David Hume (1711-1776) wrote: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”

On Capital Circle N.W. you may see a non-descript sign on the side of the road. It is simply a green star on a black square background, close to the ground, nothing else near. I often passed this sign and wondered what purpose it served. Signs do not arbitrarily appear so I began a quest to find its origin. After questioning several shop proprietors, the owner was found. He said it was easier to tell people to look for the green star than to look for his business sign among all the others.

A basic pattern of human thought is based on the principle of causality, which stated is, every effect must have a cause. Aristotle accepted this principle when trying to understand motion in the universe. He said for motion to exist there had to be an ultimate cause which started motion for all time. He called this ultimate cause an Unmoved Mover. Aristotle was not purporting a personal God but recognized all effects; including motion must have a cause. The atheist David Hume (1711-1776) wrote: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause” (Hume, Letters, 1:187). Indeed, in the same source Hume claimed that it would be “absurd” to deny the principle of causality.

Another pattern of human thought is the principle of uniformity, which says we can know the past from the present. The faces on Mt. Rushmore are too specific to be done by natural causes so we assume an intelligent cause. Archeologists use the principle of uniformity when they assume an intelligent cause (civilization) from finds of pottery and tool artifacts. Forensic science (i.e. the TV show CSI) uses the principle of uniformity to explain murders. If a body is found with a gun shot to the head a natural cause of death is not assumed. We overlook this thinking pattern but if we were to find a piece of paper with writing on it we would assume an intelligent cause. Why? Because we are intelligent causes who write and we use and make pottery and tools. The sign I saw could not place itself or rise from the earth on its own, so my assuming an intelligent cause for the sign agrees with the principle of uniformity. Not only did I find an intelligent cause for the sign, I found a meaning.

The sign on the road had a reason for being there and I wanted to know its purpose. I applied the principles of causality and uniformity to investigate the reason, or the “why” for the sign. Causality and uniformity are universal principles and they are the principles on which all scientific inquiries are based. Science would be meaningless if nothing had a cause or a reason for being. Whatever our belief system, these principles are used in everyday life whether we understand them fully or not. Just like the archeologist, Christianity uses the principles of uniformity to assume an original intelligent Cause. Evolutionists break with these principles and assume human existence came from a naturalistic, non-intelligent cause. I see the theistic view as being more consistent with the pattern in which we think. A Supreme Intelligent Being is an adequate assumption to explain the cause of human existence. Christianity assumes there is a Cause and we are His purpose.

The atheist Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, made this statement about “why” questions: “Why are we here? What is our purpose does not deserve an answer." Mr. Dawkins believes we can ask where the laws of physics come from but not ask their purpose because this “implies some kind of deliberate purpose giver or purpose thinker." According to Mr. Dawkins, a why question worth asking is, “Why, after some period of billions of years, did life originate on this planet and then start evolving?” Mr. Dawkins says we can ask why as long as we are not looking for purpose. The problem is without purpose there is no meaning. Mr. Dawkins just wants facts for facts sake. He wants to know why life originated on this planet but he cares not for the meaning. If there is no meaning why ask why

Humanities literature is filled with the question of why. The common motif of one climbing a hill to ask a guru type a question of meaning is just one example. Life itself is often paralleled with as a journey to meaning. In the movie “City Slickers” Billy Crystal, apparently going through a middle life crisis, wants to know the meaning of life. Man has always assumed two things. There is a cause and there is purpose. ? I find it fascinating an individual, like Mr. Dawkins can claim an a priori knowledge of no meaning to all that has ever been.

“The Voice.”

Does God speak audibly or by an inner voice to individuals today? If He does, how do we prove what is from God and what is not?

During the recent election campaigns a man at a “Charlie Crist For Governor” fundraiser said the Lord had told him Charlie Crist would be the next governor of Florida. The man was proven right about Crist for governor, but he, nor we, can really prove he heard from God.

