In, Miracles, C.S. Lewis rejects the notion that scientific progress and discovery has nullified the belief in miracles.
The idea that progress of science has somehow altered this question is closely bound up with the idea that people ‘in olden times’ believe in them [miracles] ‘because they didn’t know they laws of nature.’ Thus, you will hear people say, ‘The early Christians believed that Christ was the son of a virgin, but we know that this is scientifically impossible.’
All records of miracles teach the same thing. In such stories the miracles excite fear and wonder (that is what the very word miracle implies) among the spectators, and are taken as evidence of supernatural power. If they were not known to be contrary to the laws of nature how could they suggest the presence of the supernatural? how could they be surprising unless they were seen to be exceptions to the rules? And how can anything be seen to be an exception till the rules are known? If there ever were men who did not know the laws of nature at all, they would have no idea of a miracle and feel no particular interest in on if it were performed before them. Nothing can seem extraordinary until you have discovered what is ordinary. Belief in miracles, far from depending on an ignorance of the laws of nature, is only possible in so far as those laws are known.
The nature and question of true conversion is a hot topic in the church today. At the Southern Baptist Convention this year, David Platt found himself in a bit of hot water by questioning the validity of the “sinner’s prayer.” The debate there hinges on the exact usefulness of a canned prayer to bring about salvation. No one questions whether or not prayer is important in conversion, but whether or not it is sufficient. Does a prayer offered by a 16 year old who attends church for 6 months and never returns really constitute salvation? If so, then what do we do with the Biblical teaching on repentance? If not, then why do we continue to lift up the sinner’s prayer as the end-all-be-all of evangelism? Much of this is reminiscent of the Lordship Controversy of the late eighties and nineties which brought evangelical leaders out on both sides.
In Turning to God, David Wells seems content to stay above the fray and out of the argument. Though this book was originally published in 1989, most of the primary voices in the Lordship debate are left out of Wells’ bibliography. Rather than engage the arguments, Wells seems content to engage the text of Scripture. His purpose in writing this book is to place the emphases for conversion in the places where the NT writers place the emphasis,
The New Testament writers view conversion dynamically–as something one does–and they interpret it theologically with words such as faith, repentance, grace, forgiveness, and regeneration.
Far from arguing that conversion is solely an act of the will, however, Wells presents conversion as an act of God upon sinners that brings about a response. Nevertheless, his emphasis in this book … Continue reading
An Open Letter to Young, “Post-Partisan” Evangelicals. David French argues that “post-partisan” is a pipe dream for evangelicals.
One political party is completely dedicated to legal protection of abortion on demand. The other political party is completely dedicated to repealing Roe v. Wade. If you talk too much about abortion, others will define you, and if you’re defined how can you be independent?
Tim Challies on Competitive Mothering (Also, see Christine Hoover on The End of Mommy Wars, both articles are must-reads for moms.)
One of the greatest, most common, and most bloodthirsty contemporary competitions is motherhood. Yes, motherhood. It may be that motherhood has always been competitive, but the Internet in general, and social media in particular, have widened the field. You are no longer competing against only neighbors and sisters-in-law and fellow church members, but the professional moms, the ones who are reinventing motherhood.
Al Mohler on why Christians are so concerned with homosexuality. The answer? Because it is one of our culture’s most pressing issues today.
Why are Christians so concerned with homosexuality? In the first place, that question is answered by the simple fact that it is the most pressing moral question of our times. Christians must be concerned about adultery, pornography, injustice, dishonesty and everything the Bible names as sin. But when my phone rings with a call from a reporter these days, the question I am asked is never adultery or pornography. It is about homosexuality.
Stand To Reason asks atheists to consider the problem of the good.
The atheist must also solve the problem of good. How can anything ultimately be evil or good in a universe bereft of any standard to make sense of the terms?
In a recent article for First Things, Christian Smith writes about the natural, but not necessary tendency toward religion for mankind. The article is well worth your time and in it, Smith argues that religion is natural to humanity, not because religious practices are universal, but because religious practice exists in every arena where the tendency toward religion is fostered. In other words, all cultures have the ability to be religious, but some simply do not cultivate that tendency.
Though Smith’s premise is well argued, I was particularly struck by his assertion that belief is a universal human condition,
The first of these natural human tendencies toward religion springs from our universal human condition in relation to what we affirm as true. As I have argued in my book Moral, Believing Animals, all human beings are believers, not knowers who know with certitude. Everything we know is grounded on presupposed beliefs that cannot be verified with more fundamental proof or certainty that provides us assurance that they are true. That is just as true for atheists as for religious adherents. The quest for foundationalist certainty, with which we are all familiar, is a distinctly modern project, one launched as a response to the instabilities and uncertainties of early-modern Europe. But that modern project has failed. There is no universal, rational foundation upon which indubitably certain knowledge can be built. All human knowing is built on believing. That is the human condition.
That means that religious commitment is not fundamentally different from any human belief commitment. It involves the same innate human need to believe more than one can “prove.” Otherwise we would live in a cognitive desert, unable to furnish our minds with enough perceptions and ideas to begin thinking. Religious believing thus shares the larger epistemic situation … Continue reading
The Christ who will not worship Satan to gain the world’s kingdoms is followed by Christians who will worship only Christ in unity with the Lord whom he serves. And this is intolerable to all defenders of society whoa re content that many gods should be worshipped if only Democracy or America, or German, or the Empire receives its due, religious homage. The antagonism of modern, tolerant culture to Christ is of course often disguised because it does not call its religious practices religious, reserving that term for certain specified rites connected with officially recognized sacred institutions; and also because it regards what it calls religion as one of many interests which can be placed alongside economics, art, science, politics, and techniques. Hence the objection it voices to Christian monotheism appears in such injunctions only as that religion should be kept out of politics and business, or that christian faith must learn to get along with other religions. What is often meant is that not only the claims of religious groups but all consideration of the claims of Christ and God should be banished from the spheres where other gods, called values, reign. The implied charge against Christian faith is like the ancient one: it imperils society by its attack on its religious life; it deprives social institution of their cultic, sacred character; by its refusal to condone the pious superstitions of tolerant polytheism it threatens social unity.
–H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture
Would Jesus visit with our churches and discover that our definition of healthy fits his definition of healthy? We love, but do we love as God loves? Jonathan Leeman says, “We assume not that God is love but that love is God.” The church of Christ is a community where her members love each other sacrificially, extending warm hugs and smiles, ministering to one anther in times of need, and when necessary, correcting and rebuking one another if and when we stray. The church should be characterized by God’s love, not love as the world defines it. Love according to many would never correct or rebuke, yet the Bible says that even a father disciplines the child he loves. Does God see us loving each other that much? Do we love enough to say the hard things? Proverbs 27:5-6 says, “Better is open rebuke and hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.”
Godly love demands sacrifice, sacrifices of comfort and shallow relationships. Godly love goes well beyond eating dinner together on occasion, godly love may very well mean getting your hands dirty sometimes to help a brother in a difficult time or correct an errant sister. Godly love holds no record of wrong (1 Corinthians 13), but it does correct wrong when it can. Of course, godly love also demands that we accept rebuke when it is delivered in a godly and edifying way. There is much more to be learned about the Church of Christ, but I believe that the loving one another is a great place to start. After all, it was the command of Jesus in John 13:34-35, “A new commandment I give to you, that … Continue reading
Ed Stetzer has written a great article on The Baptist Boogeyman
I’ve always been fascinated by the Baptist bogeyman. Bogeymen are not real dangers, but ones we use to scare one another, often distracting us from real danger. There are real challenges in our churches and the convention—theological and otherwise—but bogeymen distract us from the real issues.
A first-century manuscript and it’s value for apologetics and the church.
How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading
I would commend to you Tim Challies’ series on Visual Theology. Here is his graphic on the attributes of God.
A couple of weeks ago I released the first infographic in a series I am titling “Visual Theology.” What I appreciate about infographics is their ability to display information visually. Just as there are many words that can be used to describe any one fact, there are also many ways to display facts.
Matt Papa is writing some entries in his blog (Part 1 and Part 2: The Golden Calf of Christian Radio) about contemporary Christian music and mainstream Christian radio stations. Some of this would be funny if it weren’t so heart-breakingly (I think I just created that word) true.
Becky isn’t one person of course…she is the prototype target audience created by the christian music industry for christian … Continue reading
I often hear that conservative Christianity is opposed to “real” science and that if Christians had anything to do with it, science would never have arisen. The great problem with statements like the one above is that they are false. The belief that Christianity is somehow opposed to science has been repeatedly defeated, and yet it seems to rear its ugly head often.
Many authors and books take up the task to defend the Christian faith against her enemies by showing that many of the commonly held beleifs about Christianity and science are false. Rodney Stark, for instance, in his book, For the Glory of God spends an entire chapter showing how Christianity led to the rise of science. He writes,
In contrast to the dominant religious and philosophical doctrines in the non-Christian world, Christians developed science becaue they believed it could be done, and should be done. As Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) put it during one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925, science arose in Europe because of the widespread “faith in the possibility of science…derivative from medieval theology.”
He goes on to argue that science arose in Europe because, in contrast to other (especially atheistic) worldviews, Christianity provided the “fundamental theological and philosophical assumptions” necessary for its genesis. Christianity beleived in a truth that could be discovered and in a God who encouraged such discovery. The God of Christianity created a lawful universe that functioned within those laws. Islam, on the other hand provides a picture of Allah that discouraged scientific advances,
Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but has been conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes on the world as he deems it appropriate. Consequently, there soon arose a major theological bloc within Islam that condemned all efforts to … Continue reading
If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all he said; if he didn’t rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said? The issue on which everything hangs is not whether or not you like his teaching but whether or not he rose from the dead.
Tim Keller The Reason for God pg. 210
Buy The Reason for God
Yes, I know, I am way behind the evangelical reading curve because I just now got around to reading Tim Keller’s The Reason for God. As one reading this book late in the game, it had much to live up to. After all, The Reason for God has been called Mere Christianity for a new generation and has blurbs on the back from Rick Warren, Christianity Today, and the Washington Post. So, how does it shape up for me?
First, Mere Christianity is what it is because it has stood the test of time. Before we can give this title to Keller’s work, it needs also to stand the test of time. However, I do believe that it will stand the test of time. It is incredibly well written and enjoyable. The apologetics in the book are approachable and the stories are captivating. His synthesis of many of the best arguments in support of the resurrection in chapter thirteen is one of the best and most succinct that I know. Keller does a good job of mixing his academic acumen with his pastoral heart in this book.
Second, Keller has done well to engage postmodern culture. It is fairly obvious that the predominant sin of this generation (and probably of all generations) is that of idolatry. Keller shows that materialism, self-love, and even inclusive are all forms of idolatry and that they simply do not stack up to good reason. However, he presents his arguments in a way that can be appreciated in the postmodern world, he is dogmatic, but not preachy. He teaches with questions as well as sermons. he invites readers to discover the truth through his carefully guided questions and he refutes … Continue reading