THE NEW NORMAL: WHAT THE BOSTON BOMBINGS REVEAL ABOUT HUMANITY AND THE HOPE OF AN EVEN NEWER NORMAL

2 Replies

“When will things get back to normal?’ asks Tony Kornheiser on an April 16 broadcast of ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption.

“I’m afraid this is the new normal,” responds his cohost Michael Wilbon.

Wilbon’s response might be the mantra for most Americans after the terrorist attack at the April 15 Boston Marathon in Boston, Massachusetts. And for good reason. Perhaps this is the new normal. Perhaps the days of steadfast invulnerability are gone. Perhaps waking up to stories of planes flying into buildings, bombs blowing up at community events, elementary school and movie theater massacres, and poison being sent to government officials in envelopes is the new normal. Perhaps we are not as immune to the terroristic assaults that have plagued foreign nations as we thought.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that this, in fact, is the new normal.

But isn’t this precisely what a world enslaved to corruption looks like? (Rom 8:21) Isn’t this the natural result of a world “subjected to futility?” (Rom 8:20) And who are we, as Americans, to think that we are exempt from the effects of this corruption, as if we are some kind of privileged mogul that lives outside of its jurisdiction?

The scriptures are clear that our world is indeed “subjected to futility” (Rom 8:20). This subjection is ultimately the result of Adam’s sin. “Futility” means “producing no useful result.” According to the Greek context, this lack of result is based on a lack of content, indicating emptiness. In other words, the world cannot help but produce evil because its purity has been overwhelmingly spoiled. Hoping for purity in an evil world is like hoping for fresh milk after weeks of exposure to the west Texas sun. The desired contents just aren’t there. And the contents that are there are a nasty brew of what they ought to be. Can we expect anything less from a world that has Satan as its god? (2 Cor 4:4)

But thankfully, there is hope.

Romans 8:20 does not end with the phrase, “subjected to futility.” It ends with the phrase, “in hope.” An old adage says that a man can live 40 days without food, three days without water, and eight minutes without air, but not a moment without hope. The scriptures state that this hope is that “the creation itself will be set free from its slavery to corruption into freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21). This means that one day this “new normal” will come to an end and the dictatorship of sin will effectively cease, granting newfound liberty to all who trust in Christ. That is, this current “new normal” will be overcome by an even newer normal. Until then, however, “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth,” (Rom 8:22) which means that the whole world is in agony, as if it is in labor. But like labor, the pain is not meaningless, but carries with it the hope of new life.

This means that even when Satan, the god of this age, seems to have won the battle, there is a God of the ages that wins the war.

Paul could not have said it any better in writing, “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom 8:18). Although our present condition is subject to futility, our future is not. Even the worst tragedy that Satan unleashes, whether it be a plane killing thousands of people, a bomb killing and injuring hundreds, a coward spraying bullets at innocent children, or even the natural, timely death of a loved one, there is a hope that we will be set free from these kinds of things.

This hope is Jesus.

So, like Lelisa Desisa Benti, the individual pictured above and winner of the 2013 Boston Marathon, let’s finish the race strong. Let’s focus on hope, not tragedy. Let’s look for the even newer normal that is to come. Let’s look at Jesus.

In the meantime, my prayers go out to those affected by this terrible tragedy, hoping that all can “wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Rom 8:23).

Picture Credit

THE TRUTH TEST: WHY TRUTH SHOULD DICTATE BELIEFS AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND

Leave a reply

On March 30 an article appeared in the Odessa American entitled, “The Meaning of Equality,” in which I argued for the “traditional” definition of marriage. To this a reader responded by submitting a letter to the editor, which appeared in the April 14 edition of the Odessa American with what I consider largely an ad hominem response, an argument that is against the debater instead of the issue being debated. With this said, there were some statements in the letter that deserve a response, if not for any reason except that believers need to know that we have a justified place in the arena of debate, so long as we enter that arena with love and not malice.

