Thinking-Christianly

One of the most common objections to the concept of the Trinity is the argument that the idea is invalid because the word is not found in the Bible. This argument confuses two separate realities.

It is true that the English word Trinity [or any Greek or Hebrew equivalent] does not occur in the text of the Bible. But the presence or absence of the word does not automatically require that the concept of the tri-unity of God be rejected. There are other words we used to describe the revelation of God in scripture that are useful, but do not occur in the text of the Bible.

For example, we describe God as omnipotent, or all powerful. The word omnipotent is not found in the biblical manuscripts. But the concept is mentioned many times. For example, Daniel 4:35 asserts, “All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: ‘What have you done?’” We do not find the word omniscient in the Bible either. But the Bible depicts God as all knowing and all wise (See Isaiah 28:29.)

So the issue is not about the presence of the actual word Trinity in the text of the Bible. The issue is whether or not the concept of God as a tri-unity is taught in scripture.

The concept of the Trinity is an inescapable conclusion of two realities. The first is that God is one. Deuteronomy 6:4 states, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” This is part of the prayer that many Jews recite daily.

The second reality is that the Bible depicts the Father, Son, and Spirit as God. Jesus often asserted his divinity, claiming for example that those who had seen him had seen the father. (See John 14:9.) He claimed that he and the Father were one. (See John 10:30.) The Jews understood his claim and attempted to stone him for claiming to be God. (See John 10:33.) These are but a few of the verses that point to Christ’s deity. The Spirit is also identified as God. Peter equates lying to the Spirit with lying to God himself in Acts 5:3-4.

Christians have put these two realities together and described God as being one in essence, but three in persons. The language may be inadequate, but it does give some clarity to the nature of God. This is not a violation of the teaching of Deuteronomy 6:4. The Hebrew word for one in that text is also used in Genesis 2:24, where the Bible describes Adam and Eve and becoming “one” flesh. In that text there is a new unity comprised of two individuals. The Trinity involves a unity comprised of three persons.

Some would argue mathematically that 1 plus 1 plus 1 cannot equal one. That argument is flawed on two counts. First, it reduces an infinite God to the constraints of a mathematical formula. Second, if one were to use math, there is another way to turn the argument around. Since God is infinite, one could ask, “Is not infinity plus infinity plus infinity equal to infinity?”

Some contend that we cannot understand the Trinity, therefore it is illogical. But that argument rests on the presence that anything we cannot fully comprehend cannot be real. There are realities even in science that we don’t fully understand. Think of magnetism or electricity. Consider the subatomic balance of particles in the nucleus of an atom or the presence of a abstract thought in humans. We may have adequate understanding of some of these things. And that is sufficient for us to speak and write about them. Through God’s self-revelation in scripture, we also have adequate knowledge of him. The unanswered questions in theology or science do not prove the non-existence of the realities about which we speak.

One argument for the existence of God is the moral argument. In its basic form, William Lane Craig puts it this way, “If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.” What does that mean?

The premise does not say anything about the impact of belief in God. Someone may not believe in God and embrace at least one objective moral value. They may favor giving dollars (theirs or yours) to the poor. They may support some legislation against sexual predators. Their disbelief in God does not prohibit them from adopting and living out a moral value. Likewise, the belief in God may not necessarily result in a Christian being honest on the witness stand or prevent them from being greedy in a business transaction.

Theists and atheists can both follow an objective moral value. An atheist can act in a way you would classify as good. A Christian can act in a way you would classify as bad. (Or vice versa.) But the argument for objective moral values is not based on if we believe in God. The existence of objective moral values and duties is linked to the existence of God. Why is that distinction important?

The skeptic may contend that either (1) objective moral values do not exist; or (2) such values exist but come from somewhere else. How do those options play out?

The conclusion that objective moral values do not exist is difficult to demonstrate.

Though we describe our age as an age of relativism, people inherently speak and write under the premise that some objective moral values do exist. If Richard Dawkins publisher refused to pay him royalties for copies of The God Delusion, I suspect he would be tempted to object. Or take an extreme case. Most people would believe that there is something morally wrong with a rich grandmother who decided to kill and eat her grandson because she was curious how he would taste. That kind of action appalls us. We do not ignore the moral implications and wonder if she had enough salt and pepper.

Even the expectation that the Christian apologist should show respect to the atheist in a debate between the two affirms this reality. We operate on the assumption that objective moral values exist. The absolute non-existence of objective moral values is a difficult premise to practice in the real world. Some claim to be without such values and advocate nihilism. But if you tape record their interaction with others, you will find them making value statements that imply some kind of objective standard on a host of issues. It doesn’t always boil down to statements of preference—”I like this”. It often includes statements of obligation—”someone should”.

If such objective moral values do exist, can they come from some place other than God? If one adopts a naturalistic point of view, they may presume that such values mysteriously bubble up from life. They are created and passed on in cultures. Perhaps they started centuries ago around campfires of primitive people and have morphed and evolved through changes in culture over time. But this argument misses the point. The argument is not about how such values may be transmitted. It’s about why they exist at all.

Matter and energy can’t create objective moral values because such things do not have moral properties. You won’t find loyalty on an atomic chart or on the light spectrum.

Culture can create arbitrary rules and regulations (like prohibiting exorbitant interest on credit cards or outlawing public lynching), but where to the underlying values come from? Some might argue that a culture’s norms are the way it perpetuates itself. We adopt these values to survive. But that only moves the question back a level. Why is the perpetuation of a tribe, family or race an objective good? If that is an objective value, where did it come from? This argument becomes a case of infinite regression. There is a better way.

The best plausible explanation of the existence of objective moral values is that God exists. People may adopt some objective values with believing in God existence, but that does not explain what has given rise to the reality of those values in the first place. Without God as a starting point, we have no clear logical explanation for the existence of moral absolutes that are such a common part of human thought and life.

Today’s blog is a bit philosophical. But we are all philosophers and think about big questions even though we do not use $25 words to describe them. So I invite you to give some thought to the concepts below that argue against the premise that the universe is somehow eternal.

Cosmology is the study of the universe. In the distant past it was assumed that the universe was eternal and existed forever. But in the last generation there has been considerable reflection on that premise and much discussion about what is known as the “big bang” theory. This is a popular way of describing the Friedman-Lemaître model, which looked at the “redshift” in the light waves of the galaxies moving away from us and concluded that the universe is expanding. In 1929 American astronomer Edwin Hubble verified the theory of Lemaître and Friedman, changing the debate in our modern age.

The implications of this model, which is increasingly popular, leads to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. There was a time when it did not exist. This lines up well with Genesis 1:1, which describes God as the creator of all things. If all matter and energy did not exist, it had to be produced by something that was different from matter or energy. For that agent to have material properties or be some kind of energy force is illogical. If all matter and energy at one time did not exist, then the agent that produced such things had to be a different order than matter or energy. The Christian perspective is that this creator was the God who revealed himself in scripture.

Some resist the conclusion of the “big bang” theory that gives credence to the biblical account. They assume that the universe can somehow be infinitely old. But that premise also fails on other grounds. For example, think of counting back from this second to infinity. You might go 0, -1, -2, -3, etc. Before any number could be counted an infinity of numbers would have to be counted first. You get driven back to the past so that no numbers can ever be counted. No matter how many numbers you count, there are an infinity of numbers to go. No series of numbers formed this way can actually be infinite.

William Lane Craig points out that the second law of thermodynamics also argues against an eternal universe. He asks, “If, given enough time, the universe will inevitably stagnate in a state of heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death?” We should already be in this state of equilibrium if we’ve had an infinity of time to reach it. But the universe is not in a state of heat death. That points to a finite beginning.

Because one of the purposes of this blog is to stimulate thought and interaction rather than commercial interests, I do not post comments that promote the sale of materials written by the person who makes the comment. But someone who promoted their book in an un-posted comment did make an interesting observation that reflects a common understanding of the New Testament. This observer classified some of the statements of Jesus in the gospels as adulterations that “came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.”

Critics sometimes charge that some of the material we find in the New Testament was not in the original documents, but resulted from additions brought in by Hellenistic Jews who imbedded these alien ideas into the texts. (Some argue for other groups, such as Gnostics, as well.)

This charge encounters two significant problems.

The first is that we do not have manuscript evidence to demonstrate that a more simplified version of the New Testament text was amended to include references to the concept of hell. The United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament includes a textual apparatus at the bottom of the page. It provides a record of significant variants found in some of the 5,000 or so manuscripts of the New Testament. The apparatus indicates which ancient Greek manuscripts show a word inserted, deleted, or spelled differently. When a student looks in the apparatus for the 13 verses which use the Greek word for hell, there is no record for any places where the word or the sayings were absent. It requires tremendous faith to believe that such an emendation to take place and leave absolutely no paper trail. Assertions without proof are just speculations.

The second difficulty with this kind of charge against the manuscripts of the New Testament is that it undercuts its own affirmation. The commentator went on to cite from Luke’s gospel. If the text of the New Testament has been corrupted by redactors and later editors, then there is no passage in scripture that is automatically protected from subsequent editing. Any verse or passage that appears anywhere in the gospels is equally suspect. So to argue that any perspective about the life and teaching of Christ is authentic based on scripture is illogical. The verses that are used to support one view may be as unreliable as the verses that reject another view.

Given the fact that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament dwarfs that of any other ancient book in the Western world (only 643 copies of the Iliad)—both in quantity and in proximity to the life of the disciples—such attempts to discredit what Jesus teaches fall flat. They are not the product of rigorous study and careful thought.

The relativism that marks our modern thinking embraces the idea that each of us knows truth, is driven by truth, and expresses truth as we interact about the world around us. It redefines bigotry as the idea that when two or more statements conflict, they cannot all be correct. On the surface such thinking seems generous and gracious, but it fails on at least two major counts. First of all, it offers no way to resolve conflicts. Secondly, it has a naïve view of humanity and presumes a natural love of truth.

Relativism makes it difficult to resolve conflict because it tends to deny that conflict exists in the first place. If Tom is employed by Gary and promised $10 an hour, he expects to gross $400 after working 40 hours. But Tom opens his paycheck and discovers that his gross income is $200 for 40 hours. Gary defends the smaller amount by stating that he is paying Tom $400 an hour—in 1985 dollars. He has just picked a different year’s currency as the baseline for his pay scale. Both men are right, given their perspectives. But in order for them to work together, there must be a common frame of reference—a common standard that does not waver between people. When the issue is real dollars and cents, Tom will turn to someone who will look at the issue objectively (judge, lawyer, or labor board).

Jesus points out another weakness of relativism. It’s the hidden assumption that we are all looking for truth in the first place. In Matthew 13 he tells a parable about a landowner who plants good seed in his field. But the landowner has an enemy. And this enemy sneaks into the field to sow weeds into the fertile soil. The servants of the landowner offer to pull the weeds. He tells them not to because of potential damage to the wheat. He tells them to allow both plants to grow to maturity. Then they will be separated.

Most farmers would wince at this advice. They would hit the field with Roundup and take care of the problem immediately. But this is not a parable about farming, but about people. The premise of Jesus teaching is that the world is a place where God’s truth is sown, but where the seeds of lies are also sown. (It comes after the previous parable in Matthew 13, which pictures God as the one who has the seeds of truth.) The parable does not see the world through the lens of competing truths, as relativism does. It sees the world as a contest between truth and lies. This kind of thinking has its roots (pun intended) in the deception of the historic fall as described in Genesis. The challenge before Adam and Eve revolved around the accurate concept of reality as given to them by God and the alternative as described by Satan. In John 8:44 Jesus calls Satan a liar and the father of lies. It is this battle between alternate views of objective reality—one which is accurate and others that are not—that relativism cannot address.

In our own experiences we know how easy it is to lie, mislead, or misrepresent the facts in order to benefit from the spin we put on the truth. It may be to avoid punishment. It may be to cover up failure, either at work or at home. It may be to look better or gain respect in the eyes of others for exaggerated accomplishments. It may be to damage someone we don’t respect or dislike. It may be to persuade another to loan us money, give us a job, entrust us with a responsibility, or value us as a person. A myriad of motives come into play when we feel it is “necessary” to embellish the truth. And all of us find ourselves doing what is wrong at times for what we consider to be necessary goals. We tend to have selective amnesia about the many instances where lying caused more problems than it solved.

Relativism tends to mask this true moral dilemma in a shroud of nobility, claiming that we’re all just seeking truth in a different way. Jesus is more blunt and realistic. There is the seed of truth. There are weeds of lies. They both grow together in this age, but they are not equivalent. The assertions of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Iranian peaceful nuclear ambitions or Senator John Edwards about not fathering a child outside of his marriage are not variations on the truth. They are not truth. They echo the true condition of the moral field that all of us live in.

Whenever someone dies—whether it is Michael Jackson or your next door neighbor–people tend to speculate about the fate of the person. The questions we ask and the answers we pose depend on our personal theology. Some people reserve the word “theology” to trained religious leaders. But all of us have a working theology of some kind. Any set of assumptions we carry around about God (he, she, or it) or the non-existence of God are building blocks of our theology. We may never have written these ideas down in a clear form, but they nevertheless shape our thinking, our responses to life, and our world view.

Your theology may be a mixture of concepts from Oprah, The Matrix, a junior high biology teacher, a pastor, or an agnostic college professor. It may have been framed by values at your job, painful experiences you have had, or deep friendships you have enjoyed. All of us collect ideas that we value into some kind of blend that acts as a working hypothesis that we use to think about and answer ultimate questions in life.

Our personal theology may be good (based on truth) or bad (built on fantasy or reality) but it will be the lens through which we view life’s core questions. (We may feel that our theology is good, even if it is not built on truth, but that kind of blind devotion will ultimately disappoint us.) Since we do not possess all knowledge, our theology will be dynamic. Ideally, it will grow as we discern the difference between truth and error and discard those ideas that are logically contradictory or otherwise flawed.

For too many people their theology stagnates. They seldom think deeply about the ideas that frame their view of the world. They don’t look for evidence. They don’t ask hard questions. They ignore contradictions and obvious problems. They enthrone their preferences and prejudices as unassailable guideposts for life and arbitrarily dismiss any evidence to the contrary. Sometimes Christians are accused of blindly embracing a set of ideas that cannot stand up in the real world. There are certainly some Christians who do that. But that tendency is not unique to Christians. It can be found among Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, materialists, atheists, and agnostics.

Paul noted this plethora of views when he came to Athens. Standing at the Areopagus, he said, “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’” (See Acts 17:22-23.) Like our modern religious diversity, the Western world of the first century was an array of diverse views and opinions.

Today in America this diversity has reached new levels. A century ago one might self-identify as a Jew, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, or agnostic. Today it’s more likely to encounter people who claim general loyalty to a way of thinking, but whose personal theology is almost indistinguishable from others in the same group. It’s the Catholic who rejects any pronouncement from the Pope, who is pro-abortion, and who believes that everyone will go to heaven after death. It’s the Jew who does not believe God exists, who doubts the historicity of the Hebrew Old Testament, and who discounts any notion of a messiah. It’s the Lutheran who recoils at Luther’s teaching about man and sin in his Bondage of the Will, and who believes that saving grace is mediated only through infant baptism.

Unchecked, the American passion for individualism would create as many religions as there are people. In Christianity, it results in a widespread dismissal of any classical theological ideas built on a careful study of the Bible. When subjective opinions trump all else, there is no room left for any meaningful dialogue. Thoughtful interaction about objective truth gives way to persuasion and pressure, where the loudest voice or the view that is most popular at the moment wins.

Designer theology only leads to intellectual and theological chaos, as Paul saw in Athens. It’s theoretically possible that all our ideas about ultimate reality—all our theologies—are wrong. But that doesn’t preclude that there is one right way to think that actually matches reality. This is the perspective Paul brought to the Areopagus. He began his interaction by saying, “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.”

Paul argued that there is a clear and congruent set of truths that offer an explanation for the world and its form, the nature and problems of man, and for meaning and purpose in life. That is the starting point that God has given mankind in the revelation in Christ and in the Bible. It is an alternative to the subjective intellectual chaos that leads nowhere. In these days Christ-followers need to become men and women like Paul, who understood the world around him, and who could speak carefully into all the diverse perspectives of his day. When we fail to study, think, and speak with wisdom and grace, we join the cacophony of divergent voices instead of bringing needed clarity to our world.

Some skeptics fault Christians in the West for celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25. They assert that this was near the winter solstice, or that it was confused with other ancient festivals—either the Roman natalis solis invicti (“birth of the unconquered sun”) or the Iranian birthday of Mithras. They argue that December 25 therefore has pagan roots and therefore Christmas as we know it is more grounded in paganism than Christianity.

What do we make of these charges?

First of all, it is unlikely that the date was chosen because it was the day of the year reflected in the Bible. The Bible does not tell us precisely which day of the year Jesus was born. There was not a widespread celebration of Jesus’ birth until 336 under Emperor Constantine. Church fathers speculated about various dates, including May 20, April 18, April 19, May 28, January 2, November 17, November 20, and March 25. The choice of December 25^th in the Western church was arbitrary. So it’s not an issue of biblical accuracy.

Secondly, the day was probably chosen to challenge the pagan festivals that occurred in the empire. It was a way to set the true hope of deliverance against the false hopes of the culture. It would be like American Christians today selecting July 4^th to commemorate spiritual independence while the nation was focusing on political independence. Though we have scant records of the rationale behind the decision, there seems to have been some attempt to contrast the truth of Christianity and the deliverance through Christ with some of the pagan celebrations common in that day. The celebration did not find theological significance in the pagan festivals. It sought to contrast the hope in the messiah with the claims of those other faith systems.

The religious leaders could have equally chosen another day on the annual calendar that did not compete with common festivals. The Eastern Orthodox Church and some other groups celebrate in January because they follow the Julian calendar. A determined skeptic could probably find fault with any day in any month of the year. An annual celebration of Christ’s advent is not significant because of the day chosen, but because of the uniqueness and mission of Jesus.

Others fault the celebration because it includes traditions from other peoples—from greenery and lights to Yule logs and charitable giving. But the test for authenticity in faith is not originality. It is its adherence to the teachings and/or writings of its founders. Circumcision existed in the ancient world before it became a sign to Abraham and his descendants. Animal sacrifice existed outside the Jewish culture when the sacrificial laws were given at Mt. Sinai. One of the two primary schools of Judaism baptized Gentile proselytes before John came along preaching a “baptism of repentance.” The Christian community is free to use symbols and types from the culture to declare the truth of its doctrine to the faithful and to the world. That practice does not mean that everything associated with the former practices was endorsed and approved.

Have there been times and places where meaning has been lost in the Christmas symbols? Certainly. Any practice or tradition can lose its link to its genesis if we are not careful. Why, for example, do we often bless someone who sneezes? It’s become a cultural ritual isolated from the past. Though it can be argued that the message may be lost in the traditions as they have evolved over the years, it is not legitimate to maintain that the potential for corrupting these practices makes them valid from the start.

A postscript to those of you who follow Christ and check in on this blog: My thanks to you and my wish that this Christmas season will be a time of reflection, gratitude, and appreciation for the gift God gave the world in Christ!

Occasionally someone argues that churches were historically a drain on society and should be taxed to compensate for the financial burden they place on the taxpayers. Since churches in most cases are tax exempt regarding property taxes, some regard them as social parasites. Considered from a financial perspective, is that true? History suggests otherwise.

Effective church ministries inhibit costly decay within the family. By promoting Judeo-Christian values churches prevent some marriages from collapsing. Thus they reduce society’s burden to help broken families through AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) payments, housing subsidies, assistance to women, infants, and children, support of crisis and abuse centers, and other programs for the divorcee who is underemployed. The church reduces the demand for job training programs, food stamps, and subsidized health care. Family ministry can reduce the pressure on the police and court systems to handle more domestic disputes and track down deadbeat fathers.

Church ministries add value by positively impacting youngsters. By propagating biblical values they build qualities of a good citizenry, such as moral absolutes, a work ethic, and respect for people and property. Youth who embrace these ideals are less likely to enroll in recovery programs related to drug and alcohol addiction, to need rehabilitation through our criminal justice system, or become dependent upon government agencies.

Other services save the taxpayer money. Churches sponsor support groups for the grieving, and frequently allow civic groups to use their facilities. They sponsor fund-raisers for badly burned firemen and children with life-threatening illnesses. They even offer space for classrooms when public schools suffer damage. They open their facilities at no cost as places for voters to cast their ballots.

Churches have invested billions of dollars overseas to fund education, promote health care, and establish self-help programs. Such gifts of man power and money do not come from the American tax dollar. Each project is one less endeavor the average taxpayer does not have to fund.

The notion that the church is a burden to society suffers from a type of historical myopia that fails to take into account the full picture of what New Testament Christianity, when put into practice, contributes to the world.

A group called The Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers sponsored signs on a bus that read, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” This mimics advertising that was first sponsored by a similar group in England. The public transit authority received immediate criticism for the ads. They pulled them, and then in a quick reversal, agreed to put them back.

One notable response of the Iowa Atheist and Freethinkers group was to send a message to Iowa Governor Culver. Governor Culver stated tht he was personally offended by the advertisement and the message it sent. Board member Lily Kryuchkov stated, “We are disappointed he decided to take sides on what we see as a free-speech issue.”

Ms. Kryuchkov wants the public to consider the message of the Iowa Atheist and Freethinkers as proclaimed on the bus. That message certainly takes sides on whether or not God exists. If the Atheists and Freethinkers can take sides and express their opinion publically about an idea, why would they fault the governor for doing the same? Where is their tolerance? Should they not be ecstatic that the governor’s remarks are one more demonstration of free-speech?

When the Iowa governor expresses the fact that he is personally disturbed by the atheists’ message, he is considered to be in the wrong. This illogical reasoning retreats to a “right for me, but wrong for you” ethic. The governor was careful not to enter into the free-speech debate. (He deferred such questions to the Attorney General.)

If the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers want to celebrate tolerance in our pluralistic society, they should extend it as well as demand it. Tolerance is not the acceptance of all values. It is the willingness to give all values a public hearing.

If people want to spend their money telling others they do not believe God exists, they should be able to do so. It would be interesting to see if the Freethinkers would pay for similar ads about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny—all in the name of public education. My suspicion is that the backlash against an anti-Santa Clause bus ad in December would be more than this group would want to face.

A recent contributor asked some great questions about how the human race brought death and suffering to the earth. It is a topic worthy of some exploration.

Our secular society has a difficult time explaining the origin of decay and suffering. The most common answer is to rush to assume that since we see such things all around us, they are a natural part of creation. Animals and plants die. Great civilizations become footnotes in future history books. Given enough time, all the stars in the universe would exhaust their energy. The common assumption is that this is how it has always been from the beginning.

The Bible paints a different picture. The death, disease, and decay we see in the world around us is an unnatural part of our existence. Scripture claims that God created things without flaw or decay. That is what you would expect from one who is perfect and makes everything perfect. The abbreviated account of creation in Genesis chapter 1 repeatedly refers to God’s assessment of what he made with the statement that what He made “was good.” (See Genesis 1:4; 1:9; 1:101:12; 1:18; 1:21; 1:25 and 1:31.) The law of decay that we see around us was not part of the original blueprint.

I suspect that our ability as humans to imagine perfection in morality, architecture, art, science, or any endeavor is perhaps possible because we were originally designed by a perfect God to live in that state. Our aspirations are not in line with the world as we know it, but they are congruent with the world as it was in the beginning.

God’s revelation in Genesis tells us that fatal flaws in nature and in the human heart stem from the moral rebellion of our ancestors, Adam and Eve, against God himself. God told them that if they chose to break the perfect bond between themselves and him through an act of disobedience, death would be the consequence. (See Genesis 2:18.) Not only would their relationship with God be forever changed, their bodies would be subject to decay and death.

Their choice could have caused God to make mankind instantly extinct. Instead, it produced a change of relationship with God and the material world. Genesis 3:16-20 outline some of the things that would be different from that time forward.

Though this condition is the new normal for us now, it will not last forever. In Romans 8:16-23 the Bible speaks of an age of restoration that will commence when Jesus returns. The decay that touches all we know will not be part of the future for those who have a restored relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Romans 8:22-23 notes, “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” In 1 Corinthians 15:54 Paul speaks of the promise to Christ followers of their perishable nature putting on a new nature that is imperishable.

Between now and then, we live in the aftermath of the fall. But even in this situation God’s grace is not absent. For example, when Moses complains to God that he is not articulate enough to lead the Jewish people, he implies that God erred in creating him the way he did. God’s response is instructive. He states, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (See Exodus 4:11.) Even in a broken world, things that we consider shortcomings and handicaps are not random. Though we may not be able to answer the “whys” in every case, the Bible paints a picture that reassures us that chaos and randomness do not rule.

The person without the Bible is forced into pessimism, because they are left with a universe that is ruled by decay and that will eventually slide into total darkness. Given enough time, there will be no one to remember acts of heroism, love, nobility, and kindness. The irreversible slide into oblivion will eventually render everything meaningless.

Scripture, on the other hand, teaches that we were created perfect and placed in an unbroken world. The decay we face is real, but temporary. As Christ came for the first time to offer spiritual restoration through his self-sacrifice on the cross for those who would trust him, he will come a second time to rule, judge, and preside over the recreation that is not subject to death.

Though followers of Christ die physically, they live on spiritually.  (See 2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 3:20-21.) And there will be a new earth in which the decay of this world will no longer be known. (See Revelation 21; Revelation 22:3.) God will remain God. And we will be finite creatures who are given the privilege of knowing, loving and serving him.