Christian Freedom and Love

"A truly emancipated spirit like Paul's is not in bondage to its own emancipation." ~ F. F. Bruce

I like how succinctly Bruce describes Paul's outlook on Christian freedom, particularly the freedom described in 1 Corinthians 10. I think we often get so caught up in the idea of Christian freedom that we are in bondage to it. That sounds like a paradox, I know, but think about how we react sometimes: when we know we are free in grace to act a certain way or participate in a particular activity, we often insist on being able to practice that freedom no matter how it affects someone else. Often times we become so attached to certain rights that we become a slave to those rights--we must be allowed to exercise them or we feel deprived. Paul did not see it this way. He knew that he was free in Christ, and he knew, as he states in Galatians 5:1, that he did not have to submit again to a yoke of slavery. But, his heart was captured by God's grace and love to such a degree that he was not in bondage to his own emancipation--he did not feel like he must practice his freedom at all costs. He did not feel like he lost something if he chose to forego a freedom for the sake of another. He was free to enjoy his freedoms when it was proper and curtail his freedoms when it would help his fellow man. As he states just a few verses later in Galatians 5:13, "For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."

There is a beautiful example in Acts of what effect such an attitude towards freedom can have. In Acts 15, the apostles and many elders met in Jerusalem for a council to determine what was to be done with all the Gentile Christians pouring into the Church and the mess that the Judaizers had caused. After deliberation and speeches from Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James, the council decided that salvation did come by grace through faith alone (Ac. 15:9-11) and that they need not impose the Mosaic Law on the Gentiles. However, when they wrote about their decision to the Gentiles they did send a decree--"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:28-29) Now, that does not sound like it fits with Jesus' declaration of all foods clean (Mk. 7:19), Paul saying we should not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Ga. 5:1), or Paul's assurance that one can eat whatever is set before them without worry (1 Co. 10:27). That sounds like the Law. However, if we take it in context with what is going on at the time and the outlook of Paul (the deliverer of the message) on freedom, we come to a different conclusion. In that context, we can see that the command was intended to warn the Gentile believers not to alienate their Christian Jew brothers or their Jewish neighbors through practices they would find offensive (cf. Ac. 15:21). It was a request from wise, godly men to value love of their brothers and neighbors over the practice of Christian freedom.

Now, the point I am getting at is the result of this letter from the apostles--that is, the result of valuing love for our neighbor over the practice of our own freedoms. Acts 16:4-5 says, "As [Paul and Barnabas] traveled from town to town, [Paul and Barnabas] delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers." I added the emphasis on "so" to show what was happening. The result of the letter, with its commands to be sensitive to the weaker brother, was growth in faith and numbers. The preaching of salvation by grace through faith alone and the freedom to curtail freedoms in love, showed sensitivity, grace, and love to others that resulted in great growth in the Church.

I think that is a wonderful example of what a mature outlook on Christian freedom can result in. May God by His grace work in us this type of attitude.

By His Grace,
Taylor

God of the Gaps?

"Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Legislator." ~ C. S. Lewis, Miracles

It is sometimes claimed by atheists that theists are "intellectually lazy" and simply uphold a "God of the gaps" mentality, which one could define as the tendency to attribute anything that cannot be explained scientifically to God. They charge that saying God created the universe or that God created species is simply filling God in the gaps of science, but as science discovers more about the universe, the gaps get smaller and God gets pushed out. "Theists," they say, "are lazy and just do not want to do the work of intellectual inquiry, so they say, 'God did it' and leave it at that." That is, at least, the claim many atheists make. Lawrence Krauss did this in his recent debate with William Lane Craig. He said:

There's a lot we don't know about the universe—a lot more we don't know than we do. That's the wonder of science; that's why I'm a scientist. But it is intellectually lazy to just stop asking questions and stop looking for physical explanations and just say, "God did it." That's lazy.

Now, Stand to Reason has given a good response to this challenge, and I would recommend you watch it:


Brett makes some very good points in this response. In particular, showing that there are sufficient stopping points in intellectual inquiry, is a good one. Also, pointing out that Krauss will only accept a physical explanation is important. Saying that all inquiry must obtain a physical explanation for it to arrive at a sufficient stopping point is, as Brett says, begging the question. It assumes axiomatically that only the physical exists and that only physical explanations are acceptable. It assumes naturalism as an a priori fact. Finally, pointing out that theists are making an inference to the best explanation (not filling a gap with God) is important. Perhaps the best explanation for the existence of this universe or life is not a physical one, and to say that could never be the case (as Krauss implies) is, again, begging the question—assuming naturalism as an a priori fact.

Brett gives a good response, and I just want to add a little to it. So, let's talk a little more about this so-called "God of the gaps" accusation. At the beginning of this discussion, we need to distinguish between mechanism and agency. This is a distinction that is overlooked far too often when this charge is made or even when it is rebutted by a theist. The success of science sometimes leads people to believe that since we can understand many of the mechanisms of the universe, we can safely conclude that there is no need to discuss or consider agency—the agent that designed, made, and upholds the mechanisms. That is a logical error that fails to distinguish between mechanism and agency.

I once heard an analogy that demonstrates this well. To explain how a Ford car engine works, we would need to talk about the details of thermodynamics and the principles of internal combustion (i.e. the mechanisms). Such an explanation would not necessarily require us to mention Henry Ford (i.e. the agent), but if we concluded that because we understand how the engine works (mechanism), then we have a comprehensive understanding of it and no longer need to believe in Henry Ford or any subsequent engineers (agency), that would be absurd! In a similar vein, just because we understand many of the impersonal mechanisms of the universe, that does not make it necessary or even valid to conclude there is no personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it. In fact, as the above quote from C. S. Lewis shows, the early scientists went looking for these mechanisms and laws precisely because they believed in a Creator (agent) who designs such things. The mechanisms did not create themselves and do not uphold themselves, and even the more recent attempts to say that they do only push the question back a step and fail to disprove agency.

How does this contribute to our discussion of the "God of the gaps"? Well, consider the Ford analogy. Henry Ford is not a mechanism, and no one is using him to fill in the gaps of our knowledge about internal combustion engines. But, he is also no less than the agent who is responsible for the mechanism in the first place! The engine and the mechanisms all bear the marks of his handiwork as the agent who created them in the first place. Therefore, saying Ford was the designer and creator behind the engine is simply an inference to the best explanation, not lazy. Furthermore, saying this is not presenting Ford as an alternative explanation to the mechanisms of an internal combustion engine. It is saying he is the necessary agent. But, Krauss and others like him, often insist that theists use God as an alternative explanation to mechanisms, and that is simply not the case. We are following the evidence, making an inference to the best explanation, and saying God is the necessary agent. Just as Ford (i.e. agency) and internal combustion (i.e. mechanism) are both necessary for a comprehensive explanation of the car engine, so God (i.e. agency) and the mechanisms science studies are necessary for a comprehensive explanation of the universe and life. We are not filling the gaps with God, we are pointing out the necessity of both mechanism and agency and then making an inference to the best explanation for the existence of our universe and life itself. As Brett says in the above video, "That's not lazy. It's just good reasoning."

By His Grace,
Taylor

Trajectory Towards the Biblical Account and Adam and Eve

First, to all my friends and readers, let me apologize once more for not writing at all in the past couple of months. Things have been quite busy lately and while I love to write, it is has had to take a backseat to my new call as associate pastor at Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church. This past weekend, however, God brought me through a huge milestone--ordination approval by our presbytery--which means all the time I was spending studying has been freed up. I am sure it will not take long for other things to fill it, but I hope one of those is writing regularly again.

Those of you who have read my blog for a while know that I like to follow and comment on the debate about the existence of an historical Adam and Eve. There has been a lot of genetic research in the past few years, which has brought this debate into the popular media. There are some who argue that the genetic evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have been historical individuals. There are even some Christians that make this argument. I have argued, however, and still hold that their interpretation of the genetic evidence is guided by an a priori commitment to Darwinian evolution and that the data can be interpreted within an orthodox, biblical framework with equal validity. I would also argue that new research over the past couple of years has confirmed that validity of a biblical interpretation of the data. What I want to do in this article is look at the trajectory of the scientific data as a whole over the past several decades and show how it is converging towards the biblical account of human beginnings. (It might be helpful first to read this article or this article for background on the genetic evidence discussed below, though not absolutely necessary.)