The individual’s letter can be read here: Letter to the Editor

While I could spend my time answering and responding to a variety of things in the letter, I felt that my time would be best spent respectively responding to the individual’s final sentence, which essentially outlines one of the foundational differences between the two of us. I am accused of “circular reasoning” essentially because I am a Christian, although my article doesn’t quote or refer to the Christian faith in any capacity. It argues for what is known as the traditional definition of marriage, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, which, while is certainly a Christian belief, is not solely restricted to this faith. In fact, many argue in favor of this traditional definition of marriage without citing the Bible, the source for Christian beliefs, at all.

The best example is the book, What is Marriage, written by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George.

The fact that this is indeed the traditional definition of marriage is obvious in the fact that the Supreme Court is currently considering redefining it to include other integers. If it were not the traditional standard, then there would be no current debate. My argument is simply that marriage, by traditional definition, is between one man and one woman and that to change that definition is to change the meaning of marriage, causing it to become something entirely different.

The following comprises my response that I plan to submit to the Odessa American for this weekend. My hope is that readers will see that there is such a thing as truth, that it should dictate what we believe about life, and that we can unapologetically communicate it with confidence and love.

“I always lie.”

This is a curious statement. Another way of saying it is, “The truth is that I never tell the truth.” Therefore to say this is to tell the truth, thus making the statement, “I always lie” false. This is because the statement is fundamentally self-defeating. It doesn’t pass it’s own test. The pathological liar cannot describe his incessant lying without lying about lying, thereby telling the truth.

The same principle applies to a statement written by a reader in response to my March 30 article, “The Meaning of Equality.” In a letter written to the editor, a reader writes, “Let’s not assume something to be true unless it’s proven to be so.” This is a statement that essentially suggests that truth doesn’t exist unless it passes a “truth test.” It must be “proven to be so.” However, this statement is itself a truth claim, and an “untested” one at that. It suggests that, “The untested truth is that truth claims should not be believed unless they pass a test.”

Therefore, allegedly every other truth needs to be proven true, except for this particular statement.

This reveals that this statement is fundamentally inaccurate. It is a self-defeating statement that, like our imaginary pathological liar’s claim, fails its own test. It also reveals that there is such a thing as stand-alone truth outside of it being “proven to be so.” In epistemology, the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge, this is called a priori knowledge. A priori is Latin for “from what is before,” and suggests that there are things that people just know to be true without the need to be “proven so.” They are known ‘prior to’ experience or some other test for truth.

This is a foundational principle and to deny its existence is to commit epistemological suicide.

Another way of analyzing the aforementioned statement is to consider by what standard a truth claim is tested. To argue that truth doesn’t exist unless it’s proven to be so is to suggest that there is some standard of measurement that will determine whether the potential truth is either true or false. But from where does this standard derive? Has it itself been tested? If so, by what standard of measurement? Is it, as some might say, by popular opinion? Did the earth used to be flat because it was what the majority believed? Of course not. It was spherical all along. Even if the whole world, by popular opinion, believes something it doesn’t mean that it is true.

This is because beliefs do not dictate truth. Instead, truth should dictate beliefs. People are either right or wrong about what they believe based on if it is true or not.

Allow me to illustrate.

For the past few weeks a story has decorated the social networks concerning a doctor named Kermit Gosnell who is on trial for eight counts of murder, (although it should be a great many more). In a documentary about the story entitled “3801 Lancaster” (3801lancaster.com), we learn that Dr. Gosnell not only aborted the lives of thousands of babies, but that some of the abortions took place after full-term. Moreover, Dr. Gosnell collected pieces of these babies as his personal trophies.

Dr. Gosnell’s practices do not need to be tested to “prove” they are morally wrong. Instead, there is a transcendent standard of truth that tells us that it is absolutely wrong to snip the spinal cord to a baby and to collect, as a personal accolade, his feet in a jar.

This is because there is a moral standard of truth that does not need to be tested and this standard is not determined by popular opinion, nor does it bend by cultural epochs. It is an unchanging principle that was superimposed onto the heart of man by, in my conviction, the hand of God. And this is but one of many available examples.

