My life is a paradox.
I'm simple, yet one who is constantly searching for a deeper meaning to things, and constantly asking deeper questions.
I'm a loner and yet a people person. I am a rambling man, yet one who stays at home.
I'm do not get wrapped up in emotionalism, but I live the fullness of emotion. I'm not an intellectual, yet I strive to learn more everday.
I'm spiritual yet physical. I'm utopian yet realistic. I'm romantic, yet idealistic. I have a vision, but as much so I have a Heritage.
I am loud, yet quiet and soft-spoken. I'll be random, wild, and racaus one day, while the next day be very standard, polite, and presentable. I'll be a Southern Rock junkie one day and listen to Bach or Bethoven the next.
I am myself, yet I recognize that I do not belong only to myself. I am one person, yet all things to all people.
And I am not being contradicting in this, nor am I being a double-minded man. Nor am I failing to be true to who I am. In fact, this paradoxical thrift I see in my life is, though confusing at times, a reassurance that I am called to God's plan. Who is Jesus? He is the ultimate paradox of all, yet perfect, holy, and all righteous.
Jesus was both (and is both) God and man. Even His mother Mary was both mother and virgin. Jesus was natural and ideal; spiritual and physical; perfect and yet suffered from the imperfections of mankind. Jesus is everlasting, yet had a birth and a death. See the pattern? Jesus, even more so than Paul, was all things to all people, yet He did not stray from who He was.
Now there are some distinctives to people, even those called to follow Christ. Not all Christians think or act the same, and not all have the same personality, nor are they called to have the same personality. Some are more loners and some are more people oriented. Some are more classical and some more modern. Some more loud and some more quiet. But even this is paradoxical. We should all strive to bring these things out of antithesis to a common synthesis, while yet doing so in very different ways.
I encourage all of you and myself to not stop or start at being just yourself. In fact, don't make that your goal. You are not just your own, but you are God's. The world has perverted the Christian idea of tolerance and diversity into something that radically defends sin. Rather, begin by realizing that you are God's, not your own. The only way to find your life is to lose it, again a paradox we see in Scripture. This falls into the same line as the humble being exalted and the exalted being humbled. When you first focus on who you are in your core identity with God and others, that you have a common calling with God's People to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, you will begin to see your own God-given personality come up. However we must realize that we should aim at bringing things out of antithesis. Become old in mind yet young in heart. Become natural yet ideal. Become one yet many. Become one in full, yet only a part of the whole.
From this, we can see that you are one of God's personally, yet altogether we are one of God's corporately. We become full. Through this we have a destiny, yet only through our heritage. We are exalted only through our humility. We are all things, yet really and truly just ourselves.
Just some thoughts.
What do you think?
God bless you
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
May 8, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Friday, May 9, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
I Thought Evolutionists Did Not Look For Their Conclusions
If you hear a debate between a conservative Creationist Christian and an evolutionist/atheist, the evolutionist will most likely mention that we should "study facts and then reach a conclusion." Supposedly, Christians assume a conclusion, and then find random facts to back it up. But watching this video, this seems different. I find the evolutionist reaching a conclusion and then looking for the facts. No, I am not posting this as a Ron Paul video. Of course, I do find it odd that small clips are used to try to show Paul's "flip-flop" on evolution, when the majority of the video is supposedly scientific and not political. But that is not what I post this for. For the point I am trying to make, you really only need to watch is the last two and a half minutes or so.
I find it odd that the evolutionist, forced with his problem of the missing chromosome, looks for a conclusion and just happens to find it. He found his conclusion, and then looked for the facts. Of course, his "finding," even if is true, does not prove anything, and only leads us to the question of "why were the two chromosomes 'taped?'" Just something I happened to notice.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I find it odd that the evolutionist, forced with his problem of the missing chromosome, looks for a conclusion and just happens to find it. He found his conclusion, and then looked for the facts. Of course, his "finding," even if is true, does not prove anything, and only leads us to the question of "why were the two chromosomes 'taped?'" Just something I happened to notice.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
March 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Lessons in Theology, Building a Covenant Foundation, Part I: Freedestination
My plan is for this to be a four-part series on theology, ultimately leading up to weekly Christian worship, such as its purposes, reasons, what we should do, and why we should do what we should do. To begin, though, I don't want to dive right on in to worship. Along the way, I will speak of salvation, the sacraments, God's Sovereignty, and Its connection with the work of man.
I will begin by speaking of how God's Sovereignty fits in with man's will, or perhaps better put, how man's will fits in under God's Sovereingty. I will begin by stating that I am a Presbyterian, and yes, we are considered Calvinists. But I do not want a misunderstanding here. Although I have full belief in God's Sovereignty, I do believe in some sort of human choice and responsibility, and I do believe that the two can go together.
I believe that all of history is God's eternal plan, but I believe within this plan there are men who do great things by a certain amount of their choice (of course with God's grace in them), and men who do bad things on their own choice. But yet all of this is in God's plan, even though God may reward the good men as if they did something good, and punish the bad men as if they did evil.
Exactly how it works may be a mystery. I know that some non-Calvinist Christians it hits a brick wall. But nonetheless I use the term here. I believe calling it an excuse is much like considering it an excuse to call the incarnation of Jesus, how He was both God and man, a mystery. It is not as if calling it a mystery is an excuse for Christianity when it hits a brick wall, because God can do anything!
But I do not think that we should just stop with the term "mystery." There are often examples in which we see a mystery, but also firmly believe each side of the mystery. I like using Jesus' death as an illustration for how God's Sovereign plan and man's free choice/will/agency (or whatever else you may call it) go together.
It could be argued that for all time God has planned and perhaps predestined for Jesus to come and save sinners. Certainly He knew throughout all time that there should be a time in which Jesus would do this. He knew the time it would happen, and He specifically planned it to happen. Certainly since the Fall of man was it in His eternal plan (although it could be argued that the Fall was in His plan, therefore Jesus' death and ressurection was in His plan even before the Fall). Nonetheless, it was in God's plan for Jesus to come and save sinners even by His death.
But at the same time, the people who nailed Jesus to the cross were still guilty. Do you see the irony? God's plan involved evil people doing evil things, but through which one of the greatest things in mankind has ever happened - Jesus' death and ressurection. Still, those who crucified Jesus are held accountable for their actions next to God. I do not think that God would say, "Well what you did was bad, but I predestined it to happen, so its not your fault." They crucified Jesus by choice, but it was still God's sovereign plan.
Perhaps even salvation is the same general way. Ultimately, salvation is more than just a general "choice." It is not as if someone just says, "Well Heaven sounds better than Hell, so I think I'll be a Christian." Salvation is much more profound than that. Choices are made on general or strict probability. Salvation is an assurance of faith. But even by the same token, because God can do anything, He may allow us a certain amount of special choice in the matter as well. Assuming salvation merely as a typical choice is wrong, but it is sadly a part of typical church doctrine today.
How often do you hear of so many people just getting saved suddenly? It is as if the church's goal is to go to the lost, and then convert them in one night. All the glory to God if this happens, but often salvation does not work this way. One friend of mine put this as if someone said that they were in love with their wife from the moment they saw her. It is not that simple, and for most people salvation is not either. Along the way in a relationship, there are instances in which two people feel real love in an emotional experience, but it is not as if each one of those instances stands alone in their love. Their love is a long road over much time. I remember as a kid being told to "ask Jesus into my heart." It is true that He must come into your heart and save you, but by this watered-down approach, I had several "conversions experiences" because I was always worried I had not sincerely meant the last ones. Finally I realized I must stop saying the simple prayer and just live a Christian life.
C.S. Lewis (perhaps I am wrong on who this person is, but I believe it is Lewis - correct me if you know I'm wrong) once spoke of his salvation in a way unusual to today's theology. He said he got on a train, and sometime by the time he got off the train, he was a Christian. But he could not point to exactly where at on that train. But nonetheless, there was a mysterious time in there in which his whole worldview just radically changed.
So with this said, I believe our salvation is something that is in God's complete control. However He may in His infinite grace and power give us the choice of accepting Him and give us some choice of perserverence. Today Christians see perseverence as God's predestined gift one's we accept Jesus on our own. Yet it is our choice in many of our trials. But I take a somewhat different approach. God's gift of salvation may be given to us by our choice in some mysterious way, but there is also the sense in which God's grace is irresistable and only given by God. Our perseverence certainly includes God's gifts to us in our trials, and Him not pushing us past what we can stand, but there is never a time in which we can just "relax" and not care. Yet even yet we can have full assurance. It really is a mystery, but certainly a mystery of grace. This is really why I called this "Freedestination." It is both free (at least to a point), and destine by God. Again, it is a mystery.
I have said enough for now, as I feel I am hinting on the next three blogs. But one more point, kind of to the side: I believe that this mystery gives more evidence for God than it does against it. It is self-evident that we have a conscience, and some sort of choice in our salvation, whether the acceptance or the perserverence (with God's grace abounding all the way, of course). But with no God, where is our conscience? After all, aren't we (to still Dr. George Grant's words) "predestined to evolve" with no God? Are we not chemical reactions in a universe that is fit to whatever it forces itself to do, wherein no conscience really exists? Are we not bound to the chemicals in our brains, the taste buds in our toungs, and the movements in nature, which is not bound to the science? What would science be bound to anyway, if anything? In a Christian worldview, all things are bound on God. But because God can do anything, perhaps even His creation can have a certain choice in their life and perhaps even eternity. God created us with conscience to give Him full glory and honor and praise and adoration. May that be what we do.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
God bless you
Februrary 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I will begin by speaking of how God's Sovereignty fits in with man's will, or perhaps better put, how man's will fits in under God's Sovereingty. I will begin by stating that I am a Presbyterian, and yes, we are considered Calvinists. But I do not want a misunderstanding here. Although I have full belief in God's Sovereignty, I do believe in some sort of human choice and responsibility, and I do believe that the two can go together.
I believe that all of history is God's eternal plan, but I believe within this plan there are men who do great things by a certain amount of their choice (of course with God's grace in them), and men who do bad things on their own choice. But yet all of this is in God's plan, even though God may reward the good men as if they did something good, and punish the bad men as if they did evil.
Exactly how it works may be a mystery. I know that some non-Calvinist Christians it hits a brick wall. But nonetheless I use the term here. I believe calling it an excuse is much like considering it an excuse to call the incarnation of Jesus, how He was both God and man, a mystery. It is not as if calling it a mystery is an excuse for Christianity when it hits a brick wall, because God can do anything!
But I do not think that we should just stop with the term "mystery." There are often examples in which we see a mystery, but also firmly believe each side of the mystery. I like using Jesus' death as an illustration for how God's Sovereign plan and man's free choice/will/agency (or whatever else you may call it) go together.
It could be argued that for all time God has planned and perhaps predestined for Jesus to come and save sinners. Certainly He knew throughout all time that there should be a time in which Jesus would do this. He knew the time it would happen, and He specifically planned it to happen. Certainly since the Fall of man was it in His eternal plan (although it could be argued that the Fall was in His plan, therefore Jesus' death and ressurection was in His plan even before the Fall). Nonetheless, it was in God's plan for Jesus to come and save sinners even by His death.
But at the same time, the people who nailed Jesus to the cross were still guilty. Do you see the irony? God's plan involved evil people doing evil things, but through which one of the greatest things in mankind has ever happened - Jesus' death and ressurection. Still, those who crucified Jesus are held accountable for their actions next to God. I do not think that God would say, "Well what you did was bad, but I predestined it to happen, so its not your fault." They crucified Jesus by choice, but it was still God's sovereign plan.
Perhaps even salvation is the same general way. Ultimately, salvation is more than just a general "choice." It is not as if someone just says, "Well Heaven sounds better than Hell, so I think I'll be a Christian." Salvation is much more profound than that. Choices are made on general or strict probability. Salvation is an assurance of faith. But even by the same token, because God can do anything, He may allow us a certain amount of special choice in the matter as well. Assuming salvation merely as a typical choice is wrong, but it is sadly a part of typical church doctrine today.
How often do you hear of so many people just getting saved suddenly? It is as if the church's goal is to go to the lost, and then convert them in one night. All the glory to God if this happens, but often salvation does not work this way. One friend of mine put this as if someone said that they were in love with their wife from the moment they saw her. It is not that simple, and for most people salvation is not either. Along the way in a relationship, there are instances in which two people feel real love in an emotional experience, but it is not as if each one of those instances stands alone in their love. Their love is a long road over much time. I remember as a kid being told to "ask Jesus into my heart." It is true that He must come into your heart and save you, but by this watered-down approach, I had several "conversions experiences" because I was always worried I had not sincerely meant the last ones. Finally I realized I must stop saying the simple prayer and just live a Christian life.
