Category: Apologetics

Faith, Love & Endurance

PAUL HAD SOMETHING CLEARLY on his heart when he wrote to the Thessalonians about the work of the ministry, commending them for their work of faith, labor of love, and steadfastness of hope in Jesus Christ (see 1 Thes. 1:3). Paul wants all believers to remember that the gospel is more than an amalgam of creeds and doctrines. It includes a resolve to believe with the whole heart that God is who He says He is, and to then live every aspect of our lives accordingly. By design, this requires a willingness to turn our will and our lives over to Christ; to serve in whatever capacity we are called with all abandon. Speaking from experience, I know “doing” is flat-out impossible under my own power. And knowing what to do requires patience and silent prayer as I wait on the still small voice of God.

Some people say absence of work is idleness. This is true, in part. Idleness is identified as “undisciplined slackness” in the Old Testament (see Eccl. 10:18). Solomon plainly said, “Through laziness, the rafters sag; because of idle hands, the house leaks.” Consider how this example applies to the life and ministry of New Testament Christians. There is a hint of complacency in laziness. Settling for “what I’ve got” will eventually lead to a weakened foundation, sagging ceiling, rusty hinges, and filthy windows. Our hearts require a thorough housecleaning and maintenance. Or “…do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). This means that our bodies are not our own. They belong to God, and we must keep them clean and free of impurities.

Work of Faith

It is difficult to find a situation in which the word “work” does not suggest a better, deeper, more sincere way. We work it out when struggling with a trying circumstance. God’s people are called to work the gospel. Scripture says those who are able-bodied should work if they want to eat. Work is not part of the Fall or a curse upon mankind. As Moses wrote, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it” (Gen. 2:15)[italics added]. Paul said, “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men” (Col. 3:23). We are to be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord (see 1 Cor. 15:58). The writer of Hebrews reminds us, “God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do” (Heb. 6:10)[italics added].

It is paramount to understand that “our ministry as Christians” is not exclusively assigned to pastors, assistant pastors, reverends, priests, elders—those who get paid to do it. By all means, remove that thought from your life. Paul said if you are sanctified in Christ Jesus, then you are called to be saints. The work of faith is to be carried out by all the saints in Christ. My pastor recently told me that we do not need more pastors. In fact, he said, “We have enough pastors.” Instead, we need workers in the Body of Christ to discovery their God-give gifts and use them to minister to the community of believers, and share Christ with nonbelievers.

The work of faith simply means putting your faith to work. Acting on the Word of God, we trust the hope that is within us. We have all been given a measure of faith. God wants us to build upon this prevenient gift, through progressive edification and sanctification, using our faith to fulfill the plans and purposes for which He has created us. Our gifts and talents are not for our own gain, but for the sake of the gospel. We are to hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (see Heb. 10:23). To believe in Christ and then keep Him to ourselves is against what James said. Instead, we are to be hearers and doers of the Word (James. 1:22). He asks, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:18, 26).

Labor of Love

As workers in the Body of Christ, our activities with regard to ministering and witnessing must be a labor of love, for without love our actions are bankrupt. Paul said if we speak the tongues of angels, have the vision of a prophet, give to others with a generous disposition, or have a willingness to die by martyrdom, but do not have love, we gain nothing (see 1 Cor. 13). Paul defines this as agapē love, which is sacrificial in the same intensity and capacity as we see in the death of Christ on the cross. It is a love of goodwill, benevolence, and willful sacrifice in serving others. Of course, we have no ability on our own to express agapē love, but we can work toward a life that imitates Christ. This requires allowing God to teach us about authentic, self-sacrificing love, and then live by the Holy Spirit in pursuit of loving others as Jesus loves us.

Love does not just accept people,it works
for their best interest.

Augustine said, “So far from being burdensome, the labors of lovers themselves give delight… for when it comes to something loved, either there is no labor or the labor itself is loved.” He added, “…think how shameful and painful it would be if one were to delight in capturing a wild animal or in filling one’s cask or sack, or in throwing a ball, but not delight in gaining God.”1 Augustine’s teachings often contrast doing something out of love with doing (or not doing) something because of fear. He believed love and fear can be plotted on a continuum: e.g., the more you fear the less you love; the more you love the less you fear. He said, “… it is necessary, above all else, to be moved by the fear of God.”2 This is a vital part of our Christian life. In fact, the love and fear of God are not mutually exclusive. Augustine believed love should be “fervent to correct.” In fact, the best form of correction is love. Paul said, “…if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1). After all, love is patient and kind; is not boastful; is not arrogant or rude; is neither irritable or resentful; and never rejoices in wrongdoing (see 1 Cor. 13).

Paul asked the Galatians, “You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?” (Gal. 5:7). New believers at Galacia were quarreling over the need for faith in Christ and circumcision. Paul insisted that to require circumcision and belief in Christ would make Christ of no advantage, for every man who accepts circumcision would be obligated to keep the whole law. It would be absurd to choose justification by works rather than justification by grace. Paul said, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (5:6). If truth be told, faith working through love is the only thing that avails anything.

