Posts are in reverse chronological order.

A Personal Favorite

In my opinion, he following passage in scripture is one of the Bible's most amusing -- if one may use that adjective (and I think one may).

God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out. But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, "I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches." Seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. And the evil spirit answered and said to them, "I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?" And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (Acts 19:11-16, NASB)

Woe to the unbeliever who dares to invoke the name of Jesus! The very evil spirit you are attempting to combat may beat you and rob you of your dignity.

---

Keep in mind the blogs are posted in reverse chronological order.

The Anthropic Principle and General Revelation

With fear and trembling here is my first post related to science.

General Revelation is the concept that nobody has an excuse for not believing in God – all they have to do is look around at the wonders of nature (with a small ‘n’). A slightly stronger version is that, due to the miracle of God’s creation, everybody, at some level, believes albeit, for the most part, without a saving faith. The verse that speaks most directly to this:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom 1:20, NASB)

You can see how this might work with most people – they look at the Grand Canyon with awe. A scientist, however, might look at the same thing and say: “A river did that.” He admires Nature with a big ‘N’.

Anthropic Principle

Well, it turns out that science has its own more esoteric form of General Revelation, the so called Anthropic Principle. There are weak and strong versions of this – an unimportant distinction. For our purposes I will define it as follows:

Anthropic Principle: The principle that the universe seems to be tailor made to support life on earth; the idea that necessary and highly restrictive relations among unrelated scientific parameters suggests an intelligent design.

As an example, take the radius of the earth’s orbit. A few percent change in either direction and there is no stable water cycle and consequently no possibility of human life.

Think the planet Jupiter serves no practical purpose? Wrong – without the large outer planets serving as shields and asteroid catchers the earth would be under frequent, catastrophic bombardment.

No big deal that ice floats? Well for most substances the solid form has higher density than the liquid. If water were not a rare exception, ice would sink. In the winter, ice would form on the surface of (for example) a lake. It would sink to the bottom. More ice would form and sink – lakes, rivers and seas would freeze solid from the bottom up, killing everything within. Instead, a relatively thin layer forms on the surface, insulating and protecting marine life.

The list of “happy coincidences” goes on and on. This topic is too big to discuss here. A Google search will produce many hits – a good place to start is on Hugh Ross’s site

To be sure, some (but not all) of the more amazing (in terms of how “tight” the constraints are) examples are for old earth proponents only. Element production inside stars requires an unbelievable balance of parameters and energy levels for the production of the ingredients needed to sustain life (e.g., Carbon) – an infinitesimal tweak here or there with any of a number of physical constants renders the universe uninhabitable. Furthermore, a balancing act among the fundamental forces is required to sufficiently spread the elements after a star explodes. Of course If you believe the universe was created six thousand years ago with all the elements in situ, and that stars have not (yet) exploded, then there is no need to appreciate a finely tuned stellar cycle.

Scientific Response

I would like to report that scientists everywhere are bowing down to worship the True Creator, but alas it is not so. Sometimes that is the response (praise God) – but more often it is one of these:

1. Deism. The scientist acknowledges that there is intelligent design, but concludes after God set up the “initial conditions” he left the universe to its own devices. Deists want God’s “intrusion” to be minimal.
   
2. Quantum Religion: Parallel Universes. There are an infinite number of parallel (and conveniently, mutually inaccessible) universes most of which are uninhabitable. The fact that we are here talking about this means, ipso facto, we are one of the lucky ones. No big deal.
   
3. Cosmic Measurement Theory Another idea is – in a nutshell – that our present observations of the universe influence its creation -- so that it can be in a state that will support life – so that we can be here to observe it …
   

The fact that believing these ideas requires a faith that is indistinguishable from a religious faith is apparently lost. At any rate, God’s creation is evident, and so they have no excuse for not believing. General Revelation is inescapable.

---

Keep in mind the blogs are posted in reverse chronological order.

COMMENTS now accepted!

Keep in mind the blogs are posted in reverse chronological order.

Celibacy

The controversy in the Catholic Church has gotten a lot of people to think about celibacy and in particular the idea of requiring the pastorate to be celibate. For my own edification, I decided to review what scripture has to say about this. First of all we have the words of Jesus:

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Mat 19:9-12, NASB)

Paul also wrote about celibacy:

But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:8-9, NASB)

and

But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. . (1 Cor 7:32-34, NASB)


As I understand it, some also use:

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, (1 Tim 3:2, NASB)

as support for celibacy, where the "one wife" is taken to be the church. To assert that “wife” is used here, in any other than the normal sense of the word requires, in my view, far too much violence to be done to the text.

Conclusion: no surprise here. There is no scriptural support for the requirement that a pastor (priest) be celibate.

On the other hand

We Protestants are usually taught that “Paul says that while celibacy is Okay for him it is not for everyone.” This is true. Yet when I read the scripture it appears to me to be somewhat stronger than that – more like celibacy would be better (but not required) -- but most men couldn’t handle it.

I wonder what I would do if I were on the search committee for a pastor and was presented with a candidate who was strong in every aspect. Now suppose he was single, so we asked him about his plans for marriage. How would I react if he answered : “I am not a homosexual so don’t be concerned about that, but I have decided that I can serve the Lord better if I stayed single and celibate.” Would alarms start sounding? Probably. Should they? Probably not.

Membership: declined

I was denied membership on a predominantly Catholic blog ring. The rejection letter from the owner was very gracious and polite. He pointed out that in one of my posts I accuse the Catholic church of apostasy. That I did, and will discuss it more in the future. However I did want to point out that the Council of Trent in the 16th century concluded:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

As I understand it, this states clearly that those of us who proclaim "Justification by Faith Alone" are in fact accursed by the Catholic Church, and this charge of apostasy has never been repealed. Correction is welcome.

---

Keep in mind the blogs are posted in reverse chronological order.

Did Jesus spend time in hell?

Yesterday, during Sunday school, we were looking into the book of Ephesians. At some point we read:

(Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? (Eph 4:9, NASB).

This got me thinking again about the question of whether or not Jesus, perhaps as part of the price of our redemption, spent time in hell. I know that Christians disagree on this, and I am not going to give a defense of my opinion (I think that He did). Instead I want to talk about the fact that is one of many difficult if not insoluble problems -- questions that I like to think of as Christian imponderables.

The only other passage that I know of relevant to this question is from 1 Peter:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Pet 3:18-20).

Apparently this was enough, (along, perhaps, with the notion (not stated in scripture) that it was necessitated by the enormous price Christ had to pay for our redemption), for the belief to find its way into in the Apostles' creed, which includes the statement: He descended into hell.

You might like to read Calvin’s take: link.

Apart from the question itself, what I find interesting about this is that fact that, in my experience, it does not stimulate passionate debate. Some say he did, some say he didn’t, some say they don’t know, and know one seems to want to draw battle lines, which in a way is kind of nice. Contrast this to, for example, the young/old earth debate.

I Don’t Know

It can be so refreshing when a teacher says, “I don’t know. Not too often, otherwise they forfeit the title. Yet when there truly seems to be no way to resolve a question it sometimes is nice to hear that response rather than an opinionated discourse.

A pastor once told me “It’s not the things I don’t understand in the Bible that keep me up at night, it’s those things I do understand”.

Now this was a rhetorical device: the things he did understand did not really keep him awake (at least from worry) -- for all those things are good news. The real point: study in earnest those mysterious biblical questions -- but in the final analysis concentrate and celebrate the essential elements of the gospel, which have the additional beauty of being beyond dispute.

In R. C. Sproul’s book Chosen by God he asks the question (given that God has the power) why doesn’t He save everyone? (As opposed to just the elect.) Sproul's answer: “I don’t know”. This is fairly remarkable for a book whose aim is to present the Calvinistic view of predestination. Sproul could have said “for His own good pleasure” or “for His own glory” either of which would be acceptable but neither of which provides any additional insight. The answer “I don’t know” sends the right message. This is a question the answer of which God has chosen to keep hidden -- a Christian imponderable.

Peaceful Islam and the Academic Left Are A Match Made -- Somewhere

He are a few examples:

• "Tolerence" at U. C. Berkeley
  
• "Tolerence" at San Francisco State
  
• Berkeley Redux
  

One of the great political imponderables, as far as I am concerned, is how the democratic party continues to get the majority of the Jewish vote.

---

Keep in mind the blogs are posted in reverse chronological order.

Were we punished on 9/11?

Evangelical Christians and political conservatives have been linked for quite some time. However, the events of 9/11 made it clear to me the alliance is one of convenience only. There are deep (and growing) differences between evangelicals and political conservatives, especially as the latter take steps to achieve the dreaded goal of “broadening their base”. This usually means pro-abortion Republicans are placated, because (alas, with a certain amount of truth) evangelicals have no place else to go.

Most evangelicals I have talked to about 9/11 believe that we were indeed punished. After all, God is sovereign, so if not ordaining them outright he could surely have prevented the attacks. By divine edict he could have struck all the terrorists dead the night before the attacks. So the attacks proceeded, at the very least, with His permission. He wasn’t sleeping, and there is no uncontrollable evil running amok in the universe and outside of His province.

That, in and of itself, does not prove God’s intent was to punish. All sorts of terrible things happen in people’s lives that are not (necessarily) punishment. All that we can be sure of is, like in the case of Joseph, what ever happens is ultimately for good:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20, NASB)

The terrorists attacks on New York and the Pentagon, however, were so huge – so national in scope – that to many of us it “smelled” like national punishment. The thinking was:

• This is a reprobate nation
  
• God, although longsuffering, has had enough
  
• He used his “servants”, the terrorists, to send a message.
  

That in no way diminished our support for the war on terrorism. God may use the wicked for His purposes but he still holds them accountable (which must really annoy them).

There is a semi-infinite amount of precedence for this in the Old Testament, including referring to the wicked as God’s servants. Consider the Babylonian exile:

behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,' declares the LORD, 'and I will send to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them and make them a horror and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jer 25:9, NASB).

Secular political conservatives would have none of this. They joined liberals in their absolute derision of the notion that God may have been acting in righteous anger against this nation. A week after the attack, William F. Buckley wrote in the National Review that “Christian teaching is not irrelevant, simply because we dismiss as preposterous the notion that, on September 11, God was the hijackers' co-pilot” (emphasis added). Here is the link.

It is manifest that secular political conservatives would agree with liberals that God was not the “co-pilot”. What is surprising, and telling, is that they (conservatives) also heaped scorn upon anyone who dared show support for the notion of divine retribution

Falwell and Robertson

Buckley’s article was, I have been told, in response to statements made by Christian celebrities (Falwell and Robertson) on The 700 Club. I did not hear what they said, but apparently they placed a great deal of the blame on rampant homosexuality in this country. They dared to tread upon the third rail of modern American diversity sensitivities.

I think they made a big mistake, if indeed they singled out homosexuals.

The degradations in America are so pervasive that if one wants to point fingers at particular sins, one should be more inclusive – which will have the added benefit of reducing the impression that you are picking on gays. They could have said (maybe they did) that God was punishing a nation that murders children by the thousands (abortion) preaches and celebrates adultery (divorce) is grossly sexually immoral (pornography, premarital sex and homosexuality) ignores its responsibilities to children (divorce again, and latch key kids) etc. To finish it off they could have added that ours is a nation mired in the forgotten sin of covetousness.

In short, they could have done a much better job in making a valid point.

God Bless America

Another difference between evangelicals and political conservatives developed over the incessant use of God Bless America, both the song and the salutation. To many of us it was an irreverent use of the word “God” by people who would just as soon take His name in vain. We prefer to pray for the country, its leaders, and its military, rather than command God to bless an undeserving people.

---

Keep in mind the blogs are posted in reverse chronological order.

Assurance of Salvation

Do you ever, in private moments of despair, worry about your salvation? I do, although less often as I get older. Evangelicals (apart from those who pervert Calvinism) view good works as an effect of salvation, not a cause. Good works are viewed as evidence of a saving faith:

Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. (James 2:17, NASB)

I won’t get into what constitutes “good works”. But what it boils down to is a desire not only to talk-the-talk but also walk-the-walk. Anyone can go to church, but anyone, preachers included, can be guilty of merely going through the motions.

That is what used to (and still does occasionally) work on my heart: Am I sincere, or is my faith merely pro forma.

There is a lot of scripture and a lot of books devoted to obtaining an assurance. A verse that gives me great comfort, even though is not often used for this purpose, is:

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor 1:1, NAS)

When I doubt myself, I think of this verse. No matter how bad things are, I never think of the word of the cross as foolishness, which in turn prevents me from worrying about perishing. Great comfort is found here.

Protestant Work Ethic

When I was in public school (60s and 70s) it was taught that Calvinistic zeal to obtain assurance of their salvation caused Protestants to be extremely hardworking and good citizens, and so the Protestant Work Ethic was born. The success of the industrial revolution was attributed, in large measure, to this development. This strikes me as wonderfully politically incorrect. My guess is that the Protestant Work Ethic is no longer mentioned in public schools, and Christians are more likely to be blamed for the industrial revolution rather than credited.

If Islam were any more “peaceful” I couldn’t stand it.

In Indonesia, at least 12 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims.

And in that nation of our great "friends", Saudi Arabia, Ethiopian Christians were tortured.

This is just a miniscule tip of the iceberg. Christians living in the Muslim world face unspeakable persectution. Pray for them daily.

In yesterday’s post, I talked about why many Evangelicals support Israel. Clearly I forgot to mention another important reason: unlike Muslims, Jews do not massacre Christians.

Proselytizing to the Jews

Jews often do get upset (but not anywhere near to the point of slitting our throats) when we witness to them. We do this because we are told to:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, " All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Mt 28: 18-20, NAS)

That is our “Great Commission”. Don’t get upset – understand why we do it – Jesus commanded us. Let’s have a cup of coffee and talk about it.

When done properly, it is also done out of love. Nobody exemplifies this more than the great Apostle Paul:

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Rom 9:1-5, NAS)

He was willing to trade his salvation for that of his brethren (the Jews). That is a bit farther than I'm prepared to go.

---

Rational Religious Bigotry: Don’t be Offended

Keep in mind the blogs are posted in reverse chronological order: This post was promised in an earlier blog below.

Religious leaders, particularly those of the Christian religious right, make inflammatory statements with annoying regularity. The inevitable outcome is outrage in the media and uniform condemnation (including from other like-minded but perhaps more circumspect Christian leaders) followed by a unsavory public mea culpa.

Here are a few you probably heard over the years:

• God does not hear the prayers of Jews (or Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Masons, etc.)
  
• The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult
  
• The Roman Catholic Church is apostate
  
• Women should not be pastors, or even elders or deacons. Furthermore they should be subject to their husbands.
  

There are more. These pop up regularly. Read now the teaser for this blog: I think all of these statements are true and defensible.

The point of what you are about to read, for those who are still with me, is that I hope to convince you that one can hold such positions without being anti-Semitic, bigoted against Roman Catholics, or indeed bigoted against anybody. To the charge of being intolerant, then the plea is guilty by necessity.

Furthermore, I will even propose what your response should be to such statements if you are a Jew, Mormon, etc. Hint: it is not the knee jerk response that one usually hears.

It is all quite simple. Evangelical Christians, almost by definition, have as their premise the inerrancy of the Bible. More liberal minded Christians are not regulated by such a belief. So when a conservative reads the requirements for being an elder, he finds that one such requirement is to be a man (1 Tim 3:1-12). He is stuck at that point. He may in fact believe that women would make fine pastors, but the text binds him to a contrary view. No wiggle room.

Conservatives say God is exactly as described in Bible. Liberals, just like their political counterparts do with the constitution, say that the Bible is an evolving document. Extreme liberals relegate the Bible to mere allegory. I take great comfort in the conservative position. If God is not as described in the Bible, then I don’t see why everyone assumes he is “nicer”. Maybe he is mean and capricious, or simply dead.

I am not trying to convince you of my position. The crux of the argument is that if you accept this premise: The axiom of Biblical inerrancy is acceptable in the sense that someone (maybe not you, but someone) may hold to it without forfeiting his rights to be a full member of society, if you merely accept that a reasonable person is entitled (and indeed might) hold such a position, then it follows logically that such a person, without malice aforethought, might rationally arrive at the bulleted conclusions.

Does God hear the prayers of Jews?

Due to time and space limitations, I will only discuss this particular bullet. There are verses in the New Testament that say access to the Father occurs only through the Son:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6, NASB)

And

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John, 2:23, NASB)

Ergo, some conservative Christians, conclude that God does not hear (or perhaps He doesn't listen to) the prayers of Jews or indeed any non-Christian. Given the verses above, How could we conclude otherwise? It doesn’t mean we don’t wish God was more “tolerant”, and perhaps we believe we would be much more inclusive, if we were God, but we aren’t-- and we don’t have the luxury of modifying God’s attributes or His holy word.

Now surely, and sadly, a flaming anti-Semite might make the same statement about Jewish prayer. Nevertheless, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that the statement implies an anti-Semitic viewpoint.

The most perplexing criticism to the conservative position is that we think “we are right” and “everybody else is wrong”. Of course we do. Otherwise we wouldn’t hold such a position. Religion is supposed to encapsulate absolute truth. Anything else is, at best, situational ethics, not religion. Surely Jews, Muslims, and all other proponents of all other religions also think that they are right.

Don’t be offended

if I say that God does not hear the prayers of Jews. The correct response: “I know why you say that, because of your belief in the New Testament, but I think you are wrong. Let’s have some coffee and talk about it.” That’s all. Recognize that to me it is not my private unsupportable opinion but rather, from my perspective, an inescapable conclusion from scripture.

Only Christians get in trouble for this. Nobody gives a hoot when the shoe is on the other foot. Because I think Mohammed was a false prophet any good Muslim would identify me as an infidel with less than desirable prospects for the hereafter. My response to said Muslim: “ I am not offended by your intolerance – I understand why you think that. Let’s have some coffee and talk about it (so I can tell you the good news about Jesus).”

I might be wrong

For my part, I am charged to study the Bible and do my best to interpret it properly (using other scripture as much as possible) and believe what is says without modifications or additions that support my own agenda. Given that, I must be prepared to be proven wrong and even welcome correction. However, I cannot disregard the passages that I don’t like.

---

Christians and Jews

A few weeks back, Rod Dreher of National Review posted a great article on Evangelicals and Christians Together. He discussed how there is great support among evangelicals for Israel because many believe in a special role for Israel prior to the second coming. According to this argument, Israel must survive in order to play her special part in this end-times drama, thus evangelicals strongly support Israel over her Arab enemies.

This is true, but overly simplistic.

Many evangelicals, like myself, have a different (non-dispensational) view of the end times that does not assume a massive Jewish conversion (although we would love to see it) nor any special role for Israel. Rather than welcoming the rebuilding of the temple and a resumption of animal sacrifices, we would view such a development as an abomination. Nevertheless, many of us without a eschatological basis to support Israel still do so for the obvious political reasons: she is a proven friend, the only democracy in the region, and her enemies despise us.

Many Jews recognize (I have heard them say it) that the scarcity of anti-Semitism in the United States (relative to Europe or anywhere else) is because of our Christian heritage, not in spite of it. As the U.S. becomes more secularized, I fear we will start to see an increase in ugly European style bigotry. Pray for our country.

---

What is a Christian?

Well, there is not universal agreement on that. Nevertheless, I want to state what I believe makes a person a Christian, so that you’ll know where I am coming from. My definition of a Christian is someone who affirms the following:

Absolutes of Christianity

1. The Bible is the inerrant and sufficient inspired word of God.
   
2. There is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
   
3. God the Son came to earth, was born of a virgin, and lived as the man Jesus Christ.
   
4. Though tempted, Jesus lived a sinless life.
   
5. Christ suffered and died on the cross. His work is finished. He paid the full price, once-and-for-all, for my sins.
   
6. Christ was resurrected from the dead with a real (glorified) body.
   
7. Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead.
   
8. I contribute nothing to my salvation – it is a free and undeserved gift of God’s grace. Salvation is by faith alone, through grace alone.
   
9. Good works are an inevitable result of my salvation, not a contributing factor.
   

Please email me if you think I left anything out! Some of them (all but the first, but that’s jumping ahead) are redundant, but I still find it helpful to restate certain points in a different way.

This list excludes many from claiming the honorific: Christian. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are way, way out. Many Roman Catholics might agree with the list, but official Catholic teaching is contrary to items 1, 5, 8, and 9.

If you are offended by this wait for an upcoming blog about why you should not be offended before sending me hate mail.

Axiomatic Christianity

As an undergraduate physics major, I took a junior level course on Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Normally relativity courses spend the first few classes analyzing a seminal but tedious experiment demonstrating the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the motion of the observer. This result lays the groundwork for Einstein’s theory.

I had read about this experiment several times and had prepared myself for a set of boring lectures before getting to the “juicy” stuff. However, the professor took an unexpected approach. He bypassed the experiment altogether and instead began his class with the axiom:

Vacuum is vacuum.
He then proceeded, and you will have to take my word on this, to derive, credibly, Einstein’s theory. It was a marvelous approach. It should be noted, however, that the reason it worked is that the students were, at that point, well along in their education and were sophisticated enough to handle and appreciate such a pedagogy.

I believe Christianity lends itself to an axiomatic approach, and the proper axiom is the first item in the list above, restated here:

AXIOM: The Bible is the inerrant and sufficient inspired word of God.

The other items in the list are “derivable” from this one in the following sense: virtually all well meaning persons, upon accepting the axiom, would, after sufficient study, agree that the other items follow logically.

What (may not be) derivable?

Even among those accepting the axiom, there will points of departure. These are areas where even the most learned evangelical theologians will disagree. Denominations have split and congregations have self destructed over some of these:

• Child vs. adult baptism
  
• Baptism by sprinkling vs. baptism by immersion
  
• Eschatology (how the end-times and second coming will happen)
  
• (Details of) predestination (Calvinism vs. Arminianism)
  
• Acceptable worship, viz., head coverings, casual dress, contemporary music, drama, clapping, etc.
  
• Frequency of the Lord’s supper
  
• Acceptability of para-church organizations (e.g. Promise Keepers)
  
• Whether certain activities fall under the umbrella of Christian liberty, viz. (moderate) use of alcohol, public schools, eating at a restaurant on the Sabbath, etc.
  
• The earth: is it old or is it young?
  

Now I have definite opinions on all of these, some of which I will discuss in due time. But I can have Christian fellowship with anyone holding contrary views, as long as they affirm the nine “absolutes” listed above. Of course some, who are more fundamental than I, would elevate their opinions in the above matters into the list of absolutes.

Actually, I’ll mention one of these here, since it pertains to my blog’s description which says Devoted to Reformed Christian Thought. Purists will not agree, but for purposes of simplicity I will equate “Reformed” with “Calvinistic”. I am a died-in-the-wool Calvinist. Actually, I like a phrase that I just learned (via my wife) from a great friend:

I am a Calvinistic sans-culotte

(Thanks Donna). As for Calvinism, I take that to mean the classic Presbyterian view of election: I was utterly dead, not even strong enough to voluntarily swallow the elixir of life that God placed on my lips. I had to be resurrected. Nothing I did merited such treatment. And I was chosen to receive this incredible gift before the foundations of time.

Can the Bible be “almost” right?

There may be some minor variances due to translation, but the bottom line is that inspired means inspired: it is absolute truth. Note that the Bible is self referential:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (2 Tim. 3:16, NASB).

This bold, self referential claim leaves little wiggle room. Consider someone you know for whom you have a great respect of their knowledge. If you tell that person “you are always right!” he will undoubtedly reply “Thank you, but hardly!” If that person makes an occasional mistake, your esteem will not diminish appreciably. Suppose, however, that the person had answered “Yes indeed, I am always right.” Then the standard will be very high: the first error will result in a substantive degradation of your respect. The Bible takes such a bold position by declaring itself to be inspired. In some sense, it cannot be just “a little” wrong. It is either the Truth, or a big lie. In essence we have the following possibilities:

1. The Bible is inerrant, and I worship the true God it reveals
   
2. The Bible is inerrant, and I worship an invented, false god
   
3. The bible contains errors, I worship the god it reveals, which as presented (since the bible has errors) is a false god
   
4. The bible contains errors, and I worship an invented, false god
   

Of course I believe (1) to be correct. I consider (3) and (4) to be impossible since they start with the false premise that the Bible contains errors. (2) is the mistake made by liberal churches. They choose to ignore the revealed God and invent one that is “nicer”.

Agreeing on what the Bible says is not always easy

Well intended Bible readers can sometimes come to vastly different conclusions. Here is my favorite example.

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. (Dan 9-27, NASB).

Now if your view of eschatology is amillennial (historically the dominant eschatology, which does not expect a literal 1000 year earthly kingdom), then you interpret the “he” in this verse as referring to the Messiah. If you are premillennial (think of those “Left Behind” books), which today has many proponents, then the “he” is the antichrist! Can’t disagree any more than that!

Is it odd to be a physicist and a Christian?

Maybe, but not compared with some other disciplines. The public university where I taught for about 11 years had a faculty of around 140. Of those, I was aware of perhaps six Christians. All of these were in the hard sciences. Furthermore, there was little outright animosity toward or scorn of Christianity in the hard sciences (although more so in biology than in physics). For truly antagonistic attitudes toward Christianity, one had to look at the social sciences, especially to the philosophy and religious studies faculty. For example, one campus “philosopher” had this utterly fatuous “demonstration” he would perform every year in an introductory class: he would kick a Bible across the floor. (As far as I know, he never kicked a Koran – unwittingly the only thing he actually demonstrated was a good but probably subconscious grasp of Christian “intolerance” and the “peaceful” nature of Islam.)

---