REFUGEES, APOSTASY, AND AVERSION TO GOD

The atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel, had argued that no one can be impartial about God:

• I am talking of...the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true...It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God. I don't want the universe to be like that...I am curious whether there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether there is a God. (The Last Word, Oxford University Press, 1997, 130)

Nagel is unusual. Even though he has expressed a high regard for intelligent design, something for which he had incurred great disapproval, he still admits that he has an aversion to the idea of God. 

However, many others have confessed to such an aversion. Author of “The Brave New World,” Aldous Huxley, had also been very candid about his rejection of a higher meaning to life:

• I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning [and moral absolutes]; consequently assumed that it had none…We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. (Ends and Mean)

Nor are scientists immune to these commitments to a God-less world. Todd C. Scott admitted:

• Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic [mindless and purpose-less].

Richard Lewontin also admitted the bias of present-day science:

• We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs. . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Why are they so adverse to God, even though they have everything, if not in this world, then in the next, to gain? As Huxley admitted, a belief in God doesn’t suit their commitments, lifestyle, or “their books.” Others have been less forthright about the prospect of being judged by a righteous God.

However, I think that there is even another reason – guilt and shame. Jesus taught that the Spirit convict the world of their sin:

·       “And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me.” (John 16:8-9)

Especially for those of us who have become proud with our worldly attainments, conviction of sin and of our unworthiness is utterly intolerable. It tells us that we are nothing without the Savior and deserve only judgment. It cuts us down to size. Besides, this truth has been wired into us:

·       Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)

This is why we are so agitated by the existence of God. When we know that we are in sin, and we do, we love the company of others like us – escapism to the max!  This is why that even Christ’s people are a stench to them:

·       For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? (2 Corinthians 2:15-16)

I say this to warn you about the aversion of the world to us and to our faith. We will sense this aversion in the university, in the media, and even in our neighborhood.

Rejoice when you are treated well, but do not expect it. Jesus warned us of this aversion:

·       “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.” (John 15:18-20)

Jesus even warned that our “brethren” will turn against us:

·       And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. (Matthew 24:10-12)

We see this happening today. The New York Times, in an article entitled “Christian Leaders Denounce Trump’s Plan to Favor Christian Immigrants,” gave voice to the “Christian Leaders” who thought it illegitimate to favor Christian immigrants. Meanwhile, they fail to mention:

·       That, for years, we had been favoring Muslim immigrants, while deporting Christian immigrants.

·       That Muslims create massive problems and criminal abuses for non-Muslims.

·       Christian refugees are the most peaceful and the most hated.

·       That Christian refugees would be grateful for their new sanctuary, unlike Muslim refugees.

·       That our first responsibility is for our family and brethren: Galatians 6:10 “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”

We shouldn’t be surprised by such betrayal and hypocrisy. Jesus even promised us:

·       “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.” (John 16:1-2)

As horrific as these truths are, we must still repeat them to others.

OUR WORLDVIEW IS THE LENS THROUGH WHICH WE SEE

Our worldview can either bring reality into sharp focus or it can distort and prevent us from seeing what is right in front of our eyes.

Atheist Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick, also approached the evidence with a worldview. However, rather than preventing him from seeing the evidence, it caused him to reject it:

* “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to have been satisfied to get it going."

Why then does he reject the miraculous? Because there is no place for it within his atheistic worldview, which demands a natural answer. Meanwhile, when a theist is confronted with the same evidence, he concludes otherwise.

Former atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle, concluded in favor of an Intelligent Designer:

* "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shuffling of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero." So, there must be "an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life." (Norman Geisler is the source of these quotations.)

Why are people unwilling to revise their worldview when confronted with overwhelming evidence against it? Often, they don't want to.

Atheist Aldous Huxley wrote:

* "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." (Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270, 273, emp. added).

Not everyone rejects God in favor of sexual freedom. However, Huxley demonstrated, very transparently, that we have reasons for our worldviews that might have nothing to do with the evidence.

HONESTY AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS

Some evolutionists will admit that evolution is a religion committed to defending naturalism – the totally unproven idea that everything came about without design:

• The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable. (Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.)

God is resisted at all costs:

• We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)

• Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. (Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.)

Many evolutionists will also admit that evolution is far from proven:

• We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions. (Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.)

Why then is it presented as a fact? Because many think that it is more important to indoctrinate than to liberate:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary. (Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.)

Why is God resisted? As Aldous Huxley explained, God is an unwanted interference:

• I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning [and moral absolutes]; consequently assumed that it had none…We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. (Ends and Mean)

Some prefer a meaningless world. They perceive that it gives them freedom. Some freedom!

Oblivion Looms

Atheist Stephen Knight, host of the Godless Spellchecker podcast, acknowledges that “Oblivion looms”:

• “When we reject the imagined supernatural meaning from our existence, what we’re left with is far from a consolation prize. Sure, it’ll be messy at times, sometimes joyous, sometimes miserable, but it’s all we’ll ever know. And it’s ours. We invent comforting lies to distract us from one simple truth: Oblivion looms. So, what are you going to do about it? 

What is the “comforting lie” to which Knight alludes? Heaven, an afterlife! But perhaps the atheist also has his comforting lie – an oblivion where he will not be judged, which allows him to live in any way he wants, at least for now.

The atheist and author of the Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, explained his rejection of the Christian faith:

·       I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning [and moral absolutes]; consequently assumed that it had none…We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. (Ends and Mean)

However Knight claims that oblivion is more than a “consolation prize” but an opportunity to take action:

• “I choose to live, laugh, love, travel, create, help others, and learn. And I’m going to do as much of this as I can manage, because the clock is ticking. We create our own meaning, and there’s more than enough to be had. Seize it where you can.”

According to Knight, it’s all up to you to create your “own meaning.” However, we cannot create our own meaning any more than we can create our own truth. A created meaning is a shallow meaning that will eventually become meaningless.

I had a friend who had created his own meaning. He would visit every country in the world and check it off his check-list. However, his wasn’t a meaning founded in reality, and he soon tired of it.

Life can soon become tiring unless we are convinced that our lives have a higher meaning and purpose. One friend got a promotion. This bestowed a sense of meaning, but it didn’t last for more than a couple of weeks.

In contrast, Jesus derived His meaning through service:

·       "My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work. John 4:34)

I too have no greater food than to serve my God, the One who loves me and has saved me eternally.

The Historical-Critical Method and how it Influences our Conclusions

Former vice-president and professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary, Harold Lindsell, called the Historical-Critical Method (HCM) “the Bible’s greatest enemy.” Why?

Our methods often determine our conclusions. If I investigate life through a pair of upside-down glasses, everything will look upside-down, and I will conclude that the world is upside down. If instead my lens is gray, I’ll conclude that life has a gray tint.

We see life through our lenses – our methodological assumptions and scholarly tools. If methodological naturalism is our guiding lens, natural causation is the only thing we will see. Consequently, we will conclude that all scientific causation is natural and non-intelligent.

Our presuppositions give birth to our conclusions. Regarding the HCM, Grant Osborne, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, writes:

• The truth is that most scholars end up with conclusions remarkably similar to the presuppositions with which they began their study (Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 282)

Our starting point is usually our terminus. If we analyze the Bible through the HCM lens, our conclusions will be influenced by this method to the denial of the divinity of the Scriptures. HCM approaches the Bible with the assumption that it can be understood in the same way as any other book - from a strictly human perspective. Hence, the human author writes what he does solely out of human motivations. Consideration of Divine motives or intentions has no place in this analysis. The identification of a Divine imprint is simply outside the scope or interest of the HCM.

If the only thing that you have in your hand is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. When your tool box is the HCM, the Bible suddenly looks entirely human. Its formation is consequently understood in terms of a clash between warring interest groups, colliding cultures and a response to the pressures of the times. No room for a Divine or a prophetic hand here!

