Earth Coming Together

The scientific discipline of astro-physics teaches a star is formed through a process by which dense parts of molecular clouds collapse into a ball of plasma. Plasma, simply stated, is a gas-like entity. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume. The Genesis creation account perhaps teaches a similar concept.

Genesis 1.1-2 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Notice what verses 1b-2a, “God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep.” At the outset, God brought into being a formless, unseeable void; this formlessness was originally inert or inactive. Thus, since the formless void was not producing energy, no light existed.

Then, God declared, “Let there be light.” The light God called into being did not just magically appear, but resulted from God’s causing the inert plasma cloud, the formless void, to begin acting within and upon itself. So, energy was produced and light appeared. The light God caused was “separated” from the darkness. When we see pictures of our universe, the separation of light from darkness is evident. On earth, the radiated energy of the sun does not become light until interaction with our atmosphere takes place.

The next step in the creative process involved the separation of the waters. What were the waters and in what context did they exist? Let’s consider Uranus, one of the ice planets of our solar system. Uranus is composed primarily of rock and various ices, with only about 15% hydrogen and a little helium (in contrast to Jupiter and Saturn which are mostly hydrogen). Uranus (and Neptune) are in many ways similar to the cores of Jupiter and Saturn minus the massive liquid metallic hydrogen envelope. It appears that Uranus does not have a rocky core like Jupiter and Saturn but rather that its material is more or less uniformly distributed.

When earth was in the early stages of creation, the planets composition could have consisted in a manner similar to Uranus. Earth could have been an ice planet with its material distributed throughout the ice-ball. Earth’s earliest form could have been as an ice planet. At that point, the statement of Genesis 1.6, “Let there be an expanse (open sky) in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters,” easily could be understood. Thus, God could have, as a step in the creative process, brought together the material parts of the earth into a ball and “separated” the water, or melted the ice, to create the oceans and an atmosphere filled with water vapor.

This separating of the waters was followed by what is described in verse 9: “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.” As the waters were differentiated, the matter distributed throughout the water would have coalesced due to gravity to form a solid mass. The matter would have been great enough to create great energy in its coming together. Further, the mass would have been great enough to rise above the water, forming a continent. A theory does exist describing this first land mass: the continent of pangaea.

Pangaea , from Ancient Greek pan "all, entire", and gēs "Earth" (Latinized as Gæa), was the supercontinent that is theorized to have existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration. (Note the accompanying figure on sidebar.) The name was first used by the German originator of the continental drift theory, Alfred Wegener, in the 1920 edition of his book The Origin of Continents and Oceans (Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane), in which a postulated supercontinent Pangaea played a key role. The single enormous ocean which surrounded Pangaea is known as Panthalassa.

Science and the Bible do find common ground. In the beginning of earth’s existence, one large land mass existed surrounded by a vast ocean. What the Bible adds is the existence of an atmosphere so filled with water vapor as to constitute a cloud cover enveloping the whole of the planet. Such an idea is not preposterous at all. Venus, considered to be Earth’s sister planet, is a solid mass covered by a thick cloud cover. Earth still has clouds, but they are less dense now than they would have been in the early stages of planetary development.

From here, we will look at the implications of earth originally consisting of a single continent surrounded by a vast ocean and covered wholly with water vapor clouds.

Creation: To Begin

In Genesis 1, the account of the creation of the universe is recounted. A superficial reading of the account can lead to seemingly insurmountable difficulties. Also, if we compare modern ideas of the makeup of the universe with the Genesis creation story, we find deep inconsistencies between what modern science tells us and what the Bible declares. Modern astronomy teaches us, rightly, how the earth orbits around the sun. By contrast, the Bible tells us the earth was created before the sun or the moon. Seemingly, Scripture teaches a literal six-day creative period and an earth age of no more than 4-6 thousand years. Modern geologists tell us the earth and universe are billions of years old. The Bible gives us a starting point, a point of origin, or, if you will, a genesis for all things in existence. Modern science, at best, gives us a big-bang as the starting point, but cannot offer a theory of beginning.

So, what are we to do, what are we to believe? How did things begin? How old is the earth? What about dinosaurs? When did human-kind arrive? Did we evolve? Were we created? Does Genesis 1 give us one account of creation and Genesis 2 give us another? Can we believe in theistic evolution, or does Scripture require us to accept the concept of biblical creation? Do we have proof for creation? Can proof for evolution be demonstrated? The list of questions can go on and on.

We cannot answer all of the questions concerning the origins of the universe, or the dilemmas associated with the beginnings of life, especially human life. Yet, many answers do exist. In order to find them, we must read Scripture thoughtfully and intently. In biblical studies, scholars often speak of doing a close reading of the text. Others talk of “unpacking” the text in order to discover all of the layers of truth and meaning. Answering questions about creation requires us to do both a close reading of the text and to unpack the creation narrative of Genesis 1.

