I logged into Yahoo this morning, not because I always do, but because I wanted to see what was happening in the world. I want to make note what Yahoo considers to be pressing news as of 8AM pacific time on 7-3-10.

“Serena Williams cruises at Wimbledon”
“Tricks to make your legs look longer”
“Apple ‘stunned’ at iPhone flaw”
and last but not least…
“‘Bachelor’ couple addresses nasty breakup”

Now, there is nothing wrong with Tennis or following Tennis, but I’m not entirely certain why this get’s the top spot, especially when Argentina is losing to Germany in the world cup as we speak. When it comes to sports, I think American’s still have an unhealthy relationship.

These other three titles point out a glaring flaw in the way that man looks at the world. Among many things, John 17 teaches us to be in the world, but not to be of the world. This means that we are residents here, but we do not conform to it.

It’s like when you visit China town in LA. The Chinese there are IN LA, but they are not OF LA. The are still OF China. For us, we are to be IN the world, that is the earth, but we are to be OF the heavenly kingdom. I look at it like this. Why be worried about how long your legs look when your goal is to glorify your King in Heaven, not to glorify yourself on Earth? Why even have an iPhone–unless for some reason it is helpful for your job or something reasonable–when the ridiculous amount of money could be spent on the Lords work? And when it comes to ‘The Bachelor,’ I really do not believe that such immoral programming can be  glorifying to God. To watch it incessantly as so many do is to desire that lifestyle above your own. Isn’t God worth such desire?

I have been doing some thinking about legalism this morning. I was thinking about verses like the following that say we have to follow the commandments. Paul taught that we are free from the law, so why so much emphasis on keeping the commandments? Truly, these are only two of many verses in the Bible commanding us to keep the law.

“Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart” (Psalm 119.2).

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14.15).

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not looking for an escape; some sort of loophole in God’s word which will allow me to escape the responsibility of this charge. Instead, the goal is to bring some clarity, so that obedience to this command does not result in self-righteousness.

Romans 2.15 says, “…they [Gentiles] show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” I think this verse really unlocks the mystery of the law. The law is written on man’s heart. This is called general revelation. We do not need a written law to be able to tell right from wrong and certainly the Spirit of Christ is able to discern for us what is right. We already know what is right! Then the principle—if you love Christ, you will do what He desires. It’s not legalism in the sense that you are adhering to a list of do’s and don’ts in hope that you might at some point earn righteousness and salvation.

The defining factor between legalism and love, then, is that the one who loves, obeys because he wants to please his savior who has judged and pardoned him; the legalist obeys in hopes that he can pay his own penalty. But, sin is too great. We have no ability to save ourselves. “…Salvation comes from the LORD” (Jonah 2.9). It is only by submitting to the will and authority of Christ and obeying the greatest of all commands, “…Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22.37) that we are able to accept the free gift of salvation. It is at this point that our obedience ceases to be legalism and becomes love.

Biblical creation is one of the most difficult things to take by faith for many people. I don’t know if it is that God is not ‘big enough’ or if it is so contradictory to science that we are unable to believe it. Let’s take a look at what the Bible has to say.

First of all, proper hermeneutics is critical to an understanding of the creation accounts. Many people want to take certain stories, such as Job and Jonah, and say that they did not actually take place; rather they are stories which God designed in order to teach us something. Often times a large part of Genesis is put into this category.

The truth is that these are all Old Testament narratives, though. It does not matter if you are reading 1 Kings or Genesis 1, they are narrative and ought to be used the same. The Hebrew people, where they did make use of allegory, metaphor and other forms of imagery, reserved this practice for shorter proverbial or parabolic situations where something could be taught on the spot. The creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 were written into a time line of the history of God’s chosen people. It should be understood as being historical.

So, it is not so much the fantastic elements that people reject. We understand that God is hear and working in this world to bring about the completion of His plan. But, we are used to seeing God work through this creation, so a seven day creation becomes very abstract and difficult to believe.

Here is something to ponder—not doctrine, but my own musings:

2 Peter 3.8 says, “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day” (NASB). It seems to say that a day to the Lord, who is the one who created all things according to John 1, time is relative. So could it be that 7 days took place over some extended period of time according to Jesus’ divine control over time?

I have heard it argued repeatedly—and I tend to agree—that the Hebrew word used for day, literally means one day, a 24 hour period, sun down to sun down. Therefore, it had to take place in 7 earthly days. I myself am more interested to see how the Greek speaking Hebrews from before Christ viewed a day. In the LXX (the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts) they translate the word day in the Genesis account as ἡμέρα (aymera). This is the same word Jesus used in Matthew 26.61 to denote the number of days it would take for the temple to be rebuilt. Therefore a day is a day.

Where this seems to support the argument for a true 7/24, there is one other element to consider in the semantic argument. In 2 Peter 3.8, the word used is also ἡμέρα. So, in the end, what I see is a 7/24 (really 6/24) creation, where Jesus has taken divine control over time in order to complete what science says would take millions of years into 7 temporal days.

I’d encourage you to consider this and make your own judgment, according to the Spirit. Seek out the truth from scripture for yourself. I think this might just be one of those things we are to take on faith and may not be able to conclusively be settled until the Lord returns and we are given understanding.

I’m reading a book right now called ‘On the  Passion of Christ.’ It’s a devotional book from a 14th century priest named Thomas Hemerken or Thomas A Kempis. Today’s devotion was about the patience that Jesus expressed while traveling with Judas Iscariot. Thomas points out that Jesus knew that Judas had sold Him for 30 pieces of silver and still he spared him the public humiliation. Jesus even took the passover meal with Judas.

I left my house to go for a walk so I could have some time to dwell on what I had read and to pray over it. I got two doors down and was confronted by two neighborhood dogs who were none too happy to see me. My neighbor across the street bailed me out or I might have been breakfast.

As I returned home I pondered if I should call animal control or talk to the dogs owners. It was at that point that I realized I had a great example of what Christ would do. He would be patient with the owners and overlook the offense.

“A man’s wisdom gives him patience ; it is to his glory to overlook an offense” (Proverbs 19.11).

Situational ethics is the invention of Joseph Fletcher. The basic concept is, “the end justifies the means.” It doesn’t matter what you DO so long as the intended outcome is good. The idea is that if your motives are pure then, the action is immaterial. There is even some biblical backing for this concept. According to 1 Corinthians 4.5, when Jesus returns “He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God” (NIV). God’s praise, according to this verse is in proportion to the motive of the heart and not the action itself.

Let’s take a look at a few moral dilemmas and see how we think we should respond to these. How would someone who believes in situational ethics respond to them?

The Fat Man and the Impending Doom. A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do? What if you are the fat man? What if instead of a fat man, it is a pregnant lady?

The Bomber. A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Dangerous Promises. A friend confides to you that he has committed a particular crime and you promise never to tell. Discovering that an innocent person has been accused of the crime, you plead with your friend to give himself up. He refuses and reminds you of your promise. What should you do? In general, under what conditions should promises be broken?

There are some advantages to this ethical system. It is consistent with the biblical modal. Jesus taught to abandon legalism and self-righteousness. We are dead to the law according to Paul. Instead, we are judged by our motives. The Bible is not intended to be a list of do’s and don’ts. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4.12). It is alive and is used for wisdom and discernment and not a simple list.

The problem is that situational ethics is only loosely based on the Bible. Situational ethics suggests that we can defy God’s standards if it will produce a virtuous outcome. The Apostle John said, “This is love for God: to obey his commands” (1 John 5.3). If we are not obeying God, then we are not loving Him and Jesus said that to love God is the greatest commandment.

It seems like there should be some sort of balance. If we discard situational ethics entirely, then we become legalistic. On the other hand if we embrace it entirely, then we defy God’s laws. I think Paul gave Timothy some advice on the matter: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2.15). To rightly handle the word of truth is to discern truth from scripture without legalistically holding to the law. We are called to maintain God’s standards and I think that situational ethics, if used conservatively, can help us to understand that.

Dilemmas from: www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

Situational Ethics info from: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/situation.htm and http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/situational-ethics.htm

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher from the 1700′s. His scholarly studies range in topic, but his work in ethics and philosophy are probably the most notable. Kant’s ethics are deontological, free from natural influence and solely based on the will of man. He designed the ‘categorical imperative’  in order to test whether an act is moral or immoral.

