Would the existence of aliens "discredit" Christianity?

In my last post, I discussed how the existence or non-existence of a so-called "multiverse" does not call into question the existence of the God of the Bible. Today we will look at a bit more complicated topic, extraterrestrial life. 

Full disclosure: I am an independent Baptist who is a young-earth creationist, in the sense of "thousands not millions" but not in the sense of "just barely over 6,000 years," a suggestion that actually cannot be proved by the biblical data, as aptly demonstrated by fellow fundamentalist Mark Snoeberger here. I also reject the so-called "conflict thesis," which cannot stand with an honest reading of the primary sources. The Scientific Method was developed and nurtured by theists, not atheists (for further discussion, see the excellent book Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, edited by Gary B. Ferngren [John Hopkins University Press, 2002], especially the first chapter by Colin A. Russell; also worth reading is J. Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformation, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery [Princeton University Press, 2003]).

Before we get too far into the discussion, I need to point out an obvious fact that is often neglected in the conversation. Christians, indeed the entire Judeo-Christian tradition (with a few exceptions, like the Sadducees), already believe in extraterrestrial life, if extraterrestrial life is defined as "(a.) sentient beings who (b.) do not live on earth." They're called "angels," duh! And no, they are not properly "supernatural" (and thus irrelevant to the discussion), since, (a.) they are created beings (Psalm 148:5) just a little bit above humans (Psalm 8:5), and (b.) they have limitations (Daniel 10:12–13), implying that they obey some sort of physical, governing laws (I use "physical" in the broad sense, to cover all of matter and energy in the created universe, and the laws that govern them). That they can fly and do other things that humans can't is irrelevant. They are still part of the physical universe. So, in a sense, Christians already believe in intelligent life outside of earth.

Nonetheless, what most people mean by "extra-terrestrial life" is not the sort of life mentioned in the Bible. Sometimes (though not always) agnostics or atheists assume that the discovery of that life (say, intelligent radio signals from a star 50 light years away) would invalidate Christianity because it is incompatible with the Bible. Conversely, sometimes young-earth creationists like myself seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against any suggestion that there might be microbes on Mars (or elsewhere), as if somehow that is synonymous with an evolutionary worldview. Here are a few thoughts in response.

1. I take as the starting point for my very existence and operational worldview that (a.) there is a loving, yet just, triune God who created the universe, and (b.) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for my sins and (physically and literally) was raised again the third day, and that (c.) I have eternal salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Absolutely nothing that can happen in the scientific realm or elsewhere can shake my faith. That is not to say that I can always explain everything, nor that my faith is always perfect; as one preacher years ago articulated, there are times in our lives where we cry out "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!" (Mark 9:24). But that is my starting point, the reason for my existence, and I can go nowhere else (John 6:68).

2. Whatever is discovered "out there," God created it. This means, then, that I am free from any "fear" of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life. God is the Creator, period, end of story. If there are living microbes on Mars, or were there in the past, God created them. Which means that I, personally, feel no need to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility. I will disagree with any "billions of years" description, but simply because a secular scientist discovers something does not necessarily make it a vast, evil conspiracy, nor is he or she necessarily wrong.

3. Christians have, in the past, speculated (either in non-fiction or fiction) about sentient extra-terrestrial life that was not angels. C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy is the classic example, and, at a minimum, Lewis could be quite critical of evolution (see the discussion by Samuel D. James here). But there are other examples predating him.

4. If, hypothetically (and this is a big "if"), intelligent life were to be discovered on another planet, the standard evangelical Christian reaction would not be "oh no, my faith is shaken!" but rather, "Do they know God? Are they fallen or un-fallen?; Do we need to send missionaries?" In my opinion, the only truly difficult theological question Christians would need to grapple with is whether or not Christ's death on the cross is meant to apply to all non-angelic sentient beings, or whether (if an alien race is fallen), they simply express faith in a Creator for salvation. (Salvation is always by faith, regardless; that's a universal principle). I, for one, have absolutely no problem with the idea of "interstellar evangelism," though atheist sci-fi writers in the past have maligned the idea (I think it was Harry Harrison, though I could be mistaken, that once wrote a short story where a well-intentioned Roman Catholic priest actually causes the aliens' fall from innocence, rather than redemption. Of course, such a short story only "preaches to the [atheistic or agnostic] choir," and hardly contributes to the discussion).

