All Day I Dream About Sex
Do you?
Well do you at least remember that song by Korn?
I just stumbled upon this website called “I am Second” which seems to be a bunch of testimonials of famous people who have come to the Lord. He was there and his is pretty powerful. You watch that and you realize that Jesus can reach anybody! He had all the pursuits the kosmos can throw at you … and it wasn’t enough. Now he has “it” because he knows the Lord and it sounds like his is really turned around and he’s become quite a person who loves and a doer of good things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_%22Head%22_Welch). Check it out:
http://www.iamsecond.com/#/seconds/Brian_Welch/
A Complaint about Grumbling
We were just at the Servant Team Retreat and were really blessed by some great teachings and fellowship centered on the joy that is found in the Lord. I for one was humbled by it all. What an awesome God we have! After I got home from the ST Retreat I watched the end of the Cavs game… and it was cool to see them win. But, then Katie and I caught the last 1/3 of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. What a contrast: the glory of the Cavs on their magnificent dominance of Detroit vs the glory that can only come from Aslan (the Christ figure) choosing to lay his life down for Edward, unbeknownst to all … the secret magic (ala John 10:18) that no one understood, but now has been revealed. Now, I love the Cavs and am rooting for them… but it falls way short of that which Christ has done for us.
Now back to joy, sort of. One of the passages discussed was Phil 2 and perhaps the greatest joy-killers of them all: grumbling and disputing (vs 14). Mostly Dennis talked about grumbling… which was just as well for me because though I put on an air of contentment, the fact is there is much restlessness in me below the surface. Things need to change or move quicker or be a certain way – or else I’m not happy! (For example, I wish people would just change and make the right decisions or be different, I want this Akron professor thing to be done yesterday …). One of the points Dennis made in reference to one who despairs over life was that he is very insulting to God… “all these complaints are saying what God has done is not good enough”. I may not be that depressed, but I’m certainly often not content with myself and my life. The way I am, what I have been given, the people around me are not good enough – how insulting that is! God doesn’t know what He’s doing? That’s silly, and yet it’s easy to start viewing things that way disguised by niceness.
So, tonight that got me to thinking … my complaint about grumbling is that if our grumblings and disputes which are directly or indirectly aimed at God are insulting to Him, and we actually come to grips with that (admit it) – what are we to do with the guilt?
Perhaps that is why we are to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” (vs 12). There needs to be a healthy realization and admission of my sinful rebellion which should result in some humility before God who is working in you to give “you the desire to obey him and the power to do what pleases him” (vs 13 – NLT). There’s no real guilt, or rather guilt trip, in that – that’s just the way it is. God’s cool with that, so should I. Let Him do His work. “Fear and trembling” enables me to get out of His way by not being so discontent with my petty or even not so petty complaints because the fact is I’d be in way worse shape without Him. And then I can be thankful and joyful for who He is and what He’s done. The result then is that we are “lights in the world” to a “crooked and perverse generation” (vs 15) – which is pretty cool, because then others can see Christ’s light shine through me/us.
Has Science Buried God… because if monkeys could type…?
In chapter 10, Lennox critiques Dawkins view that unguided natural processes can account for the origin of biological information. The idea put forward by Dawkins (a variant allegedly dating back to T.H. Huxley) is that a bunch of monkeys typing on type writers, if given enough time, paper, and energy, would eventually come up with a poem or even a whole book of Shakespeare’s. Now the odds of this happening randomly are astounding which is admitted by Dawkins as well. The solution for Dawkins is then to break the problem down into small manageable parts. The origin of life was not from purely chance processes, it must have started from something simple enough to arise by chance, but then there was a “cumulative sieving or selection process in which the results of one sieving process are fed into the next.” In other words, it is a combination of chance and necessity. In Dawkins example, there is a target phrase the monkeys are shooting for (“Methinks it is like a weasel” – from Hamlet), 28 monkeys in a row typing away, and one letter that each monkey has to get in the right sequence. When the monkey gets the required letter he’s done. Now if this were completely random (monkeys not knowing what letter they were shooting for) the odds of this happening are about 1 in 10 to the 31 power (1 followed by 31 zeros), i.e., extremely small. But with the qualifications that the monkeys know their target and stop, it would take about 43 tries to get the right answer.
Now remember that Dawkins is trying to prove that natural selection (a blind, mindless, unguided process) has the power to produce biological information. But what Dawkins introduces is a target phrase, a precise goal, and profoundly un-Darwinian as Dawkins admits. How could blind evolution see the target and compare what is generated with it? How could mindless evolution require inputs which bear all the marks of an intelligent mind? And Lennox concludes, “And ironically, the very information that the mechanisms are supposed to produce is apparently already contained somewhere within the organism, whose genesis he claims to be simulating by his process. The argument is entirely circular.”
