The Word

In studying the Bible as a young man, I found intimations of the idea that forms of media favor particular kinds of content and therefore are capable of taking command of a culture. I refer specifically to the Decalogue, the Second Commandment of which prohibits the Israelites from making concrete images of anything. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth." I wondered then, as so many others have, as to why the God of these people would have included instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking.
~ Neil Postman

Tolerance

Right-wing writer shoots himself dead at altar of Notre Dame after marriage equality passes | The Raw Story

This article was linked in Facebook. Here is a sampling of the comments in the subsequent thread.

"good. no one will miss you"

"Good riddance to bad garbage"

"One less to worry about"

"Good."

"Turns my heart to little crunchy peanut butter."

"I not only like this post • I love it ;)"

"The only sad thing about this is that more narrow-minded bigots didn't do the same..."

"He won't be missed, but the really sad thing is the hate in the comments. I can't believe there are so many comments wishing for death on conservatives and republicans."

He that Winneth Souls is Wise

Watch "Defeated atheist Walks Away (Presuppositional Apologetics)" on YouTube

Hi there! You haven't heard from me in a while. Sorry about that. Please watch this video as an example of how not to defend the gospel.

On the one hand, there is nothing this Christian apologist says that I disagree with. He skillfully exposes the flaws in the atheist's worldview. On the other hand, by the time the atheist angrily walks away he is no closer to accepting the gospel than he was before talking with the apologist. Perhaps he is even less likely now to repent and believe the gospel.

If the point was to show that the apologist's view of abortion and morality was more logically consistent than the atheist's view, then I suppose the apologist was successful. If the point was to lead the atheist to Christ, the apologist failed miserably. But is outfoxing atheists the primary goal of apologetics? No, the point of defending the gospel is to persuade atheists and other nonbelievers that Christianity is true. In reality, this Christian apologist failed as a defender of the gospel either way.

If we aren't defending Christian truth in a way that persuades others to follow Christ, we are wasting our time and energy on a fruitless endeavor. There are plentiful examples in the Bible of Jesus, the Apostles, and other saints intelligently proclaiming God's truth. While they did not persuade everyone, there is not a single case where they ended a debate with, "Well, I certainly made that guy look like an idiot, didn't I?"

The true purpose of Christian apologetics is to persuade others that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that He died and rose again to save us from our sins. To use apologetics to show everyone how clever you are is actually very stupid.

"An argument in apologetics, when actually used in dialogue, is an extension of the arguer. The arguer's tone, sincerity, care, concern, listening, and respect matter as much as his or her logic - probably more. The world was won for Christ not by arguments but by sanctity: 'What you are speaks so loud, I can hardly hear what you say.'"
― Peter Kreeft

Where the Manger is Clean

This quote appeared in my Twitter timeline:

Stop thinking, and end your problems.
- Lao Tzu

No thank you. Ignorance may be bliss for some (at least for a while). As for me, I am determined to love the Lord with all my mind. Sometimes I have to wonder how some people imbibe these trash Eastern philosophies!

I can sort of understand how some might buy into this, actually. I know some people who over analyze things, resulting in worry. The answer, however, is not to stop thinking, but to cast all your cares on the Lord, because He cares for you.

The Word of God says,

Wisdom gives strength to the wise man more than ten rulers who are in a city.
- Ecclesiastes 7:19, ESV

Wisdom is power. We need to be like the sons of Issachar, who knew the times and what the people of God should do. When we honor God with our minds, and do not neglect prayer and holy living, God uses us to shape society.

Look at the life of Daniel. He was put in high places of authority as a counselor of heathen kings because of his wisdom. The Bible says of Daniel that God gave [him] learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams (Daniel 1:17). Daniel was a prophetic voice, speaking wisdom to the world. Through wise men like Daniel, God rules over the unbelieving earthly authorities.

The work of the Lord gets done through godly
thinking. We need to train our minds as a holy discipline. Our minds need to be strong--like the ox.

Where there are no oxen, the manger is clean, but abundant crops come by the strength of the ox.
-Proverbs 14:4

In other words, although anti-intellectualism might make one's mind peaceful and placid, only a powerful mind will reap a great harvest of real world results. When we reject thinking, we reject a powerful means to positively transform the world around us.

My rant for the day.

Ravi Zacharias on Culural Relativism and the Emasculation of Truth

Recently on Ravi Zacharias's "Just Thinking" podcasts, one of Ravi's sermons was divided into a powerful four part series entitled " CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND THE EMASCULATION OF TRUTH." I thought it was especially relevant considering my last post on Rob Bell and the "celebration of ambiguity," (to use the words of Dr. Brown).
Ravi points out three ways in which truth has been emasculated:

1) Revelation has been replaced by reason.

Do not misunderstand. No person familiar with Ravi Zacharias would ever accuse him of being anti-intellectual. He is not against reason in the least. He is simply warning us not to look to reason apart from revelation in our search for wisdom and truth. God gave us intellectual capacity as a gift, but we need to acknowledge the source.

Isaiah 55:9 ESV
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

2) Truth has been perverted by agnosticism.

This is exactly what Dr. Brown was referring as the "celebration of ambiguity." Of course, this did not seem to stop Rob Bell from unambiguously taking a stand against the biblical teachings on marriage! This is the theological garbage that issues from Christian pulpits when revelation is replaced by reason.

3) The propositional has been replaced by the visual.

We have transitioned from a culture that that seeks for truth in the written word, to a culture that gets information from television, YouTube, and other pictorial/video means. Pictures can be quickly apprehended without much thought, but at what cost? The result of this is intellectual sloth. We don't want to read the book; we'd rather watch the movie. We have come to the point where rather than read widely and think deeply about important issues, we would rather watch a TV program or video which provides soundbite explanations of trivial issues, and that requires little or no thought on our part. Understanding  propositional truth has become a chore and fallen by the wayside.

Neil Postman made this observation in Amusing Ourselves to Death:

In studying the Bible as a young man, I found intimations of the idea that forms of media favor particular kinds of content and therefore are capable of taking command of a culture. I refer specifically to the Decalogue, the Second Commandment of which prohibits the Israelites from making concrete images of anything. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth." I wondered then, as so many others have, as to why the God of these people would have included instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture.

With that I will end my comments and direct you to Ravi Zacharias's four part podcast series, "CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND THE EMASCULATION OF TRUTH."

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Die or Adapt

For those of you who haven't heard, Rob Bell publicly endorsed same-sex marriage this weekend.

Speaking at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco last Sunday, Bell said,

I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man … I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.

I think we are witnessing the death of a particular subculture that doesn't work. I think there is a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized, Evangelical subculture that was told ‘we're gonna change the thing’ and they haven't. And they actually have turned away lots of people. And I think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or you adapt.

Those of us familiar with Bell are certainly not surprised that the controversial former pastor took such a stance at an Episcopal church in San Francisco. Nevertheless, I am convicted that such a bold proclamation needs to be answered with an equally bold proclamation: Same-sex marriage is not only unbiblical, but immoral, and ought not be endorsed by anyone who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This ought to be so painfully obvious as to go without saying. Unfortunately, in this biblically illiterate day and age, this is no longer the case. However, the purpose of this blog is not to state the obvious, but to strategically persuade others of the truth.

If you simply want ranting, railing, and bewailing of the moral and cultural decline of the American Church, there has been plenty of this already and you will have no trouble finding Christian crybabies. Too many conservative Evangelicals are content to whine about Rob Bell's radical theology; not enough Christians are examining his teachings with a constructively critical mind, or responding strategically.

One of the few voices prophetically speaking to our generation is Dr. Michael Brown. In a recent article in Charisma Magazine, Dr. Brown made some insightful observations about Rob Bell.

Over the last few years Bell, a best-selling author and former megachurch pastor, has steadily distanced himself from the mainstream evangelical community. Known for asking provocative questions and challenging the status quo, he amassed a large following that has been drawn to his non-dogmatic approach—an approach I call a “celebration of ambiguity.”

To paraphrase this approach: Rather than the leader saying, “This is the way. It is proven and sure. Follow me,” the leader now says, “Who am I to know? How can anyone be sure? Isn’t it narrow and small-minded of us to be so inflexible and dogmatic?”

This is certainly the impression of Bell I got when I read his book Love Wins. John Piper and others vehemently condemned Love Wins because it supposedly preached universalism, but Bell never explicitly endorsed the doctrine in the book. At various points Bell sounded like a skeptic, an Evangelical pastor, a theological liberal, a fundamentalist who asked Jesus into his heart, an agnostic, or a biblical scholar, depending on what part of the book was being read. The most certain thing was that Bell was asking questions about the traditional view of the afterlife, and the only dogmas were vaguely Christian notions that God is love and love wins.

This weekend, however, Bell quite dogmatically denounced conservative Evangelicalism in general, and biblical teachings on marriage in particular. Like most lies, Bell's claims have a grain of truth in them. The Evangelical Church in America does seem to be on the wane. Traditional views are giving way to theological and political liberalism. But does the Church need to adapt or die? Well... he's half right.

He is right in the sense that the church needs to make some decisive changes; he is wrong that it ought to conform to the godless spirit of the age. You see, this dying subculture of Evangelicalism that he speaks of--he's the product of all the worst elements of this subculture taken to its logical conclusion. Rob Bell is the spiritual offspring of years of seeker friendly, ultra-positive, anti-intellectual, hipster,  megachurch Evangelical Christianity. Joel Osteen eventually turns into Rob Bell.

So if we are not to conform to this world, how ought we adapt to survive in post-Christian America? We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Rob Bell's Christianity is a dying subculture because he is only presenting the old mainline liberal theology in an Evangelical wrapper. Mainline denominations have consistently been declining, even as they become more liberal and worldly. More biblically-based Pentecostal denominations are increasing in number. However, theological conservatism alone is not good enough. Remember, the megachurches and the mainlines were more conservative at one time. As I said,  must renew our minds.

If Rob Bell wants to celebrate ambiguity, biblical Christians must be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks... for a reason for the hope that is in us. In other words, it is not enough to know what we believe but why we believe it. Rob Bell's pseudo-intellectualism sounds clever in a biblically ignorant church taught that faith is blind.
Biblical faith is based on knowledge. Christians ought to know their God experientially (John 17:3). They ought to know the Scriptures and the power of God (Matthew 22:29). They ought to be able to proclaim and explain the gospel and the teachings of Jesus. Secondarily, they ought to be familiar with logic, and have at least a working knowledge of philosophy and science. They ought to be familiar with sound Christian responses to common anti-Christian objections. Renewing our minds in these ways will preserve the ever growing Church, not only from the non-Christian world, but false teachers like Rob Bell.

Good God!

In my previous post, What is a Christian?, I wrote that Christians believe in a perfectly good and loving God, who rewards those who seek Him. The basis of this belief is the Bible, in verses such as Hebrews 11:6,

...whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

The idea of a maximally good God has also been fleshed out by Christian theologians and philosophers in the Ontological Argument. Anselm's Ontological arguments entail that it is a logical contradiction for a Perfect Being to exist only in the human mind, and that a Perfect Being exists necessarily. I will not argue for either of those philosophical claims here, but anyone who wants to know what I am referring to can refer to my earlier posts A Perfect Being 1 and A Perfect Being 2. For an even better explanation of Anselm's Ontological Arguments, read Douglas Groothuis's Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.

Here I want to rebut some of objections non-Christians raise to the goodness of God.

The most common objection to God's goodness is the problem of evil. Skeptics throughout the ages have looked at the evil in the world and reasoned that if a loving and good God exists, He is either unable to do anything about evil, or He is able to vanquish evil but does not, so He cannot be perfectly good or loving.

This paradox is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

If there is a God, according to this kind of reasoning, He cannot be the omnibenevolent, omnipotent God of the Bible. Some skeptics go so far as to rule the existence of God out entirely based on the existence of evil. But why should we think that evil disproves God's existence?

According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.

~ Dr. William Lane Craig

I have pointed out that God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing in convsersations with non-Christians. Without exception, none of them has even attempted to prove it is impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. They simply continue to baldly assert that because evil exists, God cannot exist. Maybe there is a rebuttal to Dr. Craig's objection out there somewhere, but if so I have yet to hear it. According to the skeptics, if the God of the Bible really existed, the universe would be a magical domain full of sugar, rainbows, and unicorns, and nothing bad would happen to anyone. Ever. Not even once.

Earlier today, a skeptical friend of mine on Facebook posted this meme:

This is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where one should even begin in criticizing it. There is absolutely no indication in the text of Job that God was concerned with impressing Satan. It is true that God allows Satan to steal Job's health and wealth, but God does not pick Job to be afflicted. He simply points out to Satan that Job is godly and upright, and Satan asks permission to attack Job in order to prove that Job only serves God because God has blessed him. Also, Job does not meekly ask why He has been afflicted--He outright accuses God attacking him in order to kill him!

Terrors are turned upon me;
    my honor is pursued as by the wind,
    and my prosperity has passed away like a cloud.

 And now my soul is poured out within me;
    days of affliction have taken hold of me.
 The night racks my bones,
    and the pain that gnaws me takes no rest.
 With great force my garment is disfigured;
    it binds me about like the collar of my tunic.
 God has cast me into the mire,
    and I have become like dust and ashes.
 I cry to you for help and you do not answer me;
    I stand, and you only look at me.
 You have turned cruel to me;
    with the might of your hand you persecute me.
 You lift me up on the wind; you make me ride on it,
    and you toss me about in the roar of the storm.
 For I know that you will bring me to death
    and to the house appointed for all living.

~ Job 30:15-23, ESV

God does not berate Job for not being omnipotent, but for talking about things he could never possibly understand. God does not only restore Job's wealth, but gives him twice what he had. But that is not good enough for the skeptic because God did not raise Job's first children from the dead--He only gave Job new children! Apparently, even if God deals with evil--as He clearly did with Job--it is insufficient because evil was allowed at all. Nothing short of a problem and pain free paradise will do.

Of course, the author of the meme even attempt to prove that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing Satan to assault Job. It is simply assumed that He cannot have a good reason for allowing evil, on the basis of no facts or arguments whatsoever. I encourage my readers to read the book of Job for themselves if they want to know what it is about. Reading a good commentary would not hurt either. At any rate, we ought not be basing our theological views on internet memes.

