God is Omnipresent

GOD IS OMNIPRESENT

John 4.24: “God is spirit...”

Psalm 139.7-8: “Where can I go from your Spirit?  Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.”

Define omnipresent: 

            There is no word in Scripture that translates into the English as “omnipresence”, but as you've seen just briefly, the concept is contained within the text.  The word “omni” again means, “all” therefore omnipresent directly translates to all-present or better yet, “everywhere present”.

The biblical teaching of God's omnipresence is defined as: God's transcendence beyond spatial limitations so that He exists in totality, everywhere at once. 

Questions:

We just heard the psalmist say that God is not only in Heaven, but also in “the depths”, which is the Hebrew word sheol or “grave”.  Does this mean that God is present in Hell?

We say that God dwells within us as believers, but if He's present everywhere, wouldn't that mean that He's present with unbelievers too?

What about Bible passages that say God dwells in Heaven or comes down to earth?

What do we mean when we say God is everywhere?

God has no physical properties or parts, therefore we can't say that part of God is in this room while part of Him is in the church down the road.  No, all of God is here, there and everywhere else in this world simultaneously.

God is not creation.

To believe that God is the same as everything created is pantheism, like that of Buddhism, Hinduism or New Age mysticism.

God, as we learned from omnipotence, is distinct from creation as it's Creator, and dwells alongside it.

Consider how your mind exists within your brain.  Your brain is the physical organ that powers the miraculous machine that is your body, but your mind is the immaterial part within your brain that produces all of your self awareness and thought processes.  In the same way God resides within all of creation.

If God is everywhere, is He within unbelievers? 

Rom. 8.9-11 – God is uniquely present within believers, so there must be a way in which God is present in some senses yet absent in others.

He cannot be accurately said to be physically present.

The overarching presence of God in all things is commonly known as being ontologically present, or  actually present in any given place. 

All of creation experiences the ontological presence of God, whether they believe in Him or not.

We see this Scripturally in places like 1Kings 8.27; Jer. 23.23-24; Acts 17.25-28.             

God's presence with believers is a spiritual, moral, and ethical presence.

Gen. 4.16 : Cain departed from the “presence” of God

Num. 14.42-43: God declares He is not “with” or “present with” the Israelites    

The clear message is that sin hinders the spiritual, moral and ethical presence of God in someone's life.  This can be said of believers at times as well, but it is the unbeliever that lives in an existence of unforgiven sin and therefore cannot feel that special presence to it's utmost.  ( Acts 3.19-20;  John 14.23-24)

“Is God in Hell?”

                         

The psalmist in Ps. 139, and King Solomon in 1 Ki. 8.27 both recognized that God could not be contained in any singular spot.

Based on our understanding of God's spiritual presence and His ontological presence we have an answer.  Namely, that God is present ontologically in Hell, for He exists in totality in every space, but His spiritual presence is not felt in Hell and therefore the result is the loss of God's presence.

Imagine an eternity where all hope, all love, all kindness, mercy and grace is noticeably absent.  Where you are left with your most base and wicked impulses.  Jealousy, anger, hatred, depression, misery, for eternity.  All the while, knowing that God exists, and you will never feel Him again.  I believe that to be the greatest horror of Hell, and it is distinctly tied to the omnipresence of God.

What about when the Bible says God “dwells” in Heaven or “Comes down” to Earth?

Gen. 18.2;  John 17.21; Ps. 103.19

In instances like that of the Psalms, we come back to the literary use of anthropomorphism.  We as humans can only understand good analogously, so we need to relate to Him in human terms.  Therefore when we speak of Him as King and having a kingdom it is best understood as being in a specific place.  This does not contradict the doctrine of omnipresence.

In the case of the incarnation of Jesus or the various times in the Old Testament in which God appeared in bodily form, we special manifestation of God for specific purposes.  At no time does this spatially limit God, for His entirety still dwells everywhere even in a Theophany (God appearing as man).

How Then Shall We Live

God is with us in all that we do.  There is no need to feel alone, even when that crushing fear tries to creep in.  It is a tactic of the Devil to keep you feeling isolated and alone, for it is in that state that you are weakest, but the very God of Heaven is with you at all times.

Consider the presence of God in a more cautionary setting.  Every moment you speak with a lying or filthy tongue, God is there.  Any moment you may be compelled to look at images or read a story that excites lustful thoughts, God is there.