For instance, the Book of Isaiah is consequently understood as a political history and not a divine prophecy, according to the HCM. What then is done with Isaiah’s prophecies which, almost 200 years earlier, had named King Cyrus as God’s chosen tool to release Israel from captivity:

• [God] who says of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, ‘Let it be rebuilt,’ and of the temple, ‘Let its foundations be laid.’” This is what the Lord says to his anointed, to Cyrus. (Isaiah 44:28-45:1)

Isaiah lived and prophesied in the 8^th century BC, 200 hundred years before Cyrus made his grand entry. And since such a miraculous and precise prophecy does not coincide with the HCM’s non-miraculous assumptions – only human explanations are permitted here – then this prophecy couldn’t have been prophecy. Therefore, Isaiah must have been written after Cyrus liberated Israel to return to the Promised Land.  

However, “facts” must be produced that will support the theory. Unfortunately for the HCM, there are many evidences that Isaiah had been written prior to Israel’s exile to Babylon and subsequent liberation by Cyrus. Also, Isaiah’s language does not reflect any Aramaic influences as do the post-exilic Prophets. Furthermore, Isaiah portrays a pre-exilic setting – a concern about the advances of Assyria when Israel was still in their land.

However, these facts present little difficulty for the HCM. Without any hard evidence, the HCM – in this case, it is called the Wellhausen Hypothesis (WH) – came to the rescue by inventing a second “Isaiah.” According to this invention, the First Isaiah (chapters 1-39) was written pre-exilicly, when Israel was still a nation, while the Second Isaiah (chapters 40-66, containing the Cyrus “prophecy”) was conveniently written post-exilicly. 

However, upon subsequent examination, it was objected that this hypothesis simply didn’t fit the facts. Several pre-exilic Prophets resemble (or actually quote from) the allegedly post-exilic Second Isaiah (Zeph. 2:15; Nahum 1:15; Jer. 31:35), suggesting that Second Isaiah is a creative invention and not reality.

Furthermore, according to the WH, First Isaiah should be focused upon the earlier Assyrian threat, while Second Isaiah (chapters 40-66) the later Babylonian threat and conquest.

However, when you have an appealing theory, the facts are easily ignored. The late Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer found that Babylon is mentioned nine times in chapters 1-39 and only four times in chapters 40-66, in contradiction to the assertions of the WH. Archer adds:

• Conservative scholars have pointed out at least forty or fifty sentences or phrases which appear in both parts of Isaiah, and indicate common authorship. (Survey of Old Testament Introductions)

• There is no doctrine set forth in 40-66 which is not already contained, in germ form at least, in 1-39.

However, the HCM is like melted ice cream. When it fails to conform to its stick, sandwich or cone, it can easily be poured into any other container. Consequently, when the WH was invalidated by new findings, it simply found a new container. Suddenly, a third Isaiah was confidently brought on stage, and when these three Isaiahs couldn’t contain the facts, an entire school of Isaiah’s, writing over long period of time, was postulated.

Who cares about the facts when Isaiah can be “explained” in an entirely non-miraculous manner! Consequently, the WH is still being taught as fact in many seminaries.

What is the impact of the HCM? Theologian J.I. Packer laments that the HCM:

• Raises a doubt about every single Bible passage, as to whether it truly embodies revelation or not…It destroys the reverent…approach to the Bible without which it cannot be known as “God’s Word.”

With the HCM in charge, Christianity can no longer be Christianity but a mere human attempt to grope after a god of one’s own creation.

However, does the HCM shed light upon Scripture? Not according to C.S. Lewis:

• My impression is that in the whole of my experience not one of these [HCM] guesses has on any point been right; that the method…shows a record of 100 per cent failure. (Lindsell, 287)

Lindsell observes that the HCM practitioner:

• Has nothing but his own opinions on which to depend. And his opinions vary so widely from those held by others who use the same methodology that nothing but confusion and uncertainty result from the used of this method that nullifies Scripture while it subjects it to the whims of sinful man. (287-88).

Why then does it remain popular? Well, why does the belief that the universe sprang into existence uncaused from nothing remain popular? Neither have any factual support! However, they both have their appeal as a bulwark against the claims of the Biblical faith.

The atheist and author of the Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, candidly explained his rejection of the Christian faith:

• I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning [and moral absolutes]; consequently assumed that it had none…We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless. (Ends and Mean)