Saturday, March 31, 2012

Who Does Jesus Criticize?

Happy Spring weekend to everyone. It is a good day for the Wolff family. My wife and daughter number 2 are hone, happy and safe. We are still on Spring break. And my nephew Bryan and his wife a healthy daughter Naomi born to them yesterday. There was some concern that the baby had stopped growing, and that there may some health issues. But the baby came out at 5 pounds, 6 ounces, and with everyone healthy. Praise God for the newest member of Bryan's family!

My most recent project is to examine the Gospel of Matthew and see what people and actions Jesus is critical of. Yes, I know God is love, and Jesus really wants us to be nice people by helping the poor (see my January 12th post). But sometimes we can forget that Jesus did preach about hell, and he was awfully critical of the Jewish leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees). And so my hope is that by my looking at the times that Jesus was critical of people and actions, we can learn what disappoints our Lord the most, and from this learn to clean up our lives and our world through obedience.

My method is to not just take a flat statement (You shall not murder), but also to look at Jesus' actions (e.g., Jesus speaking to the woman at the well in John chapter 4.) In the Woman at the well story, Jesus showed us that the Jewish custom of men not speaking directly to women was wrong. Further, Jesus showed that the Jewish hostility to Samaritans was also wrong, and He did this merely by asking the Samaritan woman at the well for a drink of water. So now that you see what I am trying to show by compiling this list, so let's go and see where Jesus is critical of people and actions starting at His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 though 7):


 

Adultery; Matthew 5:27 (ESV)
You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

All people are evil; Matthew 7:11 (ESV) 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Those who are anxious about material things, food, clothing; Mt 6:25, :28, :34 (verse 32-33: the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.)

Those who do not Ask God; Mt 7:7

Divorce, except in the case of infidelity; Matthew 5:32 (ESV) 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Evil; Mt 6:13 (Lord's Prayer).

False Teachers who popularize lawlessness; Matthew 5:17; 5:19, 7:15 (ESV) 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Context is narrow gate, wide gate (i.e., lawlessness) that leads to destruction.)

  • Test false teachers by examining their fruit; Matthew 7:16 (ESV) 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? (Good fruit includes good works, and the fruit of the Holy Spirit.)


     

Those who bear False Witness; Matthew 5:33 (ESV) 33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'

Hypocrites; Don't Fast like them, they look gloomy to be seen by others; Mt 6:16-18.

Hypocrites; Prayer, don't be like the Hypocrites who pray to be seen by others; Matthew 6:5 (ESV)
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

Hypocrites, judging others; Mt 7:1-5

Infidelity; Matthew 5:32

Judging others; Mt 7:1

  • Judging others is hypocrisy; Mt 7:3-5 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.


 

Law-breakers; Teachers of breaking the Law – Mt 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:19 (ESV)
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Lawlessness is the wide gate that leads to destruction; Mt 7:13

Lawlessness, workers of; Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV) 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Those with Little Faith; Matthew 6:30-32 (ESV) 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.

Listening, failing to listen to Jesus and put his words into action equated with a foolish man who built his house on sand; Mt 5:26

Lust; Looking at a woman with lust in your heart; Matthew 5:28 (ESV) 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Murderers; Matthew 5:21 (ESV)
You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.'

Those who Persecute righteousness; Mt 5:10

Those who Persecute Christians, revile them, and speak falsely about them on account of Jesus; Mt 5:11

Those who do not resolve conflict; Matthew 5:23-24 (ESV) 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Those who Reject (repeatedly) Jesus and attack Jesus' teachings, they are dogs and pigs; Matthew 7:6 (ESV) 6 "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

Those who Resist evil; Matthew 5:39 (ESV) 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Righteous Acts (Almsgiving, prayer, and fasting) done to be seen by other people; Mt 6:1-4

Salt with no salty taste is worthless; Mt 5:13

Those who See only the material; Matthew 6:22-23 (ESV) 22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! (Context is of material wealth).

