I was listening to one of my favorite worship songs. As great as it is--even transcendent in some way--it is still no comparison to heaven. When the Lord returns, it will be real--hyper real. The most real thing a person can experience. I just think of heaven. I think of the end of all things. I think of how Jesus loved us. I think of how the world is passing away. I think about how this temporal, physical life is but a shadow of what is true reality.
I find the arguments against God to be utterly indefensible. They have the PoE, that's it. I think anyone being fair to the evidence (knowing that science CAN'T answer all questions) it is actually easy to believe that God exists. For example, what happens when you inquire of ChatGPT about the existence of God about the contingency argument? Well, it seems that God exists from that. Exhibit A:
I find the arguments against God to be utterly indefensible. They have the PoE, that's it. I think anyone being fair to the evidence (knowing that science CAN'T answer all questions) it is actually easy to believe that God exists. For example, what happens when you inquire of ChatGPT about the existence of God about the contingency argument? Well, it seems that God exists from that. Exhibit A:
But what many folks who don’t believe, or are indifferent, is that many people who have faith are there because of what they have experienced rather than what they have reasoned out. An experience of true Love transcends any rational argument doesn’t it? It becomes its own validation.
But what many folks who don’t believe, or are indifferent, is that many people who have faith are there because of what they have experienced rather than what they have reasoned out. An experience of true Love transcends any rational argument doesn’t it? It becomes its own validation.
Yes, this is very true. Most people come to faith in Christ by some experience and not by the evidence (though the evidence is largely on the side of Christianity). There are some who have come to faith based on the evidence, though. Josh McDowell is one such person who set out to disprove the resurrection of Christ, only to find himself a Christian sometime later. But, yes. We serve an experiential God--a God who can sympathize with our weaknesses and is still there for us even amidst our sin.
Two resources on this topic that I find interesting.
A variety of questions including how to deal with a family member who is extremely resistant to God, and how much certainty is required to believe Christianity is true.
www.reasonablefaith.org
DR. CRAIG: When I first heard the message of the Gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by God, that God loved me, he loved Bill Craig, and that I could come to know him and experience eternal life with God, I thought to myself (and I'm not kidding) I thought if there is just one chance in a million that this is true it's worth believing. So my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's. Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I lower it. I think that this is a message which is so wonderful, so fantastic, that if there's any evidence that it's true then it's worth believing in, especially when you compare it to the alternatives like naturalism or atheism or other forms of life. If Kyle really knows what it's like to experience the love of God and to have this hope in eternal life and forgiveness of sins then it seems to me that he will gravitate toward that alternative. It will be so attractive and that it would take really, really decisive disproofs to make him give up his Christian faith and abandon it. Now, when I talk about the witness of the Holy Spirit I don't mean God speaking to me directly in the way Kyle describes. God doesn't speak to me directly either in that sort of way as an inner voice. But I just mean a kind of fundamental assurance that one's faith is true. People often talk about this as the assurance of salvation, and I think that is the privilege of every born-again Christian. I hope that Kyle is more than just a nominal Christian, that he's really come to experience the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit and that he's indwelt and filled with the Holy Spirit because I think then that removes the huge epistemic bar that he thinks you need to get over in order to become a Christian.
CS Lewis and Thomas Merton are another two. Many folks today treat the New Testament story as myth like any other that’s passed down from antiquity, but it’s hard to hold that opinion if you look hard at it. Mind you, there are inconsistencies in it that are open to critique. But it’s hard to see why the apostles after the death of Christ would push the resurrection if if didn’t happen - after all it was an excellent way to get yourself scourged and executed and totally illogical if there was no resurrection. You could argue that the whole thing is an invention from the late first century onwards, but we have fragments of Paul’s letters from mid-1st century. Then there are all the fulfilled prophesies from the Old Testament that would have been really hard to weave into a fiction in those days. What’s more there doesn’t seem to be a similar sort of literature at the time - I don’t think they went in for fiction in those days. The ancient religious myths of the Roman Empire evolved from pre-civilisation tales rather than being fabricated by an author.
But even so, it’s fairy easy to argue the thing is an almighty fraud used to consolidate Constantine’s empire if you don’t look hard at the evidence. I could argue that Australia is a fiction and no-one could argue me out of it if I was really stubborn and had a deep conviction about it. If someone just took me there and showed me, then that would be different.
I guess both evidence and experience are both very important. Sometimes it’s exploring the evidence that leads to experience, and sometimes it’s the other way round. And these go on in circles all through life for folks who are open minded.