Endurance of Hope

Simply stated, endurance means getting through trials and challenges without wavering. James writes, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness [so] let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:2). Paul, because of the numerous trials and troubles he faced while preaching the gospel and planting new churches, was well-qualified to speak on the subject of endurance of hope. He said to rejoice in our suffering, knowing that suffering produces endurance, endurance produces character, and character produces hope (see Rom. 5:3-4). Indeed, he endured up to the moment he was beheaded.

Even today, the life of the Christian church depends upon the tenacity to keep going month after month, year after year, even in the face of emotional, relational, spiritual, and financial obstacles. Paul reminded believers at Rome, “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1). Those of us to whom endurance comes more readily are called to teach the endurance of hope to believers who tend to lose hope. In other words, endurance breeds unity and steadfastness. I found myself wondering if endurance is the DNA of hope, or if hope is the catalyst for endurance. In my life, endurance eventually leads to hope. But, I had to learn that am not being singled out for misfortune or forsaken by God; rather, whatever I go through has a purpose. I am comfortable in knowing that my days are numbered and my steps have been preordained by God. All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28).

How Should We Then We Live?

But if these are the standards, how should we then live? Francis Schaeffer believes there is a staunch contrast between sensual love (the “lower story” regarding the details of particular people and everyday life) and spiritual love (the “upper story” relative to the big picture, including the grand narrative of God).3 It seems to me that agapē love is part of the “upper story.” Schaeffer believes that we arrived in the modern era with a nearly unspoken consensus of thought that has been molded by art, music, drama, theology, and the mass media. To this end, he believes Christian-dominated consensus has weakened, and values have died.4 I would add the prolific impact of social media and the blurring of core ideals such as ethics, goodness, justice, family, neighborliness, citizenship, truth, and the natural order of things.

To many people, however, Christian belief is irrational, unsubstantiated, childish, elitist, bigoted, narrow-minded, and anti-science. Detractors, especially militant atheists, say Christianity is just not up to snuff. As Alvin Plantinga puts it, many individuals believe Christianity is “…therefore worthy of disdain and contempt.”5 Engaging in evangelism or apologetics in the 21st century brings out the vocal critics in droves. Christian teens, upon entering secular colleges and universities, come under harsh criticism for their faith. Non-believing neighbors often shy away from the “Bible-thumpers” living next door. Regardless, as Christians we are obligated to defend the reason for our hope in Jesus to anyone who asks (see 1 Pet. 3:15). And we cannot defend anything for which we lack an endurance of hope.

Without argument, one’s outward living is always a reflection of that which is in one’s heart. What do we truly believe? Whom do we serve? What do we allow to “master” us? John Locke wrote, “…faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind: which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it. He that believes without having any reason for believing may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his Maker, who would have him use those discerning faculties he had given him, to keep him out of mistake or error.”6

As believers in Christ, we are called to be ready to defend our faith in Him; to allow His guidance and influence to control every aspect of our daily living. Ours must be a work of faith, a labor of love, and a steadfastness of hope in Jesus Christ. To that end, we must believe God with the whole heart, and then live accordingly. Moreover, we must admit that it is impossible for us to live for Christ under our own power. We should always be authentic and self-sacrificing, enduring trials and challenges without wavering, knowing that all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

Steven Barto, BS Psy, ThM

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references contained herein are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

References

1 Augustine, De bono viduitatis, 21, 26
2 Augustine, On Christian Teaching (New York: Oxford Press, 1997), 33.
3 Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Wheaton: Crossway, 1976), 58.
4 Ibid., 205.
5 Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 215), 7.
6 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, A.D. Woozley, editor (New York: World Publishing, 1963), IV, xvii, 11.

History of the Church Part Six: Reaching a Post-Christian Culture

This is the last in a six-part series on the history of the Christian church.

THE LECTURE HALL WAS filled with a low murmur as the professor walked in and placed his soft leather briefcase on the lectern and opened it. He took out a small stack of blank paper and began passing it out to the freshman philosophy class. Students looked confused. When everyone had a sheet of paper, he simply said, “There is no God. All that I require from each of you is that you fill in each of the papers I’ve given you with three little words: GOD IS DEAD along with your signature. Assuming we reach a unanimous consensus, which I expect we will, I will be spared the tedious duty of slogging through dry and dusty arguments, and you will bypass the section of the course in which students have traditionally received their lowest grades of the semester” (1). Josh Wheaton, a Christian in the class, refuses to comply. He is given the opportunity to prove the antithesis to the entire classroom—that God is not dead. He presents his argument to the class in three 20-minute segments.

I was raised in a Christian home, and I accepted Christ at age thirteen. By fourteen, I wanted to be a pastor. But my path became muddied and rather complicated during forty years of active addiction. It was during this time that I suffered a “period of questioning.” My eventual return to the faith was protracted and included a period of skepticism. I can relate 100% to taking an evidentiary approach to challenging gospel truth. Lee Strobel took this tactic when he set out to disprove the existence of God, the reliability of Scripture, and the deity of Christ. His approach was rooted in decades of experience as an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

Biblical Basis for Apologetics

First Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Second Timothy 2:23-25 notes the Christian’s responsibility to “teach” about the gospel without becoming quarrelsome, and correcting others with gentleness. It’s been said that apologetics is evangelism in action—i.e, contextualizing the gospel. (Paul provides a critical explanation of preaching and evangelizing in 1 Cor. 15:14-19.) It is not uncommon to hear, “I was with you until you got to the stuff about Jesus.” In our pluralistic society it has become politically incorrect to claim that God has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus, and that Christ is the only way to heaven. To effectively share the reason for our faith, we need to expand our knowledge and comprehension of Scripture.

Paul writes in Ephesians 6:19-20 says, “…that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.” This involves a complete transformation of the mind and the heart (see Rom. 12:2). Further to this, Romans 10:14-15 tells the believer that no one can choose Christ until they first learn of him—it the duty of all Christians to speak of the Good News. There seems to be a difference in today’s post-Christian society between “mission” and “being missional.” Apologetics is contextual; culture is fluid; evangelism must adapt but not compromise. The need to engage in apologetics is well established in Scripture. First Peter 3:15 is clear about our responsibility to “prepare to make a defense” of the gospel. Jesus told the disciples, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:29, ESV). Luke wrote, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4) (italics mine).

The apostle John wrote, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31). Jude said, “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). Paul wrote, “He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine, and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).

Apologetic Methodology

Classical Apologetic Method

Groothuis writes, “It is possible for an atheist to be so impressed with the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection that he converts from atheism and believes in the resurrection all at once” (2). William L. Craig says of the Classical method, “It has been gratifying to me that what I grasped in a rough and superficial way has been confirmed by the recent work of religious epistemologists, notably Alvin Plantinga” (3). Paul says, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20) (italics mine).

Classical apologetics establishes evidence for Christianity in a theistic context (4). Barth forcefully rejected natural theology because he took it to be in competition with the revelation in Scripture. He said God’s revelation is found only in the Christ of the Bible (5). Classical apologetics relies more on personally knowing Christianity to be true than on rational arguments and evidence. Barth argued that natural theology was a dangerous endeavor to engage in. I tend to agree. Man is fallen and unable to comprehend natural theology without misjudging what he sees. Sproul writes “…because if we attempt to learn about the living God from deductions drawn from nature, the probability that we will end up with a god made after our own image is greatly increased” (6). Further, I believe the context presented in Romans 1 indicates that we cannot draw a complete and distinct conclusion about God’s existence and power as efficacious enough to lead us to redemption.

Huffling believes classical apologetics starts with knowing reality and the absolute nature of truth. In an age of moral relativism, we are bound to encounter such arguments as, Well, that may be true for you, but it’s not for me. Further, classical apologetics deals with basic philosophical issues of metaphysics (the nature of reality) and epistemology (how we know reality). Modern classical apologists include R.C. Sproul, William Lane Craig, and Norman Geisler. Some adherents to this method believe man’s knowledge is in large part derivative, in reliance on the mind of God, and requiring God to make it accessible. The psalmist wrote, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psa. 19:1-4a).

Evidential Apologetic Method

Habermas believes Evidential and Classical apologists share much of the same tasks as seen in Evidential apologetics (7). R.C. Sproul argues that natural theology must precede miracles, or the miracles will be without context and meaningless. I think it’s possible that a skeptic or atheist might settle on the truth about miracles without choosing a supreme being as their source. Much has been said regarding karma, fate, coincidence, mental power, and destiny sans God. Logically, miracles alone do not prove the existence of God. But, as Craig reminds us, the resurrection of Jesus has strong theological implications. He does say, however, that for as long as the existence of God is even possible, an event’s being caused by God cannot be ruled out. Evidential methodology postulates and develops historical evidence. This is clearly important when reporting on fulfillment of prophesy. He warns us that historical evidences must not be presented as brute facts that interpret themselves.

Paul says, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit provides us with interpretive wisdom. Accordingly, Isaiah stands on the proclamation that God’s words will never return to Him void (Isa. 55:10-11). Paul tells us all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). But McDowell says the presentation of (or reliance on) evidence should never be a substitute for the Word of God (8). Instead, it must be paired with Scripture, which can serve to verify prophesy and historical accounts. Paul says, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7).

Cumulative Apologetic Method

Apologetics necessarily involves methodology, taxonomy, and epistemology. I take a “narrative” Cumulative approach when establishing the reason for my faith. Today’s post-Christian culture is predisposed to downplay or outright reject ontological or universal truth. Reason has a part in the cumulative approach, but this reason is rightly based on faith in God’s revelation. Indeed, reason itself establishes each conclusion as a building block, moving on to the next area of investigation. True “reason” cannot stand in judgment of God’s revelation. This is certainly the very essence of ontological truth—it stands alone. Specifically, ontology assumes the kinds of structures that exist, and only seeks to classify and explain them (taxonomy), whereas cumulative methodology stacks truth upon truth in search of a conclusion. God expects us to use our mind in comprehending Scripture. Mark 12:30 says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”

Well-known Christian apologists Lee Strobel, Douglas Groothuis, and Sean McDowell use Cumulative methodology. Groothuis presents a “systematic” study of Christianity, which he identifies on the cover of his seminal text Christian Apologetics as “a comprehensive case for biblical faith.” He presents the theistic, ontological, cosmological, intelligent design, evidential, and moral arguments for God. In addition, he discusses the problem of religious pluralism and the need to defeat the argument that God cannot exist in a creation that features sickness, death, rape, murder, torture, and runaway natural disasters. This methodology is useful in answering accusations of atheists and skeptics regarding God and the existence of evil. (See my article from Sept. 20, 2020, Why Can’t God Stop Evil?)

Carr believes the constant barrage of information presented to us every day is causing our linear mind to be pushed aside, replacing it with a new kind of mind that tends to take in and dole out information in short, disjointed, often overlapping bursts—the faster the better (9). We have no time (“in real life” or IRL as it were) to comprehend this deluge of data and draw a reasonable, logical conclusion as to its veracity or usefulness. It’s just there. This need for instant information was birthed during the 1980 hostage crisis in Iran, manifested as the ubiquitous “crawler” at the bottom of the TV screen—an endless stream that never goes away.

True to cumulative methodology, Lee Strobel conducted extensive research, interviewing leading scholars and authorities, using numerous “types” of proof—eyewitness evidence, documentary evidence, corroborating evidence, rebuttal evidence, scientific evidence. This is indeed an accurate description of cumulative investigation. I find this method most useful because it tends to examine all sources of information, all types of proof, and favors a logical presentation of the story of Christianity. It presents what is known in the courtroom as “a preponderance of evidence.” Cumulative apologetics assumes nothing. This should not be seen as a lack of faith; rather, it is a powerful and comprehensive approach to sharing the gospel through pre-evangelism. This methodology evaluates hyperbole, tradition, and storytelling. It seeks independent verification (through painstaking comparison) of the gospel by first defending the concept of theism. Because of the prevalence of skepticism and militant unbelief in today’s post-Christian culture, ontological argument alone is ill-advised for sharing the Christian faith. Moral relativism screams, That might be true for you but it’s not true for me.

Concluding Remarks

The story of Christianity never changes, but the means by which it is shared must adapt in the face of militant rejection of theism in general and Christianity in particular. I became interested in Christian apologetics several years ago while taking the undergraduate class Worldviews at Colorado Christian University. Having watched the movie The Case for Christ, the name Lee Strobel was familiar to me. I can relate 100% to Strobel’s desire to take an evidentiary approach to challenging gospel truth. His presupposition regarding “God” blinded him regarding theological matters. His position as an investigative journalist in legal affairs, and his master’s level education in the law, predisposed his skepticism, but this became a powerful tool for allowing him to take a fair and balanced approach. His initial disbelief mirrors that of many individuals, especially during the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries where emphasis is on individualism, secularism, and moral relativism.

There is nothing wrong with taking an “investigative” or cumulative method approach to examining a concept. Strobel, however, identifies an important fly in the ointment. He wrote regarding his belief that there was no God, “And there was another lesson. One reason the evidence originally looked so convincing to me was because it fit my preconceptions at the time” (10) [italics mine]. Evidence is always subject to interpretation, and interpretation also can be subject to bias. As it’s been said many times, worldviews function somewhat like eyeglasses. In fact, Entwistle says, “…what we see depends, to some degree, on what we expect and are predisposed to see” (11).

Apologetics necessarily involves methodology, taxonomy, and epistemology—literally, orderly investigation, rooted in the theory of knowledge (especially with regard to method, validity, and scope), and classification of that knowledge. Frankly, this is unavoidable in part because of the apologia of 1 Peter 3:15. The intent of apologetics mirrors that of the Apology of Socrates before the court of Athens. In fact, Socratic logic is very effective for presenting arguments for one’s position on a given matter. The very nature of point/counterpoint serves to give credence to one conclusion over another, typically applying the logic of non-contradiction. We see this in rebuttal for the absurd assertion that there is no such thing as ultimate truth. To state that no one statement about truth can be true because there is no ontological truth cannot be a true statement. Christian apologetics assumes a positive orientation, arguing for the existence of God. It is from this platform that we must begin any conversation about Christianity.

Steven Barto, B.S. Psy., M.A. Theology

References

(1) “Classroom Scene,” God’s Not Dead. Directed by Harold Cronk. Greg Jenkins Productions & Pure Flix Entertainment, 2014. Distributed by Pure Flix Entertainment, released March 21, 2014.
(2) Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 531.
(3) William L. Craig, in Steven B. Cowan’s Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 21.
(4) Brian Huffling, (n.d.), “Apologetic Methods and a Case for Classical Apologetics.” Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College. URL: https://ses.edu/apologetic-methods-and-a-case-for-classical-apologetics/
(5) Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: A Selection (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1961), 49-64.
(6) R.C. Sproul, Defending Your Faith: An Introduction to Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 73.
(7) Gary R. Habermas, “An Evidentialist’s Response,” in Steven B. Cowan’s Five Views on Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000),, 42.
(8) Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 39.
(9) Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (New York: Norton, 2010), 6-7.
(10) Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 12.
(11) David Entwistle, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, 3rd. ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015), 98.

