Stand to Reason Blog

Word Study on Repentance

What is Biblical, genuine repentance?  (Video removed. Download Greg's word study on repentance: Download Repentance Word Study)

Clarification: 

Let me (Melinda) clarify the point Greg tried to make in the video blog yesterday:  "Repentance Has Nothing to Do with Sin." The title was an overstatement meant to make a point, but instead led to misunderstanding. 

Greg did not say or mean to imply that repentance is not necessary for salvation, as some have taken his meaning.  His point was to clarify how the New Testament uses the word "repent," not the full theology and nature of repentance.  That's what word studies do so we've changed the title to that more apt description.

The word "repent" is not a synonym for "repent from sin," which seems to be a common use of the word among Evangelicals.  The word study demonstrates that "repent" in the New Testament means only "change of mind," and the context indicates whether it's a change of mind from something or a change of mind to something, and what that something is. 

The habit we sometimes get into is that we don't use Biblical words in their accurate Biblical sense.  So when we read the word in the Bible the tendency is to read the non-biblical meaning into the text, thus getting a false understanding of the passage.  It's important to check our assumptions by studying words in their Biblical sense.

The point was that the word "repentance" itself has nothing to do with sin.  It's the word used in context that might have to do with sin - or several other objects that we must change our mind from or change our mind to.  We need to let the text tell us how to change our minds instead of reading meaning into the text. 

The way the word study shows that "repent" is used in the New Testament indicates that the Gospel is not only an offer to repent from sin, but also to repent to God, that is change our minds to God.  Repentance from sin is part of what the New Testament tell us to do, but not the whole message.  Yet if we start with a misunderstanding of what "repent" means, we can easily miss the full meaning of the text.

From Greg:

A great number of people responding misunderstood my point, it was clear, and in hindsight I would state my case differently.  The confusion, then, was partly my fault. Even when properly understood, though, my point will be controversial for some. 

Therefore, we've decided to pull the video.  I have no interest in causing unnecessary ill will, or possibly being perceived by some as being needlessly iconoclastic. 

[UPDATE: Greg gives more detail in this audio clip.]

Darwin's Black Box

A single molecule has been photographed for the first time.

Scientists from IBM used an atomic force microscope (AFM) to reveal the chemical bonds within a molecule.

The researchers focused on a single molecule of pentacene, which is commonly used in solar cells. The rectangular-shaped organic molecule is made up of 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms.

In the image above the hexagonal shapes of the five carbon rings are clear and even the positions of the hydrogen atoms around the carbon rings can be seen.

To give some perspective, the space between the carbon rings is only 0.14 nanometers across, which is roughly one million times smaller than the diameter of a grain of sand.

Dawkins' Blind Faith Is Irrational

Yesterday I posted an admission from Richard Dawkins that evolutionists have no idea how consciousness came about from purely materialistic sources and forces.  Here's another honest gem from Dawkins about origins. 

The origin of life was the chemical event, or series of events, whereby the vital conditions for natural selection first came about…. Once the vital ingredient—some kind of genetic molecule—is in place, true Darwinian natural selection can follow….
 
Scientists invoke the magic of large numbers.... The beauty of the anthropic principle is that it tells us, against all intuition, that a chemical model need only predict that life will arise on one planet in a billion billion to give us a good and entirely satisfying explanation for the presence of life here (The God Delusion, 137-138).

Now, this doesn't disprove evolution and it's not proof for any other explanation for a Designer.  What it does show is that Dawkins' claim that evolutionists rely solely on evidence and rationality isn't true.  This quotation exhibits a tremendous leap of faith in a process (evolution) that he has no idea got started.  He has no grounds for the confidence he does in the evolutionary process when he has no explanation for the origins of that process.  Evolutionists, such as Dawkins, takes the process itself as evidence that it got started somehow despite the complete lack of evidence and scientific and philosophical problems with believing something came from nothing and life came from non-life.  That is begging the question. 

His charge that creationists are irrational for rejecting scientific materialism and place blind faith in our Designer seems much more fitting for his blind faith in evolution.

Making Sense of the Emerging/Emergent Church

Attempts to make sense of this recent Christian phenomenon has been hot, heated, complicated and confusing.  It's new and it's changing.  It's dividing and developing as time goes on.  It's not easy to sort it out.  The differences are important to be fair and to be able to point out the error where it is.  It's not helpful when anyone under this broad label is condemned, and this is becoming clearer all the time as the differences become clearer.

If you're still trying to figure out what all the hullabaloo is about, the chapter on it in Mark Driscoll's latest book Religion Saves & Nine Other Misconceptions is alone worth picking up a copy.  As someone who's been in this discussion from the beginning, Mark has helpful insights and discernment.  His assessment is theologically-informed and detailed. 

He breaks the current state of affairs into four highways, all of which are committed to the core value of being missional.  His categories are missional evangelicals, missional house church evangelicals, missional Reformed evangelicals, and emergent liberals.  The first three highways have theological orthodoxy in common and are not interested in rethinking Christian doctrine.  This is the key difference in the emergent liberals, and Driscoll describes the key individuals in this group and their theological problems, which are serious. 

This is the most helpful section because it's a fair and accurate evaluation of the doctrinal problems held by the people in this highway.  It is these doctrinal differences that led to the highways diverging.  He says, "The emergent liberals, however, have taken an off-ramp and now are not reaching out to postmoderns but are blazing a new path in search of a new land of postmodern Christianity."  I would add that at some point it ceases to be Christianity when you consider what is being taught by some of the emergent liberals.  Driscoll predicts that "the emergent liberal land of the missional church will continue to drift away from a discussion about how to contextualize timeless Christian truth in timely cultural ways to an interfaith dialogue with less and less distinction between the religions of the world and the deity of Jesus Christ....[E]mergent liberals will need to compromise the doctrinal truths of Christianity even further" to achieve this goal.