CS Lewis and Thomas Merton are another two. Many folks today treat the New Testament story as myth like any other that’s passed down from antiquity, but it’s hard to hold that opinion if you look hard at it. Mind you, there are inconsistencies in it that are open to critique. But it’s hard to see why the apostles after the death of Christ would push the resurrection if if didn’t happen - after all it was an excellent way to get yourself scourged and executed and totally illogical if there was no resurrection. You could argue that the whole thing is an invention from the late first century onwards, but we have fragments of Paul’s letters from mid-1st century. Then there are all the fulfilled prophesies from the Old Testament that would have been really hard to weave into a fiction in those days. What’s more there doesn’t seem to be a similar sort of literature at the time - I don’t think they went in for fiction in those days. The ancient religious myths of the Roman Empire evolved from pre-civilisation tales rather than being fabricated by an author.
But even so, it’s fairy easy to argue the thing is an almighty fraud used to consolidate Constantine’s empire if you don’t look hard at the evidence. I could argue that Australia is a fiction and no-one could argue me out of it if I was really stubborn and had a deep conviction about it. If someone just took me there and showed me, then that would be different.
I guess both evidence and experience are both very important. Sometimes it’s exploring the evidence that leads to experience, and sometimes it’s the other way round. And these go on in circles all through life for folks who are open minded.
I agree with what you are saying. It’s really important for even committed Christians to challenge themselves both intellectually and experimentally. A lot of people abandon Christianity because of the behaviour of so-called Christians who act as though they have god in their pocket. Sadly, the behaviour of the Pharisee is just as much around today as in the days of Christ. And just as open to Christ’s condemnation maybe?
So I think it’s important for every committed Christian to doubt - not god but, in humility, their own understanding of him. She can be found unexpectedly in the most ordinary, and the most unexpected, ways for ‘those with ears to hear’ the spirit. The thing is that if we give up the certainty of our understanding and just open ourselves to the spirit then it frees her to bring us into the great dance that’s going on all around us. None of us know god - it’s something I hope will take all of eternity for me .
No I’m not familiar with Dr Habermas. Do you recommend him?
I agree with what you are saying. It’s really important for even committed Christians to challenge themselves both intellectually and experimentally. A lot of people abandon Christianity because of the behaviour of so-called Christians who act as though they have god in their pocket. Sadly, the behaviour of the Pharisee is just as much around today as in the days of Christ. And just as open to Christ’s condemnation maybe?
So I think it’s important for every committed Christian to doubt - not god but, in humility, their own understanding of him. She can be found unexpectedly in the most ordinary, and the most unexpected, ways for ‘those with ears to hear’ the spirit. The thing is that if we give up the certainty of our understanding and just open ourselves to the spirit then it frees her to bring us into the great dance that’s going on all around us. None of us know god - it’s something I hope will take all of eternity for me .
Doubt in and of itself is a neutral thing. Atheists doubt their "lack of belief" in God, for example. Some issues are things we will literally die for. But not everything is a rank 1 issue. Most issues are not (despite what IFBs say).
He is the leading expert on the Resurrection of Christ. He has probably studied more about the resurrection of Christ than anyone since the Apostles. We are talking like 30K hours of scholarly work.
On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences - Kindle edition by Habermas, Gary R. . Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences.
The trouble is that for many their only experience of god is what they have seen in others. That’s why, for example, so many people in Ireland have abandoned their ancestral faith - because of the wickedness of the institutional religion in that country a couple of generations back. St Paul points out how important it is that we Christians show love for each other, not least because it brings others to faith by our example. It takes a special gift to look past those problems in Ireland - thank god that there are such gifts. There are similar experiences in many other parts of the world. Sadly, the great sin of pride can come with the wrong sort of spiritual certainty and it’s the devil in disguise.
I think it’s the sort of doubt that’s important. To doubt yourself and trust completely in the Holy Spirit is divine doubt. He can appear to us in so many unexpected and delightful ways. And after all he’s not a ‘tame lion’ (The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe).
But I don’t mean doubt in god - this is a million miles away from that. It’s a healthy doubt in how well I or any other human as very finite creatures can comprehend him.
The trouble is that for many their only experience of god is what they have seen in others. That’s why, for example, so many people in Ireland have abandoned their ancestral faith - because of the wickedness of the institutional religion in that country a couple of generations back. St Paul points out how important it is that we Christians show love for each other, not least because it brings others to faith by our example. It takes a special gift to look past those problems in Ireland - thank god that there are such gifts. There are similar experiences in many other parts of the world. Sadly, the great sin of pride can come with the wrong sort of spiritual certainty and it’s the devil in disguise.
