"Creative" Teaching

Wednesday night I remembered how greatly I enjoy teaching.

I had the opportunity to teach the youth class at church, and will get to teach again next week. The youth pastor Aaron Wills and I were chatting about Creationism one night a few weeks back, he had asked me to come and teach about on the subject in his stead while he is out of town.

It was tough for me to decide what exactly to teach. Not because I have so little to teach on, but because there is too much to choose from. The subject matter of Creation, especially in contrast with Naturalism, encompasses every subject there is. From geology, biology, philosophy, and physics, to dinosaurs, world-views, political systems, and ethics, Naturalism is an all encompassing world-view. A big word I learned recently which describes the naturalistic world-view of evolution is "meta-narrative." A meta-narrative is a story to explain all other stories. Naturalism is philosophically committed to trying to explain everything there is in terms of natural causes, completely excluding the possibility of an outside cause such as God. The Evolution model and the Big Bang model are the stories that underpin and try to explain how Naturalism would work. (I say model, because theories can be tested and observed. Evolution and the Big Bang cannot be tested or observed. They are not theories, but models with predictions about how the world should look.)

The Bible is also a meta-narrative in that Scripture can explains all other stories, or to say it another way, can explain how everything came to be, why things exist the way they are now, and where everything is headed in history. I believe the Bible better answers these questions than any other world view, and does so accurately, meaningfully, and without contradiction. Now that is a lot to talk about, a lot more than can fit in a couple hours!

But I gave it my best shot with the time allowed. I finally decided a good place to start is on the Bible's claims about the age of the earth as compared with the Naturalistic/Evolutionary view of billions of years, and various ways you can show that the earth is no more than six to ten thousand years old. I also talked about some of the consequences of the two differing views of the world. The credibility of Jesus, and the entire rest of the Bible, are at stake since Jesus claims that man was made in the beginning, on the sixth day of creation. But as things go, I ran out of time before I could talk about some of my favorite issues. So, I issued a challenge for when the group returns next Wednesday night. The challenge for them is to bring the top 'proofs' offered in their science textbooks for Evolution and/or questions they may have about the Bible's claims for us to discuss. I’m fairly certain my favorite topics will come up from that, but I also want to try and answer what most challenges them. It should prove to be even more exciting than this class was.

What do I hope for them to gain out of all of this? Primarily I want the students’ faith in God’s word to increase and I want them to always be prepared to give an answer for the faith which they have. I also want them to have the same wonder and amazement that I have when I look at the world, to see that the creation proclaims the glory of its Maker.

For your reading and viewing pleasure, here are some recommended websites:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
--has great articles on a large array of subjects.
http://www.creationscience.com/
--has a free online book which is especially strong in its explanations of geology and the physical sciences, written be an engineer. The book is also available for purchase in a hard back version (which I have), suitable for middle school and up.
http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/index.html
Free videos on a wide variety of subjects

Some good books to read:
Scientific Creationism Edited by Henry M. Morris, 1974 .Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89051-003-2
In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - by Dr. Walt Brown
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. 1998. Touchstone Books (Simon & Schuster), 320 pages. ISBN # 0-684-82754-9
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils - Marvin L. Lubenow: 1992 Baker Books. ISBN 0-8010-5677-2
Darwin on Trial - Phillip E. Johnson. 1993 InterVarsity Press, 195 pages.
Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? - by Jonathan Wells. 2002. Regnery Publishing. 338 pages.

His yoke is easy, His burden is light

I forget things at times. Ask Jessica and she will tell you I forget much more than I even know (go figure that.) As I was washing every food-caked-dish we own last night, I was jamming out to Caedmon's call. A song (Your love oh Lord) played, and it inspired me to remember what I all too often forget: just how easy the yoke of Jesus is, how light is his burden.

This thought comes on the heels of writing back and forth with someone of a different faith. She wrote:

"the most important aspect of any religion is the concept of SALVATION. this verse, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Romans 4:5) how can ur faith be reckoned as righteousness when you show no good works? there is a reason why we Muslims follow the teachings of Jesus and Muhammed (peace be upon them both)....it is to ACHIEVE salvation as God has ordained for us." (emphasis hers)

What a different view, always looking for a way to earn what is actually a free gift. What a heavy burden to bear. Of course, this passage is not saying that the one saved will show no works. The idea being expressed is "But to the one who does not work [to earn his salvation], but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly [for his salvation], his faith [in Christ's work on his behalf] is reckoned as righteousness." Though not exhaustive, that is the context of the passage. Jesus plain teaching, as with the rest of Scripture, is that salvation can only be received by faith because our works are not good enough.

