Classical Arguments #2 - The Teleological Argument

Another very popular classical argument is called the Teleological Argument.  The name comes from the Greek word “telos” which means “purpose, end, or goal.”  The argument was popularized by William Paley who argued that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.  And yet said Paley, the watch is not nearly as complex as your hand.  The Teleological Argument argues then that the existence of a designer can be deduced by the complexity or the purpose seen in a system.  Here it is in deductive
form:

#1 Purpose and design in a system implies a designer
#2 The universe shows purpose and design
#3 Therefore, the universe has a designer

Premise #1 is argued to be self evident.  For example, it's obvious that there is a difference between the Rocky Mountains and Mount Rushmore - one is designed the other is not. Premise #2 is what makes the argument fun because it is usually argued by listing unimaginably impressive scientific data and statistics.  For instance, "Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopaedia Britannica."*  Such complexity could never arise by chance. Here are some more examples:



-The odds of amino acids forming a simple protein by chance are less than 1 in 10 with 65 zeros behind it.*
-The simplest amoeba cell is made of about 2,000 proteins.  The chances of this organism arising randomly is 1 in 10 to the 40,000^th power.  To get an idea of how big that number is - the number of atoms in the entire universe is only 10 to the 80^th power.*
-see below for more fine tuning





Strengths:

• The argument can be very persuasive due to the impressive scientific data and improbabilities. 
• Also, premise #2 is almost unanimously agreed on, even by secular scientists.

Weaknesses:

• It does not argue for God, let alone the Christian God, but only for a designer.  
• It does not argue for the direct creation of the universe.  
• Also, you must be well acquainted with science to use the argument forcefully.

Bible references:

• Rom. 1:20; Acts 14:17, Psalms 8:3-4 and 19:1-6; Proverbs 8:22-31; Isaiah 40:26; Genesis 1:2-31

If successful this argument leaves you with a designer of the universe.  This designer would be incomprehensibly intelligent.


Do you think this argument is successful?  What are some common objections?  Perhaps you have a question.  Feel free to leave a comment so that I can respond and not be bored at work!


* George Sim Johnson, ‘Did Darwin Get It Right?’ http://www.bethinking.org/advanced/does-science-contradict-religion.htm
*http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Evidence_for_God_From_the_Design

Initial Constants of the Universe

-“If the rate of the universe’s expansion had been smaller by even one part in a hundred, thousand, million, million the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.” –Stephen Hawking

-“A change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only 1 part in 10 to the 100^th power would have prevented a life permitting universe.” – P.C.W.  Davies

-“The odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formations, without which planets could not exist, is one followed by a thousand, billion, billion zeros at least.” – Brandon Carter

An excellent wife is the crown of her husband

"An excellent wife is the crown of her husband" - Proverbs 12:4


I’m married.  Wow! I don't know why I'm so blessed.  I'm a sinner.  I don't deserve my next breath of life, I deserve to die - Romans 6:23.  I don't deserve God's Son dying on my behalf - Romans 5:6.  I don't deserve the transaction that happened at the cross when Jesus took my sin and I took His righteousness - II Cor 5:21.

On top of all of this God provides a helper suitable for me Genesis 2:18, a woman who desires to be an "excellent wife" - Proverbs 12:4, who wants to be a Proverbs 31 kind of woman, a Titus 2:3-5 sort of gal, a woman who fears the Lord -Proverbs 31:30.

I was married to my dream girl on March 3^rd 2012. I love Leigh Ann Hernandez (now Gausselin foolz!) and I still feel like I’m on my honeymoon!  My marriage is such an unmistakable blessing to me! So what better time is there for me to make a few observations about marriage?

I’ll just check out a few things that are on my mind about how awesome marriage is. But the Bible is full of this stuff.  So let this post be a diving board into what the Bible says about all things marriage related.

I'll check out four things about how awesome marriage is.  

