Apologetics January 22, 2007

Topic1: Asked by Ed: It seems like the prevailing Christian view is, regarding accepting Jesus, that one has to accept Jesus to go to heaven. If we follow that logic, if one does not accept Jesus, that person goes to Hell. This says that the default is Hell. Unless one takes action, one goes to Hell.

What if that is backwards? If God loves us and wants us to join him, what if it is the other way around? What if the default is heaven? What if one has to reject Jesus to go to hell? If this were the case, it would explain why babies go to heaven. People who have never heard of Jesus and therefore, never had the opportunity to reject Jesus would go to heaven too. That answers a lot of questions.

Answers: God is just. A loving and just God will give everybody the chance they are due. Just as with the point of accountability (Dt. 1:39, 2 Sm 12:23, & Is 7:15), people who haven’t heard are not held to the same standard as those who have.

Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Therefore, it can be ascertained that the proof of God lies in his creation. That creation is His signature of sorts. Although the whole truth may not be known, i.e. Jesus Christ in all detail, the simple acknowledgement of the true creator might be what God is looking for.

Also take note of Romans 2:13-15: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)” It is well known that God knows the hearts of men and judges accordingly. He has the knowledge of a wicked heart that, given the chance, would reject him. And he has the knowledge of a good heart that, given the chance, would accept him.

Finally, Romans 10:14 says, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” and verse 17 says, “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” Take into consideration Hebrews 11:1 which says “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The very creation is evidence of a God that is not seen. The pursuit of truth that drives humans embraces the life within them and leads to the understanding that there is more beyond this life; this is the substance of the hope for life after death. If one takes an honest look at the world he or she lives in, that person will quickly realize how much suffering, pain, and death there is. This should clue them in that something is awry in the world. This is the evidence of sin. With these elementary levels of understanding, one can deduce that we are in need of a higher power. Our inabilities and finite lives are evidence enough that something or someone more is required to set things right. Could these rudimentary truths be the very thing to be understood from what has been made? Given an honest evaluation, I’d say that men are without excuse.

Scripture References: Deuteronomy 1:39, 2 Samuel 12:23, Isaiah 7:14, Romans 1:18ff, Romans 2:13ff, Romans 10:12ff

Topic 2: In Romans 8:29ff predestination is mentioned. Ed made the point that perhaps God, knowing the hearts of men, predestined them to be born in places in the world that would basically doom them to be one religion their whole life, i.e. Islam. He mentioned that 99% of all people die in the religion they were born into and this seems like a case for predestination in action. The topic was not covered thoroughly and will be picked up again next week.

Truth

Recently I was asked about religion in general and whether there is an original standard that can be trusted and if so, how can it be known. This actually took place in my class studying religion and came from my teacher. I can tell by some of his statements that he doesn’t really believe in all this religion stuff, but he’ll take money to teach it. I only make that speculation about him—it may not be the case at all, but from what I gather, this is the case. At any rate, I took some time to respond to his questions and below is my response.

---

In response to your question, "What is the "original standard?"-- Who is to say what it is and on what basis? And what is the 'truth behind religion?'", I'd like to weigh in with some of my thoughts.

The idea that truth in the "sacred realm" cannot be known is an escapist mentality appealed to to avoid having to think about mortality, eternal responsibility, or possibly the realization of some previously unknown set of consequences. To write it off is either laziness or reluctance based on some preconceived notion about the subject instead of a conclusion based on evidence or lack thereof. I am not accusing anyone here of taking such a position; I bring it up because I meet with it frequently.

Now, barring rejection without good reason, what good reason is there to believe in a "sacred realm or reality"? In my years as an unbound Christian I've immersed myself (and consequently my faith with me) in many areas of critical thought. I haven't limited myself to merely reading the Bible and only reading critical analysis by other Christians. Instead, I've gone to many neutral, critical, and even anti-Christian sources to find out what has been said about my chosen faith.

First, let me explain a little about myself. As with many people that purchase a new car, I wouldn't know how it all worked before I bought it. I didn't feel that I needed to understand the fuel mixture computer as a prerequisite for buying my car--I just bought it based on face value and trusted that a new car would run. Similarly, I became a Christian without knowing much about the Bible. I was raised believing in Christianity as much as Santa-Clause. My child-like mind couldn't distinguish in a critical way to make an educated decision while I was young; I just accepted it because my parents accepted it and lived it. Later in life, I was faced with the decision to truly take this faith and define myself with it or to reject it and live life how I saw fit. Presented with a rudimentary understanding of the Bible and the faith, I chose to pursue it as my own for life.

From that point, I found myself asking question after question, but then found it difficult to get answers to those questions. I discovered opposition from non-Christians who pointed out elements that seemed contradictory and I was bombarded with questions about the nature of a loving God that exercised sovereign authority over a world filled with suffering and other questions like it. I began to lose my faith and seriously question my eternal destination. Throughout this time, I had only read my Bible sporadically, sometimes with large gaps of time between readings. I eventually realized that I was standing on my own strength.

After a long conversation with my new wife about my struggle, I resolved, with her support and advice, to actually read the Bible. During my reading I began to understand things that were complete mysteries to me before. The big questions about suffering, those who don't hear the message of Jesus Christ, and the nature of a Triune God all began to take shape in my mind with valid and surprisingly logical answers. An understanding of my faith gave me answers to these once difficult questions.

After finding my foundation right where it was supposed to be, I moved on to more difficult fields of study like Greek, historical accuracy, archeological confirmation, and scientific arguments. Needless to say, I've found nothing that has proven to be a true contradiction. There are differences in accounts, but these differences are complementary and not contradictory. There is some question about historical accuracy, but throughout our short archeological history the seeming inconsistencies have later been validated by more recent findings. And projects like RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) done by the Institute for Creation Research have shed light and validity on the Bible's claim to a young earth. Finally, the scriptures themselves, written over a 1700 year span, make amazing predictions that were later fulfilled with precise accuracy. In one instance, a specific number of years is given to the cutting off of the Messiah. The math comes out to exactly the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

I only say all this because I think it conveys a reliability to you the reader. Reliability is a basis for trust. This trust can be placed on the writings that have earned it. Then these trustworthy writings go on to make great claims about a reality outside our own and a God that created it all. So, what is the original standard and truth behind religion? That there really is something to it, and that some people don't just believe it for no good reason. The evidence and reliability is there, it just requires action on the part of the seeker.

Revelation 12 and Christmas

My mother-in-law Bonnie sent me a link to the blog of a friend of Maggie and I that provokes some thought. Rather than posting the body of what Kev said here, I'll give you a link to the article. This way, you'll have the opportunity to bookmark his site and visit it from time to time. It's always a good read because Kev is a talented writer. He was a journalist before going to China to teach at a university there. His current teaching profession is a major calling from God. So, take a trip over, read this article and others, and bookmark it to your favorites.

The link: Not So Silent Night

Just a Theory

How would you respond to someone who tells you that he or she does not believe in biological evolution because it is "just a theory"?

In the event that I was told that evolution is “just a theory,” I’d respond as follows here. In March of 2005 a discovery was made that rocked the world of evolutionist scientists. An excavation took place in Bozeman Montana that lasted 3 years. Paleontologists unearthed the skeletal remains of a T-Rex (Mayell, H. 2005). Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh took samples from a freshly broken thigh bone and found intact, soft tissue. The finding challenges our knowledge of decay or, more likely, our modern evolutionary concepts of dinosaur extinction. If the extinction, that took place 65 million years ago, did not take place 65 million years ago, the geological time table must be questioned. If the geological time table is questioned and deemed unreliable, the very development of species must be questioned.

It just so happens that many of the greatest opponents to evolution are Christians. Some of those Christians also happen to be respected scientists as well. One such group is the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). ICR began a project RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) that set out to study radioisotope relationships. “It was concluded that the uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously.2 This implies that hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay (at today's rates) had to have occurred in a matter of a few days!” (Snelling, A 2005) Research this and then consider the implications that it presents. The documentation is extensive and ultimately calls the age of the earth into question. With a shortened lifespan for earth the evolutionary concept begins to come apart at the seams.

Another interesting element worth consideration is the map drawn by Admiral Piri Reis. During the year 1513, in the libraries of Constantinople, the Admiral Piri Reis, with the help of older source maps, drafted a map that challenges the current understanding of civilization and dating methods. The map accurately depicts the uncovered coastline of Antarctica. The latest time that this map could’ve been drawn, according to modern dating methods and theories concerning the ice caps, was 4000BC and the earliest time was around 13,000BC (Hancock, G ). From this small piece of information one can trace out evidence for advanced civilization in prehistoric times, evidence for a flood, and ultimately evidence for a younger earth with an inconsistent geological time table.

Another difficulty within evolution is known as the Cambrian explosion. Many scientists grapple with the inconsistency between the theory and the evidence. “The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion?” (WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. 2001) The proposed answers draw heavily on speculation.

Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur. (WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. 2001)

If one delves a little deeper into the claims listed above, these claims are exposed as suggested theories formed to answer the questions of the already struggling theory of evolution.

If one takes the time to research the opposition, a mere claim that evolution is “just a theory” becomes an understatement. A large amount of evidence undermines the concept and leaves a mere misallocation of time spent learning it. My answer would conclude with a challenge to back up the statement. Only by actually researching it can an individual speak with conviction on the matter.

References

Mayell, Hillary. (2005). T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved. Retrieved December 13, 2006

from

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Snelling, Andrew A, Ph.D. (2005). Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested

and Verified. Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://icr.org/article/2467/

Hancock, Graham. (1995) Fingerprints of the Gods. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. (2001). The Cambrian

Explosion. Retrieved January 02, 2007, from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html