During the past few months I’ve been mulling over the various arguments regarding Christian pacifism, and there’s one argument I’m exploring that I feel needs serious consideration.

1st Samuel 16:18 says, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man; and the LORD is with him.”

Got hates sin. It is impossible that God could esteem sin, and yet, God esteems warriors. The only conclusion that makes any sense is that being a warrior is not in itself sinful, otherwise God could not esteem it.

In the Old Testament, strength in combat was considered a praiseworthy attribute, and God placed honour upon those that were skillful in battle. We read of David that his valor and military skill were not simply commendable, but were also parallel and coincident with the presence of God in his life.

Now, what this means for Christians today is not immediately clear, though one thing is certain: God esteems that valiant warrior.

I think it’s fairly easy to determine if one is being spiritual by looking at the fruit: is that person loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good-hearted, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled? Are they all these things? The absence of fruit most certainly reveals an absence of Spirit – the Spirit alone causes growth.

But in terms of our duty, Mark Horne has a rather unusual yet near perfect assemblage of Scriptures that show what the daily life of a spiritual person looks like.

Go read.

I’ve decided to pull this post for the time being until I’m entirely satisfied with my interpretation of the Unpardonable Sin.

A fantastic interpretation by Mark Horne can be found here. It doesn’t completely satisfy me, but I think it’s elegantly succinct, and helps to clear up most of the questions surrounding this passage of Scripture.

I’ve been bandying back and forth with Andrew on City of God (here too) over the weekend about pacifism and the justification for the State’s (meaning government in general, not specifically the USA) use of force. I thought I would post the comment here regarding Romans 13. It’s nothing new, but I think it’s useful.

God has ordained the State’s power. He has not only ordained its power, but has approved its use of force. How do we know this?

From Romans 13 we know the State has force (it bears the sword) but we also know that it is right for the State to use that force (it does not bear the sword in vain – lit. inconsiderately; without just cause).

According to the passage, the State does bear the Sword unjustly. Who is the arbiter of justice? The Lord. Who has placed the sword into the hands of government? Also the Lord. Therefore, the Lord has deemed it just (thus right) for the State to use the sword. In fact, the State exists for that very purpose.

Now, if one takes “not in vain” to mean “God uses evil for good,” I think one is playing fast and loose with the passage; it is emphatic that what we see here is not the “accidental” will of God, but rather the very specific, foreordained will of God. God is not turning lemons into lemonade. Granted, force wouldn’t be needed if there was no sin, so in a way there will always be an “accidental” quality to justice. This, however, does not mean that God’s will for the State to use force in a fallen economy is itself accidental. The passage has a bias and this bias is toward intentionality. God is not improvising, He’s being intentional regarding the State. Thus, in it’s justice it is justified.

Now, Rom 12 just told us not to take revenge for ourselves, but that revenge is the Lord’s…

“But Apostle Paul, how does the Lord avenge us?”

“Keep reading! It’s in the next chapter!”

Sometimes the Lord is pleased to avenge us through Divine intervention, but He often works through a minister or agent. What is His agent of revenge? Who bears the sword on His behalf? The State! How do we know this? Rom 13 says so! It calls the State a minister of God’s justice – an avenger.

Consider, much of the law, the “10 Commandments” in particular, are directed toward individual conduct. This is why the Israelite army could go and kill yet not be in violation of the Law. God was not being inconsistent in anyway or creating a special “alternate” Law so that He could calling them to war – different rules apply to the State than do to the individual.

Therefore, Paul’s reminder not to avenge ourselves does not necessarily apply to the State. In fact we see that Rom 13 justifies the State in using force (God establishes the State so that it can execute His judgments, and it wields the sword rightly, justly, “unaccidentally”).

Parents use the family credit card – children cannot. I must obey the speed limit – police can be exempt. The judicial system can incarcerate someone for decades – I would be prosecuted for doing the so.

What is true for the individual is not always true for the group, and the apparent tension between Romans 12 and Romans 13 is resolved when we grant this.

The third premise that Kenneth Miller presents is as follows:

“evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them.”

I do not see, based on the goals of the evolutionary process what is required for evolution to succeed, how this claim can be true?

1) If our Universe is independent, by definition, every moral principle inside the Universe must be developed internally.

2) If we are creatures that have evolved, the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate, primary, and most reliable basis for the establishment of moral truth. Thus, any action that promotes my survival is justified.

According to evolution, Survival of the Fittest is conclusively, inextricably connected to life. Life depends on this principle — if Miller is right. Based on his premise, advantageous acts must be morally justifiable. Theft and murder and rape can all enable me to survive and pass on my genetic material to future generations, making the acts morally justifiable. We find examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.

The animal kingdom, of which we apparently are a part, is within the Universe, and the Universe is apparently independent. Now, Miller keeps assuring the reader, “Well, we have to look elsewhere for our morality,” but what is the justification in doing so? Looking elsewhere for anything taking place within the Universe renders the Universe not independent! Independence demands that nothing external be sought out or included. Why does Miller set aside morality and meaning, giving them special privileges? Either the Universe is independent or it is not, and we can’t allow these kinds of logical contradictions in our thinking.

I can’t test Christ’s ideas in the same way that I can test evolutionary principles. Assuming Miller’s premise, why would anyone be more justified in looking to Christ for morality than to evolutionary principles? In fact, since this is an independent self-sufficient Universe in which human life is the result of evolution, I am actually more justified in looking to evolutionary principles as a basis for morality than I am to Christ. This leaves theft, murder, and rape open to me (being advantageous acts) and renders Christ useless (as His presence compromises the independence of the Universe).

Miller, and anyone else that holds to evolution, believes essentially that humanity is no more important than any other species of living thing. Sure, we might have a leg up in some areas, but all things being equal, we’re all just an amalgam of cells that have “made it.” On this grid there is no need or use for Christ and so it would be interesting to hear why Miller believes humans are in need of a Saviour at all.

In closing, here are some questions I would like to as Mr Miller:

At what point in human evolution did we become savable as a species?

Are all creatures savable? Is it conceivable that there could be a Gopher Jesus, and Zebra Jesus, and an Amoeba Jesus?

Since Christ took on human flesh, and ascended in bodily form to heaven, does Miller believe that the incarnation made Christ part animal?

When did the simple evolutionary instincts that allowed humanity to evolve transform into the existential quandary of sin — why are evolutionarily advantageous acts sinful at all?

Miller seems to believe that if God had simply created mankind, that in so doing, man would be devoid of free will. Miller again writes:

“All things would move toward the Creator’s clear, distinct, established goals. Such control and predictability, however, comes at the price of independence. Always in control, such a Creator would deny his creatures any real opportunity to know and worship him - authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution.”

For some reason, and who knows why, Miller has it set in his mind that God is incapable of creating a creature that is capable of true free will, and that the only way free will becomes possible is to have God at arms length. What on earth is the possible justification for this? Miller is creating a false choice here. There is no good reason why believing that God can create a fully developed creature precludes its free will. Why should it? Miller admits in the excerpt that he believes God is in fact capable of creating a person out of nothing — why does Miller then think that a God who could do this could not go one tiny step further and create that person with truly free will! The very act of creating a person out of nothing defies all known physical laws. Clearly a God that is capable of doing this (as Miller believes He is) is capable of anything.

This blends into another, very important issue: is the free will Miller talks about a matter for our biology or for the soul? Does Miller believe that souls exist and if so, how is it that they come about? The burden of proof is on the Christian evolutionist to provide a naturalistic explanation for how the soul might come about, and of course to do this, they need to first prove scientifically that the soul even exists at all.

There are essentially three possibilities that Miller must accept:

a) If sin and free will are matters for the body, then Miller’s being a Christian is a waste of time, as the soul is nothing but myth, and there’s nothing Christ needed to save us from.

b) If sin and free will are matters for the soul, but Miller believes the soul develops naturalistically, then the burden of proof is on him to prove that the soul even exists, and how it comes to be. He will then have the difficult task of explaining how it is this naturalistic soul can even be saved unto a supernatural paradise, or why this naturalistic soul even needs saving at all (as death would simply be the end, with no eternity to worry about).

c) If Miller believes in the soul, and that God in fact does create souls, then it’s altogether irrelevant if we evolved or not as far as free will is concerned as the agent of free will (the soul) was still created by God!