The emergent and emerging dialogue has never been univocal, and it's inaccurate and unhelpful not to recognize the significant distinctions among the groups with the goal of being missional.  Driscoll's chapter is very helpful in understanding how to make those distinctions.

Wet Blanket Believers

I wish I could've hung out with Thomas Aquinas.  He must've been a riot.  The name may conjure stuffy intellectual images but it shouldn't.  In his Summa Theologica, he draws our attention to an oft-ignored virtue: wit.

“Jokes and plays are words and gestures that are not instructive but merely seek to give lively pleasure. We should enjoy them. They are governed by the virtue of witty gaiety to which Aristotle refers (Ethics II28aI) and which we call pleasantness. A ready-witted man is quick with repartee and turns speech and action to light relief.”

I could totally see Thomas throwing down some sarcastic barbs at fellow members of the Domincan Order. Later Aquinas says:

“It is against reason to be burdensome to others, showing no amusement and acting as a wet blanket. Those without a sense of fun, who never say anything ridiculous, and are cantankerous with those who do, these are vicious, and are called grumpy and rude.”

Unfortunately, we've got too many "wet blanket" Christians who need to lighten up a bit.  Are there serious concerns in today's culture?  Of course.  But we've gotta make sure we're dying on the right hills, over the right issues.  And even amidst our serious work, we should be playful, humorous, and comical. 

I've been hanging out with some atheists in Berkeley over the last few years.  We have them come hang with our groups of young people and basically lay down their arguments against God.  Serious stuff.  If what they say is true, it's time to abandon the faith.  However, as these atheists have become my friends, I just try to be myself, which oftentimes tends toward humor and sarcasm.  And my atheist friends appreciate it.

For instance, before they speak to our group, I'll hand them a bottle of water, so they don't suffer from a parched mouth.  But as I hand it to them, I'll say something like, "Be careful.  The water might burn a bit as it goes down.  It's holy water, after all."  They laugh.  I laugh.  It lightens the mood.  They see I don't hate them (because you typically don't joke around with people you dislike).  And I'm pretty sure they'd never characterize me as "grumpy" or "rude."  

So Christian, remember to lighten up a bit more and laugh often.  Indeed, you and I ought to experience more joy and laughter than anyone else.  And that may speak much louder to our non-believing friends than many of the things we could say with our lips.  

"Beats the Heck Out of Me."

Following up on my criticism earlier this week of Robert Wright's claim that evolutionary psychologists have explained non-material facts of the universe such as morality as material features of consciousness thanks to the "creative power of natural selection," I quote atheist and Darwinist defender Richard Dawkins' own assessment of materialism's explanatory success to account for consciousness (and anything else consciousness is said to explain in turn):

Neither Steve Pinker nor I can explain human subjective consciousness - what philosophers call qualia.  In How the Mind Works Steve elegantly sets out the problem of subjective consciousness, and asks where it comes from and what's the explanation.  Then he's honest enough to say, "Beats the heck out of me."  That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it.  We don't know.  We don't understand it.  (Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, "Is Science Killing the Soul?" The Guardian-Dillons Debate, Edge 53, April 8, 1999).

(The state of research hasn't changed in ten years' time.) 

If they have no idea how to explain consciousness, they certainly don't have an explanation for morality, which Wright claims is a physical property of consciousness.

Wright's "Justification"

I'm still trying to figure out what to think about N.T. Wright's book Justification, and some of the dialogue about it.  Recently, I've posted some other's reviews of the book.  Here is Mike Horton's helpful review.

Interview on Conversant Life

Conversant Life just posted the video archive of my interview with Sean McDowell yesterday.  And you can still download a FREE digital copy of the entire Apologetics for a New Generation book.  They'll probably take that offer down later today so get it now.

Does the Bible Support Rationality & Logic? (Audio)

Greg talks with a caller about the Biblical justification for applying rationality and logic in Christianity, and gives some advice for talking to someone who disagrees.

Creating Artificial Life

Here's some news:

The first artificial life form is likely to be a simple man-made bacterium that proves that the technology can work.

I have a couple of general thoughts about how to think about this story. 

First is the phrase "artificial life."  This refers to the technological process of creating the life form, rather than the thing itself.  But it's easy to confuse the adjective "artificial" for describing the kind of life it is.  And this is an important distinction for how we think about life - and the value they have.  Some people have the mistaken notion that the process of cloning does not create a real life.  The mistaken consequence is that the human lives created by cloning have a different value than human life reproduced in the common way.  Who knows?  One of these days maybe human beings will be created in a similar method as this bacterium, or some methods that is developed because of this one.  That life would not be artificial and thus of a different value than any other human being.  Humans are valuable in virtue of the kinds of beings they are, not the way they came to exist. 

If something is "life" it's life, nothing artificial about it.  It's the method that's artificial or unique, not the life itself.

Second point:  I can see someone, if they haven't done so already, using this new technology as evidence that life could have originated from purely natural origins.  This article doesn't make that argument, but that is often something read into this kind of news.  Whenever someone claims that creating life in a lab illustrates natural origins, I have to laugh.  The lab is a perfect corollary to intelligent design.  These test-tube life forms don't spontaneously pop into existence - they require intelligent designer to organize conducive circumstances and instigate their origin.  

Dr. Fuz Rana from Reasons To Believe comments on this story in their podcast.