reason.cck.org.uk

In the first article I was looking at if it was possible for a good all-powerful God to allow suffering to exist within our world, or whether the very existence of suffering proved that there is in fact no God at all. I came to the conclusion that in order to define suffering and evil in a meaningful way, the existence of God was necessary. In this article, we will look at the causes of suffering in our world, particularly focussing on the issue of ‘personal evil’. What I mean by this is the kind of suffering that comes about as a result of individuals or groups making decisions that have an impact on others. This includes a very broad range of things from mass evil such as the Holocaust, and 9/11 to everyday decisions.

The necessity of free will

So if God is all-powerful, why does he allow suffering to happen on an individual level? The first point to highlight is that God has given us dignity as humans through giving us free will. This free will is necessary, as without it we are sub-human and do not have a capacity to experience love.  We would merely be robots.  I have been married for 9 months to my wife Jac, and we love each other very much. Imagine though that I had met her and forced her to be in a relationship with me, this would not be love at all, but coercion. God has given us the same dignity of responding to him. He does not coerce us into relationship with him.

Some people will ask ‘if God knew that we would sin, why did he choose to give us free will in the first place?’ The issue here is that relational love could not exist without free will. God could have built a world with androids in it, but he chose something more glorious, a world with relational love, and there are potential consequences to that. God decided that it would be more glorious and praiseworthy to have a human race with love, even at the risk of his own children turning their backs on him, than an enormous bunch of robots who are simply programmed to have to respond to him.

The effects of sin

The reality is that God made men and women in the beginning to experience a relationship with him. If we look in the Genesis narrative we see that there was total harmony (Genesis 1:31), but then Adam and Eve chose to disobey God (Gen 3:6-7) and everything changed.  We have continued as a human race in much the same way. As human beings we certainly have a dignity about us, which enables us to do some very positive things: we are able to be creative with technology, draw wonderful art, make fantastic music, advance scientifically and many more things. This comes from being image-bearers of God who is also creative, but sadly we also exhibit the signs of rebellion.

It doesn’t take much to see this in action in other people such as Hitler and Stalin who were responsible for millions of deaths. Each of these dictators clearly misused their free will in order to gain power, and we rightly label their deeds as morally wrong. However, this rebellion is present in our lives more subtly as Jesus pointed out when he said in Mark 7:21-23:

‘For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.’

Each of us has probably also been responsible for the suffering that someone has experienced in their own life. The pain experienced may range from the relatively trivial to the very severe, but it is worth recognising that as humans we are not faultless. Romans 3:23 indicates that we have fallen short of the standard set out by God. We all stand guilty of misusing the free will given to us by God, and we all stand in need of a redeemer.

Why doesn’t God intervene?

One of the things that we tend to ask when evil happens to us is why God doesn’t intervene in situations? My fourth article will be devoted primarily to the purpose that comes out of suffering which God sovereignly allows, but for now I will make a couple of points.

There is an underlying assumption in this question that God never intervenes in any situation. How can we know this though?

God does intervene; if he didn’t there would be alot more suffering than there is. God does restrain the amount of evil that happens in the world. This is part of his common grace to us, if he handed us over to our desires of rebellion completely then the world would be even worse than it is.

Common Grace

This means that there are actually many wars and evil deeds which are prevented from happening. Through common grace God gives anyone the ability to forgive someone instead of holding a grudge (which we would be pre-disposed to do otherwise) which ceases the chain of bitterness and unforgiveness. How often do we see friendships and family relationships break down over something very small, which is not forgiven and escalates until the two parties no longer speak. Without God’s common grace given to all, this would be experienced on every occasion.

However, God does not always intervene in these situations, and this is because he is able to use such situations for good. I’m sure we can all think of things that have not gone our way in life, but we have come out stronger as a result. We will look at this in more detail in a couple of articles time. There will be other occasions where we can’ t see the good that comes from it, and we end up seeing it later on in life, but also times where we won’t be able to see it in this life. This is when we will need to trust God, based on what he has revealed of himself elsewhere. We can be confident even in mystery that God will use it, after all his thoughts and ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9), given his perspective (unlike ours) is eternal.

Tweet This

For anyone who watches the news on a regular basis it seems like our world has a considerable amount wrong with it; pain and suffering seem to surround us on every side. Broadly speaking we find the roots of suffering in two places; due to the choices of fellow human beings, and natural disasters like that recently experienced in Haiti. We will have much to say on both of these in subsequent articles, but for now I intend to tackle the issue at hand. Does the very existence of suffering lead us to atheism; that is to conclude that there is in fact no God in control of this world that we inhabit?

Whether it has come from an emotional or intellectual source, I’m sure that anyone who has ever given any consideration to world events has felt a strong sense that ‘the world is not as it should be’. It somehow seems out of sync with a world that a loving God could have made. This is entirely normal and leads us to question how this could be.

18th century philosopher David Hume spoke for many when he summarised this argument:

‘Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?’

This sounds very convincing on face value doesn’t it? However, it makes a  considerable assumption in the process; that we are able to determine what good and evil are, quite independently of God.

The problem of defining good and evil

Former atheist CS Lewis realised the difficulties with this line of enquiry:

‘My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies…consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.’

In short, if we take God out of the equation then the idea of ‘evil’ becomes meaningless. Hume’s question falls apart.  If we assume that there is no God then there is no standard by which we can say that anything is objectively wrong. All we have is subjective preferences (for more on objective moral values click here).  As I mentioned earlier though, if we’re honest we all know that internal tug deep within us, that tells us ‘this is not how it should be’. ‘The world should be just, it should be fair’, and ‘people should not have to suffer’.

If we take God out of the equation then we have to accept that pain, suffering and evil are inevitable and are just part of our world, an inevitable by-product as part of naturalistic evolution. There is no reason why we should feel any sense that things OUGHT to be a particular way at all. We are just mistaken if we think that, it is just our senses messing with us.

Richard Dawkins summarises this rather depressing and hopeless viewpoint:

‘….some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’

Is that all our lives are though? Pitiless indifference and purposeless? It seems to me we don’t live that way (for more on the origins of meaning, click here), we live as if there is purpose to our existence. As humans we even try to look for purpose in the midst of suffering. Why does it happen? This is something we will look at in the next article.

Conclusion:

Although at this stage we have not looked at why God may allow suffering, one thing is clear: the existence of evil in our world does not prove the absence of God, it merely makes us question why he allows such suffering. It only needs to be possible for God to have a good reason for allowing suffering and evil (even one that we may never know) for this argument to be defeated.

Tim Keller cites that it is almost universally accepted in academic philosophy circles that the argument from evil is not a good argument for atheism. It seems that one of the key reasons for this is that the very definition of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is so tied up with the need for a divine yardstick that the question becomes incoherent without God.  As a human race we feel a strong inner sense that the world ‘ought’ not to be this way,  that seems to transcend mere preference. This if anything seems to provide a stronger argument for God’s existence than his non-existence. Far from the universe being purposeless and indifferent, in a christian worldview it is possible to find great purpose even in pain and suffering, which we will look at in the next article.

Tweet This

Originally there was only one Church, founded by the apostles. This was, from time to time, challenged by various groups who claimed to represent ‘true’ Christianity, but which rejected key teachings of the faith, an issue which I hope to touch on below. In 1054 A.D. the Church split into Eastern (Orthodox) and Western (Catholic) churches due to divisions over the precise relationship of the Holy Spirit to the other persons of the Trinity (the Filioque controversy) and the authority of the Pope/Bishop of Rome. The Western church was further split into Roman Catholics and Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and splits along denominational lines (especially among Protestants) have continued ever since. It could be argued that this disunity is a barrier to the credibility of the Christian message.

Not all disagreements are of equal importance

However, it should be noted that not all disagreements between different denominations are of equal importance. Many simply reflect different cultural practices or historical traditions rather than the core teachings of the faith. There are some doctrines, such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which are essential (see 1 Corinthians 15:17). Others, such as whether Christ will reign for a thousand years on the earth (or whether the church age is that reign), while by no means trivial, do not have that central status.

Creeds and confessions

Historically, the Church has identified its core teachings in various statements of belief, called creeds (from the Latin credo, I believe), mostly written in order to defend particular important beliefs which were being controverted by opponents. The main creedal statements (all written prior to the East-West schism) are the Apostles Creed (which developed from the confession of faith recited by new converts at their baptism in the early Church), the Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.), the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed – more commonly known as the Nicene Creed – (381 A.D.), the Definition of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the Quicumque Vult, more commonly known as the Athanasian Creed, which dates from the 5th century A.D.  The teaching of these documents forms the core of what C. S. Lewis termed ‘mere Christianity’ which all Christians who hold to the historic faith would maintain.

The later confessions of various denominations, written after the divisions described above, such as the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the Confession of Augsburg, the Westminster Confession, and so on, all reflect, along with their own denominational emphases, the core teachings of the early Church, as summarised in the creeds. Even in areas of dispute, such as the manner and meaning of the sacraments/ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, there is a core of agreement which most churches would accept.

