligent minds. There will still be no known process acting naturally producing life from non-life, therefore, abiogenesis seems out of the realm of empirical science. Furthermore, the extreme complexity of all lifeforms seems to point in the direction of an outside Intelligence. This is perhaps why Crick (one of the Discoverers of DNA) and Orgel (a microbiologist) proposed the theory of Directed Panspermia: the belief that Life came to earth from outer space.” In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein’s documentary on this issue, several prominent atheists and evolutionists acknowledge the origin of life as a mystery, all the while pointing to crystals and aliens as potential sources. No wonder I’m a theist!

10) Consciousness / Reason: Failing to see the rationality of the first two arguments, atheists hopefully decry the existence of the soul, thinking that humanity is just another step in random and chaotic evolution. The question, “What are you?” is answered scientifically with material evidence: “I’m Human.” The question, “Who are you?” is answered differently apart from material evidence. How do we explain consciousness and reason? Theists point to the soul (not, as C.S. Lewis said, that we have souls, but that we are souls!). If you want to call it the inner man, the psyche, the breath, the heart of hearts, the will, or the mind, that’s fine to this point. Atheists deny the existence of anything non-material, so the soul does not exist. For a fun read, consider the experiment of Dr. Duncan MacDougall in 1907. What’s to keep an atheist from running this experiment today, morality?

Interestingly, a prominent neurologist noted that thoughts in the brain do not originate there. When I say, “Think of a sandy beach,” you think of a sandy beach. You visualize it, seeing it without using your eyes. A brain scan would show activity upon my command, but that activity did not originate in the brain. The non-material “mind” or soul or heart – where the human will (desire, internal effort) is located – brought the thought of a sandy beach into the brain. Now I can’t prove that with material evidence, but it’s reasonable simply because science can’t show where or how the thought originates. Consciousness makes no sense apart from the soul, and we’ll talk about it more under point number four.

I will also place the ontological argument for God, popularized by Anselm long ago, here. It is the idea that a conception of God (being the perfect being which can be conceived) demands the existence of such a being. In other words, if we can conceive of a morally perfect and just being, then there must be one. Robertson often uses a question when speaking with atheists, “Can you describe the god in whom you do not believe?” He likes to reply to their usually unbiblical response, “I don’t believe in that god either;” for it is quite irrational to believe in a god that does not exist! (On this truth, theists and atheists agree!) While a fallacy may be committed in asking the question, his point, akin to the ontological argument for God, is well made. Atheists and agnostics usually demand proof of a false gods man has created – Carl Sagan’s dragon in the garage. But the one true God is Spirit, a non-material being, and therefore, no material evidence (other than the mass of testimonies below) is valid in the blind eyes of those who refuse to see the truth. However, just as an atheist can conceive of a soul, though they don’t believe it exists, and just as everyone can conceive of the idea of a “good marriage,” though some people deny the possibility of a “good marriage,” even an atheist can conceive of such as being as God.

Presuppositional apologetics addresses most issues that arise in this category; though however valuable apologetics is in defending faith, consciousness and reason alone do not make theism necessary. This reality of “this consciousness is emphatic, as against the figments of a fallaciously abstract reason, in asserting the self-subsistence (and at the same time the finitude) of our being; it declares that we are independent inasmuch as we are truly persons or selves, not mere attributes or adjectives, while at the same time, by exhibiting our manifold limitations, it directs us to a higher Cause on which our being depends.” It’s reason to see theism as a rational choice.

9) Morality: The argument for objective good points to the existence of a holy and just lawgiving being, namely God. If any of these testimonies could be considered compelling, this may be it. However, the lack of material evidence leaves us at an inconclusive standstill. Atheists can attempt to use science to show that moral ideas come from evolution, and that religious believers are no better behaved then unbelieving counterparts, which is a sad truth. But that does not address the philosophical question, “Are moral values objective, and if so, from whence do they come?” The gradual development of moral instincts through evolution is simply not relevant to the moral argument for God’s existence. Moral consciousness offers an emotional and ethical appeal to theism, and I find it interesting that the Bible speaks of atheists as fools, which is always a moral designation and never a cheap shot at one’s intellectual shortcomings. Non-material realities, such as objective and universal good and evil testify to theism. Thus theism again, may be deemed reasonable.

8) Religion: The existence of religion since the dawn of humanity is another solid reason to be a theist. The historical, or ethnological, argument says that since all nations are religious and have been as far back as one can determine, belief in God demands an actual God. Human religion (or religiousness) exists because God exists. There are three primary methods of determined how mankind came to be religious. The highly speculative historical method fails to offer a reasonable conclusion since man appears to be religious from the earliest of evidences. Stephen Langdon, along with others (Marston and Schmidt), suggested in the early twentieth century that mankind was originally monotheistic, though humanity’s “religious expressions” rapidly degraded into various forms of polytheism.

Whether or not Langdon and others are correct is ultimately irrelevant. It is a natural explanation that seems reasonable to believe. No material evidence can be shown (there is none) to dissuade a theist from thinking their expert opinion to be valid. That’s all that needs to be shown at this point. Why? Atheists demand material evidence for knowledge, but where material evidence is lacking, a natural explanation trumps a supernatural explanation every time. It just so happens that material evidence and natural explanations always fit with Biblical claims, as we’ll continue to see. For example, here, original monotheism and the rapid decline from it fit the account of the Bible exactly as one would expect. Furthermore, all of us – theist and atheist alike – have the same evidence. Our interpretation of that evidence based on presuppositions is where we differ.

So the question becomes, “Did Langdon and others carry a presupposition into their studies on the origin of religion?” Do those who oppose Langdon’s view (only one that I know of – Meek) bring presuppositions to the table? If, as a theist, I know that theism (and ultimately Christianity) requires monotheism at human origin (which it does), then I’ll try to prove that humanity was monotheistic at the beginning. If an atheist knows that as well, then they’ll try to prove that humanity was polytheistic – or better yet, atheistic – at its origin. Do you see what we fall into? Science is no longer the issue; it is now the tool in the hands of philosophers who swing it and tug it back and forth trying to uphold their preconceived notions. But I digress…

There is also the psychological method to studying the origin of religion, which fails because religion is considered too complex to be simply explained. It is simply impossible to study ancient mankind psychologically without engaging in speculation; furthermore, many speculative conclusions drawn from this method conflict with reality.

Thus, the theological method of religious origins helps greatly here. Revelation, not naturalistic evolution, is adequate to describe the origin of religion, and it fits with reality. We observe what revelation tells us we should observe. Since (A) it is obvious that mankind (1) is religious, (2) has appeared to be religious from the earliest evidence, (3) has a conception of God, and (4) thinks theology to be an important matter, (B) presuppositions conflicting with the historical and psychological methods, which are purely naturalistic in efforts, are made in the theological method – (1) that God exists, (2) that He has revealed Himself, and (3) that mankind is created in His image. This general revelation (what we see in nature and history) makes special revelation (what God tells us in His Word) prove not only to be true but perhaps more importantly, to be applicable to real life as well. However, neither general revelation nor human reason alone provides any absolute and reliable knowledge regarding an adequate basis for religion’s existence. Rather since both provide reasonable explanations, they may be deemed rational.

7) Theology: Though theology, the study of God – and not the study of religion, as some have claimed in order to maintain it as an empirical science – was once considered the queen of sciences, it is now denied consideration as an empirical science, since God, a non-physical being, cannot be observed directly or subjected to repeat testing through various physical experiments (ala the scientific method). Theology is not recognized by most as a valid empirical science, because it is grounded in authoritative revelation, rather than human reason. But that doesn’t mean reason is excluded from studying revelation. On the contrary, revelation requires reason as the instrument by which it is grasped. When an atheist reads a book previously unknown to him, he uses reason to interpret the meaning of the words and determine whether the claims are true or false; the same is true for theists.