Those who Serve Money, you cannot serve two masters; Mt 6:24

Those who Store up treasures on Earth, which are temporary; Mt 6:19

Those who Swear / take an oath to more than their 'Yes' or 'No"; Matthew 5:34-37 (ESV) 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

Tax collectors as a low standard of morality; Matthew 5:46 (ESV) 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Succumb to the Temptation of the Evil One; Mt 6:13 (Lord's Prayer).

Unforgiveness; Mt 6:12, :15 (Lord's Prayer).

Wordy Prayers; Mt 6:5

Words of Contempt / Anger; Matthew 5:22 (ESV) 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.


 

Here are a couple of quick thoughts. Yes, Jesus hates hypocrisy, such as when a person criticizes another when he is guilty of doing the same thing (see, Matthew 7:1-5). But the other action that jumped out at me is being a law-breaker. Now the law-breaking that Jesus is speaking of here is not the kind when someone is driving above the speed limit. Instead, he attacks those who break God's Law, especially the 10 Commandments – Not honoring God (have no other Gods before Me, Thou shall not have false idols, Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain, and honor the Sabbath Day and keep it holy); as well as harming others (honor your father and mother, Thou shall not murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness and coveting what others have). These are the law-breakers Jesus opposes several times during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17, 7:13 and 7:21-23), as well as teachers of lawlessness (Matthew 5:17, :5:19, 7:15). So Jesus right off the bat emphasizes the importance of God's Law here in the Sermon on the Mount.

I hope to have more on this topic of Who Jesus criticizes, but it is slow going. May God bless you with His love, joy and peace this day and upcoming week. /s/Tom

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Kalam Cosmological Argument _ Point Three

March Madness is beginning, and the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament pairings will announced later today. Although the Gophers will not be in it, they should be a participant in the NIT Tournament. And the Big 10 will be well represented in the NCAA Big Dance, with both Michigan State and Ohio State looking strong enough to go deep into the tourney. Go Big 10!

On my bog, I am discussing the Kalam Cosmological argument with my old friends Ed and John. In today's post, we will be focusing our discussion on the third part of the Kalam argument, that the universe was created, and more importantly, that the universe was created by God. Here again, is the Kalam argument:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

For this post, we are assuming that the first two parts of the Kalam argument are proven true. So does this allow us to logically assume that the third point means that the universe was created by God? I believe it does, and I will bring up two arguments in support of my position: first, only a supernatural "cause" can be the agent of the universe's creation. And second, the Christian God as described in the Bible best describes Who is this supernatural Creator. So let's go, on to the argument!

Because Ed concedes that the universe started with the 'Big Bang', we have taken the idea of an eternal universe off of the table (See, Kalam Arg. #2). This also means that something outside of the universe is the agent for the universe's creation. The idea that the universe created itself is an absurdity – something cannot be created by nothing. And so, the assumption is that there is that something outside of the universe which is the cause of its creation.

Let's think about the points that the Kalam argument has argued for: a) that the ultimate cause of the universe must be supernatural (i.e., it must lie outside the natural universe) and b) the ultimate cause of the universe must itself be uncaused. Think about how many things fit the following set of descriptions:

x is powerful enough to bring the universe into existence.

x is sufficiently knowledgeable to create a universe like ours with all of its natural laws and complex configurations of matter and energy.

x is not made out of matter or energy and is not located in four-dimensional space-time (i.e., x is not part of the natural universe).

x does not depend upon anything besides itself for its existence.

(I got this last section from somewhere on the web, but I don't remember the website.) I suggest that only one thing that fits that description: God. Consequently, this means that the Kalam argument proves the existence of God.

