Halloween
As one would expect, I am occasionally asked to comment on Halloween around this time of the year. Well, there has been so much written on the subject that information about Halloween is easy to find, and at this time I have no interest in producing my own version of a biblical response. So I will just offer a brief personal perspective on the matter.
When I was little, my family lived in a "villa" of large and beautiful apartment complexes. Among our neighbors were many American, British, and German children. Every year on Halloween, they would dress up like little demons and witches, knocking on every door to ask for candy. Back then I thought that they were beggars. I wondered why they had to beg at the same time, and was amazed that in one night they could beg enough candy to last for a whole year. Since then my understanding has matured. Now I realize that they were also trespassers, and some of them were also vandals — evidently, that was what the "trick" part meant.
And this is all I am going to say about that.
Recommended
Corporal Punishment
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I support the use of corporal punishment in parenting, but one of my acquaintances said, "How can you teach a child against what is wrong by doing what is wrong?" Others have said that violence against children is never justified. But can we say that using corporal punishment in parenting is violence? I would appreciate your thoughts on these concerns.
Let us first make clear what we are talking about. "Corporal punishment" (or corporeal) sounds more pleasant than what it means. It means to punish the body, the "corporeal" part of the person, so that he experiences physical discomfort, strain, pain, injury, or even death. Of course, when it comes to parenting, we are not interested in injuring or killing the child, but depending on the severity of the misconduct, we are interested in causing discomfort, strain, and pain. The heat of the debate surrounds the practice of hitting the child. Make no mistake about it — hitting the child is exactly what we are talking about. If we use the word "violence" in a general sense, as in to physically strike or attack someone without a moral connotation already attached to the word or the act, then we can freely admit that hitting a child comes under this category. The word is general enough so that there is no need to reject it from the start. The question is whether this kind of violence is morally wrong.
A complete treatment of the corporal punishment of children would consider the relevant biblical verses and the practical aspects of implementing the biblical teaching. The latter would deal with questions such as the parts of the child's body to strike, the proper tools with which to strike, and so on. Since we cannot address any of this in detail here, we will summarize the biblical teaching as follows: (1) Corporal punishment is a moral and practical requirement in parenting; (2) This kind of punishment is called for on occasions when the child defies or deviates from biblical or parental authority; (3) The tool for implementing corporal punishment is the "rod" or an equivalent object; and (4) The "rod" is applied by striking the back side of the child. These four points can be derived from Proverbs 10:13, 13:24, 14:3, 22:15, 23:13-14, 26:3, and 29:15. The objections against this biblical teaching do not get into the details, but they have to do with the very principle of the practice — that is, they arise from the position that corporal punishment is morally wrong. So we will address the topic on this level.
The problem with our opponents is that their thinking is man-centered, or otherwise centered on the wrong reference point. If violence itself is wrong no matter what, then of course corporal punishment is wrong. However, they cannot justify the assumption that violence is wrong in itself. All non-Christian arguments are easily defeated using our regular approach of biblical apologetics. But once we have established that Scripture is to be the first and final authority, we have also established that corporal punishment is a moral and practical necessity, since this is what Scripture teaches. On the other hand, a man-centered ethic produces implications that even our opponents might find unacceptable. We are speaking of violence, but what about abducting and incarcerating a person without his consent (e.g. kidnapping)? If this is wrong in itself, then our opponents must also oppose the prison system, that is, except for those criminals who desire to be imprisoned. In fact, from this perspective, our opponents must not even "ground" their children, but for some this is a preferred method of punishment in parenting.
If violence is wrong in itself, then one cannot apply all kinds of exceptions, qualifications, and contexts to limit the application of this premise. It would be wrong to hit a wall, kick a rock, or cut vegetables into hundreds of pieces. Unless our opponents avoid doing all these things, then their own premise implies that they are mass murderers, even constantly killing large amounts of germs and bacteria with every breath that they take. Every limitation that they place on the principle that violence itself is wrong must be justified. Why does it apply only to humans? Some believe that we must do no violence against animals. But then, how about insects, vegetables, and germs? Why the arbitrary standard? When a virus wrecks havoc in a body, why kill it? Why must we counteract violence with mass murder? If these questions appear ridiculous, it is because our opponents hold a ridiculous position, and these are just some of the absurd implications of the assumption that violence itself is wrong. Thus our opponents are not only unbiblical, irrational, and impractical, but it is also hypocritical for them to insist on the general principle that violence itself is wrong but arbitrarily limit the application of this principle, so that they do not appear to transgress it.
On the other hand, the biblical ethic is God-centered, with divine revelation as the reference point for thinking about moral questions, and for defining right and wrong. Our opponents assert that it is hypocritical to punish a misbehaving child by hitting the child, since hitting people is wrong, and it is something that we tell the child not to do. Again, this would be true only if violence itself is wrong. However, from a biblical perspective, a child has done wrong not because he has done a certain act that is wrong in itself, but because by performing the act he has in some way violated biblical precepts. He has done wrong because he has deviated from God's instructions and defied his authority, whether expressed directly in Scripture or through the parents. The non-Christian standard exists on a much lower level, almost on the level of the act itself. And there it stands in mid-air — there is no justifiable principle behind it.
It is exactly right that we must not teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong. But what is wrong? It is a violation of God's precepts. It is not wrong in itself to hit someone, even to hit a child, but it is wrong to hit someone in contexts, for reasons, and with motives that are not approved by Scripture. According to Scripture, it is permissible and sometimes even morally necessary to hit or to kill someone. I would have no moral hesitation against killing someone with my own bare hands provided Scripture approves or demands it in that situation (self-defense, execution of a criminal, and so on). I will not give it a second thought afterward, and certainly will not feel guilty about doing it. This is because my conscience submits to God's precepts rather than stands as judge over them. To hesitate on moral grounds when Scripture clearly approves or demands it exposes a person's rebellion against the Lord, and against that which is right. It is to think that our private and unbiblical moral standard is superior to God's own holiness and revealed precepts. Although very few of us will actually face situations in which our commitment to a God-center ethic is tested in this manner, it is indeed an excellent way to discover where our true allegiance rests. Do we honor God with our lips, but then draw a line in our hearts and forbid him to cross our moral sentiments? If so, may our moral sentiments burn in hell, for if our moral sentiments are in fact different from God's moral precepts, and if we follow the former rather than the latter, then we are hypocrites when we call him Lord. Any obedience that we demonstrate is rendered only because God's demands so far agree with our own private standards.
Therefore, it is the refusal to exercise corporal punishment — the refusal to hit a child in the right contexts, for the right reasons, and in the right places — that is immoral and hypocritical. We can apply our opponents' objection against them: "How can we teach against what is wrong by doing what is wrong?" The child has done wrong in violating God's precepts. Are we now to teach this child by also violating God's precepts — that is, by withholding the rod of discipline? Moreover, since "he who spares his rod hates his son" (Proverbs 13:24), and it is the rod that could "save his soul from death" (23:14), it is much more appropriate to charge our opponents with child abuse than those who practice corporal punishment. Of course, not every situation requires the rod, but if you withhold this kind of punishment even when the situation calls for it, then you are a wicked and abusive parent, and you have a deep hatred for your child, so much so that you would rather let him perish, body and soul, than to violate your own false sense of morality or to burden your own feelings. Oh, what a despicable piece of human garbage you are! Why do you hate your child with such passion? Why do you wish destruction upon him? Why do you want him to burn in hell?
Some acts are always forbidden. For example, no context or reason can justify blasphemy. Likewise, murder is never justified. But killing is a more general term, and it is often justified. Violence is even more general. When teaching our children about violence, we must make the proper distinctions and avoid communicating the idea that violence is wrong in itself. It is not always wrong even for a child to strike someone. For example, in the confusion of a kidnapping attempt, or when cornered by a child molester, if a child could strike his assailant hard enough to stun him for even a split second, he might be able to break free and call for help. Whether it is always wise or possible to do this is a separate question, one that parents should seriously consider and then discuss with their children — a child probably should not try anything if the attacker has a knife to his throat. It is true that when we teach a child that violence is sometimes morally acceptable, we must also discuss all the details surrounding the proper use of violence, such as when it is necessary, how to carry it out, what to do afterward, and so on. But right now we are focusing on the morality of the issue, and the point is that in these situations, there is nothing morally wrong for the child to strike or even kill the attacker.
On the other hand, to teach a child that violence itself is wrong is to narrow his options and to doom him in these situations, possibly even to his death. It is to rob him of the tools that he might need to survive. At the crucial moment, he will hesitate, and then the opportunity might be gone forever, or the situation might cross a point of no return. When that happens, the parents have in effect become the attacker's accomplices to destroy the child. And do not forget that one who withholds the rod also refuses to save his child's soul from death (Proverbs 23:14). This is how much our opponents hate their children, and they demand that you treat yours the same way. This unbiblical position against corporal punishment is nothing but man's pride and depravity dressed up as progress and compassion. The price for their self-satisfaction is their children's lives, and to them it is well worth it.
Acupuncture, Dim-Mak, and Science
The following is an edited email correspondence.
What is your view on acupuncture? Do you have anything against it?
I have not done enough study on the topic to make a definitive verdict or to accept someone else's verdict. Right now I have a generally negative view toward it. One reason is that it is based on theories of "chi" flow and energy points in the body. Related to acupuncture is "dim-mak," which is based on the same theories but can be used to inflict injury, death, and other effects. Although exaggerated in the movies, it is an actual teaching in the martial arts.
