Imposing Uniformity of Thought or Allowing Diversity

Is it in the interest of a nation to impose uniformity – a common education and thinking – upon its people? Or is a nation best served when its government allows for diversity of belief, child rearing and religion?

It had seemed that the West had learned some painful but illuminating lessons about imposed uniformity from the bloody communist and national socialist experiments, but perhaps we will be compelled to painfully relearn them. Just a couple of days ago the U.S.President “stood before a crowd of 2,000 young people…and called for an end to Catholic education in Northern Ireland”:

• “If towns remain divided,” said the U.S. President, “if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.” 

While we all want to see greater levels of national and international cooperation, it is highly questionable that this can be achieved by removing the various religions and philosophies.

Ironically, the President’s thinking partakes of its own religious narrative. This narrative had been succinctly articulated by Mike Adams, University of North Carolina:

• In the first act, man is born innocent. In the second act, man is corrupted by ‘society.’ In the third act, the progressive saves him.” (Terrell Clemons, Salvo Magazine, #25, 62)

This is the essence of today’s progressive religion – invent a progressive national structure that will liberate the “innocent” from the shackles of religion. The President thinks that, somehow, if we could just get beyond religion and human differences, we could attain “neutrality” and have a better world. However, he seems to be unwilling to acknowledge that he is merely substituting his own secular religion in place of the others. If he succeeds in tearing down all of the Catholic and Protestant schools, these will merely be replaced by his own secular schools, no less committed to a certain set of values and beliefs than the other religions.

Amazingly, he claims that such intolerance – such a violation of the basic principles and acceptance of diversity that had made the West great – will encourage “cooperation.” Instead, this kind of intolerance – this imposition of Federal uniformity - only creates division, mistrust, anger, bitterness and polarization. And these are the very fruits we are beginning to see all around us as the public trust in government and media plummet to new and dangerous lows.

What best benefits the children? This should be our prime concern! If our President could demonstrate that Protestant, Catholic and home schools caused serious injury to children, he might begin to make a case in favor of only one uniform system of education – the radical secular version. However, these secular public schools have a worse track record than the others. They are jungles where violence and political correctness reign unchallenged.

Instead, we need the diversity in thought and education, and they will serve to promote a healthy competition and accountability

Will religious diversity create what the President claims it will: “division and discourages cooperation.” Instead, it was the genius of this nation that recognized that a real unity could only be achieved by respecting diversity. In fact, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was essential to building a Union among our 13 states:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

The “free exercise” of religion is under severe attack. It threatens the unity that has made this nation great – a unity that has allowed diverse peoples to all feel grateful for this one nation. We therefore need this Amendment more than ever!

We will never be rid of the differences. My wife and I still have our differences, but we have learned to love and appreciate each other despite these differences. Our marriage and cooperation, therefore, do not depend upon worldview uniformity. In fact, any coercion used to achieve uniformity would only drive us apart.

In the thinking of many, religion has become the enemy. However, in his 1796 Farewell Address, the well-seasoned George Washington reiterated these broadly accepted sentiments:

• “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Ironically, the very thing that our President seeks to suppress is the very belief system that effectively teaches us peace, love for our enemies and cooperation. Sadly, he wants to tear down our buildings. However, the emerging scandals are beginning to reveal the costs to this nation of coerced uniformity and the elimination of the “enemies.” It can only get worse.

One Reason why we Regard the Bible as God’s Words

When we think about how the Bible proves itself to be the Word of God, we usually think about the miracles and fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. We might also think in terms of the wisdom, unity and the power of the Bible to change lives. There is even a powerful case to be made for how biblical revelation had anticipated the findings of science and archeology. In addition to these evidences, the Bible contains much that would not have been written by the Israelites. In many respects, the Bible is a collection of writings that humans would not have been motivated to write. Let me try to present several examples:

1. THE PATRIARCHS: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the forefathers of Judaism, were certainly not role-models. Instead, the Bible reveals that they were cowards, deceivers, liars and worse. We humans don’t create or select such role models, least of all those who we identify as the Fathers of our faith.

Instead, the human tendency is to fashion them into the saints with whom others would want to identify. This is exactly what the Talmud did with the Patriarchs. It sanitized the Bible’s depiction of them, and made them virtually sinless. In contrast, the Bible’s portraits sharply conflict with what we’d create – so much so, that we feel compelled to modify them.

For instance, the Bible gives us the portrait of a spineless Abraham who routinely passed off his beautiful wife Sarah as his sister so that no one would kill him in order to have her.

Similarly, the Bible presents Israel’s greatest King – David – as an adulterer and a murderer. However, an orthodox Jew informed me that the Talmud had so cleaned up David that his adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah were both righteous acts. This is precisely how we humans write our religious books!

2. MOSES: Even the greatest of all Israelites had been forbidden entry into the Promised Land because he had sinned. Aaron also is presented as a humiliated sinner. What hope therefore could the average Israelite entertain about his own future welfare? Not much! Such a revelation could not have been the invention of humans who’d naturally want to maintain a zealous following.

In contrast, in ancient literature, no historian presents his king in a negative light lest he forego his life!

3. THE ISRAELITES: They are not portrayed as faithful to God, but as stubborn and unfaithful. On numerous occasions, Moses warned the Israelites to not think themselves better or more deserving than others. Meanwhile, the Talmud characterizes the Jewish people as spiritually superior, the very thing that the Bible warns against:

·         “After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.” (Deut. 9:4-6)

In fact, we cannot find one verse in the Hebrew Scriptures that suggests that the Israelites were superior to or more deserving than others.

On the contrary, almost all the prophets denounce Israel, so much so that if we didn’t know better, we might conclude that these Scriptures represent the heights of anti-Semitism. Often, Israel is indicted more extensively than any other people. The first chapter of Isaiah is representative of what we find in the writings of the other Israelite prophets:

·         “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows its master, the donkey its owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand. Woe to the sinful nation, a people whose guilt is great, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him.” (Isa. 1:2-4)

We humans don’t characteristically write such disparaging things about ourselves and our people, especially if these writings form the core of our self-identity – our significance and reason-for-being. How is it that the Jewish people would canonize such thoroughly condemning writings? They must have been convinced that they had no other choice, lest they oppose God.

4. MOSAIC LAWS: While much of Moses’ commands resemble those of other legal systems from that period, notably Hammurabi’s Code, much of it is not characteristic of anything else we find in the ancient Near East. For instance:

·         The covenant was transacted with all the people, not just the king – an oddity in its day. Kings wrote the laws, and these laws reflected the fact that the king was morally and religiously above everyone else.

·         The king was required to read the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) to remind him that he was no better than other people (Deut. 17).

·         A day of rest was mandatory for even animals and foreigners (Exodus 20:10). Such concern does not come from the ruling class but from God who created all!

·         The Sabbath (7th) year required the cancellation of debts to protect the poor (Deut. 15:1, 4) – certainly not something that people who make the laws – the power elite - would tolerate!

·         The Jubilee (50th) year required that the land be returned to its original owners. In fact, this law was so radical – so counter to human economics - that there is no evidence that Israel ever obeyed it:

Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land.  Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan. The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. (Lev. 25:9-11)

It should be noted that such a law depended upon a supreme trust in God to provide in the absence of sowing.

·         The priestly caste was denied true wealth – land. Instead, God was to be their inheritance. What powerful caste would willingly place themselves in such a disadvantageous position!

·         The law granted soldiers permission to leave the army if they feared (Deut. 20). If any nation granted their soldiers such an out, it would loose its army. Therefore, it would be surprising to find such a law in any man-made legal code.

Similarly, there are many other laws that humans, especially from that period of time, would never tolerate. Therefore, it seems more likely that these laws must have come from above!

5. MOSAIC THREATS: The warnings for disobedience were severe and demanding. If an Israelite failed to keep the law in just one respect, he was under a curse (Deut. 27:26). We humans would not accept such a threatening religion. Nor would the Rabbis, who qualified this teaching in several ways. For instance, Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary, wrote,

·         [Deuteronomy 27:26] does not refer to the breaking of the Law by an ordinary individual. It is, as the Rabbis explain, a reference to the authorities in power who fail to enforce the rule of the Law in the land of Israel (J.T. Sotah 7:4). The leadership of the nation is thus charged, under pain of the curse, to set the tone for the nation and make the Law the operative force in the life of the nation.

Instead, this verse and many others damn every Israelite. This is a state-of-affairs that no people would tolerate. We come to religion for its benefits and not its curses!

6. PROPHECIES: The Prophets uniformly prophesied Israel’s future failure (Deut. 29:4; Joshua 24:19). Moses even taught Israel a song that would serve to continually indict them. Israel would reject their God, and God would bring destruction upon them (Deut 32:15-35). No one would invent a religion foretelling such negative consequences for its own people. And who would follow such a religion!

Perhaps even more offensive to Israel, the Prophets also envisioned the hated Gentile nations enjoying in the end the abundant blessings with Israel. Perhaps the most poignant demonstration of the Israelite consternation to this Divine plan is exhibited by Jonah, who rebelled against God’s call to preach to Nineveh. This is because he feared that his preaching would serve as a vehicle for God to bless the Ninevites. Even Israel’s prophets are characterized as unworthy of their Master!

7. PENTATEUCHAL HOLIDAYS: Of the five prescribed holidays, only one of them is truly commemorative of an historical event – the Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread. The other four seem to be prophetic. They look forward to God working events to their glorious culmination.

However, this is very unusual – something we humans don’t do! Holidays commemorate past events, like the birthdays or deaths of our significant people, military victories, and even great tragedies like Pearl Harbor Day. They make us remember events that are key to our national and religious identity.

Likewise, all of Israel’s non-divinely-ordained holidays are commemorative. Hanukkah commemorates the cleansing of the Temple and the Maccabean military victories. Purim commemorates the salvation of the Jewish people in Persia. T’sha b’Av commemorates the destruction of the Temple. Simchat Torah commemorates the giving of the Law on Sinai.

8. ASSIGNMENT OF DATES: We assign dates to occasions we want to remember. Not so the Torah (Pentateuch). There is no assignment of a date to the giving of the law, to any military victories or momentous triumphs over an enemy. There is no “Victory over Jericho” day or “Pharaoh’s Defeat in the Red Sea” day. Instead, the dates are those that are important to God. They certainly weren’t important to the Israelites! In fact, Israel was so dumbfounded about the purpose of some of these dates and prescribed holidays that they had to invent rationale for them.

For instance, the purpose for the “Feast of Trumpets” was never specified. Therefore, the Jewish people invented a meaning for it. They called the day “Rosh Hashanah” (the head of the year) or “New Years Day.” How strange not to know the significance of one’s holidays! Had they been humanly ordained, there never would have been any question!

This is only a mere outline of the ways that the Bible is humanly foreign and sometimes repugnant – not the type of thing that we would create if we had the choice. When we survey the Hebrew Bible, we do not find a human landscape with identifiable benchmarks. Instead, we encounter something entirely alien to our expectations and inclinations – something that doesn’t flatter the ego, but instead humbles us, if we are enabled to see this unearthly terrain through unbiased eyes. But it’s this humbling process that prepares us for a Divine encounter that will leave us unsatisfied with the world we had once inhabited.

A Universe that Sings the Praises of its Creator

I couldn’t resist posting these quotations about the fine-tuning of the universe and how it point to its Intelligent Designer.  

Michael Denton, (Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe) “In the discoveries of science the harmony of the spheres is also now the harmony of life. And as the eerie illumination of science penetrates evermore deeply into the order of nature, the cosmos appears increasingly to be a vast system finely tuned to generate life and organisms of biology very similar, perhaps identical, to ourselves. All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology - that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as a fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact. Four centuries after the scientific revolution apparently destroyed irretrievably man's special place in the universe, banished Aristotle, and rendered teleological speculation obsolete, the relentless stream of discovery has turned dramatically in favor of teleology and design, and the doctrine of the microcosm is reborn. As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in the final days of the second millennium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished - the "defender of the anthropocentric faith.”

Paul Davies (Physicist and Philosopher, Professor at Arizona State University): “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs (of which there are 40) must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn’t exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleus and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life.”

George Ellis (British Astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize in Physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”

Carl Woese (Microbiologist from the University of Illinois) ”Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.”

Sir John Polkinghorne (Cambridge micro-physicist and theologian, the Einstein of dialogue on Science & Religion) “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”

Finding Meaning within Pain and Perplexity

I think that we become most tormented when we can’t understand our experience of pain and loss when it seems to contradict Scripture. For instance, I love to read about the missionaries. They are my heroes! However, they had experienced enormous loss – children, spouses and even their own lives. Why? They had committed their entire lives to their God and His service, and yet they experienced such loss, despite God’s promise to work all things to their good.

From our point of view, this just shouldn’t be! It seems to violate all of God’s promises, and the apparent contradiction sends us spiraling down into a spiritual vertigo. Job experienced this vertigo. He had lost everything, even though he had given his entire life to his Lord. He was convinced that what he had experienced wasn’t fair, and that God was at fault. Although he never cursed God, he certainly was not lacking in indictments against Him.

And, in a limited sense, Job was right. Although God might not have directly caused Job’s misfortunes, He purposely allowed them to happen! Job therefore was certain that God’s Word had failed, and that God had failed him.

Eventually, Job repented of his accusations against God. Why? It wasn’t that God had given Job a detailed and reasonable explanation of everything God had done. Job never received an explanation for his loss and suffering, but he received something else that sufficed. God revealed to him that his indictments were products of ignorance. He showed Job that Job lacked the wisdom and understanding to make such indictments:

·         Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:  “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?  On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone (Job 38:1-6)

Of course, Job could not answer any of these questions. He had been like a first-grader complaining that his math teacher couldn’t teach math. However, God dramatically showed him that he lacked the necessary intelligence and experience to make such charges. Job got the message and repented:

·         “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know… Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:2-6)

Often we become too confident about our level of knowledge. We become convinced that we know more than we actually do know and therefore judge God.

While wisdom and knowledge have an exalted role according to Scripture, we often rely upon our own wisdom more than we should. We are warned against this:

·         Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. (Proverbs 3:5-6)

Contrary to this, we are often told to trust in ourselves and our judgments. However, Scripture cautions against this advice. Job had trusted in his own understanding, but this only deepened his woes. He finally came to the realization that his self-trust had cut him off from his only hope – God.

There are some things that we can’t understand. Scripture warns us of this – that we only see in part. I must admit that I too am troubled about the way God does things and the things He allows to occur. Our beloved nephew just took his own life after battling paranoia for years. He was a believer. Why did God allow this to happen? This troubles me!

Our pastor-friend’s son took his life. His wife died after many painful years of battling cancer, and now the pastor also battles against the same foe. Another pastor-friend died a long and painful death. Both of these men had been men of exemplary character. God, why? If You allowed such torment to befall these godly men, what hope do I have? You want me to trust You, but how can I in light of what I see?

This had been Job dilemma. How could he love and trust God after what had happened to him? He was convinced that he no longer could! However, he subsequently repented of his attitude. What made the difference? It wasn’t that it all suddenly made sense to him. We see no evidence of this! Instead, he came to see that he couldn’t trust his own very limited and juvenile judgments. This understanding once again opened the door to trusting God, once he saw that he could not trust in his own understanding.

Just recently, my knee went bad, and then my back went out. In desperation, I went to the chiropractor, who broke my rib. I subsequently went through a Job-like crisis. I asked, “God, can I really trust You? Will you let me down as you did my pastor-friends?”

Leaning to my own understanding, it seems that God had let me down. But perhaps it was my own understanding that had let me down. I recalled God’s humbling counsel to Job:

·         “Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been shown to you? Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness? Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know all this.” (Job 38:16-18)

Truly, there is so much that I do not know! “Lord, humble me and leave me not in the grips of my own feeble and fearful understanding.”

Nevertheless, I think that there is understanding to be had. Our Lord will never allow us to have enough wisdom and understanding so that we need not cry out to Him for more. We will always need to depend upon Him for understanding, and we must. He therefore hides from us the extent of His grace – His responsiveness to our prayers. He did this with Abraham!

Abraham had been granted an exclusive audience with the Lord, who explained that He was about to destroy Sodom because of its great sins. Abraham interceded on behalf of his nephew Lot who lived in Sodom with his family. Finally, he got the Lord to agree that He would not destroy Sodom if there were as few as ten righteous people in the city. However:

·         Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord.  He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace. (Gen. 19:27-28)

We have absolutely no indication that Abraham ever knew that the Lord had rescued Lot and his daughters. Consequently, he never tried to find them. Instead, it seems that Abraham was so stricken by this loss that he had to relocate elsewhere, away from any reminder of his great “loss.”