The latest data comes from a few papers published in Science in August. All three of these (here, here, and here) argue that all male and female genetic lines can be traced back to two individuals--y-chromosomal "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve"--who could have lived at the same place and time, which counters many previous arguments that claimed the "genetic Adam and Eve" could not have known each other at all. (Now, evolutionists are quick to argue that these two individuals were not the Adam and Eve of the Bible, but a man and women from a large population of the first humans whose genes just happened to continue on while all others died off. I argue against that here and Dr. Rana of RTB makes a case against that here.) Now, the dating of the original pair in these papers is not consistent with each other, but given the large margin of error/uncertainty when it comes to these types of calculations, it is understandable that their dates might differ. And, when all their error bars are taken into consideration, they could all overlap in the 100,000-150,000-year range. What is important is they all indicate that the genetic Adam and Eve may have lived at the same time and in the same place. (These studies confirm a few early studies from the end of last year and the beginning of this one, which Dr. Rana of RTB discusses here.)

These papers are the most recent body of scientific data, which is part of a long history of evidence that is converging towards a biblical account of human origins. Let me explain. About 30 years ago, the popular interpretation of the scientific data was that humanity originated about two million years ago and from independent pockets of populations of lesser species of the genus homo throughout the world. This multiregionalism data was difficult if not impossible to square with the biblical account of creation, so it was easy to dismiss the Bible as "anti-science" and irreconcilable. But, as data from archaeology and the fossil record was refined, as microbes and human parasites like lice were studied, and as genetic data began to be introduced, the date for humanity's origin became much more recent and the number of independent locations from which humanity may have originated became fewer and fewer. Eventually, multiregionalism was abandoned by the majority of the scientific community in favor of the Out-of-Africa model. In this model, it is believed that humanity originated in East Africa recently (about 100,000-150,000 years ago) and eventually migrated to the Middle East. So, the data has moved from multiple, independent origins of humanity millions of years ago to one fairly recent origin possibly in or about East Africa. In fact, the margin of error could put humanity's origin as far east as the Mesopotamia region or as far south in Africa as modern-day Ethiopia. This convergence towards the recent origin of humanity in one location fits very well with the biblical data that puts humanity's origin in a single location near the Mesopotamia region. Furthermore, in the past 20 years, human migrations have been studied, and the evidence points to a great migration that began fanning out from the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East into all other areas of the earth. This migration event fits quite well with the Tower of Babel described in Genesis 11. In fact, even paleolinguistics is finding evidence for a single proto-human language, which also fits well with the Tower of Babel. And, finally, as discussed above, the data for a genetic Adam and Eve once showed that they existed thousands of years apart from one another, but that data is converging towards the two existing at the same time and in the same location. There is, of course, a margin of error in these dates (and, in fact, I argue here that biblically we might expect them not to match), but even with that error, the data is converging more and more towards a single, recent pair of humans from which all humanity comes.

So, about 30 years ago there was virtually no way to square the data with Scripture, but most Christians wisely did not abandon their Bibles and waited. As we waited, the scientific data and dominant interpretation moved away from very old, multiple, independent human origins towards a single, recent point of origin with a single pair of humans, which is consonant with the biblical account. The migration data shows that even more recently humans began aggressively fanning out from the Middle East into the rest of the world, which is consonant with the biblical account. And, paleolinguistics is uncovering evidence for a single proto-human language for all mankind, which is also consonant with the biblical account. In sum, the trajectory of the past 30 years of data has begun to coalesce towards the biblical account of human origins and migration. What was once virtually impossible to reconcile with the biblical account can now be easily harmonized with Scripture. Scripture said it first, and the scientific data is finally catching up.

Are there questions still to answer? Certainly. Fitting the Flood in, for example, is more difficult (though certainly not impossible, as I argue here). But, I do not think we should expect to have all the questions answered yet. We have been given snapshots of the earliest part of human history in Genesis 1-11, we are getting even broader snapshots of the earliest part of human history through the scientific data, and the trajectory of the data is pointing towards what the Bible has been teaching all along. Given time and patience, I believe the questions will be answered and the Bible will continue to demonstrate its veracity. We should find this harmony and trajectory very encouraging, but really, it is also exactly what we should expect. God created the world and wrote Scripture, which means as we collect more data from the scientific enterprise and interpret that data properly, it will show us that the Bible has been right all along. That is what we should expect. That is what we have seen over the past few decades. And, that is what we will see in the future.

By His Grace,
Taylor

In the Meantime...

As I mentioned in the last post, I am pretty busy right now studying for ordination exams, preparing to move to Blacksburg, etc., which means I have not had much time to write. So, I was thinking that in the meantime I would give you some links to some good reading. So here you go:

• Michael Kruger--President of RTS Charlotte--has written an excellent series of articles on the New Testament (NT) canon. The complete series can be found here. They are a just taste of his recent work Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, which is one of the best and most detailed books on the NT canon.
• Ken Samples--philosopher and theologian for Reasons to Believe (RTB)--just posted part one of a brief two-part series about Jonathan Edwards on his blog. I highly recommend it, and if you want more detail about Edwards, check out Piper's A God Entranced Vision of All Things: The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards.
• RTB just did a series of interviews with Vern Poythress--WTS professor--on the Christian world-view and science: parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are not "reading" but still really good.
• Logic is a lost discipline these days. Well, Ken (see above) has written an excellent series of articles on logic called "Logic 101." It is a twelve-part series that would be well-worth your time. Part 1 can be found here, and from there you can follow the links to the subsequent parts.
• Finally, if you have not read the Heidelberg Catechism, you need to. If you want to read about it too, here is a review of a book edited by a former professor of mine that would be a good place to start. I would also recommend Kevin DeYoung's The Good News We Almost Forgot: Rediscovering the Gospel in a 16th Century Catechism.

Okay, that is more than enough to keep you busy for a while.

By His Grace,

Taylor

John Calvin's 504th Birthday

Note: First, to my regular readers, let me apologize for not writing much lately. I know I have only written once in the past couple of months, and that is because I have been very busy with several big changes for my family. I have been called to an associate pastor position at Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church in Blacksburg, VA, which is a huge blessing and answer to prayer. That, however, has meant I have been very busy. The biggest factor has been studying for my licensure and ordination exams for the PCA. To make a long story short, I have been studying a lot since May, and I took the first round of exams a few weeks ago. To give you an idea of how demanding they were, it took me about fifty hours to do four exams (so about a week because of breaks, interruptions, etc.). Anyway, I just want you all to know I am not ignoring you and have not decided to stop writing. I have just been very busy. Unfortunately, I will continue to be busy until the end of this month when I take the second round of exams. I will write when I can, though.

Now, to the point of this post--Calvin's birthday. The actual birthday was three days ago--July 10--but I had forgotten about it until I read a great Joe Carter blog post: 9 Things You Should Know about John Calvin. I do not think Calvin would mind, though. In fact, he would probably be just fine with me forgetting about him. He would much rather us praise God than write things that praise him. That being said, I cannot let the day go by without sharing some of my favorite quotes from Calvin. Just know that in these quotes we should not praise the genius of the man but the Maker that endowed him with that genius, i.e. not praise the gift to the Church (Calvin) but the Giver of the gift (God).

"However many blessings we expect from God, His infinite liberality will always exceed all our wishes and our thoughts." ~ Commentary on Ephesians 3

"For prayer was not ordained that we should be haughtily puffed up before God, or greatly esteem anything of ours, but that, having confessed our guilt, we should deplore our distresses before Him, as children unburden their troubles on their parents." The Institutes of Christian Religion

"We ought to bear in mind, that our happiness consists in this, that his hand is stretched forth to govern us, that we live under his shadow, and that his providence keeps watch and ward over our welfare. Although, therefore, we have abundance of all temporal good things, yet let us be assured that we cannot be truly happy unless God vouchsafe to reckon us among the number of his flock. Besides, we then only attribute to God the office of a Shepherd with due and rightful honor, when we are persuaded that his providence alone is sufficient to supply all our necessities. As those who enjoy the greatest abundance of outward good things are empty and famished if God is not their shepherd; so it is beyond all doubt that those whom he has taken under his charge shall not want a full abundance of all good things." Commentary on Psalm 23

"Man’s mind is like a store of idolatry and superstition; so much so that if a man believes his own mind it is certain that he will forsake God and forge some idol in his own brain." The Institutes of Christian Religion

"In one word, those who are bound by the yoke of the law are like servants who have certain tasks daily assigned them by their masters. Such servants think that nought has been done; and they dare not come into the presence of their masters until the exact amount of labour has been performed. But sons who are treated in a more candid and liberal manner by their parents, hesitate not to offer them works that are only begun or half finished, or even with something faulty in them, trusting that their obedience and readiness of mind will be accepted, although the performance be less exact than was wished." Of Christian Liberty

"Joy and thanksgiving expressed in prayer and praise according to the Word of God are the heart of the Church’s worship." Worship

"For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever He wills, by the very fact that He wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so willed one is seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found." Institutes of Christian Religion

By the way, if you want a good biography of Calvin, I would suggest either this one by Piper or this one by McGrath. Also, you can read his Institutes and all his commentaries online for free thanks to CCEL.

By His Grace,
Taylor