The question brings to mind a broader issue that is relevant to all other related questions, and that is the standards by which Christians use to determine whether a given practice, exercise, or treatment is spiritually and morally acceptable. In what I have come across, it seems that Christians have a surprisingly accepting attitude toward acupuncture just because it is said that there is scientific data to support its effectiveness, so that one does not have to accept the chi theory (or other theories related to mysticism and false religion) to embrace the treatment itself.
However, if we have made science the standard by which we judge whether something is allowed by God, then our Christian identity has already suffered tremendous devastation. Since when is the approval of western medical science the standard by which Christians must operate? If this line of reasoning is permitted, then the floodgates are opened to almost all the practices that are either originally associated with false religions or that are in other ways spiritually dubious. These would include yoga, meditation, hypnosis, mind control, subliminal therapy, and all sorts of psychic and occult practices. Even necromancy is given a scientific explanation by some people who claim to possess this kind of data to support their view. In fact, it is precisely because Christians have accepted this line of reasoning that many churches today are centers for the occult. They would have been stoned to death under Moses.
One response is that the science connected with some of these things are really pseudo-science, so that science does not in fact justify all of them. However, even given the accepted standards of science, there is pseudo-science in every area of investigation, not to mention outright fraud in even the most serious areas of study. Refuting some claims does not refute all claims, especially when some of these scientists carry credentials that are just as legitimate as that of their critics, and work with the most reputable universities and institutions. Also, at least in my own research, many attempted refutations are based on the prior assumption that the theories and claims under investigation are impossible. Of course, one can always refute the scientific method and scientific reasoning themselves (as I do), so that the claims using such method and reasoning are refuted all at once. This puts science in its place and renders it impotent to make any pronouncement regarding the nature of reality. But here we are referring to disputes among scientists who do not doubt their own method and reasoning.
As a side note, we are not interested in destroying science, but we are interested in humbling it, and to put the discipline and its practitioners in their place. And in their place, they have no authority to make any pronouncement regarding the nature of reality. This authority belongs to divine revelation alone. This is not because we are fideists in the sense that we think faith and reason contradict each other, and that we must side with faith against reason. But it is because we are rationalists in the literal sense of the term (not the historical or popular sense), and we know that the biblical is also the rational. On the other hand, we must dismiss the idea that science represents rationality. In fact, we have repeatedly demonstrated that science is systematic irrationalism, committing the triple fallacy of empiricism, induction, and asserting the consequent. Therefore, it should be the last in line to make so-called rational objections to Christianity.
Moreover, even if we ignore the above for a moment, in this context it does not matter if a claim is supported by pseudo-science or "real" science, since our complaint is against the kind of thinking, so common among Christians, that uses science as the final standard, looking to it for permission on moral issues and to settle spiritual questions. So, the point is that just because western medical science claims that acupuncture might work does not automatically make it acceptable for Christians. In fact, it does almost nothing in bringing us closer to that conclusion.
Perhaps the common way of thinking is partly due to a self-centered bias — it is to think that whatever we are relying on must already be morally and biblically acceptable. Many professing believers not only trust science (human investigation and speculation — in other words, they trust themselves) more than revelation (God's pronouncements and disclosures), but they allow science to determine how they interpret revelation.
There are at least two reasons why so many are eager to reconcile faith and science. They suppose that science is the very picture of rationality and precision, but we have shown elsewhere that it is pervasively and exhaustively fallacious. Some suppose that the scientific method follows from the cultural mandate — but it does not. Just because there is a cultural mandate does not automatically mean that the scientific method follows from it, or that scientific investigation is the way to carry it out, or that the scientific method is rational, or that scientific theories and conclusions have anything to do with the true nature of reality. Again, this is the supreme arrogance of defining spiritual, moral, and rational perfection by our currently accepted beliefs and practices.
This is analogous to how many western believers think when it comes to politics and economics — that is, whatever is American must be Christian as well, so that we proceed to judge whether a theory of politics or economics is moral by whether it is American, which we assume to be Christian. It is also common for some western believers to read the Bible in such a manner, so that they tend to see democracy and capitalism, in the exact form that they are accustomed to, everywhere in Scripture. One example of this error is Grudem's Business for the Glory of God.
Recommended
Presuppositional Confrontations
Extraterrestrial Life
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I have come across some materials on the evidence for aliens, UFOs, etc., and I wonder if the Scripture says anything on the topic. Some Christians argue that because the Bible does not explicitly deny the existence of extraterrestrial life, we can at least regard it as a possibility. But how can this be reconciled with the Bible? Maybe it cannot be reconciled with the Fall of man in Eden, but is this a strong argument against the existence of UFOs?
As far as I can tell, the existence of extraterrestrial life does not contradict anything in Scripture, so there is nothing to reconcile, since there is no conflict and no contradiction. The existence of extraterrestrial life has no direct relevance to Eden and the Fall, so again, there is no contradiction, and nothing to reconcile.
Just because someone connects these things does not mean that they are in fact related. For example, I have read the argument that if there are creatures on other planets, then they would fall into sin just like man did in Eden, and God would have to send his Son to die for every group that has sinned. Since God would not make his Son endure such humiliation and agony over and over again, this must mean that there are no creatures on other planets. There are variations of this argument, but the line of reasoning is the same. In any case, it is absurd, since every premise is a groundless assertion, and every step involves a logical leap. Why would all life necessarily fall into sin? Why would God necessarily want to save any or all of them? Why would God necessarily refuse to allow the Son to endure repeated suffering?
We already know that there are other types of creatures besides man and other earthly creatures (animals, insects, etc.), since we know that there are angels and demons. We also know that God does not choose to save all kinds of creatures that fall into sin, since he has provided no salvation for fallen angels.
Then, Scripture does provide an indication that there might be other types of life besides angels, demons, man, and other earthly creatures. One possible example is in Revelation 4:6-8:
Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come."
If these creatures are not to be classed with angels, and if they are not symbolic, then they are altogether another class of creatures. But what we still cannot say for sure is if they ever visit earth or get involved in man's affairs on earth.
I have also come across those who allege that UFOs are transportation devices for angels (both elect and fallen), and that there are references to them in the Bible, such as the chariot that took away Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), or the "whirling wheels" in Ezekiel (10:13, also 1:16-17). However, the arguments are unconvincing. It seems that they are reading their conceptions of extraterrestrial technology into Scripture, and they also fail to answer sensible alternative interpretations. But again, even if these are references to UFOs, they do not upset any traditional Christian doctrine.
Therefore, at this time my position is that (1) We cannot be sure whether there is or is not life elsewhere besides earth (except angels and demons, etc.), and (2) Whether there is life elsewhere or not, it presents no problem for Christianity and no contradiction against the Bible, so that there is nothing for us to reconcile at all. I remain open to biblical arguments for or against extraterrestrial life, but those that I have examined so far are either inconclusive or clearly fallacious.
Although everything about God's creation deserves some of our attention, this topic is comparatively insignificant. So what if God has created other creatures? And so what if he has not? It might be interesting to know, but it has no direct relevance to any central doctrine or ethical issue. We would believe and behave the same way as Christians either way.
The stakes are raised when we are dealing with UFO cults, that is, cults whose teachings are centered around the existence of extraterrestrial life, and mankind's relationship with them. But the solution is not to attempt a refutation of the very existence of extraterrestrial life based on flimsy arguments. Empirical arguments are especially useless — we cannot refute what other people claim to have seen on the basis that we have not seen the same thing. Instead, the biblical solution is to proclaim the sovereignty and superiority of Christ, for whether or not there is extraterrestrial life, Christ is the creator and ruler of them all. Therefore, the existence of extraterrestrial life would not validate the teachings of UFO cults, since whether or not there is extraterrestrial life, all Christian doctrines remain intact, including God's demand for faith and repentance, so that man may receive salvation through Jesus Christ.
Recommended
The Da Vinci Code
The following has been adapted from an "internal" message originally sent to our private mailing list.
The Da Vinci Code is a recent popular novel. Although its author admits that it is fictional, he also claims that the plot is based on historical facts. These "facts" in turn refer to a conspiracy in which the Church has hidden information concerning Jesus Christ that if uncovered would prove damaging to what has come to be orthodox Christian beliefs. As the author admits, these alleged "facts" are in fact nothing new, nor is this the first time that they have been written about. They are in reality based on a number of documents, theories, and legends that scholars and informed believers have been familiar with since…well, forever. And they have also been refuted since forever.
However, now that these theories have been interwoven into a thriller that many consider to be entertaining, they are suddenly brought to the attention of the general public. And of course, most readers have no way of discerning between fact from fiction. A story can often disarm people's critical faculty, and transmit the theories and beliefs that stand behind it into people's thinking, as if by osmosis. Whether a story is true or false, the average person is easily influenced by story because most people are irrational and undiscerning. So whether it is transmitting truth or falsehood, a theory gains influence when it is placed in the form of a narrative. This does not mean that the method of storytelling is in itself deceptive or otherwise problematic, but I am saying that a theory can gain access to an irrational person's mind more easily when it is transmitted as part of a story than if it is presented in nonfiction form.
I appreciate the work that a number of people have done in formulating specific answers to Da Vinci, as long as the contents of their materials are accurate and effective. These answers, of course, are not based on new research and reflection, but on what scholars and informed believers have known and affirmed all along, only that the information is now applied to the novel.
Nevertheless, there are two major problems that I find with most of the Christain responses to Da Vinci.
