Hi Cody, 
     I hope everything is going well. I have a question to ask you. We were talking about this last night during a class at church that I am taking and  . . . I thought maybe you would know the answer because none of us really could explain it.
     The question is, If God COMPLETELY knows the future. How do we have free will? Also what are the verses that would back this up? This was just a question that was asked during conversation, but none of us really knew the answer. I also think it is a question for thought as well.

Thanks for your help,

Heather

      Thanks for the question, Heather.  Your question assumes that we must have "free will." But, if by "free will" you mean literal autonomy, I would simply ask that you start by finding Bible verses that establish that humans truly have "free will" in a libertarian sense. I would argue that the Bible denies this and in fact suggests that humans are bound in slavery to sin and Satan.  2Tim. 2:26, in fact, describes the situation of a lost person (someone who hasn’t been born again through faith in Jesus Christ) as one who has be captured by Satan to do his will. Add verses that describe the unsaved as “in slavery”, “blind”, “living in darkness”, being “led astray”, etc . . . there is little question in my mind that humans in general have no "free will" in the way you are thinking. Their wills are being controlled by sin and Satan. 
     When the Bible does describe freedom, it doesn't describe it in terms of libertarianism or self-autonomy. To be “set free” means to be freed from slavery to sin and Satan so that we can be "free" to serve the will of God. Romans 6 talks about being set free from sin so that we can become slaves of righteousness and slaves of God.
     In the end, the concept of libertarian free will, can be found all over the literature of Western philosophy, but it cannot be found in the Bible. On the other hand, the concept of God's omniscience (that He perfectly and completely knows the past, present and future) and sovereignty (that He has perfectly and completely planned and rules over the past, present and future), is easily and plentifully found in the Bible. We must be very careful that in our zeal to hold on to Western philosophical values, that we not sacrifice God's eternal truth. There are those doing so now on this very issue with a heretical doctrine called "open theism". Proponents of this view, in an effort to preserve and defend "free will" at all costs are sacrificing the omniscience of God by suggesting that God doesn't, in fact, know the future.  I, for one, think that's far too high a price to pay to hold on to a notion as Biblically indefensible and as philosophically problematic as "free will."

     As an extra resource here for all of you, I’m adding a great little lecture from Bruce Ware on this topic.  He describes well the “compatiblist view” of freedom that I think is much more thoroughly Biblical.

     While I was away, a question was asked during one of our 1Stone Noonday events.  The question had to do with murder, killing, war, etc.  In essence, it seems that the question had to do with why killing/war seemed to be okay in the Old Testament but bad in the New Testament.  Actually, the question seemed to be asked from the perspective of assuming that killing and war are always fundamentally wrong.  I’m not really sure how the question was answered at the time, but let me reflect on it a bit here.  Enjoy!

     God is consistent when it comes to punishing sin.  He uses various means, but the wages of sin has always been death (Gen. 2:17, Rom. 6:23).  Sometimes those means are what we might consider supernatural, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 20:23-29), Egypt (Ex. 7-12), or Herod (Acts 12:20-23).  But at many other times, God uses human agents to carry out His punishment of sin.  Examples of this abound in the Bible, including the entire book of Judges, scripture recounting the downfall and exile of the Israelites, and the execution of the two thieves who were crucified on either side of Jesus.  In each of these cases, God used human agents to mete out the punishment that the sins of other humans deserved (Lk. 23:41).  Of course, the ultimate example of this is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  In this case, God punished the only truly innocent person for the sin of humanity.  And God used human agents (e.g. Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders, etc.) to carry out that punishment.

     When people object to the conquest of the promised land, they usually do so without seriously reflecting on the entire Biblical narrative.  First, they fail to see that most of the suffering and death recorded in the Bible is against the people of God.  When various enemies attacked and oppressed the twelve tribes during the Judges period, when the Assyrians wiped out the northern kingdom, and when the Babylonians conquered Judea, they did so as agents of God’s wrath (Jer. 25:9).  I’ve never heard a skeptic complain about this fact, but the reality is that God brought about the death of more Israelites than perhaps any other ethnic group in the Old Testament.  Does this make God anti-Semitic?  Of course not.  But it does make clear that God takes sin very seriously and is committed to obliterating it. 

