Violating the Laws of Nature

Miracles have been held to be impossible because they are violations of the laws of nature. But the laws of nature are generalizations about how things happen if nothing interferes. If I jump out of an airplane at a high altitude, the law of gravity will cause me to accelerate until I reach terminal velocity, which, when I hit the ground, will result in my death. But if I am wearing a parachute and open it, I will have prevented this. Have I violated the laws of nature? No, it is the laws of nature which say that if I do something to change the original situation, I will get a different outcome.

The real question in terms of miracles is whether there is a God beyond nature who created the laws and can interfere with them to accomplish His purposes. We are to obey the traffic laws. Unless there is a policeman there directing traffic. However, whether there is a policeman there cannot be predicted by the traffic laws. But even if God was subject to the laws (something I would categorically deny), could not an all-powerful, all-knowing God, working within the laws, produce what would to us be miracles? If human beings, with their limited ability, working within the laws can put people on the moon and fly through the air, could not a God of unlimited power turn water into wine?

It has been claimed that people in earlier times were ignorant of the laws of nature and that is why they believed in miracles. But miracles presume an understanding of the laws of nature. If you do not know how things normally happen, how can you spot the exception? When Joseph found his fiancee was pregnant, he decided to divorce her (Matthew 1:18-25). He knew where babies come from, and he thought he knew where this baby came from. It took another miracle, a visit from an angel, to convince him otherwise. If people had thought it was normal for a man to lift his hand and calm the sea, they would not have said, "What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?" (Matthew 8:23-27). If they had thought resurrections from the dead were normal, they would not have first doubted Christ's and then responded, "My Lord and my God!" when it was proven (John 20:24-29). One of the first objections made against Christianity was by the physician Galen. He said that miracles were violations of the laws of nature. To claim that miracles were accepted because no one had the idea of the laws of nature does not stack up historically.

The real truth is that the idea of miracles is not really in conflict with our science but with our philosophy. We want to believe that we, individually and corporately, are in control of our lives, and the idea that there might be someone who could interfere does not fit in with our plans. But does this mean it is not true?

How Far Should We Accommodate the Unsaved?

How far should we go to accommodate the unsaved? To what degree should we order our worship so they can feel comfortable? And if we do not, are we failing in carrying out Christ's mandate to reach the lost? Now Scripture does teach we are to reach out to those who need to know God (1 Corinthians 9:19-23; Matthew 9:10-13; Luke 19:10). But it also says not to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15-17; James 4:4). You can be so concerned about about being defiled by the world that you are afraid to do what God commands you to do (Colossians 2:20-23; Luke 7:39; 1 Timothy 4:1-5). But you can also smooth the way into the church so much you multiply false converts (Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Timothy 4:3,4; 1 John 2:19). How do we avoid these extremes?

Now I do not believe the basic issue is that of predestination (Ephesians 1:4-6). We are, whatever we hold on that, commanded to reach out to those who are lost and to do the job well (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:10). (Though a belief in predestination may help prevent a person from panicking and adopting some particular approach to evangelism out of desperation.) The question is, what does doing the job well involve?

We are commanded not to change the message (Galatians 1:6-10; 1 Corinthians 2:1,2; 15:1-11). It is one thing to try to communicate it in terms people can understand; it is another to make it over into something they will like. While holding to the truth, we need to reach out to others in love (Colossians 4:5,6; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Galatians 6:10). But loving a person does not mean you do not tell them any hard truths. Suppose I am walking by a house at night and see there is a fire starting at one end. I knock on the bedroom window and those inside tell me to go away and leave them alone. Am I really being loving to listen to them and walk away and leave them? This is not genuine love.

But the application of these principles to practical situations can be difficult. It is clear we are not to disobey God's commandments in an effort to reach people (1 Samuel 15:22). But we need to ask if we are holding on to traditions that exclude people (Matthew 15:8,9), perhaps even with the intention of keeping out those we feel uncomfortable with. But the gospel is by its nature a confrontation (1 Corinthians 1:18-25), and we cannot expect to slowly edge people into Christianity with no sense of boundaries crossed. Much less can we expect manipulation to do anything but make false converts (1 Thessalonians 2:3-5). And ultimately, we must remember it is God's power, not our clever methods, that does His work, and that is what we must trust in (1 Corinthians 3:6,7; Matthew 16:18; Psalms 127:1,2).

Hardheaded Grace

We live in an age of sloppy, sentimental grace. This is true both on a secular and Christian level. The idea is if we'll just be nice and accept each other, we will all get along and all our problems will vanish. There is even frequently an implication that under these conditions we will all automatically become better people and follow God. But it does not really work out that way. There is then a tendency to react and to compensate by advocating strict legalism. To see the goal as strictly observing the rules, so everyone who gets out of line must be immediately condemned. Is there another option?

The place we need to begin with is that we are sinners (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 64:6; Jeremiah 17:9), and grace is God acting to save us in spite of that (Romans 5:6-8; 1 Peter 2:24,25; 1 Timothy 1:15). Further, even after we are saved we are still imperfect people (Philippians 3:12-14; 1 John 1:8-10; Galatians 5:17), and not all those who claim to be saved are saved (Matthew 7:21-23; 13:36-43; 1 John 2:19). Also, we have an enemy that is out to destroy us (1 Peter 5:8,9; Ephesians 6:10-13; 2 Timothy 2:24-26). Therefore, the idea that we can be safe and comfortable and not have to face any challenges, individually or corporately, is not realistic. We are sinful people living in a sinful world, and we can expect conflict.

Because of this we need grace not less, but more. But it cannot be a vague emotional type of grace, but hardheaded grace that faces reality. It must be a grace that reaches out to help and correct those who need help and correction. But it must do so with the realization of the imperfections of the people we are dealing with. It must be hardheaded but not hardhearted, compassionate but not naive. This is hard, but it reflects what God commands in Scripture (Ephesians 4:15; Galatians 6:1; Jude 22,23; Hebrews 12:12,13). It is much easier just to write people off or accept them no matter how they behave. But we are called to represent the God who sent His Son to save those who were hostile to Him (Romans 5:10), but would not just wink at sin, requiring it be paid for (Romans 3:24-26). We need to reflect that kind of grace.

Even for Christians, God is not willing to just let down the standard to accommodate our failings. After we are saved He calls us to live for Him (Ephesians 2:10; Titus 2:11,12; Romans 12:1,2) and provides us with the power to do so (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:28,29). Nonetheless, He deals with us based on our position in His grace (Romans 8:15; 5:1,2; 14:4). We need to behave the same way, not simply excusing sin but doing everything we can to bring people back to the right path.

Remember the Opposition

From the beginning Christians have experienced opposition, even to the point of being put to death for what they believed. Now this does not prove Christianity is true. But it does call into question some of the common explanations given to explain Christianity.

The book of Acts presents the Christian church as being opposed from its very inception. But even if you claim that Acts is a work of pure fiction written later, within about 30 years of its founding, Christians were being put to death by Nero. It is the consistent testimony of the ancient church that the apostles all suffered persecution and all but one died from it. Even if you question this, how did they convince others in so short a time to be willing to die? Some would claim that Nero, being a tyrant, would not have allowed Christians to back out even if they wanted to. But if they had had no determined conviction, they would have simply dumped this belief when it became dangerous. Certainly they would not have kept coming for future persecutions.

There were also many arguments made against Christianity. There was Galen, who claimed that miracles were a violation of physical laws. There was Lucian, who presented Christians as a bunch of naive do-gooders who could be taken advantage of by any scoundrel. There were the vicious rumors that Christians mingled babies' blood in the Eucharistic elements and engaged in orgies after the service. Many arguments against Christianity were there from the very beginning. It is therefore significant to note the ones that were not. Arguments like "Jesus never existed" or "He was just a great moral teacher" and "no one ever claimed He rose from the dead until long after the fact." Or "Christianity grew up gradually over time" and "Christians changed what they believed multiple numbers of times." If these were true they would have been obvious, and Lucian and Celsius and Porphyry would have trumpeted them everywhere. And it is difficult to see how the Christians could have hushed the whole thing up.

This brings us to the basic questions. Who was Jesus Christ? Was He a legend that grew up before the critics could notice it? Was He the greatest con-man of all time, and if so how did He pull it off (and what did He think He was going to get out of it)? Was He a crazy who thought He was God, and if so how was He able to appear sane enough to get people to die for Him? Or was He really who He claimed to be--God who became man to pay the penalty for sins. What really happened to leave the tomb empty that Sunday morning (and if it was not empty, how did people come to believe it was)? The existence of the opposition to Christianity does not answer these questions. But it does call into question certain simplistic answers.

Rearranging the Deck Chairs

It is claimed the current church is an institution. Some want to preserve the institution. Others want to destroy the institution to unleash the real power of God's people. Who is right?

It is interesting the New Testament has very little to say about the organization of the church. Now it needs to be made clear that the church is not the organization but the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22,23; 5:23; Colossians 1:18), into which all true believers in Christ are placed (Ephesians 2:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Romans 12:4,5). Also, this body is to be organized (Ephesians 4:11-13; Hebrews 13:17; Titus 1:5), but beyond basic principles, such as that we are to have qualified leaders (1 Timothy 3:1-13), we are not given a lot of details.

God could have outlined the organization of the New Testament church in great detail. He did so for the divisions of the Levites in the Old Testament (1 Chronicles 24-26). The fact God does not do this for the organization of the Christian church indicates He did not intend to. But if God was against organization, He would have commanded against it. I do not find any such commandments. I am forced to conclude that God, beyond the basic principles He has laid down, did not intend to command a specific form of church government. But if He has left it open, could it be this is because it is not that important?

Could it be that attempting to save the present church by tinkering with the organization is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? But the Christian church is not the Titanic, and though it is hit by iceberg after iceberg, it still does not sink. Could it be there is an invisible hand underneath holding it up? Could it be God is still in control of the world and of His church (Matthew 16:18; Romans 8:28; 1 Corinthians 3:6,7)? Meanwhile, we are panicking and running around rearranging the deck chairs. Or insisting they not be rearranged. When what we really need is to trust God. I am not saying that there is nothing we can do to improve the present condition of the church. But it needs to be done with a calm confidence in God, not in a state of desperation. Also, it must be done with an eye for what is really important. And it requires the realization that it is not surprising if the world at large despises God's truth and His people (John 16:1-4; 1 Peter 4:12-15; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25). Should we be surprised if the world does not respect us? Is that not what God promised us would happen? But while I would not want to hinder those who would realistically attempt to further God's work in the current world, we should not put much stock in the arrangement of the deck chairs.

Where Did We Come From?

There are questions for which our culture's naturalistic view of the world has no good answers. Here are some key ones.

Where did everything come from? The standard explanation is a big explosion (known as the Big Bang). But even granting this is correct, where did the explosion come from? The only explanation I have ever heard is that in quantum mechanics there is a chance (howbeit an extraordinarily small chance) that everything could come out of nothing. This means that the universe came from a coin toss with no time, no space, and no coins. It also means a scientific law can exist and do things when there is nothing there yet for the law to be about. Now even from a scientific point of view the Big Bang has problems, like how do you get the products of an explosion to condense into stars and planets? If you are willing to allow the involvement of God, then it is simpler to say He created stars and planets intact. Why, then, is the universe expanding? According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, if you do not put in the questionable Cosmological Constant, the universe should be either expanding or contracting. Expanding makes more sense. But irregardless, we still need to know where everything came from.

Also, where did life come from? It is claimed amino acids could be produced by an accident, for instance lightning striking in the right mix of chemicals. But there is huge difference between a puddle of amino acids and a living cell. A cell is a complex structure made up of a number of complicated parts that have specialized functions. It is like a tiny factory. You do not get a factory by throwing a batch of parts in a field and waiting for them to come together, no matter how much time is involved. Further, while there are serious problems with the Neo-Darwinian concept of evolution, it cannot even start to work until a large proportion of the cell's systems are intact and functioning. In fact, the whole idea of something as complex and interrelated as a cell coming into existence slowly over time makes no sense. Nor do viruses work as a transition form, as viruses live off of cells.

Further, what about human beings? If our thinking is just the result of natural processes, how can it have any validity? Do I not simply think what I am conditioned to think, which has no necessary correlation with what happens to be true? Also, how did this product of purely natural processes develop consciousness? or philosophy, morality, science, and the arts? And why, if we are the meaningless product of a meaningless process, do we long for some overarching purpose in life?

Now I do not want to advocate a God of the gaps. I am convinced God created everything. But I do want to point out that there are huge gaps in naturalistic thinking. And the answers are far from satisfactory.

Who Is the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is God. This is the affirmation of historic, orthodox Christianity. But do we really believe it? And do we act like it?

All too often there is a tendency, even among those who affirm His deity, to treat the Holy Spirit like He is a power source we tap into to accomplish our purposes. We decide we want to be holy or we want to minister to people, and we feel if we will use the right magic formula, we can get the Spirit to produce this for us. But is this really the Scriptural approach?

Let us start by establishing the facts. The Scripture teaches the Holy Spirit is God (2 Corinthians 3:17; Acts 5:3,4; 1 Corinthians 3:16) and that He performs the acts of God (1 Corinthians 2:10,11; Romans 8:11; 2 Peter 1:21). Also, He is a person (Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 4:30) and does the deeds of a person (Romans 8:26; Acts 8:29; 13:2-4). He is not an impersonal force.

The Scripture says that God lives in those who genuinely trust in Christ for salvation (Romans 8:9,10; 1 Corinthians 6:19; John 7:38,39). He is working in us to transform us (2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:13; Colossians 1:29;) and to accomplish the things He desires to accomplish through us (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 3:5,6; Zechariah 4:6). The fundamental issue here is one of attitude. We are to do His good pleasure; we are created to do the good works He has prepared for us; we are adequate to be servants of His covenant. But we can reverse this and see the Holy Spirit as a magic genie who, if we rub the lamp the right way, will grant our wishes. The ultimate issue is who is in control of our lives and whether we are attempting to glorify God or ourselves. We are to give ourselves as His instruments to accomplish His purposes (Romans 6:12,13); we are His body to do His work in this world (Romans 12:4,5); we are not to exalt ourselves (Matthew 6:1-18; 1 Corinthians 10:31).

Now we can choose to hinder what the Holy Spirit is trying to do in our lives, and we are commanded not to (Galatians 5:16; Ephesians 5:18; Romans 12:1,2). The picture is not of us trying to get the Holy Spirit to do something, but of our need to respond to what He is doing. The picture is not that of a far-away, rich uncle who, if we jump through the right hoops, might give us money. Rather, we have a rich uncle standing right beside us handing us money, and we are pushing it away because we think we do not need it, we can take care of ourselves. As an attitude toward our Creator and Savior, apart from whom we can do nothing to obey Him (John 15:5), this makes no sense.