5. The Father is not the Son.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
I'm going to take all three of these at the same time. This step is important, because it prevents us from being modalists.
When I prepared this study, I really wasn't thinking too much about modalism. I was thinking more about Arians. Modalists think the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person, but Arians think they are different persons. Since I was thinking mainly about Arians, I didn't spend too much effort showing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. Arians already agree. A few scriptures might be mentioned, though.
5. The Father is not the Son.
The Son was sent by the Father (John 16:5).
The Son acts as a mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5).
Jesus prays to the Father, making a distinction between his will and the Father's will (Matthew 26:39).
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit doesn't come until Jesus leaves, and when Jesus leaves, he sends the Holy Spirit (John 16:7).
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
The Holy Spirit intercedes between God and man (Romans 8:26-27).
The Father sends the Holy Spirit (John 14:26).
Finally, there's the scene at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17). Here, you see all three being made distinct. The son is standing in the water, and he sees the Spirit of God descending upon him, and then a voice from heaven says, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
That's about it for the Biblical arguments for the Trinity. Let me summarize a little now. Remember, the Trinity is derived from seven points, which can be summarized in three.
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
If (1) there is only one God, and (2) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each God, it follows that they are the same God. Since they are distinct persons, it follows that the one God is tri-personal.
If these premises are true, then logic forces us to embrace the Trinity. It's the only way to make these premises logically consistent. Since the Trinity follows deductively from these premises, then the Trinity is Biblical.
Next, I'm going to begin to address some of the objections to the Trinity. I don't know how many blogs I'll take to do that.
Against the Trinity, part 1
Monday, February 28, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Biblical arguments for the Trinity, part 3
Yesterday, I gave one argument for the deity of Jesus. Today, I'm going to give some more.
This first argument I got from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, and his version is published in an article called Deity of Christ: Case Closed
The argument comes from John 1:3 which says, "All things came into being by him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being."
You can break up all of reality into two categories--things that came into being and things that did not come into being. The only thing that did not come into being is God. God is eternal. He has always existed. Everything else came into being at some point.
The question we need to ask is which category Jesus fits in. If Jesus came into being, then he's not God. If he did not come into being, then he is God.
If we look carefully at John 1:3, we can see that it's impossible for Jesus to have come into being. According to John 1:3, everything that came into being, came into being through Jesus. The only way, then, for Jesus to have come into being is if he came into being through himself. But that would require that Jesus existed before he came into being, which is crazy talk. Only a post-modernist would embrace such a contradiction! Since Jesus did not come into being, he has always existed. He's external, and therefore, he's God.
There are a few more arguments I'm going to give for the deity of Jesus, and these won't require as much explaining as the previous two. These next three arguments show that Jesus is YHWH. The reason it's important to establish that Jesus is YHWH is to prevent anybody from saying Jesus is god with a little "g," which they might do if they only accepted the arguments from Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
1. YHWH created the heavens and the earth by himself; he was all alone (Isaiah 44:24).
2. Jesus created the heavens and the earth; he was with God (Colossians 1:15-17, John 1:1-3).
3. Therefore, Jesus is YHWH.
Here's another one:
1. YHWH will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).
2. Jesus shares God's glory (John 17:5, 5:23).
3. Therefore, Jesus is YHWH.
One last argument. Psalm 102:25 is attributed to YHWH in the Old Testament, but when it's quoted in Hebrews 1:10, it's attributed to Jesus.
That's all the arguments I'm going to give for the deity of Jesus.
For the Trinity, part 4
This first argument I got from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, and his version is published in an article called Deity of Christ: Case Closed
The argument comes from John 1:3 which says, "All things came into being by him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being."
You can break up all of reality into two categories--things that came into being and things that did not come into being. The only thing that did not come into being is God. God is eternal. He has always existed. Everything else came into being at some point.
The question we need to ask is which category Jesus fits in. If Jesus came into being, then he's not God. If he did not come into being, then he is God.
If we look carefully at John 1:3, we can see that it's impossible for Jesus to have come into being. According to John 1:3, everything that came into being, came into being through Jesus. The only way, then, for Jesus to have come into being is if he came into being through himself. But that would require that Jesus existed before he came into being, which is crazy talk. Only a post-modernist would embrace such a contradiction! Since Jesus did not come into being, he has always existed. He's external, and therefore, he's God.
