New Sermon: “The Fifth Commandment”
Happy Mother’s Day and in the spirit of the day, I preached on the 5th Commandment, which can be found HERE. Many blessings to all of you and may YHWH our God be with you always.
THE OBJECTIVITY OF בטח IN THE COVENANT GOD, YHWH
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
LIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
THE OBJECTIVITY OF בטח IN THE COVENANT GOD, YHWH
A PAPER
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE
OTCL 505-D06
BY
JEFFREY S. KRAUSE
APRIL 26, 2012
INTRODUCTION
What is the true nature of “trust” and what is its object? Is there objectivity to this term that is foundational to all of human experience? Or rather, can true trust be obtained through the subjective experiences and attitudes of man? The purpose of this essay is to evaluate these questions via the Hebrew word בטח, a word that carries with it a number of meanings in the original language, with all of these meanings well linked with the root form of this word. In the evaluation of this term, this study will attempt to demonstrate how בטח it is utilized contextually throughout the Old Testament, with its various forms of trust, security and confidence all finding their foundation in the covenant God, YHWH.
LEXIGRAPHICAL STUDY OF בטח
The most basic meaning בטח, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) is that of “trust.”[1] Keyed in the Strong’s Lexicon as H982 (and BDB 982),[2] this word, “batach,”[3] occurs one-hundred and eighteen in the pages of the Old Testament, with usage range occurring from Deuteronomy through Zephaniah and is defined as: “batach . . . a primitive root; properly, to hide for refuge . . . figuratively, to trust, be confident or sure:–be bold (confident, secure, sure), careless (one, woman), put confidence, (make to) hope, (put, make to) trust.”[4]
Sub-uses of this word which still falls under primary definition occur with the following meanings: (1) trusting in trust [בָּטָֽחְתָּ הַבִּטָּח֛וֹן > ], (2) “trust in” [בָּטָֽחְתּ] (a) “God,” (b) “persons,” (c) “things,” (d) “in the name of God,” (3) “trust or rely upon” [וּבוֹטֵ֖חַ עַל ] (God, persons or things) and (4) “trust to,” or towards, [בְּטַ֣ח אֶל] (God, persons or things).[5] Secondary usages of this word are defined as that of “confidence,” or more precisely, to “be confident.”[6] Less often usages of this second category carry with it an idea of “security,”[7] as used in Judges 18:7 where the text speaks about the security the people [וּבֹטֵ֗חַ...עִם־אָדָֽם],[8] a usage as a antonym, “careless” or carelessness (Isa 32:10, בֹּֽטְח֑וֹת feminine plural), and finally, to “cause to trust” and/or “make secure.”[9]
CONCORDANCE STUDY
Although it has predominantly a strict range of meaning, בטח can nevertheless be divided into four basic categories of understanding. The first of these three categories maintains the general meaning of “trust” or “trusting in” a particular object while the final of these categories retains the basic meaning of secure confidence. These categories are as follows: (1) Divine Trust (2) Temporal Trust (3) General Trust and finally (4) Secure Confidence.
Divine Trust
By far, the most important of the categories listed above comes by way of a true and salvific trust in YHWH for redemption. Here, both a cognitive and volitional “trust” is witnessed throughout the pages of Scripture, with this category accounting for forty-five uses total.[10] Perhaps the most famous of the בטח renderings is found in the precious words of the prophet Isaiah, where in chapter 12 of the book of Isaiah, he penned; “Behold, God is my salvation; ‘I will trust [אֶבְטַ֖ח], and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation’” (Isa 12:2, ESV, emphasis and insertion added). Further examples of this “Divine Trust” can be seen in three basic subcategories, namely, “corporate,” “political” and “personal.”
Corporate or Covenantal Trust
Examples of this category call God’s people to fidelity within the covenant, in general, corporate fashion. For instance, in Ps 4:5, the Psalmist tells his readers to offer sacrifices in trust of YHWH. Likewise, in the corporate prayer of Ps 33, David proclaims that the people’s hearts are glad because they have trusted in the name of the Lord (Ps. 33:21). One final example of this corporate trust, or call to trust, is gleaned from Ps 115:8-11, where four consecutive verses call for fidelity to the Lord and His covenant, with verses 9-10 specifically mentioning both the nation of Israel and the “house of Aaron.”
Political Trust
This subcategory, although much more sparse, is nevertheless vitally important both historically, and, in regards to the “general equity” of the Law of God that is to carry over into all societies. In 2 Kg 18:5, Hezekiah’s “trust” [בָּטָ֑ח] and obedience to the ordinances of the Lord made him second to none, “among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him” (2 Kg 18:5, ESV). Another wonderful example of the civil magistrates trust in the Lord come by way of Ps 21:7, which reads; “For the king trusts in the LORD, and through the steadfast love of the Most High he shall not be moved” (Ps 21:7, ESV). Here, a correspondence is seen between the civil magistrate’s obedience and dedication to the Lord and the success of the leader. David links this “trust” to his strength and salvation in the first verse of the Psalm.
Personal Trust
By far, the most expansive usage of the various forms of בטח comes in the form of personal, individual trust. God’s love (Ps 13:5), God’s person (Ps 28:7), God’s protection (Ps 31:14-15), God’s mercy (Ps 52:8), God’s refuge (Ps 91:2), God’s word (Ps 119:42), God’s understanding (Prov 3:5) and God’s strength (Isa 26:4) are but a few examples of the personal trust of the individual toward the one true and living God. Interestingly, Prov 3:5 and Ps 146:3 are just two examples of “trust in” [בְּטַ֣ח] and “trust not in” [אַל־תִּבְטְח֥וּ] verses, with both urging the reader not to put their trust on objects apart from the Lord. Hence, it is also noted that בטח is used in both positive and negative forms, with both instances urging the reader or hearer to place their trust in YHWH.
Temporal Trust
The area of temporal trust highlights the use of בטח in specific individuals or peoples, with both positive and negative connotations attached to this “trust.” Examples of temporal trust[11] include Jug 20:36, where the men of Israel trusted those in position of ambush, 2 Kg 18:21 and trust in the Pharaoh of Egypt (in contrast to verse 22 and trust in YHWH), Jer 9:4 with a call not to trust in brothers, 17:5 which is used negatively regarding the trusting in man (c.f. 17:7 and trust in YHWH), and Micah 7:5 which calls on the people not to trust in friends, but rather, in the Lord (v. 7), are all examples of the use of בטח that find their context outside of the ultimate trust of God, but rather, in the realm of man or men.
General Trust
This third category is fascinating when one considers the various ways in which one trusts in the inanimate or abstract. In Ps 44:6, the Psalmist proclaims that he will trust in neither bow nor sword, with Ps 49:6 speaking negatively about trusting in wealth. Ps 52:7 speaks of one who trusts in riches and wickedness (c.f. Isa 47:10), whereas Ps 62:10 is a call not to trust in oppression, with Isa 59:4 denouncing trusting in vanity. Jeremiah 7:4 and 7:8 are two wonderful examples of the upholding of the Ninth Commandment, where the trusting in “lying words” is denounced, with the opposite, positive principle of the Commandment being inferred. Perhaps the most dramatic of these verses comes by way of Jer 48:7, where the people of Israel are set to be taken into exile for trusting “in their works and treasures,” rather than in their covenant God. All of these are but a few examples of the trusting in abstract, non-creaturely ideas or objects.
Secure Confidence
The final category that will be discussed in this section of the study pertains to the minor or secondary understanding of בטח. This uses fall into the realm of “security” and “confidence” where בטח is used to promote a quality of well-being. Examples include: Jgs 18:7 (secure or security), Job 6:20 (confident), and Job 11:18 (secure > לָבֶ֥טַח). Although sparse in number, this connotation of בטח is contextually vital to a proper understanding of Holy Writ.
THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK STUDY
Agreement
Much correspondence is found between the argued position and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT). First, as noted previously, the primary and ultimate sense of בטח falls into the realm of “divine trust,” where, the individual or the corporate entity places their trust in YHWH. Note the TWOT citation on this extremely important point; “In general, the OT contrasts the validity of that sense of confidence which comes from reliance upon God with the folly of any other kind of security. It is made plain that all such trust will end in disgrace and shame . . . whereas those whose hope is in God alone will be delivered from their enemies . . . their prayers will be answered . . . they will walk in straight paths . . . will be given joy and gladness . . . will know inner peace and absence of fear . . . Hence, the repeated admonition to trust in the Lord (Prov 16:20; Isa 30:15; Jer 17:7).[12] In short, the positive understanding of בטח finds its fulfillment in the covenant God, YHWH.
