Speculative Theology on Satan

I am the only person I know that holds the view I am about to describe

And I say that humbly, not with pride.

Most likely, I am wrong.

I believe that God created a being whose purpose was to test humanity. Tests can be beneficial. We can use them to learn and grow. Tests are morally neutral. This testing angel tested Eve. She failed the test. Her failure created a test for Adam. He failed too. All of creation was impacted by the failure of those made in God's image, even the testing being. The failure and subsequent corruption of human beings led to the corruption of the testing agent. His motive for testing humanity changed from a desire to obey His Creator to a desire to deceive his subjects. He started to want humans to fail the tests he gave. The more humans failed, the more corrupt he became. His role of testing changed into one of temptation. The Fall of Man led to the Fall of Satan.

This theory solves a long-standing conundrum I have had. Why did Satan fall? I know why Adam fell: Peer pressure from the world (Eve). I know why Eve fell: The presence of a tester (Satan). I didn't know why Satan fell. It seems to me that there are only 3 factors that lead us to sin.

1. Our corrupted/fleshly desires (sin nature, however understood)
2. Our corrupted/fallen world (peer pressure)
3. The tempter (and/or any 'staff' such a being may have)

One or more of those elements in always present when we sin. But none of those elements were present in the case of the Tester (unless he tested himself?). What could have possibly motivated a good being to go bad given the absence of these three factors? I can think of no such thing (though, as I said, I could be missing something).

But if Satan was performing a God-given and morally neutral role in testing Eve... and if Eve failed the test, then Satan could have subsequently been corrupted by the impact of human sin on creation. His role became distorted just as the created order fell out of whack. It was, and is, creation gone wild.

Just a theory.

Multiverse

This morning I read an article about Stephen Hawking’s latest speech on the origin of the universe. The headline read: Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God. Having just explained the ‘First Cause’ argument for the existence of God this past Sunday, I was naturally curious to see what counter-argument he is touting these days.

The article begins by describing the interest in Hawking’s speech. He spoke to a “packed house.” People had waited 12 hours to get their hands on the free tickets. The line to get into the lecture was about a quarter mile long. Another auditorium and an outdoor jumbotron were used to manage the masses. $1,000, apparently, wasn’t enough to take a ticket of someone’s hands. All that to say… people were excited to hear what Stephen Hawking had to say about the origin of the universe. People are interested in the big questions of life. Where did we come from? Why are we here?

After dismissing a number of outdated scientific theories, Hawking’s advocated M-Theory. What is M-Theory, you ask? It is the belief that there are lots of universes. These other universes exist in other dimensions that we don’t have access to. They are sometimes called parallel universes. The article states that, “Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed” (He also feels quite lucky to have landed in one of the universes suitable for life).

So the case for a first cause (The Big Bang) without God is the belief in multiple parallel universes. You may be wondering WHY such a theory is put forward. Let me explain. Hawking admits that the universe appears to be designed (the ‘Design’ argument happens to be the second argument we discussed this past Sunday). Hawking knows it is a worthless endeavor to try to explain this appearance of design as a statistical anomaly. But how else can it be explained? If it is incredibly unlikely that the appearance of design in our universe may be explained by random chance… then why not posit an infinite number of universes? If there’s a near infinite number of universes, a few of them are bound to ‘appear’ designed!

Take a second to think about the move Hawking is making here. To avoid belief in an invisible God, Hawking is willing to believe in the existence of a near infinite amount of universes that he can’t see or observe. Not only does this, to my mind, require far more faith than most any religious system… it also doesn’t happen to explain the origin of the universe (which, I thought, was the whole purpose of the lecture)! Indeed, it multiplies the problem. If you thought it was hard to explain the origin of one universe… try explaining a billion or more!

What would motivate such an intelligent man to come up with such a faithful theory? What is it about G-theory (The God theory) that makes M-Theory so attractive? We find clues to this in the article as well. Early in the lecture, Hawking quipped, “What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?” Hawking sounds like a person who has some issues with God from the outset. He’s an angry God. Let me say this… if I felt God was primarily characterized by anger, I’d be looking elsewhere too.

Later in the speech Hawking observed that Pope John Paul II admonished the scientific establishment against studying the moment of creation, as it was holy. He then joked, “I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition.” This reference to church history, once again, shows that Hawking may have less issue with the divine in concept that he does with religion in general. Based on these two quotes, in fact, I would suggest that Hawking’s atheism is motivated more by a distorted view of God and the downfalls of religion than by the scientific facts. He admits the evidence seems to point toward God, but he’d rather appeal to invisible universes than bow to invisible God.

I don’t claim to be nearly as smart as Stephen Hawking when it comes to the inner workings of the universe. I can, however, say this confidently: Belief in M-Theory is motivated more by an anti-God philosophy than it is by actual evidence. Such being the case, one could easily argue that Hawking is just as faithful, if not more so, than your average believer in God.

10 Arguments for the Existence of God

APOLOGETICS 101

10 Arguments that God exists

#1 The First Cause Argument

Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Most people now agree that the universe at some point in the past began to exist. Therefore, the universe must have had a cause. We can rightfully label that cause the Creator.

#2 The Design Argument

Any careful observer recognizes that the universe displays a high degree of apparent order/design. This could be explained either by chance or by actual intelligence behind the design. But it is so statistically improbable that chance can account for the order/design we observe that intelligence becomes a superior explanation. That intelligent designer can be labeled as God.

#3 The Moral Argument

Throughout history human beings have shared a common sense of right and wrong. The atheistic view cannot adequately explain the source of our shared morality, let alone its existence to begin with. Theism can and does explain it. The source is God.

“The cosmological (first cause) argument shows that God is infinitely powerful; the teleological (design) argument reveals that he is intelligent; the moral argument demonstrates that he is moral.” (Norman Geisler)

“If I find myself with a desire that no experience in this world can satisfy, I probably was made for another world.” (C.S. Lewis)

#4 The God-Shaped-Hole Argument

Our sense of need generally corresponds to known realities (hunger exists… so does food). A vast number of people (including many famous atheists) testify that without God they feel they are missing something they desperately need. A God-shaped-hole suggests there is a God.

#5 The Beauty Argument

The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach… A Beautiful sunset… The first breath of a newborn baby… When we recognize utter beauty in this world it points beyond itself to a cosmic artist: God.

#6 The Soul/Spirit Argument

The existence of our personalities...    The many reports of spirits/ghosts and/or out of body experiences. Such facts/reports serve as evidence of the immaterial realm. If such a realm exists, the existence of God becomes likely.

#7 The Miracles Argument

Throughout history, there have been numerous reports of miracles. Even if some miracle reports are false, it is unlikely that they are all illegitimate. Miracles, by definition, point to the existence of a deity.

#8 The Common Consent Argument

Almost all people in every era have believed in some form of deity. It is unlikely that the vast majority of people throughout history have been completely wrong about the existence of a higher power. Therefore, God is likely to exist.

#9 The Experience/Testimony Argument

Many people throughout human history claim to have had an experience with the divine. One could argue that it is highly improbable that all such people have been utterly mistaken. It is far more likely an explanation that a divine being exists and has been experienced.

#10 The Jesus Argument

Jesus Christ claimed to be God. He demonstrated his trustworthiness through his life & teachings and his claims were verified through miracles and his resurrection from the dead. Given these realities, it is far more likely that Jesus was who he claimed to be than any other option (the other options include that Jesus is just a legend… that he was a lunatic… or that he was a liar). If Jesus is who He claimed to be then there is a God: Jesus.

“Of course none of the clues we have been looking for actually proves God. Every one of them is rationally avoidable. However, their cumulative effect is, I think, provocative and potent.” (Timothy Keller)

QUOTES OF NOTE

OVERVIEW

“Though there cannot be irrefutable proof for the existence of God, many people have found strong clues for his reality—divine fingerprints—in many places.” (Keller)

FIRST CAUSE

“The atheist is not able to escape the inexplicability of an impersonal first cause.” (Zacharias)

DESIGN

“Perhaps the most popular and intuitively plausible argument for God’s existence is the so-called argument from design.” (former atheist Antony Flew)

DESIGN

“Virtually no major scientist today claims that the fine tuning was purely a result of chance factors at work in a single universe.” (Flew)

MORAL

“Though we have been taught that all moral values are relative to individuals and cultures, we can’t live like that. In actual practice we inevitably treat some principles as absolute standards… what gives us the right to do that…? Nothing gives us the right. Yet we can’t stop it.” (Keller)

MORAL

“If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Heffner.” (Muggeridge)

MORAL

“The atheist uses a merely material thing to explain a spiritual thing. That is a far sillier version of the category mistake than the one the ancients made; for it is possible that the greater (Zeus, spirit) caused the lesser (lightning) and explains it; but it is not possible that the lesser (molecules) adequately caused and explains the greater (morality). A good will might create molecules, but how could molecules create a good will?” (Kreeft & Tacelli)

MORAL

“If you insist on a secular view of the world and yet you continue to pronounce some things right and some things wrong, then I hope you see the deep disharmony between the world your intellect has devised and the real world (and God) that your heart knows exists. This leads to a crucial question. If a premise (there is no God) leads to a conclusion you know isn’t true (napalming babies is culturally relative) then why not change the premise?” (Keller)

GOD-SHAPED-HOLE

“Sartre found atheism ‘cruel,’ Camus ‘dreadful,’ and Nietzsche ‘maddening.’ Atheists who consistently try to live without God tend to commit suicide or go insane. Those who are inconsistent live on the ethical or aesthetic shadow of Christian truth while they deny the reality that made the shadow. But believers and unbelievers evidence a definite need for God.” (Geisler)

GOD-SHAPED-HOLE

“Nothing can discourage the appetite for divinity in the heart of man” (Atheist Albert Camus)

GOD-SHAPED HOLE

“My life now consists in the wish that it [atheism] might be otherwise… and that somebody might make my ‘truth’s appear incredible to me.” (Nietzsche)

GOD-SHAPED-HOLE

“I needed God… I reached out for religion, I long for it, it was the remedy. Had it been denied me, I would have invented it myself.” (Sartre)

MIRACLES

“There are many reports of purported miracles, ancient and modern, some of them quite well documented.” (Swinburne)

EXPERIENCE/TESTIMONY

“In the case of religious experiences, as in the case of all other experiences, the onus is on the skeptic to give reason for not believing what seems to be the case. The only way to defeat the claims of religious experience will be to show that the strong balance of evidence is that there is no God.” (Swinburne)

CASE FOR ATHEISM

“Today’s atheist evangelists hardly even try to argue their case… Instead, they train their guns on well-known abuses in the history of the major world religions. But the excesses and atrocities of organized religion have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God.” (Varghese)

Talking to Myself (Part 3)

It's time to talk to myself again! A couple of weeks ago I posted a note titled "Why I'm not a Christian" in which a hypothetical version of me (a non-Christian Matthew) gave his objections to Christianity. Essentially, his critique was that Christianity has little to no unity, joy, or fruit from his point of view. As a result, that Matt sees no real reason to give Jesus more than a passing glance. Having responded already to his points about unity and joy, I come today to the issue of fruit. Here's what hypo Matthew said:

Third, I can't believe in Christianity because Christianity doesn't seem to be making a difference. The Bible itself says that we will know the truth of something by its fruit. What is the fruit of Christianity? I don't see many churches really making a difference in their local communities. In fact, what difference would it make if churches just disappeared tomorrow? I'm not sure it would make much of difference. It might even help because, at least then, some other institution would build something on their land and pay taxes!

I like it when non-Christians quote Scripture as part of their critique of Christianity (whether it be an apparent contradiction between one verse and another OR ESPECIALLY between the Bible and those who claim to live by it). If the see a contradiction in Scripture, I actually enjoy researching (when necessary) and talking through such issues. If they see a break in the bond between the Bible and believers, it might be an interesting insight (and even a potential sermon!).