There are a few more arguments I'm going to give for the deity of Jesus, and these won't require as much explaining as the previous two. These next three arguments show that Jesus is YHWH. The reason it's important to establish that Jesus is YHWH is to prevent anybody from saying Jesus is god with a little "g," which they might do if they only accepted the arguments from Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
1. YHWH created the heavens and the earth by himself; he was all alone (Isaiah 44:24).
2. Jesus created the heavens and the earth; he was with God (Colossians 1:15-17, John 1:1-3).
3. Therefore, Jesus is YHWH.
Here's another one:
1. YHWH will not give his glory to another (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11).
2. Jesus shares God's glory (John 17:5, 5:23).
3. Therefore, Jesus is YHWH.
One last argument. Psalm 102:25 is attributed to YHWH in the Old Testament, but when it's quoted in Hebrews 1:10, it's attributed to Jesus.
That's all the arguments I'm going to give for the deity of Jesus.
For the Trinity, part 4
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Biblical arguments for the Trinity, part 2
Continuing from yesterday...
4. The Son is God.
As long as nobody disputes that "the Son" refers to Jesus, we'll be fine. Like I said in the first blog on the Trinity, I'm not writing a book, so I'm just going to give a few arguments for the deity of Jesus.
The first argument is that Jesus is explicitly called God in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Although most modern translations are clear about this, there's a reason for it that has to do with the grammer of the underlying Greek. All you have to know is one very simple rule of Greek grammer having to do with the definite article. You'll have to excuse me for not using a Greek font.
That rule is called the Granville Sharp rule, because it was discovered by Granville Sharp. Here is what the rules says: Whenever the copulative "kai" (and) joins two nouns, and the first noun is preceded by the definite article "ho" (the) but the second noun has no definite article, then both nouns refer to the same person if (1) both nouns are singular, (2) both nouns are personal, and (3) neither noun is a proper name. The basic pattern is article noun kai noun.
Here's a couple of examples:
2 Corinthians 1:3
ho theos kai pater
the god and father
Clearly, "god" and "father" both refer to the same person.
Hebrews 3:1
ton apostolon kai archierea
the apostle and high priest
"Apostle" and "high priest" both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ.
Now let's apply this rule to Titus 2:13.
tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou
the great god and savior of-us Jesus Christ
The two nouns are "god" and "savior." God has the definite article tou while soteros is without the article, so "god" and "savior" both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. The context bears this out.
Now let's look at 2 Peter 1:1.
tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou
the god of-us and savior Jesus Christ
Again, we have two singular personal nouns that are not proper names, god and savior, separated by kai. The first noun has a definite article, and the second doesn't. God and savior both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ.
It is interesting to look at translations such as the New World Translation, because they are inconsistent in their translations in 2 Peter. Notice the following:
2 Peter 1:1 our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ
2 Peter 1:11 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
The way they translate 1:1, with "the" makes it look like God and Savior could be referring to different persons. But it's clear in 1:11 that Lord and Savior refer to the same persons. Even though the translations are different, the grammatical construct of these two phrases is identical in the Greek. Only the words "god" and "lord" are different.
2 Peter 1:1 tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou
2 Peter 1:11 tou kyriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou
The King James Version also has these discrepencies, because it was translated long before Granville Sharp did his research on the uses of the definite article. A good example of how the Granville Sharp rule clarified a passage that was ambiguous in the KJV is Revelation 1:6. If you compare the KJV of Revelation 1:6 to more modern translations, like the NIV or NASB, you can see a big difference. The KJV makes it look like God may have a father above him. And in fact, that's exactly how Mormons understand the passage. But Granville Sharp's rule makes it clear that "God" and "Father" both refer to the same person, and that is made clear in the NIV and NASB.
In the interest of keeping these blogs kind of short, I'll continue with the deity of Jesus tomorrow. If you're interested in reading more about Granville Sharp's rule, Daniel Wallace, author of Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics has an article about it here. I could be mistaken, but I think Wallace did his PhD dissertation on Granville Sharp.
For the Trinity, part 3
4. The Son is God.
As long as nobody disputes that "the Son" refers to Jesus, we'll be fine. Like I said in the first blog on the Trinity, I'm not writing a book, so I'm just going to give a few arguments for the deity of Jesus.
The first argument is that Jesus is explicitly called God in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Although most modern translations are clear about this, there's a reason for it that has to do with the grammer of the underlying Greek. All you have to know is one very simple rule of Greek grammer having to do with the definite article. You'll have to excuse me for not using a Greek font.
