Systematic Evidence For God's Existence...

"Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless" (Bertrand Russel, atheist philosopher).

"What you see neither indicates the total absence of God, nor His manifest presence, but rather the presence of a hidden God"  (Blaise Pascal, Christian philosopher).

Note that the existence of God is "open-ended" and God is only pleased with faith--both choices require faith.  (Heb. 11:6).

1)  The Bible assumes it unapologetically and does not try to offer proof (Gen. 1:1).

2) People suppress it (Psa. 14:1).

3) God hides Himself and one must seek Him (Jer. 29:13; Isa. 45:15; 55:6).

4) Changed lives prove the validity of testimony and the veracity of the witness is often validated by martyrdom--people usually tell the truth on their deathbed!

5) There is a God-shaped hole in man's heart (He is made to be fulfilled in Him alone), says Pascal.

6)  There is anthropological proof because belief is universal and all primitive peoples believe in a god or deity.

7)  Cosmological evidence citing the law of causality (cause and effect) which needs a so-called first cause or ultimate causation (Heb. 3:4).

8)  Ontological evidence--where did we get this idea from--it is like a tug or a moving of the tide (Rom. 1:19)--no one is without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

9) The moral compass of man like a mathematical table, not like social evolution (Rom. 2:15).

10) Teleological proof means that there is order, purpose, harmony, and intelligence (design), which point to a designer or grand thinker or author. If things are in order, someone had to put them that way!

11)  The Big Bang implies that the cosmos had a beginning, so who pulled the trigger?  There must be a "Beginner."

12)  The personhood of man proves God must be a person, for He must be greater than us, as His "offspring" (Acts 17:29).

13)  Can't prove a universal negative--that He doesn't exist (can't even prove there are no little green men!).

14)  Infinite time plus chance is bogus reasoning and is called "junkyard mentality"  This is like hoping a blind person can solve Rubik's Cube (would take 1.35 trillion years).  (Even if the whole universe were filled with junkyards and a tornado went through all of them, a 747 would not be assembled by chance, and this is an analogy).

15)  There is more evidence for than against--it is the hardness and unwillingness of the heart that doesn't want to believe; there is plenty of evidence and sound evidence at that.

16) Atheism can't account for Big Bang, the universe's fine-tuning, anthropic design of earth, the origin of life, the resurrection of Christ, the Bible's confirmation, changed lives, DNA, biogenesis,  et al.

17)  Archeology has never controverted the Bible though many have tried to disprove it and failed.

18)  Miracles and prophecy of the Bible are consistent and unaccountable by any other explanation.

19) Pascal's wager says that you are wiser to bet there is a God and find out you are wrong than take your chance that there isn't one and end up in hell--there's a lot to lose!


20)  The moral argument shows that God cares a lot about right and wrong and ethics and where did fair play, good faith, altruism, goodwill, integrity, et al., come from?

Creation implies a creator; design, ipso facto a designer; order, ergo an Orderer; and art, therefore an artist! This is plain logic and common sense:  if you found a watch, wouldn't you say someone made it?    "God doesn't believe in atheists," some have well said.  Norman Geisler said, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!"  There is more evidence for God than against--in fact, what evidence is there really that there is no God?

You can experience Christ personally and God challenges you: "Taste and see that the LORD is good"  (Psa. 34:8).   It takes faith; if you could rationalize God or prove Him, it wouldn't take faith and He would be not worthy of our worship!

Finally, it is not egotistical to assert that there is a God, and Jesus is the only way to Him because He made that claim and we just take His word for it--it is not us saying it!
  Soli Deo Gloria!

Should We Respect All Authority Figures?

"Render to all what is due them:   tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor"  (Rom. 13:7).  Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.  Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle but also to those who are unreasonable" (1 Pet. 2:17-18).  "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right"  (1 Pet. 2:13-14, NASB).

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For there is no power but of God:  the powers that be are ordained of God.   Whoso resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God...  For he is the minister of God to thee for good...(Rom. 13:1-2,4a, KJV)."

The Word says to fear (respect) all that fear is due (I learned this pretty fast in the Army saying my first "Yes, Sir!"), but does this mean it is up to us to decide whether they are worthy of our respect or not?  All authority is given by God and established by Him and it would not have any power over us except that God has given it.  Disrespecting authority is a way of disrespecting God (e.g., parents are in loco Dei or in the place of God as the first authority figures a child has to learn to obey, and disobedience to parents was a crime worthy of death, according to Romans 1) and only when they ask us to do some evil or sinful act are we entitled and obligated to disobey, and even do civil disobedience--there is a limit to our obedience (Shall we obey God or man? is asked in Acts 4:19).

But just as the judge demands respect from the court, even if they disagree, so in the military services one respects positions of authority regardless of the personal opinions or whether one likes them--it is the office they hold that is the key.  When the judge enters the courtroom, all rise out of respect and call him "your honor."

 We are to honor all people because they are in the image and likeness of God, no one deserves contempt or inhumane treatment as if they weren't human or deserved any rights.  We believe in the basic dignity of man and that is why capital punishment is appropriate because a person in God's image has been killed.  In a church, we have an organization, though the church is an organism of believers.  Elders, deacons, and pastors and teachers are a chain of command and are there by God's decree.  It is vain to believe we can reform our church to our image and agree with our way of thinking--Martin Luther tried this and failed to change the Vatican, getting excommunicated in the process and having to start his own denomination, which was not his intent.

 Rebellion is a sin and so is sowing discord among brothers.  Being divisive, factious, or contentious is a fruit of the flesh and to be avoided and disciplined by the church body  (cf. Gal. 5:20).  We are not trying to start our little own following, revolution or movement to be counterproductive to the system--we want to church's blessing on our endeavor.    As an example, I have this blog and made sure that my pastor didn't object to my sharing it; I gave him a sample of my doctrine so he knows where I stand, and that I'm not way out there in some heresy or something, and dangerous to the church.  This is done in the "up and up" and not in secret--no hidden agenda. 

We are to work with the system God has set up and respect all authority, even if we don't like them.   Remembering Jesus' words to Pilate:  "You would have no authority over me, except it had been given from above." Jesus never showed any signs of lack of respect, though he didn't really cooperate as expected.  As Protestants we can take advice from Martin Luther who dared to stand up to heresy and take the consequences, saying:  "I dissent, I disagree, I protest."

 Summing up, we don't have to agree with everything, but in everything we do we must show respect and disagree in the right way:  Augustine's dictum, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity" applies, but that also means we are to leave room for disagreement from the church, and not just them leaving room for our disagreement.  There should be unity, but not uniformity in the body. "Being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (cf. Eph. 4:3).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Are You An Antinomian?

"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).  We are not free to do what we want, but what we ought! 

A word to the wise is sufficient from Romans 14:1-5 as follows:  "Accept one who is weak in the faith, but don't argue about doubtful issues.  One person believes he may eat anything, but one who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables.  One who eats must not look down on one who does not eat, and one who does not eat must not criticize one who does,  because God has accepted him. Who are you to criticize another person's household slave?  Before his own Lord, he stands or falls.  And he will stand.  For the Lord is able to make him stand... Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind"  (HCSB).

My goal is to refute those who have become a "law unto themselves."  I want to emphasize that the unbeliever knows no law in effect, however, the believer needs no law in effect--a paradox.

We should never label our brothers, but for the sake of argument, let's analyze the issue.  Antinomianism refers to "anti-lawism," or being against law.  It is sometimes called libertinism, hedonism, or living by the philosophy that says, "Freed from the law, Oh blessed condition, now I can sin all I want and still have remission." It refers to moral liberty run amuck or moral laxity to the extreme.    We don't have the right to do as we want as believers and we are not a law unto ourselves--the Bible doesn't sanction a license to sin.  We never have the right to do what is wrong, and we believe in absolute right and wrong, defined by the Word of God, not our conscience--we are not lawless!  Certain of the more than 600 laws are now obsolete and don't matter to Christians, such as tithing,  cutting our sideburns,  mixing fabrics, or charging interest, but if it is serious it is reinstated in the New Testament in some manner.  Recall that Paul said love is the fulfillment of the Law.    We don't have to become Old Testament scholars to be good Christians--you can never go wrong by placing emphasis on the New Testament.

When we strive to obey the Law, we have "fallen from grace."  We don't have to become somewhat Jewish to become a Christian.  Neither justification nor sanctification is through the Law; instead, we are subject to the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom. 8:1-2).  The Pharisees were guilty of obeying the letter of the Law, and not the spirit of the Law--"As many as are led by the Spirit are not under the Law [how clear can the Bible be?]," says Gal. 5:18. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the former needs no law, and the latter knows no law.   Yes, all the Law can be summed up in loving your neighbor as yourself (Gal. 5:14).

There is a question of definition and morality. Some say are obliged to obey the moral law (in fact we are not "lawless", but have an inner law given by God), as opposed to the ceremonial or governmental codes.   There are many moral precepts laid down in the Law that are relevant and are merely addendum's to the Decalogue and are spelled out to a dense nation that didn't know right and wrong.  There are plenty of sins to worry about already, that we don't have to find some obscure one to preach about--we should always keep the main thing the main thing and preach salvation and deliverance from the Law.  

I have heard it said that if we are under the Ten Commandments (except for the Sabbath observance, which is not repeated in the New Testament). and this has not been rescinded.  There are plenty of sins mentioned in the New Testament (see Romans 1 Mark 7,  or Gal 5:20-21), that we don't need a longer "to-do list" or "not-to-do-list," as it were (Christianity isn't a rulebook if you will).

It is a sound interpretation of Scripture that the New Testament trumps the Old and we should interpret each in light of the other.  The fault of legalists is that they see "sins" and not "sin," or the root problem.  The Pharisees strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel!   They neglected the important areas of love, justice, and mercy while being overly legalistic and demanding about the Sabbath, making it a burden to dread, not a joy.

Remember,  Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."  The early church (referring to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15) did not desire to burden the early church with a yoke their fathers couldn't bear and did not require them to follow the Law of Moses.  Christianity is a new faith and the fulfillment of, and not an extension or continuation of Judaism, which the early church struggled about.  Judaizers were an early heresy and Hebrews was written to combat this.  Soli Deo Gloria!