Is History Cyclical?

    Let us begin this discussion with a few quotes: 

    -He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    -He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

    -For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    -For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    -He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

    -He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

    -He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,...is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    Sound familiar? They should.

    The above words were written some two hundred forty six years ago by Thomas Jefferson to enumerate crimes committed by King George against the colonies. They could have also been written just yesterday to describe the crimes committed by one of our own political parties against us. We have come full circle. Does that mean the adage is true, “History repeats itself?” And if that is the case, does it mean we are at the end of our nation’s greatness and our fall is imminent? Must we acquiesce to the current trends and denigrate ourselves to a post-history decline? Must we, as that party insists, become a socialist third world country with no defining morality or ideals except the arbitrary and capricious use of government power? 

    Let me counter the above comments with a couple of scriptures. 

    John 29:28-30 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (ESV)

    Revelation 10:6,7 And swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay, but that in the days of the trumpet call to be sounded by the seventh angel, the mystery of God would be fulfilled, just as he announced to his servants the prophets. (ESV)

    These two passages tell us that a certain part of history is not cyclical. First, the magnificent plan of salvation was completed by Jesus on the cross. That means we are no longer slaves to sin and alienated from God. It means we can enjoy a right relationship with Him, and, it follows, that we can enjoy a right relationship with each other.

    The verse in Revelation demonstrates an ultimate end to history, that will be brought about by God Himself. God began history with creation. He will end it at some point in the future.

    We also understand that a part of history is cyclical. I am speaking of those who have rejected the sovereignty of God. These people repeat themselves over and over. Why is that? Because tyrants and criminals only know how to do one thing, steal, destroy and murder. "....The thief comes only to steal, kill and destroy...." One thing is painfully clear. lawbreakers and miscreants will never build a stable, let alone a great, society.

    By way of contrast we will now consider those who know and serve God. They have an understanding of law, and work to achieve a certain end. That end is to live in peace with those around them, and raise their children to be men and women of faith. Often they will sacrifice their own potential wealth and ambitions for their children's sake. Christians take the long view, preferring to invest in future generations rather than leave them to the whims of popular thought and crowd mentality.

    Christian history, it turns out, is linear. It does not repeat, for every generation brings us closer to the point of Christ's return and the ultimate fulfillment of that event so eloquently described by John in the book of Revelation.

    What about us today? The success of our nation came about because it was built around two foundations. One of them is our body of laws. The Constitution. The other is the Holy Scriptures, which carry the moral imperatives for the freedoms we enjoy. Take away either of those foundations and the edifice falls, to the ruin of all.

 

    Let me ask my original question again. Is this the end? Must we fail as a nation? No! Our demise is not a foregone conclusion. We will remain free if we continue to stand for law, and the freedoms it guarantees us. We will remain free if the Gospel is allowed to be preached unhindered in our churches.

    As long as both foundations remain strong, our nation will continue.

Must Christianity be Accepted Without any Evidence?

I recently read an article from Skeptico titled "Atheism is Not a Religion". In this article there are a few statements I would like to comment on. As the article begins the author says this: "Religion must include something you have to accept on faith - that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief." About the world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Scientoloty...etc.) he says: "They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make." Further, when referring to evidence he states that the extraordinary claims of a particular religion should be reinforced with extraordinary evidence.

While I would agree that most religions are based on some sort of superstition or false belief, I would disagree that Christianity is without evidential merit. We all know that the premiere event for its foundation is the resurrection of Christ. Skeptico says this: "Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity." However, he denies that there is any good evidence for the resurrection.

Really?

Let's illustrate the situation this way. Suppose your best friend comes up and excitedly tells you he has seen an extraordinary event. A miracle. "I saw it with my own eyes!" he says. What do you do? You can believe him, or not. The choice is yours. Soon after, another friend claims to have seen the exact same thing. Now what? You can still believe him (them) or not. What about three friends? Or four? At what point does the testimony of these people sway you? Of course you didn't see the miraculous event. You can steadfastly refuse to believe if you so desire. "I need real proof?" you say. What if this miracle was seen by dozens or even hundreds of people? Where is the threshold for belief? Is the testimony of multiple reliable witnesses good enough?

Let's expand this a little bit. Suppose all the people you know who witnessed this miracle became different in some way. We all know that personalities can change for the worse from (among other things) drugs and alcohol. But these lives are changed for the better. They are more honest than before, more happy, personable and caring. The change, they all say happened as a result of the miracle.

This is what we see with Christianity. People and not a few of them claim to have seen a living man who was publically executed and buried just a few days before. They were not superstitious pagans: they were Jews, adherents of Judaism. A few were highly educated. One notable disciple (Thomas) thought the others were delusional. "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." A week later his concerns were met when he saw Jesus for himself. The various sightings occurred over a period of 40 days. Rarely did they happen to individuals. The largest appearance was to some 500 people.