5. Both atheists and Christians would quickly fit the discovery, or non-discovery, of extra-terrestrial life into their paradigm. There are today agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that we are alone in the universe (and thus we are really "lucky" to be here), but there are also agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that the universe has quite a bit of life, which we just haven't discovered yet. One's presuppositions regarding the likelihood of the existence or non-existence of a Creator really does not matter one way or the other for the possibility of non-angelic life outside of earth. The existence or non-existence of life outside of earth does not "prove" or "disprove" either Christianity or atheism. The point of disagreement between Christians and atheists would not be the existence of extra-terrestrial life, but its origin.

6. Finally, evangelical Christians do not avoid the topic of the possibility of alien life. Its possibility is not an embarrassment. Both scholarly and more accessible discussions of the topic do exist, with C. S. Lewis being a prime example. The interested reader should also note the fascinating article by Rob Cook, "Would the Discovery of Alien Life Prove Theologically Embarrassing? A Response to Paul Davies," Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2012): 139–154 (I say that it is worth reading, without endorsing everything in his conclusion).

Some quick thoughts on a biblical theology of Fatherhood

Having now, at the age of 43, become the first-time father of a baby girl, I have a new perspective on life filled with a whole range of different issues and questions! (Like: What will it take to get her to stop crying at 2am? And: How can I teach her to appreciate baseball and coffee?) Significantly, the fatherhood of God is a major theme in Scripture, peaking in the Gospel of John to such a great degree that Westcott could write in his commentary on John 1:18, 

"τοῦ πατρός] of the Father. The choice of this title in place of God (τοῦ θεοῦ) serves to mark the limits of the revelation made through Jesus Christ. Even this was directed to one aspect (so to speak) of the Godhead. The Son made God known not primarily as God, but as the Father. At the same time this title lays the foundation of revelation in the essential relation of the Persons of the Godhead. Comp. 1 John i.2." (The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, reprint of the 1908 edition [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980) 1:29.

Westcott here is not denying that Jesus revealed God the Father as God (note the word "primarily"), as D. A. Waite infamously accused him of doing (in The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort as Seein in Their Own Writings). Westcott is focusing on the theological emphasis of John, which at times seems to emphasize God the Father as father even more so than (though not at the exclusion of) His identify as God. Significantly, the Gospel of John uses the word πάτηρ (patēr, "father") 138 times, one more than all three synoptic Gospels combined (at least in the TR), and patēr occurs more often in John than even Theos ("God")!

Now, John is certainly not unique in emphasizing God's role as our father and our role as his children (see, for example, Heb 12:7; 1 Pet 1:17). Nor is this theme unique to the New Testament. Isaiah 63:16, for example, connects God's fatherhood with his role as provider (v. 15) and redeemer (v. 16b). Isaiah 64:8, on the other hand, links God's fatherhood with his role as Creator. Malachi 2:10 similarly links God's fatherhood to his role as Creator, but also uses this as the grounds for a rebuke of the disunity and sinfulness of the people of Israel.

All of that creates a solid foundation for our current understanding of God as Father. Yet going back to the Gospel of John and remembering Westcott's statement, the revelation of God as Father was not complete until the incarnation of the Son. Consequently, the more we study Jesus and his relationship to the Father, the more we understand our relationship to God.  And the more I understand God, the better I will understand how to raise my new daughter.

Sometimes God cares about sports

Note: All comments are moderated before posting. It is the prerogative of this author to not post comments if he does not wish to. 

This post will be a bit out of the mainstream, in a sense, but one that is meant to be taken seriously. I am an independent Baptist, a fundamentalist (more emphasis on "fun" and less on "mental"), but somebody who does not consider himself to be on the front-lines of the "culture wars," e.g., by pushing for boycotts of Target or whatever.

Also, I should point out that what I'm suggesting in all seriousness has already been satirized by Babylon Bee, though in all fairness I was already suggesting this back on October 2nd while the Rangers were a long-shot to win it all (and I'm not criticizing the Bee, since they tend to satirize Christian trends that need to be satirized, like misapplying Philippians 4:13!)

On October 2nd, I published a post entitled "A New Testament professor cheers for the Texas Rangers." Now that the Rangers have won the World Series for the first time in history (an event which I have been waiting for 30 years, ever since I became a fan as a teenager in 1993), I am writing this follow-up post.

In 2023, the Texas Rangers were the only team to not host a "Pride Night" (see this Associated Press post here). Although generally I would be the last person to suggest that God intervenes in sports, nonetheless I believe this is significant.

Now, I will reiterate what I said in the October 2nd post. God loves everybody, including those in the LGBTQ community, and Jesus died to save everybody. Yet God created two genders, and marriage is intended to be the only legitimate expression of sexuality: man and woman, in a committed relationship for as long as both of them are still alive. This is anchored first and foremost in God's creative act (Genesis 1:27) and the words of Jesus about the origins and intended permanence of marriage (Mark 10:5–9, answering a question about divorce), though Scripture abounds with many other passages on this topic (e.g., Romans 1:24–27). Anything that deviates from God's intended norm for sexuality is a sin (this includes, of course, heterosexual lust and pornography, not just homosexuality). So for Christians that take God's Word seriously, there can be no doubt about the issue.

Now for another preliminary theological note. I do not believe that God foreordains every single invent that happens, though I believe He foreknows all things (for a lexical  argument about prognōsis and proginōskō as not meaning foreordination, see my revised dissertation, published by Wipf & Stock). Nonetheless, I do believe that God in His sovereignty reserves the right to do whatever He wishes (consistent with His character), including intervening in history. Consequently, I feel that Christians must acknowledge the possibility that God can answer prayers about even relatively insignificant matters such as sporting events, if it is in accordance with His will. I believe He has done so at least once before in history, the famous story of Eric Liddell withdrawing from the 100-meter dash at the 1924 Paris Olympics due to a matter of conscience, and going on to win the gold and set a new world record in the 400-meter dash.

There are two points of theological tension here. Point one is that, as much as many of us (including myself) enjoy professional sports, especially baseball, professional sports are ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and oftentimes a hindrance to a character development, whether it be the player or those cheering for him. Sports can even become an idol that can threaten to overshadow more important things in life. After all, how many die-hard sports fans have stuck with their team for 30+ years "for better or for worse," and yet divorced their wives? 

Yet the second point is that, as a general principle, God can indeed react positively to both individuals and even large-scale entities (e.g., nations) that do right (or abstain from doing wrong), even when lacking a specific covenant with Him. God, by His very nature, has a propensity to bless the good and punish the evil. Although this aspect of His character will not be universally fulfilled until all things on earth are put under permanent subjection to Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:24–28), nonetheless there is a principle that remains true until that point, that "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).

So, did God directly determine or influence in some way the outcome of the 2023 World Series? (Keep in mind I am speaking as somebody who is not a Calvinist, for whom the answer might be a bit more straightforward!). Speaking as somebody who directly prayed for that result, on the basis of the fact that the Rangers in 2023 did not host a "Pride Night" like all other MLB teams, I have to say that yes, I believe He did, even while acknowledging my own biases towards the Rangers.

Now, I could be wrong, of course, and even if I were right this does not diminish the accomplishments of the Rangers, who throughly earned their victories. Yet there are always certain elements (like injuries, weather, crowd noise, etc.) that are out of the control of a particular team, and obviously God can providentially guide matters in such a way that human effort is included in the equation, not abrogated (though surely Ecclesiastes 9:11 is relevant here).

Nor am I suggesting for an instance that the Rangers were somehow a more "godly" team than any of the others. Far from it, I'm sure! 

The point is simply that as a corporate entity in 2023 the Texas Rangers abstained from celebrating a lifestyle choice that displeases God, they were the only MLB team to so abstain, and thus I believe it is no coincidence that they attained their first World Series victory in the history of their existence this same year.

The God of all comfort . . . so that we can comfort others! (2Cor 1)

"Clusters" fascinate me. A "cluster" in Scripture is when the inspired author, in the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, uses the same word, or a word and its cognates, multiple times within a limited space. For instance, in Romans 3:20-28 the Apostle Paul famously "clusters" dikai* (righteousness) language: the verb, noun, and adjective occur a total of 9 times within 9 verses, including, at one point, 3x in one verse (v. 26); similarly, the same thing happens in Rom 10:3-6 (the dikai* language occurs 6x). In other words, Paul intensifies the "righteousness" theme at these points in Romans.

Practically speaking a "cluster" indicates to us that something is weighing heavily on the author's mind, and he wants to let us know about it, even if it means almost "going overboard" by repeating the same or related words.

Second Corinthians 1:3b-4 gives us a very intense "cluster," one that is very important to keep in mind in the midst of the panic over COVID-19, the Coronavirus.

Here, the apostle Paul intensifies "comfort language." Utilizing the noun parakalēsis and the verb parakaleō, which in this context mean "comfort" and "to comfort," Paul declares that God is "the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort (paraklēsis), the One who is comforting (parakaleō) us in the midst of all of our afflictions, so that we may be able to comfort (parakaleō) others in every affliction, through the comfort (parakalēsis) by which we ourselves are comforted (parakaleō)."
[My translation, utilizing Stephanus' 1550 TR via Accordance software]

Now, in the Greek, beginning with the second half of verse 3 ("the Father of . . ."), that's a total of five "comfort" words within just a verse and a half! In other words, out of 34 words in Greek, five are either parakalēsis or parakaleō, accounting for 14.7% of the total word count.

There is a powerful theological and practical message here. Paul is intensifying a theological theme: 1. God is a father who comforts, 2. He comforts us in our distress, and 3. the purpose of that (eis + an infinitive) is so that we might comfort others with that same sort of comfort.

So, my fellow believer: are you prepared to channel the comfort of God the Father to others? Are you prepared to be an instrument of comfort to those that need your help? If you pray for that opportunity and embrace it, God will indeed allow you to be a comfort to others in the name of Jesus Christ.

A Slightly Expanded Exegetical Discussion on why I Believe Babies go to Heaven

Generally I stay away from controversial theological topics (my desire is for this site to be a resource), but I felt I'd expand a bit on Dr. Danny Akin's brief discussion of why he believes babies go to heaven (click here; and thanks to my Doctorvater David Alan Black for mentioning this on his blog); I'm aware of counter-arguments to some of Dr. Akin's thoughts, so I want to expand a bit more on a few of his statements and mention a couple other relevant verses. (Dr. Akin is a theologian and scholar, president of my Alma mater Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and an excellent preacher)

This is, of course, a highly charged discussion at times, and also one that is not explicitly discussed in Scripture. Theologically, the debate can go either way: the inherent goodness and mercy of God, on the one hand, and the total depravity (however defined) and sin nature of all human beings from the moment they are conceived on the other hand. Furthermore, I cannot discern any theological positions that automatically fall on either side of the debate; both Calvinists and Arminians, for example, could take either position (one could argue, though, that the belief in regeneration prior to faith [which I do not hold to] might make this position a bit easier to defend).

Nonetheless, while Scripture does not directly discuss the topic, there are a few textual hints that seem to imply a certain "age of innocence" where a child may not be held accountable for their sin nature, or rather is held accountable but receives the mercy of God. First of all, we have such general statements as that in Isaiah 7:16, a particular prophecy will occur "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" (KJV; NET has something similar, "before the child knows how to reject evil and choose what is right"). All this proves, of course, is that at a certain stage, a "child"  is clearly distinct from an adult in his or her ability to make moral choices. Nevertheless, keep that distinction in mind as we look at some other verses, and this will play a key roll in our discussion of Revelation 20:11-15. (The Hebrew word for "child" here is na-ar, which seems to be a fairly broad word applicable to various ages, but context seems to indicate a very young age).

For me, 1 Kings 14:13 is also significant. As God curses Jeroboam's line for their wickedness, he declares through the prophet that of all his line, only this little child will be properly buried (Hebrew yalad, much more frequently referring to newborns and young babies; see, for example Genesis 21:8, Exodus 1:17, 2 Samuel 12:21-22; however, Genesis 4:23 may be a counter example, unless Lamech was bragging about killing a child!). Why, then, would this young child (perhaps still a baby) be given a peaceful  and proper burial in contrast to the rest of Jeroboam's line? Because "he is the only one in whom the Lord God of Israel found anything good" (NET; the KJV has "because in him there is found some good thing toward the LORD God of Israel"). Since this is a yalad, it is doubtful that the child or baby has had time to manifest a godly character (though a counter-example might be Samuel). What, then, is the "good" that God has seen in him? Context would seem to indicate the lack of wickedness that characterized the rest of Jeroboam's family, i.e., a sort of innocence. None of this denies the fact of Adam's sin imputed to our DNA (or whatever; I'm a Biblical studies guy, not a theologian, so pardon the inexact language). Rather, this may simply indicate that at a certain level the child was considered innocent. Once again, by itself this does not prove that babies go to heaven, but it's evidence that needs to be taken into consideration.