Kantian ethics are deontological. This means that something is considered to be moral because it adheres to a rule. The opposite is teleological ethics, in which something is considered moral because it produces a certain outcome. Deontological ethics allow for some sort of moral authority, whether that is a god or some sort of natural order. Where Kant’s ethics are deontological, he actually considers the natural order to be irrelevant to ethics as natural orders tend to be subjective or potentially subjective in nature, and could thereby be evil (Jensen, 2009).

Since Kant tosses out all natural things, there must be a universal good from which all morality derives. This is the good will. For Kant’s purposes, the good will is the intention to do something simply because it is right to do so. Kant intentionally uses the word will, because it must be done with intent or will to do right in order to be moral. To do something which is right by happenstance and not with direct intent lacks volition and is therefore immoral, regardless of the act. This is actually a potential defect in his reasoning as it removes the ability of someone who is ignorant to the moral argument from making a moral decision since he is not driven to consider his own will (Kant, 2008).

Kant has a system which can be used to determine the morality of an act. This is called the ‘categorical imperative’ or the ‘principle of universalizibility.’ According to the categorical imperative, one must ask, upon considering an action, if one would will the act to become universalized. That is, if you would will that everyone did X, then it would be considered a moral act, according to Kant (2008).

Kant distinguishes between categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative. An imperative is a command. A hypothetical would mean that the outcome of the act is uncertain, whereas a categorical simply is (Jensen, 2009). For example: hypothetically, if you want a cheeseburger then go to a burger joint and buy one. Categorically, at a burger joint, you buy a cheeseburger. The first statement is hypothetical because it does not have a guaranteed outcome. The second statement is categorical because it is intrinsically right that one would buy a cheeseburger at a burger joint.

One of the most common moral arguments is over abortion. Kant would look for the moral authority on the matter using the categorical imperative. He would form a statement such as, ‘abortion is murder.’ He would not say, “if you have an abortion, then you have committed murder” as that is a hypothetical statement. This statement, in and of itself, does not immediately denote immorality until murder is determined to be immoral. So, Kant would then apply the principle of universalizibility. “Would I will that everyone ought to commit murder?” Since no one would, in right mind, will this it can be determined that abortion is immoral.

Kantian ethics can be applied to all sorts of scenarios. The categorical imperative proves useful, and often prudent, in determining the morality of an act. Even though Kant did not attribute morality to God or to any god, he certainly seems to have found a strain of revelation in the midst of reason.

References

Jensen, J. (2009). Questions that matter L. Miller, (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kant, I. (2008). The metaphysical elements of ethics (T. K. Abbot, Trans.). Rockville, MD: Arc Manor.

For millennia man has pondered over this problem: if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then why does evil exist in the world? The problem is referred to as theodicy. Many philosophers and theologians over time have tackled this problem and all have, arguably, fallen short of sound logic in all areas. Many have chosen to diminish the qualities of God in an attempt to derive a logical solution, whereas others have pursued different means of rationalization.

John Stuart Mill denied the omnipotence of God as a way of rationalizing the theodicy. Others have simply denied that we are capable of finding a solution and land on the inscrutability of God’s ways. Still others have attempted to rationalize the problem by viewing evil in a corporate manor from God’s eyes, so as to view humanity as ultimately productive and good in spite of occasions of evil (Jensen, 2009).

Augustine and others have taken a drastically different approach to the subject by denying the substance of evil all together. According to this thought process, evil is simply a term which has been assigned to the absence of good. Evil, then, is only a term which is synonymous with ‘lack of good’. An advocate of this view might well praise God for where He has produced good, rather than blame God for where He has not (Jensen, 2009).

Probably the most common solution is the free-will defense. According to this viewpoint, there has to be an opposite to goodness in order for there to be free-will. If there were no evil, then man would not have a choice on whether to do good or not. Man would be forced to glorify God by doing good. Man would have been denied the will to refuse glory for God and therefore would lack free-will. This solution is logical on the surface, but comes with all sorts of issues. For instance: if God is good and all knowing, then creating a human with the ability to perform evil—it can be argued—is an act of evil (Jensen, 2009).

