HeartQuest 101

This is the tenth chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.  

Why does God allow evil and suffering in the world? This is an age-old question. Either God is all-powerful but not all-good (and therefore doesn’t stop evil) or He is all-good but unable to stop evil (making Him not all-powerful). The general idea is to blame God for all evil and suffering and pass all responsibility to Him.

No Easy Answers:

Remember that God created Adam and Eve perfect, not evil. But they had the ability to obey or disobey God’s commands. Had they obeyed that one command (Genesis 2:16-17), they never would have had a problem. Since that time, the tendency toward sin has always been with us (Romans 5:12). We must remember that people are responsible for sin, not God.

So, why did God make us so that we could sin? Had this happened, we would no longer be human, but rather machines. Saying, “I love you” in person is so much more meaningful than hearing the same words from a hostage that I told to say it while I hold a gun to their head! We are not robots programmed to say the phrase, we have a choice.

Could God stamp out evil?

A time is coming when He will, because of His never-ending love (Lamentations 3:22). While the devil has his day, God is holding us by His grace and His unfailing love. If God would stamp out evil today, he would do a complete job. Stop war but stay away from us… lies, personal habits, lack of love. Who would still be standing if He were to do this tonight?

What God has done about the evil:

He has done the most drastic thing, the sacrifice of His Son. He was the only way to escape the inevitable judgment of sin and evil. To speculate the origin of evil is endless. No one has a full answer. Some things are classified as secret that only God knows (Deut 29:29).

Part of our problem is the limited definition of the word good. (See quote on p. 133)… justice dispensed according the severity of the infraction.

Exact-Reward concept:

Would God be good if He dealt with each person exactly according to his deeds? God’s goodness is not only displayed in His justice but in His love, mercy and kindness) Psalm 103:10-11). It is a faulty assumption that happiness is the greatest good, usually fleshed out in comfort. True happiness is not precluded by suffering. Some things can only be accomplished in our character brought about only by suffering (1 Peter 5:10.

Exact-reward is more on the lines of karma. Any attempt to alleviate pain or suffering would be interfering with the just ways of God. That is why Hindus do so little in helping the less fortunate. This idea does give us a clean rationale for suffering; it is all based on previous evil-doing. Christians at times have this same thought, “Why did I deserve this?” That cruel assumption is the argument of the friends of Job.

There are many instances where suffering is not related to one’s behavior; automatic assumption of guilt and needed punishment is not warranted. A man does reap what he sows (Galatians 6:7); the affliction of Miriam with leprosy (Numbers 12:10-11); the life of the baby made from David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:15); Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:10); a man born blind from birth (John 9:1-3); the Galileans more sinful? (Luke 13:1-3). If the punishment is for one’s deeds, there is never any doubt that it is happening due to the justice of God.

Judgment preceded by warning:

God is always warning about the consequences… turn from your wicked ways, why choose death (Ezekiel 33:11); you refused to allow me to gather you like chicks (Matthew 23:37); God is patient that you would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

How could a good God send anyone to hell? The point is that He doesn’t, we choose to send ourselves. Geisler says it this way, this world is the best way to the best of all possible worlds; one where we have free will yet there is no sin. Sometimes we are responsible for a weak building that collapses in a storm. Others die due to drunken driving. Cheating, lying and stealing are characteristic of our society and God cannot be blamed for it.

The presence of the enemy:

There is an enemy ready to pounce like a roaring lion (2 Peter 5:8). In the parable of the wheat and the tares, the enemy did this (Matthew 13:28). James 4:7 reminds us that he can also be resisted.

God feels our suffering:

He is not distant; He not only is aware of our suffering but He feels it (Isaiah 53:3, Hebrews 2:18, 4:15).

The risky gift of free will:

1. Evil is a necessary part of free will. He could stop evil but in doing so He would destroy us. The point of Christianity is to produce a willing consent to choose good rather than evil.
2. Much of evil can be traced back to the actions and evil choices of man and women: the bank robber kills, the embezzler ruins the company, refusing to heed a storm warning.
3. Some suffering is allowed by God as judgment; but the purpose is to restore or form one’s character.
4. God has a cruel enemy in Satan. He was defeated on the cross but is still around to wreak havoc on God’s people.
5. God is the greater sufferer when He sacrificed His only Son for our penalty.

Greatest test of faith:

Perhaps it is to believe that God is good in the midst of all this suffering. God never asks us to understand, but only to have faith and trust Him as a child does his earthly father. Peace comes when we realize that we do not have the full picture (Romans 8:28, Habakkuk 3:17-18).

 Print This Post

This is the ninth chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.

This is a pretty hot question through the ages. The issue could be how data is interpreted; often conflict comes from trying to make the Bible say things it was not meant to answer. Do scientists and some Christians disagree? Yes, like Galileo, the Scopes trial of 1925 or Wilburforce and Huxley.

Well meaning Christians:

Some try to make the Bible say what it does not say. For instance James Bishop Ussher (1581-1656) calculated the genealogy back to Adam and claimed the earth was created in 4004 BC. Ussher’s notes are not part of the original text so the Bible does not really say that the earth was created in 4004 BC. Statements can be philosophic interpretations of data which do not carry the same weight of authority as the data.

When a scientist speaks:

When a scientist speaks on any subject, he is likely to be believed. He may be speaking outside of his field but gets the same respect that should be given from within his field. Carl Sagan (professor of astronomy at Cornell) speaks on the subject of science and religion. Science is his field; religion is certainly not. He makes bold statements like the universe is all there ever was or ever will be. If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, would it not make sense to worship the sun or stars? But it makes no sense to worship the product of blind chance in a pointless process.

Honest differences:

If we stick to what the Bible actually says and what the scientific facts are, the area of controversy is much smaller. There are times of honest differences among Christians: like the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. We cannot condemn someone with a differing view.

Faith is suspect:

Can something that cannot be verified scientifically be dismissed as invalid or unreal? If a statement cannot be proved in a lab or confirmed by science, it cannot be accepted as reliable. There are other ways to acquire knowledge, than just in a laboratory. Consider falling in love. It cannot be confirmed in a lab yet no one would say it is unreal. The scientific method is only reliable on topics whose realities are measured in physical terms.

Scientific methods:

Faith is no detriment to reality. Science itself rest on presuppositions which must be accepted by faith before the research is possible. The universe is orderly, operates on a pattern, and we can predict it’s behavior.

The scientific method we know of today began in the sixteenth century, among Christians. They broke from the Greek polytheistic concepts that looked at the universe as in chaos and irregular.  The alternative was a universe of order and there must have been an intelligent designer behind the patterns. Another improvable presupposition that must be accepted by faith is the reliability of our sense perception. One must believe that our senses are trustworthy enough to get a true picture of the universe and enable us to understand its orderliness.

Science is the only way to truth:

A Christian exercises faith and sees no incompatibility in using reason or intelligence. A scientist who is a Christian sees himself following the steps of the founders of modern science.

Science is incapable of making value judgments about the things is measures. There is nothing inherent in science that guides them in the application of the discoveries they make. Science can tell us how something works but it cannot answer why it works; whether there is any purpose for it in the universe. The Bible often tells us how, but rarely tells us why!

Is God Necessary?

Some have thought God was necessary to explain some things that could not otherwise be explained. Scientist will say that given enough time they can explain anything in the universe.

God is not only creator but the sustainer of the universe (Colossians 1:17). The universe would fall apart if it were not for God. You still need God even if you understand everything. Knowing how the universe is sustained is not the same as things as sustaining it.

Consider DNA. Is God going to be thrown from the throne since DNA can be produced in a laboratory? These advances in science only emphasize that life did not come from blind chance, but from an intelligent mind! Science does not create ex nihilo!

Three views of evolution:

Evolutionism: that the universe has been evolving forever on the basis of a natural processes, mutation and natural selection.

Microevolution: describes a continued process or development within a species. A bear is still a bear, and dog is still a dog. A species is one of seven classifications (according to the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus) 1) Kingdom, 2) Phylum, 3) Class, 4) Order, 5) family, 6) Genus, and 7) species. Kingdom is the largest group and species is the smallest. Members of a species have a high degree of similarity and will generally interbreed only with themselves. Microevolution will allow for the creation of a new species but not the development of one species into a higher classification.

In Genesis 1:24-25, is kind the same as species? Likely not. It basically means that each kind produces offspring like itself.

Macroevolution: requires the transfer of genetic information from one species to a higher more complex classification. Factors along with chance cannot provide the information necessary to build legs on a fish. There are no missing links in paleontology; from whales to land mammals for instance.

Animal ancestors:

Christians hold to two non-negotiable facts: God supernaturally created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and God supernaturally created the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27). The Bible rules out the possibility of mankind evolving from a lower life form. The NT refers to Adam and Eve as historic figures (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, 1 John 3:12, Jude 1:11). Genesis was not an allegory!

The age of the earth?

Was it 4004 BC or millions of years ago? Look at the Hebrew word for day. Can it mean a period or are rather than just a 24-hour period? The first humans were created on the sixth day (Genesis 2:7-22, 5:2) and he named the animals and had a wife all on a single 24-period? God’s use of the word day is not so confined (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8). Other theologians state that God created a grown up universe, Adam at 20, trees with rings, a rock with the appearance of age, mountain ranges in place. It’s not an argument for the Christian to push since the Bible is silent on the matter. We should be agnostic as to the age of the earth.

Commentary: The same word day is used in the Ten Commandments, a 24-hour period (Exodus 20:11). Adam did not start out as an embryo. There was vegetation on day three, yet now sun until day four, so photosynthesis would not have worked if day three was more than 24 hours.

A constantly moving train:

We are always learning, yesterday’s generalization is tomorrow’s discarded hypothesis. What is to say that evolution is the last assault on our origin? If the Bible becomes embedded in today’s scientific theories, what happens when the theories change 20 years form now? In 1861 the French Academy of Science published 51 scientific facts that controverted the Word of God. Today, not one scientist would support one of these 51 facts.

The university quote on ps. 125-128…

Many scientists ignore these evolutionary assumptions and consider only the seventh.

1. Non-living things gave rise to living material; spontaneous generation.
2. Spontaneous generation happened only once.
3. Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are interrelated.
4. Protozoa gave rise to metazoa.
5. Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.
6. Invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates.
7. Vertebrates and fish gave rise to amphibia, to reptiles, to birds and mammals.

Observation:

These assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume a certain set of variables occurred in the past.

Does one assume there is a God or not? It either happened by chance or there is an intelligent design behind it all. If God, where does one stand on Christ?

Extremes to avoid:

That evolution has been proven and anyone with a brain should accept it.

That evolution is only a theory with little evidence for it.

The issue is interpretation of the facts; we choose to believe what we do based on our interpretation of the facts. The presuppositions one brings to the facts, rather than the facts themselves, determine one’s conclusion.

 Print This Post

This is the eighth chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.

Jonah being swallowed by a great fish. Jesus feeding 5000 people with two fish and five loaves. Did these really happen? Are we to take this literally?

The whole concept of God

The real problem is not with miracles or prophecy but with the whole concept of God. Once we assume that God actually exists, there is no problem with miracles, because by definition God is all-powerful.

God is not bound by natural laws

The real question becomes, “Does an all-powerful God who created the universe, exist?” If He does then miracles are possible. A miracle transcends natural law which God is the author. Some people define miracle as a violation of natural law, but this definition practically deifies natural law, and God becomes a prisoner to that natural law, and in effect ceases to be God. It’s fine to believe in natural law, because we can see the usual cause and effect process at work year after year. God does not restrict His right to intervene because He is over and beyond natural law, not bound by it. Laws do not cause anything but are a description of what happens or is observed.

What is a miracle?

We generally use the term to describe anything out of the ordinary or something unexpected; however the term is used in the Bible in a different sense. Some events in the bible could have a natural explanation, like the parting of the Red Sea. High winds could have pushed the waters back, but the miraculous part was the timing. They just reached the shore, the Egyptians approaching, and all the Hebrews were able to cross on dry land.

One the other hand, there are some that do not have a natural explanation, like Lazarus being raised from the dead, or many of the physical healings (like leprosy or the man born blind). This is more than a psychosomatic situation.

Some believe that ancient people were gullible, ignorant and superstitious. Perhaps the disease they had could be explained by modern science, like demon possession could have been psychosis or epilepsy. A primitive person might see a modern jet and call it a silver bird god in the sky. But there is a problem with this perception, since many of the miracles do not fit in this category.

There is no natural explanation for the healing of a person born blind, then or today. How could anyone explain the resurrection of Jesus? One cannot get away with the supernatural aspects of the Bible.

Not in conflict with natural law

Miracles are not in conflict with natural law! One definition of miracle is that they are unusual events caused by God; the laws of nature are generalizations about ordinary events caused by Him. Some people believe that miracles employ a higher natural law which is unknown to us. We must increase our knowledge we actually realize that the things we thought were miracles were actually higher laws of the universe, of which we were not aware at the time.

An act of creation

On the other hand, we can view them as acts of creation. Biblical miracles are not scattered throughout the Bible randomly, but are associated with purpose. From the Exodus, through the prophets and into the time of Christ, miracles confirmed faith by authenticating the message or the messenger, or to demonstrate God’s love by relieving suffering.

Miracles are never performed for personal prestige, or to gain money or power. Jesus was tempted to do this in Matthew 4, and resisted, but He regularly used miracles to show evidence of His claims (John 14:11, John 10:25).

Why not now?

Many believe that if God would only do it today, then I would believe. But even in Jesus’ day, He dealt with this in Luke 16 in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The kicker verse is Luke 16:31. If people have ruled out the possibility of miracles, no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. It’s like the talking animals in the movie, Babe (1996 – the dog spoke slowly and precisely to the sheep because it was a cold fact of nature that all sheep were stupid and no one could convince him otherwise).

We have reliable records

We don’t need miracles today because we have reliable records that tell us these miracles really happened. If miracles are capable of sensory perception, then they can be matters of recorded testimony. If they are adequately testified to, then the recorded testimony has the same validity for evidence as the same experience of beholding the event. Every court operates on the basic of reliable testimony. If an eyewitness saw and recorded the event (like Lazarus’ raised from the dead), then this witness’ testimony is as good as being at the event.

Miracles were done in public: anyone could have seen and investigated the events. Even the chief opponents of Jesus never denied the fact He could do miracles! They either attributed the event to Satan or tried to suppress the witnesses.

Miracles were performed in front of unbelievers: Jesus was no cult member that deluded his private audience, it was before unbelievers, too.

Miracles were performed over a period of time and involved a great variety of powers: power over nature (John 2:1-11), power over disease (Mark 1:29-34), power over demons (Mark 1:21-27), power with supernatural knowledge (John 1:48), power over creation (Mark 6:30-44), power over death (Mark 5:35-43).

We have testimony of the cured: lie in the case of the man born blind (John 9:25) and Lazarus (John 12:10-11).

We cannot discount biblical miracles because of the extravagant claims of pagan miracles: many pagan believe in these miracles because they already believe in the pagan religion; the Bible uses miracles to help people discover the true religion (John 20:30-31).

Pagan miracles

These do not display the same order, dignity and motive as those found in the Bible. They do not have solid authentication of the miracle. Same can be said of miracles in our time today, they do not stand to investigation. Just because some miracles are counterfeit, does not mean all miracles are counterfeit (like discovering a few counterfeit bills does not less the authentic bills).

The question is philosophical

The question as to whether miracles are possible is not scientific but philosophical. Science says they do not occur in the normal course of nature or observation. Science cannot forbid them because natural laws do not cause not forbid miracles. They are merely description of what happened. The only question the scientist must ask is, “Are the records of miracles historically reliable?”

Miracles in the Bible are seen as God communicating with us. The whole matter depends on our belief in the existence of God; settle that question and miracles cease to be a problem.

 Print This Post

This is the seventh chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.

At first the ancient cities were the targets of study, but soon there were found names and places that are in the OT. Persian governors spoke through their letters and Egyptian Pharaohs in gold-lined coffins can now be identified. Scholars found rich discoveries about the neighbors of the early Israelites. Reliability of the Bible has been affirmed in a number of important areas, substantiating the claims of the Bible.

Mostly the goal is to verify some specific biblical events that were doubted or ridiculed. Another is to help explain biblical culture and practices. When an apparent conflict exists, rather than conclude that the Bible is wrong, it is best to admit the problem exists and hold it open to further discoveries.

Sources for archaeologists

There have been over 25,000 sites excavated in the Holy Land. Some sites the names have changed and others have remained the same for 3500 years, like Damascus.

How can these finds be dated?

Cities were rebuilt on top of the previous one. Fashions of pottery change. King’s had inscriptions on temple door hinges, and the names of the gods were written. Sumerian scribe had a catalogue system. A few miles from Ur there was found an inscription of a king with an unknown name, of the first dynasty of Ur, which the scribes speak as the third dynasty after the great flood. This is 3100 years before Jesus and 1000 years before Abraham.

Abraham’s time

Places could not be identified until in 1933 a party of Arabs unearthed a stone statue that revealed a name of an elaborate palace called Mari (covering six acres and 260 rooms). 20,000 cuneiform tablets were found describing the culture. Another city, Nuzi, east of Mari on the Tigris River, discusses the customs that Abraham faced in Genesis 15:4 and Genesis 16:1-2, regarding Ishmael and Isaac. Hammurabi’s code required the slave’s child be kept, which was preempted by God’s command for Hagar to flee with Ishmael.

Writing in the patriarchal times

The city of Ebla has the most extensive discovery unearthed in the New East, dating back to the third millennium BC. It was a modern city, a highly developed culture. There was a room that had been burned, discovered in 1975, with 20,000 clay tablets on the floor; 5000 years of history. We know that biblical history took place in a world where writing was common.

The biblical kings

Solomon’s splendor had been questioned, the large navy with no suitable coastline for a harbor. An army of 1400 chariots, and 1200 horses. Huge building projects… confirmed by excavations.

Solomon’s gold – 1 Kings 10:21

The description is breathtaking – 1 Kings 6:21-22, 9:11. This is not a scribe’s exaggeration, but a reflection of ancient times.

A conflict described

In 1868, the Moabite Stone was discovered and the local Arab men thought they could get better prices by selling more pieces, so they heated it and then poured on cold water to break it. The archaeologists had already made an impression of the stone so the story was not destroyed. Chemosh is confirmed – 1 Kings 11:33, 2 Kings 23:13, Jeremiah 48:3. The stone also mentioned the God Israel, YHWY.

Daniel and Belshazzar

Daniel names Belshazzar as the last king of Babylon, while Nabonidus is named in ancient Babylonian documents. Later discoveries were that Nabonidus removed himself for a ten-year stint in Arabia, leaving his son Belshazzar in charge, for all purposes he was the king. Prior to the Babylonian chronicles, Daniel is the only one that named Belshazzar as the king.

New Testament accuracy

This is not so much digging for ancient civilizations, but finding written documents, with public or private inscriptions: shopping lists, private notes, legends on coins. Turns out the NT Greek was very similar to the language of the common people.

Stone inscriptions

Luke took history very seriously and was right on all accounts. He includes many lines of historical details – Luke 2:1, 3:1.

No pious forgery

Paul’s timeline confirmed at Felix’s replacement by Festus (Acts 24:27) in Nero’s fifth year, before October AD 59. Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 and a new pagan city was built on the site in AD 130. Keith Schoville, “Archaeological excavations have produces ample evidence that the Bible is not a pious forgery.” Basically, he says the Bible has never been proven false.

  Print This Post

This is the sixth chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.

You have probably read stories about all the supposed errors that are in the Bible. The theory is that mistakes were made through two thousand years of translations and what we have today is a pale reflection of the original writings. But Christianity is rooted in history, and history has not changed. If the historical references in the Bible are not true, we can then doubt the reliability of the rest of the book. We will also ask the question, “Why do we have these books and no others?”

Who wrote the words?

The work of the scribe was a highly professional and a carefully executed task. There are no complete copies of the Hebrew OT earlier than around AD 900 (Masoretic Text), but it is evident that it has been faithfully preserved since AD 100 or 200.

There are translations from Hebrew into Latin and Greek. All copies that came from the Masoretic Text are in remarkable agreement, which attests to the skill and detail of the Masoretes.

Dead Sea Scrolls

Discovered in 1947, the greatest archaeological discovery of the century. Clay jars in Qumran, dated 150 BC to AD 70. They hid the scrolls in preparation for the Roman invasion, in cave on the west side of the Dead Sea. There is a complete book of Isaiah and another with Isaiah 38-66, the books of Samuel, and two chapters of Habakkuk.

By comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Masoretic Text we see remarkable accuracy. For example, in Isaiah 53 only 17 letters differ from the Masoretic Text.  Ten of these were merely spelling differences (like honor to honour) that produce no change of meaning at all. Four are minor like the presence of a conjunction (which is often a matter of style). The other three letters are the Hebrew word for “light” which is added after, “they shall see” in Isaiah 53:11. Of 166 words in the chapter, only one word is in question and it in no way changes the sense of the passage.

The Septuagint

This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew text, referred to as LXX, for the 70 scholars taking 70 days to complete, in the third century BC. So in comparison to the Masoretic Text, it appears that nothing has changed since 200 BC! It seems to be a rather literal translation. There is also another text called the Samaritan Pentateuch, but this has a Samaritan leaning and emphasis.

Three families of texts

The question is, “What is the original version of these three families of texts?” It is said that what we have since 225 BC is just about the same document that Ezra read before the people after the Babylonian captivity.

New Testament documents

Evidence tells us that the same is true for the NT. Generally anything that differs from early manuscripts would be variations in grammar or spelling, not more than 1/1000 part of the whole NT. There are about 6000 manuscripts that have survived to our time. Papyrus was used early, and highly durable. Another material was called parchment, skins of sheep or goats, used up until the middle ages until paper replaced it.

The dates of the NT documents indicate that they were written during the lifetime of the contemporaries of Christ. People were still alive who could remember that events. Many Pauline letters predate the gospels. These early documents can be compared to other ancient documents that have been accepted without question to their authenticity. Nine or ten copies of Caesar’s Gallic War exist, and they were written about 900 years after Caesar’s time! The history of Thucydides (400 BC) with about 8 copies, dated to AD 900. These copies are 1300 years after the original. By contrast, two excellent copies of the NT date to the fourth century. Fragments date back to 100 or 200 years earlier. There is a papyrus codex of John 18:31-33, 37 that dates back to AD 130.

