Why Jesus Was Baptized Outside

Let the Little Children Come to Me

“Even to the foulest offenders, when they afterward believe, remission of sin is granted. On this premise no one is prohibited from baptism and grace. How much more should an infant be admitted, who, just born, has not sinned in any respect, except that, being born of the flesh according to Adam, has in his first birth contracted the contagion of the ancient deadly nature. Would not such a child obtain remission of sins with the less difficulty, because not his own actual guilt, but that of another, is to be remitted? Our sentence therefore, dearest brother, in the Council (of Carthage 254 A.D.) was that none by us should be prohibited from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to all.”

-- Cyprian of Carthage (martyred 258 A.D.)

Forward Looking to Father’s Day

Father’s Day falls on June 15^th. I’d like some input on a few things:

1) What does it mean to be a father?

2) What do fathers need (not just want) to hear from the pulpit?

3) What have wise writers said about the vocation of fatherhood?

Reward for Works?

When it comes to good works, countless Christians have this bizarre notion that they don’t matter. I guess they’ve heard “you’re saved by grace not by works” so often that they’ve concluded their works don’t matter. As a result, they tend to think of heaven as a great equaling ground. I don’t think Scripture teaches this.

The Bible repeatedly speaks of reward for works. In 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 Paul says, “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”

Paul seems to think our works will be rewarded. Luther did too and Chemnitz even said in his Examen, “…the good works in the reconciled, since they are acceptable through faith for the sake of the Mediator, have spiritual and bodily rewards in this life and after this life; they have these rewards through the gratuitous divine promise; not that God owes this because of the perfection and worthiness of our works, but because He, out of fatherly mercy and liberality, for the sake of Christ, has promised that He would honor with rewards the obedience of His children in this life, even though it is only begun and is weak, imperfect, and unclean.” (Examination of the Council of Trent I, 653)

And the Lutheran Confessions even say this about good works and rewards, “It is God’s will and express command that believers should do good works which the Holy Spirit works in them, and God is willing to be pleased with them for Christ’s sake and He promises to reward them gloriously in this and in the future life. (Formula of Concord; Solid Declaration, Article IV, paragraph 38.)

Yet, when I’ve brought this up, people get nervous about “works righteousness.”

C.F.W. Walther, first president of the LCMS, spoke about this, “Sometimes people get very uncomfortable when you talk about degrees of reward and punishment because it seems like it conflicts with our understanding of the doctrine of justification (salvation by grace through faith in Christ). The key to understanding different rewards or different degrees of reward in heaven is to think of them as gifts. If rewards are understood as pure gifts of grace, in no way earned, merited or deserved, then there is no conflict, contradiction or problem reconciling them with salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.”

So, why aren’t we preaching more on rewards for works? Oh, and why desire rewards (for those of you who are so pious that you are unmoved by God’s promise of rewards)? The rewards will be used to bring glory to Christ. And what Christian doesn’t want to glorify Jesus?

So again, why aren’t we preaching on rewards for works?

Tekmerion: My New Favorite Word

“Tekmerion.”

In Greek, the word means “decisive, infallible, or convincing proof.” In his Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian said this about the word, “All artificial proofs, then, as I say, are distinguished, first of all, into two kinds, one in which the conclusion is necessary, the other in which it is not necessary. The former are those which cannot be otherwise, and which the Greeks call τεκμήρια (tekmēria) or ἄλυτα σημεῖα (aluta sēmeia), "irrefutable signs." These scarcely seem to me to come under the rules of art, for when there is an irrefutable indication, there can be no ground for dispute. This happens whenever a thing must be, or must have been; or cannot be, or cannot have been; and this being stated in a cause, there can be no contention about the point.” (See here for more.)

The New Testament uses the word only once (of which I’m aware). Where? Acts 1:3: “After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs (tekmerios) that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.”

While many today have challenged the resurrection, for Luke, Jesus’ bodily and physical resurrection from the dead was beyond doubt. The Christian faith isn't founded on a fable, but on the hard fact (the tekmerion) of Jesus' resurrection. Jesus lives!

The Atheist Must Answer: The Origin of Life

Atheists claim life came into existence without the aid of a Creator. It’s one thing to make a claim; it’s another to support it with reasonable evidence. As a Christian it seems quite reasonable to believe that infinite Life (i.e. God) created life. Even more, everything we see as observable facts supports that notion that life produces life; I’ve never seen a rock give birth to a living creature. Obviously I can’t prove God created life, but it sure seems like a reasonable conclusion.

So, how did life come from non-life? I can think of no better atheist to ask on this subject than Richard Dawkins. How does he answer?

“The origin of life was the chemical event, or series of events, whereby the vital conditions for natural selection first came about… Once the vital ingredient – some kind of genetic molecule – is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow.”

How does this happen?

“Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers… The beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here.” (The God Delusions, 137-138)

It’s really that simple. Of course, with logic like this, it’s also simple to conclude that leprechauns exist at the end of some rainbow on some planet.

I think Varghese says it well, “Given this type of reasoning, which is better described as an audacious exercise in superstition, anything we desire should exist somewhere if we just ‘invoke the magic of large numbers.’ Unicorns or the elixir of youth, even if ‘staggeringly impossible,’ are bound to occur ‘against all intuition.’ The only requirement is a ‘chemical model’ that ‘need only predict’ these occurring ‘on one planet in a billion billion.’”

So, I’m wondering, is the best explanation possible? Well, there’s always panspermia, but that only backs the boat up and doesn’t answer the question.

Can someone answer this question: how did life come from non-life (and why isn’t it happening today)?

The Atheist Must Answer

Every atheist, if he is to be respected, must offer a naturalist response to the following truths (taken from The Wonder of the World by Roy Abraham Varghese):

1. The scientific method assumes that the world is understandable – and also rational in the sense that its operations can be categorized under laws and theories.
2. Science assumes that all events and phenomena have an explanation, that every effect has a cause, although in the quantum realm, cause and effect can only be identified at a probabilistic level.
3. The world revealed by modern science is a world that (a) obeys fundamental mathematical principles, (b) resembles computational systems with their elaborate information processing and mapping of symbols, and (c) confirms our assumption that it’s intelligible and rational.
4. The laws of nature describe certain regularities in the universe. But these laws are not just descriptions of the regularities. Rather, the laws cause the regularities.
5. The laws of nature, particularly in relativity and quantum theory, can be understood and structured in the most complex and logical thought-form known to the human mind, that of mathematics. Scientists have been stunned by the one-to-one correspondence between the ‘program’ of nature and the programs of independently discovered and developed by the mind. Since symbolic thought and data processing are peculiar to minds as distinct from particles or force fields, it seems reasonable to assume that the laws of nature are manifestations of a sophisticated mind. No wonder then that the quantum physicist Paul Dirac said, “God is a mathematician of a very high order.”
6. The paradigm of infinite Intelligence expressing itself through a hierarchy of manifestations immediately makes of the most diverse phenomena in our experience: rationality, intention, intelligence, beauty, and love. The denial of this paradigm comes at a heavy cost: we have to explain away the most obvious realities; the laws of nature cannot be explained and the apparent correlation between cause and effect, phenomenon and explanation is simply an illusion or at best a coincidence; there is no such thing as consciousness or intention or thought; finally, everything that seems ordered and intelligible is actually random and irrational.

So, as Varghese says, “There has to be intelligence in the laws of the universe or it would not exhibit the kind of rationality shown by the success of science… In a word, there’s some underlying structure about the way the world is made. And if it’s astonishing that the world exists at all, it’s just as astonishing that it’s a world with a structure.

Einstein said it best with his stunning declaration that anyone seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”

To this point, I have seen no satisfactory answers offered by atheists to the above points. I’m waiting and I have a feeling I’ll be waiting for awhile…