Journey from happy family to abuse

How can a happy wedding night turn into family abuse within a couple of years? What turns the joy of dating into nightmares of family violence? What is even more alarming is that approximately 87% of family violence in Australia is inflicted on women by men!

It is important that we do not see family violence only as physical abuse. Hitting a woman is obnoxious behaviour that must be stopped. But it is only a narrow way of examining abuse.

Bill would abuse his wife by controlling her money. He was in absolute control of the finances.

John would call Isobel an idiot and a useless woman around the house. He would scream at her, “When we got married, you were trim and good-looking. Now you’re a fat slob.”

Sean would swear at Anne whenever she wouldn’t do what he wanted. If she did not buy the petrol on time for the fishing trip, she got the finger and blankety-blanks.

Lifeline’s Spencer Gear said that “sometimes in counselling men tell me that they get angry and that’s what makes them abuse women. Men do get angry (so do women) but men can choose how they express it. Some men seem to create situations that lead them to become angry. Anger becomes an excuse for men to be abusive and violent.”

Other men blame their use of alcohol and other drugs for their family abuse.

To blame anger or grog for family violence is a myth. Men are responsible with what they do with their anger and how they express or control it.

Drinking or abusing drugs is a choice that men make. They are responsible for that choice, even if they lose control while drunk.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9
Whytehouse designs

Why do men abuse women?

Image result for white ribbon public domainBy Spencer D Gear

I would like you to meet Monte. You won’t recognise him by name. He is a composite of many abusive males I have counselled over the years.

As a male family counsellor, I have spent many years working with men and women in conflict. Monte could abuse his wife and not realise the impact on his wife and children. She could tell him at home and in counselling about how it hurt her and the kids with his uncaring dominance.

Yet he wants her to respond positively to his sexual advances at night and is miffed when she refuses him.

By abuse, I mean those who use mental abuse through their words (swearing & put downs). They cut off the money and refuse to allow spouses to meet with friends. Some are very demanding sexually. Occasionally they hurt the partner physically.

Monte is like one of these men. He can swear at his spouse, accuse her of being unfaithful, and threaten to toss her out of the house.

When I work with abusive men, I try to help them see the link among, beliefs, thoughts, feelings and their actions.

What beliefs cause men to eventually abuse their women? Three seem to be prominent.

Firstly, when a man makes himself central or king pin in the relationship, he will disregard the effects of his swear words and other insults on her. He will not be able to walk in her shoes and feel as she feels (it’s called a lack of empathy).

Secondly, some men believe that men are superior and become super sensitive and defensive when there are any threats to that superiority. Monte was like that. He would demand that his wife always agree with him and do things his way. Why? Because he was the expert in many things. He was the only one who could be right!

Thirdly, men who abuse sometimes exclaim, “I don’t deserve to be treated this way.” They expect a certain level of care and love, otherwise they will continue to abuse the wife.

These three belief systems often lead to angry and aggressive men who abuse their wives or partners.

Is there any hope for change? There was for Monte. He realised that he had inherited the view that a man was the centre of the universe from his father. When he woke up to the fact that this was a core reason for such horrible conflict in his relationship, he changed. But it started with his beliefs being challenged.

Is there hope for men who abuse? Absolutely! But the beliefs need to be addressed at the foundation.

I wish you could meet Monte today. He is a radically changed man. But he took responsibility for changing his beliefs and in turn he changed his behaviour. There is hope for men who abuse!

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9

Who created God?

I was talking to a group of teenagers about the things of God and of Jesus when one of them blurted out, “What stupid stuff you Christians believe. I can’t see your God but you want me to believe in him. Every thing I know was made by something else. Wood comes from trees which come from seeds. Human beings happen when Mum and Dad get together. Who created your so-called God?”

This is a reasonable question. God’s view is that “anyone who comes to [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him”(Heb. 11:6, NIV). Before we can approach God, we must believe that he exists. We Christians spend too little time helping people with something that God requires before we can even approach him. This is the existence of God.

What kinds of evidence would you accept?

I once lived in a house that had several mango trees in the yard. When the fruit was of reasonable size, each morning I could go to the tree and see that something had been destroying my fruit by eating bits and pieces out of the green and near-ripe fruit. I didn’t see the flying foxes, but I can infer their existence from the evidence.

It’s like that with God. There is evidence all around that shows his existence. It shouldn’t bother us that we cannot see him. I can’t see the wind. I can’t see your brain and you can’t see mine. Neither can I see the principle within me that gives me life. But I sure know the wind, my brain, and my life exist – from the evidence they produce.

We can see the effects of God around us if we care to notice. Let’s take a look at our universe. Examine the intricate design of a human eye. If this earth were orbiting closer to the sun, it would fry. If it were further away, it would freeze over.

Let’s look at some other evidence:

Consider the sun. It is monstrous when compared with the earth. It has a diameter of 864,400 miles and a volume that is over one million times that of earth. The surface of the sun has a temperature of 6,000 degrees C, but that rises to 14 million degrees C at its core. About 4 million tons of the mass of the sun is lost every second, but it is of such gigantic proportions that it has enough fuel for about another 5,000 million years.

But the sun is only an average-sized star in the Milky Way galaxy. This galaxy, shaped like a disc, is 621,000 million million miles in breadth. There are 100,000 million stars in this single galaxy. The nearest star in the Milky Way, Andromeda, is about 24 million million million miles away.

Doesn’t this boggle the mind? All of it is perfectly designed and holds together by something or someone.

Now consider the dimension of the universe in light years. Light travels at just over 186,282 miles per second, which means that light travels at about 5,878,000 million miles per year. At this phenomenal speed, how long would it take to reach the sun from earth? Eight minutes. The nearest group of stars in our galaxy, Magellanic Clouds, takes 170,000 light years of travel to reach them. It takes 2.2 million light years to reach the Andromeda Spiral.

We could go on and on about the time to reach Sirius, Polaris (North Star), and Ursa Major (Great Bear). But this is only in one galaxy. It is estimated that there are at least 100,000 million galaxies, and we haven’t discussed the size of stars.[1]

After considering these and other dimensions of our wondrous universe, British evangelist, John Blanchard, asked: “What exactly is it that we are seeing? How does it work? Has it always existed? If not, when and how did it come into being? Will it go on for ever? If not, when and how will it come to an end? Why is it there at all? Does it have any meaning or purpose?”[2]

If the known stars in the universe were divided among the present population of the world, one writer has suggested that each person would receive two trillion of them.[3] A trillion is 10 to the 9th power, or, one million millions.[4] There are so many stars in the universe that each person in the world could have two trillion of them. What an immense cosmos.

Examine the composition of just one cell of a human body.

“The DNA molecule inside each cell contains a three-billion letter software code capable of overseeing and regulating all the anatomy on display in Body Worlds [the human body]. Increasingly we are learning to read the code. But who wrote it? And why? Can anyone guide us in reading not only the microcode inside each cell but the macrocode governing the entire planet, the universe?”[5]

As I consider this information about the existence of the Creator God, a few passages of Scripture come to mind that confirm this kind of evidence. I’m thinking of . . .

Psalm 8:3-4:

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,

what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them? (TNIV)
[6]

Psalm 19:1-6:

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.

4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

5 which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth (TNIV)

A verse from the NT confirms these passages from the Psalms: Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (TNIV).

Philip Yancey said: “In my lifetime, astronomers have ‘discovered’ seventy billion more galaxies, admitted they may have overlooked 96 percent of the makeup of the universe (‘dark energy’ and ‘dark matter’), and adjusted the time of the Big Bang by four to five billion years.”[7]

Today I’ve given a couple pointers to the existence of God, but . . .

Who created God?

I’m convinced beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, but how can I come to know who created God?

So, who made God?[8] The simple answer is: Nobody made God. God has always existed. The only things that are created are things that had a beginning – like you, me and our universe. All of us and our universe need a maker, a creator. Since God did not need to be created, the question, “Who made God?” is meaningless because he is not a created being but is the eternal being who eternally existed before he created the universe.

To ask, “Who created God?” is as illogical as asking, “Who is the bachelor’s wife?”[9]

However, there are questions that remain for those of us who do a little thinking. You might be asking questions like these: [10]

  • If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause?
  • If God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?

Please note that: “The word ’cause’ has several different meanings in philosophy. But in this article, I am referring to the efficient cause, the chief agent causing something to be made.”[11]

A logical answer should go like this:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.[12]

Its important to emphasise the words “which has a beginning.” Our universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. Everything that had a beginning is caused by something. God is not like the universe. He had no beginning and therefore doesn’t need a cause.

In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which has a lot of experimental support, is “the geometric theory of gravitation that was published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the current description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton’s law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time.”[13]

From this well established theory of Einstein’s, we can deduce that God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so He doesn’t need a cause. Einstein’s theory of general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.[14]

Thus, time, space and matter all had a beginning. The universe cannot be eternal.