What is the difference between my illustration and what happened two thousand years ago? Time. The questions we ask today are the same for both groups. Are they primary witnesses, like your friend or secondary ones. Are the various testimonies of the witnesses reliably consistent? What is the character of the witnesses? Is their testimony trustworthy?

It should be known that what I am going to give in condensed form has much scholarly support. Whole volumes have been written about these matters.

Let's take a look at Jesus' biographers. Matthew writes as a primary witness. His account is matter of fact and not laced with sensationalistic language. He gospel was almost certainly written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and well within his lifetime. Also there are no competing writers for his Gospel. Every early tradition points to his authorship. Mark is a little different. He is named as a follower of Jesus, but not one of the Twelve. He may not have been a primary witness to all the events about which he writes. But we know from tradition that he was a companion of Peter. Peter was the most outspoken and well-known of Jesus' disciples. Essentially the Gospel that bears Mark's name is that of Peter. His Gospel is dated before 60 AD. John also writes as a primary witness. He was the longest lived of all the disciples and may have written his Gospel after 70 AD, but still within his lifetime. He died around 97-99 AD.

What about Luke? He was not Jewish and expressly states that he was not a primary witness. He was, however a reporter. His mission was to located the primary sources, find out what they had to say, and record that information. Luke's Gospel includes some episodes which are not in the others but can be traced back to primary sources. Luke also wrote the book of Acts as a continuation of his Gospel. Both of his books were written before 60 AD. We should note that Luke was an extremely accurate writer. His books have held up to the most careful scrutiny by archaeologists and historians.

What about the character of the witnesses? Does their testimony hold up? Actually - yes. Peter was the first to publically preach about the resurrection. He appeals to the crowd's knowledge of the events. (....you yourselves know....) A few days later he was on trial against a hostile jury and made the same appeal. (....this Jesus whom you crucified and God raised from the dead....) Peter's trial was less than two months after Jesus' crucifixion and only a few minutes walk from the tomb. It would have been pretty easy to refute his declaration. The suprising thing is that the prosecution could offer no evidence to the contrary. No one stood up and said. "Hey! You're wrong! This man is still dead!" In fact, no one in Jesus' time was able to refute the evidence. Instead they resorted to bribery or threats.

Clearly the evidence above does not square very well with that of the scientific kind. But what do you want? A neon sign in the heavens? If you are looking for some kind of goo you can take to a lab and use to reanimate dead matter - it simply does not exist and you will forever be disappointed. But if you can believe the testimony of reliable people who personally witnessed these events there is hope. The question I would like to ask: Is the evidence presented sufficient to believe they are telling the truth? You will have to answer for yourself. My answer is yes.

It's time to look more closely at the Gospel record.

(Link to Skeptico article: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html )

Spiritual Capitalism

"But whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (John 4:14)

These words were uttered by Jesus to an anonymous woman who lived in the city of Sychar, Samaria. They represent a very important truth about God's purpose. He is not content with simply providing salvation for us. He wants our spiritual lives to be rich and engaging.

Jesus pressed his disciples to come here in spite of some silent misgivings on their part. There was friction between Jews and Samaritans. The woman put voice to those concerns in her answer to Jesus' request for water. He ignored her and immediately began some metaphoric comments comparing water from the well to the Spirit of God. She didn't get it. But Jesus persisted and soon the conversation came around to the heart of the matter. The woman said: "I know the Messiah cometh-when he comes he will declare unto us all things." Jesus' reply was succinct, "I that speak to you-am He!" The truth of that statement hit the woman like a bolt of lightning.

She hurried away, past the recently returned disciples. Minutes later she was back-followed by the entire town! In that short span of time she convinced them someone special was at the well. They begged him to stay, which he did. Two days later they approached the woman and said, "Now we believe, not because of your speaking, but because we have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed the savior of the world."

How was it possible for this woman to create such a reaction? Because the Spirit that Jesus mentioned comes instantly into the believer with unlimited power. This is Spiritual Capitalism.

Spiritual Capitalism is the direct result of a right relationship with God. It is powered by Grace and brings freedom to our souls. What is most interesting is that there is some relationship between soul and body we of the earth-bound variety do not fully understand. God however, does. Jesus did not preach to the woman, nor did he present her with a list of things to do. He gave her no instructions and no laws. She did what came naturally out of a full heart.

And the results were electrifying.

God Economics: The Broken Window Fallacy

In 1850 a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat published a work of economics titled: "That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen." In it he tells a parable to demonstrate economic truth. Today it is called the Broken Window Fallacy.

