Credobaptism vs. Paedobaptism

Baptism was one of those topics in seminary that created a lot of back and forth discussion. At least from my perspective. And that was because I strongly disagreed with the Reformed* view of Baptism. I disagreed with it so much that I decided to not seek ordination in the Reformed Church of America. But I was still attending classes at a Reformed seminary. Theology and Worship classes were taught from a Reformed perspective and this included paedobaptism, which is the technical term for baptizing infants. I on the other hand hold to believer's baptism or as I have recently heard it called, credobaptism.**

For the most part I felt that my classmates were very respectful of my views and engaged them with intellectual honesty. They avoided bad arguments*** and challenged my understanding very well. Yet they never did convince me to change my mind.

One of the issues that I see as a serious problem for paedobaptism is how it looks at the union with Christ and the church. An infant that is baptized is considered a part of the covenant community by the Reformed church. My problem with this is that this means that the covenant community contains those that may never make a profession of faith in Christ. However I felt that during these discussions I was not able to make as solid and succinct of an argument as I would have liked. I had the idea in my head but for some reason I could not get it out on paper in the way that I wanted to.

Then last week I came across this article posted by Justin Taylor. It is an interview that Taylor did with Stephen Wellum. Dr. Wellum is the professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. My view of baptism was not actually about baptism but rather I viewed it in terms of union with Christ. Dr. Wellum actually approaches baptism through our understanding of the different covenants in the Bible. In the interview Dr. Wellum stated:

This change of “structure” also means that there has been a change of “nature.” Under the old covenant, Israel was a “mixed entity,” namely a community of believers and unbelievers (not all Israel was Israel to use the language from Romans 9). But with the coming of the new covenant in Jesus Christ and the giving of the Spirit in eschatological fulfillment, the new covenant community is viewed as a regenerate people. Furthermore, this change of “nature” is also linked to the work of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant age. The NT is clear that it is the Spirit who has brought life and who enables God’s people to follow God’s decrees and to keep God’s laws, thus making us covenant-keepers and not covenant-breakers. It is the Spirit who unites us to Christ so that all Christians, by definition, are those “in Christ” who have the Spirit (Rom. 8:9). In fact, I argue that this is precisely what Jeremiah 31 anticipates—which has now arrived in Christ. Thus we could say it this way: under the new covenant all will know the Lord in a direct fashion, and all will have the law written on their hearts and experience the full forgiveness of sin. Thus, in contrast to the old covenant community which was a “mixed entity,” the new covenant community will be a regenerate people. This is what I mean when I say that the “structure” and “nature” of the new covenant is different than the old.

Dr. Wellum makes a sharp distinction between the different covenants of the Bible. And the New Covenant that comes in Christ changes the nature of the Covenant community. No longer is that community to be made up of both believers and non-believers. He goes on to say:

Under the old covenant, one could make a distinction between the physical and spiritual seed of Abraham (the locus of the covenant community is different from the locus of the elect). Under the old covenant, both “seeds” (physical and spiritual) received the covenant sign of circumcision and both were viewed as full covenant members in the national sense, even though it was only the remnant who were the true spiritual seed of Abraham. But this kind of distinction is not legitimate under the new covenant where the locus of the covenant community and the elect are the same. In other words, one cannot speak of a “remnant” in the new covenant community, like one could under the old covenant. All those who are “in Christ” are a regenerate people, and as such it is only they who may receive the sign of the covenant, namely baptism.

I really appreciate how he was able to summarize my thoughts so well.

The interview contains a lot more information regarding what he sees as the differences between credobaptism and paedobaptism. I would highly recommend it to anyone that is interested in this debate.



*It is important for me to define and clarify terms. In this posting I am differentiating between Reformed as a particular set of beliefs as found in the Reformed Church of America (RCA) as opposed to the general reformed beliefs found in Protestantism. The views similar to that of the RCA can also be found in the Christian Reformed Churches (CRC), the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) as well as others from the Reformed tradition. When I say that I disagree with the Reformed church or that I am not Reformed does not mean that I reject the general beliefs that came out of the Reformation or that I even disagree with someone like John Calvin. Rather I disagree with certain aspects of their beliefs and still consider myself reformed in the sense that Protestantism as a whole is "reformed" from the Catholic Church.

**The argument is not between infant baptism and adult baptism. Rather it is between the belief in baptizing the children of believers vs. the belief in baptizing only those that have made a profession of faith. I have always been a believer baptist and I was baptized at 7 years old. I highly doubt that anyone would consider that "adult" baptism.

***One of the bad arguments that I had to deal with came from some of the authors of our text books. For example, on page 286 of his book Faith Seeking Understanding author Daniel Migliore stated the following as an argument against believer baptism: "Does the Holy work in infants? Geoffrey Bomiley is surely right to say that it would be shocking to answer this question in the negative. The Holy Spirit can and does work in the lives of infants and children through the ministrations of their parents, guardians, teachers, and friends. Why not also through the proper practice of infant baptism? The working of God's spirit is not restricted by gender, race, or class. Neither is it restricted by age."

This argument is both misleading and insulting. It is what is called a straw man argument in that it sets up a "straw man" that is both easy to defeat and a complete misrepresentation of the opposing view point. I find it even more insulting today than I did the day that I read it. Migliore falsely sets up the proposition that believer baptists are adult only baptists and that they believe that God only works through adults. What I find even more insulting is that he even goes as far as to claim that believer baptists should be considered the same as those that discriminate based on gender, race or class. This argument does not even come close to dealing with the issues. It simply relies on, in effect, insults and name calling.

The Blue Van

I've told this story a number of times before but our church is taking part in the Crop Walk this coming Sunday and I thought that it would be good to share it again. It is one of those moments where I fell short of what I needed to do and I like to come back to it every once in a while to remind me that I need to take action...no matter how small it might seem.

A few years ago I was out walking my dog early one morning and I saw a strange blue van parked on our street. It wasn’t one of the regular cars on our street. There were all these boxes and items stacked in the front seat. It wasn’t an item or two on the front seat, it was filled. With that much stuff in the front seat, there was no way someone could drive. I found it to be very odd. The next morning when I was walking the dog I saw the van again. This time there was a young couple moving all the stuff from the front seat of the van to the back. As I walked back past the other way, he was fidgeting in the back and she was eating a piece of fruit. I suddenly realized they were living in their van.

A couple of nights later they were parked on our street again. It was a cool summer night and we had the windows open to take advantage of the breeze. It must have been around midnight when the couple had a rather loud argument. As I lay in bed looking at the ceiling and listening to homeless people argue I was conflicted between calling the cops so that I could get back to sleep and wondering how I could ultimately help their situation. When I was walking the dog the next morning the woman had obviously been locked out of the van and crying all night. She was still whimpering. After that day I didn’t see the van again for a number of weeks. Finally it was parked again on our street one night. I had been troubled that I had not actively sought to help the couple out and had decided that in the morning I would stop by the van and see if there was any way for me to help. That night the couple again got into a huge fight and this time someone called the police. The man stammered something about just parking there for the night because they ran out of gas. They were gone by the next morning and I never saw that blue van parked on our street again.

I had the opportunity to care for and help this couple. Yet I did nothing. I kept thinking about how the problem is bigger than just bringing them something to drink or eat; bigger than just saying a kind word. But is it really any bigger than that? Yes we may have these same problems on a global level and solving the problems on a global level are going to require us doing things on a grand scale. Yet as followers of Christ, we have the responsibility to not only love God but to love our neighbor. Loving our neighbor means that we need to help those in need even if it means simply bringing someone a glass of water or helping those that we do not necessarily want to help.

Unfortunately I know that this is something that I will struggle with all of my life. Christ told us to make disciples and teach people to obey all of his commands. But correct belief is hollow and empty if it does not actively shape how I live my life. What good is it if I state that God cares personally for people and that he demands that we love one another if I do not take the opportunity to provide a cool glass of water or some refreshing food or even a tank of gas for a hurting couple that are living out of their blue van? What good is a discussion on the difference between justification and sanctification if it does not make a difference in how I act in relationship towards God and towards other people? Being a follower of Christ is not about having everything worked out; it is a journey that requires us to grow in both knowledge and in action.

Are Evangelicals Dangerous?

Albert Mohler—the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—gave his answer to the question “Are Evangelicals Dangerous?” in an article written on cnn.com.

