Tag Archive for: Trinity

What is so sacred about sex? – Part 2

/1 Comment/in , /by

This continues from part 1…..

In part one of this article, we discussed the sexual mood of our present culture and whether or not as human beings, we are the owners of our own bodies and minds. We ended on the note that if it is the case that we have been made or created by someone else for his own purposes, then surely we would have a lot more obligations than we would have if we only belonged to ourselves. But we also noted that, this is a big “IF” because some people do not believe (or at least they live as if they don’t believe) that there is any Being higher than ourselves, to whom we must be responsible. Is it reasonable to believe that an actual Being exists who is responsible for our existence and to whom we might be accountable to, regarding our sexual lives? If there is the possibility for such a Being to exist, why would he be interested in what we do with our bodies sexually?

For starters, let us be brutally honest with ourselves: everything in this world – from ourselves to the flowers to the stars to sea to animals etc – points to the fact that some sort of careful designing has gone into the creation of our world and of ourselves, doesn’t it? We often take it for granted that this physical world of ours is structured the way it is. But mathematically speaking, the probability of this world happening by a mindless random or unordered process is incredibly small. According to Astrophysicist Hugh Ross’ conservative calculation, the chance of a planet like ours existing in the universe is about 1 in a trillion billion billion (i.e. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 in 10 raised to the power 30).

 Scientists are discovering that had even a single feature of our universe been just a little bit different, the stars, galaxies and human life would not exist. Let us briefly look at a few amazing scientific discoveries before we go on. The distance from the earth to the sun is just right. Why? Even a small change of around 2% and all life would cease. If the earth was too near the sun, water would evaporate. If it was too far from the sun, its coldness level would not support life. In fact, even the rotation speed of the earth is just right; if it was too slow, the temperature differences between day and night would be too extreme, and if it was too fast the wind speeds would be catastrophic. Furthermore, if the ratio of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces had differed by about one part in ten thousand billion billion billion billion (i.e. 1 part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000), then stars such as the Sun, which are capable of supporting life, could not exist. Do you see any picture emerging?

The delicate balance of the elements in our universe, to use the illustration of the theoretical physicist Paul Davies, is like the accuracy level that a marksman needs in order to hit a coin twenty billion light years away on the other side of the observable universe. [A light year is the speed travelled by light in one year. And light, by the way, has the fastest travelling speed in our universe]. In fact it has been noted by some researchers that the earth is placed precisely in a part of the universe that is congenial to scientific studies in cosmology, galactic astronomy, stellar astrophysics and geophysics. That is, if our earth had been positioned in a part of the universe with too much starlight, we could not have been able to see into deep space. There are more than 3000 galaxies in the observable universe, each containing millions to trillions of stars – many being bigger than the earth.

Further, Oxford mathematician John Lennox in his book, ‘God’s undertaker: has Science buried God?’, notes that the distinguished mathematician and astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, admitted that his atheism was shaken profoundly when he discovered the degree of fine-tuning needed between the nuclear ground state energy levels in order for carbon to be formed either by a combination of three helium nuclei, or by a combination of nuclei of helium and beryllium. (And for the record, life cannot exist on earth without an abundant supply of carbon). Sir Hoyle’s discovery, according to Lennox, led him to remark that, “a superintellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology,” and that “there are no blind forces in nature worth talking about.” Interesting isn’t it? And let us not forget the issue of the human DNA – the molecule containing coded instructions for the cells in the body. A group of scientists have recently estimated that the adult body contains about 37.2 trillion cells, each containing DNA. Each person’s complete DNA is unique; the exception being identical twins. The instructions are in what is called Genetic language and they are detailed, complex and specific. These instructions include for example, which cells should grow and when, which cells should die and when, which cells should make hair and what colour it should be.  If all this sounds too technical, then let me make it simple: the scientific discoveries are pointing in the direction where it is highly unlikely that an intelligent Being did not plan and execute the creation of this whole skilfully crafted universe, including human beings like us.

What is my point with all this information? It is this: if conditions in this universe, and the nature of our human bodies, are the way they are – so delicately precision-tuned – and if human beings like us posses the kind of intelligence we posses, even to study them, then it is very reasonable to (and unreasonable not to) suppose that a more intelligent Being, (1) is out there, (2) is the cause of our beings and (3) is interested in our lives. Now if we relate this thought to Mr. Lewis’ thoughts about moral duties (discussed in part one of this article), we can say with a fair degree of confidence that the whole of mankind must have a Landlord. Our bodies, strictly speaking, are not ours. Our Landlord is this Intelligent Being who created this world and everything in it. Religious folks simply call him, God. Since this God is the cause of our intricately designed bodies and existence, it is not mind-boggling that any “Dos and Don’ts” on how we use our bodies should come from him.

 

A Curious Worldview

 In his speech to the members of the city council of Athens, Paul the apostle of Christ tried to give them a new view of God, saying, “God, who made the world and everything in it, is Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples made by human hands.” (Acts 17:24 GNB) In a city so used to building alters and shrines for every imaginable god, this news was however unimaginable. But to the people in the city of Corinth (a city well-known for its immorality), who became believers in Jesus Christ, Paul wrote them a letter in which he explained to them the sacredness of their bodies: “…the body is not to be used for sexual immorality, but to serve the Lord, and the Lord provides for the body. God raised the Lord [i.e. Jesus] from death and will also raise us by his power. … Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and who was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourselves but to God; he bought you for a price. So use your bodies for God’s glory.” (1 Cor. 6: 13,14, 19,20 GNB). Dr Ravi Zacharias, a Christian philosopher, appropriately explains that, “the Christian walks with God, not to God. We no longer go to the temple to worship. Rather we go with our temples to worship.” The body of a believer in Christ, rather than a church building, is the holy dwelling place of God and must be treated as “holy grounds.” Thus what this person wears, or touches, or says, or looks at or reads or listens to must uphold God’s holiness.

So much for the Christian “bodies”! What bearing does this worldview have on those who do not subscribe to it? The non-Christian is a prospective temple of God. God wants to live in this person. The Christian explanation for human existence in general is that God made us and not only that, but also that he made us all for himself (Col. 1:16) and he made us in such a way that only in union with him can our greatest good be had (John 10:10). Sin does not allow this to happen. But God became man in Jesus Christ, lived uprightly among us, identified with our human weaknesses, paid for our sins in his death and rose up and wants to live in us to empower us to live as we ought to. Like C. S. Lewis once observed, God invented us in a certain sense like how a man invents an engine. And when a car is made to run of gasoline, it would not run properly on anything else. In this same sense God made the “human machine,” as Lewis puts it, to run on himself.

The fuel we need in order to function the way he designed us is God himself and the food we need to keep our souls spiritually alive is God himself. We cannot expect to function properly on our own terms. Sexual fulfillment (a major hunger of our generation) with its proper joy, peace and security does not come through the pulling down of God’s boundaries. Without God at the centre of a sexual relationship, our much desired real and secure intimacy which we often believe can be found in sexual intercourse will prove elusive. Any person, Christian or not, who tries to outsmart God on this front will soon find that the last laugh is always God’s, not ours; restlessness, emptiness, meaninglessness, broken trust, guilt and shame will ultimately come resting at our door steps. There is definitely pleasure in sin but it is fleeting. Kenyan Christian Apologist, John Njoroge, insightfully says that, “Trying to meet our real needs without God is like trying to satisfy our thirst with salty water: the more we drink, the thirstier we become.  This is a sure path to various sorts of addictions.”

Even in our limited wisdom, we realize that playing our cherished game of football without any rules does not make it really enjoyable. So we have created rules, in all their imperfections. Even with the rules in place, some people hurt others and get hurt themselves; they offend and get offended during the course of the game. Can you imagine the unbridled chaos that would exist if there were no clear rules? In the same way, we are living in an increasing sexually chaotic culture today because we are desperately throwing off God’s moral restraints: husbands and wives are sleeping with people other than their spouses, young unmarried boys and girls are “training” themselves in the act of sex yet ironically the idea of marriage is appearing uncomfortable to them because of its widely acknowledged moral limitations. God has provided a framework within which sex can be properly enjoyed physically, emotionally and spiritually, and it is not outside marriage.

 In God’s scheme of things, according to Christian teachings, you do not need to be experienced in sex before marriage. This is because you have the whole of your married life to get to know your spouse’s body (God’s gift to you) as your bodies lock and your spirits mesh in sexual intercourse before God. With each encounter you get to know the body of your spouse even better to the glory of God. And here is the rich wisdom of the Christian faith (which may seem foolish on the face of it): Any person who genuinely relies on Jesus Christ before his marriage and also during his marriage will be given the grace and spiritual strength to stay the course of marriage should he find out that he has ended up with a sexually defective spouse. Tough to take in, I know, but I cannot make this truth any more appealing than it sounds right now in a time like ours. Marriage is not a selfish enterprise, where if you are not having a sexually exciting life everything else must come crushing down for everyone in it. Rather it is essentially a self-giving worship of God as you commit yourself exclusively to that one person, to love, to cherish and to seek the good of this person always.

