Understanding the Trinity

https://apologeticspress.org/video/understanding-the-trinity/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Holiness

https://bibleproject.com/bible-studies/holiness/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pardot&utm_campaign=weekly+email+2022&utm_content=leviticus+bible+studies+070522&utm_term=holiness+banner 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Image of God

https://bibleproject.com/bible-studies/image-of-god/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pardot&utm_campaign=weekly+email+2022&utm_content=leviticus+bible+studies+070522&utm_term=image+of+god+banner 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

The Teaching

 

This article is part of the What Does It Mean? series.

The Teaching

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. —Romans 6:23

Near the end of the New Testament period (mid-to-late first century), a document called The Teaching (didachē, pronounced DID-a-kay) appeared. It was an early church manual of faith and practice. It begins with these words: “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between these two ways.”

How true! The Teaching may have been drawing on Jesus here, as it does elsewhere, for Jesus depicted the way that leads to life—to him and to his kingdom—in starkly binary terms:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Matt. 7:13–14).

Life is complex. Gray areas abound. Yet Jesus taught that we all face a simple but fateful either/or: a wide way leading to woe, or a narrow way leading to life.

Romans 6:23 echoes Jesus’s conviction. The word translated “wages” often referred to the pay a soldier would receive, or to a worker’s paycheck more generally. In Romans, “sin” is said to “reign” (Rom. 5:21; Rom. 6:12), like a military general or a despotic boss. What is sin’s compensation package? Paul summarizes with one word: “death.”

Paul's great epistle to the Romans is a brilliant summation of the gospel. But Romans also speaks much of death. Of Paul's fifty uses of that word, twenty-nine of them occur in Romans 5–8. Happily, offsetting the morbid prominence of death, Paul mentions “life” twenty times in Romans, far more than in any of his other letters.

God, so gracious and merciful, offers eternal life as a free gift on the basis of Jesus's death and resurrection.

Life, unlike death, is not wages. Life is rather “the free gift of God.” Moreover, this is not simply life in terms of daily earthly existence. Rather, Paul speaks of “eternal life.” This implies duration: a life that never ends. But it also implies quality. Eternal life means living in God's presence, enjoying fellowship with Christ, bearing the fruit of his Spirit, worshiping and serving in his name.

Paul stresses free gift because in his day as in ours, people believe they can bargain with God. We can do enough to earn his favor. We can be better than most other people and are certainly not as bad as lawbreakers and criminals.

Paul anticipated such wishful thinking in Roman 3. He quotes the Old Testament to remind us that no one measures up to God‘s perfection and holiness. To appreciate Romans 6:23, we must recall Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” As Paul writes elsewhere, in ourselves we are without “hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

Two Great Truths

To sum up: Romans 6:23 points to two great truths about what Jesus Christ has done for us when we face our hopeless state and look to him:

(1) We are liberated from the black hole of seeking to earn God's favor by working for wages. Our sin incurs a debt that we have no ability to pay.

(2) God, so gracious and merciful, offers eternal life as a free gift on the basis of Jesus's death and resurrection. As Romans makes clear elsewhere, we receive this gift through faith, which means trusting in Jesus's death for our sins and in faith presenting our lives to him, to serve him as our resurrected Lord and master.

The glorious outcome of receiving this free gift of God, which “is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord,” is not passive complacency as if no response to this gift were called for. Rather, there is a profound practical effect. There is a break with sin. Being “in Christ Jesus” implants a zeal for righteousness in the form of godly living.

Another verse in Romans 6 depicts the change of heart and behavior that God's free gift received sets in motion. Note the contrast between death and life:

Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness (Rom. 6:13).

Romans 6:23 means Jesus Christ delivers those who trust him from the treadmill of sin and condemnation (death), as he grants us the free gift of fellowship, hope, and purpose right now and in the age to come (eternal life).

Robert W. Yarborough is a contributor to the ESV Expository Commentary Series: Romans–Galatians (Volume 10).

 

Q&A: David and Musical Instruments

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.

DIFFICULT PASSAGESDOCTRINAL MATTERSWORSHIP

Q:

“What made King David so special that he could dictate matters strictly reserved for ‘Thus says the Lord’? And further, why did Solomon and other succeeding kings follow David’s expansion of musical instruments?”

