I have to admit I've been worried over the past few weeks about this election. Worried about the implications for our country and our children. Worried about the chips being chopped away from our freedoms by both parties. But as a Christian, I am reminded by God's word who is in ultimate control of our future. The political parties of this world have control over a limited domain, but scripture tells us God's domain encompasses all things.
Colassians 2:6-10 says, "So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Chirst, who is the head over every power and authority."
Every power and authority. That just about covers it. So, if you're a Christian today, don't get lost in the philosophies and worries of the world. Find strength in your faith and be thankful for the promises God has given you in Christ. Our country will last for a short time, but God's kingdom endures forever.
"But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 15:57.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Follow the Evidence
I recently read this excerpt from a pamphlet produced on Intelligent Design and thought it was worth sharing.
"Many critics suggest that ID is an argument from scientific ignorance. This objection caricatures ID as arguing that because naturalists have failed to explain the origin of biological information and molecular machines, a “designer” must be posited to fill the gap in our current knowledge, yet this is not how the design argument is formulated. As ID philosopher of science Stephen Meyer writes, “Design theorists do not infer design because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of
intelligently designed systems—that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause.” The logical formulation here is positive, rather than negative. It begins with what is known, rather than what is unknown. ID starts with the observation that complex specified information (CSI) and irreducible complexity (IC) are known indicators of intelligent agent causation. Human beings, who are empirically observable designers, regularly produce designed systems such as written texts, computer programs, machines, etc. The technological advances of recent years have allowed scientists to look deep within life systems. To their amazement, the smallest units of life are not the simple blobs of jelly that early evolutionists predicted, but extremely complex IC systems full of CSI. The life systems now known to science are entirely analogous to the written texts, computer programs and machines produced by human designers. Scientists know that intelligent designers produce CSI. It is also known that natural mechanisms have not been observed to produce CSI. Based on what is known, ID theorists argue that an inference to an intelligent cause is the best current explanation for biological CSI and IC. The design inference is thus based on empirical evidence and rational analysis rather than ignorance.
The ID critic may still argue, “Okay, so we do not know how nature can produce CSI or IC on its own, but maybe one day we will.” Anti-ID theorists can argue that eventually we will discover how reams of genetic information arose by purely naturalistic means, and eventually we will show how molecular machines can be built through some sort of Darwinian process; therefore, to posit intelligent design is premature. However, if this is the argument against ID, then it must be understood that it is the naturalist who is making an argument rooted in ignorance and is hopeful for something that is not yet known. It turns out that the gap-argument against ID is itself a gap-argument."
"Many critics suggest that ID is an argument from scientific ignorance. This objection caricatures ID as arguing that because naturalists have failed to explain the origin of biological information and molecular machines, a “designer” must be posited to fill the gap in our current knowledge, yet this is not how the design argument is formulated. As ID philosopher of science Stephen Meyer writes, “Design theorists do not infer design because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of
intelligently designed systems—that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause.” The logical formulation here is positive, rather than negative. It begins with what is known, rather than what is unknown. ID starts with the observation that complex specified information (CSI) and irreducible complexity (IC) are known indicators of intelligent agent causation. Human beings, who are empirically observable designers, regularly produce designed systems such as written texts, computer programs, machines, etc. The technological advances of recent years have allowed scientists to look deep within life systems. To their amazement, the smallest units of life are not the simple blobs of jelly that early evolutionists predicted, but extremely complex IC systems full of CSI. The life systems now known to science are entirely analogous to the written texts, computer programs and machines produced by human designers. Scientists know that intelligent designers produce CSI. It is also known that natural mechanisms have not been observed to produce CSI. Based on what is known, ID theorists argue that an inference to an intelligent cause is the best current explanation for biological CSI and IC. The design inference is thus based on empirical evidence and rational analysis rather than ignorance.
The ID critic may still argue, “Okay, so we do not know how nature can produce CSI or IC on its own, but maybe one day we will.” Anti-ID theorists can argue that eventually we will discover how reams of genetic information arose by purely naturalistic means, and eventually we will show how molecular machines can be built through some sort of Darwinian process; therefore, to posit intelligent design is premature. However, if this is the argument against ID, then it must be understood that it is the naturalist who is making an argument rooted in ignorance and is hopeful for something that is not yet known. It turns out that the gap-argument against ID is itself a gap-argument."
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Faith Builder - The Testimony of James
In my first faith builder post I went through the testimony of 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8. In this creed from some of the earliest Christians, we find that the Christian faith about Jesus was not invented over centuries. This creed was given to Paul by the eyewitnesses within a couple years of Jesus' death. If that was all this passage could offer, it would still be a remarkable text. The truth however, is that there is even stronger testimony that I haven't mentioned.
Looking at the passage again, notice the people who claimed they saw Jesus after his death. First Peter, then the apostles, then a group of 500 people, and then James, Jesus' half brother. This last appearance has great significance because we have some interesting information about James and Jesus' family in the gospels.
In what is thought to be the earliest written gospel, Mark, we find the first testimony as to what Jesus' family thought of him. "When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."" Mark 3:21. Then in John 7:5, "For even his own brothers did not believe in him". From these passages we begin to understand that Jesus was not accepted before his death by his own family, including his brothers. Fortunately, the story does not end there for Jesus' family.
(Archaeology has shown Luke was one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world. His precise details have time and time again proven to be dead on. Luke not only wrote the gospel of Luke, but also the book of Acts.) It is in Acts that we get a post crucifixion update on Jesus' family, including his brother James. In Acts 1:14 Luke states "They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers." There's more. In Acts 15 James shows up again at the council in Jerusalem, and this time he's speaking as one who is a leader of the early Christian church. In Galatians 2:9 Paul goes to meet with James because he's a "pillar" of the church. What happened?
First he calls Jesus insane, and now he is leading his church. In disbelief he saw him killed. Following his crazy brother could lead to nothing good. He would be mocked, scorned, and possibly killed for standing up for him. What could change his mind after Jesus had died? By his own admission to Paul, as stated in 1 Corinthians, it was seeing the resurrected Jesus.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Sister Act
No she hasn't left me to join a convent, but what a performer. My wife Liesl was in a professional production of Sound of Music that finished up last weekend. Though some may list her role as minor, to me, she stole the show.I'm always astounded by Liesl's confidence on stage. We sang together at my sister's wedding with a crowd of several hundred. She carried the tune while I almost passed out. The only thing that brought me through it was looking into her eyes that were telling me I could do it...or maybe they were telling me don't pass out and kill yourself on the steps! Either way I made it because of her.
Her most recent performance was no exception to her absolute grace under pressure. This time she was not singing in front of several hundred, but several thousand people! The first night I went to see the show, and I saw the crowd of almost 2,000 cheering on the performance I wanted to scream out, "That's my wife, isn't she amazing?!" But when she came up the elevator from backstage after the show, there was Liesl with that, "ehh no big deal" grin on her face. Don't get me wrong, she had a great time, but to her it was just another fun day on stage.
If you had been there, she may have seemed like just another nun in a sea of nuns, but she will always be my leading lady.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Faith Builder - Early Testimony
Christians living in today's world have a harder task when it comes to holding strong to their faith. So many questions have been raised as to the character of the real Jesus. Old texts, though not as old as the original scriptures, have resurfaced causing some to doubt their faith. Was Jesus who he said he was?
I have struggled with a lot of these questions over the past few years. Through reading some of Lee Strobel's books, and through studying the word, I have been able to put myself in the shoes of the skeptics. I'm glad to report that after all of this time spent, I have not been convinced by the skeptic's arguments but have found countless more reasons why my faith in Jesus Christ has been well placed.
This morning I was reading through 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, an important text to those that believe Jesus really was the Messiah and not just some later invented, extravagant myth. According to Cambridge graduate, Dr. Craig Blomberg, the history of ancient documents is usually accepted if the event the document was written about took place within 500 years of the penning of the document. That seems like a long time, however, there was no Internet, television, telephone, or even newspaper for word to be passed around very quickly. Therefore it would take a much longer time for a story to spread, change over time, and then keep spreading. So 500 years is a good starting point. As Strobel's book Case for Christ points out, the biographies of Alexander the Great were written more than 400 years after his death, and yet are still regarded as accurate history.
Going back to 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, let's see if Paul's writing falls within this acceptable period. Jesus died circa A.D. 30. By conservative estimates, Paul's conversion took place circa A.D. 32-35. Shortly after Paul's conversion he received a text from the early Christian church. This text is included in his letter to the Corinthians.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also..." 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.
In a nutshell this is what the early church believed. For Paul to have received this text means that not only did this text exist at the time of his conversion, but it existed even earlier as it had already been written down. This creed from the church can therefore be dated as early as two years after Jesus' death (Strobel 1998).Furthermore, the eyewitnesses, Jesus' friends, family, and enemies, were all still around. Those who saw him crucified, and those who saw him after the resurrection were there to write down what they had seen. This is not the stuff of myth, this is eyewitness material. As a journalist, I will take the eyewitness accounts over the opinions of skeptics thousands of years later.
For further information and study I recommend Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.
For more on apologetics go to http://www.leestrobel.com/
I have struggled with a lot of these questions over the past few years. Through reading some of Lee Strobel's books, and through studying the word, I have been able to put myself in the shoes of the skeptics. I'm glad to report that after all of this time spent, I have not been convinced by the skeptic's arguments but have found countless more reasons why my faith in Jesus Christ has been well placed.
This morning I was reading through 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, an important text to those that believe Jesus really was the Messiah and not just some later invented, extravagant myth. According to Cambridge graduate, Dr. Craig Blomberg, the history of ancient documents is usually accepted if the event the document was written about took place within 500 years of the penning of the document. That seems like a long time, however, there was no Internet, television, telephone, or even newspaper for word to be passed around very quickly. Therefore it would take a much longer time for a story to spread, change over time, and then keep spreading. So 500 years is a good starting point. As Strobel's book Case for Christ points out, the biographies of Alexander the Great were written more than 400 years after his death, and yet are still regarded as accurate history.
Going back to 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, let's see if Paul's writing falls within this acceptable period. Jesus died circa A.D. 30. By conservative estimates, Paul's conversion took place circa A.D. 32-35. Shortly after Paul's conversion he received a text from the early Christian church. This text is included in his letter to the Corinthians.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also..." 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.
In a nutshell this is what the early church believed. For Paul to have received this text means that not only did this text exist at the time of his conversion, but it existed even earlier as it had already been written down. This creed from the church can therefore be dated as early as two years after Jesus' death (Strobel 1998).Furthermore, the eyewitnesses, Jesus' friends, family, and enemies, were all still around. Those who saw him crucified, and those who saw him after the resurrection were there to write down what they had seen. This is not the stuff of myth, this is eyewitness material. As a journalist, I will take the eyewitness accounts over the opinions of skeptics thousands of years later.
For further information and study I recommend Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.
For more on apologetics go to http://www.leestrobel.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)