Worldview Ministries http://www.seanmcdowell.org Sean Mcdowell Mon, 13 May 2013 07:00:00 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 The Genetics of Adam and Eve, The Difficulty with Genesis 1:27-28 http://www.conversantlife.com/science/the-genetics-of-adam-and-eve-the-difficulty-with-genesis-127-28 http://www.conversantlife.com/science/the-genetics-of-adam-and-eve-the-difficulty-with-genesis-127-28#comments Mon, 13 May 2013 07:00:00 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]> God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it” (Genesis 1:27-28).

Difficulty: Doesn’t the science of genetics refute the concept that the entire population of the world came from just one couple?

Explanation: Over the past couple of decades researchers have used “population genetics” to estimate initial population size of the human species. By studying human genetic diversity in the present day, they have tried to extrapolate back to determine the minimum size of the original population of humans necessary to produce the diversity we observe today. Some have argued that it is impossible for civilization to have come from one human couple.

Dr. Francis S. Collins is a physician and geneticist who in 2007 formed the San Diego–based BioLogos Foundation. It is an organization that promotes theistic evolution among evangelicals. Dennis R. Venema, PhD, a BioLogos senior fellow for science and biology chairman at Trinity Western University, is a writer for BioLogos. He too is a theistic evolutionist who is trying to promote harmony of Darwinian science and faith within the evangelical community.

Dr. Venema claims that human population “was definitely never as small as two.” He contends that “our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear on that.”  1 He asserts that to reach the level of genetic diversity we see today, the initial population of humans would have had to be several thousand individuals at minimum—not one couple.

Not all biologists, however, agree with Dr. Venema. Dr. Ann Gauger is senior research scientist at the Biologic Institute, a pro–intelligent design research lab based near Seattle, Washington. She earned a PhD in biology from the University of Washington, and later did postdoctoral work at Harvard. In the chapter “The Science of Adam and Eve” in the 2012 book Science and Human Origins, Gauger finds that Venema’s arguments were based upon a now outdated study of genes involved in the human immune system that was published by the geneticist Francisco Ayala in 1995.

According to Gauger, these population genetics studies make many assumptions—including a constant background mutation rate, lack of natural selection, lack of migration, and a constant population size. If any of those assumptions are wrong then the conclusions could be meaningless. Gauger reanalyzed Ayala’s data and found that he failed to control two of the assumptions, and analyzed a portion of the gene known to experience an unusually high mutation rate, causing him to dramatically overestimate the required initial population sizes.

When the analysis is done properly, Gauger found that “a first couple could have carried sufficient genetic diversity to account for” the genetic diversity we observe today in humans for this gene.2 Gauger further found that more recent research reveals this gene shows conflicting phylogenetic patterns, which “cannot be explained by common ancestry” of humans and apes.3

Likewise, Dr. C. John Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary, questions these population genomics figures. He cites 2006 research from Canada, France, and Japan that “indicates ambiguity about the rate of changes in genetic diversity that have been used thus far to calculate primordial population sizes.” 4 Theorizing about how many people it would initially take in the deep past to generate observed human genetic diversity today, according to Collins and Gauger, is far from an exact science.

Another factor that geneticists usually fail to consider is the original genome of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve. From a creationist’s point of view, the optimal DNA and genetic diversity of the first couple formed by the hand of God is impossible to quantify because it has been lost to time, and potentially radically changed since the Fall. But it does seem plausible that Adam and Eve had a physiology and genotype different from our own today. After all, Adam lived to be 930 years old—so clearly his biology was different from ours. So their biological makeup may have been such that their genetic diversity was not comparable to humans today. If that is the case there might be no genetic reason why an initial pair of two humans couldn’t have led to present-day human genetic diversity in a short period of time.

1. Richard N. Ostling, “The Search for the Historical Adam,” Christianity Today magazine, June 11, 2011, 25.

2. Ann Gauger, “The Science of Adam and Eve,” in Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin, Science and Human Origins (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2012), 117.

3. Gauger, 115.

4. Ostling, 25.

This chapter originally appeared in The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2013). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers. ]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/uncategorized/the-genetics-of-adam-and-eve-the-difficulty-with-genesis-127-28/feed/ 0 The Difficulty with Genesis 1:26 Why Does God refer to himself as “us?” http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/the-difficulty-with-genesis-126-why-does-god-refer-to-himself-as-%E2%80%9Cus%E2%80%9D http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/the-difficulty-with-genesis-126-why-does-god-refer-to-himself-as-%E2%80%9Cus%E2%80%9D#comments Tue, 07 May 2013 04:08:35 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]> Passage:

God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, to be like ourselves” (Genesis 1:26).

Difficulty: Why does God refer to himself as “us”?

Explanation: Some people suggest that God, being a Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), is actually speaking among the three persons of the Godhead and therefore refers to himself as us. We know, for example, that the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, was at creation for it says in Genesis 1 that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water” (verse 2). Scripture also states that Jesus was at creation. “Through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth…He existed before anything else, and he holds all creation together” (Colossians 1:15-17).

We can then clearly conclude from other passages of Scripture that the three persons of the Godhead were present and actively engaged in creation of all things. So since God is Trinity, is that why God said, “Let us make human beings in our image?” The short answer is “Maybe.”

There are three possible explanations for the plural pronoun in this passage. The first option is, as we have seen, that the “us” and “our” passages refer to the Trinity. However, one difficulty with this interpretation is that the word “us” is actually part of a Hebrew verb, not a pronoun. The “our” is the first plural pronoun. As a result, some scholars believe the “us” is literarily meant to signal that the creation of humanity is special, rather than indicate the numerical plurality of the Creator.

The second option is that the Hebrew word elohim gives a more encompassing, grand, and majestic context of the person of God. The plural name elohim is in the majestic plural (the royal “we”    ) and should lead us to remember that God cannot be placed in a narrow singular box. As the prophet Isaiah wrote, “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

The third option is that the “us” refers to God and his heavenly court (that is, angels). While this interpretation does have some difficulties, it is a possible view held by a number of respectable evangelical scholars.

Regardless of the proper interpretation of this passage, this in no way lessens the truth that God is triune. God has revealed his character progressively throughout history, and most fully in the person of Jesus Christ (   John 14:7-9).

This chapter originally appeared in The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2013). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers.

]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/uncategorized/the-difficulty-with-genesis-126-why-does-god-refer-to-himself-as-%e2%80%9cus%e2%80%9d/feed/ 0 The Difficulty with Genesis 2:1-4 – Creation http://www.conversantlife.com/belief/the-difficulty-with-genesis-21-4-creation http://www.conversantlife.com/belief/the-difficulty-with-genesis-21-4-creation#comments Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:00:00 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]> Passage:

The creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed. On the seventh day God had finished his work of creation, so he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, because it was the day when he rested from all his work of creation. This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth (Genesis 2:1-4).

Difficulty: Did God create the world in six 24-hour days, or is the world billions of years old as the standard scientific dating suggests?

Explanation: There is a wide variety of theories Christians have presented and understood for the duration of creation in Genesis. Here are a few of the more common explanations:

The gap theory postulates that eons passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2—possibly leaving plant and animal remains in the fossils we now find. Part of this theory postulates that Satan was cast down to earth and destroyed it, rendering the earth “formless and empty” as described in Genesis 1:2. This is partially based on the assumption that God would never create something as chaotic as is described in the second verse of the chapter. The time then between verses 1 and 2 could have been millions of years. This view has grown out of favor in scholarly circles.

The day-age theory holds that each day of creation embraced extended periods of time. This theory turns on the scientific data for an older earth as well as the definition of the Hebrew word yom or “day” for the six days of creation in Genesis 1. Does day mean 24 hours or a period of time in general, as in “the day of trouble” (Psalm 20:1 nasb)? Those that support this theory say that a day is not limited to 24 hours. They also point to Peter who said, “A day is like a thousand years to the Lord” (2 Peter 3:8).

The progressive creation theory suggests that God may have guided a general evolutionary process and intervened at strategic points—such as imparting life into the first cell or breathing a soul into hominids. This theory usually utilizes some form of the day-age theory to explain the six days of creation. It is important to recognize the difference between this view and Darwin’s theory. Progressive creation implies that God was involved in guiding the process to a desired end. Thus, progressive creationists embrace intelligent design. In contrast, Darwinian evolution lacks any intelligent design and is entirely materialistic.

The 24-hour solar day theory is that God created everything at full maturity in six 24-hour solar days (this view is usually associated with young-earth creationism). This means that the universe and all within it has the appearance of having gone through a development stage. Examples of this would be Adam and Eve, created fully developed, and the wine Jesus created in Cana, fully fermented in an instant of time. This would explain the earth’s appearance of millions of years of age, while in reality it was recently created within only thousands of years. Young-earth creationists believe the fossil evidence and geological data can also be explained by appealing to Noah’s universal Flood. The Earth is typically viewed as somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years old.

The framework view theory regards the seven days of creation as a figurative framework. While Genesis 1 records real historical events, such as God creating light or animals, they are recorded in a nonsequential literary structure of a seven-day week. Framework view proponents note how creation days form a framework of two parallel triads. The first triad (days 1-3) includes the creation of the “creation kingdoms” of light (day 1), sky and seas (day 2), and dry land and vegetation (day 3). The second triad (days 4-6) includes the creation of “creature kings” who exercise dominion over those kingdoms. Thus, God creates luminaries (day 4), sea creatures and winged creatures (day 5), and land animals and man (day 6). Framework view supporters observe that the temptation accounts of Jesus in the Gospels are recorded in different chronological order (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), yet this does not diminish the historicity of the temptation itself.1

There are others, such as Dr. John H. Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, who believe we mistakenly read modern concerns about the material origins of life into the Genesis account. Walton contends Genesis 1 was not written to give us a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. Rather it focuses on metaphysical questions of how God ordered the universe. He asserts that the biblical record describes how the cosmos was created as God’s temple—a place he wished to reside with his creation. According to Dr. Walton, days 1-3 establish functions of the universe, while days 4-6 establish functionaries—the vehicle through which the created world was to operate. Day 7 was the day God took up residence within his created world. Walton contends that in the Hebrew mind Genesis 1 is presenting the cosmos in its original state as God’s residency in his temple with his creation.