 The Christian scriptures teach that all who trust in God will not be disappointed, ultimately. But break God’s precepts on sex (or on any other issue of life) and you can be sure that you will not only separate yourself from God and into a dark loneliness of the soul but you will also hurt yourself and others. Let us be clear: the idea that God is an unloving and unfeeling Judge up there who is simply watching down to see who has gone even slightly wrong so that he may swiftly punish him, is wrong. God wants to reconcile us back to himself. This is the Christian message to the world. God’s precepts in the Bible are intended to facilitate our happiness and not to stifle it. A parent sternly warns her child to steer clear of fire not because she wants to make the child miserable but because she wants to prevent the child from getting hurt or even dying. How can a child enjoy life when he is hurt or dead? If we separate ourselves spiritually from God (a spiritual death), through sin, how can we expect to receive God’s best? God knows the limits within which our best can be had. Stolen waters are not as sweet as we want to believe. Many people may look happy on the outside but on the inside they may be empty, restless, bitter and troubled because they have violated God in this area of sex.

Conclusion

We were made for God and if we spend ourselves in illegitimate pleasures, we will only come away broken and impoverished in our souls (and perhaps with physical scars too). No one enriches his soul by being sexually immoral. Rather we bankrupt ourselves spiritually; we feel the emptiness, restlessness of the soul, the guilt and shame of sin because we have divorced ourselves from God, who is our ultimate good. A more serious side to sexual immorality is that in the end, we must give account of our lives to the God. Some people realize this quicker than others but the important thing is that we are willing to take the necessary steps back to God through the path he has provided – faith in his Son, Jesus Christ. And to be clear, faith in Jesus Christ is not mere intellectual belief in Jesus as Lord but includes a willful commitment to live the whole of one’s life in reverence of him and his teachings. Christ offers forgiveness and rebirth even to the one who has wrecked himself or herself sexually yet is willing to repent. Are you a mess, sexually? Jesus gives hope and strength to those seeking to please God in their sexual lives.

ON JESUS AND THE TRINITY – Responding to the Jehovah’s Witnesses

/0 Comments/in /by

In the August 2013 edition of the Awake magazine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is an article on pages 12 &13 which is titled, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” Essentially the article argues for the case that the word Trinity and the idea it seeks to encapsulate (an idea which is believed by many Christians) are not found in the Bible. They build their case by tracing the foundations of the Trinitarian idea to Roman Emperor Constantine, whom History recognizes as the first Roman Emperor to have embraced Christianity as his religion (at least if you read the work of the 4th century biographer, Eusibius). The article makes the case that Constantine called for hundreds of the Bishops in his empire to assemble at the city called Nicaea to settle their differences on whether Jesus was God or whether he was created by God. The article however does not explain why the Christians came to be divided on the matter. It just states that they were divided. So let me give you the background story from Eusibius.

A presbyter by name Arius had started to preach that there was a time when Jesus, the Son, did not exist – in other words, the Son was a created being and not eternal with the Father.  This implied that the Father was God but Jesus couldn’t be. Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, at the time,rejected this teaching and asked Arius to recant which he refused. Constantine wrote a letter, not as an Emperor decreeing, but in his own words, as a ‘fellow-servant’ ‘righteously’ advising them to solve their differences. Evidently this did not yield any results. The dissension grew to the point that it was no longer just an issue between heads of churches but was now among ordinary members. To prevent this tension from turning into a full blown instability in the empire, Constantine called all the Bishops in the Empire to meet in Nicaea to agree and outline what was Christian belief in the year 325 AD. Note that by this time Constantine had already come to faith in Christ and had received some education in the faith. As a result, he felt a certain brotherhood with the Church and felt that this disagreement was a disgrace, apart from the likelihood of it causing civil unrest. Constantine attended the meeting on the day of the final solution. The meeting had actually lasted for more than two months.

With this background, let’s come back to the Awake Magazine. The article says that the Emperor suggested they should insert the expression “of one substance with the Father.” This point is very true, but the Bishops did not add it without vigorous discussions as to what that expression meant.  The final Creed at the end of the meeting read as follows (which is a bit different from what we currently recite in our churches, which is from the council of Constantinople in 381 AD):

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:— And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is,from the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead. “‘And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, “Once He was not,” and “Before His generation He was not,” and “He came to be from nothing,” or those who pretend that the Son of God is “Of other subsistence or substance,” or “created,”or “alterable,” or “mutable,” the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The word ‘anathematizes’ implies the Church curses those who say the sort of things listed in the last few lines which go against the heart of the creed. This shows how strongly they felt about preaching correct doctrine. Again, as Eusibius, a Bishop present at the Council recounts,they did not accept the expression ‘of one substance with the Father’ without vigorous discussion:

On their dictating this formula[referring to the Creed], we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced ‘of the substance of the Father,’ and ‘one in substance with the Father.’ Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase ‘of the substance’ was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did,that the Son was from the Father, not, however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term ‘One in substance,’ peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view.