Scriptural tests are used in theology, rather than rational tests, which seems to reduce its value in the presence of other sciences. Nonetheless, while theology is not a descriptive science (describing historical truth), it is a normative science (describing objective and absolute truth). The principia, defined as “the primary source of knowledge,” are different for the natural sciences, compared with theology. Principia are basic principles, and in science, the principia are these: autonomous man has the final say on knowledge, nature is the realm of knowledge, and reason is the means by which nature is understood by man. In theology, God has the final say on knowledge, revelation is the realm of knowledge, and faith is the means by which revelation is understood by man. In the end, both science and theology, if deemed mutually exclusive, are still merely means of systematizing knowledge, and faith can be excluded from neither of them. Likewise, since faith cannot be excluded from atheism or theism, theism can be deemed rational.

And from theology flows anthropology, thus the view of man as sinful though potentially good aids us in seeing God’s image distorted. Again, theism confirms what reason reveals through observation and testing. True science supports theism, not atheism.

6) Experience: While this is by no means a compelling evidence on its own (it can be delusional), experience must be taken into account when considering theism and atheism along side their consequences. Consider awe; there is no natural reason for awe. Only theism can bring a right response of awe. Consider compassion, sacrifice, gratitude, humor, joy, despair, and conscience (discussed above). Consider love (both loving one’s loved ones (family and married life) and loving one’s enemies). Why do we experience love? Why do cross-cultural, interracial, multi-ethnic Christians fellowship together? The human experience can only be rightly understood under the umbrella of theism; we live in God’s kingdom. The question remains: Are we His loyal subjects?

5) History: Testifying to God’s existence, His Story is moving along just as He said it would. Scripture confirmations in terms of archeological evidence and prophecy aligning with human history make theism more than reasonable. There is much more to be said under this heading, but time and space do not allow it.

4) Beauty: The aesthetic argument for theism appeals to our apprehension of beauty. Objective beauty (art and music and character and even faith) leaves us contemplating the designer of beauty, namely God. For example, humanity in general believes that the fruit of the Spirit, “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control,” are beautiful traits. Why? There is nothing naturally noteworthy in them. God explains that those traits are the fruit of the Spirit. No one exhibited those traits like Jesus, and so there’s no wonder that so many people around the world love Jesus even though they’ve never seen Him. Though He lived long ago on the earth, He is the most beautiful Person to ever live. The testimony of beauty also ties to consciousness and reason. To be able to contemplate the universe is a trait of humanity alone; it has not evolved apart from a designer. The beauty of language – its very existence – cries out to God – and not surprisingly, the Bible tells us about language. Reveling in the beauty of a symphony, a well-written book, a poem, or a painting is done because one admires the beauty of the Deity whom is reflected by the masterpiece. Seeing beauty is a theistic adventure.

3) The Church: While she has blasphemed the Lord who bought her as a whore of a wife to her husband, the Church nevertheless – and perhaps because of that – exhibits evidence for God’s existence, even if as a testimony to His love, forbearance, mercy, and grace, but namely through changed lives and unselfish living. The Church is a hospital where sick people come to get well. I know, atheists will love to jump on that sentence as my own testimony for sickness equated to delusion. But of course, what I mean by that is the forgiveness of sin and the transformation of selfishness to selflessness. Countless people testify daily through their changed lives. The early church, made up of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and His disciples, lived unfathomably counter-cultural lives and died for their faith. That’s a good reason to believe, for people do not die for what they know to be a lie.

Regarding unselfish living, hypocrisy in the church is something that must be acknowledged. It’s a sad truth that weeds grow up with tares, and it’s sad that Christians aren’t perfect. In the name of God, horrendous behavior has been exhibited. Nevertheless, no greater good has been exhibited in the entire world than by theists, especially Christians. Compassion and generosity are shown in no greater measure than by the Church. And that God-likeness reveals a rational reason to be a theist.

