Recently New Atheist religious leader Richard Dawkins has more to say about the bible he hates.
As I have said in my classes, what sets apart New Atheism from Atheism in general, is the militant desire to proselytize and condemn any other belief as if New Atheist thinkers are the only logical people. Sadly, this is not so, and Dawkins shows this again in his recent words.
Prof Dawkins, writing in the Observer, recently accepts the controversial idea that there should be a bible in every school, but for different reasons than one might expect: "It is not a moral book and young people need to learn that important fact because they are very frequently told the opposite".
Dawkins goes on and says, "People who do not know the Bible well have been gulled into thinking it is a good guide to morality."
He adds, "I have even heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that, without the Bible as a moral compass, people would have no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem... The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself..."
Without commenting specifically on what Dawkins is criticizing, I have to first ask this simple question in response to Dawkins: What is your standard of morality? What is the morality your appealing to? If the world is just a cosmic ball of chance that has formed together by random genetic mutations and natural selection, how in the world did morals enter the scene? What makes something, or the bible in your view, 'immoral'?
The only logical conclusion of Atheism is moral relativism; If there is no God, morals can only be relative to people & cultures, and if morals can only be relative then it is improper to judge one moral better than another.
If this is the case, again, we see a huge contradiction in Atheistic thought. If the bible is really immoral, as Dawkins claims, he has absolutely no authority or standard by which he can say it is immoral, unless he appeals to a concrete Standard, or Moral Law. And, if there is an Absolute Moral Law, there must be an Absolute Lawgiver.. a Creator... So, for now, he, and his followers, are stuck in a bundle of contradictions claiming a moral standard, without any basis for it's existence. Will they ever recognize God and his Law of liberty & love? Only by His grace...
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
The Pain Of The Cross: Why is Good Friday good?
When we talk about the pain of the cross, most people think of the physical pain of the crucifixion.
I have heard many give detailed sermons on Good Friday about the physical pain of Jesus' death.
But why is that good? And, If Jesus was so anxious the night before His death that He was sweating blood, why have others who were crucified not go through similar pain in expectation?
For example, even Peter was crucified and gladly went to the cross considering it joy. If that is the case than why did Jesus look with so much horror to the cross?
Jesus said in the garden of gethsemane, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me" (Luke 22:42).
But what is the "cup"? Is it just the suffering of the physical crucifixion?
The Hebrew Word for cup, kôs, in the OT was used for many different reasons, but in terms of figurative language, as Jesus is clearly using it here, the word primarily refers to the cup as the cup of suffering (Lam. 4:21), but even more specifically to the "cup of God's wrath" (Isa. 51:17), and to the cup of the Lord's fury (Jer. 25:15).
Therefore, when Jesus was looking in suffering expectation, It was to the "cup of God's wrath".
Jesus took the wrath of God and was treated as if He was personally responsible for the sins of all men.
And, after being in a perfect, joyous fellowship with God for all eternity, Jesus was forsaken, willingly taking the wrath of God.
As St. Chrysostom said, "By the cross we know the gravity of sin and the greatness of God's love toward us."
Sin demanded a just punishment; it's a grave crime against God Himself! But, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 ESV).
On Good Friday, the wrath of God was propitiated, so we could have "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). Good news! But there is more good news to come! Sunday is coming!
I have heard many give detailed sermons on Good Friday about the physical pain of Jesus' death.
But why is that good? And, If Jesus was so anxious the night before His death that He was sweating blood, why have others who were crucified not go through similar pain in expectation?
For example, even Peter was crucified and gladly went to the cross considering it joy. If that is the case than why did Jesus look with so much horror to the cross?
Jesus said in the garden of gethsemane, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me" (Luke 22:42).
But what is the "cup"? Is it just the suffering of the physical crucifixion?
The Hebrew Word for cup, kôs, in the OT was used for many different reasons, but in terms of figurative language, as Jesus is clearly using it here, the word primarily refers to the cup as the cup of suffering (Lam. 4:21), but even more specifically to the "cup of God's wrath" (Isa. 51:17), and to the cup of the Lord's fury (Jer. 25:15).
Therefore, when Jesus was looking in suffering expectation, It was to the "cup of God's wrath".
Jesus took the wrath of God and was treated as if He was personally responsible for the sins of all men.
And, after being in a perfect, joyous fellowship with God for all eternity, Jesus was forsaken, willingly taking the wrath of God.
As St. Chrysostom said, "By the cross we know the gravity of sin and the greatness of God's love toward us."
Sin demanded a just punishment; it's a grave crime against God Himself! But, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8 ESV).
On Good Friday, the wrath of God was propitiated, so we could have "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:1). Good news! But there is more good news to come! Sunday is coming!
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Doctrine and Education Still Matter: Is Christianity a doctrine or a way of life?
To begin my Christmas break I read the book "Christianity and liberalism" by Gresham Machen. The book is a classic originally published in 1923 and is only 99 cents on Kindle. This book essentially was written to combat the rampant theological liberalism that was entering the church in Machen's time. The liberalism of his time taught that doctrine was not important, and all that mattered was a life that followed the example of Jesus. Therefore, the atonement, the doctrine of sin, and all other central doctrines of Christianity were thrown out the window to teach a Christianity that revolved around Jesus being a prime exemplar and nothing more. Does this sound familiar? I think so. In fact a hear this very often in the present day emergent church. To them doctrine no longer matters, the atonement does not need to be articulated, and education in the christian doctrines is pointless because to them it is all about the presence of Jesus in our lives and following his example. Sadly, this is a half-truth, and the situation Machen present in 1946 is still alive and well, just with some different names and faces. Today many in the evangelical church are teaching that Christianity is a way of life, not a message, a social gospel, not a gospel. So, according to Machen, what is Chrisitianity? Is it a doctrine or a way of life? Machen responds with a great balancing and paradoxical answer to say that Christianity is BOTH a way of life AND a message/doctrine. Here are some great quotes from the book to this point:
"But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine."
"'Christ died for our sins" --that is doctrine. Without this... There is no Christianity."
"Certainly we shall remain forever in the gloom if we attend merely to the charter of Jesus and neglect the thing that he has done, if we try to attend to the Person and neglect the message."
"Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life."
"Jesus (for the liberal theologian) is only an example for faith, not the object of faith"
"The example of Jesus is a perfect example only if He was justified in what He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, but salvation; He presented Himself as the object of men's faith."
"Faith is essentially dogmatic"
To this great problem that existed, and still exists today in the emergent church Machen gives one remedy: biblical education.
"There must be a renewal of Christian education. The rejection of Christianity is due to various causes. But a very potent cause is simple ignorance... An outstanding fact of recent church history is the appalling growth of ignorance in the church. The development is due partly to the general decline of education...The schools of the present day are being ruined by the absurd notion that education should follow the line of least resistance...And this is in danger of being made permanent through the sinister extension of state control. But something more is needed... Ignorance in the church is the inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity... This must be remedied primarily by the renewal of Christian education in the family, but also by the use of whatever other education agencies the Church can find. Christian education is the cheif business of the hour for every earnest Christian man. Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is..."
Doctrine and education still matter in the church. Although Christianity is a way of life; it is about the presence of Christ; it is about Christ's example; and it is about building relationships; it is ALSO about doctrine, education in the truth, and the ultimate message of the gospel rooted in the person and work of Jesus Christ. We cannot forget that. Machen does a good job of reminded us of this, and this issue still applies today.
"But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine."
"'Christ died for our sins" --that is doctrine. Without this... There is no Christianity."
"Certainly we shall remain forever in the gloom if we attend merely to the charter of Jesus and neglect the thing that he has done, if we try to attend to the Person and neglect the message."
"Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life."
"Jesus (for the liberal theologian) is only an example for faith, not the object of faith"
"The example of Jesus is a perfect example only if He was justified in what He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, but salvation; He presented Himself as the object of men's faith."
"Faith is essentially dogmatic"
To this great problem that existed, and still exists today in the emergent church Machen gives one remedy: biblical education.
"There must be a renewal of Christian education. The rejection of Christianity is due to various causes. But a very potent cause is simple ignorance... An outstanding fact of recent church history is the appalling growth of ignorance in the church. The development is due partly to the general decline of education...The schools of the present day are being ruined by the absurd notion that education should follow the line of least resistance...And this is in danger of being made permanent through the sinister extension of state control. But something more is needed... Ignorance in the church is the inevitable result of the false notion that Christianity is a life and not also a doctrine; if Christianity is not a doctrine then of course teaching is not necessary to Christianity... This must be remedied primarily by the renewal of Christian education in the family, but also by the use of whatever other education agencies the Church can find. Christian education is the cheif business of the hour for every earnest Christian man. Christianity cannot subsist unless men know what Christianity is..."
Doctrine and education still matter in the church. Although Christianity is a way of life; it is about the presence of Christ; it is about Christ's example; and it is about building relationships; it is ALSO about doctrine, education in the truth, and the ultimate message of the gospel rooted in the person and work of Jesus Christ. We cannot forget that. Machen does a good job of reminded us of this, and this issue still applies today.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Book Review: "More Than Conquerors" by William Hendriksen
As for myself, I am someone who attempts to hold paradox, tension, and balance within views, so at first glance this book comes out as very unbalanced. It presents a strong idealist and amillennial stance. However, there are some GREAT contributions from this book to the biblical and theological tension and balance.
The Contribution
This is probably one of the most applicable books out there about Revelation. Far too often, people turn the book of Revelation into prophetic timeline that has absolutely no application to an individuals life. They attempt to decode Revelation through the lens of the news, or they try to decode Revelation through the history books. Either way, both of these groups have turned Revelation into a book that is not applicable to the church now. Hendriksen, however, properly interprets Revelation as a book that applies to all ages, and applies to the church in every age. He properly interprets it as a book that gives us hope, gives us perseverance through trial, and encourages us to draw nearer to God.
Hendriksen also is one of the key developers and proponents of what many call "Progressive Parallelism" or "Recapitulation" theory of Revelation. This view says that Revelation is not linear or chronological, but it is 7 parallel accounts that tell us about the church age and final day of the Lord. In this view each parallel story tells us that there is evil in the world using different symbolic stories, but each cycle ends showing that God will win, the evil will be judged, and the saints will be protected, vindicated, and saved. What a great encouragement for the church in persecution in every age!
Hendriksen also contributes to give us a proper understanding of many of the numbers and symbols in Revelation. Although many have attempted to take the numbers and symbols in Revelation literally, Hendriksen rightly shows how the symbols are anchored in Old Testament symbolism, and he shows us how the numbers point to specific truths for the church age, more than historical figures. For example, all the sevens in Revelation represent perfection and completeness. This also shines light on issues like the number of the beast. Hendriksen rightly shows us that the mark and number of the beast is symbolic for those that have submitted their heart to evil, and the number of the beast is symbolic of manhood (man was created on the 6th day) and failure, and the number 666 is giving hope for the church telling them not worry about the beast, because his number is "failure, upon failure, upon failure!" This helps us avoid the extreme of "mark of the beast searching" in our world, and applies this truth to the church in all ages to give them hope! However, can these symbols and numbers culminate in a more literal fulfillment at the end of the church? Possibly so.
Providing a Balance
For this reason I believe the book falls short of providing a balanced view, and fails to give different views of Revelation. I believe this book is one of the most balanced and concise amillennial/idealist interpretations, but it would still help to read more on the subject. Personally, I consider myself somewhat of a preterist-idealist-futurist. What this means is that the idealist position that Hendriksen presents is absolutely essential in a complete understanding of Revelation, however, I think it is only half of the entire equation to understanding the book. Therefore, I do not recommend this book as your only interpretation, and I recommend some other commentaries and resources to balance your view. Some of those commentaries I recommend are written by G.K Beale, Robert Mounce, and George Eldon Ladd...I don't recommend the "Left Behind" series as a balanced view :)
But, if you want an interpretation on Revelation and you have no idea where to start, this is a great commentary, and will provide you with a great start! It will give you hope and will draw you closer to our God!
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Bible Teacher Recommended: What is a good study bible for a high school student?
As the holiday season approaches many parents and students are asking me what bible I recommend so they may ask for it, or give it, for Christmas. First of all, I think it's great that parents and students are giving and asking for bibles! But, to answer that question I want to give a quick review on the bible I recommend for my students and why.
Now this brings me to the question of the study bible. In the ESV translation there are many study bibles, but I particularly recommend one. For parents I recommend the "ESV study bible" and for students I recommend the "ESV student study bible". The theology in these study bibles is rock solid, yet it is still fair to all denominations and theological perspectives. Although I respect the "Reformation study bible", the "Ryrie study bible", or the "Macarthur Study bible", I believe that these study bibles are not fair enough to other views, and can cause one to come out with a presupposition before they even read and wrestle with a text.
The translation
First, before we even get into the "which study bible" question, I'll tell you which translation I recommend. If I had to recommend a couple of translations I would go with the NASV or the ESV. But, I do recommend one of the other. Personally, I recommend to my students the ESV, and here is why...
As far as translational accuracy, the ESV is top of the line, but it is also very readable. Although I respect the NIV as a translation, I believe the translation team took far to many liberties in translating the text, and if we truly believe that the bible is the inspired and inherent Word of God in its original greek manuscripts then we really need to attempt to match those the best we can! I believe that the ESV does this with accuracy and readability. The KJV is based on later manuscripts, and today we have more accurate early manuscripts, and it's not translated for our time and language. Although the NASB is a good translation, it's not as readable, and for practical purposes not as available by the publisher.
The study bible question
Now this brings me to the question of the study bible. In the ESV translation there are many study bibles, but I particularly recommend one. For parents I recommend the "ESV study bible" and for students I recommend the "ESV student study bible". The theology in these study bibles is rock solid, yet it is still fair to all denominations and theological perspectives. Although I respect the "Reformation study bible", the "Ryrie study bible", or the "Macarthur Study bible", I believe that these study bibles are not fair enough to other views, and can cause one to come out with a presupposition before they even read and wrestle with a text. In that case, for my students that REALLY want to go deep, I recommend the ESV study bible, and for students that just want a very solid study bible I say go with the ESV student study bible. If someone is just looking for a bible, without a study component, go with the ESV translation. All of these can be purchased for a very fair price in leather or hardback here ... Thats my recommendation :)
Thanks for everyone that has asked this question!
Monday, September 19, 2011
Four views on revelation - Book Synopsis
When it comes to the book of Revelation, there are usually two roads people go down in attempting to understand the book. There is the "I give up" road and the "who cares?!" road. Sadly, both of these views miss the point because Revelation is an important book, we can understand it, and actually what we believe about Revelation truly effects how we behave as the church. This Saturday I read the book "Four Views on Revelation" This book is a great start for those that want to understand Revelation and get a well rounded understanding of the interpretations. This book offers four interpretations:
Preterists - According to preterists, the events of Revelation took place in 70AD around the destruction of Jeruselum. Therefore, they generally have a more positive view about the future of the world.
Idealists - According to idealists Revelation represents a more figurative, spiritual battle that occurs continually in all ages and unfolds throughout history.
Progressive Dispensationalist - According to the progressive dispensationalist, the events of Revelation occurred more figuratively in the first century and will continue to occur to some extent throughout history building to a future and literal climax.
Classic Dispensationalist - According to the classic dispensationalist, all events in revelation must occur literally, therefore they will all happen in the future and have not happened yet in any sense.
Those are quick summaries of the four views. So what is your view?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Worldview Movie Review: Adjustment Bureau
Whenever I see I movie like Adjustment Bureau with such strong theological implications, I like to give a quick review of its theological statements and see how they compare with orthodox, biblical Christianity.
I have to start by saying I enjoyed the movie. It is very interesting, and it grabs your attention the entire time. Although I do not know much about the writer and director, I have to say that this movie is written to present a strong theological view.
Is this movie about God?
I want to make clear that Adjustment Bureau is about God. The movie shows men running around in hats that basically have control over every mans life. The men in the hats quickly reveal themselves as executers of a "plan". They did not write the plan, but they execute or "make adjustments" in order for the plan to happen. At points they call themselves angels, but they show very early in the movie that they have an allegiance to a higher power. In the movie they call the higher power "The Chairman" but they clearly say that people "know him by different names." At the end of the movie they say that "everyone knows him, but in different ways." So it is clear that this movie is talking about God, or at least some sort of God, force, higher power, etc. Either way, this movie is a theological statement about who God is and how he operates. So what statement does the movie make about theology?
The Chairman's Plans Are Frustrated
First, Adjustment Bureau presents a theological claim that Gods plans can be frustrated. In the movie the workers control what people do so The Chairman's plan is carried out. However, people can frustrate this plan. In fact, the entire movie is based off of an event where the main character is supposed to spill his coffee so he will miss a bus "according to plan". But, a worker misses him, causing him to get on the bus that he was supposed to miss. This begins the story of the main character frustrating the plan of The Chairman, by being with a girl he is not supposed to be with.
But the Scripture is clear that "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand...the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth...the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?" (Isaiah 14 - ESV)
It clear from Scripture that God's does have a plan. So in that sense, the movie is true. There is a book (allegorically speaking) that is written where God has a sovereign plan that we can say is already written. Just as the movie show shelves and shelves of books that show the plans of The Chairman.
However, our God's plans cannot be broken, frustrated, or annulled, but they are sure from the beginning of time.
The Chairman Changing Plans
Secondly, Adjustment Bureau presents a theological claim that God changes. The Chairman constantly changes His mind, and even at the end of the movie, The Chairman rewrites his plan in order to match the plan that the main character creates. This is not the God of Christianity.
In fact, one of the workers gives a whole speech about how The Chairman rewrote the plan several times, let go of his plan, changed the plan, handed his plan over to people, and then took it back when they messed it up. Again, this is not the God of Christianity. Our God is unchanging and His plans are unchanging.
The Mutually Exclusivity of Fate and Free Will
Thirdly, Adjustment Bureau presents a theological claim that fate and free will cannot coexist. Ultimately, this is a movie about fate and free will. The movie asks the question: Do we have control of our lives? Or is our life planned out and we have no control? This is a philosophical question that has been asked through the centuries. Generally there have been three responses to this question. One response is determinism, which says God writes a plan and man is just a puppet without any decisions or freedom. The second response is the libertarian view, which says that man has free will and that God just lets man make decisions with little or no sovereign control over these decisions; he solely forknows them. The third response is compatibalism, which claims that God is sovereign, yet man is responsible and makes true decisions. The last view, compatibalism, has been the dominant view amongst biblically orthodox theologians throughout the history of the Christian church. Although this movie presents a mixture of determinism and free will libertarianism, it presents these possibilities as mutually exclusive, either the character is in the plan of The Chairman, which is deterministically controlled by him, or the main character is free to make his own decision, apart from the plan of The Chairman. However, a Christian worldview teaches that God does have a sovereign plan, which he decreed before the foundation of the world, no one can frustrate this plan, yet the plan is secret, man cannot break it, and man paradoxically still makes true decisions, and they are held responsible for these decisions.
The Chairman Is Not All-Knowing or All-Loving
Lastly, Adjustment Bureau presents the theological claim that God is not all- knowing or all-loving. While watching the move the viewer quickly begins to not trust The Chairman. It is easy to think in the movie that the main character knows best, he should be with the women, and this crazy chairman is just trying to hurt him! In the end they confirm this point: The Chairman was wrong. In this sense, they state that God does not know best, and man knows better. This is scary. I am glad this is not the God of Christianity. Because, our God is all knowing, and knows what is best for us, and loves us, so we can trust in His sovereign plan.
Adjustment Bureau: Worldview Fail
Ultimately, the Adjustment Bureau is an interesting movie, and one to see. But it presents a strong worldview that is inconsistent with orthodox, biblical Christianity. It should be comforting to know that we have a God who wrote a plan in His unchanging, trustworthy, all-loving, all-knowing character, that He is all-powerful so His perfect plan will come true, and we can still make our own choices without ever frustrating this sovereign plan. This is very different from The Chairman presented in the Adjustment Bureau.
I have to start by saying I enjoyed the movie. It is very interesting, and it grabs your attention the entire time. Although I do not know much about the writer and director, I have to say that this movie is written to present a strong theological view.
Is this movie about God?