It can be clearly seen that the Council was not about inventing new ideas but about stating in clearer terms, what was an existing view. And this they did. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, would have us believe that it was this expression, ‘of one Substance with the Father’, which in their view erroneously makes Jesus God, that laid a false foundation for what we call Trinity today. Thus since Trinity is based on this idea of Jesus’ oneness with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Christians have erred. The article goes onto say that “… Jesus never claimed to be equal with God.” (p.13) According to the article this is what the Bible says:

  1. “My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”John 14:28 KJV
  2. “I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God” John 20:17 KJV
  3. “To us there is but one God, the Father.”1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV
  4. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 1:3 KJV
  5. “These things saith the Amen [Jesus],… the beginning of the creation of God” Revelations 3:14 KJV

[Notice where they place their emphases, in italics]

If these were really the only verses in the New Testament, then obviously the Church Bishops erred gravely. But you see, the issue of who Jesus is has always been more complex than this simplification by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Jesus Christ is the ‘Son of Man’ (his humanity), yes, but he is also the ‘Son of God’ (his divinity). But the Jehovah’s Witnesses are ignoring this and saying Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. This is not a strong argument. The fact that Jesus did not, in direct words, claim to be God or equal to God does not establish that he did not claim so indirectly. When he forgave the sin of the paralyzed man in Luke 5:20 what was he communicating. He was pointing out the fact that he had the same authority of God to forgive sins. Further he promised his disciples (John included) that he will ask the Father to send them another Helper who is the Spirit who reveals the truth about God. And in the beginning lines of the gospel according to John (this is after the Holy Spirit had come and was leading them into all truth), John reveals Jesus’ divinity in clear terms, “In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God. …The Word was in the world, and though God made the world through him, yet the world did not recognize him.” John 1:1-10 GNB. If this does not expressly speak to the Godhood of the Son, Jesus Christ, I don’t know what does.

Don’t the Jehovah Witnesses think that the Bishops at Nicaea were aware of these things as well as verses like:

  1. “The Father and I are one” John 10:30
  2. “Fora long time I have been with you all; yet you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Why, then do you say, ‘show us the Father’? Do you not believe, Philip, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” John 14: 9-10
  3. “Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge so that all will honour the Son in the same way as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.” John 5:22-23

This just shows the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ one-sided shallow study of the Bible, their intentional bias in selecting scriptures that support a preconceived idea and their wilful blindness to the entirety of Scripture.  When we want to get to truth, we must weigh all the evidence available, not just what suits our fancy. If Jesus did not claim equality with God, then why did he place himself on the same level of authority in the baptismal formula which he gave to his disciples?:  “… baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, …” Matthew 28:19. Also think of the Apostolic blessing used in 2 Corinthians 13:13, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” It shows how the first century apostles saw Jesus.

Trinity, as a word, may not be in the Bible, in fact it is not in it, but the concept that it captures is too uncomfortably visible in the Bible to be ignored. We see three persons (yet not separate) in the one God. This strikes us out of our wits. Mysterious, if you ask me. There is distinctness and a three-ness, yet a real indivisibility and a unity – a oneness in this God of the Bible. A tri –unity, a Trinity!

* Unless otherwise stated all scripture quotations are from the Good News Bible, Second edition © 1994

 

Is ‘Trinity’ An Unwarranted Complication On The Christian Message?

/1 Comment/in , , /by

“… no doctrine more effectively demarcates biblical Christianity from a variety of modern cults.  Given the historical and contemporary significance of the doctrine, it is lamentable that many Christians today are unable to provide an account of the doctrine’s historical development and its present formulation…” –  John Y. Kwak & Douglas Geivett.

I, like many others in the Christian faith, do believe in the Trinity. But like someone humorously observed, “we often pray to the Trinity that nobody would question us about the Trinity”. Indeed the doctrine is felt by some to be an unnecessary complication imposed on the simple belief in the God. It is understandable but this does not warrant its dismissal by Christians. The fact that we do not understand something does not mean it is not true or real. But to be frank, it is hard to grasp a total understanding of it, isn’t it?  That notwithstanding, I still think we can get a rough idea which can go to strengthen our faith and also help us explain the Christian faith better to those seeking some answers.