That rule is called the Granville Sharp rule, because it was discovered by Granville Sharp. Here is what the rules says: Whenever the copulative "kai" (and) joins two nouns, and the first noun is preceded by the definite article "ho" (the) but the second noun has no definite article, then both nouns refer to the same person if (1) both nouns are singular, (2) both nouns are personal, and (3) neither noun is a proper name. The basic pattern is article noun kai noun.
Here's a couple of examples:
2 Corinthians 1:3
ho theos kai pater
the god and father
Clearly, "god" and "father" both refer to the same person.
Hebrews 3:1
ton apostolon kai archierea
the apostle and high priest
"Apostle" and "high priest" both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ.
Now let's apply this rule to Titus 2:13.
tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon Iesou Christou
the great god and savior of-us Jesus Christ
The two nouns are "god" and "savior." God has the definite article tou while soteros is without the article, so "god" and "savior" both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. The context bears this out.
Now let's look at 2 Peter 1:1.
tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou
the god of-us and savior Jesus Christ
Again, we have two singular personal nouns that are not proper names, god and savior, separated by kai. The first noun has a definite article, and the second doesn't. God and savior both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ.
It is interesting to look at translations such as the New World Translation, because they are inconsistent in their translations in 2 Peter. Notice the following:
2 Peter 1:1 our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ
2 Peter 1:11 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
The way they translate 1:1, with "the" makes it look like God and Savior could be referring to different persons. But it's clear in 1:11 that Lord and Savior refer to the same persons. Even though the translations are different, the grammatical construct of these two phrases is identical in the Greek. Only the words "god" and "lord" are different.
2 Peter 1:1 tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou
2 Peter 1:11 tou kyriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou
The King James Version also has these discrepencies, because it was translated long before Granville Sharp did his research on the uses of the definite article. A good example of how the Granville Sharp rule clarified a passage that was ambiguous in the KJV is Revelation 1:6. If you compare the KJV of Revelation 1:6 to more modern translations, like the NIV or NASB, you can see a big difference. The KJV makes it look like God may have a father above him. And in fact, that's exactly how Mormons understand the passage. But Granville Sharp's rule makes it clear that "God" and "Father" both refer to the same person, and that is made clear in the NIV and NASB.
In the interest of keeping these blogs kind of short, I'll continue with the deity of Jesus tomorrow. If you're interested in reading more about Granville Sharp's rule, Daniel Wallace, author of Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics has an article about it here. I could be mistaken, but I think Wallace did his PhD dissertation on Granville Sharp.
For the Trinity, part 3
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Biblical arguments for the Trinity, part 1
Yesterday, I said the Trinity is deduced from three points. If all three points are Biblical, then the Trinity is Biblical, so now I want to show that they are all Biblical. I'm not going to go into any kind of detail. After all, this is a blog, not a book.
First, I want to break the three points down into seven to make this easier:
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Son is God.
5. The Father is not the Son.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
1. There is one and only one God.
That's not a controversial claim, so no need to spend much time on it. Isaiah 44:6 and John 17:3 will suffice.
2. The Father is God.
That's another non-controversial claim, so again, no need to spend much time. 1 Corinthians 1:3 and Revelation 1:6 will do.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
This one is a little tricky, because there are some people who deny the Holy Spirit is even a person. They say the Holy Spirit is God's active force or something like that. Usually, if you can establish that the Holy Spirit is a person, that's enough to say he's also God. I'll do both.
To show the Holy Spirit is God, there's Acts 5:3-4, which equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God. Also, there are a couple of passages in the Old Testament that are quoted in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, they are attributed to YHWH, but they are attributed to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. First, there's Isaiah 6:9, which is quoted in Acts 28:25. Second, there's Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is quoted in Hebrews 10:15-17. These are enough to establish that the Holy Spirit is God.
To show the Holy Spirit is a person, you have to show that he has attributes of personhood. The most clear passages show the Holy Spirit has a mind (Romans 8:26-27) and a will (1 Corinthians 12:11). Besides that, he can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4), he can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), he can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:31-32), and he can speak (Acts 13:2). That seems to be enough to show the Holy Spirit is a person. The usually response to these passages is to say they are personifications, and they don't indicate actual personhood. The problem with that theory is that impersonal forces can't be blasphemed. Only persons can be blasphemed. The personification theory doesn't seem to work for that one.
4. The Son is God.
I'm going to spend a little more time on this one, so I'll save it for another blog.
For the Trinity, part 2
First, I want to break the three points down into seven to make this easier:
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Son is God.
5. The Father is not the Son.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
1. There is one and only one God.
That's not a controversial claim, so no need to spend much time on it. Isaiah 44:6 and John 17:3 will suffice.
2. The Father is God.
That's another non-controversial claim, so again, no need to spend much time. 1 Corinthians 1:3 and Revelation 1:6 will do.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
This one is a little tricky, because there are some people who deny the Holy Spirit is even a person. They say the Holy Spirit is God's active force or something like that. Usually, if you can establish that the Holy Spirit is a person, that's enough to say he's also God. I'll do both.
To show the Holy Spirit is God, there's Acts 5:3-4, which equates lying to the Holy Spirit with lying to God. Also, there are a couple of passages in the Old Testament that are quoted in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, they are attributed to YHWH, but they are attributed to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. First, there's Isaiah 6:9, which is quoted in Acts 28:25. Second, there's Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is quoted in Hebrews 10:15-17. These are enough to establish that the Holy Spirit is God.
To show the Holy Spirit is a person, you have to show that he has attributes of personhood. The most clear passages show the Holy Spirit has a mind (Romans 8:26-27) and a will (1 Corinthians 12:11). Besides that, he can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4), he can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), he can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:31-32), and he can speak (Acts 13:2). That seems to be enough to show the Holy Spirit is a person. The usually response to these passages is to say they are personifications, and they don't indicate actual personhood. The problem with that theory is that impersonal forces can't be blasphemed. Only persons can be blasphemed. The personification theory doesn't seem to work for that one.
4. The Son is God.
I'm going to spend a little more time on this one, so I'll save it for another blog.
For the Trinity, part 2
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The logic of the Trinity
I want to do a few blogs on the Trinity. The first one will be about the logic of the Trinity. The second one will be about Biblical arguments for the Trinity. The third one will address common objections to the Trinity. This comes from an outline I did when I taught on the Trinity in Sunday school a few years ago.
First, let me give a definition of the Trinity: There is one being who is God, and that God exists as three distinct persons, namely the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are coequal and coeternal. The one uncreated God is a tri-personal being.
I'll admit that the Trinity seems odd, but it is not, as some suppose, self-contradictory. On the surface, to say that God is One and Three at the same time seems contradictory, but we must remember what a contradiction is. Two claims can only contradict each other if they are talking about the same thing at the same time and in the same sense. God is not three in the same sense that God is one. If the Trinity required that God was one being who was three beings, that would be a contradiction. Or if the Trinity required that God was one person who was three persons, that would also be a contradiction. But the Trinity requires that God is one being who is three persons. There is no contradiction, because God is one in a different sense than God is three.
This being/person distinction strikes us as odd for the simple reason that in or ordinary experience, all people and animals are uni-personal beings. "Being" and "person" are nevertheless distinct categories. A being is anything that exists. A person is a particular kind of being that posesses personhood. Here's an analogy to explain this categorical difference:
rock: 1 being, 0 persons.
human: 1 being, 1 person.
God: 1 being, 3 persons.
Since not all beings are persons, "being" and "person" are distinct categories. If it's possible for there to be one being who is not a person, and another being who is one person, there's no difficulty in supposing the possibility of there being another being who is three persons.
To further clarify what exactly the Trinity is, I'll contrast it with three other views. These views go by different names, so I'll mention all that I'm aware of.
Trinitarianism = tri-unitarianism
one nature or being (God) who is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Modalism = Sabellianism = Jesus Only = Oneness = Patripassionism
One person (Jesus) who manifests himself in three modes or natures (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Arianism = Subordinationism = Unitarianism
One being (God = YHWH) who is one person (the Father). Jesus is a created being.
Tri-theism = polytheism
Three separate and distinct gods.
Arians (especially Jehovah's Witnesses) often confuse Trinitarianism with either tri-theism or modalism. Trinitarians do not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and distinct Gods (tri-theism), but rather they are separate and distinct persons. Neither do Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are the same person (modalism), but rather that they are the same being.
The Trinity is arrived at by deductive reasoning. It's based on the logical consistency of various points found in the Bible.
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
From these two points, it follows deductively that:
3. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God.
But there's another point:
4. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
From 3 and 4, it follows deductively that the one God is a tri-personal being.
The question now is whether or not these three points are Biblical. If they are, then the Trinity is Biblical.
For the Trinity, part 1
First, let me give a definition of the Trinity: There is one being who is God, and that God exists as three distinct persons, namely the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are coequal and coeternal. The one uncreated God is a tri-personal being.