A:

David committed several grievous sins in his lifetime, including his sin with Bathsheba, his unauthorized taking of the census, and the eating of the showbread (which Jesus said was “not lawful”—Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). However, overall, he seemed to have a committed heart most of the time. Like all of us, he stumbled on occasion (like Abraham, also). His intermittent failures were not likely to be attributed to “indifference,” but merely giving in to temptation and the pressure of the moment, again, like the rest of us. God did not brush aside those infractions, nor would He want us to draw the conclusion that David was somehow “special” and given greater leeway or forgiveness than the rest of us, nor that God approved of any action on David’s part in which he presumed to dictate worship protocol. God is consistent throughout human history in His insistence that His law be obeyed—by everybody—and He never authorizes violations of it. To violate God’s law is, by definition, “sin” (1 John 3:4), and sin must be forgiven in accordance with the divine prescription for atonement—no exceptions.

Regarding the introduction of instrumental music, the Bible plainly states that it was not David who made this change—but God Himself. Read 2 Chronicles 29:25—And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets.

Notice the line of authority in that verse: (1) God, (2) Nathan the prophet, (3) Gad the King’s Seer, and (4) David. So, God authorized the introduction of instruments (for the Levites), doing so via the chain of authority from Himself to prophet, to seer, and then to David. It would make sense, then, that some passages would say that they were introduced “by the command of David.” But that is simply the Bible’s not infrequent way of shortening a concept. One must gather everything in the Bible on a particular subject and fit it together properly before drawing any conclusions (1 Thessalonians 5:21). David commanded/added instruments into Temple worship because he was authorized to do so by God Himself. See also 2 Chronicles 30:12 for this same sequence: “Also the hand of God was on Judah to give them singleness of heart to obey the command of the king and the leaders, at the word of the LORD.” The intermediate authorities who issued commands to the people were simply operating under the overall jurisdiction and instructions of God. Observe, then, that this clarification answers the second question: Solomon, Hezekiah, et al. added instruments because God authorized them to do so.

Of course, the lesson for Christians living today is to recognize that God has always acted in harmony with His principle of authority. All people are to worship God in accordance with His worship instructions specified in the New Testament. It so happens that since the cross, God confines all musical worship expression to vocal music—not instrumental (1 Corinthians 14:15; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13).

Click for free PDF books on the principle of authority in worship and instruments in worship: Surrendering to His Lordship and Richland Hills and Instrumental Music

What About Amos 6:5?

Some have suggested that the use of instrumental music in worship in David’s day was condemned on the basis of the fact that the prophet Amos uttered “woe” on those who invented for themselves musical instruments like David (Amos 6:5). The context of the passage, however, clarifies the meaning of this statement as originally intended by the inspired prophet.

Like most of the Old Testament prophets, the primary mission of Amos was to rebuke God’s people for their disobedience in hopes of restoring them to the righteous living that God required and expected of them. After spotlighting the sins of the surrounding nations and announcing their punishment (chs. 1-2), Amos turned his attention to the Israelites’ own sins, including their dishonesty, unethical treatment of others, sexual immorality, oppression of the poor, and other acts of injustice. The population was particularly immersed in materialism—living in ease, luxury, and comfort while forsaking the priority of spiritual things. Amos’ response? “Woe to you who are at ease in Zion” (6:1). In his booklet on the minor prophets, Jack Lewis provides a fitting summary of their materialistic condition:

Women, whose insatiable desire for finery drives their husbands to oppression, stretched out on their couches of ivory, call each to her husband, “Mix us another drink” (4:1). The people have their summer houses and winter houses (3:15) and their beds of ivory (6:4). At ease in Zion, the people eat the finest food, anoint themselves with fine oil, and invent instruments of music like David for their entertainment, but do not concern themselves with the approaching ruin of their country.1

The passage has nothing to do with worship, comparing the Israelites of Amos’ day with David only in the matter of using instruments. Their use of instruments was directed to their wanton lifestyle in the midst of spiritually barren lives. In the same way that there was nothing inherently wrong with the Israelites having ivory couches, summer homes, and lambs and calves to eat, there was nothing inherently wrong with the invention (and use) of musical instruments. The problem was that their submersion in luxury dulled their spiritual appetites and caused them to turn against God.

ENDNOTE

1 Jack Lewis (1998), The Minor Prophets (Henderson, TN: Hester Publications), p. 19.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

JEFF MILLER, Ph.D.

