Well... It's almost 10 and I'm still packing for a month of the super crazy sports camp that is Kanakuk. I'm looking forward to an exciting time of growth and opportunities to make a difference in the lives of a few of these guys. So pray for me, because I can only do so by the grace of God!!!
I'll be back in a month... for a day... then I'm off again!!! Crazy summer. Hopefully I'll remember to post a few of my thoughts when I get back!!
Some of my more faithful readers might remember how I started this blog - as a summary/overview of First Corinthians. At first I attempted to do a chapter at a time, but I quickly became acquainted with the fact that sometimes chapter breaks make no sense whatsoever, and other times, I simply have too much to write. For example, the last two entries I've given have been on 1 verse each!
My entry is going to be a little bit different today, as it requires your input! That's right, we'll see how many people read this thing still... and care enough to send me some insight. The real reason I have taken so long with this part of 1 Corinthians is not because I don't have time. It's because I just don't get it. I've tried to examine it and think about it, but I seriously don't understand. I don't want to just copy down MacArthur's notes here either. There are study Bibles for that.
I have a few questions for you to attempt to answer:
What constitutes praying or prophesying?
Is Paul focusing on a certain setting, or whenever a woman prays/prophesies?
Do you think the word here for "woman" is better rendered "wife" as in the ESV?
Does verse seven mean that women are NOT made in the image of God?
What is Paul getting at in verses 8-10?
Is Paul giving us permission to adjust to culture in verses 13-15a or is it just rhetorical?
Does 15b mean that only bald women need an auxiliary covering?
Does 16 mean that if someone doesn't like it, Paul is ok with setting it aside for their sake?
Let me know what you think! Thanks all. Grace be with you.
 clipped from www.cdc.gov
|
Welcome back to my apologetic series concerning the absurdity of the Bible. Last time I talked about why miracles cannot be proof that the Bible is absurd. The second major objection that Mr. Darrow brings up is the claim that there is no evidence to support many events in the Bible. For this article I'm just going to focus on the virgin birth. He also mentions an afterlife, but it basically merits the same response, so here we go.
He mentions the virgin birth, and asks evidence for it. Now that is quite an interesting request, if you think about it. What evidence could there possibly be for this event other than the evidence he already has: the testimony of the people involved? What artifact could conceivably be left behind for us to discover? Why would you request such evidence, and when it cannot be given, pretend you’ve come out victorious? True, a virgin birth leaves no evidence behind other than the testimony of those involved, but to say that the virgin birth is “without a scintilla of evidence of any sort” is simply not correct.
Another question: why is Mr. Darrow’s standard for absurdity so high? He seems to think that if you can’t convince anybody at any time of the truth of a supernatural event that happened 2000 years ago, then the testimony of the event is absurd. If he wants to say he’s unconvinced, then that’s fine. I can deal with that. But he has not demonstrated that it is absurd, which is what I assumed was the point of the article. Furthermore, where is his standard for absurdity coming from? It seems unreasonable to me.
Actually, his request for evidence in the first place begs the question: what kind of evidence would he accept for such an event? This is definitely something you need to clear up before you try to prove anything to anyone inductively (i.e. with evidence). Before you waste your breath rattling off all the internal and external implications to the trustworthiness of the accounts, check if your hearer is willing to accept such reasoning! If people cannot tell you some standard of evidence that would convince them, most likely no amount of evidence will! And I think it is on this point that Mr. Darrow really trips up.
He says it would be impossible to bring evidence in today for such an event, and, excepting eyewitness testimony, I’d have to agree with him! He then goes on to say that “no one would believe it anyway.” Wait… so he’s saying that even if evidence were given for this event, no one would believe it? Woops! It sounds to me like this “agnostic” is revealing again his true worldview assumptions: naturalism therefore atheism. All evidence he encounters is filtered through this worldview, and therefore can never point to a miraculous event. Keep this in mind, Christian, when you attempt to use evidence to prove the Bible to an atheist (or agnostic).
Mr. Darrow asks for evidence, however I’m convinced at this point that putting forth any evidence will be dismissed because the idea of a miracle is already absurd. His worldview does not allow for a supernatural virgin birth to occur, because he isn’t really agnostic; he is atheistic. He is thoroughly convinced that the natural is all that exists, and any evidence to the contrary won’t be believed anyway, as he admitted. So, Christian, fear not when critics go to the “no evidence” objection. What they mean by this really is that there is no evidence that has convinced them, as we can see is the case with Clarence Darrow. And if they stick to their worldview, then there is no evidence that you can give them that will convince them.
Next time: Addressing Similarities Between Christianity and Pagan Religions
Social justice is a topic I've been pondering a lot recently. So often we hear the gospel getting confused with giving your money to the poor or feeding the hungry. My first reaction to people who mention the poor and such has been rather judgmental in that I instantly accuse them in my mind of compromising the gospel, which most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with your quality of life right now, and everything to do with being reconciled to God through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:9).
However, don't we also see that true religion is to visit orphans and widows (James 1:27) and that we should remember those who are in prison as though ourselves in prison (Heb 13:3)? The gospel is not supposed to save us and then disappear. It saves us and sanctifies us! This is manifested in concrete and purposeful acts of goodness and kindness toward other people, whether they are Christian or non-Christian.
What I am about to offer is just a small step in accomplishing this task. I wanted to let my readership know about a new search engine that I've been using for a little while now called GoodSearch. Every time you do an internet search with it, about 1 cent goes to the charity of your choice. I have chosen Prison Fellowship (as they were the ones to let me know about this in the first place) and thus far we have raised $600 for it since the start of 2007. Prison Fellowship is a prison reform ministry dedicated to giving the gospel to inmates and redeeming lost lives. They are also quite successful at reducing the recidivism rate of prisoners who graduate their program.
You may choose any charity on the list of which there are currently 34,000 and 100 joining daily. This site is powered by Yahoo! so the search result quality is not going to be diminished or anything like that.
The Word is clear that we are to help those in need. This is a great way to do that, while also supporting the spread of the gospel message (should you choose a ministry that does this). The spread of the gospel message should always be our #1 priority, because Christ commanded we do it, and because Hell is not made more pleasant by a full stomach and stable income. If anyone can come up with a good reason NOT to use this search engine, do let me know, because I certainly can't find any.
Happy searching.