The first observation is a comparison between Matthew 19:4-6 and Genesis 1 to 2.  I once heard a co-worker of mine say that marriage is just a human institution.  Her point was that God created man and woman, they started a family, then centuries later some civilization made unions between men and women official by binding people together in this thing called marriage.  But in Matthew 19 Jesus quotes the creation account in his argument that divorce is not biblical.  “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE." -Matt 19:4.  Just think about that for a second.  Jesus is asked a question about marriage, and the first place he goes to is the creation account.  This is because in Jesus’s worldview, marriage began with Adam and Eve.  Also… Jesus’ worldview is correct.

Check out Mt. 19:3-6 to see how Jesus uses the creation accounts in both Gen. 1 and 2 in the discussion.

The second thing I want to point out is what God thinks about marriage.  When God created the world he did a pretty good job. "God saw that the light was good" - Gen. 1:4, "and God saw that it was good" -1:10, “good”, “good”, “good”…etc.  Each time God created something new it was "good".  After God creates man and woman on the sixth day the Bible says, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." - 1:31.  So everything was "good" as God created it, but after God had finished creation, everything was "very good".

But shhhh!  There’s actually a secret parallel creation passage.  It is called Genesis 2.  While Genesis 1 is an overview of the creation account, Genesis 2 zooms in on the creation of man and woman.  It is here in Gen 2:18 that for the first time in recorded history there is a problem, "Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone."  So in all of creation the one thing that is "not good" is that Adam is alone.  So what does God do? He creates woman.  The last few verses of Gen 2 are the classic description of the institution of marriage that Jesus quotes in Matthew 19 (see above).

Now take the story of Genesis 2 and plug it into the rest of the creation story.  Notice that everything is "good" until Adam is created alone, which is “not good.” Then Eve is created, the two come together and all of a sudden creation is "very good."

For comparison sake, If you look up at night, you can see 5,000 other stars with the naked eye most of which are bigger than our sun.  There are 400 billion of these stars in our galaxy and we know of at least 100 billion galaxies in the known universe.  God created all of this and said it is "good".

they shall become one flesh..."very good."

The third observation is that marriage is a picture of the gospel.

I used to wonder why in the world would it not be good that Adam is alone?  I mean, he was in perfect union with God with no sin interfering with their relationship.  Imagine, it's just you and God in perfect communion and there's no sin.  Why is this not good?  In fact, isn't this kinda what we are aiming for in heaven?  Was God not enough? Did Adam need to have Eve?  To say that Adam needed Eve makes it sound like fellowship with God one on one is not all sufficient.  Why is this not good?
I may be wrong, but I wonder if part of the answer isn’t found in Ephesians 5:22-33.  An important Reformation principle is that all of scripture points to Christ.  Here are some examples of this in the New Testament: John 5:39-40, John 5:46, Luke 24:25-27.  As Paul talks about marriage in Ephesians 5, he quotes the same passages that Jesus quoted in Mt. 19.

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” – Gen 2:24

And immediately after Paul says in verse 32, “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.”  By saying this right after quoting the creation account, Paul is linking this mystery between Christ and the church all the way to the very beginning.  This may not be the only reason, but I wonder if it was not good for Adam to be alone partly because he by himself was not a picture of Christ and the church.

I’m going out on a theological limb here, but correct me if I’m wrong.  Otherwise, it's good to know that marriage was intended to be a picture of Christ and the church.

This leads me to my fourth observation about marriage which comes straight out of Ephesians 5:22-33.

The picture of Christ and the church is played out by the husband and wife.  If this was a Shakespeare-sort-of play then the husband is playing the role of Christ as He sacrificially loves the Church, ultimately dying for her, and the wife is playing the role of the church as she lovingly submits to Jesus Christ.  One sacrificially leads, while the other submits.  And this play is happening for all the world to see.  Just read Ephesians 5.  It’s there!  That’s why gender roles are so important in marriage.  We don’t just proclaim the gospel, we literately live it!  We mess up the picture of the gospel when there’s not a clear delineation of gender roles.  Gender roles are controversial, but that doesn’t seem to stop God from commanding it.

So all you men out there (I’m speaking to myself as well), remember that it is your God given duty to lead your wife.  When Paul talks about this picture of Christ and the church he also says this, “that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.”  If you can’t lead your wife spiritually and advance her sanctification then something is out of place.  Is it your intention for your wife (or future wife) to be “holy and without blemish?”

So let's review.  1.) Marriage was instituted by God from the very beginning.  2.) God not only gave his approval of marriage but said it was "very good."  3.) The purpose of marriage is to illustrate of the Gospel.  4.) and the picture of the Gospel is played out by the husband and wife. 

I'll never forget Bobby Scott saying at LABTS chapel, "do you believe God when He says marriage is very good? You do? THEN WHY DON'T YOU ACT LIKE IT?"  His point was well taken.  Get married folks, I recommend it.

Apologetics in the U.K.

I love apologetics, but I love sound doctrine more. Lots of apologists do not.

J.W. Montgomery and Walter Martin

Let me explain myself.  Once upon a time, if you were an apologist, you were also a theologian.  The likes of Norman Giesler, Walter Martin, J. W. Montgomery and R.C. Sproul was the norm for the typical defender of faith forty years ago.  Montgomery was a Lutheran, Sproul was a Calvinist, Giesler was neither, but what these men had in common was a commitment to orthodox theology and a red hot zeal for protestantism.  This is no longer the case in evangelical apologetics.


I'm not saying that apologetics is dying, on the contrary, it's literately stronger than ever before.  Lee Strobel says "we’re on the cusp of a golden era in defending the faith", and he's right.  For instance, the attack from the "new atheists" backfired when it triggered a surge of apologetic interest from young people. It also didn't help that the past fifty years has experienced a resurgence in the academic world of Christian philosophy led by the likes of Alvin Plantinga.  Apologetics has never been as strong as it is in this generation and looks to only become stronger.  I'm afraid that what apologetics might lose in return for all this attention is doctrinal faithfulness.

Here's a few examples:
Molinism has become the standard belief for evangelical apologists.  Molinism is the belief that reconciles God's sovereignty with human free-will by positing that God knows all possible choices of every free creature at every possible moment (that's the best I can do in one sentence). A belief in an eternal hell is becoming unpopular. God's direct creation of life has been given up for theistic evolution and even the evangelical battle cry of innerrancy is becoming unfashionable. 

What do all these doctrine have in common? They make Christianity harder to defend.

It's become my pet peeve to meet a Christian who loves apologetics more than theology.  I'm afraid that this is where evangelical apologetics is going.

This is also why I'm so torn when I listen to the Mark Driscoll interview with Justin Brierley (see below).  I mostly agree with Driscoll's view on England, I just don't like the way he said it.  England has become dominantly atheistic (meaning all the smart people are atheists), and in order to survive the Christians there study apologetics.  As the fight between atheism and theism rages, apologetics goes up and sound doctrine goes down.  So when Driscoll leans into Brierley about whether or not he believes in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, I'm thinking "Yah! You tell em Mark!"  Then after the interview I'm thinking "Man, why did Driscoll have to be so rude about it?"

In fact, why does he have to be so rude about everything?

On an interesting note, compare his quick and sharp tongue against Brierley with his arms-wide-open attitude with T.D. Jakes a week later.

Leave a comment. :)

England, Driscoll, Macdonald and T.D. Jakes

The month of January has been controversial in the evangelical world. 

On January 14 Mark Driscoll was interviewed about his new book Real Marriage by Justin Brierley from the popular radio show Unbelievable.  Mark Driscoll once again shows that he is not a stranger to controversy.
            Rather than discus his book, Driscoll was drilled with questions concerning controversies in his ministry such as strong language, sexual innuendos, and his strict doctrinal stances.  While Driscoll does a good job of communicating and emphasizing the Bible, he obviously does not appreciate the lack of attention on his new book.  Here are a few noteworthy excerpts from Mark Driscoll:

“I love you but you’re annoying” 

“You’re not being fair, in fact you’re being sort of scandalous and you’re being immature about the issue”

“You’re very squishy, you’re very (*unclear), very British.”

                  The interview gets really interesting towards the end where Driscoll begins questioning Justin Brierley about his wife (who is a pastor) and doctrine.  In the middle of the interview Driscoll says that preachers in England are "a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth." 

Apparently England didn’t like this.

Do you think Driscoll was too harsh? Check it out yourself. 

http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

You can also check out D.A. Carson’s view of Great Britain in light of Mark Driscoll’s statements.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/01/29/reflections-on-the-church-in-great-britain/

And Mark Driscoll’s own analysis, 

http://pastormark.tv/2012/01/12/a-blog-for-the-brits

In related news, James Macdonald announced his resignation from the Gospel Coalition on January 24 due to the tension caused by his invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room.  The Elephant Room was started by Macdonald to be an annual meeting of Christian leaders to discuss ongoing theological issues and controversies in front of a live audience.  This year's lineup featured the popular author and televangelist T.D. Jakes.  Due to previous association with United Pentecostals and Oneness (anti-Trinitarian) theology, T.D. Jakes has always been a controversial evangelical figure. Needless to say his invitation to the Elephant Room was not welcomed by many members of the Gospel Coalition.  James Macdonald consequently resigned.

Check out his announcement on his blog
http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/?p=11089

Lastly,

T.D. Jakes is not a Modalist after all!  Or so goes the rumor.  The Elephant Room part 2 featured T.D. Jakes on January 25th interviewed by James Macdonald and Mark Driscoll.  Apparently Macdonald was confident that the Mega Church pastor had abandoned his non-trinitarian views and wanted to give him the opportunity to make it clear.  Here's an excerpt from Jakes, 

"I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe 'manifestations' as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline"

He's referring to I Tim 3:16 and says that what others mean by "persons" he means by "manifestations", but not everyone is convinced.  Some have welcomed Jakes with open arms, calling others to repent, others are hesitant, some are angry, and everyone is upset.  There is a storm in the blogging world over this topic.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, has gotten in on the conversation. 

If this wasn't confusing enough, some have even played the race card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljH6FdcQQOA

Byron Crawford Loritts, an African American Pastor, has said that "middle aged white Reformed guys" should be extremely careful and called the Reformed crowd to repent of their suspicion of T.D. Jakes.  Voddie Bauchaum responded by calling this attitude "Ethnic Gnosticism" and says that while a white man calling out a black pastor is considered racism, a black reformed man calling out the same black pastor is considered a "sell-out". 

For a recap of what happened in the Elephant Room,
http://www.christianpost.com/news/td-jakes-breaks-down-the-trinity-addresses-being-called-a-heretic-67972/

For Justin Taylor's analysis
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/02/01/the-elephant-room-what-really-happened-and-how-things-could-have-been-different/

For Byron Loritts' call for repentance
http://www.christianpost.com/news/reformed-crowd-asked-to-repent-for-attacking-td-jakes-68072/

Voddie Bauchaum's part of the story
http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/elephant-room-2012-01/

Classical Arguments #1 - The Cosmological Argument

Classical arguments for God's existence are called "classical" because they are supposedly the oldest arguments used by philosophers to prove the existence of God.  The most common is called the Cosmological argument.  The Cosmological argument argues that every effect has a cause, including the universe aka "cosmos".  A simple version in deductive form would look like this:

#1  Everything that begins to exists has a cause
#2  This universe began to exist
#3  Therefore, this universe has a cause

This is not the only form of the argument, but it is probably the simplest.  Notice that if premise #1 and premise #2 are true then #3 is true whether you like it or not.  This is helpful because almost all of scientific scholarship affirms the truth of premise #2, consider the "Big Bang" for example.  So if someone wants to deny the conclusion they would have to deny premise #1 - "everything that begins to exist has a cause" - which they cannot do without looking foolish -see quote by William Lane Craig below.

