"Will there be animals in Heaven?"

Ive received a few questions from my blog recently, which I really enjoy.  Mostly this blog has been about objections I receive but I am very happy to give it my best shot to answer questions.  I just want to clarify again, I am merely a layman.  I'm just trying to be a $1 apologist is J Warner Wallace suggests :)

    First I would like  to point out that we do not have a straight forward answer regarding this question in scripture.  But that does not mean that we don't have many verses that speak towards this issue.  Also before I begin I would like to say that animals are very important to God.  Just see Psalm 50:11 "I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine."  Also its amazing to see the deep emotional connections that humans make with animals.  I have had 2 cats pass away and the loss was very deep.  So I would also like to point out that animals are very important to people, and people are very important to God so something meaningful is going on here.



   Animals were a big part of the original creation, in Eden.   Animals are an amazing part of creation, maybe one of the best parts!  So in the restored creation it makes sens that animals would continue to be a part of creation.  The is just simply no reason to think that this amazing part of creation would be left out in Heaven.

   "But will my cat Puddles be there?  Do animals have souls?"

Animals are referred to as "living creatures" in Genesis 1:20 and throughout church history this has been understood as having a soul.  But a soul that is qualitatively different than a human soul.  Thomas Aquinas taught that an animal's soul is dependent on the body.  So when the body dies so does the soul.  This also hard to back up with scripture but there is a good point there.

So will my same pet be in Heaven?  Why not? is my answer.  There is no reason to not think so.  I am open to more info, but for right now I don't really know but have no reason to not think so.  God is a God who loves to lavish love on his children, so what ever is in store will be good.

"Hey are you ever afraid you'll miss the Rapture and be left behind?"

  So, many people are familiar with the widely popular Left Behind fiction book series and the following movies starring Kirk Cameron.  The Rapture is the idea that Jesus is going to come back again secretly and invisibly and take his church out of the world, leaving behind non Christians to face the terrible tribulation. 

  So I get asked this question today by an atheist friend of mine, trying to push a button I guess.  So I had a bit of a chuckle and simply answered no, and had a little chat about "the Rapture"

  The Rapture is a wide spread belief in evangelical Christianity today, especially considering that the Left Behind series has sold more than 50 million copies.  The Rapture is a wide spread belief even though this belief is actually quite new!  Actually its even newer than Mormonism.  Absolutely no one was preaching about the Rapture before 1830 AD, this is not a traditional belief of the Christian church.  The early church taught that Jesus Christ was coming back once, just once, not 2 or even 3 times.  But if you subscribe to the idea of the Rapture you believe Jesus is coming back more than once. 

  I thought I would expand a bit on the work Parousia (second coming or appearing) which is a big word when it comes to the Rapture.  When Paul uses this word he is using it in the context of what the audience would have understood it to be in that day, they would have understood it in the context of Caesar.  After Caesar would have been away from the city or off fighting a battle, when he would return to the city in victory and glory all the people of the city would go out to meet him, to welcome him back.  In this same theme Jesus will one day come back and we who have relationship with him will welcome him back on bended knee. 

It is in this context that we read 1Thessalonians 4:13-18:
Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. ¹⁴ For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. ¹⁵ According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. ¹⁸ Therefore encourage one another with these words.

  This verse is about Christians giving Jesus a royal welcome back to earth in the air.  Those who have died rise to meet Christ first then those that are still alive.  This has nothing to a Rapture, it has to do with Jesus coming back to Judge the world and Christians giving him a Royal welcome back to earth.  The Thessalonians understood how to welcome kings.  In fact their city was named after Alexander the Great's sister, and was a walled city.

One verse Id like to quickly menton is a favorite of many people who defend the Rapture.  Matthew 24:36-41 
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.³⁷ As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

So in the Noah story who was taken away and who was left behind?  The lost were taken away and the righteous were left behind.  Those left behind were happy to be left behind!  So this has nothing to do with a "Rapture"

  I have heard the Rapture referred to as "theological comfort food" because in popularity during the civil war.  It was sort of an escape plan, a way to get out of suffering. I have to agree with this since the Rapture is pretty much teaching that "we can get out of here"  Today the teaching of the Rapture is mainly spread through popular level books and tracts among laymen, because this is not a teaching rooted in church history.  When we read the Bible we are looking for the original intended meaning of the text, not a new interpretation hundreds of years later.

  With most Christians who ascribe to the teaching of the Rapture I usually just ask them is Jesus coming back once or many times? 

  I really enjoy this topic but I don't want to go on forever in this short blog.  If I receive any objections though Ill tackle them.  Also its after midnight and I am typing this in a hurry so Im sure its not high quality, but I wanted to get it out before I forgot :)

So to close, am I worried about being "left behind"?  no, I'm saved and in relationship with Jesus.  Also the Rapture is not something I need to consider, because its a belief newer than Mormonism, supported biblically and Jesus is coming back once.

"Does God punish people for the sins of their fathers?"

Just the other day I was in a conversation about this issue on a facebook forum that I frequent.  We were speaking about this issue, because one atheist fellow was telling a story about how how his Christian father had told him that the reason his daughter was afflicted with a medical condition was because God was punishing him because God knew he would become an atheist one day.  Me and him went back and forth and a few bible verses came out and that was that for me.  But a person on the forum who just watches wrote me an email asking me to expand further because it was a big issue for them.  So I answered their email and will also do a short write up here.

  So, does God actually punish people for the sins of their fathers?

Being a Star Trek fan the first thing that popped into my head was how Klingons do shame children for the sins of their fathers and in one episode Captain Picard refused to judge Duras for the sins of his father, like the Klingon empire did to Worf. (I hope I didn't sound like too much of a nerd there)

So the first verse that came out was Exodus 20:5 "_fyou shall not bow down to them nor ₂ serve them.  For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,  visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me"  This is a tough one isn't it?  What do we do with this verse?  Because we also have verses such as:

Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins shall die.  The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself,  and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."  It doesn't get much clearer than this, that we are responsible for ourselves, and we will not be held responsible for the sins of our parents.  We also have many more verses to support the idea that God does not punish for the sins of the parents but Ill just concentrate on these two verses.

It was then presented to me after these two verses that this was an obvious "Bible contradiction" so we have to look into it because if the Bible does actually contradict itself we have a very big problem on our Christian hands.  So lets have a look.

The context of Exodus 20 is the practice of idolatry.  This section of scripture is speaking towards consequences of sin, not necessarily punishment from God.  Are there consequences to sin that do follow down through generations?  Of course there are.  I think of divorce for example.  Divorce can cause a wake of consequences that follow the children and the children's children.  There is much pain, and disillusionment in the sanctity of marriage.  Also the then divorced parents may remarry and carry the consequences there.  Also how about alcoholism?  Many alcoholics effect the lives of many around them, their spouse, their children, their parents and that can leave scars that effect how they then treat others.  Of course there are consequences to sin.  So in an idolatrous culture, the participants in idolatry will pass the lessons onto their children and teach them to continue in the way of the ways of idolatry on and on through generations.  All one would have to do is look at the life of David to see if there are consequences to sin in this world.  See what happened to him and his life as a result of his sin with Bathsheba.

Yet, anyone who could be effected by the consequences of the sins of their parents can turn to Jesus, who was perfect and had no sin, actually was put to death on a cross as a ransom for our sin.  Anyone can come to Jesus and the sins of their parents would not be held against them at all.(Corinthians 5:21)  Anyone who comes to Jesus in faith is considered righteous in the sight of God and can know God. 
Personally one of my favourite things about God is that he really can make all things new (Revelation 21:5) and really can restore the lost years.  Personally I know many people who are hurt by the sins of their parents, and I am not going to tell you it will be all better if you come to Jesus, it will still be a long tough road.  But Jesus will stand with you and forgive you and work together with you.  




So, does God punish people for the sins of their parents? No.  Is there such a thing as generational curses or the like? No.  Can children's lives be effected by the sins of their parents? Yes.  Are there consequences to sin? Yes.  Can God restore, heal and forgive all sin? Yes.

"How do you know when to take the Bible literally?"

  I get asked this question quite a lot.  Usually more aggressively in the way of "everybody knows you cant trust the bible, its not to be taken literally" or things along those lines.  But this is not actually a very hard question to answer.  But I will tell you now that when you do answer this question it will lead to harder ones.

  Lets say you decide to write an account of the events of the summer last year.  You send it into your local newspaper and explain that this is a true story of the events of last summer and you were there for some of the events as well you also interviewed eye witnesses about the events.  But when it gets published it gets published under fiction, or in the poetry section.  This would make no sense at all.  You were very clear this was non fiction, and was not up to personal interpretation. 

  Which brings us to a book like Luke-Acts.  How does he start the account? This is from the ESV
 
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, ²  just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, ³ it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴ that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." 

Luke states that he has complied a narrative, interviewed eye witnesses, followed things closely, and has written them down in an orderly fashion.  There is no room here for anyone to suggest that it can be interpreted as symbol or metaphor, or that it is up for interpretation.  Someone could suggest that it is a lie.  That is one of the tough questions that will follow after you address this concern  We will talk about that in a future blog about how you can know the Bible to be true. 

The main point here is context.  In all documents context is key.  "Context context context" if I were to write in this blog that yesterday here in Vancouver it was raining cats and dogs, you would immediately know what I was talking about and probably wouldn't decide that my account was unreliable.  There is symbol, and metaphor in the Bible.  Actually the bible is filled with all the beautiful uses of literature.  But how do you know what is real, and what is interpretive? Context, just like you would understand any other document.

"The Bible is full of contradictions! you cant trust it!"

Well this is something I hear all the time and I am sure you whether you are atheist or theist have heard it many times as well.  Just yesterday I was pointed towards a website by a guy I got chatting with as we were having coffee that proclaims there are over 1500 full blown contradictions.  Now first I will tell you this is a powerful claim.  Is it totally off base?

First thing I always ask people when they say this is "can you name a couple?" the answer is usually no, but not always.  The fellow I was chatting with did know two "contradictions" and they are tough ones.  First was "How did Judas die?"and second "at what time was Jesus crucified?"

So the first thing you have to do is identify exactly what we are talking about, so with Judas we are talking about the 2 descriptions of his death.  Matthew says that he hanged himself, but in the book of Acts Luke says that Judas fell down and burst open and his intestines spilled out.  So the question is how did he die, and is this a contradiction?

What is the Law of Non Contradiction? The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non Contradiction, says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. So can both of these descriptions of Judas' death be true?  Neither one negates the possibility of the other so this is not a contradiction.  What happened with Judas is that he went out and hung himself, then later he fell probably due to the weight on the branch and when he hit the ground split open.  When you examine the two accounts a bit closer you see Matthew being specific in that Judas hanged himself, and in Acts you do not see how he died.

So next, what time was Jesus crucified?  Now I will tell you I struggled with this for a while.  I had it come up in conversations and did not have an answer.  But the good thing about those times is that we can get excited to learn more so that next time we will have an answer.  Also remember that it is perfectly fine to admit that you don't know.  We don't need to know everything to prove God.  Its humble and acceptable to tell the person that you don't know but that you will look into it and get back to them in a week or so.

 So in Mark 15:25 Jesus is crucified at the third hour and in John 19:14 Jesus was crucified at about the sixth hour.  Obvious contradiction right?  Well we need to look a bit deeper.  When we read any book, especially a book not from our culture and time period we have to do a little digging and understand context.  I'm sure everyone has heard "context is everything"

The difference here is in the Jewish times of the day and the Roman time of day which is the same as the one we use today.   

Third hour--6am-9am
Sixth hour--9am-12pm
Ninth hour--12pm-3pm
Twelfth hour--3pm-6pm
First Watch--6pm-9pm
Second Watch--9pm-12am
Third Watch--12am-3am
Fourth Watch--3am-6am

So as you can see Mark is just using the Jewish time system and John is using the Roman.  Hence not a contradiction.

So we spoke for another hour or so and had a good hearted argument about the Bible, and it was fun. 

"Believing in God is just as silly as believing in Santa Claus"

I encounter this objection weekly Id guess.  I was just talking about this online now, which reminded me of a few experiences Ive had.  Ive had many people believe this to be a knockdown argument and never expect a comeback or refutation.  Richard Dawkins uses this idea quite a bit.

So as people get older they lose their belief in Santa Claus but the same is not always true with God, why is that?

People will say that there is no evidence for God, and there is no evidence for Santa so its the same type of belief.  Now obviously I believe there is tremendous evidence for God but I will not explore that in this blog entry.  I will stick with the ideas of why we lose belief in Santa and not the same with God.

The reason people stop believing in Santa is not because of lack of evidence.  It is because of positive evidence against the existence of Santa.  There is no one at the north pole, no one delivering presents on Christmas etc. 

Now what about God.  Is there any positive evidence against God?  In thousands of years no one has come up with an argument that will hold up.

Ask any criminologist, you cannot prove something is untrue based on lack of evidence.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So we are left at this point with no evidence against God, so that alone will show that you cant compare God with Santa Claus.  Now of course there are many objections to the existence of God such as the existence of evil and such.   But no one considers this evidence against God.  This blog is about answering those questions and if I haven't already done so that is one of my favourite questions so I will get on it very soon

Paul at the end of his life (2Timothy)

I just thought I would check in with a quick blog.  I was reading 2Timothy today and listening to the corrosponding lecture from my class at Regent College New Testament Foundations.  The setting is that Paul is in Jail at the end of his life.  He is in a terrible place, the roman prison.  He knows that anyday now the guards will come and take him away to be exectued.  It is in this place that Im sure Paul would ask himself the most important questions of all.  Will Paul one day be resurrected just like Jesus?  Did he make the right choice to follow Jesus?  Is all of this that he has come to believe true?  The answer is yes.  I find the book of 2 Timothy amazing against this backdrop.

The instructor at Regent (Rikk Watts) said "2000 years later people are naming their dogs Nero, and their daughters Pauline, and their sons Paul.  The only kingdom on which the sin never sets, with Rome in ruins is the Christian Church"

So did Paul make the right decision?  Yes.  Paul met Jesus, and he helpped change the world.  As I share the gospel with people I often think of Paul.  I can picture my Christian family tree all the way back to him maybe.  He shared the gospel with people who shared it with others and onto other and others down through the centuries and then with me.  When I share the good news I try to keep in mind how real it was to Paul.  How important it was to Paul.  I wonder if he could have pictured just how far God would take what Paul did in faith.

"What does it matter that the disciples died for their faith? Lots of different people die for their faiths"

I was proposed this at summer camp this past summer.  Especially in the last 10 years it has become well known that people are willing to die for what they believe in.  On average 171,000 Christians are martyred every year, but we also see people from the Muslim world willing to die for their faith.  So how can we Christians claim the validity of Christianity based on the martyrdom of Christians?

We have to look to the disciples themselves who all except John were executed for their faith.  The disciples did not willingly go to their deaths because of what they had come to believe in.  They went to their executions without recanting because of their confidence in what they saw with their own eyes and touched with their own hands.  This is the difference, people today die for what they believe in, the disciples died for what they knew to be true through evidence.

It is possible that a group of people would be willing to die for a lie, a lie that they thought was true.  We can see this through history, cult groups for example.  But how improbable would it be for a group of people to die for a lie that they KNEW was a lie?  They were all given the opportunity to recant, none of them received power or riches from this.  Also they were proclaiming what they saw in the very city that Jesus was killed and resurrected.   As they got ready to drive 6 inch long spikes through Peter's wrists and feet to hang him on an upside down cross I would think that would be the time to say "hey guys, actually its all a lie" or when they picked up stones to stone James, he could of said "OK everyone you win, we made it all up"  but they didn't, they had confidence in the next life because they saw Jesus in his resurrection body therefore they knew they also would be raised from the dead in glory.

Also it amazes me to hear people propose that the disciples somehow cooked up the story.  First, I would suggest to actually read the New Testament.  If men from the 1st century were writing a story, this would not be it at all! Second what sense would it make to cook up a story that would result in them all being thrown into prison, tortured and eventually killed?  No profits, no power, no sex, nothing along the lines of what people make up stories for.  We have nothing in the history or nature of man to compare this to.

I suggest that the best explanation of these events is that they actually did see what they said they did and what they were martyred for

Where did Cain's wife come from?

I havent heard this objection in a while but heard it today in a coffee shop.  A friend and myself were chatting about God and this guy who had overheard us talking asked us this question.  My friend said that its an easy question and the answer is that God just created a wife for Cain.  Is this the answer?

First I have to say that of all the things in the bible that people honestly object to or have a hard time understanding I dont run into this very often.  But it is a question and it deserves and answer

I can understand why my friend would think that God just created a wife for Cain, but that is reading meaning into the text, rather than reading the meaning of the text.  We read in Acts 17:26 that "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."  so we can see that God did not supernaturally create other people.  Also in Genesis 1:28 we read that God said to Adam and Eve "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

So from these texts we can see that from one man all of mankind was born and that Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied.  So it makes sense that Cain would have married either his niece or sister.

Now that is very hard for us to understand today.  I could never participate in this, but this is how the human population started, and it makes sense.  Also God did prohibit incest in to law in Leviticus 18:9

Its not an easy answer, its not a comfortable answer but it is the truth.  When we can answer these questions rather than deflecting them we can move onto other questions and take down roadblocks to the Gospel

Also I have to say on the lighter side, when I was searching for an image to use for this blog Pictures of John McCains wife kept coming up, so that made me laugh :)

"you are atheist towards Santa Claus, Zeus, Posidon etc...I just go one God futher"

I hear this line repeated all the time.  Is almost like a mantra for some atheists.  Hearing it many times does not make it a logical arguement.  Also this statement doesnt address the real issue at all. Atheists will say that that we stop believing in these Gods and characters like Santa and the Easter bunny because of lack of evidence.  So why not go one God further?

The reason we do not belive in Santa is not because of lack of evidence, but because there good evidence that no such person exists!  There is no one who has a toy shop at the north pole and flying around on a sleigh on christmas eve.  The same goes for the easter bunny, Zeus etc.  There is good evidence that these Gods and characters do not exist.

In contrast to the Christian God, not only is there good evidence that God exists, but atheists cannot produce good evident that God does not exist.  Im sure you will hear "you cannot prove a universal negative", or "you cannot prove the non existence of a thing"

You can prove the non existence of a thing such as Santa, the tea pot orbiting the earth, the flying spagetti moster and Zeus.

So when it comes to the claim "God does not exist" this holds a burden of proof that no atheist can bear.  They should make more humble claims like that they are not convinced by the evidence or that they dont know if God exists.

"You are only a Christian because you were raised in a christian country"

I got this last week as I was in a coffee shop,I am surprised to hear this objection here as we live in one of the most multicultural cities in the world.  I dont believe anyone would call Vancouver a "christian city" but we do definitely benefit from christian influence.  Things such as "moral standard" and recognizing the intrinsic value of human beings.  But I would not say that people are influenced to become christian based on the culture.


First I would say that the truth of an idea has nothing to do with where it came from.  Democracy is still a great idea and holds truth even though I was raised in a democratic culture.


Second I would point to the countries in which Christianity is exploding.  It is not in the "christian cultures" like the united states but countries like China.  Ive read that there is approximatly 100 million christians in China now, this can not be because it was a christian culture.  In fact christians have been pursecuted in China heavily yet continues to grow rapidly.  The same is true for Christians in countries such as the Phillipines, North Korea, and Islamic countries.  Also christianity was born out of persecution and hardship, yet people held tight to the truth of Christianity even to their deaths.


As much as Christian influence from friends and family and culture does add to the decision making process, the finaly decision is one based on truth not culture.