Lennox astutely points out what is going on with Dawkins argument. Dawkins (and others) intelligently program their scenario “to remove the real problem they set out to solve”. There is no new information generated. All the information used to set up the problem dictates the outcome in a very simple and expected way. To increase the probability of getting the right answer (Methinks it is a weasel), Dawkins had to reduce the complexity of the problem. But evolution is supposed to be able to create greater complexity out of something less complex? Lennox is right, “Dawkins’ whole proposal thus turns out to be nothing but a further example of assuming what you claim to be proving”. Actually, the whole scenario put forward by Dawkins, as well as the others highlighted by Lennox, if anything, increases the “plausibility for intelligent design”.
Has Science Buried God… because it figured out the origin of the genetic code?
DNA, how important is it?
It dictates what we and every living thing become – but it is not life.
It is key to the formation of life out of non-life – but how did it become?
It holds perhaps the most foundational concept yet of our universe that has been discovered – information (knowledge) itself.
Lennox now moves into the genetic code and its origin in Chapter 8. I will not get into what DNA is, but at the heart of DNA are four chemicals that essentially form a code or a language (A, G, C, and T for Adenin, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine, respectively). Pairs of these chemicals (letters if you will – 3.5 billion for the human genome) form the rungs of a ladder (the double-helix structure) in a specific sequence that holds the information needed to form a living organism. The mechanism for how the information in DNA is communicated within in a living cell is so complicated that Lennox quotes evolutionary biologists John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary:
“The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal, and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence, or how life could have existed without it.”
And Lennox goes into some detail on what is known of the interworking of DNA. However, what I’m fascinated with is how did DNA ever come about in the first place? The indication from what is known is that DNA is dependent on life more so than the other way around which implies an “irreducible symbiosis” not capable of being explained by simplistic models of origins. The code is viewed as ancient and has not appeared to change for over 2 billion years. All living things use the same 64 word code. In addition, there does not appear to be a chemical cause for the ordering of the code (if so the information that was able to be communicated would be severely restricted).
Lennox then goes on in Chapter 9 to discuss different kinds of information, the complexity of information, and methods (e.g., algorithms) of simplifying information. You’ll have to read this if interested, but the bottom line is that “a DNA sequence… exhibits the specified complexity necessary for it to code that protein and is consequently algorithmically incompressible, and thus random from the mathematical point of view”. The significance of this is that “No law of nature could achieve this” (Paul Davies). We just have no category for how the information encoded in DNA is produced. Lennox goes on to say, “if chance and necessity, either separately or together, are not capable of biogenesis, then we must consider the possibility that a third factor was involved. That third factor is the input of information.”
Lennox admits this assertion raises many protests. It is an appeal to a ‘God of the gaps’-type solution. And admittedly this could be construed as lazy thinking … “we don’t know how it happened, therefore God did it”. However, as Lennox points out, “It is also very easy to say ‘evolution did it’ when one has not got the faintest idea how, or has simply cobbled up a speculative just-so story with no evidential basis… a materialist has to say that natural processes were solely responsible… As a result it is just as easy to end up with an ‘evolution of the gaps’ as with a ‘God of the gaps’… it is easier to end up with an ‘evolution of the gaps’… since the former solution is likely to attract far less criticism…”
At the heart of this discussion is the question, “whether molecular machines (of whatever kind) can generate novel information”. Brillouin, an information theorist, says “A machine does not create any new information, but it performs a very valuable transformation of known information.” In other words, whatever produces the information has to be more complex than the information produced.
Has Science Buried God… because it can explain how life originated?
Lennox now moves from biological evolution to the origin of life itself, i.e., molecular evolution. The neo-Darwinists of course adhere to the idea that life evolved from ‘blind, mindless, unguided’ processes (Dawkins). Now, before I get into it, one thing that has puzzled me is how “Darwinian Evolution” is extended (backwards) to, involved in, or spoken of in the same breath as the origin of life? Darwin wrote the “Origin of the Species” right. He provided a mechanism for the formation of more complex life forms via mutation and natural selection – which absolutely necessitates life to begin with. As discussed in the first half of the book, though this mechanism is evident in microevolution, speciation (macroevolution) is really not substantiated with any verifiable scientific evidence. It is even more of a stretch to extend it backwards to how life “evolved”.
