Have you ever heard of Alfred Wallace? I haven’t until recently. He was a 19th century biologist, and co-founder of Evolution with Charles Darwin. At the same time, he is essentially the grandfather of ID. Rather than being a theist whom eventually became a naturalist (as Darwin was), he was a naturalist whom eventually became a theist because of his findings in nature and animals. Contrary to animals pointing him towards naturalism like it did with Darwin, they pointed him away from naturalism and towards intelligence and purpose behind the complexities of nature. Unfortunately, we don’t hear Wallace’s opinions today, but only hear about Darwin’s dogmatic naturalism.

Here’s an excerpt from alfredwallace.org: Both Wallace and Darwin were committed to science, but their conceptions of science were dramatically different: for Wallace science was simply the search for truth in the natural world; for Darwin science must invoke only natural processes functioning via unbroken natural laws in nonteleological ways.

Wallace traveled, documented, classified, and researched far more than Darwin.

There’s a debate on youtube where college students debate the topic of miracles. When I find it I’ll post it on here because it’s pertinent to this issue.

Often when there are debates on the topic of miracles this question is raised by the naturalistic atheist, namely, why do Christians only nitpick and choose to believe in the Biblical miracles, yet reject all other miracle claims? Is there a double standard going on? Is the Christian behaving inconsistently here and arbitrarily giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt?

Here’s my quick response to this important question:

First we need to define what we mean by a “miracle”. Usually what the naturalist will mean by this is any phenomenon that is not “natural”. I would argue that this is a bad standard because of the fact that morality and logic are not ordinarily accounted for by “nature” alone. I’d argue that morality is “supernatural” behavior. The fact that you’re even reading this or agree that molesting kids for the fun of it is always morally wrong is proof of this. If what “nature” cannot account for is to be considered a miracle then all humans have miraculous behavior. Philosophical Naturalism can only give us “what is”, not “what should be”, and morality and logic say we shouldn’t do certain things and that we shouldn’t contradict.

Yet, in addition, it’s difficult to advocate whether or not something is “natural”. 1. We don’t know what the natural realm ultimately is. Does it stop with leptons, quarks, etc? We don’t know. And even if we knew this, we still wouldn’t know what the “nature” should be doing or how it must function. It may be functioning one way for now, but might change later. It could have behaved differently in the past as well. We just don’t know. Gravity might behave differently some day. It might have in the past. We don’t know if the sun will rise tomorrow. We trust that whatever, or whomever, is ultimately manning the universe will continue to make it rise.

2. What we now consider to be “supernatural” (non-normal), we may someday consider to be “natural” (normal) once we become more used to it. The big bang was once considered supernatural by scientists when the theory first was developed, yet now naturalists fit the theory into their ideology, thus now consider it a “natural” event. The problem with the term “nature” is that it implies “what is”, yet we don’t know all about “what is”. If God exists, then he accounts for all of “what is”, thus is most “natural”.

So let’s move onto the next possible standard for a miracle. Let’s assume it’s when something “extraordinary” happens, or when something happens that is not ordinarily experienced by us. We consider it ordinary when a ball falls to the ground after being dropped. If a ball someday flies up, instead of down, then that would be considered out of the ordinary. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible for “nature” (=what is) to do this, it’s just that it’s not uniform to what we commonly experience. Things like this happen when people come back to life after being dead for a long duration, coming out of a coma after being in it for years, and tumors or cancer disappearing. Some people may call these things miracles because they’re not normal.

In addition, they may be considered miracles because not only are they unlikely, but are difficult to explain. Even the smartest doctors can’t believe some of these things. Yet, I also wouldn’t call something a miracle just because it can’t be explained very well. If that were the criterion then many things would be considered miracles, ie. the singularity of the big bang, how gravity works, how the universe operates at the quantum level, etc. While we may not yet be able to explain things like tumors disappearing, we can say we have evidence of it happening and occurring at times. We cannot say that about the things we have not witnessed or experienced, such as with historical claims. For example, Greek mythology says that Apollo healed people, and the Bible says that Jesus healed people. Are we to accept both, reject both, or accept one? And on what bases? I’ll get back to this in a bit.

Lastly, is something defined as a miracle if it’s believed that there is no other explanation than God? If this is the criterion by which we’re going to determine if something is a miracle then I’m going to argue that EVERYTHING is a miracle! Even Albert Einstein said that “there are two types of people. Those whom live as though nothing is a miracle, and those whom live as though everything is a miracle”. I wont even entertain the idea that God is allowing some things to be “natural”, and other things “miraculous”. For the Christian, they are both are one and the same. We believe God is controlling everything. God does things that are non-normative at times to simply show that he’s controlling the normative, and is greater than it. And he allows us to pear into the normative enough to eventually realize that it can’t account for itself.

Now we’ve come full circle and I would like to explain why I choose to believe that Jesus really did heal people and why I reject other historical miracle claims. Let me say first that obviously I’m not using the standard that naturalists might use, depending on whatever criterion they prefer. The way I understand the term “miracle” is much more broad and gray than how many tend to narrowly understand the term. Again, I believe that the fact that we are logical and moral creatures is itself proof of everyday miraculous activity. I believe that the existence of the universe itself, along with it being extremely fine-tuned, is evidence of extraordinary activity. I also believe that extraordinary healing does and can happen, even apart from a Christian context. I believe there can be healing which is part of God’s common grace, and healing that is demonic activity.

Being said, you might be able to understand why the term “miracle” can be difficult for me to define, yet not difficult for me to accept – as I believe the miraculous is all around us if we’re willing to open our eyes.

Thus, I would like to look at what Scripture itself means when it uses the term “miracle”. What it means by “miracle” is actually very different than what we commonly refer to as a “miracle”. The Greek root is “dynamis” which simply means strength, power, or ability. Scripture is simply pointing to God’s working power – predominantly in a redemptive context. It does not refer to it as an “extraordinary” phenomenon as we are told to think of it as in the 21st century.

There are many miracles in Scripture as far as what skeptics today would consider “strange”, “impossible”, “out of the ordinary”, or “non-uniform”. There are OT miracles of God creating the universe, creating Adam and Eve, splitting the Red sea, etc. In the NT, they generally would be the virgin birth, Jesus’ healing miracles, and the resurrection.

Why do I believe these historical miracles and reject the rest? Again, it’s not because I have the same standard as the naturalistic atheist. Again, because I don’t view a miracle, or define a miracle, the same way they do I’m not likely to have the same standard that they have. I am a Christian. Interestingly enough, the basic tenants of my worldview are shared and understood by everyone. I believe that morality is a reality. I believe there are things that are really wrong and that I have done many things that are really wrong. I believe everyone has done things that are really wrong, and that if they’re honest with themselves they will admit it too. I believe moral failure is the reality of this unfair, messed up, and selfish world.

Thus, we need the sinner’s Savior, whom is the historical person Jesus of Nazareth whom suffered under Pontius Pilate. The claims of his power are in the context of him saving sinners. From the OT to the NT, virtually all the miracles tie into his plan of redemption against the backdrop of our moral failures. I accept the Christian miracles because I believe in God’s power to redeem his people and demonstrate the glory of both his love and his wrath. Thus, I naturally reject other historical claims to miracles because they do not tie into any kind of context of a historical person saving us from that which we all know we are, namely, sinful. I know of no other historical figure whom splits history in half while exhaustively and sufficiently dealing with such a grand dilemma. I don’t plan to either.

If you think about it, my bias is not much different from the naturalistic atheist at this point. There are historical miracles I accept and historical miracles I reject. I accept the miracles of Jesus Christ, yet I reject the supposed miracles of Apollo. No differently, the naturalistic atheist accepts the miracles of the universe coming into existence, it being awesomely fine-tuned, and us becoming moral and logical creatures, yet they reject 1. other miracles they cannot observe, and/or 2. other miracles they feel are unlikely.

(Above: youthful hipsters live in the moment at a rave party where paint falls from the ceiling and black lights make much of them)

Younger generations view older generations as traditional, stuffy, boring, less-exposed, held-back, less familiar with the latest technology, less hip, less willing to try new things, and a hindrance to future development, etc.

Older generations view younger generations as ignorant, lazy, self-absorbed, confused, spoiled, pretentious, disrespectful, ungrateful, and a threat to future development, etc.

I personally grew up with MTV when it actually played music videos. Kids today are growing up with MTV where it mostly has reality shows that peer into the dramatic lives of adolescents having babies whom aren’t ready. The boys just wanted sex because the media told them that’s all there is to being a man. The girls are left wondering why he’s not being a man like he should be.

When I was a kid, authority was mostly challenged, and being rebellious was glamorized on MTV. Now having a broken home is glamorized on MTV.

We’ve all grown up with technology quickly advancing. In the 20-21st century every generation is born into technological advances that previous generations thought would never happen. I remember a time when there was no internet. Kids today can’t fathom life without it. However, in 20 years this generation will be older and saying “back in my day we didn’t have _____.” Just wait, it will happen soon enough. History will repeat itself.

Because the times “are a changing”, and changing so fast in these centuries, it only takes 10 years for a generation to see their culture fly by and be rudely replaced by another. Can you imagine hundreds of years ago when things were the same for a much longer time? It’s hard to imagine. Now things change all the time. My style was considered “hip” a decade ago, yet now I already feel I can’t recognize or identify with new styles (besides the fact they mostly copy older styles). They are coming and going quicker and quicker.

Everyone is comfortable with what they grew up around. What we grow up with is normal to us. We aren’t comfortable with what’s new because it’s different and unfamiliar to us. If we can’t identify with it it makes us un-easy. We’ll make fun of it, get mad at it, and think it’s non-sense. I found myself doing this with the current generation, only 5 years after high school!

Now, I’d like to analyze the current generation. For starters, let’s watch this Levi’s video where “The Man” advertises to this generation rather artistically. It borrows a poem by Walt Whitman about pioneers advancing in the West.

An older generation may watch these kid’s behavior and ask, where are they going? Why are they sprinting with a torch? Why are they playing with antlers? Why is everything sporadic? What are they so happy about? Is it an inside joke?

They clearly are filled with energy and passion. They carry a fresh and explosive potential. They want to do something spectacular and be a part of something important, but what? Until they find out what it is, they will just spend time running around crazy and sexy-like.

(Above: a youthful hipster puts out the new vibe)

Now here is a parody of the same commercial. However, the voice over is now quoting poet Bukowski, almost in an antithetical way.

The spoof mocks how the teenagers don’t really know what they’re doing, or why. The girl sitting on the ground is laughing, stops mid-chuckle, only then to possess an incredulous look.

At the same time, I don’t see this parody being a spoof as much as I see it being a critical commentary. The satire isn’t handed over to you on a silver platter. There are some layers to it. What do you think?

Here’s what I see: Where it says “elevating fools into heroes” they seem to purposefully show a hipster sleeping on a bench with a picture of Joe Rogan behind him. I personally think the guy is famous for acting like a neanderthal. Think about others whom the media has transformed from a fool to a hero. Kim Kardashian is famous for simply being dumb and making a sex tape.

In addition, a very opposite type of poem is now being read. Rather than promoting the idea that the West is ushering in people whom will grab hold of its potential, instead they will turn it into unprecedented chaos. In the former they are “pioneers”, while in the latter they are drenched in relativism unto their own detriment, not of their own fault, but by being “born into this”.

The half-naked wanna-be hippies run off with a sign at the end. The sign in the first video says “go forth”, while the sign in the second video says “where do we get off”. What is meant by the phrase “where do we get off”? I think it’s saying that they are standing on the shoulders of men and woman whom have worked hard to advance the West’s success, yet are crapping on it by not realizing what they have, but only want to live in the moment with it.

Instead of being pioneers and carrying the torch that has been handed to them somewhere safe, they are flailing around with it not knowing where they’re going.

(Above: a youthful hipster communicates to her mom with a hip hand gesture, like a pretend gun)

Here are replies on youtube which stuck out to me:

“This is a brilliant satire. The original Walt Whitman poem is an ideal of youthfulness, and this satire is the sad reality of pretentious, affluent, self-indulgent, self-appeasing, contemporary youth. Even the youths of the 90s were about something more than the youths of today. What are today’s youth about – superficial fame, cheap amusement, desperate nostalgia, marketable personality, fabricated drama, whoring talent? The youth of today sold their souls, and they get paid by folks like Levis.”

“no, the youth of today wants beyond the physical, beyond the metaphysical, the subjective, the obsolete, the relevant, the creative, everything before and beyond our inheritance. we have begun to question why god did not give us these things, we are seeking answers.”

“Not everyone in the 70s were hippies, but they were the major youth identity of the time. I am talking about today’s mainstream youth culture, and it is a generalization. It may change. I hope so. But as it stands, the youths of today lack an original flavor previous generations had. Maybe today’s youth shouldn’t let their culture be dictated by mainstream media if that’s the case. That’s what’s lacking: a counter-culture statement.”

I tend to agree with these statements. However, I surely don’t view myself growing up in some kind of “golden-age” either, which I happen to appreciate on certain levels. Nevertheless, I can’t help but voice my opinion. I believe mainstream youth act like aliens whom try to flaunt their style as being so raw, yet un-achievable, unless you too are from their generation of aliens.

I think they pretentiously want attention that they’re doing something new, yet don’t themselves have any idea what the “new” thing is. I think they are different than many of the generations prior in that they don’t define themselves by what they’re against. Nor do they even define themselves by what they’re for. I think their music and clothes are just one giant amalgamation of the styles over the past 50 years, yet assume it all started with them.

I think they are more obsessed with how aesthetically hip they look than anything else. I think they believe they are one-upping the hippie movement. And since they’re all spoiled with technology, they’re like future-ama hippies.

I’m not trying to offend or be pessimistic about today’s mainstream youth. They are our future and I hope them the best. But as soon as they stop gazing pretentiously at nothing, put their hip jeans back on, and stop running up a hill for no reason, they’ll be forced to realize that reality sucks at times and life is hard no matter what. As much as they are convinced that they’re doing something new under the sun, eventually they too will realize we’re all just going in circles. If there is some originality left, I sure hope it gets here soon. We’re all pretty desperate for that right now I think. Until it comes, maybe we can all get off our self-absorbed butts and go help someone in need.

I don’t actually answer this question in this thread. I’ll leave that up to you. But I will say this. Over the last year I have personally changed my view on Santa Clause, namely, that Christian parents would do well to tell their kids the truth from the get-go. I didn’t come to these conclusions on my own but was challenged, and now after thinking it over some more I am more convinced than ever. These views are simply my own. I’m not going to expect others to believe as I do, and I’m not going to be legalistic about it. I’m simply going to share my thoughts and say I think there are some important things we need to re-consider.

I was listening to a Christian radio station in Seattle today, one I often find exhorting, and the host mentioned that his opinion on the matter is that we should tell our kids that Santa exists. He remembers the fun of it as a kid and doesn’t think other kids should miss out. He also had a balanced view in that we shouldn’t try to control our kids with the idea of Santa, hence, scaring them that he wont give them presents unless they behave, but should welcome it as a fun fantasy.

Here’s the big problems I now have with telling our kids that Santa Clause exists:

1. Santa Clause is a big distraction for adults, let alone children.

With belief in Santa Clause, it becomes embedded in children’s minds that Christmas is about presents, not God’s gift of himself entering into his own creation as promised in order to save man-kind from God’s own deserved eternal wrath upon us lawless sinners. And yes, small children do understand their own sinfulness, the concept of why God would punish sin, and the need for God to live a perfect life for us and die the death we deserve because we are sinful. We are especially sinful from youth, which is why I believe children understand the gospel so well at a young age.

I’ve heard kids articulate the gospel so powerfully in a few sentences  than preachers who have been doing it their entire lives. I’ve taught Sunday school many times. We made a man and a cross out of playdo. We raised our fists and pretended we were God as Judge, a perfect judge of lawless sin. We slammed our fists on the table to crush the cross instead of the man, so that the man could be free. I’ve seen it snap in their minds. But why would I all of a sudden then explain to them, “by the way, Santa is real. Behave good or you wont get presents. Class dismissed”.

Santa gives kids mixed messages about the holiday. It confuses them. It compartmentalizes the secular from the sacred. Kids are so busy being self-enticed with presents. They’re so busy believing that this nice, old, buddha-looking, red pajama wearing guy in the North Pole will shower them with gifts. In turn, they don’t have time for Christ. They mostly want their toys. Then we confuse them even more and give them Santa-Jesus whiplash. All of a sudden they’re forced to attend a tedious church service or read the belaboring nativity passage before opening gifts.

Jesus Christ is viewed as the boring part of Christmas. The God-stuff is the tedious part of Christmas, yet serves some mystical pious purpose that we haven’t really figured out yet. It’s there to self-assure our religiosity so that we can be self-indulging with toys guilt free. The God-stuff is our penance to the selfishness we’re about to commit. Kids become more excited and enticed with Santa than Christ, and all for the wrong reasons. Christ remains vague, boring, vainly repetitive, and Santa ends up beating him on the fun scale.

2. A child’s mind will confuse Santa with God.

Kids write to Santa as though he really exists. It’s almost similar to praying. They’re asking him for things as though he can hear them or communicate with them in a magical sense. How often do our kids pray to God? Are we teaching them to stay strong in their faith, regardless of toys and life going their way? It’s easy to want to contact Santa because he will give you what you want, which is absolutely not the Biblical worldview. The Biblical worldview is that God knows us perfectly, thus gives us exactly what we need, even when it’s painful sometimes.

Our kids wait up late for Santa to arrive. They are anxious to see him. They believe he exists and that he cares about them so much that he’s willing to actually visit their house. Santa specifically has them in mind. God did something for the “world”. How is that a gift to them directly? They don’t see it as something to them directly.

The kids leave out milk and cookies for him. But the parents secretly eat them to solidify the fun lie. There are gifts under the tree that say “from Santa” on them. It’s empirical proof to the kids that he “really” exists. But where’s the empirical proof of God? They don’t see his empirical proof anywhere.

When kids finally get to the age when they discover Santa Caluse isn’t real, what will they have gained from it all? What did you gain? Further, are they going to view God just as un-real because the lines have been blurred about who God and Santa are? We’re still drenched in the Age of Empericism. Esspecially with most colleges today. Do parents understand the inconsistency of this ideology? If not, once our kids are influenced to only accept things emperically, they may not only stop believing in Santa, but may develop doubts in God for similar reasons.

We make Santa out to be omniscient. We tell our kids that he is watching them and knows if they’ve been naughty or nice. A child’s mind can’t understand which one is really watching them. Is it God, or Santa? It almost diefies Santa and makes there become two gods. Santa will bless you only if you’re a moralist, and puff yourself up into thinking you’re an ideal child. So what if an ideal child is an ideal child and goes to hell some day? An ideal child is not ideal to God, because all are with sin. Are we explaining to our kids the reality of sin? Are we articulating the need for the sinner’s Savior, Jesus Christ? There’s a lot of people who are confused and think they are good people simply because they don’t know the gospel.

Santa may motivate them to “be good” for the wrong reasons. Striving to be good so that you’ll be rewarded is an enemy of the Biblical gospel. As C.S. Lewis rightly says, “God doesn’t love us because we are good, but because he loves us he will make us good”. Rom 5:9 says that “while we were still sinners (=hating God) Jesus Christ died for our sins”. The gospel is where the Judge gets down off of his judgment seat for a moment and gets tortured to death in our place, only to then get back on his judgment seat. This is an act of grace, not because we first loved him, but because he first loved us.

3. Santa and God are made out to be competitors.

Perhaps it once served its purposes that pagan holidays became Christianized in the time of emperor Constantine. Maybe back then it had some good purposes, or maybe it didn’t accomplish much. I don’t know. But looking at where we are today in modern U.S. society, kids are confused because of these mixtures. In fact, professing Christian adults are confused because of these mixtures, so how much more their children?!

During Easter time, kids get mixed messages about some weird silly bunny who is maybe a distant relative of Santa because it likes to give candy and presents too. So when Easter time comes around we celebrate… huh… rabbits? I don’t know. But I do know that kids are excited about this weird silly bunny simply because it gives candy. It could just as well be an arbitrary three-fingered-sloth that gives birth to chocolate offspring. Kids don’t care. They just like candy and are so thankful for the invisible Easter bunny, yet don’t know how to be thankful for Christ’s power. The bunny is in the here and now, but the risen Christ is distant and in heaven.

During Easter, Jesus is arbitrarily coming back from the dead instead of arbitrarily being born. And he’s risen for some vague reason that we’re supposed to think is significant, but can’t put our finger on because it also has become a vain repetition. Kids are left scratching their head, and we naively think we understand the Resurrection and that our kids do to because we attend a church service on it every year. We’re only fooling ourselves.

And so it goes with Santa. Instead of Christ being the center of Christmas by us being in awe of God becoming vulnerable to save us, we make it that time of year we get to become spoiled present-pimps. We lavish our kids with toys that Santa got them, thus he wins. Jesus is just the baby in the manger and he can’t give us gifts. He’s just an annoying poor baby that is pooping his pants, but Santa is a nice pimp actively spoiling us. similarly, the kids are thankful for Santa, but don’t know how to be thankful that God entered his own creation to save it by being born.

From a kid’s angle, Santa is blessing them in the here and now, but what Jesus did was so long ago and it’s confusing why that really matters now. Who gave the better gift, Santa or God? Kids are told they’re supposed to think it was God, but deep down a child thinks it was Santa. Santa is more colorful. He gives us our favorite toys every year. God doesn’t do that. So kids think Santa is nicer than God.

Conclusion

The Biblical worldview is that an understanding of Christ is infused into everything we know and do. He causes everything to have beauty, meaning, purpose, relationship, and truth in some way that is amazing. On a side note, this is why we originally called colleges “universities”, because like the Trinity, there is unity within all the diversity around us. Things aren’t supposed to be as compartmentalized as we’ve made them.

The mindset should be that Christ accounts for math, history, science, philosophy, fun, and truth. He is the one it all points to in the end. But our colleges and intolerant “public” schools compartmentalize the secular from the sacred. Once we finally see past the lies, we’ll realize that it’s all sacred. We’re brain-washed to think that math is over here. Science is over here. History is over here. But God is over there. We’re so foolish.

And it’s no wonder that kids have this compartmentalized view of God when they grow up. We breed it into them from youth. Santa is over here. God is over there. Santa wants to give you toys. But a God-baby can’t hear you. Fun is over here. Toys are over here. But God is way over there. No, God is in it all.

By the time next Christmas rolls around, kids have already forgotten about last years toys. But what is their understanding of Christ? Has it increased at all? Is Santa getting in the way of our kid’s understanding Christ? Is a traditional lie that we tell them for 8 years really that important? I personally believe this holiday is more dangerous than we think because of the mixtures, but that the lie is even more dangerous.

Don’t get me wrong. I promised I wouldn’t be legalistic about it. I’m not intimidated by it. I just think there’s a bigger picture that we don’t consider too often. I think that when we trick our kids for 8 years to believe in Santa, we’re actually creating more work for ourselves that we will later have to undo. If we want them to be Christ-minded from the start, why are we working against ourselves?

What is a practical way to go about it?

In a practical sense, I think this is a cool way to have Christmas with our children. Use it as a means to explain the gospel to their young minds. Start by telling them about their specific sins. God doesn’t first require them to be “good”. Even though they disobey, are selfish, and deserve spankings or time-outs, God will love them anyways.

But he only loves them through Jesus Christ because Jesus lived the perfect life for us and took the punishment we deserve. In this sense, Jesus is way better than Santa. If Santa were God then Santa would never give anyone gifts because he requires you to be good. Even though no one is as perfect as Jesus is, Jesus chooses to love us anyways. Then we can give our children their favorite toys and show them that this is how God treats us even when we disobeyed him. And we are to treat others the same way since God has first treated us this way.

I’ve heard Muslims say many times that “the prophets of the OT don’t mention Jesus”. Actually, this assumtion goes against the Jewish quest to find Messianic passages. Granted, many Jews today reject that Jesus is their Messiah, however, how can one escape the clear connection between Christ and Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, etc?

Further, how can a Jew who rejects Jesus Christ as Messiah, make sense of Psalm 110? This is one of the greatest Messianic Psalms in all the Torah (OT). Yet, the only way to make sense of this Messianic Psalm is if Jesus, as revealed in the NT, is the Divine Messiah.

This Psalm says two profound things:

1. In Psalm 110:1 David says, ”The LORD (Yahweh) said to my Lord (a lord who descends from David), sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.”

The mindblowing thing about this statement is that it goes against our understanding of king-ship. It went against the Jewish understaning of king-ship. One who decends from a king isn’t then supposed to be higher ranking than that king. Yet, here David is saying a king will come from him, yet will be in a position of dominion and authority equal to Yahweh.

Even the Pharisees who wanted to trick Jesus couldn’t answer this. In Matthew 22:45, Jesus asked them “if David calls him Lord, then how can he be his son (David’s son)?” They had no reply.

2. Here’s the amazing thing, however! In order to have answered this supposed dilemma, all they would have had to do is go 3 verses down Psalm 110!

Psalm 110:4 says, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 7 zooms in on this concept. The priest that God would send us in order to bring us back to God would not come from the Aaronic priesthood, would not of mere human origin, and would not be another temporal priest.

This is exactly why Jesus Christ is called the High Priest, because once his priesthood is consumated, there are to be no other priests. Priest simply means “bridge builder” by the way. He bridges the infinite gap of sinful humans to Yahweh (the only true, holy, and eternal God). And Jesus meets all the criterion of Psalm 110:4 in Hebrews 7.

Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek because he isn’t from the Levite tribe (the tribe that the Aaronic priests decended from). Rather Jesus is from the kingly tribe, the tribe of Judah (the same tribe David is from). Jesus is a priest forever because he is Yahweh, the 2nd person of the Trinity. He wont die and be replaced like mere human priests.

Thus, it’s utterly blasphemous for even Mormons to assume they continue the Melchizedek priesthood! Jesus fulfills it forever. It can’t be un-done, re-done, or continued.

Conclusion:

So when Jesus stumped the Pharisees, all they had to do was quote the same Psalm three verses down. Jesus can descend from David yet be above David by being the God-Man, born of a virgin (God taking on additional human form so as to interact with his own creation). Jesus can live the perfect life in our place, be condemned for our sin, and raise himself from the dead and become a High Priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. He’s the only one who can be in the order of Melchizedek because he’s a King, is Yahweh, is our Savior, thus, is a Priest forever.

The only way imaginable to make sense of Psa 110:1 is with Psa 110:4 and admitting that Jesus Christ is Yahweh coming to save us, and now we serve him as King forever. It’s just another mindblowing revelation of Scripture that is awesomely Christ-centered.

The Jews can’t make sense of this, Muslims can’t make sense of this, Jehova’s Witnesses can’t make sense of this, Unitarians can’t make sense of this, and Mormons can’t make sense of this, unless they bow the knee to Jesus Christ our risen Lord as being Yahweh.

In commemoration of 911, I have some theological questions for “radical” and “moderate” Muslims out there.

1. Why don’t you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity? Or at least, why don’t you believe this doctrine to be a possibility, even within your own religion? I’ve heard that Islam holds to a monad view of God, but is this backed by the Quran? To my knowledge, Muslims believe they can’t know any details about Allah’s nature. If so, why can’t it be a possibility that Allah is triune?

Here’s how I’m definig “Trinity”, or “triune”.

2. Muslims believe that Christianity is false because of the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. It’s believed by Muslims that God could never take on additional human nature. But if Allah is God, and is all-powerful, could Allah if he so chose take on additional nature as a human?

NOW PLEASE TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS

One of my friends just committed suicide. I haven’t actually seen him since we were kids. We knew each other from 4th – 8th grade. I wanted to see him so bad the last 4 years just to simply catch up on life and talk about the old days. We did everything as kids. At one point we were best friends. We were even blood brothers! Did you ever do that as a kid with a close friend? Where you cut yourself and hold your wounds together?

We skateboarded a lot, smoked, spent the night at each others houses all the time, stole things together, did shenanigans together, saw each other get picked on, stuck up for each other, fought, wrestled, argued, talked about death, sex, religion, and everything else. We even cried in front of each other.

But now he killed himself and I can’t catch up with him on life and talk about our past. I can’t see if our chemistry is still there and enjoy laughing with him one last time. I’m sure if we hung out for an hour we would still laugh. In some ways you’re a new person from when you were a kid, and in some ways you’re still the same. The fact that I can’t see him again now really makes me sad and angry.

His life was always on the edge, even when we were kids. Sometimes it seemed like he wanted to be more adventurous and wild than everyone else. Sometimes it was too much for me and I couldn’t go as far as he could. I wanted to avoid the alcohol, the drugs, and the cops, but for some reason it seemed like it was in his veins to go that way. He hated himself for it, however. He wanted to be “normal”, but how do you become “normal” when you’ve had that baggage your whole life and are always surrounded by the consequences of your bad decisions?

We couldn’t relate to each other as far as our rebellious side went. But then again, there probably were only a few who could. I always was the friend who tried to be a good influence on him. His parents loved me for that. I remember as kids I preached the gospel to him. I told him that God isn’t boring like he thinks and is a God who understands him. Later he sincerely told me he thinks about the things I tell him. I wish in his later days, I could have gotten back into his life and maybe try to have a similar influence on him.

I wish we could have just shared our hearts together like we so easily did in the past. I wouldn’t have judged him. He may think I would have, but I wouldn’t have for one second. I would have listened to everything he told me, but then challenged him on it. I would given him a high five, a hug, and told him if he needs anything then don’t fucking hesitate! My life hasn’t been anywhere near perfect. I’ve got my own issues. We can all relate on more levels than we think.

I’ve been crying the last few days man. Even though all I have is my memories of when we were kids, the pictures, the conversations, and the feelings are still vivid in my mind and heart. I could write a book about our experiences. There were so many. Remember that time when me, you, and Jordan pranked our 4th grade teacher? Jordan and I had to visit her with our parents, but you never showed up! Or when we’d skate to the mall, look at Thrasher magazines, and listen to Pantera in your room? I remember in one article in a Thrasher magazine there was a funny piece about Green Day trying to sound like a British punk band trying to sound American. Or the time when we were standing next to each other singing in a choir performance at school and you passed out, hit your mouth on the floor, and had to go get stitches! I would have caught you but it happened so fast. Lol. Or the time you accidentally swallowed a pin and me, Brett, and Jordan visited you in the hospital?

I knew your pain when we were kids. Back then I was probably the only one you could open up to and be honest with. Who knew you’d someday end it like this though? I wish you hadn’t. I love you man and I miss you. I know God will be glorified out of this. Even in your worst despair, God’s grace is closer than your skin. I hope you see that now.

If you’re thinking about committing suicide, don’t. Stop listening to The Cure and Tori Amos. That music is supposed to identify with your pain and give you hope that others feel the same, not make you want to pull the trigger. Talk to someone about it. Tell them you feel hopeless, that you hate who you are, that you hate your life, and that you can’t take it anymore. If there’s no one to tell then tell me. If I can help save one more person, then at least you’ll be alive. My friend Dustan is dead and now there’s no going back. Wait until tomorrow. Wait until the sun shines again. We’ll make it get better together.

		R.C. Sproul gospel excerpt (3:48 ) Mark Driscoll on “religion” (17:23) Testimony of Johnny Cash (6:49) Andy Hunter Outro (3:25)

What does Galatians 3:6-14 tell us about the real gospel? Answer: What it really is! (click here for more)

Read about the missing gospel here.

Listen to the missing gospel here.

Good luck finding a church today that loves truth and loves the real gospel. The church is plagued with anti-nomianism and legalism…

First, anti-nomianism is a fancy word meaning we either abuse grace by carelessly sinning, or over-emphasize grace by likening God to Barney. Many Christians today act like heretics because they gloss over the doctrine of repentance, which should prevent us from glossing over sins such as divorce, homosexuality, pride, etc. Rather we should be marveled at God’s great beauty in covenant marriage, opposite sex lovers, meekness, etc. Further, there are many churches which over-emphasize grace, such as Joel Olsteen’s and Rick Warren’s. They offer ego-stroking, therapeutic, negative 5% offensive sermons. Mantras like “smile… Jesus loves you” and “God loves the sinner but hates the sin” stem from these types of Disney Channel style Christians who seek to please people more then God. Gandhi said “God loves the sinner but hates the sin”, not Jesus.

On the flip side, the church is plagued with legalism. Legalism is another fancy word referring to those who equate their man-approved traditions with Scripture, or think they are better than you because they minimize their dirty laundry and maximize yours…

Legalism, in the form of man-centered tradition says “don’t get a tattoo”, “don’t drink alcohol (ever)”, or “don’t have a worship style different than ours”, etc. These people are guilty for making Christ seem bitter and as boring as watching paint dry for the sake of making Christ look like them. Others are legalistic because they are self-righteous. They think God daydreams about them and wishes everyone was like them. This is a very un-biblical notion which stems from rotten pride. It comes from people thinking God is less holy then He is and that they are more holy than they are. They think God grades sin on a curve and that they’re somewhere at the top of the list. They forget that God grades only one way – perfection. One sin is enough to separate us from God forever. It took that one person only one sin. I think his name was Adam.

In summary, the Church today remains either un-repentant, embracing therapeutic gospels, clenching pointless traditions, or reeking of self-righteous pride. In reality, every Christian has a bit of all these things in them. Yet, we must go through detoxification, and re-approach Christ for who He really is. Both Christians and non-Christians are not impressed with Jesus Christ because no one dares to see how wild He really is. He is not safe, manageable, or tamable. With all of our anti-nomian and legalistic rigmarole, we cover up Christ and are left with our boring selves.

If you claim to be a Christian does any of this concern you?

What do we do? We must stand up and shout “let Him in!” We must let Christ back into the Church (Revelation 3:20). Then we will begin to see Christ as He really is and see ourselves for who we really are. He is outside knocking. Please let Him in.

There’s much gospel restoring to do. The gospel message needs no restoration itself – it is forever perfect. We must see that it becomes restored as center focus in ourselves and the Church. Please join with me and others to fulfill this seemingly impossible task!

What is TAG? TAG stands for the transcendental argument for God’s existence. It is a form of apologetics under the umbrella of presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics examines what a person already supposes or assumes about reality and the world. Just like there can be only one Highlander, so there can only be one worldview which is most consistent with all of reality. Is Christianity it? TAG is a part of presupositional apologetics that shows this to be the case. TAG especially helps show that “naturalistic” atheism can’t be correct because TAG reveals how without God there would be no such thing as thinking or morality. It is a powerful apologetic. It’s usually confusing at first but then begins to make a lot of sense. Thankfully, presupositional apologetics is starting to catch on more in mainstream Christianity.

However, here are some concerns I have with how people use TAG:

(1) Is it sinful to use historical and scientific methods to prove God’s existence like many proponents of TAG claim?

Many people who use TAG, in particular arguing for God’s existence via the laws of logic (LoL), say that evidential apologetics are “sinful” because the apologist is allowing God to be judged via history, science, etc, rather than revealed to be the one who accounts for the LoL in the first place, thus can even argue about his existence.

It’s true we should make atheistic historians and scientists aware that when they argue against God they are also assuming his existence by using what only he can supply, namely, the LoL. It’s like a king giving a soldier a sword, but then the soldier wants to use the sword against the king. That’s the powerful truth of TAG, especially when it comes to the LoL.

But when we say it’s sinful to argue in these other ways for proof of God, we need to be careful when we say this and we need to clarify how it’s sinful. It’s not sinful in and of itself to argue historically or scientifically for God’s existence. It’s not even sinful if we argue in these ways and never even mention TAG (which I don’t know why we wouldn’t do). Just as Augustine said, “all truth is God’s truth”, so we should expect all areas of study to point to God somehow. We wouldn’t just expect God to account for logic and morality, but then have zero traces of evidence historically or scientifically (i.e. fine tuning of the universe).

The problem comes when we use historical and scientific evidences to be the greatest inferences of God that we get into trouble. In light of the God of the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, it is sinful to stand over him as judge. Just because one uses historical apologetics doesn’t mean they are necessarily standing over God as judge, but if one assumes that this is the ultimate basis by which we can infer God, then they are standing over him as judge, and that is sinful. This needs to be greatly clarified when proponents of TAG go around telling people that using historical methods to prove God is sinful. It isn’t always the case.

(2) Will TAG lead us to a Reformed view of God?

Van Til taught that this was the case. I would clarify that TAG makes more sense when we assume certain aspects of a Reformed view of God. As a Calvinist I believe in total depravity (TD) meaning our natural spiritual condition is more likened to a bloated dead body at the bottom of a river, rather than a person just being in trouble going down the river needing to grab a life line. Hence, why the rescuer on the shore would need to command the dead corpse to rise, not merely throw a life line and leave it up to them. The gospel jives with TD because it explains why no matter what you say to try and convince them, people will still suppress the truth and go on their merry way.

When it comes to leaving people without an excuse of God’s existence with TAG, I find that TD helps me understand why they still reject that which is so obvious.

I also find it helpful to show the atheist why reject. That’s right. You can actually tell the atheist that they reject God no matter what because they’re helpless to do otherwise. When an atheist says “if God is all-knowing, why doesn’t he do what he knows he could do to get me to believe?”, the Arminian can’t answer this. The Calvinist can lovingly tell them it’s because of TD. It’s not a matter of them believing that God exists, but having a new heart to love him and no longer be hostile to him. Apart from God granting that to them, they will remain as they are, condemned yet accountable for their lawlessness.

But does the fact that Calvinists can answer in this way, and understand the reality of the spiritual condition of the atheist, mean that TAG is mostly for Calvinists and not Arminians? No, it doesn’t. Unfortunately, I’ve seen fellow Calvinists react out of their superiority truth complexes and act like it’s so. But there’s a big difference between being able to use an apologetic method, and also being able to tell the rejecter why they reject. (Note: I say “rejecter” rather than “unbeliever” because it’s not a matter of believing in God, but a matter of accepting him to be whom he claimed, namely, risen Lord.) The Arminian can still use TAG just as effectively as the Calvinist can. TD isn’t part of TAG from the atheists perspective, but from the apologists perspective. TD isn’t the argument; it’s why many reject the God of the argument.

Surprisingly, many Calvinists who use TAG aren’t always consistent with it in their assumptions either! We’ll touch on this next.

(3) Does TAG leave us without excuse before Yahweh, or leave us without excuse before a similar view of God?

I have seen so many argue for TAG to deduce the Triune God of Scripture. I would argue it absolutely necessitates all of the attributes of the Triune God of Scripture, but just because it necessitates all of God’s attributes, that’s not enough to tell you for certain which “God” it is. You may be thinking “what?!”  But please hear me out. Just because there’s enormous correlation between the revelation of Yahweh and the LoL doesn’t necessarily imply Yahweh. We can say Yahweh would be a pre-condition, or maybe the best option for a pre-condition, but human reasoning can’t guarantee he is the pre-condition. We need the Holy Spirit to know he is the pre-precondition.

Take the LoL for example. They are abstract (not comprised of “matter”, yet correlate with “matter”, also not entirely based on what is observable, i.e. the concept of “infinity”), absolute (not created, un-changing, exist only in minds, thus, require an eternal mind), universal (they apply to all sentient beings, hence why we can communicate about the same things), and prescriptive (we have a pre-commitment to logic meaning we ought to be rational and not contradict). We can easily say that all of this is accounted for by the God of Scripture since he is eternal, is the prime cause beyond all finite matter, and has an eternal mind.

For logic to work there needs to be a mind (knower) and substance which takes on certain functions, or is relational to something else (the thing known). God is eternally both.

With the LoL being abstract, this ties into them deriving from a “mind” (a knower).

With the LoL being absolute identities (the thing known), this perfectly fits with the criterion of God being one and many (three in one). What something is (the first law, i.e. law of identity) requires a “mind” to know and recognize something’s function. A “function” is possible when there are multiple parts to something. Thus, in God, there is eternally all possible functions since God consists of multiple persons whom can relate to each other in every possible good way. To have the classification of “apple” for example, you first need the function of “food”, which derives from the relationship of something giving life, which God eternally does within the relationships that make up himself.

In addition, the LoL are universal, meaning we all share and understand the same meanings and concepts (hence you reading this), and this is possible since the three persons within the Godhead eternally know and understand each other.

With the LoL being prescriptive, the 3rd law (the law of non-contradiction) has us know that something cannot be what it’s not in every way and at the same time. 3 cannot also be 1,006 in every way and at the same time. It’s not just that this is the way it is, but that we should admit this, otherwise that would be immoral because that would be a lie. It would be dishonest and purposefully dishonest.

Since there is eternal love and selflessness within the relationships of the three persons of the Trinity, then God never lies to himself, thus, eternally does not contradict himself for his own glory. Hence, since we’re created in his image we shouldn’t contradict ourselves either. It would be a lie, and lies fall short of the glory of God, thus are sin (Rom 3:23). Thus, we can’t really separate morality and the LoL as being two ways to argue TAG. They are really connected as one, since we ought not contradict; because otherwise it would be a lie. The law that governs our thinking is not just the law of non-contradiction, but is also the moral law. When we argue for morality, we’re also arguing for the LoL, and when we argue for the LoL, we’re also arguing for morality.

So the Trinity certainly can account for the pre-condition to reality, especially the LoL by which we can even judge reality. But this does not necessarily imply then that the triune God of Scripture is that pre-condition. One could say “maybe it’s another “God” who meets all this criterion. Maybe it’s the Quadrinity, etc”.

What if someone argues in this way? First, when the atheist is forced to talk this way, and many do and have after hearing this powerful apologetic, they have all of a sudden become theists, but now just theists who still deny that Christ is the risen Lord (TD ring a bell?). If the atheist still wants to not become a Christian and hold to the Quadrinity for the sake of consistently accounting for the LoL, then we’d use historical apologetics and show how they’re choosing a “god” with no revelation and history over that of Christianity with tons of revelation and history.

So maybe we could say Yahweh isn’t the only presupposition, but Yahweh is the only revealed presupposition, thus the best presupposition! Before you write me off as a flaming heretic, remember I’m arguing from the standpoint of what human reasoning is limited to show us. Even Greg Bahnsen said in his debate with Gordon Stein, “I believe Christianity provides that [worldview in which transcendental realities make sense] and I just can’t find any other one that competes with it that way”. When it comes to established “religions”, TAG does point only to Christianity. However, when it comes to mere presuppositions, it doesn’t imply Yahweh necessarily. Even if we could show how only the Trinity could be presupposed and not a Quadrinity, this wouldn’t necessarily imply Yahweh (apart from the Holy Spirit’s certainty). In such a case, the shoe would fit, and only one shoe would fit, but that can’t guarantee us it’s the shoe (using human reasoning alone).

Second, the only special revelation of any God who is said to be “eternal” is Scripture. The only other religion in the world that believes in an eternal God, and will outright admit that it’s eternal, is Hinduism with “Brahman”. Yet, Brahman being eternal is only theorized. There is no revelation of Braham anywhere near that of the imminent special revelation of God in Scripture. Of course, the absolute kicker is that Yahweh is the only God ever revealed to eternally be triune, or one and many.

This interestingly shows that Yahweh is not a by-product of human minds, because human minds wouldn’t start with a paradox. Also, it is the doctrine of the Trinity which Francis Schaeffer said is the doctrine that helped convert him from atheism to Christianity in his book ‘He Is There And He Is Not Silent’. He even understood as an atheist the necessity of something like the Trinity.

Nevertheless, if one is going to be a Fristian, and presuppose a Quaddrinity for the sake of having a consistent out look on things, we’d then have to argue against the Quadrinity, not by using presuppositional apologetics or TAG, however! This shows the limitations of presuppositionalism and TAG as well.

However, if one really believes in the Quadrinity (or jokingly says they do), then that’s fine. We want people to come to this point! If they admit this much then at least they’re being intellectually honest about the truths of “God”, just not the truths of Christ who is God. They have realized that naturalism, atheism, and all other false religions of the world are precluded. This person is either very close to being saved, or are heaping up greater judgment on themselves in rejecting Yahweh who is right in front of them.

Now getting back to the main point, just because Yahweh, and only Yahweh, is specially revealed to fit all of the criterion needed for the LoL and morality, doesn’t absolutely mean that TAG proves Yahweh. Just because Yahweh accounts for all the needed pieces of the puzzle, doesn’t absolutely mean that Yahweh is the puzzle piece, if you will. It only goes so far as to show he is an option, or the best option.

Scirpturally speaking, what ultimately shows that it’s Yahweh is the personal Spirit of Yahweh, the Holy Spirit. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again until I die, “we can’t know anything for certain unless that which is certain makes itself known to us”. You’ll say, how do you know that for certain? I don’t, but I believe it for good reason.

Two things: First, since we don’t have exhaustive knowledge about anything, that fact alone all the more should make me believe my statement above is true. We don’t even know for certain that we don’t know anything for certain. Nor do we know that. Nor that, nor that, etc. We’re potentially caught in an infinite regress of questioning about everything. We’re only left with inferences with our finite limited rationality since we can’t know things exhaustively – as only God can. Since only God can know things exhaustively, this brings us to the second point.

The Holy Spirit will lead us into Truth (John 16:13). There’s a difference between God revealing his word to be true to us by his Spirit, and us inferring things to be true. Human reasoning alone is limited and can’t discover absolute truth about anything left to itself. There’s a direct correlation between God absolutely knowing he is the Truth, and making us aware that he is the Truth. We need to keep preaching the gospel to sinners, not belabor TAG over and over. Some apologists could talk to a blown up doll about TAG until the air deflated out of it, but never mention the gospel.

The Calvinist shouldn’t have a problem admitting this since they believe in TD and realize that God must change someone’s heart so they can embrace the Truth, even when TAG gives us the enormous inference and gets one extremely close to Yahweh. Inference isn’t supposed to ultimately leave sinners without excuse before Yahweh. The gospel is. The gospel message is what ultimately convicts men before Yahweh. Perhaps if more proponents of TAG understood this, they’d preach the gospel more than TAG. The gospel wins over TAG in what saves a person. And the gospel wins over TAG in what keeps a person saved.

Use TAG and use it well, but don’t worship it or worship yourself for knowing it. TAG leaves people without excuse in that naturalism, atheism, and all established religions of the world must be false, except Christianity. Contrary to the opinion of many advocates of TAG, the rejecter still has the autonomy to reject Christianity, because they can still presuppose what Christianity offers, while not being a Christian. Hence, all the more why TAG isn’t the sin-less apologetic, as it is so often purported. The gospel makes men deal with Jesus Christ the Lord (Boss) personally, not TAG. TAG becomes sinful when we idolize it, and emphasize it more than Christ. Do you daydream about how powerful TAG is more than you daydream about how powerful Christ is? I hope not. Do you find more confidence in TAG than you do in the person of Christ? Do you talk about TAG more than you talk about Christ?

(4) Isn’t it less effective to say that we can’t absolutely know that Yahweh accounts for the LoL (with finite human reasoning)?

I believe it’s more effective, because when we act like we can, which a lot of apologists are out there doing, it shows atheists that we’re inconsistent and jumping the gun. I think it’s more powerful to be consistent and not jump to un-warranted conclusions. Also, everyone in the world is in the same ultimate predicament of not being able to know anything absolutely (with limited human reasoning alone, or apart from God’s assistance). So since we’re all in this ultimate predicament, what we can still do is try to be the most consistent and ask if Yahweh makes the most sense of reality. What you’ll find is that you can still sleep great at night because Yahweh is the only revealed eternal Triune God, thus, the only revealed pre-condition for all of reality. That’s still saying a lot. We really have no greater inference!

Lastly, we don’t need to know for certain that Yahweh is the pre-condition for all of reality (with finite human reasoning alone). The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16). What we need to do when we use TAG is not only leave the rejecter seeing how utterly inconsistent they are in denying God, but that the Bible says the reason they reject the obvious is because they need to be saved from their sins. After revealing their inconsistency it’s a great time to tell them to believe and repent. Their inconsistency is a sign of them suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18-20), and that is not only evidence that they are intellectually in error, but that they are hostile towards Christ who is Truth. One way to infer the Bible is true is that its claims about people being anti-Christ are extremely fulfilled in this anti-Christ world!

If the rejecter believes that Jesus Christ is the risen Lord (Boss) and lives for him, then not only will they have the most consistent worldview, but will also be saved from the wrath they deserve for their lawlessness. Then they’ll know they’re right with Christ the risen Lord because of Christ the Sinner’s Savior. Tell them to repent and believe today while they’re still in a time of God’s patience!

(5) The One and the Many

Many argue for God to be the pre-condition for reality by virtue of the LoL because of the similarities between God and the LoL. Many talk about the problem of the “one and the many” meaning there is a whole made up of many parts. A “dog” might be the whole thing, while it’s fur, eyes, and atoms, etc. are the many parts. Then it’s argued that since God is similar in that he is one person (the whole), yet also three persons (distinct many) that this shows that the LoL (i.e. the identity of “dog”) is only possible because of the Trinity.

First, saying “one and many”, I believe, can be redundant. Even many parts that make up a “whole” are themselves “whole” parts. So there’s really no way to distinguish between what we mean by “one” as opposed to “many”. We could just as easily say that all the “many” are simply many “ones”. So basically, because of this redundancy, we might say the problem of the “one and the many ones”. That’s how it makes sense in my mind at least.

Second, just because there’s supposed similarities between something and God doesn’t necessarily imply correlation. And correlation doesn’t necessarily mean it’s God. The same would go for when people argue that the LoL are absolute and immaterial, God is absolute and immaterial, thus it’s said the LoL must then come from God. There are similarities between the two that are worth noting, but just simply stating similarities doesn’t necessarily imply correlation, and correlation doesn’t absolutely prove what the cause is. I’m being pedantic here, but pedantic for a reason. It’s one thing to greatly infer the God of Scripture; it’s another to necessarily imply him. With limited human reasoning alone, we can only do the former.

I agree we can and should emphasize the correltaion between the LoL and God’s nature. It means that it makes sense, and really only makes sense to posit God to account for the LoL. It is a powerful point.

However, I’ve found that at times it will also be important to demonstrate that for the LoL to exist there needs to be an eternal “knower” and “the thing known”. The LoL presuppose both. First, there needs to be an eternal “knower”. The LoL are absolute and require a mind. Destroying the universe doesn’t mean the absolute meaning of “3″ goes away, only that our ability to know it goes away. The reality of “3″ must exist before we do, if we’re going to know it when we arrive. Absolute abstract meanings can’t be created nor destroyed. They can’t be invented or changed. They always exist, and can only be known. That’s why they’re absolute. Since they’re absolute and abstract, an eternal mind accounts for them, namely, God’s “knower”.

But God also eternally knows himself, thus knows all things, hence “the thing known”. Within God exists all possible good relationships and functions, thus God knows all possible relationships between things and functions, namely, “the thing known”. Even knowing what a puddle is is possible due to the eternal relationship between the God-head. So the next time you see a puddle, think about the glory of God.

Many atheists will think this type of speech is similar to Plato’s forms, yet the forms invoke Euthyprho’s dilemma, thus only the eternal Logos can sufficiently account for logic, not merely “forms” or axioms floating around out there. In addition, this is also similar to positing what philosophers call the “form of the good”. However, once one theorizes all the necessary criterion for what the “form of the good” must possess to account for logic, one will find that they end up at the Trinity as being the “form of the good”. It’s Christ, the eternal Logos. I wont get into explaining what I mean by all this right now. If you’re already familiar with these things then you may agree with me. If not, feel free to discuss it with me.

NOW PLEASE TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS

You’re probably thinking “isn’t it a little late to analyze this movie?”. Yes and no. Yes because it came out in 1995, but no because I finally just saw it and there are timeless truths of the fallen human nature found in it! The novel, written by Robert Waller, was published a few years prior in 1992 and sold over 50 million copies worldwide. The notion of women’s self-entitlement to happiness sells!

What’s the story about? Hopefully you’ve read it or watched it by now. In a nut shell, Fransesca (played by Maryl Streep) has a women’s natural wild heart, yet her wild spirit is caged in by her simple, boring, country lifestyle. In addition, she describes her husband as “clean” (meaning faithful, yet non-adventurous). But it isn’t until Fransesca meets Robert Kincaid (played by Clint Eastwood), a charming, independent, traveling photographer for National Geographic, that she questions leaving her husband for the greener grass. There’s no reason her husband deserves to be left, but there is reason for her wanting to, namely, him being really boring.

Robert arrives while Fransesca’s husband and two children are out of town. They’ve left for four days to the fair. Robert stops by her house looking for Roseman bridge, a beautiful red bridge that he’s assigned to take pictures of. Since the directions are too confusing she accompanies him along the way. After a series of events the two quickly become friends, and then lovers.

They realize that the affair can only last a few days and she must decide if she’s going to leave a faithful, yet boring husband. If she does she can ride off into the sunset with prince charming who makes her feel like her body is a cherished sculpture. Her family returns home. She manages to keep the affair a complete secret and decides to stay in Iowa.

However, as a final attempt to take her with him, Robert approaches Fransesca in town. She’s inside her truck while her husband is in the store. Thinking that Robert had left town already, she glances down the street and sees Robert standing in the rain looking at her in desperation. His tears are mixed with the rain.

As her husband gets back in the truck, Robert gets inside his. Her husband pulls out onto the street right behind Robert’s truck. They’re stopped at a red light. Fransesca sees Robert put a medallion around his rear view mirror. It’s the one she gave him. The light turns green. Robert doesn’t move. The intensity builds since Fransesca knows this will either be the last time she sees her husband, or Robert. She has to decide.

Fransesca is holding the door handle, slowly turning it. Her husband starts honking. In a way, this shows that Fransesca’s husband doesn’t like Robert, and that Robert doesn’t care. The two are at odds in this short moment. If only her husband knew the truth, they’d really be enemies.

Robert still doesn’t move his truck. Everything in Fransesca desperately wants to get out of the truck while simultaneously she doesn’t. But after more honks, Robert begins to slowly make a left turn and drives away. Fransesca turns around to get one final look. Her secret Casanova is getting smaller and smaller. Her hand is still clenching the door handle. Eventually she lets go. Soon after she can’t control her emotions of missing Robert. They swell up inside her and she begins to sob on the drive home.

Her husband is confused as to why she’s crying and asks her what’s wrong. After no reply he turns on the radio for a distraction. He turns the tuner to a mundane news station, rather than the fun jazz station which her and Robert enjoyed together. This signifies that she must now completely transition out of her fantasy world that Robert provided and return to her crappy reality.

At the end of the movie Fransesca has died of old age and her children are carrying out her will to have her ashes spread at Roseman bridge. Before Robert came along, the bridge was simply an after thought. After Robert, the bridge became a symbol of their love. Now her ashes will forever merge with that symbol.

Now let me ask… did she do the right thing? What is the greater tragedy, that she didn’t get her heart’s desire, or that she secretly cheated on her husband? Did Robert do the right thing? Should he have romanticized her, slept with her, and pressured her to leave her family? Should he have kept his distance? Should he have returned again in the rain, only to torture her emotions and make her miss him even more?

They never even had a proper good-bye. Their hearts were joined together and then separated over the course of 4 days. Now this is how they’ll be forced to remember each other. Was her husband ultimately to blame for the affair? Even though she was longing for adventure and romance, did that give her the right to sin against him? Did it give her the right to brake the wedding vows they once made?

Did Fransesca and Robert really know each other? Did they know any bad things about each other, or only good things? Was it just a short-lived surface level infatuation? Was their “love” for each other self-deception since it had not been tested with time? Was a 4 day secret affair really worth it?

Anyone can obsess over an infatuation, especially when it’s short-lived. The thing is, emotions of infatuation are the most powerful when they’re short lived! When emotions are only acted upon because they are new, they never have the chance to become old. Every infatuation, crush, and love-sickness will eventually fade away once people are known more comprehensively.

It’s analogous to almost anything in life. For example, when you travel to Italy for only a week, you’ll be in sensory perception overload, and for the rest of your life when you hear the word “Italy” you’ll associate it with that week long experience. However, the locals there don’t have that perception because they’re familiar with it. They’d like to get out and travel to other places. And so it goes with anywhere in the world. And so it goes with relationships.

I’m not saying that love dies over time in relationships. That’s a myth too. There are 3 types of love. Erotic love, friendship love, and selfless love. Erotic love is the most powerful, yet the shortest lived. That’s why sex doesn’t last nearly as long as the implications of sex, whereby friendship love and selfless love take over in the long run. Those are most needed when it comes to having children and being able to respect each other. Erotic love gets relationships going. Not saying relationships should start out sexual. They shouldn’t.

I’m saying infatuation is a part of erotic love too. But that type of love isn’t supposed to sustain a relationship, only light the sparks to it. Relationships start out in a shallow, yet rapid river. Over time the river calms down. However, even though the water calms, it also becomes much deeper! And the rapid river can and will certainly come back at times, it will just be different then what it was at first. It will be more coupled with the other types of love, thus making it even more special than it was at first.

Here’s the major question I’d like to ask: Why did she have an affair in the first place?!

I would contend, it’s because she and her husband never understood and applied marriage principles which can be found in the book ‘His Needs, Her Needs’.

This book has sold over 2 million copies, which is good but that also means that an infatuation with affairs outweighs the desire to affair proof your marriage 25 to 1.

My wife and I had marital counseling before we got married and our pastor gave us this book to read. The book’s wisdom is brilliant. I would recommend it to everyone. Basically, it teaches that men have certain needs like sex, recreation, and respect, while woman have certain needs like affection, protection, and leadership. The man needs to find out what his wife’s greatest needs are (they’re different from woman to woman) and meet those on a constant bases, and vice-versa.

The same goes for love languages and how we each have different ways of demonstrating and receiving love. Some need flowers, some need to be touched, some need compliments, etc. Don’t expect the other person to know. Get over yourself and tell them. When they do what you like you’ll be glad. In doing all this, each person will have their needs met in their partner and will not have to go looking for it in someone else.

Here’s the reality. That “someone else” whom we have an affair with, wont meet our needs either. We’re too selfish to have all of our needs met in someone. It’s not supposed to work that way, which is why it NEVER does anyways. For example, let’s pretend that Fransesca opened the pick-up door, jumped into Robert’s truck, and lived happily ever after. You know that’s what most woman who watch this movie want to happen! But pretend that she could have done it guilt free and with no regrets. Then think of 10 years down the road after all the passion has died out, the sex is familiar, there are occasional arguments, and they annoy each other.

What will they do then? Will they be able to transport themselves back to the 4 days where their infatuation for each other was at its pinnacle? No. Should Fransesca just have another affair to make herself feel special again? No. The human heart is so desperate that we’ll have affairs on the very one’s we’re having affairs with! Rather, they will need to work it out with what the Bible calls “agape”, or selflessness.

I hope that woman watch this movie and walk away from it with a Biblical outlook, not a selfish, self-entitled, feeling sorry for Fransesca outlook. I also hope that husbands watch this movie and walk away with a greater determination to fulfill their wife’s needs. In fact, the movie gives us that example. Fransesca’s son realized that he doesn’t want to repeat his father’s foot steps.

He goes back to his wife and tells her he’s sorry if he hasn’t paid enough attention to her. By the look on her face she’s surprised, yet completely comforted. Fransesca’s husband only had to ask her, “hey deer, where do you want to travel to?” Then they could have had their own adventure together. Then later on when mysterious, sexy, Robert comes to the house she wouldn’t feel that she needs to have an affair with him because her needs would have already been met by her husband.

It’s disgusting to me that Fransesca chose to have her ashes scattered by Roseman bridge instead of being buried next to her husband. She had a 4 day affair with a stranger which made her feel like an Aretha Franklin “womaaaan” and that became the most precious thing to her upon her dying wish. Needing to feel loved isn’t the only thing that gives a woman worth. As a woman, thinking that you’re entitled to do whatever you want to do in order to feel loved is a form of feminism. I understand it’s not the cheating that’s supposedly courageous. It’s the desire to be loved and act upon it which is “courageous” in the feminist’s mindset.

But this desire should be acted upon with her husband, not against her husband. You ask, “but what if my husband never meets my needs and I never get fulfilled that way?” Jesus didn’t abandon you so why do you get to abandon your husband? It wasn’t pretty for Jesus to stay faithful to us when we rejected him. It cost his life. That’s how much he loved us in spite of us. That’s our standard too. He set the example and we’re supposed to follow it. Yes Fransesca was a good mother and a “proper” wife, but Jesus looks at the heart. You should strive to not give up on your husband because Christ didn’t give up on you.

This movie glamorizes affairs. Since woman are lead by their emotions, they will feel emboldened by this movie to follow Fransesca’s lead. You can follow those emotions or you can follow the emotions that come from being reminded of the gospel. In the words of Derek Webb, “I am a whore I do confess, so I’ll put you on like a wedding dress, and I run down the aisle to you.” We aren’t that lovely to God. Yet, he treats us as though we are worthy anyways. Does this influence your love? It is the greatest and most beautiful love imaginable. Do you realize that that’s the kind of love that marriage is supposed to glamorize? Just as Jesus glamorized it in the gospel.

NOW PLEASE LET ME YOUR THOUGHTS!