2) The Bible: I hope by this point, one would see belief in God as reasonable and rational. For if not, then sadly the final two testimonies will not help. Special revelation is necessary to be compelled to theism. For the theist, theophanies, communication, and miracles, yielded in special revelation, answer the questions that general revelation leaves unanswered. Sadly, atheists in general write off any Scriptural evidence offered, calling it “circular reasoning.” While circular reasoning is not necessarily a negative, it can still be avoided here. We can show that the human authors of the Bible were trustworthy morally as eyewitnesses. We can note that the Old Testament Scriptures were deemed by the apostles to be inspired by God. We can say that the Old Testament foresaw a New Testament – namely a New Covenant. So finally, we can arrive at the New Testament, being written by trustworthy authors about that New Covenant to which their inspired Scriptures pointed, and its inspiration in a non-circular way. Once again, I know that is not compelling. But it is certainly no worse than an atheist’s natural explanation with no material evidence!

The number of manuscripts available to study, the eyewitness accounts of verified historical events, and the statistical probability that the 40 authors writing in three different languages and multiple genres on hundreds of topics over 1500 years would agree in their presentation of a united message, give us reason to believe the authenticity of the Bible. Furthermore, most (certainly not all) denials of Biblical inspiration, reliability, and authority are based on false assumptions or taken out of context. The others need to be and have been carefully addressed elsewhere. But I’d be glad to examine them closely with you, if you’d like to bring something to the table.

It is reasonable to be a theist; though incapable of a logical demonstration that leaves no room for doubt, faith that God exists is based on reliable information, namely general revelation (natural, physical, and material evidences) and special revelation (Biblical and spiritual evidences).

1) Jesus: He tops the list (see Hebrews 1:1-3). Jesus is God, so it is no surprise that He is the best evidence for the existence of God that a Christian theist can offer. We have faith, true, but it is faith in a real person about whom more books have been written, more arguments built, and more confessions have been made than any other figure in all of human history. He didn’t overthrow the mighty Roman Empire, as many expected Him to do; He didn’t earn more money than other people; He didn’t patent new inventions; He didn’t travel the world. Those accomplishments, while certainly noteworthy to most humans, were worthless to this man. He merely loved people, showed compassion, worked miracles, revealed God in Himself, and gave Himself as a ransom for many. Perhaps that’s why He’s not a prominent figure in secular history. Someone has said, “If Jesus isn’t real, show me the person who invented Him, and I’ll worship him.” And that’s a reason to believe in God.

Once again, I’m not trying to compel an atheist to be a theist. I’m simply suggesting that theism is rational. Taking all of these testimonies together, it’s reasonable to consider theism a viable option. And, as I stated earlier, I don’t need any of these testimonies to hold to faith, as my faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed to me. It’s not something I conjured up, and it’s not something that can be taken away or discarded. So if this essay helps you to grow stronger in your atheistic faith, I’m sad to have helped, but if you’d like to explore theism more closely, I’d be glad to join you.

VACATION

I'll be out for a couple days, but before we get back to our look at Colossians, I wanted to leave you with some additional comments coming from John Hoopman's clan regarding the motive for faith. His blog can be seen here, and most of the action is in the comments section. Here is my last response:

@the exterminator,

The "old Christian trick" is no trick at all, but an important step in conversation. I can tell that John Evo and phillychief have already passed that step. But I don't think you have. You say that my "original answer" - that the single most important benefit I receive from my faith is eternal life - is "an inept lie." Prove it.

You speak of being alive "in the normal sense." Really, what are you talking about? What is normal? The state of being alive can be understood quite differently. Plants are alive. Animals are alive. Dare I say on this blog that humans are alive from conception? When does life begin? What about the quality of life having a say in what it means to be alive? Is a comatose individual on life-support alive? Why or why not?

As far as turning to the dictionary to define words, why should we put our faith in their validity? Why is a giraffe called a giraffe? Who has the authority to name it such? Why can't I call it a longneck? If I did, you might think I was talking about beer.

Finally, you suggest that I'm in a "death cult." What's wrong with that? Are you trying to evangelize me out of it? Why? Why not? Why are you concerned that I am right or wrong? It's certainly not a matter of life and death! You say that my motive for faith being the working of the Holy Spirit is "insincere." That's "an inept lie," if I've ever heard one. You can't judge my sincerity.

So in the end, the definition stage is crucial for you and I to have a meaningful conversation. On to the guys who have graduated...

@John Evo,

I appreciate your comments. We aren't on the same page regarding the marriage analogy. And as you said, everything you wrote means absolute nothing to me. But, in the end, you said that I "offer a wonderful world of fantasy." Whereas, "You offer a wonderful world of reality." As you know, I see it somewhat the other way around. My view is the reality; yours is not exactly a "wonderful world of fantasy," but it is false.

I am curious about your final statement: "I hope some day you'll join us." Why? Are you evangelizing me like the exterminator? When you sprang into my world with your question on my blog, you assumed I was trying to convince you that Christianity is true. I stated in my original answer that I neither have the power to do that nor the presumption that I have the power to do that. In other words, I'm not trying to convince you. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Yet, it appears that you are trying to convince me. Why? What would be the purpose? Would my conversion to faith in atheistic evolution speed ahead the evolutionary process, akinto what Hitler thought he was doing in killing the Jews?

And what do you mean by "best wishes"? Are you wishing upon a star that my "life," whatever that means, would be the best? What would the best life look like? Obviously, I know that you are just being courteous. I'm throwing this in for the exterminator's pleasure (or pain). But "sincerely," what is "Best wishes" supposed to convey, given that you had said, "I hope you join us"?

Finally, @ phillychief,

Thanks for the link to Linden's book; I bookmarked it and might check it out after my upcoming vacation.

It seems that you believe the burden of proof is on me. Since I am a theist, you demand my proof for the existence of God. I'll offer Jesus Christ as my proof, along with His claims as recorded in the Bible. But, as I said to John Evo, I'm not trying to convince you. If I understand you guys correctly, you claim to be atheists, and from these posts, it appears that you are trying to convince me that you are right. Therefore, you must shoulder the burden of proof as well.

Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. Since you cannot prove the non-existence of God you are agnostics at best (or at worst). Therefore, you must say, as John Evo implied when discussing the soul earlier, that it is unproven.

Can you explain the existence of the universe? If you say it is eternal, then you are contradicting your god, "modern science," which claims a beginning (Big Bang) and a gradual running down (Second Law of Thermodynamics). Furthermore, if the universe was eternal, then it would have an infinite past. This, however, leads to a logical contradiction. By definition one can never reach the end of an infinite period of time; nevertheless, we have arrived at today, which completes or traverses the so-called infinite past.... If you affirm that the universe had a beginning, then you need to account for that. Ex nihilo, nihil fit - out of nothing, nothing comes. Perhaps it created itself, but for something to create itself, it would have to exist before it was created, and that is completely absurd.

So, in light of this dilemma, and as Ben Stein's recent documentary asked, "Why won't you admit even the possibility of an intelligent designer?"

I'll leave you with a "helpful" quote, since it addresses many of the topics that the three of you bring up, from Alvin Platinga:

"By way of conclusion: a natural way to understand such notions as rationality and irrationality is in terms of the proper functioning of the relevant cognitive equipment. Seen from this perspective, the question whether it is rational to believe in God without the evidential support of other propositions is really a metaphysical or theological dispute. The theist has an easy time explaining the notion of our cognitive equipment's functioning properly: our cognitive equipment functions properly when it functions in the way God designed it to function. The atheist evidential objector, however, owes us an account of this notion. What does he mean when he complains that the theist without evidence displays a cognitive defect of some sort? How does he understand the notion of cognitive malfunction?"

Evolutionary Middleman: Beyond the grave, Part 3

John Hoopman kindly asked a question last week, and I devoted a post to answering. In the title-linked blog (which may contain additional dialogue in the "comments" section as we proceed), he responds to my answer by claiming that I have a "fear of nature" that causes me to look to the supernatural. Here is the text, so you don't have to navigate there:

Other than being a theist, he [that's me] seems like a reasonably bright young man. Feel free to click on the link and read the whole post. But, again, he validates my position that fear of death is, if not the primary factor in supernatural belief, certainly one of the main factors. Chip Crush writes:

The question again is, "What is the single greatest thing that you think your faith gives you now, or will give you in the future?"

