16. Kwessies waarmee die ongelowige wêreld gelowiges voortdurend konfronteer
Die argumente wat ons die meeste hoor is dat daar geen bewys van die bestaan van ‘n Opperwese is nie, dat die Bybel homself weerspreek, dat geloof ‘n psigologiese verskynsel is, dat ‘n liefdevolle God tog nie al die lyding op aarde sou toelaat en selfs veroorsaak nie, dat gelowiges deur die eeue self baie liefdeloos was - onder andere kolonialiste en Afrikaner-nasionaliste, dat die wonderwerke in die Bybel opgemaakte stories is en dat die wetenskap toenemend alle vrae beantwoord en vraagstukke oplos. Hiervolgens is die sogenaamde psigologiese rol en waarde van ‘n Opperwese besig om te vervaag. En dan natuurlik dat daar geen grond vir die gesag van die Bybel is nie. Ons kyk na ‘n paar hiervan.
Die bestaan van ‘n Opperwese
Die skeptiese aantyging vanuit ongelowige geledere is nie eerstens dat daar nie ‘n Drie-enige God is nie, maar dat daar nie ‘n Skepper is nie. En as daar nie ‘n Skepper was nie, dan verval die gesprek oor Christus en die Heilige Gees outomaties. Die debat gaan dus wesenlik oor ‘n Skepper en die algemene vraag is: “Waar is die bewys?”
Die eerste belangrike punt is dat die nie-bewys van iets nie beteken dat dit nie bestaan nie. Dit beteken net dat daar nie genoeg onafhanklike getuienis beskikbaar is waaruit die bestaan sonder twyfel afgelei kan word. Of anders gestel, as persoon A ‘n anonieme skenking maak, maar daar is nie getuienis om sy identiteit te bewys nie, neem dit nie die feit weg dat persoon A wel die skenker was nie.
Oor die vraag wie, wat in ‘n debat moet bewys, kan mens ook sê dat die persoon wat beweer dat daar nie ‘n Opperwese is nie, ook ‘n bewyslas het. Hy kan sekerlik sê dat hy nie aan God glo nie, maar as hy onomwonde verklaar dat daar nie ‘n God is nie, dan moet hy ook sy eie stelling kan bewys, of erken dat dit ook op aanvaarding of geloof berus.
Die verskil tussen gelowiges en ongelowiges is dat eersgenoemde se stelling dat daar ‘n God is op ‘n kombinasie van (Bybel)kennis en vertroue berus. Hy gee nie voor dat hy ‘n wetenskaplike stelling maak nie. Hy maak ‘n geloofsverklaring (met getuienis wat dit ondersteun).
God openbaar homself in die Bybel en in die natuur. En daar is getuienis vir die bestaan van God in die natuur - let wel, nie eenduidige bewys nie, maar sterk getuienis. Ons kan dit eenvoudig so stel: Waar kom alles vandaan? Hoe het alles begin? Die Heelal (ruimte-tyd en dit daarbinne) het ‘n begin gehad. En iets wat ‘n begin het, moet ‘n oorsaak hê wat buite dit self staan. ‘n Skepper of skeppingsmag kan nie self binne die raamwerk en die wette staan van dit wat hy skep nie. Dink bietjie hieroor na.
Dit is nie net filosofiese denke wat sê dat die heelal ‘n begin gehad het nie. Die wetenskap vertel ook vir ons vandag dat die wêreld ‘n begin gehad het. ‘n Skeppingsmag buite die wêreld moes daardie begin aan die gang gesit het. Anders kon daar nie ‘n begin gewees het nie. Ja, daar is hipoteses oor opeenvolgende heelalle (bv. deur die fisikus Roger Penrose), maar die meeste fisici, selfs ongelowige fisici, byt (nog) nie daaraan nie.
‘n Ander redenasie ten gunste van intelligente skepping gaan oor kompleksiteit. Hoe meer kompleks ‘n samestelling is, hoe groter is die kans dat dit deur ‘n ingryping van buite (‘n onafhanklike skepper) veroorsaak is.
Michael Behe, professor in biochemie van die Lehigh Universiteit, het na indringende studie van lewensstelsels tot die konklusie gekom dat die samestelling van lewenstelsels (DNA en RNA strukture en liggaamsfunksies) so kompleks en afhanklik van mekaar is dat dit nie afgebreek kan word tot onafhanklike komponente nie. Met ander woorde, dit kon nie natuurlik ontwikkel het tot lewe nie, omdat daar te veel komponente is wat van die ander afhanklik is en nie opsigself tot stand kon kom nie. Lewensvorme moes dus opeens deur ‘n skeppingsproses tot stand gekom het.
‘n Voorbeeld waaroor onsself kan nadink is die sogenaamde natuurlike ontwikkeling van verskillende geslagte (genders). Kan ons ons enigsins indink dat dit die resultaat van spontane natuurlike ontwikkeling is?
Die argument van ongelowiges is dat die wetenskap toenemend aantoon hoe natuurlike ontwikkeling plaasvind, onder andere deur seleksie, mutasie en die oorlewing van die sterkste. En dat dit die finale verklaring bied. Maar soos hierbo aangetoon, is dit ‘n argument sonder bewys en met sy eie doolhowe en beperkings.
Aan die ander kant vind ons ook dat gelowiges wat die Ou Testamentiese beskrywings deurgaans letterlik en in isolasie, eerder as perspektiewelik, interpreteer, hulle ook soms vasloop teen dit wat deur die natuur geopenbaar word.
‘n Ordelike Skepping
Ons het reeds genoem dat die wêreld deur God op ‘n ordelike wyse geskape is. Ruimte, tyd, stof, plant, dier en mens het daardeur tot stand gekom. Die kernboodskap van Genesis 1.
Daar is baie aspekte van die Skepping wat glad nie, of net in ‘n beperkte mate, in die Bybel geopenbaar word. Die grootte, struktuur, samestelling en werking van die Heelal kry baie min aandag en waar dit wel beskryf word, word dit dikwels deur middel van metafore gedoen om dit vir die eerste lesers verstaanbaar te kon maak.
Om die natuur in die Bybel te beskryf in terme van ‘n uitdyende heelal, ‘n aarde wat om die son draai en die son as ‘n baie middelmatige ster wat as deel van ‘n sonnestelsel om die kern van ‘n groter stelsel wentel, asook in terme van mikroskopiese deeltjies en kwantumfisika, sou nie die doel van die Bybelse openbaring gedien het nie.
Die Bybel is nie ‘n wetenskaplike handboek nie. Die tema is Skepping, Sondeval en Verlossing. Nie ‘n uiteensetting van hoe alles geskape is nie. Dit is nie die essensie van die skriftuurlike openbaring nie en sou ook nie vir die lesers in ‘n voorwetenskaplike wêreld sin gemaak het nie.
Dit is verder belangrik om in ag te neem dat die ordelikheid en wetmatigheid van die natuur soos ons dit vandag ken, nie beteken dat ons in ‘n volmaakte natuurlike wêreld lewe nie. Dit is ‘n gebroke wêreld met droogtes, oorstromings, aardbewings, siektes en botsings tussen hemelligame. Dit is nog nie die Nuwe Aarde nie.
Kreasionisme en Ewolusionisme
As ons die rol en interaksie tussen die Skepping en natuurlike ontwikkeling (ewolusie) wil verstaan, moet ons ook onderskei tussen die begrippe Skepping en Kreasionisme, asook Ewolusie en Ewolusionisme.
Ons het reeds oor die Skepping gepraat. Kreasionisme verwys na ‘n fundamentalistiese siening wat die Skepping en ontstaan van alles wat ons vandag ervaar tot letterlik ses dae beperk en geen ruimte vir verdere natuurlike ontwikkeling toelaat nie.
Ewolusionisme verwys na ‘n spontane proses van ontstaan en ontwikkeling waar alles oor tyd plaasvind en waar daar geen Skepper was nie.
Wat sê ‘n Christengelowige dan van ewolusie? Is dit ‘n onbybelse begrip? Ewolusionisme ontken die bestaan van ‘n Skepper en is per definisie onbybels. Die Bybel praat nie oor ewolusie nie en daar is ook nie ‘n dwingende rede vir die Bybel om daarmee om te gaan nie, net soos wat daar talle ander natuurverskynsels is waarna nie in die Bybel verwys word nie.
‘n Tweede belangrike punt is dat die Bybel nie ons enigste openbaringsbron is nie. Die natuur is self ook ‘n algemene bron van openbaring wat deur sy struktuur en die werking van natuurkragte tot ons spreek. Die natuur en die wetenskap wys vir ons die verskynsel van orde, ontwikkeling, natuurlike seleksie, verbetering en vooruitgang. Maar dit wys ook dat dit nie ‘n eenrigtingverkeer is nie. Daar is ook agteruitgang en uitsterwing.
Die werklike belangrike punt is dat God die wêreld ordelik en dus wetmatig geskape het. Dit laat ruimte vir verdere ontwikkeling in plant, dier en mens. Ruimte vir die ontwikkeling van nuwe spesies waarvan sommige sal floreer en ander weer mettertyd verdwyn. En ons weet ook dat God in die werking van die natuur kan ingryp en dinge in ‘n nuwe rigting kan stuur, via mutasies, natuurrampe, reën, droogte, siekte, gesondheid, nuwe wetenskaplike ontdekkings, of wat ook al.
Die siening dat alles natuurlik en sonder Goddelike beskikking ontwikkel het, is duidelik onbybels. Presies hoe God plant, dier en mens geskape het (in fisiese terme beskryf) is nie deurslaggewend nie. Wat deurslaggewend is, is die ingrypende, onoorbrugbare verskil tussen die mens en die dier. Die mens is geskep met die inherente vermoë om in ‘n bewuste geloofsverhouding met God te lewe, en ook die geloof te kan verwerp. Dit is die kernverskil tussen mens en dier. Die res is graadverskille. Die Bonobo-sjimpansee en die mens se DNA stem byna 99% ooreen. Maar dit maak hierdie sjimpansee nie amper mens nie. Hy is nie “meer mens” as ‘n hond of ‘n kat nie.
Om oor na te dink: Daar is reeds baie ontdekkings gemaak van prehistoriese mense wat selfs as ander spesies geklassifiseer word. Die moderne mens en die Neanderthal-mens het skynbaar gemeng en afstammelinge geproduseer. Wat sê ons hiervan? Wat sê ons van die ontdekking van primitiewe mensvorms wat ‘n gebrekkige taal/kommunikasievermoë gehad het?
Menslike lyding en die liefde van God
Een van die groot wapens in die arsenaal van die ongelowige, meer bepaald diegene wat nie in ‘n liefdevolle God glo nie, is die vraagstuk van menslike lyding. Daar is twee verskynsels daarvan wat bespreking verdien.
Die eerste is hoe ‘n liefdevolle God soveel lyding op aarde kan toelaat, ook onder gelowiges? Verder nog, lyding wat nie net deur ongelowiges veroorsaak word nie, maar ook deur gelowiges.
Die antwoord vind ons primêr in die volgende gedagtes. Ons lewe in ‘n gebroke wêreld veroorsaak deur die Sondeval. Met die Sondeval het God dit duidelik gemaak dat verdriet en lyding die mens se lot sal wees, beginnende by Adam en Eva wat God self geken het. Maar God het ook deur die eeue deurlopend onverdiende genade betoon en die mens kon oorleef. Dit sal so wees tot aan die einde.
As ons logies daarna kyk, dan weet ons dat omdat ons in ‘n gebroke wêreld leef, goed en kwaad aan mekaar betekenis verleen. Ons sal nie weet wat goed beteken as ons nie ook kwaad ken nie. En jy kan nie die begrip kwaad werklik ken as jy dit nie self kan ervaar nie, as dit net met ander gebeur nie. Is die wese van die keuse om goed te doen nie juis daarin geleë dat die persoon die kwaad kon gekies het, maar dit nie gedoen het nie?
Dit is natuurlik nie ‘n gemaklike antwoord nie, veral nie as jy self erg beproef word nie. Dink aan iemand wat ‘n kind verloor het, ‘n parapleeg raak, verkrag is of deur ‘n langdurige pynlike lyding gaan sonder enige hoop op beterskap. Ons lewe in ‘n tyd van stryd met ‘n gebroke wêreld en gebroke mense. En ons verstand en begrip is ook nie daarvan kwytgeskeld nie. Die hoop vir die gelowige lê daarin dat God in beheer is en dat ons aan die einde van ons lewe op hierdie wêreld by Hom sal wees.
