| Part I: Beginning (Unavoidable) Beliefs
My reason for writing this booklet is simply to share my fallible faith with others, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.
I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice :).
An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).
The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective.
These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:
1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The Old Testament (OT) says in Exodus 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).
2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2 Corinthians 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1CR 13:9&12 cited previously). [From this point biblical books in parentheses will be abbreviated.]
3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me:)
Having established three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, in Part II the present study “begins” in the midst of this writer’s life and learning by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice).
Part II: Two Watershed Choices
Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?
Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).
The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason. This answer seems more appealing to me and almost logically imperative (cf. Part IV), although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. MT 13:14-15).
I call the first type of answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. I call the second way of believing moralism, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense (cf. Part III) that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (which means for ending KOTH:).
The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. GN 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide, although the analogy breaks down at the points the various oceans connect. (Watershed divide: Moralism or Nihilism?) A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.
The second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be four main viewpoints: the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. GN 11:4), there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. GL 6:7), there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. RM 2:14), or a supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (biblical and especially NT monotheism or simply theism or belief in one God, cf. GN 17:1 & Part III).
Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?) The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.
Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. MT 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.
Pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in MT 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (MT 28:5-7, if it occurred) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.
The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, which reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving. (The NT concept of God is described more fully in Parts III and IV, but at this point see 1TM 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in JN 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (RM 1:25).
The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1). A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.” Alternatively, the Bible indicates that the purpose of this life is rather for humans to prove to God they are worthy of—or qualify for—heaven (cf. DT 6:16 & MT 4:7).
This discussion shows that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2CR 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. (For reasons explained in the next parts, I believe the last is best: Let there be God!)
Part III: New Testament Theism
Atheists claim there is no more evidence for the existence of God, the Creator and Judge of humanity, than for the reality of obviously fictional entities, such as Odin or unicorns. However, four types of evidence or reasoning may be viewed as supporting rational belief in God, although they do not prove He exists: the unique universe, theocentric human history, existential need and moral conscience.
Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a marble of matter or a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.
Current knowledge of world history suggests that humanity descended from one genetic source and evolved into various cultures. Throughout history humanity has perceived deity to be the ground of meaning and morality. Theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God, who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. HB 12:10).
Current existential reality indicates that mortals need God in order to obtain immortality, that morality needs God for a universal imperative and ultimate justice, and that the NT offers the best hope that this “duo of desirables” (DOD) or heaven and justice/hell can be attained. Just as physical needs are satisfied by material realities, perhaps our metaphysical needs indicate the reality of supernatural solutions (the God of the DOD).
Moral conscience indicates and logically requires accountability to a moral authority, and the supreme Authority would be God. Paul wrote (in RM 1:32 & 2:15) that people “know God’s decree that those who do evil deserve death” and that their consciences “show that the requirements of the [God’s moral] law are written on their hearts.” Our feeble attempts at earthly justice may reflect or serve as evidence of God’s perfect justice. This view is similar to Platonic idealism (cf. 1CR 13:12, HB 8:5, 9:23 & 10:1). We may perceive perfect justice partially (1CR 13:9-12) using spiritual eyes/intuition/a sixth sense along with inference, logic, and even imagination. [Slashes indicate equivalent terms.]
This evidence is not proof, but because this hope and belief are based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually defensible by acknowledging ways that God might yet be disproved, which would appear to include the following:
1. If atheists or anti-christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (JN 3:16).
2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1CR 15:14).
3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (DT 30:19-20).
4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (PHP 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)
5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2CR 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation (see Part VI).
6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (ACTS 17:24-31).
Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. MT 7:24-27) .
The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]
Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (RM 1:20) and “the requirements of the law” (RM 2:15). A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in JN 14:9-11), Paul (in GL 1:11-12 & TIT 1:1-3), and other religious leaders. Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (JN 16:13), such as the watershed decisions cited in Part II.
The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI, but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.
While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire in this book, I think any objective truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as HB 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and RM 1:3-4).
Christianity qualified OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per MT 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (RM 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).