The essence of the fallacy is this: A man owns a store or shop. His son accidently breaks a window and now it must be fixed. There are some well meaning friends who tell the owner this is a good thing, because it brings business to the window repairman. What would they do if there were no children? Bastiat says this is incorrect. In economic terms there is a net loss, not a gain. The reason is that something of value, the window- has been needlessly destroyed and capitol must be expended to replace it.

The fallacy is exposed when a simple question is asked. "What would the shop owner do with the money if he didn't have to pay for a new window?" He might have bought more stock for his store, shoes or a book. Then the money would have been invested in something of benefit rather than lost.

Taken to extremes this might imply that all the window repairment should hire people to throw rocks because it would produce loads of business for them. Instead it would mean crime and ultimate anarchy.

Believe it or not there are times when a large scale disaster, such as a hurricane is said to be beneficial to a community because it 'stimulates growth'. Money is spent upgrading homes, stores, infrastructure, etc. But, what would people, government agencies and insurance companies otherwise do with the money? It might be invested in all kinds of other worthwhile things.

Bastiat was a pretty smart guy, but it should be known that he was not the originator of this concept. He put into economic terms what was first proposed some eighteen hundred years earlier. The one who originated the idea was another smart guy, none other than the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans. In chapter 5 he is making a contrast between law, sin, faith and grace. He concludes with this: "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (20,21)

In chapter 6 he begins with an argument to head off those who might take advantage of this grace. He says: "What shall we say then? Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!" Sin, in Paul's mind is the behavioral equivalent of the broken window. It causes needless damage and it sends the believer back into a cycle he has been delivered from. Nothing good is accomplished. It would be better to invest that grace in something profitable, like living a life worthy of the resurrected Christ. This is something which has eternal rewards. He is demonstrating the 'economics' of grace so the believer can understand and live accordingly.

"We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." (6:4) What will YOU do with God's grace?

Some Thoughts on Free Will and Predestination

In my last theological discussion the subject was Pharaoh. I attempted to answer this question: "Did God force Pharaoh to do the things he did?" The answer to that question was "no". At all times Pharaoh was able to choose. Today we will discuss some further thoughts on Free Will and Predestination.

A little groundwork is necessary:

We should know that man is a limited creature. Our knowledge is limited. Our time on this earth is limited. We are part of a finite universe. This does not mean we are completely helpless. On the contrary, God created us to work within the confines of this world. We are designed with intelligence to be able to understand nature and work within it. "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness and let them rule...." (Gen 1:26)

To say I am a completely free agent is incorrect. I cannot do just anything. For example: What if I go crazy one day. I grab my wallet, jump in my car and drive off to Las Vegas. There I drop all my money on the tables and wind up flat broke. I find out pretty quick I really can't do whatever I want. I can do until my credit and cash is used up and my car is out of gas. After that, I starve and I walk. My world is limited to what my own intelligence, energy and opportunity present.

Is it too much of a stretch to suggest I also have some limited choice when it comes to spiritual matters? More on this in a moment. Next we should consider that God limits Himself in His work on Earth. This does not mean that God is limited. He purposefully works this way in order to gain greater glory. God performed miracles in the past like the parting of the Red Sea. Jesus also carried out miracles during His ministry here. Yet today we do not see those same types of actions; even though God reserves the right to them at any time. God has chosen to primarily work through several means - The lives of believers, the Scriptures, and the Church.

I have a small problem with the Calvinistic teaching of Unconditional Election. That would be that God picks who He wants to be saved. I believe we do have some (perhaps very small) choice in the matter. For two reasons:

First: The language suggests so. When Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost his listeners were so convicted they did not wait for the invitation. They yelled at Peter and the others: "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter's reply: "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ...." We also know he continued to preach to them. The word Repent means to change your thinking. That requires an act of will. A decision has to be made. Later, in Acts 16 we have the Philippian Jailer kneeling at Paul's feet. "What must I do to be saved?", he cried. Paul's reply: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved." Again, belief implies an act of will. All the language of the New Testament whether it be preaching, personal testimony, or written Epistle is presented as if the individual must make a decision concerning Christ.

Second: God gets greater glory. There is some criticism from Calvinist teaching that if we do have a choice somehow we are in collaboration with God for our salvation. This can become a point of pride. In effect we are agents of our own salvation. Let me ask a few leading questions: Who created the World? Who created us? Who created this wonderful Plan of Salvation? Who applied this Plan consistentenly throughout history? Who sent His Son to die on die on the cross? Who demonstrated His Power by resurrection from the dead? Who convicts us about the need for salvation? Who saves us? Who seals our souls forever?