C.S. Lewis (perhaps I am wrong on who this person is, but I believe it is Lewis - correct me if you know I'm wrong) once spoke of his salvation in a way unusual to today's theology. He said he got on a train, and sometime by the time he got off the train, he was a Christian. But he could not point to exactly where at on that train. But nonetheless, there was a mysterious time in there in which his whole worldview just radically changed.
So with this said, I believe our salvation is something that is in God's complete control. However He may in His infinite grace and power give us the choice of accepting Him and give us some choice of perserverence. Today Christians see perseverence as God's predestined gift one's we accept Jesus on our own. Yet it is our choice in many of our trials. But I take a somewhat different approach. God's gift of salvation may be given to us by our choice in some mysterious way, but there is also the sense in which God's grace is irresistable and only given by God. Our perseverence certainly includes God's gifts to us in our trials, and Him not pushing us past what we can stand, but there is never a time in which we can just "relax" and not care. Yet even yet we can have full assurance. It really is a mystery, but certainly a mystery of grace. This is really why I called this "Freedestination." It is both free (at least to a point), and destine by God. Again, it is a mystery.
I have said enough for now, as I feel I am hinting on the next three blogs. But one more point, kind of to the side: I believe that this mystery gives more evidence for God than it does against it. It is self-evident that we have a conscience, and some sort of choice in our salvation, whether the acceptance or the perserverence (with God's grace abounding all the way, of course). But with no God, where is our conscience? After all, aren't we (to still Dr. George Grant's words) "predestined to evolve" with no God? Are we not chemical reactions in a universe that is fit to whatever it forces itself to do, wherein no conscience really exists? Are we not bound to the chemicals in our brains, the taste buds in our toungs, and the movements in nature, which is not bound to the science? What would science be bound to anyway, if anything? In a Christian worldview, all things are bound on God. But because God can do anything, perhaps even His creation can have a certain choice in their life and perhaps even eternity. God created us with conscience to give Him full glory and honor and praise and adoration. May that be what we do.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
God bless you
Februrary 7, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Lessons in Apologetics - Atheism vs. Christianity
Lessons in Apologetics - Atheism vs. Christianity
By Ryan Hampton
This is the third of the three blogs I am posting today (I don't have much time for this!). I will use the classic Professor vs. Student scenario to show the invalidity of atheism and the truth of Christianity. "...Be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you..." 1 Peter 3:15.
An atheist professor came into class and began introducing himself, being the first class period of the semester. He introduced himself and said it would be important to begin by telling why he does not believe that there is a God. He asked his students if they believed in God.
One student quickly raised his hand and then about two-thirds of the rest of the class began slowly raising their hands. The professor said, "Now I respect your opinions but I believe I can disprove you. Who is willing to answer my questions about your religion?"
The student who first raised his hand raised his hand this time again and said, "I will." The professor said, "Well okay. What religion do you officially hold to?" The student responded, "Christianity - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who reveals Himself through the Bible, and Who sent His only son to die for our sins."
"Can you explain further about your God please?" asked the professor. "Yes sir," responded the student. "He exists as a Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is good, and the creator of all things. He is all-powerful. He was not created, but existed eternally. Belief in Him is the way in which I perceive everything that ever happens. He reveals Himself in the Bible, and sent His Son, the second person of the Trinity to die for my sins. One day the Son will return with glory to judge the quick and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end."
"Wow," said the professor. "You sound enthusiastic about your God. Now please allow me to show you logical errors." The following is the dialogue of the professor and the student:
Professor: You believe that God is good, by your own admission in defining Who your God is. But you also made mention to your sin. God also, according to you, created all things. How come we see a good God create sin, which is evil - the opposite of good.
Student: For one, you have no absolute standard of good and evil yourself, so long as you stay consistent within your worldview of atheism. For two, to answer your question more directly, God may allow evil to carry on His eternal plan. God's glory is shown more by defeating an enemy, than by working with all things only on His side. For three, although evil exists, it exists only to the standard of good, and not unto its own self. As darkness is the absent of light, so evil is the absence of God's immediate glory."
Professor: But God is everywhere, right? How can it be the absence of God's glory?
Student: God is everywhere in His infinite realm. This is saying that God is at work everywhere - consistent with me saying that God can use evil. But using this evil may be Him using that which does not contain something attesting to, or attempting to attest to His ultimate glory in the immediate sense. Satan was cut off from God after being jealous of Him - not because evil aside from good destroyed him. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit after forgetting about God and His covenant. They forgot to thank God, and went their own way - apart from God. Obeying God is good; disobeying God is evil.
Professor: A modest argument from you, but let me ask further questions. I do not see God. Nor feel Him. Nor do I taste Him, smell Him, or hear Him. I can not sense Him. How can I believe in Him?
Student: God is transcendental to this physical universe. But so are many other things which you believe in. You use 'logic' to make your points. But I can not see, feel, touch, smell, or taste logic, or any form of intelligence for that matter, whether math, science, time, or logic. How do we know they exist? Our own interpretation of logic tells us not to prove something by using itself. If I 'prove' God by quoting the Bible, you would call my logic circular reasoning. How can you prove logic by logic? You can't, but yet it exists transcendental to the physical universe.
Professor: I see logic in action. I believe in logic because it is self-evident.
Student: I see God in action. I believe in Him because He is self-evident in the universe, and he revealed Himself to me.
Professor: But why assume another transcendental entity. We know intelligence exists, but we don't know God does exist.
Student: Because the metaphysical, that is, intelligence, seems to indicate something beyond it. It is self-contradicting to assume the physical universe was created out of only the metaphysical universe. But this universe did not always exist either. Science tells us it had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and the metaphysical universe could not have caused this universe. What caused this universe? Besides, all my original point was, was that you can not deny the existence of God just because He is transcendent.
Professor: But I look at truth from a non-biased position. I see no God, and thus I believe in no God. If you show me God, then I will believe in Him. Why did God have to cause this universe? Why not another universe?
Student: You are self-contradicting yourself. For one you say you are not biased, but you really are. In fact, you come into class to start off "proving" no God. It is your current worldview. When you are put in a position to assume an entity outside of the physical and metaphysical universe, you assume a second universe. You will do whatever to say that there is no God. You are biased. Besides, if this other universe interacted with our universe to cause our universe and its laws, then there is some common logic, unless this other universe is infinite so that it can on its own initiative create this universe and its laws with authority over it. Either there is a God, or some other common intelligence, where we would probably be right back where we started in the first place.
Professor: But I am not biased, and you can not prove that I am biased. You are not me. You are biased by assuming that there is a God.
Student: You are right, I am biased. But it is by my own admission. Now let me show you your bias. Let me ask you first - Are you bias?
Professor: No! I already said that! How many times do I have to tell you?!
Student: But who told you to be bias? Did you research the issue to tell you not to be bias? Who is to say that being bias is wrong? Do you accept every worldview?
Professor: I say that being bias is wrong, and no, I do not accept just any worldview. Besides, you have the burden of proof by believing in God.
Student: I am bias. If you are not bias, then you reject my bias worldview. Your lack of bias becomes your own special kind of bias. It is the myth of neutrality. You 'set out' to be biased. Therefore, you had some presupposition to be bias, defeating your purpose because presuppositions are not bias. And can you prove that I have the burden of proof? Should you have the burden of proof to prove that I have the burden of proof?
Professor: Well what does this prove anyway?
Student: That we all have a worldview. You want to deny God. You will do whatever you can to deny Him. Where does intelligence come from? Where does the physical universe come from? You will assume another universe to deny God.
Professor: I do not deny God. Maybe He does exist. I don't know. Nothing is really absolute.
Student: Is that statement absolute, that there are no absolutes?
Professor: Let us please move on.
Student: Moving on is a good idea. Let us move on to our next universal level. Professor, do you believe in evil?
Professor: Yes. It is inhumane behavior.
Student: So you believe in a standard for this evil. I presume you believe in good. This standard between the two is called morality. Do you agree with me so far? Do you believe these things?
Professor: Yes. I believe in right and wrong, and for lack of better terms, morality.
Student: What is good?
Professor: It is humane action to others. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Student: So you believe in love as well. What about compassion? Character? Virtues? And the ability to decide for ourselves what is wrong and right, and so forth?
Professor: Yes, I pretty much believe in those things.
Student: Where do they come from?
Professor: Our hearts. They are self-evident within us.
Student: They are self-evident. But where do they come from?
Professor: Once again, our hearts.
Student: Maybe so. But our hearts in the material sense are physical. We must go beyond the physical universe. Our hearts physically do not determine morality or love any more than the grass in my back yard does. But the metaphysical does not support these either. Can we prove morality using logic?
Professor: Morality is logical.
Student: Maybe so, but who enforces the logical morality? Who is to say for certain that they are related? What if I disagree? How can you prove me wrong. And what about love? Wherein is it here?
Professor: I do not know. I guess it is in our hearts as well, as I pretty much said above.
Student: But I already showed it is not in our physical hearts. Nor is it in the metaphysical. It is only in our moral conscious hearts. These things are the supermetaphysical, if you will. They go even further. They exist only through the supernatural realm. They are reliant upon it.
Professor: Well, if it is 'written' on our hearts, someone must have wrote it. Therefore, God pretty much predestines our thoughts anyway. How can I go to Heaven unless God personally saves me, apart from my choice. And why should you be here evangelizing to me anyway. Am I not predestined?
Student: Human choice, and any choice, is only consistent in a theistic worldview. It was part of what I listed as the supermetaphysical. Without God, we are predestined to evolve. We can not control ourselves anyway. We are a dillusion, so to speak. You hear of atheists talking about the God dillusion, but in reality, there is an atheist dillusion. With God, all things are possible. He can carry out His sovereign plan through human choice. Human choice is given by God. Otherwise we are just chemical processes, like robots, with no free will.
Professor: I must admit, that you made good points about your faith. But please, tell me how it all fits into your 'worldview' of Christianity.
Student: God is self-existent. He is limited to nothing, but there are things about Him that is eternal. The only way for this to change is for God Himself to change, which He chooses not to. God is logical. God is love. God is good. God is compassionate. God cares about time and the past - although He will not dwell on a past forgiven sin. But this love, time, logic, and moral goodness in God is existent in the infinite realm - a realm we can not fully understand. He expresses Himself in His overall creation, especially in humanity. Morality is logical, but God is the enforcer of morality. It is a Christian worldview that has influenced natural law thought that influenced our nations founding. It is also a Christian worldview from which we get our methods of measuring time. Pagans would either fail to measure time, or would measure time in false, inaccurate, or relatively outdated ways. God's people kept track of time, and it was when the Israelites forgot about the past that they were in the most trouble with God - as is today for humanity in general. The Bible tells us that God is love. The Bible tells us that God is eternal, and that He is unchanging. This is why God told Moses, "I am that I am." What I have said previously has been consistent in a Christian worldview. But you have not shown consistency in your atheistic worldview.
Professor: You made good points and silenced many of my arguments. But just remember, you may silence my arguments, but that does not mean that you convinced me.
Student: Well I am glad that I silenced your arguments, but I did not intent to convert you. That is up to God. I silence arguments, but God converts hearts. I pray that He will do that for you.
Professor: We will have to see. Class dismissed.
"Separate Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you. But do so in gentleness and fear." I Peter 3:15
By Ryan Hampton
This is the third of the three blogs I am posting today (I don't have much time for this!). I will use the classic Professor vs. Student scenario to show the invalidity of atheism and the truth of Christianity. "...Be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you..." 1 Peter 3:15.
An atheist professor came into class and began introducing himself, being the first class period of the semester. He introduced himself and said it would be important to begin by telling why he does not believe that there is a God. He asked his students if they believed in God.
One student quickly raised his hand and then about two-thirds of the rest of the class began slowly raising their hands. The professor said, "Now I respect your opinions but I believe I can disprove you. Who is willing to answer my questions about your religion?"
The student who first raised his hand raised his hand this time again and said, "I will." The professor said, "Well okay. What religion do you officially hold to?" The student responded, "Christianity - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who reveals Himself through the Bible, and Who sent His only son to die for our sins."
"Can you explain further about your God please?" asked the professor. "Yes sir," responded the student. "He exists as a Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is good, and the creator of all things. He is all-powerful. He was not created, but existed eternally. Belief in Him is the way in which I perceive everything that ever happens. He reveals Himself in the Bible, and sent His Son, the second person of the Trinity to die for my sins. One day the Son will return with glory to judge the quick and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end."
"Wow," said the professor. "You sound enthusiastic about your God. Now please allow me to show you logical errors." The following is the dialogue of the professor and the student:
Professor: You believe that God is good, by your own admission in defining Who your God is. But you also made mention to your sin. God also, according to you, created all things. How come we see a good God create sin, which is evil - the opposite of good.
Student: For one, you have no absolute standard of good and evil yourself, so long as you stay consistent within your worldview of atheism. For two, to answer your question more directly, God may allow evil to carry on His eternal plan. God's glory is shown more by defeating an enemy, than by working with all things only on His side. For three, although evil exists, it exists only to the standard of good, and not unto its own self. As darkness is the absent of light, so evil is the absence of God's immediate glory."
Professor: But God is everywhere, right? How can it be the absence of God's glory?
Student: God is everywhere in His infinite realm. This is saying that God is at work everywhere - consistent with me saying that God can use evil. But using this evil may be Him using that which does not contain something attesting to, or attempting to attest to His ultimate glory in the immediate sense. Satan was cut off from God after being jealous of Him - not because evil aside from good destroyed him. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit after forgetting about God and His covenant. They forgot to thank God, and went their own way - apart from God. Obeying God is good; disobeying God is evil.
Professor: A modest argument from you, but let me ask further questions. I do not see God. Nor feel Him. Nor do I taste Him, smell Him, or hear Him. I can not sense Him. How can I believe in Him?
Student: God is transcendental to this physical universe. But so are many other things which you believe in. You use 'logic' to make your points. But I can not see, feel, touch, smell, or taste logic, or any form of intelligence for that matter, whether math, science, time, or logic. How do we know they exist? Our own interpretation of logic tells us not to prove something by using itself. If I 'prove' God by quoting the Bible, you would call my logic circular reasoning. How can you prove logic by logic? You can't, but yet it exists transcendental to the physical universe.
Professor: I see logic in action. I believe in logic because it is self-evident.
Student: I see God in action. I believe in Him because He is self-evident in the universe, and he revealed Himself to me.
Professor: But why assume another transcendental entity. We know intelligence exists, but we don't know God does exist.
Student: Because the metaphysical, that is, intelligence, seems to indicate something beyond it. It is self-contradicting to assume the physical universe was created out of only the metaphysical universe. But this universe did not always exist either. Science tells us it had a beginning. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and the metaphysical universe could not have caused this universe. What caused this universe? Besides, all my original point was, was that you can not deny the existence of God just because He is transcendent.
Professor: But I look at truth from a non-biased position. I see no God, and thus I believe in no God. If you show me God, then I will believe in Him. Why did God have to cause this universe? Why not another universe?
Student: You are self-contradicting yourself. For one you say you are not biased, but you really are. In fact, you come into class to start off "proving" no God. It is your current worldview. When you are put in a position to assume an entity outside of the physical and metaphysical universe, you assume a second universe. You will do whatever to say that there is no God. You are biased. Besides, if this other universe interacted with our universe to cause our universe and its laws, then there is some common logic, unless this other universe is infinite so that it can on its own initiative create this universe and its laws with authority over it. Either there is a God, or some other common intelligence, where we would probably be right back where we started in the first place.
Professor: But I am not biased, and you can not prove that I am biased. You are not me. You are biased by assuming that there is a God.
Student: You are right, I am biased. But it is by my own admission. Now let me show you your bias. Let me ask you first - Are you bias?
Professor: No! I already said that! How many times do I have to tell you?!
Student: But who told you to be bias? Did you research the issue to tell you not to be bias? Who is to say that being bias is wrong? Do you accept every worldview?
Professor: I say that being bias is wrong, and no, I do not accept just any worldview. Besides, you have the burden of proof by believing in God.
Student: I am bias. If you are not bias, then you reject my bias worldview. Your lack of bias becomes your own special kind of bias. It is the myth of neutrality. You 'set out' to be biased. Therefore, you had some presupposition to be bias, defeating your purpose because presuppositions are not bias. And can you prove that I have the burden of proof? Should you have the burden of proof to prove that I have the burden of proof?
Professor: Well what does this prove anyway?
Student: That we all have a worldview. You want to deny God. You will do whatever you can to deny Him. Where does intelligence come from? Where does the physical universe come from? You will assume another universe to deny God.
Professor: I do not deny God. Maybe He does exist. I don't know. Nothing is really absolute.
Student: Is that statement absolute, that there are no absolutes?
Professor: Let us please move on.
Student: Moving on is a good idea. Let us move on to our next universal level. Professor, do you believe in evil?
Professor: Yes. It is inhumane behavior.
Student: So you believe in a standard for this evil. I presume you believe in good. This standard between the two is called morality. Do you agree with me so far? Do you believe these things?
Professor: Yes. I believe in right and wrong, and for lack of better terms, morality.
Student: What is good?
Professor: It is humane action to others. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Student: So you believe in love as well. What about compassion? Character? Virtues? And the ability to decide for ourselves what is wrong and right, and so forth?
Professor: Yes, I pretty much believe in those things.
Student: Where do they come from?
Professor: Our hearts. They are self-evident within us.
Student: They are self-evident. But where do they come from?
Professor: Once again, our hearts.
Student: Maybe so. But our hearts in the material sense are physical. We must go beyond the physical universe. Our hearts physically do not determine morality or love any more than the grass in my back yard does. But the metaphysical does not support these either. Can we prove morality using logic?
Professor: Morality is logical.
Student: Maybe so, but who enforces the logical morality? Who is to say for certain that they are related? What if I disagree? How can you prove me wrong. And what about love? Wherein is it here?
Professor: I do not know. I guess it is in our hearts as well, as I pretty much said above.
Student: But I already showed it is not in our physical hearts. Nor is it in the metaphysical. It is only in our moral conscious hearts. These things are the supermetaphysical, if you will. They go even further. They exist only through the supernatural realm. They are reliant upon it.
Professor: Well, if it is 'written' on our hearts, someone must have wrote it. Therefore, God pretty much predestines our thoughts anyway. How can I go to Heaven unless God personally saves me, apart from my choice. And why should you be here evangelizing to me anyway. Am I not predestined?
Student: Human choice, and any choice, is only consistent in a theistic worldview. It was part of what I listed as the supermetaphysical. Without God, we are predestined to evolve. We can not control ourselves anyway. We are a dillusion, so to speak. You hear of atheists talking about the God dillusion, but in reality, there is an atheist dillusion. With God, all things are possible. He can carry out His sovereign plan through human choice. Human choice is given by God. Otherwise we are just chemical processes, like robots, with no free will.
Professor: I must admit, that you made good points about your faith. But please, tell me how it all fits into your 'worldview' of Christianity.
Student: God is self-existent. He is limited to nothing, but there are things about Him that is eternal. The only way for this to change is for God Himself to change, which He chooses not to. God is logical. God is love. God is good. God is compassionate. God cares about time and the past - although He will not dwell on a past forgiven sin. But this love, time, logic, and moral goodness in God is existent in the infinite realm - a realm we can not fully understand. He expresses Himself in His overall creation, especially in humanity. Morality is logical, but God is the enforcer of morality. It is a Christian worldview that has influenced natural law thought that influenced our nations founding. It is also a Christian worldview from which we get our methods of measuring time. Pagans would either fail to measure time, or would measure time in false, inaccurate, or relatively outdated ways. God's people kept track of time, and it was when the Israelites forgot about the past that they were in the most trouble with God - as is today for humanity in general. The Bible tells us that God is love. The Bible tells us that God is eternal, and that He is unchanging. This is why God told Moses, "I am that I am." What I have said previously has been consistent in a Christian worldview. But you have not shown consistency in your atheistic worldview.
Professor: You made good points and silenced many of my arguments. But just remember, you may silence my arguments, but that does not mean that you convinced me.
Student: Well I am glad that I silenced your arguments, but I did not intent to convert you. That is up to God. I silence arguments, but God converts hearts. I pray that He will do that for you.
Professor: We will have to see. Class dismissed.
"Separate Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you. But do so in gentleness and fear." I Peter 3:15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