When I hear someone say, “God said to me….” I want to reply, “God told me to tell you He did not say that.” The problem here is neither one of us can prove God spoke. I cannot prove God did not speak to him and he cannot prove God did not speak to me. If it is taught God speaks today (audibly or through an inner voice) people are led into an arbitrary type of belief system. Those who teach people to believe God speaks today have no way of teaching how to prove beyond any doubt the voice or the prompting is God’s. It comes down to relying on pure feelings, or what you think is right or what you think you heard.

There are people today trying to find God’s perfect will for their lives by listening for “The Voice.” They spend more time and energy trying to hear God when God’s voice has already spoken loud and clear through His Word. They drown out God’s revealed revelation, the Bible, because hearing audibly is “more spiritual” than spending hours in study and understanding the historical content of already revealed revelation. The Bible claims to be, and is, the very breath of God’s final revelation of His purpose for man. The basic instructions contained in it are perfectly capable of guiding mankind through this life until He returns. We do not need to strive to hear God’s voice because He has already spoken in a rational discourse, the Bible.

Jim Jones said God told him to go to Guyana. Although there is nothing wrong with going to Guyana in itself, in hindsight, no one would dare say Jim Jones heard from God. The question is, do you believe and teach God speaks today other than through the Bible? If you do, you propagate the same beliefs or ideas that allow Jim Jones and others to claim an authority that misleads many, some even into death.

When we, as Christians, are asked how God speaks today, we must answer “He has already spoken through His Word, the Bible.”

Mr. Bentley is more in line with Gnostic beliefs than Christianity.

It has been said an individual can grow a beard, dress in a robe and sandals, and walk through America claiming to be Moses and find a following. I believe that is true of people who claim to have visions. If you watch any amount of Christian television you will eventually hear someone claiming to have a vision from God. However, the vision is totally unverifiable and the only authoritarian source for the vision is the seer.

Todd Bentley, the leader of the Lakeland, “Florida Healing Outpouring” revival, is the latest seer to entice crowds with wondrous accounts of 20 foot angels and his story of personally “…going to heaven via a pillar of fire through the church roof…..” He describes a hotel room literally burned down because an angel visited his room. Mr. Bentley has even had a female angel visit him with new revelation. Of course, nowhere in the Bible do we read of female angels.

Mr. Bentley is more in line with Gnostic beliefs than Christianity. Gnosticism was a direct counterpart to Christianity when the twelve Apostles were extant. The Gnostics took pride in visions they claimed to see and new revelation they received. They taught special rituals could catapult a person’s spiritual level. Gnosticism was very fond of naming the angels after their activity. Thomas Bentley has named the angel who started his revival “Winds of Change,” and has said one angel told him, “I am a healing angel….” Mr. Bentley claims all Christians should and can take trips to heaven. An add on his website says in part, "The School of the Supernatural Realms of Heaven" will get you ready to fly like an eagle into the supernatural realm!”

In her article June 21 article, “Lakeland Revival Is the Real Deal,” Krista Abbott testifies of the validity of Todd Bentley’s revival. Listen to the reasons Ms. Abbott gave for the revival’s validity. She said, “...my heart leaped” when she entered the structure and even though she was not cold. “I felt a chill on my arm.” As sincere as Ms. Abbott might be about her “experiences,” I suggest we as Christians look closer at the Bible when it comes to validating miracles and visions, rather than our feelings and others non-substantiated testimonies.

There is a sect in Christianity who thinks miracles of the New Testament are to be duplicated today. Mr. Bentley, his angel, “Winds of Change,” and his followers are an example of such a sect. They neglect the uniqueness of Jesus and the purpose miracles had in the New Testament. John the Baptist, while in prison, sent messengers to Jesus asking if he was the Messiah or should they look for another. Jesus told John’s disciples to report to him the miracles they were seeing. (Mark 11: 4-5) The reason miracles are a part of the Biblical revelation is to validate Jesus’ claims as the Messiah, not to be duplicated. Jesus’ miracles have an authoritarian source, God’s word. Mr. Bentley and others claim a pseudo-authority for their “miracles,” via duplication, but they still lack a Biblical purpose. To propose we need to duplicate Jesus’ miracles today is to lessen the uniqueness and purpose of those miracles which testified to Jesus as the Lamb of God.

