There was an error in this gadget

Amazon Contextual Product Ads

12 April 2012

Atheist Pope Refuted

Excellently presented arguments and facts against the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins. I would charge all rational thinking people to closely examine these declarations against Richard Dawkins' fallacious arguments.

http://doubtingdawkins.com/index.html

14 March 2012

What about all the killing in the Old Testament?

An excellent refutation of a consistently used atheistic/skeptic/agnostic argument against the Old Testament judgments of God.

What about all the killing in the Old Testament?

Street Apologetics

These guys are spectacular. I have never seen arguments fleshed out like this, and Chad Williams is a SEAL too. That's pretty stinkin' awesome in my book. To be honest, I didn't know SEAL training transferred over into argumentation.

"Anonymous" Attack on Religion


"Greetings fellow pirates,
Let us be clear from the start: any kind of religion is a sickness to this world. A sickness that creates hate and intolerance, a sickness that brings people to wage war on their fellow people, a sickness that has come to this world long time ago, when mankind wasn’t educated, a sickness that brought false hope and suppression to those who believed and often even more terror and suppression to those who dared not to believe.
Religions are authoritarian hierarchies, designed to dominate your free will. Religions are mind control.They’re power structures that aim to convince you to give away your power for the benefit of those who enjoy dominating people. When you subscribe to a religion, you enroll in a mindless minion training program. Religions don’t market themselves as such, but this is essentially how they operate. In case you ever wondered why religious teachings are invariably mysterious, confusing, and incongruent (sic)? This is no accident — it’s intentional.
We see religion pretty much the same way as we see many governments. Fear mongering and making lots of money,so a small group of ppl (sic) will become insanely rich, while the believing masses can eat dirt...
So people of the world, don’t let religion control your life. Don’t fight against each other for contrary beliefs.This world and our life can be a wonderful adventure, where you have the unique chance to help mankind and your fellow citizens. Where we can all work together to make this earth a better place for ourselves,our children and all those generations who will come after us. ^(;,;)^"
-Examiner.com (emphasis added)

This comment was used during an attack on three separate church websites by the cyber-terrorists "Anonymous," and I would like to address some of the issues that have been highlighted above. Furthermore, accompanying this video was Richard Dawkins "An Atheist Call to Arms" speech.

1) Is it not intolerant and hateful to attack and shutdown three church websites because you disagree with their beliefs? This is certainly a contradiction in ethical principles. The propositions would go like this:
           a)You are a Christian Church
           b)Therefore, you are intolerant and hateful
           c)We do not believe as you do
           d)Therefore, we will attack you and shut down your right to free speech imposing upon your medium of said free speech, our view

2)Education means that one will deny Christianity, is the assumption here, and that all Christians (I am using Christians because it was Christian websites that were attacked; once again supporting the fact that atheists tend to equate all religion immediately with Christianity) are uneducated and mistakenly hold on to these outdated and antiquated ideas via their Christian worldview. That's interesting considering the following list:
            Dr. A.E. Wilder Smith
            Dr. William Lane Craig
            Lee Strobel
Which list is simply the first three names that came to mind; there are many scientists, philosophers, and educated men and women who still believe in these "lesson[s] [of] Bronze Age ethics," according to the most recent militant atheist attack.

3)Religions are "domination of your free will...[and] mind control;" At what point does Christianity dominate or brainwash anyone? In fact, some of the same ethics and morals that Christians are taught are the very same that secular humanists (see atheists attempting to justify morality) laud and praise. Biblical, orthodox Christianity teaches freedom (Colossians 2:16ff) and that no man can place restrictions on the Christian because of their freedom in Christ (Colossinas 2:20; 1 Corinthians 10:31).

4)Making a lot of money? Have you ever met a Christian pastor that meets the Biblical requirements for what he is to teach (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy)? Pastors that are not wolves (a wolf would be the likes of Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller who do NOT preach the gospel or the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3)) do not make substantial amounts of money unless their congregations and ministries are enormous. Even then, the money is used for ministry and the spread of the gospel (John Piper is an excellent example; none of his books sales go to him but into Desiring God Ministries).

5)"Don't fight against each other for contrary beliefs..." Is that not what you are doing? Do Christians shut down atheist websites and post violent, militant videos promoting radical Christianity and calling for all out war against atheists?

As can be seen this message is fraught with contradiction and misinformation leveled at all Christians, not to win their minds, but to continue the self-declared war against them. These attacks reflect the inherently violent nature of militant atheism that demands capitualtion or the "consequences" will be meted out. All Christians should stand united, defending the faith with gentleness and respect as 1 Peter 3:15 commands. Put your armour on, Christians, we are in a war (Ephesians 6:1ff).

           


13 March 2012

Religious Liberty

The battle for religious liberty (i.e. Christian liberty as other religions are usually not at risk and better protected) in America is just beginning, but we can see where it is going by looking at our neighbours across the pond.

23 February 2012

Moral Ambiguity


This was a paper I wrote some time ago, and I thought I would post it; I apologize for the spacing.

Recently, an article about a very candid interview of the investor Bernard Madoff was published by New York magazine. This article was intended to give a portrait Mr. Madoff from his own perspective after spending roughly the last two years of a 150 year sentence in federal prison. Mr. Madoff was sentenced thus for a $65 billion Ponzi scheme that had repercussions over five continents and affected thousands of investors (Fishman, 2011). However, according to his own words, he feels “misunderstood,” and that he is “…a good person,” (Ibid). On the opening page of the aforementioned article, Mr. Fishman writes:
  
  “And so, sitting with his therapist, in prison khakis he irons himself, he seeks assurance. ‘Everybody        on the outside kept claiming I was a sociopath,’ Madoff told her one day. ‘I asked her [the therapist], “Am I a sociopath?”’ He waited expectantly, his eyelids squeezing open and shut, that famous tic. ‘She said, “You’re absolutely not a sociopath. You have morals. You have remorse.” Madoff paused as he related this. His voice settled. He said to me, “I am a good person.”” (Ibid)

These statements by Mr. Madoff and his therapist are charged with the slipshod, relativist morality of contemporary thought and will be the main focus of this discourse heretofore.

How does one define goodness, morality, or ethics? These terms come with a surfeit of philosophical and pseudo-intellectual baggage, but is there a way of knowing, beyond a doubt what these expressions truly mean? Contemporarily many have embraced the philosophy of moral relativism wholesale; that is, one’s ethical system and morality is dictated and judged by them, and is ultimately true for them and is not affected by any transcendent reality or standard because, according to this philosophy, there is no such thing. Logic, however, would disagree; for Plato, a master logician and philosopher, taught that the material or human concepts which would be called “good, right, just, et al.,” are merely imperfect examples of a perfect exemplar who is the very source of such qualities (Nash, 1999). To wit, one cannot conceive of something as good without having a canon, a measure, by which to compare that which is called “good.” For example, if I call a man “good” I must therefore have something by which to measure that standard of “goodness” because the definition of a “good” meal and a “good” man are, to be sure, not one and the same. How then would one who, by their own worldview, is the final judge upon any issue of “goodness” define such a thing? Is one who has never seen a horse able to define that animal? Is “horse-ness” relative to the observer? Absolutely not, a horse is a tangible thing, an animal that is defined by a clearly perceived reality.

Furthermore, Mr. Madoff said that he was a “good man,” but Mr. Madoff has made his assertion on biased and false information, as will be shown below. If he is “good,” then by whose standard is he so: the psychiatrist, the prison warden or his fellow inmates? Clearly, none of these are the perfect canon by which Mr. Madoff can compare himself, yet in the quote above, Mr. Madoff clearly believes that the counterfeit absolution he received from the prison psychiatrist based upon the grounds of his alleged “morality” and “remorse,” makes him a “good” man. Mr. Madoff has shown some of the qualities of contrition, but this does not make him a good man, and the absurdity of such an assertion of “goodness” therefore begs the question, what then is goodness and how does one define it?