Let’s start with a close reading of the first few verses of Genesis 1. The beginning phrase of Genesis 1, is, “in the beginning.” Most often, we understand that phrase to mean “when things got started.” Another option exists. If you remember your “Mother Goose” stories, you will recall most of them began with the statement, “once upon a time.” Well, we probably should read Genesis 1.1 in that manner. The writer, though, was not saying simply “once upon a time,” he was saying “to begin,” as in “to begin this account.”

What is the first declaration of Genesis? “To begin, God created the heavens and the earth.” God is the operative term. All the words of Scripture follow this initial affirmation; all of the Bible is to be understood on that basis. God started everything; God superintends everything; God controls everything; God defines everything. Every story and account in the Bible, every psalm, song, poem and proverb is a God-oriented thing. The biblical declaration of God’s existence is the center-piece of Scripture. Without the Lord, Yahweh, Elohim, El-Shaddai, etc., none of what is said in the Bible makes any sense at all. Indeed, without God, the Bible is just another book of human philosophical musings.

Further, the declaration “God created the heavens and the earth” is central to all statements of truth in the Bible. Because God created all things, he owns all things, you and me included. Thus, the Ten Commandments are valid because the One in charge has the right to demand of all humans the highest ethical behavior. Nor can the Cross be disregarded because the God who created in concert as God the Father (Gen. 1.1), God the Son (John 1.1-3) and God the Spirit (Gen. 1.2) is the same God who sent his Son into the world to die for lost humanity.

God cannot be sidelined in our discussions of origins, as modern science would have us do. We must have a concept of beginning; we must be able to look to some thing or to someone as the responsible party for our existence. If we evolved, then we are answerable to an impersonal, time-chance process as the authority for our being. We would be required to find in nature some justification for our existence and our behavior. Unfortunately, the natural world is a place where the strong visit violence upon the weak. We call this process the food-chain: some eat, some are eaten. The strong live, the weak die. Nature is very selfish, impersonal and harsh.

We do have another alternative. If God created, then we are obligated to consider him in all our decisions. We must understand we are all accountable to God for our behavior, if he in fact did create. His commands and instructions are binding upon us all. Yet, we have no cause for fear, because God is a God of love, mercy and grace. Nature knows only brute force; no justice exists in the natural world. If God started time and the universe, he will guide all things to his intended end. No hope for a final resolution of evil and injustice can be found in nature, only a continuing process filled with danger, threat and a hopeless and pointless existence. In God, though, we find hope and purpose. We can find such because he is the God of hope and he does have a purpose.

Rethinking Church, Pt. 2 of 2

If Obama is elected President, churches should be prepared for an assault on their freedoms unseen since Colonial times. Early settlers came to North America seeking religious freedom. Ironically, some duplicated the very religious oppression they had escaped in Europe. Some colonies had state-sponsored churches. Religious liberty in colonial America existed for the most part in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.

Roger Williams was forced to flee Boston for fear of being jailed for his religious views. He founded what became Rhode Island, based on full religious liberty. In the mid- to late-1770s, Baptists were being jailed in Massachusetts for refusing to pay a tax used to support Congregationalist ministers. In Virginia, Baptist preachers were jailed for preaching the gospel. Such practices continued until 1778. They were accused of child abuse and their marriages were not recognized. The penalties they incurred included being beaten with whips, shot, beaten by the sheriff, and having their hands slashed while preaching.

Baptists led in the fight for religious liberty first in Virginia and then in the nation. Baptists were vocal champions of this cause, which was brought to pass in the Bill of Rights. With the support of Baptists, James Madison was elected to Congress. In Congress, he fulfilled his pledge to gain passage of the Bill of Rights, which included the Religious Liberty clause. Without Thomas Jefferson, whose Bill of Religious Freedom was the precursor to the Bill of Rights, Madison, who worked tirelessly in support of religious freedom, and Baptists, whose persecution in the absence of religious freedom led them to support such an idea, we might not know religious liberty today.

Ironically, we are poised to see history repeat itself in America. The time may be upon us when believers will no longer have the religious freedom we have enjoyed since the closing years of the 18th century. If Obama is elected, almost two and a quarter centuries of freedom could be wiped out, all in the name of social justice.

What the government grants, the government can take away. Churches currently enjoy tax-exempt status. The government has “granted” this benefit. Can tax-exemption be revoked? Under what circumstances? If the Obama/Democrat Party agenda prevails, abortion rights will be expanded and same-sex marriages and other items on the homosexual agenda will be enacted. Many of these will be legislated, requiring compliance by individuals and institutions of the nation.

If a pastor preaches against homosexuality, or leads in a pro-life protest, law suits would ensue. The offending preacher and his congregation could find themselves in court. If the court found the church and or the minister to have broken federal statutes, loss of tax-exempt status most likely would be the consequence for the church. Sexual harassment and hate crimes legislation would guide the court in its decisions. When same-sex marriage is legalized, the government will be granting homosexuality moral equivalence to heterosexuality.