One problem that I have against these materials is not the answers that they give, for on the whole they would be correct, but the philosophy behind their arguments. For example, they might respond to a historical claim in Da Vinci with arguments formulated from a purely empirical epistemology. Although their arguments might still be sound relative to the established (agreed upon) methods of investigation, they might reflect too much reliance on and confidence in empiricism in establishing their conclusions, in arguing for the Christian faith, or responding to attacks. Because of this faulty foundation, their entire presentation will necessarily mix in some of the uncertainties and logical problems that are inherent in this approach. To use another topic as an illustration, Christians can use scientific arguments to argue against the theory of evolution. That is, they could use the scientific method to formulate scientific arguments against scientific objections. But if in their presentation they show an epistemological reliance on science, and if science is itself uncertain, irrational, and even false (as I have argued elsewhere), then their approach would make it appear that Christianity is itself uncertain, even if Christianity appears more likely to be correct. So, this would be the first reservation that I have toward Christian answers to Da Vinci.
Another problem that I find in the Christian responses to Da Vinci is the suggestion that there is no harm for a person to read the book if he would remember that it is just a novel. A number of writers admit that they find the book rather enjoyable, only that they have a problem with the claim that the plot is based on historical facts. However, the book is not only inaccurate about history, but what it is inaccurate about — what it speaks against — has to do with the truth of Scripture, the identity and work of Jesus Christ, and even the very nature of God. Therefore, the work is not just "inaccurate" — it is blasphemous. Since this is the case, it is sinful for a Christian to say to others, "As long as you know the facts, go ahead and read it! It's rather entertaining, really. Just remember that it is a novel and don't take it too seriously." Even if there are legitimate reasons to read it, this is certainly not one of them. Instead, I would insist that a Christian sins greatly if he reads the novel for this reason, and a Christian leader sins still more severely if he suggests that it would be fine to read it for this reason.
We should never tell people that it is fine to read or watch blasphemy just because it is entertaining blasphemy, just because it does not pose a real threat to our faith, or just as long as we do not take it seriously. I would insist that it is a great sin against the Lord to read or watch, or tell people to read or watch, for this reason. One reason that many people do not think this way is because they have a man-centered morality. We would not allow people to watch pornography just so that they could be entertained or informed, but from a God-centered perspective, blasphemy is much worse than pornography. How dare we be entertained by it? How dare we? What kind of monster would I be if I were to be entertained by a novel that insults my wife or a movie that mocks my parents? But it is fine to enjoy a novel or a movie that blasphemes our Lord, just as long as we do not take it seriously? At least from this standpoint, those who think this way are just as guilty as the author of Da Vinci. You better have a much better reason for reading the book or watching the movie than mere curiosity, or a lust for entertainment or controversy.
Now that Da Vinci is being made into a movie, it is that much more likely that some of you will encounter people who mention either the book or the movie to you. Do not be distracted by the current intensity of the hype. Your main response should still be to discuss foundational issues such as epistemology, metaphysics, to arrange a comprehensive clash between the believing and unbelieving worldviews, and so on. To do these things, you should review my Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Apologetics in Conversation. Any time that you spend on the details in Da Vinci should eventually lead the discussion back to the foundational worldview issues and the contents of the gospel.
This is not very different from when someone challenges you with the theory of evolution. Yes, you can use scientific arguments to defeat him on this issue, but then what? Even after proving that evolution is false with scientific arguments, you still have not proven that other arguments against Christianity are false, or that Christianity is right. So eventually you must still investigate the first principles of the opposing systems of philosophy. So although it is never necessary, it might be useful to know several scientific arguments against evolution, if for no other reason than to use them as ad hominem arguments to show that you are not afraid to deal with science, or to show that your opponent is wrong even if you employ his irrational methods.
In the same way, it might also be useful for you to have access to information against the historical claims in Da Vinci. Therefore, at the end of this article, I am listing several online resources on the subject. There are many others, but the ones that I have listed here are enough to answer the challenges against Christianity that people might have from reading the book or watching the movie. There are also a number of printed books written to answer Da Vinci, but again, these web sites should be enough, and they are especially convenient when dealing with other people, since you can send them the links in an email.
In any case, remember that people refuse to believe in Christianity never because they have some solid argument or evidence against it, but because, as the Bible says, their deeds are evil, so that they love the darkness and hate the light. The false information in Da Vinci just gives them the excuse to claim that they are making a rational rejection of Christianity, although there is nothing rational about it. So unless the Holy Spirit works in their hearts to produce repentance and faith, even if the claims in Da Vinci are shown to be completely inaccurate, they would still refuse to believe, but they would just find another excuse to hide behind.
Therefore, letting the unbeliever force you to devote too much time to any one type of objections — whether it is Da Vinci, or evolution, etc. — is to fall into a trap. He can always make up something to say, no matter how ridiculous, just so you must take the time to refute it. You see, whether he is consciously doing it or not, he is just trying to keep on making objections so that he does not have to be confronted with the true condition of his soul and the truth about Jesus Christ. In fact, at the right time in a conversation, you should point this out, and say, "I have pointed you to the answers against the claims made in Da Vinci. Now you must either refute these answers, or acknowledge that Da Vinci does not really pose a problem for the Christian faith. Or are you still hiding behind Da Vinci, not because it really gives you any rational objection against Christianity, but because you are trying to find an excuse to reject the truth?"
The unbeliever wants to stop you from talking about him — that is, about the unbeliever himself. He will say anything. He will throw anything in your face just so he can delay a real confrontation with God for another moment. If it is not something from Da Vinci, it will be something else. So, yes, answer his objections, but always bring the conversation back to him — the wretched condition of his soul, his sins against God, and his only hope for salvation in Jesus Christ. Make him defend his beliefs. Make him justify his behavior and lifestyle.
It is true that Da Vinci mentions issues that are good for believers to know about, only that the novel makes false claims about these issues. For example, it makes a claim about the relationship between Christianity and Constantine, emperor of Rome. But I think that the best setting to first learn about this and other topics is a general course in church history — a positive and organized presentation on the subject — and not in the context of a refutation of a piece of popular fiction that makes false claims about church history. And of course, a general knowledge of church history would automatically refute what is claimed in the novel, since it would include information on what really happened at the time of Constantine, and so on.
All-Purpose Apologetics
These works expound on a biblical approach to defending the faith that is always applicable. It is able to destroy all objections against the faith even when you do not have the time to give specific replies to them. And as mentioned, even if you give specific answers against Da Vinci during the course of a conversation with the unbeliever, you should still lead him back to the foundational worldview issues discussed in these works.
Presuppositional Confrontations
Answers to The Da Vinci Code
These are online resources with specific answers against the false claims made in Da Vinci.
thetruthaboutdavinci.com/articles/
leaderu.com/focus/Davinci_movie.html
envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-Part1.htm
envoymagazine.com/PlanetEnvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm
ignatius.com/books/davincihoax/pressroom/mieselinterview.asp
The God of Disasters (8)
Finally, what about the Christians who died? Surely some of the thousands of people who perished were believers. Did God judge them, too? We cannot assert beyond what Scripture reveals, but we can be as specific as the general principles revealed in Scripture would allow. It is possible that some of the Christians were included as God's final act of fatherly discipline toward them, so that although they died with the world, they would not be condemned with the world. Or, perhaps some of them were included because God would use their death to inspire others to faith, reverence, and holiness, and at the same time to harden those whom God had wished to harden. These are just some of the possible reasons that we may deduce from Scripture, and from which we could derive many more. But it would be dangerous to speculate about why God had chosen a specific believer to die in such a manner.
What we know for sure is that these Christians are not complaining right now. They are not screaming in agony or cursing God for how their bodies perished. They are resting in God's presence, grateful, worshipful, and even jumping for joy! They will no longer suffer pain and sickness, or warfare, terrorism, floods, and fires.
If your loved one had died as a Christian, then know that he now receives abundant comfort and recompense for his labor and suffering. And there is no other place that he would rather be than where he is right now. There is no need to worry about him, or to weep about how he died. By God's grace, he has made it, he has arrived. Now is time to think about the condition of your own soul. Do you have the faith that he had? Have you repented of your sins and believed on Jesus Christ for your salvation as your loved one had done? If so, then you shall see him again, and what a reunion it will be! But if you refuse to repent and believe, then one day God will take your life and throw you into the lake of fire. And you shall be numbered with the murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, slanderers, those who practice witchcraft, those who are the lovers of money and pleasure, and all idolaters and unbelievers.
(end of series)
The God of Disasters (7)
The biblical perspective is consistent and convicting. It boldly confesses that it is God who does all these things. So when we are asked, "Where was God when this happened?" (it is a shame that even professing Christians ask it, often with deep resentment), we should never say that "God had to permit it" or even "God could not prevent it." Rather, without embarrassment we will say that God planned it all along, and when it happened, he was right there causing it, performing all his pleasure, and for his own good reasons and purposes. Where was God when it happened? He was there making it happen, for the glory of his name and the good of his elect. And if he was not there, it could never have happened.
This biblical answer will doubtless provoke rage and confusion, but the difference is that it is true – it is biblical and defensible. We can then proceed to expound to our hearers the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, and salvation through Christ. The elect will soften and turn to God in faith and reverence. The reprobates will harden and curse this God who demands obedience and who punishes wickedness. In this manner, the words and the acts of God divide humanity in two. Those whom God has chosen will accept God the way he is, and worship him for his sovereignty and righteousness. Others will prefer a God of their own imagination, and for this they will be condemned.
If you knew a non-Christian who had died in one of the great disasters of recent years – someone who was killed by warfare, by terrorism, by flood, or by fire – do not weep for him because of how he died, but weep for him because of what he is suffering now. This person might be your father or mother, your brother or sister, your son or daughter, your spouse, or a friend. At this very moment in hell, he is screaming in extreme agony, and being tortured by an unearthly pain. He curses God, but God laughs at him. He begs God to release him, but God only increases his suffering. He calls out your name, but you cannot hear him, you cannot help him. He recalls the times when the two of you made fun of the Christians and mocked their God. He thinks about the time when one of them stumped him in a debate, but he hardened his heart even more.
He remembers how he was encouraged in his unbelief when he read a certain novel that portrayed Christian history as just one great conspiracy. Now he realizes that all it contained were old theories that were refuted long ago. One of the newcomers in hell had told him that they even made it into a movie. The devil overheard and chuckled, "Could you people be any more gullible? You claimed to be so rational and so knowledgeable, so advanced…Ha! And you were fooled by a novel? Well, you will meet the author in a just a few years. You can get his autograph then!"
No matter how he died, or what kind of person you thought he was, if he died a non-Christian, then he is now in hell – burning, burning, burning! Combine all the mental distress that you have ever suffered and all the physical agony that you have ever endured, multiply its intensity by a million times, and extend its duration to endless eternity, and you will have a faint idea of what he is going through right now. But our imagination fails us, for anything that we can imagine is far weaker than what God is now doing to your friend or relative. So I will restrain myself, lest my description makes hell sound too pleasant. God does not do a half-baked job at anything – what he promises, he delivers, and when he punishes, he goes all the way.
You think that I am a harsh and insensitive man for saying all of this. Perhaps your loved one also considered the gospel and whoever preached it to him as harsh and insensitive. Now he is in hell, and it is too late for him. He is lost forever. But there is still hope for you. You can still be saved today, if God will give you the grace to say, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Flee to Jesus Christ now. Cry out to him, "Lord, save me!" He will give light to your feeble mind, and life to your wretched soul.
(to be continued)
The God of Disasters (6)
The truth is that God does not merely "allow" disasters, as if anything in creation has the power to initiate its own changes and motions. But according to our text, just as sinners "plan iniquity" and "plot evil on their beds," so God declares, "I am planning disaster against this people." Just as sinners actively rather than passively plan and perform evil, God actively plans and then causes disasters to arise against them.
Not only does he plan and work disasters against sinners, but he wants people to know that he is the one who performs all these things, and so he sends his prophets to announce judgment. Those who deny that God plans and works disasters against people, including those who have died in recent natural and "man-made" catastrophes, thus obscure the biblical teachings on God, man, sin, providence, judgment, and repentance. Accepting such a position, therefore, would deal a fatal blow to a proper and coherent understanding of biblical dogmatics. It blunts the sword of the Spirit, and diminishes the power and the urgency in the preaching of the gospel.
Besides compromising biblical dogmatics, and indeed because it compromises biblical dogmatics, this perspective that denies the very possibility that God would judge men in such a fashion – that is, with natural and "man-made" disasters – also threatens the effective practice of biblical apologetics. It speaks as if God either does not possess or does not exercise constant control over his own creation. Does nature run itself? But how? And by what power? Or, it is asserted that natural disasters happen because our sins have corrupted nature itself. This is true in a sense, but it does not answer the question. We cannot make even one hair white or black, and now our sins are causing earthquakes?
On the contrary, the biblical teaching gives a clear and certain sound, a coherent explanation, and a compelling call to faith and repentance. It is God who constantly sustains and controls all of creation, whether nature, animals, men, or angels. Our sins have indeed corrupted the creation, but this could happen only because God had decided that these changes in creation should happen in correspondence to our sins. He is the one who sustains and enforces this relationship.
Of course, God is the one who decreed our sins in the first place, but right now we are considering the relationship between our sins and nature. God said to Adam, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field" (Genesis 3:17-18). It is not as if Adam cursed the ground himself, for he could not have produced thorns and thistles even if he tried. But Adam's sin affected the earth not because there was a necessary or inherent relationship between the two, but because God established such a relationship in his divine mind, and then he cursed the ground subsequent to Adam's sin. Sin is punished only because God punishes sin, but sin does not possess omnipotence – it cannot control nature, and still less can it create hell and send itself there.
(to be continued)
The God of Disasters (5)
So that there is no misunderstanding, the biblical perspective does not prevent us from offering practical assistance to the surviving victims. That is, even if they had been the objects of God's judgment, Scripture teaches us to show practical benevolence even to our enemies. It is up to God to punish them for their sins, to the extent that he chooses, and at the time of his choosing. Our duty is to obey the relevant biblical precepts on how to treat people. And of course, it is even more important for us to preach the gospel to them, and to tell them that only Jesus Christ can deliver them from the greater wrath to come.