Part IV: The Propensity Principle
Another insight I would like to share is what I call the “Propensity Principle” (PP). It admits that the evidence for God’s existence is debatable, but it points out that perhaps the type of evidence atheists demand will occur in the future at the eschaton. (An apt analogy is modern DNA analysis, which currently is providing evidence that was future at the time the accused were tried, but on the basis of which some are now deemed to have been falsely convicted and are being released.) In the meantime, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life and ultimate justice (the 4th type of evidence in Part III) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists until/unless He is disproved, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will.
Again, the evidence I have cited is not proof, but until it is disproved, it seems more logical to me (after studying humanity’s variety of beliefs) given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there seems to be no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of gambling.
The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:
1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.
2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.
3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek ways to become immortal in a heavenly existence (where there is love and justice for all forever, the DOD).
4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus, although it is possible (yet unprovable) that a natural cause of the universe may be discovered in the future, which would then indicate that the best hope would be for humanity to learn how to create a utopian existence, at least for those who are alive at that point.
5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible (although not compelling).
6. Thus, it is appropriate or wise to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah, until/unless a better hope for heaven becomes available.
Atheists deny the validity of this argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree at least tentatively on NT theism now, while admitting that future evidence may prove atheism to have been a correct although unlucky guess.
As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1JN 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2CR 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). Heaven may not be a mirage!
A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2KG 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1CR 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. JN 3:8). God’s way: humility = teachability.
Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy I call non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate.
I emphasize logic/reason without intending to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: faith precedes love (per GL 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion. Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic is a divine gift include the following:
- “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (IS 1:18a)
2. “They hated me without reason.” (JN 15:25)
3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (ACTS 17:17)
4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1CR 2:6)
5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1CR 13:11)
6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1PT 3:15b)
These passages indicate that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions or solutions regarding issues.
Part V: God Revealed by Jesus and Paul
As truthseekers, whenever we encounter someone who has a contradictory understanding, we want to learn which is the better belief, to admit when we are wrong, and to change our opinion. As people-lovers we want to share our knowledge with other truthseekers, so that we may fellowship (2TM 4:3-4, 1JN 1:3).
According to the Bible, God created everything else that exists (GN 1:1, JR 10:16, JN 1:1-3), including the ability by volitional beings (souls) to choose to rebel against His Lordship (GN 2:16, DT 30:19). Our finite minds cannot comprehend how God does this (IS 40:28). However, neither are we able to understand why the universe exists without God (JN 3:8). Theistic and atheistic cosmologies are both mind-boggling! Just as atheists believe that somehow the world always existed and somewhat intelligent beings evolved, so theists believe that for some reason the eternal Intelligence or Spirit of God created and pervades the physical universe, including the brains of those who freely will to spit in His face (RM 5:6-8, MT 27:30)! What God was doing before the creation of time/space is as inconceivable as nothing/atheism.
As Immanuel Kant indicated: humans do not have the mental categories or ability to imagine alternative or supernatural reality, which may be why the NT does not describe immortality and hell in detail (cf. 1CR 15:35-44 and MT 24:51, 25:30, 41&46.) However, I will share my understanding of the NT concept of God, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1TM 1:17), in terms of seven words. Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are ongoing supernatural operations of God (RM1:20). If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant, but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (JN 14:9-25). God desires communion.
1. God’s omnipotence means that He can do everything except “disown Himself” or not be God (2TM 2:13). It does NOT mean that God can perform logical absurdities, such as creating a rock too large for Him to move. Omnipotence or sovereignty also means that human MFW has limits with regard to how it can contradict God’s will. God provides morally competent humans the ability to resist His intentional will and plan of salvation within limits, (such as the time limit that will end with death and judgment per HB 9:27), which is called His permissive will.
2. God’s power is equivalent to His omniscience. Jeremiah wrote that “God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom.” (JR 10:12) Many NT passages refer to God as the source of true wisdom (e.g., ACTS 6:3, 1CR 1:25, CL 2:2-3, JM 1:5). God’s infinitely superior knowledge is extolled in Romans 11:33-34 (echoing IS 40:13-14) and Daniel 2:20-23. Omniscience includes knowledge of people’s thoughts (PS 94:11, MT 12:25) and the foreknowledge of events (ACTS 2:23, RM 8:29, 11:2, 1PT 1:2). Some people think that God even knows what a person will be/do before that person exists (JR 1:5). If this view is correct (which I find incomprehensible a la Kant), it must be maintained that God’s foreknowledge does not predetermine a person’s spiritual choice regarding the satisfaction of God’s requirement for salvation or else moral responsibility would be abrogated. I find it simpler to think that God merely tweaks the river of history occasionally to keep if flowing in the direction He intends but allows the fish to swim as they wish. (Surely this universe is not a replay of a history that has already happened!) God allows eddies in the river of salvation.
3. Omnipotence is connected with omnitemporality (in RV 1:18): “I am the Apha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Romans 1:20 refers to God’s “eternal power”, and Jeremiah 10:10&16 names God “the Lord Almighty”, who is true, living and eternal.
4. God’s infinite power implies omnipresence (per PS 139:7-8). God transcends spatial existence while being immanent in all points of space. (Other scriptural support for this view includes 1KG 8:27, IS 66:1, JR 23:33, ACTS 17:27-28 and EPH 4:6.) God’s superiority over His creation must be viewed as a matter of degree or quantitatively in order to preserve the continuity between God and humanity that would be requisite for communication (like the need for a common language and culture cited in Part I). However, the Bible teaches that God also differs from creatures in kind or qualitatively, so that attaining equality with Deity is impossible (IS 55:9, EPH 3:19). We can be like God (GN 3:3), and we can become one with the Son of God (JN 17:21-23), but we cannot become God (cf. Humanism).
In addition to the omni-attributes related to power, Paul referred to God’s “nature” (in RM 1:20), which may be described in three ways: love, truth and justice. These often are called the moral attributes of God.
5. The Bible says that God is love and true love comes from God (1JN 4:7-21, RM 5:5), so volitional creatures or souls can love only by reflecting, imitating or cooperating with the Creator’s love. Although the Bible speaks of God hating Esau (ML 1:3) and other evil people (HS 9:15), Jesus’ teaching of love for enemies (MT 5:44) reveals that God loves all creatures including Satan but hates their sinful choices.
It seems logical to assume that the all-loving God would create the best possible world or one in which the greatest percentage of persons may attain ultimate joy (1TM 2:3-4, 2PT 3:9). God may have created all possible kinds of worlds simultaneously: the world of dead matter, the world of living plants, the world of intelligent animals, and the world of morally accountable souls/humans. God’s world/way is best.
6. The Bible teaches that God is truth (JN 1:17, 8:40, 15:26, 17:17), so all truth is from God and manifests God’s Spirit. If any atheists are truthseekers, then they are not far from the kingdom of God (MK 12:34, 2THS 2:10, JN 18:37), because Jesus promised that those who seek will find (LK 11:9&13). Of course, if the truth is that there is no God or heaven, then what we believe is no more significant than the ideology of a rock or some other evolved collection of atoms (ECC 3:20)!
7. The Bible also teaches that God is just (RM 3:25-26, 9:14, 2THS 1:6). This doctrine is called theodicy. It means that we should be careful lest our explanations of God’s will seem unloving or unfair. If a person cannot explain how a loving God could order the execution of babies (JSH 6:17, 8:2), then possibly He did not do so.
Atheists have a negative or even demonic conception of God, which may be caused or reinforced by the words and deeds of those who claim to be theists (RM 2:24, 2PT 2:2). I would not want to believe in such a God, either. Rather than reject a caricature of God, an atheist should imagine the most perfect, loving and just God that he/she can, and choose to disbelieve in that benevolent Being, if good reason to do so can be found. God is NOT demonic!
What a person believes about the moral attributes of God affects how he or she interprets God’s Word in the Bible, which is called “hermeneutics”. My hermeneutic is explained in Lesson 2 entitled “The Christian Creed”, but at this point let me summarize it by saying that I believe a person should triangulate from two key NT teachings in order to arrive at a correct understanding of problematic OT statements:
First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ).
Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). All explanations of reality and interpretations of Scripture should conform to this certitude: “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (PS 145:17)
The Judge is just. It would be better not to attempt an explanation of God’s Word than to state one that impugns God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16).
Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love. Hebrews 12:4-11 offers the clue for harmonizing these two themes. This passage indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline: to teach people to repent of their hatefulness or faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19) before they die, after which divine wrath will be experienced justly without the opportunity for repentance. If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what occurred rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of how people should behave. Of course, because God is loving and just, He does not tempt, trick, confuse or otherwise contribute to anyone’s sinfulness. On the contrary, God must be doing all that He can do without abrogating justice or volition (MFW) to influence people not to be deceived and become self-condemned (JM 1:13-17, TIT 3:11, IS 45:19).
This realization should steer us away from the problematic opinion (a la Augustine via John Calvin) that God predestines most people for hell and lead us to affirm free will as a paradoxical fact (DT 30:19). It is paradoxical, because it affirms both that God is sovereign and that God chooses not to control all psychological/moral thinking, because doing so would nullify human responsibility for sin, making the biblical revelation of salvation based on repentance irrelevant and absurd. Divine love is signified in the Bible by marriage (IS 62:5, MT 19:6, EPH 5:25-32). People are free to repent and become part of the Bride of Christ (RV 21:9), and Believers may choose to be spiritually unfaithful or commit apostasy (or adultery in HOS 1:2f.) and become spiritually divorced from the Lord. (Marriage signifies spiritual union.)
Part VI: Issues Inhibiting Theism
Three issues frequently are cited as constituting stumbling-blocks to belief in the NT God for some people. The first problematic issue is reconciling God’s power and love with the fact of evil and its consequence. A person—even a theist—might think that God would not permit evil, suffering and hell to exist. People who are mystified by evil and repulsed by its punishment do not realize that the essential aspect of being a human rather than a robot or subhuman creature is MFW, which is what enables a person to experience love and meaning. This is what makes humans different from animals, whose behavior is governed mainly by instinct. This is what it means to be created in God’s image (GN 1:26-27; robot or responsible)?
God could not force people to return His love without abrogating their humanity. If God were to zap ungodly souls, it would be tantamount to forcing conversions at gunpoint, which would not be free and genuine. If God were to prevent people from behaving hatefully, then He would need to prevent them from thinking evilly, which would make human souls programmed automatons. Even if God were to prove Himself to skeptics by means of a miracle, they might believe for awhile and then as their memories began to fade they would probably think that God had died and revert to their former doubt—necessitating an endless string of miracles (recapitulating the story of the Israelites on the way to Canaan after the exodus from Egypt).
However, for reasons we may understand only sufficiently rather than completely, God designed reality so that experiencing His presence is less than compelling, so that even Jesus (God the Son) on the cross cried out “My God [the Father], why have you forsaken [taken God the Spirit from] me?” (MT 27:46, PS 51:11) This phenomenon is sometimes called “distanciation”, because we experience God as distant from us and “unknown” (ACTS 17:23), even though He is close or immanent, “for in Him we live and move and have our being” (ACTS 17:28). Distanciation is not forsaken.
God’s normative means of conversion is persuasion rather than coercion (MT 12:39, 24:24, 1CR 1:22-23). This is seen very clearly in Jesus’ lament over the obstinacy of Jerusalem (MT 23:37). Two unusual theophanies included when God appeared to Moses (in a burning bush per EX 3:2-6), whom God wanted to establish the Jewish lineage for the Messiah (OT), and to Saul/Paul (as the resurrected Jesus in ACTS 9:3-6), whom God chose to establish the NT church of Christ. Miracles are rare (not normative).
Moral free will (MFW) only exists when there is the possibility of choosing between two qualitatively opposite moral options that we call good and evil. These options are opposites because of essentially different consequences for choosing them. Choosing good results in blessing, life and heaven; and choosing evil results in cursing, death and hell (DT 30:19). This is why hell as well as heaven exists. It is the just consequence for choosing evil rather than God. The Spirit of God is good: love, peace and joy (GL 5:22-23). Therefore, whoever rejects the Lord is spiritually separated from Him (IS 59:2) and thereby chooses the evil or satanic spirit of hatred, strife and misery and reaps the just consequence called “hell” in the afterlife (GL 6:7-9, HB 9:27-28). These options were presented by Moses to the Israelites (DT 30:19), and Jesus referred to this fundamental choice in terms of a fish or egg versus a snake or scorpion (LK 11:11-13). Life… or Curse? (GN 3:24, RV 22:1-2)
God created theoretical evil or the possibility of rejecting Him as an option that actualizes free human personality. As such it is necessary and even good (GN 1:31). Of course, it was wrong for Satan (1JN 3:8) and humanity (RM 5:12) to make evil actual by choosing to Sin or reject Faith in God’s Lordship. Sin: ignoring God/God’s Word. God loves a cheerful giver (2CR 9:7), which means He desires people to cooperate with Him happily because of love and gratitude for His grace rather than to cower before Him because of fear of hell. Love must be evoked; it cannot be coerced. And again, when souls sin or do NOT choose to love God freely, it is perfectly just (loving and logical) for them to reap the appropriate consequence (GL 6:7-9) or hell.
Why would anyone choose to believe otherwise? Only God knows why people choose atheism. It is a mystery stated by Isaiah, which is cited by Jesus (in MT 13:14-15): “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused.” Apparently, this callous attitude demands God to nullify faith/MFW and thereby abrogate the essence of humanness by performing miracles in order to prove He exists (MT 12:39, 24:24, JN 20:29 & 1CR 1:22). In other words, atheists presume to know better than God; they want to usurp divine authority to determine what is best or good, but they may one day (at the eschaton per RV 20:15) wish they had admitted the possibility that God has ordained this mortal life on earth for the purpose of people proving to Him who is worthy of (qualified for) eternal life in heaven (cf. RM 2:5-8 & 2CR 13:5; heart/mind: hard or open?).
Such evil people punish/torture themselves by experiencing delayed karma, just as those who experience appropriate justice during this earthly existence also punish themselves or reap what they have sown and send themselves to jail. This view makes souls responsible for breaking the rules rather than blaming evil on the judges (or Judge) who enforce the rules. The purpose of earthly punishment is to promote repentance, but the reason for retribution in hell is to attain justice. It is difficult to imagine, but somehow even someone as evil as Hitler will receive perfect justice, perhaps experiencing the agony of the millions of deaths he caused in accordance with the principal of “eye for eye” (MT 5:38), after which their souls are destroyed forever (per JN 17:12, RM 9:22, GL 6:8, PHP 3:19, 2THS 1:9 & 2PT 3:7).
Apparently, souls who are saints or saved sinners in heaven retain the freedom to sin by rejecting God, which Satan and his minions are indicated to have exercised (in LK 10:18, MT 25:41, JUDE v.6, cf. EZK 28:15-19). However, the decision made freely on earth (because of distanciation) is confirmed rather than negated or nullified by attaining proof and vindication in heaven.
A second common confusing issue is the doctrine of the Trinity. The OT Shema (DT 6:4) teaches that God is one, and the NT also affirms that there is one God (EPH 4:6, 1TM 2:5). However, the NT teaches that God relates to believers in three ways simultaneously: as the Father, as the Son and as the Holy Spirit (1x1x1=1).
The Father/Parenthood of God is indicated in Jesus’ model prayer (MT 6:9), throughout the Gospel of John (3:35, 5:17-18, etc.), and in the epistles of Paul (RM 4:11, 8:15, PHP 2:11). God the Father and Christ’s Sonship are discussed in Hebrews 1:1-4. The Son of God also is mentioned by John (JN 1:14, 3:16, etc.) and by Paul (RM 1:4, GL 2:20, 1THS 1:10). The Holy Spirit is mentioned in three successive chapters in John (JN 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), frequently in the book of Acts (ACTS 1:5, 2:4, 9:17, 13:2, 19:2), and in many of Paul’s letters (RM 8:4-26, 1CR 6:19, EPH 4:30) as well as in some of the other epistles (2PT 1:21, JUDE 20).
Apparently, Christians failed to explain to Mohammed (c. 610) how God is able to relate to Himself and to creation as a Triunity, and so the prophet’s teaching stressed that there is one God and implied that the Christian gospel is false. It might have been helpful for him and others who stumble at NT doctrines to discern which aspect of the triune God is the subject of various biblical statements. These divine aspects or “persons” may be distinguished by role: God the Father as creator or initiator (GN 1:1), God the Son as Messiah or mediator (1TM 2:5), and God the Spirit as indweller (RM 5:5). For example, 1 John 4:7 says love comes from (is initiated by) God (the Father), Galatians 5:22 says that love is a fruit of the (indwelling) Spirit, and Ephesians 3:18 speaks of the (mediating) love of Christ (RM 5:8, EPH 2:18).