So, how do we respond to such a possibility? We vote. We encourage every member of our congregations to vote. We vote conscience, not politics. We vote, realizing what we do in the voting booth has to be an expression of our basic biblical beliefs. We remind our membership of the critical ethical issues involved in this election. Most importantly, we do not give up, regardless of the outcome.

We also, regardless of the outcome of the election, need to take some additional steps. First we should enact formal guidelines for membership in our churches. Included in these statements should be a clear statement outlining our view of what is required to be a Christian. Further, far more strict rules for membership should be enacted. For too long, walking down an aisle and shaking the preacher’s hand and being dunked in a baptismal pool has been enough. Times have changed.

Churches must begin requiring doctrinal affirmations by those seeking membership. These affirmations have to include fundamental requirements for church membership. These must include affirmation of God’s Word as the only standard and guide for the faith and practice of believers. Making that affirmation would include acceptance of the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality and the Bible’s affirmation of the sanctity of human life beginning at conception.

Also, churches should formally state their requirements for marriage within the church. For a minister of a church to marry someone, that person must be a member of the church. If not a member, they must agree to the biblical guidelines the church uses in defining itself. Preferably, non-members should not be married by a minister of the church as an official representative of that church. Second, members-in-good-standing, and members-in-good-standing only should be allowed use of the church’s facilities for weddings and other functions.

When drawing up these guidelines, the church should seek the counsel of an attorney. The attorney should be a believer and have a firm knowledge of constitutional law. If such a resource person is not available, churches should consider consulting the American Center for Law and Justice, or the Liberty University School of Law. These actions should be enacted before Obama is inaugurated, if he in fact is elected. Indeed, these steps should be taken even if John McCain is elected President.

We are late in the game and most churches have no clear strategy for their future. So, we must act so we will not have to react. We must plan, not panic. We can no longer be lulled into a false sense of security by politicians of any party in America. Most of all, we must be steeled for action knowing the Supreme and Sovereign God of the Universe will be on his throne November 5th just as he was at the beginning of the day on November 4th. His power cannot be nullified in the voting booth.

Rethinking Church, Pt. 1 of 2

Let’s consider a “what if” scenario: President Barak Hussein Obama. If he is elected president, how should churches (those congregations of all denominations identifying themselves as fundamental or conservative evangelical) respond? If we expect a “business-as-usual” world in an Obama administration, sadly we are mistaken. If Obama takes the White House, and Congress becomes overwhelmingly Democrat, the world will change for all believers who remain faithful to biblical Christianity. If Obama becomes President, we also can expect a federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, to become characterized by the most liberal judicial philosophy in its history.

The positions taken by Obama and the Democrat Party on two issues stand as road signs indicating where this county will be headed with all branches of government under the control of a party noted most for its social, economic, and political liberalism. These two watershed issues are abortion and homosexuality, not the economy, foreign policy, or the environment.

By the way, the move among younger evangelicals away from pro-life, pro-family, and pro-traditional sexuality to social justice issues is a troubling trend. Stung by criticisms from the secular world about “what we are against, not what we are for,” these young believers are trying to improve our image. World hunger, compassion for those with HIV/AIDS, and concern for so-called global climate change are worthy issues. Yet, we can feed people, minister to those with a variety of STDs, and reduce our carbon footprint (whatever that means), but if we live in a world where human life, from its very beginning, and traditional marriage are held in contempt, what have we gained in our pursuit for social justice?

Now, what do we know about Obama and the Democrat party? Obama, feigning lack of knowledge about an issue relegated by him to a "higher pay-grade," was afraid to say when human life begins (lest he alienate his core following of pro-abortionists). He has stated he would not want to see either of his daughters “punished” with a child if they made a “mistake.” One wonders if he would require his daughters to abort their unborn child and his unborn grandchild, even if the daughter wanted to carry the child to term.

Regarding homosexuality, Obama has declared his support for the traditional view of marriage, between a man and a woman only. Yet, in letters to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club and the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, Obama stated his plans to have the Federal Defense of Marriage Act repealed and his opposition to California’s Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in that state. He also opposes the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy; he instead wants all branches of the military fully open to homosexuals.

Barack Obama is not a friend to those who support pro-life policies, traditional marriage, and a military free from social experimentation. So, we must conclude Obama is not a friend of conservative Christians and their churches. For, in Obama’s world, those who do not line up with him and support his radical social agenda will run the risk of serious legal battles. Will believers be granted a fair hearing in courts dominated by the Obama view of legality? No. He has already stated his conviction that our courts should be sensitive to a person’s sex, race, social class, and sexual choices. Thus, those who might be called into court in a battle against a poor, female, black homosexual are bound to lose. We will not be a society governed by law, but by the social values of the judges, and ultimately, the social values of the President who appointed them.

If a theologically conservative or fundamental church or synagogue refuses to marry homosexuals or to allow them to use the church or synagogue facilities for such marriages, these groups will find themselves in court. If the Obama/Democrat agenda prevails, the federal government will one day be issuing licenses to ministers, priests, and rabbis, granting or denying them the legal authority to marry. If a minster refuses to marry homosexuals, he will not be licensed to perform marriages.

If a rabbi, priest, or minister speaks out against homosexuality, he will incur the wrath of the homosexual community and the federal government. At that point, we will have a situation in which the federal government, not the sovereign God of the universe, dictates doctrine.

So, what do we do?

Study 41 “So, What Is the Truth?” Part 1

I am reading the book No Perfect People Allowed, by John Burke. Chapter 7, "How Do You Feel about Gays? The Tolerance Litmus Test–Q2," left me somewhat dissatisfied. Now, let me hasten to say, I am not critiquing the book, nor am I arguing with the author. What I want to do is try to answer some questions the chapter raised in my mind.

I know many people within the church "hate gays." At least, their response to homosexuality is perceived as hate by many. We believers have a difficult task set before us as we deal with the issue of same-sex relationships. We have been boxed into a corner by our culture, which is moving closer and closer to an unprecedented acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and acceptable sexual expression.

By the way, I purposely have chosen to not use the terms gay or lesbian. While employing male/female homosexuality and related terms might be a little unwieldy, I prefer them to the alternatives. Within this article and others to follow, my reasoning for this decision will become evident.

In order to fully state my positions on homosexuality, I need to make some definitive statements on the issue. Number one, homosexuals are not necessarily bad people. Number two, homosexuals are not beyond the scope of God’s grace. Number three, homosexuals should be welcome in any church. Number four, I personally do not "hate" gays.

Having made the preceding statements, I must also add that I do not accept homosexual behavior as normal or natural. Homosexual behavior fails to conform to the biblical ideal for sexual relationships. While some might want to make the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual sex "cultural prohibitions," we must come to terms with the consistent rejection of homosexuality in Scripture, a rejection that covers a number of historical cultures. No evidence of any kind exists showing biblical support for homosexuality.

Further, I do not believe anyone is "homosexual." Sexual behavior does not define a person. Sexual behavior, simply, is a kind of conduct. If sexual behavior defines a person, then we would have a definition distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals in a clear and substantive kind of way. Yet, no such definition exists; nor can one.

We are, first, human beings; second, we are either male or female. Thus, from a biological perspective, we are all born predisposed to heterosexual behavior. That one fact is irrefutable.
So, what do we do, as pastors in particular, when we try to be welcoming to homosexuals, but, are compelled to address those texts which sound awfully judgmental of homosexuality? What do we say? Do we avoid the issue altogether? Will we fear offending someone who is homosexual and worships with us on a regular basis, and so, avoid an unpopular position? An even more pressing question for many is how do we wisely address homosexuality, knowing families in our congregations have children or siblings they love who are involved in homosexual relationships?

Do we avoid adultery, on-line pornography, drug-abuse, or bigotry because we, most likely, will have someone in our audience who is guilty of one of these behaviors? In fact, what are we telling people when we try to make them comfortable in God’s presence? Jesus was in the behavior changing business. He was brutally honest with those he met, telling many to "go and sin no more." Seems to me, if we are not frank and honest about unacceptable behavior, we have failed to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. If we affirm what the Bible rejects, are we not guilty then of adding to or taking away from the Truth?

Modern ideas about homosexuality are not rooted in the truth, but, instead, in feelings. The unnaturalness of homosexuality is clear. No one is born with physical suited for homosexual sex. When babies are born, they are either male or female. They are born predisposed to heterosexuality.

Study 40 “Jumping from the Pinnacle”

Several weeks ago, I read a report on the web site mondaymorninginsight about a pastor in Florida who was planning to allow cameras in his home for broadcast on the Internet. His goal was to show non-believers that he is just like them. He wants non-Christians to see his life as it is in order to prove he is authentic.

At the cost of appearing to be critical of someone who obviously is serious about reaching the unchurched, I will make some observations.

In defending the pastor’s decision, some have argued that if the lost are reached, surely the method is good and justified. Really? Paul observed to the Philippians that some "preached Christ even of envy and strife" (Ph. 1.15). Those who did so, Paul noted, were preaching the Gospel. He rejoiced in that fact. Yet, he did not recommend their actions as either an appropriate or acceptable evangelistic methodology, even though the approach "worked."

If cameras in one’s home is a defensible evangelistic method, are we all, then, expected to open our homes in such a manner and sacrifice our privacy? Are we called to give up the integrity of our marriages and families for the sake of the Gospel? Further, does the biblical call to authentic Christianity require such actions?

No doubt, as believers, we are all under the demand of authenticity in the expression of our faith. Yet, how can we know what we must do to prove we are "real"?

Quite frankly, beyond the guidelines of Scripture, no other counsel can be found through which we can determine how to express the Gospel. In one on-line discussion I had about this issue, one person stated that this pastor’s actions did not go against the Bible, meaning, I suppose, that he had not compromised any stated biblical evangelistic directive. Such an argument, though, does not prove that cameras in one’s home is consistent with Scriptural principles.

The purest evangelistic method is rooted in person-to-person relationships. If a believer is to establish his authenticity, he will do so only insofar as his actions are consistent with his stated beliefs. My life, as viewed through a TV screen or computer monitor, might or might not be a real expression of who I am. In fact, even if I put a camera in my home, some things would be off-limits. No cameras would be allowed in bedrooms, bathrooms; none would show heated "discussions" between me and my wife. In other words, a scripted image would be broadcast.

Yet, in a real-life relationship, I cannot fake it. I might pretend to be a friend, but, ultimately, events will require me to be authentic. Jesus taught this truth in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Only in the real world of human relationships can I prove the truthfulness of my profession of Jesus as Lord of my life.

Consider the demands of Jesus. He declared that we prove the validity of our commitment to him in selfless acts of kindness to the hungry, the thirst, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner (Matt. 25.31-46).

In his wilderness temptation experience, Jesus rejected the dramatic as an appropriate way to accomplish his call. Satan reasoned (based on Scripture) that if Jesus would leap from the pinnacle of the Temple, angels would rescue him. His point seemed to be that the crowds, being sufficiently impressed by this dramatic display, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, they would flock to his cause (If it works, what’s wrong with it, Satan argued?).

Jesus flatly refused to employ such a method. If he did so, should we not do the same? Jesus proved his authenticity in the real world. People who met him were impressed by his authenticity. Even his enemies knew he was real; that is what so frightened them that they took his life.

TV reality is not real, just entertaining. Authentic Christianity stays true even when life ceases to be fun and entertaining.

Study 38 “Who Is Wise?” Part 9

The spiritual and theological legacy of Rudolf Bultmann is European Christianity in its present, anemic form. Actually, Bultmann was not solely responsible for what happened in the church on the Continent. He himself was part of a process that pre-dated him, yet, he was a highly visible and vocal spokesman of that movement away from traditional, biblical Christianity in Europe.

Yet, Christianity in Europe is not dead. In a recent "Breakpoint" commentary, Chuck Colson noted signs of renewed interest in Christianity among the Dutch. He pointed out "the remarkable critical and commercial success of a number of openly Christian writers." Colson further remarked that one "of those books, Kneeling on a Bed of Roses, by Calvinist author Jan Siebelink, was the second-best selling Dutch book of the past decade."

What was the no. 1 best seller? A new Dutch translation of the Bible. This edition "sold 500,000 copies in a nation of 16 million people: the equivalent of 10 million copies in the United States. Can those sales figures be a sign the Dutch are looking for "new" answers to their present-day dilemmas?

The secularization of Europe after WWII was made easy as the church, especially Evangelical, allowed itself to be marginalized, trivialized, and, thus, make unimportant to the debates of late 20th century Europe. No longer would social issues be decided on the basis of historic Christian principles that had undergirded European culture for over a thousand years. The socialization of European states and the liberalization of social policies progressed unimpeded by biblical values. The goal of those processes was to supply Europeans with whatever material needs they had and to rid them of guilt by allowing virtually any behavior.

Holland has led the march to liberalized social policies. Same-sex marriage, prostitution, drugs, euthanasia, and abortion were legalized. What did that freedom from ethical restraint bring to Europe? The family is in deep trouble in Europe, with birth rates in decades old declines. Did Europeans find happiness and fulfillment in their new, anything-goes societies? Not hardly. Colson pointed out that in Europe, "suicide rates between four and sixteen times higher than that of ‘less developed’ European countries and the United States" is the reality. So much for the socialist paradise.

Has America seen similar things? As a nation, we are in the midst of an epidemic of births to unwed mothers and a STD rate that is appalling. This new "sexual freedom" (read: sexual slavery) has produced a tragic result for teens. In one study, 47% percent of high school students surveyed reported having had intercourse in the last month; 45% reported drinking alcohol and 22% marijuana in that same period. One-third of those polled said reported having had feelings of sadness and hopelessness. College counselors report that depression on college campuses has doubled over the past decade and instances of suicide have tripled. An University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study showed that among teen girls, sex and drug use led to depression, not vice versa.

No one needs convincing that our public high schools, colleges and universities are committed to the safe-sex philosophy. As an approach to human sexuality, safe-sex is not working, and the emotional baggage young women must carry as a result of sexual promiscuity. Further, the negative physical consequences for young women with respect to child-bearing must be considered as well. Far from being a panacea, indiscriminate sexual activity is an emotional hell.

So, what does all this have to do with the sufficiency of Scripture. The Dutch provide the answer. In a society that had become almost totally secularized, human beings lost hope and direction. The rationalization of man’s spiritual side as somehow a holdover from his ancient, less civilized past was shown to be empty and void. Now, those who live in a culture with no boundaries are looking for boundaries, limits, and authoritative answers.

The writer of Proverbs wrote, "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law" (Proverbs 29:18). The vision, in Hebrew, is a word or an oracle from God. Those who have no word from God are unrestrained (from a word meaning to break out). Without godly guidance, people break all the rules, cross all the boundaries. Yet, those who keep, observe the law are happy. So, observing the principles of the Bible brings one happiness and fulfillment. Many who once were disabused of that notion are now changing their minds.

Study 37 “Who Is Wise?” Part 8

A liner note on the back cover of Rudolf Bultmann’s book "Jesus Christ and Mythology" declared, "Few men have exerted more influence over the course of modern theology than Rudolf Bultmann." Disagreement with that statement among scholars is hard to find. Yet, the influence of Bultmann has not always been positive. Some of his thoughts have been quite detrimental.

Criticism aimed at Bultmann has been in some points deserved, at other points undeserved. Most upsetting for many has been his view of Scripture.

For instance, Bultmann wrote, "The fact that the word of the Scriptures is God’s Word cannot be demonstrated objectively; it is an event which happens here and now. God’s Word is hidden in the Scriptures as each action of God is hidden everywhere." Later, he stated, "The idea of the omnipresent and almighty God becomes real in my personal existence only by His Word spoken here and now. Accordingly it must be said that the Word of God is what it is only in the moment in which it is spoken. The Word of God is not a timeless statement but a concrete word addressed to men here and now. . . . It is His Word as an event, in an encounter, not as a set of ideas, . . ."*

I would agree that demonstrating objectively that Scripture is God’s Word is impossible; as with God himself, we accept both the Word and the Author of the Word on the basis of faith. Were objective proof to be found, evidence both incontrovertible and undeniable, belief in God would be universal. Remember, though, Jesus commended faith in the absence of seeing. In other words, you do not need proof to trust God.

But what of Bultmann’s contention that the Word of God is a here and now event, an encounter? For Bultmann, God’s Word was God’s Word "only in the moment in which it is spoken." Further, this Word is hidden in Scripture, thus, Scripture is not God’s Word, only the house in which the Word dwells, sometimes in a backroom into which only a few have or are granted access.

I do not intend to critique Bultmann’s works or his theology. Better minds than mine have wrestled successfully and unsuccessfully with Bultmann’s positions. I wish instead to suggest something about his spiritual struggle. He made a telling statement early in "Mythology." "For modern man, the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer and of redemption, are over and done with."* Bultmann saw his task in part as finding those statements in Scripture which would not be "stumbling-blocks to modern man." Here is found the original "seeker sensitive" mentality. Cut out of Scripture what offends.

Actually, Bultmann was trying to come to terms with faith in the face of his modern man’s doubting mind. He saw modern science as having put to rest all the simple myths of earlier civilizations. If some of those pesky miracle stories and tales of eschatological redeemers could be put forgotten, all would be okay. Obviously, heaven and hell are mythological, being nothing more than childish explanations for simple minds concerning one’s state after death. Did Bultmann believe in heaven or hell? I don’t know.

Once Bultmann, though, had started weeding out the myths that were "stumbling-blocks" to his "modern" mind, he found he did not have much left to play with. Yet, even as he set aside the notion that Scripture is somehow uniquely God’s Word in written form, "myths" and all, he was forced to find a replacement. Since no one can prove God exists, Jesus died and was resurrected, and that Scripture is truly God’s Word, what is man left with? Obviously, Bultmann could not see beyond this life. So, we are left only with the moment; we are alive only now. Thus, if we are to encounter God, we must encounter him in the moment.

I wonder where God goes when he is not meeting us in the moment of time in which we exist? Is he dependent upon man’s experience of him to be real? Where is the Word, the one Isaiah declared would not pass away, nor return to God void?

Bultmann’s problem was with faith. He had become man-centered. Since he could not devise an argument for a pre-existent God, he then had to devise a God he could contain within his own mind. Based on his experience, he defined his own theology. Modern day "God is still speaking" proponents find themselves in the same bed as Bultmann. While they came to where they are from different directions, they ended up in the same place. Scripture is not enough; Scripture explains nothing. Only in our experience can we truly know God and his Word.

Believing God is eternal, and thus, that His Word is as well, requires not existential or experiential proof. All that is required is faith. The writer of Hebrews stated the case as follows. "By faith we believe that the worlds were made by the spoken word of God, resulting in seen things not being made from what is visible" (Heb. 11.3). In other words, God called into existence something from nothing, as it were. We do not try to prove creation, we believe; we trust God’s witness in His Word that such is the case. So much for the modern scientific mind.

*Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, Prentice Hall, 1958, pp. 71 & 79.
*p. 17

Study 39 "Who Is Wise?" Part 10

What value does Scripture have? What should the believer expect to find in the Bible that will have practical utility for him in his daily life? Should believers fear not finding answers in Scripture for any of life’s dilemmas? Should Christians, for any reason, expect to hear God speak to them apart from Scripture?

These questions have to do with the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture. If Scripture is sufficient, we then can conclude it does have value. If Scripture is sufficient, the value of the Word also is practical. If Scripture is sufficient, then, we can conclude, it does address all of life’s issues in some manner, either directly or indirectly. If Scripture is sufficient, why would God need to speak to anyone apart from His Word?

In addressing problems of fellowship in the churches of Rome and Corinth, Paul made similar statements. To the Roman house churches, the Apostle declared, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15.4 NASB) To the Corinthian congregation, he wrote, "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction , upon whom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Cor. 10.11 NASB).

An interesting detail in each of the above quoted verses is that Paul referred believers in both settings to the written Word. In Rom. 15.4, Paul noted the written Word three times. He spoke of what was written beforehand (proegraphē); what was written (egraphē) for instruction; and the Scriptures (graphōn). Each of these words, by the way, comes from the Greek verb graphein, to write. In 1 Corinthians 10, "written" is the same as the second occurrence in Romans 15.

In Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul stated that the purpose of the written account was for the instruction of believers. The word he used was didaskalian, teaching, instruction, doctrine. Interestingly, in Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he made a similar statement as is found in Romans and 1 Corinthians. "All Scripture . . . is profitable for instruction . . . so that the man of God might be thoroughly, fully, or completely qualified for every good work" (my translation). Can we, or should we, ask for more?

Now, what Paul said further to the Romans and Corinthians should be considered as well. He wrote that "whatever was previously written was written for our instruction, so that through steadfast endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (my translation).

Thus, we can justifiably conclude that the virtues Paul named, steadfast endurance, encouragement, and hope are rooted in the Word. Earlier, in Rom. 5.1-5, Paul addressed steadfast endurance and hope, relating both to the trials believers face and the work of the Holy Spirit. So, we, in the tests we face in life, can find the steadfast endurance, encouragement and hope necessary for negotiating life’s difficulties in the words of Scripture and the work of the Spirit.

Likewise, to the Corinthians, Paul emphasized the role of the written word as the source of instruction for believers. He observed that a record of the experiences of the Israelites in their wilderness wanderings had been written. The account provides an example for believers of what to do and not to do. In other words, as Paul stated, Israel’s experiences, serving as an example for Christians, were written for the instruction of believers.

What is the point of that instruction? To inform believers of the tests of faith which they most assuredly will encounter. "Therefore, let the one who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall" (1 Cor. 10.12 NASB). Paul declared that the Christian life is not a free ride, and one must be careful to not make assumptions. Believers will find their trust in God challenged at every turn.

Christians will not discover guidance, the key to endurance, a source of encouragement, or hope apart form the Word. The one who ignores Scripture, foolishly waiting for a word from God, will be disappointed. If that believer, though, will seek guidance in the Word and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, he will be rewarded at every step with every resource he needs to overcome in life’s struggles.

By the way, have you ever wondered why Paul never made the statement one hears so many modern believers casually let fall from their lips, "God told me . . ."? The question deserves an answer.

Study 36 “Who Is Wise?” Part 7

Scripture is a rule unto itself, a standard within a standard. Neither personal experience nor church tradition are formative for our understanding or belief system. Scripture stands as the final arbiter in the determination of the validity of individual or corporate experience.

Apart from this essential truth of the independence of Scripture, we would face doctrinal chaos. In fact, our modern Christian doctrinal landscape is littered with the trash of doctrinal confusion. When Scripture as normative ceases to be the sole factor in the determination of doctrine, a theological mess ensues.

The Truth of Scripture is not truth because we recognize it as such. The Truth of Scripture does not come into being only in the existential moment. The Truth of Scripture is not rooted in human existence or awareness. The Truth of Scripture is rooted and exists in the Person of God, and in him alone.

Thus, we must understand the complete independence of Scripture from human existence. Scripture defines us, we do not define the Word. Consensus did not deliver the Canon. The controlling Spirit did. God has never been content to rely on man as his hope for making himself and his plan known. So, human experience is not the ground of revealed Truth. Revealed Truth broke through human experience under the guiding hand of God’s Spirit.