But lastly, I just want to leave you with a thought.  These are the words of a long deceased archbishop of Canterbury: 

            “I have long looked at the paintings of Mattice with love and admiration.  I would paint them, but I do not have his skill.  I have long read the poetry of Chaucer with great glee.  I would write in such a way, but I am not a poet.  I have marveled at the compositions of Beethoven and would dream to play in such a way, but I am not a composer.  I have read at length and observed the life of Christ and deeply desire to live as He did, but I am but a man.  However, if the spirit of Mattice could come live in me; I could paint.  If the spirit of Chaucer could come live in me; I could write.  If the spirit of Beethoven could come live in me; I could compose.  And it is because I know that the spirit of Christ the Son of the Living God has come to live in me that I can live as He did!!  And it is in that truth that I find my greatest hope.”

            Beloved, The omnipresent God has come to dwell in you, so that you might grow to be like Him, and it is because of this that you above all others have reason to hope.

New Atheism and the Problem of Evil Part 1

As a side panel to the video lectures on the nature of God, I've written on what I consider to be the most difficult contemporary objection to Christian theism: The Problem of Evil.  I'll be addressing the problem later on in the lecture series but the articles to come, beginning with this one, will cover a slightly more intellectual approach as well..

New Atheism and the Problem of Evil

Introduction

          Within the last two decades, an elevated vocal opposition to the Christian worldview has emerged.  While those holding naturalistic presuppositions have long fought any semblance of theism in the realm of science and philosophy, this "new" antagonism has found increased support through publishing.  Numerous books have been written vehemently decrying the absurdity of theism and, in particular, Christianity. 

         Men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris spearhead what is now dubbed the "new atheism", having amassed a formidable audience in their quest for the destruction of Christianity using a vitriol heretofore unseen.  As Dawkins infamously wrote,

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[1]

To suggest that God, were He even to exist, is "good" or the "source of goodness" is at best ludicrous, or at worst, deranged.

          For these men and those like them, arguably the most effective and, some would agree, most difficult to resolve objection to God's existence is the presence and persistence of evil.  Often coined the "Problem of Evil", it is argued that an all-loving God would desire to free His creation from evil; an all-powerful God would have the ability to do so; and an all-knowing God would recognize how to do so.  Yet evil exists, therefore such a God must not exist.

        Anyone who has sat at the bedside of a dying child, seen the ravage of drought in the third world, or watched the horrific acts of despotism and terrorism worldwide, can recognize the struggle in believing in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.  That isn't to say that this "problem" is unanswerable, only formidable.  It is my contention that the "Problem of Evil" is only a "problem" for the very atheists that trumpet its use as the demise of theism.  In what follows, the problem of evil will be analyzed and countered with respect to the moral argument for God, resulting in the conclusion that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ constitutes the only possible solution.

What is New Atheism?

          Before addressing the central purpose of these articles, it is necessary to identify the opposition.  The “new atheism” is a strident movement within the scientific and academic realms of atheism that has taken to aggressive tactics in confronting theistic belief, presenting it as irrational and unfit for existence in the modern age.  This movement has been prompted by four men, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.  They seek to devalue religious belief in the areas of science and philosophy, and do so with measurable success.

        Appealing to many in the college circuit, men like Christopher Hitchens have called for a “new enlightenment” writing that, “Religion has run out of justifications. . . .Above all, we are in need of a renewed Enlightenment. . . .We have first to transcend our prehistory, and escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the catacombs.”[2]  Seeking the end to religion and the growth of “reason” these men wish to demean faith and belief in God.  To quote Harris,

As a biological phenomenon, religion is the product of cognitive processes  that have deep roots in our evolutionary past. . . religion itself may have played an important role in getting large groups. . .to socially cohere. . . .That religion may have served some necessary function for us in the past does not preclude the possibility that it is now the greatest impediment to our building a global civilization.[3]

As such, any and all arguments that can be meted out against the existence of God are analyzed, established, and promoted, and those which play upon the emotions are easily the most powerful; bringing us to the accusation at hand, the infamous “Problem of Evil.”

The Problem of Evil

          Before listing the problem of evil in its often sighted modus tollens form, it would be beneficial to define what is meant by “evil”.  A standard dictionary definition of evil is that which brings misfortune or causes harm.  For observant members of society, those things that might be classified as evil fall within two major categories, moral evil and natural evil.  Moral evil is brought about by human choice, i.e. a young man entering a school and indiscriminately shooting students and faculty.  Natural evil is classified as things such as earthquakes, tornadoes and disease not resulting from human choices.  These two categories require two separate answers.[4]

          Speaking for the new atheists, Daniel Dennet has espoused that the existence of evil, natural and moral, is an impossible enigma for theism.

The idea that God is a worthy recipient of our gratitude for the blessings of life but should not be held accountable for the disasters is a transparently disingenuous innovation of the theologians. . . . The Problem of Evil, capital letters and all, is the central enigma confronting theists. . . . All the holy texts and interpretations that contrive ways of getting around the problem read like the fine print in a fraudulent contract–and for the same reason: they are desperate attempts to conceal the implications of the double standard they have invented.[5]

It would be more intellectually honest, in his mind, for theists to be willing to blame God for calamity as well as blessing and be done with it.

        Such an accusation is effective even when it sounds contrived to the average Christian for its point resonates within the hearts of many.  Evil in either form has personally affected the lives of every human being on the planet, and as such, the angry jeering of men like Dennet, reverberates within them, finding a deep-seeded home.  While Dennet prefers the term “enigma” for theistic belief in light of evil, others have taken to speak of it as a contradiction.  In these terms, a contradiction is far more damaging to the Christian worldview; for if a contradiction exists then the worldview which espouses it is necessarily false. . .

Next week we'll continue the discussion, covering the Problem of Evil in its proper form.

---

[1]               Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 31.

[2]               Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: Twelve, 2007), 282-83.

[3]               Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 90-1.

[4]                  Ronald H. Nash, “The Problem of Evil” in Beckwith, Francis J., William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland,

 To Everyone and Answer (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 208.

[5]               Daniel Dennet, "Problem of evil and religion's double standard," OnFaith, http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/01/19/problem-of-evil-and-religions-double-standard/2100 (accessed October 12, 2014).

Four Recent Theological Shifts

Justin Brierley and the team at Premier Christianity have a good survey of four theological shifts in recent years.  Some of you might remember my points about Open Theism near the end of the last lecture on God's Omniscience.  Some of those thoughts are also echoed here:
Four New Theological Ideas You Need to Know About

The Bible is Alive

Tim Keller, briefly speaking on the importance of staying in your Bible:



The Bible is alive

Dr. William Lane Craig Explains Middle Knowledge

A more in depth discussion on what is meant by God having "Middle knowledge" as was mentioned in the last lecture on Omniscience.

Nature of God Lecture 3

God is Omniscient Notes

a God who is all-powerful but does not possess the perfect knowledge of how to use that power would be a terrifying thing.

The classical Christian position on God's knowledge is, like His power, that God is omniscient, or all-knowing.

If God knows everything, and that includes the future, what we call God's foreknowledge, how can anything we do be truly considered “free”?

Let's consider the logical progression of what we already know.  God is infinite, necessary and perfect.  He requires nothing else to exist and all that does exist requires His existence.  For this reason He must be infinite for if He were to cease to exist, so would all other things.  He must be perfect for God to be the Maximally Great Being that we can conceive of. Therefore He must also be powerful.  Such power must be infinite as He is infinite and therefore the greatest power in existence.  It must be perfect power, as He is perfect and as such cannot be deficient.  And as we have just said, God must possess the knowledge to use that power.  His knowledge must correspond to His nature and therefore we may rest in the comfort that God's knowledge is not only infinite, meaning He can know all that can be known, but that it is perfect.

Omniscience can be defined as “knowing the informational content of every proposition and experience that a being with God's attributes can know.”

Job 36.4; Is. 40.13-14.;  Is. 46.11 and 48.3-5;  Jer. 38.17-23; Ps. 139.1-4

Test of a prophet demonstrates the biblical basis for God's omniscience

Deut. 18.21-22:  Anything a prophet says that does not come to pass makes him a false prophet and his word is not from the Lord.  Such a prophet is to be put to death.  The only way a prophet of God could be certain that what they said would come to pass is if the God for whom they speak is all-knowing.  Otherwise, God is only making”good guesses”. This prophetic test takes us one step further as well.  When we consider the Christian claim that the Bible in it's entirety is the very Word of God, and the God who inspired it is omniscient, then it stands to reason that the Bible should be judged under the same guidelines as the prophet in Deuteronomy.

