You Ask?

Where to begin? So much nonsense is talked about theology. Before I attempt to answer your question, I need to clear the field. Let's start by getting rid of some misconceptions.

One:There is no God.

If not, what preceded the Big Bang? Something had to cause it. Science suggests the multiverse, a notion for which no evidence exists. I have to wonder. Maybe non-belief requires blind faith?

The gravitational constant defines the strength of the attraction between masses. Had this constant been a tad smaller, the universe would have fallen in on itself. A tad larger, the universe would long ago have flown apart. There are dozens of similar constants in found physics, each one so finely tuned it seems miraculous that life exists. Blind luck? The odds against are preposterous, but why not have an infinite number of imaginary multiverses. Blind faith has no limitations.

And what about kids in the schoolyard condemning the others who cheat, lie, or bully. How did they come by their moral code? Isn't evolution about survival of the fittest. There's just too much evidence for God. At the end of the day, non-belief is frankly unsustainable.

Two: All religions are the same.

Religions do two things. They tell us how to be good, and they tell us how we'll be saved. Here's the first problem. For most religions, people are saved by their good works except for Christians. They are saved by faith in Christ alone. That's because Christ, unlike Lao Tzu, Abraham and the others, supposedly died and came back to life.

There is one sense that all religions are the same. They all share the same moral code (the Tao, the Ten Commandments, the Five Pillars, the Eight Fold way). And isn't that remarkable. As with the school kids, I have to wonder why?

On the other hand, regarding actual deities, religions can have a single god (Judaism), a triune god (Christianity), many gods (Hinduism), or no gods at all (Taoism), and as for heaven, it can be an actual garden (Islam), or a realm of pure spirit (Buddhism). Tell me how these are alike.

Three: Religious faith is only opinion.

The Christian faith claims that Christ was executed on the Friday before Jewish Passover in probably AD 30, but was then raised from death the following Sunday, and seen to be walking around in ancient Palestine. This alleged miracle occurred at a precise point in recorded history. Surely that would leave behind some record. This matters. If Christ stayed dead, there's no salvation for Christians. As Paul put it, without the resurrection, “Our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” While non-belief is purely opinion, Christianity a testable hypothesis. However, only by using historical method, and that raises another problem.

Four: Science, historical method and post-modernism.

Science is good with how questions, and most of the time, that doesn't matter. How the sky is blue fully explains the why of it, but what about the parting of the Red Sea. Why can't science help us understand that? Many believe 'Red Sea' is a mistranslation, and the actual water crossed was a shallow lake somewhere near the Suez Canal. Scripture informs us a strong wind blew ahead of the waters parting, and in parts of the world, strong winds are known to pile up water, sometimes exposing the sea bed below. If that's what happened, then how the sea parted can be explained entirely by physics. No need to assume the supernatural. Any miracle, if it exists, is in why this and why now, and that's outside the scope of scientific interest, meaning for it no miracle occurred.

On the other hand, why it happened when it happened might seem miraculous, and if it happened might be confirmed by historical research. This is also a fact-based discipline. However, while as empirical as science, it lacks the rigour of scientific method with its controlled and replicated experiments. Sadly, history doesn't provide for duplication or experimental control, and in any case, post-modernists, with some justification, maintain the winners cherry pick the facts. “History is bunk,” as Henry Ford said, and any research is considered flawed, its findings dismissed. That permits us to ignore evidence for the resurrection drawn from archaeology or ancient history.

Five: Moralistic therapeutic deism.

We are left now with a God of sorts but lacking Christ, and this has become the standard theology of many American believers. There is now a theology that grafts Buddhist thought onto American Exceptionalism and Pentecostalism, its name provided by the sociologists who've studied it. Google therapeutic moralistic deism. You'll find it has the following characteristics.

There is a God, and He is available to us on demand. This God wants us to be happy, and will come and fix our problems when we need Him. However, the rest of the time, He respects our independence and lets us lead our own lives but when we die, if we ourselves are satisfied with how well we've lived, He will reward us with heaven, whatever that means.

Now I can answer you. I believe in the resurrection, just as I believe my good works count for nothing with God. I am saved by faith in Christ alone. I also believe that God wants everyone else to be saved, but the Evil One has blinded most eyes to the truth of the gospel message – acknowledging we cannot hope to be the authors of our own salvation. We're all too much in love with ourselves.

Hope that helps.