Part of this written dialogue is below:

At this point, I think it would be helpful to clarify where our approaches agree and disagree, so I will summarize from my perspective, and you can comment on anything you think I got wrong. This will be a long post, so I have broken it up. Here is the outline

1. WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?
   1. Summary: God showing up would not be enough. “Empiricism” alone will not tell you whether or not God exists.
2. WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?
   1. Summary: We agree that there is an all-powerful, all-creative, infinite non-contingent cause
3. WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THE CAUSE WAS PERSONAL?
   1. Summary: A personal non-contingent cause must also be relational for us to know him.
4. SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS
   1. Summary: Because we have flawed brains, we should not bring our assumptions into the question of God’s existence.
5. WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS
   1. Summary: God’s goal is not for us to believe, but instead to have a relationship with him through the Gospel.
6. GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS
   1. Summary: God has given us a means to test the veracity of his existence – the Bible. And this is the pivotal point where we disagree.
7. WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR GOD FOR ME
   1. Summary: At the moment, atheist arguments are the strongest proof for me that God exists
8. YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS
   1. Summary: Blind skepticism will not accept evidence, but seeks a way to not have to deal with the evidence. Christian scholars because of the eternal consequences work hard to face the strongman arguments atheists have.
9. BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE
   1. Summary: The Christian God is the best explanation given the evidence that when all are added together approaches 100%.

WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?

I appreciate your understanding that we cannot trust our brains alone. Although I do not hold to solipsism, where we agree is that our brains are severely flawed and that we are often faulty interpreters of the world around us. I think this is why you hold “empiricism” in such a high esteem. The scientific method is something outside of ourselves though not independent of the brain that helps to hold us accountable and helps to mitigate these flaws. Though not perfect it provides checks and balances and helps us to get a better foundation on what is true. Because of this we both believe that the scientific method is a reliable means of finding truth. But “empiricism” alone has its limits. You asked, “What if the stars read, ‘I am Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent, creator of all’? would you accept this?” No, I would not. I have told you that I understand this skepticism that atheists have. My point in presenting this example of atheists saying that even if God showed up they would not believe was not to show that a certain amount of skepticism here is inappropriate, but that “empiricism” alone could not tell you the difference between whether or not this being was God or just a vastly superior being with greater technology or whether you have gone mad or not (although mass hallucinations like this don’t happen, so this really is not possible). The “Three Body Problem” fictional story even posits that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to alter our ability to do science. So, regardless of what “miracles” were performed or what great physical feats were presented “empiricism” will always allow for a means to not believe in God. Or in other words the “science in the gaps” will always allow for another possible explanation. If you have the perspective that as long as one can provide a “science in the gaps” argument, that that one should not believe in God, then “empiricism” will always lead to atheism. This kind of criterion is not an open-minded query, nor does it allow for the best explanation based on the data. We have both demonstrated this weakness of “empiricism”. Given this fact, it would be unwise to hold onto only “empiricism”, for it can only lead to one closed conclusion. It is clear that we need to look to more than “empiricism” to fully explore this question. In order to explore a question, one must allow for the full range of possibilities. I do believe that science provides evidence that is consistent with and points to the Christian God. But I would also argue that scholarly arguments outside of science but are well established and accepted lines of inquiry and evidence in academia provide sound evidence that the Christian God exists and give us a fuller picture of what that might mean and is a fuller explanation of the data we find, without having to appeal to an “in the gaps”.

WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?

What can we know with science? I think it would be helpful to qualify what we both agree we can know through science about the creation or eternal existence of our universe. The more we learn about our universe, the more we discover that our universe has fine-tuning and design. Despite that this has been used to bolster the argument for God, an argument that has its beginnings long before we knew what we know today in science, but has grown stronger the more and more we do learn about science, because of the repeatable and measurable evidence for fine-tuning it is something that is generally agreed on within the scientific community, though the terminology may be different. This growing evidence for fine-tuning has forced atheists to address this issue and grapple with what it means. Saying fine-tuning exists doesn’t establish a cause and obviously the atheist and theist have come to different conclusions.  But both atheists and theists would agree that there must either be an eternal non-contingent cause or an eternal cyclical cause and effect. And this is where the atheists and theists look to try to explain fine-tuning. Another condition that must be met is that this non-contingent cause must be able to explain the probability that we see within the fine-tuning and design within our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. This gets into a more complicated argument than we have room for here, but all this is without calculating the probabilities needed for evolution to occur or for the information found within the universe, which from what we can tell most likely cannot be preloaded into the universe at the beginning and so would be outside of the physics and cosmological constants that existed at the beginning of the universe. Here is a summary of the probabilities that must be overcome:

• Must be able to explain fine-tuning at every step.
• Must be able to overcome the gambler’s fallacy.
• Must be able to explain the directive nature of evolution and information, which from what we can tell cannot be pre-loaded into the universe at the beginning.
• Must be able to explain the information found in our universe.
• Must be able to explain design or apparent design at every step.
• Must be able to explain either the beginning or eternal aspect of nature

But to put it simply there are a lot of odds to overcome that go beyond the beginning of our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. But here we come to another point where both atheists and theists agree. In order to overcome this, the non-contingent cause must be all-powerful, capable of creating infinite universes, but not only infinite universes but be able to generate a full spectrum of universes in sufficient amounts to overcome the probabilities. This can be done by either having a full spectrum infinite multi-universe generator or using a process that weeds out all other possibilities but our own before creating our universe. Currently with what we know the first option could be both impersonal or personal. The second option is most likely personal. But let’s pause on where we do agree for a moment. We both agree that our universe was created by an invisible, eternal, all-powerful force. Interestingly, this conclusion reminds me of a quote from the agnostic Robert Jastrow, “He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers” (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition). What we can agree on and what we know to be true reminds me of the verse that says, “By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Neither the atheists nor theologians have specific 100% proof within science for their positions here. We just don’t know enough about science yet. But despite not having 100% proof both the scientist and the theologian believe or have faith that something eternal, all-powerful, and invisible created our universe. We agree that our universe “has not been made out things that are visible”. And we both believe that our universe was made out of something eternal and infinite. Science shows us that there is an all-powerful, eternal, invisible cause to our universe, but we still have to ask ourselves whether or not there is a personal cause behind this. Atheists believe that evidence will come to show that a self-existing multi-universe generator is possible. A directive force or a specific beginning is not something that atheists at this time support. Theists are open to either a self-existing multi-universe generator or a directive force behind our universe. I do think there are good arguments that show that science does point to God and has stronger explanatory power than that the atheist’s position, but I feel that I am not yet equipped to argue these points yet. I am still in the middle of my research, so I would rather leave the argument here, where I feel like we both have agreement. Regardless, the question remains whether or not the initial non-contingent cause of our universe is impersonal or personal. We cannot prove a non-personal or a non-relational personal cause, but if the cause is not only personal, but is also relational, we would suspect that this non-contingent cause could be found and known. But then we must ask how would this personal and relational non-contingent cause reveal himself?

WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD?

If the non-contingent cause is personal, we would only know this if that non-contingent cause chose to reveal himself. An all-powerful being could make a universe purely using science. Therefore, for us to know God, one of the things we could expect is that this God is both personal and relational. If this personal non-contingent cause were not relational, it would also probably be a moot point, since neither the atheist nor theist could have a relationship with this kind of god. So, I would argue that if there is a God, for us to have a relationship with this god, it would be important that this god be relational. And if the cause of the universe is relational, we have to ask ourselves, how would we come to know this creator? Afterall, we have both concluded that if God showed up “empiricism” would invalidate such an attempt. Though showing up would be a means of revealing himself, we would want more, since we are dealing with our flawed brains. So how would we come to know God given our flawed brains?

SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN PRESUMPTIONS?

One certain way to not know this God is to trust our flawed brains. Since a non-contingent cause is powerful enough to create a universe that is so far beyond us, that we are just getting started in exploring its depths, we cannot assume we can fully understand this God on our own power with our flawed brains. We would need this God to condescend and reveal to us who he is. One of the flaws of the atheist is that they bring in their own presumptions to this question. They trust their flawed brains and determine for themselves what this God ought to be like. You will often here questions phrased in the format of

1. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc., then he would . . . (fill in the blank)
2. Since God has not done . . . (fill in the blank), God does not exist.

Some examples are (fill in the blank) God would . . .:

• not be hidden.
• God would be clear in his revelation of himself
• would reveal himself in such and such a way.
• want me to believe.
• find a way to get me to believe.
• Prove himself 100% through empirical means.
• provide one definitive argument for God.
• not allow . . .
• not allow for suffering or evil
• not have done this.
• has not made the church I believe he said he would.
• have perfect church without disagreements on theology.
• conform to my interpretation of scripture.
• fit my expectations of what a god ought to be.
• Etc.