Those who deny the very possibility that these disasters come as God's judgment against the wicked do so based on several beliefs and assumptions that subvert a proper understanding of biblical dogmatics. Some of them seem to think that people are basically good and decent individuals, far from deserving the grisly deaths that they suffered. Then, some people speak as if God will not judge them just because they are Americans. The Israelites came under a similar delusion.
In any case, if the average man on the street is innocent and undeserving of God's harsh judgment, then the gospel is unnecessary for most people. But Scripture teaches that everyone has sinned against God and transgressed his laws, so that everyone deserves death and destruction. Once we affirm this, then there is no reason to be shocked when God pours out his wrath upon a group of people, even killing thousands of them all at once. Rather, it is to be expected.
Those who reject the very possibility that natural and "man-made" disasters can come as divine judgment against the victims not only contradict the biblical doctrine of human depravity, but they also represent God as someone who would not judge and punish in such a fashion. At times, even professing Christians are stunned by what happens, and wonder why God would "allow" such things to happen. But this shows that they have never taken seriously the historical accounts in the Bible concerning the great flood at the time of Noah, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the plagues of Egypt.
God has always judged sinners through natural and "man-made" disasters, killing thousands of them at a time. This is wholly consistent with his holy and just nature. There is no problem with this other than the fact that many people do not want to believe the truth about God and about themselves. In denying that God is the God of disasters, they assure people that he can be ignored and even mocked with impunity. But this universe is not a democracy, and you cannot democratize or Americanize the kingdom of heaven. You have no rights that would require God to treat you a certain way. With God there is no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech, no freedom of thought – if you believe the wrong thing, say the wrong thing, or even think the wrong thing, God will take it into account and punish you for it, that is, unless you have been saved from his wrath through Jesus Christ.
"This makes God a tyrant," you say. But is God unrighteous unless he conforms to your political theory? This objection itself is evidence of human depravity, and shows that mankind deserves the harshest possible divine punishments. And who says that God cannot be a tyrant? The first definition of a tyrant does not carry the negative connotations often associated with the word, but it is simply "an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution" (Merriam-Webster). No sinful man deserves so much power, but the true God can have no less.
Some professing Christians resist the biblical doctrine of divine sovereignty with this objection, that it makes God a tyrant. The implication is that, either they refuse to have a God who is "an absolute ruler," or they take it for granted that a God who uses his absolute power in a way that displeases them has abused his power. Either way, their reaction makes them rebels against the Most High rather than his submissive children. The more urgent problem is therefore not whether God is appropriately called a tyrant, but whether these people are Christians at all. If they are true Christians that are merely confused, then let them make the correction at once.
(to be continued)
The God of Disasters (4)
Consider the recent major natural and "man-made" disasters that happened in various parts of the globe. To put it mildly, none of the affected peoples and regions represented the very picture of Christian holiness. Without a personal revelation from God, we cannot claim to know the divine mind when it comes to the specific reasons and purposes for these events. However, we can be as specific as a deduction from scriptural principles would permit. On this basis, the least we can say is that no one should be astonished at the idea that God caused these disasters to kill some of these people as judgment against them, and as a warning against those associated with them.
Perhaps some would agree that the victims of these disasters were sinners who deserved what happened to them. They were idolaters, fornicators, cheaters, oppressors, and the lovers of self and wealth rather than lovers of God. However, it might seem to these people that to admit this about them would be to add insult to injury, and to scorn the very memory of them. While I understand this perspective, I do not sympathize, for this reaction exalts man to the point that it would honor those who oppose God, rather than to take warning from their demise.
Instead, where disaster strikes, we should say, "These people were idolatrous, covetous, riotous, and wicked to the core. Although God might have other reasons for it, this appears to be God's judgment against them, to punish them and to warn others. I fear that I am not ready to meet God at this time. If I had been one of these people who died, I might be suffering in hell by now. If disaster strikes and destroys me today, I fear that God would cast me away from his presence to be tortured by hellfire forever. I must repent. This cannot wait any longer. I must get right with God now."
It should also make us think about others in the same way, so that we would say to them, "Friend, you are not ready to meet God. Disaster might strike today, or your life might be snatched away tomorrow. Your life is but a vapor. Repent! Repent! Repent while there is still a little time. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Forsake your sins. Destroy your idols. Call upon him to save you from this perverse generation." Yes, mourn for the victims, even honor their memory on a human level, but do not make them into saints and heroes if they were sinners and criminals. Rather, be warned that "unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Reprobates do not react this way, but disasters make them even more obstinate. They assure one another that the victims were innocent and honorable, and that they were wholly undeserving of what happened to them. They consider it impossible that God would judge in such a fashion, or that God would judge them in such a fashion. And if these disasters indeed come from God, then he is to be denounced and cursed as an unrighteous and unworthy deity.
(to be continued)