Apologetic Junkie

The "Whatever" Objection and the Passivity Problem

2012-02-08T19:45:00.000-08:00

Armed with a master’s degree in apologetics I felt like I could conquer the world. Bring on the most ardent atheist and I'd be ready. My training prepared me to launch informed arguments and counter the toughest objections. To my surprise, the biggest challenger however wasn't the outspoken critic but the one who spoke the least - the passive skeptic who just didn't care. I quickly learned that the word no passionate apologist wants to hear is "Whatever."

Hearing my friend utter that word, I thought, "How could you not care?!" Salvation from sin, eternal life, reunited with saints, and reigning with God as kings is too good to pass up. I kept noticing other friends and colleagues voicing much of the same though not always using the "W" word verbatim. I realized my God-given fascination for apologetics and passion to share what I've learned wasn't something I had in common with people around me. I've come to see that listening to a debate on my iPod while running the Manhattan Beach 10-K wasn't normal.

The goal of this post is not to teach the reader how to convince someone that spiritual decisions matter. That task I leave with other writers and ultimately in the working of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of men. My goal is a more humble one; to explain this passivity towards religious ideas and what drives it. It's my hope that a greater understanding of this will better prepare apologists for encountering passive skeptics.

Perhaps passivity's greatest appeal is its simplicity and apparently neutral stance. It's easy to be passive and comes quite naturally to us. Since Adam sat idle while Eve took the forbidden fruit in Eden, many have followed suit by failing to act appropriately when our very lives depend on how we respond. It takes effort to investigate and decide on religious questions. It's easier to dismiss religious truth altogether than to live consistently with a position and defend it. The appeal of taking a passive stance towards religion is amplified by at least three other aspects of modern culture :

1) Church/State Separation
The establishment clause and litmus test of the constitution prohibits the government from endorsing a particular religion through legislation or public employment. Children raised in public schools are taught that religious ideas are not appropriate topics in classroom discussions. Apart from parental and church influences, there's nothing stopping this religious silence from continuing into adulthood. Confusion of the law leads teachers to err on the side of eliminating all religious ideas from the classroom (except for the view that religious ideas aren't to be discussed). It also has been misconstrued to mean all religion is to be relegated to the personal realm as irrelevant to important world issues. If religious ideas are important, why are children unable to ask, share or inquire about them in public schools? The implication taught to kids is that religion isn't important. Kids are taught religion is personal and not for public discussion. While the intent may have been to prevent government from limiting religious expression, interpretation by the courts and the media have made the opposite effect of teaching generations of school kids to keep religion to themselves.

2) View of Knowledge
The two most common alternative worldviews to theism today are postmodernism and naturalism. While the impact of these minority views is sometimes overstated, the prevalence of scholarship from both views has influenced how popular culture constitutes knowledge. Theists have traditionally maintained that the supernatural can be investigated and counted as knowledge. Proponents of scientism or empiricism insist knowledge is only that which can be tested methodologically. Postmodernists remain skeptical about both and suggest we can't know anything for sure. The mix of epistemological choices inevitably fosters doubt when it comes to religious knowledge. Accordingly, religious ideas are relegated to the subjective realm where truth doesn't matter.

3) Human Flourishing
As our culture gradually devalues the influence of theism, our view of human flourishing continues to change. When the spiritual component of a worldview erodes, the focus naturally shifts to the earthly life. From an eternal view, a purpose greater than mankind and individual achievement is in view. However, those focusing only on an 80 year lifetime will inevitably look to maximizing survival and self-satisfaction as the highest priorities. If human flourishing doesn't include life beyond the grave, there's no reason to spend much time focusing on anything else.

So a passive approach to religion is easy and socially acceptable, but I've often heard it said that the real reason for ignoring religious claims is insufficient evidence. To that claim I'm a skeptic. People ignore serious consequences all the time even when the evidence is undeniable. Take for instance the following example.
Having arrested and interviewed many federal felons in my career as a government agent, I've observed things about human nature that I may never have seen otherwise. We have much to learn about our own humanness by looking into the actions of others, even felons. The pattern I see repeat itself is this: 1) crime happens, 2) suspect is arrested, 3) suspect is "sorry," 4) suspect is punished, 5) suspect returns to crime.
Surely this is a generalization from my own anecdotal observations and there are exceptions. On the other hand, it's not just a jaded view I learned in law enforcement either. When presenting search warrant affidavits to prosecutors, they ask if the suspect has a criminal history. Why? Because they know the practical reality of the truism that there is no better indicator of future behavior than past behavior. The point is that people commit crimes even knowing how bad the consequence are.

This phenomenon so permeates humanity that it's seen in many other ways as well. Ironically, crime victims themselves are known to continue behavior despite knowing the loss they will encounter. Victims of financial fraud or physical abuse are among the most common. Children who watch their parents die painful deaths grow up taking on the same unhealthy lifestyle of smoking, overeating, or drinking. They do this even while the evidence of the consequences are very real and painfully ever present to them.

Even the blessed people written in Scripture had this problem. The Old Testament is replete with examples of Israel rebelling even after seeing miraculous acts of God in front of them. In the New Testament, Judas, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and other skeptics witnessed Jesus' miracles yet still rejected him. So it's not all about the evidence. Some may honestly be unaware of the result of their actions but many people know the reality of where their actions lead while continuing the course anyway.

While these examples show that people frequently disregard the costs of their decisions, they differ from religious matters in two respects: First, religious decisions are more serious. They have eternal ramifications as opposed to temporary suffering in this world only. Second, the effects of religious missteps are less visible. Sometimes we can see a payoff by living a Christ-centered life but other times the life is filled with just as much pain and suffering or more. The effects of our response to spiritual claims are sometimes not fully realized until after our death. The first reason makes our mission more important but the second makes it more difficult.

Despite this challenge, evangelism is a core part of Christianity and we must proceed cautiously. However well-intentioned and educated a passionate believer may be, misunderstanding or ignoring the perspective of the skeptic can lead to unfortunate mistakes. Like speaking English to rural Chinese farmers, we won't even get started unless we first appreciate what they understand.

In a religiously illiterate culture where spiritual conversation is taboo, many assume the world is limited to this life only. A life aimed at selfish ambition, material wealth, and entertainment-on-demand leaves no time to follow Christ's lead to love the lost. Scripture says the gospel is foolishness to those who don't believe but also reminds us that we too once were lost. In other words, there's hope for passive skeptics just like there was hope for us. As we pray for our friends we must be mindful that they're watching us. So when the topic comes up, never miss an opportunity to give them a reason to care and never shrug and say "Whatever."

The Facts of the Resurrection in 1,000 Words

2011-09-04T01:16:00.000-07:00

This essay originally appeared in a series entitled "Is Christianity True?" Visit Apologetics 315 to read all the contributions and download the audio versions.

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
— Antony Flew

The truth of Christianity stands or falls on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Paul himself said, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”1 Here the Apostle provides an objective criterion by which to judge the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Show that Christ has not been raised from the dead and you will have successfully proven Christianity false. Consequently, it is entirely appropriate that a positive case for “Why Christianity is true” focus on the most central truth claim of the Christian faith: the Resurrection.
(MP3 Audio | RSS | iTunes)

The Minimal Facts Approach

The approach I will take in this essay is commonly referred to as the “minimal facts approach.” This method “considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.”2 It should be noted this approach does not assume the inerrancy or divine inspiration of any New Testament document. Rather it merely holds these writings to be historical documents penned during the first century AD.3 Though as many as 12 minimal facts surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ may be examined,4 the brevity of this essay limits our examination to three: the crucifixion, the empty tomb,5 and the post-resurrection appearances. I contend that the best explanation for these minimal facts is that Jesus was raised bodily from the grave.

Fact #1 – The Crucifixion of Jesus

Perhaps no other fact surrounding the life of the historical Jesus is better attested to than His death by crucifixion. Not only is the crucifixion account included in every gospel narrative6 but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. Some of these include the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata, as well as the Jewish Talmud.7 Josephus tells us that “Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us…condemned him to the cross…”8 From a perspective of historiography, Jesus’ crucifixion meets the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources, including enemy attestation. John Dominic Crossan, non-Christian critical scholar and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, puts it this way: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”9

Fact #2 – The Empty Tomb

Something happened to the body of Jesus. Of this we can be sure. Not only was Jesus publicly executed in Jerusalem but “His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed there.”10 This would have been impossible with a decaying corpse still in the tomb. “It would have been wholly un-Jewish,” notes William Lane Craig, “not to say foolish, to believe that a man was raised from the dead when his body was still in the grave.”11 The Jewish authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body and silence these men who “turned the world upside down,”12 effectively ending the Christian religion for good. But no one could. The only early opposing theory recorded by the enemies of Christianity is that the disciples stole the body.13 Ironically, this presupposes the empty tomb.

In addition, all four gospel narratives attest to an empty tomb and place women as the primary witnesses.14 It is hard to imagine this being an invention of the early church considering the low social status of women in both Jewish and Roman cultures and their inability to testify as legal witnesses.15 As with the crucifixion, the account of the empty tomb meets the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources, including implicit enemy attestation as well as the principle of embarrassment. Atheist historian Michael Grant concedes that “the historian… cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb” since applied historical criteria shows “the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty.”16

Fact #3 – The Post-Resurrection Appearances

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul recounts what biblical scholars recognize as an early Christian creed dating to within a few years of the crucifixion. Included in this creed are all three of our minimal facts: the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, and the post-resurrection appearances. Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann states, “the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years…the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 C.E.”17 The early date of this creed rules out the possibility of myth or legendary development as a plausible explanation and demonstrates that the disciples began proclaiming Jesus’ death, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances very early.

Furthermore, the disciples sincerely believed the resurrection occurred as demonstrated by their transformed lives. Eleven early sources testify to the willingness of the original disciples to suffer and die for their belief in the resurrection.18 Many people will die for what they believe to be true but no one willingly suffers and dies for what they know to be false. Liars make poor martyrs. Again Lüdemann acknowledges, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”19 Appealing to hallucinations as an explanation simply won’t work. Hallucinations are private experiences requiring the proper frame of mind. They cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, the conversions of skeptics like Paul and James, nor the multiple and varied resurrection appearances.20 As with the crucifixion and empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances meet the historical criteria of multiple, independent and early eyewitness sources.

Conclusion

How do we know Christianity is true? Because Jesus was resurrected and “God wouldn’t have raised a heretic.”21 Jesus’ resurrection fits the context of his life, vindicating His teachings and radical claim to be the unique divine Son of God. Naturalistic explanations such as legendary development, fraud, or hallucinations fail to account for all the relevant data. Conversely, the Resurrection Hypothesis accounts for all of the known facts, has greater explanatory scope and power, is more plausible, and less ad hoc.22 Only if one is guided by a prior commitment to philosophical naturalism will the conclusion “God raised Jesus from the dead” seem unjustified.
__________________________________

1 1 Cor. 15:14. All Scripture quotations are from the NIV unless otherwise noted.
2 Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004), 44.
3 For more information on the historical reliability of the New Testament see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), and F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).
4 See Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, Rev. ed. (Joplin: College Press, 1996), 158-167.
5 Habermas and Licona note that “roughly 75 percent of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historical fact” (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70).
6 See Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:33, and John 19:18.
7 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3; Tacitus Annals 15:44; Lucian of Samosata The Death of Peregrine 11-13; Talmud Sanhedrin 43a.
8 Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Rev. ed., trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 590.
9 John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009), 163.
10 Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 70. See also Acts 2 and Tacitus Annals 15:44.
11 William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 361.
12 Acts 17:6, NKJV.
13 See Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr Trypho 108; Tertullian De Spectaculis 30.
14 See Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10, and John 20:1.
15 Craig, Reasonable Faith, 367.
16 Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribners, 1976), 176.
17 Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38 (His emphasis).
18 Luke, Paul, Josephus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen, and Hegesippus. See Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 56-62.
19 Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80. Lüdemann appeals to hallucinations as an explanation.
20 See The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 104-119, and Reasonable Faith, 384-387, for more on the hallucination theory.
21 Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 184.
22 Craig, Reasonable Faith, 397-399.

WORKS CITED

1. Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.
2. Crossan, John Dominic. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2009.
3. Grant, Michael. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels. New York: Scribners, 1976.
4. Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004.
5. Josephus, Flavius. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Rev. ed. Translated by William Whiston. Commentary by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.
6. Lüdemann, Gerd. The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Theology, Experience. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.
7. Lüdemann, Gerd. What Really Happened to Jesus?: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection. Translated by John Bowden. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.

Do All Religions Lead to God?

2011-08-03T00:01:00.000-07:00

Maybe you've heard the parable of the six blind men and the elephant. In this parable, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like.

One blind man grabs the tusk and says, "An elephant is like a spear!" Another feels the trunk and concludes, "An elephant is like a snake!" The blind man hugging the leg thinks, "An elephant is like a tree!" The one holding the tail claims, "An elephant is like a rope!" Another feeling the ear believes, "An elephant is like a fan!" The last blind man leaning on the elephant's side exclaims, "An elephant is like a wall!"

This parable is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds.

There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: "the view that all religious roads - certainly all major or ethical ones - lead to God or to ultimate reality and salvation."1 This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as "All religions basically teach the same thing" or "All roads lead to the top of the mountain."

The elephant parable, while attractive to many, suffers from a number of problems:

Problem #1: The parable is an analogy, not an argument.

An argument is a conclusion supported by reason or evidence. But notice that the elephant parable is simply an analogy (or illustration). No arguments, evidence, or reasons are given as to why we should believe that all religions are true. The elephant analogy is simply a story. But the story may be false! In other words,

One problem with this mountaintop (or elephant-and-blind-men) analogy is that analogies don't prove a point, they only illustrate it. While analogies may be powerful, they may only illustrate false, misleading ideas.2

In fact, a Christian could just as easily conceive of an analogy which "proves" the truthfulness of the Christian faith:

Let's switch the analogy: If Jesus is truly unique, maybe the world's religions are like a maze or labyrinth with one way out; what if God in Christ steps into this maze to help us walk through it?3

This analogy doesn't prove that Christianity is actually true, does it? Likewise, the religious pluralist must do more than offer illustrations.

Problem #2: Religious pluralism is patently false.

All religions are basically the same, except when it comes to the nature of God, the nature of man, sin, salvation, and the afterlife. In other words, all religions are not basically the same! It's the differences that matter. William Lane Craig provides this sharp critique of what he calls "unsophisticated religious pluralism," the idea that all religions are true and/or are teaching basically the same thing:

Now this view, which one often hears expounded by laypeople and college sophomores, is rooted in ignorance of what the world's great religions teach. Anyone who has studied comparative religions knows that the worldviews propounded by these religions are often diametrically opposite one another. Just take Islam and Buddhism, for example. Their worldviews have almost nothing in common. Islam believes that there is a personal God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and holy, and who created the world. It believes that people are sinful and in need of God's forgiveness, that everlasting heaven or hell awaits us after death, and that we must earn our salvation by faith and righteous deeds. Buddhism denies all of these things. For the classical Buddhist ultimate reality is impersonal, the world is uncreated, there is no enduring self, life's ultimate goal is not personal immortality but annihilation, and the ideas of sin and salvation play no role at all. Examples like this could be multiplied.4

Religious pluralism is patently false because it violates the known laws of logic. For example, the law of non-contradiction states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. God cannot be both personal and impersonal. God cannot both exist as a Trinity and not exist as a Trinity. Since various religions teach contradictory things, all religions cannot be true. Religious pluralism violates the law of non-contradiction and is therefore necessarily false.

Problem #3: The parable begs the question.

Remember, the question under consideration is whether or not the different religions of the world are really experiencing and/or describing the same reality or God, albeit in a limited sense. But the parable begs the question by starting with the assumption that the blind men are in fact doing this very thing! In other words, the parable tells of the blind men feeling or experiencing different parts of the elephant (reality/God) which is the very thing under debate.

Problem #4: The parable commits the self-excepting fallacy.

The religious pluralist who tells this parable claims everyone is blind, except the religious pluralist himself! In other words, there is an objective perspective presented here. However, if all religious views are essentially blind, this would include the religious view of religious pluralism. But the religious pluralist conveniently exempts himself, having somehow escaped the spiritual blindness which has enveloped all other religious views and has come to see the truth of religious pluralism! In so doing, the religious pluralist claims to have the only objective perspective:

In fact, he wouldn't know that the blind men were wrong unless he had an objective perspective of what was right! So if the person telling the parable can have an objective perspective, why can't the blind men? They could - if the blind men suddenly could see, they too would realize that they were originally mistaken. That's really an elephant in front of them and not a wall, fan, or rope. We too can see the truth in religion. Unfortunately, many of us who deny there's truth in religion are not actually blind but only willfully blind. We may not want to admit that there's truth in religion because that truth will convict us. But if we open our eyes and stop hiding behind the self-defeating nonsense that truth cannot be known, then we'll be able to see the truth as well.5

Problem #5: The parable is self-defeating.

If all religions are true, then Christianity is true. But Christianity teaches that non-Christian religions are false, and therefore not all religions are true. So if all religions are true, then not all religions are true! That can't be right! Let's break this down:

If all religions are true, then Christianity is true.
All religions are true.
If Christianity is true, then non-Christian religions are false.
If non-Christian religions are false, then not all religions are true.
Therefore (from 1 and 2), Christianity is true.
Therefore (from 3 and 5), non-Christian religions are false.
Therefore (from 4 and 6), not all religions are true.
Therefore (1 through 7), if all religions are true, then not all religions are true.

If your belief leads to an absurd conclusion, then it becomes necessary to reexamine your belief. The only conceivable premise that the religious pluralist could deny is premise 3. But to deny premise 3 is to not take the claims of Christianity seriously. It is in fact a distortion of historic, orthodox Christianity which has always maintained that Jesus is the only path to salvation. This brings up a related point: the religious pluralist must often resort to a type of religious reductionism in order to maintain his view.

Attempts to reduce all religions to their lowest common denominator usually succeed only in distorting them. Homogenizing religions is a costly price to pay to eliminate religious diversity, for in the end the religions must sacrifice the very features that make them unique and appealing in the first place.6

Problem #6: The parable is radically skeptical.

Ken Samples elaborates on this point:

The elephant analogy implies a radical skepticism concerning knowledge of God; namely, that no one, or in this case no religion, can really know God satisfactorily. But if God is by and large unknowable, then how is a person able to know that God is unknowable? In fact, for that matter, would anyone even know that God exists?7

Furthermore, Christians would argue that God has in fact revealed Himself both in general revelation (creation and conscience) and special revelation (Scripture and Christ). If Christianity is true, then we can abandon our radical skepticism concerning knowledge of God in favor of the radical claims of Christ: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).

Problem #7: The parable proves the opposite.

While this parable is used with the intention of showing that all religions are true, the exact opposite conclusion could be drawn: all religions are in fact false! Why? Because none of the blind men have an accurate picture of the elephant! Ken Samples again explains:

Ironically, while the elephant analogy attempts to validate the truth of all religions, if taken to its logical conclusion the story really shows that all religions fail to identify God adequately. So rather than affirming religious truth, the analogy implies that all religions, at least in large measure, are based on false or misleading claims.8

An analogy which leads you to the opposite intended conclusion cannot possibly be a good one.
________________________________________

1 Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 161.
2 Paul Copan, True For You, But Not For Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith, Rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009), 123.
3 Ibid.
4 William Lane Craig, Hard Questions, Real Answers (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 150-151.
5 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 49.
6 Samples, Without a Doubt, 164.
7 Ibid., 167.
8 Ibid.

Question: Is All Sin the Same?

2011-08-02T00:01:00.000-07:00

Is telling a lie just as bad as murder? Or are some sins worse than others? In other words, is all sin the same? Or are there degrees of sin?

Wayne Grudem does an excellent job of tackling this question in his book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

As Grudem notes, the answer to the question "Are there degrees of sin?" may be "yes" or "no" depending on what one is referring to. In order to answer this question properly we must differentiate between two different consequences of sin: (1) legal guilt and (2) the results in life and in relationship with God.

Legal Guilt

In terms of legal guilt, or our legal standing before God, all sin is the same. Wayne Grudem explains:

In terms of our legal standing before God, any one sin, even what may seem to be a very small one, makes us guilty before God and therefore worthy of eternal punishment...Therefore, in terms of legal guilt, all sins are equally bad because they make us legally guilty before God and constitute us as sinners. (See Rom. 5:16, Gal. 3:10)1

One proof text used to support this point is found in James 2:10-11: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not commit murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law."

So here we answer the question "Is all sin the same?" with a definitive "Yes." When it comes to our standing before God, all sin brings guilt and condemnation.

Results in Life and in Relationship with God

However, there is another side to this coin. Some sins are certainly worse than others! Wayne Grudem again explains:

On the other hand, some sins are worse than others in that they have more harmful consequences in our lives and in the lives of others, and, in terms of our personal relationship to God as Father, they arouse his displeasure more and bring more serious disruption to our fellowship with Him.

The idea that there are degrees of seriousness when it comes to sin is attested throughout Scripture. Here are several examples:

1. In Ezekiel chapter 8, when God shows Ezekiel a vision involving a series of sins being committed in the temple of Jerusalem, God repeats three times, "You will see still greater abominations" (see 8:6, 13, 15).

2. Jesus implies there are lesser and greater commandments in at least two different places in Matthew. First, in Matt. 5:19 He states, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Second, in Matt. 23:23 Jesus tells the Pharisees that there are "weightier provisions of the law" such as justice, mercy, and faith.

3. Jesus stood before Pilate in John 19:11 and stated, "he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

Wayne Grudem sums up this section as follows:

In general, we may say that some sins have more harmful consequences than others if they bring more dishonor to God or if they cause more harm to ourselves, to others, or to the church. Moreover, those sins that are done willfully, repeatedly, and knowingly, with a calloused heart, are more displeasing to God than those that are done out of ignorance and are not repeated, or are done with a mixture of good and impure motives and are followed by remorse and repentance.2

So here we answer the question "Is all sin the same?" with a definite "No." When it comes to the consequences of sin and in terms of the degree of God's displeasure, some sins are worse than others.

Practical Application

There is a danger that accompanies this discussion and a word of caution is in order. The danger is to think "My sin is not as bad as your sin" or "I'm basically a good person." The point of this article is not to encourage this line of thinking in any way.

The fact of the matter is that all human beings are desperate and depraved sinners who stand rightly condemned before a just and holy God. It is not about "I committed this itty-bitty, teeny-tiny sin and now God is going to send me to hell for eternity." This of course sounds extreme, makes God seem petty, and does not take into account the depravity of man, the seriousness of sin, and the holiness of God. In reality, we continually and constantly sin throughout our lifetime and apart from God's grace would remain in this willful rebellion. It is only by God's grace that anyone is saved. As Clay Jones would say, we are all born "Auschwitz enabled" and as Jesus said, "No one is good but God alone." Therefore, the proper attitude is not one of moral superiority or pride but of humility and thankfulness.

It is hard not to end with the words of Bible expositor D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who said,

We must contemplate men in sin until we are horrified, until we are alarmed, until we are desperate about them, until we pray for them, until having realized the marvel of our own deliverance from that terrible state, we are lost in a sense of wonder, love and praise.3

He went on to comment,

...our troubles are due to the fact that we are guilty of a double failure; we fail on the one hand to realize the depth of sin, and on the other hand we fail to realize the greatness and the height and the glory of our salvation…. It is because we never realize the depth of the pit out of which we have been brought by the grace of God that we do not thank God as we ought.4

___________________________________________

1 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 501-502
2 Ibid., 502.
3 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, God's Way of Reconciliation: Studies in Ephesians II (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 12, my emphasis.
4 Ibid., 82.

Book Review: Choosing Your Faith

2011-08-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

Quick Facts:

Title: Choosing Your Faith…In a World of Spiritual Options

Author: Mark Mittelberg

Publisher/Year: Tyndale, 2008

Pages: 269

Review:

With so many religious beliefs and ideologies in the world, how does one go about choosing a faith? Why should we even choose a faith? And if we decide to choose a faith, are some ways of choosing better than others? To put it another way, everyone believes something. Moreover, we all believe we are right (that’s why we believe the things we do)! But since people believe contradictory things, not everyone can be right. So how should we decide what to believe?

Mark Mittelberg addresses these questions and more in his book Choosing Your Faith…In a World of Spiritual Options.

In chapter one, Mark begins by addressing the question, “Why Choose Any Faith?” The simple answer is that we all have faith in something. In other words, everyone lives their life placing faith in one thing or another, even as we go about our daily business. We all believe something, even atheists like Richard Dawkins who has faith there is no God. This being the case, Mark asks the central question:

Is ours a well-founded faith? A wise faith? A faith that makes sense and is supported by the facts? One that works in real life and is worth hanging on to?

More importantly, is yours a faith you’ve really thought about, carefully evaluated, and intentionally chosen—or did you just slide into it at some point along the way?[1]

No one would buy a new car or house without researching their investment. If we take the time to look into the purchase of material possessions which are here one day and gone the next, how much more time should we invest in examining the most important questions in life which may affect us for an eternity?

In chapters two through 7, Mark examines six different faith paths that individuals commonly walk down when deciding what to believe.

Chapter two examines the pragmatic or relativistic faith path. This is the view that truth is what works, or rather, what fits you. Essentially this approach says pick a faith you like. As long as you are sincere then something can be true for you but not necessarily true for anyone else.

The problem, of course, is that not all faiths can be equally true and valid. Different faiths teach contradictory things. Not only that, but this faith path is guilty of the self-excepting fallacy. It says that truth is relative, yet also asserts that the claim “truth is relative” is objectively true for everyone. This is self-defeating and inconsistent, especially when relativists attempt to convince you that their view is true for you. Reality, as it turns out, is completely indifferent to our beliefs. Mark concludes that

…we must find out what truly is real and then align our lives and actions to that reality.[2]

To put it another way, if we apply commonsense thinking in our daily lives why not in areas of morality and religion? Reality is simply what is and we can no more chose our truth in spiritual things than we can in any other area of life. So where should we start?

First, we need to search for what’s real…We have to be willing to recognize what is true, even if it flies in the face of what we’ve thought in the past…But if we’re lovers of truth, we should be willing to do so…And once we’ve discovered what is, let’s be willing to actually take the courageous step of aligning our belief to the truth we’ve discovered.[3]

Chapter three looks at the faith path of tradition. Most people inherit the faith of their parents making the path of tradition the most common. This is not to say that all tradition is bad, but as noted earlier, different faiths teach contradictory things making it impossible that they could all be right. In other words, your parents could be wrong! In fact, somebody’s parents have to be wrong! The question is,

Are we willing to step back and examine our inherited beliefs and make sure that we’ve thoughtfully and intentionally chosen a faith worth following?[4]

While each of us may inherit a faith, there comes a point in life where we each become intellectually responsible for our beliefs. That being the case,

You must decide to weigh the reasons and evidence for what you have so readily accepted up to now—so you can be sure that you end up with a faith that really makes sense because it’s based on actual truth.[5]

Chapter four considers the authoritarian approach to faith. This is different from the traditional path in that it is characterized by submission to a religious leader or spiritual authority. Many within the Islamic community fall under this category. However, as with the traditional approach, there comes a time when we need to step back and examine what we believe. Again, this is not to say all authority is bad. The question lies in choosing a trustworthy and reliable authority that is worthy of our response. Mark suggests four characteristics a trustworthy authority should possess: integrity, consistency, accuracy, and openness.

Chapter five investigates the intuitive faith path. This approach holds that real perception is found in feelings and instinct, a view characteristic of many Eastern religions and the New Age movement. In other words,

They turn off their senses, ignore their logic, and just feel their way into whatever belief or practice seems right to them.[6]

As with tradition and authority, this is not to say all intuition is bad. Every human being possesses certain built in intuitions, for example, in the area of morality. Intuition is useful as a tool but not as a full-blown faith path. Different intuitions may contradict one another, making it necessary to test them by some other means. Mark states,

Hunches, intuitive flashes, and “gut feelings” can serve as cautionary alerts—but whenever possible, these need to be tested against other proven methods of finding and affirming truth. In other words, they can be great warning lights, but in isolation, they’re generally not great traffic signals to direct us.[7]

Furthermore, certain aspects of this approach seem self-contradictory and therefore self-defeating. Those who tell us we must abandon our reason usually give us reasons for doing so. Those who tell us to turn off our senses usually communicate this through their senses. People simply cannot live consistently with the intuitive approach, especially in their everyday living. Mark concludes,

Intuition is, at best, an imperfect guide. We tend to forget all the times it was wrong and selectively remember the times—however rare—when it was actually right…We need to pay attention to our instincts, but we also need to scrutinize and corroborate them carefully. We must test what we sense to be true against logic and evidence.[8]

Chapter six analyzes the mystical approach to faith. Some people choose their faith based on an actual encounter with a supernatural entity. This is a claim often made by Mormons who have prayed concerning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. But while many people claim to have mystical experiences, not all mystical experiences are created equal. Mark offers two important guidelines for evaluating mystical encounters:[9]

1. Feel does not equal Real.

2. Real does not equal Good.

In other words, a genuine feeling may not necessarily be a genuine supernatural encounter, and a genuine supernatural encounter may not necessarily be good or from God. Once again, this does not mean that all mystical encounters are bad but rather that they should be tested. We must

…be very careful. Before we embrace new claims, we must test them against what we already know…Make sure that the message being given through the mystical encounter is (1) true to the world; (2) true to the messenger’s own words; and, ultimately, (3) true to God’s words.[10]

Chapter seven concludes the various faith paths with the sixth approach of logic, evidence, and science: the evidential path. This includes both logic and sense experience. Though some attempt to deny the value of logic, such as Zen Buddhists, in the end logic is inescapable. You must use logic in any attempt to undermine it, which is self-defeating. In this chapter Mark argues for the superiority of the evidential approach to faith:

Real knowledge comes when the logical, organizing power of the mind is applied to the real-world experience and data gained through the senses. These two elements are examples of fundamental, undeniable realities. To even try to argue against them, you must first employ them. And, apart from them, nothing could be known.[11]

Logic is useful in that it is able to test arguments and teachings, preventing us from embracing irrational or contradictory beliefs. And sensory experience, which includes facts and evidence, is useful in not only investigating a faith claim and showing it to be false but also in building a positive case for a particular faith system. Facts and evidence can be gained through a variety of disciplines including science, history, and archaeology.

So, just as we rely on the Evidential approach in ordinary, everyday life, it can also be extremely valuable in the realm of our religious understanding.[12]

This approach should not be confused with scientism, which is the self-defeating philosophy that says only science gives us truth.

Chapter eight provides a helpful summary of chapters two through seven. Why is it important to examine these different faith paths? Mark explains:

I’m convinced there’s nothing more important than choosing your faith—intentionally and wisely…We tend to follow one of several faith paths, and the particular path we pick—or even passively adopt—can have a great bearing on which beliefs we end up embracing.[13]

One of the most glaring problems with the first five faith paths is that they do not guarantee truth. The same path may be embraced by different people who end up embracing contradictory beliefs. This highlights the superiority of the evidential faith path. It is

…the one path that tests—and ultimately supports or undermines—all the others. Its two key elements, logic and sensory experience, are God-given tools we must use to gain the vast majority of our information, to test truth claims, and ultimately to decide what to believe…The Evidential approach tells us logically and empirically that there is one set of truths—based on actual, what is reality—that we need to discover and let inform our choice of faiths. We can use these tools to test traditional teachings, religious authorities, intuitive instincts and hunches, and mystical encounters, so we can know which ones are worth believing and holding on to.[14]

In chapters nine through eleven, Mark Mittelberg utilizes the evidential faith path to make a case for the Christian worldview. He appeals to logic, science, history, and experience. Mark presents twenty arguments, or arrows, which point to the existence of God, the historical reliability and divine inspiration of the Bible, and Jesus as God-incarnate, all of which form a powerful cumulative case for the Christian worldview. Below is a list of the twenty arguments presented by Mark which are explained in greater detail in the book:[15]

Design in the universe points to an Intelligent Designer.
Fine tuning in the universe points to an intentional Fine Tuner.
Information encoded into DNA points to a Divine Encoder.
The beginning of the universe points to a Divine Originator.
The sense of morality throughout the human race points to a Moral Lawgiver.
The Bible shows itself to be a uniquely consistent religious book.
The Bible is a uniquely historical religious book.
The Bible is a uniquely preserved work of antiquity.
Archaeology shows the Bible to be a powerfully verified book.
The Bible shows itself to be a uniquely honest religious book.
Miracles, performed in the presence of believers and critics alike, point to the prophets, apostles, and Jesus as messengers of God.
Fulfilled prophecies point to the Bible as a divinely inspired book and to Jesus as the unique Messiah of God.
Jesus’ sinless life backed up his claim to be the Son of God.
Jesus’ resurrection powerfully established his credentials as the Son of God.
The emergence of the church points to the authenticity of its message.
The changed lives of early skeptics affirmed the truth of Jesus’ resurrection and the teachings of the church.
The willingness of the disciples to die for claims they knew to be true affirms the trustworthiness of their claims.
The changed minds of many modern skeptics further support the Christian truth claims.
The testimonies of countless believers throughout history attest to the reality of God and the value of following Jesus.
It’s true because Jesus said so—and he has the credentials to speak with authority.

In chapter twelve, Mark addresses typical barriers to faith. But before discussing these barriers he is careful to clarify the type of faith he is advocating:

Wise, spiritual faith—the kind I’m advocating—is a commitment of trust based on solid, though incomplete, evidence that we’re believing in the right things and moving in the best direction. This understanding of faith, I should point out, is in sharp contrast to the fuzzy and often misguided definitions we see floating about in contemporary culture.[16]

In other words, Mark is promoting reasonable faith, which he defines as action based on good evidence. In spite of the evidence and arguments presented, many people do not take that required step of faith. Mark discusses twelve common obstacles or barriers to faith that must be overcome:

Lack of Information.
Lack of Openness.
Intellectual Doubt or Disagreement.
Lack of Experience.
Lifestyle Issues.
Personal Hurts.
Sense of Control.
Anger.
Discomfort.
Disinterest.
Fear.
Oversimplicity.

Mark concludes in chapter 13 by explaining the benefits of choosing your faith wisely, urging his readers to be lovers of truth and challenging them to take faith questions seriously. Choosing your faith is the most important decision you will ever make given that how you answer the most important questions in life will affect you for an eternity.

Assessment:

If you are asking the question, “What should I believe and why should I believe it?” or if you are a Christian with friends and family members seeking answers to these types of spiritual questions, Choosing Your Faith is an excellent starting place. The benefit of a book like this is that it does not simply tell you what to believe. Rather, Mark Mittelberg begins by examining different ways to choose a faith, the pros and cons associated with each faith path, and then moves on to making a case for the Christian worldview. Along the way he examines various religions associated with different faith paths and assesses them using reason, science, and history. Choosing Your Faith would make a great gift for spiritual seekers and even Christians who are assessing their own faith path or helping guide others into a faith that makes sense.

[1] Mark Mittelberg, Choosing Your Faith…In a World of Spiritual Options (Colorado Springs: Tyndale, 2008), 12.

[2] Ibid., 30, his emphasis.

[3] Ibid., 34-35.

[4] Ibid., 49-50.

[5] Ibid., 52.

[6] Ibid., 82, his emphasis.

[7] Ibid., 94.

[8] Ibid., 98-99, his emphasis.

[9] Ibid., 105-119.

[10] Ibid. 110.

[11] Ibid., 130-131.

[12] Ibid., 136.

[13] Ibid., 147.

[14] Ibid., 154-156, his emphasis.

[15] Ibid., 164-217.

[16] Ibid., 221-222.

The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ?

2011-07-28T00:01:00.000-07:00

This talk entitled "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ?" was given at a local Calvary Chapel a couple of years ago. The audio link was previously down but should not be in good working order so I am re-posting this blog.

I previously posted the audio to this talk but now also have available a short paper which this talk is based on. I hope these resources will aid you in your witnessing opportunities with your Mormon friends and family members.

Topic: The Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ?

Overview:
Background of Mormonism
Background of the Book of Mormon
Praying about the Book of Mormon
Problems with the Book of Mormon
Witnessing Tips

Full MP3 audio here.

PDF file Mormon Epistemology 101 here.

Enjoy!

Tread Lightly Young-Earthers

2011-07-27T00:01:00.000-07:00

Is the universe billions of years old or thousands? Are the creation days of Genesis to be interpreted as 24-hour periods? How should science inform our interpretation of Scripture, and how should Scripture inform our interpretation of science?

Christians disagree on how to answer these questions and they have been cause of no small debate within the believing community. The two opposing sides are sometimes labeled “young-earth” and “old-earth” or “young-age” and “old-age.” One of the most central and disputed points is whether the creation days in Genesis are literal 24-hour periods.

Recently I read an article published in a young-earth creationist newsletter entitled “It's an Attack on the Son.”[1] The title is quite provocative, though this isn't the first writing of this kind I have come across. As you may have guessed from reading the title, a summary of the article could be as follows:

A rejection of the young-earth creationist interpretation of Genesis is in reality (though perhaps unwittingly) an attack on Jesus Christ.

Yikes!

How did the author arrive at this conclusion? Young-earth creationists typically place great emphasis on the idea that the creation days in Genesis are literal 24-hour periods. While the following argument is not laid out explicitly in the article, I have done my best to reconstruct the flow of thought and logic of the writer:

If the Word of God teaches the creation days of Genesis are literal 24-hour periods, then rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking the Word of God.
The Word of God teaches the creation days of Genesis are literal 24-hour periods.
Therefore (from 1 and 2), rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking the Word of God.
The Word of God is Jesus’ Word.
Therefore (from 3 and 4), rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking Jesus’ Word.
Attacking Jesus’ Word is attacking Jesus Himself.
Therefore (from 5 and 6), rejecting the literal 24-hour view is tantamount to attacking Jesus Himself.

Hence, the title of the article: “It’s an Attack on the Son.”

The argument hinges on premise two, which is obviously the premise that is under debate in the age-of-the-earth controversy. I'm not so concerned with the logic of the position above or even with defending a particular age-of-the earth view. What does cause me concern is the mindset reflected in this article which, regrettably, can sometimes accompany the young-earth perspective. What is this mindset? It is the mistaken approach to this debate which concludes,

Anyone who disagrees with young-earth creationism is not taking Scripture seriously but rather is elevating human reason and/or science above divinely inspired revelation.

I believe this conclusion is completely unwarranted and can unfortunately result in a hyper-critical and overly dogmatic position in the age-of-the-earth controversy.

Allow me to elaborate.

The writer of this particular article quotes both William Dembski and William Lane Craig as proponents of the old-age view, a view which has been influenced by “ideas outside the Bible, not the plain reading of Scripture.” Their position is one of “compromise” which is “sadly the norm in the majority of our Christian colleges and seminaries.” He goes on to state,

Many times in this newsletter, I have stated that such a compromise is really an attack on the authority of the Word, in spite of some scholars' sincere intentions to the contrary. It is what I call "The Genesis 3" attack (i.e., creating doubt in regard to God's Word and asking "Did God really say?") and it ultimately undermines the authority of the Scripture.[2]

What does this compromise and undermining of biblical authority eventually lead to? The writer tells us:

Many young people in our churches are already doubting and disbelieving God's Word. The result? At least two-thirds of children raised in theologically conservative churches now walk away from the church (or even the Christian faith together).[3]

In other words, the old-age view, in this writer's opinion, is a source of compromise which can be directly linked to causing doubt and disbelief in the minds of churched youth, as well as the outright rejection of the Christian faith in some cases. The author gives us the bottom line:

When Christian leaders deliberately reinterpret God's Word on the basis of man's fallible ideas (taken from outside the Bible), not only are they undermining the Word of God, they are actually (though unwittingly) conducting an attack on the Son of God!