‘n Verdere gedagte hieroor is dat mense dikwels jare nadat hulle beproef is of hulle lewens baie skeefgeloop het, gesê het dat hulle later tog die waarde van die beproewing besef het en dat hulle eintlik daardeur verryk is. Dit is natuurlik nie ‘n sprokie nie. Soms is die trauma en lyding net te erg om dit as verrykend te kan ervaar. Nee, ons verstaan nie alles nie.
Die tweede voorbeeld van erge wreedheid en lyding het mense deur die eeue al baie besig gehou, naamlik die opdrag van God aan die Israeliete om die Kanaäniete uit te wis - man, vrou, kind en al hulle diere. Hier gaan dit nie net oor ‘n keuse tussen goed en kwaad nie, maar oor ‘n opdrag van God om volke of gemeenskappe geheel en al uit te wis.
Daar was al pogings om dit te verstaan of te verklaar as iets simbolies wat nie werklik presies so gebeur het nie. Maar om dit as ‘n simboliese of metaforiese beskrywing te verklaar, oortuig nie. Dit is nie net enkele stellings wat gemaak word of ‘n enkele insident nie. In Josua en Rigters word die verowering van Kanaän in ‘n uitgebreide historiese styl en konteks beskryf. Ons moet aanvaar dit het gebeur. Dalk nie oral in die detail soos beskryf nie. Ons kan ook aanvaar dat nie elke besondere aspek daarvan beskryf is nie. Daar mag komponente wees wat nie geopenbaar is nie.
Maar wat sê ons daarvan? Die eerste is dat die Kanaäniete deel is van die menslike ras wat verdoeming verdien. Tweedens het hulle God verwerp en vir eeue lank baie onreg gepleeg en gewelddadig gelewe. Vrouens en kinders het by hulle nie dieselfde waarde gehad as vandag nie. Hulle het byvoorbeeld babas lewendig verbrand as offers vir die vuurgod Molek.
In Genesis 15:16 sê God aan Abraham dat die verbondsvolk hulle eers vier geslagte later in Kanaän sal kom vestig want:
“Dan eers sal die ongeregtigheid van die Amoriete sy volle maat bereik het.”
Die Kanaäniete het dus minstens vier geslagte lank tyd gehad om hulle te bekeer.
God se hart is dat alle mense hulle sal bekeer en gered sal word, en nie dat mense gestraf moet word en moet sterf nie. In verse soos Esegiël 33:11 sien ons God se hart:
“Sê vir hulle: So seker as Ek leef, sê die Here my God, Ek wil nie hê die sondaar moet deur sy sonde sterf nie, Ek wil hê hy moet van sy optrede afsien en lewe. Bekeer julle van julle bose optrede! Waarom wil julle sterf, Israel.”
En weereens baie belangrik, ons verstaan net ten dele. Ons ken die wil en plan van God net ten dele. Daar sal altyd aspekte van die lewe wees wat ons nie 100% verstaan nie. As ons elke enkele gebeurtenis kon verklaar, dan was ons gelyk aan God. Dit moet ons ook erken en aanvaar.
16. Issues with Which the Unbelieving World Continually Confronts Believers
The arguments we hear most often are that there is no proof of the existence of a Supreme Being, that the Bible contradicts itself, that faith is a psychological phenomenon, that a loving God would surely not allow and even cause all the suffering on earth, that believers themselves have been very unloving through the centuries — including colonialists and Afrikaner nationalists, that the miracles in the Bible are fabricated stories, and that science is increasingly answering all questions and solving all problems. According to this view, the so-called psychological role and value of a Supreme Being is fading. And then of course that there is no basis for the authority of the Bible. We look at a few of these.
The Existence of a Supreme Being
The sceptical charge from unbelieving quarters is not primarily that there is no Triune God, but that there is no Creator. And if there was no Creator, then the conversation about Christ and the Holy Spirit automatically falls away. The debate is therefore essentially about a Creator and the common question is: “Where is the proof?”