Biblical Prophecy and Omniscience

Regarding the life of Jesus Christ, the OT contains 332 predictions of the coming Messiah, all of which were fulfilled by Christ.  Are these vague?  Well here's a few:  Born of a Virgin (Is.7.14; Lk. 1.26-35), Of the line of Abraham (Gen. 22.18; Matt. 1.1); Son of Isaac (Gen. 21.12; Lk. 3.23); Son of Jacob (Num. 24.17; Lk. 3.23); From the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49.10; Lk. 3.23); Of the family line of Jesse (Is. 11.1; Lk. 3.23); From the house of David (Jer. 23.5; Matt. 9.27); Born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5.2; Matt. 2.1); called Immanuel (Is. 7.14; Matt. 1.23); Betrayed by a friend (Ps. 41.9; Matt. 10.4); Sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11.12; Matt. 26.15); Hands and feet pierced (Ps. 22.16; Lk. 23.33) and crucified with thieves (Is. 53.12; Matt. 27.38).  That's only a few, but as I said there are more than 300.

The prophecy of the fate of Tyre and Sidon in Ez. 26   From this chapter you get about 6 predictions that will befall the cities of Tyre and Sidon:

1.                  Nebucahdnezzar will destroy the city (8)

2.                  Many nations will come against Tyre (3)

3.                  The city will become bare rock (4)

4.                  Fisherman will spread their nets there (5)

5.                  The city will be thrown into the sea (6)

6.                  The city will never be rebuilt (14,21)

And, I'll add another one that comes from the prophet Amos when he says that the city of Tyre will be burned.

573 B.C.  King Nebuchadnezzar did in fact come to the city of Tyre.  He besieged it for 13 years from afar.  When he finally invaded the city he found that all the people that had remained had fled from the mainland city to an island fortress just off it's coast.  Nebuchadnezzar had no Navy, so he couldn't reach them.  Given his penchant for rage and being a sore loser, the king tore down every building and burned the city to the ground.

240 years later Alexander the Great arrived at the city of Tyre.  He takes the rubble of the mainland city and has it thrown into the sea and uses it to build a causeway all the way to the island.  Then charges the island besieges the city there.  They never fully recover but briefly rebuild in 314 B.C. only to be destroyed again by Antigonus.

Today there is a small fishing village on the original site of the city of Tyre, and fisherman even today dry their nets there.

While Sidon was never prophesied to be destroyed, Ez. 28. 22-23,  it was prophesied to have a bloody and pestilential existence.  40,000 people were burned alive in the city of Sidon in 351 B.C. When they tried to revolt against Persia, and since those days they have been captured and recaptured by Moslems, Druses and Turks.  Historically it has suffered more bloodshed than almost any other city in history.

There is no other account in history of a prediction of this level of specificity having come true, and yet it is virtually ignored.

Problem Passages

Gen. 3:  after the fall of Adam and Eve they hide from God.  At this point God comes down and calls out “Where are you?”  and after Adam tells Him that they were hiding because they were naked, God asks, “Who told you you were naked?”  Are we to take from this passage that God didn't know where they were or that the serpent had lied to them?

I have five children, all of whom to various extents enjoy drawing.  Not just on paper mind you but anywhere they can.  Now my nine year old draws much differently than my five year old, and her much differently than my two year old, so when I walk into the bathroom and see a drawing all over the toilet seat, I already know who drew it.  However, I will ask them all, “Who did this?” Why do you think I ask that?  To attempt to illicit a response from them.  I want them to accept responsibility in order to build a better character in them.  In many cases in Scripture when we see God ask questions in this way it is to do the very same thing.

What about foreknowledge and free will?

 The argument is that if God knows the future and what we are going to do, then we aren't really free to do anything other than that and therefore we're not free.  If we're not free to act otherwise then we can't be blamed for what we do.

For us the future has not yet happened and therefore God telling us the future is foreknowledge.  That's because of our perspective.  From God's perspective it's just knowledge.  Past present and future exist as one for Him, and although He seems to have the ability to be focused in the present, He sees all as one.  What this means is that there is no determinism when it comes to our decisions.  We are free to choose however we are inclined in that moment.

The other concept is known as middle knowledge.  What middle knowledge states is that not only does God know the future but part of this knowledge is that He knows every decision we could possible make in every given circumstance and has placed us in our present position on the basis of His knowledge of all potential decisions.  This means that we really could choose any way that we want but in know way will we choose anything that God does not already know the result of.

Take this a step further and it means that God knows everyone who will accept Him as Savior and therefore they have been placed in the circumstances in their lives to illicit that response.  Therefore, no one who does not accept Christ ever would have given any different circumstances.

How The Shall We Live?

nothing within our own minds, hearts or actions goes without God knowing about it.  You have not uttered a single sinful word, or thought that God does not know about.

The Psalmist has cried both that the Lord has cast our sins as far as the east is from the west and never brings them to mind again.  This is only possible through the shed blood of Christ and His forgiveness of our sins.  Are we free to keep sinning then?  In the words of Paul, “God forbid.”  No, we are to recognize the great gift with which we have been given and live with both the knowledge of God over us and His grace to forgive us anyway.

It's not just that God has the power to protect you, or carry you, or keep this world traveling on the path He has laid out.  God has the supreme knowledge of everything about you.  He knows your worries, your successes, your failures.  He knows your past, your present and your future.

So when Peter tells us to “cast our cares upon the Lord for He cares for us” and when Jesus says our “Father knows what we need before we even ask Him” we have the guarantee that we need not bear so heavy a burden alone.

Common Old Earth Creationism Myths

Being an old earth creationist myself, I hear a lot of these:

https://reflectionsbyken.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/7-common-myths-about-old-earth-creationism/

God Is the Best Explanation For Why Anything At All Exists

Dr. Craig giving a brief defense of the God's Necessary  Nature, as discussed in the first broadcast.

How We Got the Bible

Given that this blog is primarily devoted to the defense of  Christian theism, an article on the reliability of Scripture is very fitting:

How we got the Bible

The Christian Worldview is Supported by the Evidence

Great article from J. Warner Wallace on the viability of Christian theism in the battle for worldviews:

The Christian worldview is supported by the evidence

Roe V. Wade

Posted by Clark Bates
January 22, 2016

Today marks the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  This was a terrible day for the rights of both men and women; particularly those that had not yet been born.  One abortion kills an entire generation.  Every progeny that child could have had, the entire family tree is snuffed out.  I can think of no more eloquent way to historically frame this most important issue of our time than through the words of Robert George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University:

"Today, January 22, 2016, the 43rd anniversary of the monstrous decision of the Supreme Court to deprive an entire class of human beings---those hidden in their ...mothers' wombs waiting to be born---of the most basic human right, we recall that the Supreme Court did this once before in our history. Men and women of African descent, stolen and carried in bondage to our shores, were---in defiance of the first principles of our Nation's founding---deprived by the Supreme Court of their most basic rights. The case was Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Roe v. Wade of its time.

As with Roe, the Dred Scott decision lacked any warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution. It was, as Abraham Lincoln rightly insisted, an act of judicial will, not law, and as such an assault on the very Constitution in whose name the justices purported to act. Dred Scott, like Roe v. Wade, was a case of judicial usurpation in the cause of mass dehumanization.
While Lincoln, as a matter of prudence, was willing to treat the ruling as binding on the parties to the suit as to the object of the suit, he adamantly refused, not only in word but also in deed, to treat the holding of Dred Scott as valid or binding as a rule on him as President or on the Congress. Expressly rejecting the false doctrine of judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation, the Great Emancipator defied the Dred Scott holding by treating free blacks as citizens (something the justices had said they could never be) and by promoting and signing into law an act of Congress restricting slavery in the federal territories.

Lincoln refused to treat an abusive and anti-constitutional edict of the Supreme Court as "the law of the land." We would do well to emulate him, lest we (to use his words) "practically resign [our] government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Lincoln saw something that we must not fail to perceive today, namely, that what is at stake in a case like Dred Scott (and Roe v Wade) is not only the moral principle of the inherent and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family---the principle of the Declaration---but also the principle of Republican government: government of the people BY and FOR the people.

In standing defiantly against the fundamentally lawless holding in Roe, and in insisting that those who aspire to high political office do likewise if they wish to have our votes, we are standing BOTH for the unborn and their human rights AND for constitutional self-government---the form of government that Benjamin Franklin famously said he and his fellow Founders had given us . . . "if you can keep it."

Let's keep it. 

Could God Be a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Dr. Craig with a quick but important point regarding why God can't be just anything we might imagine.

What is Truth?

What is Truth?


Posted by Clark Bates
January 21, 2016

    What is truth?  This question, that continues to rest in the minds of millions worldwide, was posed, or more properly stated, approximately 2 millennia ago in a Roman villa on the Eve of a globally monumental occurrence.  Allow me to set the scene for you:  A Jewish agitator is brought before a Roman governor, seemingly on trial for his life, but as the battle of wits ensues, who is actually on trial becomes less clear.  In the discourse of John 18:28 - 19:16, Pontius Pilate and Jesus of Nazareth engage in a dialogue that brings to fruition the ultimate message of the Fourth Gospel.  Central to this message is the nature of truth.  Truth (αλήθεια in the Greek) is said to  not only be the reason for which Jesus has come into the world, but also the identifying characteristic of those who belong to His kingdom.  The emphasis placed on truth by John is indispensable to the message he wishes to develop and is crucial to the ultimate answer of Pilate's ill-fated question.

Truth in the writings of John

          When asked if He is a king, Jesus responds that for this reason He has come into the world, "that I might testify to the truth" and that, "Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."  In his climactic and telling response, Pilate states, more so than asks, "What is truth?", subsequently leaving and revealing where he stands in the face of eternity.  To properly grasp John's intention we must consider the Evangelist's purpose in emphasizing truth.

          Truth (αλήθεια) is used quite frequently in the apostle's writings.  Twenty-five times it is used in John's gospel; 20 times in his epistles; The adjective forms of "truth" occur 40 times: gospel 23 times; epistles 7 times; Revelation 10 times. The adverb appears 8 times (7 times in his gospel and once in 1 John).[1]  Beginning at the prologue, it is shown that the "only Son" of the Father is full of grace and truth (John 1:14,17); the true worshiper worships God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24); the truth will make you free (John 8:32); Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6); the Spirit of Truth will lead you into all truth (John 16:13; cf. 14:17; 15:26, 1 John 4:6; 5:6); God's Word is truth (John 17:17); Jesus prays that the Father will sanctify them in the truth (John 17:17,19);  and for this reason [Jesus] came into the world, to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37; cf. 5:33).

          Likewise, John's concept of "doing the truth", especially as seen in contrast with the Pharisees not "doing the law" in John 7:19, can be closely paralleled to Proverbs 12:22 in which it is written that "those who do the truth are [the Lord's] delight."  The Proverbs passage is primarily concerned with faithfulness to God, just as truth, or firm and abiding faithfulness, is the heart of the matter in John 3:21.  John's concept of "doing the truth" is rooted in the Old Testament expression, "steadfast love and faithfulness" but given a Christological focus as faithful action which endures and is necessarily bound to the historical person of Jesus Christ, especially to be understood in terms of faith in him.

          In possibly the most staggering use of "truth" by the Evangelist, John 8:30-47 places the word on the lips of Jesus no less than seven times.  The prevalent theme linking each of these usages is the word of Christ.  Truth, as it comes from Christ, cannot be understood in the sense of properly interpreting the written word or the Law, but in the unique sense as direct revelation of God's truth as it has been heard directly from God.  In John 8:32 . . . .  "Knowing the truth"  and being "set free by the truth" are conditional upon "remaining in the word of Christ." But Jesus' statement in these two verses also signifies more than conditional dependency in a sequence of events.  To remain firm in Christ's word is virtually the same as to know the truth.[2]  In this fashion, the Apostle has taken obedience to the law and re-appropriated it to obedience with Christ.  While not contrasting the law against the grace of Christ, the clear message is that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, making obedience to Christ the ultimate obedience to the Jewish Law.

          There can be no clearer moment in the Fourth Gospel at which the identification of Jesus with "truth" can be seen than in 14:6.  Here the Lord states, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life."  Jesus says this responding to the apostle Thomas' question regarding how the twelve can know the way to the Lord's destination.  As is characteristic of the Lord, rather than respond to the disciple's crass desire for a road map, he points out that the way to the Father has been realized in Him, His words and His actions.  It is not enough to conclude that Jesus is merely saying that he speaks the truth in this passage.  "John is saying more than that Jesus proclaims the truth. . . to say that he is the truth means. . . that he belongs to God . . . in Jesus God has become quite personally audible and that through the encounter with this truth that has appeared personally, salvation is to be imparted to men."[3]  When the Lord tells Thomas that he is the way, it is because he is truth. 