     Thus the conquest of Canaan must be understood as a case of God using the Israelites as his agents to carry out the punishment of the sin of the Canaanite people.  This is exactly what the Scripture teaches.  Note that in the Abrahamic covenant, God promises that Abraham’s descendents will inherit the land of Canaan.  But God also says that they cannot inherit the land right away.  They would have to wait for many years (over 400) for “the iniquity of the Amorites” was not yet “complete” (Gen. 15:16).  That is, God made his chosen people wait hundreds of years (even in great suffering and exploitation), before finally punishing the inhabitants of Canaan (generally referred to as Amorites).  To put it another way, the Canaanites had more than 400 years to repent from the time Abraham was living among them as a witness to the day Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan river.

     Some people, of course, have a problem with God commanding the Israelites to conquer cities and regions, killing the inhabitants.  But the only real difference between this and the Babylonian conquest of Judea is that the Israelites knew they were God’s instruments of punishment.  And knowing this was simply a product of their covenant relationship with God -- the very relationship that the Canaanites had consistently rejected since the days of Abraham.  To be sure, there were some Canaanites who repented of their sin.  These were spared (e.g. Jos. 6:25). 

     Others may object to the fact that children were included among those who were killed during the conquest of Canaan.  But this simply reflects the more collectivist worldview of the Bible versus a more Western, individualistic worldview.  There are cases in the Bible when children were to be punished along with adults if the punishment was against an entire family or society.  This could happen just as easily to the Israelites as to non-Israelites (e.g. Josh. 8:22-26).

     It is important to state outright that these Biblical events should not be seen as a justification for genocide or for “holy war.”  There is no standing command in the Bible that instructs the people of God to wage war against the unfaithful.  The standing commands we have are to love our neighbor and to proclaim the way of salvation to all peoples and nations.  At the same time, Jesus doesn’t represent a philosophical break with the God of the Old Testament.  While it is tempting for us to view Jesus as a ultra-pacifist hippie that wants to “make love, not war," we must remember that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament.  He specifically said that he came not to bring peace but a sword (Mat. 10:34), he was more commonly mistaken to be a radical revolutionary that would overthrow the Romans than an ascetic hermit that wanted everyone to just get along, and he was not above using violence to get his point across (Jn. 2:15).  Jesus Christ hated sin and came into the world to destroy it.

     Finally, let’s keep in mind that there is a difference between murder and killing.  This is most clearly seen in Genesis 6 when we see that anyone who sheds the blood of another human will have his blood shed by a human.  Surely this doesn’t mean that then the executioner will have to be executed and on and on until the human race is wiped out.  No, in the law of Moses, regulations are established for the punishment of sin which include the death penalty.  Jesus didn’t forbid the death penalty during his earthly ministry, but rather submitted willingly to it.  Moreover, the apostolic witness indicates that governing officials should continue to “bear the sword” as instruments of God’s wrath against sin (Rom. 13:4).

     The truth is, as human beings, we delight in the punishment and eradication of evil.  I just watched the movie Valkyrie last week which is the story of a failed attempt to assassinate Adolph Hitler.  Now, I would venture to say that nearly everyone in that theater was cheering for the people who were trying to assassinate Hitler.  Why? Because we hate evil.  There is something in us (perhaps the image of God) that cries out to God for sin to be eliminated.  We hate injustice, oppression, deceit, greed, abuse, etc.  Even now, if a pedophile or a terrorist is punished, we are glad.  So why do we cringe when God punishes sin in the Bible?  In particular, when God uses the Israelites as his agents to punish the Canaanites, why do we feel upset?  My guess is that we have tended to misunderstand sin.  In particular, our culture has taught us that certain sins such as sexual immorality, murder, and racism are especially heinous while others aren’t particularly bad.  But the first and greatest command is to love God.  So it would follow that the first and greatest sin is to not love God.  Now if that is true, we understand that the person who rejects God is engaging in sin that is more severe than the Holocaust or 9/11. 

     Well, I’m going to stop now.  Need to move on to other things.  Think this over, I look forward to your feedback.

     Reason number two for why Christ-followers need to continue to engage in mission through personal going, sacrificial giving, and fervent praying is:

“Mission remains the only answer for humanity’s greatest and most urgent problem—it’s lostness.”

Why Mission? Humanity’s Only Hope.

Let’s be reminded of a few fundamental theological truths . . .