God, by definition, is the creator of the entire universe, including time, space and matter. He cannot be limited by time. He created it. So, he had no beginning. There is an interesting verse in Isaiah 57:15a that confirms this: “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy. . .” (ESV).

Therefore, the eternal God does not have a cause.

It’s time to put on your thinking caps again. It’s a long while since I did science and I’m not a scientist. I did chemistry and physics in high school and a chemistry subject in my bachelor’s degree.

I want to introduce you to the term, “thermodynamics.” It is “a field of physical science that relates matter to energy. The principles of thermodynamics are regarded as inviolable and are applied constantly to engineering and the sciences, including origin science.”[15]

According to the first law of thermodynamics, “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”[16] That really is a philosophical way of putting it. Since science is based on observation, the observational evidence for the first law of thermodynamics should read: “[As far as we have observed,] the amount of energy in the universe remains constant.”[17] i.e. scientists have not observed any new energy coming into existence or going out of existence.

This statement cannot affirm or deny that the universe was created. It simply states that, “as far as we can tell, the actual amount of energy that was created has remained constant since then.”[18]

That’s the first law of thermodynamics.

But there’s a second law of thermodynamics.

Are you ready to think a little more with me?

Remember the core of the first law of thermodynamics: “[As far as we have observed,] the amount of energy in the universe remains constant.”[19] i.e. scientists have not observed any new energy coming into existence or going out of existence

The second law of thermodynamics is another story. It can be stated this way:

“In a closed, isolated system, the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing.”[20] When I learned it back in my Grade 12 and university classes the term used was increase in entropy for decrease in useable energy.

Remember, the term is thermodynamics. By “dynamic” we mean that the amount of energy is being changed into unusable energy. This doesn’t conflict with the first law of thermodynamics, rather “it amplifies it.”[21]

Norman Geisler puts it this way: “If energy is constant, why do we keep needing more electricity? The answer is that entropy happens. The second law states that ‘overall things left to themselves tend to disorder.’ Overall, the amount of disorder is increasing. The entropy—that is, the disorder—of an isolated system can never decrease. When an isolated system achieves maximum entropy, it can no longer undergo change: It has reached equilibrium. We would say it has ‘run down.'”[22]

Put a cabbage in a closed system such as a glass house with no cracks and let it stay there for 6 months. What will happen to the cabbage? There will be an increase in entropy, or a decrease in energy. The cabbage will become putrid. Guaranteed. Think about this principle.

So, according to science, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that our universe is running down. If it is running down, it is running down from a higher position when it was created. It’s another way of showing that the universe cannot be eternal. It had a beginning; it had a cause and there is a decrease in useable energy.

But who is eternal and who caused the universe to come into existence. I put it to you that God Himself, the eternal one, created the universe. This is confirmed in the very first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1 NIV).

Here’s another searching question about God:

Since God is has always existed and was not created, what was he up to before the creation of the cosmos, the universe, the world?

One of the great Christian teachers of the fifth-century, St. Augustine of Hippo, had two answers to this question. One of them was humorous and the other was serious.

His humorous answer was: “God was spending his time preparing hell for people who ask questions like this!”

The serious answer was: “God didn’t have any time on his hands, since there was no time before time was created. Time began with creation. Before creation, time did not exist. So there was no time for God to have on his hands. The world did not begin by a creation in time but by a creation of time. But, you may think, if there was no time before time began, what was there? The answer is, eternity. God is eternal, and the only thing prior to time was eternity.”[23]

Our very question, what was God up to before the creation of the universe “implies that an infinitely perfect being like God could get bored. Boredom, however, is a sign of imperfection and dissatisfaction, and God is perfectly satisfied. Thus, there is no way God could be bored, even if he had long time periods on his hands. An infinitely creative mind can always find something interesting to do. Only finite minds [like yours and mine] that run out of interesting things to do get bored.”[24]

This is not the time or place to get into a discussion of the nature of the Christian God who has three persons, Father, Son & Holy Spirit, in perfect fellowship. There is no way that such a person could become bored or lonely. There would always be somebody with whom to communicate who would have “perfect understanding, love, and companionship. Boredom is impossible for such a being.”[25]

Conclusion

William MacDonald calculated this:

“If it cost a cent to travel 1,000 miles, a cruise to the moon would be $2.38. But if you wanted to go to the sun, the one-way ticket would cost $930. And a trip to the nearest star would be – hold onto your hat – $260 million. Yet a place in the heart of the One who made this vast universe is free, based on the priceless sacrifice of Christ. Have you reserved your place?