In Chapter 7, Lennox discusses the origin of life. He quotes Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod who states that ‘the simplest cells available to us for study have nothing “primitive” about them… no vestiges of truly primitive structures are discernible’. One example of this would be the concept of ‘irreducible complexity’ (Behe) – that there exist parts (a drive shaft) of a single system (like a motor) that are integral to its function and which cannot evolve in a progressive fashion. Darwin himself admitted that ‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down’. Behe argues that there are many irreducibly complex machines in nature and that ‘molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority’ since there is not one publication in prestigious scientific journals or books that describes how molecular evolution of any real complex biochemical system either did occur or might have occurred. Behe’s taken quite a bit of heat for this, but it is true.
Lennox goes on to discuss the inadequacy (or perhaps futility) of the famous Stanley Miller experiment which was once heralded as a way that amino acids may have formed (the building blocks of the proteins that are the building blocks of DNA) to produce life. The biggest problem is the way in which proteins are built out of amino acids. The odds of this happening are staggering. The scientists answer is that there is some self-organizing principle at work to assemble the amino acids. What is hard to fathom is the complexity involved to assemble amino acids, not just in any order, but organizing them into a language-type of structure. As Paul Davies puts it, ‘Life is actually not an example of self-organization. Life is in fact specified, i.e. genetically directed, organization’. Something external has to act on it to get it to organize. What needs explaining according to Stephen Meyer is ‘the origin of information’.
Perhaps Francis Crick said it best, ‘The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going’.
Next time, we get into the genetic code itself.
Is Evolution God’s Undertaker?
That is the question that John Lennox addresses in his most recent book God’s Undertaker, Has Science Buried God? (Lion, Oxford: 2007). I’ve read about two-thirds of the book which is filled with so much excellent content I thought I better write some of it down before it goes in one end and out the other.
The beginning of the book discusses the question of whether naturalism (atheism - nature is all there is and explaining nature is all we can know) is demanded by science or was naturalism brought to science. Is naturalism itself a statement of faith? Or is naturalism something that will not hinder science compared to religion? Lennox does a good job of showing how modern science actually came into being because of practicing Christians (Whitehead’s thesis) such as Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, Babbage, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, and Clerk Maxwell (p. 20). His point that theists do not hinder the scientific process at all. However, the real conflict that exists is not between science and religion, it is between naturalism and theism; two diametrically opposed worldviews or philosophies (p. 27). He goes on to discuss the limits of science and really the faith that is inherent in the reductionistic thinking that science is all about1 as well as some arguments from design and the fine-tuning of the universe.
Evolution Confusion
What I found most useful so far was his chapter on “The nature and scope of evolution” (p. 98ff.). What actually is meant by evolution? Lennox gives five different variations:
- Change, Development, Variation - this just implies change without any implication as to mechanism or intelligent input. This is a very innocuous and uncontroversial use of the word. After all, things change.
- Microevolution - this is what Darwin observed himself on Galapagos which we see and measure everyday as bacteria become resistant to antibiotic drugs. One example used in many textbooks is that of the color of moths (light moths were more easily seen by predators, so darker moths were more fit survivors). This has been proven to be “wrong, innacurate, or at least incomplete”; however, it still is used in most modern textbooks. Microevolution though is a fact and can be demonstrated on many counts.
- Macroevolution - refers to large scale innovation (e.g., new organs, structures, body-plans, new genetic material) characterized by a marked increase in complexity. This is one of the areas where most of the controversy surrounding evolution exists. The gradualists (e.g., Dawkins and Dennet) would say that macroevolution is merely the extrapolation of microevolution.
- Artificial selection, for example, in plant and animal breeding - We of course see this in all our different doggies. There is considerable intelligent input here. Darwin would argue that what takes man a relatively short time would take nature a very long time. However, this provides no real evidence in and of itself for evolution by unguided processes.
- Molecular evolution - In reality, evolution presupposes the existence of self-replicating genetic material. Natural selection requires things to be living, prebiological natural selection is a contradiction. Molecular evolution is the term used to describe the living from the non-living. The fact that it uses the word evolution does obscure the fact that it is not Darwin’s evolution.
So the confusion comes in with what one actually means by evolution. If one says “I don’t believe in evolution”, then they would be taken as a fool, because 1, 2, and 4 clearly do occur and can be measured and verified. However, what typically happens is that people state that macroevolution occurs by natural selection, but the only real examples given are those of microevolution. What is interesting in all this is that for all of the examples of natural selection, nothing new was ever formed. What was selected was already there. There is nothing creative or innovative from what is known of natural selection. This flies in the face of the assertions made by Dawkins and other neo-Darwinists.
So really the question becomes, how far can microevolution go? Lennox has many quotes from many scientists who admit that there is no evidence for large evolutionary innovations — none have been observed, we don’t know if any are in process now, there are no good fossil records of any, we can’t really effectively exrapolate from what is known (microevolution). One emenent scientist, Pierre Grasse from France, notes that “fruit flies remain fruit flies in spite of the thousands of generations that have been bred and all the mutations that have been induced in them”. More recent work on E. coli bacteria has yielded no real innovative changes after 25,000 generations.
Clearly there are two clear reasons that negate the proposition by neo-Darwinists such as Dawkins, Lewontin, and Dennet that attribute macroevolution as fact similar to the fact that the earth orbits the sun:
- The earth is observed to orbit the sun - where birds or any other species actually came from has NEVER been observed
- The earth is observed REPEATEDLY to orbit the sun - as Lennox puts it, “to put an unobservable and unrepeatable phenomenon in the same category as an observable and repeatable one would seem to be such an elementary blunder… one cannot help wondering if … materialistic prejudice is overriding common (scientific) sense” (p. 108)
The evidence of the fossil record is so against gradual evolution it isn’t even contested by paleontologists. All that is observed in the fossil records is stasis (no real change in a species during their existence on earth) and a sudden appearance — not by steady or gradual transformation from it’s ancestors, they appear “fully formed”. That is why Gould and Elderedge came up with the theory of “punctuated equilibrium” - the existence of sudden large macroevolutionary jumps (whatever that is).
The final discussion of this chapter was on “common descent”. This is actually a more powerful technique for determining common ancestry which is the structure of the DNA sequences in a collection of organisms. The similarities in the DNA sequences can be used as well an evidence for design. Stephen Meyer (quoted by Lennox) makes a good point, “postulating an unobserved designer is no more unscientific than postulating unobserved macroevolutionary steps.”
That is all for now. But knowing these different aspects of evolution and what is really known is essential in dialoguing with folks on this issue.
- The idea that we can understand things down at their smallest parts and then explain more complicated things (bottom up thinking) - for example one limitation is akin to the analogy that I may know all of the materials that are contained in my house, but with that knowledge alone, could I really predict how they would be put together to form my house? In fact, you really would have to start with the raw materials used to make the building materials, or the molecules used to make those raw materials, or the atoms… From just that knowledge could you predict how the building materials (the higher up process) would be fabricated? — It’s not that reducing things to their smallest parts is wrong. It is essential to science. But it does have it limitations in being able to explain higher level processes just from what is known of the smallest parts. [↩]
A Blast from the Past
Yesterday I got a call from Ed Stefinides. Ed goes way back in Xenos-Cleveland, there’s probably a few of us who still remember Ed. He was a friend of Scott, who I was living with in Cleveland Hts, and Ed loved to play basketball, so we hit it off right from the start. Ed’s one of the funnest guys you’ll ever meet. He ended up coming to the Lord after a number of discussions and HC meetings back in 1987 or 1988. Unfortunately, some painful issues came up and there was a parting of the ways. Ed and I would still keep in contact every few years.
It probably had been about 5 or 6 years since I heard from Ed and then there he was, yesterday giving me a call. It ends up that Ed is getting baptized next week. He now lives in Youngstown (after living in Indiana for a while), has a new wife and a bunch of boys. He’s involved in the Old North Church in Youngstown and has been getting it on with the Lord the last few years and has decided to get baptized. It warms my heart that he invited me to baptize him and to see the way that the Lord has rekindled his and Ed’s relationship.
It just goes to show you how “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9), that whenever we turn back to the Lord to trust and relate with Him, He is there with open arms, just like the Father of the Prodigal Son.
The Law and Gospel, What’s the Big Deal?
Being good is important, right? God gave the 10 commandments as some sort of guide for how we should behave, didn’t He? Jesus said the whole Law would be fulfilled and warns those who “annul the least of these commandments” and teaches others to do so will be the least in the kingdom (Matt 5:17-19). That is a pretty strong statement about the importance of the Law. So, what does it mean to when Paul says we are no longer “under law” (e.g., Rom 6:14, Gal 4:21) or “under the law” (e.g, 1 Cor 9:20, Gal 3:23)? This seems contradictory and at least on the surface leaves one confused as to what to do with the 10 Commandments. Not surprising, this is a controversial topic within Christianity and is not just an academic exercise in theology. Rather it ultimately effects how we relate to God and grow spiritually, i.e., sanctification. Should we just behave, which would be the safe route I guess. But if we do that are we missing out on something God wants to give us: freedom (Gal 5:1)?
The role of the Law as it pertains to spiritual growth polarizes Christians. Many Christians, if not most, view the Law as a means of growth for the Christian. Sort of a continuation of what God started with Moses and Israel that will be followed for eternity. This view is most prominent, but not exclusively, in reformed theology: the view that God’s covenants build upon one another and are more or less binding from when they were given and forward into history. The other camp holds that Christ ushered in a New Covenant (NC) that replaced the Old Covenant (OC) that he had given through Moses to the nation Israel. Part of this new covenant is a break from the Law as it applied to Israel, the practical outworking of their faith. Instead, we are now to follow Christ in relationship with a focus and emphasis on following the Holy Spirit with the practical outworking being to love others. This view is most prominent, but not exclusively, in dispensational theology, the view that God has operated in different dispensations throughout history to bring about His plan for salvation. In this case the dispensation of the Law being replaced by the dispensation of grace, the former age being the time when God worked through Israel and the latter age being the time that God works through the church.
So, what does the Bible say? What should be our focus? In the book Five Views of Law and Gospel (ed. S.N. Gundry; Zondervan, 1996), five different views of the law and it’s relation to the gospel of Christ are presented covering a wide range of perspectives. Five different authors give their views:
· William VanGemeren presented “The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ: A Reformed Perspective”
· Greg L. Bahnsen presented “The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel”
· Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. presented “The Law as God’s Gracious Guidance for the Promotion of Holiness”
· Wayne G. Strickland presented “The Inauguration of the Law of Christ with the Gospel of Christ: A Dispensational View”
· Douglas Moo presented “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View”
I have already commented on the first two views in an earlier blog which present the reformed view. Kaiser, though not a reformed theologian per se, also sides with the reformers in large part on this issue. The latter two authors take the opposing view that the Law as a means of growth or a guide was discontinued in the NC for the Christian, Strickland coming from the dispensational viewpoint and Moo, though not claiming to be a dispensationalist, presenting a similar perspective. I will draw from the last two articles and the interaction and debate between the authors in response to one another.
Everyone agrees with the fact that the Law is good, pronounces God’s morality, conveys God’s character, shows us what sin is, and convicts us of our sin. But is the Christian still to follow the Law today as a means of growth or not?
As I read through this book, a number of questions and issues were raised in my mind:
· How does one account for the passages that advocate discontinuity between the OC and the NC? Does it pertain to ceremonial and civil parts of the Law or the whole law? (see my earlier blog)
· What exactly is the Law? Is it just a summary or is it precisely the eternal, binding unchanging moral law of God? Is the New Commandment to love one another (John 13:34) the same as the 10 Commandments or different?
· Is the Law something that we must follow or can we just learn from it? If we don’t follow the Law or if we are not under the law, can we still apply it and if so, how?
· When I obey a moral command, am I following the law or am I trusting in God in what He says is right and trustworthy? Is there a difference?
· Where does a law-focus or law-emphasis in sanctification lead you? Can a law-focus ever not lead to legalism?
The Law as a Means of Growth View
The reformer seems to think that without the Law a Christian will not know how to behave. The focus or emphasis in their arguments, whether admitted or not, is on the need for moral living, rather than life by the Holy Spirit[1]. For example, VanGemeren asks in response to Strickland’s discontinuous position, ‘how do you live out Micah 6:8?’:
“… O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”.
The reformed answer he says is we still need the 10 Commandments “as the revealed summary of God’s will”. In this light 1 Tim 1:8-10, to use the law “lawfully”, should be applied to our hearts (p. 287). Since we are not in our eternal state, we experience the struggle of Paul (Rom 7:21-25, p. 288). But I am to look to God’s grace and serve people in the Spirit in preparation of His coming. This is conveyed by Peter in 1 Pet 1:13-16 which confirms the relevance of the law in our daily life since Peter quotes from Lev 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:7 (p. 289).
However, is it not odd that the law is not for the righteous in 1 Tim 1:8, but for the ungodly and lawless (vs 9-10)? The passage is not applied to sanctification. Is Paul’s struggle in Rom 7 because he is not trying to follow the Law hard enough or because he does not know the Law well enough? Paul probably knew and followed the Law better than any other sinful human (Phil 3:6). Or is it because he is focused on the Law and trying to do God’s morality on a performance basis, and it does not work (see Gal 3:21)? Is Peter’s emphasis on “being holy” (vs 15)? Or is it to “focus your hope completely on grace” (vs. 13), not on the Law. When we focus on grace, then we will experience something outward that sets us apart from the fallen world.
Reformers also see or desire a continuous approach or God-imposed moral unity to adhere to that extends from OT to NT. For example, Jesus’ “new commandment” is not something really something new or different, it represents the finalized form that brings greater “moral clarity” to the original Mosaic Law (Bahnsen, p. 103). Also, the NC prophecy of Jeremiah that “I will put My Law within them and on their heart I will write them” (Jer 31:31) is the Mosaic Law, according to VanGemeren, that Israel failed to follow and was rebuked for in Jer. 6:19, 9:13, 16;11 (p. 285).
However, is that how the NT describes Jer 31:31? The NT quotes Jer 31:31-34 five times:
- Luke 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25 in reference to the Last Supper (communion) – “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”. It’s obvious that the NC came about because Jesus shed His blood for us, opening up the opportunity for relationship with intimacy established through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13).
- 2 Cor 3:6 – contrasting “the letter” presumably the law, i.e., a performance-based approach to God, with live in the Spirit through which Christ gives us life (e.g., John 4:10; 7:38; 10:10)
- Heb 8:8-12 – here Hebrews brings out the fact that Israel failed in being able to carry out the Law. Will we fare any better? Not by focusing on the Law. Rather because we will “know the Lord” intimately. We will not have need for a teacher or at least be completely dependent on one as in the OC, rather we are led directly by Christ (our High Priest – Heb 8:1). Though not explicit in the passage, I think this is of course through the HS in the context of the Body of Christ. We still learn from one another and some are gifted at disclosing God’s truth, but it’s different because we have the Spirit. The OC is obsolete (vs 13).
- Heb 10:16,17 – Here the HS testifies to us (vs 15) and he quotes Jer 31:33-34. Again signifying the NC was because our sins were dealt with through Christ and now we have confidence to boldly enter into intimate relationship with Him (vs 19ff).
Where is there any hint that this is the same as the 10 Commandments? Again, it’s certainly not that the 10 Commandments are bad or useless, but they are not the focus in the Christian life!
The Law as a Means of Growth, Discontinued
Though Strickland and Moo had much to say on the role of the Law throughout history, I found two arguments, one from each, most compelling as to the role, or rather lack thereof, of the Law in the believers life.
Strickland’s section on “Arguments for Discontinuity” (pp. 262-275) brought out the strong emphasis in the NT that the OT role of the Law in the believer’s life was discontinued for the NT believer. Many passages make this point clear. Strickland emphasizes these (some of which I’ve already used above):
· Heb 8:8-9,13 - quoting Jer 31 the author explicitly states that the OC was abrogated
· Rom 6:14-15 – Paul presents a contrast between being under law and under grace (see below in Moo’s study of “under law”)
· Rom 10:4 – “Christ is the end of the law”, i.e., law-based righteousness is now replaced with righteousness that comes from Christ so that the law is no longer necessary for this purpose
· 2 Cor 3:3, 6-18 – though not explicitly arguing about the Law, Paul clearly contrasts that written in stone with that which is now written on our hearts
· Phil 3:7-9 – Paul contrasts two different types of righteousness: either from adherence to the Mosaic Law or by faith. Paul’s old way, the way of the OC, was replaced by the new way in Christ through a relationship with Him because of what He has done for me.
Moo’s approach was to follow the role of the Law in Salvation-History much of which was very enlightening[2]. The one thing I will bring out here was the very emphatic reference of Paul to Christians no longer being “under law” or “under the law”. Paul uses these phrases eleven times: Rom 6:14,15; 1 Cor 9:20 (4 times); Gal 3:23; 4:4-5, 21; and 5:18. Moo goes through all of them and clearly shows that the context of each passage views the “law” as the Mosaic Law. Reformers have to dance around this and make a big deal that the definite article wasn’t used (e.g., in Rom 6:14 – Bahnsen, p. 106). However, in all the other passages the “the” is used with the exception of Gal 4:21. In my earlier blog I make reference to the lack of importance of the definite article from Moo’s comments on Bahnsen’s article. The other thing reformers try to do is say that the reference to the law really is a reference not to the 10 Commandments but to misuse of the 10 Commandments by the Judaizers. But again, that is not what Paul is referring to when he quotes from the Law in the context of those passages (see the earlier blog on this point as well). The fact is “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” (Gal 5:21).
Concluding Thoughts
Has the Law continued into the church as a focus for Christian living or was it abrogated with the New Covenant? I think it pretty obvious that role has been abrogated. What then of the Law? Is it still useful? Of course, it is the Word of God! Like all Scripture (2 Tim 3:16) it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”. We do learn much of God’s morality and character from the Law and it plays an important role in God’s dealing with Israel and shows us clearly of our sin and need for God. It seems to me that there is either some kind of fear that if we don’t emphasize the Law we will circle the drain morally or we are not giving glory to God as we should. But “perfect love casts out fear” (1 Jn 4:18). And that is the focus, the commandment that Christ has now given us (John 13:34, 15:12,17), which can only come about from having our hearts turned inside out from a self-serving, self-seeking approach to a Spirit led dependence-on-God approach (i.e., the flesh – see Rom 6 through 8).
For example, “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13). I can go about on my own and make that happen for the most part, at least so far I have. But have I? Christ of course enlightens us to the heart attitude to show us that is what God sees.
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. – Matt 5:22
Now I’m in trouble. I’m in need of either some help or I deserve hell, because I have done that… many times. In fact, I still do. And that is the real dilemma, we still do sin and we still experience “death”. Like Paul says:
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. – Gal 3:21
The “life” that Christ gives can only come from a focus on Him and His provision through an empowering relationship of the Spirit. What a waste to focus on “morality” when morality can only be obtained when my heart gets changed.
So what do I do with a commandment to not murder or covet or commit adultery? Should I ignore them? No, but we should recognize that “just doing it” or even concentrating on it doesn’t work and typically leads to more and more guilt and sin. We need to go to the Lord and recognize our sin nature and apply who we are in Christ, dependence in Him and His power – and then step out in faith and live (love - e.g., Gal 5:13ff or Phil 3:12ff). This will bring glory to God.
[1] Even Kaiser, who is critical of the Reform view for replacing Israel with the church is critical of the dispensationalist for replacing the character of God as found in the Law with the character of Christ. “Love will never tell us what we are to do in order to live and behave as God wants us to” (p. 303). Bahnsen’s article is almost focused on the importance of being and preserving the morality of God in our lives and our government.
[2] One point that I am critical of Moo on and which actually caught me by surprise was his view that Romans 7 refers to Paul as a non-Christian. All of the other authors were also critical of him on this as well.
Greg and Lina’s Excellent Adventure Part II: China
Shanghai:
Well China is quite the place. We arrived in Shanghai and I was taken for a ride. This guy conned me into a cab ride that cost about $50 when I should have paid only about $20. There are also thousands of street salesmen who come up to westerners wanting to know if you would like to buy a watch or a bag. I’ve never seen so many “Rolex” watches in all my life. Welcome to the big city.
And a big city it is. Immense! Modern skyscrapers make up this city of about 20 million people (nearly as many as in all of Taiwan). I guess the Chinese government decided about 25 years ago they wanted to make Shanghai the most modern city and they pretty much did it and there is still a lot they are still doing. Everyone you meet seems to be very proud of Shanghai. One gentlemen at the conference, from another province, informed me that “Shanghai is much more modern than Taipei” when he heard I was in Taipei the week before.
… and the subways… We went on the subway at rush hour one evening with our new found friends Tom and Mellanie from California (formerly of Richmond Heights) and were utterly amazed at the masses of people. There are no orderly rules as to right of way or “personal space”. You just have to go and cram into the subway as best you can. Being smaller does have its advantages here.
I mostly was stuck in the conference. Lina was able to go on several tours got to know Shanghai much better then I.
What most amazed me though was the appeal of the cosmos. Here you do not see temples or many forms of worship. Mao cleared out the great majority of them. Instead, they have been replaced with the god of prosperity and materialism. In some respects, Shanghai is the most capitalistic environment I’ve ever seen. People are really chasing the “American Dream” and at the moment seem to be getting it. It’s all about progress, and yet are they just replacing, or mixing, the ideal of the state with the ideal of the individual. Both leave you lonely and ultimately fulfilled without a relationship with the creator of the universe.
I wonder how this will affect the progress of the church. There are few outward expressions of religion on the streets of Shanghai. We only saw one old church. When we brought up Christianity, Jesus or the Bible there really was not much response at all.
Xi’an:
The last few days we spent in Xi’an, the ancient capital of China. We arrived Saturday night after a long delay at the Shanghai airport due to bad weather in Xi’an. Sunday we toured the city with “John”, a graduate student from Northwest Polytechnic University. Even though it was cold we had a great time seeing the Terracotta Warriors (thousands of ceramic warriors prepared for Emperor Qin, the first emperor to unify all of China). It was truly impressive. Too bad Emperor Qin couldn’t take all those guys with him into the next life. We also had some great food and toured the Museum of Shanxi province. Later that evening we visited the Tang Paradise with Prof Hui Mei and his wife Feng-Li Peng. They were great fun. The Tang Paradise is a replica of the Tang dynasty palace. We also saw a “Chinese Opera” or perhaps ballet that was quite colorful as well as a “Water movie”. The water movie was pretty amazing as they actually projected a movie in water spouts on this lake at night.
Xi’an is a city of only a few million. It was more industrial and was overcast or foggy most of the time, but it did have more of a feel of real China I think compared to Shanghai. Things were not quite as advanced as Shanghai, but this city as well has much construction going on.
The last day I visited the university and gave a talk. It was well received and there were many questions from the students … so I must have made some sense. I was impressed with the English of many of the Chinese, it seems much better than most other East Asians I meet.
In Xi’an there wasn’t a hint of the church as far as we could see. I wonder how it’s doing. Our hosts didn’t really have much to say or didn’t want to say anything on the matter.
Greg and Lina’s Excellent Adventure Part I: Taiwan
Well the first leg of our adventure is over :(. We arrived in Taiwan late last Wednesday, dealt with jet lag the next couple days in the Taipei area and spent the last three days with the Gibsons in Chiayi Taiwan … and thoroughly enjoyed it! What cool servants of the Lord the Gibsons are and how they fit in to the Chiayi scene. It was a blast to tool around town on scooters, eat interesting food, see how the Gibsons have mastered the language and can converse/joke around with the locals, hear about what they are doing, meet some of their team and the people they are reaching out to, and fool around with their high school group.
Taiwan, not surprisingly, is so different than the West. The language of course is so different and takes a major effort to master (2 years of dedicated study says Seann). Though we have many Chinese restaurants in the US, seeing the fish and various other animal and plant life displayed and cooked in a number of different ways is fascinating… and the variety of dishes (or bowls) we tried were delicious! Most unique and very dark is their dedication to the worship of different gods of their region and their enslavement to ancestor worship. We were able to see a large celebration of several of the local temples and even attend a “banquet of the gods”. The gods had not yet shown up to the banquet. But the spread for them was quite impressive. Who will eat all the delicious deserts, booze, and smoke the pipes that were laid out for them?
The most hideous of their beliefs, though is ancestor worship. They believe that if their children do not worship them after they die then they will drift around in the ghost world. Consequently, every subsequent generation is enslaved to worship their parents after they die; otherwise they will cause their parents to live in this awful state. So much is tied to this including some messed up family relationships and especially abusive men. If any place needed love ethics, this is the place! How Christ could free them from this enslavement if they are willing to turn to Him. But, it’s so difficult for them to see their need for Christ alone because they are predominantly polytheists and they have no concept of sin and the need for forgiveness. Nearly the whole country (at least 98%) is caught up in this dark and evil worldview and even higher percentages in the working class with whom the Gibsons are working.
Interestingly, many similarities are shared with the US. This is a capitalistic country and they are relatively wealthy. There are few poor, food is plentiful, and the country has most modern amenities. They can thank the US for that. What was interesting was that even though they have adopted the worship of the almighty dollar (dollars are also the national currency, but a Taiwan $ is worth about 0.33 US $), they did not adopt the worship of the Christian God. Some have thought that the spread of democracy and capitalism should result in the adoption of other Western beliefs and morality. Instead, their wealth has emboldened the people to adhere more strongly to their ancestral beliefs and cultural practices. The mob rules, especially in Chiayi which results in a relatively “safe”, low crime environment, but prostitution and gambling rackets are the norm for society and are the playground for the men in particular. One result of the prosperity is that women are more educated now and in some cases able to make it on their own. Amy leads a Bible study group with a few single ladies who have come to the Lord. One problem is that there really aren’t too many Christian guys to marry which leaves them in a somewhat precarious position… something to pray about.
An interesting aspect of their culture is the way schools are run. Jr high and high schools meet from about 7:30AM to 5:00PM for school (11 months of the year, six days a week). Then they have to go to “cram school” an hour or two later for another few hours to help study for exams. You high schoolers think you have it rough! As a result you just have kids roaming the streets for an hour or two. This is where a great opportunity for the gospel exists. The Chiayi team was essentially given a store front in the city and opens it up each evening in between regular school and cram school to high schooler’s they are reaching out to. We were there Friday night and about seven kids showed up which was low because that was one of the off nights. Although they are only there for about an hour, it’s a pretty cool scene and the kids really seem to enjoy hanging out. Out of this social scene Seann has been able to get a group of high school guys to meet Tuesday nights for a Bible study at his house. .. something else to pray about.
We also enjoyed many great conversations about more stuff going on with the mission in Taiwan, about NEO Xenos, and about our efforts to learn more about missions and be a sending church in the not too distant future. Maybe next month we can talk about some of these things at the Missions Prayer Meeting. Well, that’s enough for now… it is on to Shanghai.