Mr. Narisetti not only wants to protect children but to stop what he calls ‘psychological abuse’ on society’s future.

In the June/July “Free Inquiry” magazine published by the Council for Secular Humanism, an article “Religion and Child Abuse” appeared, written by Innaiah Narisetti.

Mr. Narisetti’s premise is clear when he states, “In one form or the other all religions violate the rights of children.” He questions at what age society ought to allow children “access to religion.” He wants the United Nations to restrict the “automatic” rights of parent’s to expose their children to religion. Mr. Narisetti also says, “Religious beliefs thrive by imposing themselves upon impressionable [children] minds...” and adults use these religious beliefs as a pretext to fight wars and promote other inhumane acts. Mr. Narisetti not only wants to protect children but to stop what he calls ‘psychological abuse’ on society’s future.

Atheists throughout history have deemed religion as the quintessential villain for most of society’s woes. Karl Marx taught religion was used by the rich to keep the working class in poverty. The author, Arthur C. Clarke considers religious beliefs a form of “superstition and barbarism.” Friedrich Nietzsche thought Christian virtues inspired weakness, not strength in man.

They plead their case against religion noting the brutality of theistic wars while ignoring the brutality of an atheistic Stalin. Certainly atrocities have been committed in the name of religion as well as non-religion. When arrogance is applied to any belief system, whether atheistic or theistic, the end result is oppression.

Christianity teaches man has separated himself from a perfect loving Creator but in evolution all men have risen up from an impersonal organic slime. Atheists, just like theist, are looking to explain the paradox of mans simultaneous greatness and cruelty. Atheists condemn religion as abusive but teach, by default, all thinking patterns come from the same micro organic pool. How can evolutionist claim authority to condemn one belief system over another? If the micro organic pool we all came from is the “designer” this friction between theism and atheism could be “its” purpose. If all humans came from the same impersonal organic source, our evolutionistic origins make us cohorts in all cruelty throughout history. Atheists have no authority to claim “any” belief system as abusive, unless they can prove that belief system came from defected micro organic pool “billions” of years ago.

On the inside cover of the magazine carrying the article “Religion and Child Abuse” there appeared a list of 21 principles called “The Affirmation of Humanism.” The following is number 4 (emphasis mine):

“We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.”

Mr. Narisetti and the Council for Secular Humanism have proclaimed their evolutionistic belief system superior. In seeking to protect children from so called, abusive religious beliefs, atheists are on their way to becoming the authoritarian elites and the repressive majority. In their attempt to inflate the greatness of man, they violate the freedoms of man. Atheists believe all men evolved from the same micro organic pool, however the atheistic view came from a superior non-defected pool.

Did a person called “I” want to move or did an autonomous body decide for me?

Our local science Museum hosted the “Our Body: The Universe Within” exhibit and according to the exhibit’s web site [1] their goal is to, “transmit knowledge about the human organism displaying the specimens in an artful, compelling and dignified environment.” These “200 specimens” are preserved by a process called polymer impregnation “whereby bodily fluids are replaced by liquid plastic”. Apparently this plastic allows the tissues to be left “intact down to the microscope sphere” allowing us to see the most intrinsic parts of our anatomy. Furthermore, the exhibit wants to let visitors explore the “body parts” which “allow us to think, breath, and move”.

The exhibit strips the body of the soul (self or I) by suggesting body parts allow us to think. Is the body an autonomous “human being”? When I choose to hold my breath, is the body choosing this act for me or am “I”. Are the muscles in my face smiling or am I? When the body is considered the end all one raises the dilemma of which came first the chicken or the egg. Did a person called “I” want to move or did an autonomous body decide for me? After touring this exhibit one might wonder if the bodies’ only usefulness after death is for scientific displays. As Christians, how should we view these displayed specimens in light of our faith? Does the body have a future after death? Will the body ever be something other than compost?

Throughout history, the battle has been to separate the body from the soul. In most eastern religions, losing attachment with the physical body is part of achieving a higher consciousness. Nirvana, for the most part, is enlightenment and freeing the spiritual self (soul) from the body, ending the cycle of physical birth and rebirth. Plato taught salvation happens when the soul is shed of its body. Strict evolutionists strip the body of its soul ending the need for salvation. Of all religions, the Judeo/Christian religions exclusively teach the physical body and the soul are good [2]. Judaism believed in a physical resurrection of the body. Daniel looked forward to a physical resurrection when he wrote, “…many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” [3]. In Jewish Apocalyptic literature, 2 Baruch, God is asked, “In what shape will those live who live in Thy day?” God’s answer is, “For the earth shall then assuredly restore the dead [which it now receives, in order to preserve them]. It shall make no change in their form, but as it has received, so shall it restore them...” [4] The implication is clearly a belief in a physical bodily resurrection. When Jesus (who was a Jew) told Martha her brother would rise again, Martha responded by saying she knew he would rise in the resurrection of the last day [5]. The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection whereas the Sadducees did not [6]. When the Sadducees asked Jesus whose wife a multiple-wed woman would be in the resurrection they are clearly acknowledging a teaching of a bodily resurrection [7]. Paul, being a Pharisee[8] believed in a bodily resurrection and taught so in 1 Corinthians 15.

The Apostles Creed declares “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh”. Early church father Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 100-165) said, “There are some who maintain that Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these same persons seek to rob the flesh [body] of the promise” [9]. Notice the body is given the promise of life eternal in its fleshly bodily form. Justin Martyr also said, “….He [Christ] has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life” [10]. Life in eternity, according to Christian teaching, is promised to the physical body as well as the soul. Thomas Aquinas (A.D. 1224-1274) said, “The soul does not take an airy or heavenly body, or a body of another organic constitution, but a human body composed of flesh and bones and the same members enjoyed at present”[11].

Paul wrote, “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” [12]. Jesus’ bodily resurrection is the evidence of our promised bodily resurrection. In the New Testament records, Christ Jesus’ appearances are replete with physical manifestations. Luke tells us Jesus showed himself to his apostles alive after his death by many infallible proofs, for forty days [13]. He walked and talked with his disciples [14]. He specifically encouraged the prodding of the nail scarred body, which three days earlier had held him on the cross. Jesus specifically asked for meat to eat so no one mistook him for a ghost [15]. St. John said, “….when he [Christ] shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” [16]. Christ ascended [17] to heaven in the same body in which he died. The phrase, “….for we shall see him [Christ Jesus] as he is,” means how he was raised from the dead; physically.

A Sunday school teacher said our bodies in heaven would not have the same kind of blood running through them as we do now, implying our bodies are not good enough for heaven, yet when Christ Jesus’ body ascended into heaven it was the same flesh and bones (and blood) which hung on the cross. [19]. Regrettably, many Christians have a negative or Platonic [18] view of the physical body. Our fleshly bodies are not evil. They are part of creation which was proclaimed good. Scripture teaches we are not looking for a dissimilar environment or body. We are looking for what we are familiar with to be restored. The promise is the destruction of sin, not our bodies.
At Easter we celebrate the resurrected body of the Christ Jesus, and we forget the promise made to our own bodies. Understanding our bodies will be resurrected in the same material substance we posses now makes the promise of victory over death more tangible. Dr. Norman Geisler’s book, The Battle for the Resurrection, states, “God has promised to reverse the curse of sin on a material creation with a material resurrection.”20

---

[1] http://www.ourbodytheuniversewithin.com/

[2] Genesis 1 “…and God saw that it was good”. Gen. 2:7

[3] Daniel 12:2 KJV

[4] 2 Baruch 49:1; 50:2 as quoted in, Norman L. Geisler, “The Battle for the Resurrection” pg. 209 1992 emphasis mine.