Like “empiricism” this approach presumes or forces a conclusion rather than performing an objective and open query. God must meet these made-up arbitrary requirements in order to exist. This is a deeply troubling approach for a group that states that they have a scientific approach and who state that we cannot trust our brains because they are flawed. These presumptions are flawed because they start with what our flawed brains assume God would be like. In my communication on the topic of the hiddenness of God I demonstrated that these presumptions are flawed and cannot stand up to scrutiny (for more go here). A scientific approach would not presume that we could bring our presumptions into this query. An all-powerful, all-creative, infinite relational being is not a “one-dimensional” being that we can presume to understand either what he is like or how this being would reveal himself. We are having enough difficulty understanding the physical universe or relationships in our lives. These are flawed arguments from flawed brains. As in science we can’t start with pre-conceived criteria or have an unmovable conclusion and expect to get anywhere. Because we have such flawed brains in order to know God, we would need something outside ourselves which like the scientific method would allow for accountability, evaluation, and testing.

WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS

We will get back to the question on how God has revealed himself, but first we need to address one of the errors atheists make first. They assume the goal God has for humanity is for them to believe that he exists. Or that there ought to be some definitive absolute evidence they can look to. This is a fallacious assumption. Atheists argue that God would know how to prove that he exists, with no effort. I agree, but that is not his goal. Atheists also argue that the Bible ought to be clearer. Again, you assume God’s purpose is to be clear. It is not. His goal is not for us to believe he exists or for the church to have perfect doctrine. His goal is to bring a people into relationship with himself through the power of the gospel. In our dialogue earlier on the “hiddenness of God”, I demonstrated that these assumptions atheists make would not be the goal of a perfectly loving God. I won’t go into it and rehash those arguments here. You can reread what I sent you (or go here). But for God to be both perfectly loving to those who come to him and to those who reject him, he must be “hidden”. And this fact in itself, his “hiddenness”, is evidence for God’s existence, for only a perfectly loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God could accomplish this.

 GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS

If God is relational, we can assume he would reveal himself. And I would argue he has in many sundry ways, some of which includes science, logic, philosophy, beauty, and personal experience. And for many this revelation is so extraordinary that it is enough for them to believe. But though he has revealed himself in these ways, these things alone can only tell us so much. For us to know God in a relational way, God must reveal himself in a relational way and in a way that does not violate his “hiddenness” which protects us. We intuitively know this in our own relationships with others. “Empiricism” is not relational. Even though we would not expect science to be inconsistent with God, if God were to reveal himself, certainly it would not be through “empiricism”, for as shown earlier “empiricism” would not be an effective means. We have both agreed that just showing up and even writing in the stars would not work. But we have also agreed that because of our flawed brains, we would want something outside of ourselves, something that can be evaluated, scrutinized, and tested. I have talked with my children on how personal experiences or hearing a “voice from heaven” would not be a valid means in of itself for God to reveal himself, since it is limited in the ways it could be evaluated or tested. People are flawed. There are conditions where people here voices that are not real. Many have “heard god”, only for it to be clear that they had not, whether from madness, selfishness manipulation, or from other voices. And our feelings and experiences as well can skew our thinking. And from these experiences there are many religions in the world. How do we know which one is true?

We must be careful not to take this too far and on the other side to say things like science and experience are not useful in coming to know God. Like science, experiences can point us to God, and we would expect these things to be consistent with God, but also like science because of our flawed brains we would need to be cautious. For example, the fine-tuning, design, and information arguments are extremely powerful arguments for God that have only grown stronger the more we have learned about science. But I think for the both of us, we would like to something more, we want something that takes into account our flawed brains, something that is subject to scrutiny and rigorous analysis and evaluation, after all how would we distinguish it from all the other religions as the true religion. Thankfully, God does not intend for us to rely on our flawed brains. The most powerful means by which God has revealed himself to us is through the Bible. The Bible is something that can be scrutinized, evaluated, and tested to see if its claims hold up and are true. It can be evaluated against other religions. It can be evaluated against science, logic, philosophy, and academia. It is something that can be evaluated outside our flawed brains. The reason I would not believe in Quetzalcoatl in the scenario above is because there is no such evidence. If Jesus showed up on the other hand I would already have enough vast and extraordinary evidence to believe.

And here is the pivotal point where we disagree. You do not believe that the Bible holds up to scrutiny. I believe it does. You don’t believe that the Bible conforms with the world you see around you, with science, or even is consistent with itself. I on the other hand do believe that the Bible is consistent with the world I see around me, with science, and is consistent with itself.