Wonder of wonders! Vast surprise!

Can bigger wonder be?

That He who built the starry skies

Once bled and died for me.[26]

Imagine your 5-year-old.[27]

“Daddy,[28] who made me?”

“God made you, darling.”

“Well, Daddy, who made the sky and the trees?”

“God made the sky and the trees. God made everything.”

“Daddy, who made God?”

What a good question? “What do you say? Who made God? is a natural question for a child. If we teach our children that everything in the world is made from something else, where do we stop this line of reasoning? If everything has a maker, then who makes the maker? We find clues to the answer in God’s curious name for Himself, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’

“The simple answer (try explaining this to a child!) is that God does not require a cause. He causes all creatures to be, but He Himself is caused by no one. He makes all things move, but He Himself is moved by nothing.

“God exists by His own power. He alone is self-existent.”[29]

This is a summary of what I have been trying to communicate:

1. I have tried to show that the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning.

2. It is unreasonable to believe that something that had a being could begin to exist without a cause.

3. Therefore, the universe requires a cause as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 confirm.

· God, as creator of time, matter and energy, is outside of time. God has no beginning in time. He has always existed, so he doesn’t need a cause.

· The end of the story is that God was never created. He is eternal.

 


Endnotes:

[1] This information is from John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists? Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2000, pp.244-245.

[2] Ibid., p. 247.

[3] Ibid., pp. 245-246.

[4] A trillion is “a number represented as a 1 followed by twelve zeros (1,000,000,000,000) If you have a bucket that holds 100 thousand marbles, you would need 10,” available from: www.ncsu.edu/project/agronauts/workbooks/Mission_1_Glossary.doc [4 May 2009].

[5] Philip Yancey, Rumours of a Another World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003, p. 30.

[6] TNIV = Today’s New International Version, available from: http://www.tniv.info/bible/ [3 May 2009]. A hard copy of The TNIV Bible: Timeless Truth in Today’s Language (Today’s New International Version) 2005 is available from Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

[7] Yancey, pp. 29-30.

[8] With help from Norman Geisler, “Tough Questions about God,” ch. 1, pp. 23-32, in Ravi Zacharias & Norman Geisler (gen. ed.) 2003, Who Made God? And Answers to over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

[9] Ibid., p. 24.

[10] The following is based on Christian Answers, available from: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html [4 May 2009].

[11] Endnote #1 in ibid.

[12] “Who created God?” Christian Answers, loc. cit.

[13] “General relativity,” Wikipedia, available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity [4 May 2009].

[14] “Who created God?” Christian Answers, loc. cit.

[15] Norman L. Geisler 1999, “Thermodynamics, Laws of,” in Norman L. Geisler 1999, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp.723-724.

[16] Geisler, “Tough questions about God,” p. 24.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.,

[19] Ibid.

[20] Geisler, “Thermodynamics, Laws of,” p. 724.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Geisler, “Tough questions about God,” p. 28.

[24] Ibid., pp. 28-29.

[25] Ibid., p. 29.

[26] In “D.P’s Scrap Book,” New Life, 11th December 1997, p. 15.

[27] The following example is from R.C. Sproul 1987, One Holy Passion, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 15.

[28] Sproul used “Mummy,” but I changed to “Daddy” because this message was originally presented at a men’s breakfast.

[29] Sproul, ibid.

Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9Flower9
Whytehouse designs

Torn between Life and Death

Image result for photo death public domain

By Spencer D Gear

Why is it that many of us will do many things to live longer but others want to end life now?

We go on diets to reduce the strain on our hearts and the cholesterol from the fatty foods that we eat.

A recent study in the USA found that if people want to be healthy and live longer, they should consume less red and processed meat.[1]

The research of half a million American middle-aged and elderly people who consumed four ounces of red meat a day (an amount equivalent to a small hamburger), found that there was a 30% higher chance that they would die in the next 10 years.

Most of these would die of heart disease and cancer. The risk was increased through eating sausage, cold meats and other processed meats.

But this desire to try to avoid death, is also seen in some treatments of cancer. In spite of severe side effects of chemotherapy, such as fever, chills & sweats, abnormal bleeding, severe vomiting, constipation, diarrhoea and abdominal pain, patients want to live longer to spend more time with their relatives and friends.

Why is it that we have this love of life and need to prolong the date of death? Could it be connected with our culture’s deep fear of death?

“I want to be with my loved ones who have gone before, but I’m not sure about that,” are among the comments I hear.

For others, life has become a burden and ending life sooner than later sounds like a good release. The euthanasia movement in Australia, Europe and the USA is pushing this line. “To die with dignity” sounds like a reasonable and responsible way of thinking until one sees how euthanasia is happening in countries such as Holland.

The recent series of articles in The Times (UK) demonstrates this continuing push for euthanasia and assisted suicide.[2] The Dutch experience shows that this push will not be limited to the terminally ill. After a three year inquiry, the Dutch Medical Association (as reported in the British Medical Journal) wants more freedom to kill. The report stated that “doctors can help patients who ask for help to die even though they may not be ill but ‘suffering through living.'”[3]

Some experience this ambivalence: Extend life as much as possible but end life if it becomes unbearable.

This is where the Easter message of the resurrected Christ has particular application. We do not have to guess about what happens at death. Here there is an opportunity of knowing why life must end and what lies beyond the grave. The physical resurrection of all human beings after death is firmly grounded in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.

Jesus Christ himself affirms this. After raising a man the dead, he said, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”[4]

He demonstrated the reality of this through his own resurrection from the dead, which was a turning point in human history.

Because of Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead, there is a solid biblical, theological and historical basis for the belief that the souls of both believers and unbelievers survive death and will be raised again.

There is no reason for the believers in Christ to fear death as they are eternally redeemed. Are those who push for euthanasia certain of the destiny of those for whom they push for “death with dignity”?

 

Notes:

[1] Rob Stein, The Washington Post, 24 March 2009, “Daily red meat raises chances of dying early,” available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html [4 April 2009].

[2] A. C. Grayling, The Times (UK), 31 March 2009, “Allowing people to arrange their death is a simple act of kindness”, available from: Timesonline at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6005023.ece [3 April 2009]. See other euthanasia & assisted suicide stories linked to this article.

[3] Tony Sheldon, British Medical Journal News roundup, Extract, 18 January 2005, “Dutch euthanasia law should apply to patients ‘suffering through living’ report says,” available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7482/61 [4 April 2009]. Sheldon’s full article may be viewed at: http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/right-to-die_lists.opn.org/2005-January/000555.html [4 April 2009]. I was alerted to this information by Weblog: Christianity Today, “Dutch doctors want to kill the healthy,” 13 March 2006, available from: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/januaryweb-only/51.0.html [4 April 2009].

[4] John 11:25-26.

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6

Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

 Open Bible 2

(image courtesy ChristArt)

By Spencer D Gear

This is part 4 of a 4 part series.  See:

Flower11Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Flower11Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Flower11Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

A. Introduction

Josh McDowell relates what happened after a ‘free-speech’ lecture outdoors at a university. A professor approached him (he had brought his literature class with him) and said,

“Mr. McDowell, you are basing all your claims about Christ on a second century document that is obsolete. I showed in class today how the New Testament was written so long after Christ that it could not be accurate in what it recorded.”

Josh replied, “Your opinions or conclusions about the New Testament are twenty-five years out of date”.[1]

This professor was basing his opinions on the conclusions of German critic, F.C. Baur, who assumed that much of the N.T. was not written until late in the second century A.D.

However, 20th century archaeology has confirmed the accuracy of the N.T. manuscripts as FIRST CENTURY documents.

B. Some of the main N.T. manuscripts

In this final part of the series, I want to mention some of the main N.T. MSS that have been found along with endorsement from substantial historical and archaeological authorities.

¨The John Rylands papyrus fragment (in John Rylands Library, Manchester, England) was a significant find. It is the earliest known copy of any portion of the N.T. It dates from the first half of the second century, probably A.D.117-138. Written on both sides, it contains portions of 5 verses of John’s Gospel (18:31-33, 37-38). Although it’s only a small fragment, it has proved to be the closest and most valuable link in the chain of transmission. It tends to confirm the traditional date for the composition of John, before the end of the first century. [See photographs in Norman Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 388]

  •  The Bodmer Papyri (in Library of World Literature at Calagny, near Geneva) dates from about A.D. 200 or earlier. It contains 104 leaves of the Gospel of John 1:1-6:11; 6:35b-14:26 and fragments of 40 other pages, John 14-21.
  •  The Chester Beatty Papyri (in Beatty Museum near Dublin) consists of three codices and contains most of the N.T. It dates from about A.D. 250 or later. The University of Michigan owns (30 leaves.)[2]

We must not miss the two major MSS:

(1) Codex Vaticanus (B), dated about 325-350 [a codex is a book form on parchment or vellum (writing material made from animal skins)]. It contains most of the Septuagint (LXX) of O.T., most of the N.T., and the Apocrypha with some exclusions. It’s housed in the Vatican Library.

(2) Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), dated about 340. Regarded as “the most important witness to the text because of its antiquity, accuracy and lack of omissions.”[3] It contains half of O.T., O.T Apocrypha, all of the N.T. except Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Epistle of Barnabas and large portion of Shepherd of Hermas. In 1933, British Government purchased it (from Russia) for 100,000 pounds for the British Museum.

(3) Codex Bezae (about 450 or 550) is the oldest known bilingual manuscript of the N.T. Written in both Greek and Latin. Contains 4 gospels, Acts, 3 John 11-15, with some omissions. It is in the Cambridge University Library.

C. What are the experts saying NOW?

Millar Burrows of Yale University says:

“Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri [discoveries] is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament itself.”[4]

William Albright, who was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist when he wrote this:

“We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics today.”[5]

He explains further:

“In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably some time between A.D. 50 and 75).”[6]

Sir William Ramsay is regarded by many as one of the greatest archaeologists of all time.

“He was a student of the German historical school that taught that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century A.D. and not the first century as it purports to be. After reading modern criticism about the Book of Acts, he became convinced that it was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (A.D. 50) and therefore was unworthy of consideration by a historian. So in his research on the history of Asia Minor, Ramsay paid little attention to the New Testament. His investigation, however, eventually compelled him to consider the writings of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and gradually his attitude towards the Book of Acts began to change.”[7]

Sir William Ramsay concluded:

“Luke is a historian of the first rank… This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[8]

Josh McDowell says that “because of the accuracy of the most minute detail, Ramsay finally conceded that Acts could not be a second-century document but was rather a mid-first-century account.”[9]

Even theologically liberal scholar, Dr. John A.T. Robinson came to the amazing conclusion that the whole of the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.”[10]

Professor of ancient history, Paul L. Maier, writes:

“Arguments that Christianity hatched its Easter myth over a lengthy period of time or that the sources were written many years after the event are simply not factual.”[11]

Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard University was one of the greatest authorities in the nineteenth-century on the law of evidence in the common-law world. He

“applied to these records [the Gospels] the ‘ancient documents’ rule: ancient documents will be received as competent evidence if they are ‘fair on their face’ (ie. offer no internal evidence of tampering) and have been maintained in ‘reasonable custody’ (ie. their preservation has been consistent with their content). He concluded that the competence of the New Testament documents would be established in any court of law“[12]

D. Testing the Bible and ANY other piece of literature from history

To show that the Bible is an accurate and trustworthy book, I submitted for  your consideration three tests:

  • First: T –The Transmission Test,
  • Second: I – The Internal Evidence Test,
  • Third: E – The External Evidence Test.

There is a fourth: S: The Spirit of Conviction from the Holy Spirit of God.

E. A BRIEF test of the Muslim’s Qur’an: Subjecting the Quran to the T.I.E.S. test

The Quran says that it is “infallible” [2:2] and “inspired.”

1. The Transmission Test

We run into unique difficulties when we submit the Quran to the “Transmission Test.” We can find stacks of manuscripts for the Bible, or parts of manuscripts, dating back to the second century after Christ. Muhammed lived from ca. A.D. 570-632.

“Although a standard Muslim claim says the Quran has no textual variations, this is in fact incorrect. No one original manuscript of the Quran ever existed, since Muhammed (c. 570-632 A.D.) didn’t write any of it. Instead various followers wrote scattered revelations on whatever material came to hand, including pieces of papyrus, tree bark, palm leaves and mats, stones, the ribs and shoulder blades of animals, etc. Otherwise, they memorized them. These [kinds of][14] materials were susceptible to loss: Ali Dashti, a Islamic statesman, said animals sometimes ate mats or the palm leaves on which Suras (chapters of the Quran) were written! After his death, Muhammad’s revelations were gathered together to eliminate the chaos. . . .

To solve the problems of conflicting memories and possibly lost or varying written materials, Caliph Uthman (ruled 644-56) had the text of the Quran forcibly standardized. He commanded manuscripts with alternative readings to be burned. But he didn’t fully succeed, since variations are still known to have existed and some still do. The Sura Al-Saff had 200 verses in the days of Muhammad’s later wife Ayesha, but Uthman’s version had only 52.

[Robert] Morey says Shiite Muslims claim Uthman cut out a quarter of the Quran’s verses for political reasons. In his manuscript of the Quran, Ubai had a few Suras that Uthman omitted from the standardized version. Arthur Jeffrey, in his Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran, gives 90 pages of variant readings for the Quran’s text, finding 140 alone for Sura 2.[15]

The major problem with the Transmission Test for the Quran is that the Muslims are not interested in it. Allah revealed it to Muhammed and that’s good enough for them. They argue in circles:

Muslim: Muhammed was the prophet of God.

I ask: Why is this true?

Muslim: The Quran says so.

I ask: Why is the Quran true?

Muslim: Muhammed was the prophet of God.

I ask: Why is this true?

Muslim: Because the Quran says so.

I ask: But why is the Quran true?

Muslim: The Quran is without error.[16]

2. The Internal Evidence Test

This yields more fruitful information. The Quran claims it is [17]free from error, infallible [Sura 2:2][18] It claims that it Consummates All Scriptures[19] and is a continuation of the Bible.[20]

But look what we find?

a. Internal self-contradictions

The Quran claims that it is consistent and without ambiguity (Sura 39:23, 28).[21] BUT we find FOUR different versions (conflicting accounts) of how Muhammed received the Quran.[22] Muhammed says, “[53:4] It was divine inspiration.”

1. In Sura 53:2-18 and 81:19-24, Allah came to Muhammed in the form of a man with the message of the Quran.[23]

2. Sura 16:102 says it was the Holy Spirit who came to Muhammed with the message.[24]

3. Sura 15:8 says that the angels came down to Muhammed.[25]

4. The most popular version is that the angel Gabriel delivered the Quran to Muhammed (Sura 2:97).[26]

Which one was it? You can’t have infallibility, consistency, without ambiguity, and 4 different accounts of how Muhammed received the Quran.

b. Within the Quran you will find examples of:

  • Convenient revelations.

“When Muhammed wanted his son-in-law’s wife, he suddenly got a revelation from Allah” declaring it was OK. Sura 33:36-38[27]

  • Legendary Materials;[28]
  • Arabian Sources;[29]
  • Jewish Sources;[30]
  • Heretical Christian sources — Gnostic gospels and their fables.

He has the baby Jesus speaking from the cradle, and Jesus making clay birds come alive (Sura 3:49; 100:110).[31]

  • Eastern religious sources;[32]

There are major contradictions internally in the Quran.

3. The External Evidence Test

This is where we encounter major problems and I have only the time to give you the tip of the iceberg.

a. Errors in the Quran

  • How many days of creation? Eight days (Sura 41:9-10, 12) — 4 days + 2 days + 2 days = 8 days.[33] The Bible says 6 days according to Gen. 1:31 and Ex. 20:11
  • BUT, the Quran ALSO says creation took place in 6 days: [Sura 7:54][34]
  • One of Noah’s son’s perished in the Great Flood (Sura 11:42-43)[35]

The Bible says that all 3 of Noah’s sons went into the Ark and were saved from the Flood (see Gen. 7:1, 7, 13).

  • The Quran says that Noah’s Ark came to rest on the hills of Judea (Sura 11:44). The Bible says Mr. Ararat (Asia Minor, in Eastern Turkey), Gen. 8:4.
  • Many mistakes about Abraham[36]
  • The Quran says his father’s name was Azar [Sura 6:74][37] The Bible says it was Terah (Gen. 11:27)
  • It was his son, Isaac, that Abraham went to sacrifice, but the Quran says that it was Ishmail [Sura 37:100-112].[38]
  • Mistakes about Bible characters.

The Quran “refers to Goliath as Jalut, Korah as Karun, Saul as Talut, Enoch as Idris, Ezekiel as Dhu’l-Khifl, John the Baptist as Yahya, Jonah as Yunus, etc. Muhammed did not have access to the Bible because an Arabic translation of the Bible was not in existence at that time.”[39]

Mistakes about Mary, the mother of Jesus Concerning The Birth of Jesus, the Quran reads:

[19:22] When she bore him, she isolated herself to a faraway place.

[19:23] The birth process came to her by the trunk of a palm tree. She said, “(I am so ashamed;) I wish I were dead before this happened, and completely forgotten.”