Within evangelical churches, in particular, there is a further emphasis on the central message of the gospel, the need of sinful human beings for forgiveness and freedom from the power and penalty of sin, the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross for sinners, and the free gift of salvation offered to all who repent (i.e. change their mind and turn away) from sin and put their trust in Jesus Christ. Given the centrality of the gospel, it is worth noting the Joint Statement on Justification issued by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in 1999, which underlines the point that here also, as in other areas, there is a core of agreement across denominational lines.

Faith and morals

In addition to doctrinal unity on the more important teachings of the Christian faith, there is also a great deal of agreement on the moral implications of the Christian faith, both in terms of what it means for our individual lives (e.g. sexual morals, spiritual disciplines) as well as our social morality (e.g. the relief of poverty, social justice). Although we are not saved by doing good works (this is not taught by Scripture, and, as Catholic writer Peter Kreeft noted in his book, Fundamentals of the Faith, who wants to be loved as someone else’s “good deed for the day” anyway?), the New Testament consistently teaches that genuine faith results in a changed life. It is only “faith working through love” which saves us (Galatians 5:6) and not mere assent to doctrinal statements. As a result of this underlying unity, it is often possible for Christian churches of different denominations to work together on issues.

Holding on to the faith

Of course, there is a temptation, particularly in the individualistic West, to underemphasize unpopular teachings, or beliefs which might open people up to ridicule, such as those relating to the final judgment, or eternal life in a renewed creation. While it is understandable for people to not want to give needless offence, not all differences of belief and practice are trivial, and there comes a point at which the message can be stripped of its historic content to such a degree that it is no longer “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the word.

Unity in relationship with Christ

Finally, it is worth noting that the very heart of the unity of Christendom can be found in our common love and trust in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. One of the main reasons behind the creedal statements on the person and work of Christ is the conviction that the Jesus Christ of the Bible saves people from sin and hell, whereas false christs do not. All Christians, across denominational boundaries, believe in Jesus Christ and seek to live their lives for him.

Further reading

Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, contains the texts of the major creeds in the original languages with notes and English translations. Some links are included below:

•         The Apostles’ Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.i.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Greek)(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.i.html)

•         The Nicene Creed (Latin) (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.ii.html)

•         The Athanasian Creed (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html)

The Joint Declaration on Justification can be found on the Vatican website, at the link below:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Tweet This

Bad Experience?

This is a commonly asked question, which often betrays a pre-supposition: having to go to church is tantamount to a life sentence in prison. Many people like the idea of a personal connection with God, but that’s my experience, right? What does my spirituality have to do with a load of other strangers?

There may be many reasons that you could think that. It could be that you were brought up going to a church which frankly made joining a crown green bowling club seem exciting (I can relate!!). It might be that you had a bad experience with some Christians before, that left you feeling hurt or rejected. Does this mean you should reject church for good?

In our modern day cynicism, alot of people get very scared about the idea of leadership; what does it mean that people are ‘in authority’ over me? That may trouble us – what will these people ask of me, they may want my time, talents and money? I can understand some of these concerns but whatever your experience (or lack of one) we need to take a look at what the bible says, rather than allowing our feelings or 1 or 2 previous bad experiences set our course instead.

Being a Christian

I need to be very clear at the outset that going to church does not make you a Christian, in the same way that being sat in a pub does not make me a pint of lager. We don’t just become a Christian by association, but we need to recognise our need to respond to Jesus individually. He has laid down his life, to pay off our debt to God. Ephesians 2:8-9 says that we become Christians because of a free gift that God has given us, through Jesus Christ. We do not contribute anything to God’s favour by coming along to church, or any other perceived good behaviour. It is unmerited favour, there is nothing we can do to get God to love us anymore than he does already! You need to make that choice to accept Christ’s work done on your behalf though (Romans 10:9).

Find out more about what it means to become a Christian here.

The Body of Christ

Despite the fact that a relationship with God is something to be enjoyed and accepted on a personal level, we are actually part of something much greater than this. 1 Peter 2:5 teaches us that we are ‘living stones’ as part of God’s house. Some of you may have been brought up to think that the church is the old looking building that people meet in. It really isn’t, it’s the people that God has brought into relationship with him. 1 Peter 2:9-10 reminds us that God is bringing together a people for himself, to bring glory to his name. You are a part of this!

God has made us all as different individuals with different talents. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul reasons that we are like different parts of the same body, with skills to use. If parts of the body like an eye or a foot are missing then the body does not function to its fullest effect. Whatever gifts you have been given by God (You may not even know what yours is yet) as a church body we need your gift to become a stronger and more mature church like God wants us to be. Don’t deceive yourself, you have something to offer and it really matters. Whether you walk into a church which looks slick and is running amazingly, or a small one, God has particular things for you to do.

Become sharp

Christian life was never meant to be lived out on your own as we are reminded in scripture (Hebrews 10:25). We need other believers to spur us on in our faith, and to become mature people who know and are passionate about Jesus.

Wayne Rooney is a supremely gifted footballer as an individual, but ultimately he plays for Manchester United and England. This is where his true identity as a footballer is found, within a team context. He could play in his own garden, doing keep me ups but he is hardly fulfilling his purpose. How much more he accomplishes when together as part of a team; he wins Champions League trophies, Premier Leagues, FA Cup’s and (hopefully!!) the World Cup. How true this is for us as Christians too. Our spiritual experience is enormously impoverished by isolating ourself from our church family.

I’ve been a Christian for 21 years at the time of writing this and I’m still learning how incredible the God I know is. It really is a lifelong exploit and joy! I have needed other Christians to keep on spurring me on and sharpening me (Proverbs 27:17) along the way. Likewise, these Christians will need you to spur them on, just like you need them too. Conversely, when I have rejected time with other Christians I have seen this passion start to fade, and become a very faded and passive version of what God has made to be. My thinking becomes worldly, and my life becomes totally predictable. That is not a full life that Jesus saved you for.

Church -The passion of Jesus

Jesus is the most passionate person in the universe about the local church. He said ‘I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it’. In Ephesians 5, we hear that as a corporate body of believers we have become the bride of Christ. Now if you’re a bloke this may sound a bit weird, it may seem like you need to be a girl to appreciate this, but the point is that Jesus died for a people, not just an individual and he is building something significant to testify about him to the world. God wants to show off his different works of art to the world (Eph 2:10) in the form of church, a vast collection of redeemed lives to a broken world.

American Pastor Bill Hybels summarises this vision superbly:

‘I believe that the local church is the hope of the world…If they get it and get on with it, churches can become the redemptive centres that Jesus intended them to be. Dynamic teaching, creative worship, deep community, effective evangelism, and joyful service will combine to …strengthen families, transform communities and change the world.’

God is passionate about building his church, all over the world. It isn’t perfect, there are problems, but he is totally 100% committed to churches built on a foundation of Jesus. It follows that if you are a Christian you too would look to follow Jesus’ teaching, to build his church and make his name famous in the area where you live.

This is not an optional extra for those that are extra keen. We all belong in the local church. This is where we will thrive. It might be that you’ve been away from church for a season, I warmly invite you to consider checking out a good bible believing, Jesus-worshipping church in your area and quickly commit to one.

Looking for a church?

Based in Brighton, like to visit CCK? click here

We belong to the New Frontiers family of churches based all over the world.

There are many other good bible believing churches which are part of the Evangelical Alliance:

Tweet This

Introduction

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and not merely a human teacher. This central idea has long been challenged by opponents of Christianity, and opposition has again, in recent years, come to prominence with the appearance of books such as The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.

Jesus was a man

Of course, at the very outset of this discussion, it is worth remembering that Christians also believe that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood man. There were some early teachers (such as the “Docetists” and “Gnostics”) who denied this, arguing instead that Jesus merely appeared to be human (see, for example, section 93 of the Acts of John). It is curious to see such documents being referred to as evidence of early Christian belief in a merely human Jesus (see, for example, pages 231 and 234 of The Da Vinci Code), when this is something that their authors denied.

The Council of Nicaea of 325 A.D.

At the core of the dispute, however, is the idea that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. voted to make Jesus divine, when, previously, Christians had accepted him as a human teacher. This interpretation of history is largely supported by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and is a key aspect of the storyline of The Da Vinci Code.

The Council of Nicaea consisted of about three hundred bishops (tradition places the number at 318), and was convened by the emperor Constantine the Great in order to end the divisive disputes in the church, which arose from the teaching of Arius. It is interesting to note that only twelve years earlier, the Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine the Great and his eastern counterpart Licinius Augustus, had granted toleration to Christians after centuries of persecution. Many of those who attended the Council of Nicaea had experienced persecution directly during the reigns of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, and it seems unlikely, having withstood such opposition in the past, that these church leaders would have been easily persuaded to abandon their belief for reasons of political expediency.

The teachings of Arius and the decision of the Council

Before looking at the decision of the Council, it is worth noting that Arius did not actually deny that Christ was, in some sense, divine. It was the nature of his divinity that was in dispute at Nicaea. Is Jesus eternally divine, or is he a lesser, created divinity? All of which is very far from the idea that a human teacher called Jesus was made God by a vote.