WHAT IS MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR GOD – ATHIEST ARGUMENTS

You asked me what my strongest argument for God is. For me it is the integrity of the Bible. A follow up question might be what for me is the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible. At this moment, for me, the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible are atheist arguments. I have mentioned to you before that I believe in putting the strong men in the ring and letting them fight to the death. Atheist arguments rather than doing this stick a strawman in the ring and fight against that. Within this group though I have not read everything posted, from what I have read, I have not seen one argument that actually attacks the Christian faith or the Bible. We have both determined that the brain is flawed and is often not a reliable interpreter of the data. There are both atheists and theists who believe in a “flat earth” and they claim to have science to back them up. You will say that they are not using science correctly. Bingo! This is my point. When atheists make claims against the veracity of the Bible, they fail to use the Bible correctly, just as flat earthers fail to use science correctly. This is why when coming to the scriptures we must rely on proper hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship and an open mind. It is clear when atheists talk about the Bible, they have no clue what they are talking about, nor does it seem that they are willing to do the arduous work to understand. You state that there are 1000s of inconsistencies in the Bible. Let’s be honest, we both know that there are only a handful worth talking about, and of those none of them touch doctrine or faith. What I have found in atheists’ arguments is a very narrow understanding of the Christian faith and a lack of engagement with the robust scholarship within Christian community to the point where most of the arguments I have come across can only be described as slander. Sure, perusing the internet or social media you will find poor Christian answers, but I am talking about the well-studied, professionally researched, scholastic work that has been done. The stuff that requires more than a casual engagement and requires years and years of challenging work. When I sent you a link to videos, you said there were a lot. The reality is you will probably not do the hard work. And I understand the challenge and the difficulty of what I ask, you are a busy person. And what I sent was basic stuff, it would only begin to touch the work done to answer atheists’ questions. But this is the type of scholastic work that atheists fail to address against the Christian faith, because they don’t have the inclination to do this kind of work. Because you have not done the work, you have not been able to present a legitimate argument against the Bible or the Christian faith.

And this is why I believe the Bible; it has been tested. It has been tested by the harshest critics, the strongest strongmen atheists have to offer, and it has stood up to that test. You have not been able to provide not even one valid argument against the Christian faith but insist on believing that you do have a good argument. On the other hand, Atheist arguments have consistently demonstrated errors in logic and scholarship. Here are a few.

Places where Atheists violate proper literary textual analysis

• Authorial intent errors
• Cultural
• Wooden literalism
• Assumption of presentism
• Genre Fallacy
• Contextual analysis error
• Etymology error
• Synchronic meaning error
• Syntactic Fallacy
• Symantec range Fallacy
• Argument of Silence Fallacy
• Description is not prescription
• Assume a different definition
• Assume a static scene
• False dilemma
• Fallacy of false equivocation
• Elephant hurling
• Species fallacy
• Sweeping generalization fallacy
• Subset fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy

YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS

You will say, “Well it is on you to prove to me that God exists. I have a lack of belief, It should not be hard to prove your case”. Have you ever tried to reason with someone who believes in a “flat earth”? The reason people believe in the “flat earth” is not because they are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite. The problem is that our flawed brains are quite intelligent and able to come up with arguments to support what we believe. Despite the evidence you give “flat earthers”, and despite the fact that it is common sense evidence, they are smart enough are able to come up with an answer to why that evidence is irrelevant, without having to actually address the evidence itself. And this is often how blind skepticism works. Most of the arguments you have given me are reasons why you don’t have to evaluate the evidence. If skepticism is your foundation, evidence becomes a lot less relevant in the discussion. Whatever evidence is produced, blind skepticism can explain it away or ignore it, without facing and addressing the actual arguments or evidence.

You might ask, “How do I know that I have not done the same with my arguments for God?” Because I and other Christian scholars work hard to try to understand the depths of atheists’ arguments and represent them fairly. If I have misunderstood one of your arguments, I want to know. Remember we have stronger eternal motives in wanting to convince atheists to believe in God. We cannot do this well if we don’t understand what atheists believe and actually address the questions they are having. Good Christian scholars work hard to put the strongest man for the atheists in the ring. Not only do they try to fully address atheist strong man arguments, but they also try to make atheist arguments even stronger. Christian scholars work hard to allow atheists to put the strong man into the ring. I don’t see the same rigor among atheists. Again, I have not seen one post in this group that actually attacks the Christian faith. After seeing the Bible time and time again put these strongman arguments to death, you start to develop a trust in its veracity. When time and time again you see atheists putting strawman and fallacious reasoning into the ring, the less and less you feel like you can take their arguments seriously. I believe the Bible because there are objective means outside my brain that allow me to test its veracity. Christianity is probably the most scrutinized religion and the Bible the most scrutinized book. Both have held against that scrutiny. And I am not talking about the fact that Christianity still exists. I am talking about the fact that Christianity actually addresses strong man arguments put up against it. Take our conversations, I have been able to demonstrate several points of fallacious reasoning within your arguments. I don’t think my arguments are perfect either, but you have not been able to do the same with my arguments.

BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE

Why do I believe in God. I believe in God because given the evidence in the science, in philosophy, in psychology, in history, in art, the presence of evil, morality, ethics, personal experience and the experience of others, and in the Bible, the Christian God has the fullest and best explanatory power for what I see in this world. I can’t give you one definitive proof that God exists, but all these things put together the probability that God exists approaches 100%.

How would I convince you that there is a God? I don’t know. I am not naive, just as “flat earthers” have their answers to evidence presented to them, so too atheists have their answers. The reality is I am not going to be able to provide you a one fits all definitive argument to suddenly convince you that God exists. This is not how our flawed brains work. This is not how you would convince a “flat earther” even though we both know that the evidence for the globe is overwhelming and is absolutely right. I think these things just happen over time as we dialogue.  But I suppose this is not surprising if God cares more about relationship than belief.

Peter could remember that during his ministry, Jesus spoke of and warned Jerusalem with tears of the coming judgment that awaited them, for they had rejected the coming of God in their midst. Jesus had told him and the other disciples, “Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” As Peter stood there before the crowd on Pentecost, he knew the world would never be the same, Jesus was on his throne and a new age had come.

After the darkness had fallen over Jerusalem, Jesus resurrected, conquered death, and ascended to glory to sit at the right hand of God. And now forty days later, during Pentecost, the disciples had been gathered together in prayer, when tongues of fire fell upon them, and they began to proclaim the mighty works of God. Now, as those who were around them were astonished and sought to understand the things happening, Peter, in this first sermon, describes the coming storm and the coming of this new age,

      “ ‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, 
      that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,  
                     . . .
       in those days I will pour out my Spirit, 
       and they shall prophesy. 
      And I will show wonders in the heavens above 
          and signs on the earth below, 
          blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; 
      the sun shall be turned to darkness 
      and the moon to blood, 
      before the day of the Lord comes, 
      the great and magnificent day. 
               (Acts 2:17a,18b–20, ESV)

Peter declares to the men of Israel, now, what they are seeing before them, is this time Joel spoke of. Now are the last days of the old age. And though Jesus had been delivered over to death by lawless men, death could not hold him. Jesus not only conquered death but was now sitting on his throne. Jesus had begun his rule and had begun the work of putting his enemies under his feet. Peter quotes Psalm 110:1, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool”, admonishing them “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:34-35, ESV). Those in the crowd were aware of the darkness that had fallen over Jerusalem and the rumors surrounding Jesus’ life and death. As Peter spoke of Jesus’ resurrection, and his ascension to the throne at the right hand of God, those who heard his words understood the implications of Peter’s words. A war was coming, and Jesus was going to conquer his enemies. Their judgment was near. Peter confirmed these fears, warning to the crowd, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40). On hearing these things, “They were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).

Acts begins with these words, “In my first book, O Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach . . ..” Luke is clear that Acts is a continuation of the works of Jesus. As Jesus sat on his throne, because of what he did at the cross, the Holy spirit was being unleashed on the world. Jesus, told his disciples, “I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged” (John 16:7–11, ESV). So as Acts opens, Jesus is on his throne, active in this world and has begun to put his enemies under his feet through the power of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel. The war had begun. Judgement was coming for Jerusalem and the old age. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice and his perfect priesthood, the Temple was no longer needed. The old age was dying as the new age was taking over.

In these early chapters of Acts we see this war taking place as the rulers of Jerusalem try to hold on to their kingdoms in midst of the conquering power of the Gospel. They try to prevent the preaching of the Gospel and the speaking of the name of Jesus. Later in Acts as the Gospel spreads to the Gentiles it is said that preaching of the Gospel has turned the world upside down. The Gospel had not come to play nice, but instead it had come to make war and to conquer and that war had begun in Jerusalem.