In their article Trinity: A Historical and Theological Analysis John Y. Kwak and Douglas Geivett  note that key texts in the Bible about God’s nature fall into three groups:

“(1) those that stress continuity with Jewish monotheism in affirming that there is only one God (Mk 12:29; Rom 3:29-30; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5; Jas 2:19), (2) those that represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct individuals or persons (Mt 11:27; 26:39; 28:19; Mk 1:9-12; Lk 11:13; Jn 14:16-17, 26), and (3) those that variously refer to God in the person of the Father (Mt 6:9; cf. Is 63:16), the Son (Jn 1:1-3, 18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 1:15-20; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:1-4, 8-12; 1 Jn 5:20), or the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).  From these texts it is clear that the New Testament church, without yet formulating with precision the doctrine of the Trinity, fully endorsed the three key theological strands that would later be woven into a tight doctrinal cord: only one God exists; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons; and the title “God” befits each of them.”

The Trinity does present a mystery, but as one of the great philosophers and legal scholars of our time, Mortimer Adler, noted, “Any knowledge of God would be expected to bring both rudimentary clarity and legitimate mystery”. God is the basis of all reality and so his nature and his activity should provide an adequate explanation for what we see and experience in life.

There is a disturbing realization one gets from studying the Bible, on the issue of God’s nature. It becomes unambiguously clear that the God found in the biblical pages is not one that would fit our normal understanding of a ‘person’ as in an individual – one who can only be in one place at a time, is bound by space and changes over time through growth. For we see three persons, all portrayed as being One God together – eternal and infinite in all attributes possessed and also changeless in nature; they do not do things independent of the other. There is obviously a plurality going on in that one word ‘God’. Now some believers, I suspect, believe that we have a singular God who manifested himself over the cause of history in three forms – initially as the Father, then later as the Son and currently he is manifesting as Holy Spirit. But the Bible itself does not postulate a theory of a singular God revealing himself as three persons, each one coming into being after the last one has finished his job. From Genesis to Revelation it is demonstrated that these three persons are eternally co-existing and they work together. So it is not one God manifesting in three different forms over time, one after the other, but rather three persons manifesting their indivisible Oneness of being. “Us” is the word God uses in the creation story at the point when man is about to be created (Genesis 1:26). Yet in the rest of the Old Testament we mostly see God using “I”.

The Theory in Practice

As suggested earlier, what God is like in his being and activity ought to provide an adequate explanation for all that we see and experience. Let us look at a concept which we are all too familiar with – LOVE. Love is the embodiment of all virtue and the highest expression of godliness (indeed the greatest commandment of God tells us to love). God, being God, should not have to depend upon his creation to actualize his capacity to love, for that would make creation as important as the Creator since the Creator would be incomplete without his creation. But the Bible introduces love as an interpersonal quality requiring a subject-object relationship and this is what is shown in the Triune relationship of Father-Son- Holy Spirit. The Trinitarian God (which is the God preached by Christianity) is complete in his love relationship without reference to his creation. The Father loved the Son before the creation of the world (John 17:24). “Beloved let us love for God is love”, admonishes the Apostles John (1 John 4:7-8). I am convinced that the very concept of Love is explained satisfactorily only in the Christian worldview for it is embodied in God himself, the first cause of everything in the created world. On this score alone Christianity stands unrivalled and is therefore a serious contender in the world of ideas.

Looking through John 5:19-27; 16:13-15 is just fascinating. The Father entrusts all things to the Son: his authority, his power over life and judgment. But the Son will not do anything by himself; he will only do what he sees the Father doing. The Spirit will not speak of himself nor seek his own glory. He will bring glory to Jesus by taking what belongs to Jesus and showing them to us. Three self-giving, self-effacing persons constitute the amazing God whom Christians worship! Like the noted Christian Apologist, Dr. Ravi Zacharias often says, it is only in the Christian worldview that the concept of Unity in diversity can be explained in the very first cause – God Himself; we find unity in diversity in the community of the Trinity. It is this aspect of God’s character that we seek to reflect in our life and walk as the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed Jesus, the head of the Church prayed to the father saying “I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one …” – John 17:22.

I still cannot claim a full understanding of the concept of Trinity but I do find comfort in the words of Mortimer Adler that any knowledge of God would be expected to bring both rudimentary clarity as well as legitimate mystery. God has given enough information to the world that makes having faith in him reasonable. A Christian thus has reason to confidently proclaim and defend the Christian faith in the market place of ideas.