BIG BANG COSMOLOGYBIG BANG/COSMOLOGYCREATION VS. EVOLUTIONEXISTENCE OF GODGOD AND SCIENTIFIC LAWSGOD AND SCIENTIFIC LAWSORIGINS

The famous philosopher from the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas, is generally given credit for articulating what is known as the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, although the Bible described the essence of the argument hundreds of years before he was on the scene (e.g., Hebrews 3:4). The argument essentially says that the cosmos is here and had to come from somewhere. It could not have created itself. Nothing comes from nothing in nature, as verified by the First Law of Thermodynamics (Miller, 2013).

The rational person will only draw conclusions that are supported by the evidence (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131). The evidence from the natural realm indicates that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent (or simultaneous—Miller, 2012a) cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, pp. 1064, 2000). Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. If this Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to you, then you understand why the Cosmological Argument is powerful, logical evidence for the existence of God.

Causality and History

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. From at least the time of Plato (1966, 1:96a-b) and Aristotle (2009, 1[3]) in the fourth century B.C., philosophers have pondered causality. 

In 1781, the renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule…. All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781, emp. added). 

In the nineteenth century, German medical scientist and Father of Cellular Pathology, Rudolf Virchow, affirmed that “[e]verywhere there is mechanistic process only, with the unbreakable necessity of cause and effect” (1858, p. 115, emp. added). Fast forwarding another century, our increased understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (p. 6, emp. added).

The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation. It is “assumed.”

This principle is not some idea that can simply be brushed aside without consideration. If the Law of Causality were not in effect, science could not proceed—it would “crumble to dust” since, by its very nature, it involves gathering evidence and testing hypotheses in order to find regularities in nature. 

The goal of scientific experimentation is to determine what will happen (i.e., what will be the effect) if one does certain things (i.e., initiates certain causes). If there were no relationship between cause and effect, then nothing could be taken for granted. One day gravity may be in effect, and the next day it may not, and there would be no point in studying it, since it might be different tomorrow. There would be no such thing as a “scientific law,” since there would be no such thing as a “regularity,” which is fundamental to the definition of a law of science (McGraw-Hill Dictionary…, 2003, p. 1182).

Moving farther into the 20th century, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In 1949, Albert Einstein, in The World as I See It, under the heading “The Religiousness of Science,” wrote, “But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation” (2007, p. 35, emp. added). In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, renowned American philosopher and professor Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added).

Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age-old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:

• “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
• “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).

The National Academy of Science’s guidebook, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, says, “One goal of science is to understand nature. ‘Understanding’ in science means relating one natural phenomenon to another and recognizing the causes and effects of phenomena…. 

Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena” (1998, p. 42. emp. added). Notice that, according to the National Academy of Science (NAS), there can be no progress in science without causality. The NAS, though entirely naturalistic in its approach to science, recognizes causality to be fundamental to the nature of science. It is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

The Law of Causality—A Problem for Atheism

The Law of Causality is fundamental to science, and yet it stands in the way of the bulk of today’s scientific community due to their flawed definition of “science.” In an interview in 1994, the late, famous evolutionary astronomer Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said:

As Einstein said, scientists live by their faith in causation, and the chain of cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that can be discovered by rational arguments. And this has been a very successful program, if you will, for unraveling the history of the universe. But it just fails at the beginning…. So time, really, going backward, comes to a halt at that point. Beyond that, that curtain can never be lifted…. And that is really a blow at the very fundamental premise that motivates all scientists (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 303, emp. added).

The scientific community today, by and large, incorrectly defines “science” in such a way that anything supernatural cannot be considered “scientific,” and therefore science “fails” in certain areas. Only natural phenomena are deemed worthy of being categorized “science.” According to the definition, if something cannot be empirically observed and tested, it is not “scientific.” [NOTE: The naturalistic community contradicts itself on this matter, since several fundamental planks of evolutionary theory are unnatural—they have never been observed and all scientific investigation has proven them to be impossible (e.g., spontaneous generation of life and the laws of science, macroevolution, etc.; cf. Miller, 2012b).] One result of this flawed definition is highlighted by Jastrow, himself, in the above quote. Contrary to Jastrow’s statement, the laws of science, by definition, do not “fail.” They have no known exceptions. So, it would be unscientific to claim, without conclusive evidence in support of the claim, that a law has failed.

This leaves atheistic evolutionists in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely complex Universe could have come about “unscientifically”—without a natural cause. Four decades ago, Jastrow wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know (1977, p. 21).

When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, if the material realm is all that exists, if naturalistic science can shed light on the matter of origins, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is known. The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe did not precede its cause—rather, it actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science.

The Law of Causality—A Friend to Creationists

Instead of flippantly disregard­ing the truth of the Law of Causality because it contradicts naturalistic theories, why not recognize that the highly respected, exception-less Law of Causality is not the problem? Why not recognize the fact that naturalistic theories, such as the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, are simply not in harmony with science on a fundamental level? Why not consider an option that does not contradict the Law? If one were to follow the evidence wherever it leads, rather than defining God out of science, one is led to the unavoidable conclusion that there must be Someone super-natural that caused the Universe to be. If every material (i.e., natural) effect must have a cause, then the ultimate Cause of the Universe must be supernatural.

Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. Notice that creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from antiquity. In Hebrews 3:4, the Bible says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. And that is the essence of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.

The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1).

Emile Borel was a famous French mathematician for whom the Borel lunar crater was named (O’Connor and Robertson, 2008). He once said concerning the amazing human brain that is able to author works of literature, “Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been even richer than the particular work to which it gave birth” (1963, p. 125). The effect of the brain’s existence, like a work of literature, must have an adequate cause. In the same way, we know that the infinite Mind behind the creation of this infinitely complex Universe had to be, and was, more than adequate for the task of bringing it all into existence (Revelation 19:6).

Uncaused Cause?

“But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God? Doesn’t God need a cause, too? Who caused God?” First, notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. A law of science is determined through the observation of nature—not super-nature. Since they have not observed the supernatural realm, scientists cannot apply the scientific Law of Causality to it. The laws of nature do not apply to non-material entities. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law. In the words of skeptic Michael Shermer, executive director of the Skeptics Society and columnist for Scientific American:

If God is a being in space and time, it means that He is restrained by the laws of nature and the contingencies of chance, just like all other beings of this world. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such constraints, not subject to nature and chance. God as creator of heaven and earth and all things invisible would need necessarily to be outside such created objects (2006, Ch. 8, emp. added).

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (p. 6, emp. added). God, according to the Bible, had no beginning. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being Who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Recall Hebrews 3:4 again, which indicates that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect, as are houses, but rather, presides as the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being Who initially set all effects into motion (John 1:3).

Again, philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to sidestep the need for a Cause and argue the eternality of the physical Universe are in direct contradiction to the Law of Causality (since the Universe is a physical effect that demands a cause), as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that nothing physical lasts forever (see Miller, 2013).] Aristotle, in Physics, discussed the logical line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover (1984, 1:428). Aquinas built on Aristotle’s reasoning and said:

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another…. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality…. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover…. Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).

God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Concerning the Law of Causality, Kant said that “everything which is contingent has a cause, which, if itself contingent, must also have a cause; and so on, till the series of subordinated causes must end with an absolutely necessary cause, without which it would not possess completeness” (2008, p. 284, emp. added). An uncaused Cause is necessary. Only God sufficiently fills that void.

Consider: in the same way that dimensional space—length, width, and height—are part of the physical Universe, time, itself, is as well. In the same way that space had to have a cause, time itself had to as well: time had a beginning. That means that its Creator logically could not have a beginning. A “beginning” implies a specific timeframe that has begun. Without time in existence, there could be no such thing as a “beginning.” So, the Cause of the Universe could not have a beginning since He created time, itself. In essence, there was no such thing as a “beginning” until the uncaused Cause began something. [NOTE: If time was not created, then it exists apart from God and even God is subject to it. The Bible affirms, however, that time itself was created along with the Universe when it uses the phrase “in the beginning” in Genesis 1:1.]

Consider further: if there ever were a time in history when absolutely nothing existed—not even God—then nothing would continue to exist today, since nothing comes from nothing (in keeping with common sense and the First Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). However, we know something exists (e.g., the Universe)—which means something had to exist eternally, or we would eventually get to a point in past time when nothing existed, which we have already noted cannot be. That something that existed forever could not be physical or material, since such things do not last forever (cf. the Second Law of Thermodynamics; Miller, 2013). It follows that the eternal something must be non-physical or non-material. It must be mind rather than matter. Logically, there must be a Mind that has existed forever. That Mind, according to the Bible, is God. He, being spirit, is not subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and can exist forever—the uncreated Creator. While usable energy in the Universe is inevitably expended, according to the Second Law, moving the Universe ever closer to a state of completed deterioration and unusable energy, God’s power is “eternal” (Romans 1:20).

Of old You laid the foundation of the Earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end (Psalm 102:25-27, emp. added).

The Universe exists. It cannot be eternal according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It could not create itself according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Its existence requires an adequate, supernatural Cause. The Bible calls Him Jehovah.

REFERENCES

Aquinas, Thomas (1952), Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago).

Aristotle (1984), Physics in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Aristotle (2009), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.

Borel, Emile (1963), Probability and Certainty (New York: Walker).

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), https://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

“Causality” (2008), Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), http://www.wordreference.com/definition/causality.

“Causality” (2009), Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged (New York: HarperCollins Publishers), tenth edition, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Causality?x=35&y=25.

Einstein, Albert (2007), The World As I See It (New York: BN Publishing).

Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kant, Immanuel (1781), The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn), 1878 edition, http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.

Kant, Immanuel (2008), Kant’s Critiques: The Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, the Critique of Judgment (Radford, VA: Wilder Publications).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Simultaneous Causation,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=687&topic=57.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4225&topic=296.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.

O’Connor, John J. and Edmund F. Robertson (2008), “Felix Edouard Justin Emile Borel,” The MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Borel.html.

Plato (1966), Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold North Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D96a.

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Shermer, Michael (2006), Why Darwin Matters (New York: Henry Holt), Kindle file.

Stace, W.T. (1934), A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan).

Taylor, Richard (1967), “Causation,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Philosophical Library).

Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

“Tsunamis” (2000), The Oxford Companion to the Earth, ed. Paul L. Hancock and Brian J. Skinner (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press).

Virchow, Rudolf (1858), “On the Mechanistic Interpretation of Life,” in Disease, Life, and Man: Selected Essays, ed. by L.J. Rather (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press), 1958 edition.

Can We Know Anything for Sure?

 

Can We Know Anything for Sure?

In 1962, Karl Barth (1886-1968), Swiss Reformed theologian, made his one and only visit to the United States.  During the course of his visit, some young American theologians asked him that of all the millions of words he had written and published how would he best summarize it all.  Reflecting for a moment, Barth replied simply: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Barth professed that he knew something, and that he knew it because the Bible said so!

Using Barth's basis for knowing that Jesus loved him ("because the Bible tells me so"), let me suggest that because the Bible tells me so, I know that . . .

* In the beginning there was God (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1-3).

* God has spoken, giving further evidence to the fact of His existence, since a non-entity does not speak (Hebrews 1:1-2).

* Without faith that God is and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him I cannot please Him (Hebrews 11:6). 

* Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Matthew 3:17; 17:5).

* God, because of His great love for mankind, gave Christ to the world as the atoning sacrifice for my sins and the sins of the world (John3:16; Romans 3:21-26; 5:8; I John 2:2).

* Christ is the only way to God and the sole source of salvation (John 14:6; Acts 4:11-12).

* Without faith in Christ I will die in my sins (John 8:24).

* Without repentance I will perish eternally in hell (Luke 13:3; Romans 2:5-10).

* Baptism is for (eis=unto) the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

* Baptism is immersion in water (Acts 8:38-39; Romans 6:3-4).

* Christ established His church, purchasing it with His blood (Matthew 16:18; Acts 20:28).

* The church is singular and consists of every saved, blood-washed soul (Ephesians 4:4; 1:22-23; 2:14-22; Acts 2:47).

* I must possess the mind of Christ, have the Spirit of Christ, evince the fruit of the Spirit, and make my calling and election sure (Philippians 2:5; Romans 8:9; Galatians 5:22-26; II Peter 1:5-11).

* There is a final day of reckoning for all humanity (Acts 17:30-31; II Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27).

* Heaven is real and eternal and the final abode of all the redeemed (John 14:1-3; II Corinthians 5:1-8).

* Hell also is real and eternal and the ultimate destiny of all who know not God and obey not the gospel of Christ (II Thessalonians 1:6-10).

There is much about God that I do not know (Romans 11:33), and there is much about His revelation to mankind in scripture that I continue to grapple with, study, and grow in my understanding, appreciation, and practice of.  But the above are some things that I do know and know that I know because the Bible tells me so!

Hugh Fulford