It’s a pointless line of enquiry, which is why it would be far simpler to discuss the inappropriateness of referring to ‘before’ the origin of the universe in my previous sentence. It takes the pressure off having to acknowledge that agnosticism is a more intellectually honest perspective than a sect of atheism like naturalistic materialism.

It amuses me that unfalsifiable claims are overlooked if they confirm the bias of the person making them – and yet are seen as unpardonable sins if they support an alternative viewpoint. To declare that there are an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to inhabit the one where the dice all rolled the right way is as intellectually sound as to declare ‘god did it’ without inviting any further investigation.

Then again, this is why I’m not happy with the idea of a ‘god of the gaps’ – a god who is only active in ways that cannot be experienced or observed does not sound very much like a God worthy of our worship. To me the concept of a Creator was initially axiomatic – to me, a more important question was, “What type of Creator?” However, I will deal with this later.

I can claim that I believe in invisible unicorns at the bottom of my garden – but if no-one is going to produce any evidence, however slight, to support my claim; then no-one is obligated to even be agnostic towards that proposition.

I find atheism an interesting proposition, partly because it can be dismissed as a Bronze Age superstition which was rejected as morally bankrupt by philosophers at that time; or at least that’s my interpretation of Psalm 14. This means that I reject a pseudo-Hegelian view which seeks to force an arbitrary evolutionary framework onto the development of religious thought, despite the evidence to the contrary.

However, I find far too many self-identifying atheists have come to the position as an emotional reaction – not from serious scientific or philosophical discourse. I would not advocate that in order to profess atheism, its adherents would need to pass a rigorous academic test to determine whether they are truly naturalistic materialists, or really crypto-pantheists.

This is fun. I shall continue this in my next post.

Not only is there a purpose for the universe – but each of us has a specific part to play in bringing about our Creator’s plan for the universe.

Our role involves developing a real relationship with our Creator.

Unfortunately, our attitude of rebellion has cut us off from Him.

We do not have the ability to repair this relationship by our own efforts.

Fortunately for us – God has taken the initiative in restoring the relationship between us and Him by entering into His creation

Jesus, answered the question, if the infinite, all-powerful creator of the universe was to enter into it, what would He be like?

This is why Jesus came – not just as a good teacher or perfect example – but to make it possible for us to know God.

By dying on a cross and being raised back to life, Jesus made it possible for justice and mercy to be served on us.

When we accept that we have failed to restore our relationship with God through our own efforts, we can now experience God’s mercy through Jesus taking the penalty of our rebellion onto himself.

By believing that Jesus’ death and resurrection have made it possible for us to know God, we can now enter into a right relationship with Him.

It’s an interesting question. It cannot be dismissed with a casual, “You must have more faith.” The amount of faith is not in question – a mustard-seed’s worth is all that is required. The answer lies at the root of what we know to be true. We act in faith because we are convinced that God will fulfil His promises to us. If He does not bless what we perceived to be His plan, that calls into question whether we truly have a relationship with the Creator of the universe, or are merely deluding ourselves. Doubt of this nature is good – it calls us to purify our motives and ensure that the source of our inspiration is not a desire for self-aggrandisement.

For some, doubt is an enemy which must be opposed at all opportunities. To be fair, they have a point. The serpent sidles up and whispers, “Has God said…?” But there is a key difference between unbelief and determining the source of revelation – commended in the Bereans and urged by the Apostles Paul and John. The serpent cannot resist the temptation of slipping in an untruth. “Has God said you cannot eat from ANY tree?” – We however, have experienced the purifying power of truth in our lives. We are already convinced of the truth of Jesus’ claims about Himself, not because they sound nice, or fit into a pre-conceived view of how the world should be – after all, for many of us it was quite the reverse.

Our experience of Jesus transforming our own lives has led us to believe that He is capable of doing the same for others, and that by grace, He has chosen us to partner with Him in His work of transformation. The key question to ask at the beginning of a new enterprise is therefore, what will this do in terms of communicating God’s love to others?

To answer this question is to build faith in what is good, and simultaneously sow doubt in what is not productive.

Grace is a universal law – it cannot be ignored or over-ruled just because we don’t like it. We don’t seek to ban gravity because some people misunderstand it and hurt themselves.

There are two equally wrong extremes: legalism – which seeks to protect people from being hurt by not having a safety net to catch them when they fall. Unfortunately,  the logical conclusion of legalism is to have its victims so tied up with the ropes of the safety net that they cannot move. Essentially, legalism is a lack of faith – having insufficient trust in the ability of God to look after and restore those who stumble, it presents its own sets of laws in the hope of helping keep the faithful on a narrow path.

Antinomianism suffers from the other extreme. If the law’s demands have been met through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, then the law’s punishment for our rebellion has also been cancelled. We can live as we like with no fear of future eternal punishment. Put like that, it is easy to see why grace scares the legalist. The antinomian viewpoint forgets two essential facts – first of all, we have died to our old life. We can try to return to our old life, but: it no longer has the power to keep us. Secondly, we have a new life, a new relationship with a God who does care about each of us. The irony of the antinomian viewpoint is that in trying to escape from a faithless legalism, it end up in a faithless existence which cuts itself off from developing an intimate relationship with the source of love and freedom.

The essential prerequisite in all this is the state of your relationship with your Creator. We are reminded in multiple places in the New Testament (Galatians ch.3 v.6, James ch.2 v.23, Romans ch.4 v.3 and Romans ch.4 v.22) about the turning point in Abraham’s life, where he put his faith in the One who could transform his life, and in return was granted an intimate relationship with his Creator. That same depth of relationship is available to us now, through Jesus’ death and resurrection – not just for a few special people, or a special nation, but for all – to transform the whole of humanity into a nation of priests.

In the same way that this life-defining moment did not suddenly make Abraham a perfect, faultless being in all his thinking and actions – read the story, count the many mistakes, failings and outright sinful blunders he wilfully entered into; from fear, pride and faithlessness – we too will stumble. We too will experience frustration, problems and discouragement, but the guarantee still stands in Psalm 37 v.24 – no matter how many troubles we face, we can be confident that there is One who is greater than them all, who can transcend our temporal problems and transform them to His glory. We may not understand it all, but we can be sure of His guidance as He brings about His plans, His purposes through His power to provoke His praise in His people.

And so, with that in mind, it’s time to re-start a project I began back in 2006. In fact, some of my early material dates back to the early 1990s. But I’ll say more about that another time.