Where in all this is any point of pride on my part? Nowhere. It is all because of Him. The thought question I would like to present is this: Does God achieve greater glory because He picked certain individuals for salvation? Or: If He so constructs His message that everyone must make a choice, in their own limited way, to accept Him?

An Ancient Confrontation - A New Perspective

It was perhaps the greatest confrontation in history. An epic battle between good and evil. In one corner was a rough loner-used to living in the wild. In business terms he was a mere sheepherder, but that is only part of the story. As a baby he was adopted into the royal family and raised in the high courts of nobility. During those days he was on track for a stellar career. Perhaps even a contender for the throne. But he had shirked his responsibliities, committed murder and was a felon. That this man had the audacity to even return to these courts was enough to show he was a bit touched in the head and possibly insane. We know his name to be Moses.

In the other corner sits the refined establishment in it's glory. All of Egypt's religious and political power was embodied in a man considered to be a god - Pharaoh. Within the boundaries of his court was the accumulated wisdom and knowledge of the world. They were versed in astronomy, astrology, mathematics, engineering, history, logistics art and language. These men were descended from those who built the pyramids. The Egyptian civilization reached back beyond recorded history. Their culture was the finest and most advanced in the world and concerning knowledge and wisdom - unassailable.

We all know what happens next. The series of events that unfolded there brought about the destruction of one nation and birthed another. Within a short time the fledgling nation of Israel would be camped before Mount Sinai and this same rough sheepherder would receive the greatest law ever given to mankind. The Ten Commandments.

The question I would like to consider today is this. Was the outcome of this contest inevitable? Was it decided before it even happened? Was Pharaoh already set on a course of destruction and he actually had no choice in the matter. To do this we must also enjoin the third player in this drama. God Himself.

From the very beginning God tells Moses that his mission was going to be difficult. Exodus 4:21 says "... I will harden his (Pharaoh's) heart so that he will not let the people go..." In the past I have had some problems with that statement. I had interpreted it to mean that in some way God forced Pharaoh to take the course of action he did. The implication is that Pharaoh might have repented and done the right thing had not God interfered in his heart and mind. To me this is a serious charge and it took me quite a while to figure it out. What actually happened? God gave the Egyptian ruler an 'out'.

I will explain what an 'out' is. Let's say you are getting ready to go to the gym. You're not into it today and part of you wants to skip the workout. Right before you walk out the door your phone rings. What to do? You can ignore the call and let it go to voice mail, or answer it and risk that the call is important enough to keep you from the gym. You take the call. It turns out to be nothing and lasts less than a minute. You wind up not going to the gym. You took the 'out'. That little interlude was enough to 'convince' you to skip out of your workout.

The scriptures record that Pharaoh took every 'out' possible. When his magicians were able to perform by trickery the miraculous signs done through Moses, he used this as an excuse not to believe. Further, he didn't listen to his own staff when they reached the end of their tricks and told him 'this was the hand of God.' Later, he would apparently relent, but as soon as the various plagues ended his mind changed back shortly thereafter. When he finally gave permission for the Jews to go he set conditions to assert his authority.

Pharaoh was hard hearted and obstinate yet at all times he had a choice. Every time he went the wrong way. He would rather have taken any 'out', no matter how slim the rationalization, than accept the truth.

In the book of Romans Paul makes a case about Pharaoh: "...What shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all. For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. It does not, therefore depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy..." (9:14-16) When I had read this statement before I took the part where he says 'it does not ... depend on man's desire or effort' to mean that somehow God decided the outcome beforehand and that was just too bad for Pharaoh. Sorry guy! Even though Paul says this is not unjust, I thought it to be so. Certainly (to me anyway) it was unfair.

Just a little later in verse 22 Paul clarifies: "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory....". Let's define a couple of things. First of all, who are the objects of wrath? Pharaoh? No. That would be everyone. We are all flawed. We all fall under God's wrath. There is none who does good, not even one. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.

What about the 'objects of his mercy'? They would be all who repent of their sins and put their faith in God. These are the ones who are 'prepared in advance for glory'. Paul's argument here is beautiful. Yes, Pharaoh was hard hearted and bull-headed. God's judgment was destined to fall on him. He could have killed him outright. But He didn't. He was willing to show His mercy to this man. In fact, God gave him 9 chances to repent! (I'm going to believe that by the time they got around to the 10th plague, Pharaoh's mind was made up.) At the same time God was teaching a lesson both to the rest of Egypt and Israel. He was '...making the riches of his glory known....'. At the end of this ordeal everybody knew who the real God was!

One day this man will stand before the Righteous Judge and give an account of his actions. Will he be able to make an accusation against God? No. Will he be able to say that God in any way was unfair? No. There will be no 'out' in that courtroom.