We are not ready to truly fathom the depth of our Lord’s grace. We cannot handle it. While bleeding to death from a grievous chainsaw injury, I had the most incredible pre-salvation encounter with God. I was utterly filled with His love, joy and peace. I was in ecstasy through the knowledge of His omnipotence and the certainty that He would never leave me. I was miraculously rescued and spent four days recuperating in the hospital. On the second day, my surgeon informed me that I had to begin exercising my hand or I’d loose mobility. However, I blew-off his advice, convinced that God was omnipotent, and therefore, it didn’t matter what I’d do in regards to my recovery.

Consequently, I never regained full mobility. Although I correctly understood that God is omnipotent, I lacked the maturity to correctly apply this knowledge and suffered loss as a result. I leaned on my own limited understanding instead of the word of the expert.

I was not ready for God’s truth. Can we teach a first-grader trigonometry before she learns addition and subtraction? Trig is ridiculous – even dangerous - for those unprepared for it. So too is a comprehensive understanding of God’s ways. Instead, we need to learn from Job and repent in dust and ashes, acknowledging that we speak “of things [we] did not understand, things too wonderful for [us] to know.”

Theistic Evolution and its Embrace of a Mythical Adam

Theistic evolutionist - he calls himself an “evolutionary creationist” - Denis Lamoureaux made a presentation at the Westminster Conference on Science and Faith (2012). He argued that there was nothing that could have prevented God from creating through evolution.

Besides the fact that such a position is oxymoronic – even God can’t guide through an unguided process – this just isn’t the point. Instead, the point is whether or not evolution contradicts the biblical account. However, Lamoureaux insists that you can have both – evolution without compromising the Bible. Nevertheless, he insists that Paul was wrong that an historic Adam actually existed.

His proof: The Bible was influenced by the errant science of its day. He cited Genesis 1 and its teaching on the “firmament” – a hard, solid object, something like the Great Wall of China, separating the waters of the seas from the waters of the skies – which he claimed that the Bible naively borrowed from ancient near-eastern cosmology. He also claimed that Paul was blinded by this cosmology, as his own writings reveal.

Lamoureaux cited Philippians 2:10 – “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” – claiming this threefold division of the cosmos reflects the errant scientific thinking of Paul’s day.

Even if Lamoureaux is correct, and this terminology is derived from an errant worldview, this fails to prove that Paul was duped by it and was teaching mistakenly because of it.

There is a great distinction between common usage and errant thinking and teaching. According to common usage, we say that the sun “rose.” Admittedly, this language might reflect errant science, but now it remains in our vocabulary because of its ability to communicate.

We know that the sun doesn’t literally rise, but scientifically precise language would fail to convey the idea, “what a glorious sunset!” Also, using this terminology doesn’t mean that we are ignorant of planetary reality or that we are misleading others.

Paul’s intention wasn’t to teach the errant cosmology of his day but rather the fact that every knee will bow wherever there are knees to bow – whether in heaven, earth, or even under the earth, if there are people there. This is the language of exaggeration!

I would imagine that language often did arise out of the rubble of mistaken ideas. We find a lot of this language in the Bible, whether in the form of the “firmament” or even in the Book of Revelation, which teaches that:

• Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth. (Rev. 20:7-8) 

 Of course, the earth doesn’t have four corners. However, it is probable that this language most clearly communicated the idea that Satan would deceive the entire world, and not just the nations at the very “corners of the earth.” Clearly, Revelation is not speaking literally! Nor is it trying to teach that the earth actually has “four corners.”

However, Lamoureaux reasons that if Paul was wrong about living people being “under the earth,” then we shouldn’t insist that he was right about an historic Adam.

Here’s what is so perplexing about all of this. Lamoureaux assured his audience that he is a bonifide evangelical. He even recited the many evangelical doctrines to which he ascribed, like the Trinity and Incarnation. However, if he denies that Paul was correct about a literal Adam, then he must also deny all of the doctrines that Paul had based on a literal Adam:

1. The Entrance of Sin and Death into the World
2. The Fall
3. The Gift and Justification of Christ Addressing Adam’s Trespass
4. The Reign of Grace Replacing the Reign of Sin and Death (Romans 5:12-21)
5. Christ as the Second Adam (1Cor. 15:21-22, 45)

Perhaps even worse, if we can’t trust what Paul had written about Adam, why should we trust anything else he wrote?