Our Miraculous Sun

Steven Barto, B.S. Psy., M.A. Theology

“[The sun’s] rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat” (Psa. 19:6, ESV).

WHAT IS OUR SUN made of and what keeps it burning? How hot is it and will it ever burn out? What is the distance from Earth to the Sun? Gazing at the stars at night, it is exhilarating to see a shooting star or recognize a constellation. Seldom, however, do we glance at the Sun during the day and marvel at its properties and its place in our existence. Yet, we know from the pain of sunburn and the many occurrences of skin cancer that the Sun contains damaging rays in addition to beneficial ones. What are these rays made of and how do they travel millions of miles to earth?

Set me where as the sun doth parch the green,
Or where his beams do not dissolve the ice;
In temperate heat where he is felt and seen;
With proud people, in presence sad and wise;
Set me in base, or yet in high degree,
In the long night, or in the shortest day,
In clear weather, or where mists thickest be,
In lost youth, or when my hairs be grey;
Set me in earth, in heaven, or yet in hell,
In hill, in dale, or in the foaming flood;
Thrall, or at large, alive where so I dwell,
Sick, or in health, in ill fame or good:
Yours will I be, and with that only thought
Comfort myself when that my hope is nought.
—Henry Howard

The Sun is a hot ball of glowing gases whose gravity holds the entire solar system together, keeping everything—from the biggest planets to the smallest particles of debris—in proper orbit. The connection and interactions between the Sun and Earth drive the seasons, ocean currents, weather, climate, radiation belts, and auroras. It is fascinating that our Sun, with a radius of 432,168.6 miles (695,508 kilometers), is not an especially large star—many are much bigger. But it is still far more massive than Earth. It would take 332,946 Earths to match the mass of the Sun. The Sun is 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) from Earth and yet its energy travels this distance in approximately eight minutes.

Orbit and Rotation

The Sun and everything in its orbit is located in the Milky Way galaxy. Amazingly, the Milky Way is so expansive we can see it even though we are part of it. Our Sun is located in a spiral arm called the Orion Spur that extends outward from the arm of Sagittarius (see illustration below). From there, it orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy, bringing the planets, asteroids, comets, and other objects along with it. Our solar system moves at an average velocity of 450,000 mph (720,000 kph). Even at this speed, it takes about 230 million years to make one complete orbit around the Milky Way. Its nearest stellar neighbor is Alpha Centauri.

A large spiral with several major and smaller ones, and bar in the middle.

The Sun rotates at an axial tilt of 7.25 degree as it orbits the center of the Milky Way. Because it is not a solid body, different parts of the Sun rotate at different rates. At its equator, it spins around once about every 25 Earth days, while at its poles it makes one full rotation every 36 Earth days. Astrophysicists and cosmologists believe the Sun formed from a giant rotating cloud of gas and dust called a solar nebula. As the nebula collapsed—due to its overwhelming gravitational pull—it began to spin faster and flattened into a disk. Genesis 1:2 states, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” As the cloud collapsed, most of its material was pulled toward the center to form our Sun, accounting for 99.8% of the mass of the entire solar system. “And God said, ‘Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day” (Gen. 1:3-5).

“The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes” (Joel 2:31).

Like all stars, the Sun will someday run out of energy. When it starts to die, it will swell so big that it will engulf Mercury and Venus and most likely Earth. Scientists predict the Sun is a little less than halfway through its lifetime. Although most scientists believe the Sun will last another 6.5 billion years before it shrinks down to a white dwarf, exactly how far the dying Sun will expand, and how conditions will change, aren’t yet clear. Its enormous mass is held together by gravitational attraction, which generates immense pressure and temperature at its core. The Sun is already growing brighter. In any event, Sun’s radiation will become too much for life on Earth to handle. As we will explore in the Section “Biblical Concepts of the Sun,” God will destroy the Earth with fire.

“Waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn” (2 Pet. 3:12).

Red Giant Earth - Wikimedia

The core of our Sun is approximately 27 million degrees Fahrenheit (15 million degrees Celsius), creating conditions that sustain thermonuclear fusion. Atoms combine to form larger atoms, which ultimately causes the release of a staggering amount of energy. The surface of the Sun, called the photosphere, is 300 miles thick (500 kilometers), and is not a solid surface like the surface of planets. The temperature of the photosphere is about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit (5,500 degrees Celsius). Above the Sun’s photosphere are the chromosphere and the corona, which comprise a rather thin solar atmosphere. Solar flares and sun spots occur in this area above the surface. Visible light from these top regions of the Sun is usually too weak to be seen against the brighter photosphere, but it is observable during total solar eclipses as a red rim around the Sun. Strangely, the temperature in the Sun’s atmosphere increases the farther it rises above the surface, reaching as much as 3.5 million degrees Fahrenheit (2 million degrees Celsius).

Biblical Concepts of the Sun

“Sun” (Heb. shemesh) is first mentioned along with the moon as the two great luminaries of heaven (see Gen. 1:14-18). Shemesh is translated as “sun” 119 times and “sun rising” 9 times. The Sun and the Moon are referenced in the Old Testament as “deciding the seasons,” for agriculture and for religious festivals. The lunar and solar year was used to determine the length and subdivisions of the years subsequent to the Mosaic period. Sunrise and sunset were the only non-artificial means for telling the hour of the day. The Jews recognized three periods of time throughout the day: when the Sun became hot, about 9:00 AM (see 1 Sam. 11:9; Neh. 7:3); the “double light” or noon (see Gen. 43:16; 2 Sam. 4:5); and “the cool of the day” shortly before sunset (See Gen. 3:9).

Worship of the Sun is one of the oldest forms of false religion (see Job 31:26, 31:27), common among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and other pagan nations. Israel was warned against this form of idolatry (see Duet. 4:19, 17:3; 2 Kings 23:11; Jeremiah 19:13). Native religions find their inspiration in the natural world. From early times the Sun has been recognized as an important source of life. Many myths describe the chaos that would ensue if the Sun were to disappear. Followers of Shintoism believe Amaterasu is the sun goddess. Worshiping the Sun as the most prominent and powerful agent in the kingdom of nature was widely diffused throughout the countries adjacent to Palestine. The Arabs paid direct worship to the Sun, but did not erect any statue or symbol (see Job 31:26; 31:27).

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3).

The Sun is often mentioned in Scripture in connection with the common cycle, routines, and activities of life (see Eccl. 1:3-5, 6:5, 12:2). “Under the Sun” or “under the heavens” refers to the universality of human experiences everywhere in the world. The Sun is critical for sustaining life on Earth. It is also a source of blessing. God causes the Sun to rise on the righteous and on the unrighteous (see Matt. 5:45). Jeremiah 31:35 says the Sun provides light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night. The Sun is also said to carry a negative force. In most cases it is the absence of sunshine that is noted in connection with God’s judgment: “The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes” (Joel 2:31). Thus Joel prophesies that in connection with the coming Day of the Lord, “I will display wonders in the heavens and on earth; blood, fire, and columns of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the great and inspiring Day of the LORD comes” (Joel 2:31).

“And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God” (John 3:19-21).

The ultimate result of God’s plan for redemption will restore man’s relationship with God for those who believe in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Restoration applies also to all of creation. Peter tells us the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved (2 Pet. 3:10). Isaiah writes, “All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree” (Isa. 34:4). Johnathan Merritt writes, “[W]e note that the picture of fire in the Scripture is most often something that purifies rather than destroys. The presence of God and the Holy Spirit are associated with fire, for example, but this doesn’t mean that coming into contact with God will destroy you. Rather, It transforms you. It burns away the old creation to reveal the new creation in Christ.”

Henry writes, “That day will come, when men are secure, and have no expectation of the day of the Lord [that] the stately palaces, and all the desirable things wherein worldly-minded men seek and place their happiness, shall be burned up; all sorts of creatures God has made, and all the works of men, must pass through the fire, which shall be a consuming fire to all that sin has brought into the world, though a refining fire to the works of God’s hand.” This fits hand in hand with what will become of us if we set our affections on Earth and all it has to offer, seeing all these things shall be burned up. God’s righteous fire both purifies and destroys. God’s plan for redemption provides for our salvation and for purifying the Earth for the coming of a new heaven and a new Earth.

References

Science and Religion: The Two Must Meet

Written by Steven Barto, B.S. Psy., M.A. Theology

The relationship between science and religion has always been complicated. The scientific revolution featured tension and collaboration between religious viewpoints and innovative scientific theories.

ALISTER McGRATH SAID, “HISTORICALLY, the most significant understanding of the relation between science and religion is that of ‘conflict,’ or perhaps even ‘warfare'” (1). As human beings, we strive constantly to determine origin, purpose, morality, and destination. Gottfried Leibniz and other Christian theologians have identified the fundamental philosophical question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Those who claim to be nihilists (rejecting all religious and moral principles, and believing life is meaningless) are rare. But believers in the purposeless, random, chaotic origin of the universe and its inhabitants abound. Cosmological arguments come in several forms, but all believe the mere fact that the universe exists suggests a cause. Theists argue everything that exists must have a cause; the universe exists, so it must have a cause; therefore, the universe is caused by a first cause (i.e., God) (2).

Lang Craig, J.P. Moreland, and others believe the adage, “out of nothing, nothing comes” (ex nihilo nihil fit). David Hume said, “But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a Cause” (3). “Nothing” lacks all causal power, because it has no properties at all! Nothing is no thing. Groothuis tells us the “nothing” before the Big Bang is not a subject that can have properties, but is rather an absence of all properties. Zero, divided or multiplied by zero, is zero. I believe the mere vastness and mathematical precision of the cosmos belies a causeless beginning. An actual infinite (which itself sounds like an oxymoron) can never be transversed through successive addition—that is, through incremental steps. We can neither count from one to eternity nor count down from eternity to one (4). Hawking said “…almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang” (5).

The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. —Stephen Hawking

Jeremiah wrote, “It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens” (Jer. 10:12). The universe is a manifestation of the power, wisdom, and love of the Father. In this regard, it is teleological: relating to or involving the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arose. The universe is contingent (inexplicable by natural processes); is complex (the greater the complexity, the less the likelihood an event came about by chance; and, it is made according to specification (featuring a pattern of design which is independent of mere probability). I believe the existence of natural laws is evidence of intelligent design. A complex system cannot assemble itself. Lennox writes, “The design inference is not based on ignorance of the natural world but on knowledge about it, especially given recent discoveries in physics (fine-tuning) and biology (the cell and DNA)” (6).

C.S. Lewis says, “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator” (7). Lennox notes that the laws of nature describe the universe, but they actually explain nothing. We were designed to be curious, inquisitive, imaginative, determined. It is natural for us to ask questions. But it is extremely important to realize not all questions (especially regarding origin, meaning, morality, and destiny) can be answered by science alone. Feynman writes, “The fact that there are rules at all to be checked is a kind of miracle; that it is possible to find a rule, like the inverse-square law of gravitation, is some sort of miracle. It is not understood at all, but it leads to the possibility of prediction—that means it tells you what you would expect to happen in an experiment you have not yet done” (8).

Myth: Science Depends on Reason but Christianity Does Not

While there are religions that feature an anti-intellectualism, Christianity is not one of them. Science is a progressive human undertaking. It is built squarely upon the cumulative observation of a cause/effect paradigm, and verified through the scientific method. The basic steps of the scientific method are: (1) make an observation that describes a problem; (2) create a hypothesis; (3) test the hypothesis; and (4) draw conclusions and refine the hypothesis. Critical thinking is a key component of the scientific method. But this way of thinking is not limited to science. We use common sense (rational) thinking in nearly every situation. Remarkably, this model of inquiry is featured in Scripture. Jesus referred to mental faculties in Mark 12:30: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (italics mine). Notice the reference to mind: God is not anti-reason. Merriam-Webster defines reason as “a statement offered in explanation or justification;” “a rational ground or motive;” “the thing that makes some fact intelligible (cause);” “a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense.” It is because of these features that the universe is teleological.

As Christians, we are charged with the responsibility of “…being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet. 3:15). We are to be ready with an “apologetic” for anyone who asks us for a reason for our Christian beliefs. Paul also mentions “…the defense and confirmation of the gospel” (Phil. 1:7). He adds, “…I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (1:16). Significantly, the apologetic of which Peter speaks is a defense of Christian hope. Indeed, as Christians our lifestyle and confession are “on trial” everyday. The key element here is that our defense is one that is reasonably sustained, accessible, and well articulated—as any courtroom defense would be. The Greek word for reason is logos, referring to a universal, divine reason—or the mind of God. The transliteration of 1 Peter 3:15 is, “But as the Lord Christ, sanctify in the hearts of you, ready always for defense to everyone asking you a word concerning the in you hope [sic]” (9). Paul writes, “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (Col. 4:6).

Speaking from the position of science, Lewontin says, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science… because we have a prior commitment to materialism… we are forced by our a priori* adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive… moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door” (10). You may remember from my article Dark Matter and Other Phenomena (Sept. 15, 2021) that God has written two books: the general revelation of creation and the special revelation of Scripture. This provides an excellent means of comparing the rational scientific activity of interpreting nature and the rational theological activity of interpreting the Word of God. In essence, we have two sets of “data.” The first comes from our observations of nature and the cosmos, and the second comes from systematic study of the Bible. As with Scripture, nature also requires interpretation. Paul writes, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20).

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words, “You must have faith.” It is a quality which the scientists cannot dispense with. —Max Planck.

Huxley said, “The one act of faith in the convert to science is the confession of the universality of order and of the absolute validity in all times and under all circumstances, of the law of causation. This confession is an act of faith, because, by the nature of the case, the truth of such propositions is not susceptible proof” (11). Scientific theory admittedly offers “the best account” of currently observed phenomena. But unless we have a crystal ball that projects observation into the future, it is impossible to take an absolute position on whether a scientific theory is right. Instead, ours is a provisional view of science, which necessarily undermines the outdated positivism of the “warfare” model of science versus religion. It is much wiser to state, “There is a broad consensus within the scientific community that this is correct, but this will probably shift as and when more evidence accumulates” (italics mine). Not to worry, because this is precisely how scientific method works.

Dinesh D’Souza reminds us that faith is not a highly acclaimed word in the scientific community. Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson says, “The claims of religions rely on faith [but] the claims of science rely on experimental verification” (12). Science is based on what Trefil calls the principle of universality: “It says that the laws of nature we discover here and now in our laboratories are true everywhere in the universe and have been in force for all time” (13). Admittedly, there is order in the universe. Its complexity cannot subsist without it. Scientists have discovered laws, physical principles, and structures that aid in deciphering the universe.