Strengths:

• The argument is very simple and easy to follow.
• The two premises are largely supported by mainstream science.

Weaknesses:

• It does not argue for the existence of the Christian God, only for the existence of a first cause.  The argument is therefore not unique to Christianity.  It's interesting to note that the 3-step version I gave above was originally developed by Muslims.

Bible references:

• Genesis 1:1; Job 38-41; Psalm 19:1, 97:6; Acts 14:15, 17; 17:24; Rom 1:20

If this argument works, then you have established a number of things.  For one there is an ultimate first cause of the universe.  Second, this cause created space and time and so must be space-less and timeless.  Third, the first cause would be very, very, very powerful.  Fouth, the first cause would be personal because space-less and timeless things do not decide to create stuff.  For example the number 7 cannot "decided" to do anything.  So if successful this argument leaves you with a space-less, timeless, extremely powerful, personal being.

Do you think this argument is successful?  What are some common objections?  Perhaps you have a question.  Feel free to leave a comment so that I can respond and not be bored at work!

Pastorisms

I'm going to start using a new word - "Pastorism".  A Pastorism is a catchy phrase often used by pastors to communicate a spiritual truth, but does so in an imbalanced way.  This imbalance is because the catchy phrase will communicate something that is true, and also suggest something that is false.  An example would be "No creed but Christ".  Sounds nice right? Sounds so good lots of churches use it as their creed...uh, wait a minute... See the problem?  The truth in this phrase is that Christians follow Christ, but the phrase also suggests that we don't like statements of belief, which is exactly what this statement is.  Another pastorism would be "No book but the Bible".  I might ask if this phrase is found in the Bible or in other books. Another example is "Where the Bible speaks we speak, where the Bible doesn't speak, we don't speak." Which verse talks about stem cell research again?  I think you can see from these examples that pastorisms say something that has a very good overall message, like being Christ centered or Bible centered, but at the same time say something that is false.

This is basically how I see the video by a young Christian named Jefferson Bethke titled "Why I hate religion, but love Jesus".  The video went viral a week ago and I'm a week late, but so was my birth so whatever.  Check out the video on youtube if you haven't seen it.  It's really popular.  It reached 14 millioin views after only 8 days.  There's a lot of religious and non-religious people worked up about the video.  Some Christians say he's speaking the truth, others say he's preaching false doctrine.  It's actually pretty heated.  I think it's just an issue of pastorisms.  Have you ever heard the phrase "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship"?  I've heard it about a thousand times, and it's probably the biggest pastorism out there.  What it's trying to communicate - that external rituals and traditions don't save you - is good.  But it's also saying something else - that rituals and traditions and everything else external (and internal) about religion is bad.  This is simply false.  Christianity is more then the external practice of religion yes, but it's not less.  

For instance Jesus hates hypocritical religion (Mt. 23) but James talks about "pure and undefiled religion" (James 1:27) and I have a hunch that he's referring to Christianity.  I remember one of my professors from LABTS saying "if calling Christianity a religion is good enough for James then it's good enough for me."  And I agree.  I really like Jefferson Bethke, I think he's sincerely trying to get the gospel out there.  He's just a victim of a common pastorism.  

If you're interested, watch the video and then check out Kevin DeYoung's blog where he critiques it. 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/01/13/does-jesus-hate-religion-kinda-sorta-not-really/

Interestingly, Jeff Bethke actually responds to Deyoung and you can read some of their back and forth emails on the blog.  Bethke shows himself to be very humble and teachable.  AWESOME!

one more thing, Jeff Bethke says that religion calls you "slave" but Jesus calls you "friend".  Kevin DeYoung has no problem with this, but do you? Ever read a book called "Slave" by John MacArthur? I'm looking at you Zach!

p.s. I totally stole the word "pastorism" from Greg Koukl.  Props to him