Posts Tagged ‘Truth’

Some anniversaries are celebrated with much pomp. Perhaps in limited or hidden circles or isolated from one another, the 500th anniversary of the Reformation is being celebrated. But from my limited view, I am not seeing it. Perhaps this history changing event is obscured by the willful ignoring of the main purveyors of information. It is my hope that the quiet remembrance and thanksgiving of the saints for this God directed change in direction of the church and at that time will result in godly resolution to renew repentance and reformation in our time.

My church is committing some small focus to this great event and how it effects the church today. For 5 weeks leading up to the 500th anniversary, we are presenting a 5-10 minute “Reformation Moment” on the 5 solae of the Reformation. Then this coming Sunday night we have a speaker who will give us an overview of Reformation history. One of the solae for which I have a transcript is “Solus Christus”:

In these 5 weeks we are giving consideration to the 5 solae that summarize the Reformation ideas about God bringing salvation to man. As has been said, the Latin word sola means “alone” or “only”: only Scripture, only grace, only faith, only Christ, only God’s glory. There is, however, one sense in which they are not alone. The solae must be taken together to give a full picture of what God has done and evermore will do to secure our salvation. All of these solae grew out of the reformers’ realizations that the Roman Catholic Church had strayed from the true Gospel message by adding requirements and layers to what God had done, much as the Pharisees had done by the time Jesus was on Earth.

Today we focus on Solus Christus, Christ alone. That this idea is Scriptural is abundantly clear from numerous references. Jesus, Himself, proclaimed His exclusive role in salvation when He said in John 14, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (v. 6) Peter amplifies the idea when he and John are brought before the rulers and elders of the people in Acts 4:  And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved”. (v. 12) No priest, no deacon, no pastor, no pope, no mentor or prophet or holy man or saint or angel can in any way help us in salvation other than to point us to Christ because, as I Timothy 2:5-6 says, “there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.”

Furthermore, Christ is only and once sacrificed. For the celebration of the mass is said to be the true body and blood of Christ sacrificed for sins. Scripture says: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” (Hebrews 9:27-28)” Salvation comes through trusting in Christ alone for his once and final sacrifice on the cross. We do not need the priest as mediator or the mass as a means of applying saving grace.

Luther understood our tendencies all too well when he said, “we humans are weak and stubbornly perverse and are more likely to become attached to saints than to Christ…that it is easier for us humans to believe and trust in everything else than in the name of Christ, who alone is all in all, and more difficult for us to rely on him in whom and through whom we possess all things.”

As Huldrych [Ulrich] Zwingli proclaimed, “Christ is the only way of salvation of all who were, are now, or shall be.” In Article 54 of his Sixty-Seven Articles (1523), Zwingli explicitly contrasts the Roman sacramentalist view with solus Christus: “Christ has borne all our pain and travail. Hence, whoever attributes to works of penance what is Christ’s alone, errs and blasphemes God.”1

Joel Beeke in writing about the Solus Christus says, “The centrality of Christ is the foundation of the Protestant faith. Martin Luther said that Jesus Christ is the “center and circumference of the Bible”—meaning that who He is and what He did in His death and resurrection is the fundamental content of Scripture. Salvation is only in Jesus Christ because there are two conditions that, no matter how hard we try, we can never meet. Yet, they must be done if we are to be saved. The first is to satisfy the justice of God through obedience to the law. The second is to pay the price of our sins. We cannot do either, but Christ did both perfectly”2

In his “Institutes of the Christian Religion”, John Calvin wrote, “Christ stepped in, took the punishment upon himself and bore the judgment due to sinners. With his own blood he expiated the sins which made them enemies of God and thereby satisfied him…we look to Christ alone for divine favour and fatherly love!…Hence Christ is called “King of peace” (Is. 9:6) and “our peace” (Eph 2:14) because he quiets all agitations of conscience. If we ask the means, we must come to the sacrifice by which God has been appeased. For anyone unconvinced that God is appeased by that one atonement, in which Christ endured his wrath, will never cease to tremble. In short, we must seek peace for ourselves solely in the anguish of Christ our Redeemer.”3