Before we meet Annanias and Sapphira, we are told that many who had come to faith had sold their land and laid the proceeds at the apostles’ feet to be distributed to any who had need. Jerusalem is the only place we see amongst the church where this was practiced. Though it does not explicitly give the reason for this, we do see in these early passages of Acts hints to that they were aware that Jerusalem was a ticking time bomb. Jesus had warned that judgement would come within their generation, and as Peter had said, they had witnessed the prophesied signs of that judgement. Jesus had warned that when that time comes, and they see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, they were to flee and not pause to take anything with them, just as Lot was rushed out and warned not look back as he fled Sodom. What they owned in Jerusalem would not last, especially the land. Israel throughout the wilderness narrative, though they were called out of Egypt for the Promised Land, longed to go back to Egypt. This looking back, this holding on to the old kingdom, was to their destruction and kept them from entering the Promised Land. For the early church, the physical Jerusalem was no longer their hope, but as with Abraham they were looking to a kingdom not built by human hands. The epistle of Hebrews speaks of this when warning those who wished to “look back” to Jerusalem and to the Law with its sacrificial system. Hebrews urges them to follow the example of those who have walked in faith before us, by “admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. And we are not to “return” or “hold on” to our former country, but as Abraham we are to leave it behind. And though there may be opportunity to return, instead we are looking for a better country – a heavenly one (Hebrews 11:13-16, paraphrased). So, their selling of their lands though truly an act of charity, for the Christian faith certainly invokes such profound acts of love, was more than an act of charity, it was also an act of faith, rejecting the kingdom of this world that was fading away, and whose judgement was sure and declaring the surety of the promises of God in the Gospel to bring us into a Kingdom whose foundation is sure and everlasting.

So throughout Acts we see the Kingdom of God coming to conquer the world. Let’s look back at another time when Israel had come to conquer the Promised Land. When Joshua took Israel into the Promised Land, they were to completely destroy the pagan culture in the land, as they trampled under their feet the old kingdoms and brought the new kingdom under the rule of the God of Israel.

In their first battle with Jericho, this city, as Jerusalem would be in 70 A.D., had been given over to destruction. All that was within Jericho had been declared devoted to the Lord. Just as the church fleeing Jerusalem were not to stop to take things with them, so too Israel was not to take any of the spoils from the fallen Jericho with them. And yet after this first battle with Jericho, a man named Achan, in love with the things of this old world held on to a beautiful cloak and money, objects that had been devoted to destruction. Symbolically, when he held on to these things he was holding on to the old pagan kingdom. As in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, the LORD says of Achan that he had transgressed the covenant and kept for himself things that were devoted to the LORD, declaring that Achan lied and hid his actions and his possessions from the congregation. And based on the context, most likely with the full knowledge and consent of his family. Before Ananias and Sapphira sold the land it was theirs to do with as they pleased, when they sold it, the proceeds were still theirs to dispose of it as they wished. But when they came before the congregation and set it aside declaring it as fully devoted to the Lord, it was no longer theirs to do with it as they wished, it was the Lord’s. And as with Achan, they transgressed the covenant, stole from the Lord, and lied and hid their actions from the congregation. They lied to the Holy Spirit and the church. This was no small sin. Though they might fool the church, they could not fool the Holy Spirit. And as the Lord exposed Achan’s sin and he was put to death, so too their sin was exposed by the Holy Spirit, and they died. Both of Achan’s death and the death of Ananias and Sapphira serve as a vivid and concrete warning to all who desire to hold on to the things of this world. The Gospel is at war with this world and with our sinful hearts and separates us from this old kingdom. We cannot hold on to the old world for if we do, we will be destroyed with it.

We don’t know what the eternal state of Ananias and Sapphira was. Both with Achan and Ananias and Sapphira, their sin affected the congregation not just themselves and served as a vivid warning. This act symbolized more than greed, but a holding on to an age that Jesus was at war with, and God wanted to make clear that the old world must die. The most we can say for sure is that their deaths were a means to make this point clear. And there are other passages like this where God putting someone to death does not tell us of the person’s eternal state. In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he says some have become ill and some have died because they have approached the Lord’s supper inappropriately and were profaning it. And on top of this the rich were taking advantage of the poor, something we know the Lord detests. But it also follows with this hope, “But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:32). Or take the case of Uzzah who merely touched the ark when he saw oxen startled and probably with good intention and was struck dead. We cannot make any assumptions. But the warning in these stories is clear. And it is a warning we see throughout the Bible, flee the things of this world for it is marked out for destruction, do not hold on to them, leave them behind, don’t look back, flee the judgement to come, and come to Jesus.