He concludes by saying:

Above all, evangelicals are those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and are most concerned about telling others about Jesus. Most of America’s evangelical Christians are busy raising their children, working to support their families and investing energy in their local churches.

But over recent decades, evangelical Christians have learned that the gospel has implications for every dimension of life, including our political responsibility.

We’re dangerous only to those who want more secular voices to have a virtual monopoly in public life.

And I am sure that—if the 70+ pages of comments are any indication—people on both sides of the argument are going to hotly debate the issue. But there was something else he said that caught my attention.

The New Yorker accused Bachmann of being concerned with developing a Christian worldview, ignoring the fact that every thinking person operates out of some kind of worldview.

The idea of operating out of a worldview is something that is relatively new to me. The first time that I started to pay attention to the term was only about 10 years ago. It was one of those light bulb moments. Once I heard the notion of a worldview explained it made all the sense to me. Quite simply it is how our beliefs shape how we look at and interact with the world.

It is also interesting to note how our worldview in action does one of the best jobs of defining what we truly believe.

If Evangelical Christians do not engage in the realm of political and cultural ideas then what are we saying about our beliefs?

Let me use a non-religious example. Let’s pretend that we have discovered that the use of a gizmothingabob is very dangerous. Its danger is not always immediately apparent but their use—in the long run—is always disastrous. But the use of the gimothingabob does not just affect the individual; it also affects those that the person comes into contact with. The problem is that not everyone agrees with the threat assessment of gizmothingabobs. I, as a concerned citizen, have two basic options. I can either warn people about the use of gizmothingabobs even if they do not think the same way as me. Or, I can just keep quiet and let people use the gizmothingabobs at their own risk.

My actions either way speak to how I really view the danger of the gizmothingabobs as well as how I view other people.  In the first option I view the danger as very real and people’s safety as very important. In the second option I don’t view the danger as being all that bad and I don’t view the safety of others as being as important.

The same is true when it comes to our beliefs about the implications of Christianity on life in general. If we do not allow it to shape our actions in every aspect of life then that speaks very loudly about how important we really believe our religious convictions to be. I don’t consider it a bad thing to be considered “dangerous”* by those with an opposing view point, rather I find it disturbing when those same people do not consider me to be at least a little “dangerous.”

*Just to be clear, I absolutely do not mean dangerous in an assault & battery sort of way. I mean it in the sense that those with opposing view points find my views to strongly conflict with theirs. For example I hope that an Atheist would find my views on the existence of a God to be dangerous and challenging towards their views of the non-existence of a God.

Are God's commands more than a list of "Do's and "Don'ts?"

In discussing the role of Jesus in my Credo I state the following about the commands that he gives to us:

Jesus also tells us how we should live. His commands—The Sermon on the Mount being a good example—are more than just a list of “do’s and don’ts.” However, it is very easy to look at these commands and to start categorizing them like we do with the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses and think of following Jesus in terms of “Thou Shalt Not…” It is very easy for me to fall into that trap and in a certain sense I am guessing that it is only natural. But Jesus did not simply come to tell us about all of the things that we do wrong. Rather, Jesus' instructions help us to live a better life (but not in a self-help way) and how to show care and compassion towards others. When Jesus tells us not to do something it is usually because whatever he is telling us to not do is bad for us.

For example in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us not to worry:

“Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing…And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life…Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
Matthew 6:25,27,34

I have purposely left out a number of verses from Jesus statement on worry and normally I really dislike taking verses out of their context. But I did it here for a reason. I think that those other verses help to put this command into the “Thou Shalt Not” category and miss part of why Jesus was giving us this command.

Here are just the omitted verses:

“Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they…And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”
Matthew 6:26,28-33

Looking at these verses makes it very easy to pick out a number of reasons that Jesus is telling us not to worry:

• By worrying we are not trusting God to take care of us.
• By worrying we do not believe that God values us.
• By worrying we are not seeking after the most important things in life.

These are all true and very valid reasons, but there is also a more practical reason why Jesus is telling us to not worry as well. Jesus asked, “Can you add time to your life by worrying?” No. We cannot. In fact we have come to learn that worrying actually shortens our lives. Chronic worry – or stress – can also make us very unhealthy. Jesus’ commands are more than “because I said so,” they are our guide to living a better life. We might not always have all the things that we want but if we followed all of his commands – like taking care of the poor – life would be better for us as well as others.


