Sunday Faith Series: Actually, The Bible Does Look Like The Word God Would Write

Matters that have been debated for centuries are usually compelling, because if we’ve been talking about them for such a long time, they must be interesting and complex enquiries to begin with. One such topic worthy of deep contemplation is the nature of the Bible, and whether it appears to bear resemblance to a book given to us by a Divine, Omniscient, Omnipotent mind. Some Christians think every word of the Bible is infallibly dictated by God, but I’m not in that camp. Others, including myself (and the majority of Christians, I think) believe that the Bible is divinely choreographed, but that it is a created artefact subjected to the limitations of the people commissioned to write it.

Either way, a Facebook friend – let’s call him Mike (because that’s his name), devised a thoughtful post expressing his doubts that the Bible was influenced by a Divine, Omniscient, Omnipotent mind. He objects on grounds that the Bible sounds to him a lot more like the sort of things that primitive tribes of humans from the past would say than the sort of things that a Supreme Being would say, and that it’s what the primitive human imagines God would be like if He had ultimate power. Mike thinks a book influenced by God would contain the most illuminating and profound and insightful things that he had ever read, and is under the impression that a book inspired by God’s revelation would contain special insights that we couldn’t have thought up ourselves, and even factual impartations that would give us knowledge of things we wouldn’t otherwise discover until tens of thousand of years henceforward.

It's certainly an interesting line of enquiry – and one I thought about myself while I was still exploring the Christian propositions in my pre-Christian days. But I think, with further contemplation, Mike might reach stronger conclusions about God’s word. In the first place, on Mike’s insistence that the Bible sounds to him a lot more like the sort of things that primitive tribes of humans from the past would say – well, that’s certain to be true of whenever God sought to give revelation to humans of any particular time or culture; if it is to be transcribed in a manner conducted by humans in possession of the revelation, then it is bound to reflect the cultural and epistemological limitations of the time. And if the purpose of the Bible is to equip us we everything we need to know God and have a relationship with Him, it doesn’t need to contain advanced scientific facts that we can go on to discover by ourselves when we have the sufficient tools and resources to do so.

In the second place, on Mike’s claim that a book influenced by God would contain the most illuminating and profound and insightful thing that he had ever read – well, what makes him so sure that the Bible isn’t the most illuminating and profound and insightful book to which he has access? What are his criteria for a book’s illuminations, insights and profundities, and how does he know that the Bible falls short of his metric? Moreover, how does he know his metric is of a high enough standard to begin with, in order to apprehend what a Divinely inspired book would look like? 

In the third place, how is Mike so sure the Bible, taken as a whole, doesn’t contain special insights that we couldn’t have thought up ourselves? If the Bible never existed, what makes him so sure we would have thought up the central truths of the Bible; that God loves us enough to die for us, and that He wants to offer us intimate knowledge of His character? How could we know God loves us enough to live as a man and suffer and die for us if God didn’t make Himself known through the Incarnation and folk at the time and shortly after recorded those teachings and events for generations to come? It’s not self-evident that we would even understand the Divine standard of truth, goodness, perfection and love without being told about it. Whatever the height of standards we can construct through our evolution, there is always a higher standard than the very best we can conceive, and that's one of the most astounding things we ever get to contemplate.

And then there's the matter I wrote about in this blog post, about how the Bible is the most remarkable book in the world in terms of its multi-layered connectivity and profound complexity, which is worth deep and careful consideration in itself. 

It’s all very well saying we could have thought up all this ingenious stuff by ourselves, but we are saying this as people who’ve already had access to the Bible, and been enriched by its theological, moral, cultural and psychological implantations on our humanity. In other words, we are only making the claims by virtue of having these things already – it is not at all clear that we could have written it ourselves because we only know of a reality in which the people who did write it were claiming to so with God’s revelation. Perhaps we could have, but I seriously doubt it, because these things seem to me to be Divine, and humans certainly seem not to be, at least not without God’s help. We can’t prove that we couldn’t have thought it up ourselves, but we can’t prove we could have either. And given that if we scan the evidential landscape the only experience we have of these things being expressed is through people who said they got it from God, it's plausible to me that we needed God to come up with proclaimed revelations about God. It's good to remember, there is no evidence of anyone thinking up these truths without Divine inspiration, because God had already got in first. We have no idea whether we could have thought these things up without God’s revelation, because we’ve never experienced a reality in which there is no proclaimed understanding of God’s revelation.

A similar point can be observed about nature herself, and can be contemplated like this. A bunch of people claim that nature (however many universes that comprises) exists because God created it, and that without God, nothing in creation would or could exist. And a bunch of people claim that nature can exist without the need for God. The question is, is it even possible for nature to exist without God? If nature can’t exist without God creating it, then the theists are right, and the atheists are wrong. The atheists are only claiming that a nature without God can exist by virtue of living in a nature that God created. If nature can’t exist without God creating it, then we’d never get to live in the atheists’ universe because it would never exist in the first place. In other words, if the universe can only exist by virtue of God creating it, the atheists (without knowing it) are living in a universe that’s only possible because of the God they think doesn’t exist. In saying this universe can exist without the need for God, they are making an impossible claim that they don’t realise is impossible. The theists who say this universe exists because God created it are making a claim they couldn’t possibly make in the atheists’ universe if the atheists are wrong, because such a universe wouldn’t exist.

We don’t know if it’s even possible that nature could exist without God, but we know that if nature can’t exist without God, then the theists must be right. If nature can’t exist without God, then the theists can presume they are right on this fundamental question. The atheists, on the other hand, don’t even know if it possible to live in this world without God, and therefore are wholly unsure of whether their proposition of nature without God is even possible. At least the theists know for sure that their proposition is possible; atheists don’t even know if theirs is possible because we don’t know if such a reality could exist without God. This doesn’t, of course, give us much of clue at this stage about whether the theists or atheists are right – but it does at least indicate that the atheists’ position is guaranteed to be a supposition at least as highly speculative as the theists.

Sunday Faith Series: Why Did God Create The Devil?

 

Have you ever wondered why God created Satan, as described in Isaiah 54:16?

“See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc"

I have. Given the devil causes so much havoc in God's creation, and that presumably it would have been a nicer creation without the notorious fallen angel Lucifer in the story, mightn't it have been a better creation story if Satan had never been created at all? I doubt it, and here's why. Given that God did create the devil, one must presume that his inclusion in the story ultimately works for our betterment. God is clearly more concerned about our spiritual development and building of character than He is our worldly comforts.

That's why I think the devil is actually a provision of God's regard for us, His love for us, and His desire for us to fulfil our potential. Remember, God also tells us through Isaiah that the enemy will not prosper against us. What's absolutely astounding about God's creation is that fallenness, including Lucifer's fall (Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 14), is a key part of the story, and its inclusion makes a better world than its omission.

Even God Himself declares that the inclusion of Satan in creation is part of the provision of His love for us, and an instrument to refine us and sharpen us, ready for being Heavenly creatures. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised; just about everything in nature conforms to a similar pattern: for things to grow and prosper fully, they need to be victorious against competition and come face to face with less-favourable things to resist against, and grow stronger as a consequence. It seems God uses Satan's antics to help us turn stumbling blocks into stepping stones.

Naturally, for humans, in the midst of our "light and momentary troubles" it's often quite hard to focus on the "eternal glory that far outweighs them all" (as per 2 Corinthians 4:17) - but it's reassuring to know that it is an essential part of the best of all possible worlds. And how great that if we live with a steadfast Christ-centredness, we know that "no weapon forged against us will prevail, and we will refute every tongue that accuses us".

Sunday Faith Series: Can You Lose Your Salvation?

 

A long-standing question debated in Christianity is whether someone, once saved, can ever lose their salvation? I feel fairly convinced that the answer is no, we can’t lose our salvation. Here’s why. I believe that the power of having the Holy Spirit gives us a certainty of a relationship with God from which, once we know it, we can never go back. In other words, if you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and saviour, and as a consequence you have the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:31; Ephesians1:13–14, Ephesians 2:8–9) the Holy Spirit will never leave or forsake you, and you will not be able to be anything other than a Christian. A Christian is someone who has accepted that they have been saved by the free gift of grace; they are now a ‘new creation’ (2 Corinthians 5:17). We cannot be separated from God’s love once we are saved (Romans 8:38–39), nor can we be taken from God’s hand (John 10:28–29), and in Christ we are kept from falling (Jude 24–25).

The Bible, coupled with my own experience, seems fairly clear to me that we cannot lose our salvation. But yet I’m sure many of us know people who used to call themselves ‘Christian’ but who have walked away from the faith, and claim to no longer believe. If I’m right that a Christian cannot lose their salvation, then this leaves only two possibilities:

1) They were never a Christian in the first place

2) They still are a Christian and haven’t really walked away

On the first group, St. John seems to confirm this is true for some people, when in 1 John 2:19 he says of dubious believers “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us”. That’s about as comprehensive as it gets. And I think we see this quite a lot in the modern era regarding those who have walked away. It’s quite possible, it seems, to claim to be a Christian, to be active in church, to say some of the things Christians say, and act out a faith that resembles belief in Christ, but yet not be a Christian ‘new creation’ who accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour.

On the second group, it is also possible, I think, that many people who seem to have walked away from the faith were, and are, actually Christians, who are going through a tough time in their faith, and will return to the fold when the time is right. Of course, it should go without saying, that I’m making no personal judgements on either group – only God knows their heart. But I think the likelihood that we cannot lose our salvation leaves us Christians with two important considerations. One is how much we should rejoice in the fact that God has guaranteed our salvation, based on His grace and love for us, and that that guarantee is a perfect springboard from which we can go on to fulfil our potential in Him. And the second is that, when we meet people who appear to have fallen away from the faith, whichever of the two above groups they are in, there is plenty for us to do in being good witnesses. If they never did know Christ, then we have the opportunity to help them see how amazing it is to be in a relationship with Him. And if they do know Christ, but have temporarily stumbled, then we have an opportunity to help them get back on their feet in their walk with God. Either way, I’m fairly sure that nobody has ever been a Christian and then lost their salvation.

Why Energy Prices Are Higher & Why The "People Before Profit" Slogan Understands Neither People Nor Profit

 

People habitually talk about the right quantity of things - they are always going on about whether there is too much of something or too little - not enough being done to tackle climate change, too much sugar in our diets, not enough taxation of the rich, too much currency in circulation - the list goes on. It must be tiring always trying to attribute the proper quantities of everything in life.

The one doing the rounds at the moment is that there is too much profit being made by big energy companies - often accompanied by the misguided "People before profits" slogan. To see why the "People before profits" slogan is misjudged, you first have to see that, imprudent political meddling aside, a business can only survive in the free market if it is profitable. And a business can only be profitable if it can sell its goods or services at a higher rate than the cost of producing them. Businesses that can do this provide not just benefits for its owners, shareholders and workforce, but primarily for society too, by providing value to consumers at prices they are willing to pay. That is, the businesses have taken raw material (human talents and ideas, labour and material resources) and transposed them in a way that makes them more beneficial and valuable to society. It requires abject foolishness to utter the words "People before profits", because profits are about people, where, in terms of value, the one is not distinguishable from the other.

In a competitive market, without government impediments, profits can keep increasing only up to a point, after which they become exhausted, because new competition emerges to ensure that, by and large, the prices are charged in line with supply and demand and consumer preference. If an industry contains diminishing profits, then it is becoming inefficient - and everyone can understand this. But if an industry contains so-called 'excessive' profits (short-term shocks aside), many people become habitually myopic to the opposite truth; that the industry probably has too few providers, and there are likely potential suppliers who can compete in the sector and make smaller profits but still thrive.

Of course, the relationship between proper quantities, proper prices and proper profits is hamstrung by government price fixing, taxes and subsidies, but we'll return to that in a moment. What conditions the analysis is whether or not the good or service is a fungible one – by which we mean whether or not that good or service is easily replaceable in competition. The trouble with energy is that it is not a fungible good in the same way that beer, food, clothes or cars are. If you need to heat your home, you can't suddenly decide to substitute the narrow range of options and the relatively small range of providers able to produce the infrastructure to enable you to stay warm. Whereas, if you're thirsty, and you find that beer is too expensive, you can buy some other drinks instead. Similarly, if the price or BMWs or leather jackets became undesirable, there are plenty of other alternatives you can seek, like Fords, Vauxhalls, wool or denim. The only competition for your energy is from a very small range of big firms offering other tariffs. A small range of big firms that provides a service (like energy to millions of people) is a very hard group to break into, as competition for such a service is hard to generate. It's very costly to start up a rival firm to provide energy to millions of people.

It's true that energy companies are currently making big profits, but the picture the 'windfall tax' proponents are trying to create is inadequate, over-simplistic and misleading. In the first place, these profits must be offset against huge industry setbacks during the pandemic, in which the sector saw huge losses as the price of energy slumped when most people weren't travelling or and trading as much. If you think the huge surge in profits is simply down to greed, then you ought to wonder why the energy firms weren't greedier before the pandemic. If there are shortages in energy (Ukraine conflict, pandemic, etc), meaning that supplies might reduce and prices would go up, then wholesale prices are going to go up too, so one of the main reasons the energy companies are charging us more is because they are paying more.

But there's even more to it than that. Because of the volatility of the industry in recent times, many smaller energy firms have collapsed, which, of course, is a factor in increased profits for the bigger firms able to sweep up their custom. Part of the cause of their collapse was the government-imposed price cap, which meant they were not able to increase their prices in line with supply and demand. Furthermore, the profits of energy firms are not just made by the energy provided to consumers - the profits continued to soar despite a price cap that kept the price of energy below its marginal rate. Many of the profits we have been reading about have come from traders buying and selling commodities and seeing their value increase by the volatility of the market.

The upshot is, energy prices are caused by a number of complex factors - supply, demand, global (in)stabilities, future projections, and the minutia related to raw materials and provision of those materials in generating those supplies. People may bemoan what they think are high prices and excessive profits, but finding something hard to afford does not enable you to claim that it is too expensive. We can say why something is expensive, and we can acknowledge that the price is too high for some people to afford, but neither of those things means it's too expensive. A £5000 Porsche might be unaffordable to a jobless man, but that doesn't mean £5000 is too expensive for a Porsche.

Price caps, taxes and subsidies muddy the waters, because price caps mean goods and services are not sold in line with supply and demand's prices; taxes mean businesses are bearing more than the full production costs of their operation; and subsidies mean businesses are not bearing the full production costs of their operation. The plethora of articles that compare the relative prices and profits of energy in various countries, are fairly pointless, as they are oblivious to the complex distortionary effects created by respective price caps, taxes and subsidies in the respective nation's economy.

Further reading on this subject: 

On The Economics Of High Oil Prices (And Why They Can Be Good)