OK, so it's not really a blog but rather a place to give serious consideration to some of those questions and difficulties that people have in connection with the Christian Faith. Of course the internet is awash with views and opinions of every shade of belief under the sun and to attempt to engage in discussion of all these would be well-nigh impossible. This page is more targetted at answering those nagging questions raised in less obvious ways such as when we hear an issue discussed and no Christian viewpoint is presented or no credence is given to any Christian response. Perhaps some aspect of Christian doctrine is dismissively treated as being held only by 'fundamentalists' which carries that unspoken inference that of course no well-informed, intelligent individual could possibly disagree.
Having said all that, we make no claim to have the answers to every question but in the words of Romans 1, we are "not ashamed of the gospel of Christ" but endeavour to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Email info at wittonchapel.org.uk with comments or suggestions of other issues that you would like to see addressed here.
March 2008
On Creationism.
The Daily Telegraph on the 28th of February, carried an item proclaiming, with great authority, that Creationists peddle lies about the fossil record. This piece was inspired by an article in the New Scientist by Donald Prothero in which he repeatedly accuses creationists of lies and asserts that the evidence of transitional forms is overwhelming and his examples are conclusive proof that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring. "Creationists", he concludes, "simply have no answer to such irrefutable evidence."
Such intemperate language regarding those who hold differing views, betrays a dismissive attitude that does little to enhance the objective, analytical approach that one would expect of a man of science. Sadly, this approach is sometimes taken by exponents of both the evolutionist and creationist positions. The 'popular', media presenters from each of these camps are sometimes an embarrassment to their erstwhile colleagues who undertake serious, scientific research. Both the evolutionist and creationist should acknowledge that in the opposing camp are dedicated, experienced professionals, highly regarded in their fields of expertise, who happen to believe in different models of origins to explain observable data in geology, biology, and cosmology etc. To dismiss opponents as idiots or liars is not going to bring about constructive discussion of scientific ideas and borrows its garments from the world of politics rather than taking the mantle of enlightened scholars. These two positions have different models for interpreting the world around us and the honest will acknowledge that neither one has all the answers.
What of the charge that creationists have no answer to these latest claims? Indeed we most certainly do have answers. Check out some creationist articles on transitional forms at Creation Ministries International.
As Biblical Creationists, we would draw attention to God's word on the subject of origins. In Job 38:4, God asks this question of Job: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Some humility is required from us as we acknowledge that we were not there at the beginning but God was there and has told us that He created the world.
Furthermore, it is the testimony of God's word that as we look at the world and pursue our research and science, we are faced with the proof of his creative power and we are without excuse. "The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
How are we to understand these matters? Do we need degrees in the relevant disciplines to fully grasp these issues? No, for it is "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Hebrews 11:3).
January 2008
On New Year Messages.
This year's New Year message from the Archbishop of Canterbury took up the theme of waste and the need to redouble our recycling efforts in consideration of future generations. 'God doesn't do waste' we were told. Without wishing to be disrespectful, an opportunity to bring a Biblical, Christian message was wasted. As Bible-believing Christians we have an infinitely greater Message to bring to the world and one that offers real hope for all people, young and old alike.
The message we bring is not our own, it is found in God's own Word - the Holy Bible. This message does not need tailoring to the tastes and fashions of the age in which we live - it is a timeless message. This message comes with the greatest authority of any message that mankind can ever receive for it comes from none other than from our Creator Himself. This message offers the greatest hope that can ever be offered because it brings hope of everlasting life. This message is the most urgent message that can be brought since all must one day stand before God in judgment. This message is the most unique message because Jesus said that no one can come unto the Father but by him. This message brings the greatest joy imaginable - there is joy in Heaven itself over each sinner that repents. This message is a message of peace - the peace of sins forgiven and peace with God.
"For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" John 3:16
December 2007
On Blasphemy.
The High Court has recently ruled that the BBC cannot
be prosecuted for blasphemy following the broadcast of the show "Jerry
Springer - The Opera". Widely reported as giving immunity to broadcasters
from prosecution on grounds of blasphemy, it is dismaying to see far this
country has departed from standards of decency and morality.
It was noticeable though, in all the discussion and comment in the press over this ruling, that an appreciation of the true nature of the offence of blasphemy was lacking. Irrespective of how the law of this land is worded or framed, blasphemy, in reality, is not the act of causing offence to Christians or to a particular denomination or church. Blasphemy is the sin of denigrating, reviling, dishonouring or profaning God's Name and as such incurrs God's displeasure. For those sadly unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments, the law on blasphemy should act as a reminder that there is a higher authority before whom we are all accountable. It is a cause of great dismay to Christians that this country has all but lost any sense of self-censorship or even awareness of the seriousness of breaking the law of God. As the Bible reminds us; "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people" (Prov 14:34). The sin of blasphemy is not one to be taken lightly. "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain" (Ex 20:7).
The purpose of bringing these matters to people's attention is that they should see the need to come to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentance. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul describes himself before his conversion as being very religious but being confronted as a persecutor of Christ and acknowledging that he had thus been "a blasphemer" he is able to add "but I obtained mercy" (1Tim 1:13). Paul is able to testify that he had found forgiveness in Christ Jesus even though his sins had been so great: "This is a faithful saying ... that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1Tim 1:15).
November 2007
On Guilt.
A discussion on the subject of 'Guilt' took place on BBC
Radio 4's programme 'In Our Time' on November 1st 2007. Guilt as a
psychological condition was under consideration and the discussion centred
around the idea that the concept of guilt had evolved under the influence of
various philosophers and theologians. Broadly speaking, answers were sought to
the question: "Is the feeling of guilt necessary for us or harmful to
us?"
What then does the Bible say about the feeling of guilt?
A consistent theme in the Bible, is that all of us have sinned and come short of God's holy demands and thus there is a vital need for repentance. As we are reminded, "God commands all men everywhere to repent" - that is all of mankind - and in order to repent there must be not only an acknowledgement of our sin but a repentant heart that feels the need of God's mercy and so appeals to God, confessing our sin and seeking forgiveness. A sense of guilt before God that brings the sinner to repentance is surely not only good but necessary.
Notice the words of David in Psalm 51 after he is convicted of his sins of adultery and murder. He appeals to God, "Have mercy upon me. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin for I acknowledge my transgressions and my sin is ever before me". He goes on to speak of the genuine nature of repentance that is required by God: "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart O God, thou wilt not despise".
The New Testament also echoes this theme when we read that "Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation but the sorrow of the world worketh death". There may be remorse and shame over sins committed but there must be that genuine sense of guilt and true repentance in order to for us to receive forgiveness and salvation. We read that Judas Iscariot "repented himself" after betraying the Lord Jesus but not that he repented before God. We then read that he went out and killed himself.
We ought then to recognise that our conscience and sense of guilt are a part of our moral natures that show us our need to come to God for forgiveness. The Lord Jesus Christ said "I am come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" and since "there is none righteous, no not one" we must all come to the Lord Jesus in repentance in order to be saved.
October 2007
On The Bible.
BBC Radio 4's programme 'Start the Week' on October 1st carried an item on the Bible in which a "religious scholar" on the panel made a number of criticisms concerning conservative views of the Bible.
In particular, two claims were made that are addressed
here.
1. "No one until the 19th century dreamt of taking the first chapter of Genesis as a literal account of creation"
This is simply not the case. There may have been no unanimity amongst the early Church fathers regarding the interpretation of the Creation account but there certainly were those such as Ambrose who did accept it as a literal account of creation.
It was further asserted that not even John Calvin would accept a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Calvin was grossly misrepresented here because he was quoted as stating that the Bible is not a book of science with which we would agree, but that is a far cry from claiming that Genesis 1 is not to be taken as a literal account of historical fact. In fact Calvin most certainly did accept the Genesis account as is clear from his 'Institutes of Christian religion' (see book 1, Ch X1V).
However, what is of more value to us than the views of the Church fathers or the Reformers is the witness of the Word of God itself, and especially of Jesus. Many passages could be referred to but note the following: i) The fourth commandment given by God is to "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy ... for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is". The whole basis of this commandment is a literal interpretation of the creation account. ii) Jesus, in speaking about marriage, refers to the creation account recorded in Scripture when he says, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female" (Matt 19:4).
2. "There is no clear statement of monotheism in the first five books of the Bible" and "Jeremiah and Ezekiel would not have understood the concept of monotheism".
The implication is that Christians and indeed Jews have a view of God that is unsupported by the Hebrew Scriptures. However, an objective reader of the Bible is surely left in no doubt that one of the great themes of the Old Testament is the revelation of the God of Bible as the one true God. When the 'gods' of the heathen are referred to, they are clearly portrayed as false gods and idols of man's imagination - "All the gods of the people are idols, but the LORD made the heavens" (1Chr 16:26). God reveals Himself to Moses as the one true God, the self-existent I AM and Moses makes the appeal "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut 6:4).
As for the Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, they, in common with all the prophets, spoke as representatives of God, "thus saith the LORD God", the true God and not simply a God amongst many. Jeremiah speaks thus - "But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God and an everlasting King" (Jer 10:10) and much of the book of Ezekiel consists of injunctions against idol worship with the repeated purpose stated - "ye shall know that I am the LORD God" (eg Ez 20:44).