This problem cannot be restricted to merely the teachings of Paul. Adam’s genealogy connects him to the Patriarchs and eventually even to Jesus. If Adam is mythical, perhaps also Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and everyone else genealogically connected to the “mythical” Adam.

Jesus also acknowledged the historical Adam. When asked by the religious leaders about divorce, Jesus took them back to Genesis 1 and 2, and how God had joined Adam and Eve together, making them one, to prove that we have no business undoing what God had done (Mat. 19:3-8).

Well, if Paul was mistaken about an historical Adam, then Jesus also! If this is the case, what then can we trust about Jesus’ teachings? I guess that Lamoureaux would then have to position himself as a judge above the entire Bible to determine what is trustworthy. In this case, Jesus would no longer serve as Lamoureaux’s judge, but Lamoureaux would reign as judge over Jesus – not exactly what Jesus had intended!

Based on what, then, does Lamoureaux believe in the Trinity? Habit? Fear?

I therefore began to wonder what the scene would look like if the venue was changed. If instead of presenting a talk at Westminster, where he was received with applause as a respected professor, he had been debating the Prophet Elijah on Mount Carmel, what should have been the response of the faithful? Would it be fitting to extend Lamoureaux applause or an opportunity to repent?

The Book of Samuel and the Credibility of Scripture

Skeptics claim that the Bible cannot be regarded as historical because it has a theological commitment. However, none of us approach history with a blank slate. We all have our philosophical, worldview commitments. However, these commitments do not preclude us from writing credible history.

I’d like to take the Book of Samuel to briefly demonstrate this fact. Clearly, Samuel is more than history. It is also theology. Right from the start, this book betrays its spiritual perspective. Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1) had two wives. One of his wives, Hannah, had been barren:

• But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the Lord had closed her womb. Because the Lord had closed Hannah’s womb, her rival kept provoking her in order to irritate her. (1 Sam. 1:5-6)

As a result of her anguish and desperation, she vowed:

• “Lord Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head.” (1:11)

Consequently, the Lord answered her prayer:

• Elkanah made love to his wife Hannah, and the Lord remembered her. So in the course of time Hannah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Samuel, saying, “Because I asked the Lord for him.” (1:19-20)
  

Admittedly, the Book of Samuel, along with the rest of the Bible, is entirely God-centered. Of course, the revelations that the “Lord had closed her womb” and “remembered her” go beyond normal human historical accounts and partake of divine revelation. Therefore, the skeptics charge that the Bible cannot be regarded as reliable history but as pious myths.

However, pious myths – human creations – are written in a mythical, human, story-telling manner. Samuel is not! Let me try to demonstrate.

Firstly, there are many rough edges and subtleties – not the kind of thing you’d find in a humanly constructed myth. The boy Samuel was nurtured Eli the priest – clearly, a very human and mixed character – both faithful and unfaithful. On the one hand, he tried to correct the sins of his sons:

• Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons [also priests] were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. (2:22) 

He faithfully tried to correct them but to no avail. However, without any adequate explanation, we are then given a very different portrait of Eli the priest. A prophet came to Eli and announced to him His Lord’s great displeasure with him:

• Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, “This is what the Lord says: …I chose your ancestor out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest…’Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?’” (2:27-30) 

A faithful Eli is suddenly followed by an unfaithful Eli and a promise of punishment. The transition is very rough – just as we should expect from an historical account. People are messy compositions. However, myths smooth out these messy portraits to give us something to which we humans can easily respond.

In addition to this, the theology is also messy. It doesn’t seem to cohere. On the one hand, we are given the revelation of a good and just God. On the other, it seems that the Bible reveals to us a highly nuanced and confusing God. After Eli tried unsuccessfully to correct his sons, we are told that:

• His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death. (2:25) 

How just can this be! It seems that the sons didn’t have a chance. Instead, it seems that God coerced them to sin so that He could punish them! This is not in character with a human myth. Instead, this reflects a theological tension reflected throughout the breadth of Scripture. We recall how God had hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to accomplish His purposes, and how He gives people over to the corrupt desires of their hearts (Rom. 1:24-28).

However difficult that this might be to understand, this humanly troubling phenomenon reflects the divine consistency of the Bible rather than humanly constructed myths, created to justify a particular worldview.