We have “the work of the Law written on our hearts, our conscience bearing witness and our thoughts alternately accusing or defending others,” as Paul writes (Rom 2:15).

To the reader I quoted, I want to say thank you for both reading and taking time to respond to my article.

Picture Credit

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE KERMIT GOSNELL ATROCITY

MARCH DRAWING WINNER

“THE BIBLE” REVIEW: PART FIVE

4 Replies

An unripped veil, an unlearned Paul, baptism by water poured from a pitcher (and by dunking heads in a trough), Mary as an apostle, and the Day of Pentecost disguised as a seance are just a few of the topics I could discuss for my review of the fifth and final part of The Bible. However, I am not going to spend time on these issues. Instead, I want to focus on a certain line included in the episode.

The line is, “Don’t be afraid. Everything is possible with God.”

In The Bible, this line is spoken by Jesus as he carries the cross, but in the Bible it is spoken to the disciples after Jesus’ dialogue with a wealthy young man. The actual line is,

“With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

This review focuses on this particular line because while The Bible may have been focused on being “cool,” as producer Roma Downey states in an interview on The O’Reilly Factor, this line actually reveals the truth about Jesus Christ, as well as the true message of the Bible. This truth is that Jesus provides salvation, something that was once impossible. This is why he carried the cross, why he died, why he was buried, why he rose, why he ascended to heaven, and why he is coming back again.

To discuss the line, I am sharing my article originally posted on the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry’s website (carm.org). This article is written in response to the question, “What does it mean to say, ‘With God all things are possible?’”

This question refers to a statement made by Jesus in Matthew 19:26 and its counterpart Mark 10:27. The totality of His statement was, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” The question is best answered by looking at the context of the statement, which, beginning in Matthew 19:16, consists of a conversation between Jesus and a young rich ruler. The keys to purely understanding the statement hinge first on what Jesus meant by “this,” and second, what He meant by “all.” Whatever “this” was is impossible with man, but with God, “all” is possible.

The scene opens up with a rich young man coming to Jesus asking “what good things he should do to inherit eternal life” (Matthew 19:16). Jesus’ response is important because He begins to attack the young man’s understanding of “goodness.” Jesus declares that only the Father in heaven is good. This of course was not a disclaimer of His own deity, but a lesson to His special audience that no one is good except for God. Continuing His discourse with the young man, Jesus then said, “but if you wish to enter eternal life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17).

Because he still did not understand, the young man’s response to Jesus was to receive a “laundry list” of commandments that he needed to follow in order to receive eternal life. Jesus replied by listing five commandments that all deal with human relationships (Matthew 19:18-19). This is important because He was making a distinction between having faith in the law (or in one’s own abilities) and having faith in God; that is, the difference between the law and grace. The young man thought that the law could save him, but Jesus knew that that was impossible. John MacArthur writes,

“Jesus was trying to impress on the young man both the high standard required by God and the absolute futility of seeking salvation by his own merit. This should have elicited a response about the impossibility of keeping the law perfectly but instead the young man confidently declared that he qualified for heaven under those terms.”

“All these things I have kept,” said the young ruler (Matthew 19:20).

Even after the young man failed twice to acknowledge his self-righteousness, Jesus continued to expose the sin in his heart. The young man asked, “What am I still lacking?” (Matthew 19:20) Jesus replied, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Matthew 19:21). At this, the young man “went away grieving for he was one who owned much property” (Matthew 19:22).

At least two sins were revealed here: First, the young man was not as blameless as he thought he was because he was guilty of loving himself and his possessions more than his neighbor, (which was a broken commandment according to v. 19). Second, he lacked true faith which requires an unparalleled devotion to Jesus. This is when Jesus called over His disciples to teach them a lesson. He said, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:24). The disciple’s response was, “Then who can be saved?” or, “Then how is it possible for anyone to be qualified to enter the kingdom of God?” (Matthew 19:25)

This is where the famous and oft quoted verse comes in, which is the inspiration for the original question. Jesus replied, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). This answers our first contextual issue, for we can now see that the “this” concerns salvation. It is impossible for man to save himself by his own merits, or for the law to grant eternal life. The grace offered only by Jesus Christ is necessary.