He says "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."(Matt. 11:29-30) Throughout history, people have sought salvation by works. But, the Bible teaches that they ALL fail at such an attempt. Christians believe that (and the Bible teaches that) the good works necessary for anyone to be saved were performed by Jesus Christ, and credited to our account for anyone who has faith. The works we do now are no longer as a bond servant, forever trying to pay off a debt that grows exponentially every day. No, the works we do now are as sons of God, out of love for our Father. The grace of God so radically changes those who have been redeemed that we long to do what God says, simply because he asks. Because we love Him. Because He loved us first.

Lamentations 3:22-23

"22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases;

his mercies never come to an end;

23 they are new every morning;

great is your faithfulness.

Debate with Muslims: Proof, not mere evidence

Recently I've been dialoguing with some Muslim aquaintances of mine about all manner of issue. One of those debates can be found here: The great challenge to produce one chapter like the chapters of the Holy Quran

We've run into a problem here, one which may shed some light on what our debate is really about to anyone else who may be reading this.

Mohammed wrote a number of things about Jesus and the Bible that conflict with what the Bible itself. As a basic tenent of your faith, you must necessarily argue that the Bible is in error. If you are to hold to your faith, it is paramount that you discredit the Bible and assert that the authors of its book misquote Jesus, and so on. If not, Mohammed is wrong and your whole religion crumbles. Would you agree?

Christianity does not need to prove that there has been errors in transmision of the Quran. It can be exactly reproduced from what Mohammed wrote for all we care. All we need to do is show the proof or necessity of Jesus Christ being fully divine and fully human, and that by default makes Mohammed in error. Not that the text was copied inaccurately, but that when he wrote it he was himself wrong.

Thus, Muslims mount evidence, and loads of it, against the Bible. Christians then supply answers for why this evidence is inconclusive, distorted, or plain wrong. And on we go, endlessly. But there is a difference between evidence and proof. Your arguments rely upon a weight of evidence with which you hope to smother the opposition. Christians do the same against evolution, showing by weight of evidence how it is wrong. Proof is different. Proof requires rational arguments that necessarily lead to a conclusion if the premises are correct. In the case of evolution, we can rationally prove that pure chance can't creat anything, and that the world cannot be eternally old and self-existent, otherwise the laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe would have died a cold death. Such arguments don't rely upon a weight of evidence, but upon proof. Proof doesn't need evidence that can be debated back and forth. Proof only needs basic presuppositions we can agree upon, and a line of reasoning that conforms to the rules of logic. The conclusion is then a necessity, whether we like that conclusion or not.

Christianity has survived 2000 years against endless attempt to smother with evidence. The Liberals who hate God, yet want to keep the morality of the Bible, also mount such attacks on the Bible. So do Atheists and Agnostics. It is likely where many of your evidences comes from, such as the late dates of the Gospels, or the JDEP source theory for the Pentateuch. I can show that the Gospels must have had an early date, and Mosaic authorship, but what is the point? A basic tenent on your faith requires you to deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and no weight of evidence will change that, no matter how convincing. You can just say we are wrong.

So what I'm saying is, we are at a dead lock when it comes to "mounting evidence" against each other. I know that no weight of evidence, however true it may be, can convince you that the Quran is wrong. Nor can your weight of evidence convince me the Bible is wrong, because it is only evidence, not proof. I've studied the evidence agaisnt the Bible. I find it faulty, historically ill-supported, and very conjectural.

You need to give me proof that God cannot be Trinity. I need to provide you with proof (logical necessity) that God must be Trinity, and that for God to let anyone into Heaven their sins must be paid for by a worthy sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Everything hinges on that, and everything falls into place if that is true.

Here is the question I pose for us to debate: How can God be both just, and the justifier of men?

Will you grant that God is just? Second, will you grant that all men have a conscience given them by God? Third, will you grant that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments? I think those three would be a good starting place.

Transparency of Christianity in relation to the Bible

I've been in some discussion lately with some Muslim. Most of it centers around attacks on Scripture and why there would be different books in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. For the reason why Muslims are so dead set on discrediting the Bible, see this blog. Here is my answer, which I think you will enjoy. (It will also help you debunk Davinci Code theories)

The transparency of Christianity in relation to its texts is a virtue, not a weakness. We don't destroy alternate copies, we preserve them and can show why, how, and when mistakes in copy were made, and can prove definitively what the originals said. The same cannot be said of the Quran...all you have is one edited compiled copy, and you have to trust that the one doing the editing wasn't mistaken, since all of the evidence of other texts has been destroyed. You can't prove it. We can. (But I'm not arguing the Quran has accumulated errors in its transmission, just showing you that if you follow this line of argument you will tear your own Quran apart by the exact same faulty arguments.)