Solus Christus, Christ alone. As one blogger said, “Since Rome has not changed, and since our own hearts constantly look elsewhere for salvation, the issue is still before us today.  So it is still the duty of the church to clear away all helpers and assistants in salvation and preach Christ and him alone. He is all we have for salvation, but he is all that we’ll ever need.”4 Martin Luther gives us a simple summary, quote, “I must listen to the gospel. It tells me not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ the Son of God has done for me.”

  1. http://www.ligonier.org/blog/top-five-books-five-solas-solus-christus/
  2. http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/christ-alone/
  3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.16.2
  4. https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/martin-luther-on-solus-christus/

Read Full Post »

   A worldview must be able to withstand the rigors of reality. It must match up with truth. If there is no absolute truth, then there is no basis for purpose, moral code, love, or rational thought.

         I believe literally what the Bible says about our origin- created in six literal days approximately 6000 years ago, as separate and fully formed kinds of plants, animals, and humans. This view, which simply takes God at His word, leaves no room for evolution between kinds of organisms, so called macro-evolution. How should a Bible believing individual respond to the claims of evolution? Does evidence overturn the plain reading of Scripture?

         In an online video, “The Making of the Fittest: Natural Selection and Adaptation”, the presenters describe what they believe to be an airtight example of modern evolution: “Thanks to Nachman [the researcher],” says the narrator, “Science has an example of evolution clear in every detail.” Michael Nachman has studied pocket mice on the lava beds of Southeast New Mexico. Based on his population field studies and laboratory DNA studies, Nachman believes that a combination of mutation and natural selection has resulted in the pocket mouse being “evolved to be dark like the rock.” He says, “When a black mouse appears in a white population of mice, that is usually going to be due to a new mutation, and those are random and rare events.” He concludes that studies of the mice at other lavabeds show that “the genetic changes that made the mice black were different in each case. What’s amazing to me is how similar the black mice are…completely different genes. The narrator concludes, “The rock pocket mice show us that evolution can and does repeat itself and why evolutionary change is never ending.”

         But not so fast! First of all, before and after this event they are still pocket mice. Secondly, Nachman assumes that the genes for black fur arose by random mutation. But as Carl Wieland points out in an article about the peppered moths of England:

“Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution. Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ‘evolution in action.’”

         Thirdly, a very simplistic understanding of genetics results in only one possible conclusion for how multiple gene variations result in black fur. Given the relatively recent understanding of epigenetics, the better explanation lies in shifts within the expression of genes already resident within the mice. As Marc Ambler says about a different mice study,

“Scientists conducting experiments on agouti mice found that by manipulating nutrition they could switch off a certain gene. When the gene is active (‘on’) the mice are normally obese and a yellowish colour; by switching the gene off the mice are of a normal, slim appearance, and brown. By feeding a combination of nutrients including vitamin B12 to the mother before mating, the gene was able to be turned off in the babies.”

         Bible believer, do not give in to the wiles of evolutionary thought. We know God from His Word and our personal experience of His saving grace, and science supports rather than contradicts that knowledge. Only conclusions based on a naturalist worldview that excludes the need or possibility of God deny His plain communication about who He is and how He created all that we see. Those of you holding to a naturalist view, I challenge you to consider the possibility that God is real and evidence of nature rightly understood points toward Him.

Read Full Post »

Inspired and Profitable

It is such a joy to teach young people about the Word of God. God’s Word is our foundation for truth and life. Trying to increase the students’ understanding and memory of what was being taught, I came up with a diagram. Perhaps it will help you, too.

2 Tim 3-16

Read Full Post »

Having taught for 25 years, I have indeed seen many changes in public school. Some represent major cultural shifts while others reflect minor cycles of fad and fashion. One very curious change I have witnessed is a loss of faith in Science. Students used to almost universally confess that science and technology would eventually solve all of man’s problems. Disease will be defeated, genetic difficulties overcome, hunger eradicated, environmental problems will be historical artifacts of developing technologies, mysteries solved, a perpetual motion machine created that would solve all energy problemss, the galaxy traversed. Older minds may have written this off as so much blissful, youthful optimism and ignorance. Instead, I think that it was a product of a worldview that viewed science as the source and conduit of all truth. There were, of course, the rare skeptic that did not trust science or its message.

I see the opposite trend to be generally true today. It is the rare student that has an unflinching faith in Science, or anything for that matter, other than himself. Science and Technology have not solved all of our problems. Epidemics continue, hunger persists, climate change threatens, nuclear proliferation has rebooted, natural disasters terrorize, and people still don’t get along with each other. Unfulfilled expectations and personal discontent are on the rise. Science and technology are frequently viewed as the cause of environmental problems and stressed out living styles.

There could well be many sociological, cultural, and economic reasons for this shift, but I think that in a narrower sense of views about science as a human endeavor, both the blind faith in science and the skepticism of its merits arise from a basic misunderstanding of what the limits of science are. Science is neither the source and conduit of all truth nor the cause of the world’s most pressing problems. Science is a tool. As such it has limits. When I use my large ratchet as a hammer, I damage the tool and very poorly drive the pin I am trying to remove. In a similar way Science used in the wrong way brings harm to its prestige and to the understanding and application it is meant to drive. Science has at least 4 related limits.

Science may only be applied to things which are observable. This observation includes our 5 senses and any other remote sensing we may devise: camera, thermometer, radiation detector, ultrasound, etc. If only time, space, material, and energy exist as many insist, then this observability is not a limit. There is, however, evidence of more than the physical world (the source of beauty, information, purpose, emotions and will) and observability does not automatically exclude the spiritual realm. Scientists use inference (drawing conclusions) as a powerful tool, but it must be based on observation (quantitative data or measurement enable the observation to be unambiguous).

Science is also limited by the requirement of being testable. Scientists test hypotheses with controlled experiments to acquire a deeper understanding of the physical world. There are things that an experiment cannot test which nonetheless exist and effect our lives.

Scientific experiments must be repeatable. Other scientists must be able to use clearly set forth procedures and obtain the same results. If the results are different, some variable has not been controlled for or the experimenters were not careful enough in their observations. Therefore, scientists ask for procedures, data, and analyses from colleagues in order to determine if the conclusions are valid. The best way to do this is to repeat the experiment.

Finally, conclusions resulting from observations must be falsifiable. This does not mean that all evidence or conclusions will be falsified, but rather there must be the possibility of demonstrating that a conclusion is wrong. The essential function of Science is not to reveal truth but to eliminate falsehood. Based upon observation alone, one may never know for sure if something is true. But the ability to falsify wrong ideas narrows down what science accepts as true sufficiently to act upon it. This does not mean that there is no truth. It means that science does not have the ability to state truth in any absolute way. That must be done from other pursuits.

Many ideas are parading around, claiming to be scientific theories when they do not rise to the level of even a hypothesis, let alone a well substantiated hypothesis, that is, a theory. As an example, consider the issue of origins. How did we get here and how did it all begin? Can anyone who is living or has lived observe the beginning of the world? Since they cannot, can they possibly do an experiment on beginning a world? Is that experiment repeatable? If no experiment or observation by scientists may be done directly on the beginning of the world, then it is not a falsifiable idea. Therefore, though evidence may be given from subsequent events as to which version of origins is most likely, presuppositions are inevitably required in any discussion of origins. Another name for presuppositions, those assumptions made in order to begin a discussion or make inquiry, is beliefs. Any discussion of origins by definition is based on a worldview or belief system. It may be labeled religion or science, it does not matter, but it is essentially based on belief.

What this means for any discussion of origins is matching present evidence to the best presuppositional explanation. Does your belief about origins fit the evidence?

What this means about faith in or loss of faith in Science is a need to reconsider its value. Science is a valuable tool wielded by mechanics of varying training and skill, operating from differing worldviews. Retain a healthy skepticism that desires to understand what has been discovered and understood. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathe water. That is, don’t throw out the valuable tool of Science or the useful evidence it provides when you have to wade through false claims, poorly substantiated ‘theories’, intentionally falsified conclusions, or presuppositions that don’t match up with what you know to be true. Science is a useful tool.

Read Full Post »

Sigh and Faith

One sentence from a comment on my last entry keeps coming back to me:

“A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed.”        (G.K. Chesterton)

When I came across a small poem that I had written about a year ago and considered my daily struggles, it seemed an example of how I must doubt my sinful self and cling evermore so firmly to the saving truth that brings joy and confidence. This salvation is not a past tense thing, it is a continuous present tense thing:

A deep heavy sigh

To realize I’ve failed again

How can I reply

Other than repent of sin

Only live by faith

Letting God’s grace to shine through

Jesus first of all

In all life that I pursue

Read Full Post »

Humble Absolutism

I read an article posted on Facebook (Someone reading this article is saying, “There was your first mistake.”) recently that was titled, “Want to be Smarter? Learn to Say “I Don’t Know” by Zat Rana. I think that the sense of the article is humility, which is a valuable virtue for all of life and particularly discussions of significant topics. Humility should rule all of our discussions and particularly those on profound and sublime subjects. He says early on, “Somehow, we have decided that it’s okay to hold beliefs based on blind affiliation rather than rigorous critical thought.” Far too much of that goes on, probably because assenting to ideas by affiliation is easier than researching a topic and coming to your own conclusions. Also, he says, “more often than not, the issue lies in our inability to humbly accept that we don’t and can’t know everything; that, often, we are wrong.”

So far I am tracking with him. But immediately he charges into his defense of his position with his first point: “The Irrationality of Certainty”. His most supporting thought is that “Certainty is an illusion, and there is no shame in being wrong because, by nature, our entire perception of the world is wrong.”  Now life truly is a balancing act, and we must hold many of our ideas lightly, but saying that there is nothing about which you can be certain, because it is an illusion, reduces all of life to relativism, which is illogical according the law of non-contradiction. Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean it isn’t certain or that you can’t know it. There are things of substance that I can know for sure, not because I have all of the data, but because I know the One who does. There are absolutes and they can be known. There are many things I must hold lightly and be ready to be corrected and informed, but there are others I stake my life on.

His next sub-title is “The Disease of Blind Affiliation”. His contention is that “we form a connection to something that we fundamentally haven’t questioned.” In many scenarios of politics and tradition and even religious thinking, what he says is so very true, but don’t use this as an excuse not to make commitments about what is true. The agnostic view of the world and God is an excuse not to make a commitment that will require change and conviction. It reminds me of what the writer of Acts says about the Athenians concerning their questioning of Paul: “Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.” Act 17:21 This is how many avoid commitment to the truth: “…always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” II Timothy 3:7

“What is truth?” (John 18:38), Pilate asked Jesus. Was Pilate opened-minded? Was he seeking for truth? The evidence of the passage (John 18:29-19:18) is that he wanted to feel important, secure, popular, and in control, but he was not interested ultimately in what was true or right. His attempts to rescue Jesus were to avoid repercussions either from the crowd or some vague sense of a wrathful deity. Is it any different now? “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;  and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (John 8:32-33), said Jesus. If you don’t start with God’s Word you certainly can’t continue in it. I urge you, dear reader, to dig into the Word of God and plead with God to reveal to you truth. It exists; it is unchanging; it is life changing; you can know with certainty; it will keep you humble.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts