lab (05/03/83)
There have been some honest questions asked this week that I feel deserve
some honest answers. These mainly pertain to articles by Darrell Plank and
Jeff Mayhew (and Steve Den Beste's followup. First, a "Thank You" to Greg
Gadeholt for pointing out a critical problem many are having with the
interpretation of evidence - can anyone really write an unbiased history?
On to the questions.
Darrell Plank, on Infinite Mercy vs. Hell, and Eternal Bliss while knowing
that a son may be suffering in Hell:
1. God's attributes exist in harmony with one another, not at the expense
of one another. Indeed, God is infinitely merciful and loving, but He is
also infinitely just, holy, and righteous. When man sinned, God's holiness,
justice, and righteousness demanded punishment. Knowing that man of himself
could never meet the demands, God's love and mercy provided a way for His
justice to be satisfied - Jesus Christ, the innocent taking the place of
the guilty (as in the patriarchal lamb sacrifices). Further, God accounts
Christ's righteousness to those who surrender to Him, and He sets them
apart as His ("holy" = "set apart").
It's nice to say "God is love," but this is entirely out of context (I John
4:7-21). God's love is directly tied in with Him sending His Son to be the
propitiation (= satisfaction) for our sins. God's mercy is fully
consistent, being given to uncounted numbers who don't deserve it.
2. For the second question, two main references come to mind: Luke 16 and
Revelation 21. The latter tells of the new heaven and earth, wherein "there
shall be ... neither sorrow nor crying ..." The former is perhaps a more
graphic illustration - Abraham and Lazarus in the place called "Abraham's
bosom," and the rich man in Hell. From the words used, Abraham seems to be
fairly matter-of-fact, showing neither sympathy nor condemnation toward the
rich man. The best I can gather from other portions of Scripture (and I am
not alone in these views) is that when I leave this physical, my mind will
be freed from a lot of things, and there will be no problem accepting
whatever God ordains as being right.
On to Jeff (and Steve) on evidences:
Jeff's first article implies that without access to God's motives, we are
operating on guesses. That is a very good reason why God would reveal
Himself in the Scriptures. But there's still a lot more to God than what
the entire universe could hold if it were all a book.
Regarding evidences, the first question one would ask is "By what standard
will you evaluate the evidence?" Be careful - by the very act of using a
standard, you make the standard higher than the evidence. For this reason,
I will not "prove" the Scriptures as the Word of God to anyone. (One can give
evidence of their historical and other physical accuracy, but these are not
"proofs.") Since this is not an experiment repeatable under controlled
conditions, the scientific method would be difficult to apply. The
historical method - testimony of witnesses - is the only alternative I know
of. (By the way, Steve, the scientific method is useless to determine
whether I took a vitamin tablet this morning. Without witnesses, you have
no way of knowing.) This gets back to the question of "final authority" -
where is yours vested? Wherever it is, there is your god, whether it be
yourself, another person, some other object (animate or inanimate), or
something "beyond."
My second question is "What kind of evidence are you looking for?" It seems
you do not accept personal testimony as given in a historical record (e.g.
Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Paul, John, or "five hundred at one time").
Are you looking for a pillar of cloud by day, a pillar of fire by night?
You asked for something investigatable by a non-believer. According to the
Scriptures, the nations around Israel were VERY aware of the evidence of
the God of Israel - especially when it happened to them! Yet there was no
change of heart or mind. Even after Pharaoh's own son died and he sent the
Israelites away, a few days later he was chasing them (had he forgotten his
son so soon?). The hearts of the people of Jericho melted when they heard
of the triumph over Pharaoh's army (I still wonder how they found out), yet
only Rahab and her family changed sides. Apparently evidence alone isn't
enough to convince some people.
Perhaps one should consider an overlooked historical reference to Jesus -
the known existence of two of his brothers, James and Jude. The key
connection is Galatians 1:19 where Paul refers to "James, the Lord's
brother." From the context, it is clear that this is the same James of Acts
15, moderator of the church at Jerusalem. From his words at the council
therein described, he would be the same James who wrote the letter
attributed to him; his brother Jude (Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3) would be the
writer of the letter bearing his name. This also correlates with the
tradition of the early church fathers.
If you are honestly looking for some good reason to take the plunge, I issue
a challenge for the third time - the resurrection. Be careful about having
a closed mind with regard to the supernatural. One may well say he has not
observed the supernatural; one may NOT well conclude that the supernatural
is impossible.
Jeff has raised the question of Faith. Hebrews 11 is sometimes called the
Hall of Fame for the heroes of the faith. Again and again, faith is
demonstrated in action. But the first few verses say a lot about faith:
"The SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen." This
faith is not blind - it has assuring substance and convicting evidence.
"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God
must believe that He is ..." reflecting Romans 10:14 "How shall they call
upon Him in whom they have not believed?" I know it sounds circular, but
one submits that ANY system of beliefs depends on some extent to certain
presuppositions - even if it it just establishing yourself as final authority.
One is not asked to accept it blindly. Unless one has conviction of heart
and mind, how can one's expression of faith be considered real? In the
meantime, study the resurrection with an open mind.
Steve Den Beste raised some questions on creation that should fall more
into a science newsgroup (where there should be a lot less flaming). "A
substantial well-documented body of postive evidence for creationism"
(or even for evolution) would flood the network (and this newsgroup is
loaded enough). Some references I have found helpful are "Evolution and
Christian Faith" by Bolton Davidheiser, and "The Case for Scientific
Creation" by Henry Morris. I do not have at hand "Evolution: The Fossils
Say NO!" by Duane Gish, or "Scientific Creationism" (Morris), but I have
heard they are also good. By the way, I might be interested in seeing a
"substantiated well-documented body of positive evidence for" evolution -
at least something better than what I got in high school, college (yea, Pac
10!) or the Smithsonian. One would also ask for the criteria for disproving
evolution, or what counter-examples would eliminate the "certainty." I have
yet to see how evolution can be tested, even from ape to man.
Steve raised some specific questions that I can go into here. On Plate
Tectonics (called a pseudo-science 30 years ago) - fits very well
into a global cataclysm. Geology and biological evidence are both taken
into account and tend to support the creation model. For a major new
problem unexplained by the old theory - the SYSTEMATIC gaps which allow
for taxonomy are not predicted by evolution, but are by creation.
Wish I could have said it in half the space,
Larry Bickford
{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab