God Is After His Own Glory and that Is Why He Remains Invisible

God created the world for his own glory (read Edwards and Piper). Many people who hold an agnostic position on the existence of God insist that they would believe if God would appear to them personally, or speak audibly from heaven, or write in the clouds "Jesus Saves," or rain fire down from heaven. They say that God is powerful enough to perform these signs and if he expects us to believe in him, then he should perform the signs.

But God does all things for his own glory and that, biblically speaking, is why he remains invisible. For example, we read of the faith of Moses...

"By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:27).

It was Moses ability to live as though he saw God that pleased God, that is, brought glory to God. This seems right when we add verse 6.

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

So God remains invisible. He does this so that we have to believe and trust in him - after all, if he were constantly "proving" himself with various signs, there would be no need for faith (and that would mean less glory for God, something he is not willing to do). It is the dependence of his people that lifts him up, exalts his name, and brings to him a maximized amount of fame.

But of course the Christian faith is far from being an irrational, unreasonable, or blind faith. We believe in the solid and consistent testimony of a trustworthy man, namely Jesus Christ. He told us these things are true, so we trust him. Everybody trusts some authority.

Consider this piece of history from Jesus' life:

When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death. "Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe." The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies." Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live." The man took Jesus at his word and departed (John 4:47-50).

Yes, Jesus did perform the sign and seems glad to do so, but he makes it clear that people should believe his words, not just the signs. Consider this passage.

Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:38-40).

To those who say they would believe if God showed them signs, I challenge you to understand that God does all things for his maximized glory (to which he is entitled as God), thus he remains invisible. Our duty is to trust the powerful words of Jesus Christ who testifies of the reality of God's existence, power, and nature and who also made it clear that we could trust all the Bible.

Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matthew 22:9).

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life (John 5:39-40).

Arguments Used by Agnostics to Support Agnosticism

Robert Ingersoll wrote a treatise in 1896 called "Why I Am Agnostic." The arguments he brings forward are very similar to arguments agnostics use today. Here is a summary and response to a few of these.

The Product of Culture Argument

Premise one: Most people inherit their opinions and beliefs from their parents and their culture. People born in Iraq tend to be Muslims and people born in America tend to be Christians.

Premise two: If religion is so important, one would expect to see people adopt their religious views based on solid research rather than mere heritage.

Conclusion: No religious perspective is correct.

This is a very common agnostic argument, which Ingersoll brings forward immediately in his treatise. But there are some major holes in this argument. For example, premise one is indeed a reality, but why? The reason is because so few people take the time to examine their beliefs, sad but true. However, we must be careful to note that many people do take the time to examine their beliefs and very often change what they believe in the process.

To prove this point, consider the agnostic himself. Very many agnostics were born into religious families, but as they grew older they rejected the beliefs of their parents. So it is clear that not everyone blindly accepts the beliefs they inherit. Many people change their beliefs. Muslims convert and become Christians. Christians convert and become Buddhists. And so on. This type of conversion happens all over the earth, not just in one place.

Just because the large majority of people are content to stay as their parents and culture are (a sign of laziness or oppression) does not mean that one view is correct and another incorrect. Each philosophy of life or religious perspective must be evaluated on its own terms, not based on who believes it or who does not. This argument is illogical, for the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

The Christians are Manipulative and Hypocritical Argument

Premise one: Religious people have committed many atrocious acts and have manipulated and often forced people to accepting their views.

Premise two: Religious people would not do this if their religion was actually true.

Conclusion: Their religion is not true.

You can also read this argument postulated here and here. Bertrand Russell says, "Cruel persecutions have been commoner in Christendom than anywhere else. What appears to justify persecution is dogmatic belief."

Of course this argument holds no water at all for a belief system cannot be evaluated based upon the actions of those who claim to hold it. This is true for a number of reasons. From a Christian perspective, it is true because we believe that though we are saved by grace we are not yet perfect. Thus Christians still do mean and stupid things. The bumper sticker says it all - "Christians are not perfect, just forgiven."

Also, we believe that there are many people who claim to be Christians and enjoy wearing the label, but who are in fact not rightly related to Christ by faith and thus not truly a believer. These people then give the Christian faith a bad name with their actions. But does that change the truthfulness or falsity of the Christian faith itself? No it doesn't. Yes, Christians, real ones and counterfeits, have been hypocritical and will continue to be, but if you are going to attempt to determine whether Christianity is true (or any philosophy of life) then the belief system itself must be evaluated on its own terms.

I will admit that this argument has some validity. After all, one must ask the question, "Has this belief system worked for others in the past?" Those who do adhere to a belief system are, in a sense, commercials for that belief system. For example, I have no desire to join Islam and blow myself up as a suicide bomber! But what I want to make clear is that not every Muslim believes in blowing oneself up. If I am contemplating the truthfulness or falsity of Islamic belief, I should evaluate the belief system itself, on its own terms, regardless of the actions of adherents.

So the argument falls apart even if it has some usefulness and validity.

The God Cannot Be That Way Argument

Premise one: The God of the Bible is cruel, violent, and egotistical.

Premise two: As far as I understand what God might be like, he cannot be that way.

Conclusion: The God of the Bible is not the actual God, if an actual God exists.

Many agnostics go down this road, including Ingersoll. We read in Genesis 6-9, for example, of a God who seems to have no problem killing almost every living thing on the planet. Most people dream of God as the eternally good One, who is filled with innocent love for all creatures - a very different picture.

The major problem with this argument is that it assumes that humans are allowed to construct God as we want him, given that he exists. But if God has indeed revealed himself in the Bible (or in some other way), then humans are to accept him as he has revealed himself not as we think he should be. If you are disapointed with President Bush's stance on the war in Iraq, for example, you cannot simply say, "Presidents do not do that." Sure, you might have in mind an ideal "president," but then we all must face the reality of who the president actually is.

Premise two is weak, therefore, because there are no grounds of authority upon which to construct an idea of what God is like. It is just a personal feeling.

God is Egotistical
What many agnostics misunderstand is the basic interpretive grid for understanding the God of the Bible: namely, God does all things for his own glory. The charge that he is egotistical might be correct, so long as egotistical does not imply sin. God is most certainly God-centered. He loves himself more than anything or anybody else. "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3). "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8). Please be aware that these are two of hundreds of verses like these. All of them clearly show that God loves God most of all.

Thus, what seems to be cruel and violent to us as humans (flooding the earth) is a way that God is maximizing his own glory. This axiom: God does all things for his own glory, is the only way to understand the God of the Bible as a loving and good God.

Of course, many agnostics admit this, but say that they could never worship such a self-centered and egotistical God. But is being self-centered wrong for God? We know that it is wrong for us. Why? Because we are not the center of the universe! There are other people who are equal with us all around us and we are the same basic value as every other person. But would it be vanity for God to see himself as the greatest treasure there is, if indeed he is the greatest treasure there is?? If he did not see and worship himself as supreme, it is clear, he'd be a liar and an idolater. He'd be denying the reality of what he himself actually is.

Read "God Created us for His Glory" and "Is God for Us or for Himself," both by John Piper for a greater understanding of these ideas.

At any rate this third agnostic argument fails as well, since we cannot base our understand of God merely on what we think he should be like.

Agnostic, Agnostic, or Agnostic?

People become agnostic for many different reasons. Read this previous post from a few days ago. 1) Because they are intellectually convinced that there is no evidence for God's existence or that he is unknowable. 2) Because they are too lazy or too busy to examine possible evidence. 3) Because they are caught in a cycle of immoral behavior allowed under an agnostic moral code. 4) Because they fear being labeled intolerant if they settle on a theistic viewpoint.

There is a fifth reason I have observed. Sometimes people choose agnosticism because they hear Christians (or other religious people) saying stupid things or they see them doing stupid things. I'll admit, I was a little bit offended by the movie Saved, that mocks Christian teenagers. But that might have been the world's way of saying, "If this is the way you all act, we do not want to be a part of the group." Very often, we must admit, we do things that we think please God, but that are not commanded in Scripture. (Crusades would be a big example, but we have plenty of modern examples too). So often people are agnostic because they refuse the social stigma of being a believer.

It also seems clear that #2 above is a very common reason for agnosticism. Many folks have looked for God, found evidence lacking and have then ceased looking for him, or have gotten busy with other things. It isn't that they disregard the possibility of God's existence, they are just tired of looking for him.

To these folks I would throw out a thought. Is it possible that if the "evidence" were a snake it would have bitten you? Is it possible the evidence that God might exist is right in front of you? It is possible that some have so heavily bought into naturalistic presuppositions, where everything that exists must have a natural explanation, that even the most obvious hints of a divine being are missed or explained away.

Just the fact that there is life is a big hint for me. Sure, naturalism postulates abiogenesis and sure, that is a possible explanation for life (though as I see it, this is a hard package to buy from any perspective). But it is weak at best and certainly just as unprovable as theism.

Not only this, but it also seems wise to construct a theory giving God the benefit of the doubt (afterall, we are dealing with agnostics not atheists). For example, I might reason this way: If God did create the universe, I might deduce certain things about him. Namely, he is eternal (assuming cause and effect relationships), he is powerful, he apparently has a purpose, and so on. Given these things I might also assume that he would want to communicate to mankind. This seems to be a logical inference. If he created me and I am a communicating being, then it is certainly possible that he is a communicating being as well.

Thus, it makes sense from an agnostic perspective to examine possible communications from a divine being, assuming the divine being exists. In other words, if a person needs to be scientific about this, and assumes that it is possible that God might exist, then a good place to start would be to examine all persons who have ever claimed to be God or to be a prophet who speaks for God.

This task sounds daunting, but really its not. There are not all that many, or least not all that many categories of people who have claimed such things. For example, one need not examine every single god in the Greek and Roman pantheons. They can either be accepted or rejected as a group.

If you are agnostic or know an agnostic, here is the challenge. Don't be too lazy or too busy to do the research. It is possible that God exists. In that case it is of utmost importance that we spend our lives looking for him, afterall, we need to know to what degree we are accountable to him and / or what he wants from us, given that he exists.

The Church's Engagement of Culture in the Next Generation

I (Steve Cowan) just delivered a paper at a regional meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society in which I "prophecied" two near-future developments in American culture: (1) the demise of postmodernism, and (2) the demise of Darwinism. The former will fade from the cultural scene, I think, because relativisitic thinking simply cannot persist in any culture for very long. Every society has to be built on a shared moral vision, and postmodernism, by definition, cannot provide such a vision. Darwinism will soon go the way of the Dodo because it is, as many have pointed out, a theory in crisis. As more and more anomalies challenge the evolutionary paradigm, and as ID theory becomes more refined and culturally respectable, Darwinism will be seen for the psuedo-science it is.

I do not wish to debate on this blog (for now) whether or not these predictions will come true. I would like our readers to assume, for the sake of argument, that they will in fact take place. My question, then, is: what should the church (and individual Christians) do to impact our culture for Christ's kingdom in the wake of these important developments? And what should we do to prepare for them?

Keep in mind that what I am envisioning is this: (1) a culture in which some form of theism seems most plausible to most people--a culture "haunted" by an intelligent designer; and (2) as culture looking desperately for some social/political paradigm to provide a stable foundation for society in order to avoid the anarchy that postmodern relativism would entail. Comments welcome.

Why Do People Become Agnostic?

An agnostic is a person who claims either that knowledge of God is unknowable (strong agnosticism) or that evidence for God's existence has not personally been discovered (weak agnosticism). Furthermore, an agnostic might also be more of a relativist and simply state that God might exist for some but not for others (will call this subjectivistic agnosticism).

Why do people become agnostic? In this post, I'd like to answer that question in four possible ways. Of course an agnostic might hold to his or her position for a combination of these reasons or another reason not listed here, but I imagine this list will cover most of them.

1) Intellectual reasons. Many agnostics have honestly pursued the question of the existence of God and have found the evidence lacking. They see naturalistic explanations as to the origin of life, order and design in the universe, and the existence of morals as providing sufficient explanation for their existence. To them, God seems illogical. They often cannot understand why a good, loving, and powerful God would allow evil in the world.

2) Pragmatic reasons. Some agnostics have not really pursued the question of God's existence. They have not done the research needed to examine the evidence or to look within their own souls to see if there is a need there for God. They are either too lazy or too apathetic. Often they say, "If God does exist, it would not make any perceptible difference to my life."

3) Moral reasons. Some agnostics maintain their view because they are caught in a cycle of immoral behavior that is allowable under their current moral code, based on an agnostic view of the universe. Even though they might concede that evidence for God's existence is strong, they recognize that if they should be persuaded that God exists they would be accountable for their actions and might have to cease the immoral behavior.

4) Tolerance reasons. Finally, some agnostics withhold judgment as to the existence of God for fear that they will be labeled as intolerant if a viewpoint is taken. There have been so many religious conflicts throughout history, and understandably, there is often a desire to avoid these.

It should be clear, there are probably no two agnostics who are exactly alike. Similarly, I have not met two Christians exactly alike either. If you are agnostic, I challenge you to think deeply about why you have chosen this position. Likewise, Christians should be challenged to determine why we hold to our beliefs.

FOX TV Show Unan1mous features Fight Between Word-faith Minister and Gay Activist

Another reality TV show? Yep. This time FOX pits a "Christian" against a "Gay." The result? Chaos. Here are a few comments.

1) The "Christian" is not a biblical Christian, though she often takes a verse out of context (like, "By His stripes we are healed"). She is apparently steeped in the ever popular Word-faith movement. It is very important to know that the views she postulates are not representative of orthodox Christianity. Read this for more info.

2) The homosexual is not a regular homosexual either, but an activist. Anyone who has been a part of the debate at all knows there is a big difference.

3) This means the debate between these two is not what a normal conversation between a biblical Christian and a regular homosexual would look like, even if FOX wants us to think so. Read this blog by Tom Ascol for more insight.

Let's be clear, to affirm the truthfulness of Scripture is to affirm the sinfulness of homosexuality. Yes, there are groups who try to get the best of both worlds, but most people who take the Bible at face value recognize that God deems homosexual behavior as an abomination.

Romans 1:24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

That is pretty clear. But here is the catch. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). There is no person, homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise who has not offended God. Thus, Christians need to approach other people with deep kindness, sensitivity, and love, no matter who they are. This in no way means that we accept homosexual behavior as a pure means of sexual expression, nor does it mean we condone it. It simply means we come to people recognizing their state of depravity before God, which is exactly the same as ours.

On Unan1mous, this is not the approach the "Christian" takes. Instead, she hammers the gay man with Bible verse after Bible verse, mockingly informing him of his eternal destiny in Hell. Rather than smirking about that, she ought to have been weeping. What approach should Christians take? Get to know the person. Let him know you are not homophobic. Ask about his family. Ask about his job. Approach him as a human being who has needs and weaknesses just like you. In so doing, you display the Fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5) and you become a light shining in a dark world.

Absolutely! There Are No Absolutes!

Very often people adopt a worldview without thinking through it and this sometimes leads to some interesting contradictions. In the case of Relativism, the belief that there are no absolute truths, a bold contradiction must be affirmed. One has to use an absolute statement in order to deny absolute statements.

Someone may say to me: "I am glad you have your faith. It is good for you that you believe God exists. But please do not try to push your faith upon me. For me, God does not exist."

This sounds very nice and appealing. It is a way of saying, "Let's not fight, after all, these are mere faith issues." I am not looking to fight either. I'd rather be at peace with folks.

But there is a problem and I am compelled to point it out. We both agree that if you walk out in the front of a moving vehicle, you will be in danger and serious bodily harm could result. We also both believe that (in an absolute sense) 2+2=4.

Well, I believe, with good reason, that God actually exists and His existence is fact for every person in every place. If He actually exists in this way, then He cannot not exist as well. He either does or does not. In order for someone to say, "God exists for you but not for me," the person would have to affirm that there are no absolutes. But this is a contradiction because in order to affirm that there are no absolutes, an absolute affirmation must be used.

Let's face it. Either God exists or He doesn't. Better to be atheistic (God does not exist) or agnostic (We can't tell if God exists) then to be a relativist (God exists for you, but not for me).

Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code

Dan Brown is a great communicator and storyteller, but he is a failure in the philosophy and history departments. He seems to be emotional and angry with the established church for its historical oppression of women (listen to this talk) and he holds to the erroneous idea that "history is written by the winners." The problem with that idea is that losers have also written a lot of history. Josephus was a Jewish Historian, in spite of the destruction and defeat of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Not only this but just because the winner writes history doesn't mean necessarily that he is going to twist the history to make himself look better. He might. Brown assumes he must.

Brown has an obvious agenda to promote his own New Age-styled Pluralism (this is confirmed in his talk). The masses will watch the movie. Many have already read the book. Most will be confirmed in what they already sort of believed, namely, if I am just a good person, surely that will get me to God somehow or another, if there is such a being. After all they think, as Brown failingly attempts to show, the Bible cannot be trusted.

The Apologetics Resource Center is ready with Powerpoint and apologist to come to your church and show you the incredible weaknesses in Dan Brown's theory of the history and life of Jesus. To invite Craig Branch, Steve Cowan, Clete Hux, or Brandon Robbins to come and present this material, and thus strengthen the faith of your people, call our office toll free 1(866)403-0102. The movie is coming in less than two months, so go ahead and make the call.

Marks of a Cult DVD and Basic Apologetics DVD

What makes a group a cult? This is a very important question that is answered in a new DVD produced by the Apologetics Group called Marks of a Cult. Our staff at the Apologetics Resource Center is featured on the DVD. This high quality production is perfect to show in a church or Sunday School setting.

Take a moment and view a couple of sample clips.

In addition, Dr. Steve Cowan, Associate Director of ARC is also featured on a new DVD called Basic Apologetics. So far, two DVD's have been produced, each one contains two lectures. Dr. Cowan covers "The Existence of God" and "The Lordship of Christ" on the first DVD, and "The Authority of Scripture" and "The Resurrection of Christ" on the second one. Dr. Cowan's style is clear, straightforward, and logical.

These DVD's are another attempt on our part to protect the Christian flock from false teachers and to show the rock solid foundations of our hope in the promises of Jesus Christ. Consider investing in these DVD's for your home and church.

The Alabama Church Burnings and Hate Crimes

"Federal and state authorities have not commented on a possible motive, beyond evidence that an apparent prank spun out of control. Defense attorneys have not commented either, but say the fires were not crimes of hate." (foxnews.com)

Russell DeBusk, Benjamin Moseley, and Matthew Cloyd committed at least nine very hateful crimes. As a joke, so they say, they torched the places where hundreds of people were baptized and married; the places where hundreds of babies were dedicated by faithful parents to the Lord; the places counted as special houses of worship by hundreds of people. It is hateful to destroy the property of others, especially if it is the place where they come to meet with God.

But of course, these three jokesters will not be accussed of hating anybody. Hey, these were just churches. That's all. Just because you burn a church doesn't mean you hate church people. Right?

According to an article in Wikipedia on Hate Crimes, if these three were charged with hate crimes, they would receive harsher penalities. But we all know that will not happen.

Why not?

1) Because Christians do not (or at least know that we should not) value a building over human beings. Churches were burned, but the Church was not.

2) Because Christians do not (or at least know that we should not) raise a public fuss when we are offended. Our Lord Jesus Christ was brutally beatened, spurned, and crucified, willingly excepting His suffering for the ultimate good. Since we know our lives are not bound up with the trappings of this world, no use screaming for our rights.

3) Because Christians are more apt (or at least know that we should be more apt) to forgive people when they wrong us. These three young men need the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not our sinful human anger chiding them for a terrible decision.

Yes, what they did was hateful, even if it was a joke, but there is no use in returning hate for hate. May the lack of harsher penalities these young men face (since what they did is not considered a hate crime) point them to the grace of Jesus Christ who made a way for all people to be delivered from their crimes against God.

Romans 5:1, "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."