The rough edges persist. God had chosen Samuel to be His prophet:

• The Lord was with Samuel as he grew up, and he let none of Samuel’s [prophetic] words fall to the ground. And all Israel from Dan to Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the Lord. The Lord continued to appear at Shiloh, and there he revealed himself to Samuel through his word. (3:19-21)

At this time, Israel was under the control of the Philistines masters and revolted against them. Humanly, we would think that now, with the respect that Samuel had finally commanded through God’s validation of his ministry, things would be different. However, Israel was badly defeated. In a desperate attempt to gain their independence, Israel took the ultimate step. They again went to war against the Philistines, this time carrying the Ark of God into battle. Never had the Ark failed them. However, again they were routed, and the Ark was captured.

How could God allow such a thing to happen! This event is so unlike pagan mythology where so much emphasis is placed on rituals and objects. However, the God of the Bible cannot be coerced or manipulated by any human techniques, sacred objects or rituals. This is because the Israelite God is not a man-centered god but a God who transcends our control and manipulations.

Meanwhile, the Ark brought death to the Philistines. Finally, realizing that it had been a curse to them, they returned it to Israel.

Israel’s rejoicing was just what we would have anticipated. However, to our great embarrassment, in the midst of the rejoicing, God punished them severely because they didn’t rejoice in the prescribed manner:

• But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the Lord. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the Lord had dealt them. And the people of Beth Shemesh asked, “Who can stand in the presence of the Lord, this holy God?” (6:19-20)

God had turned viciously against His own people for what seems to have been a minor infraction. From a human point of view, God’s action was repignant and unacceptable – not the substance of myths. Also, so many of the Biblical accounts directly contrast the Old Testament Apocrypha where we encounter fully comprehendible, heart-warming, pious stories.

In Second Samuel, we see the re-occurance of almost the same thing. Years later, after the godly David became king and decided to bring the sacred Ark up to Jerusalem, he had to struggle with the same perplexity:

• David and all Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord, with castanets, harps, lyres, timbrels, sistrums and cymbals. When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled.  The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God. Then David was angry because the Lord’s wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah.

From a human standpoint, God’s timing couldn’t have been worse, and David’s anger couldn’t have been any more understandable! It seemed that Israel was doing everything that they were supposed to have done, and, in the midst of this rejoicing, God brought punishment. What a way to end a celebration, and one that celebrated God Himself! This is very troubling and doesn’t seem to be the substance of human myth or story - telling.

However, there is a divine consistency here permeating the entirety of the Bible. There was no object as holy as the Ark of the Covenant. It had been sequestered in the Most Holy Place, where only the high priest could enter, and that was only once a year. Actually, it was not so much a matter of the Ark but its covering – the “atonement cover”:

• "Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household, and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering. He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the Lord and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain. He is to put the incense on the fire before the Lord, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover [“mercy seat;” KJV] above the Testimony [the Ten Commandments which had been placed in the Ark], so that he will not die.” (Leviticus 16:11-13)

Even the high priest was not allowed to look upon this cover – the lid to the Ark. In order to prevent this, it was covered by the wings of two huge gold cherubim. Also, the high priest had to bring an incense censor producing great billows of smoke into the Most Holy Place, lest he see the cover and die. This was the only object that carried with it the threat of death. God communicated to Israel, in this manner, that there was nothing holier or even more secret.

We later learn that the atonement cover, resting over the Covenant of the Law, represented the atonement of Christ (Romans 3:25), which had not yet been revealed in its fullness. Clearly, nothing was closer to the heart of our Lord. This represented the secret of His glory – that He would die for the sins of the world (John 12:23; 13:31). How this secret had to be guarded and sanctified until God was ready to reveal it!

Israel understood a bit of this. They understood that God had His boundaries that needed to be respected. However, they didn’t understand why. Instead, they were horrified by God’s seemingly arbitrary and severe judgments.

Although the Book of Samuel is thoroughly God-centered, it isn’t God-centered in a way we humans would invent. It’s certainly not the substance of myths! We do not find a God in the Bible created after the image of man, but a God who is often hostile to the things that we humans esteem.