One very modern concept is that evil is therapeutic. That is, evil is manifest in creation by God for the purposes of discipline and/or punishment. This theory is fairly pure on the surface, but raises all sorts of concerns. What about moral evil? Did the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust actually deserve it in God’s eyes? What about the unborn child who is unnaturally or naturally aborted? Do these sorts of moral evils actually produce spiritual benefit (Jensen, 2009)?

I can certainly see the thought process in all of these theories, but I would approach it from a very different angle. As a result of Adam’s sin, God created natural evil (Genesis 3.17-20 New American Standard Bible). This is definitely punishment for doing what God said not to do. It should be noted that because of the fall, all mankind became sinners, so this punishment was bestowed on all. Therefore, these sorts of bad things are not happening to good people, they are only happening to bad people, to sinners.

Moral evil still requires explanation. Adam and Eve clearly had it within them to produce evil aside from the curse, since they ate of the forbidden fruit before the curse. One has to come to grips with the fact that God created both the temptation and a tempter so that Adam would have to make a moral choice. In the gravest of sins, Adam chose evil.

In order to reconcile this, one has to remember that God’s ultimate purpose in creation is His own glory. Had God created man without the ability to make a moral choice, He would have been denying himself the glory that comes from obedience, since man would be forced into obedience, thus negating His own purpose in creation.

But, God is omnibenevolent! Yes, He is. But, God’s love for mankind is stemmed by His own purpose for righteousness. In other words, God would do an extreme injustice to His creation and ultimately His plan if He refused them the opportunity for righteousness which can only come as a consequence of denying evil. It is interesting that there are many different opinions on the matter. My own opinion (albeit based primarily on scripture and less on reason) borrows from many of the great thinkers who have pondered the problem of theodicy before me.

References

Jensen, J. (2009). Questions that matter L. Miller, (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

What is Postmodernism

Postmodernism is not so much a period of time, but a way of defining a reaction to the modernist movement. Postmodernism tends to be characterized in three major ways.

First, postmodernism is characterized by a partial return to the classics. This trait doesn’t tend to manifest so much in art as it does in theology, politics and sociology.

Second, postmodernism tends to be abstract, being defined as that which is aside from concrete or practical reality. In most cases, the abstract, whether in art or philosophy tends to be manifest as a reaction to classical thought or modernist thought.

Third, postmodernism is characterized by relativism. Postmodernists have identified a trend of change over time and as a result embrace relative truth—what is true for you is not necessarily true for me.

A little more practical: postmodern thought seeks individuality as well as commonality. That is to say that we can all be different and believe what we want, but we can still be united in what is common. This plays out more in social, political and religious arenas than anywhere else. Some signs of this are homosexual tolerance and support of gay marriage, multi-religions (ex. Someone who claims to be both Buddhist and Hindu) and implied tolerance for cultural diversity.

When it comes to a Christian standpoint, postmodernism can be a slippery subject. Certainly, most Christians agree that religious relativism and/or religious tolerance is wrong, but many have accepted it. There are arguments on culturally relative definitions of sin. I think it is best to remember that God is unchanging and therefore His standards are unchanging.

Here is an exercise in postmodernism.

On the subject of ethical values:

I would say that ethical values, or morals, come from God. There are many ways that we become aware of ethical values. We get them from the Bible. We get them from the conviction of the Holy Spirit. And we get them from general revelation.

Because God is unchanging, His standards are concrete and unchanging. The same morals that existed 2000 years ago are the same as the morals which we should hold to today. In the same way, the morals that we use here in the US are the same that should be held to in China or anywhere else.

A postmodernist would say that ethical values are relative. They would likely recognize cross-cultural morals that have allowed society to progress for many milenia such as ‘murder is wrong,’ but they would take a relative view towards it.

For instance, there is a culture in Northern America called the Inuit that (in many circles) kills the elderly men when they are no longer useful for hunting game. A postmodernist would say that because it is necessary for the progression of that society that it is not immoral. But, according to God’s standards, it is immoral.

A similar argument can be found in abortion. The postmodernist would likely say that everyone is right to their own definition of life and so it is only immoral to kill a fetus if the person believes it to be a person.

References

http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-postmd.htm

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/postmodernism

Epistemology a branch of philosophy which is concerned with the theory of knowledge. It asks questions about what knowledge is, how you get it and theorizing what is known. Hume and Kant are tow major philosophers from the school of epistemology.

David Hume separated knowledge into two categories. Analytic knowledge is truth which is contingent on it’s definition. For instance, ‘a circle is round.’ This is assumed because if it were not round, it would not be a circle. Synthetic knowledge is more arguable because two thoughts are synthesized into one thought. For instance, ‘the ball is a circle.’ Circle is synthesized with ball. You cannot simply assume that because it is a ball it is a circle. A ball could be oblong like a football or flat, so through this statement you are actually obtaining knowledge about the ball.

Immanuel Kant also separated knowledge into two categories, although different ones. Priori knowledge is knowledge that is derived apart from experiences. For example, ‘a circle is round.’ This knowledge exists before it is experienced because a circle is round no matter what. Posteriori knowledge is derived from experience. For example, ‘the ball is a circle.’ This requires experience in order to have the knowledge, because without seeing the ball for yourself you cannot really know what shape it is.

It seems that there is only a semantic difference between Hume and Kant based on the above definitions, however there are differences. The major difference between Hume and Kant is that Hume was against the metaphysical approach all together. He believed the epistemological approach to contradict metaphysics. Kant, on the other hand, found more of a middle ground between metaphysics and epistemology. He found epistemology to be a reformation of metaphysics and so he didn’t abandon physical reality for abstract thought as Hume did.

Those of you who have been reading my blog for some time will know that I am, in fact, a skeptic. I don’t accept anything at face value, with one singular exception. I see truth as something which God alone controls. Supposed ‘truth’ which comes from science and from the world immediately gets put into the doubt folder. It is not necessarily untrue, but aside from God’s confirmation, it can never be proven as true.

I think it is necessary for me to address Christians who presume to know truth. I believe (for many reasons—let me know if you want them all) that men are incapable of completely understanding truth, even when God makes it clear to us. I often use the example of a fuel filter on a car. Pure gasoline comes out of the factory. It is then put into storage tanks, then trucks and eventually into the tanks at the gas station where it sits. Then you come along, buy the gas and put it into your own fuel tank. Along the way it has picked up all sorts of impurities. The fuel filter attempts to transfer the fuel to the car, but is charged with the task of removing the impurities. We are the fuel filter. Even though God is providing us with His pure unadulterated word, by the time we filter it through all the crap in our lives, we get a manipulated version of that truth. Because of this, I do not believe that ANY man can know conclusively what God’s truth is. So even with the greatest theologians, I am a skeptic.

How about God’s word? I should make it clear that I continue to prayerfully seek truth from God’s word, however, I do not believe that any man can conclusively determine God’s truth even from the Bible, not because God is faulty in His method, but because we, as humans, have so soiled ourselves that we are unable to grasp the depth of the truth of God’s word.

I determine truth according to three basic methods. (It should be noted that I am a skeptic even of my own derived truth, but to reject all knowledge of truth is insanity.) I derive truth (1) through God’s word. I take what is clear and simple in God’s word and use that as a filter for determining truth in other areas of life and/or God’s word. I derive truth (2) By the Holy Spirit. Through prayer and meditation, I believe God will confirm His word. I derive truth (3) through the work of God in my life. Same as God opens and closes doors in a practical sense so that we know WHAT to do, He also opens and closes doors to show us HOW to do or to show us WHAT is true. Only when all of these three come together will I make an assumption on truth. An assumption is the best that we can hope for and I truly believe that any assumption of truth made aside from this method or another similar method is foolish.

Some people will note that I left out logic. Logic is a God given ability, however, like in all philosophy, it is more of a tool that is used in conjunction with the above mentioned methodology.

But what about general revelation? Certainly truth exists in creation, but creation alone is not conclusive on truth aside from God’s word, God’s Spirit and God’s intervention (see above 3 points). There is probably truth in science and in the world, but without a proper method, the evidence is inconclusive.

Hmmmm. My wife just pointed out to me that my views are strikingly similar to the beliefs of the emergent church and that John MacArthur (who’s commentary I love) would have an aneurism if he read this. So, I should point out one major, glaring difference. I do believe in doctrine, so long as it is systematic, and sound doctrine. I will not respect your doctrinal opinion simply because it is your opinion; it must be a firm conviction which is derived of sound pursuit of God’s word. Faulty or weak methodology results in false doctrine and false truth.