The question of canon

How do we know these are the books that are supposed to be in the Bible? Protestants accept the same books that the Jews accept in the OT. Catholics at the Council of Trent in 1546 decided to add others, called the Apocrypha. OT books were authoritative based on the utterances of people inspired to declare God’s Word. It’s not clear why they were accepted but it is clear that they were accepted. Jesus even agreed with the Pharisees on the authority of the OT, just not the traditions holding the same authority. The council of Jamnia in AD 90 closed the OT canon. The discussion was on which books to include rather than on which books to exclude.

Apocryphal books

These were never received into the Jewish canon. Jews and Christians had never accepted them, and they are no where quoted in the NT. Some books like 1 Maccabees is valuable in retelling history, but are not considered as inspired sacred writings. Although not included at first the LXX included them for ecclesiastical purposes only.

What about the NT?

These were included based on their inspiration rather than by majority vote. Many claimed apostolic authority (1 Peter 3:15-16). Jude 1:3 mentions 2 Peter 3:3 is a word from the apostles. Early church fathers like Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement mention a number of books of the NT as authoritative.

The second century brought on many heresies, so there needed to be a debate on which writings were authoritative. In the East, the final fixed canon for the NT dates back to AD 367 (a letter from Athanasius), which books were used as sole sources for religious instruction and which could be read for information. In the West, it was decided at the Council of Carthage in AD 397.

The criteria for selecting the canon: could it be attributed to an apostle? Was it used in the church? Was there conformity to standard church doctrine? Luke 21:33 is a solid conclusion on this topic of God’s written Word.

 Print This Post

This is the third chapter of Paul Little’s classic book, “Know Why You Believe” for my Sunday Bible study class.

It is impossible to know for certain that God exists and what He is like unless He takes the initiative and reveals Himself to us. A clear clue is found in the stable in Bethlehem. The paranoid Herod had all male children age two and younger murdered; the slaughter of the innocents (Matthew 2:1-18). We see Jesus at age twelve in the temple, “My Father’s house” (Luke 2:49). He lived in obscurity for about thirty years until He started His public ministry. Common people heard Him and they marveled at His words spoken with authority (Matthew 7:29).

Jesus said He was the Son of God:

He had many shocking statements that began to identity Him more than just a remarkable teacher or prophet; He clearly claimed deity. The question for Peter and all of us, “Who do you say that I am? (Matthew 16:16-17). What was the impact of His words? The Jews sought to kill Him, no mistake of what Jesus was claiming (John 5:18, 10:33). Not only did He claim deity in His words, but also in His actions. He healed and forgave the paralytic’s sins (Mark 2:5-7).

The title of Son of Man asserted His deity. The High Priest asked Him if He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, and Jesus answer, “I am.” (Mark 14:61-64). John Stott puts it this way,

·          to know Him was to know God (John 8:19, 14:7);

·          to see Him was to see God (John 12:45, 14:9);

·          to believe in Him was to believe in God (John 12:44, 14:1);

·          to receive Him was to receive God (Mark 9:37);

·          to hate Him was to hate God (John 15:23);

·          to honor Him was to honor God (John 5:23).

Only four possibilities:

Liar – He claimed to be God and He knew that it was false. If this is the case, there is no way that He could be revered as a good moral teacher.

Lunatic – He claimed to be God and He did not know that it was false. If He is deceived in the area of His identity, He cannot be trusted with much else. But there is no evidence of an emotional imbalance we find in a deranged person.

Legend – He was a man who had enthusiastic followers who centuries later put words into the mouth of Jesus. Evidence shows that four individual biographies were written within the lifetime of the contemporaries of Jesus; no later than AD 70. If the claims of deity were not true, people in the day would have repudiated the claim. The story would never have gotten off the ground. Besides, there are simply not enough generations to elevate these claims to the status of legend. The documents have an early dating.

Lord – Claims don’t mean much, talk is cheap. What credentials do we bring to substantiate the claim? Miraculous signs backed up what He claimed (John 10:38).

What were Jesus’ credentials?

His character – He was unique in that He was sinless (John 8:46). We read of His temptation but no prayers of forgiveness (what He told His followers to do). This lack of moral failure is in contrast to the history of those called saints. As people are drawn to God, they are overwhelmed by their sinfulness. John, Peter and Paul mentions the sinlessness of Jesus (1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:21). Pilate found no fault in Him (John 18:38), and the Roman centurion recognized the uniqueness of Jesus (Matthew 27:54).

His power – He could calm a raging storm and the question arises, “Who is this?” (Mark 4:41).

·          He turned water into wine (John 2:9-11)

·          He fed 5000 men with five loaves and two fish (John 6:10-13)

·          He raised people from the dead (Matthew 11:4-6, Mark 5:40-42, John 12:1)

·          He healed people of disabilities and diseases (John 9:25, 32) – lame walk, blind see, mute speak.

·          His resurrection from the dead – He predicted that He would rise from the dead, and did it to prove He was right (Matthew 12:40, 26:61, Mark 8:31, 9:31, John 2:19).

(Check out the Schaff quote at the end of the chapter – about how Christ moved history as only God could).

Our own Christian experience combined with historical evidence give us a solid conviction that Jesus is exactly who He said He was. He changed the world, the calendar and the lives of people for centuries.

Study questions:

1.   In what ways did Jesus claim to be the Son of God?

2.   What are the four possibilities in evaluating these claims?

3.   What is the evidence for and against the theory that Jesus was a lunatic?

4.   What evidence do you remember that the gospels account for an actual person rather than a legend?

5.   How do you answer a person that says Jesus was just a good moral teacher and not God?

6.   How did Jesus prove His claim to be God?

 Print This Post

While I never have claimed to be a theologican, I read Al Mohler’s scholarly article on this topic and he summarizes and illustrates the issue:

Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ.

 

Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent.

 

Several years ago, Cecil Sherman–then a Southern Baptist, but later the first coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship–stated: “A teacher who might also be led by the Scripture not to believe in the Virgin Birth should not be fired.” Consider the logic of that statement. A Christian can be led by the Bible to deny what the Bible teaches? This kind of logic is what has allowed those who deny the virgin birth to sit comfortably in liberal theological seminaries and to preach their reductionistic Christ from major pulpits.

 

Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine, it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it, the Gospel stands or falls.

I have to admit that I find his teaching to be intriguing and thought provoking, if not downright logical. But for me, the discussion must also include the doctrine of salvation itself. Just what is salvation and what is it that makes one a Christian; a follower of Jesus or a disciple of Christ?

• Is a true Christian one who believes a defined set of propositional statements about Jesus?
• Is it that one knows and understands the Four Spiritual Laws?
• How much of the Bible must one know and understand and believe to be saved?

If we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), if we answer the call to “Follow Me” (Matthew 4:19), if we confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9-10) and we call upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13), where is the command to believe in the virginal conception of Jesus? Back to Al Mohler’s point, it is not about belief in the virgin birth, but the active denial of it.

I believe that we can be saved without the knowledge of the virgin birth, but once we learn about it, how could a true believer not accept this detail that explains the divinity of Jesus? How can someone read the Bible, claim to believe in its truth and accuracy, and at the same time deny the passages that talk about the virgin birth? Is it the same as John’s instruction about those who deny that Christ came in the flesh (2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:3)?  What do you think?

 Print This Post

Christians are supposed to influence culture for the better, despite what many non-Christians might want. Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist professor at Oxford recently put signs on London busses stating that “There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Probably? Perhaps he is not too sure about his atheism or the bus company made him tone down his message. Either way, the message is pretty clear, he wants people to live their lives as if there is no God… I wonder what that kind of world would be like?

I wonder what professor Dawkins might think about a world were no Christians exist. Gone are the 90% of Christians who desire to serve mankind in a positive fashion, help others when they are in need, offer comfort to those who are suffering or in grief, those who are the first to rush in with disaster relief… Dawkins must long for a world with no hope at the end of life, with no purpose in this life other than to eat, drink, conquer, procreate and die. Without Christians or the Holy Spirit of the Bible in this world, all that is left is the base of human cruelty, the survival of the fittest where only the strong survive.

My question is, “What does it hurt for people to believe in God?”

I recently read the Southwest Virginia Christian Leadership Network newsletter that quotes Reggie McNeal, from his book Practicing Greatness. He outlines seven spiritual habits or disciplines that lead to the spiritual influence we need within our culture. Since leadership is the art and science of influence, this is what McNeal writes:

1. Self-awareness – understanding who God created you to be
2. Self-management – managing emotions, expectations, temptations, mental/physical well-being
3. Self-development – lifelong commitment to building on your strengths, not your weaknesses
4. Mission – living out of a sense of God’s purpose for your life and leadership
5. Decision-making – knowing the elements of good decisions and learning from failure
6. Belonging – nurturing relationships with family, followers, mentors, and friends
7. Aloneness – the intentional practice of soul-making solitude and contemplation

Seek ways to influence our culture with intentionality; not just seeking people to believe the way we do, but to allow people to see Jesus for who he really is!

 Print This Post  Email This Post

This YouTube video (the Church of Oprah Exposed) is tremendously disturbing. Is this video representative of what happens when the group or community gets together and decides proper theology? Rex Miller indicates we should trust our people to be on a hero’s journey searching for truth and significance in life (my interpretation of what I heard at a recent conference), but what happens when influential people like Oprah with her “experts” and credibility redefines who Jesus is? Is there no standard anymore within the Christian community?