There are yet others, like Dr. John Sailhamer, a Hebrew and Old Testament scholar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, who propose a kind of “modified gap theory.” He contends that the word beginning can refer to an indefinite and possibly long period of time. Sailhamer believes, while the functioning universe was created sometime “in the beginning,” God’s declaration of life (Genesis 1:3) is the advent of sunrise and cities. He sees Genesis 1:2 and the following material as describing God preparing the Promised Land for his chosen people.

We recognize there are well-meaning, thoughtful, and Bible-believing Christians who disagree about the age of the earth and how Genesis 1 is to be interpreted. While these are important matters, they are not essential questions that should divide Christians. The most important truth Genesis 1–2 offers is that the personal God is the Creator of all and that humans are his special creation with whom he wants a relationship.

1. Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline, “The Framework View,” The Genesis Debate, ed. David G. Hagopian (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 217-53.

This chapter originally appeared in The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2013). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers.

 

 

]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/the-difficulty-with-genesis-21-4-creation/feed/ 0 The Difficulty with Genesis 1:1 http://www.conversantlife.com/belief/the-difficulty-with-genesis-11 http://www.conversantlife.com/belief/the-difficulty-with-genesis-11#comments Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:00:00 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]> (Genesis 1:1).

 

Difficulty #1: Doesn’t science claim the universe is eternal? If so, how can it have a beginning?

 

Explanation: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. For centuries scientists believed the universe was uncaused and eternal.

 

In the early part of the twentieth century the scientific community was confronted with the ramifications of Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Like most scientists of the day, Einstein assumed the universe was static and eternal. Yet his mathematical equation of relativity pointed strongly toward a universe that was either expanding or contracting. While this seemed to unsettle him, Einstein later accepted that the universe had a finite past. Why did he change his mind?

 

In 1929 cosmologist Edwin Hubble used his hundred-inch telescope to demonstrate that light from distant galaxies was shifting toward the red end of the light spectrum. This meant that the universe was expanding in all directions. This was a powerful confirmation of Einstein’s findings that the universe is not static but at some point in time had a beginning.1 This first moment of existence is now referred to as the singularity, which is an edge or boundary to space-time itself. According to Professor Paul Davies at Oregon State University, “For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe.”2

 

This doesn’t mean that all scientists necessarily accept God as the best explanation for the beginning of the universe, but most now believe that the universe began to exist at a finite point in the past. It appears that many in the scientific community have caught up with the biblical declaration that “in the beginning…” (Genesis 1:1).

 

Difficulty #2: Is there any evidence that God did in fact create the universe?

 

Explanation: There is solid evidence that the universe had a beginning but that doesn’t prove that God gave the universe its beginning, right? And while many scientists now concede that the universe had a beginning, this doesn’t address who or what caused it. But there is evidence to confirm what Christians believe: that God is the Creator of the universe as Scripture states.

 

One of the evidences that God created the universe is what is often referred to as the first-cause argument for God’s existence, or the cosmological argument.

 

The idea is that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. So if you go back in time far enough you will find the first cause—and that cause will be an Intelligent Creator. Actually this argument has three premises:

 

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 

The universe began to exist.

 

Therefore the universe has a cause.

 

The first premise seems self-evidently true. Can you think of something that comes from nothing? Some try to evade this problem by defining “nothing” as a quantum vacuum. But even vacuums aren’t technically nothing. They have energy and quantum particles, which is something. We have no empirical evidence of something emerging without a cause from absolute nothing. The ancient Greeks were right when they said, “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” It certainly seems more reasonable than to not believe that things that begin to exist have a cause.

 

The second premise finds support from the second law of thermodynamics. That law states that usable energy within a closed system will eventually run down. Since the universe is a closed system, its usable energy will eventually run down and the universe will reach a state of equilibrium known as “heat death.” But the energy has not run down yet. Why not? The answer is simple: The past is finite. If the past were eternal, then the universe would have already run down at some point in the past.

 

The last premise builds off the previous two: The universe has a cause. This can lead us then to a conclusion based on the question, “Who caused the cause?” We can derive our answer from the origins of time, space, and matter. It is logical to conclude that since time, space, and matter did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe, then the “cause” of the universe had to be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Further, this “cause” could not be physical or subject to natural law since that would presuppose its existence involved time, space, and matter. This then leads us to conclude that the timeless, spaceless, immaterial “cause” was in fact God.

 

For more details and other evidences for the existence of God see the book Is God Just a Human Invention? by Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow.

 

1. Simon Singh, Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe (New York: Harper-Collins, 2004), 144-61, 249-61.

 

2. P.C.W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” Study of Time II, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), 78-79.

 

This chapter originally appeared in The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2013). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers. ]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/uncategorized/the-difficulty-with-genesis-11/feed/ 0 Why Did Jesus Need to Die? http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/why-did-jesus-need-to-die http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/why-did-jesus-need-to-die#comments Mon, 01 Apr 2013 07:00:00 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]>  

Sin’s Role To understand why Jesus had to die we must understand a little of what sin is and the nature of God. We will summarize these two issues to place this question within a proper context.

 

God is a relational God who is by nature perfectly holy (Isaiah 54:5 and Revelation 4:8) and absolutely just (Revelation 16:5). Scripture says, “He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect. Everything he does is just and fair” (Deuteronomy 32:4). Doing holy and just things isn’t something God decides to do, it is something he is. He by nature is holy and just.

 

Because he is perfectly holy by nature he can neither sin nor be in relationship with sin. The Bible says of him, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing” (Habakkuk 1:13 niv). So God is a pure and holy God that never does wrong, and that is a very good thing.

 

But as we stated, God is also just. “The Lord is just!” the Bible says. “He is my rock! There is no evil in him!” (Psalm 92:15). “All his acts are just and true” (Daniel 4:37). It is this just and holy God who recognizes evil for what it is and demands that sin be either eternally separated from him or paid for in a manner that absolves the guilt of it.

 

What About Humans?

 

Now this is where we humans come in. The first human couple made a free choice to distrust God and disobey him. This resulted in sin, and sin resulted in the couple’s separation from a perfect, holy God—that is called death. So for Adam and Eve sin was a choice. But for all their offspring, sin and death became a condition. “When Adam sinned,” the Scripture says, “sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned” (Romans 5:12).

 

So what was God to do? He couldn’t have a relationship with humans as they were, because of sin—that would violate his holiness and purity. He couldn’t overlook sin and say, “Oh, that’s okay—I’ll let bygones be bygones.” That would violate his justice. But if he did nothing humans would remain eternally separated from him.

 

God’s holiness couldn’t abide sin and his justice couldn’t overlook it. Yet his love couldn’t stand by and do nothing. So he devised a masterful and merciful plan. But it would cost him dearly—the death of his only Son.

 

But why was Jesus’ death required? Couldn’t all of us simply perform some kind of penance to achieve our forgiveness and satisfy God’s holiness and justice? Not in a million lifetimes! Why? Because we are all spiritually dead to God. Our sin condition has rendered us dead, and dead people can do nothing to remedy their condition.

 

That was the dilemma humans were in. That is why the Bible says, “When we were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners” (Romans 5:6). No amount of good deeds on our part is acceptable to God, because we are dead to him. That is why only Jesus’ death would do. He was the “sinless, spotless Lamb of God” (1 Peter 1:19). And when we place our faith in him “to take away our sins…God in his gracious kindness [grace] declares us not guilty” (Romans 3:22,24 nlt). “For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

 

There was no way for God’s holiness and justice to be satisfied except for Jesus, God’s sinless Son, to die for us. And because God’s perfect justice was satisfied, Jesus could do the seemingly impossible—break the power of death over us. “Because God’s children are human beings—” the Bible says, “made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death” (Hebrews 2:14).

 

Jesus’ death and resurrection was indispensable for us to be made right with a holy and just God. And because God wanted an eternal relationship with us so much he was willing to pay such a high price. And that is when Christ’s eternal life becomes our inheritance, “for his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory” (Romans 8:16-17).

 

This chapter originally appeared in 77 FAQs About God and the Bible by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2012). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers. ]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/uncategorized/why-did-jesus-need-to-die/feed/ 0 Is There Proof that Jesus Rose from the Dead? http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/is-there-proof-that-jesus-rose-from-the-dead http://www.conversantlife.com/life-with-god/is-there-proof-that-jesus-rose-from-the-dead#comments Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:00:00 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]>  

There is an abundance of evidence to support Jesus’ resurrection. Many good resources are available on the subject. However, there are also a number of alternative theories that try to explain the absence of Jesus’ body from his tomb. They include the “stolen-body theory,” “the relocated body theory,” “the hallucination theory,” “the spiritual resurrection theory,” and others. Each of these theories attempts to explain facts about which there is little debate. The question is not whether those facts are true, but which theory best explains them. We will consider three of those facts.

 

Fact 1: Jesus Died on the Cross

 

The evidence for Jesus’ death by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans is considerable:

 

All four Gospels report Jesus’ death.

 

The nature of crucifixion virtually guaranteed death. Crucifixion had been methodically developed by the Romans to cause maximal pain over the longest possible time. Given Jesus’ brutal whipping, the crown of thorns, the crossbar burden, and his being affixed to the cross with nails or spikes, it is virtually certain he was dead.

 

The spear thrust into Jesus’ side, reported in the book of John, caused water and blood to flow out, which is medical evidence that Jesus died. Many physicians have agreed that the release of blood and water from such a spear wound is a sure sign of death.

 

Extrabiblical writers record the death of Jesus. These include Cornelius Tacitus (about AD 55–120), who is considered by many to be the greatest ancient Roman historian; the Jewish scholar Josephus (about AD 37–97); and the Jewish Talmud (compiled from about AD 70–200).

 

Fact 2: The Tomb of Jesus Was Empty

 

On Sunday after the crucifixion, Mary and the other women went to anoint the body of Jesus. To their surprise, the tomb was open and the body was gone. There is good reason to believe the tomb was actually empty as the women reported:

 

The disciples of Jesus did not go off to Egypt or China to preach the resurrection of Christ; they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus was crucified. Had the tomb of Jesus been occupied, they could not have maintained the resurrection for a moment.

 

You can be sure that if Jesus’ body hadn’t been resurrected, the religious and political leaders of the day would have quickly and effectively quashed the rising sect of Christianity by locating the corpse and wheeling it through the streets of Jerusalem. This would have destroyed Christianity practically before it started. But this never happened, because Jesus had bodily risen from the dead.

 

One of the most compelling evidences supporting the empty tomb story is this: It reports that women first discovered the absence of Jesus’ body. In first-century Palestine, women had low status as citizens or legal witnesses. Except in rare circumstances, Jewish law precluded women from giving testimony in a court of law. So why would the disciples, if they were contriving the story, have reported women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb? Typically when people concoct a story to deceive others, they don’t invent information that discredits it. The fact that the disciples include women as the first witnesses to the empty tomb points to one thing—they were reporting the truth.

 

Fact 3: Jesus’ Disciples Sincerely Believed He Appeared to Them

 

Scholars agree that the early disciples sincerely believed that Jesus rose from the dead and personally appeared to them. A convincing line of evidence can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which is a short creed that records the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus to Peter, James, the 12 disciples, a group of 500 believers, and finally to Paul.

 

Even though the book of 1 Corinthians was written around AD 55, scholars believe the short creed in chapter 15 predates the writing of the book itself. One reason is because at the beginning of the creed Paul says, “I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Corinthians 15:3 nasb). In other words, Paul is passing on to the Corinthian church what had previously been given to him. When did Paul receive the creed? Since Paul first visited Peter and James in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Galatians 1:18-20), many critical scholars believe that Paul received the creed from them on this initial encounter. This would date it to within five years after the death of Jesus. Historically speaking, this is remarkably early evidence for belief in the death, burial, and appearances of Jesus.

 

Examine all the alternative theories, and only one conclusion takes into account all the facts and does not adjust them to preconceived notions. Christ’s resurrection from the dead is a historical event caused by a supernatural act of God.

 

This chapter originally appeared in 77 FAQs About God and the Bible by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2012). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers. ]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/uncategorized/is-there-proof-that-jesus-rose-from-the-dead/feed/ 0 What is God Really Like? http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/what-is-god-really-like http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/what-is-god-really-like#comments Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:00:00 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]>

The Bible says that God is Spirit (John 4:24) and that no one has ever seen him and lived (Exodus 33:20). So then how can we, being human and not spirit, ever know what he is like?

While it is true that God is hidden from us in many ways, he has still to a great extent revealed himself to us. He has revealed himself in all of creation. When we see the world around us we get a glimpse of God’s creative nature, his infinity of tastes, and his incomprehensible immenseness.

God has also revealed himself to us in Scripture. Through the reliable written Word of God we get deep insights into:

his infinite characteristics

his relational heart

his holy nature

And because he has revealed himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ we see God with skin on. We are able to see in a very powerful way just how he wants to relate to us and what he is like relationally. Each of these dimensions of God gives us a greater understanding of what he is really like.

God’s Infinite Characteristics

One of the first things we know of God is that he is infinite, which is far beyond our comprehension as finite humans. What does the Scripture tell us?

God is eternal, meaning he possesses an infinite life that is without beginning or end (see Isaiah 40:28). God created time and he involves himself within time, but he exists eternally, outside of time. There was never a moment when he didn’t exist, nor will he ever end. We really can’t grasp the concept of an eternal, self-existing being, but that is part of what God is like.

God is all-powerful. The Bible reveals a God who is almighty—what is called omnipotent. If he wants to do something—anything—he can do it. King David said, “How great is our Lord! His power is absolute” (Psalm 147:5). The Almighty God as Sovereign of the universe has the power to know the future and cause it to happen:

I am God, and there is none like me. Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish (Isaiah 46:9-10).

God is ever-present. His knowledge and power have no limits—which is why we say God is omnipresent. Again, as finite beings we cannot imagine a being that can be ever-present both within and beyond our universe of time and space (see Jeremiah 23:23-24). Yet that is part of what God is like.

God does not change. By his very nature he can be counted on—what is called immutable. This means he will not waver or lie. He will always do what he says he will do (see Psalm 102:26-27 and Numbers 23:19). That he is unchanging means he infinitely remains constant, firm, and secure—you can trust whatever he is because he will always be that.

God knows all. He has infinite knowledge. He knows everything past, present, and future—what is called omniscient (see Isaiah 46:9-10 and Psalm 139:1). Take everything there is to know within the known universe, for however long it has existed, and that wouldn’t even scratch the surface of God’s knowledge.

So far we have described God as an eternal, almighty being who is everywhere, knows all, and never changes. This gives us a sense of some of this awesome God’s infinite characteristics, but it doesn’t get at his personal side or the core of who he is. It is on this personal level that we can relate more to him.

God’s Relational Heart

This infinite God spoke the words, “Let there be…” and the world was created (Genesis 1:3). And he saw that it was good. But when he created, he didn’t do it alone, because all three persons of the Godhead were there. “The Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water” (Genesis 1:2). The Son, Jesus, was there too. “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, for through him God created everything” (Colossians 1:15-16). This triune aspect of God demonstrates that he is relational. So before there were humans, before Planet Earth or the universe or time as we know it, he existed eternally as a relational being.

Moses recorded in Scripture that this eternal Creator is the “God who is passionate about his relationship with you” (Exodus 34:14 nlt). And to further define the nature of this relationship the Scripture says that “love comes from God…for God is love” (1 John 4:7-8). We then can say that God exists as a loving relational being.

Part of the very reason God created humans was to have a relationship with them. He didn’t do this because he needed a relationship; he already existed as relationship. He created us as relational beings because at his very heart he is a loving relational being who wants to relate to us. Creation was entirely because of his relational goodness and grace.

King David describes the loving heart of God:

The Lord is compassionate and merciful, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love (Psalm 103:8).

Your faithfulness extends to every generation…Lord, how great is your mercy (Psalm 119:90, 156).

He gives justice to the oppressed and food to the hungry. The Lord frees the prisoners. The Lord opens the eyes of the blind. The Lord lifts up those who are weighed down. The Lord loves the godly. The Lord protects the foreigners among us. He cares for the orphans and widows, but he frustrates the plans of the wicked (Psalm 146:7-9).

He heals the brokenhearted and bandages their wounds (Psalm 147:3).

Do you get the picture? God’s relational heart is other-focused. It is compassionate, merciful, unfailing, faithful, just, and caring. His pure heart protects the ones he loves and provides for their good. He makes the security, happiness, and welfare of another as important as his own. His love is giving and trusting, unselfish and sacrificial, secure and safe, loyal and forever.

And when humans didn’t believe their loving God had their best interest at heart and rebelled against him, what did he do? Instead of leaving them alone, separated from him in their sin, he reached out in love to draw them back to him.

God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead (Ephesians 2:4-5).

The cost, of course, was the torturous death of His Son on a cruel cross. The innocent and holy Son was willing to suffer and die so that he could restore a relationship with you and me. That is the relational heart of God.

God’s Holy Nature

It is impossible to grasp or express God’s infinite characteristics. We cannot fathom his relational heart of love. Yet he has created us as relational beings, and while we by no means comprehend him exhaustively, we are powerfully drawn to him and can relate to him truly. We were created to love him back and love others as we love ourselves. But where we as humans fail to love perfectly, God does not. For the infinite God of relationship is holy, perfect, and righteous. Scripture says, “He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect. Everything he does is just and fair. He is a faithful God who does no wrong; how just and upright he is!” (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Scripture reveals a God who is perfectly holy (Isaiah 54:5 and Revelation 4:8), just (Revelation 16:5), and right (Psalm 119:137). This isn’t something he decides to do. In other words, he doesn’t simply decide to do holy, just, and right things; this is something he is. All that is right and holy, just and good is derived from his core nature. The Scripture says, “Whatever is good and perfect comes down to us from God our Father, who created all the lights in the heavens” (James 1:17).

This is incredibly important! What people miss and fail to understand about God is that he is pure goodness. All that is perfect and right and beautiful and complete and meaningful and eternally full of contentment, joy, and happiness is because of him and comes from him. His very nature and essence are good. “The Lord is good and does what is right” (Psalm 25:8). He is “the one who is holy and true” (Revelation 3:7). “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:3 niv). “The Lord is righteous in everything he does; he is filled with kindness” (Psalm 145:17). “The Lord is just! He is my rock! There is no evil in him” (Psalm 92:15).

The unchanging nature of a holy God (his immutability) makes it impossible for him to lie or go against his perfect goodness (Romans 3:3-4 and Hebrews 6:16-18). He then is our absolute standard for defining what is right and wrong, what is good and evil, and what is pure joy and happiness. To live and be godlike is to ultimately experience the rightness, goodness, and joy that he has to offer. To live and be anything else is to ultimately experience evil, suffering, and the absence of all that is good.

 

If we are to begin to understand who God really is, we must acknowledge that he is the infinite one and be in awe of him, acknowledge his relational nature and embrace him, and acknowledge his pure goodness and worship him. King Solomon said in his wisdom, “The fear of the Lord is the foundation of wisdom. Knowledge of the Holy One results in good judgment” (Proverbs 9:10).

Possessing wisdom and understanding about God, the Bible, and life itself is wrapped up in a knowledge of his infinite characteristics, his relational heart of love, and his nature of pure goodness. With this as our center of moral gravity, we can begin to see life clearly and have a reference point for making right moral choices.

 

This chapter originally appeared in 77 FAQs About God and the Bible by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2012). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers.

 

]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/uncategorized/what-is-god-really-like/feed/ 0 If God Caused Everything, Then Who or What Caused God? http://www.conversantlife.com/belief/if-god-caused-everything-then-who-or-what-caused-god http://www.conversantlife.com/belief/if-god-caused-everything-then-who-or-what-caused-god#comments Mon, 11 Mar 2013 07:00:00 +0000 Sean McDowell ]]> Although there may be credible evidence for God’s existence, a major question still remains: Who or what caused God? It seems everything that exists had to have a beginning sometime,so when did God begin, and who or what caused him to begin?

In our discussion of the first-cause argument for the existence of God, you may remember it has three premises:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Therefore the universe has a cause.

It is important to clarify that we did not assert that everything that exists needs a cause. Rather, everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

So the short answer to “Who or what caused God?” is “Nothing.” God is eternal, which means he has life without beginning or end. There was never a moment that God didn’t exist, nor will he ever end. And because God has always existed, he doesn’t need a cause. This is not special pleading by Christians, for the very definition of God implies a being that is self-existent. If God could be caused to exist, then he would not be God! You see, we can only consistently ask what caused things that can in principle be caused, such as chairs, books, and computers. But God, since he is by definition uncaused, is not the type of entity that can be caused. Therefore, the question “What caused God?” is actually meaningless.

When you stop to think about it, our finite minds cannot comprehend or even express how something or someone has always existed. We tend to think everything had to have a beginning. But think of this: “If the world had never been created, would it be true that 1+1 = 2?” Yes, of course. We can understand that such things as mathematical truths and the laws of logic have always existed and are therefore uncaused.

While our minds cannot fathom how God has always existed, this does not mean it is illogical to believe that it is so. We naturally sense that something outside of our universe had to cause it to come into existence. And the eternal Creator God is the most reasonable explanation. “Have you never heard?” Isaiah asked. “Have you never understood? The Lord is the everlasting God” (Isaiah 40:28).

This chapter originally appeared in 77 FAQs About God and the Bible by Sean McDowell and Josh McDowell (2012). Used by permission from Harvest House Publishers.

]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/uncategorized/if-god-caused-everything-then-who-or-what-caused-god/feed/ 0 Goldilock’s Universe: It’s Just Right! http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/goldilocks-universe-its-just-right/ http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/goldilocks-universe-its-just-right/#comments Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:55:58 +0000 admin http://www.seanmcdowell.org/?p=790 ]]> What’s the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe?

William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell

Imagine you are hiking through the mountains and discover an abandoned cabin. As you approach the cabin, you notice something unusual. The refrigerator is filled with your favorite food, the temperature is set to your liking, your favorite song is playing in the background, and all the books, DVDs, and video games you like are sitting by the TV. What would you conclude? Since there are so many things just right for you, you would likely be convinced that you were an expected guest.

In the past few decades, scientists have begun to realize that this scenario mirrors the universe as a whole. The universe seems to have been crafted uniquely for us. Physicist Freeman J. Dyson put it this way:

As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.

Like Goldilocks’ porridge, the universe seems to be “just right” for our existence.

A universe just right for life

When I (Sean) was in college, some of my friends and I got a full-sized water balloon launcher. We thought it would be funny to hit cars with water balloons as they pulled up to the stop sign across the parking lot from our dorm. Sounds like harmless fun, right? Typically we missed, but one day we launched a water balloon way up into the air, and it came crashing down right on a car’s windshield … and cracked it. Needless to say, our water-balloon-launching days came to an immediate end (and so did our bank accounts!).

But just think for a minute about how many things we needed to get right to hit our target. The weight had to be just right. Less weight and it would go too far; more weight and it would not go far enough. If the angle of the launcher were different, the balloon would have landed elsewhere. And we also needed to compensate for the wind. So many factors had to be just right.

Similarly, there are nineteen known constants in the universe that must be just right in order for the universe to be habitable. Examples include the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and gravity. If these forces varied even slightly, then the universe could not support life.

For instance, if the force of gravity were slightly larger, stars would burn too rapidly for the formation of habitable planets capable of supporting life. On the other hand, if the force of gravity were slightly smaller, stars could not produce the heavy elements necessary for life. Like the other known eighteen physical constants, the force of gravity must be balanced on a razor’s edge for the universe to be habitable. Expressed mathematically, the law of gravity must be fine-tuned to one part in 1040 in relation to other forces in nature (that’s one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

What is the best explanation?

Remember, gravity is only one example! Scientists know of at least eighteen other physical constants that must also be fine-tuned. The evidence for design is so compelling that Paul Davies, an internationally acclaimed physicist at Arizona State University, has concluded that the bio-friendly nature of our universe looks like a “fix.” He put it this way:

The cliché that ‘life is balanced on a knife-edge’ is a staggering understatement in this case: no knife in the universe could have an edge that fine.

No scientific explanation for the universe, says Davies, can be complete without an account for this overwhelming appearance of design.

We could not agree more. Since the fundamental parameters of physics are fine-tuned, we believe the best explanation is that there is a cosmic Fine-Tuner. Here is how the argument looks in logical form:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Should fine-tuning surprise us?

Some disagree with our conclusion. A common objection goes like this: “We should not be surprised by the fine-tuning of the forces of nature. After all, if the universe were not fine-tuned, then we would not be here to observe it.”

Philosopher John Leslie explains why this explanation falls short in his famous “firing squad” analogy. Suppose fifty trained sharpshooters are lined up to take your life, and they all miss. You could hardly dismiss this occurrence by saying, “If they had not missed me, then I wouldn’t be here to consider the fact.” You should still be surprised that you are alive given the enormous unlikelihood of all the sharpshooters missing their mark.

A century ago, when armies carried out executions by firing squad, every twelfth gun typically had a blank cartridge. Thus, a soldier on a firing squad who felt guilty about executing someone could take small comfort in never knowing for sure whether he had actually shot the prisoner. You can be reasonably sure that the officers in charge did not expect the prisoner to survive as a result of this concession. Likewise, you would surely conclude that there was some reason why all fifty sharpshooters missed. Perhaps they never really planned on killing you in the first place. Perhaps that was part of an intelligent plan.