Yes, I have heard of the people leaving their faith in the UK, and specifically what you mention as well. We are not going to agree on what the "Church" is, I don't think. I don't believe the Church is an institution. I think it is all those who have genuinely put their trust in Christ. There are many "Christians in name only" in the world today--people who are Christians for all sorts of reasons, instead of the fact that they actually believe it for themselves. I've seen people say, "I have always been a Christian." So, I have to ask them if they remember when they got born again. A lot of them would look at you like you came from the moon. In their mind, it is much like being Jewish. You can be Jewish and not really follow Judaism at all. Or you can be a super Ultra-Orthodox Rabbi. Either way, you are still Jewish. But that is not the way I view Christianity. Christianity is about having the Holy Spirit living in you. As such, it would not be unheard of to experience miracles and such. Not just in some far-away kind of way, but that you have a relationship with Jesus and He talks to you as much as any other conversation you can have with another person. The communication might not be verbal, but given that the Lord is sovereign, he can speak to us in ways words cannot.
I think it’s the sort of doubt that’s important. To doubt yourself and trust completely in the Holy Spirit is divine doubt. He can appear to us in so many unexpected and delightful ways. And after all he’s not a ‘tame lion’ (The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe).
That's interesting. I recall this book that came out somewhat recently (which I didn't read) called "Doubting toward faith". Something like that, anyway.
But I don’t mean doubt in god - this is a million miles away from that. It’s a healthy doubt in how well I or any other human as very finite creatures can comprehend him.
I’m probably not actually far away at all from you on this. In my view the Church is an institution in that it is something that was instituted by Christ, but it isn’t any one religious denomination - it’s all of them and more besides. You only have to look at the wide range of personality types in MBTI to see how many different ways there must be to relate to and follow the spirit - and there’s a huge range of differences within each type too. I guess I’m very INFJ on it myself and find the inner journey with the spirit is how I’m led, but there’s many another way.
Yeah, I am aware that you would still consider me "saved" even though I am not Catholic. However, it's pretty clear from the Council of Nicea II that I would be a heretic, outside of the kingdom of God.
Yeah, I am aware that you would still consider me "saved" even though I am not Catholic. However, it's pretty clear from the Council of Nicea II that I would be a heretic, outside of the kingdom of God.
I’m afraid I take an even more expansive view than that . It seems to me, when we look at the universe in its extent in time and space, that god has taken a great deal of trouble to bring about our existence. It seems unlikely to me that he would readily let any of that trouble go to waste unnecessarily. I don’t mean that every path is the same as every other. I think though that few paths lead into oblivion or worse, though many are longer, and more torturous, and more uncomfortable than others. There’s only one door to go through in the end.
Of course my lot parted company over a clause in the Nicean Creed (as well as about authority) - and that altered form is shared by many if not all Protestant churches. You wouldn’t be alone in not fitting in with the Ecumenical Councils….
I’m afraid I take an even more expansive view than that . It seems to me, when we look at the universe in its extent in time and space, that god has taken a great deal of trouble to bring about our existence. It seems unlikely to me that he would readily let any of that trouble go to waste unnecessarily. I don’t mean that every path is the same as every other. I think though that few paths lead into oblivion or worse, though many are longer, and more torturous, and more uncomfortable than others. There’s only one door to go through in the end.
Romans 10:14-17
"How, then, can they call on him they have not believed in? And how can they believe without hearing about him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news. But not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ."
Matthew 7:7-11
"“Ask, and it will be given to you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. Who among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him.”"
There is only one way to salvation, and that is through Christ. We have zero examples to the contrary in scripture. Along with this, because God is sovereign, He can show the Gospel to any person who is seeking him without exception.
Of course my lot parted company over a clause in the Nicean Creed (as well as about authority) - and that altered form is shared by many if not all Protestant churches. You wouldn’t be alone in not fitting in with the Ecumenical Councils….
I don't think there is any basis for bowing down to images or kissing them before the sixth century.
Leviticus 26:1
"“Do not make worthless idols for yourselves, set up a carved image or sacred pillar for yourselves, or place a sculpted stone in your land to bow down to it, for I am the LORD your God.”"
Exactly - that's why all good roads must lead there in the end. But the history of human interpretation of what is a good road shows a deep lack of understanding in the spirit very often. We only have to look at what each Christian denomination has taught and done in relation to the others to see that. It’s only in the last 20 years that Catholics and Protestants have stopped slugging it out with each other in Northern Ireland.
There are images of Christ and the crucifixion going back to the masses held in the ancient Roman catacombs of course, but I understand where you are coming from. Many Moslems too take the same view, along with the Jews.
I know that frequently the use of these things is misunderstood. I'm not a great one for religious statues and pictures myself - i dislike them but I don't object to them, as long as they act as signposts rather than an object of worship. Medieval churches in England were painted with stories from the bible. This was really important when most of the congregation was illiterate - it was an important teaching tool. From history, it sounds like it got out of hand sometimes and I wonder sometimes whether the modern Orthodox churches take it too far.
But I’ve always taken the OT proscriptions to be against images created specifically to be worshipped as idols rather than representations of the stories of their religious history. It’s really only after the incarnation that it made sense to try and create an image of god to help focus our minds on the real thing and bring home to us what he suffered for us. But folks sometimes give their images too much more, beyond that.
Exactly - that's why all good roads must lead there in the end. But the history of human interpretation of what is a good road shows a deep lack of understanding in the spirit very often. We only have to look at what each Christian denomination has taught and done in relation to the others to see that. It’s only in the last 20 years that Catholics and Protestants have stopped slugging it out with each other in Northern Ireland.
There are not many things one must believe to be saved. For that reason, yeah, it is a shame that Christians cannot come together and be unified. I think something needs to be said about convictions versus essentials of the faith. We should be able to have freedom of conscience (Romans 14). In the same way, the Gospel is fairly easy to understand: We are all sinners. We can't save ourselves. We need someone to step in and save us. That is Christ who saves us. The deity, death, and resurrection of Christ are the minimal requirements. We can throw things in there like our sinful nature or the Trinity, but these are really just an outgrowth of the deity, death, and resurrection of Christ. If we had a merely propositional faith, then Christ would have no need to say, "Depart from me; I never knew you." But, I don't believe works are necessary for salvation either. Rather, I think the key in all this is the orientation of our hearts. Are we growing to be more like Christ? That's a yes or no question. If the answer is no, you have to ask why?
Romans 6:22
"But now, since you have been set free from sin and have become enslaved to God, you have your fruit, which results in sanctification—and the outcome is eternal life!"
Don't compare yourself to yesterday, but to who you were five years ago. Because you are either growing or you are dying; there is no third direction.
There are images of Christ and the crucifixion going back to the masses held in the ancient Roman catacombs of course, but I understand where you are coming from. Many Moslems too take the same view, along with the Jews.
I know that frequently the use of these things is misunderstood. I'm not a great one for religious statues and pictures myself - i dislike them but I don't object to them, as long as they act as signposts rather than an object of worship. Medieval churches in England were painted with stories from the bible. This was really important when most of the congregation was illiterate - it was an important teaching tool. From history, it sounds like it got out of hand sometimes and I wonder sometimes whether the modern Orthodox churches take it too far.
But I’ve always taken the OT proscriptions to be against images created specifically to be worshipped as idols rather than representations of the stories of their religious history. It’s really only after the incarnation that it made sense to try and create an image of god to help focus our minds on the real thing and bring home to us what he suffered for us. But folks sometimes give their images too much more, beyond that.
That is why I did not quote from Exodus, but instead from Leviticus--because in Leviticus, it does not equate images to idols, but it does say that we CANNOT bow to them, that is, to show them some kind of reverence.
Isaiah 44:12-17
"The ironworker labors over the coals,
shapes the idol with hammers,
and works it with his strong arm.
Also he grows hungry and his strength fails;
he doesn’t drink water and is faint.
The woodworker stretches out a measuring line,
he outlines it with a stylus;
he shapes it with chisels
and outlines it with a compass.
He makes it according to a human form,
like a beautiful person,
to dwell in a temple.
He cuts down cedars for his use,
or he takes a cypress or an oak.
He lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest.
He plants a laurel, and the rain makes it grow.
A person can use it for fuel.
He takes some of it and warms himself;
also he kindles a fire and bakes bread;
he even makes it into a god and worships it;
he makes an idol from it and bows down to it.
He burns half of it in a fire,
and he roasts meat on that half.
He eats the roast and is satisfied.
He warms himself and says, “Ah!
I am warm, I see the blaze.”
He makes a god or his idol with the rest of it.
He bows down to it and worships;
he prays to it, “Save me, for you are my god.”"
The thing I want to point out to you about this is that nowhere in church history was it ever acceptable to bow down to or to kiss or to show reverence to a Christian piece of art until the sixth century. We have no record of such things, at least. Again, I have no problem with Christian art. I have a problem with making the Christian art holy in one way of thinking about it or another. It's not holy. It's material. There is zero spiritual essence to it whatsoever. And this was just the basic view for all Christians until the sixth century. It's not until about the middle of the sixth century that we see people ascribing a kind of "value" to Christian art. And even then, it did not all come upon us suddenly, as almost nothing in Church history is like that. Rather, things work gradually. An idea becomes a reason. A reason becomes a doctrine. A doctrine becomes a dogma.
As per the larger discussion of Catholic (and other Apostolic Traditions that believe in the infallible councils) vs other traditions, I find it necessary to point out that Catholicism very much works based on a top-down method, meaning if the Church is infallible, then all they teach is infallible. But I only need one example of how the Chruch can err. And I think Nicea II is a very good example of that. Why? Because in Nicea II, which is supposed to be an infallible council, they said that icon veneration (in the form of bowing down to and kissing the image) goes back to the Apostles. It doesn't. Even Catholic scholars will admit this because, oftentimes, scholars are more honest with the data than theologians are. This is one of the main reasons I could never be part of an apostolic tradition.
Now, if you could show me an ORTHODOX source (not Gnostic or something) where people were bowing down to and kissing icons early on in Chruch history, that would be different (although it is still not talked about at all in the Bible). But I very much think icon veneration is largely a practice that the Church learned from her Pagan neighbors, rather than anything resembling it going back to the Apostles. Again, I have no problem with Christian art. I listen to Christian art in the form of music all the time. I am doing that right now. But this is different from some notion that an icon can be like a "window to heaven" or something.
@QuickTwist I understand what you are saying. What’s frustrating is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches condemn the wrong use of images just as strongly. They are there to focus the mind and heart on what is real behind them. It’s the same with the veneration of the saints - an Anglican friend of mine thought that Catholics worshipped Mary, but that’s not true and would be awful idolatry. What we do believe is that she can intercede with god for us, in the same way we can ask anyone living to pray for or with us. But I can sympathise with strong objections like your own - some aspects of it can become unsavoury.
I’m not sure about your concerns with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. For example, many denominations today rely only on the authority of the Bible, but that was not established in its present form until the 4th Century and by one of those councils, that of Rome - followed by other, later ones. So its authority is based on the Church councils of those days, and the history, writings and traditions that came before then that helped determine what should be included and what was out. That means that those who today rely solely on the content of the Bible, as we know it, for authority are implicitly relying on Council authority anyway, which validated it. I can’t see how it could be otherwise considering the way it took several centuries for people to begin to understand Christ’s life and its implications for us.
@QuickTwist I hope this discussion isn’t taking the thread away from your intent. It’s really interesting having such a conversation with someone who has in-depth knowledge - I just hope it’s not derailing where you wanted it to go.
@QuickTwist I understand what you are saying. What’s frustrating is that the Catholic and Orthodox churches condemn the wrong use of images just as strongly. They are there to focus the mind and heart on what is real behind them. It’s the same with the veneration of the saints - an Anglican friend of mine thought that Catholics worshipped Mary, but that’s not true and would be awful idolatry. What we do believe is that she can intercede with god for us, in the same way we can ask anyone living to pray for or with us. But I can sympathise with strong objections like your own - some aspects of it can become unsavoury.
I have not said nor inferred that Catholics worship icons (or Mary). But just FYI, it's very difficult to know when that line has been crossed because you can't look into the heart of another person, so you don't actually know if they are being idolatrous or not. It's certainly a problem in Mexico and other places, that's for sure.
I’m not sure about your concerns with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils. For example, many denominations today rely only on the authority of the Bible, but that was not established in its present form until the 4th Century and by one of those councils, that of Rome - followed by other, later ones. So its authority is based on the Church councils of those days, and the history, writings and traditions that came before then that helped determine what should be included and what was out. That means that those who today rely solely on the content of the Bible, as we know it, for authority are implicitly relying on Council authority anyway, which validated it. I can’t see how it could be otherwise considering the way it took several centuries for people to begin to understand Christ’s life and its implications for us.
First, we have to look at what scripture says about itself...
Matthew 4:4
"He answered, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”"
Jesus says the "Written Word" is "From the mouth of God." There is nothing else like that.
The Bible is a fallible list of infallible books. Further, it does not take an infallible source to recognize something as infallible. I can trust a genius mathematician's calculations as being proof, even though the mathematician is not infallible himself.
.