          Given the experiences recorded by John and all that has culminated to this farewell address, both the Lord's followers and the Gospel readers are meant to see that Jesus' personification of "truth" transcends mere words or deeds.  He is the truth because he is the supreme revelation of God.[4]   He is truth par excellence. To know truth and to have life beyond the grave are the great aspirations of humankind and only in Jesus can these deepest of all human longings be fulfilled, for he, in his very essence, is truth and life.[5]

Truth Between Jesus and Pilate

          "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me (John 18:37b)."  This closing statement hearkens back to the author's extended opening (John 1.12), and mirrors the language of the Good Shepherd discourse (John 10:1-5).  Those that receive the truth of God are the children of God, just as those who are His sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd.  This moment of dialogue, masterfully woven by the author, sets Pilate on edge.  "He makes Pilate palpably uncomfortable.  For in truth, it is not Jesus who is on trial but rather Pilate. . ."[6]  It is in this moment that the Roman governor must decide between darkness and light.  The line has been drawn, and it is but for him to react.

          The truth Jesus speaks of is the cross.  The fulfilling work of God's eternal plan set forth before the foundations of the world.  Even though this moment takes place chronologically before the crucifixion, the moment has been foreshadowed for years.  It has been underlying every message and sign, and John has sought to develop each stage with increasing clarity, culminating in this moment.  It can justifiably be asked how Pilate can be expected to make any response in light of Jesus' ministry, given that this is their first and last exchange.  The governor stands in the presence of the Light.  He has spoken to the incarnate Word of God.  He has seen enough to be able to make an educated choice.

          What is truth?  This derogatory statement, issued from the procurator's lips is often seen less as a question and more as an end note to a conversation he has ceased to enjoy.  Certainly the swift exit that follows is a clear indicator that Pilate had no intention of seeking an answer.  Given the political life of Pilate and the typical happenings of Greco-Roman politics, it is likely that the governor only found that which was pragmatic to be any type of truth.  Those things which best suited his needs and aided him in his positioning within Caesar's cabinet would be his standard.  It is possible that for this reason, Pilate capitulated to the Jewish leadership, given their direct challenge in John 19:12;15.

          The ultimate irony seen in its fruition here between Pilate and Christ is that not only is the very answer to Pilate's half-hearted question soon to be revealed by his subsequent verdict, but it is embodied in the very One to whom the question is posed.  Not unlike the misunderstanding of the Jews in John 7:25-31, the reader is drawn to almost laughable levels at the disheartening display of ignorance before them.  For, in John, the message of Jesus is that "truth is not a matter of contemplation or speculation or something to be attained by mental or bodily exercises, but it is something to be received and obeyed, or rejected and disobeyed."[7]  In his moment of decision, the governor, like the rest of the unbelieving world, stands at the precipice, deciding between truth and falsehood, life and death.  In his ignorance he chooses falsehood, as is revealed by his departure, disclosing exactly on which side he stands (18:37).

Conclusion

          The overarching theme of truth, it's Hebrew and Hellenistic origins, and its explanation revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ is clear.  The climactic moment between Pilate and Jesus is nothing less than the climactic moment faced by every human being.  All are faced with the very decision of listening to the Voice of Truth or exiting His presence in dismissive fashion, left to their own ignorance. The question rests on each of us, just as it did Pilate.  Truth exists and it can be known.  It can be known through the person of Jesus Christ and his indwelling of your life.  What will you do with this truth?

---

[1]Dennis R. Lindsay, "What is Truth? Aleqeia in the Gospel of John," Restoration Quarterly 35, no. 3 (1993): 129.

[2]Ibid., 139.

[3]Leon Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 119.

[4]D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 491.

[5]Andreas J. Kostenberger, John, Baker Academic Commentary Series, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 430.

[6]Andreas J. Kostenberge, John, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 529.

[7]Jackayya, Concordia, 174.

Is God Male or Female?

Interesting article from Sean McDowell.  Good food for thought during our lecture series on Knowing God!

Is God Male or Female?: Is God male or female? Does God have a gender? Who cares? Sean briefly addresses these questions.

Thoughts on Biblical Innerancy

A Defense of Inerrancy

Here's an excellent link to go along with the video on biblical inerrancy, citing J.P. Moreland's comparison of supposed "errors" in the biblical text to that of anomalies in scientific research:

http://www.str.org/blog/moreland-s-defense-of-inerrancy#.Vp6x-tLSn7w

John Calvin

Nature of God Lecture 2: God is Omnipotent

Sorry the video came out side ways.  Still working out the kinks on this thing.