The first important point is that the non-proof of something does not mean it does not exist. It only means that there is not enough independent evidence available from which the existence can be deduced beyond doubt. Put differently, if person A makes an anonymous donation, but there is no evidence to prove his identity, this does not take away the fact that person A was indeed the donor.
On the question of who must prove what in a debate, one can also say that the person who claims there is no Supreme Being also bears a burden of proof. He can certainly say that he does not believe in God, but if he declares unequivocally that there is no God, then he must also be able to prove his own claim, or acknowledge that it too rests on acceptance or faith.
The difference between believers and unbelievers is that the former’s claim that there is a God rests on a combination of (biblical) knowledge and trust. He does not pretend to make a scientific claim. He makes a declaration of faith (with evidence that supports it).
God reveals himself in the Bible and in nature. And there is evidence for the existence of God in nature — note well, not unambiguous proof, but strong evidence. We can put it simply: Where does everything come from? How did everything begin? The universe (space-time and that which is within it) had a beginning. And something that has a beginning must have a cause that stands outside of itself. A Creator or creative power cannot itself stand within the framework and the laws of that which he creates. Consider this carefully.
It is not only philosophical thinking that says the universe had a beginning. Science also tells us today that the world had a beginning. A creative power outside the world must have set that beginning in motion. Otherwise there could not have been a beginning. Yes, there are hypotheses about successive universes (e.g., by the physicist Roger Penrose), but most physicists, even unbelieving physicists, do not (yet) accept them.
Another argument in favour of intelligent creation concerns complexity. The more complex a composition is, the greater the likelihood that it was caused by an intervention from outside (an independent creator).
Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, concluded after thorough study of living systems that the composition of living systems (DNA and RNA structures and bodily functions) is so complex and interdependent that it cannot be broken down into independent components. In other words, it could not have developed naturally into life, because there are too many components that are dependent on the others and could not have come into being on their own. Life forms must therefore have come into being at once through a creative process.
An example we can reflect on ourselves is the so-called natural development of different sexes. Can we in any way imagine that this is the result of spontaneous natural development?
The argument of unbelievers is that science increasingly shows how natural development takes place, through selection, mutation, and survival of the fittest, among other things. And that this provides the final explanation. But as shown above, this is an argument without proof and with its own dead ends and limitations.
On the other hand, we also find that believers who consistently interpret Old Testament descriptions literally and in isolation, rather than in perspective, also sometimes run into conflict with what is revealed through nature.
An Orderly Creation
We have already mentioned that the world was created by God in an orderly fashion. Space, time, matter, plant, animal, and human came into being through this. The core message of Genesis 1.
There are many aspects of Creation that are not at all, or only to a limited extent, revealed in the Bible. The size, structure, composition, and workings of the universe receive very little attention, and where it is described, it is often done through metaphors to make it comprehensible for the first readers.
To describe nature in the Bible in terms of an expanding universe, an earth that orbits the sun, the sun as a very average star that as part of a solar system orbits the centre of a larger system, as well as in terms of microscopic particles and quantum physics, would not have served the purpose of biblical revelation.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook. The theme is Creation, Fall, and Redemption. Not an exposition of how everything was created. This is not the essence of scriptural revelation and would also not have made sense to readers in a pre-scientific world.
It is furthermore important to take into account that the orderliness and lawfulness of nature as we know it today does not mean that we live in a perfect natural world. This is a broken world with droughts, floods, earthquakes, diseases, and collisions between celestial bodies. This is not yet the New Earth.
Creationism and Evolutionism
If we want to understand the role and interaction between Creation and natural development (evolution), we must also distinguish between the concepts of Creation and Creationism, as well as Evolution and Evolutionism.
We have already spoken about Creation. Creationism refers to a fundamentalist view that limits Creation and the origin of everything we experience today to literally six days and allows no room for further natural development.
Evolutionism refers to a spontaneous process of origin and development where everything takes place over time and where there was no Creator.
What then does a Christian believer say about evolution? Is it an unbiblical concept? Evolutionism denies the existence of a Creator and is by definition unbiblical. The Bible does not speak about evolution and there is also no compelling reason for the Bible to deal with it, just as there are numerous other natural phenomena to which the Bible does not refer.
