I Mean Historically, Does History Mean Anything?

Ultimately, the problem of the meaning of history revolves around the question: "Who is man himself and what is his origin and his final destination?" Outside of the central biblical revelation of creation, the fall into sin and redemption through Jesus Christ, no real answer is to be found to this question. The conflicts and dialectical tensions which occur in the process of the opening-up process of human cultural life result from the absolutization of what is relative. And every absolutization takes its origin from the spirit of apostasy, from the spirit of the civitas terrena, the kingdom of darkness, as Augustine called it.

There would be no future hope for mankind and for the whole process of man's cultural development if Jesus Christ had not become the spiritual center and his kingdom the ultimate end of world-history. This center and end of world-history is bound neither to the Western nor to any other civilization. But it will lead the new mankind as a whole to its true destination since it has conquered the world by the divine love revealed in its self-sacrifice.

Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought, (Paidia Press, 2012), 75-76.

GALATIANS 4:3—9 :: TO REDEEM: HOW GOD MAKES HEIRS OUT OF HIS CHILDREN

A. ³ Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage (douloō)

B. under the elements (stoicheion) of the world.

C. ⁴ But when the fullness of the time had come,

D. God sent forth (exapostellō)

E. His Son (uihos),

F. born of a woman,

G. born under the law (hupo nomos),

X. ⁵ to redeem

G. those who were under the law (hupo nomos),

F. that we might receive the adoption

E. as sons. ⁶ And because you are sons (uihos),

D. God has sent forth (exapostellō) the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”

C. ⁷ Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

B. ⁸ But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. ⁹ But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements (stoicheion),

A. to which you desire again to be in bondage (douleuō)?

Al Wolters: Creation

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger said that the basic question addressed in metaphysics is "Why is there anything at all, and not rather nothing?" By that definition, he said, the idea of a Christian metaphysics is a "wooden iron," a contradiction in terms. Why? Because the Christian already knows the answer to the question. We know that there is something rather than nothing because God made the world.

Whatever we may think of Heidegger's definition of metaphysics, we can agree that he was right about one thing. Fundamental to all Christian thinking is the belief that God created the world, that reality is in some fundamental sense creation.

This is an ecumenical Christian confession. But there is probably no Christian tradition in which the teaching concerning creation plays such a pivotal role as in the line that runs from Scripture through Ireneaus, Augustine, Calvin and Kuyper to Comment. In this strand of the Christian tradition, creation is conceived of in a particularly comprehensive way, and even salvation is in large measure understood as the retrieval of creation as God originally intended it. Creation is foundational to everything. Moreover, creation is good in a deep and primordial sense—so deep, in fact, that the goodness of creation continues to manifest itself even in the midst of terrible perversion.

Read more here...

Worldviews: the Proper Place of Evidences

When offering Christian and creationist evidences, we must be sure that we make clear that these facts must be understood within the broader context of the Christian worldview. We must resist the temptation to present the evidences as self-interpreting, as though both Christians and non-Christians will view the facts in terms of the same criteria and standards of “proof.” Take the lynchpin of the faith, e.g., the resurrection of Jesus. Both the Christian and the non-Christian have the same historical data before them. The Christian interprets these data through the lens of Scripture, concluding that Jesus is therefore the Messiah, warranting the obedience and faith of all peoples. The non-Christian, however, views the same data through the lens of his naturalistic presuppositions, concluding that, since we live in a random world of chance, weird things do happen, if indeed Jesus of Nazareth came back from the dead! 

                                                      

Therefore, without the context of the sweeping redemptive-historical framework of Scripture as the interpretive grid, Jesus resurrection—the crux of the Christian faith—is a fluke of nature at best and unintelligible at worst. So it is with all evidentially based arguments. We should avoid attempting to treat evidences as neutral facts open to anyone’s interpretation, and then try to move the unbeliever toward truly Christian content and understanding. Rather, we must be unapologetic in our apologetics, showing non-Christians that not only is this or that evidence or fact understandable in terms of Scripture but also every facet of human experience. 

Secondly, then, evidences have their place, but we must be careful to not give them a higher place than is warranted, when considering the conversion of non-Christians. From academic antitheists to agnostic Joe, who works down at the gas station, nearly all unbelievers present their resistance to the gospel and biblical truth as merely the intellectually respectable problem of a lack of evidence for God’s existence, creationism, Christ’s resurrection, etc. The tempting response is to begin pouring out the best information, evidences, and arguments we have; we begin trying to show the unbeliever that there are sufficient facts available to meet his rationalistic demands of proof. 

One glaring problem with this idea is that it presumes that unbelievers simply lack sufficient evidence for obedient belief in the living God, which is itself an assumption of atheism; the idea is perfectly unscriptural, even anti-scriptural. Even the most comprehensive biblical anthropology would never suggest that a person’s unbelief and disobedience is an intellectual problem, as though God has not presented each and every human with sufficient proof of his reality, his nature, etc. (see, e.g., Rom. 1:18ff). Instead, biblically speaking, man’s problem with God is a moral one. “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). Unbelievers are not ignorant of God, but are “haters of God” (Rom. 1:30); he is not doing good by seeking God, since “none seeketh after God” and none doeth good” (Rom. 3:11, 12). So, if we take the biblical view of man, especially fallen man, seriously, we need to be careful to address the unbeliever’s really real problem, his sinful attitude toward Christ, rather than his perceived problem of an alleged want of evidence. The saving gospel, as set forth in the Self-attesting Word, is what the unbeliever lacks, not intellectual satisfaction. He doesn’t need new evidences but a new heart and a new mind.

All of this is easy to discuss in the abstract, but all too often, when I am personally engaged in apologetic and evangelistic conversations, it is easy to slip into the mode of moving forward as though the conclusion of an airtight argument with result in the unbeliever’s immediate concession to the truth and confession of Christ. Even if that were true, it would have the effect of his faith standing in the wisdom of men rather than the power of God, which is his original problem (1 Cor. 2:5; cf. Gen. 3)!