1.       Sin is universal.

Lest we forget, we are all sinners.  Now, what that means, to put it simply, is that none of us is perfect, we all fail.  Fact is, if we are honest, we will admit to great tendencies towards selfishness, hatred, pride, lust, envy, greed, and more.  I won’t even begin to talk about the good we fail to do out of our own self-centeredness. The Bible is clear and correct, “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory” (Rom. 3:23).

2.       Hell is real.

No, I’m not going to try to demonstrate empirically the reality of Hell.  I’ll leave that to others.  In various places in the Bible however, the fact is made clear that those who choose to live separated from their Creator in this life will continue to be separated from Him into eternity.  In particular, “They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might” (2Thes. 1:9).  Of course, I know that a lot of people hate this doctrine.  That’s fine, we can talk about it.  But we should all acknowledge that the doctrine is thoroughly Biblical.  Thus, if you want to believe the Bible, you’ve got to take Hell seriously.

3.       Jesus is the only way.

I know I’m getting really controversial now, but I’ll take my chances.  Besides, Jesus said it himself.  In His words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).   Some of His earliest followers said this about Him, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given to humanity by which we may be saved” (Acts 4:12).  I like that phrase, “Salvation is found is no one else.”  It’s almost like a challenge.  Go ahead and look.  Knock yourself out!  You won’t find salvation anywhere else.

4.       Proclaiming the message of Jesus is key.

The Apostle Paul asked, “How can they believe in whom they have not heard?  And how can they hear unless someone preaches to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom. 10:13-15).  Sounds so simple, I know.  The fact remains, God could have chosen any number of ways to get the message of Jesus out.  He could have written it in the sky, sent angelic messengers, or tattooed it on your chest.  Instead, he chose to spread the message through word-of-mouth.  He sent people like us.  He continues to send people like us.

5.       Missional living is commanded not suggested.

The final theological truth to consider here is that Jesus didn’t simply suggest that we engage in mission.  He commanded it.  The “Great Commission” (Matt. 28:18-20) is a command.  Christ commands us to “go into all the world and make disciples of all nations.”

Of course, it’s one thing to say and affirm these Biblical truths, it is quite another to obey them and really care about those who don’t know Jesus Christ in a personal and saving way.  And since this post is already getting a bit long, I’ll leave that for another time.

     Every year (well, I did it last year anyway), I take time to provide you folks with a list of the five best books I read during the previous year.  If you are interested, you can see my top 5 list for 2007 here.  In general, as I reflect on my reading for 2008, I have a couple main thoughts.  First, I really didn’t read as much as I would have liked.  Of course, I read more of the Bible (like the whole thing), so that took some of my time.  Secondly, I didn’t read much that I really liked.  I have this hang up.  Once I start a book, it is really important to me that I finish it.  Even if the book stinks, I tend to just press on.  So, I did read a few stinkers last year.  Ask me about those in the comment section and I’ll forewarn you.   But anyway, let’s move on to the top five.  I’ve included them all in the TIBM Recommended Resource store, so if you are interested in any of these, I encourage you to go over there and purchase them.  Also, I have to mention that while I did read and enjoy my own book, Ethnographic Chicago, I am refraining from listing it here because, well, that makes me look pretty full of myself (which sometimes I really am, and I’d like to keep that in check).  Okay, without further ado:

     Well, I hope you read a ton in 2008.  I’d love to hear about some of your favorites in the comment section of this blog.  Seriously, let’s see how many 2008 top 5 lists we can get in the comment thread.  Also, if you have read any of the books in my top 5, what did you think? 

 
Cody:  Let me continue my response to Messianic Bureau International’s list of  “errors” of Christianity.  I dealt with the first two “errors” last time and will finish the list here.  Again, this is a list of the ways in which MBI believes Christians have erred during the past 2,000 years.  For ease of reading, I’ll put the words of the Messianic Bureau International in ALL CAPS:

1.        CLAIMED TORAH (GOD’S LAW) WAS NOT VALID ANYMORE AS A STANDARD FOR CHRISTIANS.

     This is not an orthodox Christian argument.  Torah is as valid as ever to demonstrate to all men that they are law-breakers who deserve the wrath of God (Rom. 3:20).  It is as valid as ever to help the regenerate person to discern the law written on their hearts – that which pleases God – and to faithfully obey it.  It has never been a law that provided salvation (Gal. 3:21)

2.       DEPICTED MESSIAH YESHUA (JESUS) AS EFFEMINATE, NON-JEWISH, AND A BREAKER OF TORAH.

     Hey, don’t like a lot of Jesus paintings either, but bad painting isn’t exactly heresy.  Besides, this statement really seems to reveal a fundamental ignorance of art history and anthropology.  People have always tended to portray Jesus as one of their own.  By way of example, Try these on for size.  The doctrine of the incarnation and the call to be all things to all men for the sake of missions (1 Cor. 9:19-23) should challenge us to consider what it must mean for the Word to take on flesh in any and every culture.  Contextualization people! 

     And, effeminate?  Really? Are you sure you don’t just mean Italian?

3.       TURNED THE GLORY OF MESSIAH OVER TO POPES; MARY AS THE “QUEEN OF HEAVEN.”

Yeah, I agree, that was stupid.  But again, I didn’t do that.  I wonder if MBI is familiar with the Reformation.

4.      GAVE MORE IMPORTANCE TO PAUL’S WORDS THAN YESHUA’S WORDS.

     I find this to be a really troubling statement.  On the one hand, it is just ignorant.  There have been plenty of Christians throughout the ages who have proposed a “canon within a canon” in which the “actual words of Jesus” are emphasized over and above other words.  Martin Luther, for example, did this.  Moreover, every red-letter Bible is essentially doing this very thing.  I mean why are they red?  Any 3-year-old who looks at a red-letter Bible is going to assume that there is something special about the red words.  And what is it?  Why, they are the words of Christ!  But isn’t the whole Bible the word of God?

     The fact of the matter is that the whole canon of Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).  John 3:16 is no more the word of God than Zephaniah 3:16.  The word of God is the word of God.  Suggesting otherwise is inching towards heresy.

 
My Friend:  I have been researching a lot on Judaism and Christianity. Something that really bugs me now is the Statement of Faith that I read from the Messianic Bureau International (www.messianic.com). It seems to me that the Messianic Jews actually got it right. There might have been many elements of the pagan world that are incorporated into Christianity today.

Cody:  MBI is a rather small and obscure group that I don’t think is a fair representative of the larger Messianic Jewish population.  I have a friend that serves with Chosen People Ministries and can also recommend the folks from Jews for Jesus.  Try checking them out at http://www.chosenpeople.org and http://jewsforjesus.org .

     MBI, at first glance, seems a little radical and perhaps pharisaical for my taste.  Their list of “errors” of Christianity just sounds reactionary and paints all Christians with the same brush.  I’m sure you’ve seen the list, but let me respond to it below.  Basically, this is a list of the things MBI believes that Christians have erred in during the past 2,000 years.  For ease of reading, I’ll put the words of the Messianic Bureau International in ALL CAPS:

1.         ACCEPTED THE CHURCH COUNCILS AS DIVINE AUTHORITY

     I didn’t do that, did you?  Here’ s just the first example of painting all Christians with the same brush.  It is the legacy of the Reformation – which I as a Baptist follow – to affirm sola scriptura.  As helpful as the teaching ministry of the Church and historic councils may be, they are not divinely inspired and are, thus, susceptible to error.

2.       CHANGED SEVENTH DAY SABBATH TO SUNDAY; CHANGED PASSOVER TO GOOD FRIDAY; CHANGED FIRST FRUITS OF BARLEY (RESURRECTION DAY) TO THAT OF THE GODDESS EASTER (ISHTAR, ASTARTE, ASHEROT); CHANGED BIRTH OF MESSIAH FROM FEAST OF TABERNACLES TO THE PAGAN SOLSTICE (CHRISTMAS).

     I’ve already mentioned the Sabbath.  The Good Friday thing is all about Christ’s death and I wasn’t really around to weigh in on the date of Easter.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t worship Astarte on Easter, I worship Jesus Christ.  And what Biblical evidence is there that Christ was born on the Feast of Tabernacles? 

     I get these holiday arguments often from Jehovah’s Witnesses and others.  I find them kind of silly and laced with heavy doses of ignorance.  First is Scriptural ignorance.  We have freedom in Christ to honor Him any day we want to.  If I want to invent a new holiday tomorrow to celebrate the feeding of the 5000, I can (Rom. 14:5-6).  Next is anthropological ignorance.  Symbols change all the time and their “original” meaning can often be superseded by a new one.  The Lord Jesus himself did this with the Passover meal at the “Last Supper.”  If we were to analyze how much pagan symbolism is in the everyday life of MBI people or Jehovah’s Witnesses, it would be scary.  I mean do they ban the eating of Lucky Charms cereal?  Do they have bridesmaids at their weddings?  Wedding rings?  Do they use the word “God”?  Do they use the English names for days of the week in their conversations?  Where do they get off worshiping the one true God on Saturday, a day named after the pagan god Saturn?  I am adamantly for taking over pagan holidays and symbols and transforming them into things that honor Christ.  Someone may criticize me for decorating with a Christmas tree, claiming that it is an old pagan custom.  I respond, “It isn’t in my house.  In my house it is all about Jesus Christ and the death he died on a tree to give us everlasting life.”

My Friend:  This is my understanding: The Law of Moses is summed up into two: love the Lord your God and love your neighbor. So basically the 10 commandments are kinda being summed up here. So we are to follow this as our guidelines in life.

Cody:     And I think this is true.  Jesus Christ summed up the law in this way and Paul followed Him (Rom. 13:9, Gal. 5:14).  Of course, we must be clear about what is meant by “guidelines.”  It is not through the 10 commandments or even the “greatest commandments” that salvation (from beginning to end) can be obtained.  That is, we do not earn salvation as a repayment for our love of God.  On the contrary, we only can love God as a result of his initial love towards us.  As John writes, “We love because he first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19).  Our love, faith, and all subsequent God-pleasing virtue is produced in our lives due to the free and gracious work of God in our hearts to conform us to the image of Christ.  They are called the “fruit of the Spirit” as opposed to the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5.  An apple tree doesn’t have to work to produce apples, it just will, providing it is tended properly and is, in fact, an apple tree.  God has planted us.  We are his workmanship (Isa. 61:3, Eph. 2:10).  It is God who works in us to will and to work according to his good purpose (Phil. 2:13).

     To be sure, good works follow regeneration necessarily.  That is, there is no such thing as a Spirit-indwelt person who has not been re-wired to please God and seek His glory.  Such is the meaning of the sometimes confusing “faith without works” verses in James’ epistle.  Works are a wonderful thing in this regard as they bear witness to our hearts that we are truly in Christ—they testify to the genuineness of our faith.  However, we must never forget that these works are the product of the free grace of God, the result of His saving work in us.  They do not merit God’s favor in any way.  We are free from the Law in that our just condemnation (because we are law breakers) has been fully satisfied in the atoning death of Christ our Lord.

     Of course, the law is still written.  It remains the inspired word of God that has come down to us.  So what are we to do with it?  Are we simply New Testament people who consult the Old only for Bible trivia purposes and vacation Bible school stories?  I don’t think so.  The promise of the New Covenant is that God’s law would no longer be the written letter on paper or stone but it would be written on our hearts (Jer. 31:33).  As people born of the Spirit it is our nature to want to please God.  However, we cannot simply create a written code of regulations for everyone to follow.  This, of course, has been attempted by many Christians throughout the years.  But this is not the way of the Spirit.  If we want to please God, it is no longer a matter of turning to chapter and verse as much as it is about cultivating a genuine communion with our Father.  Paul said we must “try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” (Eph. 5:10).  In this, the word of God written will be our true friend.  We will soak ourselves in the Scripture from Genesis to Revelation – meditating, praying, exegeting, believing, joyfully obeying – trying to discern.  Then, the 10 commandments and the Beatitudes and even the regulations about mildew cleansing will become as manna from heaven for us.  “Man does not live by bread alone, but by this,” we will say.  We’ll read about the mildew, Sabbaths, feasts, and more and ask, “Father, what does this tell me about your character?  What does this say about what pleases your heart? ” And then, we probably will remember to go spray our shower with Tilex.

My Friend:  If Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to cancel it, does it not mean we are still under the Law?

Cody:  The fact of the matter is that as a couple of gentiles, we have never been under the Law.  When you read Paul, there isn’t any question that we fall into the category of those “without the Law” rather than “those under the law” (Rom. 2:12).  Or “those outside the law” rather than those “under the law” (1 Cor. 9:20-21).  So, strictly speaking, gentiles who didn’t convert to Judaism were never “under the law.”  The question then becomes whether or not a pagan who accepts Christ (like me) should then submit to the Law of Moses.  Should we become “under the law?” 

     I think this question is dealt with very, very thoroughly in the New Testament as it was one of the first major controversies in the Church.  The book of Acts tells some of the story.  The clear conclusion that the leaders of the Church came to at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was that gentiles who follow Christ should not submit to the Law of Moses.  The claim of some was that “it is necessary to circumcise them [gentiles] and to order them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).  Peter’s position was strongly to the contrary, “Why are you putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?  But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (15:10-11).  The final decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit (15:28) and took Peter’s side.

     Prior to the Council, it seems that some “Christian Pharisees” had visited some of Paul’s church plants in Galatia and convinced many of the disciples there that they needed keep the law of Moses and be circumcised.  Paul’s letter to these churches offers a clear and stinging rebuke towards the young disciples for believing this heresy.  For the Galatians (gentiles) to put themselves “under the law” was tantamount, in Paul’s view, to “deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ” and “turning to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).  The whole letter is probably worth a re-read on this issue.  And lest we think that Paul was only preaching justification by faith, please note that the major problem that Paul confronted in this letter was that the Galatians accepted Christ and received the Spirit by faith but were seeking to grow by works.  His rhetorical question is, “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3).  Moreover, Paul was condemning an attitude that sort of cherry-picked the law.  This was a way of keeping certain parts of the law (like circumcision and the Sabbath) and breaking others all the while presuming oneself to be pleasing to God.  Paul taught that the Law was a package deal (Gal. 3:10, 5:3), if you are under it, you are under all of it.  If you are free from it, you are free from all of it.  It is exegetically and theologically problematic whenever someone divides the Law into categories like “moral law” and “ceremonial law” to suggest that we are, for example, free from the “ceremonial” but not from the “moral law”.  In actuality, the Bible doesn’t make these distinctions.  There is no perceivable difference between laws concerning the cleansing of mildew and laws concerning sexual immorality in the Old Testament.

     So, in short, if you are in Christ, then you are not under the Law.  It is impossible to be both.  The question is, where does my salvation (including election, regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification) come from?  Does it come to me by the grace of God through no works of my own?  Or does it come to me as a reward for my performance of the works of the law?  Every individual many choose either the “grace way” or the “works way.”  The problem with the “works way” is that it can save no one because no one (except Jesus) can keep the law perfectly.  And if we can’t, then the law doesn’t bring salvation but instead reveals to us our just condemnation.  As Paul writes in Romans, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). 

     The last two points of the doctrine of creation are as follows:

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

     It is here, I think, that Biblical theology comes most in conflict with macro-evolutionary ideas.  There is such a concept as “Theistic Evolution” which essentially claims that there is no necessary contradiction between Biblical theology and Darwinian-type evolution.  And, I suppose that if Darwinism is communicated in a way that doesn’t assume atheism or deism (that is, that it doesn’t contradict either of the first two points of the doctrine of Creation), then, up to that point, theistic evolutionists are correct.  One may hold to the principles of macroevolution and still believe that God not only started the process of creation but has remained involved in it throughout history.  However, points 3 and 4 are just much more difficult to reconcile with a Darwinian worldview.

     First, to be faithful to Scripture, one must believe that a radical distinction exists between humans and other forms of biological life.  There is the imago dei (the image of God) concept to contend with in the Bible.  I find it difficult to conceive of a view of humanity that preserves both the belief that humans alone are made in the image of God and that they the biological descendants of other species of primates.  Things get trickier when we move fully into point 4.  According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were made directly by God in his image.  It was an event – this creation, this bestowing of life, this depositing of the imago dei.  If you are an adherent to theistic evolutionary views, I would really like to hear your theologizing on this issue.  If humans are the product of a slow and gradual process of transmutation, when does the image of God come into play?  At what point is a human being a bearer of imago dei and thereby radically distinct from all creation?  I suppose a theistic version of punctuated equilibrium could lend a hand – which could also help us to get two real ancestors of the human race (i.e. Adam and Eve).  But I think that is really stretching credulity.

      A final word here on the importance of point 4.  You may be wondering why is it necessary to affirm that Adam and Eve really were the first humans – our real ancestors.  I know that there are some that read the first several chapters of Genesis metaphorically.  Others try to read it as a science text book.  I don’t think either approach is exegetically honest.  For example, it seems to me that reading chapter one as being about a sequence of 6 literal 24-hour periods is forcing a modern, Western, monochronic view of time upon the ancient, Middle-Eastern, and polychronic audience to which Moses was writing.  Not to mention God’s limitless ability to make what is a “day” to him seem like billions of years to everyone else (2 Pet. 3:8).  But on the other hand, metephorizing the entire contents of the early chapters of Genesis not only reduces the contents to fairytales in the worst way but also ignores the tenor with which the chapters were written.  The person who reads Genesis 1-11 can’t help but confess that the contents were meant to be believed – they were written as history.  There are ages and genealogies, measurements and boring details.  One might take the position that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true, but that it was written to be believed as actual fact seems self-evident.  Moreover, it seems clear that the New Testament authors, and Jesus himself, believed these early chapters to be genuine historical records (e.g. Mt. 23:35, 24:37, Mk. 10:6, Lk. 3:38, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:13-14, Heb. 11:7, 1 Pet. 3:20, 1 Jn. 3:12, Jude 14).

     Of course, the biggest problem with denying our literal descent from Adam and Eve is that doing so wreaks havoc to the essential doctrine of original sin.  The doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were made sinless, bearing the untainted image of God.  They then sinned by rebelling against God’s command, thus corrupting the nature within them.  Original sin* refers to the fact that since we are all descended from Adam, we have all inherited a sinful nature.  We are, like David, sinful from birth and conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5).  We are not sinners because we sin.  Rather, we sin because we are sinners by nature.  Sin and death, and with it our just condemnation, have spread to all humanity (Rom. 5:12-21).  The doctrine of original sin highlights our inherent and emphatic need of a savior.  We cannot please God, seek Him, or become justified in God’s sight apart from the free and sovereign work of His grace in our lives – without the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:9-20, Eph. 2:1-10).

     So, how can theistic evolutionists reconcile macroevolution with the doctrine of original sin?  If there wasn’t a literal Fall, if there is no literal descent from Adam, where does our sinful nature come from?  I think this is a huge problem for the concept of theistic evolution, and I cannot conceive of a way around it.  One thing is certain, that from birth human beings have an innate proclivity to sin is far more observable than the transmutation of species.   And, at the end of the day, I reject macroevolutionary principles because I don’t find the weight of evidence in favor of Darwinism so compelling as to warrant the kind of theological gymnastics that would be required for reconciling those principles with what I already know to be true – God’s infallible word.

     So that’s where I end my review of the four principles of the Biblical doctrine of creation.  This is where the apologetic battle must be fought for Christ’s sake.  Active creative theism, the imminence and transcendence of God, the imago dei, and the doctrine of original sin are pillars and essentials of the faith one for all delivered to the saints.  And it is the responsibility of every follower of Jesus to earnestly contend for and proclaim these transforming and life-giving truths (1 Pet. 3:15, Jude  3). 

     In a few weeks, we’ll examine the concept of the image of God and attempt to answer the question, “What does it mean that we are made in God’s image?”  But now for something completely different . . . .

[*For more on the doctrine of original sin, read “What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin” a brief article by John Piper.]

     Before we leave the topic of creation, I want to spend some time talking about where the real battleground is for those who want to be faithful to the Scriptures.  That is, I want to talk about the Biblical doctrine of creation.  As we encounter Darwinists in our attempt to communicate spiritual truth, I think it is critical that we know where exactly we should be focusing our apologetics.  There are certain battles that we simply don’t need to be fighting. 

     It has often been the case in church history that Christians have picked the wrong fights, often claiming that the Bible teaches things that it does not.  For example, when Galileo Galilei supported the Copernican view of a heliocentric universe, he was charged with heresy and forced to recant his claims.  The Roman Inquisition incorrectly believed that the Bible taught that the earth was in the center of the universe.  This exegetical blunder has long been one of the great historical and unnecessary embarrassments of the Church.

     It is absolutely essential that we understand what the Bible actually teaches regarding the doctrine of creation, so we don’t find ourselves fighting silly battles that are at best a waste of time.  In short, I find that the Scripture teaches four key truths regarding creation that we must understand, believe, and vigorously defend.  I have listed these principles below with several scriptural texts that  support them:

1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

      To the extent that Darwinism challenges any of these principles, Christians who desire to be faithful to the Bible have a serious theological motivation for engaging in debate.  Indeed, we must be willing and ready to give a defense of these essential Biblical truths (1 Pet. 3:15).   The good news is that some really great resources like the Case for a Creator, Expelled, and the Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution are available to help us in this battle.