[5] John 11: 23, 24

[6] Acts 23:8

[7] Matt. 22:23,28; Acts 23:8

[8] Acts 23:6

[9] Norman L. Geisler, “The Battle for the Resurrection” page 53, Nelson 1992

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., page 58-59. Emphasis mine

[12] 1 Cor.15:20 KJV

[13] Acts 1:3

[14] Luke 24:15-17

[15] Luke 24:39-43

[16] 1 John 3.2b KJV

[17] Luke 24:51

[18] Plato viewed all matter including the body as evil.

[19] Acts 1:3

[20] Norman L. Geisler, “The Battle for the Resurrection” page 32, 33, Nelson 1992

Does God speak today.

Charles Stanley, (November 5, 2006, TV broadcast channel 45, Tallahassee Florida) was propagating how God (audibly or through an inner voice) talks to people today. Mr. Stanley believes and has said many times how God has spoken to him. Pointing his finger at the TV audience, he warns his critics who do not believe God speaks today, to “not put God in a box.” Between Mr. Stanley’s statements of hearing God’s voice and pointing his finger, the impression is made to disagree with him jeopardizes one’s own personal experience of hearing God’s voice.

Erroneous beliefs such as God speaks to individuals today, have become cemented from a lack of dividing the Word correctly. We think in metaphors and clichés instead of realistic and convincing arguments. I call it the “church sign syndrome.” The billboards of most churches represent the depth of thinking you find in the presentation of God and His Gospel. Preachers say they like to keep things simple because too much thinking on doctrine causes divisions. Children of the church are consumed by culture’s principles because in the church, harmony over doctrine is more desirable than our children’s minds.

My problem with Mr. Stanley or anyone’s assertiveness in warning me to “not put God in a box” is the cliché is wrapped in absurdity. If putting God in a box constitutes limiting His ability, then God has already put Himself in a box. In Titus 1:2 it says God cannot lie. We do not read He will not lie but, He cannot lie. Also in James 1:13 it says God cannot tempt man. Again, it does not say God will not, but God cannot tempt man. Scripture has already revealed God as good. (Luke 18:19). His nature puts Him in a box just as our nature puts us in a box. We cannot change our nature of sin and God cannot change His nature of goodness. In possessing a purely good nature, He cannot lie to or tempt man. God does not have the power to do anything against His nature of goodness and our beliefs do not have the power to change an immutable God.

Mr. Stanley and others use clichés as imitations of scripture to justify subjective beliefs. The only way Mr. Stanley can propagate God speaking today is through clichés and taking scripture out of context. Mr. Stanley used Hebrews 13:8 to assert God speaks to individuals today. Unlike his cliché to “not put God in a box” we can examine the scripture Mr. Stanley referenced to see if it provides a reasonable premise for his position. Paul warned Timothy (2 Timothy 2:13) to explain the word of truth correctly, and to not be ashamed about standing up for a correct interpretation of scripture. Does this scripture (Heb. 13:8) tell us we can expect to hear (audibly or through an inner voice) the voice of God today?

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:7, 8 NIV)

Hebrews 13:8 is used to argue since Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever we can assume God still speaks today. Chapter thirteen is a closing chapter of exhortations to the Hebrews for practical daily living. Verses 7 through 17 are encouraging the Hebrew Christians to remember their leaders and to “imitate their faith.” “Consider the outcome of their way,” means to notice how they died, or more accurately, the character they portrayed to the end. “All these people were still living by faith [trust] when they died.” (11:13)

The Hebrew Christians were being told Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient enough and they needed the legalistic ways of the Mosaic laws to obtain righteousness. Verse 8 is reminding the Hebrew Christians of their leaders who trusted Jesus and His efficiency over the Mosaic Law. Christ is completely trustworthy because His sinless nature was and is sufficient to provide a final sacrifice for covering of their sins. Hebrews 13:8 is pointing to the goodness of God and the immutable nature of Christ.

God’s nature of goodness cannot change, but God has changed how He deals with man. The sacrificial system of worship has been done away with and there will never be another flood “to destroy the earth” (Gen 9:11). Hebrews 13:8 does not reasonably prove the notion of God speaking to individuals today. However it could be used to explain all sorts of notions when lifted out of its context and separated from its true meaning. When done so, it becomes nothing more than a worn out cliché.