The Church

There are four evidences that argue powerfully for the reality of the resurrection. The fourth evidence is the sudden and meteoric rise of the church. The sudden and meteoric rise of the church argues for the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. Let me explain...

Let’s pretend when New Day first started (in 2008) that within 5 weeks we had 10,000 people attending our church. That would be pretty amazing, right? And it would demand an explanation, right? People would want to know why 10,000 people started attending. They would conclude that there was some special reason for something so amazing to have occurred.

Well, in the same way, we have to ask ourselves why the first century church started and then exploded with growth? What made it come into existence (and so forcefully)? What caused this movement to begin? Friends - it makes no sense apart from Jesus’ resurrection. As Dr. Daniel Fuller has rightly stated, “To try to explain the church without reference to the resurrection is as hopeless as trying to explain Roman history without reference to Julius Caesar.”

Think about it...A rabbi named Jesus appears from a lower-class region. He teaches for three years, gathers a following of people, gets in trouble with the authorities, and gets crucified along with 30,000 other Jewish men who are executed during this time period. But somehow, within a brief period of time after Jesus’ death, the Christian faith spread rapidly throughout Palestine and then beyond until it finally permeated the entire Roman Empire. Its origin can be traced directly back to the city of Jerusalem in Palestine about A.D. 30 (right around the time Jesus died and his disciples and others claimed he rose from the dead and that they saw him alive). It took root and thrived in the very city where Jesus was crucified and buried. As a result of the first sermon, in which Peter asserted that Christ had risen from the dead, 3,000 people believed (Acts 2:41). In a short time the number had risen to 5,000 (Acts 4:4). Only five weeks after Jesus was crucified, an estimated 10,000 (and rising) Jews are following him and claiming that he has risen from the dead. Could all these converts have been made if Jesus had not been raised from the dead?

And it’s not just the huge numbers that have to be explained...

We also have to account for the decision by early Christians to change “the day of worship” from the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) to the first day of the week (Sunday). The early Christians were devout Jews who were fanatical in their observance of the Sabbath. The Jews feared breaking the Sabbath, believing they would incur the wrath of God if they violated the strict laws concerning its observance. So what happened that caused these Jewish men and women to turn their backs on all their years of religious training and tradition? Christians have an answer: They changed their day of worship to Sunday in honor of the anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus (which took place on a Sunday). Apart from the resurrection, we have no logical answer for why they would do this.

The evidence that the resurrection is responsible for the start of the church is so strong, that in all my reading I've come across not one alternate theory for the start and meteoric rise of the church. It seems critics are silent on this evidence. The “cat” of conclusive evidence has their tongue on this point. 

The Changed Lives

There are four evidences that argue for the reality of Jesus' resurrection. The third is the evidence of changed lives.

The numerous (and suddenly) changed lives of Jesus’ followers strongly argue for Jesus’ resurrection. Let’s review some of the people Paul listed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 as eye witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. I mean, if Jesus really did appear alive after his death, that’s probably an event that would change someone’s life, right? Well did it? Let's take a look...

1. The Apostle Peter ("...he appeared to Cephas...")

In John 18, when Jesus is on trial and about to be crucified, in fear for his life, Peter denied 3x that he even knew who Jesus was. That is, he was afraid to stand up to even a handful of people in the high priest’s courtyard. But then, after Jesus died, in Acts 2 we find Peter standing up to thousands and thousands of people, boldly proclaiming that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Savior of the world. We have to ask ourselves: What accounts for this sudden change in Peter? Well, as 1 Corinthians 15:5 states: Jesus was seen by Peter. We have nothing else to point to, to account for this sudden change except that Peter saw Jesus alive after his death.

2. The Other Apostles ("...then to the Twelve...")

When the authorities captured Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Bible tells us that “all the disciples deserted him and fled” (Matthew 26:56). After Jesus was crucified, the fearful disciples hid themselves in an upper room and locked the doors (John 20:19). These disciples were also skeptical when they first heard about the empty tomb. One of them (Thomas) refused to believe until he personally touched Jesus’ wounds. But within days something happened to utterly change this group of cowardly followers into a bold band of enthusiasts who were willing to face a life of suffering for the cause of Christ. What happened? The most logical explanation is that after Jesus’ resurrection “He appeared to Peter, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:5). Nothing else can account for this sudden change except that they saw the risen Jesus.

3. Jesus’ brother James ("...then he appeared to James...")

Neither James nor any of Jesus’ younger brothers believed in Jesus during His lifetime (Mark 3:21, 31-35; John 7:1-10). But after Jesus died, his brothers show up in the Christian fellowship in the upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:14). Not only did James become a Christian but also an apostle (Galatians 1:19) and a pillar of the church in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9). And we find him lead pastor of the Jerusalem church in Acts 21:18. Church history reveals that James was stoned to death illegally by the Sanhedrin sometime after AD 60 for his refusal to recant his belief in his brother’s resurrection and that he was the Son of God.

And here’s something really interesting: Not only did James become a Christian and get involved in preaching, but so did Jesus’ other brothers (Jesus’ brothers are included in a list of itinerant preachers in 1 Corinthians 9:5). Now how is this to be explained? What would it take to make you believe that your brother is the Lord, so that you would die for this belief, as James did? What would it take for you to believe that your brother had risen from the dead so that you stopped doubting and starting preaching as Jesus’ other brothers did? Can there be any doubt that the reason for this remarkable transformation is to be found in the fact that “then he appeared to James” (1 Corinthians 15:7).

4. The apostle Paul ("...last of all he appeared to me also...")

He was a rabbi, a Pharisee, a respected Jewish leader. He hated the Christian heresy and did everything in his power to stamp it out. He tells us that he was even responsible for the execution of Christian believers. Then suddenly he gave up everything. He left his position as a respected Jewish leader and became a Christian missionary. He entered a life of poverty, labor and suffering. He was whipped, beaten, stoned and left for dead, shipwrecked three times, in constant danger, deprivation and anxiety. Finally, he made the ultimate sacrifice and was martyred for his faith at Rome. What can account for this sudden and drastic change? Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:8 stating, “I also saw him.”

Even though the evidence strongly points towards the reality of Jesus’ resurrection, those who are uncomfortable with miracles, propose a different theory for why the disciples lives were so radically changed. It’s called the swoon (or apparent death) theory. This theory states: Jesus didn’t die on the cross. He was still alive when he was placed in the tomb, but he somehow escaped and convinced his disciples that he had risen from the dead. But if that’s true we have the following problems:

1. The Romans, who were professional executioners, didn’t break Jesus’ legs to speed death because they knew he was already dead. 
2. It’s not just the Christian record of Jesus’ life that says he was dead - so do several non-Christian records. The historians Josephus, Tacitus and Thallus all record that Jesus died by crucifixion. So does the Jewish Talmud (a source NOT considered friendly to Christianity). 
3. Jesus was embalmed in seventy-five pounds of bandages and spices. Do you think Jesus (who had been whipped and crucified) could stay still enough to trick Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus as they embalmed him? Could Jesus have just laid there perfectly still while they poured spices in his open wounds? Could he had hid his breathing from them? 
4. How did Jesus stay alive for three days being in the poor physical condition he was in after being crucified? And how did he move the estimated two-ton rock up and away from the inside of the tomb and then get by the elite Roman guards? 
5. And in the pitiful physical condition he was in - How did he convince the scared, scattered, skeptical disciples that he was a conquering king who had triumphed over death? Would this have inspired the disciples to do the things they did and to lay down their lives? 

The evidence of the changed lives argues powerfully for the reality of the resurrection, while alternative theories are harder to believe than the resurrection itself! 

The Telephone Test

There are three tests historians use to determine the credibility and trustworthiness of any ancient document. The Honesty Test, the Telephone Test and the Corroboration Test.

The Telephone Test asks: Do we have reason to believe the accounts of Jesus’ life have been passed faithfully through time?

Skeptics argue in two ways that the biblical record of Jesus is untrustworthy. Let me share them each with you.

Objection #1: As copies of the original writings of Scripture were made, the original message was distorted. Therefore, we can’t trust what we read about Jesus today. But we have to ask ourselves: Is that true?

Let’s imagine that a group of kids play “telephone” with the original statement being “Jesus is Lord”, and that when the game is over one reports that what was originally said was “Jesus is bored,” another says “Pieces of board”, and yet another says “Freeze us a gourd.” If that happened you’d have pretty good reason to believe that the original message was distorted along the way, right? But what if almost every kid in the game reported the original statement as “Jesus is Lord”? If nearly every kid reported “Jesus is Lord” we’d have good reason to believe that’s what the original statement was, right? What does this have to do with the New Testament? Well...

There are 5,000 copies of the NT manuscripts in Greek, 8-10,000 in Latin, 8,000 more in other languages such as Ethiopic, Slavic, and Armenian. Throw in a few miscellaneous other manuscripts, and there are over 24,000 NT manuscripts in all (24,633 to be exact). And the amazing thing is that they all say the same thing!

If I heard 99 kids out of 100 at the end of a telephone game all saying, “Jesus is Lord,” I’d figure that’s what the original statement was. So when over 24,000 NT manuscripts virtually say the exact same thing, doesn’t it make sense that they are accurate copies of the original? I think it does. How about you?

You’ll find some variations in spelling and stuff like that, but 99.5% of the manuscripts match up. Undoubtedly the people copying the NT made some mistakes as they wrote. But, unlike the telephone game, where half the fun is making mistakes, these guys were serious about their work. After all, they considered these documents sacred. The variations between the manuscripts, in the end, have turned out to be as minor as a few typos in a few insignificant words in an entire Sunday newspaper. Let me explain...

If you’re reading a story about John and one manuscript spells John “J-O-H-N” and one manuscript spells it “J-O-N”, does that in any way call the reliability of that gospel into question? Of course not.

Here’s another example of a variant. In Mark’s gospel the action is fast so sometimes the earlier manuscripts had just the word “he” chapter after chapter to refer to Jesus. In later manuscripts, to help the reader better understand who “he” referred to, some scribes would take out the word “he” and they’d put in the word “Jesus.” That’s an example of a variant across manuscripts. But does this variant take away from the meaning of what was written? No! If anything it clarifies and solidifies the meaning!

Less than 1% of all the variants across these manuscripts have anything to do with the meaning. And none of those that have to do with the meaning have anything to do with a central doctrine or important event in the Christian history. Not one of them!

Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary reassures us in his book Reinventing Jesus that there isn’t a single theological truth that’s in jeopardy due to any of these variants in the manuscripts. The trinity? Safe! The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith? Safe! The virgin birth? Safe! Jesus’ sinless life? Safe! Jesus’ resurrection from the grave? Safe! None of the essentials of what we believe are at stake because of these minor variations in the manuscripts.

You know what this means? This means that even if you weren’t a Christian, even if you don’t personally put your trust and faith in Jesus Christ, even if you’re a skeptic from the outside looking in...if you’re going to simply be consistent and apply the standard means of historiography to the New Testament you would have to conclude that you can hold in your hands with over 99% confidence what the disciples first wrote down two thousand years ago. That’s incredible!

What happens in the telephone game hasn’t happened to the stories in our Bibles. These are accurate accounts of what Jesus taught that we can trust and have confidence in.

Objection #2: Skeptics say: The biographies of Jesus’ life weren’t written until hundreds of years after his death. This has left plenty of room for myths and legends to develop. In fact, it’s all myth and legend. Jesus never even existed!

Here’s what you need to know - Historians believe the shorter the time gap between a person’s death and biography, the more credible it is. So it’s significant to note that Jesus’ biography was written closer to his death than many other notable people in history that we have no trouble believing existed. For example...

• The earliest biography of Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic faith, was composed 125 years after his death. No one doubts his existence. 
• The earliest biography of Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, was composed 350 years after his death. No one doubts his existence. 
• The earliest biography for Tiberius Caesar, the emperor of Rome when Jesus walked the earth, was composed about 80 years after his death. No one doubts his existence. 
• In comparison, New Testament scholar Craig L. Blomberg says the earliest biography for Jesus (the gospel of Mark), was composed about only 30 years after his death!!! 

Here’s my point. If you want to reject Jesus’ existence because of the time gap between his death and his biography - fine - BUT BE CONSISTENT and deny everyone else’s existence too!!!

Daniel B. Wallace is one of the leading experts in New Testament studies. And he says we have earlier manuscripts about the person of Jesus Christ than we do for anyone else in the ancient world including Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. I don’t meet too many Alexander the Great skeptics. I don’t meet too many people who say Julius Caesar was a myth. Yet there’s a decent number of people who say that about Jesus. What’s up with that?!!! The records we have about Jesus were written much closer to his death than any of the records of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Why do you believe they existed but not Jesus? 

 
If we have reason to believe that anyone in the ancient world existed, we have reason to believe Jesus existed! You can’t rightly believe in anyone in the ancient world without also believing in Jesus! 

The Appearances

There are four evidences that argue for the reality of the Jesus' resurrection. The second is the evidence of Jesus' postmortem appearances. The postmortem appearances of Jesus to both individuals and groups of people, argue for the reality of the resurrection. Eye witness testimony is the most powerful kind and concerning Jesus' resurrection that's exactly what we have!

The apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. NLT 

Question: Did you catch what Paul said in v.6? He said that most of the 500 people that Jesus appeared to were still living. In other words, Paul is saying: if you don’t believe me go interview the people yourselves!!! And this was possible for Paul wrote First Corinthians just 15-20 years after the death of Jesus when the majority of the witnesses to his resurrection were still alive. Think about it! How is it that this letter (1 Corinthians) has survived some 2,000 years and is still being circulated as true if these witnesses didn’t exist? Wouldn’t the letter be discredited and disregarded if no one could confirm that what Paul wrote was true?

Now even though we have powerful eye witness testimony confirming Jesus’ postmortem appearances by individuals and groups, those not comfortable with miracles have proposed an alternate theory - what they call the hallucination theory. The hallucination theory states: Jesus didn’t really resurrect from the dead. Peter, the other apostles, the group of 500, Jesus’ brother James and the apostle Paul all hallucinated that Jesus was alive. But let me ask you: How likely is it that well over 500 people all had the same hallucination?

Jesus appeared not just one time, but many times; not at just one place, but at a variety of places and under a variety of circumstances; not to just one individual, but to different persons; not just to individuals, but to various groups; not just to believers, but to unbelievers and even enemies. Again: How likely is it that they all had the same hallucination?

Also, if the 500-plus eyewitnesses did have the unprecedented experience of seeing the same hallucination, then why didn’t the Jewish or Roman authorities simply parade Jesus’ body around the city? That would’ve proved that everyone was simply hallucinating and that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead. That would've put an end to Christianity once and forever. Well, they would have loved to do so, but they couldn’t because the tomb was empty!

The Empty Tomb

There are four evidences that argue for the reality of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. The first is the evidence of the empty tomb.

When the soldiers who had been guarding Jesus’ tomb reported to the chief priests that an angel had rolled away the stone and that Jesus’ body was missing, they told the soldiers, “...You are to say: His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.” Matthew 28:13 NIV In giving this response, the chief priests confirmed that Jesus' tomb was indeed empty, which supports the disciples claim that he rose from the dead.

But let’s consider the chief priests version of what happened...If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and their account for what actually happened is correct, we have some serious questions to ask that resurrection critics have absolutely no answer to. For example...

Why would the disciples steal the body and then lie about it? What was their motive? If stealing Jesus’ body got them prestige, wealth or increased social status then we can logically account for why they stole Jesus’ body and claimed he rose from the dead. But did the disciples get any of these things? No! As a reward for their belief in and preaching of Jesus’ resurrection they were tortured and flogged, and they finally faced death by some of the cruelest methods then known: 

• Peter, Andrew, James son of Alphaeus, Philip, Simon and Bartholomew were crucified.
• Matthew and James son of Zebedee were killed by the sword. 
• Thaddaeus was shot to death with arrows. 
• James, the brother of Jesus was stoned to death 
• Doubting Thomas was killed with a spear 

These men were subjected to every conceivable method of stopping them from talking. But they wouldn’t stop purporting that Jesus was raised from the dead! Rather they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message - that the tomb was empty because God raised Jesus from the dead.

Even critics can’t believe that the disciples would die for a lie that they knew was a lie. Misguided people may die for a lie they think is the truth, but they will not die for a lie they know is a lie. And the New Testament writers were in a position to know the real truth about the resurrection (i.e. if they had stole the body they would’ve known their claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead was a lie).

Therefore, I ask you: What answer can resurrection skeptics give for why the disciples would steal the body and then lie about it? There is none!!! Here’s three more perplexing questions that shoot holes in the credibility of the story that Jesus’ disciples came at night and stole the body while the guards were sleeping... 

1. How likely is it that all the Roman guards fell asleep while on duty when the punishment for doing so was death? 

2. How likely is it that the Roman guards stayed asleep while a huge stone was rolled away which would’ve broke the seal they had placed on it? 

3. Finally, if the Roman guards were sleeping as the Jews claimed, then how would the sleeping guards have known that the disciples came stole the body? 

I think this whole explanation (that Jesus’ disciples stole his body) is a strong argument in favor of the resurrection. After all - this fabrication was invented to account for an empty tomb - and the empty tomb supports the disciples claim that Jesus rose from the dead. 

The Corroboration Test

There are three tests historians use to determine the credibility and trustworthiness of any ancient document. The Honesty Test, the Telephone Test and the Corroboration Test.

The Corroboration Test asks: Is there any evidence for Jesus’ existence outside the Bible? 
If Jesus is for real, and the Bible is true, we shouldn’t have to take just the Bible’s word on it. We ought to be able to find some corroborating evidence for the claim that Jesus is God. That is - If Jesus really lived and wasn’t some fictional character, we should find records of him outside the Bible. Well, do we? Yes!!

• The ancient Jewish work called the Talmud includes writings about Jesus. 
• And ancient historical writers such as Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger all wrote about Jesus. 

Here’s what’s so cool - Even if you never read the Bible or any other Christian writings, here’s what you could still learn about Jesus from extra-biblical historical writings...

1. Jesus was a Jewish teacher. 
2. Many people believed her performed healings and other miracles. 
3. Some people believed he was the long-awaited Messiah. 
4. He was rejected by the Jewish leaders. 
5. He was crucified under the authority of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. 
6. Despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were large numbers of them in Rome by A.D. 64. 
7. All kinds of people from the cities and the countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshiped him as God. 

Friends - that’s the exact teaching of the Bible! This external biblical evidence only confirms the internal biblical evidence! But it’s not just external non-Christian writings that corroborate the biblical record of Jesus’ life - so does archaeology.

Archaeology can do three things with respect to the Bible.

1. It can uncover evidence that contradicts the Bible. 
2. It can uncover no evidence relating to the Bible one way or the other. 
3. It can uncover evidence that confirms what the Bible says. 

Well what does archaeology do? Let's take a look...

John 5:1-15 records how Jesus healed an invalid by the Pool of Bethesda. John provides the detail that the pool had five porticoes (or columns that supported the roof). For a long time people cited this an an example of John being inaccurate, because no such place had been found. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel for the existence of this pool. But then archaeologists found and excavated the pool. It was about 40 feet below ground - and guess how many porticoes it had? Five! Exactly as John had described! And today if you have the money, you can take a tour of Jerusalem and visit the Pool of Bethesda.

Here’s another example...Dr. Hewett wrote in the Harvard Theological Review that there’s astonishingly little evidence that the feet of a crucified person were ever pierced by nails. Every person they’ve found who was crucified had ropes around them. He was trying to show that the archaeological evidence contradicted the gospels of John and Luke which say Jesus was crucified with nails. But then in 1967 in a dig in Palestine they found a man they dubbed Joannan with seven inch nails going through his hand, wrist and foot. When they dug a little further they realized his legs were broken confirming John 19:12 which says they broke the legs of the criminals next to Jesus to speed up death. That’s obviously not the body of Jesus but what does it tell us? The way the Bible records crucifixion is consistent with what the archeological record shows to be true.

Here’s another true story I think you’ll find interesting...Sir William Mitchell Ramsay of Oxford University in England, was one of history’s greatest archaeologists and an atheist. He spent 25 years doing archaeological digs to try and disprove the book of Acts, which was written by the historian Luke. Instead of discrediting Luke’s account, Ramsay’s discoveries kept supporting it. Finally, he concluded that Luke was one of the most accurate historians who had ever written. Luke references 54 cities, 32 countries and 9 islands without making a single mistake in what he wrote. Influenced by the archaeological evidence, Ramsay became a Christian and by the time of his death in 1939 he had become a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

Scholars have concluded that no archaeological evidence found to date flat-out contradicts the Bible. What confidence we can have when we read the accounts of Jesus’ life and the Bible as a whole! Not only do non-Christian external sources confirm what the Bible says, but so does the archaeological evidence!

The Honesty Test

There are three tests historians use to determine the credibility and trustworthiness of any ancient document. The Honesty Test, the Telephone Test and the Corroboration Test.

The Honesty Test asks: Do we have reason to believe that the writer cares about the truth and is telling the truth? In the Gospels (the four accounts of Jesus' life) we have five evidences that help us conclude the gospel writers cared about the truth and were telling the truth.

Evidence #1: The Eye Witness Testimony 
Why should we believe what we read about Jesus in the Bible? Well, for starters, we have eyewitness testimony (the most powerful kind of testimony there is). Historians say: The closer the writer was to the events he/she recorded determine the extent of the credibility (or believability). The closer the writer was to the events recorded, the more credible the writer. This fares well for those who believe the Bible can be trusted because the New Testament accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been either eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses.

• Matthew: recorded his own first hand account of the life of Jesus
• Mark: records Peter’s first hand account of the life of Jesus 
• Luke: records various first hand accounts of the life of Jesus 
• John: recorded his own first hand account of the life of Jesus, I John 1:1, “We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life.” NLT 

Evidence #2: The Minor Variations 
Some skeptics ask “How can the Gospels be accurate if they give different accounts of the same event?” Well, a surprising discovery is that many historians consider minor variations to be evidence in favor of the truth of an account. The idea is that if the writers were lying, they’d be sure to get their stories straight and agree in every detail. What seems to be a contradiction is often just the same event viewed from a different perspective. You see, the four accounts of Jesus’ life are given from four different perspectives, much like four witnesses who all saw the same accident but reported different details of what happened. So we see that the differences in the accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching are actually evidence of their truthfulness.

Evidence #3: The Specificity
When people make up a story, do they give you lots of details you can check out or do they intentionally leave it vague? They leave it vague, right? That’s why myths start off in a galaxy far, far away or in a land once upon a time. But were the gospel writers vague or specific in what they wrote? Let’s look at the gospel writer Luke. Notice how many particular details that can be checked out by historians.

Luke 3:1-2, “In the fifteenth year [not the 14th, not the 16th] of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [not Augustus Caesar or Tiberius Caesar or Caligula Caesar or Nero Caesar]—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.” NIV

How much more specific could you get!!?? And if these details weren’t true what could any skeptic do and what could any historian do? They could check it out and they could disprove it. But the problem (for skeptics) is that even irreligious scholars agree that Luke is an incredibly accurate historian. Do you see what the writers are doing? They’re saying: We care about the truth and we care about the details!

Evidence #4: The Embarrassment 

Warner Wallace is a cold case detective who used to be an atheist. Cold case detectives study old cases with fresh eyes. They often times don’t have eyewitnesses so they rely on circumstantial evidence. Well, he was challenged to consider the claims of Christ, so he applied forensic evidence to the New Testament. After doing so, he became a Christian! What happened? Well, he said the New Testament, specifically the gospel of Mark, had all the signs you look for of credible testimony. So for example one thing that he looked for (and historians also look for) is something called the criterion of embarrassment. What this means is if we want to know if a witness cares about the truth we look and see if the witness reports things that are disparaging to his or her character. If someone reports something that’s embarrassing what’s the only reason that person would report it? Because they care about the truth! Nobody makes up stories to make themselves look bad! People make up stories to make themselves look good!

This is what’s so interesting about the gospels: When you look at the Gospels do you think the Gospel writers make themselves look good? Or do they make themselves look bad? Let’s take a look...

In John chapter 18, when Jesus was arrested and brought into the courtyard of the high priest, Peter, the leader of the disciples, was asked by a little servant girl “You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too are you?” How did Peter respond? Did he stand on a table and say “Listen up everybody. I don’t care if I die for saying this but I am a follower of Jesus and I believe that he is the Son of God sent from heaven to die for our sins. Repent and place your faith in Him!”? No! The Bible records that Peter denied that he even knew who Jesus was! And he didn’t do this once or twice. The Bible records that he denied Jesus three times! What could be more embarrassing than that?!!!

Here’s another example...In Luke 18 Jesus is teaching his disciples about how his death will fulfill what’s been written by the prophets concerning him. When Jesus finishes his teaching, what happens? Do the disciples say “We totally understand everything you just said”? No! The Bible records in v.34 “The disciples did not understand any of this.” This same thing happened in John 12. Jesus had just done something of spiritual significance and did the disciples discern its meaning? No! Verse 16 records “His disciples didn’t understand...” Truth be told - The Bible repeatedly records the disciples embarrassing shortcomings, lack of faith and lack of spiritual discernment. If the disciples just made up these stories about Jesus, we have to ask ourselves why they didn’t make themselves the heroes of the story, instead of as the guys who are constantly getting it wrong?

How do we know the authors of Scripture cared about the truth? Because they regularly report embarrassing accounts disparaging to their character! The only reason they would do that is because it was the truth!

Evidence #5: The Cost 
We have reason to believe the accounts of Jesus’ life are true because of what it cost the disciples to stick to their story. What did it cost them to believe in and teach others about Jesus? It ultimately cost them their lives. Some were crucified, some were beheaded, some were tortured - all because they wouldn’t recant that Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead.

When I look at the disciples I have to ask myself: What more could they do to convince us that they cared about the truth? They gave their own lives! They gave their own lives when all they had to do was walk away from their belief in Jesus and they would’ve been spared. That’s meaningful to me because many people won’t walk across the street for what they believe today. Yet the disciples gave their lives.

Maintaining an Eternal Perspective

I believe one of the big reasons we have such a tough time with evil and suffering is because we've lost (or have never had) an eternal perspective.