Hebrews was written to address those who because of persecution were considering leaving Christianity and going back to the Law of Moses and the sacrificial system. The writer of Hebrews explains, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13, ESV). When Christ died and rose again the Temple and the sacrificial system was declared obsolete and could no longer bring them to repentance even if they sought it with tears and weeping. The only means for repentance was through Jesus. As the Gospel was being preached in the book of Acts the old Temple system was vanishing away, and would be finally destroyed in 70 AD. So yes, in the book of Acts, we see a war taking place within Jerusalem between the kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God. Those who believed the words of Jesus and the judgment to come were choosing to leave the old Jerusalem behind, for a new Jerusalem that cannot be shaken. In Acts 5 this understanding consisted of realizing that the property they owned was fading away and they couldn’t take it with them and so they sold it and gave the proceeds to the church.  

So now what does this mean for us? This all may be true, but what is the comfort? If you are like me, this passage leaves you uncomfortable, trembling as fear creeps up and is difficult to shake off. And as seen in the passage, we are not alone. At the death of Ananias and Sapphira, great fear fell upon the church. I instinctively know that I am no better than Ananias and Sapphira. Doesn’t my own heart hold on to the things of this world? Surely it does. Or more honestly, with me, I know it does. Though I desire to put to death my flesh, I am like Paul in Romans 7, a wretched man failing every step of the way, still doing the things I hate, and not doing the things I love. When my pastor preached on Acts 5, he noted that Peter, who seems to stand tall in this scene, would later fail and once again act in a way contrary to the Gospel, when he, on coming to Antioch, “drew back” and chose to eat separately from the Greeks. He, like Ananias and Sapphira, allowed pride and wanting to be seen as great before men dictate his behavior. When he did this, he did not only compromise himself, but also the other Jews followed his example. Even Barnabas, who was singled out before the incident with Ananias and Sapphira as one who did indeed sold a field and brought all the money to the apostles, fell into sin with Peter. When this happened, Paul is not shy with his words; he states that Peter “stood condemned” and that “their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel.” So, tell me, if even this great man was prone to fail, what is my hope?

When God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, they were commanded to spread Eden over the face of the whole world. The Kingdom of God was to conquer the world. However, because of their desire for something more than God and his kingdom, they took for themselves what was forbidden, and attempted to hide their sin. When the LORD came, judgement was pronounced, and death came into the world. As Achan’s sin brought death to others, so because of Adam’s sin, death came to all mankind. So, this clinging on to the forbidden and hiding our sin is not just an issue with Adam and Eve, Annanias and Sapphira, or Achan, we too fall under the same condemnation.

One of the great hymns, Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing describes this struggle I feel, “Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it; Prone to leave the God I love.” I am so prone to be distracted by the beauty of this world, wanting to hold onto it, and not let it go. Thankfully, the song does not leave us in despair, it describes how grace, like a fetter, binds and seals are hearts to God. For we have been purchased by Jesus’ blood. And this is the theme of Hebrews as well as it warns us not to hold on to the old age. God through Jesus has accomplished our salvation once for all and He draws us to himself. After describing those who in the past walked by faith, the writer of Hebrews says, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfector of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:1-2, ESV). Paul in his struggles with holding on to sin states, Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! . . . . There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 7:24-8:1). Jesus has conquered and sits on his throne and will accomplish his work in me.

The opposite of hiding and clinging on to our sin is confessing our sin and calling upon the name of the LORD to deliver us from our sin. As our hearts struggle with sin, do we hide our sin and shrink back, or do we come to the Lord with our sin and lay it down at his feet, trusting in the work and worth of Jesus alone? For as we lay down our sins, not trusting in our own works, but in the works of Jesus, we can come before the throne of grace and live. There is no need to hide, even in our most grievous sin. David experienced this, “For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away, through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin”(Psalm 32:3-4, ESV). And so, we are called to “Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding which must be curbed with bit and bridle, or it will not stay near you” (Psalm 32:9, ESV). We are to come close to our Father.

Instead of death, as we come before God’s throne in Christ, the Father, as a parent washing their kid, lovingly washes us and brings healing through the blood of Jesus. The writer of Hebrews goes on to describe this comfort we have in the midst of God’s discipline in the church,

And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

      “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,

      nor be weary when reproved by him.

      For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,

      and chastises every son whom he receives.”

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. (Hebrews 12:5–13, ESV)

In the first sermon of this war as the Gospel moves to conquer, Peter predicates our victory on the fact that Jesus is sitting on his throne. And it is because of this fact that we can run to Jesus, who is the founder and perfector of our faith. The victory has been accomplished. When Peter spoke of the judgement to come, the people “were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ Peter gives us the answer to how we are to save ourselves from this crooked generation, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:37-39, ESV).