The question now is: What did Jesus mean by ‘all things’?

This part of the question concerns God’s omnipotence, or, His power. It is important to understand that omnipotence does not mean that God is capable of doing anything including the irrational or imperfect. There are things that God is incapable of doing, such as lying or denying Himself (Hebrews 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2). Because God cannot do certain things, however, does not mean that He is not perfect because the things that He cannot do would actually take away from that perfect nature. Instead, omnipotence refers to God’s power, which is unlimited (Job 11:7-11, 37:23; Revelation 4:8). That is, God can take the things that are impossible to man, and make them possible because His power is unlimited, while ours is limited. The context of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19:26 is a perfect example of His unlimited power because while it is possible for man to be saved, it is impossible for man to accomplish the goal on his own. God’s unlimited power is needed to make the impossible, possible.

Scripture is full of verses that portray God making the impossible possible. When Abraham and Sarah were awaiting the promise of a son, even after they were well past child bearing years, God told them, “Is anything too difficult for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:14) In the book of Numbers when the Israelites were complaining to Moses about food, the Lord told Moses that he was going to feed over 600,000 people for an entire month. Moses was skeptical, but God said, “Is the Lord’s power limited? Now you shall see whether My word will come true for you or not” (Numbers 11:23). In the book of Job, after forty-two chapters of trials, Job was able to answer God and say, “I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). The prophet Isaiah wrote, “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short that it cannot save; Nor is His ear so dull that it cannot hear” (Isaiah 59:1). Jeremiah said, “Ah Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You” (Jeremiah 32:17). Finally, in Luke 1:37, in foretelling the birth of Jesus, the angel Gabriel told Mary, “For nothing will be impossible with God.”

It is easy to get hung up on the word “all,” but it is best to remember that the context of this statement is in reference to salvation. God made a way when the way was impossible for us. This is what it means that “with God all things are possible.”

Read reviews of earlier parts of The Bible here:

THE MEANING OF EQUALITY

4 Replies

A homosexual should have the right to get married . . .

(Keep reading)

. . . so long as he understands that marriage is between one man and one woman and that to enjoy that right he must submit himself to that traditional understanding of the institution.

Therefore, it’s not even necessarily that a homosexual should have the right to get married as much as it is that a homosexual currently does have the right to get married.

This is because marriage is a term that means something and to participate in it one must follow the inherent principles of the term’s definition. For example, “walking” is defined as “advancing on foot at a moderate pace,” while “running” is defined as “going quickly by moving the legs rapidly.” Walking is not running and running is not walking. Therefore, to participate in the activity of walking is not the same as participating in the activity of running. Moreover, one can easily differentiate between the two activities based on the inherent principles included in the definitions of the terms.

Marriage is defined as a union between a “husband and wife,” which means a “male and a female.” Therefore, a homosexual male can only participate in marriage so long as he marries a woman, and a homosexual woman can only participate in marriage so long as she marries a male, just as I can only perform heart surgery on a patient if I have credibly earned a medical license or cannot perform heart surgery on a patient if I have not credibly earned a medical license.

Actually, I could perform the surgery, but it wouldn’t make me a heart surgeon. Moreover, it would be dangerous and harmful to society.

This is because functionality, or the right to participate or not participate in certain actions, doesn’t mean inequality. It merely means that there are standards applied to certain rights and these standards are applied for good reasons.

One would never argue that people should be able to perform heart surgery on other people without a license, citing that it is a breach of equality to suggest otherwise.

The current debate on “same-sex marriage,” which is the equivalent of saying “the current debate on square circles,” argues on the platform of “equality,” but there has been a serious misunderstanding as to what “equality” is. Equality has nothing to do with the right for every person to participate in every action. It is the balanced and tested result of multiple, defined integers. Therefore, an unlicensed individual plus a scalpel doesn’t “equal” a heart surgeon anymore than a man plus a man “equals” a marriage.