As stated above, there must be a canon of a virtue to define what that virtue truly is and then measure a subject based upon that canon. In nature, there is not one specific thing that can be pointed to that perfectly embodies a virtue. There are men who do “good” (in some sense) but all men have their faults; animals surely do not embody any virtue for they have not the capacity to understand or act in a moral fashion. However, there is a way of seeing the perfect by viewing the imperfect.

From time immemorial, man has known at the very core of his being that there is something greater than himself. One need only stand upon the majestic peaks of a mountain or view the splendor of a night sky to know that man in all his glory is an insignificant feature in a vast, nearly immeasurable cosmos. Therefore man has, via the institution of religion, worshiped a transcendent being who is often modeled after the created order that they perceive (cf. animism, the Greek and Roman Pantheon, et al.). In Paul’s letter to the Roman church, he clearly speaks of this very reality by stating:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them [mankind], because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20, parentheses added)

Also:
“Claiming to be wise, they [mankind] became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” (Romans 1:22-23, parentheses added)

And finally:
“The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. (Psalm 14:2-3; emphasis added)

These verses of sacred Scripture drive right to the heart of the issue that Mr. Madoff and a host of others patently deny and suppress; namely, that man is by his very nature evil and corrupt and wants nothing whatsoever to do with God or His Law. Man, rather than acknowledge the revealed God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would rather fashion his own god to serve his own desires and therefore “suppresses the truth.”

Therefore, man by his very nature is not good, and by virtue of the fact that Mr. Madoff is indeed a man, neither is he. It is this transcendent reality that is fundamental to any reasonable understanding of man’s true nature. Why then does man display what would be considered good and virtuous behavior? Because man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) and conceives of all things by that very image. All virtues, all knowledge (Colossians 2:3) issue from the fount of wisdom that is God Himself, and man, even in his sin and corrupt nature, reflects the image of his Creator, albeit in a drastically distorted manner. Therefore, the perfect Exemplar for goodness is God Himself and man would know nothing of what goodness looked like without God’s revelation to him. God, then, is the perfect embodiment of Goodness (Psalm 119:68), Truth (John 17:17, 18:37), and Love (1 John 4:7, 8). This clearly shows that when Mr. Madoff made the statement “I am a good person,” he immensely exaggerates, and indeed deceives, himself of his true nature. To be “good” Mr. Madoff must know from whence true, perfect Goodness derives, namely God, and as is the case for most who are not delusional narcissists or schizophrenics, few mere men would dare say that they are God.

Mr. Madoff accepted the empty platitudes of a psychiatrist as confirmation of his “goodness” but has no true understanding of what goodness actually is. This is the essence of understanding ethics and morality: there must be a canon. If one is to derive their morality or ethical system based upon their own perceptions, fabrications, and inconsistent understanding then one has no valid ethical system. Just as “horse-ness” cannot be defined without knowing what constitutes a horse, so ethics and morality cannot be defined without knowing their ultimate origins. This is the fundamental flaw in the modern mind that is so apparent in Mr. Madoff’s statement about himself. Simply having what could be perceived as an ethical system or remorse for some perceived wrong does not, in point of fact, show that a person understands what is required to be good because that person must measure themselves against the perfect Good.

To conclude, when one honestly examines themselves before God and His revealed Law, that person cannot help but to know that they are not good, but God being rich in mercy has provided a means of justification (i.e. being declared not guilty) by faith in the person and work of His only Son, Jesus Christ, His shed blood on the cross for sin, and His resurrection from the dead. This is not religion or the fabrication of a deaf and dumb idol but recorded history of a God who provides a means of redemption from the total inadequacies of our “goodness,” for:

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him (Christ Jesus), having forgiven us all our trespasses by
canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside nailing it to the cross.” (Colossians 2:13-14; parentheses added)

To wit, one cannot construct their ethical or moral standards based on their own perception because that perception is flawed and corrupt, and neither for that matter can Mr. Madoff. Instead of looking for pardon or confirmation from a prison psychiatrist or the institution of man, Mr. Madoff and indeed all men should be looking to the Son of God who has done all that God requires to become well and truly good through faith in Him for the forgiveness of sins.  

22 February 2012

Insanity and tomfoolery

Will Dolphins Soon Have More Rights Than The Unborn?

On Ignorance

Biblical ignorance is something of a pandemic, not only in the church, but in atheism as well. Whilst recently listening to a review of "50 Things You Didn't Know About Religion" by Skepticality. A few things struck me during that interview/dialogue and then I went to this site (Disclaimer: If you want to follow Alice down a contrived, fantastically warped rabbit hole go to the site; if not, stay away. Its liable to cause frustrative brain explosion (credit to Mr. Rosebrough for the "frustrative brain explosion" remark).

For now I will focus upon the interview. The first thing that is striking is that most often when someone refers to "religion" what is almost always implied is the Judeo-Christian religions. This is interesting in that,  the Jewish/Christian faith has made such an impact on the world, that immediately what is discussed is the Judeo-Christian claims of God and His nature when referring to "religion;" this was so in the aforementioned interview.

The next thing that came to light whilst listening to this 24+/- minute pontification on all things "relgious," mostly the Christian religion as aforementioned, is the Biblical ignorance of these "learned" skeptics. Recently, on an article's comments section, I engaged in a lengthy debate with numerous opponents. What amazed me was the fact that sites like those aforementioned, and the commenters that I engaged, either refuse to accept or patently ignore the greater context in which the texts that they cite as so abhorrent. It must be said that one need not be a Christian to apply the same rules of reason and context one uses in reading any text to the Bible.

For instance, one commonly cited verse is Isaiah 13:11-16, which says:

11 I will punish the world for its evil,
    and the wicked for their iniquity;
I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant,
     and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.
12 I will make people more rare than fine gold,
    and mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
    and the earth will be shaken out of its place,
at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
    in the day of his fierce anger.
14 And like a hunted gazelle,
    or like sheep with none to gather them,
each will turn to his own people,
    and each will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through,
    and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces
    before their eyes;
their houses will be plundered
    and their wives ravished.



Clearly, this is a difficult text, even for a believer, for the Prophet is quoting God as saying these things. Yet, as has been mentioned before, context is needed. Isaiah 13:1 says: "The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw." Thus, this prophecy is written to a specific people, at a particular time, namely that God is bringing His judgment upon the people of Babylon. Why? Because Babylon was an idolatrous, sinful nation who was being judged for said idolatry and sin; Israel, God's chosen people and nation, were judged no less harshly for the same sins (cf. Isaiah 3:1ff).


This passage is difficult in that it condemns "innocent" people, but as Scripture clearly teaches there are no innocent people (Romans 3:11ff). Therefore, God's condemnation comes upon them, and rightly so. How can a loving God do this? one may ask. The simple truth is that the reality of sin (see "sin" link above) is far greater than most in modernity ever care to acknowledge. It is the most abhorrent thing in God's eyes, in fact, He cannot look at it (Habbakuk 1:13). Furthermore, because of His holiness, He must punish sin. God does not leave the issue at, "Sinner, be damned, but instead He provides mercy in the Gospel of Jesus Christ whilst simultaneously punishing sin and remaining holy, just, and merciful.

Ignoring the direct context and the broad context of Scripture, does not make your claim valid, and ripping verses out of context does nothing but prove your ignorance. I would hope that those who claim to have "studied" religions such as Christianity would know that essential and fundamental truth. As Christians we can only pray and hope that those looking for answers actually look, and don't take these untruths at face value.

31 January 2012

Freedom of Religion...

...is a myth in our present culture; it has become freedom from Christianity, i.e. freedom from anything that offends me or doesn't affirm who I think I should be. How dare you tell me, or even imply, that I am wrong or that your views are counter-cultural?

Thank God the court affirmed this young woman's fight against intolerance; that's right folks, it works both ways. I even hate using that word "intolerance," it feels so laden with post-modern garbage...

Homosexual "Christianity?"

Whilst reading this article, I was intrigued by some of the statements of Ms. Chenoweth and decided to do some research into the justification of homosexuality as not being sinful. Ms. Chenoweth said:

"I read my Bible and I pray and all of that--I really do." "But at the same time I don't think being gay is a sin..."

To the above...covenant  of works, anyone? I thought you read your Bible...

And "...he [Jesus] wouldn't be going  around [today] saying "You're going to hell," "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong." "I think he'd be accepting and loving."

These comments prompted the aforementioned research and revealed a strikingly twisted world of homosexual "Christians" and others who attempt to conform the words of sacred Scripture to their own theology. A particularly clarifying look into this type of heresy (that's right, I'm calling it what it is; false teaching is heresy) can be found here. For the sake of brevity, instead of addressing each text individually I'm would like to make a few points.

1. The Bible is not subject to your interpretation. For more on correct interpretation see this post.
2. If only one Scripture verse, in context, forbids or demands anything it is binding upon the Christian conscience. For, "all Scripture is God-breathed (or breathed out by God, Gr. θεόπνευστος)..."
3. An understanding of sin is imperative in understanding the true, Biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regardless of philosophizing, reinterpretation, redefinition, or deconstruction, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin and is the result of the sinful and idolatrous nature of mankind in a post-Genesis 3 world (Romans 1:18ff). It is important to stop here and make something clear: Hatred in any form is clearly anathema to the Biblical teaching of love. There are those in the Church who have failed in this regard and do fail every day (mainly because we are all of us sinners), but loving someone does not mean that the Church or any of its members may endorse, condone, or tolerate sin. To wit, love is not letting a person fall head long off of a cliff when you have the means of calling out to them to stop them (i.e. the gospel). Ad nauseam, letting someone remain in open, unrepentant sin is not loving; it is at best complacency and at worst hatred.

In closing, I return to Ms. Chenoweth's comments, and as I have already addressed sufficiently the issue of homosexuality and the teachings of Scripture, I would like to address her Christology briefly; if Jesus taught about hell one time, it is enough to bind the Christian conscience (see point 2 above). Therefore I will cite one of many texts that clearly relate Jesus' teachings on hell:

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:22, ESV, emphasis added)"





09 January 2012

A very insightful video; thank you Vitamin Z...

Fail at embedding this video...either way, Vitamin Z is a great blog.

04 January 2012

Can A Molecule Make Us Moral?

This is a question asked by Dr. Paul Zak in an oped piece for TED Talk on cnn.com (here), and supposedly answered. Therefore, its worth the time to address Dr. Zak's argument.

Dr. Zak begins by saying (article):

 "The longest debate since humans have been having debates is whether we are good or evil. It underlies the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Jesus and Judas."


First of all, humans are basically evil, despite popular opinion, and I have already covered this issue here, which goes into great detail about the state of humanity post fall. Suffice it to say:


"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good; not even one." (Romans 3:10-12, ESV)


With the exception of Jesus (see this post for further discussion on the nature of Christ), every human that ever lived falls into the "evil" category.That being said, it is interesting that Dr. Zak uses specifically religious examples at the very outset (trying to make a point?). Next, Dr. Zak asks:


"What is our human nature? Of course, the answer is we can be both good and evil. But what determines which part of our character emerges?"


Human nature was defined above, and as to the answer being both, that's not true. We are evil and when good is done, it is the Imago Dei, the image of God in which we were created (Genesis 1:26), shining through the filth of our wickedness. Dr. Zak here is attempting to address the Theodicy (i.e. the problem of evil), and in one fell swoop define "evil" or "good" in terms of biochemistry. One does not have to be a biochemist to see the difficulty here. For one to define "good" one must have a canon, or measure, to define that which is good. Despite the assertions of existential and relativistic philosophies so prevalent in modernity, "good" or "evil" are not defined by social norms per se. The great philosopher Plato addressed this himself here, and said that to define anything as "good" we must have a perfect "Form" by which to define it (i.e. Good). Which Form, is the only good and righteous being in existence: God. Furthermore, as that God has revealed himself in His Word (cf 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1) and Law (Exodus 20), then sinful man can only define morality based upon the standard of God's Holiness which is the perfect "Form" for all moral understanding.


Next Dr. Zak says:


"We then found oxytocin was responsible for many other moral behaviors, from being generous to sacrificing to help a stranger."


The latter part of this statement is intriguing as Dr. Zak mentions in his video presentation stress and testosterone decreased oxytocin levels, and that chemical is directly related to feelings of trustworthiness. Zak determined this by a test that he outlines in the aforementioned article and video, but there is something to address that is more pressing. Trustworthiness aside, Dr. Zak also said that a decrease in oxytocin levels (peripheral, not central; more information on oxytocin is available here) leads to selfishness. Finally, Dr. Anne Campbell who wrote the article "Oxytocin and Social Behavior," stated that oxytocin release happens only after stimulus (e.g. touching, massage, prayer are all examples Dr. Zak used; Dr. Campbell also cites childbirth). Only one question then remains: What about combat and the sacrifice of one soldier to save his comrade (high stress, no stimulus) or a civilian for that matter? What about a man or woman who braves a burning building or raging river to save a stranger's life (again, reactionary and w/o stimulus)? Dr. Zak has presented the conclusion to his research as definitive proof that a chemical makes someone "moral," yet he fails in the point just presented. Morality is not chemical, it is metaphysical and relies on God for its very definition and existence. The only way one can achieve a saving "goodness" is by the covering of that person by Christ's righteous sacrifice on the cross (Colossians 2:13-15). 


One final thought, all of the responses that related in increased peripheral oxytocin in Dr. Zak's study were empathetic to another party and involved money, and the majority of research about oxytocin in the first place is related to rodents...just saying... 





03 January 2012

Christian Principles for Realistic Politics

Christian Principles for Realistic Politics

A very insightful article by Kevin DeYoung on the nature of Christianity in politics.

Can a molecule make humans moral?

The Article (and video) answering the question in the title, and the journal article challenging the conclusions of Dr. Zak (at least in part).

As a note, a lot of this was over my head but I got the gist (I think); I never claimed to be an endocrinologist. Commentary forthcoming...

02 January 2012

The Gospel Part II

For the sake of brevity one thing was not expounded on in "What is the Gospel?". There is a key component upon which a correct understanding of the gospel stands or falls: sin. Without a correct view of sin the gospel looses its power.

Sin is best described, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is want of conformity unto or transgression of the Law of God. This definition is as condensed a view of sin as possible, but there is more.
In the pages of Scripture sin is described as: whoredom (i.e. adultery; Hosea 1:2), an egregious affront to God's eyes (Habakkuk 1:13), treason (Ibid.), et al. Furthermore, it is said of those who have sinned that they are: of a debased mind (Romans 1:28), unrighteous, evil, covetous, malicious, slanderers, haters of God, inventors of evil, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless (Romans 1:29ff).

How then can anyone have a low view of something the Bible takes so seriously? The answer to that question lies in their own sinfulness; for all have sinned (Romans 3:10ff) and no one is good and our minds are twisted and enslaved (Romans 7:19). Therefore, for the gospel of Jesus Christ to show the gravity of what occurred on Golgotha two thousand years ago, one must understand the situation that all men are in.

In the Garden of Eden it was promised Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil he would surely die (Genesis 2:17), but Adam and Eve did not die that day, at least not physically but spiritually. The Apostle Paul words the human condition thus:
   
      "And you were dead in transgressions and sins 2 in which you once walked following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air (i.e. the devil), the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience (i.e. mankind)-..." (Ephesians 2:1-2, emphasis and parentheses added)

Sin is the reason that Jesus Christ died on the cross. Sin is the reason that a holy man, the only Son of God (Philippians 2:6), was falsely tried and convicted and murdered at the hands of those he had come to save (Luke 23ff). Sin is the reason that a Holy God poured out the full measure of his wrath upon His only Son to save sinners (2 Corinthians 2:16ff; Colossians 2:13). Therefore, any view that is less than that of the Bible and therefore God, robs the gospel of its power.