So, when we read these passages, there must be no doubt that these passages are anchored in the fact that Jesus is sitting on his throne, and will conquer our hearts, for he alone is the founder and perfector of our faith. He has made a covenant promise that he will save all those who call upon the name of Jesus. The passage about Annanias and Sapphire is sandwiched between statements of the church conquering Jerusalem, the gospel spreading, and many coming to the faith. Adam and Eve’s sin, Achan’s sin, Annanias and Sapphira’s sin, and even my sin are not enough to prevent the advancement of the Kingdom of God. This passage ends with, “The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed” (Acts 5:16). After this act of discipline, the war was now going out beyond the confines of Jerusalem and bringing healing. God’s discipline brings healing, therefore the writer of Hebrews can say in the midst of God’s discipline, “lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.” God’s discipline reminds us of and brings us back to the Gospel. And so, we see that the aftermath of the stark discipline in Acts 5 ushered in an expansion of the kingdom and healing of many through the power of the gospel.

Prayer: May the God who cherishes me guide me through his nurturing discipline, conquering my heart and putting to death anything inside of me that holds on to this age. For it is in his discipline that I am liberated from the sin that clings to me, overwhelms me, and weighs me down. And it is through his rebuke that my lamed feet are healed. It is my Father’s loving discipline that allows me to run faster to the one I love. “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16, ESV).

—

Foot note: We cannot say definitively what the motivations were behind those selling the land, but it is clear from these passages that the old kingdom with its Temple practices was passing away, and a New Kingdom, founded in Jesus, was taking its place. A seismic shift was taking place in the land just as occurred when the Israelites came into the promised land under Joshua. It is also clear that the gifts that were presented and laid at the apostles’ feet were declared fully devoted to the Lord, making their holding back a portion a serious offense, just as Achan held back a portion of the things devoted to the Lord. We see a similar situation with Saul, when he did not handle the things devoted to the Lord appropriately. And from epistle of Hebrews, we know there was this tension between holding on to the old Temple and its practices in light of the finished work of Christ.

– – –

Here is a link to the sermon my pastor preached on Acts 5. It is a sermon on the healing power of this passage as the Gospel is unleashed in the fullness of its power – The Law | Acts 4:33-5:16 (youtube.com).

When God’s way is presented, there are all these objections because it doesn’t fit our conventional way of thinking.

When the crowds of 5,000 people were hungry, the disciples came to Jesus and told him it would be best to let the crowds go and buy food. This would have been the responsible and rational thing to do. . . .

Hebrews 11 says that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”

God does not work by the standards of this world, or by the science, or by worldly wisdom. He is God. He is God and He is worthy of our trust.

I don’t want to live by the world’s conventions. I don’t want to do business the same way. I don’t want to be safe in how I live my life. I want to live by faith, which is not the safe way, because it is having faith in someone who makes things happen from the unseen. Whether in the mundane or in the not so mundane, this should be the norm for Christians. We must live our lives and make decisions based on a belief in a God that is not regulated to the rules of this world.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Added on November 4, 2009

Hebrews 11 says that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”

When the disciples suggested sending the 5,000 away, so that they could get food. They did this because it was what was realistic for that situation. Christ came into that situation to show them something even more real and more realistic. He took 5 loaves and two fish and fed 5,000 people and had 12 basketfuls left over. This defied logic. It defied science. It defied any ability of man.

God’s ways are not defined by the world. Christ has called us into a Kingdom that is more real than this age. This is why we come to God’s word like a child who trusts his Father. His word is true and believable and trustworthy. And so, we live our lives by these words.

For the word of the Lord is upright,
and all his work is done in faithfulness.
He loves righteousness and justice;
the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord.
By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
and by the breath of his mouth all their host.
He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap;
he puts the deeps in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm. – Psalm 33:4-9

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, – 2 Peter 3:5

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. – Hebrews 11:3

Here is what is significant. God the heavens and earth with His spoken word. God did this for a reason. The artist, the God who could have created the universe by any means, chose purposely and deliberately to use the spoken word. And even though the world sees this as foolish, by faith we know this to be true, because the word of the Lord is upright. God made this choice to create the worlds by His word, because He was going to use the same means to create something more significant and more difficult with the spoken word – new life. It is the foolishness of the preaching of the word that God uses to bring a dead man’s soul to life. And this word, this gospel, has power. This is why we preach the Gospel. Because the word of the Lord has power and will not return to Him void. When God says, “Let there be light”. There is light.

There is another significance to this. Christ is the Word. And just as all created things were made through him and are sustained by Him. So, it is the same with this new life.

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. – Romans 10:14-17

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. – 1 Corinthians 1:21