These sort of objections are often raised by atheists, but the logical problem of evil is not even a valid option for the atheist. If there is such a thing as evil, there must be such a thing as good, and there must be such a thing as a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. Where did this moral law come from? Let's say for the sake of argument that it is something that evolved in humans as a sort of survival advantage. In that case, morality is not based on anything objective or factually true, but on a continually evolving code of ethics based on survivability, not truth. In the words of the famous atheist Richard Dawkins,

In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

 

The best explanation for morality, if it is an objective, real thing, is that it came from a transcendent lawgiver--such as God. One can either have God and real evil, or one can have no God and things that happen that one simply dislikes and calls evil. In a godless world, what we call evil cannot actually be so in a factual sense. If atheism is true, everything can be reduced to meaningless waves and particles. Nothing good or bad, right or wrong happens; it is all simply molecules in motion.

But if the problem of evil is a real problem at all, it is a problem for everyone: Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and everyone else. But who has the best answer to the problem of evil?

I believe that Christians have the best explanation of evil, and the best answer to it.

God created the world, and called it good. He created humans and called them very good. A perfect God created a good world that was free of evil, but gave humans free will wich allowed for the possibility of evil.

Man chose, and continues to choose evil. That is the explanation of evil.

The wages of sin is death, but God did not want to simply destroy His corrupted creation without a fight.

God Himself took on human form in the Person of Jesus Christ. He was tempted with sin, just like any other man, and He lived a sinless life. He was crucified by sinful men. What they did not realize is that God allowed this evil to happen in order to offer a sinless sacrifice for the sins of all humans. He bore the wages of sin in our place by suffering dying on the cross. On the third day He rose from the dead, victorious over sin and death. He ascended to heavan and will one day return to judge everyone according to what they have done and completely destroy evil. Jesus Christ is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. He is the God who suffered with us, and rescued us from evil.

Everyone who places trust in Him and serves Him as their Lord will receive eternal life.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.  For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”  For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.  For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

~ Romans 10:9-13

 

He is a good God, and He rewards those who seek Him. Everyone who believes and calls on Him will be saved. Call on Him today!

God has taken care of evil, the defeat of which will be consumated at His return. But what if we didn't have the historical record of miracles and other stories pointing to God's goodness in the Bible? The skeptic would still have to deal with the "problem of good--things in the world that suggest His goodness. By focusing on evil, the skeptic forgets about all the good things in the world. For instance, they would still have to deal with the fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity and specificity that suggest the universe had an intelligent Designer. They have to deal with the existence of love, beauty, pleasure, and all the other good things in the world.

Evil certainly exists in the world, but why should we believe disproves the existence of God? Can we prove a good God exists on the basis of good? The truth is we cannot use goodness alone to prove He exists, any more than we can use the problem of evil alone to prove His nonexistence. The problem of evil fails to take things other than evil into account. It is a soundbite sort of objection to God. The world is much more complicated than the problem of evil argument suggests. The skeptic who argues that evil disproves God's existence has jumped the gun, and has failed take into account the whole scope of reality. If the skeptic is genuinely seeking for God, the problem of evil alone cannot stop his/her quest for truth. God cannot be disproved that easily.

The Apostle Paul pointed out that the skeptic is without excuse in the face of the clear evidential support for God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

Romans 1:18-22, ESV

The problem of evil cannot be ignored, but at the same time we need to take all of reality into account. The skeptic needs to account for good as well as evil, and should not casually discount God's existence simply because evil exists. If the skeptic believes real evil exists in the world, he/she must account for the standard by which good and evil are judged. If such a standard exists, it must come from a transcendent Lawgiver. This should lead the skeptic to seek the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver has plainly shown His eternal power and nature, which is love, in His creation. He has further revealed Himself in the Bible. The skeptic should consider all the evidence, not just the problem of evil.

If more skeptics truly sought out God, they would receive their reward. The other side of the coin is that too many Christians are failures at presenting the evidence for God. While it may be true that God has already plainly revealed Himself apart from His church, He has still given all believers the the priveledge and responsiblity to proclaim the gospel to all the world, make disciples of all nations, and teach them what Jesus taught. If more Christians learned to present the evidence in a compelling manner, more skeptics would be inclined to seek God and receive their reward. Christians must learn to explain and defend the good news that God exists, and He rewards seekers. There is a rational, evidential basis for the Christian faith. Christians need to learn it through and through so they can proclaim it and contend for it.

In conclusion, the fact of the matter is that too many Christians (at least in my neck of the woods), also focus too much on evil to the exclusion of other important facts of reality. In addition to being able to explain and defend the gospel, Christians ought to live as if they actually believed the gospel! While on one hand we cannot ignore evil--abortion, all kinds of sexual immorality (including homosexuality), the decline of the Church in the West, the rise of secular humanism, the rise of Islam, the glorification of sin in the media, etc.--on the other hand we cannot live in despair. Too many sermons and teachings focus on all the things that are wrong with the world. If we believe in the good God of the Bible, and we believe that the Bible is God's Word, let's live as if we actually believe it! Let me preach a little to my fellow Believers.

Jesus said, before He gave the Great Commission,

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

~Matthew 28:18

He told His disciples,

Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.

~Luke 10:19

The Apostle Paul wrote,

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

~1 Corinthians 15:57

and,

God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

~Ephesians 2:4-7

and,

For in [Jesus Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

~Colossians 2:9-15

 

Christians, you walk in victory through Jesus Christ! I am convinced that if Christians began to pray the prayer of faith, walk the walk of faith, and proclaim the good news in faith, the God who exists would reward His seekers by using them to bring new souls into the kingdom. God wants to use His people to minimize the problem of evil. This post has turned into more of a rant than I originally intended, so I will end it here. Christians, we serve a good God, and never forget that through Him we always walk in victory!

New Atheist's Embarrassingly Bad Knowledge of Biblical History

This is a very informative and thorough video, considering it is less than 15 minutes long. If Dawkins, Hitchens, and Onfray can get so many things wrong about the historical facts surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, we can only draw two conclusions:

1) They do not really know what they are talking about.
2) They know what they are talking about and are being intentionally deceptive.

Either way, their case for skepticism of the historical facts cannot stand on a firm foundation.

Watch, think, and read what the historians and New Testament scholars experts have to say on the subject.

The Creator

Last week the first essential Christian doctrine I listed was belief in a theistic God.

Some of you may be wondering why it must be a theistic God. Some of you may be wondering what a theistic God is. There are essentially three views on God:

1) Atheism - there is no God
2) Pantheism - the universe is God
3) Theism - God created the universe

Some of my readers may not be familiar with the term theism, but it is not hard to understand. Even if you did not know what a theistic God was prior to reading this blog, if you profess to be a Christian, chances are you believe in a theistic God. That is, you believe that God created all things visible and invisible, and God transcends and is separate from His creation. This is the clear teaching of the Bible from the start.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
~Genesis 1:1, ESV

Not only should you believe in a theistic Creator God if you are a Christian, but you ought to believe in a theistic God on the basis of evidence. As we observe the natural world around us, we might naturally wonder how it all got here. We might even ask ourselves,

Why should there be something rather than nothing?

~Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz

This is just the sort of question that naturally occurs to children, but which we suppress as adults. I think this is unfortunate. However, if we free our minds to question and wonder in awe at the universe, as we did when we were children, we might find the answers that so many people have told us are not really there. This may be part of the reason Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3, ESV).

One thing we've observed about the universe is that things have a beginning and an end, and don't begin to exist without a cause. We have good evidence that the universe itself had a definite beginning in the finite past, and therefore something must have caused it to spring into existence. As William Lane Craig pointed out in his debate with Alexander Krauss,

There are good reasons, both philosophically and scientifically, to doubt that the universe is beginningless. Philosophically, the idea of an eternal past seems absurd. Just think about it! If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the series of past events goes back to infinity, that the number of events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can’t go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split-second of the universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state out of which our universe may have evolved—which some scientific popularizations have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had a beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a much grander “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have a beginning.

Speculative theories, such as Pre-Big Bang Inflationary scenarios, have been crafted to try to avoid this absolute beginning. But none of these theories has succeeded in restoring an eternal past. At most they just push the beginning back a step. But then the question inevitable arises: Why did the universe come into being? What brought the vacuum state into existence?

Well, unless you’re willing to say the universe just popped into being uncaused out of absolute non-being, there must be a transcendent cause beyond space and time which created the universe. Clearly, then, God’s existence is more probable given the beginning of the universe than it would have been without it.

For quite a while, we've had philosophical and mathematical reasons to doubt that the universe is eternal. Now that we have the scientific evidence for the Big Bang origin of the universe, the idea that the universe began to exist in the past is practically indisputable.

Since the universe is clearly not eternal, we must conclude that it either popped into being out of nothing, or something outside the universe--outside space, time, and matter--caused it to exist. According to the Standard Big Bang Theory, before the universe exploded into being nothing physical existed. By nothing I mean no thing. There was no space, time, or matter at all. As Dr. Craig pointed out, "...unless you’re willing to say the universe just popped into being uncaused out of absolute non-being, there must be a transcendent cause beyond space and time which created the universe." Surprisingly, I have encountered some atheists who are willing to bite the bullet and say that the universe came uncaused from nothing.

If you are the sort of person that is willing to believe such an absurd notion, just stop reading this blog now because now amount of persuasion or logic can convince you.

For the rest of you that are open-minded seekers of truth, allow me to explain what the cause of the universe must be like.

It must be spaceless, because it created space.

It must be timeless, because it created time.

It must be immaterial, because it created matter.

It must be powerful, because it created from nothing.

It must be personal, because it chose to create the universe and impersonal forces cannot choose anything.

It must be intelligent, because the universe is precisely fine-tuned.