To support this conclusion, is my second point in today's post. There is only one religion which best describes the identity of the supernatural agent Who created the universe – the God of the Bible. There are many reasons to suggest that the Bible is itself a supernatural creation, including a number of prophecies which came true. But most importantly, the Bible best describes the main problem of humanity – the sin of people. And further it describes God's solution to this problem when He sent His Son Jesus the Messiah to die on the Cross for humanity's sins. That through faith in Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross in our place (sin's punishment is death), we receive absolution for our sins (release from guilt, obligation, and punishment), and just as important, we receive the ability to start living like Jesus Himself. The fruit of this new life includes love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (See, Galatians 5:22). With a new life in Jesus, we are blessed not only in this life, but also in the life to come. /s/Tom Wolff

Sunday, March 4, 2012

The Second Response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Here is my quick summary of the discussion I am having with Edward Oleander (his pseudonym). We are looking at the Kalam Cosmological argument, which is a "proof" for the existence of God - which simply states:

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

In Ed's first response, he disagreed with all three of these positions. His first Response, and my reply were posted here on February 19th. Here is Ed's second response:


 

Ed: Making it simple is really tough, because there isn't a nice simple answer. The response I gave WAS simple, because I sure don't understand the nuances of M-Theory. John went way further in Physics than I did, and might be able to explain it better than I can. Do you remember when I used to joke about my "All points are the same" theory? It looks like I have may have been closer than I realized. If M-Theory pans out, it might turn out that every particle in the universe travels EVERYWHERE simultaneously, which would effectively mean that space is actually non-existent. The big challenge left for M-Theory and Quantum theory is that they don't mesh well yet. We still have lots more to learn. Hawking has convinced me that some sub-atomic particle do indeed pop out of nothing, then disappear again... The Grand Design is his most readable work yet, thanks to his lab assistant who does most of the writing, but he doesn't even get into the guts of the math that substantiates his claims, since it would be like trying to read ancient Greek even for me. Clay might have the best grasp of anyone I know.


 

I firmly believe in the Big Bang, and we keep getting closer to being able to describe how it worked. The philosophical discussion is about what came before the Big Bang, and is ours the only universe there is? We can accurately describe the universe to within 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th of a second after the Big Bang, but then things get fuzzy. What we know as the Laws of Physics didn't begin to form until that point, so we don't know how to quantify what happened before that tiny amount of time had passed. Hawking thinks there could be as many as (editor's note, Ed actually wrote out the number, but by my eyeball count it is somewhere near 1 x 10 to the 250th power) distinct universes besides our own...


 

Tom's Reply: Here is what I know about Stephen Hawking's "M-Theory" from my two minutes looking at it online: "M-theory" deals with the "superstring theory". It doesn't look like it's helpful, because it lacks predictive power, and it's untestable (see, Wikipedia entry for "M-Theory"). It doesn't even sound like it has many supporters, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up, other than its interesting to talk about something you've read.


 

Now when you bring up the possibility of there being a lot of "multi-verses", this is an argument that I can get my tiny-little head around. Let's sidestep Hawking's use of the math to support his idea of multi-verses for now. But because you have told me that you accept the 'Big Bang' theory, and that there is a finite number of other universes out there, I believe that you have conceded Point 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument – Judge John, can I have a ruling here?


 

But Hawking's number is soooo large that to me it's an imaginary number. So even if you claim there are an infinite number of "multi-verses" out there, I don't think this helps your argument. If you are claiming that there are an infinite number of other universes then you are saying that all possibilities exist somewhere. So people like Hawking, assume that with so many universes, it is possible that in at least one of them, life will exist on Earth. Wasn't there a Star Trek episode on this, with the good Spock, and the evil Spock meeting?


 

But getting back to the philosophical argument of whether the universe began to exist – if you believe that there are infinite other realities out there, how can you be sure of anything? Isn't this some sort of philosophical fallacy where you are arguing that somewhere out there anything is possible, so we can't trust anything we understand? You said :"It gets way weirder than that even... If Hawking is right, then what you remember from yesterday might not have happened. The past is only a set of probabilities based on what happens in the future. Because you remember yesterday, there is a really, really, really, high probability that it will always be the past, but it is mathematically possible for it to change…" By making this argument, aren't you falling victim to a tautology: if everything can be true, nothing is.


 

So on what points do we have an agreement on? And is this helping in crystallizing your thoughts on this topic? Thanks again for the discussion. /s/Tom