I'll admit that the Trinity seems odd, but it is not, as some suppose, self-contradictory. On the surface, to say that God is One and Three at the same time seems contradictory, but we must remember what a contradiction is. Two claims can only contradict each other if they are talking about the same thing at the same time and in the same sense. God is not three in the same sense that God is one. If the Trinity required that God was one being who was three beings, that would be a contradiction. Or if the Trinity required that God was one person who was three persons, that would also be a contradiction. But the Trinity requires that God is one being who is three persons. There is no contradiction, because God is one in a different sense than God is three.
This being/person distinction strikes us as odd for the simple reason that in or ordinary experience, all people and animals are uni-personal beings. "Being" and "person" are nevertheless distinct categories. A being is anything that exists. A person is a particular kind of being that posesses personhood. Here's an analogy to explain this categorical difference:
rock: 1 being, 0 persons.
human: 1 being, 1 person.
God: 1 being, 3 persons.
Since not all beings are persons, "being" and "person" are distinct categories. If it's possible for there to be one being who is not a person, and another being who is one person, there's no difficulty in supposing the possibility of there being another being who is three persons.
To further clarify what exactly the Trinity is, I'll contrast it with three other views. These views go by different names, so I'll mention all that I'm aware of.
Trinitarianism = tri-unitarianism
one nature or being (God) who is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Modalism = Sabellianism = Jesus Only = Oneness = Patripassionism
One person (Jesus) who manifests himself in three modes or natures (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Arianism = Subordinationism = Unitarianism
One being (God = YHWH) who is one person (the Father). Jesus is a created being.
Tri-theism = polytheism
Three separate and distinct gods.
Arians (especially Jehovah's Witnesses) often confuse Trinitarianism with either tri-theism or modalism. Trinitarians do not believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and distinct Gods (tri-theism), but rather they are separate and distinct persons. Neither do Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are the same person (modalism), but rather that they are the same being.
The Trinity is arrived at by deductive reasoning. It's based on the logical consistency of various points found in the Bible.
1. There is one and only one God.
2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
From these two points, it follows deductively that:
3. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God.
But there's another point:
4. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
From 3 and 4, it follows deductively that the one God is a tri-personal being.
The question now is whether or not these three points are Biblical. If they are, then the Trinity is Biblical.
For the Trinity, part 1
Monday, February 21, 2005
The east vs. the west
One of the things that has sort of jumped out at me in my comparitive religion class is that one of the big differences between eastern religions (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism) and western religions (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) is that the eastern ones deny the obvious and the western ones affirm the obvious. I'm speaking in generalities here. I realize there are exceptions.
Several eastern religions think our major problem is ignorance. We're all deluded somehow, and we need to reach enlightenment. Englightenment always turns out to be the realization that reality is quite different than it appears. The external world is an illusion, the distinction between self and others is an illusion, time is an illusion, and even logic is an illusion.
The eastern religion mind-set seems self-refuting to me. There are certain things that seem obvious to us. There's a real tangible world out there, we are not all the same person, time is real, and logic is real. If we're all deluded about these things, then our cognative faculties aren't working right. And if our cognative faculties aren't working right, then we're in no position to say whether these things are real or not. If we're in no position to say whether these things are real or not, then we can't say that ordinary experience is delusion and a denial of our ordinary experiences is "englightenment" rather than vice versa.
If we can trust our cognative faculties, then "englightenment" is just another word for "self-delusion." Think about it. Think about the things eastern folks have to go through to help them deny the obvious. Some of them spend all day contemplating the sound of one hand clapping and other such nonsense. Almost all of them meditate in order to escape reality. It's just mental gymnastics. The techniques for meditation often sound a lot like self-hypnosis. The crazy things they do in their strained efforts to escape what seems obvious to all of us is just self-delusion. They're just brainwashing themselves. All they ever succeed in doing is temporarily escaping reality in some altered state of consciousness while meditating. Once they're done, they have to come back and join us all again in the real world.
Several eastern religions think our major problem is ignorance. We're all deluded somehow, and we need to reach enlightenment. Englightenment always turns out to be the realization that reality is quite different than it appears. The external world is an illusion, the distinction between self and others is an illusion, time is an illusion, and even logic is an illusion.
The eastern religion mind-set seems self-refuting to me. There are certain things that seem obvious to us. There's a real tangible world out there, we are not all the same person, time is real, and logic is real. If we're all deluded about these things, then our cognative faculties aren't working right. And if our cognative faculties aren't working right, then we're in no position to say whether these things are real or not. If we're in no position to say whether these things are real or not, then we can't say that ordinary experience is delusion and a denial of our ordinary experiences is "englightenment" rather than vice versa.
