I read a rather silly article today, which discusses the question, “Suppose we find life on other planets. Did Jesus die for them too?”
This really falls into the category of “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.” However, since the underlying implication seems to be that the existence of alien life is somehow inconsistent with Scripture, I figured I’d respond.
Continue reading Did Jesus Die for Klingons? – A Response
Much has been said about the relationship between faith and reason. Many times faith and reason seem to be opposed. What is the Christian to do when faced with a claim that seems to have irrefutably evident reason behind it but contradicts the teachings of Scripture? If we believe that the Bible alone (when properly interpreted) is our infallible authority, what are we to do when met with claims such as Evolution?
As I’ve thought of this I’ve never really found an answer I’m comfortable giving. Though I hold both faith and reason to be important, the problem remains of what to do when they conflict. I recently remembered a book we discussed in my ethics class at Cedarville. It was by H. Richard Niebuhr called Christ and Culture. The book discussed five approaches to the relationship between Christ and Culture from a historical and ethical perspective. The details of the book are huge wash in my brain, but I remembered them enough to look up what the five views were. As I did so, I thought it might be beneficial to extrapolate these five categories into five views of the relationship between Faith and Reason.
Continue reading Faith and Reason
Have you ever heard the saying, “You can’t legislate morality?” Ever wonder whether it’s true? People love to debate this topic. The fact of the matter is, people seem to think that you can. Whether it is the militant religious right attempting to push Biblical morality on the nation, or whether it’s those godless commie liberals who want everyone to hug trees1, many people – at least those in power – seem to be interested in behavior modification. But what’s a Biblical Perspective on this? I’ve written before on Theonomy, but here’s another observation:
Continue reading Legislating Morality
This post is a response to an article I read here. I hope you can tell that I’m trying to be somewhat light hearted and humorous in my response, since I’m trying to give some thoughts along the lines of what he’s saying, but also stand for some very important truths that I think are largely ignored, by all sides. If you’re at all confused by what I’m saying, go read his article first. From here on, I’m speaking in the second person, with the author of the original article as the antecedent for “you”.
Continue reading Science and Christianity: From The Big Bang to Noah, Some Responding Thoughts – UPDATED
I had a new insight into Romans 7:7-8 last night. This passage has been bugging me in the back of my mind for a while. I see in many other places in Scripture the obvious truth that each individual person is culpable for Adam’s transgression, and that as such it is thoroughly impossible to live a life worthy of heaven on one’s own merits. See Romans 5 for this. But then we get to Romans 7, and St. Paul says something that almost knocks me out of my seat.
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Continue reading Romans 7:7-8
The above video gave me some pause. I wasn’t certain at first what the point was. The premise is that three missing words make Jesus a sinner. There were two possibilities at this point. Either this was an attempt to point out a contradiction in the Bible or this was a quasi-Ruckmanite attempt to show the KJV is better. After watching the video, it becomes obvious that the latter is the case.
In case you didn’t watch the video, the case this guy makes is that since Matthew 5:22 says “Everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement” (ESV) then later when Jesus is angry at the cleansing of the temple, he sinned. He said the problem with this is that the modern translations leave out the phrase that the KJV includes when it says “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause…” (KJV emphasis added… obviously). His conclusion is that Jesus did not sin in cleansing the temple because he had reason to be angry, but the “modern” translations leave out that phrase, making Jesus a sinner. Here are some problems I have with his analysis and presentation.
Continue reading What’s Missing