The only possibility that makes any sense in a Christian system sees sin and free will as matters for the soul, and sees the soul as a supernatural entity. This completely destroys the foundation for Miller’s entire argument of a theological justification for evolution– God’s creating a biological shell poses no hindrance to free will as true free will is necessarily the property of a supernatural agent — the soul — thus exempt from the process of evolution.

Any way you slice it, Miller’s argument when coupled with His Christianity collapses into meaninglessness.

On City of God in the course of a discussion on the ethics of homosexuality, Matthew made this comment:

“Christ was capable of sin in his humanity but not in his divinity. Therefore, his temptation was real, because he was tempted in his humanity, but not in his divinity. However, Christ was not perfect in his humanity until after the resurrection. Nonetheless, he remained perfect in his divinity throughout his time on earth.”

I thought more about this and disagree. Christ had to have been perfect in His humanity. I came to this conclusion:

Perfection essentially means to be without flaw. Fair enough?

Now, Christ was a sacrifice for sin and we can learn about what was required of Him for this role by examining that which foreshadowed Him — Old Testament sacrifice. Now a lamb chosen for sacrifice had to be blemishless — without flaw, that is, perfect. Since lambs don’t have souls, what had to blemishless was its body. That is, the part of the lamb that could be sacrificed needed to be perfect.

Now, come back to Christ and continue the logic: whatever part of Him that could be sacrificed needed to be perfect. We know that His Divinity was not what sacrificed. It was distressed and removed from the Father, yes, but his Godhood did not die. Of course His body died, however, the component of Christ that was truly crushed for us was the entirety of His humanity. Christ’s humanity was sacrificed. In order for Christ to be a viable sacrifice for sin, the part of Him that could be sacrificed — His humanity — needed to be perfect.

Given His sacrificial role, Christ being perfect prior to crucifixion was far more necessary than for Him to be perfect afterward.

Also consider that Christ is referred to as the second Adam, and we know that Christ did not have a sin nature. Christ’s human life was the result of God’s creation, not human sexual activity — like Adam. So whatever conclusions we come to about Christ’s humanity hold true for Adam’s.

I’m often baffled by the duality scientists so regularly inject into the Creation/Evolution discussion. They are swift to accuse proponents of Creation or Intelligent Design as offering a kind of “pseudo-science.” However, when defending their own ideas scientists offer in return a kind of “pseudo-philosophy.” The latter I find to be more problematic. The foundation of an idea is more critical than the idea itself. In the excerpt from his book Finding Darwin’s God, Kenneth Miller presents several arguments on the topic, and each one is predicated on a very weak philosophical and theological foundation.

(more…)

Macleans has recently published an article (it was in fact, the cover story), in which certain leaders within the Church state they have come to the conclusion that removing Christ from our faith is the best course of action.

You can read the article here.

Are you as dumbfounded as me?

Well, in response, I will be assembling 95 points for the divinity and necessity of Christ.

Are you a Believer? A budding theologian? Are you best buds with a brilliant apologist? If so, please submit your points to me, or tell people who might be interested in this project to visit here.

To submit your points, simply leave them as comment to this post. I plan to publish and distribute the 95 most compelling points.

Laziness is complicity.

A mob. Stranded in the wilderness. Their clothes, tattered; their faces gaunt; all they care about is winning a million dollars — and you are there.

A dull, but handsome entrepreneur; 20 vapid, but stunning women fighting over him — and you are there.

A veritable army of obese Americans; tears and temptations; the miraculous loss of hundreds of pounds in but a few months — you are there.

As a society, we have worked ourselves into a place where the vicarious is good enough. We don’t need to participate in the Thing, watching the the Thing is fine. Perhaps better. We are so absorbed with and taken up with the vicarious that we believe it is somehow meritous, as though we had actually participated in the Thing.

The Church in North America is set up to accommodate this, and has been established this way for quite some time — Reality TV could learn a thing or two from us.

And here you are: you come to a building. You sit in proximity to people who are passionately worshiping. You sit in proximity to someone who is speaking Truth. You sit in proximity to others who are feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. It is this act of sitting in proximity to Holiness that is in large part rendering the Church impotent.

People equate their attendance with action, as if watching and listening were somehow participating in the Thing itself.

Disappear into a large congregation. Have no one speak into your life. Do not engage. Just as you will not win the million, take home Mr Right, or lose those last 50 lbs, so too will you not share in the Harvest.

Laziness is complicity.