Yet, God chose to reveal himself through the human race. He did so by using men who were free moral agents as his spokesmen. In that fact we can see the miraculous nature of inspiration. Without overriding man’s free will, God revealed himself through the inspired writers in a unique way. He led those biblical authors to an understanding and insight they could not have achieved apart from God’s intervention in their lives (cf. Matt. 16.17).

Further, without those men ever realizing the full scope of what they were doing, each of the documents that comprise Scripture was written, preserved, and finally compiled in the Canon. What we have now we call the "Holy Bible." Paul’s words were "sacred writings" (2 Tim. 3.15). Fundamental to this concept of Holy Bible or Sacred Writings is divine inspiration. Scripture is not sacred because any assembly or council declared them to be so; Scripture is sacred and holy because it is "God-breathed."

Again, the sacredness of Scripture, the uniqueness of its Truth, is such as a result of God’s direct intervention through inspiration. Remember, God put "his words" into Isaiah’s mouth (Isa. 59.21). Because what Isaiah received was the "word of the Lord," the "words" out of his mouth were reliable and authoritative for Israel’s experience; they would accomplish their purpose; they would not pass away.

The Word came to Isaiah, not from or out of Isaiah. He delivered what he was given; he was doing far more than simply sharing his thoughts. A central message in Isaiah is that the words of God given to Isaiah were credible, because God himself, who had spoken the words to Isaiah, was himself believable.

Upon that foundation, God’s believability, his reliability, the Book of Isaiah and the whole of Scripture stands. Could Israel believe, while in exile, that God would deliver them as he had promised beforehand? For believers today, the question looms no less significantly in our lives. How much credibility does God have? Can we, yea, will we rely totally upon the Word of God?

The issue we all face is what must be done about Scripture. Do we believe it? Are we willing to stake our very existences upon its Truth? Do we find understanding in the Word for who we are and what we should do? Or, do we seek to define Truth by what we experience and see? Such is the test of our time.

Study 35 “Who Is Wise?” Part 6

Years ago, a young man I had known in high school telephoned one day. He told me he had sensed a call from God to vocational Christian ministry and wondered if I would let him preach in my church. To put me at ease, supposedly, he assured me "I don’t preach doctrine. I just preach Jesus."

I was aware then of what is etched now even more keenly on my heart: to preach Jesus is to preach doctrine. I have learned that not every "Christian" "believes in Jesus" as I do, which I hope is in a manner consistent with Scripture.

Early Christianity had to fight for its very life against what has come to be termed as Gnosticism. The heart of Gnosticism was a radical redefinition of Jesus. Men like Cerinthus and Valentinus took the Church’s teaching about Jesus and sought to make him into something far different from and far less than the Incarnate Word really was. Ultimately, the church rejected the views of this heretical movement.

Doctrine is not, as we can see, a bad thing. We Baptists have certain doctrinal distinctives that characterize our life and practice. Our self-understanding as a denomination and as individual believers is formed upon a biblical foundation articulated from a Baptist perspective.

Paul commended Scripture to Timothy as being "profitable for doctrine" (2 Tim. 3.16). Now, let us understand what doctrine is. The Greek word translated doctrine is didaskalia, a noun based on the Greek verb didaskō, meaning "to teach." So, didaskalia means "teaching," and also, "what is taught." Therefore, didaskalia encompasses both the idea of the teaching event and the content of teaching.

Paul told Timothy inspired Scripture is "profitable" as a source and foundation for Christian instruction. One teaches upon the authority of the Word and one teaches the Word. The "all Scripture is inspired" statement delineates clearly the boundaries for profitable doctrine. We need look no further than the Bible for our source of truth or wisdom.

What we must reaffirm at this point is the scope of "all Scripture." Are we to restrict ourselves to the Hebrew Scriptures for our doctrine as Paul did? Surely not. The early church realized that not only was the Hebrew Bible inspired, but certain writings from the first century, which had the mark of Apostolic authority, were binding for believers as well. Upon that basis, the NT Canon was developed.

Consequently, believers have at their disposal both Old and New Testaments, each co-equal with the other; each equally inspired; each equally authoritative; each equally beneficial for doctrine. The OT and the NT together constitute the revealed Truth of God. The OT was not replaced by the NT. They complement and augment one another. They are together the sufficient Word of God.

One must be warned, though, that no believer is free to randomly and indiscriminately "interpret" Scripture. While we Baptists have our doctrinal distinctives, we do not depart from the traditional core beliefs of historic Christianity. At the same time, we understand those central doctrines from the Baptist perspective.

We, as do all Christians, accept the admonition to be baptized. We, though, approve only of immersion as the biblically acceptable mode. Our form of church government is congregational, not episcopal (bishops) or presbyterian (elders), although all have biblical support as forms of ecclesiastical governance. We have a de-centralized view of denomination life: authority flows from the local congregation to the denomination, not the opposite.

We also see something unique and singular in Scripture. In God’s Word, we find our justification for belief and practice.