Further reading on the effects of stress:
Stress symptoms: Effects on your body, feelings and behavior by the Mayo Clinic
Stress: Constant stress puts your health at risk by the Mayo Clinic
The Effects of Stress on Your Body by WebMD

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Can Non-Christians be Moral?

Can an Atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim be a moral person? Do Christians have a monopoly on being moral? Are Christians more moral than people of other faith (or non-faith) beliefs?

There is quite the debate between Atheists and Theists over morality and how it is grounded. I do not mean to rehash those arguments. Rather, the idea that I would like to explore is if, as Christians, we believe that ultimately right and wrong comes from God then can those that do not believe in God be considered moral people? We need to start by defining our terms. The two that are important for this discussion are sin and morality.

Sin is when we do things against God’s Law. But there is more to it than that. Both the New Testament and the Old Testament convey the idea that sin is like missing the bulls-eye. Sin is what has lead to the corruption of our very nature and separates us from God. While sin may have entered the world through Adam and Eve, we are responsible for our own sins.

I find it helpful to imagine a glass of water and a vial of extremely strong poison. The poison is so powerful that a single drop in the water is enough to cause death. The water is considered corrupt as soon as that drop is added. Now that glass of water misses the bulls-eye of being pure water. In the same way, as soon as we commit a single sin we are no longer considered pure.

Morality is holding to what is right and wrong. It means following the rules. It can pertain to following the “religious” rules of Christianity as well as to the “societal” rules. If we take the Ten Commandments as a quick example we can see that the first 4 commandments pertain to the “religious” aspect of Christianity (and Judaism) and the last 6 pertain to “society” as a whole. As a matter of fact all societies regardless of their basis will usually contain laws regarding murder, stealing and bearing false witness. In those societies people who follow the rules are considered moral and those that consistently do not are considered immoral.

Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims and any other non-Christian can be moral people. In the way that we usually use the term morality, being a moral person does not require one to have a certain belief in God. Christians are not more moral simply because they are Christians. Christians are not even moral simply because they are Christians. And that is important for all Christians to remember – we are only moral when we are following the rules.

So how do we as Christians make sense of someone that does not believe in God, the ultimate source of what is right, being able to be a moral person?

The first thing that we need to remember is that from God’s perspective a single sin causes us to be corrupt. That glass of water with the single drop of poison causes the water to be immoral in terms of being pure water. We are the same way. We are all, from God’s perspective, immoral. We normally think of someone as being moral in terms of our standards. It is understandable for us to think this way in order to have a functioning society but we all fall short of perfection.

The next thing that we need to remember is that God has placed his law in every person’s heart. We as Christians believe that Atheists can be moral because they – by the very nature of being human – have the basic laws of right and wrong within them. It doesn’t matter why they think they are moral. So remember that whenever – as Christians – we are dealing with someone with different beliefs. They can be just as or even more moral than we are. And this means that we as Christians need to do a better job of being moral.

Fighting Over Creation

God created everything that is in existence...Everything that has come into being has come into being because of God’s creative work. God created human beings in his own image for his glory and purposes...We are not a product of Darwinian Evolution. This also means that because he is sovereign over all of creation that we as Christians should not fear scientific discovery but rather we should strive for a better understanding of both the scope and limits of what can and cannot be found through science. Much of what we see in terms of Darwinian Evolutionary science is largely based upon the theological foundation of Naturalism which starts with the fundamental belief that there is no God. We as Christians can be confident that scientific discovery will ultimately not be at odds with creation because nature bears God’s imprint.

This statement from my Credo paper is bound to cause some to nod in agreement, others to scratch their head and still others to blow their top. And I expect those reactions from within the Christian community as well as those outside of it. First and foremost I understand that this posting has the potential to be inflammatory; especially when I start to explain my terms and further nuance my beliefs.

First let me explain my terms.

I must admit that I believe in evolution. Take a moment and look at Merriam Webster’s definition of evolution. I have absolutely no disagreement with any of those definitions until you get to 4b. I even believe in biological evolution. We see change over time repeated throughout the biological world. Living creatures adapt. I use the term Darwinian Evolution to differentiate between general evolution (change over time) and that of speciation (change over time leading to new species).

Next I state that Naturalism is a theological foundation because it presupposes certain beliefs about God. Naturalism is the philosophical belief that everything can be explained by natural causes. Therefore, in Naturalism, there is no need for or the existence of anything supernatural.  It is philosophically and diametrically opposed to the existence of a god in the same sense that Christianity holds that there is a God.

Next let me nuance my beliefs – and this is where I will get in trouble with some of my Christian brothers and sisters.

I am an “Old Earther.” There is a fairly strong debate within the Christian community between those that believe in a young earth (tens of thousands of years old) and those that believe in an old earth (billions of years old). One thing that must be pointed out is that there is a difference between those that believe in an old earth with specific creation and those that believe in an old earth with theistic evolution. Without getting into all of the details (links with details below), I believe that God specifically created the universe over time which included the specific creation of the first man named Adam and woman named Eve.

So what does this all mean in terms of everyday life?

Being posted under the tags Credo and Foot Knowledge mean that I see this as a point where what I say I believe doesn’t always match how I live my life. The issue isn’t that I need to live my life different when it comes to old earth creation. To be honest I wasn’t always an “Old Earther” and while some of my arguments may have changed, how I do and should live my everyday life has not changed because I became an “Old Earther.”

Rather my disconnect comes when reading 1 Corinthians 11:17-22. The passage is dealing with the unity that should be found in the Lord’s Supper and the reality of the divisions found within the Corinth church. The same can be said over the arguing between Creationists. I realize that there are some fairly serious ramifications in the differences between the old and young earth views. But the rhetoric and divisions have created two distinct groups of people. The distinctions are drawn sharp enough that I thought twice about posting this…and for a doctrine that should be a peripheral doctrine, this should not be.


Some Old Earth References:
Greg Koukl’s article Star Light & the Age of the Universe
Hugh Ross’ chart of the Creation Timeline
Hugh Ross’ list of Fine-Tuning For Life in the Universe
Greg Moore’s article Old-Earth Creationism: A Heretical Belief?
Greg Moore’s article Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1?
Kevin DeYoung’s interview with Jay Richards What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution?
Stand To Reason’s Science & Evolution resource page
Reasons to Believe Friend’s Papers resource page
J.P. Moreland’s Articles resource page

Young Earth Resources:
Terry Mortenson’s article Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years? 
Ken Ham & Dr. Terry Mortenson’s article Chapter 12: What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?
Answers in Genesis Articles resource page

And merely for informational purposes, here is an article by Answers in Genesis doing the very hermeneutical gymnastics that they accuse the “Old Earthers” of doing.

Is the Trinity Biblical and Does It Matter?

I find that the Trinity is one of those difficult doctrines to explain and to source. As Fred Sanders pointed out in his article Think Bigger in Biola Magazine, there really is not a “Trinity Verse”:

…I would prefer to have a doctrine be stated clearly and concisely in one place. I like my doctrines verse-sized. I sometimes wish there were one verse that said, “God is one being in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

But unfortunately the single slam-dunk case closed verse does not exist. So the question remains, is the Trinity Biblical? While Sanders’ piece is not a comprehensive handling of (there has been, and to a lesser extent remains, quite a bit of debate over what all should be included in) the doctrine of the Trinity, he does a good job of showing how the doctrine can be built in shorter passages. This is one of those doctrines that I touched on in my Credo Paper (See my posting The Intersection of Revelation and Apple Pie for an introduction to my Credo Paper) where my head-knowledge and foot-knowledge diverge a bit. Although in this case it is different. I touched on how I know having a personal God does not always affect how I act but this disconnect is different. In my Credo I state:

All of God’s attributes exist within each member of the Trinity. God is of one fundamental nature that exists in three persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Trinity is a distinct person from the other but is of the same substance. This one fundamental nature, or essence, is also called the Godhead. The Godhead’s separate persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all operate in unity with one another (John 14:10-11, 15:26, 16:13-15). Each person of the Trinity being of the same substance means that each member is Divine and therefore worthy of worship. 

This doctrine does not always translate into foot-knowledge simply because it can be so difficult to wrap my head around. I get that each member of the Trinity is of the same substance. I get that each member of the Trinity is distinct and separate from each other. I get that each member of the Trinity together make up what is called the Godhead and together they are one God. I get that all works together at the same time but I do not understand how.

The doctrine of the Trinity should have a very real impact on my life. Because of the Holy Spirit lives within me, I can have the peace of God through Jesus Christ even when the world is going to pieces around me. I have to admit that I must put the word “can” in the previous sentence. It should be “do” but I do not always have “do”.

It should also have a very real impact on my worship of God. Yet there are times that I simply focus on one person of the Trinity. I think that it happens because I tend to have a modal view of the functions of God. I see God the Father doing one thing, God the Son Jesus Christ doing something different and God the Spirit doing something completely different. What I need to try and move from head-knowledge to foot-knowledge is that all three persons of the Trinity are working together in order to accomplish the same thing.


For further reading on the Trinity:

Bob Passantino has a good apologetic article called Is The Creedal Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical?
And Greg Koukl at Stand To Reason (one of my favorite resources) has a couple of good articles: The Trinity is Biblical and Does the Trinity Make Sense.

Attributes of God and The Problem of Evil - Updated

(In my rush to finish before heading off to church I forgot to wrap up my line of thinking.)

God can be known through both his negative and positive attributes. Talking about God’s negative attributes is not talking about God’s “bad traits” rather it is explaining something about God in a way that says what he does not have in order to say something about what he does have as an attribute. For example, I have already said that he is eternal and by this we mean that he does not have a beginning or an end. God is also is omniscient—there is nothing that he does not know. God is also omnipotent—there is nothing that God cannot do. God is also fully sovereign over all things. There is nothing that God does not rule over. He sees all things and is ultimately in control of all things. God’s rule and control over the universe is also combined with his intimate relationship with creation. It is this combination that gives us what is called God’s providence; his maintaining and controlling of his plan for humanity and all of creation.

Yet it is very easy for me to forget that God is ultimately in control of everything that happens.

When it comes to the idea of God being in control there are two ends of the spectrum. The first end is that God has strictly determined everything (and I mean everything) that has or ever will happen. If this were the case then, among many other issues, all of our life experiences would be at best a mere illusion and at worst a deception. We either only have the perception of being in control of our decisions or God is deceiving us into believing we have control over them. Neither of these options fit into what we experience in life or what we read in the Scriptures.

The opposite end of the spectrum is that God is not in control at all. He merely set things in action and is sitting back to see what is going to happen. Each and every thing that happens is a surprise to both us and God. If this is the case then things like prayer are completely pointless in that God doesn’t intervene and everything is controlled by mere chance. Again, I don’t see this fitting into what we experience in life or read in the Scriptures.

That God is ultimately in control lands somewhere in between the two ends of the spectrum. He is in control but also allows us the freedom to make choices. God being ultimately in control does not mean that God is a puppet master pulling all the strings. It is good to remember that there is a difference between what God predestines to happen and what God allows to happen. There are certain things that God allows to happen that we just do not understand.

Why does God allow so much evil and suffering in the world? This question leads to one of the most difficult questions that Christians face: The Problem of Evil. Of course, as Brett Kunkle points out, the problem of evil is not just a difficult question for Christians but it is a difficult question for everyone.

The best we can say is that any suffering and evil that we encounter in the world is allowed by God for reasons that are beyond us. Yet in the overall scheme of life, Jesus Christ provides us the ultimate comfort. While in this life what he provides is the salve to get us through, ultimately and eternally he provides the cure for our suffering. One day Christ will return and set all things right.

For further reading/viewing on suffering and the problem of evil consider:

Greg Koukl’s articles A Good Reason For Suffering and How Christians Can Deal With Tragedy

Lee Strobel’s video Why Does God Allow Pain and Suffering?

William Lane Craig’s video Do Pain and Suffering Disprove God’s Existence?

Peter Kreeft’s article Suffering

Attributes of God and The Problem of Evil

See Updated Post.

Does Having a Personal God Matter?

I believe that there is only one true God that is the uncreated and uncaused being. Everything that has been created or will be created has and will be created by God. God is a transcendent being meaning that God exists outside of and beyond creation. However, this does not mean that God only exists outside of creation—God is personally involved within creation and does in fact draw near.

Genesis 3 speaks of God dealing on a very personal level with Adam and Eve. While there might be those that wish to dismiss this story as mythological in nature (of which I am not one), it still speaks to the truth about how God has taken a personal interest in humanity and has decided to deal with humanity on a personal level. While God may not speak to us in the same way depicted in the Garden of Eden as well as other places in the Bible, it is clear that we see this same level of personal involvement through Jesus Christ.

