Category Archives: Apologetics
Nothing to Do With Christianity: Chris Columbus reflects European Mindset of the Time
The Rev. Reed Braden over at Homosecular Gaytheist (and friends!) thinks that he’s captured the Christian mindset with this quote from Christopher Columbus’s writings:
Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language. […] I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased.
In its pure form, Christianity would tolerate no such mindset. This isn’t the mindset of a Christian; this is the mindset of a typical European of the 15th century.
Mentioning the conversion of the natives to Christianity is typical of what Lee Camp calls the “Constantinan Cataract” viewpoint: after the Roman Emperor Constantine, Christianity took on a rather militant manner of converting people. It tended to do conversions by force rather than allowing people to hear the gospel and pledge their lives to Christ of their own accord; trusting that God will draw his elect to himself as the Bible promises. Christianity by coercion isn’t Christianity. The apostles would be horrified. Jesus would be grieved.
I share the outrage of Mr. Braden, but I do not agree that it has anything to do with Christianity. Columbus’s mission was to evaluate foreign lands for conquering and bringing under Spain’s control. His primary goal wasn’t to be a Christian missionary. Sorry, Reed, you lose.
Dutch Christians Attend a Naked Mass
My church has a very relaxed dress code. It would be unusual to see our pastor in anything more fancy than a button-down shirt and khaki pants. Most people in the congregation wear jeans. You can always spot the newcomers to our church by the suits and skirts that they wear. As relaxed as our dress code is, at least one church has taken it a step further.
In the Netherlands, a group of naked (yes, you read that right: naked) celebrants held a church service in a nudist park. They had to cancel the second planned service and temporarily take down their website after threatening phone calls and other unfortunate backlash from other Christians.
I’m used to relaxed dress codes, but this… well, is this as ridiculous as some people make it out to be? I’m not so sure.
I don’t see anything wrong with this. It surely isn’t for me–I know I would never attend a nude service–but for nudists, this is the perfect way to meet. The Bible exhorts us to worship God in everything that we do. So, if people like to go around naked, why not turn that into an act of worship as well?
People get all bent out of shape over the silliest things. If you don’t like it, don’t go. It’s as simple as that.
It turns out that that is very biblical advice:
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Rom 14:1-9)
If someone considers nudity a sacred act of worship, who are we to condemn that person? For if he is naked, he is naked to the Lord, if he is dressed, he is dressed to the Lord. None of us lives or dies for our own selves, we live and die to the Lord. Again, if you don’t think that a nude church service is for you (I know it isn’t for me), then don’t go. It’s as simple as that.
My prayers are with the nudists; I pray that they can worship in peace without other Christians passing judgment.
That brings up another point. As a group, Christians are awfully judgmental. We all serve God, whether we realize it or not (take heed, atheists: even you serve the Lord). And the Bible clearly teaches that we are not to judge another master’s servant. So why then do Christians get so darn judgmental over silly things like this?
That, I suppose, is the subject for another post.
PowerPoint Answer to “10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer”
The ridiculous website God is Imaginary has a video entitled “10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer.” I’ve taken the time to write a lengthy response to it here. I have jazzed it up with a summary PowerPoint Presentation.
I plan to make PowerPoint responses to all of the God is Imaginary videos in the very near future. Stay tuned!
Personal Testimonies
Although atheists disagree, I think that personal testimony of encounters with God are some of the most powerful pieces of evidence in favor of God’s existence. Although personal experiences are subjective, each run through the filter of one’s own previous experiences, education, and background, the foundation of the Christian religion itself is based upon personal experience.
Moses had several personal encounters with God. First, at the burning bush, then later atop Mt. Sinai. It is through these personal encounters that we got the Law. The apostle Paul had such a personal encounter with God that it changed the way he thought about Jewish Law and made him an ardent defender of the faith that he persecuted.
I remember a good friend’s grandfather telling me about his own personal encounter with God. It was at that friend’s wedding three years ago. He told me that he had died, but that God sent him back for the express purpose of telling everyone that story. And he does; that story is one of the first things he tells everyone new that he meets.
This man is rational and sane, yet he claims to have had this profound encounter with God. Are we just going to dismiss his experience as a hallucination? As the product of a broken mind? Or can we accept this story as true, as an encounter with the living God?
Personally, I favor the third option. An otherwise sane person would know the difference between a hallucination and reality. A crazy person would manifest other signs of insanity. No, I think that the third option best fits the facts as they stand. I believe that he had an encounter with the living God.
Most encounters with God aren’t so dramatic as meeting him face-to-face, as in the above examles. Most, I believe, are had through other people and circumstances in our lives. For example, my wedding was a gift from God. We planned it in less than a month, and everything came together with no fuss whatsoever. Normally, something of that magnitude would have caused numerous snags and problems, but not this time. I believe that that was an encounter with God.
I have a friend who prayed for a sign and drove past a church with a single neon sign that said “HOPE.” He passed that same church each and everyday at the same time and had never noticed the sign before. Maybe it was just a coincidence that he did this time, but I think otherwise. I think that this was an encounter with God.
My wife and I have fertility problems. I was also very sick (and thus faced considerable difficulty) during her ovulation, yet we were able to conceive our daughter on the first try. Maybe that is also a coincidence, but knowing what I know about the human body and how many things have to fall into place for conception to happen, I believe that this is also an encounter with God.
Once I remember feeling unappreciated at work. Even more than normal. An older lady happened to be the only customer around, and she told me what a great job she thought I was doing taking care of her and that she knew I would go far in this life because of my work ethic. She gave me a hug before she left. I felt energized and happy–this was exactly what I needed. This was an encounter with God.
Most encounters with God are just what I have described above–events and people that touch us in a way that we need at that moment. What about you, readers? Have you any personal stories about encounters with God? Would you like to read more personal encounters with God? Sign up for the message board Is God Imaginary and share them in this thread, or just read the stories that others have posted. Comments are disabled here to encourage your visit to the message boards.
Dave Armstrong Makes a Fair Assessment
When I read the title and the opening letter to this piece, I expected a different reaction from Dave Armstrong:
I am coming to believe that this [good works are the inevitable result of saving grace] is one of the most dangerous teachings within the Reformed tradition, because it makes sin to be of little significance. After all, if all your sins have been forgiven – Past – Present – and Future, and nothing can change that – then where is the fear of God within such a teaching? Can one fear to sin because it displeases a Holy and Righteous God if one thinks that no sin can separate them from God? Can’t this kind of belief cause one to treat God as a doormat? . . . This attitude of “its all been done for you by Christ on Calvary” and there’s nothing expected from the Christian, nothing that he can or should do to grow in righteousness and holiness, makes our lives as believers in Christ, our witness to the world as lights shining in the darkness of no consequence. If I think nothing is required of me to continue in the grace of God, I will live haphazardly and not care a hoot about living a godly, faithful life unto Christ my Lord.
I expected him to immediately agree with the writer and denounce Protestantism. However, Dave is full of surprises, as it turns out. In this case, he actually lauds Protestantism for getting something right. He makes a stronger case for the organic whole formed by good works with God’s grace than I ever could, and he makes it from Calvin’s writings. Read the entire piece here.
Another Conversion Story
Atheists often make the argument that your religious beliefs are determined solely by where you live, which is completely untrue. Recently I covered the story of Masab-Joseph Yousef, a Muslim man who converted to Christianity. Yousef is proof that people can throw off the shackles of what they grow up learning in favor of the truth of Christ.
Another conversion story has hit the news, this time an Egyptian Muslim named Maher al-Gohari. The former police officer converted more than 30 years ago, but has now decided to make his profession public. It isn’t illegal in Egypt to convert to Christianity. However, since Muslim law declares that it is unusual to convert to an “older” religion from a “newer” religion, it is nearly impossible for someone to publicly convert to Christianity from Islam.
We pray that God will open up a door for Maher al-Gohari to publicly declare his faith. We also pray that his family will have their eyes opened by Christ, so that they, too, may convert.
Yet another strike against the failed argument that religion is an accident of birth.
Bondage of the Will III: What it Isn’t
In my previous posts on the bondage of the will, I’ve talked about a moral law that exists and that we all break. I’ve then proven that case using Scripture. But I think it is important to take a moment and define what this does not mean. First, it doesn’t mean that people are as evil as they could be all the time. It also doesn’t mean that people are forced to choose evil. Finally, it doesn’t mean that humans are incapable of doing good. (HT: Reformed Mafia for the list)
One of the major objections that I hear from people who are faced with the Biblical truth that they are sinners is that they are pretty good in comparison to most people. Make no mistake: I’m not saying that everyone is as evil as they could be at all times. I have had many conversations with atheists where they like to remind me about all the charities they donate to, about the children in third-world countries that they sponsor, and all the good they did the last week. I would expect nothing less, because people aren’t as evil as they could be; even Hitler had moments of good behavior, I’m sure.
The only way to truly free our wills from the bondage of sin is to believe in Christ. But, that doesn’t mean that until then, God forces us to choose evil. In fact, we choose evil ourselves because we are, at core, selfish creatures. That goes for believers as well as unbelievers.
Bondage to sin also doesn’t mean that humans are incapable of doing good. Anyone is capable of doing good equally–believer or unbeliever. But, because of our fallen natures, our rebellion against God, and the selfish nature we discussed above, humans tend to choose that which brings them the most pleasure. They tend also to forget about everyone else around them when they do that. It is this self-centered attitude from which springs much of the sin we do.
Why Evangelize?
As a Calvinist and a believer in predestination, many people have asked me, “Why do you evangelize?” The logic being that since God is sovereign in salvation, and has predestined all who will come to him, that there is no need to evangelize since no matter what you do, the job will still get done. That, of course, is wrong thinking.
Calvinism holds these three three things true simultaneously: God is sovereign, man is responsible, and Christians are to witness and pray.
Consider what God says to the Israelites before they go into battle for the Promised Land: “The Lord has given your enemies into your hand.” Now, the Israelites didn’t just sit around after that and say, “Why fight the battle? God has already won it for us!” That’s because God doesn’t make things happen in spite of what we do. That’s fatalism. He makes things happen because of what we do.
For an expanded discussion of these truths, check the excellent Parchment & Pen blog here.
Reaching…
I’ve answered the musings of Mike the Geocreationist before here and here. The latest article on geocreationism.com connects Psalm 104:29 to Genesis 2:7. In Psalm 104, the psalmist says that the animals return to dust when they die. From this verse, Mike reasons that the man in Genesis 2:7 was created indirectly from dust through evolution. Instead of being the direct work of God’s hands in his image, as the plain meaning of the text would indicate, God made men and shaped them through generations of evolution.
Two questions for Mike are: is the dust in Psalm 104:29 the same as the dust in Genesis 2:7? And, if it is, does that mean that man is ontologically the same as the beast? First, let’s address the question of whether the dust is the same in both verses. First, there is no question that the dust is the same dust in both verses. Mike didn’t have to go any further in the Bible than the Genesis account itself. In chapter 2, verse 19, the Bible tells us that God formed the birds and beasts “out of the ground,” same as the man.
At first brush, it appears as though man and beast are ontologically the same (cf. Eccl 3:19-20). But if that were true, then why did God judge that none of the beasts were an adequate mate for Adam? Why did God form a woman from the man himself? This indicates that, ontologically, men and beasts are different and intended to be different.
Bottom line is that the act of creating men and the act of creating beasts is kept separate in the Genesis creation story. Evolution just isn’t in the Bible, no matter how many Scriptures get used. But there’s a more important issue underlying this–that is the Atonement. If Adam isn’t the first man, if Adam had ancestors as Mike indicates, then Adam isn’t the federal head of the human race. It therefore makes no sense that Adam’s sin is imputed to us.
If Adam’s sin isn’t imputed to us, then we don’t need Christ’s Atonement. In a previous post, I made the case that mankind is dead in sin. In a future post, I will make solidify that case using Scripture. This sin is imputed to us by our father, Adam, and is atoned for on the Cross by Christ. If Adam isn’t our first father, if he had fathers before him, then the Atonement makes no sense.
Join the Josiah Concept Ministries Blog Network on Facebook!
Help me out! Join the Josiah Concept Ministries fan page on Facebook!
Back Rome Again 