 Remember, this description is based on what we know about the origin of the universe by scientific observation. It is not a "God of the gaps" argument, because it is not an argument from ignorance. A supernatural, intelligent, powerful, personal being sounds an awful lot like the God of the Bible to me--although, it could also pass as the God of Qur'an. We will have to turn to other lines of evidence to arrive at the existence of the Christian God, but this is a good start. As far as we can tell, the evidence points to a theistic God. That means that God exists, so atheism cannot be true. It also shows that the universe is something He transcends and created. He is not identical with the universe so pantheism cannot be true. This leaves us with the theistic Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The evidence does not end here, and in its totality points to Christianity, but that is for other arguments in other posts to demonstrate.

In conclusion, anyone who bases their belief in God on the evidence will also believe in a theistic God.. In addition, anyone identifying themselves as followers of Jesus Christ should believe in a theistic God who created the universe because the that is what the Bible clearly teaches, and the Bible is the ultimate source of Christian doctrine. In this area, evidence is clearly on the side of the Bible, which is what we should expect if the same God who created the univserse inspired the Scripture.

What is Essential Christian Doctrine (YouTube video)

Watch "227. What Is Essential Christian Doctrine?" on YouTube

I thought this was relevant in light of my last post. Hank Hanegraaf does not touch on every essential Christian doctrine here, but he does talk about two extremely important doctrines--the deity of Jesus Christ and eschatology.

These two doctrines set Christianity apart from other religions. Some essential doctrines fit just as well in Judaism or Islam, but the way Christians see Jesus distinguishes them as a peculiar people. He is God, He is alive, and He's coming back.

This video is short and sweet. Enjoy!

What is a Christian?

What is a Christian? What separates Christianity from other faiths; what is Christian orthodoxy; what is heresy?

It is important that we know what doctrines are essential to the Christian faith. There is a lot of in-fighting on secondary issues--too much, in fact. In my personal observation, Christians fight bitterly over non-essential beliefs. At the same time, too many Christians either intentionally depart from orthodoxy, or are simply ignorant as to what Christianity actually is.

I think it is important that we clearly define the essentials, lest we get to the point where Christianity can be defined any way we please. That seems to be the case already for many people. Here are the essentials of Christianity as I see it. Some will say I've left some things out; others will say my definition is too narrow. The purpose of this post is not so much to argue for the Christian view as to define it. This is just a brief snapshot of Christian orthodoxy. I will go more in depth in future posts.

First of all, Christians believe that God exists. More specifically, Christians believe in a theistic God who created the universe from nothing, and transcends His creation. Christians do not believe in a pantheistic god who is identical with the universe, or a panentheistic god who is somehow "in" all His creation. Christians believe in a perfectly good and loving God, who rewards those who seek Him.

Second of all, Christians believe in a triune God who is one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Third, Christians believe in Jesus Christ. That is, they do not simply believe He existed as a historical figure, but is God in the flesh, the Son, who was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit in a virgin named Mary. He is truly God and truly man--not a demigod, not just divine, and not just human. His primary mission was to die sacrificially as an offering for the sin of all humanity, and He was able to do this because He lived a sinless life. He was crucified, buried, and rose again on the third day.After His resurrection He ascended to the right hand of the Father and will return one day in glory to judge all people vanquish evil once and for all.

Fourth, Christians believe salvation is by the grace of God alone, received by faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. Christians believe that forgiveness of sin cannot be earned by good deeds, but can only be removed by God's unmerited favor, called grace. Grace is received freely by those who trust in Jesus Christ, because He died sacrificially on our behalf and rose from the dead. This trust in Jesus is called faith. No other person in history could have served as an unblemished sacrifice for human sin, so salvation is through Him only.

Fifth, Christians believe that the Bible is a reliable source of revelation from God. I do not say it is essential that all Christians believe the Bible is inerrant (although personally, I do believe it is). However, if a professing Christian believes the Bible is not even generally reliable, one would wonder on what basis such a "Christian" would believe other essential Christian doctrines?

Any deviation from these essentials is a deviation from Christianity. I do not say that deviations from orthodoxy necessarily bar anyone from salvation. The basis of salvation is faith in Jesus, not particular doctrines about Him. However, heterodoxy may be an indication that one has placed faith in something other than the Christian God--an idol.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. - 1 Timothy 4:16

As I said, I am not going to argue for the truth of these classical Christian doctrines here, but I will will argue for each of them in later posts.

I Believe in Jesus

Watch "Mo Sabri - I Believe In Jesus" on YouTube

What does it mean to say, "I believe in Jesus"?

A rapper from my own hometown of Johnson City, TN, recently came out with a song entitled "I Believe in Jesus." Based on the song title alone, one might mistake Mo Sabri for another Christian rapper like Toby Mac, or Lacrae. After a brief cameo from Jason Witten, the video opens with a quote from scripture--but not the Christian scripture--the Muslim Qur'an.

And the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary."

Surah 3:45

Here are the lyrics to the song,

Verse 1:
This ain’t a song about bottles in the club
This is about a role model filled with love.
A teacher, a preacher, with guidance from above,
Sent to represent a message of peace, like a dove.
In the West, they call him Jesus, in the East they call him Isa,
Messiah, Christ, the same person that you speak of.
Ask me why I wrote this song, and I will tell you because
There’s too many people silent, it’s time for me to speak out.
The son of a virgin, they say it is illogical, probably improbable, but God made it possible.
Gabriel told Mary that her son would be phenomenal,
His voice was always audible, the opposite of prodigal,
He overcame the obstacles, people attacking him. He was a walking hospital,
with heathen he was compassionate.
He healed the sick, raised the dead. Shout out to Lazarus.  I’m talkin’ about Jesus of Nazareth.

Chorus:
If we don’t have peace, we’ll end up in pieces.
Treat people the way that you want to be treated. 
If you do believe it, sing it and repeat it.
I am not afraid to say that I believe in Jesus.
Jesus. I believe in Jesus. I am not afraid to say that I believe in Jesus.
Jesus. I believe in Jesus. I am not afraid to say that I believe in Jesus.
Nananananana, Nanananana, I believe in Jesus. Nanananana, Nanananana I believe in Jesus.

Verse 2:
Ah, I’m just a follower of Jesus.
What that means is I follow what he teaches.
I’m not the type of person that just wants to give speeches.
I’m trying to be the person that will practice what he preaches.
Yeah, cause I’ve observed people just say the words.
But faith in him now is more like a verb. That’s why I wrote this verse.
To remind us to serve. Cause if you haven’t heard, faith is dead without works.
How can we say we believe that God exists when we always act the opposite.
It’s ominous, how we only care about our own accomplishments,
and we’re quick to break our promises. We got to put a stop to this.
We all sin. I know that we are human.
But we cannot keep  on using the same excuses.
Now is the time  we need to prevent the abuses.
Listen up, I got the solution.

Chorus

Verse 3:
Why does our religion always have to cause division?
In reality, we’re all more similar than different.
Jesus wanted unity, but nowadays it’s missin’.
We gotta use our vision if we want to do his mission.
Can’t you see we’re all children of Adam, brothers and sisters.
If you don’t agree, you haven’t read the scriptures.
Picture when Jesus comes back to Jerusalem.
Will he be happy with the way you’ve become?
We’re livin’ wrong. But today’s a new dawn.
So sing along to this song like David singing the psalms. 
Now raise up your arms to give alms with open palms.
Cause Jesus brought a message, let’s follow it till we’re gone.
Shout out to my dad and mom for blessing me in my youth.
God’s insistent proof that his message is the truth.
This song is just a lesson to remind me and you,
to ask ourselves this question, “What would Jesus do?”

Chorus

These lyrics are vaguely positive, similar to most of the songs played on mainstream Christian radio. Will Mo Sabri be touring soon, perhaps opening for Group 1 Crew or Rapture Ruckus? Probably not. If the Qur'anic allusion did not give it away, Sabri is not a Christian, but a Muslim.

With his song, Mo has given us a unique learning opportunity. Many Christians may not realize that Muslims do believe in Jesus, and that He is a prominent figure in the Qur'an. Could it be that Christians and Muslims are just long-lost kin who actually worship the same God? Christians are known for their doctrine of justification by faith, but what does that really mean? If Muslims also believe in Jesus, does that mean they will be saved too? Can Muslims like Mo Sabri ever be followers of Jesus in the same sense that Christians are followers of Jesus?

As Mo has artfully pointed out, there do seem to be a lot of similarities between what the Qur'an says and what the Bible says about Jesus. In both books, Jesus is miraculously conceived in Mary, a virgin. In both books, Isa is called a prophet, the Word of God, and Messiah.

There are some important differences. For starters, the New Testament claims that Jesus was beaten and crucified by the Roman authorities, died on the cross, was buried, but rose from the dead on the third day. After appearing to His disciples over the course of 40 days, He ascended into heaven. The Qur'an states that Jesus was never crucified and did not die, but simply ascended to heaven.

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

Surah 4:157-158

Why is this such a big deal? Because the Christian hope of salvation is rooted in the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul explained it in his letter to the church in Corinth,

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:12-23, ESV

In other words, in the Christian worldview, we are saved from sin, death, and hell by grace alone, obtained through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. If He did not die on the cross and raise again from the dead then Christian faith is meaningless, because the object of our faith would be a powerless lie. This is not a problem for the Islamic worldview because it is works based. As long as a person practices the Five Pillars of Islam, and their good deeds outweigh their evil deeds, Allah (the Arabic word/name for 'God') will allow one into heaven. One can also get to heaven by dying as a martyr in a jihad (holy war).

An even more important difference between Christians and Muslims is that Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate, whereas Muslims believe He was merely a man. Hopefully, in spite of all the all the similarities between Christianity and Islam pointed out by Mo Sabri, my readers noticed that there was no mention of Jesus being God. The Qur'an states clearly that Jesus is not God, not the One and Only Son of God, or divine in any way.

They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary.

Surah 5:17

  The Bible states in multiple places that Jesus is God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ...

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:1, 14

For in him [Jesus] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.

Colossians 2:9

...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

Titus 2:13

But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom."

Hebrews 1:8

 These are just a few of the Bible passages that point to Jesus' divinity, but I think these are more than sufficient to make my point. The Bible says that Jesus was God, but the Qur'an denies Jesus was God. This presents a problem. Only one view of Jesus can be correct (although both of them could be wrong). Either Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, or He didn't. Either Jesus was the God-Man of the Bible, or He wasn't. To quote a Muslim scholar,

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

Avicenna

To be fair to Mo Sabri, I do not know all he was trying to get across with the song. He may have simply been promoting peace and tolerance. If so, he ought to be applauded. However, if he was claiming that Christianity and Islam can both be equally true, as may in our pluralistic culture claim, he is dead wrong. For true tolerance to take place, there must be disagreement. When we disagree, but respect other people and their differing ideas, we are tolerating them. If by "tolerance" we only mean that we accept varying beliefs as equally valid, this is not actually tolerance, but agreement. Every worldview or philosophy simply cannot be equally true, and it is folly to claim that every idea can be true.

Without the division and petty quarreling decried by Mo's song, how can we tolerantly discern whether Christianity or Islam accurately portray Jesus?

First of all, the New Testament was written much earlier than the Qur'an. Picture yourself at a murder trial. Should we believe the testimony of witnesses living at around the same time and location of the murder, or should we believe the testimony of someone living several hundred years after the murder took place? The fact of the matter is that the New Testament was written by people who either were present during the events of Jesus' life, or who know folks who were. The latest of the Gospels, John, may have been written as late as the 90's AD, as span of about 60 years from Jesus' crucifixion. If we assume the Qur'an faithfully records the words of Muhammed, the Prophet was not born until about 570 AD--about 540 years after Jesus--and obviously could not have been present to accurately discern whether Jesus was crucified or not.

Second of all, the early followers of Jesus endured violent persecution, and often death, for their testimony about Jesus. They had nothing to gain (at least not in this life) for claiming that Jesus was God in the flesh, who had been crucified but rose from the dead to save humanity from their sins. New converts were persuaded by the Apostle's testimony to what they had seen and heard, appeals to fulfilled prophecy, and miracles according to the book of Acts. No one at that time was forced to become a Christian. In contrast, when Muhammad and his followers were persecuted, Muhammed raised an army and began spreading the Islamic faith by force. He gained wealth and power, but performed no miracles--at least according to the Qur'an.

It seems much more probable that contemporaries of Jesus would no better what happened to Jesus than a self-proclaimed prophet living over 500 years after the fact. The fact is that most scholars believe that Jesus was an historical figure, who was crucified by the Roman authorities, buried by Joseph of Arimathea, and on the third day some of Jesus' women followers discovered His tomb empty. His disciples, who began to doubt Jesus was the Messiah after His arrest and crucifixion, soon afterward began to boldly proclaim that they had encountered the risen Jesus in the city where He had been crucified. Even Jesus' skeptical brother James was converted when he claimed to have met Jesus alive from the dead. Later, the most dangerous opponent of the Church, who had Christians thrown in prison and executed, became a Christian after he encountered Jesus.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 15:3-9

  We need to ask ourselves, does the testimony of the Qur'an or the testimony of the Bible better account for the birth of Christianity? Think about it.

Could Jesus have survived multiple beatings and crucifixion by professional Roman soldiers?

If He did somehow survive crucifixion, would He have been strong enough to fight through pounds of linen wrapping, remove His gravestone which probably weighed a ton or two, and fight off the guards watching His tomb before appearing to His disciples?

Even if He did all this, would His disciples have proclaimed His glorious resurrection, or would they have encouraged Him to see a doctor?

If the disciples, or some other party had stolen the body or mistaken which tomb He had been buried in, why didn't the authorities dispel the news of His resurrection by producing His corpse?

Did over 500 people have a mass hallucination, or did He really appear to them?

It seems to me that the Bible's account of Jesus must be more accurate than the Qur'an's account, and this means that Jesus really was crucified and rose from the dead. If He did rise from the dead, the Christian claims of His divinity must also be true. If Jesus is the risen God-Man of the Bible, then salvation is by grace alone, obtained through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. The Christian view of salvation is much more secure than the Muslim view because it depends on what Jesus did on the cross and not what you or I do. More importantly, it is more secure because it is true.

If the Christian worldview is true, the Islamic worldview cannot be true where it differs from the Christian worldview. Mo Sabri cannot be a follower of Jesus in the same sense as a Christian because the Jesus he follows never existed. The Jesus of the Bible is a person of well established historical fact, so we ought to follow Him instead of the Qur'anic Isa.

Why does our religion always have to cause division?
In reality, we’re all more similar than different.

Actually, we are only superficially similar. The fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam cause the division. Only one religion can be true, and the facts are on the side of Christianity. However, this does not mean that Christians can never get along with Muslims. Jesus taught us,

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Matthew 5:9

  However, living in peace does not require us to agree with conflicting points of view, or accept all views as equally true.