“Why do some churches object to wine since the Bible indicates that it is a gift from God (Psalm 104:14-15)?18 How can they continue to object even when they acknowledge that Jesus turned water into wine? Is this anything more than a holdover from prohibition? In fact, the Bible promotes drunkenness in Proverbs 31:6-7.”

I must admit that the last sentence of this one caught me a little bit off guard….the Bible promoting drunkenness?

The verse in context is:

“It is not for kings, O Lemuel, not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.”
- Proverbs 31:4-7 (NIV)

This seems, at least at first glance, to be a warning against drunkenness for people in positions of responsibility. The verse with the reading “those who are perishing” was understood by the Jews to mean those being put to death. This is seen in the New Testament when Jesus is hanging on the cross, and they offer him what amounts to a first-century anesthetic - mixed wine.

As for the rest of the question, I believe the author of the question has hit the nail on the head. I’m not sure if it’s a holdover from prohibition, but I can’t see any Biblical grounds upon which one could claim that drinking wine is out-and-out wrong.

No Comments »

“Why do Christians pray about whether to marry someone, when Paul says that if they want to get married they should just do it (1 Corinthians 7)?”

I have to assume that this question has to do with whether or not the Christian should marry a particular person, rather than whether or not to get married in general. Let’s assume this reading, and look at the text in question:

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
- 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (NASB)

This text is not a “just do it” text, not by any stretch of the imagination. This text states that it is good to be unmarried, but that it is perfectly acceptable to get married. It does not, however, state that you should just rush out and get married.

If for no other reason than one of practicality, you should probably attempt to find a good marriage partner. Some (or much) prayer will most likely be involved there, as it should be in all important decisions. Once you find that partner, however, go ahead and get married. It’s that simple.

If the question is actually about whether or not to marry or remain celibate (as those are the two Biblical options), prayer should definitely be involved there as well. If you have desires that lead you toward marriage, but for some reason feel you’re called to remain unmarried, either you need to get married or you need to have peace with being celibate. Either way, it should be a matter of prayer.

No Comments »

I’m going to take some time to go over some of the more basic apologetic tools that we have. This post (and a few following) will handle the answer to the question, “How do we know that God exists?” There are a number of ways to address this question; the one we’ll be looking at today is called the “cosmological argument”.

The cosmological argument, as it’s name somewhat implies, is an argument that appeals to the cosmos, or the universe. We have a pretty advanced understanding of much of science, physics, theories of gravitation, etc. We know that the universe is much bigger than our planet, and that the universe operates on what appear to be certain rules of order. Furthermore, we can generally agree that the universe as we know it seems to have had a defined beginning. Even scientists agree on this point. Big Bang theorists put the beginning about 15 or so billion years ago; creationists use a smaller number of around 6000-7000 years ago, but they all agree - the universe seems to have had a beginning.

Now….why is this important?

An important question in philosophy deals with the concept of causality. Something that has a beginning came into being because of a cause of some sort. For example, if you have a tree house, that came into being because somebody thought it would be nice to have a tree house. They then probably bought the boards, nailed them together, built a ladder, etc. Or if your favorite antique vase is on the kitchen floor shattered into a billion tiny pieces, it means it got knocked off the counter. We may not know what the cause is, but it’s broken. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that the treehouse sprang into existence without any help, or that the vase fell and broke independent of any outside force. It’s something we know instinctively - things have causes.

This concept finds expression in a key law of physics - the law of inertia. The law of inertia simply states that things stay the same unless acted upon by some outside force. Eventually a rolling ball will stop, but only because friction acts upon it. If there were no friction, the ball could conceivably roll forever. That same ball at rest will not begin rolling unless some outside force interacts with it to make it move.

Based on the idea of causality, there must be a first cause (or possibly even first causes, but we’ll stick with one for this argument). We should then be able to trace everything that’s happened up until now back to the beginning (in theory, anyway - not in practice), and come up with that first cause. This cause must itself be uncaused, otherwise it wouldn’t be the first cause - we’d have to go at least one more step back. Some early philosophers, such as Plato, speculated that this “uncaused cause” was a being known as the Prime Mover. We as Christians would agree with this; the Prime Mover is God.

Why is the “uncaused cause” exempt from the “everything has a cause” rule? The rule states that all things have causes because they have beginnings. For instance, your vase was once whole. Now it’s broken. There is a beginning to the vase being broken. There was even a period of time when that vase didn’t exist; it hadn’t been made yet. So there’s a beginning to the vase as well. The uncaused cause must be something that does not have a beginning.

Philosophers would refer to such a thing as something that contains within itself “the power of being” or that it is “self-existent”. This is to say that the uncaused cause exists not because of something that enabled it to be, but because it just is. To the best of my knowledge, the fact that there is an uncaused cause is not seriously debatable - something, somewhere, somehow must be self-existent, or nothing would exist.

So to summarize the argument:

1) Something must be self-existent, or nothing would exist.
2) All events have causes
3) We can therefore trace everything back to the first cause
4) The first cause must be whatever it is that’s self-existent
5) Since we agree that the universe had a beginning, the universe can’t be self-existent
6) Therefore there is something or someone that caused the universe.
7) That someone is God.

I must note here that this argument deals purely with necessity and causality; it doesn’t attempt to prove that the God is the God of the Bible. That’s a secondary question to be handled with other apologetic methods and arguments. This argument simply makes the statement, “there is a God.”

There is one standard objection to this argument. People will sometimes suggest that the universe is, in actuality, self-existent. Since these people are typically somewhat scientific in their worldview, their argument usually requires that they fit the Big Bang or some other explosive cosmological event into their framework.

If you run into such a person, it can be illustrative to ask them what caused the Big Bang. Then ask them what caused that. Repeat as necessary. If they make a claim that sounds odd, ask them what proof they have. The idea here is not to beat them over the head and make them feel stupid, but to sequentially (and politely) illustrate that their beliefs are just that - beliefs. As are yours. That makes the playing field level, and means you can engage in honest debate.

As always, I’d like to hear any questions/comments/thoughts you may have. Drop me a line!

No Comments »

In our last post we talked about inerrancy. Inerrancy means, to put it simply, that the Bible is free from error. There is another concept that’s closely related to inerrancy called “infallibility”. Infallibility means that the Bible “cannot fail”, or is reliable in what it teaches us.

Something can be inerrant for a variety of reasons. It can be inerrant by pure dumb luck. For example, if you give me a complex math problem, I can pick a random number out of the air for an answer. If the answer is correct, it’s inerrant - but not due to any skill on my part. It can also be inerrant because the speaker knows their subject and is authoritative. Ask that same question of a skilled mathematician, and the answer will likely be inerrant - this time because of the skill and knowledge of the mathematician.

An answer can also be inerrant, but misleading - this is where an answer is given that’s “technically correct”, but may not be complete. Or it can be considered inerrant because it contains correctly reported incorrect information. An example of that would be, “Joe said that the sky was yellow yesterday at noon.” It may be true that Joe said that, but his statement was false if the sky was not in fact yellow.

Infallibility means that if the Bible speaks about a subject, it cannot be incorrect and it doesn’t deceive or mislead. The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy states in part that the Bible:

“is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.”

It clarifies the definition of infallibility as follows:

“lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.”

This follows with the statements of Jesus:

“and Scripture cannot be broken”
- John 10:35b (ESV)

“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished”
- Matthew 5:18 (ESV)

You’ll note that Jesus isn’t suggesting that Scripture might not be broken.  He’s not saying that some of Scripture can’t be broken.  He’s stating categorically that the texts that were written can’t be broken.  It’s just not possible. 

The Bible therefore teaches that its infallibility and inerrancy provides a solid foundation for our faith, as well as a reliable guide for daily living.  This is one of the foundational principles of Christianity.

No Comments »

In response to a reader question, I’m going to be beginning a short series covering some of the fundamentals of Christianity (and, by extension, Christian life).  Today I’ll be talking about the topic of inerrancy, and what the Bible teaches about the subject.

All the word “Inerrancy” means is that something is without error. If you hand in your math homework and all of the answers are correct, your math assignment is inerrant.    In the case of the Bible, “inerrancy” is the belief that the Bible was communicated and written down just the way God said it in the first place.  The Bible itself states this in 2 Timothy:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16, ESV)

Here we have the apostle Paul stating that all Scripture is “breathed out by God”.  In other words, it should be treated as if the words on the page are God speaking directly to us.  There is no mention of passages that we might want to exclude, or passages that would be profitable with a little bit of revision - it states clearly, “all Scripture”.

Of course, at the time of Paul’s writing “all Scripture” would have meant the Old Testament, and would not logically have included Paul’s own writings.  But the book of 2 Peter affirms that Paul’s writings have the same standing as the Old Testament:

“And count lthe patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.  There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:15-16, ESV)

By stating, “as they do the other Scriptures”, the author of 2 Peter is stating that Paul’s writings are also, in fact, Scripture.  The statement wouldn’t make any sense otherwise.

This teaching comes with a qualifier, however.  Let’s look at it again, “the Bible was communicated and written down just the way God said it in the first place.”  The key here is the phrase “in the first place”.  It’s widely accepted that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible (except the part at the end of Deuteronomy where Moses dies, which would have logically been finished by somebody else - possibly Joshua).  God spoke to Moses, and Moses wrote.  We believe that what Moses wrote was inerrant.

It’s always possible that further copying of the Hebrew and the process of translating the Hebrew into English could produce errors.  That’s why many Biblical scholars are so focused on the discovery of ancient manuscripts - if we have more and older copies of the text, we can be more confident of what the text originally said.  In fact, according to “A General Introduction To The Bible” by Norman Geisler and William Nix, the amount of New Testament text that’s open to any real dispute is only about 400 words - none of them critical to any core teaching of Christianity.

This desire for the best possible text is also why Bibles aren’t typically translated by a single individual. Most Bible translation are the work of a committee of experts in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic that spend a large amount of time reading, re-reading, discussing, and agreeing upon a good translation for each word or phrase. Biases on the part of individual translators are more likely to be weeded out by the intense review process. Thus our English Bibles aren’t inerrant, but the conservative translations are very reliable and trustworthy for in-depth study.

This only serves to reinforce our confidence in the basic belief that the Bible we have has been well-preserved through the ages, and that we can trust it to be free from error.

In my next post, I’ll be handling a topic closely related to inerrancy - infallibility. Stay tuned!

No Comments »