Well, where was Samuel during all of this? After the debacle at Beth Shemesh, the Ark was taken to Kiriath Jearim where it remained for twenty years. This was followed by a great revival in which Samuel played an important role:

• Then all the people of Israel turned back to the Lord. So Samuel said to all the Israelites, “If you are returning to the Lord with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the Lord and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.” So the Israelites put away their Baals and Ashtoreths, and served the Lord only. Then Samuel said, “Assemble all Israel at Mizpah, and I will intercede with the Lord for you.”  When they had assembled at Mizpah, they drew water and poured it out before the Lord. On that day they fasted and there they confessed, “We have sinned against the Lord.”

Subsequently, God gave Israel victory over the Philistines, and along with victory, independence. Along with this, Samuel’s esteem grew. However, Israel rebelled against his leadership and wanted a king instead.

The circumstances are very nuanced and troubling. On the one hand, Israel had a legitimate grievance. Samuel’s sons were corrupt. How could this happen to the godly Samuel, especially in the wake of this great revival? We aren’t told. However, these troubling nuances are the substance of human history, not the substance of myth and imaginative stories.

On the other hand, Israel was beginning to lose their focus on God and wanted to be like other nations by having a king. What a disappointment and how unedifying! And after all they had been through! This would subsequently cost Israel dearly. (This is not the story I would write!)

What was motivating the author of Samuel? I have tried to argue that this book transcends normal human motivations. It’s messy. From a merely human perspective, it is all over the place, and consequently, it is a very unsatisfying read. However, from the perspective of New Testament revelation, it makes deep sense.

Did the author understand about what he had been writing? I would guess that he understood it only superficially. This is exacting what Peter wrote about prophetic revelation:

• Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

Even the angels did not understand. How much less the critics of our day!

Pope Francis, Atheists, and Salvation

Huffington Post writes that during his homily at Wednesday Mass in Rome:

• Pope Francis rocked some religious and atheist minds today when he declared that everyone was redeemed through Jesus, including atheists.

What did the Pope mean when he asserted that “everyone was redeemed through Jesus?” Simply that He had died for the sins of the world? Most Christians already believe that! But did the Pope mean that Jesus had actually saved the world from eternal condemnation through His redemption? HP quotes the Pope further:

• “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”

Pope Francis is certainly right that the disciples were intolerant and judgmental. They were always drawing the line in the wrong place. However, Pope Francis went further in his sermon to say:

• "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

While the Pope is correct that we all have the commandment to do good, it seems that the Pope is suggesting that Christ not only died for the sins of the world but that the world and has already received the benefits of this redemption, apart from faith, enabling everyone to live righteously.

Well, let’s put aside the question of what the Pope really meant and simply look at the question:

• What did Christ teach about the necessity of faith in Him? Did He teach that salvation and redemption could only be accessed through faith?

Jesus taught a lot about the necessity of having faith in Him:

• “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:14-16; also 5:24; 3:36)

Clearly, Jesus taught faith in Himself. However, did He teach that faith is necessary for salvation? After telling the crowds that were following Him that they needed to labor for eternal life:

• Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (John 6:28-29)

Jesus gave no hint that there were any other good deeds that would take the place of faith. Nor did He ever suggest, as many do today, that the Jews had their own covenant and therefore didn’t need to find salvation through Him:

• “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” (John 8:24; 12:44-48)

Even the Pharisees had to believe in Him to find salvation. There was no other means available (John 14:6)!

HP cites Reuters regarding other things that the Pope had stated:

• Atheists should be seen as good people if they do good, Pope Francis said on Wednesday in his latest urging that people of all religions - or no religion - work together.

However, none are good. That’s why, according to all Scripture, we need the Savior:

• As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one”…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:10-23) 

Can we ever be good enough to please God without faith – the acknowledgment that we need the mercy of God offered through the Savior? Scripture unequivocally tells us “no!”

• And without faith, it is impossible to please God. (Heb. 11:6)

Why is faith so critical to God? Without faith – the recognition of our utter spiritual poverty and need for His mercy – whatever good deeds we perform will simply make us arrogant and self-centered. A house can only be built on a solid foundation.

We do the atheist no favor by suggesting that they are good enough to obviate the need for faith in Christ. In fact, we simple enable them to continue to be hardened. In fact, one atheist Facebook group just wrote:

• Christians are furious at the Pope for saying that atheists can enter heaven. And I’m just sitting here not caring.

Perhaps they need to learn a lesson from Jodi Arias. When confronted with death, our self-confidence often evaporates.