Gold was and has been thee thing to safely invest your finances in since ancient times. It never seems to lose its value, as it's demand by mankind remains high. The demand for other metals has fluctuated as civilization has moved from one stage to another. There is the Stone Age and the Bronze Age and so on. During the time of the Roman Empire there was a well known metal that was used for all sorts of things. It was used for face powders, rouges, and mascaras; the pigment in many paints; a sweet and sour condiment popular for seasoning and adulterating food; a wine preservative perfect for stopping fermentation or disguising inferior vintages; an ingredient in pewter cups, plates, pitchers, pots and pans, and other household artifacts. It was in high demand, it was extremely popular, it was everywhere! It was lead.
Lead was by far the most useful and diverse metals used in ancient Rome, a civilization known, among many other things, for its intricate system of aquafers and water transport. The Romans made pipes to bring water in and take water out of their homes. There are still exit pipes in use in Rome today that have Ceasar's head engraven on them. It was everywhere. The whole empire loved it... the same empire that some historians say fell as a result of mass lead poisoning in the water supply.
Just because something "seems" good does not mean we should immediately drop what we know to be foundational and true and adopt a completely new and untproven method of things. There is a reason we don't have lead in our pipes or our food products. Given the knowledge we have now, such actions would have to be considered outright idiotic. Furthermore, one should never abandon something that is known to be true to follow something that is known to be false. Yet, this is exactly what appears to be happening in the realms of truth, knowledge and Christianity.
One book that has had disastrous consequences on knowledge and truth has been the book “Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America” by Darrell Guder. Its content is nothing new, as it poses a postmodern agenda in a place where it does not belong, Christianity. This isn’t a new phenomenon, and so it usually wouldn’t be regarded as anything but a sideshow of heresy. However, more and more pastors and church leaders have taken to the postmodern and emergent movements that are being taught within it, and that is what makes this book and others like it so dangerous.
These books attempt to make a mathematical analogy between the world of truth (epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics) and the mathematical discipline of set theory. On the one side, there is modernism (the idea that there is absolute truth and that it is at least possible to discover and know what this external absolute truth is). The postmodern will try to corner this position “mathematically” by labeling it as a “bounded set.” A bounded object in mathematics is an object (usually a set or a function) governed by a set finite value such that all members of that set or function are less that that value. In mathematics, a bounded set could be all the numbers that are less than or equal to 100. In a physical situation, one could take the height measurement at an amusement park to separate people into bounded sets. If you are below 5 feet tall, you cannot go on the ride. If you are above 5 feet tall, you can go on the ride. Both are bounded sets.
The Emergent Church has taken upon itself to create a whole new mathematical concept that cannot be found in almost any PhD level mathematical text in order to back their new and inherently flawed and unbiblical view of Christianity. They call this contrived mathematical concept the “centered set.” (To see that this is NOT a mathematical term in set theory, I would invite the reader to visit www.mathworld.wolfram.com, a website I used often during my graduate work in theoretical mathematics including set theory, and search for “centered set.” It simply does not exist.) Taking this fictitious mathematical idea, they claim that there are sets such that all elements within the set are categorized based on a single “central” element within the set. They claim that elements which are moving towards this central element are included within the set. Elements moving away from this element are said to be outside of the set.
A few things must be mentioned about this from a purely mathematical perspective. First of all, elements within a mathematical set DO NOT MOVE. If they were changing, they would be called variables and not elements. In the case that a set is filled with elements that could, at a different instance, gain or lose elements, then the set is necessarily just a function of some variable such as time. The amusement park height restriction is a good example. This year, one might be too short to ride and fall into the “not allowed” bounded set. Next year, however, they may grow enough to be included in the “allowed” bounded set. This IS a concept in mathematics. In other words, if the elements are functions of time, then the set as a whole is a function of time.
But the Emergent Church claims that this sort of centered set mentality blurs the boundaries of the set. Given that we were to even accept their definition of a centered set, this is simply not true. Note again their definition. If one element within the set is moving towards the center element, then that element is in. If an element is moving away from that center element or stationary, then it is out. This is EXACTLY the definition of a bounded set!!! An element is either in or out! No element can be both in and out, for that would be a contradiction which is clearly not allowed by the laws of logic.
(For those in the Emergent Church who deny the law of non-contradiction, they are necessarily wrong. The law of non-contradiction says that a statement “A” cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same meaning. For one to deny this law, they must argue that it’s assertion is not true. That is, they must say that for any statement “A,” it is possible that the statement can be both true and false at the same time and in the same meaning. However, if their claim were to be viable, then this must be true for all statements, including the statement of the law of non-contradiction. So let the law of non-contradiction be “A” and suppose the law of non-contradiction is false. This would imply that then that “A” can both be true and false at the same time and in the same meaning. In other words, it would imply that the statement “a statement ‘A’ cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same meaning” is both true and false simultaneously. So if one were to assert that the law of non-contradiction is false, they MUST be asserting that it is also true BY THEIR OWN ASSERTION THAT THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION IS FALSE! Thus, we see, the law of non-contradiction is always vacuously true.)
And so again, we recognize that the so-called “centered set” is actually just a time dependent bounded set. There is no such thing as a set with what the emergent call a “fuzzy boundary.”
In the Emergent Church, the supposed center element is of course Jesus. Those who are moving towards Jesus are in the set (which we have just clearly shown to be bounded) and those moving away from Jesus are outside of the set. This teaching, in itself, is simply part of orthodox, modernist Christianity. Jesus backed this up with His own teachings. Those who abide in Him, He abides in. Those who are good bear good fruit and those who are not good cannot bear good fruit. A good person cannot bear bad fruit and a bad person cannot bear good fruit. You can tell who is a believer by their fruit. In other words, you can tell who is a Christian by their walk with Christ. Are they moving towards Christ or away from Christ. Our measuring stick for telling this is of course the Bible.
By their own standards then, it is possible to tell who is Christian and who is not Christian based on the Emergent model. For example, the existence of Hell and that people are going to suffer there for eternity is a truth taught directly by Christ. If one is moving towards this truth, they are moving towards Christ. If they reject this truth, then they are actively rejecting Christ. The later, by their own definition, cannot be Christians for they are not moving towards the center element of Jesus. If something is clearly taught by Jesus in the Scripture (which Jesus took to be infallible and inerrant), then we are known as Christian or non-Christian by our heart and reaction to God’s Word. Jesus says He is the ONLY way to God. Does one believe that and act accordingly? If so, you’re moving towards Jesus. If not, you are moving away from Him. The former are Christians. The latter are not. The centered set fallacy is in reality just another way of describing the bounded set reality.
Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” – (Matthew 7:13-14). This is the nature of all truth. It is exclusive. One is either right or wrong. In this case, Jesus was either telling the truth or lying. Either a few will make it into heaven or everyone will. If the latter is true, then Jesus was a liar and Christianity is a farce. Truth leads to polarization, the right versus the wrong. This seems intolerant to the Emergent Church. It even seems arrogant. However, I would like to point out that truth is exactly that. It is both intolerant of lies and arrogant in that it rejects anything that disagrees with it. THAT IS TRUTH! If you purport a truth that does not have these characteristics, then I will save you much time and effort in telling you flat out that what you think CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE.
There are still those in the Emergent Church that will posit that enlightenment thinking is dead and we are moving towards a post-enlightenment culture where there simply is no truth. (This is strikingly absurd, as if the statement “there is no truth” were to be true, it would refute itself and be necessarily false. It should thus be rejected outright, something the Emergent church in their ignorance has yet to do.) Of course there is truth, for their very own stance makes a claim to objective truth, a popular truth that was fabricated by man, which is of course no truth at all, but merely flawed human opinion.
The Emergent Church does have a point in that it does not like to see divisions within the Church. Christ did not want this either. Denominations are the product of personal persuasions, not variation from the foundational Christian teachings. These true teachings, as mentioned already, will necessarily result in good works and deeds towards our fellow man. Those who do not have deeds that match their faith do not have faith at all (See the book of James).
However, the Emergent Church tends to take these acts of good deeds and make them paramount. Yet Jesus promised us that there would be suffering and poverty and war and devastation in this world. He does not teach us to eradicate it, but rather to serve in humility to help those in need get through their ordeals.
Our culture is changing. We can all see that. Christ loved those around them when he despised the way culture was moving. He loved prostitutes, but He NEVER encouraged the act of prostitution. He loved those who believed lies, but He NEVER encouraged those lies. Our current culture believes a vast sea of lies. We, as Christians, are called to love those who believe them and yet firmly set ourselves against any argument or pretense that sets itself up against the knowledge of God. Jesus said that He was the way, the TRUTH and the life. Truth is exclusive. Anything that set’s itself up against Christ is to be destroyed. Postmodernism, the cultural movement that the Emergent Church is following, needs to be destroyed if Christianity is true.
If Christianity is false, then none of this makes any difference. Everyone should be for themselves. There is no reason to act on anyone else’s behalf. If you’re going down, take as many as you can with you. This is the logical conclusion of what the Emergent Church likes to call “love.” It is a flat out rejection of truth, which ultimately leads us to no moral or ethical boundaries at all. As a result, the Emergent Church has more to do with atheism, Stalin and Hitler than it does with Christ. Rejecting the TRUTH is rejecting Christ. And by their own “centered set” definition, the Emergent Church is no Christian church at all. It is body of full blown heretics.
2 Corinthians 10:5:
We are to demolish are arguments and pretenses that set themselves up against the knowledge of God, and we are to take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ (who is the truth).
2 Timothy 4:3:
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Recently a new book has hit the shelves that has caused many to be concerned. The author claims to be a Christian, and the book purports to be Christian as well. However, during the weeks preceding the book’s release, word was going around that there might be some false statements made in the book that could potentially render its contents out of the realm of Christianity and into the realm of Universalism. Now Universalism is a term that could technically be applied to all the Abrahamic religions including Christianity. This is because each of these religions claims to be all inclusive. Anyone and everyone can be a Christian if they so choose. However, this is not the definition that we are concerned with in the context of this article. Rather, we will be looking at Universalism as defined by the group called Religious Tolerance (religioustolerance.org):
Universalism is a religious movement which promotes the belief that every person will go to heaven after death. This is in contrast with the traditional Christian belief that one's natural destination is eternal torment in Hell. Only those who are saved will attain heaven.
It is clear that Universalism and Christianity are incompatible. Logically we must conclude that one MUST be wrong, and it’s possible that both are wrong. The critique that follows will mostly be discussing claims that are blatantly not Christian or that simply cannot be true. I will refrain from using the book’s title and author throughout as I am only concerned in addressing the content and not in attacking any one’s person. This is about acknowledging there is absolute truth which can be known, and once known, should be defended. Ideas have consequences. False ideas can have tragic consequences.
The book begins:
“I’ve written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomachs to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, “I would never be a part of that.
You are not alone.
There are millions of us.”
Not yet reaching the second page click on a kindle, I must stop and address some truth claims. The author refers to “some version of the Jesus story” as if there are multiple ways that Jesus actually lived. The author may not be meaning that, simply because he does not take a stance. One stance that MUST be taken regarding this issue, however, is which of these “versions” is true! There are not multiple histories of the world. There are no “versions” of George Washington being the first president of the United States. That would imply that some people say he was and some people say it was a concocted story and some flat out deny there was ever a person named George Washington. Furthermore, we would be obligated, according the author’s treatment of historical events, to treat each of these claims regarding George Washington as equal! This is logically absurd.
Furthermore, one is left wondering what the author is speaking of what he refers to “the Jesus story.” When I look back on my Grandfather’s life in photo albums, people tell me stories and memories they have. It is a reality that a person’s life can be categorized as a story. What is not possible is to have multiple contradictory stories all being true and equally valid at the same time and in the same meaning.
A few paragraphs later, we come to this statement:
“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”
Here the author seems to commit logical suicide by refuting his own stance outright. Christianity does make the truth claim that heaven and hell are real places. (See Biblical book of revelation) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” (John 14:6) Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. If Jesus lied about such a thing, then He would have sinned. If Jesus sinned, He could not have been God. If Jesus was not God, then He could not have been able to bear the sins of the whole world, which Christianity claims He did when He was crucified some 2000 years ago.
The foundation and core of the Christian faith can be found in the Biblical book of Romans chapter 5:
“ Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 5:12-21
In short, the message… the very truth claim of Christianity… is that all people have knowledge of God, all people reject God, all people are guilty before God, and all people are condemned before God. But God, in His grace and mercy, made a way of salvation for the lost in the person of Jesus Christ, His Son and humanity’s Lord. Through faith in Christ alone can anyone come to God.
Of course not everyone has faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. What are the logical implications? If one rejects the person of Jesus, then according the Christian truth claim, they are unable to come to God. Yet, Christianity claims our souls will live for eternity somewhere, so if one’s soul cannot come to God, then where does it spend eternity? Separated from God, cast into what the Bible calls the lake of fire. Jesus called this place hell, and He talked of it many times.
“If your right eye causes you to stumble (referring to sin), gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” Matthew 5:29-30
“It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’
Everyone will be salted with fire.” – Mark 9:47-49
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” – Luke 12:5
Perhaps the passage most pertinent to our discussion here is found in 2 Peter, chapter 2:
“Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire.” – 2 Peter 2:2-10.
The author of the book acknowledges these Christian truth claims. If someone were to reject the idea that individuals will go to hell, they would be rejecting the exclusivity of Christ’s claim. He is the only way to heaven. If they reject Christ’s exclusive claim, then they necessarily reject the absolute need for Jesus as our Savior. If Jesus is not absolutely needed by everyone, then the Bible is full of lies and cannot be trusted. If the Bible, the foundation of all Christian faith, contains any lies whatsoever, the entire book is compromised and the faith which is based on it dies. Indeed, when the author says (weeding out the unneeded connotative word ploys aimed at your emotion and not at your mind), “people have been taught that …Christians will spend forever in …heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever …in hell... It’s been… communicated …that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus,” he is exactly stating what Christianity teaches. Either this claim is true or it is not. To be Christian, one must believe it to be true. One can doubt and investigate for themselves to see which claim is true, but in the end, a Christian must belief Jesus is the only way to God and those who reject Him are cast into hell. It is essential to the message of the Christian gospel. Put simply, any belief system that denies this claim… is not Christian.
I have not yet made it through the first part of the first chapter. I shall continue my reading and continue to post my logical analysis here for all who care to read.
Universalism is a religious movement which promotes the belief that every person will go to heaven after death. This is in contrast with the traditional Christian belief that one's natural destination is eternal torment in Hell. Only those who are saved will attain heaven.
It is clear that Universalism and Christianity are incompatible. Logically we must conclude that one MUST be wrong, and it’s possible that both are wrong. The critique that follows will mostly be discussing claims that are blatantly not Christian or that simply cannot be true. I will refrain from using the book’s title and author throughout as I am only concerned in addressing the content and not in attacking any one’s person. This is about acknowledging there is absolute truth which can be known, and once known, should be defended. Ideas have consequences. False ideas can have tragic consequences.
The book begins:
“I’ve written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomachs to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, “I would never be a part of that.
You are not alone.
There are millions of us.”
Not yet reaching the second page click on a kindle, I must stop and address some truth claims. The author refers to “some version of the Jesus story” as if there are multiple ways that Jesus actually lived. The author may not be meaning that, simply because he does not take a stance. One stance that MUST be taken regarding this issue, however, is which of these “versions” is true! There are not multiple histories of the world. There are no “versions” of George Washington being the first president of the United States. That would imply that some people say he was and some people say it was a concocted story and some flat out deny there was ever a person named George Washington. Furthermore, we would be obligated, according the author’s treatment of historical events, to treat each of these claims regarding George Washington as equal! This is logically absurd.
Furthermore, one is left wondering what the author is speaking of what he refers to “the Jesus story.” When I look back on my Grandfather’s life in photo albums, people tell me stories and memories they have. It is a reality that a person’s life can be categorized as a story. What is not possible is to have multiple contradictory stories all being true and equally valid at the same time and in the same meaning.
A few paragraphs later, we come to this statement:
“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”
Here the author seems to commit logical suicide by refuting his own stance outright. Christianity does make the truth claim that heaven and hell are real places. (See Biblical book of revelation) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” (John 14:6) Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. If Jesus lied about such a thing, then He would have sinned. If Jesus sinned, He could not have been God. If Jesus was not God, then He could not have been able to bear the sins of the whole world, which Christianity claims He did when He was crucified some 2000 years ago.
The foundation and core of the Christian faith can be found in the Biblical book of Romans chapter 5:
“ Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – Romans 5:12-21
In short, the message… the very truth claim of Christianity… is that all people have knowledge of God, all people reject God, all people are guilty before God, and all people are condemned before God. But God, in His grace and mercy, made a way of salvation for the lost in the person of Jesus Christ, His Son and humanity’s Lord. Through faith in Christ alone can anyone come to God.
Of course not everyone has faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. What are the logical implications? If one rejects the person of Jesus, then according the Christian truth claim, they are unable to come to God. Yet, Christianity claims our souls will live for eternity somewhere, so if one’s soul cannot come to God, then where does it spend eternity? Separated from God, cast into what the Bible calls the lake of fire. Jesus called this place hell, and He talked of it many times.
“If your right eye causes you to stumble (referring to sin), gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” Matthew 5:29-30
“It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’
Everyone will be salted with fire.” – Mark 9:47-49
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.” – Luke 12:5
Perhaps the passage most pertinent to our discussion here is found in 2 Peter, chapter 2:
“Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire.” – 2 Peter 2:2-10.
The author of the book acknowledges these Christian truth claims. If someone were to reject the idea that individuals will go to hell, they would be rejecting the exclusivity of Christ’s claim. He is the only way to heaven. If they reject Christ’s exclusive claim, then they necessarily reject the absolute need for Jesus as our Savior. If Jesus is not absolutely needed by everyone, then the Bible is full of lies and cannot be trusted. If the Bible, the foundation of all Christian faith, contains any lies whatsoever, the entire book is compromised and the faith which is based on it dies. Indeed, when the author says (weeding out the unneeded connotative word ploys aimed at your emotion and not at your mind), “people have been taught that …Christians will spend forever in …heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever …in hell... It’s been… communicated …that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus,” he is exactly stating what Christianity teaches. Either this claim is true or it is not. To be Christian, one must believe it to be true. One can doubt and investigate for themselves to see which claim is true, but in the end, a Christian must belief Jesus is the only way to God and those who reject Him are cast into hell. It is essential to the message of the Christian gospel. Put simply, any belief system that denies this claim… is not Christian.
I have not yet made it through the first part of the first chapter. I shall continue my reading and continue to post my logical analysis here for all who care to read.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Analogy of the Trinity
When it comes to analogies of the Trinity, we must take care to remember that anything we can think of or encounter will not be exhaustively sufficient to explain the triune nature of God. That’s why they’re called analogies. If any analogy were to describe the Trinity perfectly, it would cease to be an analogy and it would become the Trinity itself. Yet, this does not mean we should not endeavor to understand who God is and how He functions. Thus we strive to find better ways in which our finite minds might grasp the infinite complexities of God.
There are many analogies that float around that attempt to describe certain aspects of the Trinity. The example of the egg is often used. The shell is the Father, the egg white is the Son, and the yolk is the Holy Spirit. There is also the example of the 3 physical forms of material, such as water. Ice, water and steam are all water, yet they serve different purposes. These are great examples for many reasons, and they do wonders when speaking with certain audiences. However, they are but analogies, and as such they each contain notable flaws. The three parts of an egg do indeed make up the totality of an egg. An egg is not a complete egg without these three parts. In this way it explains the Trinity. However, the egg analogy lacks the critical insight in showing that God is One while being three distinct persons. They are inseparable. You cannot take one person of the Trinity in a vacuum. If you could, we could not say that God is One. If you take a shell away from an egg, you still have the other two parts. It’s three parts are distinct and separable. An egg white is not an egg. Nor can an egg shell claim to constitute and entire egg. However, Jesus is God is the Holy Spirit. They are distinct persons, but inseparable in essence.
In a different way, the analogy of the physical states of water has its own shortcomings. Unlike the egg, water is ice is steam. It is the same substance. It is the same essential stuff. However, they cannot physically coexist in the same environment over time. The state of water, as we well know, necessarily depends on the external ambient temperature in which it exists. Yes, it is possible to have ice and water and steam present in a general vicinity at the same time, but those three phases of water will each necessarily have at least one different property than the other two. Assuming Earth’s atmospheric pressure, we know that the ice must be below 0 degree centigrade, the water must be between 0 and 100 C, and the steam must be over 100 C. If this were not the case, they would not be ice, water or steam respectively. It temperature is a defining characteristic of each phase of water. This means that at 40 degrees centigrade, only water can ultimately exist. Yet the Trinity coexists as One God at all times in all situations. God is not compartmentalized by space, temperature, time or any other modes of measurement. He is infinite, and that is the problem that most every analogy cannot overcome.
One way to circumvent the problem of the infinite is to consider something that is not finite. This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy that has been discussed elsewhere. Mathematics and logic are special in that they are not necessarily governed by the existing universe. It is my own personal opinion (one that I would be glad to back up with a plethora of arguments. ) that the physical universe is not infinite in any of its contents or dimensions. However, in a very real sense mathematics and logic do not abide by the rules of this universe. Rather, the universe abides by the laws of logic. For example, imagine that there are exactly 1 trillion “things” in existence, be they quarks, protons, donuts or elephants. We have 1 trillion fundamental things and not a unit more. If that were true, could we still do that mathematical problem 1 trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trillion? Of course we could! But no one would know what 2 trillion things looks like! It exists only in our mind. Similarly the laws of logic are transcendent. The statement “truth exists” must necessarily be true at all times at all places. We know this because the statement “truth does not exist,” if true, would be necessarily false. Thus truth must exist in and outside of any and all dimensions. Logic is transcendent. (This is a great argument for an atheistic friend who wants to use logic to refute the existence of a transcendent being of any kind. It’s a self-refuting position.)
This transcendence is extremely helpful for the human mind to grow in its understanding of its creator. Though I can make a strong argument against the physical existence of the infinite, I would just as vehemently assert that we can dwell upon the concept of the infinite. We can imagine the infinite and often use it in mathematical modeling. (side note: this is another wonderful brain teaser to set before a skeptical friend, especially if they are of the engineering/science/math makeup. They can easily do a limit problem by conceiving the idea of the infinite in their mind. Yet, ask them if they can think of a color that they have never seen! No one will be able to do it! They cannot think of something which they have never experienced or known. So why is it, then, that we can so readily think of and dwell upon the infinite? GREAT rhetorical question! It clearly seems to imply that the human mind has experienced the infinite in some form or fashion) Whereas the other analogies failed in that they were not infinite in nature, a purely theoretical, easily understood, mathematical model would not have to suffer from such a deficiency.
This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy of the Trinity. The first dimension is but a straight, infinite like. There is no up or down, nor is there any forward or back. There is just side to side. Yet this one line must exist for all other things to possibly exist. We cannot even imagine a world in which a first dimension did not exist. It is unfathomable, and thus the first dimension is foundational and necessary for all other spatial entities to exist. In a very real sense, it is the Father of all physical space.
Once we add the second dimension to the first, we begin to see things as an infinite plane. In mathematics, this is usually described by the infinite x and y axis that make up the Cartesian plane. Both the x-axis and the y-axis are single dimensions. They are both infinite lines that are essentially the same. But the second single dimension allows one to see the world around them. We see everything in two dimensions. It is the way we were designed. Even 3D images are seen by our brain as 2 dimensional images. We may interpret them differently, but their appearance to us is always 2 dimensional. It was Jesus who said to Phillip, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). We see God in the Son.
Lastly, we can add the infinite z-axis that penetrates our 2 dimensional Cartesian plane. This addition of another infinite one dimensional line, essentially the same as the first two, allows us to experience things such as depth. What was only a square that we could see on a plane before can now become a cube that we can lift and touch. Indeed, each of exists in three dimensional space. This is the spatial dimension in which we will live out and experience our entire lives. We cannot be constrained to 1 or 2, and we cannot fathom a fourth. Yet, the Scriptures tell us clearly that the Holy Spirit lives within us as believers (1 Corinthians 2:10). We should not confuse our theology at this point and claim that the Holy Spirit is confined to spatial dimensions. That would infer that God is bound by his own physical creation, a logical absurdity. Rather, we are noting that we experience life in its totality in the third dimension, and that includes how we experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We do not simply see Him or acknowledge Him as being foundational. We experience Him.
Thus we see that we have an infinite analogy in which three equivalent things work together in an inseparable way, each to serve its own purpose. Remove one, and space ceases to exist. Yet the only thing that differentiates the x, y and z axis are the letters that we arbitrarily labeled them with. God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Essentially the same while serving different, distinct purposes.
Lastly, this analogy also proves useful in that it is eternal. Time is the fourth dimension that governs the physical universe, but it is by its very nature independent of three dimensional space. A unit cube will be the same unit cube yesterday, today and tomorrow. It will never change, or at least not until the universe ceases to be. But at that time, we won’t need an analogy to explain the Trinity. We will see for ourselves.
(We would do well to remember that this is still just an analogy, and it will never be more than that. God is not confined to spatial dimensions. He created space, and thus He cannot be confined within it. However, for the purpsoses stated, the model serves its purposes, and is still one of the best analogies that I have yet come accross when dwelling on the Trinity.) Perhaps God wanted us to see this analogy from the very beginning, as the Psalmist writes:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands. – Psalm 19:1
There are many analogies that float around that attempt to describe certain aspects of the Trinity. The example of the egg is often used. The shell is the Father, the egg white is the Son, and the yolk is the Holy Spirit. There is also the example of the 3 physical forms of material, such as water. Ice, water and steam are all water, yet they serve different purposes. These are great examples for many reasons, and they do wonders when speaking with certain audiences. However, they are but analogies, and as such they each contain notable flaws. The three parts of an egg do indeed make up the totality of an egg. An egg is not a complete egg without these three parts. In this way it explains the Trinity. However, the egg analogy lacks the critical insight in showing that God is One while being three distinct persons. They are inseparable. You cannot take one person of the Trinity in a vacuum. If you could, we could not say that God is One. If you take a shell away from an egg, you still have the other two parts. It’s three parts are distinct and separable. An egg white is not an egg. Nor can an egg shell claim to constitute and entire egg. However, Jesus is God is the Holy Spirit. They are distinct persons, but inseparable in essence.
In a different way, the analogy of the physical states of water has its own shortcomings. Unlike the egg, water is ice is steam. It is the same substance. It is the same essential stuff. However, they cannot physically coexist in the same environment over time. The state of water, as we well know, necessarily depends on the external ambient temperature in which it exists. Yes, it is possible to have ice and water and steam present in a general vicinity at the same time, but those three phases of water will each necessarily have at least one different property than the other two. Assuming Earth’s atmospheric pressure, we know that the ice must be below 0 degree centigrade, the water must be between 0 and 100 C, and the steam must be over 100 C. If this were not the case, they would not be ice, water or steam respectively. It temperature is a defining characteristic of each phase of water. This means that at 40 degrees centigrade, only water can ultimately exist. Yet the Trinity coexists as One God at all times in all situations. God is not compartmentalized by space, temperature, time or any other modes of measurement. He is infinite, and that is the problem that most every analogy cannot overcome.
One way to circumvent the problem of the infinite is to consider something that is not finite. This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy that has been discussed elsewhere. Mathematics and logic are special in that they are not necessarily governed by the existing universe. It is my own personal opinion (one that I would be glad to back up with a plethora of arguments. ) that the physical universe is not infinite in any of its contents or dimensions. However, in a very real sense mathematics and logic do not abide by the rules of this universe. Rather, the universe abides by the laws of logic. For example, imagine that there are exactly 1 trillion “things” in existence, be they quarks, protons, donuts or elephants. We have 1 trillion fundamental things and not a unit more. If that were true, could we still do that mathematical problem 1 trillion + 1 trillion = 2 trillion? Of course we could! But no one would know what 2 trillion things looks like! It exists only in our mind. Similarly the laws of logic are transcendent. The statement “truth exists” must necessarily be true at all times at all places. We know this because the statement “truth does not exist,” if true, would be necessarily false. Thus truth must exist in and outside of any and all dimensions. Logic is transcendent. (This is a great argument for an atheistic friend who wants to use logic to refute the existence of a transcendent being of any kind. It’s a self-refuting position.)
This transcendence is extremely helpful for the human mind to grow in its understanding of its creator. Though I can make a strong argument against the physical existence of the infinite, I would just as vehemently assert that we can dwell upon the concept of the infinite. We can imagine the infinite and often use it in mathematical modeling. (side note: this is another wonderful brain teaser to set before a skeptical friend, especially if they are of the engineering/science/math makeup. They can easily do a limit problem by conceiving the idea of the infinite in their mind. Yet, ask them if they can think of a color that they have never seen! No one will be able to do it! They cannot think of something which they have never experienced or known. So why is it, then, that we can so readily think of and dwell upon the infinite? GREAT rhetorical question! It clearly seems to imply that the human mind has experienced the infinite in some form or fashion) Whereas the other analogies failed in that they were not infinite in nature, a purely theoretical, easily understood, mathematical model would not have to suffer from such a deficiency.
This brings us to the spatial dimension analogy of the Trinity. The first dimension is but a straight, infinite like. There is no up or down, nor is there any forward or back. There is just side to side. Yet this one line must exist for all other things to possibly exist. We cannot even imagine a world in which a first dimension did not exist. It is unfathomable, and thus the first dimension is foundational and necessary for all other spatial entities to exist. In a very real sense, it is the Father of all physical space.
Once we add the second dimension to the first, we begin to see things as an infinite plane. In mathematics, this is usually described by the infinite x and y axis that make up the Cartesian plane. Both the x-axis and the y-axis are single dimensions. They are both infinite lines that are essentially the same. But the second single dimension allows one to see the world around them. We see everything in two dimensions. It is the way we were designed. Even 3D images are seen by our brain as 2 dimensional images. We may interpret them differently, but their appearance to us is always 2 dimensional. It was Jesus who said to Phillip, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:9). We see God in the Son.
Lastly, we can add the infinite z-axis that penetrates our 2 dimensional Cartesian plane. This addition of another infinite one dimensional line, essentially the same as the first two, allows us to experience things such as depth. What was only a square that we could see on a plane before can now become a cube that we can lift and touch. Indeed, each of exists in three dimensional space. This is the spatial dimension in which we will live out and experience our entire lives. We cannot be constrained to 1 or 2, and we cannot fathom a fourth. Yet, the Scriptures tell us clearly that the Holy Spirit lives within us as believers (1 Corinthians 2:10). We should not confuse our theology at this point and claim that the Holy Spirit is confined to spatial dimensions. That would infer that God is bound by his own physical creation, a logical absurdity. Rather, we are noting that we experience life in its totality in the third dimension, and that includes how we experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We do not simply see Him or acknowledge Him as being foundational. We experience Him.
Thus we see that we have an infinite analogy in which three equivalent things work together in an inseparable way, each to serve its own purpose. Remove one, and space ceases to exist. Yet the only thing that differentiates the x, y and z axis are the letters that we arbitrarily labeled them with. God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Essentially the same while serving different, distinct purposes.
Lastly, this analogy also proves useful in that it is eternal. Time is the fourth dimension that governs the physical universe, but it is by its very nature independent of three dimensional space. A unit cube will be the same unit cube yesterday, today and tomorrow. It will never change, or at least not until the universe ceases to be. But at that time, we won’t need an analogy to explain the Trinity. We will see for ourselves.
(We would do well to remember that this is still just an analogy, and it will never be more than that. God is not confined to spatial dimensions. He created space, and thus He cannot be confined within it. However, for the purpsoses stated, the model serves its purposes, and is still one of the best analogies that I have yet come accross when dwelling on the Trinity.) Perhaps God wanted us to see this analogy from the very beginning, as the Psalmist writes:
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands. – Psalm 19:1
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
