Creation Revisited (Part 1)

I am studying creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4) now in seminary. And it has been very interesting! Coming from a scientific background (biochemistry and medicine) that is heavily influenced by an atheistic worldview, it has been thought-provoking to hear a clear, insightful, educated, and rational (not to mention humble) perspective in support of a literal interpretation of Genesis. (I have had some very negative experiences from hateful and overbearing creationists in the past.) My professor, Douglas Kelly, wrote the book Creation and Change and he makes some very interesting theological points that have caused me to critically “readdress” the issues regarding creation (instead of panning the debate as largely irrelevant). This week, I will be sharing some insights that I have picked up from his lectures and reading materials. As usual, please understand that a tiny blog entry will not do justice to this immense topic. So I present these points not as a defense of one position or another (since I am still trying to “figure it all out” for myself), but rather as simply thoughts that have caused me to “take pause” and to reconsider some of my assumptions regarding creation. So, here they are (in no particular order of importance):

1. A correct view of creation is important for our understanding of the rest of Scripture. The reason is simple. The creation account found in early Genesis forms the foundation by which we understand all of Scripture at large. Central tenets of Christianity find their establishment with the creation account. In these early chapters, we are informed of who God is, who man is, how sin entered the world, the effect of sin on our relationship with a holy God, and the promise of hope given to Adam and Eve before being expelled from Eden (which allude to Christ’s redemptive work on the cross). Therefore, a mythological interpretation of these early chapters of Genesis would undermine fundamental Christian doctrines.
2. Belief in either evolution or creationism all proceed from faith based presuppositions. In other words, even the evolutionary model is based on “faith” in something which guides how the evolutionist interprets the evidences. Dr. Kelly quotes Michael Polanyi as saying,

   “No human intelligence . . . can operate outside such a context of faith, for it is within that context that there arises within us, under compulsion from the reality of the world we experience, a regulative set of convictions or a framework of beliefs which prompts and guides our inquiries and controls our assessment of the evidence.”

3. The New Testament holds a “high view” of Genesis and there is no suggestion from the New Testament or Christ’s sayings that Genesis should be interpreted as mythological. Dr. Kelly quotes Henry Morris: 

   “The New Testament is, if anything, even more dependent on Genesis than the Old. There are at least 165 passages in Genesis that are either directly quoted or clearly referred to in the New Testament. Many of those are alluded to more than once, so that there are at least two hundred quotations or allusions to Genesis in the New Testament. It is significant that the portion of Genesis which has been the object of the greatest attacks of skepticism and unbelief, the first eleven chapters, is the portion which had the greatest influence on the New Testament. Yet there exist over one hundred quotations or direct references to Genesis 1-11 in the New Testament. Furthermore, every one of these eleven chapter is alluded to somewhere in the New Testament, and every one of the New Testament authors refers somewhere in his writings to Genesis 1-11. On at least six different occasions, Jesus Christ Himself quoted from or referred to something or someone in one of these chapters, including specific references to each of the first seven chapters.”

4. How we interpret Genesis 1-2 will reveal something about our hermeneutical presuppositions (i.e. the “belief system” that guides how we interpret the Bible). If we say that Genesis 1:1-2:4 is “poetry” and “metaphorical”—when the majority of Hebrew scholarship does not identify it as such—are we then imposing our own assumptions regarding the origin of life on a plain interpretation of Scripture? How will this awkward “forcing a square peg into a round hole” affect how we interpret other parts of the Bible that doesn’t agree with our preconceived notions of how life should work?

Anyway, Dr. Kelly makes these and many other good points, and I’m looking forward to finishing his book. Obviously, this little blog entry will do nothing to settle this 200 year old debate. Just something for me personally to think about (since a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:4 contradicts my indoctrination by a medical education which assumes a purely atheistic or deistic worldview).

NEW SERMON: "The Word Was God"

I'm slowly in the process of getting my old sermons online for family and friends. If you are interested, I just posted a new sermon on John 1:1-5 titled, "The Word Was God." If you want a higher resolution video, click here for a direct link to my channel on Vimeo.

God bless... Have a great Sabbath... I'm going to try to limit using the computer much today, and to spend more time with my wife and kids (and maybe do some reading)...

Predestination (Some Resources)

Here are some useful resources on predestination. I have not read these books from cover to cover yet. But the chapters and excerpts that I have read have helped to shed light on this difficult subject. I'm sure that there are other good books that could be suggested. These are just the ones that come to mind...

"The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner (available free at CCEL)

"Freedom of The Will" by Jonathan Edwards (available free at CCEL)

"Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" by J.I. Packer (Amazon)

And finally... From the most important resource...

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.” (Matthew 10:29-31)

Predestination and Election (yikes!)

The topic of predestination and election can garner some pretty hostile responses. And although these are the topics that I am currently studying in seminary, writing about them in a blog causes me some trepidation. The reason is simply that the format of a blog is not typically conducive of such weighty and mysterious topics. Huge tomes have been written by “giants” of the faith (so my little “blurb” here will not likely add much to the discussion). Nevertheless, here are some interesting points to consider about the doctrines of predestination and election that I have learned. I present them in no particular order of importance, and this list is obviously not exhaustive. These are simply some points that strike me as “touching” or “thought provoking” or “worshipful:

1. These doctrines reveal the loving heart of a compassionate God. When God predestines and chooses those who rebel against him, hate him, and want to have nothing to do with him, his election proceeds from his abundant heart of tenderness and mercy. As I look back on my life and conversion, I can see no valid reason for God to choose me. And the fact that he does speak volumes of his love rather than my lovability or personal wisdom in choosing him.
2. A proper understanding of God’s sovereignty is not reserved for the philosophical and theological musings of pastors and seminary professors. It is eminently practical for everyone. Right now, I have a patient in the hospital who is likely dying of heart failure. But what comforts her is the knowledge that her suffering and pain are not the random outworking of a cruel materialistic Universe (or an impersonal deistic god), but rather they are grounded in the purposeful will of a true, living, and good God who will “work all things for the good of those who love him” (Romans 8:28). This promise is extremely comforting. There is an existential need in every Christian to know that even in the most horrible tragedies of our lives, God is in control.
3. In some ways, almost every Christian believes, at least partially, in God’s election. Most Christians, for example, believe that children who die and those who are severely mentally impaired go to heaven. (Personally, this understanding alone has been enough to convince me of God’s election for the rest of mankind.) Also, when most Christians pray for the conversion of a loved-one, we do not pray a “wishy-washy” request for God to convince a sinner of the merits of his love. Rather, we pray that God breaks the heart of stone and actively replaces it with a heart of affection. We pray for God to act decisively. 
4. The doctrine of predestination and election do not invalidate man’s responsibility or the Christian’s call to passionately and urgently evangelize. Such beliefs are unfaithful to Scripture and proceed from man’s attempt to “logically extrapolate” from something that is infinitely complicated and mysterious. That should never be done. Our biblical motivations for evangelism are from faithfulness to God's command (Matthew 28:19), intrinsic joy (John 4:27-42), and a deep love for others.
5. We must accept mystery here. That God is utterly sovereign and that man is responsible are both clearly taught in the Bible. However, we will never reconcile these two truths "logically" on this earth. We must live Scripturally. We must live by faith. And the fact that we cannot piece together this infinite puzzle into our finite minds should not provoke us to despair. Rather it should induce us towards worship.

On Depravity (via Beach Balls)

This past Sunday we had dinner at a friend’s house. A bunch of us were in the basement watching our kids playing. Then, suddenly, one of the young boys took a beach ball and whacked another boy squarely on the head. This random act of violence was witnessed by me and the parents of the boy that got whacked. I made the comment that “people who don’t believe in the depravity of man obviously do not have children.” Then one of the parents said, “You’re not going to record this on your blog, are you?” (I guess I just did...)
       John Calvin once made the comment that “children are like rats.” To which, R.C. Sproul commented, “When I get to heaven, I’m going to tell Calvin that his assessment of children was completely unfair... to the rats!” (By the way, I have three cute little “rats” of my own who I completely adore... And I'm surprised that it wasn't one of my "rats" who inflicted the violence... Maybe next time...)

On Depravity (A Fireside Chat)

Please join me as we snuggle up to a cozy fire and discuss the warm and fuzzy topic of man’s depravity. Ok... maybe this topic isn’t so “warm and fuzzy”, but it is extremely important! In fact, a correct view of our nature is a matter of life and death. Jesus said in Mark 2:17, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” In other words, we cannot receive the cure unless we believe in our deadly malady.
       The dictionary defines depravity as “the innate wickedness and moral corruptness of human nature.” Now, the biggest problem with this doctrine is that nobody really believes it (at least not in the fullness in which it reveals the darkness of our hearts). Sure, we may play lip service to this doctrine and say that we are evil and bad, and then maybe say something profound about the doctrine of original sin. In other words, we may understand this doctrine on an intellectual level. But the honest truth is that nobody really feels the full weight of this doctrine. Am I overstating the case? I don’t think so. How do I know this position is true? Simple because our depravity impedes us from fully seeing our depravity!—Ironic isn’t it? And not having an accurate and honest assessment of ourselves horribly demeans God. Let me try to support this last assertion with an illustration...
       Imagine that you have been convicted of a horrible crime and have been sentenced to death. You know that what you did was terrible and that you completely deserve to die. On your way to the gallows, you meditate on your sins and have resigned yourself to pay the full penalty for your crime. However, as you approach the gallows, you see someone else hanging dead on the ropes. Then the executioner unties your hands and informs you that you may go free.
       In disbelief and confusion, you ask, “What’s going on?”
       The executioner then says, “We have a law in our country that says if someone else pays the penalty for your crime, you may go free.”
       “What?” you ask in disbelief. “Who would do that for me?”
       Then looking at the cloths and shoes of the man hanging on the ropes, you notice that they belong to the judge who sentenced you to death. He has paid the price for your crime. He has ransomed his life for yours.
       You see, the gifts of life that Christ offers can only be appreciated when we understand our deserved judgement and death. What good would the judge’s sacrifice be if the criminal did not believe in his own guilt? In the final analysis, by not knowing and feeling the full weight and condemnation of our sins, we rob the cross of its love and sacrifice and glory (and we mock God’s infinite holiness). So to conclude, let me leave you with a quote from Paris Reidhead, 

“Turn to God from idols. For the sword of His wrath that had been aimed at you has been sheathed into the heart of His Son. And the arrows of His anger that had been put against your breast were loosed into the Lord Jesus Christ. Because He has died for you, you were forgiven.”

Father, we remember these words: “Amazing grace! How sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me! I once was lost but now am found. Was blind but now I see!”

How Music "Works" in Worship

Bob Kauflin is the director of worship for Sovereign Grace Ministries. He formerly served as a pastor and as a songwriter, speaker, and arranger for the Christian acappella music group GLAD. The following is an interview between of Bob with Tim Smith. Here is the description that Bob gave of this interview on his website www.worshipmatters.com:

This is the third clip from a longer video in which Tim Smith, worship pastor from Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA, asked me various questions related to worship. In this portion, Tim asked me about the relationship between music and worship. In it I talk about some of the factors that have made music such a volatile issue in the church today, and different ways that Christians view music. Just scratching the surface here…If you want to dig deeper, I’d highly recommend you read Harold Best’s Music Through the Eyes of Faith. I read it in the mid-90’s and haven’t found anything as insightful, helpful, and biblically faithful.

A link to the entire interview can be found by clicking here (this version has much better resolution but may require a faster computer to play).



Bob also gives eight messages called Foundations for Worship at the Sovereign Grace Ministry website (which are all free for download). Here are the titles of his eight messages:

1. Worship: What Really Matters
2. Building a Worshiping Community
3. The Worship Leader's Role
4. Why Do We Sing?
5. Leading and Feeding Your Team
6. Heart Attitudes for the Worship Team
7. Worship Leading and the Prophetic Gifts
8. Closing the Gap: Pastors and Worship Leaders

I have not personally listened to these messages yet (but I plan to). What strikes me from listening to his interview is Bob's strong emphasis on applying Scriptural truth to corporate worship...

Misplaced Glory

If genuine humility and “basking in the glory of Christ” go hand-in-hand, where does “lowly” thinking of ourselves fit in? Quite well actually... Let me suggest this: pride is really misplaced glory. Instead of treasuring the infinite glory of Christ, we treasure our own “goodness”, our own self-sufficiency, our own glory. But the irony is that our glory is often not glory at all—it’s depravity! This is something that I have been personally fighting. It’s good for me to always repeat to myself, “David Koo is very bad! But God is good!” And the truth is that this radical innate sense of self-sufficiency and smugness and spiritual rebellion exists in the very heart and soul of every person (although it may be easier to outwardly visualize in some people than others). This disposition towards pride and rebellion has marked humanity ever since man’s fall in Eden. However, the beauty of a correct understanding of our broken and sinful nature is that it helps us to refocus our gaze from self onto the glory of Christ and his shocking work on the cross. And in doing so, not only do we gain a good and sober assessment of ourselves, we receive a wondrous and a sin-killing vision of God. And remarkably, love for others grows in the soft soil of this joyful humility.

Father, forgive us for an incorrect assessment of ourselves. We are all broken vessels that forget that we are broken. We are all sinful creatures that too easily forget of our sinfulness. Help us Father to lean on you daily. And please help us to focus our gaze on the source of all goodness, love, humility, beauty, and truth. In Christ’s name we pray... Amen.

Sabbath Rest

Julie and I decided to take a "real" Sabbath (which, to me, meant almost no internet use for an entire day). It was honestly refreshing... We spent the time enjoying a simple life, reading, playing with the kids... I think I'll try it again next Sunday...

NEW SERMON: The Context of Christmas

The Context of Christmas from David Koo on Vimeo.

Seeking Humility Through Glory

There are many things about Christianity that are mind-blowing! For instance, consider humility. Did you know that the best way to gain genuine and lasting humility is through glory? Did that statement cause you to raise an eyebrow? That’s right... Humility is gained by actively seeking glory. Let me explain what I mean (before I get stoned)...
       Recently, I was listening to a sermon by John Piper and he said something that caught my attention. First the scenario... In heaven, if someone asked a Christian if he was humble, how would he respond? Piper suggests that the answer would be something like this: “KING JESUS IS ALL!” In other words, when we experience the full revelation of Christ’s glory, we will be filled with a consummate joy, overwhelming happiness, unceasing wonder, and unimaginable beauty. And this vision of Christ’s glory will result in utter forgetfulness of ourselves. That’s how love works! The lover is so enraptured by the other person, that he is lost in utter forgetfulness of himself. Humility and “forgetfulness in Christ” go hand-in-hand.

Lord, forgive us for our tiny view and understanding and desire for your glory. Please give us an unquenchable thirst for you which results in a simple forgetfulness of ourselves... In Christ’s name we pray... Amen.

To be continued...

"Intellectual Humility"

I’ve been thinking (which I admit is often a dangerous activity)—is there really such a thing as “intellectual humility?” It seems that the word “intellectual” and the word “humility” are not usually associated together. Not infrequently, an “intellectual” is thought of as arrogant and ungracious (especially if someone disagrees with him). But does this have to be the case? Does it necessary follow that knowledge breeds pride?
       Now, before we delve into this questions, please allow me to take a quick, but relevant, detour... What is truth? In our culture, there is a pervasive opinion that truth is relative. In other words, truth as an absolute and objective category does not really exist. It is not uncommon to hear, for example, the following sentiment in our modern speech: “You believe your thing, and I’ll believe my thing, and then we’ll all get along just fine.” The assumption here is that what is “true” for one person may not be “true” for another person. Granted, on a superficial level (such as our favorite flavor of ice cream), this statement may be valid. However, for the vast majority of life experiences, this relativistic understanding of truth fails at all levels—personal, practical, spiritual, and even logical. No sane person, for instance, holds a relativistic understanding of truth at the traffic light (a red light does not mean both “go” and “stop”), at the doctor’s office (a patient either has cancer or he doesn’t), or at their wedding (“I do” as a promise does not mean “I might”). The same principle applies to God—He either exists, or He doesn’t. Consequently, a person who believes that God exists and another person who doesn’t cannot both be right. Someone will be absolutely wrong! And saying that someone is “wrong” is not considered “loving.” Or is it?
       As a doctor, I face this dilemma almost everyday. Sometimes to reduce a child’s fever, parents will give their sick child an “ice bath.” Although this practice may have been common 50 years ago, it is not currently considered a good practice because of the risks of hypothermia. Now, as a good doctor, what am I to say? Do I relativistically affirm that the consequences of “ice baths” do not exist? Or do I tell the “narrow” and “exclusive” truth about the dangers of giving ice baths. Obviously, the loving thing to do is to tell the truth (with humility).
       So going back to our original question: can a person be “intellectual” and “humble” at the same time? Obviously, the answer is yes. And for a true Christian, this mixture may look something like this:

1. “Intellectual humility” does not deny the exclusivity of truth—it affirms it! When Jesus states in John 14:6—“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”—he was obviously making an exclusive truth claim. But as we have already discuss, absolute truth claims are not in themselves “unloving” (assuming that they are true). And by affirming the exclusivity of Christ’s claims we are not being “narrow-minded” and unkind—we are offering tremendous hope and unimaginable joy! Even preaching the Doctrine of Hell is not unkind if it leads the unbeliever to the tender and loving embrace of Christ. If we as Christians really believe in Hell, then that should motivate us to spread the gospel of Christ—as soon as possible!
2. “Intellectual humility” deeply considers the “method” of delivery. In the well-known passage in 1 Corinthians 13, the apostle Paul writes, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” Therefore, our motive (and “method” of delivery) is radically important. Paul continues, “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”
3. “Intellectual humility” does not “force itself” upon the volition of others. Although the Christian is most definitely called to boldly affirm and preach the truth, we are not called to “change the minds” of the unbeliever. That job rests solely on the Holy Spirit. Our job is simply to joyfully proclaim the gospel.
4. “Intellectual humility” is able to admit uncertainty. Let’s face it. There are some things in the Bible that are obviously clear—the divinity of Christ for example. But there are other things in the Bible that are less “obvious”—the interaction between God’s complete sovereignty and man’s personal responsibility. Intellectual humility will allow for “mystery” in those areas where the Bible remains vague. Of course, the irony is that the ability to spiritually discern between those areas that are “clear” and those areas that are “vague” requires tremendous disciplined and prayerful study of Scripture!

So there you have it! I’m sure that there are more (and better) points that can be made (and feel free to add some in the comment section), but that’s all that my tired brain could produce right now... Please allow me to close this blog will a simple prayer...

Father, help us to be a humble and loving people. Forgive us (and me especially) for those time where we have been “noisy gongs.” You call us to know you as you reveal yourself in Scripture (so help us in our study of your Word). But help us also, as we gain knowledge of you, not to be “puffed up.” Helps us to display genuine gentleness, patience, kindness, and most of all love. In Christ’s holy and precious name we pray... Amen.

Free Christian Classics for Download

I am always in search of good books to read. But some of the best books have been out of print for a long time. That's when I discovered the Christian Classic Ethereal Library. This site has amassed a hugh library of public domain Christian classics for free download (a donation is suggested)! Some all-time favorites include, The Art of Divine Contentment by Thomas Watson, Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyun, Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards, and The Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine. The site requires a free (and simple) online registration before you can download PDF and Word files. However, text files are available for immediate download. Lots of good stuff! Enjoy!