     Now, beyond these four points, I don’t believe there is a strong Biblical exegetical or theological reason for arguing with non-believers.  No one is being kept out of God’s Kingdom because they believe in an old earth or that dinosaurs weren’t contemporary to humans.  There are plenty of “in-house” debates that Christians can have on these kind of side issues, but it is the essentials that we must proclaim and defend in our various mission contexts. 

     To be sure, Darwinism as it is commonly delineated is clearly heretical, a worldview that is undeniably anti-Biblical.  It certainly fails on theological grounds from a Biblical perspective.  But it is worth remembering that on a completely different level, the scientific, Darwinism falls short of glory.  Darwinism tends to be just bad science that cannot withstand real scrutiny and so does not invite any.

     Over the next few blogs, I plan to reflect a bit more on the four principles of the doctrine of creation mentioned above.  For now, I invite you to let me know in the comment section if you think there are parts of the doctrine that I have overlooked and that you feel should be included among the other four.

     Happy 4^th day of Christmas!

     That’s right, today (12/28) is the 4^th day of Christmas.  In case you didn’t know, I am a big fan of holidays and of using the annual calendar for discipleship purposes.  Of course, I know there are people out there that believe that celebrating holidays is from Satan and that all who do so will go directly to hell.  I’m convinced that most of these people are a little bit nutzo and that none of them understand Scripture or how culture works.  In many cases, they just need to lighten up.  The celebration of annual holy days and holy seasons has a rich tradition in the Bible.  The Old Testament is just full of this kind of stuff.  Jesus celebrated many of these holy days himself (e.g. Matt. 26:18, Jn. 5:1) and Paul gave us a great New Covenant command on the subject when he wrote, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.  The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord” (Romans 15:5-6a).

     So, if your conscience troubles you on celebrating certain days, you are free in Christ to not celebrate.  Likewise, I’m free to celebrate and observe days and seasons in honor of the Lord – so, I say, let’s party (or fast, pray, mourn, sing, etc.).  I firmly believe that holidays and holy seasons can be tremendously powerful discipleship tools for individuals and communities.  I’ve written about a chapter and a half on this subject in Ethnographic Chicago (chapters 3 and 14), so if you want to read more about this please pick up my book.

     Well, anyway, like I said today is the 4^th day of Christmas.  As the song indicates, there are 12 total, beginning with Christmas and lasting until Epiphany (Jan. 6).   Epiphany, in case you didn’t know, marks the occasion of the visit of the magi to the child Jesus.  This doesn’t mean that Christians believe the wise men visited Jesus 12 days after his birth, is it simply a way of symbolically indicating that the visit was later.  The 12 days of Christmas are a wonderful time to remember Christ and worship him, to teach your children, to reflect on the significance of the incarnation, and more.  That’s right, it’s not just for bowl games (though that’s fun too). 

     What can you do to observe the 12 days with your family?  Our family is doing a couple simple things.  First, we’ve taken the wise men from our Nativity scene and moved them far away—actually into a different room.  Each day, we’re gathering around them with our kids and moving the figurines a little bit closer to the scene (by the way, we also leave our tree up until January 6^th ).  Then we sing a little bit of the “12 days of Christmas” song (adding a verse per day) and explain the symbolism to our children.  That’s right, symbolism.  Did you know that song was actually a Christian teaching device used to impart spiritual truth in a memorable way to disciples of Christ?  So, for example, the “partridge in a pear tree” represents the death of Christ on the cross, God is our “true love”, and the “four calling birds” (that’s today’s symbol) refer to the four gospels that proclaim the good news of the life of Jesus Christ. 

     That brings me to a new recommended resource for your family.  It is a children’s book called The 12 Days of Christmas and it's written by Helen C. Haidle.  With beautiful illustrations, this book explains the symbolism behind each of the 12 days of Christmas in a way that will engage and educate your whole family.  We put our copy under our tree during the Christmas season, but it is also a wonderful thing to have on your coffee table for non-believing guests to flip through as they visit your home.  I really like this book a lot and think it is a great thing for families to have in their home during this time of year.  So, pick it up and enjoy the rest of the Christmas season!

     If you have questions about other symbolism in the song, just post your questions in the comment section and I’ll be sure to respond.  And don’t forget to spread the word about this blog to others that you think might benefit.  A series of posts on the apologetics of creationism and the intelligent design debate are coming in the next few days, so stay tuned!