The debate centred on whether Christ was of the “same essence” (Greek: homoousious) as the Father, or whether Christ was merely of a “similar essence” (Greek: homoiousios) to the Father, as argued by the Arians. The majority of members of the council were not prepared to compromise on their beliefs, even by a single letter, and overwhelmingly accepted the final text of the Creed of Nicaea (not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed).  Although the character Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code speaks of “a relatively close vote” (page 233ff), there were only two bishops, Thomas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais, who refused to accept the creed.

Earlier testimony to the divinity of Christ

In addition to the Creed of Nicaea, there is earlier testimony to the idea that Jesus was considered divine from among second century Christian writers. These include, among others, Irenaeus of Lyon (born early second century A.D.) who, commenting on John 1:1-2, noted that, “That, which is begotten of God, is God” (Adversus Haereses, I.8.5) and Justin Martyr (born circa 100 A.D.), who argued that, “The Father of the universe has a son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” (First Apology, chapter 63).

There are also hostile witnesses, including the second century pagan author, Lucian of Samosata (born circa 120 A.D.) who wrote about a cynic philosopher (and temporary Christian convert) called Peregrinus, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine … next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” (The Passing of Peregrinus, section 11). Other pagan authors, such as Hiercoles and Celsus, also mocked the idea of Jesus being worshipped, and it is hard to understand why they would have done so if he had only been made divine by a vote in the 4th century.

Furthermore, while there is not space in this article to consider this point in any detail, the considerable testimony of the New Testament itself to the divinity of Christ should also be borne in mind (see, for example, John 1:1, John 5:18, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, I Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13 etc.). In this context, it is worth remembering that there are many early manuscript copies of the New Testament, or portions of it, including manuscripts which pre-date the Council of Nicaea.

Conclusion

I would argue therefore, that there is clear historical evidence to show that belief in Jesus as both fully human and fully divine is very far from being a 4th century invention, decided by the vote of a council. Rather, the followers of Jesus, from the very beginning, have acknowledged him to be, what he claimed to be, the eternal Word of God come in the flesh.

Suggested further reading:

J. Ed. Komoszewski et al., “Re-inventing Jesus”, especially chapters 14 – 15.

Carl E. Olson et al., “The Da Vinci Hoax”, especially chapter 4.

Tweet This

Surely one of the most misunderstood things in the UK today is what it means to become a Christian. Because of the confused culture that we live in, I will need to start by dispelling a few myths about what it doesn’t mean along the way!

So simple

One of the amazing things about the Christian message is that it is so simple that even young children are able to understand it for themselves. This is one of the major stumbling blocks for so many people; that becoming a Christian requires a real sense of humility to accept it. We live in times where generally we like to have felt that we have earned whatever we get in life. If we have got a beautiful wife, it’s because we are sufficiently good looking, powerful or wealthy enough to attract them. If we have got a good mark in exams or coursework, it’s because we have been competent enough to achieve it. In essence we like the idea that things work on a system of ‘karma’.

The big story

However, the values of Christianity are quite different. The grand story of the Bible  goes like this: In the beginning God was intimately involved in the creation of the universe, and looked upon it and saw that it was good. He was thrilled, in much the same way that we are on one of the amazing nights where we gaze up at the skies and are in awe of what we see. He fashioned men and women in his image to come and steward the earth.

However, it was at this point that the first man and woman (Adam & Eve) were tempted to go against God and they decided to disobey God in their desire to become equal to God, and having autonomy and power themselves. When they committed this offence, they put a barrier between themselves and God.

Like Father like son

As the human race has gone on, things have not changed. As our forefather Adam set the precedent for how we would behave. The bible says that we are all individually inclined to go our own way, to want to be God ourselves, and to be the judge for how we want to live our life. Romans 3:23 says the very sobering words. ‘For all have fallen short of the glory of God’.  In short, we find ourselves in a mess and separated from the very creator who we were made for relationship with.

Around 100 years ago, The Times newspaper invited a number of key thinkers and philosophers of the time to write essays on the question ‘What’s wrong with the world?’.  One man’s response was short, very short in fact: ‘Dear Sirs, I am, Sincerely yours, G.K. Chesterton’. There is something very refreshing about this witty yet deeply truthful response.

In 21st century Western culture we want to blame almost everything on other people; we may laugh when we hear the latest ridiculous lawsuit filed against a company ‘for eating cheese that was so cheesy it caused mental distress’, but we tend to pass the buck often whether its our family upbringing or some other circumstance. We need to face up to the truth: we are guilty of doing wrong.

Jesus enters the arena

I’m so glad that wasn’t the end of the story and that God didn’t just leave us stranded in our guilt and shame. Jesus Christ the second member of the Trinity, came down to earth and entered human history, that is God-in-human skin. He added humanity to his divinity. He left the glory of his heavenly throne, not to be served by us, but to serve us. How remarkable is that!

Having lived a relatively low key life, he went on to teach the most phenomenal and radical teaching, and healed many. Thirty-three short years on from his birth he was to be brutally crucified. The worst thing was to happen in history; the death of the Son of God. Who could have thought this terrible evil and injustice upon an innocent man could become such a liberating truth for us?

Grace triumphs

This is, remarkably, exactly the way that God chose to demonstrate his justice and his love for us. Jesus on the cross took the penalty for all of our guilt, for both the things that we did which we shouldn’t have done, and the things we should have done that we didn’t do. For every time that we spoke out in a hateful way against a friend or family member, and for every time we didn’t walk across to help a stranger in need.  All of these events, although they were sins against the people involved were sins against him.

Becoming a Christian means recognising this simple fact, and knowing that karma will not be enough to deal with it. The U2 singer Bono rightly acknowledges the following:

“I’d be in big trouble if karma was going to finally be my judge. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.”

Like him or loathe him, this is an interesting admission from a man who has done much to try and make the world a better place, more than most. Yet he knows its not enough!

We can’t pay our way back into a relationship with God, the price is way too high. The only man who was in credit with God, Jesus, paid it all for us. The question is will we accept this free gift of Grace?

God’s grace was given to us, because of the exchange that took place. Jesus took all of our sin on the cross, and then three days later he rose again to show that he had conquered this evil and even death ultimately! We now have the opportunity to know God personally in this life, and we will spend eternity with him in heaven too.

Conclusion

So becoming a Christian does not mean we are British, that we went to church when we were younger. It doesn’t mean we are a good person, in fact it means recognising that we are not good enough. We are all in the same boat, whether we’ve been raised going to church or not, we were all cut off from God, but we all have equal opportunity to accept what Jesus did for us on the cross and to know God personally.

Romans 10:9 says the following:

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

If you know that you’re at this point where you are ready to go for it and accept Jesus into your life, then its worth speaking to a friend who you know has a personal relationship with Jesus, and come along to a good lively bible believing church, who will be able to help you develop your relationship with God further. If you’re in Brighton, we’d be delighted to have you along at CCK. For further information, click here.

Tweet This

If you consider yourself a sceptic about Christianity or a Christian who is looking for honest answers to some of the toughest questions, then this book was quite simply written for you. Tim Keller is a pastor in New York, who has put into writing the kinds of questions that he is asked on a regular basis about Christianity such as ‘ How can a good God allow suffering?’, ‘Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?’ and ‘How can a loving God send people to hell?’

In this book, Keller takes an unusual approach to defending Christianity, in that he essentially divides the book into two. The first half is dedicated to answering objections that are often raised against Christianity, but in the second half of the book he somewhat changes his approach. Many people often believe that the burden of proof is on Christians to show why they believe in ideas that go beyond mere naturalistic thinking. However, Keller shows very clearly through philosophy, literature and reasoning that there are in fact many assumptions made in atheistic and agnostic worldviews in practice; such as when we consider the origins of moral values, and indeed meaning in life, amongst other things that are a significant problem.

Tim Keller manages to come across as thoughtful and persuasive while maintaining an intellectually credible yet accessible work.  Overall, I would suggest that this book is a must-read for anyone, whether you consider yourself a person of faith or not. This will challenge many of your pre-suppositions to the core.

Tweet This

There has been a lot of speculation (and prediction in some cases) about the exact day when Jesus would come back to the world. For instance, Nostradamus predicted that “from the sky will come a great King of Terror” in 1999. This was interpreted by some as a prophecy about the second coming of Jesus. When this did not occur, some of his followers claimed that Jesus was conceived in 1998, born in 1999, and is currently living on Earth as a reincarnated person.

How do we know Jesus will return?

In all 4 of the Gospels (the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) in the Bible, Jesus says that he will come again and bring in His Kingdom.

The apostle Paul, in his letter to the church in Thessalonica, Greece, writes,

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thess 4:16-17)

When will he return?

Interesting, Paul then adds:

Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labour pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. (1 Thess 5:1-3)

Evidently, the question of Jesus’ return plagued people nearly 2 millennia ago!

Paul’s response is in tune with what Jesus had said a few decades earlier before He returned to His Father.

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” (Matt 24;36, 42-44)

Put simply, Jesus could return today! Are you ready for His return? Have you put your faith and trust in him?

Tweet This

There is a famous scene found in a paragraph from the great atheist existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel Nausea that almost perfectly sums up the dilemma of modern man.  Here the book’s protagonist, Roquentin, spends most of his days living out a humdrum existence – frequenting coffee shops, the public library and just general aimless wandering, all the while attempting to write a book.  Throughout much of the narrative he is frequently struck by feelings of intense nausea that unexpectedly well up within him – mostly they are caused by the various inanimate objects he observes (i.e. a pebble, a newspaper page etc.).

Sartre & Roquentin

One evening, after having dinner at a restaurant and being overcome by an especially intense bout of nausea, he goes for a walk and ends up sitting on a park bench under a chestnut tree, where, in a sort of epiphany moment, he comes to the realization of why he has been afflicted with such sickness.  In essence Roquentin realizes that all of existence is completely meaningless and every object that exists has no reason for doing so.

All life is meaningless?

His nausea was actually the unconscious realization that those objects had no actual reason for existing – the trees, the pebbles, the park bench and even himself.  His contemplation of suicide only served to highlight the fact that death was just as pointless, or ’superfluous’, as life, as existence.  This realization was, for Sartre, the fundamental absurdity at the heart of the cosmos – that everything that does exist should do so for no reason, and that existence and non-existence are equally as meaningless.

Similarly, another famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote an oft-quoted line in his essay A Free Man’s Worship:

‘That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins — all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.’

Meaningless but purposeful – a contradiction?

Yet, despite such pessimistic views of the ultimate nature of existence, both Sartre and Russell lived what seemed to be immensely full and productive lives – both wrote prolifically and were highly esteemed philosophers in their day, with a continuing influence on the academy years after their deaths.  Both were also active in many of the political and social issues of their time, from Sartre’s activity in the French Resistance of World War II to Russell’s championing of the poor and vulnerable of society.

In a similar way, we can see that many atheists, agnostics etc. can and do live full, meaningful and productive lives – they have successful careers, family and friends, as well as being involved in many pressing social issues.  Indeed they can, and often do, live life as fully as any religious believer and, perhaps in many cases, take hold of such aspects of life with even more enthusiasm.  Yet the paradox remains that, when pressed into the deeper meaning of existence, it appears that most atheists and agnostics have as similar a nihilistic view of meaning and purpose as do Russell and Sartre.

An Inconsistent Worldview

This kind of schizophrenia was famously described by Francis Schaeffer as a ‘two-story existence’, where people live their lives like a kind of two floored building.  On the one hand people no longer believe in a higher power or deity to guide them and give any intrinsic meaning to their existence (call that intrinsic meaning the lower story or ‘the basement’ where the foundations are).  On the other, however, they carry on with their day-to-day lives as if it had all the meaning of just such a fact – everything they do is done as if it really meant something in the grand scheme of existence (call this the upper story or ‘living room’ area).  The problem is when, if ever, they go downstairs to the basement that floor is completely empty and the structure that holds it all together is frail and wasting away.  In other words there is no real foundation for the beliefs and actions that constitute many people’s existence – but as long as they don’t go down into the basement and scrutinize the basis of their lives it can be easily ignored.

Does consistency matter?

But is there anything wrong with living as if life had value while, ultimately, holding that it actually doesn’t?  After all should atheists have such a consistency between their beliefs and their actions? Perhaps an atheist could suggest here that such a consistency is of no real virtue because if life has no ultimate meaning then living with such a consistency is equally as pointless as living with an inconsistency.  But if this is the case then it must also be acknowledged that there is no objective difference between, to borrow an illustration from Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland, a man who spends his entire life playing tiddlywinks or a Mother Theresa who devotes her life to helping the poor and needy.  Both lives are equally as pointless.  But can anyone really and truly believe such a thing?  This is the practical impossibility of atheism.

Humanism – Self-delusion

Sartre himself attempted to overcome the inherent meaninglessness of existence by inspiring a great existential project for humans to create their own meaning in the face of a cosmos devoid of purpose.  This is what the word ‘existentialism’ ultimately derives from – that ‘existence’ comes before ‘essence’ – that human beings create their own meaning and purpose through the way they live their lives (or the way they ‘exist’) and the choices they make, as opposed to some fixed essence of being which gives them a preordained purpose to life.  The obvious contradiction here is with Sartre’s own admittance in Nausea that every action we do and every action we choose is just as pointless as that which we choose not to do instead.  In other words Sartre’s project, and the project of modern atheistic humanism in general, is nothing but a grand act of self-delusion.

Indeed it seems that when confronted with ultimate reality the atheist cannot but admit that human life, qualitatively speaking, is no different from that of a dog – and perhaps the dog’s existence is actually more desirable as it has no true capacity for self-reflection and abstract thought and cannot come to this realization of the inherent meaninglessness of its existence.

Solomon and Nihilism?

The writer of the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes made this point almost three thousand years ago:

“The fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All come from the dust and all return to the dust” (Eccl. 3:19-20).

Indeed the writer of the book, which reads more like a modern existentialist tract than a book of the Bible, passes judgment on all the world has to offer to provide some kind of meaning in the face of meaninglessness: pleasure, wealth, fame, honour etc. etc..  His verdict on all these things is simple: “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (1:2).  For him a life that ends in death and has no God and no immortality is sheer absurdity.

Why not check out Reason:Live?

This Sunday @CCK, Brighton.

For more details click here.

Tweet This

Fact 3: The birth of the Early Church

It can be very easy in our 21st century beliefs to assume that people “ in those days” believed any kind of resurrection rubbish because they believed miracles were possible , but now that we have sophisticated minds which are more critical and scientific we know better.

We are only able to hold onto these kinds of views because we are mostly uninformed about resurrection beliefs in first century Palestine.

If we look at the beliefs of Jews and Greeks in the first century we can see that neither group believed that dead men rise! It was practically unthinkable.

But what about the resurrection in Jewish scripture and greek mythology, surely that is where they got their ideas from?

Greek mythology and resurrection

In short this is not true; there were some very fundamental differences in the concepts of ‘resurrection’ in all both parties. As we have already seen from 1 Cor 15 in the previous article, Paul is preaching a bodily resurrection, not merely a spiritual one. Greek thinking at the time was dominated by Platonic and Homeric thought, and in neither of these types of texts do we find any consideration of a bodily resurrection. Tim Keller writes ‘ In Greco-Roman thinking, the soul or spirit was good and the physical and material world was weak, corrupt, and defiling…therefore salvation was conceived as liberation from the body.’

In other words, in the views of the Greeks’ if you could lose your body then your soul would be free. If this is what you were hoping to achieve, being resurrected in the body was not only implausible to the Greeks, but it was also completely undesirable.

What about the Jews?

It is probable that the Jews were unaware or not impacted by these Greek worldviews, after all they were God’s chosen people in their eyes. They were immensely proud to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and would have been unlikely to look to the Pagans for a change of belief; since they believed they were given the Old Testament scriptures by God, why then look to another culture for a sudden change of view?

So what was the Jewish worldview involving resurrection?

Jewish Resurrection thinking

N.T. Wright points out in his extensive scholarly work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that the Jewish community did have an expectation for a form of resurrection, but one at the end of the world. This is mostly seen in a few passages in the Old Testament such as Daniel 12:2-3, which alludes to an end-time resurrection for the nation of Israel as a whole. Such sentiments are displayed in Isaiah chapters 24-27 of  which talks of God’s judgement, and the hope for resurrection at the end of the world (Isaiah 26:19). This is also seen in Ezekiel 37, arguably the most famous of all resurrection passages.

It is true also that in non-canonical Judaic writings from 400 BC ( like 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus) up to the times of Jesus that similar themes were established. The main two being the restoration of Israel, and resurrection bodies being given at the end of the world.

Messiah as warrior

However, we will note here that just like the long-awaited Jewish messiah was expected to be a warrior who would overthrow with power those governing over the Israelites (rather than a man who would be crushed and crucified); there was no expectation for the Messiah himself to be resurrected, nor for any other form of resurrection in the Jewish community before the end of the world.

Conclusion

N.T. Wright summarises: ‘The immediate conclusion is clear. Christianity was born into a world where its central claim was known to be false’.

The first two factors of the empty tomb, and the post-death encounters of Jesus alone are extremely persuasive in convincing us of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but the birthing of the early church is quite simply the knock out blow. In Acts 2:41, Peter preaches the first sermon about Jesus’ resurrection  and we see 3000 promptly respond to become followers of Christ.

This incredible birthing of the early church took place in Jerusalem, the very area where these resurrection events had taken place a few short weeks earlier. Frankly, you could understand this world religion growing from a myth if this all happened a few thousand miles away, but not in a place where there were eye-witnesses. Surely it would have been quashed immediately?

In the final article of this series I will look at the implication of all these facts combined.

For the other articles looking at the resurrection of Christ please click below.

http://reason.cck.org.uk/tag/resurrection/

Tweet This