God is Omnipotent Notes

What is an attribute?  An attribute is basically a characteristic or character trait.  One might say that you are compassionate or sympathetic, and either of those would be an attribute.  The difference between attributes that we might possess and those that God possesses, hinges upon our nature.  We are contingent beings, as was discussed earlier, therefore all of our character traits are dependent upon various factors (i.e. genetic qualities, people we interact with, upbringing, etc.) and can subsequently change with these factors.  God, however, is necessary, or independent of all things.  Therefore His attributes are essential to His nature and cannot change.

What does omnipotent mean?  Omnipotence is the first attribute of God in a series of attributes that begin with the prefix “omni” simply meaning, “all”  The suffix “potent” simply means “powerful”.  Obviously when they are put together you have the attribute of God being “all-powerful”.

Rom. 1.20: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.”

Old Testament Scriptures on God's Omnipotence:

Gen. 17.1        Job 42.2 ; 37.23         Ps. 71.16-18              Jer. 32.17        Job 38-42

New Testament Scriptures on God's Omnipotence:

Rev. 1.8, 4.8                Rev. 11.17ff               Rev. 15.3; 16.7, 14; 19.6, 15; 21.22   Matt. 19.25-26

Col. 1.16-17                Heb. 1.3.

The power of God in creation:        Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a single planet to support life, every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart.  In our galaxy alone, without the existence of a massive planet like Jupiter using it's gravity to draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would strike our surface rendering life on this planet impossible.  Modern astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces – were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang.  Alter any one value by even 100,000,000,000,000,000 and the universe itself, not just our planet, could not exist.  For anything to exist at all the odds would be the same as being able to flip a coin and have it land on heads 10 quintillion times in a row.

The power of God in Jesus:             Mark 5.35-42; Jesus uses the phrase Talitha Koum and our English Bibles get it right translating it as “little girl, get up”, because that's about as direct a translation as is humanly possible.  But here's the beauty of this moment, when this phrase is used it's never done in some big booming commanding voice, it's the ay you wake up your daughter from a nap.  Just imagine sitting next to your little girl, or boy even, and you gently shake them on their shoulder, “honey, it's time to get up now.”  This is all Jesus utters to her.  Death is one of the greatest fears of almost the entire human race.   This awesome, sometimes paralyzing reality that holds so much sway over our lives and how we live, is conquered by the simple whisper of Jesus Christ.

What can God not do?         God cannot lie (Tit. 1.2); He cannot disown Himself, or go back on His word (2 Tim. 2.13); God cannot be tempted to sin (Jam. 1.13).

Theologically, omnipotence is defined as God's ability to do all things that are possible to do.  To be even more specific, omnipotence, as it refers to God, is that God possesses all powers logically possible for a Being with the attributes of God to possess.

Some have argued that since God does not possess the power to sin, and I do, therefore I have power that God does not possess and thus He cannot be omnipotent.  This is where that definition is key, for if God were able to sin, then He could not be Holy and if He were not Holy, He would not be the greatest possible being and not God.  What's more, my ability to sin is not a power in the positive sense, but a deficiency in my character and such a thing cannot be paralleled to divine power.

How Then Shall We Live?

           

            I want to address one last thing, and that is on how we live with this knowledge.  In light of the evil and seemingly senseless suffering in the world, and we'll be discussing this problem of evil several times in this class, it is often leveled that if God were all-powerful He could prevent evil and suffering from existing, but evil and suffering does exist, therefore God is not all powerful.  From the ivory towers I might respond intellectually that just as with the stone, it might not be possible for a world to exist with free creatures, such as humans while also existing free from evil and suffering given the fall of man.  I'd add to that the fall of man must have been a necessary possibility for there to be a world such as we have in which mankind might know God.  Because God does possess the power to do all things actually possible for a divine Being, to have a world without evil and suffering must be logically impossible.

           

            That kind of response is absolutely useless however, when faced with the rape and murder of children or the ravages of war and famine and disease.  A more personal response to this problem would be that yes it's true that an all powerful God can defeat evil, but evil is not yet defeated, therefore evil will be defeated.  Because God can defeat evil, and has promised that He will do so, and because God cannot lie or go back on His word, we are guaranteed that He will.  (Read Is. 25.6-9)  The omnipotence of God provides us with the assurance that God will keep His Word.  No circumstances of this life or this world can ever change that.  There is no other hope without this God.

What is the Ontological Argument?

Here's Dr. Craig giving a great brief explanation of the ontological argument that I bring up in the first lecture.

Nature of God Lecture 1: God is Perfect, Necessary and Infinite