Inerrancy and Higher Criticism

This lecture discusses the Scripture as “special revelation” from God to man. Consider Payne’s article in Inerrancy and how “higher criticism” has or could effect your assurance that the Scriptures are or are not the inerrant Word of God. Respond to both accounts.

Higher criticism, as practiced by liberal, non-evangelical scholars, does not adhere to the traditional theological position of Scriptural Inerrancy. Many liberal scholars have few reservations about contradicting the truth claims found in the Bible if they feel that they have academic, evidentiary, or even theoretical warrant. And any externally imposed constraints that would limit a skeptic’s freedom to openly critique the Bible are often viewed as dogmatically narrow-minded and intellectually stifling.
       This leaves the evangelical scholar in a decidedly uncomfortable position. On the one hand, conservative scholarship seeks to remain faithful to Scripture’s self-witness to its “special revelation” and inerrancy; and yet they feel pressure from liberal scholarship to be academically “open minded” and theologically “neutral.” In his article from the book Inerrancy, Payne describes this tension as a conflict between the “freedom” of negative higher criticism and the “commitment” of the evangelical to theological convictions. In other words, the fundamental dividing point between the liberal and conservative scholar is presuppositional in nature.
       Negative higher criticism cannot itself invalidate the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy since the belief (or disbelief) in Biblical inerrancy is presuppositional in nature. In fact, the methodology used in higher criticism is determined by one’s opinion of Biblical inerrancy. When a skeptic expresses, for example, an opinion that contradicted Scripture’s self-testimony, that skeptic is coming to his conclusions based on the presumption that Scripture can err. Samuel Schultz writes:

Basic among all these questions is the presupposition of critics regarding the trustworthiness of the Bible. This is the watershed that ultimately divides them into two camps. One group regards the Bible at face value—reliable, trustworthy, and inerrant. The other group may presuppose various other positions except the recognition that the Bible is reliable throughout. . . [Instead, it is] treated on the purely human level.

       On a deeper level, the skeptic’s denial of Biblical inerrancy often has its roots in anti-supernaturalism. George Ladd writes,

They [the liberal scholars] interpret the Bible from within the presuppositions of the contemporary scientific world view. Such a world view assumes that all historical events are capable of being explained by other known historical events. In other words, what we call the supernatural is not the immediate activity of the living God; for it belongs to the area of legend and myth and not to the area of historical reality.”

Although many liberal scholars will label their methodology as “scientific”, their anti-supernatural presuppositions actually oppose true scientific inquiry. Because history is not a reproducible entity that can be scrutinized like a laboratory experiment, rare events—such as miracles—cannot be excluded or dismissed simply because they do not fall into the realm of typical human experiences. Such a bias is not itself a “scientific” or logical deduction but rather a “faith-based” presupposition.
       In 2 Peter 1:16, the apostle writes, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” For every scholar who practices higher criticism, the question then becomes: whose authority will he trust? Payne summarizes the issue in this way: “For every critic—the liberal just as much as the evangelical—establishing limits is a matter of faith, either in one’s own, internal competence or in another’s (Christ’s) external authority.” And Payne later writes, “It seems to boil down to this: either human criticism gains the place of honor, or Jesus does.”

REJOICE: God Loves Himself!

Here is another lecture question... This one is a little less academic...

This lecture emphasized the eternal relationship between the Persons of the Godhead as a model for the Christian life. How does this understanding of the trinitarian relationship affect your role as a believer within the body?

In Genesis 1:24, God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” This is an incredibly profound statement! For placed within the very substance of man, God has imprinted something of his divine nature. Something of his character. Something of his essential essence. Although there are some infinite attributes, such as His omnipotence and omniscience, that God has not imparted on us, we are, nevertheless, “begotten” of God and have received somethings beautiful, glorious, and astounding from His core nature. But what has He given? In what way are we His children? The answer, obviously lies within God Himself—within his very Being. For God cannot pass on to us that which he did not originally possess. Therefore, all those attributes that we have inherited from God find their abundant origin within the Godhead—within the Trinity.
       Consider love for instance. It is an attribute that cannot be expressed in isolation. A man living alone on a dessert island cannot express or receive love anymore than he can play a solitary game of tennis. Both require another person to find their fulfillment. Therefore, if God was not trinitarian in nature, as some have claimed, where would love originate? Where would love be before the creation of the Universe? How could God impart on us this most beautiful and wonderful attribute if love was not originally part of his divine nature? But, thankfully, the most glorious and striking news for all humanity is this: God loves Himself!—deeply and passionately. Not as modern popular psychology defines “self love” as merely “self-affirmation” or “self-esteem.” But God’s intra-Trinitarian love is an inexpressible joy, humble submission, glorious communion, and inexpressible satisfaction between the Persons of the Trinity. How is God’s self-love gloriously good new for us? Simply because of this: a fallen and hurting world can know that love is not a “tacked on” attribute or a “side benefit” of God. Love is, in fact, at the very center of God’s character. The apostle writes in 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” And in Romans 5:8 Paul writes, “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” The love and sacrifice that the Son displayed on the cross was no “coerced”, “tacked on,” or “side benefit” of God’s character. The cross was a natural expression of God’s innate self-love massively overflowing onto his creation.
       Now let us consider humility. Although the Son was equal to the Father in power (“All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made”—John 1:3), glory (“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature”—Hebrews 1:3), and essence (“ He is the image of the invisible God”—Colossians 1:15), Jesus showed divine humility by fully yielding to the Father’s will (“not my will but your be done”). This humility was demonstrated throughout his life by His incarnation, facing the scorn and mockery of his own creation, and even dying on the cross like a criminal. And when Christ washed his disciple’s feet, he gave us a vivid demonstration of how we are to show deference and service to each other out of love; and thereby demonstrating this core aspect of the Trinity. In Philippians 2:3-11, Paul writes:

“Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Just like love, humility finds its root within the Trinity. Therefore, our calling to be humble is not an “external” calling that exists simply because of God’s “external” verbal command. It is a calling that comes from the central and intrinsic nature of God.

The Marxian Objection

After each lecture, the professor typically asks several questions to help us interact with his teaching points. I thought that the following question was interesting (my response follows). 

Calvin states in the Institutes, (I.3) that man has an awareness of the divine (divinitatis sensum). In light of this fact, consider how this concept could be explained to a Marxist. Consider their objections and write a response drawing together information derived from the lecture and from the reading.

       The crux of the Marxian objection to divinitatis sensum (i.e. that man has an innate sense of the divine) is that 1) religion has been used by the ruling class to oppress the masses, and 2) that religion is nothing but an “opiate for mankind” and therefore only offers a false placation of man’s existential suffering.
       To address the first objection, we must admit that abuses and atrocities have been done in the name of religion (and Christianity). History is littered with examples. Although these examples offer some existential force for the denial of efficacious religion and they severely damage the good witness of true Christianity, abuses and atrocities in and of themselves do not offer anything close to a logical abrogation of God’s existence. As one philosopher puts it, “religion cannot be rightly judged by its abuses.” If a Nazi scientist, for example, discovers a cure for HIV, does that scientist’s repugnant anti-Semitic views negate the truth that a cure of HIV had been discovered? His warped morality may tarnish the wonderful truth (like vomit on a diamond), but the glorious fact that a cure exists still remains. In the same way, an abhorrent Christian witness does not logically negate the existence of God (although it most definitely will not forward that "Christian’s" evangelistic efforts). At most, the abuses that we see in Christendom call into question the efficacy of Christianity and the genuineness of that "Christian's" faith. For genuine faith will produce a harvest of genuine works.
       The second Marxian objection also fails because of similar grounds: just because something offer comfort or relief of anguish does not logically negate its intrinsic reality. Both a placebo and a cure can offer relief to a patient. But the relief of pain in and of itself does not prove one way or another whether the patient took the placebo or the cure. It may be that the patient feels better simply because he has been freed from his disease.