Science was not founded in the seventeenth century as a revolt against religious dogma. Rather, it was founded earlier, between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, through a dispute between two kinds of religious schools of thought. The first belief held that deductive reasoning was the best way to discover God’s hand in creation; the second promoted inductive experience (including the use of experiments) to properly evaluate and define nature. As a result, the scientific method emerged in the thirteenth century, and the professional position of “scientist” was established in the late Middle Ages, with a great number of scientists being Christians who viewed their work as a fulfillment of Christian objectives. As a result of the rejection of papal hierarchy, the so-called “priesthood of the individual believer” became immensely popular. The “protestant” Christians did not realize they were introducing new theological concepts that would have a huge impact on the emerging scientific culture in Europe.

Quantum Physics and New Interpretations

There have been a number of paradigm shifts in science over the decades, but none as remarkable as discovery of the sub-subatomic world of quarks and leptons. Quantum mechanics, deemed the hardest part of physics, is helping to redefine how the universe operates. The seeming regularity of the universe is based on anomaly, pathology, and holes in the spacetime continuum. At the foundation of quantum mechanics is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states: there is a fundamental limit to what one can know about a quantum system. At a basic level, quantum physics predicts very strange things about matter that are completely at odds with how things seem to work in the real world (14). For example, the more precisely one knows a particle’s position, the less one can know about its momentum, and vice versa. Systems with quantum behavior don’t follow the rules that we are used to, they are hard to see and hard to “feel,” can have controversial features, can exist in several different states at the same time, and even change depending on whether they are observed or not.

Hawking addressed the plausibility of predicting the position and speed of all of the particles in the universe. He writes “Our ability to predict the future is severely limited by the complexity of the equations, and the fact that they often have a property called chaos” (15). Thus, a complete prediction of the future cannot be realized. Although scientists stand a good chance of being right about events anticipated over the next few decades, the rest of the millenium will be wild speculation. Quantum mechanics shows that energy comes in discrete packets called “quanta.” This new theory suggests that things do not have a single unique history, but have every possible history each with its own probability (16). Even what we understand as empty space is full of particles moving in closed loops in space and time. Kuhn writes, “Because it demands large-scale paradigm destruction and major shifts in the problems and techniques of normal science, the emergency of new theories is generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity” (17).

There must be a meeting of the minds between science and religion if we are ever to grasp how a created universe behaves: by what rules, and to what degree of predictability. One such focus relates to paradigms, and how they gain status because they are more successful than competition from existing theories. Paradigm shifts can be rather untidy. Few people who are not involved in the daily practice of scientific method realize how much mop-up work results in this sort of critical change. The dance of science and religion tends to be choreographed by the religious belief itself. For example, there are philosophical, biological, and scientific aspects of Christianity. Moral philosophy asks whether the natural sciences can establish moral values. What role does human cognition play in religious beliefs and actions? Some philosophers argue that religious beliefs are impositions upon mankind. But surely God has implanted is us a hunger for filling our “hole in the soul.”

Religion has always played a role in science. It is no accident that we tend to “look to the stars” for answers. New research has shown us that science and religion need to work together in order to explain origin, purpose, and destiny. Many Americans believe religion and science are compatible on a variety of issues, and the two should not battle each other all for the sake of trying to help people with their lives. The relationship between science and religion must address a number of issues: so-called “conflict,” independent thought, dialog, integration. Although the lion’s share of secular scientists believe science and religion inevitably conflict—as they essentially discuss the same domain—a vast number of authors who cover the subjects of science and religion are critical of the “conflict” model, stating that it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record. God has written two books: the general revelation of creation and the special revelation of Scripture. I believe we cannot achieve a complete understanding of the universe by focusing on only one of these books. Our knowledge of the world must be grounded in matter and in precepts.

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20).

References

(1) Alister E. McGrath, Science & Religion: A New Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2020), 8.
(2) Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 208-09.
(3) Ibid., 215.
(4) Ibid., 219.
(5) Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.
(6) John Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford, UK: Lion, 2007), 168-71.
(7) C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 140.
(8) Richard Feynman, The Meaning of it All (New York, NY: Penguin Publishing, 2007), 23.
(9) Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 916-17.
(10) Richard Lewontin, “Adaptation,” In Evolution:A Scientific American Book (San Francisco, CA: Freeman, 1997), 114-25.
(11) Thomas H. Huxley, in McGrath, Science & Religion, Ibid., 97.
(12) Neil deGrasse Tyson, “An Astrophysicist Ponders the God Question,” in Paul Kurtz, ed., Science & Religion (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003), 74.
(13) James Trefil, Reading the Mind of God (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1989). 1.
(14) Richard Webb, “Quantum Physics: Our Best Basic Picture of How Particles Interact to Make the World,” NewScientist (n.d.). URL: https://www.newscientist.com/definition/quantum-physics/
(15) Stephen Hawking, Brief Answers to the Big Questions (New York, NY: Bantam Books, 2018), 91.
(16) Ibid., 154.
(17) Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2012), 68.

*a priori knowledge is knowledge that is absolutely independent of all experience.