Rather, what it means to say that God is transcendent is that we as human beings, restricted to living within creation, cannot in this lifetime fully know everything there is to know about God. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:12 that we do not see everything fully which also relates to God. Part of our not seeing God fully is due to our sinfulness but it is also due to God being beyond our full comprehension. Our knowledge of God is limited to what God has revealed to us.

But living life as if God is a personal God that has drawn near can be very difficult. I find that I don’t always consider that God is personally involved in my life. My angry reaction this morning to the guy that cut me off did not take into account that God may be watching. I was in my car. He can’t actually see me in there can he? He doesn’t actually notice when I pretend not to see someone in need does he?

I would guess that not fully living life considering that we have a personal God is largely responsible for leaving people in hunger and need. It is responsible for wars and conflict. God may be a personal God but he has also allowed us to chart our own path. We are personal beings and we need to consider how we relate to other personal beings in light of having a personal God. Jesus told a parable about this very thing in Matthew 25:42-45. He related how we treat others to how we treat God:

“For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” Then they also will answer, saying, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?” Then he will answer them, saying, “Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

While I am not always as good at that as I should be it does provide an excellent area of continued growth.

Amy Hall has an interesting blog post on the notion of God being a personal God.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version^® (ESV^®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Intersection of Revelation and Apple Pie

A Credo is a statement of faith and is Latin for "I Believe." The last big assignment in seminary was to write our own personal Credo. It was quite the daunting task. The combination of putting your belief in writing along with the peer and instructor review process was both intimidating and fun at the same time.

While it is a statement of faith it needs to be so much more than that. It is not just head knowledge but it is also foot knowledge. It should shape how I live my life. And what turned out to be even more difficult than putting my beliefs in writing in order to go through the review process was when I came across something that I realized just did not make it down to my feet often enough. It was always a very good reminder that I am still a work in progress. The end of seminary is not the end of the journey. It is merely one step along the way.

As I was going through the process of writing my Credo I found it quite helpful to research how others - both individual people as well as organizations - formatted their Statements of Faith. It was interesting to figure out what others thought was important to include and in what order they organized the information.

A lot that I came across started with some form of epistemology - or how we know what we know. In terms of Christianity this usually takes the form of Revelation. Revelation is how God reveals himself to humanity and we tend to understand the concept of revelation almost instinctively. We can know something about another person in one of three basic ways.

For example, let’s say you wanted to get to know something about me. One way often the most direct way is when I tell you about myself. Let’s say that you are trying to figure out my favorite dessert. I can simply tell you that it is apple pie. Another way you could learn what my favorite dessert is would be for my wife to tell you. She knows me very well and could accurately tell you my preference. The third way is if you observe that whenever given the choice of desserts, my overwhelming choice would be to take a nice sized slice of apple pie. I will refer to this as the “Apple Pie Method.”

God does the same thing. The first two examples in the "Apple Pie Method" (my wife or me telling you) tend to fall in what is called Special Revelation. Special Revelation is when God spoke directly to people and we read about it in the Bible. This gives us a very direct knowledge about God.

The third example in the "Apple Pie Method" (you watching me eat apple pie) is when we see evidence for God in nature which is called Natural Revelation. There are things in nature that teach us about God but they tend to be limited. We do need to include both Natural Revelation and Special Revelation in order to get a full understanding of God. Yet it is Special Revelation - as in the Christian Bible - where we find the fullest knowledge of God. It is also where most of the information for my Credo comes from.

Over the next few weeks - as I start getting back into writing on a regular basis - I will share some of those things that I felt were important to include in my Credo and how those things should shape how I live my life. Be assured that they don't always do so as I want them to but that it is something that I continue to struggle with. Now to go and find some apple pie.

For further reading on revelation and how God speaks consider Tim Challies article on Revelation, Inspiration and Illumination and Greg Koukl's article on Hearing God's Voice.

For further information on the reliability of Scripture as revelation consider Lee Strobel's videos on the Reliability of the Gospels, The Case for Christ and Dr. Peter William's video on New Evidences the Gospels Were Based on Eyewitness Accounts.