If we can trust our cognative faculties, then "englightenment" is just another word for "self-delusion." Think about it. Think about the things eastern folks have to go through to help them deny the obvious. Some of them spend all day contemplating the sound of one hand clapping and other such nonsense. Almost all of them meditate in order to escape reality. It's just mental gymnastics. The techniques for meditation often sound a lot like self-hypnosis. The crazy things they do in their strained efforts to escape what seems obvious to all of us is just self-delusion. They're just brainwashing themselves. All they ever succeed in doing is temporarily escaping reality in some altered state of consciousness while meditating. Once they're done, they have to come back and join us all again in the real world.
Friday, February 18, 2005
What if Genesis were all wrong?
A lot of people who try to refute Christianity go about it the wrong way. They attack things that are easy enough to attack, but even if their arguments are sound, it leaves Christianity basically in tact.
For example, people attack the Bible. It contradicts itself, it has scientific and historical errors, etc. At best, all these things prove is that the Bible is not the infallible word of God. But that, by itself, is not enough to refute Christianity. It could be that the Bible contains all kinds of errors and yet there is still a God, there's still a difference between right and wrong, God holds us accountable for doing wrong, Jesus is the Christ, Christ died for sins, and he was raised from the dead. If all of those things are true, then Christianity is true, even if the Bible is not infallible. And arguments can be made to support all of these essentials of Christianity without ever assuming the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Take Genesis for example. Usually what happens is a critic will point out that Genesis is inconsistent with science when read at face value. It makes it look like people have only inhabited the earth for 6000 years. Since Genesis is all wrong, there was no original sin, so there was no fall, so there's no need for redemption, so all that stuff about Jesus dying for sin to redeem us is false.
The usual response is to defend Genesis, usually by some reinterpretation. But that's unnecessary. Let's not even so much as suppose Genesis is an allegory, not meant to be taken literally. Let's just suppose it's all wrong and throw it out. Does that destroy Christianity? No, because what's necessary for Christianty to be true can be arrived at without the use of Genesis.
First, is there a difference between right and wrong? Unless you either have no conscience or you think your conscience is deceiving you, you have reason to believe there is a difference between right and wrong.
Second, are you perfect? Have you ever felt the need to apologize to somebody? If we're honest with ourselves, we must admit that we've all done wrong. No matter how much right you do, it can never atone for the wrong. Can you imagine running a stop sign and telling the cop who is writing you a ticket, "But I've always obeyed the traffic laws except for this one time"? If you disobey the civil law, there's a penalty, and if you disobey the moral law, there's a penalty for that, too.
Third, how can we have moral obligations if there's no one imposing them on us? If there's no one enforcing the rules, then there are no rules. We're not obligated to obey a blind and indifferent universe. We can only be obligated to obey a person. If there are moral obligations we have regardless of what we or our culture thinks, then there is some person who transcends humanity and imposes these moral obligations on us and holds us accountable. Sounds like some kind of God to me.
Fourth, there haven't always been people, but there are people now, and they sin. Between then and now, there must have been a first sin. So regadless of whether the Genesis account is accurate or not, there was an original sin, and it seems like everybody afterwards has continued to sin.
What I've enumerated so far is the set-up for Christianity. It's the background philosophical assumptions. It's the whole reason we put our faith in Jesus. We believe God loves us and that he takes no pleasure in the punishment of those he loves, but his just nature requires it. Because of his love for us, God wants to solve our problem. How is he going to do it? Christians believe he did it by Jesus' death on the cross. He atoned for our sins so we wouldn't have to pay the penalty for them ourselves. That satisfied both God's justice and his mercy at the same time.
But, a critic might argue, there are lots of other ways God might've done things. There are sacrifices, or God could've just pardoned us without Jesus dying. There are a dozen paths one might take. And Christians will usually argue that Jesus' death was necessary, but I'm not even going to bother with that. There's no need. Let's just grant, for the sake of argument, that there are other ways God might've done things, because that point is irrelevent. What's more important than how God could have done things is how God did in fact do things.
Christians claim that Christ died for sins and that he was raised from the dead. That's how God fixed our problem. But what reason is there to think it's true? Well, even without the authority of the Bible, historical arguments can be made. One can argue that Jesus of Nazareth did claim to be the Christ, he did intend his death to atone for sins, and he did rise from the dead. If the historical arguments are not too far fetched, then Christians are perfectly within their epistemic rights in believing that Jesus is the Christ, he did die for sins, and he did rise from the dead.
