Archive for the ‘Theology’ category

Why I’m Mostly a Cessationist

May 16, 2009

The recent debate with Coramdeo gave me an opportunity to reflect, study, and reason through the issue of Spiritual gifts.  Most importantly, I was able to see the arguments and Scripture used to support cessationism.

The title of this post may seem in contradiction to my previous one.  However, as I will show, I still have the same problems with cessationism yet consider myself to be one.


Most of the difficulty in studying and discussing the issue of spiritual gifts lies in what the heck we mean when we say things.  To some, cessationism means a belief that God never does any miracles, nor imparts His power onto His people in the form of “gifts”, anymore. 

To some, continuationism means those who believe that the gifts have continued in the exact same way they occured in the New Testament.

In fact, even the term “gifts” is hard to nail down.  If God has given me the gift of prophecy, does that mean I hold the office of prophet?  Or merely that God has gifted me with the ability to teach His Word?  Is not speaking God’s Word directly in the lives, hearts and minds of fellow Christians a gift?  If I participated in a healing through prayer, does that mean I have the gift of healing?  Or is it that God just did a singular work of healing?  Is not a singular healing still a gift?  How many healings do I have to be involved in before I “have the gift”?

Do you see how hard to define these words become?  Alot of explanation is needed before we are on the same page when I say the word “gifts”.  In order to clarify, I will attempt to parse out a difference here:  I consider that a “gift of the Spirit” has been bestowed upon someone even if they only do it once.  Does that person “have the gift of healing”?  I don’t know, but at that moment they did.  You can think of this as a single incidence of God working through a believer, it’s the same thing, I’m just using the word “gift” to describe it. 

On the other hand, the office of healer or prophet is someone that can do it all the time.  Just as the man who holds the office of president is president all the time, if you went to someone who held the office of healer, you would be healed.  Some may think of this as someone “having the gift of healing” but I’m using the phrase office of ____ to describe it because it provides the separation we need when discussing this issue.

I’m interested in discussing these definitions and seeing if there is a better fit out there that allows us a better way to think about this issue.

It doesn’t matter what definition to the these words you subscribe to, it matters how people use them.  The cessationism I have a problem with is the one that says “God just doesn’t do these things anymore”.  The cessationism I have become to subscribe to is the kind that says the gifts are wholly different than they were in the 1st century, and the offices have ceased.  I will explain what I mean.

 Historical Cessationism

Ok, the above term is nothing I’ve heard of before.  Perhaps there is a term out there that already represents what I’m about to describe, but I just thought of this one. 

My cessationism comes from the annals of history.  If you read the history of the church and especially the writings of the early church fathers, not only do you not hear of any prophets but you see them lamenting the fact that there aren’t any!  Think about it from their point of view:  There has been a long standing tradition of prophets existing in the world as recorded in the Old Testament, which continued with a flurry as recorded by the Book of Acts.  In fact, you could consider every writer of the New Testament as prophets as they were inspired to write the Word of God.

The early church fathers would naturally assume that this tradition would continue.  However, it did not.  They all looked around them and all they could see was false prophets who went against the Word of God  (There is a good reference here for that).  The office of prophet seemed to be…gone.

Another exercise could be to look around today.  Are there any prophets?  Maybe, but I haven’t seen any.  He’d have to prove himself and, sorry, Benny Hin is not it.  Same with the office of healer.  Sure, God has and does perform miraculous healing using prayer and the actions of His Church.  However, the office of healer is someone that heals all the time.   Think about a guy like Peter.  If you went to him, you were healed.  In studying early church history, and looking at the world around us, there doesn’t seem to be someone like that.

So, history seems to attest to the cessation of the offices of prophet and healer.  My cessationism is historically informed. 

Why the “Mostly”

I can call myself a historical cessationist but not a Biblical cessationist because Biblical cessationism doesn’t presently exist.  That is, the Bible says the gifts will cease but in describing whenthe gifts will cease, it is clear that it is not now.  Let’s look at the verses used to support cessationism and why I can say that Biblical cessationism doesn’t exist.

1 Cor 13 is one of the more popular ones used: 

…but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part;  10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.  12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

There are many problems with translating “the perfect” as the “the canon” and that is explained in one of my previous posts.  The bottom line is that at the very least, it is just as likely that Paul is referring to “the perfect” to be the coming of our glorified bodies in heaven as it is the canon.  In fact, the NIV translates “the perfect” as “perfection”.  The only way that this passage is solid evidence that the gifts ceased with the canon is if you want it to be.

Eph 4:11-13 is also used quite frequently.  The argument made here is that the offices of prophets and apostles have ceased because the church has been established:

11And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

This point is more well explained in my previous post, so I’ll be brief here.  Basically, it is bad Biblical hermeneutics to pick two offices out of the five Paul mentions in the same breath and say, “those have ceased!”.  If those two have ceased because of the establishment of the church, then all five have ceased because Paul lists all five together.  The only reason a cessationist will say that the offices of pastor, teacher and evangelist hasn’t ceased is because it’s obvious they haven’t!  They use the passage when it supports their position (apostle and prophet) but ignore it when it doesn’t (pastor, teacher and evangelist). 

Also, Paul tells us when these office will ceased and, I’m sorry, but looking around at the church today we have not attained the unity of the faith and are not mature men “to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ”.  That is not the Church today.  So just by a plain reading of the text, it’s clear that Paul is not talking about the current church as to when the gifts will cease. 

Remember, I agree that the office of prophet and apostle have ceased, but that’s just not what this passage says.

Another argument used to support cessationism is that if you read the New Testament, the only people who perform the gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing are either Jesus, the Apostles, or those the Apostles laid hands upon to give the gifts. 

The ironic part is that if really doread the New Testament, Scripture doesn’t support this position.  There are a few instances (Acts 8, Acts 19…to name the ones I remember off the top) where those who receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands immediately begin speaking in tongues and prophesying.  However, Scripture never says that the laying on of hands imparted Spiritual gifts.  This is an non-Biblical idea.  In fact, there are two cases in the Book of Acts that render this position irrational. 

Stephen and Philip weren’t apostles, they were deacons, and didn’t receive the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands (as far as we can tell) and yet could perform “signs and wonders” (Acts 6 for Stephen and Acts 8 for Philip).  In Acts 10, Cornelius becomes the first purely Gentile convert to Christianity.  Peter isn’t even done speaking, doesn’t lay hands on them or baptize them and Cornelius and his family and friends receive the Holy Spirit and begin speaking in tongues and prophesying. 


I look in the history of the church, and the current state of the church, and I see that the office of prophet and healer has ceased to exist.  I look in the Scriptures and I find that I can’t say the gifts have ceased.  I see clear guidelines in how to use them and discern what is actually from the Spirit and what isn’t. 

I also see that Paul emphasizes one gift over all others:  Love.  We should not focus on, pray for or consider important any other gift besides love.


Why I Have a Problem with Cessationism

April 28, 2009

This is my third post in the debate on the cessation of spiritual gifts.

So far, I have merely responded to posts made by Coramdeo.  But now I want to explain my true position on cessationism, why I have a problem with it, and why I think the spiritual gifts of tongues, prophecy and healing may still happen today.

Here is my Main Problem with Cessationism

It’s an absolute negative statement.  What I mean is this:  even if cessationists are claiming that only certain gifts don’t happen anymore, and the others do, they are saying that the gifts that have ceased never happen under any circumstances

I got in a discussion with my father over this issue and he asked me a very telling question.  He asked me, “What purpose does tongues have today?”  This was meant has a rhetorical question, of course.  In fact, it is not the question that matters at all, it is the assumption behind the question, the reason the question was rhetorical, that means something.  My father, in his Christian life and theological education, which has been long and extensive, has decided that there is no purpose for the gift of tongues.  Unfortunately, “decided” is not the most accurate word.  “Assumed” is the most accurate because no one can know an absolute negative.  No one can know that there is no use for tongues ever under any circumstances.

And yet, that it what cessasionism claims.

Are we really ready to believe that the Holy Spirit would never, ever use tongues, healing or prophecy under any circumstances?  Even if I travel to a 3rd world country where I don’t know the language, the Spirit couldn’t use tongues to speak a language I don’t know to bring people to a knowledge of Christ?  How more useful can you get?

In order for me to subscribe to cessationism I would have to know for sure that the Spirit would never use tongues, healing or prophecy (that doesn’t attempt to add to Scripture) under any circumstances or any time, ever.  I’m just not ready to do that.

A Caveat

The reason I’m not ready to that is because there is no clear cut Scriptural reason for cessationism.  I have no problem with absolute negatives in themselves, but only with clear Scriptural backing.  For instance, Scripture is clear that there is no other way to God besides Jesus Christ.  It’s an absolute negative, and I can know it because God tells me so.  I would have to be equally Scripturally convinced of cessationism.

Caveat #2

If the term “cessationism” is being used to describe a position where the gifts are different or used much more sparingly in modern times, then I don’t have a problem with that stance.  I completely agree that the historical context matters and being two thousand years post-Cornelius Gentiles is not the same as being a Jew two years removed from Pentecost.

It makes sense that the Holy Spirit would bestow the gifts upon those building the church differently than those who are born two thousand years after the church has been built.  However, I draw the line on making absolute statements about what the Holy Spirit will and won’t do unless Scripture is clear on that absolute statement. 

Three Elephants

The reason I’m not Scripturally convinced of the absolute negative, is that there are a few problems with cessionism, or “elephants in the room” if you will.

One of these elephants is 1 Cor 13 as explained in my previous post.  This passage is often used in support of cessationism however their are many problems in interpreting “the perfect” to mean the canon of Scripture.  Again, this was explained previously.

Eph 4:11-13 is also used as a proof text for cessationism.  This passage says that certain offices have been appointed by God, “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers.”  So Paul mentions them all in the same breath.  Then he tells us what purpose those offices were appointed for, “for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ“.  Then he gives us under what circumstances those offices will cease, “until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”

What the cessationists do is say that this means the offices of apostles and prophets have ceased.  I have no problem with believing this is true.  However, the office of apostle hasn’t ceased because the Church is established, it has ceased because the definition of Apostle is someone who has seen the Risen Jesus face to face.  And since He’s ascended . . .

It’s also bad hermenuetics to pick out two of the offices mentioned all in the same breath and say “only these two have ceased because the church and canon are established” when Paul makes no distinction between the offices and when they will cease.  Paul is exactly saying that all these offices will cease at a certain time and he doesn’t say that some will cease first and others second, or third etc.  To insert an order here is just bad Biblical interpretation. 

Also, Paul never says that these gifts will cease when the Church is established.  The cessationist crowd must interpret “until we all attain the unity of the faith, and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” to mean the church.  The parsing out of what exactly this is referring to would take a long time.  It will suffice to say here that, looking at myself and the rest of the church, I’m not comfortable saying that since we have the canon we are “mature” to the degree “of the fullness of Christ“.  If Paul is describing the church here, his description doesn’t accurately reflect any church I’ve ever heard of, in modern times or in the early church.

The third elephant in the room of cessationism ties in closely with this passage in Ephesians.  In Coramdeo’s original post on this subject he says:

I think the N.T is quite evident that Pastors and Teacher are to continue on, but we do not have much evidence that Apostles or Prophets should continue on, and in light of other passages I think it is best to conclude that Apostles and Prophet offices have ceased.

I completely agree with Coramdeo here.  There is no need to add to Scripture and so the office of Prophet (in the Old Testament sense) has ceased and Christ ascended two thousand years ago so the office of apostle died with the twelve.  However, what Coramdeo is concluding here is that since those offices have ceased, so too have certain gifts.