The claim that we shouldn’t be surprised to find ourselves in a fine-tuned universe does nothing to explain why our universe is fine-tuned, especially since the laws of physics might easily have been different.

Are there many universes?

Another common objection to fine-tuning is called the “Multiverse” or Many Worlds Hypothesis. The goal is to suggest that many universes exist in order to increase the probability that ours would be fine-tuned.

The chief problem with this approach to fine-tuning is that if our universe were just a random member of a multiverse, then we should be observing a very different universe than the kind we observe. The most probable observable universe is one in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum and observes its empty world. Worlds like that are just inconceivably more probable than finely-tuned worlds and so ought to be observed by us, if our world were just a random member of a multiverse of worlds.

The best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is therefore the existence of a Fine-Tuner.

This article first appeared at fervr.net

]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/goldilocks-universe-its-just-right/feed/ 0 Mother Nature: Who’s Your Daddy? http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/mother-nature-whos-your-daddy/ http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/mother-nature-whos-your-daddy/#comments Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:43:23 +0000 admin http://www.seanmcdowell.org/?p=787 ]]> Find out why the Big Bang points to the existence of God.

William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell

Have you ever looked up to the stars at night and asked, “God, are you out there?” It’s natural to wonder whether or not God exists. And yet when thinking about God, the conventional wisdom is that it’s impossible to “prove” His existence and, therefore, if we are going to believe in God, we must rely upon blind faith.

We disagree. While it may not be possible to “prove” the existence of God as you would a geometric theorem, we do believe there are compelling reasons that God exists. Let’s consider one of our favorite arguments, known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Don’t let the name intimidate you – the argument is actually simpler than you may think. But when you grasp it, you’ll realize it has a powerful punch!

Where did the universe come from?

In a well-known joke, a group of atheistic scientists approach God and claim they can do everything he can. “Like what?” asks God. “Like creating human beings,” say the atheists. “Show me,” says God. They say, “Well, we start with some dirt, and then -.” God interrupts, “Wait a second! Get your own dirt!”

Just as a carpenter must use preexisting wood to build a cabinet, so these atheistic scientists relied on preexisting dust to create a human being.

But where did the dust come from? From stars? And where did the stars come from? From the Big Bang? And where did the Big Bang come from? From a quantum vacuum fluctuation? And where did that come from?

This leaves us three options for the source of the universe:

• First, something came from nothing.
• Second, the universe is eternal and had no beginning.
• Third, there is a personal God outside of space and time who created the world.

Which do you find most believable? Let’s take a quick look at the steps of the cosmological argument so we can see which option the evidence supports. As we said earlier, this argument is surprisingly simple.

Here are the two steps and the conclusion:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Let’s take each premise individually.

1. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause

When I (Sean) teach my students the first premise of this argument, I challenge them to give an example of something coming into existence from nothing. My query is typically followed by silence while the absurdity of such a request sinks in.

How could some-thing come from no-thing? As the ancient Greeks regularly observed, “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” Even David Hume, the great Scottish skeptic, said the idea of something arising without a cause is absurd. As I (Bill) like to point out, the idea that something comes from nothing is worse than magic. At least in magic, you’ve got the magician and the hat! But on atheism, if the universe began to exist, then the universe just popped into existence uncaused out of absolutely nothing. This seems to take much more faith than believing in God.

2. The universe began to exist

For thousands of years, atheists claimed that the universe is uncaused and eternal (i.e. it has always existed). On the other hand, theists claimed that God is the uncaused creator of the universe (Genesis 1:1). Scientifically speaking, there was no way to determine who was right. But this began to change in the early part of the twentieth century when Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity. Like most scientists of his day, he simply assumed the universe was static and eternal. Yet his equations pointed strongly toward a universe that was either expanding or contracting.

The conclusions of his theory deeply irritated Einstein. Why? Einstein realized a beginning of the universe pointed strongly toward a Beginner – a powerful mind that brought the universe into existence. Yet rather than follow the evidence wherever it led, he fudged his equations so he could maintain an eternal universe.

Einstein later accepted that the universe began to exist. Why? In 1929, legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed the expansion of the universe. He peered through a telescope and viewed galaxies never seen before. Hubble showed that light from distant galaxies is shifted toward the red end of the light spectrum. Why is this significant? The “red shift” means that the universe is expanding in all directions, like buttons on the skin of a balloon that is getting bigger. This provided powerful confirmation of Einstein’s findings that the universe is expanding in every direction.

If we could push rewind on the expansion of the universe, we would see everything contract back to the first moment of existence when space, time, and matter began. This is known as the Big Bang, which confirms the universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

If whatever begins to exist has a cause (premise 1), and the universe began to exist (premise 2), then the universe must have a cause. This conclusion is staggering! This means the universe was brought into existence by something which is greater than and beyond it. The best explanation for the origin of the universe, therefore, is that it was brought into existence through the free will of a personal Creator. This argument may not get us all the way to the Christian God. But it does show that there must be a supernatural cause for the universe. So, yes, even Mother Nature needs a Daddy.

This article first appeared at fevr.net.

]]> http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/mother-nature-whos-your-daddy/feed/ 0