Come, let us reason together.

Before I begin to explore doctrines of the Christian faith I want to spend some more time exploring the reasons why I am a Christian. Skeptics may say I am naive, easily persuaded, or perhaps superstitious. They may question my reasons for claiming that out of all the world religions I believe Christianity to the the one true faith. They might label me intolerant or perhaps misguided. This post is written for them. I challenge skeptics to honestly explore the reasons for my faith, and to consider them. I invite discussion and questions. As I have said in a previous post Christianity does not have to be a blind faith, there are good reasons to believe. Just like the Apostle Paul reasoned for the faith in Acts 17, I too desire to reason for the same faith. I want to give credit to Dr. Norman Geisler for the teachings that I am presenting here. I am blessed to have read and learned these truths from him.
Lets begin again with truth. Truth about reality is knowable. There is absolute truth which corresponds to the way things are, to the facts. Absolute truth is possible, and absolutes are undeniable. How can I make such a claim in today's world where it is popular to hold to the idea of relative truth? What is my evidence? Two points help me believe in the absolute nature of truth. The first has to do with moral comparisons. For example, if we compare Mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler who will be considered a better person? There really is no comparison. Mother Teresa is considered to be a moral person, while Hitler is considered evil. But how can we make such a statement if truth is relative. We cannot. We cannot even understand what morality is unless there is a set standard to guide us. Another example deals with progress and regress. True progress or regress demands an absolute standard. How can we know that the world is getting better or worse unless we have some understanding of what is best? C.S. Lewis once wrote,

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But
how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe
with when I called it unjust?" - Mere Christianity.

We can be absolutely sure of some things. Take this argument for example:

I am sure I exist. This is undeniable.

I must exist to make the statement "I don't exist".

I am sure I cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

If I could exist and not exist that would break the law of non-contradiction. This law is foundational to knowledge, an example of a first principle. Without first principles nothing can be known. According to this law opposite ideas cannot both be true at the same time, and in the same place. Therefore, God cannot both exist and not exist. I doubt there will be little disagreement about that point! The question becomes why do I believe he exists?
Let me begin this section by saying that if this law is agreed upon then we can safely say that all religions cannot be true because they teach opposites. I do believe however, that a theistic God exists, and now I will present some arguments for His existence.
First:

What had a beginning had a beginner. (Like a set of dominions lined up and knocked over).

The universe had a beginning.

The universe had a beginner.

How can I say that the universe had a beginning? I was not there to see it. I will present a scientific argument for the beginning of the universe:

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed, isolated system the amount of usable energy always decreases. Our universe has not run out of energy, so therefore it cannot be said to be eternal. If we liken a closed, isolated system to an hourglass then we can understand if the sand had an eternal time to funnel down then it would have finished an eternity ago. If our universe was eternal the amount of usable energy would have been used up an eternity ago. We can conclude then that our universe is not eternal. If it is not then it must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then it must have had a beginner. Why must that which has a beginning have a beginner? I will answer that question with an argument from astronomy:

Anticipatory design shows an intelligent designer.

Human life shows anticipatory design.

So, human life shows an intelligent designer.

Another argument from Micro biology says:

Irreducible complexity has an intelligent designer.

First life had irreducible complexity.

So, first life had an intelligent designer.

I will conclude these arguments by once again addressing morality. A moral argument:

Every law has a law giver.

There is an absolute law.

There must be an absolute moral, law giver.

We do not invent this moral law any more than we invent physical laws, or mathematical laws. They are discovered. Universal guilt proves there is a moral law. People all over the world find the same types of things evil, genocide, racism, and bigotry for example. If we combined what these arguments tell us about God we could conclude that there is a powerful, intelligent, absolutely perfect God who is unique. There cannot be two infinite beings. If God exists then miracles are possible. And that is what we will explore in my next post.

A Sibbolith

What you believe about the Bible will determine how you respond to its teachings. Many people today including Christians do not believe scripture to be inspired, or inerrant. The argument claiming that the Bible is inerrant is bound up in inspiration. Scripture makes some tremendous claims about itself:

2 Peter 1:21: "For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Peter saw the Old Testament as prophecy.

Luke 24:44: (Jesus speaking) "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

The prophecy in the Old Testament has to do with Christ. The whole Old Testament although historical is truly theological. The main purpose in writing the Old Testament was not to record history, but to point to the Christ.

The 2 Peter passage connects with Luke 24:44, and with John 16:13: "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."

The New Testament teaches that the Spirit is involved in inspiration. The Spirit is referred to by Jesus as "the Spirit of truth". Truth is the very nature of the Spirit. And this Spirit of truth moves men to remember and write the truth.

Someone might ask, "is this true for all copies and translations? Can they be considered equally inspired?" Again scripture itself makes some tremendous claims. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 Moses instructed that when a king takes office he must write a copy of the law for himself. This had to be done in the presence of the priests. The king was also commanded to read of the copy all the days of his life so that he may learn to fear the Lord. In 1 Kings 2:3 David speaking to Solomon near the end of his life commands Solomon to walk in the way of the Lord, keeping his statutes, and commandments so that Solomon may succeed. By this time the scripture would have been a copy. David felt that the copies available to him and his family were authoritative. But they were only authoritative and sufficient so far as they accurately reflected the original. That is why the king had to write in front of the priests. If a mistake was being made the priests could correct it.

Proverbs 25:1 "These are more proverbs of Solomon, copied by the men of Hezekiah King of Judah."

Here the words had been transcribed, and the worth of the copies were held in high esteem, they carried the weight of scripture.

Nehemiah 8:8 "They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving meaning so that the people could understand what was being read."

The Levites were working from a copy when they read and interpreted the law. The people accepted the instruction as having the authority of scripture.

In the New Testament Jesus accepted the authority of copies. In Luke 4:16-21 Jesus reads from Isaiah 61:1-2. This happened in Nazareth, the chances of a the original manuscript of Isaiah being located in Nazareth would be pretty slim, yet Jesus treats the words with all the sufficiency and accuracy of the originals. In fact over and over again Jesus says, "have you not heard", or "it is written". Jesus in His ministry saw copies of scripture as the authoritative word of God.

Acts 17:2 "As was his custom Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the scriptures". Paul did not have the original manuscripts, neither did the synagogue. Paul does not say "since you do not have the originals I cannot teach you".

Acts 18:28 "For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ". Again Paul was arguing from copies of the originals. The Jews argued from copies of the originals. Both sides indirectly are affirming the copies to be the word of God. They do not even argue that point.

The writers of the New Testament have no issue with quoting copies of the originals, and they offer no apology for it. Still there was a concern for the originals. In 2 Thessalonians 3:17 Paul writes, "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write". Paul used a secretary to write his letters, but at the end he signed his own name. His concern is that someone might try to claim to be him, but by signing his name others will recognize his handwriting so they can be sure the letter is from Paul. In this case the original serves a great purpose. What we can learn here is that if you can get your hands on the originals that's wonderful because they are inspired, but copies are still considered authoritative. Inspiration and inerrancy apply in an undiminished way only to the original manuscripts. Copies are authoritative only in so far as the translations remain faithful to the originals.

What about our English translations? They are also the inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God to the extent that they accurately reflect the original. We need to remember that the Bible is Gods revelation, and he will be faithful to give us true copies. What would be the point of God giving us a revelation so we could know Him, yet not keeping that revelation pure? That is not how God works. If one starts with a bad opinion or understanding of God one will have a bad doctrine of scripture. We can know that our translations are not inferior because of their connection to the originals. (For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls).