Dancing with Darwin

Once again I drafted an answer to a post on a public discussion board wherein the atheist contends there is not controversy in the scientific community concerning the scientific certainty of the Darwin’s theory of evolution. I make no claim to being thorough and probably missed some of the best arguments, but thought, dear reader (dear reader? Okay, so I’m a century or so old and borrowed from the old English authors.) you might find these researched arguments interesting.

"Evolution" is one of those words that needs some definition, I propose, if we are to have meaningful discussion. I think most people understand certain principles of evolution in breeding livestock to give more milk, or to produce beefier cattle herds, or to develop a faster line of race horses. I understand there are over 200 purebred breeds of dogs (as opposed to multiple thousands more dogs we might affectionately call mutts), most of which do not look alike, and are bred specifically over time with man’s direction guiding the way to becoming an animal that reproduces true to the breed’s characteristics. In that sense, I doubt many scientists or non-scientists would claim there is scientific controversy about many of Darwin’s conclusions.
But here is the point, and I think the only point of our arguing this issue: Evolutionists have exalted Darwin’s theory far beyond Darwin and use the theory from the 1850s as the alleged scientific answer to creation, as well as the myriads of different creatures that cover the world. I am fairly certain Darwin wrote and atheists thereafter threw a big party; the explanation of how life came about was now "scientifically" formulated.

The speculation is–yes, "speculation" no matter how often or loudly they shout "science"–that the building blocks of life, amino acids, a slimy pond and lightning, somehow existed billions and billions of years ago (and if that is not long enough just add a few more billions). Those ingredients are necessary, yet the Darwinists don’t have a decent explanation or even a reasonably rational one about where the tiniest speck of space dust or whiff of gaseous matter came from...yet they think they can explain the formation of the first single cell and our evolved beginnings as humans. I’ve no doubt that "scientists" schooled in Darwin since grade school and continuing on to science being their chosen profession are extremely reluctant to admit to any scientific controversy. To most of them, whether atheists or theists, there is terrific pressure to further the "long accepted Darwin science." Yep, even subjective agendas get in the way of true scientific neutral testing.

I’m about to summarize from books of various scientist authors. It is near impossible to present an adequate post of readable length of such a subject or to highlight the academic credits, publications and peer esteem of the many authors. At any rate, I’ll present enough that we can see there is controversy about Darwin’s theories explaining the origins of life. An important book is "The Mystery of Life’s Origin," Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen. These men are in fact scientists with fine academics, terrific professional recognition and experience, with publications, etc. It is pointed out that Darwin came from a time when it was generally thought even among the average scientist that maggots spontaneously developed from decaying meat. Later, the famous Louis Pasteur further exploded such "scientific" ideas as ‘spontaneous generation’ by showing that things developed in known pure water because air contains microorganisms that multiply in water.

In more modern times, Miller gained fame by conducting a laboratory experiment by shooting electricity through his reconstruction of primitive earth atmosphere. He did form amino acids and he received the acclaim of numerous scientists. "For a while, evolutionists were euphoric." Then it seems that from 1980, as shown by NASA scientists, "science" became scientifically certain that the earth’s primitive atmosphere did not contain the ingredients Miller used to form amino acids. Miller had "stacked the deck" with methane, ammonia and hydrogen, when the primitive atmosphere had little or none of them. Scientists performed laboratory experiments repeatedly using the best scientific replication of primitive atmosphere and "It just won’t work."
This is not the first instance of the scientific community having their "science" found to be, if not outright fraud, based on eager haste to prove Darwin derived ideas correct. Ever hear of the Pitdown Man? For about 40 years or so doctoral dissertations were written in the finest universities by promising scientific genius wannabes explaining how the Piltdown Man provided all the proof anyone would ever need that Darwin’s theories were proven correct. Then it was discovered that Piltdown Man was a man-made fraud.

As late as 1905, one scientist, Haeckel, wrote saying living cells were relatively simple ‘homogeneous globules of plasm.’ He did not have the scientifically advanced laser microscopes, etc, of a modern lab to see the complexity within the membrane of a single simple cell. In fact, the description of the formation of a cell is a bit overwhelming: amino acids come in eighty different types, but only twenty are found in living organisms. Nature (ahem) and randon chance would have to isolate only the correct amino acids; then the right acids have to be linked in the right sequence to produce protein molecules. There are a lot of complicating factors. Other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. In Miller’s experiment, only 2% of the material he produced was composed of amino acids. Lots of other chemical material would foul the process of forming something. Then, for what has been simplistically (to aid the understanding of a non-scientist as I am) described, there are an equal number of amino acids that are right- and left-handed and only left-handed ones work in living matter. So, as I understand, the selectively fewer types of amino acids must link up in the right order but they must also be left-handed! If, for the sake of argument, Miller had really done something, and IF he created amino acids, then perhaps as many as 100 amino acid particle molecules would have to come together in an exact way to make a single protein molecule--quite a chore for random chance. If you create a protein molecule you haven’t created life. Random chance would need to do the amino acids routine over and over again. It is said you might need about 200 protein molecules that assemble together "with just the right functions" before you could get a single cell organism. The process would be "mind-boggling." Now, if that is not complicated enough, I’m informed that every cell of every plant and animal has to have a DNA molecule. It’s DNA that enables reproducing the cell, along with a ghastly long list of tasks that I will not try to set forth.

DNA is something like a microprocessor that sorts things out. In summary, the "making of DNS and RNA would be an even greater problem than creating protein," and "much more complex." Klaus Dose, Biochemist in Mainz, Germany, acknowledged that the difficulties in synthesizing DNA and RNA are beyond our imagination. Nobel Prize winner Sir Frances Crick said, "The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Now, germane to this thread, Bradley says the odds of Random Chance happening to assemble "a living organism are so astronomical that "nobody still believes that random chance accounts for the origin of life. ...the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it."

I think it was 3-4 years ago that I ran across an article wherein around 300 scientists in Biochemistry, Molecular-biology, etc, including European and U.S. university and laboratory research scientists signed a simple statement that they question Darwin principles of random mutation and random chance being applicable to the formation of a living organism.

Because Random Chance has been basically rejected other theories have been offered. Chemical Affinity theory proposes that there must be some inherent attraction that might cause amino acids to link up in the correct sequence. Researchers studied and performed experiments. A team of scientists working together showed conclusively that the sequencing had nothing to do with chemical preferences. Even scientist Kenyon, the main proponent of the theory, has repudiated his own idea.

There are some other desperate ideas to try to explain how we could be "us" without a transcendent Creator. That is, Self-Ordering Tendencies, Seeding from Space (even more bizarre than the idea that God created everything), Vents in the Ocean, Life from Clay. These ideas have not stood the test of scientific scrutiny–summarily stated.

I fail to see how anyone could say with a straight face and without blushing there is not controversy about certain parts, at least, of Darwin’s theory. Yet, for the most part the scientific community clings to their faith in Darwin; denial of the slightest scientific doubt about Darwin is the atheists’ major defense of their fantastical beliefs even in the face of contrary modern scientific advances.

I’ve written only about biology, only one of the modern scientific fields wherein true "science" cannot find support for things just happening by chance. Before I write similarly on any other field I need a refresher course in my speed reading ability. Then even if I were to bring to you, "dear reader," persuasive information that many giants of the scientific world, in such other fields as astronomy for example, conclude that science has no answer we could never expect the Darwin community group to openly admit to a change of their minds.

After many words have been written and arguments made, my position is summarized for me by a hymn I was singing recently with lines (from memory), "I make no further argument, I make no further plea. I only know that Jesus died, and that He died for me." -–That is my ultimate position on this topic. Tear up the post, forget it immediately, if you will, but I know what I believe and my belief seems scientifically and religiously valid and very good to me.

PHILEMON–The Mighty One Page NT Book!

I wonder if I am the only one who has never spent much time in Philemon. Sure I’ve read it before, read it quickly, too. I’ve probably skimmed over it several times in the last 10 or 30 years. Now I'm amazed at how rich is this mighty one page book. It really does belong in the canon of Scripture!

Who is the Author of Philemon?

Okay, I’m starting easy here. Of course, we all know Paul wrote the book. He says he did and there is no reason to quarrel about it. Nevertheless, there would develop the habit of imposters using Apostle's names, so keep in mind the personal touches.

That style of salutation was the standard of the letter writing culture, just as our letters contain the inside address (business letters anyway) and a Dear Sir or Madam. Other writers of epistles said much the same things? Yes, and mostly they lso identify themselves as servants, etc. Perhaps my weak point is, by this cultural trait of writing salutations we have quickly distinguished the Biblical writers from the secular writers, such as Maximus Arellicus, “Commander of the 3rd Italian Brigade,” or even Pluticus Nauseous, “Caravan guide and dealer in salt fish.” Hey, the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing by utilizing (or engineering) the cultural practice of salutations to keep questions of authorship of the Biblical letters to a minimum.

The Content of the Text, and to whom is it sent?

Paul addresses Philemon as “our dear friend and fellow worker.” He then addresses Apphia, “our sister.” She’s a sister in Christ, but who is she to be named? Interestingly, the King James version refers to the “beloved Apphia.” This has some support in the manuscripts, so I understand. The importance of it may well be seen, as several scholars suggest, by examining the usage of the “beloved” title here. Scholars note the normal cultural routine of something very close to ignoring the mistress of the household when the esteemed husband is still living. They see meaning in the specific inclusion of her as a recipient of the letter and calling her “beloved,” a very meaningful term in those days, not tossed out lightly like a Hollywood kiss. This has led to the reasonable idea of Apphia being the wife of Philemon. Further, we know from Colossians that Archippus “our fellow soldier” was a minister of the Gospel. While the work of a sister in Christ might be most worthy, it would be unusual for Apphia to be addressed before Archippus, a minister devoted to teaching the Word. And he was male! On the other hand, naming Archippus after Philemon and Apphia would be the usual order when naming father, mother and son.

One scholar of the last century (1900s), undoubtedly a married man of many years, observes wisely that Paul’s reason for such a high standard of polite diplomacy that results in Apphia receiving a special greeting of honor is to help smooth the way for Philemon to decide to free Onesimus without opposition from his beloved wife, Apphia. Let me explain: Onesimus, as a runaway slave without worldly goods, would ordinarily take money or items to sell or trade to cover travel expenses, as was the practice of runaway slaves. Philemon was apparently wealthy, yet Apphia might still be simmering with resentment over the loss of some favorite jeweled necklace or other valuable adornment of great sentimental value stolen from her. I digress a moment to point to what surely must be proof of the Holy Spirit’s aid to Paul in writing the letter. Paul is a bachelor, yet he appears to know something of the lingering anger and resentment of a woman scorned. (Ouch! Stop that, beloved wife of mine! I was only kidding! Speaking in generalities!)

Paul knew the family well. In the letter to Philemon, Epaphras, himself a prisoner with Paul, sends his greetings to those he knew in Colossians. Epaphras is also mentioned in the Colossians letter. Aristarchus also is well known in Colossae. Of course, Mark and Luke are Christian icons. With them is a man named Demas. Further, the case for authenticity becomes irrefutable against any atheist’s argument: Tychicus brought the letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:7,8) and the letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 6:21,22). Onesimus traveled with Tychicus; Onesimus would boldly deliver Philemon’s letter while in Colossae.

The Date and Place of Origin

In Acts 28:16, Luke reports, NIV: “When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him.” (The Western text, followed by the Byzantine, gives a fuller reading: “When we entered Rome, the centurian handed his prisoners over to the stratopedarch, but Paul was allowed to stay by himself outside the barracks with the soldier who guarded him.”) Then Acts 28: 30,31 ends by telling us: “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” Thus, it would appear probable that it was in this imprisonment that Paul wrote his letter to Philemon.

As to the date of this imprisonment–as noted in Philemon, Paul writes of himself: “...an old man and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ” and relates that, consistent with the liberty of the Acts description, Onesimus “became my son while I was in chains.” (from Philemon, vs. 9,10). Thus, it would seem Paul had advanced in age from the days of his journeys set out in Acts. Acts tells us no more about Paul. Nevertheless, early church fathers wrote of Paul’s imprisonment (or otherwise there is a tradition) as being in the time of 61-62 AD. Paul was released from this particular imprisonment. Eusebius relates that Paul continued his ministry during the time between his first and second imprisonment. However, Paul was rearrested a few years later and this imprisonment in Rome was “hard time.” That is consistent with a time of about 64 AD when Nero’s persecution raged insanely against Christians.

In II Timothy 4:9-18 Paul writes that Demas deserted him “because he loved this world.” Only Luke was with him. Paul asks Timothy to come to him and bring Mark and bring a cloak “left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.” It is in this final chapter 4 of II Timothy that we find Paul’s inspiring, uplifting words (vss. 6-8): “For I am being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will reward to me on that day–and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.”

To comment more specifically upon the significance in the date and place of the writing of Philemon, I can only believe that the Holy Spirit has allowed us to see into the Christian heart, see the unfailing perseverance of a great warrior for Christ and the power and truth of the Gospel even in the very last days of Paul’s earthly life. Unlike Demas, Paul faced death confidently and always loyal to God even in the more minor things...like a runaway slave.

Onesimus has converted to Christianity through Paul’s prison ministry–sort of a reverse prison ministry, not what we would think of as a “prison ministry” today. Do we not see another instance of the kingdom of God opened to Jew and Gentile, freeman and slave alike? Even the slave owner Philemon had previously been brought to belief in Jesus, the Christ, through the work of Paul–as used by the Spirit–in presenting the Word. Now with Onesimus being returned, Paul alludes to his ministry that brought both owner and slave to Christ. They are both adopted children of God, brothers in Christ, and one is not more important to God than the other.

We see Paul’s request for forgiveness for the offending slave as concrete application of “forgive, as your Father forgives you.”

Paul makes another easily understood application of a most important Christian theme when he tells Philemon that he, Paul, would pay the debt of Onesimus’disobedience. Isn’t that offer of substitutionary atonement exactly what Jesus did, paying the debt we owed to God?

We see the legally ordained practice of slavery in the world in that time. Paul doesn’t expressly direct Philemon to release Onesimus. Paul preferred Philemon to act, not because Paul commanded it, but that Philemon might choose willingly, his choice springing out of a heart that loves God above all else. A Sovereign God gave us free will; nevertheless, Jesus taught, if you love God, you keep His commandments. Paul doesn’t teach disobedience to the law; he relies on Grace to motivate obedience and it is Grace that avoids the law’s harshness.

Though Paul is not speaking words condemning the owning of slaves, yet Paul clearly expects a new day-to-day real life relationship between master and slave–“no longer a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.” Paul argues persuasively that Onesimus was very dear to him, “but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.” Onesimus is a “new creation.” (2 Cor. 5:17)

What meaning is here for a modern day Christian?

Christians are released from slavery and became one of the adopted children through the power of His Word. The principle of substitutionary atonement is well portrayed here. Paul offers to pay what Onesimus owes Philemon. Paul is making intercession with Philemon on Onesimus’ behalf, much as a very loving, gentle, compassionate Jesus gave Himself for us. I rather know that Philemon will free Onesimus, and that Onesimus will be more than a slave. There are no words to fully describe the joy of our redemption and adoption into the family of God, a very dear position indeed!

We were all runaway slaves until Jesus freed us from captivity. I am confident that if Onesimus should remain a slave, heaven forbid, his faith is sufficient. Christians are in the world, but not of the world. The Lord has overcome the world and we cherish the hope within us; that we too will be with Him. As the Christian hope is real and sufficient for Onesimus, so this hope is sufficient for us whatever the circumstances.

It is fascinating to see the cross-references to the cities or churches. For me, the historical significance of Paul’s letters more real and presents vividly the richness of Acts.

I can understand the slight frown that might come across the brow of some of you. Did I find doctrine in places where it was just Paul using his common sense...in a letter--and Paul wrote plenty of letters. Ah, that is an important point. We too go about our ways, perhaps sharing a greeting with a friend or stranger. Perhaps we hesitate a moment and actually assist someone struggling with the task before them. Saint Frances of Assisi is supposed to have said, “Preach constantly; use words if necessary!” That makes sense!

Lastly, we see Paul relating to Philemon his prayers of thankfulness, hearing of Philemon’s faith and love for all the saints. Paul prays that Philemon’s sharing of the faith “may promote the knowledge of all good that is ours in Christ.” (RSV) Then Paul says: “Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints.” (NIV) Oh, that every Christian might receive a letter like that! As our gifts enable us we must take Paul’s praise to heart and share the faith, promote knowledge of our God, give joy and encouragement to others and thereby refresh the hearts of the saints.

Never again will I take the letter to Philemon so lightly!

Dating the New Testament Books

On one of the sites I regularly go to, they have numerous discussion boards with designated topics. The atheist who writes on the Religion board, and who is in love with himself and greatly admires his own perceived brilliance is something more than a atheist who does not merely believe there is any God or Supreme Being. Nope, this guy hates anything Christian and wants everyone to hate God, too. He is, I submit, a fine example of Freud’s findings and conclusions that people repress, or suppress, from their memory horrible experiences, usually childhood things. "He’s in denial," has a certain amount of truth to it, at least on some occasions. Yet those sub-conscious memories keep being tweaked and that irritation triggers personality abnormalities, like maybe great irrational fear of a man wearing a large silver buckle or a dark car with tinted windows. Well, this atheist fellow throws unoriginal ideas around as made popular by the German Higher Critics, such as the Bible is all myths and legends, as if he knew everything about the subject.

To his obsessions and compulsions, I once answered in detail and hopefully with logic for a full page or two suggesting the posting over and over of the same myths and legends junk was an obsession or compulsion indicative of a repression problem as per Freud. I was amazed. He absolutely went silent for awhile, maybe a month, then lately he came back, but not one additional time has he expressly mentioned myths and legends.

A few days ago I went to the board and he was arguing with what I deem might be a new believer, lots of zeal but not a lot of information or resources. [So I fail in controlling my own arrogant judgments, too, now and then.] The atheist had the Christian just a tad on the defensive. Atheist claimed the Christian’s belief in the Bible was ill-placed, because the New Testament books were actually not written by the Apostles or eye-witnesses, but were written in the 4th Century. Kind of a variation of the myths and legends argument! Now remember, this guy delights to speak as if he had unimpeachable knowledge of all he chooses to reveal to any gullible Christian that believes the Bible, and he doesn’t bother to support anything he says with citations to resources.

The Atheist has now said: "The consensus of the learned experts is that the New Testament books were written in the 300 AD era."

I responded: For sake of brevity I must summarize, yet I will be kind enough to explain my sources and some reasoning for what I say here. Okay, if someone doubts me then be kind enough to me to visit a Christian Book store and browse. Several good New Testament Surveys will give you a lot of information concerning every N.T. book. If that is not convincing, you will find author scholars who seem to specialize in a particular book and you can examine the reasoning of authors of each book separately. In their introductions to a particular book you will find discussions in detail of the probable date of the writing. They meet any variant opinion with logic and reasoning expressed and argued. To be sure, I possess or have access to numerous scholars’ work, scholars with fantastic credentials and awards and fellowships, etc. Some are conservative, some moderate/liberal and some (like me perhaps) may be considered conservative on some issues and liberal on another. One of the recognized best scholars on John’s Gospel, even by protestant scholars, is a Roman Catholic. That is to say, this is not my cooked-up narrow minded analysis in furtherance of some "fundamentalist" agenda. When we read arguments, points and counter-points we truly learn in depth about the issues upon which we argue.

In regard to dates, there are no meaningful disputes. For example: As to the time of NT formation, some might suggest 40-70 AD while another might use 50-100 AD based on his own analysis, not a meaningful difference in most cases. I recognize that in the 19th century when Nietzsche and the European liberal existentialists were a rage and had captured the attention of theological thinkers, it was opined that John was late, written decades after John would have died. That would mean John the Apostle would not be alive to write it. However, the bright idea fails because a manuscript fragment of numerous verses from John’s Gospel exactly as we know it was discovered about 125 AD in Egypt.

Then, examining the many books internally we find Paul, for example, referring in several of his letters to writers like Mark and Luke being with him in Rome. Paul’s last letters were written from prison. In Acts, really a NT historical document, we again learn of Paul imprisonments. Based on internal materials we know Paul in his latter days was imprisoned by the caesar who first intently and insanely persecuted Christians. Historically, things fit! Nero had Paul killed. Thus, Paul had finished his writings not later than about 64 AD and many of his letters clearly were much earlier, within maybe a decade of Jesus’ resurrection. The point is that cross-referencing points can be found between books and between authors.

We should not overlook early Church fathers who also wrote various letters that have been found. Of particular interest is a letter from an early church father Clement to the Christians in Corinth, with unmistakable dating--in AD 95. He cites verses from the Gospels, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Ignatius wrote to several churches in Asia Minor, citing Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Cor., Galations, Ephesians, Philippians, 1-2 Timothy and Titus verses. Ignatius wrote in AD 115 (translated into our dating method). The point: the entire NT was written within the first century AD.

I had no intention to discuss reasons to proclaim the reliability of the Gospels for truth in this post, yet I point to Tacitus, a non-Christian Roman historian. He corroborates not only Nero’s persecution, but in learning about those crazy christus people who would die for their faith, he gives a good summary of the belief--Pontious Pilate, the crucifixion, the resurrection. There are other non-biblical points of corroboration by non-Christian writers of Jesus’ existence and of such things as His healings and other miracles. For example, Jewish writings of the time contain expressions that Jesus did these unusual things by sorcery.

I will now be so bold as to imitate the "consensus" comment, yet I have given the reasons for my statement: The genuine consensus of learned opinion is that every NT book was written not earlier than 40 AD and not later than 100 AD with most of it written before 70 AD.

The manuscript evidence for the authenticity of Biblical texts is astounding. There are 24,000 extant manuscripts to study and compare for any man-made corruption, alterations or variations. There are some excellent examples of intact manuscripts dating from AD 325-450, the Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus. There are multiple thousands of early fragments dating from 100 to 200 years before Vaticanus and Siniaticus. The especially clear and legible among the many fragments are those called the Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodner Papyrus. From these fragments alone all of Luke, John, Romans, 1-2 Cor., Galations, Eph, Philippians, Col., 1-2 Thess., Mark, Acts and Revelation are reconstructed into a whole. The pieces by words fit together to form the whole, much as forming the picture of a jig-saw puzzle from pieces. And it matters not whether the fragment depicting words from Mark 10 (example) came from Syria or Egypt. One scholar in Church history (sounding like others) has said succinctly, "It is of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration."

Lastly, I note the Dead Sea Scroll fragments. Some of them are definitely pieces of the NT. It is certain that the Qumran community hid their scrolls in caves at that crucial time in Jewish history when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem and the countryside villages, i.e., around 70 AD. These fragments are carefully cataloged. For example: Cave 7, Q6, Q15, Q5 contained verses from Mark, chapters 4, 6, and 12. There are similar fragments from Acts 27; Romans 5; 1 Timothy; 2 Peter; James. To be sure, much of the cave material has been basically destroyed, plus I haven’t printed the names of other Old Testament book copy fragments found.

After all this, and there is more an expert with time to write could add, I trust we can see that the claim the NT books were not written before the 4th century is...laughable!

Perhaps a lack of general biblical and church knowledge and failure to distinguish between the date of writing of the books by the Apostles and eye-witnesses and the much later church declaration of the canon has led to the confusion we are discussing. To again quote a scholar: "When at last a Church Council–the Synod of Hippo in AD 393–listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity." The Church declaration was good and necessary to guard against those groups, such as the Gnostics, who tried to get their material used by the church, not to mention a serious heretical challenge by Marcion urging some strange ideas.
*********************
Post Script: Since I posted my response the atheist has not replied to it. I’m almost disappointed! He has been on the site and has actively posted on other topics on the Religion board. The encouraging thing for me is to have received super comments from several Christians, including the one I deemed to be a new Christian and even from one who rarely posts there.

"Discussion" with an atheist!

On a discussion board is the stereotypical atheist. He is sure he knows everything. He is terribly anti-Christian, British and extremely liberal. As foolish as it is, I enjoy fussing with him. He had a long post and did brag of quantum physics going to answer the issue of Creation. Some of my friends believe he may be a BBC reporter. He is rather knowledgeable about events, filtered through a flaming liberal screen. Thinking he had some point in answering a previous poster's writing he has this sassy little statement and question. I answered and the answer is my blog post today.

[His question:] "Atheists don't believe in a Creator. Does that help?"

Good of you to ask. If I start with Friedrick Nietzsche, the German philosopher and atheist (he popularized the battle cry of "God is dead"), we find him saying that without the influence of God (and he wanted no part of God) our society would be in disasterous chaos within a few generations. He proposed it would take a "superman" (not the one with a cape flying around with an S on his chest) to take control and forcibly establish a ruling order. Hitler took that atheist's idea to heart! Hitler even gave a book of Nietzsche's writings to Mussolini. Yes, Hitler deemed himself just the superman to estabish the super race. How many millions died? Is it possible to even add up the costs of the destruction and death because Hitler was so gullible as to believe Nietzsche's atheistic theories, i.e., that man was self-sufficient now in the scientific age and didn't need God?

Then to name a few more: There is Stalin, whose murder and death count exceeded Hitler's. Pol Pot was another--both atheists. Okay, okay, yes, one particular brand of Christians killed some people in the Inquisition. Would some atheist please step forward and tell us about that horrible Inquisition in the olden days one more time, while ignoring the uncountable horror of the egotistical self-declared atheist supermen of modern times?

Again, the question: "Atheists don't believe in a Creator. Does that help?" And the answer is: "No! It hasn't helped anyone!" If the multi-millions dead, tortured, maimed and otherwise left with meaningless lives because atheist leaders don't believe in a Creator were able to shout, the roar of their "No" would surely be astounding.

I suppose an atheist quantum physicist can state his theory about matter popping into existence by chance and there would be a group who so want to believe him that they would not think it out for themselves. Something cannot be created out of absolute nothing, not the least speck of dust nor whiff of gaseous elements. That's a scientific principle that has never been proven wrong in any fine modern laboratory. Atheists may think they have crawled out of a slimy pond, but no one else would believe such a---! No, wait! Maybe...maybe atheists really did! On second thought...yes, I can believe that!

Oh, the burden of metaphors!

In the comments after the Salt of the Earth post, it was noted that metaphors get mixed and scrambled and that can often irritate. I decided to write the definitive life-changing explanations and wrote the following, or most of it, but just couldn’t get it finished. I could never quite explain Lot's wife turning into salt. I felt like a mountain trout trying to swallow a whale–just couldn’t get my teeth into it. But I’ve decided to stop with the whale and be happy nibbling on a goldfish. The goldfish too bland, I moved on to saltier fare. I hunted among the oysters for a pearl, but only came up with grains of sand. Enough of that Shakespearian type musing; here are my Sherlock Holmes deductions and conclusions:

After my extensive research--Not!--I find the references to salt in the OT indicate its significance in early Judaism as a symbol of endurance and worth. (Kittel, and others).

I think the interesting application of that principle comes from Numbers 18:19 where it seems to be an ingredient of an "everlasting covenant of salt" (this wording coming in a discussion of sacrifices).

In Mark 9, reading the verses beginning about 35 through 50, I wouldn't be wrong to suggest that the discussion involves doing good work, refraining from sin and avoiding the fires of hell. In the proper context, these verses are emphasizing to the disciples in importance of their constant participation in the kingdom of God, which cannot be separated from the person of Jesus and the exercise of faith. A few verses earlier in Chapter 9, and elsewhere, Jesus has clearly warned His disciples of His own death and that persecution awaits the disciples who follow Him. Testing, tribulation, persecution, floggings, even burning at the stake and death await those followers listening to Him. His teaching culminates in the verse: "Everyone will be salted with fire." Here we have something of a metaphor within a metaphor–maybe? Salt purifies and certainly fire melted the ore and impurity was burned or strained away leaving the ore pure.

Before moving on you should know that the "Everyone....salted...fire" language is textually disputed by many scholars. The NIV (printed bold above) is the most accepted, probably supported by the better manuscripts. It is interesting to see that other lines of ancient manuscripts read: "...for (or and) every sacrifice will be salted with salt." You might logically ask, "But the New Testament disciples will not be offering sacrifices with salt for burning. That’s OT stuff!" The association of salt with the sacrifices is indeed strong and inseparable, yet we must read Romans 12:1 to see it all make sense. "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—which is your spiritual worship."

All of these good works, persecutions and tribulations are our NT sacrifices done in the care and strength of the New Covenant, a covenant where salt has relevance in worship. We need to go and do and live with strength, endurance and worthiness, i.e., as salt that never loses its savor. Luke 14:33-35 very well confirms the preceding statement with this: "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?...." Give up everything? That is part of being Biblical salt? Possibly–if we were to love everything more than Christ. We’ve been taught that if your eye causes you to sin you should pluck it out rather than continue and miss out on the Kingdom of God. No one, except a Muslim maybe, would blame the eye or hand for our sin. Jesus objected to such external religion ways of thinking. He isn’t teaching mutilation. He teaches that nothing should be so important to us as to cause us to breach our Covenant of Salt, lose our saltiness and fall short of eternity with Him.

Perhaps Colossians 4:2-6 might help us grasp the meaning of salt. Paul wanted the readers to be devoted to prayer. He wanted prayers for himself so he could proclaim the Gospel clearly. Then abruptly he switches back while in this paragraph expressing concerns to proclaim the Word clearly, saying to the reader: "Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone."

It seems to me that most every supposedly learned commentary expounds upon "seasoned with salt" as if the first phrase "full of grace" had not been given, i.e., they explain that seasoned with salt sort of means our speech should be full of grace. Maybe someone has a better commentary, but in its absence I will boldly suggest that Paul wasn’t stupid and that he knew seasoned with salt meant something. I think of Francis of Assisi who is reported to have said something like, "Preach constantly; if necessary use words." So I dare to suggest that even without the Word mentioned specifically, principles of the Word may be presented, e.g., encouragement, comfort, calmness, goodness and mercy, forgiveness. Such words, together perhaps with Christian conduct such as hospitality or physically helping another in need, may render an otherwise simple "God bless you" to be a powerful sermon, salt to the other on his journey toward responding to God’s calling to repentance and salvation.

I’ll close with these further thoughts concerning "Covenant of Salt." Salt was often used among the Oriental peoples for ratifying agreements. Through absorbing the meaning and adopting the practice over time, salt became for the chosen people, too, the teaching symbol of fidelity and constancy. In Leviticus, Numbers and 2 Chronicles we see the use of salt as a preservative in the world and typifying the eternal nature of contractual benefits and responsibilities inherent in the Covenant of Salt between God and His Chosen.

Hang the metaphors! We are salt of the earth! You know what it means, so get out there and make the world around you better. Full speed ahead!

One Man's Salty Example

It has been so long ago–yet I still remember promising to post more on my favorite historical Theologian, one who best portrays that a Christian is in fact "Salt of the Earth." I give you herein some information on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I’m sure the information I give you can find, and more, without much trouble, but I hope my inadequate summary makes it easy and still presents what it means to be salt of the earth. As I indicated in my last post, I do not attribute to him any grandiose type of sainthood; I do say he took James’ advice and showed us his faith by the things he did. He wrote with a rare depth of thought, he taught brilliantly, he lived and died loyal to his Lord. I’ll repeat one of his phrases that seems to be the keynote of his life: "The call of Christ makes those who respond to it the salt of the earth in their total existence."

Bonhoeffer, born in Germany in 1906, was one of seven children, His father was a noted physician and became the first to occupy a university chair in psychiatry in Germany. Bonhoeffer wrote that from his father he learned an insistent, demanding realism:

"...a ‘turning away from the phraseological to the real.’ For him [Dietrich] Christianity could never be merely intellectual theory, doctrine divorced from life, or mystical emotion, but always it must be responsible, obedient action, the discipleship of Christ in every situation of concrete everyday life, personal and public."

He was a student of several of the great German scholars of the time. Friends he grew up with went on to be recognized in their fields of study. Bonhoeffer’s interest from the age of sixteen was Theology. At age twenty-one he presented his doctor’s thesis and became a Theology faculty member at age twenty-four. He was at Union Theological Seminary in New York for a year in 1930 and spoke of it as "a place of free discussion, made possible by the civic courage peculiar to Americans and the lack of any sort of officialism in personal relations." Though he was a skilled pianist he was fascinated by Negro spirituals, took them back to Germany and taught them to his Christian brethren before the songs became commonly known by radio, etc. To be sure, his interest in spirituals sprang out of his empathetic feelings with the struggle of the Negro for equality. This was 1930, long before the 1960's civil rights movements.

Back in Germany, in 1933, Bonhoeffer delivered a radio lecture critical of the public for their willing acceptance of a strong leader who became the "misleader," Adolf Hitler. The broadcast was cut off before its finish. Bonhoeffer refused to be a part of the German Christian Church compromise with the Nazis, so he accepted the call of two German speaking congregations in London. Within a couple of years and against the urging of others, he went back to Germany out of duty to his Lord and fellow Christians and became a leader of the illegal and clandestine Confessing Church. Bonhoeffer saw a Germany being built based on the strength of man, without considering God.

I have never ran across this idea, but when I peruse the work of an earlier German atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 to 1900) I think Bonhoeffer was well aware of one of Nietzsche’s main thoughts: Modern man and science has eliminated the need for God, to-wit: ‘God is dead’. Nietzsche despised religion, yet knew and wrote of the Christian supported morality that pervaded society, at least in that age–a morality that held civilization together. He despised religion, yet he could foresee that without Godly influences humans were doomed to become socially degenerate and disintegrate into destruction and chaos. Nietzsche’s solution was to propose the necessity of an earthly human ‘superman’ (No, this was long before the cartoon character.) to rule, to forcibly grab the populations and impose order for a strong super-society. By the way, Nietzsche hated Jesus’ "Sermon on the Mount" because His teachings would be helping preserve the weak.

We know Hitler was very fond of Nietzsche, even gave Mussolini a copy of Nietzsche’s book. Hitler surely must have envisioned himself as a Nietzschean superman. The historians do say that Nietzsche’s dogma influenced the 20th century ego-maniacs Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. I propose that Bonhoeffer recognized the monster Nietzsche had created, that Hitler would not be restrained by common or traditional decency, that in building his super-race he would destroy the weak.

At a time when the world could easily conceive of Hitler’s ultimate victory, Bonhoeffer became active in the resistance in Germany, was even one of those involved in the conspiracy that resulted in the attempted assassination of Hitler, and Bonhoeffer’s imprisonment. One of his friends wrote of Bonhoeffer, "The man who felt all the force of the pacifist position and weighed the ‘cost of discipleship’ concluded in the depths of his soul that to withdraw from those who were participating in the political and military resistance would be irresponsible cowardice and flight from reality."

Bonhoeffer did not believe that everyone had to act as he did, but pacifism was not for him, nor was there any possibility of his retreat into some righteous, pious refuge. He could see all around him respectable people in sinful flight from responsibility. He was a German. The sins of his fellow Germans were falling upon him and he took his stand.

In 1943, Bonhoeffer, his sister and her husband were imprisoned. First in a military prison, "the guards were friendly to this strong pastor and secretly took him to the cells of despairing prisoners to minister to them. They preserved his papers, essays, and poems and even established a complete courier service to the family and friends outside."

Then later in 1943 he was moved into the infamous Gestapo prisons and contact with the outside world was lost. One of his fellow prisoners was an English officer who wrote:

"Bonhoeffer always seemed to me to spread an atmosphere of happiness and joy over the least incident and profound gratitude for the mere fact that he was alive. ...He was one of the very few persons I have ever met for whom God was real and always near. ...On Sunday, April 8, 1945, Pastor Bonhoeffer conducted a little service of worship and spoke to us in a way that went to the heart of all of us. He found just the right words to express the spirit of our imprisonment, the thoughts and the resolutions it had brought us. He had hardly ended his last prayer when the door opened and two civilians entered. They said, "Prisoner Bonhoeffer, come with us." ...We said goodbye to him. He took me aside: ‘This is the end, but for me it is the beginning of life.’ The next day he was hanged...."

Bonhoeffer died April 9, 1945, within a very few days of the end of the war.

Numerous essays, articles, and books were written by Bonhoeffer. It is tempting to present many worthy quotations from these works, yet it would beyond my capability to fairly present the "salt" of his writings in summary fashion. I’ll stay with the facts displayed--that Bonhoeffer’s thoughts were more than a Theologian’s lofty words; they are reflections from the heart of a man who heard and understood Jesus’ call, and lived for Him. He was indeed salt of the earth in his "total existence".

We know that salt was associated with the sacrifices. Hopefully, we gain from one man’s example of what it means to pick up our cross and follow him, to be salt of the earth. I submit that Christianity is under strong attack in our day, only a bit more subtle than in Bonhoeffer's day. The sly devil has used clever men and who continue to teach attractive ideologies to distort the faith of foolish man, not to mention his use of the intellectually lazy and not so clever men and women who profess to lead the Church. For us as pew sitting individual Christians, too, in our daily job and socially we often conform. Our mantra seems to be: fit in and never offend.

"Salt of the Earth"–Yes, there may be various metaphorical meanings worthy of thought–nevertheless, if we just sit quietly and think about it and the usages of "salt" in the Word, we might miss seeing that in our obedience to God and our Lord Jesus Christ we cannot be silent and avoid the battles, hide behind church doors or remain indistinguishable from the unbelieving secular world.

"Salt of the Earth"

If I had to choose my favorite of the four Gospels, and if John is not available for me to choose, and Matthew and Luke are likewise not open for consideration as my favorite, I know I would choose Mark. Mark is so very concisely written that Jesus’ work and the essential underlying themes of Christianity stand out as if written in "Bold." Someone might answer me by saying, "Yes, but how very enriching is the elaboration of Matthew, Luke and John!" I would not argue against that; I nevertheless love Mark’s Gospel. I find myself occasionally caught up in thoughtful perplexity about something written therein. I know there is a deeper meaning that should be seen with the eyes of the heart. And that for me is the glory of Mark’s Gospel: He demands our attention to ancient culture and Scripture and an understanding that springs forth in living application.

Mark 9: 49, 50: Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

Ever wonder what Jesus meant when He told us we’ll be "salted with fire." Then the phrase about having "salt in yourselves" also deserves some pondering. We know what salt is, yet until we stop and think about it our definition of salt is sort of a child’s definition. To state the obvious, salt is a preservative and it gives flavor to the food we eat. The need to preserve meats and other foods from spoiling in the warm middle east climate in pre-refrigeration days made salt an essential and cherished household substance. Think also of the important industries of that day surrounding salt. It had to be extracted; it was of crucial importance to the transportation industry. Imagine the poor camel caravan drivers hauling fish from Galilee to the population centers in the summer without salt preserving their product. The odor would soon make even the camels suffer and they are reputed to be not the most sweet smelling of animals. The Jews had a maxim, not necessarily one of their holy sayings, that "the world cannot survive without salt."

At this point I haven’t mentioned the delicious savor of salt bringing out or enhancing the flavor of certain foods. That is for me and many of us an important part of salt’s characteristic. I am blessed with low blood pressure so I tend to sprinkle salt generously. So now we know all about salt!

Yet for the context and deeper understanding, I’ll continue. Jesus is constantly teaching The Twelve and perhaps multitudes in other times and places. The original Apostles had responded to Jesus’ call, left their homes and occupations. The Messiah had called them! They traveled with Him, saw the signs and miracles. Other disciples gathered along the way and listened as Jesus taught about Himself and His mission and how Christians should live. Yet Jesus doesn’t refer to Himself as salt of the earth; the label belongs to the disciples. For the sake of the world, the disciples must be salt. No, wait! Jesus did not say, "You must be salt."

Oh, so when He sends them or us out to teach the Gospel to the world, the salt goes with us in the form of the Word that is carried and taught! Uh... no, Jesus didn’t say it that way either. Matthew 5:13 records Jesus declaring to His followers: "You are the salt of the earth."

Is this merely a helpful expression? There are many gems of wisdom in the Bible, aren’t there, so why do I write a blog post about salt? I say being salt is the essence of our life in Christ. Hang with me, please, as I sweep through Leviticus 2. The instructions emphasize the proper preparation of the offerings. We find the priest burning portions of it. In vs 3 and 10 the "rest of" the grain offering "belongs to Aaron and his sons [priests]; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the Lord by fire." Now we find in verse 13 "Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings." [Catch that? "The salt of the covenant of your God!" His covenant preserves; it gives meaning and sweet savor for life.]

Ezekiel 43:24 gives instructions concerning the sin offering. I’m totally certain Ezekiel wasn’t just thinking of salt keeping meat from turning green at the time of sacrifice when he referred to a young bull and a ram, "You are to offer them before the Lord, and the priests are to sprinkle salt on them and sacrifice them as a burnt offering to the Lord."

Exodus 30 would seem to make clear for us that making the sacrifices and producing sweet aromas are holy things, Spiritual things as well as literal. Right attitudes were of the essence. What they did and how they lived for Him were to be "pure and sacred," without corruption. Yes, salted! Exodus 30:34,35: Then the Lord said to Moses, "Take fragrant spices ... and pure frankincense, all in equal amounts, and make a fragrant blend of incense, the work of a perfumer. It is to be salted and pure and sacred."

So, Gringo is spouting Old Testament junk about the animal sacrifices. How does that relate to us? Well, the salt was not featured in the animal sacrifice as being some literal need. I’m sure of that. No, we offer our sacrifices of work for Him, of self-denial now and then, of exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit because that is just the way we are. Yes, our attitudes and motivations are of the essence. We don’t add salt to our surroundings, we are salt. Animal sacrifices with salt are not my topic. Nope, I’m talking about purity and freedom from corruption in our lives. Paul refers to our "Spiritual worship." In Romans 12:1ff we are taught that every disciple is to be a sacrifice for God. It is worth printing a few of those verses here: Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God–which is your spiritual worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–His good, pleasing and perfect will.

We do not want our living sacrifices to God to be spoiled and it isn’t something that we must hurry to sprinkle with a dab of salt. The sacrifice is us; the salt is us. Saint Frances of Assisi is reported to have said, "Preach constantly; if necessary use words." We don’t have to wake up and resolve to be, or to do, or to say something better this day, because: If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come. 2 Cor. 5:17

Faith is active to produce good fruit. One of my ‘modern’ day heros of the Faith, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, has said it well: "The call of Christ makes those who respond to it the salt of the earth in their total existence."

I’ll post another, and hopefully shorter blog, to present more about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the man that spoke God’s Word, lived God’s Word and died being God’s Word. I’m not saying this man was sinless. No, but maybe we can be encouraged by the faith of one of our almost contemporary disciple brothers. In Bonhoeffer’s total existence he has given us a practical application of what it meant for a man of Faith to be "salt of the earth."