I don't want anybody reading this to get the wrong idea. The purpose of this blog is not to argue for the truth of Christianity. If that were my purpose, I would readily admit that my arguments are woefully inadequate. My point is to show that Christianity could be true even if the Bible is not the authoritative word of God, and more specifically if Genesis is all wrong. Attacking the authority of the Bible, then, is a wrong-headed approach to refuting Christianity. There are more direct ways of doing it. In an earlier blog, I mentioned these few things that are necessary aspects of Christianity. Attack those. If any one of those are false, then Christianity is false.
For example, people attack the Bible. It contradicts itself, it has scientific and historical errors, etc. At best, all these things prove is that the Bible is not the infallible word of God. But that, by itself, is not enough to refute Christianity. It could be that the Bible contains all kinds of errors and yet there is still a God, there's still a difference between right and wrong, God holds us accountable for doing wrong, Jesus is the Christ, Christ died for sins, and he was raised from the dead. If all of those things are true, then Christianity is true, even if the Bible is not infallible. And arguments can be made to support all of these essentials of Christianity without ever assuming the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Take Genesis for example. Usually what happens is a critic will point out that Genesis is inconsistent with science when read at face value. It makes it look like people have only inhabited the earth for 6000 years. Since Genesis is all wrong, there was no original sin, so there was no fall, so there's no need for redemption, so all that stuff about Jesus dying for sin to redeem us is false.
The usual response is to defend Genesis, usually by some reinterpretation. But that's unnecessary. Let's not even so much as suppose Genesis is an allegory, not meant to be taken literally. Let's just suppose it's all wrong and throw it out. Does that destroy Christianity? No, because what's necessary for Christianty to be true can be arrived at without the use of Genesis.
First, is there a difference between right and wrong? Unless you either have no conscience or you think your conscience is deceiving you, you have reason to believe there is a difference between right and wrong.
Second, are you perfect? Have you ever felt the need to apologize to somebody? If we're honest with ourselves, we must admit that we've all done wrong. No matter how much right you do, it can never atone for the wrong. Can you imagine running a stop sign and telling the cop who is writing you a ticket, "But I've always obeyed the traffic laws except for this one time"? If you disobey the civil law, there's a penalty, and if you disobey the moral law, there's a penalty for that, too.
Third, how can we have moral obligations if there's no one imposing them on us? If there's no one enforcing the rules, then there are no rules. We're not obligated to obey a blind and indifferent universe. We can only be obligated to obey a person. If there are moral obligations we have regardless of what we or our culture thinks, then there is some person who transcends humanity and imposes these moral obligations on us and holds us accountable. Sounds like some kind of God to me.
Fourth, there haven't always been people, but there are people now, and they sin. Between then and now, there must have been a first sin. So regadless of whether the Genesis account is accurate or not, there was an original sin, and it seems like everybody afterwards has continued to sin.
What I've enumerated so far is the set-up for Christianity. It's the background philosophical assumptions. It's the whole reason we put our faith in Jesus. We believe God loves us and that he takes no pleasure in the punishment of those he loves, but his just nature requires it. Because of his love for us, God wants to solve our problem. How is he going to do it? Christians believe he did it by Jesus' death on the cross. He atoned for our sins so we wouldn't have to pay the penalty for them ourselves. That satisfied both God's justice and his mercy at the same time.
But, a critic might argue, there are lots of other ways God might've done things. There are sacrifices, or God could've just pardoned us without Jesus dying. There are a dozen paths one might take. And Christians will usually argue that Jesus' death was necessary, but I'm not even going to bother with that. There's no need. Let's just grant, for the sake of argument, that there are other ways God might've done things, because that point is irrelevent. What's more important than how God could have done things is how God did in fact do things.
Christians claim that Christ died for sins and that he was raised from the dead. That's how God fixed our problem. But what reason is there to think it's true? Well, even without the authority of the Bible, historical arguments can be made. One can argue that Jesus of Nazareth did claim to be the Christ, he did intend his death to atone for sins, and he did rise from the dead. If the historical arguments are not too far fetched, then Christians are perfectly within their epistemic rights in believing that Jesus is the Christ, he did die for sins, and he did rise from the dead.
I don't want anybody reading this to get the wrong idea. The purpose of this blog is not to argue for the truth of Christianity. If that were my purpose, I would readily admit that my arguments are woefully inadequate. My point is to show that Christianity could be true even if the Bible is not the authoritative word of God, and more specifically if Genesis is all wrong. Attacking the authority of the Bible, then, is a wrong-headed approach to refuting Christianity. There are more direct ways of doing it. In an earlier blog, I mentioned these few things that are necessary aspects of Christianity. Attack those. If any one of those are false, then Christianity is false.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
If we don't survive the death of our bodies, then we have no hope in a resurrection.