A second important point is that the Bible is not our only source of revelation. Nature itself is also a general source of revelation that speaks to us through its structure and the workings of natural forces. Nature and science show us the phenomena of order, development, natural selection, improvement, and progress. But they also show that it is not a one-way street. There is also decline and extinction.
The truly important point is that God created the world in an orderly and therefore lawful manner. This allows room for further development in plant, animal, and human. Room for the development of new species, some of which will flourish and others will in time disappear. And we also know that God can intervene in the workings of nature and steer things in a new direction — through mutations, natural disasters, rain, drought, disease, health, new scientific discoveries, or whatever else.
The view that everything developed naturally and without divine providence is clearly unbiblical. Exactly how God created plant, animal, and human (described in physical terms) is not decisive. What is decisive is the profound, unbridgeable difference between human and animal. The human being was created with the inherent ability to live in a conscious faith relationship with God, and also to be able to reject that faith. This is the core difference between human and animal. The rest are differences of degree. The bonobo chimpanzee and the human share nearly 99% of their DNA. But this does not make this chimpanzee almost human. It is not “more human” than a dog or a cat.
Something to reflect on: Many discoveries have already been made of prehistoric humans who are even classified as different species. Modern humans and Neanderthals apparently intermixed and produced descendants. What do we say about this? What do we say about the discovery of primitive human forms that had a limited language/communication ability?
Human Suffering and the Love of God
One of the great weapons in the arsenal of the unbeliever, more particularly those who do not believe in a loving God, is the question of human suffering. There are two aspects of this that deserve discussion.
The first is how a loving God can allow so much suffering on earth, also among believers? Furthermore, suffering that is not only caused by unbelievers, but also by believers.
The answer is found primarily in the following thoughts. We live in a broken world caused by the Fall. With the Fall, God made it clear that sorrow and suffering would be humanity’s lot, beginning with Adam and Eve who had known God personally. But God also continually showed undeserved grace through the centuries and humanity could survive. This will be so until the end.
If we look at it logically, we know that because we live in a broken world, good and evil give meaning to each other. We would not know what good means if we did not also know evil. And you cannot truly know the concept of evil if you cannot experience it yourself, if it only happens to others. Is not the essence of the choice to do good precisely that the person could have chosen evil, but did not?
This is of course not a comfortable answer, especially not if you yourself are severely tested. Think of someone who has lost a child, becomes a paraplegic, has been raped, or goes through prolonged painful suffering without any hope of recovery. We live in a time of struggle with a broken world and broken people. And our understanding and comprehension are not exempted from this either. The hope for the believer lies in the fact that God is in control and that at the end of our life in this world we will be with Him.
A further thought on this is that people often, years after they were tested or their lives went badly wrong, have said that they later came to realise the value of the trial and that they were actually enriched by it. This is of course not a fairy tale. Sometimes the trauma and suffering are simply too severe to experience as enriching. No, we do not understand everything.
The second example of severe cruelty and suffering has occupied people through the centuries, namely God’s command to the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites — man, woman, child, and all their animals. Here it is not just about a choice between good and evil, but about a command from God to completely wipe out peoples or communities.
There have been attempts to understand or explain this as something symbolic that did not actually happen exactly as described. But to explain it as a symbolic or metaphorical description is not convincing. It is not just a few statements being made or a single incident. In Joshua and Judges, the conquest of Canaan is described in an extended historical style and context. We must accept that it happened. Perhaps not everywhere in the detail as described. We can also accept that not every particular aspect of it was described. There may be components that were not revealed.
But what do we say about it? The first thing is that the Canaanites are part of the human race that deserves condemnation. Secondly, they had rejected God and for centuries committed much injustice and lived violently. Women and children did not hold the same value among them as today. They burned babies alive as offerings to the fire god Molech, for example.
In Genesis 15:16, God says to Abraham that the covenant people would only come to settle in Canaan four generations later because:
“For the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
The Canaanites therefore had at least four generations to repent.
God’s heart is that all people would repent and be saved, and not that people must be punished and must die. In verses such as Ezekiel 33:11 we see God’s heart:
“Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’”
And once again, very importantly, we only understand in part. We know the will and plan of God only in part. There will always be aspects of life that we do not understand 100%. If we could explain every single event, then we would be equal to God. This too we must acknowledge and accept.