Week 28: \u00a0Apr 29, 2012<\/p>\n
John closes this first major section with a final warning and instruction.<\/p>\n
Study<\/p>\n
7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013 Little children, don\u2019t let anyone deceive you. <\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John closes out this first major section by returning to his original message with a final warning: Don\u2019t be deceived. \u00a0\u00a0John\u2019s opponents were spreading false doctrine. \u00a0A major purpose of the first section has been to point out the errors of the group who left, so it is very fitting that John finishes this section with a final warning and a summation of his points.<\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 John does this by dividing the world into two camps: those that follow Jesus, and by implication the ones we can believe, and those who follow the devil and by implication are trying to deceive us.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n 7b \u2013 The person who practices righteousness is righteous, just as the Messiah[1] isrighteous. <\/strong><\/p>\n –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 When looking at whom to believe (i.e., not be deceived) we must look to their actions.\u00a0 A follower of the Jesus must be righteous, because Jesus was. \u00a0This is more than just moral purity it also includes a proper relationship with God.<\/p>\n Questions and Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n As can be seen by the shortness of the study, this week had a lot of discussion.\u00a0 The initial jumping off point concerned the question of how Mormons, who often are so smart, can believe the claims of Mormonism. After all, the evidence against Mormonism is very strong. Before we had proceed down that path very far someone pointed out that secularists often make the same charge against Christians; how can seemingly smart people believe in Christianity?<\/p>\n First off, while the questions may at first seem similar, the answers are vastly different.\u00a0 This is because the levels and nature of the evidence for Mormonism and for Christianity are worlds apart.\u00a0\u00a0 We know there was a Israel, a Judea, a Rome, an Assyria, and Egypt ruled by Pharaohs.\u00a0 We know that many of the cities mentioned such as Babylon, Jerusalem and Bethlehem existed.\u00a0 We know that people such as King David lived.\u00a0 We know that many of the events described occurred. In short we know that a large number of the things mentioned in the Bible are accurate.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n On the other hand, not a single person, place, or event, mention in the Book of Mormon about the New World can be confirmed to have existed or occurred, and many of the things we know about the New World, do not seem to match the descriptions in the Book of Mormon.\u00a0 In short, when it comes to Mormonism vs. Christianity as it has been understood and practiced for 2000 years,\u00a0 the evidence is strongly on the side of historic Christianity.<\/p>\n How about the secularist?\u00a0 50 years ago you could make a better case for the secularism, but not today.\u00a0 For example, 50 year ago all the classical arguments for the existent of God were seen as having been refuted and only of historical interest, to be studied only for what light they could shed on the thinking of earlier philosophers, but not to be taken serious today.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 This was largely because of the philosophy of Kant.\u00a0 In extremely abbreviated form, Kant believed that our knowledge was limited by our ability to perceive, and that since we cannot perceive God, we cannot know anything about God.\u00a0 As a result the classical arguments can really tell us nothing. \u00a0<\/p>\n This all seemed well and good in a world governed by Newtonian physics.\u00a0 But as Quantum Mechanics came to be understood, Kant\u2019s theories broke down.\u00a0 Again in very brief fashion, if Kant was correct, then the uncertainly principle should likewise have been a barrier to our understanding.\u00a0 But it wasn\u2019t. Before long scientist developed and tested theories, that if Kant was correct, they should not have been able to do.\u00a0 \u00a0As a result in the later part of the 20th century all the classical theories were revived and are once again under serious discussion. \u00a0This is just one of many developments that have cast doubt on naturalism.\u00a0<\/p>\n In fact today it is the scientific naturalist, i.e., those that limit reality to the natural world, rejecting any possibility of a reality beyond the natural that has problems with the evidence.\u00a0 For example both major scientific theories for the origin of the universe require a beginning.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus we have only two possibilities, either the universe, the natural world as we know it, came from nothing, or it came from something.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Something from nothing is a logical impossibility and if anything a definition of magic.\u00a0 To accept it would either be special pleading if restricted only to the origin of the universe, or would completely undermine the concept of science if taken as a general principle.\u00a0 Either view would undermine scientific naturalism.\u00a0 \u00a0That leaves that it came from something.\u00a0 But this would demonstrate an existence of something beyond the natural and would likewise undermine scientific naturalism.\u00a0 Thus the current state of the scientific evidence argues strongly against scientific naturalism.<\/p>\n Nor does the evidence stop there.\u00a0 While miracles were difficult to account for in a world governed by Newtonian physics, they are not hard at all to account for in Quantum mechanics where everything is governed by probability. This is particularly true with the views of Quantum mechanics that claim that nothing actually happens until there is a mind that forces a resolution from an indeterminate state.\u00a0 In such a universe, why couldn\u2019t the mind of God cause the quantum states in the dead body of Jesus, to resolved themselves into a state of life.\u00a0<\/p>\n Given the state of the evidence today, the better question is not how a can a smart person be a Christian, but why isn\u2019t everyone a Christian?\u00a0 The answer lies in the fact that in the end, this is not a question of evidence.\u00a0 The evidence is on the side of the Christian. The real problem is not evidence, but sin.\u00a0 It is not a matter of logical arguments but spiritual rebellion.<\/p>\n If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at\u00a0elgin@hushbeck.com<\/a>\u00a0and be sure to put \u201cEpistles of John\u201d in the header.<\/em><\/p>\n See here for references and more background on the class<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\nii\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Distinguishing between Righteous and Unrighteous (3:7b-3:10)<\/h5>\n