The most cited passage, of course, is 2 Samuel 12:15-23 where David quits weeping when the child dies and declares to his surprised servants that "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (KJV; the NET has "I will go to him, but he cannot return to me"). Now, granted that David is not necessarily divinely inspired in what he says (in the way that the narrator is), and granted that David is probably referring to the afterlife in general, not necessarily a New Testament concept of "heaven" per se (this is a common counter-argument). Having said that, I see no other way to read the expression other than that David believed he actually would be in the presence of his child someday. The contrast "going to him" vs. "coming to me" seems to indicate this is not simply David saying "just like him  I'm going to die"; furthermore, the total loss of his child (with no hope of seeing him again) would certainly not have given David reason to stop weeping or begin to comfort his wife (and Dr. Akin makes this point in the link above). Regardless of David's own knowledge of the afterlife compared to our own, at the least he obviously did not consider his infant to be suffering in hell. 

In the New Testament, two passages are significant (both of them discussed by Dr. Akin). In Luke 18:15-17, Jesus says that "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (KJV; the NET has "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these") in regards to little children (or, perhaps, babies or infants, though the parallel passage in Matthew 19:14 uses the broader paideia). Those who have toddlers in the house, of course, may be making an incredulous face right now, but nevertheless Jesus saw something distinct in children and/or babies--a "child-like faith." The counter-argument is that Jesus may not actually be saying "babies enter into the Kingdom of Heaven," but rather "those who have trust/faith like babies/children enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (see verse 17). [note: I will take "Kingdom of Heaven" to broadly refer to the sphere of those who belong to God, including the temporary state in heaven and the eternal state of the New Jerusalem and New Earth] Yet consider the nature of the statement; would Jesus' declaration ring true if, in fact, children/babies did not go to heaven but rather were suffering in hell? This would be akin to saying "You have to be as famous as a football player to get into that club" when, in fact, football players are categorically not allowed to enter a particular club. Would it make sense to say "You have to be like a little child to enter into the Kingdom" when all those who die as a little child cannot possibly enter into the Kingdom? [I am loosely referring to those at too young an age to understand or accept the Gospel; I think the same line of thought might apply to those mentally unable to grasp the Gospel, i.e., mental toddlers, no matter what the age, but that's a discussion for another time] In other words, the effectiveness of Jesus' statement seems to presume that those who die as infants or little children do indeed populate the Kingdom of Heaven.

Finally (and I credit Dr. Akin for bringing this passage up, because I hadn't really thought of it), Revelation 20:11-15 indicates that the basis of eternal torment in the Lake of Fire is the evil works one has done, not the acquisition of a sin nature per se. Since infants, at least, cannot "choose the good or the evil" (remember, we saw that all the way back in Isaiah 7), consequently infants are not included in this group. In other words, here's my logic: 1. Isaiah 7:16 indicates that there is an age before which one can make moral choices; 2. Revelation 20:11-15 indicates that sinners are judges on the basis of their moral choices; 3. Consequently, infants are not included in the judgment of Revelation 20:11-5.

I trust this has been a helpful expansion of Dr. Akin's arguments that takes into account potential counter-arguments. In the end, those of us who are able to "choose the good and refuse the evil" must nevertheless trust in the saving power of the crucified and resurrected Lord Jesus Christ to save us from our sins; no other hope for salvation exists. For those who have died before they could "choose the good and refuse the evil," I also trust that Jesus' precious blood, through the grace of God, has washed away their old nature and regenerated them. To paraphrase Charles Spurgeon's quote (which Dr. Akin gives in his paper), "Mother and father, if you have a baby who has died, and yet you yourself have not repented and accepted Christ as your Savior, how horrible it would for your child to be enjoying the benefits of eternal fellowship with God Almighty and His Son, Jesus Christ, while you yourself suffer justly for your sins? Repent, and turn to the Resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, trust in Him alone for your salvation, the One who died on the cross for your sins and my sins yet rose again on the 3rd day by the power of God--'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved' (Acts 16:31)."

Dear reader, if you wish to post a comment, whether in agreement or disagreement, please keep it relevant and courteous.