Thoughts - Virgin Birth and Christmas

This is just going to be a brief blog on the Virgin Birth. It is commonplace among atheists and sceptics to consider the virgin birth as just totally made up. This is not too surprising a reaction. More concerning is that a lot of Christians consider the virgin birth to be something of an optional extra or even an embarrassment.

It is nothing of the sort. Consider what the Bible says happened at Christmas. God became man. The creator of absolutely everything came to dwell amongst us as a man. Now that is truly amazing and something we should ponder on, just as Mary did. Now if God is the creator of the universe, surely a virgin birth should not be beyond His capabilities?

Now as a slightly speculative aside. In much talk of the virgin birth from those who believe in it, it seems to be assumed that while there was no male sperm, it was one of Mary’s egg cells that was fertilised. I guess this is where the whole immaculate conception and related controversies and ideas arise from. However, I don’t see anything in the Bible that demands that one of Mary’s egg cells was involved. Indeed it would seem to make more sense if it did not. Maybe I am wrong on this, just thinking!

Merry Christmas.

Thoughts - Chance, Evolution and Predestination

So what have chance, evolution and predestination got to do with each other? Well let’s start by looking at some of the thoughts (and fears) behind evolution and predestination. Now many people working on evolution are just scientists trying to do good science, but there are others for whom Darwinian evolution seems to be a vehicle for “proving” there isn’t a God. I intend to show that even if evolution is true then it in no way proves that God did use evolution as part of a design process. In fact evolution could be part of an intelligent design process. Since creation and evolution is such a contentious topic let me lay my cards on the table. If you want to put a label on me then old-earth creationist would probably be the best, but it would not be a perfect fit. With regards to evolution, if evolution is “true” then that holds no fear for me. However, I have severe doubts about neo-Darwinian evolution and random mutations and survival of the fittest seem totally incapable of explaining the development of life upon the earth. I would strongly recommend Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwins Doubt.

Predestination is a doctrine that seems to hold much fear and misunderstanding. The common misunderstanding is that it obviates man’s free will. It does not. The Bible is very clear. The doctrine of predestination states that there are primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause of everything. The Bible attributes all sorts of things to God’s will, but this is in no way takes away our free will and responsibility. We struggle to get to grips with this concept, and the reaction of some (many?) is to reject, or at least ignore, predestination.

What we are going to do is a little thought experiment. It is going to involve some mathematics, but fear not, there won’t be any equations. We are going to look at genetic algorithms.

Genetic Algorithms

Genetic algorithms are an optimization technique used in mathematics and are an example of what are called heuristic algorithms. The idea behind genetic algorithms is inspired by evolution. The following is a very basic explanation, if you want more in depth information there is plenty out there on the web. A population is generated randomly. Then pairs of individuals mate and produce offspring. When two individuals mate there is crossover of “genetic” information, there is also an element of random mutation. All this creates a new population. A fitness function is then applied and the fittest members survive, the others don’t. This is just a basic description, there are numerous variations. This process is repeated many times and after many generations the optimum solution, or something close to it, is arrived at.

So you can probably see the affinities with evolution, especially the fitness function (survival of the fittest) and random mutation. Let’s consider the process a little.

First, it is a mixture of design and randomness. The initial selection of the population is random, mutation is random. However, there is also much design. The initial structure of the members is designed, the fitness function is designed.

Secondly, the outcome is, to a large extent at least, predetermined. If we consider a mathematical function which we are trying to minimise (consider a curve), then the outcome of the process, if the algorithm is designed properly, is predetermined. It will converge on the minimum point of the curve. So even though the process is random the outcome is not.

Thirdly, processes involving randomness can sometimes be more effective than more guided processes. The most popular optimisation methods use “hill-climbing” methods. You start from a point on a curve, calculate the gradient and then move in that direction to a new estimate. This process is repeated until the minimum (or maximum, depending what we are trying to do) is reached. For a simple curve this works well, but suppose the curve has lots of local minima. What will happen? The hill-climbing methods have a habit of getting stuck a local minima. Algorithms with a degree of randomness built into them tend to be better at reaching the true (or global) minima.

Now let’s consider how these impinge on evolution and predestination. Before going further let me make clear that this example is just intended to help us think clearly. With evolution and predestination we are considering “life, the universe and everything”. Genetic algorithms are simple mathematical tools dealing with specific problems. Nevertheless, consideration of it can help us to think.

Evolution

Many of those who consider the theological/philosophical implications of evolution seem to think that because of the randomness of the process then either (i) there isn’t a God (from the atheist side), or (ii) God cannot have used an evolutionary process as part of creation (from the creationist side).  Both of these views are wrong. Genetic algorithms illustrate that a process with much randomness built in can be used to reach a predetermined outcome, and may even be better at doing so than a more clearly directed process. As mentioned earlier, I have serious doubts about many of the claims for evolution, but even if evolution is completely true, it does not “disprove God”. Conversely, those theologians who use randomness as an objection to theistic evolutionists are making a false argument.

Predestination

So what can this teach us about predestination? In the genetic algorithm we have a process where individual steps are random, yet the outcome is not. This is something that we mere humans have invented. Surely God, who is infinitely cleverer than we are, can do much greater things. So it is may well be possible for God to predetermine the outcome of something and still allow the individuals free will with decisions within the process.

It seems to me that two of the things the Bible is absolutely clear about are:

1. God is in complete charge of everything, and He chose us for salvation before the creation of the world.
2. The decisions, actions and attitudes that we have and make matter and have an effect.

We sometimes find it hard to reconcile the two as at times they seem to be contradictory. Our reaction tends to be to favour one (Calvanism or Arminianism) or the other. Genetic algorithms should help us to realise that it might just be possible for both to be true, at least to some extent.

I do emphasise that I realise that evolution and predestination are much more complex than what I have presented here, I just encourage you to think and not to let God be limited by the limits of our intellect.

Resources - Unbelievable

Unbelievable  is a radio programme featured on Premier Christian Radio, based in London. The show goes out at 14.30 on Saturdays. You can listen online or on digital radio. The show is also released as a podcast, sometimes a little before the actual broadcast. Just put Unbelievable in iTunes or whatever software you use for podcasts.

The most common format of the show is a debate between Christians and non-Christians. Often there are just two debaters, though occasionally three or even more. A wide variety of topics are covered, including social issues, scientific topics, historical, moral, philosophical. There are also debates including members of cults (eg mormonism).

In addition to the Christian v non-Christian the show sometimes has debates between Christians on particular topics, and also interviews or discussions with an individual. Finally, there are “grill-a-Christian” shows every now and then in which a Christian apologist fields questions from non-Christian callers.

All the shows are hosted by the inimitable Justin Brierley. He does a great job in attracting all sorts of people on to the show. These include “famous” Christians such as N T Wright, John Lennox, well-known atheists, most recently including Richard Dawkins. But there are also shows with much less well known Christians and atheists. Justin is an excellent presenter. All the guests are treated with respect and he does a great job of keeping people on track.

Naturally the quality of debates varies. Sometimes people are just talking past each other and little is achieved, but other times the participants genuinely engage with each others points of view. Occasionally the debates become really heated, but not too often.

Thoughts - Reflections on Cessationism

Strange Fire?

There has recently been a lot of controversy in the US over cessationism, caused by the John McArthur’s Strange Fire Conference. Let me make it clear that this post is not about the Strange Fire conference itself as I have not listened to the talks, rather it is about cessationism in general. From what I gather the conference was motivated by a concern for many of the excesses of the Charismatic world, such as so-called prosperity teachers etc. If you want to see more of a response to the conference itself (from a Charismatic perspective) then I can recommend Dr Michael Brown and his Line of Fire podcasts, and from a UK perspective, Adrian Warnock.

The reason for writing this blog is that as a result of the furore I have listened to a couple of debates between sensible charismatics and reasonable cessationists, between Michael Brown and Sam Waldron  and between Adrian Warnock and Doug Wilson. I have never seen any Biblical support for cessationism and have paid little attention to the topic. However, listening to these debates has at least helped me understand the issue a little better, and I am even more firmly convinced that there are no Biblical grounds for cessationism.

Cessationism

Cessationism is the belief that the charismatic gifts ceased after the time of the apostles. It is important to realise that it does not mean they don’t believe in the active role of the Holy Spirit in the church, nor does it mean they don’t believe in miracles.

So what are there grounds for saying the gifts ceased at the end of the apostolic era? Essentially it is that the primary purpose of the gifts was to authenticate the apostolic ministry. First let me say a few words about apostleship for the term apostle is a little controversial today and is misused.

Cessationsim & Apostleship

The term apostle is used in two ways in the New Testament. First there are what most people think of as apostles, namely Peter, John, etc and Paul. There are no apostles like these now and never have been since Peter, John etc. These apostles had been with Jesus and were physical witnesses to the resurrection (Acts 1:21,22), with Paul being one “abnormally born” (1 Cor 15:8). They had special authority and established the foundations for the church, in particular the New Testament. However, the term apostle is also used in a more general sense.