Some people say that if we have souls that survive the death of the body, then there's no need to have a resurrection, and if we have a resurrection, there's no need to have a soul that survives the death of the body. It seems to me, though, that unless we have some immaterial aspect of our nature that survives the death of the body, there's no hope for a resurrection at all.
Before God can raise a person from the dead who has completely decomposed, God must have perfect knowledge of that person. His knowledge of that person must serve as the blueprint for bringing the person back. But God's knowledge of us is just as perfect before we die as it is after we die. He could, then, in theory, construct a body identical to ours and even implant all of our memories into the brain so that the new person would not realize he just came into existence. If God made a perfect replica of me--mental states and all--then the replica would think he was me. He wouldn't be me, though, because I'm me, and one person can't be in two different places at the same time. No matter how identical God's new creation is to me, we are still two different individuals.
Suppose God created this replica after I was already dead. He raised a new body with all the mental states and memories of me. This raised person would identify himself with me, thinking he is me. But would he be? No. If he's not me before I die, then he's not me after I die either. Me dying has no causal influence on who the replica is. It's still a replica of me, and not me myself. It doesn't matter when the replica is made; it's still a replica.
It would seem that once I'm dead, if I cease to exist, I can never come back into existence. Any supposed coming back into existence would be no different than creating a replica. Though the replica would not know the difference, it would still only be a replica. If I am to have any hope that I myself will be raised from the dead, I must survive the death of my body. There must be something immaterial about me that maintains existence between death and resurrection, and whatever that immaterial thing is, it constitutes my identity. It is me. Sounds to me like a soul or a spirit or something.
But, a person may argue, suppose God raises the exact same body you died with. Would we need a soul in order to maintain identity between death and resurrection if that were the case? I'll save that for another blog.
If you're interested, I had a discussion on a message board a long time ago with some Jehovah's Witnesses on this subject. In their view, we don't survive the death of our bodies, and we're not raised in the same bodies we die in. That creates some identity problems for them. I argued that if their view is true, then none of us have any hope in a resurrection. Here's a link to that discussion.
Another source you might want to check out is Risen Indeed by Stephen T. Davis. It's highly interesting, although he disagrees with me that a spirit/soul is necessary to maintain continuity of identity between death and resurrection.
Before God can raise a person from the dead who has completely decomposed, God must have perfect knowledge of that person. His knowledge of that person must serve as the blueprint for bringing the person back. But God's knowledge of us is just as perfect before we die as it is after we die. He could, then, in theory, construct a body identical to ours and even implant all of our memories into the brain so that the new person would not realize he just came into existence. If God made a perfect replica of me--mental states and all--then the replica would think he was me. He wouldn't be me, though, because I'm me, and one person can't be in two different places at the same time. No matter how identical God's new creation is to me, we are still two different individuals.
Suppose God created this replica after I was already dead. He raised a new body with all the mental states and memories of me. This raised person would identify himself with me, thinking he is me. But would he be? No. If he's not me before I die, then he's not me after I die either. Me dying has no causal influence on who the replica is. It's still a replica of me, and not me myself. It doesn't matter when the replica is made; it's still a replica.
It would seem that once I'm dead, if I cease to exist, I can never come back into existence. Any supposed coming back into existence would be no different than creating a replica. Though the replica would not know the difference, it would still only be a replica. If I am to have any hope that I myself will be raised from the dead, I must survive the death of my body. There must be something immaterial about me that maintains existence between death and resurrection, and whatever that immaterial thing is, it constitutes my identity. It is me. Sounds to me like a soul or a spirit or something.
But, a person may argue, suppose God raises the exact same body you died with. Would we need a soul in order to maintain identity between death and resurrection if that were the case? I'll save that for another blog.
If you're interested, I had a discussion on a message board a long time ago with some Jehovah's Witnesses on this subject. In their view, we don't survive the death of our bodies, and we're not raised in the same bodies we die in. That creates some identity problems for them. I argued that if their view is true, then none of us have any hope in a resurrection. Here's a link to that discussion.
Another source you might want to check out is Risen Indeed by Stephen T. Davis. It's highly interesting, although he disagrees with me that a spirit/soul is necessary to maintain continuity of identity between death and resurrection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)