Further correspondence is noted in the TWOT’s identification of misguided בטח, which finds its place ultimately in human autonomy and reasoning, other than, the true and living God.[13] This usage runs throughout the Old Testament and identifies “trust” apart from YHWH as its direct object. Similarly, the TWOT lists a number of less oft usages of בטח in its various forms with the meanings of “safety,” “security,” and “confidence.” In summary, the TWOT and this essay understand בטח in very similar fashion, with points of agreement in both primary and secondary definitional forms.
Tension
One slight point of tension falls into the realm of the substance or inner constitution of “trust” or “trusting.” It has been previously argued that true trust in the divine is a movement of both one’s cognitive ability and a volitional movement of the will. Hence, בטח in its proper sense flows out of a true salvific binding to God as the source giver for all confidence. On this point, the TWOT states the following; “It is significant that the LXX never translates this word [בטח] with πιστευω “believe in” but with ελπιζω “to hope,” in the positive sense “to rely on God” or πειφομαι “to be persuaded,” for the negative notion for relying on what turns out to be deceptive. This would seem to indicate that bāṭaḥ does not connote that full-orbed intellectual and volitional response to revelation which is involved in “faith,” rather stressing the feeling of being safe or secure.”[14]
First, to be sure, “faith” and “trust” are two different acts. For instance, one could have a true, salvific faith in YHWH, yet, not fully trust the message of Rom 8:28 which states that “all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28, ESV), in a particular situation. These are two different categories, both cognitively and volitionally, with the former being in the area of Justification (salvific faith) and the latter being in the realm of Sanctification (trust or non-trust in temporal matters). Yet, trust in the Sanctification sense cannot be separated from faith and trust in the direct object of Justification and the enabler of Sanctification, the Triune God of Scripture. Yet, it seems as if the TWOT separates these two “actions” of the “will” as disconnected from one another. This is the specific area of tension because a trust in the divine is dependent on the antecedent of trust, which is a saving faith that justifies. The unbeliever that has their mind set on the flesh cannot and does not have the ability to please YHWH (Rom 8:7-8). Yet, divine trust is both commanded and pleasing to God (Ps 4:5, Prov 16:20) and possible for the elect. Hence, if it is the TWOT’s intent to separate the two terms in disconnected fashion, the author disagrees with the TWOT’s conclusion. However, if the TWOT is simply pointing out that trust does not necessitate a “full-orbed”[15] cognitive and volitional response, then, the author agrees. Simply put, there is not enough information presented in the TWOT to finalize a conclusion on this matter, and as a result, the author assumes the latter of these propositions, while, reserving the right to disagree if in fact the TWOT’s intent is an implication that “trust” can be disconnected from “faith.”
APPLICATION
The application of the uses and understanding of בטח are many. First, it has been shown that the proper use of בטח always falls into the realm of divine trust, with YHWH as the direct object of that trust. Hence, it is true and justified to proclaim that “trust” and “confidence” in anyone or anything outside of God is both irrational and misguided. Likewise, any sense of security outside of the providence and loving care of the Lord is empty striving that does not comport with human experience or divine revelation. Instead, the Christian and all of creation is to place their “trust” in the being of YHWH, the person’s of the God-head and the attributes of God associated with His “ being” (strength, power, providence, wisdom, love, protection, mercy, and understanding).
Likewise, rulers of nations are to trust in the ordinances of God as holy, righteous and just, along with trust in a personal fashion that derives from a true and saving faith. Corporately, the church needs to abandon its notion of defeatism and trust that God can bring about revival and reformation within the culture. Also, this “trust” is to transfer generationally into the covenant family structure, with children being instructed in trusting God to the fullest. In short, true בטח is a trust, confidence and security in the author of all creation, the covenant God, YHWH, in His Triune majesty. Anything short of this is misguided, un-Scriptural and not pleasing to God.
CONCLUSION
As noted throughout the duration of this study, בטח is a highly nuanced term with a general meaning of “trust.” However, true trust can never be achieved apart from the foundation of trust, the living God, YHWH. Hence, it is seen that there is an objective foundation to “trust” that cannot be displaced from God. In short, בטח carries with it the highest degree of moral obligation where trust in YHWH is not simply suggested, but rather, commanded. If one wishes to have true peace, confidence and security, these qualities are attained far beyond ones subjective disposition on particular matters. Rather, true peace, confidence and security are grounded in and foundational to a salvific binding to the God who justifies sinners. When this is achieved by the grace of God that same grace will depart to the believer trust in God; a trust that will grow throughout the duration of one’s life as they are transformed into the image of the eternal Son and Savior, Christ Jesus.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ESV Study Bible. Kindle. Good News Publishers/Crossway Books (2009).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. Electronic Ed. Stuttgart; Glenside , PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996.
Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2012. http:// www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm? (accessed 04 23, 2012).
Brown, F. Driver, S. Briggs, C. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. 13. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010 (1906).
Strong, James. Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon . Electronic ed. Prod. Woodside Bible Fellowship. Ontario, 1996.
Youngblood, R. F. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Edited by G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke R. L. Harris. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999.
[1] F. Brown, S. Driver, C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 13th. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010 (1906), 105-a.
[2] Blue Letter Bible. “Dictionary and Word Search for ‘”trust*” AND “H982″‘ in the KJV”. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2012. 23 Apr 2012. < http:// www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?
Criteria=trust%2A+H982&t=KJV >
[3] James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (electronic ed.), Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship, Logos Bible Software (1996).
[4] Ibid., Strong’s (H982).
[5] Ibid., BDB, 105 (all definitions).
[6] Ibid., BDB
[7] Ibid., BDB
[8] As seen in the ESV rendering, “Then the five men departed and came to Laish and saw the people who were there, how they lived in security…” (Judges 18:5, ESV, emphasis added).
[9] Ibid., BDB
[10] This formulation is compiled by taking the BDB categorical definition (p. 105-a) of sections 1-5 as listed under “trust,” “trust in,” “rely,” and “trust to,” that place God as the direct object of that trust and compiling them into a single category for the purpose of this study.
[11] The use of temporal trust is up and against the Divine trust previously demonstrated. Here, trust is placed in creatures rather than the divine.
[12] Youngblood, R. F. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Edited by G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke R. L. Harris. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, (1999), 101.
[13] This essay, in essence runs parallel to the TWOT on this point, which lists this misguided trust as the following; “The OT considers these sources of false security in some detail in order to show by contrast the excellence of hope in God. The list includes man (Ps 118:8; 146:3; Prov 25:19; Jer 17:5); wickedness (Isa 47:10); violence and oppression (Ps 55:23 [H 24]; 62:10 [H 11]; Isa 30:12); riches (Ps 49:6 [H 7]; 52:7 [H 9]; Prov 11:28); idols (Ps 31:6 [H 7]; 115:8; Isa 42:17; Hab 2:18); military power (Deut 28:52; Ps 44:6 [H 7]; Isa 31:1; Jer 5:17; Hos 10:13); religion (Jer 7:4, 8, 14); one’s own righteousness (Ezk 33:13; Hos 10:13); foreign alliances (Isa 36:4ff; Ezk 29:16). In particular the Bible heaps scorn upon those who live in complacency, never having evaluated the flimsy basis for such complacency (Isa 32:9–11; Ezk 30:9; Amos 6:1).” Ibid., TWOT, 102.
[14] Ibid., TWOT, 101.
[15] Ibid., TWOT
New Sermons: “The First Commandment” & “Saving Faith Is A Working Faith”
It’s been a while since I posted. Please forgive me but there is good reason. My Hebrew class has been very difficult and I have been attempting to prepare for my finals (any prayers you could offer would be much appreciated). However, I have been preaching and teaching at the church and here are the last two sermons (from the last two weeks, 4/28 & 5/6). The first is on the First Commandment and today I spoke on James chapter 2 and the necessity of having a working, living faith. I pray that these are helpful in some way and may our great God and Savior bless you and yours.
Pushing Back the Line of Truth
A very interesting article from the “Christian Post,” which shows the dividing line between truth and cult being blurred more and more -
Half of All Americans Believe Bible, Quran, Book of Mormon Hold Same Truths
By Stoyan Zaimov , Christian Post ReporterApril 17, 2012|3:47 pmAn in-depth study released by the Barna Group on behalf of the American Bible Society found that 50 percent of Americans believe the Bible, Quran and the Book of Mormon hold different expressions of the same truths. The survey also found that Americans’ reliance on the Bible has decreased slightly in 2012 from 2011, although the Christian holy book retains an important place in people’s lives.
The study, which was conducted in March and surveyed over 2,000 adults through phone and online interviews, found that 85 percent of American households own a Bible – although that number was down from 88 percent in 2011. Similarly, 48 percent agreed that the Bible has all the knowledge needed to live a meaningful life, while that number was 53 percent in 2011.
Mormonism, which has been in the news lately because of Mitt Romney, the likely GOP presidential candidate and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, registered a slight gain in terms of recognition – six percent of people interviewed said the Book of Mormon is sacred or holy, which is up two percent from 2011. The Bible, on the other hand, dropped by four percent to 82 percent in the same question.
The survey’s findings suggest that “Americans desire to read the Bible more and turn to it for the answers to life questions but have an increasingly less reverent view of its contents,” David Kinnaman, president of Barna Group, said in a press release.
People’s motivation for reading the Bible also slightly changed. Fifty-five and 10 percent of respondents respectively said they read the Christian holy book to bring them closer to God or because they needed comfort, which was down from 2011. However, 17 percent of respondents, a growing number, said they were turning to the Bible to help them solve a problem in life, or because they needed direction.
In terms of faith and politics, people were largely split on the role religious belief has to play in the political realm. However, a significant majority (79 percent) disagreed that the Bible teaches Americans should vote for people of the same faith, while 33 percent of people said they would vote for an atheist. The more secular, younger generation (between ages 18 and 29) were more open to the idea, and 47 percent said they are ready to vote for an atheist candidate.
In addition, 47 percent of all adults said that according to them, the Bible has too little influence over American society – but 16 percent said that it has too much influence, a number up by two percent from 2011.
The survey also took a look at the type of emotions experienced by those who read the Bible. Of the favorable emotions, respondents most identified themselves as feeling peaceful (34 percent) and encouraged/inspired (33 percent.) While most Bible readers said they did not experience unfavorable emotions after reading Scripture, those that did said they were either confused (12 percent) or overwhelmed (11 percent).
A common frustration identified by Bible readers was rarely having enough time to read the Bible – 32 percent admitted they experience this problem. Twelve percent, on the other hand, said their biggest problem was the difficult language used in the Bible.
Naturalism and Free Thought by Greg Bahnsen
In naturalistic atheism, all that exists in the universe is “matter in motion”- even in the area of human “thought.”As a result, all free thought is lost in this system, because the thoughts produced by an individual are simply the result of an electro-chemical response due to internal and external stimuli (remember, everything is physical “matter in motion”). Hence, on the foundation of the naturalist worldview, the supporter of this position could never know if naturalism is true, and further, they are forced to say naturalism is true simply due to the electro-chemical response taking place in their brains and not due to evidences or freedom of thought (yet, they debate and try to convince people that their system is true, as if the person had the freedom to make up their own minds). The short video below by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen explains this nicely.
The second video posted below is the entire Bahnsen vs. Stein debate. If you have never heard this debate, you must. Dr. Bahnsen utterly destroyed the atheistic worldview in this debate and it has become a classic in many Christian circles. It is a wonderful example of the irrationality of the atheistic position and serves as an equally wonderful example to show that without the Christian God, “you could not prove anything at all.”
Romney, Obama and the Kingdom of Christ
If you are a conservative who is not on board with the Mitt Romney express, you have heard it said by now; “Not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama.” First, let’s deal with this horrific error. One thing needs to be pointed out right off that bat, a vote for neither Romney OR Obama is a NOT a vote for either one of them. How in the world does not voting for either one of them constitute a vote for one of them? Is this some sort of “default to the Liberal” system, where, like in pro wrestling, a tie or disqualification goes to the title holder? It’s just not so. If I vote for “person X,” up and against Romney and Obama, then, I have voted for “person X,” plain and simple, even if I know that “person X” has no real chance at winning. Let’s put this into perspective. If the apostle Paul were running today on his Biblical, Theonomic platform, how well do you think he would do in the polls in a post-Christian society that demands tolerance (for everything but the Christian view)? Not very well and I dare say that many, who even profess to be Christian, would not vote for him. Now let’s say that Paul was only generating 1% of the pre-election vote, and, I voted for him regardless of polling statistics. Now I ask you, would this have been a “wasted vote, in favor of President Obama?” Of course not, yet, we are told time after time that, “A vote against Romney is a vote for Obama.” Now I grant that the apostle Paul is in glory with the Triune King of Scripture and will not be running for political office (and, that he would not be eligible under the laws of the Republic, seeing how he would not have been a “natural born citizen”), but, that does not stop me from researching a third party candidate who best represents the Christian Theistic world and life view. We have a “moral obligation” to God to vote for those who most closely represent His political position, which is that He is King and ruler of every square inch of the universe, in His Triune majesty.
Next, from an evangelistic and apologetic perspective, Romney is an absolute train wreck waiting to happen. Let us not forget that Romney is a member of a cult. In apologetics, a cult is a system of thought or belief that either attempts to correct or replace Christianity by altering and/or attacking the Deity of Jesus Christ, and/or, attacks the nature and Deity of the Triune God-head. Picture this, Mitt Romney wins the election and “main-streams” Mormonism. As a result, the “cult” sensitivities which are already being eroded away in our post-Christian culture, find a four to eight year home in American life and living rooms. What would that do to the Christian apologetic and to evangelism? Mormonism would be accepted, in an even greater way then it is now, as “just another Christian denomination.” What a horrid proposition to consider. Let us remember, this is a man who believes and teaches a system that proclaims that “Our Heavenly Father” was once a sinner, and a man, who became a god. This is a system that proclaims that the Triune God-head is three separate gods. This is a system that denies the inspiration of the Bible in promotion of its added LDS writings. This is a system that denies the virgin birth of Christ and states that “the Father” came down and had physical relations with Mary. This is a system that believes God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35). This is a system that believes that Jesus and Satan are “spirit brothers.” This is a system that denies the atoning work of the Lord Jesus and proclaims that works are necessary for salvation. This is a system that denies monotheism and is the most (potentially) polytheistic system in existence, where everyone potentially can become “a god.” This is a system that is attempting to “correct Christianity” because the true message of the Gospel had been lost. And the list could go on.
I’m sorry, but Christians must finally take a stand and give up the “American Ideal” for Biblical discernment. This is not about American culture, but rather, it’s a matter of the Kingdom of Christ. Could you picture any of the apostles telling their readers or followers to vote for one of the Gnostics of their day? Of course not, yet as we speak (or read), we have Christian leaders telling other Christians to vote for an individual who promotes and rejects the Triune God. But one might say, and be correct in saying, “If President Obama gets elected, and Romney fails, things will only get worse for us.” Yes, indeed they most likely will, but, how did things get to this point in the first place? Answer: by forsaking and rejecting the Triune God of Scripture, the very solution that some are offering by promoting a potential Mormon President. Hence, if we want to see real change in culture, if we want to see lasting effects in society for the “good” (which is defined by the nature of God and His holy law), then we as Christians need to be more focused on the proliferation of the Gospel through the Great Commission, rather than ousting the President and getting Romney elected. Yes, we have a moral obligation to limit or end suffering, and, some suffering would be halted by voting President Obama out of office. However, these are only temporal sufferings which pale in comparison to the spiritual damage that could be done by a potential Mormon President, masking his faith under the rubric of “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude, 1:3).
We as a culture are indeed in a real pickle and if you’re like me, you do not want either one of these candidates. Solution, vote for the person who reflects the Biblical worldview to the highest degree, regardless of their ability to win or vote count.
Fine-Tuned Indeed
“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power…” (Heb. 1:3, ESV)
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Col. 1:15-17, ESV)
We have all read about how the universe is “fine-tuned” for human life and how that fine-tuning points to the existence of God. With that said (and in noting the fact that I usually avoid arguments such as this because I have no real desire to argue for the existence of “a god,” or, “a creator”), I came across this amazing statistic today in studying for my mid-term in apologetics. Our “fine-tuning” is truly amazing and only attests to the amazing and perfect detail of our Triune God.
The fine-tuning is estimated to be at least on part in 10(53) [10 to the 53 power] – that is, one part in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. To get an idea of how precise that is, it would be like throwing a dart at the surface of the earth from outer space and hitting a bull’s-eye one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter – less than the size of an atom. (Derwin L. Gray, Kindle Location 1381)
Works Cited
Hindson, Edward, and Ergun Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