Now to apostles and the gifts of the Spirit, and it is the Peter type apostles we are talking about. The argument of the cessationists is that the primary purpose of the charismatic gifts was to back up the authority of the apostles. Now it is true that signs and wonders were one of the signs of an apostle. However, the gifts, particularly those spoken of in 1 Corinthians are not there purely or even primarily as signs of apostleship. Let’s take tongues. First we need to realise there seem to be two types of tongues. There is the instance in Acts 2 where the disciples spoke in human languages that people who were visiting Jerusalem could understand. Then there is the tongues that Paul speaks about in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14, and which seems to be the more common, where the main purpose is the edification of the individual, and need not be a human language. From my reading of the New Testament, tongues seems to have precious little to do with apostleship. The only possible argument could be taken from the Samaritans who received the Holy Spirit through Peter, but that seems to be reading too much into it.

Cessationism & Prophecy

One of the themes that cropped up in the two debates noted above is the seeming insistence of cessationists that all prophecy must be inerrant. They seem to rely on there being only one model of prophecy, namely what most Christians will think of when we talk about a prophet, ie an Isaiah or a Jeremiah or an Amos. But this does not seem to be supported by the Bible. This will be only the briefest of comments here. For a much more detailed study of the matter I would refer you to Wayne Grudem’s book, The Gift of Prophecy.

Consider Elijah and Elisha. No one doubts that these are prophets of God, but how much scripture did they contribute (in the sense that Isaiah etc did)? Virtually nothing. They are known for two main things: (i) confronting power with truth; and (ii) performing various miracles. Then there are prophets Nathan, who was a prophet to David. He got it wrong when he told David to go ahead and build a temple. God quickly corrected him. In Chronicles it says that David appointed prophets. In the Old Testament there were numerous prophets and types of prophets, including, of course, false prophets.

Now turn to the New Testament. There are no prophets of the Isaiah mould. There is no record in the New Testament of prophecy playing any part in the laying down of Scripture. Again, there is an example of a prophet getting it wrong in the strict sense when Paul was warned against going to Jerusalem. Moreover, the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 seem to speak of a gift that is for general application in the church.

There are many other arguments against cessationism. Adrian Warnock’s blog contains some very useful comments.

In short, I have never been able to see any Biblical support for cessationism and the Strange Fire furore has only confirmed that view. However, to those of you who are charismatics, do not write off cessationists. They may well be wrong on this matter, but many of them are spirit filled servants of Christ doing a great work. Conversely, in the Charismatic world we have a good selection of loonies and charlatans and need to use discernment.

Resources - Jame White

I am going to start with James White of Alpha and Omega ministries. There is lots of material on the website itself and he produces one or two podcasts each week under the title “The Dividing Line”, there are also numerous youtube videos of debates and presentations that he has given.

Dr White is excellent in many areas, these include:

• Reliability of the New Testament
• Biblical teaching on homosexuality
• Islam

He has several lectures and videos presenting the case for the reliability of the New Testament, and there are some debates on this as well. One of the talks can be found here.
The Bible and homosexuality and the laws that governments throughout the West are passing are a hot issue today. A little over ten years ago he co-wrote a book called The Same Sex Controversy. This is excellent and counters the arguments given by some that claim the Bible is ambiguous on same sex relationships. There are also various podcasts, one lasting five hours, on the matter, as well as periodic items on The Dividing Line.
Dr White recently published a book called What Every Christian Should Know about the Koran. This is another excellent book and well worth reading. He has done numerous debates with Muslim scholars. You will find reading the book and listening to the debates very illuminating.
Other issues that crop up fairly frequently are:

• King James onlyism, Dr White shows what a load of rubbish King James onlyism is.
• Roman Catholicism. He takes a very strong line against Catholic teaching.
• Mormonism

Dr White is also an ardent Calvinist. Now I am fairly Calvinist (which some would say means I am definitely not a Calvinist), and I don’t agree with all that he says on this. In fact in some later posts I might look at some of these issues. However, I would heartily recommend listening to him, and to his sermons on SermonAudio.com. There is an awful lot to be learnt, and he will counter any loose interpretation of the Bible, and encourage you to think much more carefully  about things.

This is another blog in addition to my daily bible blog, Bible Musings.  This blog will appear far less frequently. Initially it will have two main themes. One will be to highlight various resources (books, podcasts, web pages) that I have found very helpful. The other will be comments on various topical and theological issues.

There are a multitude of Christian websites, podcasts, YouTube channels, some of them good, some of them mediocre, some of them rubbish. I am going to give a brief introduction to some that I have found particularly helpful. I don’t necessarily agree with everything anyone individual says, but we need to learn to live with disagreement. We also need to learn to learn from those with whom we disagree.

[I originally started this in WordPress but decided I prefer Blogger so have moved it over here. So apologies if you have already seen the first couple of posts!]