The elephant in the room is two men by the name of Stephen and Philip.  Both of these men were not Apostles, they were deacons.  And yet, Luke tells us that Stephen performed “great signs and wonders” (Acts 6) while the people of Samaria “heard and saw that signs which he [Philip] was performing” (Acts 8).  So deacons, and not just Apostles, were capable of performing “great signs and wonders” of the Holy Spirit.  Even since the office of Apostle has ceased, apparently that doesn’t mean that gifts must cease. 

Jesus Himself seems to support this definition of those who can perform works of the Spirit. 

Mark 16:17-18, “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So the qualification of those who can do such things are “those who have believed”.  That’s it. 

Let Us Pursue Love

Let us also be skeptical.  Just because believers can do such things, it doesn’t mean that this does, or should, go on all around us.  It also doesn’t mean that the gifts of prophecy, tongues or healing should be a primary pursuit of ours.  1 Cor 13:

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

In fact, in 1 Cor 14 Paul explains in strict detail how gifts should be handled and that the goal should be for the edification of the church.  These guidelines should absolutely be followed or the gifts are not being used correctly.  And if they’re not being used correctly, then it’s not of the Spirit.  Paul concludes the chapter with, “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.  But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.”

Since we do not have solid Scriptural backing for doing so, let us not subscribe to an absolute negative regarding certain gifts.  But let us pursue the greatest gift of the Spirit, love, and let us do everything for the edification of the Church and be bold enough to follow the guidelines laid down by Paul, squashing any “manifestation of the Spirit” that does not follow them.

The Ceasing of Spiritual Gifts: A Debate (Response #2)

April 20, 2009

Coramdeo responded to my first entry on the topic over on his blog. 

Semantics, Both Irrelevant and Important

In reading Coramdeo’s response, it has become quite clear that him and I are mincing words to some degree.  In some places these semantics are irrelevant but in other places they are very important.  Coramdeo previously claimed:

God still works supernaturally,[but] we rely upon Scripture alone to hear from God, to prove His gospel, and be the catalyst that saves His people

I still see a contradiction here becuase of the word alone, but I understand what Coramdeo is saying.    He explains himself well later on:

Does the Holy Spirit still work today? Yes. Does He still perform miracles? Yes. Does He speak to people or use power to verify people’s messages, spoken outside the scope of Scripture? No.

See, this I can get behind.  The key phrase here is “outside the scope of Scripture”.  Of course the Holy Spirit has self-limited to the guidelines set down by Scripture.

Personal Experience

For the record, I am not with A.H. Ackley when he says, “You ask me how I know he lives?  He lives within my heart.”  That’s not a very good apologetic.  What I mean is this:

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:13-14).

Is not recieving the Holy Spirit as a “seal” and “pledge” personally experienced?  What validates this personal experience is the Word of God, and without this Scriptural backing any personal experience is, at best, meaningless if not heretical.  However, this is a personal experience nonetheless. 

 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16).

Here Paul is specifically telling us that a subjective, personal experience verifies to us that we are children of God.  What could be more subjective and personal than the Spirit of God testifying to our spirit?

In fact, the context of Romans 8: 4-16 is that Paul is describing how the Spirit will guide us because “all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.”  The Spirits’ leading in our minds and lives is subjective, real, and valid. 

Gal 5:16-25  is another time Paul is elaborating on subjective traits that will change with the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Throughout the book of Acts, there are numerous references to the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit.  In Acts 16:6-7, Luke tells us that Paul on his second missionary journey was “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” and then that “they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them“.  Of course, no written law from the Old Testament (the Scripture of the day) told them that they couldn’t preach in Asia or Bithynia.  It seems that the Holy Spirit must have directed them in a specific way, whether through audible words, or an unmistakeable sense in the mind, or some other subjective impression of a lack of the Spirit’s blessing on the attempted endeavor (Grudem’s Systematic Theology, pg. 643). 

In another instance, Paul says, “I am going to Jerusalem bound by the Spirit, not knowing what shall befall me there; except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me” (Acts 20:22-23).  Paul’s personal impression of what the Holy Spirit wants for him, and has in store for him, is so powerful and specific that he is “bound” by what he must do and knows what will happen to him when he does it. 

These verses are in direct contradiction to something Coramdeo said:

You see the point is the subjective really doesn’t matter, what matters is objective truth.

Scripture is saying that the subjective does matter.  In fact, the personal and subjective leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit is a standard theological doctrine and characteristic of the acts of the Holy Spirit. 

Look, I understand where this sentiment comes from.  We are living in a time when the scientific community has told us that only “objective, provable” truth matters.  Our western thinking is that if it can’t be proved with evidence, then it isn’t valid.  And then, many cults and religious crazies came around and showed the world how dangerous and silly “because I feel it” can be, which only furthered the paradigm.  Unfortunately, this is just not what Scripture teaches. 

What I’m saying is that there is a ditch on both sides of the road.  On one side is “because I feel it” and on the other side is “the subjective doesn’t matter.”  Let’s follow Scripture and not swerve so far away from one side that we fall into the ditch on other.

“The Perfect”

It seems we’re still at an impasse here.  I still feel that the problems with interpreting “the perfect” to be the Canon have not been answered.  First, I’ll respond to the argument Coramdeo posted by Dave Stevens.

Paul compares what will happen when “the perfect” comes with two metaphors.  1.  Knowledge of a child vs. knowledge of a man and 2.  seeing through a dim mirror vs. seeing face to face.  Mr. Stevens’ main point is that if we take “the perfect” to mean the Second Coming of Christ, then we will be “mixing metaphors”.  Interpreting the first three as metaphors and the last one (face to face) as being literally face to face with Christ is inconsistent.

The problem with this argument is two fold.  Firstly, “face to face” is not exactly lacking any metaphorical language.  When I meet someone face to face, as we say, I’m not actually putting my face to his face am I?  So face to face is a metaphor for meeting someone and seeing their face. 

Secondly, so we’re mixing metaphors…and?  Paul uses a metaphor three times and then a less metaphorical example the fourth.  What’s the problem with this?  Mr. Stevens claims this is a problem in interpreting “the perfect” as the Second Coming, but doesn’t explain why this is a problem.  In fact, all he does is claim that mixing metaphors is a problem because, “Paul would never mix a metaphor with reality”. 

So now he’s using a non-Biblical definition of what Paul would and wouldn’t do to interpret Scripture.  That is not solid hermeneutics.  It ignores that “face to face” is a metaphor and ignores his own limitations it knowing, with any accuracy, what literary devices Paul would and wouldn’t use and where.  That Paul wouldn’t mix metaphors here is pure assumption.

Stevens also says that if “the perfect” is interpreted as The Second Coming of Christ it would the only time Jesus was described in the neuter.  Good point, and that’s why this passage has garnered wide debate.  However, Stevens ignores two counter-points.  1.  If “the perfect” is referring to the Canon then it would be the only prophecy of it’s kind in all of Scripture (equally problematic to the sole instance of a neuter tense to describe Christ) and 2. the option of interpreting “the perfect” to mean our glorified state in heaven solves both the problem of the neuter tense and the unique prophecy problem.

Two Unanswered Questions

What both Stevens and Coramdeo did not address is that, in their position on “the perfect”, Paul is including himself the lack of knowledge the Corinthians have (dim mirror, understanding like a child) and that the canon will give them full knowledge.  I objected, stating that I don’t think we should be ready to claim that the author of two-thirds of that same canon, an author that was taught by Jesus Himself for three years, an author that fellowshipped with probably every author of the remaining one third of the canon, is lacking knowledge that the canon would provide him with. 

In an attempt to answer this objection, Coramdeo stated:

Of course Paul is including himself in this because the church has not been built yet, nor has the canon, since others like John were writing it.

This does not answer the objection because it is begging the question.  The question isn’t about whether or not the canon is complete or the church is built.  The question is whether or not Paul is lacking in knowledge that the canon would give him.

So, I will ask again.  Coramdeo, are you claiming that the Apostle Paul, with all the characteristics described above, is lacking in knowledge, just like the Corinthians are, that the canon will give him when it comes?

My other objection was centered around another part of the passage that has gone unmentioned.  When describing the knowing what will occur when “the perfect” has come, Paul says that we will “know in full, just as we are fully known”.  Taking Coramdeo’s position, this would mean that since the canon has come, we know God’s truth as equally and fully as God knows us.  Are we really ready to say this?

The Point Is This

I have no problem with Coramdeo not being able answer these objections right away (although I, of course, welcome any response on the topic).  Nor am I saying that since these objections exist, therefore 1 Cor 13:8-13 cannot be referring to the canon.  My point is that since this is, at the very least, a vague and hotly debated passage, it is irrational to base the doctrine of cessationism, even in part, upon it.  If Coramdeo agrees, then we put this aside as “inconclusive” and move onto the other questions Coramdeo has asked of continuationism and the other evidences for cessationism.

Have the Spiritual Gifts Ceased?

April 16, 2009

This is my first installment in the current debate on the spiritual gifts.  Specifically, whether or not some of the gifts have ceased.  Coramdeo is taking the Cessationist position while I’m taking the Continuationist position.

However, I want to say that I don’t associate with any particular label on this topic.  Frankly, I’m just not sure I have a concrete position on this issue yet.  I’m sure that there is an entire spectrum of cessationists and continuationists and neither Coramdeo or I would fit all models across the spectrum.

However, for the sake of clarity in this debate I will hold the mantle of “Continuationist” even though it may not accurately describe me. 

We Must Agree on Something First

The Word of God is the ultimate authority on everything that it talks about.  I know that Coramdeo would agree with this and I hope any other Christian following this debate, or just reading this article, would be on board as well.  If this isn’t our starting point, we have our feet firmly planted in thin air. 

My goal, in this debate, is to make sure that we hold tightly to our Ultimate Authority and to not go places it doesn’t.  This presupposition must be committed to even if it means we don’t get a systematic, concrete answer out of the question of spiritual gifts, if it means holding to an uncomfortable doctrine, or if it means letting go of a comfortable one.

Basically, the cessationist position, as described by Coramdeo, is one where certain spiritual gifts have ceased, specifically tongues and prophecy (although Coramdeo does bring healing in the mix a bit as well).  I will respond to his the main points he uses to defend this position.

One Thing Cessationists Can’t Have Both Ways

First, I’d like to comment on a perceived contradiction.  Coramdeo explains that:

Its not like we don’t believe in Miracles (1), we believe God is working Supernaturally, just that He no longer uses some of the Spiritual gifts He gave to the early church

and a paragraph later he says:

Cessationists now rely on scripture alone to hear from God, to prove His Gospel, and to be the catalyst that saves His people.

These two sentences are in direct contradiction to each other and I’m Coramdeo can clear it up for me.  Scripture alone does not drive salvation and confirm the Gospel.  This is the job of the Holy Spirit as much as it is the truth held in the pages of the Bible.  A supernatural change of mind and an indwelling of the Holy Spirit is needed for true conversion. 

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.  (Eph 1:13-14)

So which one is it?  Does the Holy Spirit supernaturally speak to God’s children, enter into to them to seal the pledge and confirm our salvation?  Or must those things come solely from the pages of Scripture?

I would assert that even a cessationist relies on this personal, subjective experience from the Holy Spirit to confirm the truth of Scripture.  Just as the Apostles relied on their personal experience of the Risen Christ to confirm what Christ said about Himself, so too does the modern Church rely on the personal experience of the Holy Spirit, however it manifests, to confirm the Word of God.

If a cessationist says they rely solely on Scripture for salvation, confirmation and affirmation, he is fooling himself and he is, ironically, going against what Scripture says about how the Holy Spirit interacts with the Church!

In defense of cessationism, Coramdeo quotes two main passages.  Let’s examine them.

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.   9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.  12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.  13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Coramdeo’s point is that “the perfect” refers to the New Testament Canon and since “the perfect” has come, therefore the gifts have ceased.  Let’s take Coramdeo’s position, and see if substituting “New Testament Canon” with “the perfect” makes sense of the passage. 

Firstly, let’s point out that if Paul is prophecying the coming of the Bible, something he could have no knowledge of apart from a revelation from God, it would be the only prophecy regarding the formation of the Canon. 

Secondly, are we prepared to say that the New Testament Canon is “perfect”?  The Canon is merely a compilation of ancient manuscripts (mss).  Compiled by men.  Several times there are passages (Acts 9, the end of Mark) that are in some mss but not in others.  So to call the New Testament Canon “perfect” we must say that the Council of Nicea got it “perfect”.  Did the Council get it right?  Surely.  Did they accurately preserve the Word of God to be passed down through the generations?  Of course.  But did they get it “perfect”?  Was every single mss copied by hand, passed down to us, copied “perfectly”?  If Paul means to call the future actions of human compilers “perfect”, it would be the first time the actions of humans are described this way.

Thirdly, Paul describes exactly what will happen when this “perfect” will come.  Presently, Pauls says, “I know in part” but when “the perfect” comes “I will fully know just as I also have been fully known.”  This side of the New Testament Canon, can we say that we “fully know” just as God fully knows us?  Of course not.  Surely, this side of the New Testament Canon we have access to God’s truth much more readily than then Corinthians did whom Paul was talking to.  But on the same level that God knows us??  We cannot conclude this. 

My fourth point deals with the same assertion by Paul.  Paul is including himself in the “knowing in part”.  Coramdeo’s position is that the Corinthians lacked the knowledge of the full Council of God as passed down by the Canon.  Paul is including himself in that lack of knowledge that the Canon would give him.  How can we say that Paul lacked in knowledge that the New Testament would give him when he wrote the majority of it, was taught by Jesus Himself for three years in the Arabian desert, and spent extensive time with almost every author of a New Testament book? 

My four points are summarized with, 1:  It would be the only instance the coming of the Bible being prophecied, 2:  Was the writing of the New Testament “perfect”?  Of course.  But does rationality and the evidence suggest that the compilation of the Canon in 325 CE, and every subsequent scribed translation before and after “perfect” as well?  Accurate?  Sure.  Perfect?  Come now.  3:  Even after the Canon was formed, do we “fully know” just as God fully knows us?  4:  We must believe that Paul lacked in knowledge that the coming New Testament could bring him when he wrote most of it, was taught by Jesus, and spoke with every author of the New Testament. 

On The Other Hand

However, let’s interpret the phrase “the perfect” to be understood as “the Second Coming of Christ”.  If Paul is prophecying about the return of Christ, then it would be another in a long line of prophecies regarding this event, many made by Paul himself.  Also, we will have no problem associating “the perfect” with Jesus Christ as He is the only person we can accurately describe as such. 

“The perfect” being understood to be the Second Coming also makes sense out of the Paul’s assertion that we will “fully know” just as God fully knows us.  When Jesus establishes His Millennial Kingdom, and we’re in our resurrection bodies, will we really lack in knowledge?  This also makes sense of Paul including himself in this “knowing in part”.  Surely, even the great Paul is a limited human being just as we are, a limitation what will cease at Christ’s Second Coming just as it would for the Corinthians.

You can try this exercise yourself.  Interpret the coming of “the perfect” to mean the immenent coming “of heaven” that every believer will experience.  If you go through the trouble spots that interpreting “the perfect” as the Canon brings up, you will see that “of heaven” smoothes them over just as well as “the Second Coming of Christ” does.

The ball is now in Coramdeo’s court.  I only replied to a portion of his article because this post is already long enough.  So if he would like to respond to this rebuttal, or have me move on to another portion, I will do either. 

Please, this debate is not meant for just two people, jump in at any point with any position and we’ll be glad to discuss with you.

Jesus Christ, The Apostle Paul and Homosexuality

January 14, 2009

There is a school of thought out there that the message of Jesus Christ was a message of humanism that was twisted into what is now modern Christianity by the Apostle Paul.  Particularly, the current Christian stance regarding homosexuality was not something Jesus would approve of.  The thinking goes that the rejection of homosexuality is a solely Old Testament concept that has been wrongly read into the New Testament, and into modern Christian thought, by the un-Christ like teachings Apostle Paul and selective reverance to Old Testament concepts.  Specifically, the charge becomes that Christians who want to oppose homosexuality use the Bible to do so, yet there is no support for this position within the New Testament or especially in the teachings of Jesus.

This charge was made to me in a conversation with Matt from ilikeportello that started here and then continued over at a post he entitled, Homo-Christianity.  Specifically Matt (and one of his commentors, Paul) charged;

“. . .it should be obvious to anyone who reads the Gospels that Jesus had precisely nothing to say about homosexuality.  Zero. Zip. Nada. Not a word.”

“There are four references in the New Testament which could be regarded as relating to homosexuality. These were all made by Paul, the guy who took control of the nascent church after Christ’s death (and alleged resurrection) and in my mind, royally screwed up the humanist message Jesus was trying to deliver.”

“Each of these references is no more than a throw-away remark put in as a sideline to a different point he was making. None of them are decisive condemnations”

Alright, let’s get down to it.

Was Jesus A Humanist?

In order for Jesus to be accurately described as a humanist, or as giving us a humanist message, He would have to have been solely concerned with the improvement of mankind.  Think of humanism as a moral system that is “for the greater good of humanity”.  Unfortunately, anyone who wants to read a humanist message into the words of Jesus Christ must focus on certain passages, ignore others and take certain passages literally without reason, and others figuratively without reason. 

For instance, Jesus claimed “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).  Notice that He said, “the” Way, not “a” Way.  Jesus is literally claiming to be the only way to salvation and no one will obtain reconciliation with the Father except through Him.  In order for the humanist to explain this passage away, they must either ignore it or attempt to allegorize it away.  Unfortunately, the context supports no allegory, analogy, or metaphor. 

In another instance where Jesus was teaching his disciples, he was speaking about how they should act, and what attitude they should have toward each other.  He said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).  Here, Jesus is saying that God is able to send people to hell and that we should fear God because of this power.  Fearing God?  God sending humans to hell?  That’s not very humanist at all!

I could go on and on, for pages, about how many of the teachings of Jesus are opposite of that of humanism.  Frankly, in order for someone to claim that Jesus had a humanist message, they must be willfully ignorant of about half of the Gospel accounts.

The Authority of the Apostle Paul

The second claim of Matt and those like him, is that the Apostle Paul twisted the teachings of Jesus for motives that did not reflect the Jesus he was pretending to be following.  The inconsistency of such a position is that Matt must affirm that Paul actually wrote that which is credited to him yet what others claimed of Paul and the surrounding historical events that actually give Paul his authority.

Paul was not always named Paul.  He was Saul of Tarsus, and he was a Jewish leader that was a self-described “zealot for the Law”.  He was literally killing Christians, and being given more authority and power of the persecution campaign.  He was on his way to Damascus to round up more Christians, when Jesus appeared to him and asked him “Saul, Saul why do you persecute me?” and blinded Paul.  Needless to say, Paul realized his error and believe in Jesus as the Christ.  Then, a man named Ananias, who knew who Saul was, was told to go to Paul and minister to him.  Once Ananias touched Paul, scales fell from his eyes and he was able to see (Acts 9).

The fact that Paul saw the risen Christ, and this fact was confirmed by those who saw scales fall from his eyes, or his obvious change of heart since he went from killing Christians to preaching Christianity unto his death, is what gives him his authority.  Peter also acknowledges Pauls writings as equal to any other Scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16).

Even if you are hypothetically taking the Bible as a narrative, you can’t subscribe to one part and dismiss another without reason.  Especially when the historical events surrounding Paul’s conversion are what gives his writings the authority the other Apostles deemed him to have. 

The Classification of Homosexuality

Scripture is clear on where homosexuality lies, it’s considered in the category of “sexual immorality”.  Also under this umbrella are the words adultery, fornication, and rape.  Just like under the category of “stealing” is are the words theivery, cheating, pirating, tax evasion, money laundering and embezzlement.  Wether you agree or not isn’t the point, the point is this is how the Bible classifies it. 

Alright, finally we’re at the moment we’ve all been reading for.

What Does Jesus Say About Homosexuality?

Jesus is less concerned with what you actually do and more concerned with what is in your heart.  He understood that what you do first must come from your mind.  “He went on: ‘What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly‘ “ (Mark 7:20-22). 

On the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is talking about the Ten Commandments, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’  But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28). 

Jesus is saying that sexual immorality makes you “unclean”, or as we like to call it, is sinful.  Not only did Jesus uphold the Law of the Old Testament, namely the Ten Commandments, He took it a step further.  Not only did Jesus consider adultery sinful, he considered thinking about committing adultery sinful. 

What shall we say then?  Can we say that if Jesus considers looking at woman lustfully as sinful then He can also consider the act of sex with someone of the same gender as non-sinful?  That just violates all logic.  Sure, you could respond with, “But Jesus never specifically talks about homosexuality, therefore He doesn’t consider it wrong.”  Along that same logic, you must admit that Jesus doesn’t consider child pornography, child molestation, and rape wrong as well.  After all, Jesus never speaks about them.

But we don’t do that, do we?  We understand that rape falls under the category of sexual immorality and violence.  Why, then, do we not treat homosexuality this same way? 


Arguing that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality therefore He didn’t consider it immoral is like arguing that since Jesus never said it anything about tax evasion, therefore it isn’t stealing.

The Apostle Paul on Homosexuality

 Now, we’ve already showed that Jesus’ message was not humanist, that Jesus’ was more strict on sexual immorality than the Old Testament Law, and we’ve already shown that Paul had the full authority, as an Apostle, to be considered a writer of Scripture.  So now the question becomes wether or not Paul’s statements on sexual immorality and/or homosexuality were “decisive condemnations”.  Let’s look at a few: 

(1 Cor 6:9-10)  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(1 Cor 6:18)  Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

(Romans 13:13)  Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.

(Galations 5:18-20) The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions.

These passages seem so decisive that I don’t need to make an argument in their defense.  Case closed.

So, Matt, your claims that Jesus Christ had a humanist message, that Paul distorted this message, and that Paul never made homosexuality a priority are just plain false.

A Message to the Church

We do not follow the words of Jesus or Paul.  Hopefully, that’s not a surprise to you.   But what may be a surprise to you, is that the world knows it.  One of the commentors in Matt’s blog has his eyes wide open to the actions of the church.  Regarding homosexuality, Rob says:

“Paul mentions it, but again mentions it in passages that do not necessarily reflect how Christians live their life.”

How right he is!  If Christians are seen lusting after every woman that walks by, and yet we use those same words that Jesus spoke to justify our opposition to homosexuality, we are hypocrites indeed! 

Rob also says, “If you believe in Jesus, then it seems a great disrespect to bend his words and his book to fit your own personal beliefs.”

 Alright, Church, I want you to notice something about the words of Jesus and the Apostle Paul.  In the same breath with sexuality immorality/homosexuality, Jesus and Paul mention greed, drunkeness, slander, debauchery, dissension, jealousy, hatred, discord, selfish ambition, fits of rage and factions.  Do we, as a Church, put these sins on the same playing field as homosexuality?  Or is it that we loft homosexuality on such a high pedestal of “bad” and “weird” that almost nothing else touches it?  Every one of us knows that we do the latter.  The more we treat homosexuality as a “greater” sin than those, the more we do exactly as Rob said we do and disrespect the words of Jesus and Paul to fit our own personal beliefs.

When we chide society for accepting homosexuality as a mere “alternative” lifestyle, yet say nothing to our brother about his hatred of his ex-wife, or think nothing of the dessension we sow in our own family, the deeper we fall into the oblivion of our own prejudices.

Biblical Inerrancy, What Does is Really Mean?

January 12, 2009

I’m finding that Biblical skeptics have almost a complete misconception of what the Bible claims for itself.  This misconception is unspoken, but it is blatant.  What does the Bible being the “Word of God” mean?  Well, it means many things, but I’ll stick to one right now, accuracy.  The theological term for this idea is “Biblical inerrancy”.  Let’s first start with what Biblical inerrancy doesn’t mean.

Note:  For all you Biblical scholars out there, I know there is a debate between the terms “inerrancy” and “infallibility”.  Maybe someday I’ll post about the difference and explain why I’m on the side of inerrancy, but that day is not today.

Biblical Inerrancy Doesn’t Mean . . .

The Bible doesn’t have to be easy to understand.  The misconception is that if something is difficult for us to wrap our understanding around, then it must not be God’s Word.  While, in fact, the opposite is probably true.  If everything in the Bible was “easy” to understand then it wouldn’t really be about God would it?  So, when a critic comes across something difficult and shouts, “See, I don’t understand this therefore the Bible is wrong!”, we can either mock them for their assumption that God is bound by their understanding or educate them about how the Bible never claims to be easily understood.  Either one works just fine.

Not everything in the Biblical text has to “flow” or sound “harmonious” to our ears.  Biblical critics are quick to point out that the Bible was written in a different language yet forget this point when they expect the prose of a 1st century Greek  writer (in the case of the New Testament) to sound “good” to 21st century English ears.  Let me put it another way:  Our standards of recording events, or explaning concepts, doesn’t hold the Biblical writers in contempt.  Now, I’m obviously not a Greek scholar, so I can’t go into great detail about the writing standards of the 1st century, but the irrationality of crying foul on men who existed two thousand years ago just because their writings “sound weird” to us is obvious.  This leads me to my next point.

 . . . That the Bible Needs to Tell You Everything

For instance, if I assume that the Bible must “tell me everything” in order to be considered the Word of God and the goal of a Biblical author is to “tell you what happened”, then that means that the author should tell us everything that happened.  For instance, if I witnessed a speech and the speaker said, “I am from southern Spain” and “I am half Portugese and half Spanish”, I must tell you that he said both.

However, isn’t it perfectly acceptable to “tell you what happened” without implying that I’m telling you everything?  Without a disclaimer, can’t I just tell you that the speaker said “I am from southern Spain”, without telling you I’m leaving something out?  My goal of “telling you what happened” has been fulfilled, because I have never implied that I would be telling you everything.  This becomes especially true if I have a certain goal for what I’m writing, and if I have a particular audience in mind.  The particular event may have an aspect that speaks to my audience or accomplish’s my unstated goal, and the rest of the details are irrelevant to me. 

For instance, if I’m writing to a group of cultural scholars, I may just tell you the speaker said, “I am from southern Spain” and leave out the other statement because it is irrelevant to my audience.  Then, if I write to a group of racial scholars, I would only tell them that the speaker said, “I am half Portugese and half Spanish”, his geographic origin would be irrelevant to them. 

Let’s Apply This to Biblical Difficulties

For instance, regarding the death of Judas, Matthew (in 27:5) says, “. . . and he went away and hanged himself” while Luke (in Acts 1) says, ” . . .and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.”  To 21st century English ears, our objection quickly becomes, “Hey!  You can’t have it both ways!”. 

However, we can easily attribute the differences in the record between Matthew and Luke to differences in purpose and audience.  Let’s say for a second that Judas hung himself, and then some time after, the branch or the rope broke and he fell into the field as Luke said he did, all his intestines spilling out.  This is certainly a plausible scenario.  So Matthew told you what happened and Luke told you what happened.  Neither of them claimed to tell you “everything”, in fact, neither of them claimed to be reporting Judas’ cause of death.

This becomes more likely as we consider that Luke was physician and would be more concerned with such medical details as what happened to Judas’ intestines.  Such details would be irrelevant to Matthew, as his focus was a Jewish audience; he told you that Judas hung himself, why say any more?  Also, Luke makes a point in naming the field that Judas fell into, calling it the field of blood, telling us that the field was bought with the money paid to Judas for betraying Jesus.  Luke is obviously attempting to point out the irony of such a fact, and give us a moral application for such irony.

Furthermore, obtaining and making copies of certain books was a very expensive process.  Everything had to be hand written so the scribe had to be paid for his skill and his labor, the papyrus was very expensive and hard to come by, and the transcribing would take a very long time, perhaps months.  These logistical facts would force the authors of the Bible into restricting their writings to what was absolutely necessary for their audiences to know.  And what early church group would put up the monetary sum to obtain a book that had a lot of erroneous information in it?

In conclusion:  Two people telling two different events that happened to the same person for two different purposes, restricting their accounts to what was absolutely necessary to tell, is no threat to Biblical inerrancy.  Especially since the two statements don’t violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. 

What Biblical Inerrancy IS.

Biblical inerrancy means that the Bible is completely true.  Every historical event it talks about happened, even if it doesn’t tell everything about the event, every moral law and theological truth it gives us is absolute, even if we can’t fully understand all of them, and every scientific fact is true, even if it doesn’t use 21st century scientific jargon.

Is God Evil? A Response; Part Two

December 10, 2008

Daniel Florien, as I hoped he would, is continuing his series on exploring whether or not the God of the Bible is actually evil, contrary to what us Christians would want you to believe.  Well, more accurately, Daniel isn’t really technically exploring the issue, he’s already decided that God IS evil and is going through the Bible looking for support for this position.  I’m also not sure that continuing is an accurate description of his latest post.  As you read his post, you might think of it as a re-hash of the earlier Adam and Eve post and I’d have to agree.  His latest post seems more like a “big picture” treatment of the Adam and Eve article. 

As in the previous post in the series, Daniel uses conveniently misunderstood facts and strawmen, and erroneous logic, to put the blame on God.  In fact . . .

Accurately Describing Genesis, the Blame is Not on God

To begin his article, Daniel uses an analogy to describe the situation in the Garden of Eden.

Professor Sidney was proud — he was the creator of the first sentient, emotional beings made by man.

Right there, we’re starting off on a bad foot because man wasn’t created by another created, fallible creature.  Man was created by an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

The Humloids (as he called them) were programmed with instructions to pick any of the flowers in the biodome except one.

That’s just plain inaccurate.  Humans were not “programmed” in the same sense that a man made computer program is.  We were given our DNA and our morphological traits, but also given free will.  A more accurate analogy would be the father of grown children:  Is he really to blame for what his twenty-five year old son and daughter do?  Why not?  His children have free will do they not? 

The subject of Adam and Eve’s free will was also conveniently missing from Daniel’s previous post on the subject, and the error was pointed out to him.  Why, then, is Daniel still subscribing to the error?  Because he must in order to put the blame on God.

They thought they would die if they picked the forbidden flower — a harmless little joke that still made him chuckle.

They DID die for picking the fruit.  God never said they would die immediately, but the moment they ate of the fruit, they began to die. 

Here were his beloved Humloids — with the forbidden flower in their hair! They had done what he had forbidden! He was furious! He would kill them all! No — a slow death would be better. He would make them suffer.

This is where Daniel’s initial decision to make the designer in his analogy a human is key.  If the designer is a fallible human being then his analogy makes us angry.  How dare a human decide that another being should suffer!  However, if Daniel was accurate to the Biblical story, the designer would have to be an infallible, all-powerful, all-knowing God. 

Erroneous Logic

Only an all-powerful, all-knowing, Just and Righteous God has the right, nay the obligation, to punish His creation when they disobey Him.  This is absolutely a part of the Biblical doctrine of the nature of God.  However, the attributes of Love and Grace are also very explicit in the Biblical text. 

God gave Adam and Eve life, and everything they ever wanted.  With His love, God gave them literally a paradise in which to live.  No death, no suffering, not even vanity.  He only asked ONE thing of them.  And they couldn’t do it.  To affirm the story of the Garden and Eve, and yet dis affirm the REASON for God’s actions, and why He is able to punish His creation, is to be logically inconsistent. 

Even if Daniel wants to talk about Genesis in the form of a myth-story, that works too.  Part of the myth-story is that God is Just, Righteous and Holy.  If the prospect of such a God offends Daniel, as it obviously does, then fine, be an atheist.  But to treat the actions of God in that myth-story with a critical eye while ignoring the reasons the myth-story gives for God’s actions, his Justice and Righteousness, is to twist the story for your own benefit.  Daniel is literally creating His own version of a god who isn’t Just and Righteous, applying that to the God described in the Bible, and then attempting to call that God evil. 

Daniel:  “Only an evil God commits those acts.”

The Bible:  “Only a Righteous God is justified in those acts”

What’s the difference?  Daniel starts with the presupposition that God is subject to Daniel’s morality while the Bible presupposes that humanity is subject to God’s morality. 

Further, are we really accurately describing the human experience as nothing but “suffering”, as Daniel puts it?  


Daniel then decides to strawman Christian beliefs in an attempt to show how absurd they are.  It’s easy to do.  In a section entitled, “Is that Why Bad Things Happen?”, Daniel lists a few things that are bad and why the strawmanned Christian explanations are wrong.

When an innocent baby dies of a birth defect, is it because our ancestors ate some fruit? . . . I don’t think so. Birth defects happen because of medical problems, which we have gotten better at screening and fixing.

Daniel can’t really be suggesting that a Christian denies the natural explanations for medical problems and immediately goes back to the Garden can he?  Sadly, yes.  I’ll let the absurdity of that strawman stand for itself.

When a daughter is raped and killed by her step-father, is it because the step-father inherited “original sin”? . . . People are raped and killed by others not because we all have original sin, but because some people are mentally unstable, which through medication and therapy can sometimes be remedied.

Notice how Daniel didn’t call a rapist and a murderer “evil”, only “mentally unstable”.  He isn’t willing to hold fellow human beings to the “evil” standard, but he’ll happily apply it to God.  I smell a bias!  I’ll come back to how this isn’t an answer either.

When a tsunami destroys a city and millions are killed, is it because of an ancient myth passed on for thousands of years before it was written down? . . . Natural disasters occur not because some invisible man in the sky controls them, but because of natural forces on this earth.

This isn’t a why answer because . . . 

There is no “Why” in Atheism

At the beginning of the section, Daniel asks the question, “why do bad things happen?”.  In none of his examples and answers, does Daniel answer the question.  Go back to the quotes and see for yourself, does Daniel answer “why”?  No really, I want you to go back and re-read them, it’ll only take a second, just read the parts in quotations.  

He only answers how.  

It’s not his fault.  Atheism can’t answer why.  Think about it, why do natural disasters happen?  Because of natural forces.  That’s begging the question isn’t it?!  It’s just like saying, “Natural disasters happen because natural forces cause them.”  Circular!  Why do the natural forces cause them?!

Why is a metaphysical question.  Atheism cannot answer metaphysical questions without being inconsistent.  So when Daniel mocks the Christian answers of why, he is only trying to cover up that he has no answer!  Every time an atheist attempts to answer why he’s truly only answering how.  It’s the best that he can do.