We can denote these distinctions by the use of three prepositions: God the Father is over all creation (EPH 4:6), God the Son is Immanuel or with humanity (MT 1:23), and the Holy Spirit is within all believers (EPH 1:13). A single passage that comes closest to indicating this distinction is Ephesians 3:14-19, in which Paul prays to the Father that through His Spirit of love Christ would dwell in believers’ hearts (also see 1CR 8:6).
When the Bible uses masculine words for God, it should be understood that only God the Son is human and had a sexual orientation while on earth. GN 1:26-27 states that both male and female were created in God’s image, referring not to androgyny but to personality, and Jesus said (in MT 22:30 & 19:11-12) that there is no marriage and thus no need for sexuality in heaven.
Actually, since the creation also manifests God (RM 1:20, cf. JN 1:1-3 & PS 33:6), in a sense God may be viewed as a “Quadity”. As Paul told the Athenians (ACTS 17:28), “In Him we live and move and have our being.” God as Creation is throughout physical reality (called “panentheism”). However, since this mode of revelation is impersonal, it has been de-emphasized by most Christian denominations.
The third problematic issue is not as commonly debated as the others; it concerns the freedom of God. Can God be evil? Is God the Father able to change His will, is God the Son free to sin, and could God the Holy Spirit become demonic? Is it possible for God to be tricky? If God cannot do what He has decreed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional creatures, and there would be no basis for praising His holiness. Paul (in RM 9:16-21) upholds the freedom of God to love or hate as He chooses. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, so He created moral laws such as “love everyone” and determined a plan of salvation involving the atoning death of Messiah to win our redemption from hell. Thou shalt love (MT 22:37-40).
The cliche “might makes right” is true; it is because God is almighty that only He can determine what is right ultimately. There is no super-divine authority that determines God; God is self-determined. The only basis humans have for evaluating whether God is just is understanding how God’s acts and judgments are consistent with the moral principles He has ordained for those created in His image (RM 3:22-26). God’s decision to be all-loving is rational, because God is pleased by doing good for creatures, but it is free because God could have chosen to anoint Satan to embody evil logic/lies rather than Jesus to manifest love and truth (JN 1:14, PHP 2:9-11), and this earthly existence would be hell (RV 19:11-13, 20:7-10 & 21:6-8).
If God were ever to change His mind, it would mean that God is tricky and that morality is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, ultimate reality would indeed be a farce (although we are unable to imagine an alternative moral reality in detail, cf. Kant). This is why we should not take God and divine love for granted. Instead, we should be eternally grateful that God has decreed loving to be right, and He promises never to change (ML 3:6). Let us praise God in the spirit of Psalm 66:1: “Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!”
I will conclude by summarizing the pieces of the puzzle we call reality that have been connected in this booklet:
I. A set of unavoidable beliefs (in reality, in human subjectivity, and that souls may comprehend ultimate truth sufficiently).
II. To these were added the best (most logical) answers to two watershed questions (belief that life has meaning or a basis for morality, and belief that God is the foundation for meaning and morality, embodied most fully in Jesus of Nazareth as the visible Lord of human history).
III. A logical argument for choosing to believe in the NT God (the scientific “big bang” theory, theocentric human history, existential needs, and moral conscience).
IV. A rationale for hoping God provides the DOD (the Propensity Principle and the Naaman Example).
V. The NT revelation or concept of God (omni-powerful and loving nature; the just Judge of life’s test).
VI. Explanations of three issues that many find confusing: why God permits evil/hell, how He relates to humans, and whether He is free.
Solving life/reality’s puzzle (mosaic): Perhaps the main “nutshell” insight I have to offer and the central theme in my mosaic of beliefs is this: If the Supreme Being is loving (1JN 4:7-8)—if God created the cosmos because He wanted to bless its human inhabitants with eternal life (JN 3:16), and if He “wants all men [humanity] to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1TM 2:4)—then surely this means that God is not tricky in communicating His will to them/us.
Thus, I am impressed by a prayer of Jesus in Matthew 11:25 and His statement in Matthew 18:3, which indicate that God’s requirement for salvation is simple enough for a child (young soul) to comprehend, and I am thankful. When I seek this word from God, I find love, and I am joyful. Jesus stated (in MT 22:37-40) that the entire biblical revelation of God’s moral requirement may be summarized by the commandments to love the Lord and allow Him to love others through us. Amen; Thy will be done!
|