A lot of what we know about early Christianity is a result of attacks upon it. The early Gnostics attacked the Christian teachings on the nature of the Trinity and Christ. Consequently, counsels were held to write statements against such false beliefs and to formulate in a written code exactly what is orthodox and what is not. It isn't that something new was decided (as The Davinci Code says), it is that there was never a need to make a point by point list of what orthodoxy was before someone attacked it. (For comparison, there is a modern movement called "Open Theism" that says God doesn't really know the future. As a result, new statements are added to confessions of faith (like the BFM2000) that refute "open theism." God sovereignly knowing the future is not a new belief, it just hadn't been attacked in that way, and hadn't needed to be formulated in a statement before then.)

In relation to the Christian cannon, those books Christians hold to be inspired by God and thus infallible, we know much from attacks upon the cannon. The early heretic Marcion made a list of which books of the Old and New Testament he considered to be false, and which were true (even some he edited to fit his strange theology.) By telling us which documents he thought were correct and which he did not, that tells us exactly which documents the early church held to be inspired. Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, and a few other books in the Catholic Bible are not on those lists. Marcion did not need to argue that these books were uninspired, because no one believed they were when he was writing. Does that make sense?

There are a number of other lines of reasoning and evidences, such as which Old Testament books are quoted in the New Testament, and so on, but that should suffice I think to show which books the early church father accepted as inspired.

If that didn't make sense yet, here are a couple illustrations to explain further....

I'm not necessarily asking if you agree and think the Bible is inspired or anything, just if the argument is rational. Let me give one last example: Suppose a document were found from the 7th or 8th century which made claims that Surah's 1-100 are not correct, only 101-114 are correct. (I didn't want to list the names of each of the Surah's, but suppose the author had mentioned them by name.) What would that tell us? It would tell us the Muslims of the 7th and 8th century held that Surah's 1-114 are legitimately part of the Koran, otherwise this heretic would not have needed to argue against something no one believed. The author would not need to argue that the Works of Josephus were not a part of the Koran. Why? Because no one thought they were.

In the same way, the heretic Marcion listed all of the 66 books we have in the Bible, arguing some were inspired and others were not. We know why he argued as he did, because he was a Gnostic, trying to mix strange paganism with Christianity. But Marcion didn't argue that The Works of Josephus were not a part of Scripture, nor that they were a part. He didn't even mention them. Why? Because no one thought they were a part of Scripture, hence no reason to even bring them up. the same goes for the extra books of the Apocrapha.

So yes, the 66 books are inspired. Again, this is not why the 66 books were 'chosen.' (that is a whole different subject, and one which we have to cover on a book by book basis...quite a lengthy process) But from our perspective 1900 or so years later, we can know exactly which books of the Bible the early church fathers (those who were the direct disciples of the Apostles) believed were inspired due to attacks upon it, and the true church's response to Marcion in defense of those same 66 books.

Thailand!

God willing, Jessi and I will be headed to Chiangmai, Thailand this Summer! I had been meaning to post a note here about it for some time, but have been busy studying for finals and such. (still am...or should be...)

We will be gone from July 11 through July 30. While there, I will take a class on "Buddhism and Islam" and an "International Evangelism Practicum." Translation: I get to learn about both of those religions and witness to Imams at Mosques and Monks at Temples. We will also get to go to the Buddhist University near Chiangmai and talk with students who want to improve their english.

Of course we won't be alone. A group from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, another from Southeastern Seminary, and some missionaries from Southeast Asia will all be meeting up in Chiangmai. A couple of our friends who are lifetime missionaries, Katie and Joseph, will also be going. So while Joseph and I are in classes and out at various locations, Jessi will be helping Katie with the kids as they traverse the area witnessing to locals and doing a little shopping/site-seeing.

Thailand is 95% Buddhist, 4% Muslim, and 1% everything else. So, please be praying that God would open the hearts of the Thai people to receive the Gospel, and that we wil be emboldened to share it with them.

Recently, I had the wonderful opportunity to speak in front of the Eisenhauer Road Baptist Church congregation about our trip. It was "Missions Day," so I was able to put in a plug for various kind of missions, as well request for ourselves prayers, encouragement, and financial aid.

One plug I made while talking, which I'm making again here, was for the Cooperative Program of the SBC. Besides cutting my tuition in half for seminary, which is already significantly cheaper then other evangelical seminaries, the Cooperative program supports other efforts including the 5000+ international missionaries and 5000+ North American missionaries. So instead of missionaries spliting their time and energy between missions work and worrying where their next meal will come from (or requesting aid from friends, family, and churches like we are doing) they get to devote all of their time to their work.

The one drawback of the Cooperative program is the annonimity. Most of us don't kno who any of them are. So while their financial needs are met through the Coop. Prog. (most of it from Lotti Moon offering) we do still need to partner with them for prayer and encouragement. Maybe send them care packages occasionaly as well. In many places you can't get BBQ sauce, or coffee, or even a pound of sugar.

Jessica and I might not be called to full time international missions work, and you might not be either (though none of us should ever rule it out and tell God what we won't do!) But we are all given the Great Commission, and one of the ways we can fulfill that is by sending out and supporting missionaries just as Paul and Barnabas were sent out. Pray for them, encourage them, partner with them, let them come tell their stories at your churches when they come back to the States, and give to the Lotti Moon Christmas offering. 100% of that goes directly to funding international missions work. Since I've been here at SWBTS in Ft. Worth I've been able to meet and get to know closely a number of missionaries. I've been highly impressed by their character, so if I come off sounding passionate about missions, its because I've really come to believe that the work they do is of God and worth our support.

Alright, that's the end of my plug for the Cooperative Program. :) If you have any questions about our trip to Thailand, please let me know. If we are able to, Jessi and I will post blogs and pictures from Thailand. Pray for us!

Oh for a thousand tongues...(Bible Study)

I've had a number of discussiong lately about "the gift of tongues" and I thought my friends might benefit from some research I've put into the subject. I'm simply addressing the practice as taught in Scripture and whether modern practices have any resemblance to that.

Tongues in Acts

The first occurrence of the miracle of tongues in the New Testament occurs in Acts 2:1-12. Luke records that the disciples "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance."(Acts 2:4.) We are told that in Acts 2:6-8 "⁶ And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. ⁷ And they were amazed and astonished, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? ⁸ And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?" The speaking in other tongues, used here in the plural, was a miracle that allowed everyone to hear what the disciples said in their own language. Either the miracle was that the disciples were able to speak in the numerous earthly languages of those visiting Jerusalem, which the disciples themselves did not understand, or the disciples spoke in their native tongue and everyone understood in his or her own language. It was either a miracle of speaking or hearing. There is nothing to indicate that the miracle in Acts is ecstatic speech, or a gibberish sounding language.

At four different times in Acts, the Holy Spirit is poured out visibly upon a people group who had not previously be included among God's people, giving proof that God has decided to include them in the church (Acts 2:1-12, 8:17, 10:44-46, and 19:6.) The miracle of tongues occurred at most of these times, though not all.

Tongues and Tongue in 1 Corinthians 12-14

In I Corinthians, speaking in a "tongue" and speaking in "tongues," singular and plural respectively, are addressed in chapters 12-14. Careful reading is required here, because I believe Paul speaks of these two practices quite differently. If your translation of the Bible does not keep that distinction, find a new Bible, for the translator had a special bias for eliminating that distinction.

There are two interpretations of "speaking in a tongue," "speaking in tongues," and "interpretation of tongues" which I believe can fit the Biblical evidence. The interpretation which I think best fits the text is that Paul's references to plural tongues is a reference to an ability to speak in a language previously unknown to the speaker, but known to a hearer, as happened at Pentecost. These would be actual languages, like Latin, Greek, German, and so on. Paul's references to a singular tongue would be a counterfeit gift, gibberish speak (see 1 Cor. 14:7-9) imported from their former pagan practices (Paul introduces the discourse on gifts in chapter 12 with a reference to Pagan ways.)

Paul tells us that "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor. 12:7) and not for selfish use. Speaking in a language no one understands benefits no one (see 1 Cor 14:6.) But we are to strive to excel in building up the church (1 Cor 14:12.) If someone speaks in a language no one can understand, we are instructed to pray for the power to interpret (1 Cor 14:13,) and if no one can interpret, keep silent. As Paul says, it would be better to speak five words in order to instruct others, than ten thousand they cannot understand. All things are to be done for edification, part of the loving rebuke issued to the Corinthians throughout chapters 12-14…and yes, even chapter 13 is a rebuke to the lack of love of the Corinthians, exhorting them to love. Paul also mentions acting like a child in chapter 13, and likely he illustrates how the Corinthians are behaving childishly in chapter 14.

In the case of speaking in a tongue (singular,) this could be a counterfeit gift where a person longing for the true gift of speaking in tongues spouts forth gibberish speak. Why would it be singular? Because there is only one kind of gibberish, not multiple dialects of gibberish. Praying for the interpretation of a gibberish language would actually be a bit of sarcasm on the part of Paul, because no one would be found who could actually interpret. Why? Because there is nothing to interpret, thought in our own day counterfeit interpretation happens regularly. Regardless, if the language spoken by the person who speaks in a tongue is not a human language, then it is not the same thing as happened in Acts 2 and is a counterfeit gift.

Another option the text allows is that the gift of tongues refers to ability to speak other languages through natural means: study and practice. Remember, all of our abilities are a gift from God. If this is the case then the miracle of speaking in tongues performed in Acts is different from gifted ability to speak in various languages. I favor the first interpretation, but the conclusion is still the same: if your congregation does not speak Latin, don't talk to them in Latin. If no one can interpret, keep it to yourself. They won't benefit, so it is a selfish use of your gift. Further, there is nothing in the text that would indicate the miracle of tongues in Acts bears any resemblance to what occurs in modern "charismatic" churches.

One last practice Paul addresses is praying in a tongue (1 Cor. 14:13-15.) If you pray in a language you do not yourself understand (such as gibberish speak) it is unfruitful (vs. 14.) What should we do then? Pray with both the spirit and the mind, hence praying in a language you understand (vs. 15.)

Please don't take my word for it though. Read over the Scriptures and check to see if what I have written is true.

Where does your assurance lay? (Bible Study)

Romans 8:16The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God

John Wesley believed that the great evangelical truth of Romans 8:16 had been nearly lost and forgotten, that the Spirit of God testifies together with our spirit that we are God's children. The Scriptures speak frequently and clearly on this matter, the purpose of which is to denote a peculiar privilege of the children of God from verse 17:

"...and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."

So how does this testimony work? Or in other words, how can we have assurance that we are children of God?

The operation of this testimony of the Spirit is "an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God." What Wesley means, which he says we are to observe, is that this testimony is not by an outward voice, nor an inward voice, though he may do that sometimes. The inward testimony of the Spirit is instead an "inexplicable operation, that…there is a sweet calm; the heart resting…being clearly satisfied that God is reconciled, that all his iniquities are forgiven, and his sins covered."

But isn't that a little subjective? Wesley seems to be appealing to a feeling, that if one is inwardly calm and feels their sins are covered by God, and does not a have spirit of fear (as in Romans 8:15), then they must be a child of God. I run into folks every weekend who feel safe and secure, who will one day say "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name..." and yet being headed to hell. So there is a false sense of security many are liable to. But where does a true sense of security come from?
The explicable, objective assurance that we are children of God come from the previous three verses:
"13For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" "

How does Paul say our assurance that we are children of God come? We know we are children of God if we are led by the Spirit. We know we are being led by the Spirit of God as by the Spirit we put to death the deeds of the body. All who are led by the Spirit of God have recieved the Spirit of adoption as sons. The objective reality of being led by the Spirit, of being adopted into God's family is a great reason to be unafraid, assure of your adoption.

That is the testimony of this passage of Scripture. A profession you once made means nothing if you are not led by the Spirit. If you are leaning on a profession you once made, that is false assurance.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, being led by the Spirit is not sinless perfection, but should be the direction of your life. It is an attitude of repentance, where God brings sin in your life to your attention and by the Spirit of God you put it to death. Repentance is not the reason you are saved, but it is the necessary response to it. You can cry "Abba! Father!" because you love God and understand the greatest expression of His love toward you: the Cross. How can we continue loving our sin, knowing that the wrath we deserve was poured out on Christ because of it?

Good book to read

I'm currently reading Amillennialism Today, and let me tell you, it is a page turner. Don't be thrown off by the name, the book explains the meaning of the title.

There are at least five distinct views on the end-times(eschatology), and all of them claim to use the same methods of Biblical interpretation to arrive at their conclusions. The problem is not the method, but the consistence with which it is used. From my study, I've slowly been leaning towards the Amillenial view, as it best fits with the rest of the Bible.

This book is probably 140 small pages or less...short and to the point. If you are looking to understand end times prophecy, or how the promises given to Israel affect the Church, this is the book for you. It is nothing new or novel, but has helped me to cut through the doctrinal clutter created by the Left Behind movies, John Haggie, and all those other guys on TBN. You can find it on Amazon for around 5-10 dollars.