 |
| Paul departs for Jerusalem |
Few Christians have suffered more for their faith than did the apostle Paul. In one place he described his experience this way: ". . . in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews three times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of Gentiles, in perils of the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils of the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weakness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness – besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches" (II Cor. 11:23-28).
Why did he do it? What drove the man to such lengths? He tells us: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us" (Rom. 8:18). He had his eyes on eternity, and he knew that what he had to endure in this present life was but a small price to pay for eternal glory.
This is not to say that there are no benefits in this present life. For ". . . the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us" (Rom. 5:5). This, in turn, can give rise to intense joy. The apostle Peter could say ". . . whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory" (I Pet. 1:8). And Paul could talk about "the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding" (Phil. 4:7).
In one sense these reactions are irrational – they seem detached from surrounding reality. How can one experience "joy" or "peace" when your outward circumstances are filled with conflict and misery? The answer is partly that we have the hope of a brighter future, and partly that God grants us peace in answer to prayer: "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4:6,7). But partially it is because of the direct action of the Holy Spirit on our hearts: love, joy and peace are the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal. 5:22, and Paul could say that the love of God "has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 5:5).
That being said, it nevertheless remains true that the Christian lives for the future, not for the present. "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal" (II Cor. 4:17,18). It is expected that there will be trials and difficulties in this life. We live in a world cursed by sin. We look forward, however, to the return of Christ when He will appear in the sky to redeem creation, and then all things will at last be set right. The trials of this life last only for a relatively brief moment. The joys of heaven are forever.
Sad to say, most modern Americans are so caught up with the cares and pleasures of this life that they never really think about what will happen to them when they die. They just sort of assume that somehow, someone, somewhere up there in the sky will take care of them. But they never give any serious thought as to who that Someone might be, or what He actually requires of us. But death is inevitable and inescapable, and sooner or later we will have to face eternity. What then?
Off topic (apologies)
ReplyDeleteThere a new internet fail in town. I'm not really sure it's possible to fail more badly than this.
This is how I found out about him.
Well, I never heard of Sye Ten Bruggencate until you directed me to the link, but I did have the opportunity to meet both Cornelius Van Til, widely regarded as the father of modern Presuppositional apologetics, and Francis A. Schaeffer, who popularized it. If I had been Ten Bruggencate I probably would have walked off the stage too.
ReplyDeleteVan Til's contention was that all reasoning is circular. Everyone has a worldview that presupposes something -- for most people it is their own intellectual and moral autonomy. This, in turn, colors their whole view of reality. Van Til argued that it is useless for a Christian to discuss evidence with an unbeliever, because the unbeliever will simply reinterpret the evidence on the basis of his own non-theistic presuppositions. The unbeliever, however, has a conscience, and thereby has an intuitive knowledge of the existence of God and morality, and that is what the Christian apologist should appeal to.
Critics have said that Van Til's approach has been influenced by Idealist philosophy -- that every particular has to be understood in the context of the whole. I think that part of the problem is that he was an academic philosopher -- he interacted with non-Christian philosophers through their writings,and it was easy for him to point out the tacit underlying assumptions. But the Christian evangelist, who deals with people face to face, has to deal with the fact that at some point in the discussion (we hope!) a serious inquirer might genuinely want to know what the evidence is, and we cannot simply say "You already know," or "Just believe"! Van Til was undoubtedly right, up to a point. Human beings are rarely truly objective in their approach to knowledge, especially when their own moral standing is at stake. To the extent that they triy to rationalize their own behavior, they will attempt to construct a non-theistic worldview. But at some point in the discussion a Christian apologist has to explain what a person should be able to understand if he interpreted reality rightly. In other words, what exactly is the evidence?
I do think that Ten Bruggencate is right on one point. Among unbelievers atheists stand in a particularly perilous position. They typically want to say that they "know" that things like genocide, slavery, etc., are morally wrong (unless of course, they happen to be Friedrich Nietzsche or Ayn Rand), and yet they cannot say why -- they have rejected the idea of a transcendent, objective standard of morality. How, then, can we say that anything is "right" or "wrong"? Doesn't it eventually come down to local culture or personal opinion? And if someone else's culture says that something is right, who are we to say that it is wrong? What if Hitler had won World War II? Would that, then, have made genocide "right"?
The RationalWiki article suggested that once we accept the axiom (presupposition?) of existence, the epistemological problem becomes meaningless. I assume this means that science can provide us a way out of our moral difficulties. But the melancholy history of the last century suggests that that hasn't worked out too well.
Van Til argued that it is useless for a Christian to discuss evidence with an unbeliever, because the unbeliever will simply reinterpret the evidence on the basis of his own non-theistic presuppositions. The unbeliever, however, has a conscience, and thereby has an intuitive knowledge of the existence of God and morality, and that is what the Christian apologist should appeal to.
ReplyDeleteNow imagine the guy with the spittle-flecked beard who hates you and everything you stand for. He can take this and hi-jack it.
(I let you switch the labels around for yourself).
It's very unfortunate that you don't seem to be able to do this without prodding from me. It would save time. Just once, it would be very impressive to see you walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.
I do think that Ten Bruggencate is right on one point. Among unbelievers...
But he doesn't have anything.
Straight away, it's a Tu Quoque.
An argument must stand or fall on it's own merits.
It can't rely upon the weakness of some other position and thereby magically win by default.
Your argument is is either strong or weak.
It's not dependent on me or what I say or fail to say or what someone else says or fails to say.
The strength/weakness of an argument is independent. It stands alone.
The RationalWiki article suggested that once we accept the axiom (presupposition?) of existence, the epistemological problem becomes meaningless. I assume this means that science can provide us a way out of our moral difficulties.
I don't assume that. It's a non sequitur.