The apostle Paul suffered greatly throughout his life. The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 11 that for choosing to follow Jesus the apostle Paul was flogged 5x (v.24), beaten with rods 3x (v.25), shipwrecked 3x (v.25), and one time he was even stoned with rocks and left for dead (v.25). He lived in danger constantly (from rivers, from bandits, from fellow Jews, from Gentiles and from false believers). He was in danger in the city, in the country, and even at sea. He often went without sleep, without food or water and without clothes. He slept many a night cold and naked (vv.26-27). But despite all this Paul maintained a positive outlook on life. 

He wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:17, "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all." How was he able to keep this positive perspective? By maintaining an eternal perspective!

If we, like Paul, would keep eternity in mind, it would help us deal with the hurt and pain we experience in this life. Let me illustrate it this way...

Suppose on the first day of this year, you had a terrible day. You woke up with a migraine headache. The pain was so bad that you were afraid you were going to die. Then it got so bad that you wanted to die. On the way to the doctor’s office, you were hit by an uninsured motorist, totaling your car. The car was a Christmas present, and it was the car you had always dreamed of owning. When you finally got to work, you found out your company was downsizing and that your name was at the top of the list. The whole day was like that - just terrible. But then pretend that the next day everything changed. The next day you wake up to a phone call from a competitor that you’ve secretly been wishing you could work for, and they offer you a better job than the one you had with twice the pay. Suppose the entire rest of the year turns out to be like day two? You inherit a large sum of money from an unknown relative. Your kids get straight A’s. Your marriage is perfect. You get voted “Person of the Year” by the local newspaper. You play golf with Phil Mickelson and you win! Pretend the rest of the year went like this. Now image it's December 31st and someone asks you, “So, how was your year?” “It was unbelievable!” you reply. “Really? How about that first day?” they ask “Oh yeah, that was a little rough, but everything else has gone so well, I had almost forgotten about it.” That’s what it will be like in heaven. 

How could Paul refer to his troubles as "light" when he suffered so heavily? His suffering is light compared to the weight of joy he will have in eternity. And the longer he’s in heaven, the more his entire life will appear to be but a moment. In talking about our suffering as being something “light”, Paul wasn’t being insensitive to the plight of those who suffer horribly in this life - on the contrary, he was one of them - but he saw that those sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of joy and glory that God will give to those who trust Him. 

I hope you see how important it is to maintain an eternal perspective as you think about evil and suffering in this world. Having an eternal perspective really does make all the difference. 

Pointless Suffering?

When people ask the question "How can an all powerful and all good God allow suffering and evil in the world?" they are upset because they assume that suffering is pointless and serves no good purpose. But is this true?

1. This argument doesn't stand to logic. 

Some say "I don’t understand how good could come from evil". Well, sorry to tell you this, but your inability to comprehend something doesn’t make it untrue. Astro-physics isn’t a bunch of nonsense just because you don’t understand it. In the same way, you can’t conclude that it’s nonsense that good can come from evil just because you don’t understand how that could be. It is wrong to conclude "Evil and suffering appear pointless to me, so it must be pointless." 

Let me illustrate what I’m saying this way...There are certain sounds that dogs can hear that humans can’t, right? Well just because we can’t hear them, does that mean they don’t exist? No! In the same way, sometimes, even though we can’t see it, good comes from evil. But just because we can’t see the good, does that mean it doesn’t exist? No, of course not! 

I was at a wedding recently and met someone who attends New Day. I asked this young lady how she started coming to New Day and she told me that after I spoke at the funeral of her friend that she started coming. This young lady is now a Christian and is dating a Christian. Let me ask you: If I never heard her story, would that mean no good came from her friend's death? Of course not! Friends, in heaven we'll hear all the stories. 

2. This argument doesn't stand to human experience. 

We all know from human experience that good can come even from painful experiences. For example: Every Thursday I go through a painful process called a sermon run through. I pour everything I have into my sermon. I read so many books and study for so many hours. And at the sermon run through I invite constructive criticism from my staff so the message can get better for Sunday. You have no idea how painful this process is, but it always, without fail, makes my sermon better than it would’ve been without it.

3. This argument doesn't stand to the teaching of Scripture. 

Take Joseph (from the Old Testament) for example. Joseph was an arrogant young man who was hated by his brothers. In their anger at him, they imprisoned him in a pit and then sold him into a life of slavery and misery in Egypt. Doubtless Joseph prayed to God to help him escape, but no help was forthcoming, and into slavery he went. Though he experienced years of imprisonment and misery, Joseph’s character was refined and strengthened by his trails. Eventually he rose up to become prime minister of Egypt and saved thousands upon thousands of lives and even his own family from starvation. If God had not allowed Joseph’s years of suffering, he never would have been in the position to save all those lives. In this situation we see ultimate good coming from ultimate evil. In Joseph’s own words in Genesis 50:20, Joseph told his brothers “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (NIV). The apostle Paul was no doubt reflecting on this example of Joseph when we penned Romans 8:28 which says “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (NIV) 

Or take Jesus (from the New Testament) for example. Homicide is man killing another man. Suicide is man killing himself and deicide is man killing God. And that's what happened to Jesus. He suffered horrible evils, yet out of his suffering came the salvation of mankind.

You can say that suffering and evil are pointless and serve no good purpose, but as we've seen, that argument defies logic, human experience and the teaching of Scripture.

Even though God is all-good, He might well have good reasons for permitting pain and suffering in the world. When people say “an all-good and powerful God would not permit such things to happen” they are assuming that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the amount and kinds of evil that exist. The problem with this assumption is that it’s simply not true. The Christian believes that God has overriding reasons for permitting even terrible atrocities to occur. And just because you can’t see them or understand them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We are simply not in a position to know why God permits various evils to occur. Certainly many evils seem pointless and gratuitous to us - but how can we be sure they really are? Perhaps they fit into a wider picture. We just don’t know how the sufferings we endure might be used of God in our lives or, if not in ours, in the lives of those around us. Yes, they often look pointless, but we are simply not in a position to judge. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could send a ripple effect through history so that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another country. Events which appear disastrous in the short-term may contribute to the greatest good. We just don’t know. But what we do know is this: There's no such thing as pointless suffering. 

What Evil Actually Proves

Skeptics try to use the existence of evil to disprove God's existence. The argument goes like this: If an all powerful God existed, he would stop bad things from happening. Since He doesn't, He must not exist. But we have to ask ourselves: Does the existence of evil argue against God's existence or for it? 

Some have said (and I agree) that the existence of evil does more to prove God's existence than disprove it. Think about it...For you to be outraged against evil, there has to be such thing as evil. And there can only be true evil is there's such thing as "right" and "wrong". And right and wrong can only exist if God exists too.

C.S. Lewis used to deny God's existence because of the evil and suffering he saw in the world. He reasoned that an all good and all powerful God couldn't exist because if he did, he would surely put an end to all evil. But as he thought about it he realized that the evolutionary process of natural selection couldn't be responsible for his internal moral compass (for natural selection depends on the death, destruction and violence of the strong against the weak). So he came to realize that in the same way creation points towards a creator and a design points towards a designer, so an internal sense of right and wrong points towards Moral-Standard Giver (who Christians call God).

You could rightly state that one can't believe in evil without also believing in God. As Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has written “...A secular way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort...and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness then you have a powerful...argument for the reality of God.”

In other words, if evolution explains the origins of life and there is no God, then there’s also no right or wrong. If evolution explains life, we have no obligation to do what’s “right” and no accountability for doing what’s “wrong” because in a universe where God doesn’t exist, there’s no such thing as right or wrong. So again - in order to be outraged against evil and suffering, “right” and “wrong” have to exist. And “right” and “wrong” only exist if God does too. 

3 Common Questions About Evil & Suffering

The existence of evil and suffering in the world is the number one issue that causes people to doubt or deny God's existence (to learn more click here). Here's three common questions skeptics have about this subject and the answers you can share as God provides the opportunity.

1. "How could an all good and all powerful God allow evil and suffering in the world?" 

Answer: God created the world and man good. It was Adam and Eve's rebellion against God that ushered sickness, disease, pain, suffering and ultimately death into the world. God may have made evil possible, but it was man who made evil actual (for more on this click here).

2. If God knew man would choose to sin and consequently bring evil and suffering into the world, why did he still choose to create him? 

I think it's helpful to answer this question with a question. You might ask your friend: Well why do parents choose to bring children into the world, even though there's the potential for birth defects and other dangers? Why do most people choose to go ahead and have kids despite the risks? Because of love and a desire to have a relationship with someone in their own image. God made that same choice.

3. Why didn't God just create us with the inability to sin? 

Answer: Because God wanted a meaningful relationship with us. God didn't want robots that had to love him, he wanted humans who would choose to love him. How meaningful would it be if all I had to do to get my wife to say "I love you Mike" was press a button on her back? If that were the case, she wouldn't be human, she'd be a programmed robot. If I had to pick between a wife who chose to love me vs a programmed robot that had to obey me, I'd take the wife every time. God made that same choice. 

Who's Really Responsible?

When skeptics angrily ask "How can a good God allow so much evil and suffering?" you don't even have to be listening closely to hear the accusation behind the question. In other words, skeptics blame God for evil and suffering. But is God really responsible? 

We have a gross misunderstanding regarding who's really responsible for evil and suffering. And the misunderstanding comes from lack of information. Let me illustrate it this way. If you picked up watching a movie halfway through, could you make sense of what's happening without someone telling you what you've missed? And if you picked up a book and started reading at page 100, could you make sense of what's happening without someone telling you what you've missed? Of course not! To make sense of the story, you have to understand the beginning. 

Well, history is His-story (God's story). And history has a beginning, middle and end. We're in the middle and the middle is filled with evil and suffering, so many people naturally conclude that God is responsible because he must have made the world this way. But that would be a mistake, for in the book of Genesis (the book of beginnings) we read that the world God created was good and that God made man good, for man was created in God's image and likeness. God knew we'd be tempted to blame him for evil and suffering so he made a point to have it recorded seven times that when he made the world, it was good (see Genesis 1). 

If God made the world and man good, then we have to ask ourselves: What happened? Well, though God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17), they did so anyway (Genesis 3:6-7). And when sin entered the world so did death for God had told Adam and Eve that disobedience would bring death. As Romans 5:12 teaches us, sin entered the world through Adam and death entered the world through sin. 

Friends - sickness, disease, suffering, pain, evil and death are all consequences of man's rebellion against God. So who's really to blame? God or man? God may have made evil possible, but it was man who made evil actual. 

The Problem of Evil & Suffering

How could an all good and all powerful God allow so much evil and suffering? This is generally considered to be the number one issue causing people to doubt or disbelieve the existence of God.

The Bible teaches that God is all good and all powerful. But skeptics see the existence of evil and suffering in this world as a stumbling block to believing that an all good and all powerful God exists. As they consider the options, here’s how they see it: 

Option #1: God wants to abolish evil but can't. 

Option #2: God can abolish evil but doesn't want to

They conclude that if God wants to but can't, then he is impotent (not all powerful). And if God can abolish evil but doesn't want to, then he is evil (not all good). They are puzzled by this question: If God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is still in the world? To many people, it seems unbelievable that if an all-good and all-powerful God exists, He would permit so much pain and suffering in the world.

For more on this subject click here. 

The Evidence of Fine Tuning

There are four basic evidences of God's existence: 1) Creation, 2) Design, 3) Morality and 4) Fine Tuning. In this post we'll look at the evidence of fine tuning.

You may not know this, but it’s actually extremely difficult for life to exist. Scientists have discovered about fifty parameters and constants that must be “just so” (or “finely tuned”) in order for life to be possible anywhere in the universe. 

Have you ever used a radio tuner? Everything’s digital now but people used to use a tuner to find the station they wanted to listen to. They would turn a dial until it landed exactly on the station they wanted to listen to. If you went too far you’d hear nothing but static or the next station. If you didn’t go far enough - same thing. It had to be tuned just right for you to get the station you wanted. Well this is something like how the universe works. Things need to be tuned just right. But there’s not one dial that has to be exactly in place. There’s about 50. And even if 49 of these 50 constants are in place, without all 50 life would be impossible.

Let me give you a couple examples of these parameters and constants...

• If the force of gravity were to change by one part in ten thousand billion billion billion, conscious life would be virtually impossible anywhere in the universe. 
• The human body is made up of a ridiculously large number of atoms. And inside those atoms are neutrons, protons an electrons. Did you know that if the neutron inside the atom were not exactly as it is - 1.001 times larger than the proton, life would not be possible? 
• If the expansion rate of the earth was a little stronger or a little weaker when the universe was set in motion - if the strength differed by as little as one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, the universe would’ve either collapsed back in on itself or expanded too swiftly for stars to form. Either way, life would be impossible. 
• The list goes on!!! Again - there are about 50 of these parameters and constants that must be “just so” in order for life to be possible!!!

This is why Paul Davies, one of the leading physicists and cosmologists of our day, makes the following claim: “I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate...We are truly meant to be here.” What a statement from someone who doesn’t even claim to believe in a personal God!

Now, in addition to the parameters and constants that need to be in place for life to be possible in the universe, there are also at least 24 parameters and constants that need to be in place for life to be possible on a planet. It’s not just our universe that needs parameters and constants, our planet does too! Let me give you a couple examples...For life to be possible on a planet...
The planet has to have the correct mass

• It has to be orbited by a large moon 
• It has to have a magnetic field 
• It has to have an oxygen-rich atmosphere 
• It has to be in the correct location in the galactic habitable zone. Life can’t exist anywhere in the universe. For life to exist you have to be in just the right spot in the universe. And that’s exactly where earth is. 
• The list goes on!!! Again - there are at least 24 of these parameters and constants that must be “just so” in order for life to be possible on a planet!!! 

Now the probability of these factors converging is so ridiculously small that many cosmologists and astro-physicists now admit that it’s more reasonable to believe that a divine designer was involved than to assume it all happened by chance. They might not concede that the divine designer is the God of the Bible, but at least they’re starting to admit the foolishness of saying the universe came about by chance or as a result of some cosmic storm (i.e. from chaos).

You see - the fact that our universe and our planet have been precision tuned so that life can exist, powerfully points to the existence of God. I mean - we have to ask ourselves - WHO TURNED ALL 50 KNOBS TO JUST THE RIGHT PLACE? These incredible examples of fine-tuning in the universe - each independently set to the precise measure necessary to support life - points powerfully to the existence of an incredibly intelligent designer who made it all “just so”...for us!

The Evidence of Morality

There are four basic evidences of God's existence: 1) Creation, 2) Design, 3) Morality and 4) Fine Tuning. In this post we'll look at the evidence of morality.

The fact that we all have a moral standard powerfully points to the existence of God. Exact ethical codes vary from person to person and culture to culture, but every human being is born with a moral standard.

Even if you’re not a Christian - How many times have you started to do something, and an alarm in your head went off saying “Don’t do that!” How many times have you opened your mouth and your conscience said, “Don’t say it!”? You know what the right thing is, even if you don’t always do it, right? Well, where did that universal sense of “right” come from? Have you ever thought about that?

On what basis is something considered good or evil, right or wrong? And where did this basis come from? No one really believes that these metaphysical morals came from a physical explosion (like the Big Bang). That is, even if the Big Bang could account for the origin of the universe, you still need to account for the origin of morality. We have, then, what is sometimes referred to as the problem of “good”.

Think about it... If there were a culture that killed their firstborn male babies by burning them to death in a fire in order to gain the favor of their gods, we would consider this a morally dreadful act. If there were a culture in which men kept females as slaves and beat and raped them at will, we would be morally outraged. If there were a culture that locked up people with certain skin colors or people of certain ethnicities or people who were left-handed, we would decry these actions as moral abominations.

Well, where did this sense of right and wrong come from? How is it that we all know intrinsically that murder and rape and bigotry and racism are wrong? It’s because of this knowledge that we could boldly tell the Nazis that exterminating Jews was wrong and that they deserved to be punished for such wicked acts. It’s because of this knowledge that we knew Saddam Hussein was doing evil when he oppressed the Iraqi people, murdered his own family members, tortured and killed those he considered political threats, and ordered the gassing of thousands of Kurds. But again, where did we get this knowledge of right and wrong?

While atheists have no answer to this question, Christians do. We believe that a Moral Lawgiver actually knit these moral standards, along with the ability to understand and operate by them, into the very fabric of what it means to be human. This is exactly what the apostle Paul taught in...

Romans 2:14-15, “Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.” NLT

The Bible says your internal moral compass was put there by God AND that you should listen to it. It’s like a spiritual version of the “check engine” indicator in your car. When you sense it going off, you better listen or there’s going to be trouble (either now or later). Apart from God, there’s really no good answer as to how every human from every culture on every continent has this internal moral compass. 

And in the same way that creation points towards a creator and design points towards a designer, so our sense of morality points towards a Moral Standard Giver (who Christians call God).

The Evidence of Design

There are four basic evidences of God's existence: 1) Creation, 2) Design, 3) Morality and 4) Fine Tuning. In this post we'll look at the evidence of design.

In the same way that every creation reflects a creator, every design reflects a designer. Even if creation was in complete disorder, it would still powerfully point towards a creator. But that’s not the case. Not only has the universe and everything in it been created, it’s clearly been created with design.

Plato decided that it was reasonable to believe in God based on “the order of the motion of the stars...” In other words, he saw that it was designed!

Sir Isaac Newton said, “When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” In other words - it happened by design! And every design reflects a designer! Let me illustrate...

Imagine you walk into my office, see a can of Pepsi sitting on my desk, and ask “How did that get there?” What if I told you: Millennia ago, a huge explosion sent a small meteor spinning through space. As it cooled, a caramel-colored, effervescent liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum crept out of the water and shaped itself into just these dimensions. Over time, this thing formed itself a one-time retractable lid from which a crease appeared, a bit off-center, and out of it grew a pull-tab. Centuries later, red, white, and blue paint fell from the sky and clung to its exterior, forming the letters P-e-p-s-i on its surface. (Remember now: This Pepsi can fits perfectly in the palm of the normal-sized human hand. Its volume is just about right for satisfying one person’s desire for something sweet and liquid. It has just enough caffeine to pep you up, but not so much that you realize you’re actually in an artificial state of stimulation. Its contents are always the same. Its quality never varies.)

How many scientific explanations about the nature of matter and the origins of the universe would I have to give to convince you that the Pepsi can happened by chance vs by design? What are the odds that something this complex, useful, comfortable and attractive came about as a result of a random collision of molecules? Rational human beings conclude: The can is too carefully designed to have been formed by chance or coincidence! Some very smart people did some careful thinking and planning to create it.

Well, creation, like the can of Pepsi, shows evidence of design. Take for example the banana. The banana fits perfectly in the palm of your hand. In fact, it fits better than the Pepsi can. It’s been thoughtfully made with a non-slip surface. It comes with a time-sensitive indicator on the outside to let you know the condition of the contents before you even open it. Green means “don’t eat me yet”. Yellow means “eat me now” and black means “too late - you should’ve eaten me earlier.” The banana’s top contains a pull-tab for convenient opening. Pull back firmly on the tab, and it peels neatly according to its pre-made perforations. Unlike the Pepsi can, this wrapper is environmentally sensitive, made completely of bio-degradable substances that in time enrich the soil it nestles in. If left uneaten, it has pre-programmed orders to reproduce itself into a whole new fruit-bearing plant, so it is a virtually inexhaustible food-producing source (wouldn’t it be cool if your soda could reproduce all on its on?). The banana is full of bodybuilding calories and is easy for the stomach to digest. And the Maker-of-the-banana has even curved it toward the face to make the whole eating experience easier and more pleasant.

Now like the Pepsi can, it’s very clear the banana was designed - that someone with intelligence put some careful thought and planning into the design of the banana. But let me ask you a question: How is it that some people can look at the design present in a can of Pepsi and conclude “Someone made this!”, yet when they look at creation and see the same design and careful planning, conclude “It happened by chance!”? When someone draws conclusions so inconsistently, to me it reveals their prejudice against God as well as their commitment to any theory (no matter how silly) so long as the theory doesn’t include God.

Things are much easier for the Christian. Not being committed to eliminating God as an option no matter what the evidence shows, the Christian has a simple answer. God not only created the universe, but is also responsible for the design found within that which he created. King David (the guy who killed Goliath with the sling shot) said to God in Psalm 139:14, “Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous...” NLT Why did David believe God existed? He saw clearly that he was designed, and as we’ve just learned: every design reflects a designer. 

Suppressing the Truth

In previous posts we discussed the three main explanations for the origin of the universe: 1) Creation by Creator, 2) Creation by Chaos, and 3) Creation by Chance. In these posts I explained why creation by chaos and creation by chance are such foolish theories. But the question begs to be answered: If creation by chaos and creation by chance are so ridiculous, why do so many scientists, professors and public school educators teach these theories? 

It’s clear to me that many educators and scientists alike have intentionally chosen to believe and teach these foolish theories that defy common sense and logic, simply because they don’t like the alternative. They’d rather affirm an explanation that makes no sense than attribute the creation of the universe to the God of the Bible. Why?

Well, Romans chapter one explains it this way: In Romans 1 the apostle Paul tells us that even though knowledge of God is obvious through creation (through what has been made), godless and wicked people intentionally suppress the truth (about God) because they prefer wickedness to truth. Simply put, many people aren’t interested in truth, because truth gets in the way of their sin, which they don’t want to give up. Not wanting to hear the truth, learn about the truth, or accept the truth (which demands they change), these people accept and teach any old theory so long as it doesn’t condemn their sinful lifestyle, even if the theory is improbable or seemingly impossible. And it doesn’t seem to matter how foolish the theory is - so long as it doesn’t involve God. For people looking for ways to avoid the truth - a crazy theory without God is better than a credible one with God. 

Creation by Chance

There are three basic options for explaining the origins of the universe: 1) Creation by Creator, 2) Creation by Chaos, and 3) Creation by Chance. In this post we'll look at option #3: Creation by Chance.

When people say that the universe was created by “chance”, they are saying that “chance” is a being that has the power to create, which isn’t true. On the contrary, chance simply refers to the mathematical odds that something will or will not happen. For example...

When a coin is tossed, we say it landed heads or tails “by chance”, but matter of factly it landed heads or tails as a result of a variety of factors (i.e. what side did it start on, how hard was the coin flicked into the air, was there wind, what kind of surface did it land on, at what angle did it land, etc.). When it lands one way or the other, it didn’t happen by chance, it happened as the result of a variety of different factors.

The word “chance” is simply another word for “odds”. And when we talk about chance we’re simply talking about the odds of something happening. When we toss a coin the chances (or odds) of it landing heads is fifty-fifty. The same is true for tails. But whether heads or tails, nothing happened by chance.

Chance can’t cause things to happen because chance has no being. Again - chance is not a thing that operates and works upon other things. Chance is just a mental concept that refers to mathematical possibilities. It has no being. And because it has no being, it has no power and therefore can’t cause things to happen. So when people state that the universe was created by chance, they are really saying the universe was created by nothing. And as a matter of prudence we ought to stop saying that nothing causes something, because it’s a nonsense statement.

So for me personally, not only do I reject the “creation by chaos” theory, I also reject the “creation by chance” theory as well. Why? Because I after studying the evidence, I think it takes for faith to believe in creation by chaos or creation by chance, than creation by creator.

Creation by Chaos

There are three basic options for explaining the origins of the universe: 1) Creation by Creator, 2) Creation by Chaos, and 3) Creation by Chance. In this post we'll look at option #2: Creation by Chaos.

This theory says chaos is responsible for the order in the universe that we see today. One of the featured articles in the 2013 July issue of National Geographic magazine is entitled “It All Began With Chaos”. And this is what public school teaches our kids - that all the right particles and elements needed for life to begin were just floating around and one day “bamb!”, they collided in a cosmic storm and “whallah!”, life as we know it began. But let’s consider this teaching: that order comes from chaos. Let’s consider whether this is something we really believe. 

What if you came over my house and saw a beautiful in-ground pool in my backyard and when you asked me about it, I told you that the June 1st tornado of 2011 died down right over my backyard and that when all the building materials that were spinning in the tornado dropped to the ground, they just formed this beautiful pool. Would you believe me? Of course not! But what if I tried to reason with you that in Springfield the tornado hit the buildings and that’s where the bricks came from...as it crossed the Connecticut river it picked up the water, trees and shrubs...and that as it passed Rocky’s Hardware on the way to my house it picked up the fencing that’s now around the pool? Would that explanation stand to reason? No! Why? Because we all know that order doesn’t come from chaos. Order comes from an organizer.

So personally, I reject the popular theory “creation by chaos”. I think the much better option is "creation by Creator". 

Creation by Creator

There are three basic options for explaining the origins of the universe: 1) Creation by Creator, 2) Creation by Chaos, and 3) Creation by Chance. In this post we'll look at option #1: Creation by Creator.

When you see something that’s been made, the most logical conclusion is that someone made it, right? In other words, where there’s a creation, there’s a creator. Let me illustrate...When I go to Old Lime Beach and see a heart shape in the sand, I intuitively know someone made it. Did I see them do it? No. But it stands to reason that where there’s a creation, there’s a creator. In the same way, when I go to the Granville Gorge and see a Zen rock formation, I intuitively know someone made it. Did I see them do it? No. But it stands to reason that where there’s a creation, there’s a creator. 

So when I look at the heavens and the earth I make the same logical conclusion - creation by creator. When I see a heart shape in the sand on the beach I don’t conclude a wave crashed and created it by chance. When I see a rock formation by a stream bed I don’t conclude that the strong wind of a storm blew them into place. In the same, I don’t believe that chance or chaos created the world. I give credit to a creator. 

I believe God created the heavens. Isaiah 40:25-26 says "“To whom will you compare me? Who is my equal?” asks the Holy One. 26 Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars? He brings them out like an army, one after another, calling each by its name. Because of his great power and incomparable strength, not a single one is missing.” NLT

And I believe God created the earth. Isaiah 40:28 says “Have you never heard? Have you never understood? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of all the earth...” NLT

Like it says in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” NIV