Certain factors need to be present for a certain summation to take place, and in the case of “same-sex marriage” it is the opposite gender.

In order for homosexuals to participate in “same-sex marriage,” the integers of marriage would have to be redefined. And redefining integers always equals a different summation. But this is not what proponents for “same-sex marriage” want to do. They want to redefine the integers but keep the same result. They want to redefine the number two, but still suggest that, “two plus two equals four.” They want redefine the principles of walking, but still call it walking when they might actually be running.

If the Supreme Court of the United States votes in favor of “same-sex marriage,” then they have essentially voted that “two” can mean “three, five, or one-hundred and ten,” but that adding “two and two” still equals “four.”

“THE BIBLE” REVIEW: PART FOUR

7 Replies

“Change the world,” a caucasian Jesus answers, in a slightly British accent.

This is how Part Three of The History Channel’s The Bible ends. But The History Channel seems to have a different perception of what “changing the world” means than Jesus. This is revealed not by what is included in Part Four of the series, but in what is left out. And what’s worse, The Bible did not leave important scenes from the Bible out; it left important moments out of the important scenes, essentially reformatting the original context of the events.

Leaving key moments out of Jesus’ life would have been bad, but including the key moments and ignoring their crucial elements might be worse.

Consider these two portrayals from Part Four of The Bible.

THE LAST SUPPER AND JESUS AS THE ONLY WAY

In The Bible’s Last Supper scene, Jesus shares with the disciples that this will be his final meal with them. Naturally, this births fear and sorrow for a group of men who have grown very close to their Messiah.

Jesus quotes John 14:1-6, telling his disciples, “Don’t be afraid. Trust in God, trust in me also. You know the way to where I am going.”

“We don’t know where you are going, how can we know the way?” a balding Thomas declares.

Jesus replies, “I am the way. The truth. And the life.”

And then he stops.

But there is a very important line missing from Jesus’ monologue in The Bible included in the actual Bible. This line is, “No one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).

Of the various verses in scripture that reveal that Jesus is the only way to the Father, this one is arguably the clearest. Therefore, if a producer of a series on the Bible wants to accurately depict Jesus’ mission to “change the world,” including a scene dialoguing John 14:1-6 is a great way to start, but leaving out the final portion of the passage leaves the biblically immature audience they are supposedly targeting, well, biblically immature.

Jesus is not just the “way, truth, and life,” but the “only way, truth, and life.”

THE LAST SUPPER AND THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS

In the same Last Supper scene, Jesus takes the bread and says, “This is my body.” He then takes a cup after pouring wine into it and says, “This is my blood.” He closes by saying, “Remember me by doing this.” These are all included in the Last Supper accounts detailed in the scriptures, but The Bible leaves out another line that reveals how Jesus “changed the world.” This line is, “which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28).

There is an old adage that captures why this line is important:

Jesus didn’t come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live.

To give The Bible the benefit of the doubt, there is a scene depicted from Matthew 9:1-8 in the early portion of Part Four where Jesus heals a paralytic. Jesus met both the physical and spiritual needs of the man, telling him both “Get up and walk” and “Your sins are forgiven.”

The reason the inclusion of the line is important in the Last Supper, however, is because it is directly connected to his death. Jesus didn’t come just to cure the physical ailments that plague mankind; he came to cure the spiritual ailment that plagues mankind. This ailment is sin and the penalty is death. Therefore, forgiveness of sins cannot come without death, the very thing Jesus references at the Last Supper.

While The Bible reveals that Jesus dies, it doesn’t necessarily reveal why Jesus dies.

This is the meaning behind Paul’s statement that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Jesus didn’t die to inspire bad people to be good, make lame men walk, and put people’s ears back on. He died to make dead people live.

This is clear in the Bible, but not in The Bible.

This is why his body was broken and his blood was shed. Jesus is our substitutionary atonement for the wages that we had earned through our sins. He paid it in our steads, and in so doing he “changed the world.” (But it probably happened with more of a Hebrew dialect.)

Read reviews of earlier parts of The Bible here: