God. Real. Right.

Here’s a brief observation: These rays (at the rights side of the panoramic picture above, and in the photo below) are viewed toward the horizon opposite the direction of the sun. More details about the phenomena are with the picture below. What is interesting is that they appear to converge at the horizon, even though they do not actually converge. In fact, the rays, being generated from a light source 93 million miles away, are parallel to each other. But the curve of the earth and perspective of an earth-bound viewer leads to the impression that there are convergent points at each horizon with the rays bowing out to diffusion in the middle—just above the observer. Usually, there is not continuity between the two horizons, so it actually appears that there is a convergence at the horizon(s) and divergence or dissipation where the observer is.
The difference between the parallel reality and convergent/divergent appearance is similar to what all of life looks like to believing but earth-bound observers. There may be faith that God was completely in control at Creation. There may be confidence that God will bring everything back together in the future. But where most people live there is a sense that God may not be keeping it all together. Of course, believers know better in their heads, But the world still looks as if it has diverged from God’s plan and purpose. The rays in the pictures make a handy reminder that regardless of pressures, pains, failures, and frustrations appearing over our heads, God’s plan, purpose, and power are as arrow-straight above our heads as they are at our beginning and our end.
Explanation (From APOD, Astronomy Picture of the Day): What’s happening over the horizon? Although the scene may appear somehow supernatural, nothing more unusual is occurring than a setting Sun and some well placed clouds. Pictured above are anticrepuscular rays. To understand them, start by picturing common crepuscular rays that are seen any time that sunlight pours though scattered clouds. Now although sunlight indeed travels along straight lines, the projections of these lines onto the spherical sky are great circles. Therefore, the crepuscular rays from a setting (or rising) sun will appear to re-converge on the other side of the sky. At the anti-solar point 180 degrees around from the Sun, they are referred to as anticrepuscular rays. Pictured above is a particularly striking set of anticrepuscular rays photographed in 2001 from a moving car just outside of Boulder, Colorado, USA.

2.1.2.1.3 The significance of contingency and revelation are directly proportional.
This post does not argue that revelation would have to be unimportant if determinism were true, but rather that the more likely indeterminacy and contingency are, the more fundamentally important special revelation is. It is a point which emerges from the freedom of God and leads then inevitably to the responsibility of people to respond to submit to the revelation.
The fact that the universe could be otherwise, its contingency, is what makes revelation so essential. There are a couple of different means by which humanity can discern truth: reason and revelation. By reason (which is really just an aspect of general revelation) people discern what is necessarily true. (At the conclusion of this post it is implicit that “necessarily” only means something is necessary subsequent to God’s choice to make it so.) But truth which cannot be known by reason alone—what is not necessarily so, but only contingently so—people can know only Read the rest of this entry »

I know there is much confusion about how Jesus could be in the grave for three days and three nights if He died on Friday and rose on Sunday. The phrase three days and three nights is specifically given as the length of time Jesus says He will be in the grave in Matthew 12:39-40. It is certainly possible that Jesus is using a common expression to emphasize that He would not rise until the third day, rather than giving a hard “moment” of resurrection; that is, exactly seventy-two hours, zero minutes, and zero seconds. So Matthew 12 could be taken either way. The question is, which way should it be taken. (Remember, Jewish days begin at 6 pm.) Does Jesus need to die at the last moment on Wednesday afternoon, so there is time for him to be in the tomb all day and night Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and then He is resurrected on the fourth day, which would be Sunday? Of course not, since although there are Read the rest of this entry »

Still on the second part of the overall journey engaged by this set of posts, this entry attempts to show why a sub-point of the claim that even God acts only within reason (rather than with radical freedom) results in a fallacious limitation of God’s sovereignty.
2.1.2.1.1 There is no reason to exclude contingency from descriptions of God.
As the previous post argues, there is no reason to believe God needed to choose between worlds, one of which was best or even better than the others.
But there is something else wrong with the assumption that this world is the best of all possible worlds. The rationalist’s question is why, if God knows everything about all possible worlds and has all power, it would not make sense to surmise that He has actualized the best of those worlds in submission (a term anathema to the supremacy of God) to reason. The question itself is misleading and overlooks something about what is possible to God.
There is an old paradox about Read the rest of this entry »

The topic of conversion is a huge one for theologians, usually spoken of in terms of repentance and faith, and in relation to calling and regeneration. But conversion is also a sociological phenomenon. That is, especially since William James at the turn of the Twentieth Century, people have been interested in studying things like conversion as a purely empirical phenomenon. The problematic issues introduced by that practice are too many even to list here, much less address. There is one aspect of it, though, not only worth mentioning, but also worth learning something from–although it almost hurts to admit it.
Here’s what it means to study conversion empirically instead of theologically. To study it theologically is to ask questions about what is true regarding who can be converted, how God converts them, what the results of their conversion will be, and so forth. More specifically, theological inquiry into conversion will address questions like Read the rest of this entry »

When Hurricanes strike, as Gustav is doing right now, age-old questions are raised again. Some are about how to react and why. But some are more basic, about the source of all kinds of problems persistently faced by man. This post is about that question: from where comes evil?
The first eight and a half lines of Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall” describe the immediate source (or proximate cause, using Descartes’ language) of problems:

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it
And spills the

Read the rest of this entry »

Two previous posts identify the most difficult philosophical obstacle and most obvious practical objection to believing in a radical free will.
The post on free will before this one identifies the key theological problem of rejecting the possibility of radical free will. This post adds to that one another example of how rejecting free will goes hand in hand with diminishing respect for God’s sovereignty.
Subsequent posts will identify the key moral (or practical) problem of denying the reality of radical free will.
2.1.2 Attempting to explain God’s activity questions His sovereignty.
2.1.2.1 Claiming this world is necessarily the best of all possible worlds is an example of inappropriately explaining God’s activity.
Back to the nature of God’s freedom, which is important as a conceptual framework within which human freedom can then be described: To describe free will as logically absurd diminishes a person’s understanding of God. Why? Here’s a question that narrows the discussion a bit: is it better to describe God as free or rational? (Remember the first problem faced by those who believe in free will.) Obviously the position of this argument is that the best way to express God’s omnipotence and primacy is with His free will. Consider one philosophical system in which reason takes God’s place.
Leibniz’s argument about God’s rational behavior Read the rest of this entry »

Some pertinent links for this article:
Irving Bible Church. The IBC Position Paper.
Denton Bible Church. DTS President Mark Bailey’s Clarification.
On August 24, 2008, for the first time in its forty year history, Irving Bible Church had a woman deliver the Sunday sermon to its congregation. For all I know (not being there but being in my home church instead) it was the best sermon they’ve heard in forty years, many people responded with commitments which will result in lifelong changes, and a burnt-over revival has begun in North Texas. But none of that determines whether it was the right decision.
The question remains, should a woman preach so to a congregation? To secularists it may understandably seem an absurd question. But to those who take obedience to New Testament teachings seriously, it is important. And to those who take the New Testament seriously and want to remain both relevant and prophetic in culture the question is not only important, but difficult.
What Catherine Albanese says about religion in general is also true about churches. That is, churches serve in both an ordinary and an extraordinary relationship with Read the rest of this entry »

Two previous posts identify the most difficult philosophical obstacle and most obvious practical objection to believing in a radical free will.
This post begins the opposite task: identifying the key theological (or philosophical) problem of rejecting the possibility of radical free will. There will be about six posts working on this part of the task.
Subsequent posts will identify the key moral (or practical) problem of denying the reality of radical free will.
2.1.1 To claim that determinism is rationally necessary impugns God’s sovereignty.
One of the first criticisms of the free will position is that the idea of a truly free will impinges on the sovereignty of God. This criticism is actually just Read the rest of this entry »

The previous post on free will established why it is difficult for many to conceive of how there could be a radically free will. The first paragraph below is a reminder of that point. The rest of this post is about how the fact that free will can be abused and can lead to some bad opinions motivates some people errantly to assume it does not actually exist. Both posts are intended only to clarify why it will take so many posts, paragraphs, and arguments to demonstrate the reality and inherent value of a radical free will.

1.2 A Bad Reputation Makes Free Will Seem Undesirable
So there is a metaphysical argument against free will. That is, there is no room for a free will in the reality of this presumed causally closed universe. In fact there is no room beyond the universe for that kind of freedom either—an admission which ought to be disturbing for a theist. But there is also a moral objection to admitting the reality of free will.
In this culture, autonomy takes first place in the race to be the highest value. As with any value, there are good and bad consequences associated with its maintenance. For instance Read the rest of this entry »