Examined Christian Faith 'Buts' 1.2 - What is Christianity

Well that didn’t take long.  I have received several emails’ raising a couple of questions to my previous post.  Please keep in mind that this is not a book, rather it is a lack of a better analogy a series of letters to myself.  Nevertheless, I appreciate the correspondence, and it has made me a ware of the fact as I have stated  that all clear thinking is based on the two points mentioned in my prior post , I need to  assure myself that before I move forward that the foundation that those two point’s build is in fact solid.  Therefore, I must address a couple questions that were raised.  The objections came in two basic areas, which I have summarized as follows.  ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) simple a herd instinct that has developed just like our other instincts over the years?  ‘ And ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) something that is taught to us by our parents, family, society, etc.?’  Let’s take a look at those ‘Buts’

I will begin by responding to the first inquiry ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) simple a herd instinct that has developed just like our other instincts over the years?’  I would be a complete fool to deny that we as humans have a herd instinct, but that is not what I meant by the Moral Law.  I as well as you know what it is feels like to feel prompted by instinct for food, shade, sexual instinct, motherly love, and on occasions sometimes we even feel a desire to help another.  There is no doubt that all of those desires are due to herd instinct.  However, feeling a desire to help is quite different then feeling that you should help, weather you want to or not.  

It is actually fairly simple to visualize.

If you do not know, I live in Hawaii.  Oahu is a small island surround by a massive ocean. Needless to say, if you live here, you spend a fair amount of time at the beach.  Imagine that I am at the beach and I hear someone caught in a riptide crying for help.  At that moment I will feel two desires, the first the desire to help (due to the herd instinct) the second a very strong desire to keep out of danger (self-preservation).  Interestingly, I will also discover inside myself a third ‘thing’, which tells me that I should follow my impulse to attempt a rescue, and to ignore or suppress my self-preservation desire.  It does not take much thought to realize that that third ‘thing’ that decides which of the two desires should be encouraged, cannot be either of the two desires, as they are opposing desires.

Another way to look at the fact that Moral law is not just one of our instincts is that if two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing else in the creatures mind except for those two impulses, then obviously the stronger of the two must always win.  Nevertheless, at preciously those moments when we are most aware of ‘Moral Law’ it always instructs us to chose the weaker of the two instincts.  In the above example, if you are like me, you probably want to be safe, much more than you want to go swimming into a riptide to save a drowning man.  However, the Moral Law tells you to do it anyway.  It is that third ‘thing’ that drives us to chose to act to make the weaker of the two instincts stronger than it really is. 

Now on to the second general objection ‘Isn’t what I call the Law of Human Nature (Moral Law) something that is taught to us by our parents, family, society, etc.?’  We of course learn a great many things as we are growing up, language, math, writing and even the rule of decent behavior.  But while most of these are merely conventions (what language do I speak,  do I drive on the right or left hand side of the road, do I shake your hand  or bow, what type of clothes do I wear) some like mathematics are real truths.  The question then becomes which class does the ‘Law of Human’ nature belong?

The are two obvious reasons why it belongs to the same class as mathematics (Real Truths).  The first I addressed in my previous post, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time and another, or from one country to another; the differences are not nearly as significant as most people want to imagine.  In fact, when you look closely at them you will see the same law running through all of them.  However, those mere conventions can and do vary greatly from one time and one country to another. 

The other reason is this.  When you consider the morality of one people (country, time, culture) to another, do you believe that the morality of one is better or worst than the other?  Now stop and think about that for a second; because if no set of moral ideas were more real, or better than the other, there would be no reason to compare say the civilized morality to a savage morality or Christian morality to a terrorist morality.  If decent behavior simply meant that every nation, every person could do what he or she approves of, there would be no sense in saying that any nation or any one person had ever been more correct in their approval than any other person.  But we do not hold that to be true, in fact, all of us do believe that some moralities are better than others are.  Now here’s the rub, the moment you say that one set of moral ideas is better than another; you are, in fact, measuring them both against a standard.  Saying that one of them conforms to that standard better than the other.  However, the standard that measures the two is something different from either of them.   

Like it or not, you are comparing them both with some ‘Real Morality’.  

 Max Lucado's examination of the Beatitudes may just be the inspiration you need The Applause of Heaven

Examined Christian Faith 'Law of Human Nature' 1.1 - What is Christianity

What is Christianity?  How to explain what I am about to undertake?  Or even why I am doing so?  Where most of those who believe as I do see no need to explore the questions, no reason to  ponder the deep underlying currents that drive our beliefs;  I am compelled to do otherwise.  I do not fully understand the reasons myself, so I doubt that I can explain it to you.  It is just something I must do.  I must understand why I believe what I believe, because if I do not understand the basis of my faith, how can I be the witness that I am called to be?  I am probably the least qualified person I know to attempt such an undertaking, and I do not suppose that I will answer every question that others may have.  Just the ones I have, the ones that connects all of the dots in my heart and mind.  Just the ones that explain why and what I believe to be the truth. 

I believe that this is an exercise that everyone needs to undertake in their life; to paraphrase Socrates’ "The unexamined life is not worth living."  into “The unexamined faith is not faith at all”, for when the first sign of trouble, hardship, or opposition comes, and it will; faith unexamined is faith abandoned.  Oh you may appear to return to it at a later point, but inside, where it matters most, you know the truth, that your faith is only your faith as long as it gives you what you want. 

How long will this take, “only my father knows”.  

Part 1.1  Laws. 

It seems to me that there are two laws that govern our world, ‘the law of nature’ and ‘the law of human nature’.  Some may think they are the same, but I would disagree.  The ‘law of nature’ means things like gravity, heredity, biology, chemistry, etc., while the ‘law of human nature’ is really the law of right and wrong.  It is the ‘law of human nature’ where I begin my pursuit.  The reason is actually quite simple, all creatures, all matter including man, must obey the ‘law of nature’.  That a rock or a man could choose to obey the law of gravity or choose not to, is not an option. However a person may choose to either obey the ‘law of human nature’ or not.

To visualize this, all one has to do is imagine a body supported in mid air, if you remove the support, the body has no option about falling, be it a rock or a human; the law of nature is shared by all things.  However the ‘law of human nature’ is peculiar only to humans.  We can either choose to obey it, or not to.  But it is a law that is not shared with any other thing on earth, no animals, no plants, or any inorganic thing.  It applies to humankind, and humankind alone. 

What is the ‘law of human nature’?  It is the law of decent behavior, of right and wrong.  One may deny that the law exist, that there is no real right and wrong, but the person who says this will soon prove themselves to be blind or mistaken.  For while he may use that excuse when he breaks a promise to you, if you try to break on to him, he will be screaming the loudest that it is unfair.  The simple act of arguing with someone is in itself proof of this law, because to quarrel with someone means that you are attempting to show that they are wrong, if there is not some sort of agreement about what is right and wrong, then there would be no  point in arguing.

It does not matter what society, what culture, or what time period you look at, the same core belief of morality exist. Compare the Romans, Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, or the Waodani, they all held the same essential belief of right and wrong.  Yes, there will be differences between the details, as in how many wives a man may have, but they all agree you do not take another man’s wife; the core tenant of right and wrong has existed in all of them.  

Try to imagine a country where it is admirable to betray your friends, to steal from others is praised, where lying is a good thing, where murder is exalted,   Countries and cultures may have different views in regard to what people should be unselfish towards (family, friends, co-workers, countrymen, or everyone) but they have always agreed that you should not put yourself before others.  That the selfish man is the most detested man. 

It seems that there is no option other then to accept that there is in fact a real Right and Wrong, and none of us are very good at keeping the ‘law of human nature’.  Maybe I should simply say that at least no one I know is; because like it or not, this year, or this month and much more likely today, we failed to practice  the type of behavior we expect from others.  When it is pointed out to me  (even if only by my own conscience) I myself have come up with thousands of excuses as to why I failed.  It does not matter if it is a good excuse (not very often), rather that they offer more proof at how deeply we believe in ‘the law of human nature’.  If we did not believe in a real right and wrong, there would be no reason why I would need to make an excuse.   

The truth is that the law of human nature is pressing on us so much at all times, that we cannot bear to admit that we are breaking it, so rather than fact the fact, we attempt to shift the blame.  Yet it occurs to me that it is only for our poor behavior, our rotten actions, our short temper, our sins (if you care to use the word) that we delegate the responsibility to something or someone else. 

All clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in is based on these two points. 

 

1. Human beings all over the earth, regardless of time, place, or culture have this idea that they should behave in a certain manner, and try as we may to deny it, we cannot shake it. 
2. That none of us in fact behave in the way we think we should.  All of us know the ‘Law of Human Nature" and none of us keep it.  

If you are so inclined, a good place to begin your examination of what you believe may be The Reason for God

What of those who haven't heard of Jesus? The Christian Answer

In John 14:6 Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Jesus’ words make it clear that He alone has brought God’s gift of salvation to the world. But do His words also mean that everyone who hasn’t heard of Him will be condemned to hell?

Abraham lived long before Christ. When he told Isaac that God would provide a sacrifice, his words were strikingly prophetic, but he could not possibly understand their true significance. He knew nothing about the Lamb of God who would die on a cross nearly 2,000 years later. People like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Melchizedek, Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob never heard the gospel, yet Hebrews 11:13 leaves no doubt that they are all in heaven.

No one in Old Testament had a clear understanding of the role that Jesus Christ would someday play in atoning for sin. But 2,000 years before the gospel was revealed, the faith of Old Testament believers was already “credited to them as righteousness” (Genesis 15:6; Psalm 106:31; Galatians 3:6).

Faith in God always involved confidence that God would somehow provide for the forgiveness of sins. Faith always anticipated the coming of Christ and His sacrifice on our behalf. Old Testament believers offered sacrifices as an expression of their faith.  By themselves, sacrificial offerings could never take away sin.  When they were offered in faith, however, God accepted them because they pointed to Jesus Christ, the one sacrifice worthy to atone for all the sins of the world (Hebrews 10:1-17 ).

One of the most amazing missionary stories of the 20^th century was the martyrdom of five young missionaries (including Jim Elliot and Nate Saint) in Ecuador and the conversion of the Auca Indians.  The first convert from the Auca tribe was a young woman named Dayuma.  Remarkably, Dayuma was predisposed to accept the gospel because of her father’s influence.  Although he had never heard the name of Jesus, he spoke out against the blood feuds that were an Auca way of life.  Unlike the others of his tribe, he was deeply conscious of his sinful nature and knew that he and his people needed forgiveness.  He told Dayuma that some day God would send a messenger to the Aucas to tell them the way of salvation.  Like Old Testament believers, Dayuma’s father was still living by faith when he died ( Hebrews 11:13 ). The witness of his life implies that he would have been overjoyed to hear the gospel, but he died before missionaries came.

Does the Bible give us grounds for insisting that Dayuma’s father is any different in God’s eyes than the believers of the Old Testament?   Clearly, Dayuma’s father, like Abraham, would face eternal damnation apart from Christ’s shed blood.   Apparent, too, is the deep spiritual need of those, like the Auca people, who live in fear and spiritual darkness.   The fact that Christ is the only way to God places on us the responsibility to make Him known to all.

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles asked:

for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? Romans 10:13-14

But there isn’t a passage of Scripture that proves that God looks upon Dayuma’s father differently than He looked upon Old Testament believers who had only a faint idea of the nature of coming redemption.   The apostle Paul had this issue in mind when he wrote the first chapters of Romans, declaring that God has revealed Himself in creation “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”  Romans 1:18-20 and in human conscience  “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.  They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.  Romans 2:12-16 

The gospel clearly states that each individual will be judged according to his response to these two revelations of God.  To those who respond positively, God gives more knowledge—as He did to the Ethiopian eunuch and the Roman centurion, Cornelius (see Acts 8,10 ).  Those who are lost will be judged according to their response to the spiritual light they have received ( Hebrews 4:12-13). 

I believe that God will extend His grace to Dayuma’s father on the basis of Christ’s shed blood, just as He did to Enoch, Melchizedek, Job, Abraham, and Sarah—people who had only the faintest intimation of the means by which God would provide for their redemption. In the final analysis, we must leave this matter in God’s keeping.  He is both just and loving.  We can be assured that the Judge of all the earth will do right.

To learn more about Jim Elliot and the Auca tribe watch one of two movies  “ End of the Spear” or the documentary “Beyond the Gates of Splendor”