I want to make clear that Adjustment Bureau is about God. The movie shows men running around in hats that basically have control over every mans life. The men in the hats quickly reveal themselves as executers of a "plan". They did not write the plan, but they execute or "make adjustments" in order for the plan to happen. At points they call themselves angels, but they show very early in the movie that they have an allegiance to a higher power. In the movie they call the higher power "The Chairman" but they clearly say that people "know him by different names." At the end of the movie they say that "everyone knows him, but in different ways." So it is clear that this movie is talking about God, or at least some sort of God, force, higher power, etc. Either way, this movie is a theological statement about who God is and how he operates. So what statement does the movie make about theology?
The Chairman's Plans Are Frustrated
First, Adjustment Bureau presents a theological claim that Gods plans can be frustrated. In the movie the workers control what people do so The Chairman's plan is carried out. However, people can frustrate this plan. In fact, the entire movie is based off of an event where the main character is supposed to spill his coffee so he will miss a bus "according to plan". But, a worker misses him, causing him to get on the bus that he was supposed to miss. This begins the story of the main character frustrating the plan of The Chairman, by being with a girl he is not supposed to be with.
But the Scripture is clear that "As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand...the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth...the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?" (Isaiah 14 - ESV)
It clear from Scripture that God's does have a plan. So in that sense, the movie is true. There is a book (allegorically speaking) that is written where God has a sovereign plan that we can say is already written. Just as the movie show shelves and shelves of books that show the plans of The Chairman.
However, our God's plans cannot be broken, frustrated, or annulled, but they are sure from the beginning of time.
The Chairman Changing Plans
Secondly, Adjustment Bureau presents a theological claim that God changes. The Chairman constantly changes His mind, and even at the end of the movie, The Chairman rewrites his plan in order to match the plan that the main character creates. This is not the God of Christianity.
In fact, one of the workers gives a whole speech about how The Chairman rewrote the plan several times, let go of his plan, changed the plan, handed his plan over to people, and then took it back when they messed it up. Again, this is not the God of Christianity. Our God is unchanging and His plans are unchanging.
The Mutually Exclusivity of Fate and Free Will
Thirdly, Adjustment Bureau presents a theological claim that fate and free will cannot coexist. Ultimately, this is a movie about fate and free will. The movie asks the question: Do we have control of our lives? Or is our life planned out and we have no control? This is a philosophical question that has been asked through the centuries. Generally there have been three responses to this question. One response is determinism, which says God writes a plan and man is just a puppet without any decisions or freedom. The second response is the libertarian view, which says that man has free will and that God just lets man make decisions with little or no sovereign control over these decisions; he solely forknows them. The third response is compatibalism, which claims that God is sovereign, yet man is responsible and makes true decisions. The last view, compatibalism, has been the dominant view amongst biblically orthodox theologians throughout the history of the Christian church. Although this movie presents a mixture of determinism and free will libertarianism, it presents these possibilities as mutually exclusive, either the character is in the plan of The Chairman, which is deterministically controlled by him, or the main character is free to make his own decision, apart from the plan of The Chairman. However, a Christian worldview teaches that God does have a sovereign plan, which he decreed before the foundation of the world, no one can frustrate this plan, yet the plan is secret, man cannot break it, and man paradoxically still makes true decisions, and they are held responsible for these decisions.
The Chairman Is Not All-Knowing or All-Loving
Lastly, Adjustment Bureau presents the theological claim that God is not all- knowing or all-loving. While watching the move the viewer quickly begins to not trust The Chairman. It is easy to think in the movie that the main character knows best, he should be with the women, and this crazy chairman is just trying to hurt him! In the end they confirm this point: The Chairman was wrong. In this sense, they state that God does not know best, and man knows better. This is scary. I am glad this is not the God of Christianity. Because, our God is all knowing, and knows what is best for us, and loves us, so we can trust in His sovereign plan.
Adjustment Bureau: Worldview Fail
Ultimately, the Adjustment Bureau is an interesting movie, and one to see. But it presents a strong worldview that is inconsistent with orthodox, biblical Christianity. It should be comforting to know that we have a God who wrote a plan in His unchanging, trustworthy, all-loving, all-knowing character, that He is all-powerful so His perfect plan will come true, and we can still make our own choices without ever frustrating this sovereign plan. This is very different from The Chairman presented in the Adjustment Bureau.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)