This is very serious. Yes, when you compromise the Word of God, it is also an attack on the Son of God, whose Word it is.[4]

Yikes again!

Not very long ago a professor of mine who is on staff with a very prominent Christian organization (which happens to argue for the old-age view) stated that they receive more criticism and hate mail from young-earth creationists than they do from non-Christians!

Triple Yikes!

I believe this is all very unfortunate. Of course, I realize that this mentality can work in reverse as well. Young-earth creationists may be referred to as “anti-science” or “fundamentalist flat-earthers.” Again, this is regrettable. The difference is that, in my experience, it is usually non-Christians who are using these pejorative terms toward the young-earth position.

My intention here is not to offer a critique of any particular age-of-the-earth view. Rather, I would like to offer some important reminders to my young-earth creationist friends and fellow believers when engaging in this debate.

#1: Don’t Confuse the Issue.

The interpretation of the days of Genesis is an issue of hermeneutics, not inerrancy. I have often heard something like the following question posed by young-earth creationists:

Well if Genesis one is mistaken, what else in Scripture isn’t true?

Notice this questions assumes the issue is a matter of inerrancy. In other words, if the Bible is errant in Genesis one you have to throw out inerrancy, which in turn weakens biblical authority. This can be seen in the article quoted above: “...it ultimately undermines the authority of Scripture.” The implication is that one cannot hold both to an old-age view and the inerrancy of Scripture.

However, most Christians I know who hold to the old-age view also hold to the inerrancy of Scripture! How can this be?? Again, it is because this issue is a matter of hermeneutics. Old-age proponents simply interpret Genesis one differently. They hold that Genesis one is without error when properly understood, taking into account things like literary genre. By attempting to make this issue into one of inerrancy, young-earth creationists are not only creating a false dichotomy (by implying that one must choose either between inerrancy and the young-earth position or errancy and the old-age position) but they are also begging the question in assuming their interpretation is correct, which leads to the second important reminder.

#2: Avoid Fallacious Reasoning.

First, be careful of circular reasoning. Often young-earth creationists refer to their position as the “literal interpretation.” This is a bit misleading and can amount to question-begging. What exactly is meant by “literal interpretation”? Should things like genre, context, and literary devices be taken into account? For example, when Jesus said, “I am the true vine” (John 15:1) or “I am the door” (John 10:7) should we interpret these sayings “literally”?

All of this to say, before we can determine the literal sense we need to find out the original sense. In other words, what was the original intent of the writer and/or speaker? In Genesis one, was the original intent to communicate to readers that the universe is only thousands of years old? By assuming the young-earth perspective is the “literal interpretation” you are assuming the very thing that is in question. The writer of the article refers to his position as the “plain reading of Scripture.” But “plain reading” does not necessarily equate with “correct reading.”

Furthermore, it should be noted that Scripture simply does not give us the age of the universe. Sorry, it just doesn’t! When young-earth creationists insist their view is the literal and plain meaning they are assuming an answer to an issue the Genesis one passage is not even addressing. In other words, everyone agrees that Genesis tells us the “Who,” “Why,” and “What” of creation. This is because the text is primarily theological in nature. But the “When” of creation is simply not addressed and the burden of proof seems to lie with those who claim otherwise.

Second, be careful not to engage in special pleading, i.e., holding others to a principle while exempting oneself. This is a double standard and inconsistent. The writer of the article speaks of

…Christian leaders [who] deliberately reinterpret God's Word on the basis of man's fallible ideas (taken from outside the Bible).

This is obviously an uncharitable characterization of old-age proponents. But lurking behind this statement is also a case of special pleading. The reason I say this is because everyone must engage in biblical interpretation, including young-earth creationists. One should not be too quick to assume that everyone else is deliberately reinterpreting God’s Word by employing man’s fallible ideas, all the while holding one’s own interpretation to be the “plain reading of Scripture.” Everyone must interpret Scripture, and young-earth creationists are just as susceptible to fallible ideas and fallible interpretations which are “taken from outside the Bible.”

#3: Keep an Open Mind.

On issues such as the age of the universe and the interpretation of Genesis one, I would hope we would at least occasionally entertain the idea that “I could be wrong.” Realize that there are intelligent, Bible-believing Christians on both sides of the debate. Let’s continue to dialogue about this issue with mutual respect, courtesy, and a humble heart, remembering that we are ambassadors for Christ, lest by our in-house fighting and quarrelsome attitudes we give non-Christians an excuse for rejecting the Lord.

In addition, keeping an open mind will help prevent unnecessary dogmatism in areas where it is simply not warranted. For example, if you are as dogmatic about the age of the earth as you are on the deity of Christ, that’s a mistake. This brings us to our fourth important reminder.

#4: Major on the Majors.

The age of the universe has nothing to do with your salvation, nor does your interpretation of the days of Genesis. This is not an essential Christian doctrine nor is it part of the Gospel. In other words,

Not all doctrines are of equal importance!

This is crucial to remember. Failing to distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrines ends up placing issues such as the age of the earth on equal ground with the sine qua non (without which not) of the Christian faith. This in turn can mistakenly communicate the idea that all doctrine is equally important and all doctrine must be either accepted or rejected as a system. In other words,

An individual may be placed in the precarious position where they feel if they do not accept the young-earth creationist position they must reject Christianity altogether.

Remember the quote above where the author states,

The writer made this statement suggesting that the “compromise” of the old-age position is an attack on Scripture which leads to doubt, disbelief, and rejection of the Christian faith. It should be pointed out that this commits the fallacy of false cause, or minimally, an oversimplified cause. But more importantly, it could just as easily be argued that it is not the old-age view but rather a dogmatic young-earth position that leads to doubt, disbelief, and the eventual rejection of the Christian faith.

How so?

An excessively dogmatic position on the age of the earth combined with a failure to develop a sound doctrinal hierarchy forces people to choose either between a “young earth and Christian faith” or “an old earth and Christian rejection.” In other words, not only does this create another false dichotomy, but it could also just as easily explain the exodus of our churched youth.

Again, how so?

It could be that our children “are already doubting and disbelieving God’s Word” and walking away from the faith because they sincerely believe science shows the universe to be old. Yet they are also told an old universe is at odds with Scripture, or should I say, the young-earth interpretation of Scripture. They then feel forced to choose between science and faith.

In these situations it is important to communicate that one can be a Christian and believe the universe is old. The two are not mutually exclusive. Ironically then, though the writer of this article is concerned with keeping our youth in church, it may be a combination of unwarranted dogmatism and bad theology that is driving them away.

Moreover, it should be remembered that most old-age proponents are not denying a literal Adam and Eve nor are they denying the doctrine of original sin. There are some who do, regrettably, and those who do embrace positions which are theologically problematic and cause for alarm. However, it does not follow that a denial of 24-hour creation days necessarily leads to these troublesome positions, and implying so may be in danger of committing a slippery slope fallacy.

To sum up, we need to keep in mind this oft quoted maxim:

In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

[1] Ken Ham, “It’s an Attack on the Son,” Answers Update 17, no. 11 (2010): 1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 2.

Refuting Moral Relativism

2011-07-26T00:01:00.000-07:00

This talk entitled "Refuting Moral Relativism" was given at a local Calvary Chapel a couple of years ago. The audio link was previously down but should now be in good working order so I am re-posting this blog.

We had some technical difficulties with both the projector and computer throughout the presentation so there may be slight gaps in the audio. Unfortunately for me, my notes were on the computer. Other than that I think it went alright!

As always, I am deeply indebted to clear thinkers such as Greg Koukl, J.P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith, and Paul Copan (all of whom I steal my material from) regarding their extensive work and interaction with the issue of moral relativism.

Full MP3 audio here.

Enjoy!

A Text Out of Context: 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22

2011-07-13T01:14:00.000-07:00

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 seems to be a passage of Scripture which is prone to all sorts of abuse. The reason I think this is the case is because this passage includes a group of short, pithy statements made by the apostle Paul which can easily be repeated and turned into "stand alone" verses apart from their context. The text reads as follows:

Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (NASB)

Probably the two most common phrases I have heard repeated from this passage are the following:

"Don't quench the Spirit!" (v. 19)

"Abstain from all appearances of evil!" (v. 22 KJV)

One of the more interesting times I heard the "Do not quench the Spirit" passage invoked was in a discussion regarding the theology of Rob Bell. After an examination of Rob Bell's book Velvet Elvis and a comparison with Scripture, one of the group participants asked, "Are we quenching the Spirit here?" The implication of the question, as I understood it at the time, was that by critiquing Bell's work we were somehow in danger of preventing the Spirit from ministering to us.

Biblical expositor Walt Russell from Talbot School of Theology has done an excellent job analyzing this passage in context in a blog he wrote entitled "'Avoid Every Appearance of Evil!' Toppling a Faulty Moral Pillar." Russell focuses in on v. 22 but his insights give context to the passage as a whole. I quote him here at length as well as down below because of its extreme relevance:

1 Thessalonians is the Apostle Paul’s letter to a group of new Christians who have been persecuted by their fellow citizens in northern Greece for most of their six months in Christ. It is an adversarial context for the church, so Paul spends much of his time defending his church-planting team’s integrity and actions in chapters 1-3. In chapters 4-5 (“the moral exhortation” section), he addresses five successive threats to the life of this body. 1 Thessalonians 5:12-22 is the fifth and final significant issue facing this fledgling church.

This last issue in vv. 12-22 deals broadly with the concerns that arise when the church gathers for her weekly assembly. Paul gives instructions about how to foster healthy body life in this context by rightly esteeming leaders (vv. 12-13), dealing sensitively with the varying needs of the saints (vv. 14-15), establishing a joyful assembly (vv. 16-18), and not quenching the ministry of the Holy Spirit in prophetic utterances (vv. 19-22).

Given the broader context, we are now ready to look at the immediate context for v. 22. Notice the logical flow of the argument about prophetic utterances in vv. 19-22:

“Do not quench the Spirit” (v. 19) (the general exhortation);

“Do not despise prophetic utterances (v. 20) (the specific negative aspect of the exhortation).

“But examine everything carefully” (v. 21) (the contrasting positive aspect of the exhortation);

“hold fast to that which is good” (v. 22) (what to do with good prophecies after examining);

“abstain from every form of evil” or “every evil form of utterance” (v. 23) (what to do with the evil prophetic utterances).

New Testament professor Gene Green agrees in his commentary on the letters to the Thessalonians. Regarding the context of 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, he states,

The last group of imperatives Paul delivers includes five exhortations that concern the use and control of prophecy within the church. Some people in the congregation were prohibiting prophecy. The apostle counters this tendency by saying that although this manifestation of the Spirit should be regulated, prophecy should not be banned from the meetings of the assembly. (1)

So what about the often repeated command "Do not quench the Spirit"? In context, it appears some Thessalonians were attempting to prohibit manifestations of the Spirit in the Thessalonian church.(2) Again Gene Green comments:

The "quenched Spirit" had to do with the cessation of prophecy. The presence of the Spirit in the church was linked inextricably with prophecy among the people of God...so it does not surprise in the least that our author should respond to any attempt to prohibit its use with the exhortation, "Do not quench the Spirit."(3)

What about v. 22 which says "Abstain from every form of evil" or the more popular "Abstain from all appearances of evil"? Again, in context, this verse is the final exhortation in the passage which calls the Thessalonians to reject inauthentic prophecies. So then, "in this context the command is put into service to guide their reaction to prophecies that were considered false."(4) As Walt Russell notes above, v. 22 could be better understood as "avoid every evil form of utterance."

Furthermore, the "abstain from all appearances of evil" imperative simply doesn't match the rest of Scripture. Walt Russell points to the example of Jesus:

Moreover, did Jesus “avoid every appearance of evil”? I think not! One of His constant criticisms at the hands of religious people was that He spent time with “defiling people” like tax gatherers, swindlers, irreligious people (“sinners”), and probably even prostitutes. By their standards, He seemed regularly to have the appearance of evil. But perhaps this is the accusation we must bear along with Jesus, rather than inappropriately withdrawing from the sin-scarred people in our lives. Perhaps this is also part of the rebuke many receive at the hands of those who don’t read 1 Thessalonians 5:22 in context. My advice? Topple this faulty moral pillar!

Finally, regarding hermeneutics in general and the moral exhortations readers often find in the epistles, Russell offers sound advice all biblical interpreters should heed:

As is generally the case with Scripture, God and the human authors are very specific in their discussions. They seldom sprinkle broad moral sayings in free-standing fashion. By contrast, they usually speak in a closely-argued style, especially in the New Testament letters. Such is the case with 1 Thessalonians 5:22. By removing v. 22 from its very specific context, we abstract the language from its tightly reasoned moorings and create a much more general, vague concept.

______________________________________________

(1) Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 260-261.
(2) Ibid., 261
(3) Ibid., 261-262.
(4) Ibid., 265.

The Triunity of God

2011-07-11T23:24:00.000-07:00

The outline below was made for a small group discussion at church. The college group was tackling the topic of the Trinity. I spent some time putting the outline together but thought it was a shame to put it aside after only an hour of discussion. I thought I would post it here in hopes that others would benefit from it as well.

The outline is by no means exhaustive but rather was meant to serve as a guide on several issues we thought were important to discuss. I appreciate any comments or feedback on the content.

I. Quick Facts

a. The word “Trinity” refers to “Tri-unity” (three in one).

b. The term comes from the Latin trinitas.

c. The doctrine of the Trinity is a central doctrine of the Christian faith.

i. “‘Central doctrines’ of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.”[1]

ii. No other religion holds to this teaching.

d. The first recorded use of the term “Trinity” is by Theophilus of Antioch (116-181) in the second century.[2]

II. What Are They Saying About the Trinity?

a. Jehovah’s Witnesses

i. “To worship God on his terms means to reject the Trinity doctrine. It contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught. It contradicts what God says about himself in his own inspired Word.”[3]

ii. “Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced than that of the Trinity. It could have originated only in one mind…the mind of Satan the Devil.”[4]

b. Muslims

i. “Unbelievers are those that say: ‘God is one of three.’ There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished.”[5]

ii. “They do blaspheme who say God is one of three…for there is no God except one God.”[6]

c. Thomas Jefferson

i. “When we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three;…and got [sic] back to the pure and simple doctrines [Jesus] inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples.”[7]

III. The doctrine of the Trinity

a. A Basic Definition: “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[8]

b. The doctrine of the Trinity is a logical deduction based on three lines of evidence presented in the Bible:

i. There is one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).

ii. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God (John 8:58; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 4:30; Col. 2:9; 2 Peter 1:17).

iii. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons (Matt. 3:15-17; Matt. 28:19; John 16:13-15; 2 Cor. 13:14).

c. God is Triune: “He exists eternally and simultaneously as three distinct and distinguishable persons (though not separate): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[9]

i. All three persons in the Godhead, or Divine Being, share equally and completely the one divine nature, and are therefore the same God—coequal in attributes, nature and glory.

ii. God has revealed himself as one in essence or substance (being), but three in subsistence (personhood).

iii. In terms of what God is (essence), God is one; in terms of who God is (subsistence), God is three.”

d. “We worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance…The entire three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that…we worship complete unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity” (The Athanasian Creed).

e. “Trinity can thus be defined as three persons in one divine essence or as one divine essence subsisting in three modes, the unity of essence being guaranteed by the consubstantiality and coinherence of the persons, the distinction of persons being manifest in their relations.”[10]

IV. Reason and Logic

a. “Human reason cannot reveal anything, but it can defend what has been revealed.”[11]

i. In other words, human reason is not limitless.

1. We would never reason our way to the Trinity (though some Christians in church history believed we could, e.g., Anselm).

2. We know God is Triune because He has revealed His nature to us through special revelation, i.e., the Bible.

ii. However, once the doctrine of the Trinity has been revealed it can be defended using reason.

1. This is because it is not logically contradictory.

2. The Trinity is not irrational but suprarational.

b. The law of non-contradiction

i. “A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.”

ii. Examples of contradictions

1. God is one God and three Gods

2. God is one Person and three Persons

iii. In order for something to qualify as a contradiction it must violate the law of non-contradiction

c. Is the Trinity a logical contradiction?

i. The doctrine of the Trinity says there are three persons in one divine essence.

1. This is not contradictory because it distinguishes between the concepts of person and essence.

2. “…while God is one and many at the same time, he is not one and many in the same sense. He is one in the sense of his essence but many in the sense of his persons.”[12]

ii. The “Is” of predication vs. the “Is” of identity.[13]

1. It is correct to say “Jesus is God” but not “God is Jesus.” Why?

a. Because to say “Jesus is God” is to predicate to Jesus the divine nature which two other Persons posses: the Father and Holy Spirit.

b. But to say “God is Jesus” in terms of identity is incorrect because Jesus does not exhaust what it means to speak of God.

2. Therefore, logically speaking, we can affirm:

a. “The Father is God,” “The Son is God,” and “The Holy Spirit is God” using the “is” of predication.

b. “The Father is not the Son,” “The Son is not the Spirit,” and “The Spirit is not the Father,” using the “is” of identity.

c. And “God is the Trinity” and “The Trinity is God” using the “is” of identity.

iii. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that the Trinity is a logical contradiction

1. Ask, “Can you explain how the Trinity violates the law of non-contradiction?” Make them bear the burden of proof.

2. Most of the time you will find the skeptic misunderstands the doctrine and ends up attacking a straw man.

a. E.g., the Qur’an quoted above misrepresents the Trinity as three Gods.

b. In discussions with Jehovah’s witnesses and other theological cults you will find they rarely (if ever) accurately represent the doctrine of the Trinity.

d. Notice:[14]

i. You can’t disprove the Trinity by showing there is only one God.

ii. You can’t disprove the Trinity by showing that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are different Persons.

iii. Why? Because those are both true in the Trinity, and if you acknowledge these two things you have already admitted two of the three lines of evidence for the Trinity.

1. The third line of evidence is that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

V. History of the Trinity

a. Fact: “the elements of the Trinity were understood, accepted, and taught very early in the history of the church.”[15]

b. First Century

i. The New Testament

1. As Scripture this is our starting point and basis for our beliefs

2. This is where the doctrine of the Trinity originates, even if a more precise formulation developed over time

a. In other words, if Scripture teaches the elements of the Trinity, then Scripture teaches the elements of the Trinity, end of discussion.

b. And if that is the case, it cannot be dismissed as “a fourth century invention” (see below under “Objections”)

3. Sometimes Christians forget the fact that the New Testament is actually 27 separate historical documents.

a. In other words, the New Testament is not just “one witness” to the doctrine of the Trinity.

b. Rather, the multiple writers of the multiple New Testament documents are multiple witnesses to the doctrine of the Trinity.

ii. Less than thirty years passed from the death of Christ before we have written evidence of the Trinitarian formula from Matt. 28:19 being used as a regular baptismal rite.[16]

1. Didache, 35-60 AD

a. “But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water…But if thou has neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”[17]

b. “If we are correct above in thinking that an initiatory rite, especially that of baptism, which uses the phrase “in the name” will carry with it a substantial package of teaching, then we may assume that here again we have an intimation of Trinitarian belief in the first century.”[18]

c. Second and Third Century

i. Ignatius (110-130) “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.”[19]

ii. Church historian Irenaeus (115-190) a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John, in his Against Heresies X.I, wrote:

1. “…in order that through Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow…’”[20]

iii. Tertullian (160-230) wrote about “a trinity of one divinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[21] He also wrote:

1. “Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number.”[22]

iv. “The concept of Trinity in unity, three distinct persons who are the one God, is then firmly entrenched in Christian thought by the middle to late second century, and has even acquired a special term to refer to it.”[23]

d. Fourth Century

i. Council of Nicea (325 AD)

1. “Athanasius and the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) argued the consubstantiality of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The Arians viewed the persons as different essence (heteroousios) and unlike (anomoios); Athanasius held that the persons were of one essence, or consubstantial (homoousios).”[24]

ii. Council of Constantinople (381 AD)

1. Developed the formula that the Trinity is “one ousia [essence or substance] in three hupostaseis [subsistences].”[25]

2. “Final acceptance of the Athanasian language of homoousios was made possible by the use of that term in connection with an adequate explanation of the threeness of the Godhead. This was the achievement of the Cappadocian fathers…The Cappadocians argued one ousia but three hypostases, defining hypostasis as a particularization, or an individual instance, of an essence, or ousia. Thus Peter, James, and John are three individual instances, or hypostases, of the essence, or ousia, of humanity. In order to avoid a tritheism of three essentially coequal gods, the Cappadocians further stipulated that the entire divine ousia is indivisibly present in the three hypostases or, more precisely, that the three hypostases are eternally subsistent relations in the one ousia.”[26]

VI. Trinitarian Heresies

a. Modalism

i. God is one Person who appears in three different modes or is known by three different names: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

1. To put it another way, Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

2. “They believe instead that God exists and manifests Himself in one form at a time. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct but not coexistent persons.”[27]

3. But who then was Jesus praying to in John 17? (see also Matt. 3:15-17)

ii. Also known as Sabellianism after the Roman theologian Sabellius.

iii. E.g., “The Trinity is like a man who has three different roles as husband, father, and son.”

iv. Modern day advocates

1. “Jesus Only” United Oneness Pentecostals

2. T.D. Jakes

b. Tritheism (“three gods”)

i. The three Persons of the Trinity are three separate Gods.

ii. Divides the unified essence into three gods, denying God’s unity.

1. This denies the overwhelming biblical teaching that there is one and only one God.

2. “The orthodox doctrine asserts that the three centers of personhood share one unified divine essence that cannot be separated in essential being or divinity.”[28]

iii. E.g., “The Trinity is like Peter, James and John who are all human in essence.”

iv. Modern day advocates

1. Mormons (though Mormons may be better classified as polytheists or henotheists)

c. “Trinity, therefore, is an attempt to avoid both a monadic oneness and a tritheistic view of God through the affirmation that God is one in essence and three in person.”[29]

VII. Objections

a. “The word ‘Trinity’ does not appear in the Bible.”

i. So what? The word “Bible” does not appear in the Bible either.

1. The underlying assumption to this objection is that if a specific word cannot be found in the Bible than the concept that word represents must not be biblical. This is patently false.

2. Ask, “So are you saying that if the word is not found in the Bible it cannot be biblically true?”

a. This is a good question to ask Jehovah’s Witnesses who object to the Trinity on this basis.

b. If the JW says “Yes” then you can simply point out that the word “Jehovah” is not in the Bible nor is the phrase “Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.”

c. If the JW says “No” then ask, “So then why did you raise that objection?”

ii. The question is not “Does this term appear in the Bible?” but rather “Is this doctrine taught in the Bible?”

1. You can call it the “Trinity” or you can call it the “Hokey Pokey” (though this is probably not advisable).

2. What matters is whether or not the doctrine is found in Scripture.

b. “The doctrine of the Trinity was a late development.”

i. As stated above, the doctrine itself is derived from Scripture.

ii. The mistake in trying to post-date the doctrine of the Trinity is in confusing the origin of the doctrine with its later formulation.

iii. Robert Morey notes that the doctrine had to originate early since “In order for the doctrine of the Trinity to be defined and defended against the heretics who were attacking it, it obviously had to already exist.”[30]

iv. In other words, the doctrine comes from Scripture itself while its exact formulation and precise language was something to be worked out by the early church fathers.

1. Remember, the early church fathers had Scripture as their starting point! They looked to Scripture to see what Scripture taught!

2. In applying and using terms such as homoousios, substantia, hypostases, etc., what they sought was very precise, descriptive language in order to:

a. Draw a line between heresy and orthodoxy and…

b. Prevent heretics from (1) affirming orthodox doctrine found in creeds and (2) confusing Christian believers.

3. Councils were called and creeds affirmed largely in reaction to heretics who attempted to challenge orthodoxy.

v. Why the delay?[31]

1. The early church had merely passed on what had been handed down to them: simple truth from the apostolic witness.

2. Six years after the Edict of Milan in 313 the great persecutions under Diocletian and Maximin came to an end, only to be faced with a severe threat from within: Arius began teaching regarding the Word of God that "once He was not."

3. The doctrine of the Trinity was officially formulated when it was directly attacked by the Arians of the early fourth century.

vi. "The adoption of the Nicene Creed in 325 and the Chalcedonian Creed in 451 stabilized the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ for over one thousand years.”[32]

vii. “One might wonder why major controversy over theological questions came so late in the history of the ancient church; but, in the era of persecution, allegiance to Christ and the Scriptures took precedence over the meaning of particular doctrines.”[33]

c. “The Trinity is beyond human comprehension.”

i. Yes, and?

ii. “…while the Trinity doctrine is to some degree mysterious and ultimately incomprehensible to the finite mind, it can be discussed in a meaningful way and it is not an absurdity.”[34]

iii. “To say that the Trinity cannot be understood likewise is imprecise, or at least open to misinterpretation. Trinitarian theologians do not mean to imply that the Trinity is unintelligible nonsense. Rather, the point they are making is that the Trinity cannot be fully fathomed, or comprehended, by the finite mind of a man. There is a difference between gaining a basically correct understanding of something and having a complete, comprehensive, all-embracing, perfect understanding of it. The way many other theologians would express this difference is to say that the Trinity can be understood, or ‘apprehended,’ but not ‘comprehended.’”[35]

iv. “Its complexity is not an argument against its tenability, if anything it is the strongest point in its favor. After all, we are dealing with the nature of the eternal God of the Universe…would it be surprising to us, who are merely mortal, finite creatures, to find that his basic character is incomprehensible?”[36]

VIII. Why does the Trinity matter?

a. “…it reveals What and Who God is (one God in three Persons).”[37]

b. It “brings together in a coherent manner the great truths about God’s historical, redemptive actions.”[38]

i. E.g., the atonement: “The Father thought it, the Son bought it, and the Spirit brought it.”

ii. “Just about everything that matters in Christianity hangs on the truth of God’s three-in-oneness.”[39]

c. Only a God who has plurality within unity can adequately account for God’s being love and for God’s knowing.

i. “…only a God who has plurality within unity can adequately account for God being love and for the use of his divine mind. If God is a single solitary being…then before creation God had no one to love and could not distinguish between the knower and the known (a requisite of self-knowledge). The Trinity doctrine…resolves the philosophical problems inherent in…uncompromising and rigid monotheism.”[40]

IX. Conclusion:

“Holy, Holy, Holy, Merciful and Mighty;

God in Three Persons,

Blessed Trinity!”

[1] Alan W. Gomes, Unmasking the Cults (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 10.

[2] William G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3^rd ed., ed. Alan W. Gomes (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2003), 229.

[3] Should You Believe in the Trinity? (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989), 31.

[4] Reconciliation (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1928), 101.

[5] Sura 5:70

[6] Sura 5:73

[7] Thomas Jefferson to Timothy Pickering, February 27, 1821, in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, ed. Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907), 323.

[8] James White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), 26.

[9] Section 3c taken from Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 65.

[10] Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1985), 309.

[11] Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 50.

[12] Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002), 272.

[13] Section 4c2 adapted from Paul Copan, “That’s Just Your Interpretation”: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 123.

[14] Section 4d adapted from Gregory Koukl, The Trinity: A Solution, Not a Problem (Signal Hill: Stand to Reason, 1994), 7.

[15] Ibid., 8.

[16] Koukl, The Trinity, 8.

[17] J.B. Lightfoot, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 126.

[18] Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1984), 47.

[19] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicean Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), Vol. I, p. 52, Ephesians 7.

[20] Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicean Fathers, Vol. I, 331.

[21] Ibid., Vol. 4, 9, On Modesty, chap. 21.

[22] Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicean Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 621, Against Praxeas, XXV.

[23] Beisner, God in Three Persons, 54.

[24] Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 307.

[25] Henry W. Holloman, Kregel Dictionary of the Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 547.

[26] Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 308.

[27] Holloman, Kregel Dictionary of the Bible and Theology, 550.

[28] Ibid., 549.

[29] Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 307.

[30] Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Grand Rapids: World, 1996), 436.

[31] Section 7b5 taken from Koukl, The Trinity, 9.

[32] Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church (Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, 1988), 105.

[33] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, 3^rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) , 125-126.

[34] Samples, Without a Doubt, 72.

[35] Robert M. Bowman Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 16-17.

[36] John Gilchrist, Facing the Muslim Challenge (Capetown: Life Challenge Africa, 2002), 66. Gilchrist goes on to say, “One cannot help asking whether a concept of God that can easily be understood in the human mind was not perhaps conceived there in the first place.”

[37] Samples, Without a Doubt, 74.

[38] Ibid., 75.

[39] Bruce Milne, Know the Truth (Downers Grove: InverVarsity, 1982), 62.

[40] Kenneth Richard Samples, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 260-261.

(non-) BOOK REVIEW for "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question"

2011-07-10T19:31:00.000-07:00

Former LA prosecutor and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi released his latest book "Divinity of Doubt: The God Question" recently and I decided to buy it. I like to use the investigative method when approaching truth claims and it sounded like Bugliosi was doing the same thing despite reaching a different conclusion. So I had to try it. Bulgliosi describes this work as the culmination of a two-year research project. He's written on the OJ case, JFK assassination, and George W. Bush but now steps out of his field to give his best case for agnosticism in this latest work. Bugliosi says he employs his prosecutorial skills to sift through the evidence for a rational conclusion. In that, I applaud him but the praise stops there.

This book was brought to my attention by an agnostic friend. I offered to read it with him but I'm not sure he has the time or interest. I finished the third chapter and put the book down for good. Perhaps it's unwise to dismiss a book with content I disagree with so quickly. After all, there are many things to be learned by reading authors who share a different point of view. But Bugliosi proved to me very early in his book that there would be little to learn. Here are my reasons for shutting down the project:

1. Intellectually Dishonest
Bugliosi mentions in his first chapter his definition of a fact is that which can be observed. He also is so convinced that God has no justification for allowing suffering in the world that he insists God would have to appear in the sky to convince us he exists. While Bugliosi claims to apply his prosecutorial framework to the God Question, he changes the rules before getting started. He would have won 0% of his cases in his long career as a prosecutor had he applied the same standards in court as he does to God.

2. Uninformed
Bugliosi clearly doesn't understand Christianity which he claims is a false religion. He may be agnostic about "a god" but wants the reader to know that the Christian God most certainly doesn't exist. That would be fine if he had good reasons to back it up. But instead, Bugliosi attacks a straw man. He makes up his own view of Christianity and then creating a case against it. His mention of Frank Turek and Norm Geisler are the only recognizable apologists he cites from the 21st century, but only in one quotation in the entire first three chapters and in an irrelevent part about prayer. Not only is he ignorant to Christianity, but he is clearly unfamiliar with leading arguments against it. There are much better arguments to draw from than the ones Bugliosi came up with.

3. Tacky
Bugliosi includes in every section of the book a sarcastic tone that doesn't belong in an intellectual conversation especially one as important as God. Much like the angry new atheists he's also critical of, Bugliosi presents a tone that seems like a desperate attempt to make a point that his arguments fail to do for themselves. If he had presented more informed and honest reasoning, the tone would only be annoying. Instead, it made it even more difficult to read a terrible book.

I hope Bugliosi's eyes have been opened by this experience so that he reexamines his own worldview. Two years may be a long time for him, but there are thousands of scholars of all beliefs and backgrounds who have devoted their lives to the topic. Reading just a few of them would have made a big difference to the author's knowledge base. Bugliosi warns the believer not to read his book if easily offended. I would take it further, whether atheist, theist, or agnostic, this book is not for you. You will get more out of the reviews like that which is available on the Please Convince Me website. Prosecutor Al Serrato has written extensively on the book in a very clear and fair way. His reviews are highly recommended.

Guilty but "Not Guilty"

2011-07-09T15:44:00.000-07:00

Many were outraged this week when an Orlando jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of her young daughter’s murder. But why? Twelve people just like you and me prescreened by both the prosecution and defense were there for every minute of the trial. They were the only audience the lawyers cared about. Everything was thrown at them; every piece of evidence and every defense. Regardless of what we all saw in the media, they saw more and analyzed it more. At least one juror has spoken out implying that the cause of death was indeterminate so blaming someone for an unknown action leading to the death leaves a logical gap. In other words, it’s certain Caylee died, but not that she was murdered. If “murder” itself is uncertain, assigning blame to it would have been as well. Certainty is what was missing. Was certainty neccessary?

Admittedly, I watched almost no coverage of the trial or media commentary. But from my experience in criminal investigations, I understand what a standard of proof is. The jurors were operating on the highest standard in our legal system: beyond a reasonable doubt. So, the question is, can the jurors know that Casey Anthony killed her daughter yet still find her “not guilty” in a criminal trial? I think many of them did exactly that. To see this, we must understand two things: 1) what is knowledge and 2) what standard of proof is accepted in court.

What does it mean to “know” something? When approaching any given proposition, we start by judging it to be either true or false with our built in bias, given background knowledge, and the facts provided. When someone believes something is no more likely true than untrue, they suspend judgement by maintaining an agnostic position. However, we usually develop beliefs in most things that are worth reflecting on. As one becomes aware of evidence or reasons for or against a proposition, the decision scale tips toward one direction or the other forming a “belief” in its truthfulness or falsehood. Mere belief grows into actual knowledge when there is good reason behind those beliefs. One could say they have a belief about something without proper justification. For example, my former graduate school professor J.P. Moreland likes to say he believes the Kansas City Chiefs will win the Superbowl next season, but concedes he doesn’t know they will. Knowing something is not only a belief but one that is justified by reasons or evidence. Knowledge, as Dr. Moreland defines it, is “justified true belief.” In the case of belief, we can propose just about anything. However, if he were to claim to know that the Chiefs are scheduled to play the Buffalo Bills for their opening home game because he saw their schedule last night on ESPN, it would be knowledge based on a justified true belief. Another point of clarity is that knowing something intellectually is different than knowing in the sense of emotional or psychological certainty. These are two different uses of the term altogether. Moreland can say “I just know the Chiefs are going to win the game!” but that psychological confidence doesn’t translate to objectively knowing anything about the future outcome of the game. Reality confirms our beliefs but it exists independent from them.

To illustrate how our knowledge plays out in practical terms, consider the following scenario. When you board a plane, you must have knowledge of several propositions. For instance, the pilot is adequately trained and is of clear mind, that the plane has been recently inspected, that the control tower will keep other planes at a safe distance from each other, and security screened out any potential terrorist threats. The conviction is more than belief because the beliefs are justified and account as knowledge. I don’t know about you, but in my travels, I’ve had sufficient reasons for believing these things. The pilots appeared confident and of right mind. Moreover, I assumed the flight crew members were aware of the pilots’ competence as well as the plane’s mechanical integrity since their lives were at stake too. I witnessed the security procedures myself which seemed sufficient from what I could see. I figured the airline company was motivated to ensure safety as well since any accident due to poor maintenance or pilot incompetence would be a public relations nightmare among other things. Do I know “beyond a reasonable doubt” that none of these assumptions can possibly be false? If just one of them is false, all of us on board could die. With life and limb quite literally on the line, should I get off the plane until that high standard can be met? While those with a prior fear of flying may think so, the reasonable answer for most of us who travel is a clear “no.” Whether it’s eating food or crossing the street, we just don’t make decisions based on such a standard in everyday life. Our knowledge of the world doesn’t require it. Otherwise, if beliefs only counted as knowledge when there is no possibility of being wrong, the truth of any belief would be ever evasive. But it gets even stranger. As soon as skepticism stamps out our confidence in knowledge, the tides turn quickly. If we grant the skeptic that we cannot know anything, we must wonder if their claim itself is exempt from their own theory. The more one says knowledge is impossible the more one is refuting his own theory. If he's consistent, the skeptic can't be certain his position is the right one.

So why does the legal profession, specifically criminal convictions, hold to such a high epistemological standard? It’s for one reason. Our society values mercy over justice so the criminal justice system reflects that principle. As hard as it is to see played out in cases like these, I agree with this value judgement. Both mercy and justice are important, but the wrongful conviction of an innocent man is deemed by our culture to be a greater evil than the good that comes from rightfully condemning a guilty man. So when we talk about whether or not we can know Casey Anthony killed her little girl, we must remove ourselves from the justice system vacuum the jurors found themselves in. In fact, I believe it was possible for every single juror on that case to know Casey was guilty of murder but were bound by the rules of judicial procedure to issue the vote of “not guilty.” This was not a vote of their knowledge or even their psychological confidence, but a vote on whether the high standard was met beyond a reasonable doubt.

To see how different the world inside a criminal courtroom is compared to anywhere outside of it, consider this. In my criminal investigations, I often come across a case like the following example. Imagine two individuals were caught red-handed with 20 pounds of drugs. The patrol officer stopped the vehicle the suspects were driving for running a red light. The officer was fair to the suspects and thorough in his investigation which led him to believe the suspects were possessing and transporting illegal drugs in an amount normally intended for sale. When he read the suspects their constitutional right not to make any self-incriminating statements, both decided not to speak so no admissions were made. Nonetheless, the officer met the standard of proof for his part of the case, “probable cause,” which is necessary for the arrest and search of the suspects. Probable cause is similar to our definition of belief above where the facts need only appear more true than not. However, the burden is much greater for the prosecutor. If I bring this case to the United States Attorney for federal prosecution, they may be fully within their rights to decline the case. Despite what the officer discovered and what we all know is true, the case will be dismissed and the suspects released from custody. But why? Don’t we have knowledge that they committed the crime? Of course we do, but the courtroom operates within a set of rules regardless of what we actually know. If just one procedure was missed, if the amount of drugs didn’t meet prosecutorial guidelines, if key witnesses aren’t willing to testify in court, or if the evidence isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the case won’t even be accepted for prosecution no matter how justified the initial arrest by the patrol officer was or how obvious their guilt. The prosecutor knows that the case could end up before a jury who decide on more than intellectual knowledge that the defendant is guilty, but that no alternative theory is even reasonable. That’s why it’s unfair to ridicule the jurors in the Anthony trial. Sure, they might have been wrong. Perhaps the high standard was met. But whether or not they properly applied the standard is irrelevant to whether they know Casey killed Caylee. They can know she’s guilty even when they voted otherwise in court.

Common Sense Truth

2011-06-22T10:00:00.000-07:00

"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate wasn't the first to ask this.

The question, at first blush, sounds profound. In reality, I think we all know the answer to this age-old inquiry. I say that because we presuppose a certain definition of truth in our speech and actions every day of our lives. Perhaps the problem is not that we do not know what truth is but rather that we do not know that we know. And the reason we do not know that we know is simply because we haven't taken the few moments necessary to reflect on the nature of truth.

Three Views on Truth

Historically, there have been three dominant theories of truth put forth by philosophers:1

First, there is the pragmatic theory of truth: truth is what works. Three major problems with this view are as follows:

Problem #1: the view seems counter intuitive. For example, there are some true beliefs which are not very useful (e.g., the belief that my cat has grey and white fur), and some false beliefs which may turn out to be very useful (e.g., my false belief that people actually read my blogs is useful motivation to continue writing them).

Problem #2: the view is self-defeating. If truth is what works, than the pragmatic theory itself must not be true, since most philosophers throughout the ages have not held to the pragmatic theory but rather have found the correspondence theory to be much more useful!

Problem #3: the view implies relativism. Imagine two individuals who hold contradictory beliefs. On the pragmatic view, as long as these contradictory beliefs are useful for the respective individuals who hold them than we would have to conclude they are both true. But if that is the case than truth is relative, a view which itself is untenable and self-refuting.

Second, there is the coherence theory of truth: truth is logical consistency (coherence) among a set of beliefs an individual holds. Three major problems with this view are as follows:

Problem #1: this view implies that contradictory propositions can be true. On this view, it is possible for two different people to hold contradictory beliefs yet both beliefs to be "true" as long as these beliefs cohere with each individuals web of belief respectively. This leads to the absurd notion that contradictions can both be true.

Problem #2: for the same reasons as problem #1, and like the pragmatic view, this view implies relativism. On the coherence view, what is true is relative to each individual's belief system. Two contradictory beliefs may both be "true" as long as they cohere with their respective systems. But relativism is false, therefore like the pragmatic view the coherence theory must be rejected.

Problem #3: this view, like the pragmatic view, seems counter intuitive. The reason is that the coherence theory cuts the knower off from the real world. What is true is not what matches reality but rather what coheres within a given system of belief. But most people intuitively understand that truth has something to do with the way the world really is.

Coherence is important, but not enough. It is a necessary condition for truth, but by itself it is not a sufficient one.

Finally, there is the correspondence theory of truth: truth is when an idea, belief, or statement matches (or corresponds with) the way the world actually is (reality).

This may rightly be labeled the "common sense" view of truth. While not taught explicitly in Scripture, it is assumed throughout both the Old and New Testaments. The correspondence theory of truth states that an idea, belief, or statement is true if it matches, or corresponds with, reality. In this sense, reality is the truth-maker and the idea, belief, or statement, is the truth-bearer. When the truth-bearer (an idea) matches the truth-maker (reality) they are said to stand in an “appropriate correspondence relationship” and truth obtains.2 Consider the following statements:

1. Barack Obama is the current President of the United States.

2. The city of Los Angeles is located in California.

3. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.

Are these statements true? They are if in fact they match reality. Statement number 1 is true if in reality Barack Obama is the current President of the United States. Statement 2 is true if in fact the city of Los Angeles is located in California. And statement 3 is true if abortion really does take the life of an innocent human being. Easy enough, right? Aristotle put it this way:

To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false.3

A Case for Correspondence

Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland notes two main arguments which have been advanced in favor of the correspondence theory of truth: the descriptive and the dialectical.4

The descriptive argument simply presents specific cases which help illustrate the concept of truth. For example, in Moreland’s bookstore case, an individual named Joe has the thought “Richard Swinburne’s book The Evolution of the Soul is in the bookstore.” When Joe enters the bookstore and sees the book he actually experiences truth, a correspondence relation between his thought and reality. Again, this is the “common sense” definition of truth since it is the view we all presuppose in our daily actions and speech, i.e., everyone assumes the correspondence theory of truth when reading a medicine label or dialing a phone number.5 This leads to the second argument.

The dialectical argument asserts that those who deny the correspondence theory of truth or present alternative theories actually presuppose the very thing they reject, showing the self-defeating nature and incoherence of their alternative view. Moreland presents this argument in the form of a dilemma:

Those who reject the correspondence theory either take their own utterances to be true in the correspondence sense or they do not. If the former, then those utterances are self-defeating. If the latter, there is no reason to accept them, because one cannot take their utterances to be true.6

In other words, either a purposed view of truth corresponds to reality or it does not. If it does, the arguer presupposes the correspondence view, the very thing he rejects when arguing for an alternative view. On the other hand, if a purposed view does not correspond to reality then we have no reason to accept it.

In short, denying the correspondence theory of truth is an implicit admission that one’s view should not be taken seriously, for only a view which matches the way things really are is worthy of our attention and belief. Contrary to the postmodern adage, truth is not "stranger than it used to be." Rather, truth is what we have taken it to be all along and what we assume it to be everyday.

Correspondence and the Christian

Is the correspondence theory of truth optional for Christians? Not according to the apostle Paul:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead (1 Cor. 15:14-15).

Our belief in the resurrection is not true simply because it works for us (the pragmatic view) nor because it is consistent with our web of belief (the coherence view). The Christian belief in the resurrection of Christ is true because it is an objective fact of history that corresponds with reality! Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis concludes,

Therefore, the correspondence view of truth is not simply one of many options for Christians. It is the only biblically and logically grounded view of truth available and allowable. We neglect or deny it to our peril and disgrace.7

_________________________________________

1 The following summaries and critiques are taken from Steven B. Cowan and James S. Spiegel, The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 35-45.

2 J.P. Moreland, Kingdom Triangle: Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit's Power (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 80.

3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, book 4, chapter 7.

4 Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 81-82.

5 See R. Scott Smith, Truth and the New Kind of Christian: The Emerging Effects of Postmodernism in the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 174-180.

6 Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 82.

7 Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 110.

Question: Who Created the Creator?

2011-06-11T23:46:00.000-07:00

The kalam cosmological argument is a simple yet effective argument for the existence of God. It goes as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

After establishing that the universe has a cause, Christian theists would go on to argue that God is the cause of the universe coming into being. But some skeptics are unsatisfied with this answer, claiming that if the universe itself was caused by God then one is justified in raising the question "What caused God?" or "Who created the Creator?" This is similar to Richard Dawkins question "Who designed the designer?"1

There are several problems with this line of inquiry:

First, who exactly is asking the question “Who created the Creator?”2 Not atheists like Richard Dawkins. Dickie Dawkins does not believe in God, let alone a created god. However, Christians are not asking this question either, for Christians hold that God is an eternal, self-existent Being, i.e., the uncaused first cause. To whose belief does this question apply then? Neither. This leads us to the second problem.

Second, the question is fallacious, committing what is known as a “category mistake.” A category mistake is committed when two ideas or categories are mixed together that do not belong.3 For example, asking “What does the color blue smell like?” or “How much does the number 3 weigh?” commits a category mistake. Smell is not something that can be applied to color and weight is not something that can be asked of numbers. In the same manner, asking “Who created the Creator?” applies the concept of “created being” to a Being who is not created, namely, the Christian God. In other words, if an atheist wants to ask the question “Who Created the Creator?” he needs to ask someone who believes in a finite, created god. But to ask Christians “Who created the Creator?” is essentially the same as asking “Who created the Uncreated Creator?” which is nonsensical. To raise this question shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian view of God.

Finally, the question “Who created the Creator?” commits a second fallacy known as a “complex question.” A complex question is a form of question begging, combing two questions into one while presuming the existence of a certain condition.4 In this case, the condition that is presumed is that God was created. The question “Who created the Creator?” can really be broken down into two questions: (1) “Was the Creator created?” and (2) “Who created Him?” The fallacy lies in the fact that the questioner assumes the answer is “yes” to the first question and masks this assumption in the form of a complex question. Since Christians answer “no” to the first question, the second question "Who created the Creator?" should not even be raised.

In short, not everything has a cause; only those things which begin to exist have a cause, as the kalam cosmological argument states in premise one. God had no beginning and therefore needs no cause.

________________________________________________

1 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 188.

2 Thanks to Greg Koukl for this insight.

3 Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1990), 108.

4 Patrick J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 10^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2008), 152.

Folly of the Cross

2011-04-19T11:52:00.000-07:00

Waiting in the Las Vegas airport for my delayed flight home last night, I finished a short book on the ancient execution method of crucifixion. I read the book after hearing it referenced by a number of top NT scholars, and pulled it out of my library recently in the spirit of the upcoming passion week. I learned many things from Martin Hengel's 90-page book aptly named "Crucifixion" (1977 Fortress Press). The book can be broken down into two primary areas of focus: 1) the history of the cross and 2) how people of the time perceived it.

"Crucifixion" is a well-researched book chock full of examples from ancient literature (despite Hengel's own claim that many writers dared not mention the term because of it's unsavory reputation). But the book's biggest contribution is how it helps the modern reader appreciate Paul's reference to "the folly of the cross."

Hengel brings the reader into the ancient greco-roman world where the crucifixion was a repulsive concept feared more than being burned, skinned, or eaten by animals. The book documents variations of crucifixion throughout the civilized world and over a period of about 700 years. It was known by people of many places, religions, and ethnicities. When the modern reader learns exactly what crucifixion is, one would see how it's hard to ignore. When it came to the setting we find Jesus in, his fellow Jews too were well aware of the cruel penalty paid by their rebellious zealots and considered the crucified to be cursed (Deut 21:22-23).

Set in this context, any message where a crucified man - let alone a peasant galilean Jew - to be revered as the incarnate second person of God, wouldn't have been received well. It is hard to fathom a story harder to sell in 1st century Palestine than the one the apostles suffered to preach (even before mentioning the resurrection - another tough sell). It's also a fact of history no reputable scholar of history denies. That Jesus of Nazareth "took on the form of a slave" (Phil 2:7) to die the most disgraceful, painful, visible, and feared death Rome had to offer - crucifixion.

Rob Bell Agrees with Atheists on Hell

2011-03-27T11:19:00.000-07:00

If you think Jesus threatens you with eternal torment unless you believe in him, you’re out of step with traditional Christianity. For those of you critical of this faulty concept, you're in the company of Rob Bell and numerous atheists he seems to agree with on this point. In the promo for his new book, Bell implies that if God is loving, he wouldn’t send people to hell (click here for his two-minute video speech).

As it turns out, this is an objection we usually get from atheists. In December 2009 I was in a panel debate on the topic, “Does the God of the Bible Exist?” where the atheists brought up this very objection. (click here for a five-minute video clip from the debate) For their objection to work, it must be based on: 1) an accurate representation of classical Christianity’s teachings on hell, and 2) a logical flow of thought. I will show it meets neither.

Is Their Hell Biblical?

The view underlying this objection is an inaccurate view of hell which then attacks that view by what’s known as the straw man fallacy. Bell presents a concept different than the gospel message and then makes it look absurd. It seems his unwillingness to accept the traditionally accepted doctrine stems not from scripture, but from his own personal desires. Bell is a seminary educated theologian who should know better. Christian teaching has always been that no one goes to hell for not believing in Jesus. Genesis sets the stage quite clearly by showing us the consequence of human sin is death in both our human bodies and in our relationship with God. For God to be all-loving, he must not allow any evil in his presence. We didn’t deserve to be reconciled back to him, but it was by his grace that Jesus saved us from this man-made consequence. He took upon himself the required penalty that only a divine being can. Far from being the cause of damnation, he is the free cure that none of us deserves. Under this proper understanding of hell, God is punishing those who refuse to accept his free gift through Jesus. Contrast this with Bell’s insistence that hell is unjust punishment for a loving god. But why should a loving god embrace evil and force people to worship him in heaven – even those who refuse to draw close to him? How does Rob Bell know that Gandhi wanted to be with God? Like the atheists, Rob Bell doesn’t give any reasons for his conclusion. He just says it expecting an emotional reaction.

Is Their Case Logical?

Not only does this objection contain an informal fallacy, but it also simply doesn’t follow logically to their intended conclusion – that a good god cannot send people to hell. Even if we would grant Bell and the atheists are correct that a good god can’t send people to hell, there’s still a problem. Denying hell’s reality isn’t the only feasible option. If they are right that a good god can’t send people to hell, the following options are possible: 1) Hell doesn’t exist, 2) God doesn’t exist, 3) Objective goodness doesn’t exist, 4) God isn’t good, or 5) God is good and has morally sufficient reasons for sending people to hell. So why pick number 1 or 2 while ignoring the rest? Is it a loving act to mislead your audience to make your point? When eternal life is at stake, that’s not a loving thing to do.

For purposes of rational thought, the atheists score worse on another point. While Bell is either wrong or irrational, the conclusion drawn by the atheists is also irrelevant and intellectually dishonest. The first challenge from Mark Smith (in the video above) was the only one attempting to show a relevant inconsistency in a benevolent god sending people to hell. Nonetheless, as I showed in the video, this point fails several false and ungrounded assumptions. But the next two objections by Alex - “Hell is unfair” and Bruce - “Hell is too painful” are completely irrelevant to the existence of God. What the atheists dislike has nothing to do with whether the object of their dislike exists or not. Moreover, they’re intellectually dishonest because they think the punishment of hell is what convinces people yet doesn’t even convince them. If the threat of burning were real, why wouldn’t it convince them? This assumption begs the question by assuming hell isn’t real. Someone could say the Surgeon General’s warning of cigarette smoke causing cancer is using fear also, but that doesn’t make the claim any less real. We have to assess claims by their own merits before assuming they’re false.

Conclusion

With few exceptions, the overwhelming majority of classical Christian leaders have consistently taught that God sends to hell those who refuse his grace for morally justifiable reasons (see option #5 above). What are those reasons? God only knows. But those who challenge God’s goodness on the basis of hell need to show it’s absolutely impossible for the contradiction to work. In other words, if it’s even possible for him to have one justifiable reason for hell, then it’s not a contradiction. What’s more, if God is the standard for goodness, he is the basis from which to decide what is justifiable and what is not.

Of course, Rob Bell is not an atheist, but his message can be even more damaging to the cause of Christ. Satan doesn’t depend on black-robed cultists worshiping him in candle-lit basements. He works most efficiently by infiltrating false ideas into the heart of Christian teaching. Rob Bell reaches many people in his message which probably contains some truth. While many aspects of Christian doctrine have room for flexibility (worship styles, baptism methods, tithing amounts, etc), the nature of God as a perfect being who is loving yet intolerant of evil must not be denied or his benevolence is compromised. Ironically, this is the very thing Bell says he doesn’t want to do. More Christians are exposed to Rob Bell than they are to atheist activists and can cause much more damage than most people might have expected. As Greg Koukl succinctly concluded his podcast last week, “Love Wins, but Rob Bell doesn’t.”

Gospel Tip Line: Reliability of Anonymous Reports

2011-03-06T14:03:00.000-08:00

Connecticut residents can breathe a bit easier now that the “East Coast Rapist” was caught after an anonymous citizen called police leading to an arrest. Anonymous tips are nothing new. I get them in my narcotic investigations where they solve crimes and uncover new ones. Drug cases are commonplace for anonymous tips because the retaliation can be swift and violent when the reported party’s identity is disclosed.

But it’s not just drug investigations where anonymous tips are used. Police departments often have anonymous caller programs with dedicated “tip lines” to encourage citizens to do what the Connecticut caller did. Beyond crime reporting, tip lines are employed to expose corporate abuse, dirty restaurants, bad customer service, breaking news, and unsafe driving. They obviously are a valuable source of information and embraced by our culture, so why are people so skeptical about anonymous reports when it comes to the Bible?

Authorship of many books in the Bible, including all four gospels, are commonly disputed. Some early gospel manuscripts don’t explicitly attribute them to the traditional authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, if we can’t know who wrote these books, skeptics allege, how can they be trusted? After all, if we don’t know the writers, how do we know what position they were in to report an accurate description of events? Or worse, maybe the writers deceptively made it appear as the authoritative works of early church figures.

While the question of who wrote the gospels is disputed, it’s important to recognize there are strong arguments in favor of traditional authorship[1]. The gospels are internally supported as in the case of Luke[2] and John[3] and enjoy wide external evidence in citations made very early by other writers. However, in this brief blog post, we’ll assume the agnostic position for the sake of argument and instead focus on the nature of anonymous reports themselves.

I’ll present two reasons why we should reject the claim that a source’s anonymity necessitates unreliability in general and in the case of the gospels specifically. The first is a logical rebuttal. The skeptic claims the gospels are unreliable because of authorship. But the truth of something is totally independent of the source of information. This criticism is an ad hominem attack on the person (or unknown person in this case) rather than on the truthfulness of the message. The skeptic attacks the author and just assumes what that person wrote is false without providing reasons. To illustrate, let’s put this concept to practice.

Consider a flight where an anonymous note passed to a crewmember stating that the passenger in seat 10C is planning to high-jack the plane. Should this note be discarded because the author is unidentified? Or should the crew take a moment to examine its truthfulness? It seems reasonable to assume the crew member would at least take some basic steps before dismissing the report. Perhaps they’d want to see who the passenger is, if they are with anyone else, if they appear capable of the threat, if their name is on the watch list, or if other passengers report suspicious behavior. If aisle 10 is filled with giggling children, occupied by an elderly sleeping woman, or if the seat is empty, we may be justified to dismiss the report as a hoax. But when a claim attaches real consequences to our response, like in scripture or with this example, we must at the very least investigate the claim even if we can’t know the source.

The second problem relates to the skeptics' failure to appreciate sound investigative methodology. In historical as well as criminal investigations, anonymous tips are never considered in a vacuum. Skeptics object to anonymous authors because they think the source is unreliable. On the surface, I agree. Upon hearing a report from an unidentified source, I start off skeptical. For me, the caller is guilty until proven innocent as far as their credibility goes. There are many biased people who wish revenge upon their enemies for a jilted love affair or for competing criminal territory. For this reason, an anonymous lead is never the only information in the investigation and the burden is on the source until confirmed by independent corroborating evidence. In our legal system, a suspect has a constitutional right to confront their accuser in court so an anonymous witness alone can be unusable for prosecution. If after some preliminary research the report is confirmed by no other findings or contradicts established facts, the case dies a natural death. However, if the investigation reveals that the tip fits with other evidence, we are justified in believing the tip as reliable unless and until other reliable information points to an alternate and incompatible hypothesis. So although we are initially skeptical of anonymous reports, we must remember that the anonymity doesn’t make them unreliable (see my first point showed above). Despite my initial skepticism with anonymous tips, an eye-witness is the best piece of evidence we have. So an a priori rejection of historical claims simply because their authorship is uncertain is not enough to stop the investigation. Interestingly, famous secular sources of antiquity share this characteristic as early manuscripts of the Roman historian Tacitus are missing his name as well[4]. Yet, this concern doesn’t seem to bother Roman historians as much as it does biblical scholars.

Like the high-jacking example above, there is simply too much riding on biblical claims to stop at the authorship objection. Even if the historical evidence left us agnostic as to the source, the authorship objection is irrelevant to the truth of the message. But we can know many important things ancient writers even if unnamed. Using our example case, we can learn much simply from the immediate context which indicates the writer of the note was a passenger aboard the plane which put him in the position to know certain details. In the same way, the gospel writers give us specific, culturally consistent, early, independent, and multiply attested accounts which indicate their intimate familiarity with the events they report. The standards of historiography grant authenticity to this kind of textual evidence. In fact, it’s this kind of evidence that lead historians to approve the gospels' historicity while biblical scholars, untrained in historiography, are generally much slower to accept such[5]. So whether or not the gospels were written by the traditional authors, we have no reason to reject them for being anonymous and are on good grounds to say they contain source material at or close to the eyewitnesses themselves. But we can go even further to say the corroborating historical evidence gives us good reasons to assign high probability to traditional gospel authorship.

[1] See Gundry, Robert Survey of the New Testament, 4^th ed, 2003. Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, pp 126, 160-161, 208-209, 256 also The Apologetics Study Bible, 2007. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing pp. 1401, 1463-4, 1507-8, 1568, and Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible Background Commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

[2] Acts 16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, and 27:1–28:16 (cited from http://dictionary.sensagent.com/authorship+of+luke+acts/en-en/#cite_note-5)

[3] Jn. 13:25; 18:16; 19:26; 20:2 (cited from http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/jnintro.html)

[4] Holding, J.P. http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

[5] Licona, Michael http://www.ivpbooks.com/resurrection-of-jesus cited from A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University, 1963; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978).

William Lane Craig vs. Richard Dawkins

2010-11-12T18:19:00.000-08:00

Craig and Dawkins square off on stage later today! Yesterday I received this Facebook note from William Lane Craig. Since he sent this to all his "friends," I'm assuming it's public information. In case you're unaware, a debate between Dawkins and Craig would match up the world's most well known apologists for their respective worldviews: Dawkins for Atheism and Craig for Christianity. It's also worth noting that Dawkins has colorfully dismissed any future debate potential with WLC, which makes this so surprising.

Dr. Craig describes their first meeting...

I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de
las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US.
It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists,
scientists, etc.

As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the
question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just
found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins!
It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my
hand and introduced myself and said, Ï´m surspised to see that you´re on the
panel.
He replied, "And why not?"
I said, ¨Well, you´ve always refused to debate me."
His tone suddenly became icy cold. "I don´t consider this to be a debate with
you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he
turned away.
¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said.
"I very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off.
So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning,
should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get
back.

The six-man debate panel is set to discuss the question, "Does the Universe have a Purpose?"

Affirmative Position: Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett
Negative Position: Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins

The organization's website has lots of videos posted so I'm hoping they will have this one up soon. I'll post it as soon as it becomes available.

UPDATE 11/14/2010: The video has been uploaded here on YouTube.

Great New Resurrection Book!

2010-11-03T20:30:00.000-07:00

Today, Mike Licona released his long-awaited historiographical treatment on the historicity of the resurrection. While great apologists have undertaken countless shots at defending the resurrection, few have done so guided by formal training in the field of history. This is something I found myself when researching historians specializing in the resurrection. There aren’t any! While Licona’s doctorate is technically under the banner of New Testament studies, his dissertation – the genesis behind the present work – was approved under watchful eyes of critical scholars at a secular institution (Univ. of Pretoria). Moreover, his concentration was specifically in first century historiography, so his study hits at the heart of the historical Jesus question.

Because of this widespread lack of methodological expertise on the issue, Licona asks a simple question which the rest of the book sets out to answer: “If professional historians who work outside of the community of biblical scholars were to embark on an investigation of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, what would such an investigation look like?” (p19). In case you think he leaves it there, he launches a well-reasoned and heavily footnoted attack in the following 699 pages.

For anyone familiar with resurrection debates, it’s a fun topic. Of course, for Christians, it’s much more than that. In sharing the gospel with unbelievers, objections to the resurrection pose a stumbling block to the core of our message. When we hear the common criticism “there’s not enough evidence,” Licona’s readers can now reply that modern rules of evidence are not how scholars justify events of ancient history. Otherwise, such skepticism would force us to dismiss much of Western Civilization, and even our present knowledge built upon historical experiences in the fields of science, politics, and technology. History must be studied in its context.

This book is a refreshing read. It is comprehensive yet accessible to anyone who takes the resurrection seriously. But reader beware that this book may humble believer and skeptic alike. The believer will learn how difficult absolute certainty of historical events can be and skeptics may be surprised how the evidence for the resurrection compares to unquestioned historical events. I truly hope this is the beginning of a new angle on the historical Jesus through the glasses of a historical scholar, at least as much as it has traditionally been done by biblical and theological ones. So go and order this on Amazon (a steal at $26 bucks!) and leave a comment with what you think. The world will be better off with more stuff like this.

A Former Homosexual Testifies to God's Transforming Power

2010-07-20T13:07:00.000-07:00

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13

"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." - 2 Corinthians 5:17

A Muslim Cries Out To Jesus

2010-07-17T15:34:00.000-07:00

Powerful testimony from a former Muslim:

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." - Matthew 5:44

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." - Ephesians 6:12

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30

Am I Going to Hell if I Don't Believe in Jesus?

2010-07-09T15:13:00.000-07:00

"Am I going to hell if I don't believe in Jesus? Why is belief in Jesus even necessary?"

These questions are certainly fair ones.

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason offers some helpful insight into answering the question "Why is Jesus necessary?" in a blog entitled "Cross-examining the Attorney." In less than 60 seconds you can communicate the truth of why individuals need Jesus by asking two simple questions. The following reflections on a conversation Greg had illustrates important tactics and considerations ambassadors of Jesus Christ should always keep in mind:

Sometimes we have to reframe a critic's question in order to give an accurate answer. The questions, Am I going to Hell if I don't believe in Jesus?, is an example. As it is asked, it makes it sounds as though Jesus were the problem, not the answer. As though failing a theology quiz sends us to Hell. Instead, we need to reframe the question to answer accurately and show that sin is the problem, and Jesus is the only way because He alone has solved that problem. Sinners don't go to Hell for failing petty theology quizzes.

While giving a talk at a local Barnes and Noble, someone asked why it was necessary for him to believe in Jesus. He was Jewish, believed in God, and was living a moral life. Those were the important things, it seemed—how you lived, not what you believed.

To him the Christian message depicted a narrow-minded God pitching people into Hell because of an arcane detail of Christian theology. How should I answer?

Remember that the first responsibility of an ambassador is knowledge—an accurately informed message. What is our message?

One way to say it is, “If you don’t believe in Jesus, you’ll go to Hell. If you do believe, you’ll go to Heaven.”

That’s certainly true, as far as it goes. The problem is it’s not clear. Since it doesn’t give an accurate sense of why Jesus is necessary, it makes God sound petty.

So how do we fix this? Here’s how I responded to my Jewish questioner. I asked him two simple questions.

“Do you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?”

He thought for a moment. “Well, since I’m a prosecuting attorney…yes.”

“So do I,” I agreed.

“Second question: Have you ever committed any moral crimes?”

There was a slight pause. This was getting personal. “Yes, I guess I have,” he admitted.

“So have I,” I confessed, agreeing with him again.

“So now we have this difficult situation, don’t we? We both believe those who commit moral crimes ought to be punished, and we both believe we’ve committed moral crimes. Do you know what I call that? I call that bad news.”

In less than 60 seconds I had accomplished a remarkable thing with this approach. I didn’t have to convince him he was a sinner. He was telling me. I didn’t have to convince him he deserved to be punished. He was telling me.

I was tapping into a deep intuition every person shares: knowledge of his own guilt. And I didn’t do it arrogantly or in an obnoxious, condescending way. I freely admitted I was in the same trouble he was.

Now that we agreed on the problem it was time to give the solution.

“This is where Jesus comes in,” I explained. “We both know we’re guilty. That’s the problem. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. But it’s on His terms, not ours. Jesus is God’s answer because He personally paid the penalty for us. He took the rap in our place. No one else has done that. Now we have a choice to make. We either take the pardon and go free, or refuse it and pay for our own crimes.”

This approach reveals a very important sequence in making our message intelligible: First the bad news, then the good news.

There are other illustrations you could use to do this, but the sequence is critical. It’s the way any good doctor proceeds. And it was the consistent method used by the apostles. Take a look for yourself. In every one of the 13 times the Gospel was preached in Acts, the disciples used the same approach.

Why is this technique important? Because it gives an accurate sense of why Jesus is necessary. It shows that God is not trivial, but merciful, not petty, but kind, graciously offering forgiveness to those who desperately need it.

Is the art of debate declining due to phone apps?

2010-07-03T16:51:00.000-07:00

The old adage, “Now, I’ve seen it all” comes to mind when viewing this article on phone apps for spiritual conversations. There are apps for Christians and Atheists alike, where users can quip back with a one liner to the opposing viewpoint at the touch of a button.

If there ever was a need for a reminder for us as believers to be diligent in understanding people and their viewpoints along with having good solid hermeneutics and biblical understanding, let this serve as one.

People are more than just their words; they have convictions and preconceived notions that need to be explored when discussing their spiritual state. Check out the link and be moved to become a more responsible steward and ambassador to the glory of God.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/technology/03atheist.html?_r=2&src=busl

Sharia Law: Quite Possibly in a City Near You

2010-06-22T22:12:00.000-07:00

Visit AnsweringMuslims.com for the latest information on this recent event.

More videos on Sharia Law here.