It's a simple answer. The single greatest thing that I think my faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior has given me in the past, gives me now, and will give me in the future, is eternal life. I have eternal life, and will have eternal life by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

I would like to point out that Chip put the emphasis into the previous paragraph. It’s clear that he gives some validity to my point and he fears nature. He fears it to the point of rejecting it in favor of the supernatural. He goes on to say:

But a person is not their body. A person is more than mere flesh and blood. We continue to exist after the first death. This death is merely a door to a different kind of life. We'll be in paradise or hades (sheol) after walking through this door of the first death.

Science has repeatedly tested the notion of the self being more than the body. Every scientific study has produced evidence that shows they are one and the same. This does not (as always in science) disprove a “soul”. It only says two things.

1. Thousands of tests, experiments, studies have revealed no evidence of a soul.
2. Everything we know about Homo sapiens can be understood in terms of a unitary self that is in no way divided.

Chip concludes by going back to his greatest fear, which he alleviates by his being able to constantly refer to life ever-lasting, every time he has the opportunity to try to convince another. Surely with every success, he becomes more certain that he is right. How else could he have convinced someone?

So there you have it, John: a simple answer to a good question. My faith gives me eternal life. Would you like to have eternal life? Come to Jesus, and live forever.

I'd enjoy carrying this out in dialogue, and it will be interesting to see if John is willing. First of all, concluding that my Christian faith is based on a fear of nature is unfounded. That conclusion would be akin to suggesting that John's belief in gravity is based on his fear of falling from the sky (or fear of floating away). The link between the two claims is a missing link, or at least has yet to be shown empirically.

However, I suppose we could say that John's faith in science is based on his fear of God (or lack thereof). As Romans 1:18-23 declares, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Furthermore, John 3:19-21 makes the same claim, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

John is a sinner, and though the logical thing to do in his wretched state would be to repent and "come into the Light," to turn to God for forgiveness and salvation - "eternal life" being a restored, lasting, and intimate relationship with the Intelligent Designer (Christians, read: Creator and Sustainer of all things) - he does not do that. Instead he remains in the darkness, thinking himself to be hidden from God so that his evil deeds will not be exposed - at least for now. He has suppressed the truth by his wickedness and is wallowing in hopelessness and Godlessness; thinking himself to be wise, he has revealed his foolishness. His thinking is futile and his foolish heart is darkened. Alas, he is an evolutionist; he has exchanged the glory of God for images made to look like man and animals.

Anyway, John's next assessment of my response attacked the existence of a soul. He kindly and rightly noted that "science" cannot disprove the existence of a soul. But he claims that "science" has neither proven the soul's existence, nor revealed that humans have any existence apart from their bodies. Just as John saw "clearly" what he claimed to be my "fear of nature" as the motivation for my faith, so I see "clearly" his deification of science here. John is "faithfully" relying on science to prove his identity as an animal.

Admittedly, I am also relying on faith to reveal my identity as a child of God. But there is a difference. I also have been made alive in my inner being; I have experienced the existence and life of my soul in a way that John has not. He is dead in sin and trespasses and knows not the life that God breathes into His people by His Holy Spirit. Therefore, faith in science is all John has. I have faith and experience. And ultimately, where John is blinded by the god of this world, my eyes have been opened by grace by the Sovereign Lord, and having the mind of Christ, I am able to determine, once again by grace, right from wrong regarding spiritual things. 1 Corinthians 2:12 says, "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us." John, sadly, is a "natural man," and as 1 Corinthians 2:14 declares, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Perhaps, through our dialogue, John may be brought into the Light, made alive while he was dead. And so I genuinely pray with the Apostle Paul "that out of His glorious riches [God] may strengthen you with power through His Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith." (Ephesians 3:16-17).