It would be hard to argue with the suggestion that the fruit of Christianity looks pretty rotten these days. The USA, for instance, is a nation of professing Christians (is it still over 70%?), but looks very little like Jesus from multiple vantage points. Of course, one COULD rally some support to the claim that American Christianity has been fruitful. You could talk about how many missionaries we send, our charity levels, or the biblical worldview supporting our founding documents. It's not like there's no fruit at all.

But there's also a lot of bad fruit... way too much to ignore. And there's also not enough good fruit... way too little to take pride in. So what is there to say to the objection that Christianity fails by its own standards of evaluation (you will know them by their fruit)? As usual, it's best to go back to take a closer look at the verse being utilized. In this case, we must consider Jesus words in Matthew 7 where He says: "Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit... by their fruit you will recognize them."

Jesus is providing a way to RECOGNIZE true and false Christians (specifically in that passage, teachers). You may recognize them by their fruit. Hypothetical Matt's problem is that he is recognizing them by their profession of Christianity... and then judging Jesus' tree accordingly! Jesus is saying we can identify what fruit actually comes from Him by how much like Christ they are. Once you accept Jesus' method of identification... you will find inevitably find fruitful Christianity (who can be Christ-like without making a difference in the world?).

You see, the question really isn't "Why don't professing Christians produce more fruit?"... it's "Why aren't there more true Christians?" It reminds me of a quote from G.K. Chesterton: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried." It's not that Christianity has been tried and found fruitless; it's that it has not often been tried at all. Hypothetical Matthew's point is flawed, but also convicting. Real Matthew's response (beyond mere words) is required.

Talking to Myself (Part 2)

I want to continue to critique hypothetical Matthew's note "Why I'm Not a Christian." That Matt made three arguments against Christianity (little unity, little joy, little fruit). A few days ago I responded to his claim that Christians are not unified. Today I want to respond to his claim that Christians are not joyful. Here's what he said:

Second, I can't believe in Christianity because I'm not even sure THEY believe in it! Supposedly, their God became flesh... died for all their sins... and rose from the dead (promising them eternal life!). But whenever I visit a church, they seem pretty subdued. And I don't mean they should be jumping on their pews... but at least have a sparkle in your eye, eh? Something isn't right here. Either Jesus rose from the dead or He didn't. Either God has done something that changes everything or He hasn't. If He has, why is church so boring? If he hasn't... well, I must conclude that he hasn't if I'm basing it off of what I see from the 'church.' More often than not it just seems like another human club.

The problem here, I think, is that hypothetical Matthew judged the church as joyless due to his Sunday morning experience alone. In his defense, if the churches he visited really were TOTALLY dead... cold... institutionalized... then I understand why he came to the conclusion that he did. But I'm guessing that within those churches there were, at least, some pockets of joy. Did Matthew expect that every person present on Sunday morning was truly following Jesus and experiencing the joy of knowing him? Shouldn't the fact that Matthew himself was present have tipped him off to the fact that Sunday morning is a pretty mixed mess of people?

Even if there were only a few pockets of joy in the midst of the congregation, he should have reached into those pockets to see if he could find something of value. If Matthew wanted to know what it was like to be a professional football player, it wouldn't have been enough to watch a game on TV. It wouldn't have been enough to go to a game. It wouldn't have been enough to stand on the sideline. To begin to understand what it's like, Matthew would have to spend some time with actual football players (not just on Sunday, but throughout the week when they are... practicing). And to finally understand what it's like to be a professional football player, Matthew would have to become one.

If hypothetical Matthew would take the time to immerse himself in the lives of some people who are dedicated to Jesus, I am confident he would find true joy. He would find peace that passes understanding. He would find strength that doesn't make sense. He would find vitality and vigor. He would find resurrection power. He would find love without limits.

All that being said, I am sometimes afraid that hypothetical Matthew might fail to find such people. Are there enough pockets of joy? Jesus once asked... "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" I wonder, when hypothetical Matthew comes... will he find faith in the church?