I see this like Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code confirming in the minds of skeptics that Jesus really is the charlatan they always thought he was; because “now we have proof – Dan Brown’s research claims its truthfulness right on page one.” When is the print media of the Bible a true standard in this generation? Or is proper theology lost and we just have to keep diversifying the church (liberal vs. conservative, infant baptism vs. believers’ baptism, health and wealth gospel vs. theology of the cross, cheap grace vs. costly discipleship, gay bishops vs. homosexuality is a sin, etc.). While denominationalism divides the church (often times for good reason regarding non-essentials or preferences) we still can agree on who Jesus is in our foundational beliefs.

In Beauty and the Beast, the village is storming the castle in order to kill the beast. The cartoon musical has a great line, “a hundred Frenchmen can’t be wrong, so kill the beast!” Just because a larger group gets together and says Jesus is NOT only one way to get to God, doesn’t make it proper or acceptable Christian theology.

I read this article this morning in Our Daily Bread:

In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Neil Postman warns us of the danger of a world of information overload. He reminds us of a chilling futuristic vision—Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which describes a world thoroughly flooded with information. But that data is manipulated so that none of it has any significance.

A glance at the Internet or a magazine rack hints that we are living in just such a culture. We’re drowning in a sea of information often marketed by the unscrupulous. We need discernment to choose wisely whom we will listen to.

In John 6, Jesus delivered His “I am the bread of life” message (v.35). It was a sermon so controversial that, at its conclusion, many of His followers went away and stopped following Him (v.66). They chose to stop listening to the voice of Christ. When Jesus challenged His disciples as to whether they would also walk away, Peter wisely responded, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (v.68). 

In a world swamped with confusing and contradictory information, we can, like Peter, turn to Christ for wisdom. He cuts through the words of confusion with words of life.  — Bill Crowder

So, here we are in the information age, so much information we often find ourselves in information overload (24 hour news, thousands of magazine choices, more web pages than Google can count, non-stop commercials telling us what we need in order to live a satisfying life). I wonder if the church needs to be more in the business of helping people make sense of the world around them; we need interpretation more than additional information.

Read what my friend Chuck Warnock has written on the topic.

 Print This Post

Dinesh D’Souza takes on leading critics of the church from E.O. Wilson to Richard Dawkins, from Sam Harris to Christopher Hitchens, extolling how Christianity is at home in the arena of science and philosophy and can offer a recipe for lasting happiness in a disillusioned world. While considering the book, I found this review very insightful, An Argument Against the Atheists:

“Today’s Christians know that they do not, as their ancestors did, live in a society where God’s presence was unavoidable. No longer does Christianity form the moral basis of society. Many of us now reside in secular communities, where arguments drawn from the Bible or Christian revelation carry no weight, and where we hear a different language from that spoken in church.”  That is the opening salvo from author Dinesh D’Souza in his new book, What’s So Great About Christianity. 

Why does atheism reject God? This is the part I found fascinating, especially since it has been my conclusion for years!

Al Mohler writes: D’Souza’s strongest analysis comes when he considers the true character of the new atheism. It is, he suggests, a “pelvic revolt against God.”  In other words, it is a revolt against Christian morality — especially sexual morality. This is not a new observation or argument, but D’Souza makes it exceptionally well: 

My conclusion is that contrary to popular belief, atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt, it is a moral revolt. Atheists don’t find God invisible so much as objectionable. They aren’t adjusting their desires to the truth, but rather the truth to fit their desires. This is something we can all identify with. It is a temptation even for believers. We want to be saved as long as we are not saved from our sins. We are quite willing to be saved from a whole host of social evils, from poverty to disease to war. But we want to leave untouched the personal evils, such as selfishness and lechery and pride. We need spiritual healing, but we do not want it. Like a supervisory parent, God gets in our way. This is the perennial appeal of atheism: it gets rid of the stern fellow with the long beard and liberates us for the pleasures of sin and depravity. The atheist seeks to get rid of moral judgment by getting rid of the judge. 

I have thought this for years, not so much the sexual immorality part, but the fact that modern atheism wants to be accountable to no one. That statement sounds as if atheists are evil people, desiring to eliminate all moral codes. Not true. As a recent media report puts it, atheists want to spread the message that “we’re good people, just not God people.”  

In the new book, unChristian, the author states that modern apologetics do not work in our postmodern relativistic society. Christianity just does not “click” using logical rational arguments for God’s existence. I believe we all evaluate the facts as we see them and choose to believe what we do based upon our interpretation of those facts. For atheism, I can’t help but think D’Souza’s point is valid.

 Print This Post