[19:24] (The infant) called her from beneath her, saying, “Do not grieve. Your Lord has provided you with a stream.”

[19:25] “If you shake the trunk of this palm tree, it will drop ripe dates for you.”

  • Mistakes from secular history:

In Sura 105, “Muhammed claimed that the elephant army of Abrah was defeated by birds dropping stones of baked clay upon them.”[40],[41]

BUT, “according to the historical record, Abrah’s army withdrew [its] attack on Mecca after small-pox broke out among the troops.”[42]

  • Scientific problems

The sun setting in the ocean and found people there” [18:86][43]

  • Mistakes about Jesus:
Jesus was NOT the son of God, Messiah (Sura 5:17);[44]

To say that Jesus was the son of God was to utter a blasphemy (Sura 9:30);[45]

Jesus was not crucified (Sura 4:157);[46]

He was NOT fully God and fully human. He was just a messenger and his mother, Mary, was a saint (Sura 5:75);[47]

“The utter contradiction between the biblical and quranic view of Jesus cannot be dismissed easily.”[48]

What can we conclude about the Quran?[49]

1. Devoted Muslims believe that the doctrines of Islam came from Allah and have a heavenly source;

2. Middle Eastern scholars have shown that the rituals and beliefs of Islam were there in Arabian culture BEFORE Muhammed had his supposed revelations.

3. Muhammed didn’t preach anything new. “Even the idea of ‘only one God’ was borrowed from the Jews and the Christians.[50]

4. This means that the religion of Islam is not revealed from heaven as it claims, but is an invented religion.

5. “Western scholars have concluded that Allah is not God, Muhammed was not his prophet and the Quran is not the Word of God.”[51]

If you want further information comparing the Bible and the Quran, I’d recommend these references:

1. “The Bible and the Qur’an: An Historical Comparison,” available at http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/contents.htm (Accessed June 23, 2002)

2. “Is the Quran the Word of God?” available at: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/debate.htm (This is an excellent one by Jay Smith, Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, London, who has debated Muslims and has an active ministry among Muslims.)

3. The book, Islam Unveiled: The True Desert Storm, Robert A. Morey. Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars Press, 1991.

For people to accept the Bible’s evidences, I put to you that there is a fourth dynamic, rather than a test.

F. Fourth Dynamic

“S” for the Spirit of Conviction from the Holy Spirit of God

Go to the Bible and what do you find?

Ephesians 4:17-19: “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.”

  • The non-Christians are futile in their thinking;
  • They are darkened in their thinking;
  • Because of their ignorance, they are separated from the life of God;
  • A life of no sensitivity, sensuality, impurity, lust is their lifestyle. [Sounds like the rebels and abusers I deal with daily in my counselling work.]

What is it going to take to get these people interested in what the Word of God says about them, life abundantly in the here and now, and eternal life?

I Corinthians 2:14 gives some profound answers:

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

What is the Bible saying? Unless God opens the eyes of the unbelievers by His Spirit, the Word of God will be foolishness to them. They will not understand the Word. As we witness, as we share about the trustworthiness of the Word of God, we MUST pray that God will open the eyes of the unbeliever by the Holy Spirit.

I Cor. 12:3 says: “. . . no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (NIV).

This led John Calvin to write:

“The Word of God is like the sun, shining upon all those to whom it is proclaimed, but with no effect among the blind. Now, all of us are blind by nature in this respect. Accordingly, it cannot penetrate into our minds unless the Spirit, as the inner teacher, through his illumination makes entry for it. . . Christ, when he illumines us into faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same time so engrafts us into his body that we become partakers of every good.”[52]

G. Where does this lead to?

Josh McDowell concludes, and I enthusiastically agree with him: There is “more evidence for the reliability of the N.T. than for almost any ten pieces of classical literature put together.”[53]

Let’s revisit and example I gave at the beginning of this 4-part series:

I said that I believe that the Bible is completely true. It is without error in all that it affirms. Not just in matters of faith and practice. If it speaks about history, science, counselling, marriage, family, sex, the nature of human beings, the nature of society, what’s wrong with our world, how to fix our country and the world, etc. — it gives us the truth about all of these matters. I believe that the Bible is without error in everything that it affirms.

You might ask, “But surely you’re not referring to translations such as the King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, etc.? You must be referring to the original manuscripts of the Bible and NOT modern translations.”

I say, “You are correct. I am referring to the originals. Scribes and translators have introduced some variations into later versions.”

You are justified in responding: “We don’t have the originals. You are convinced that some Bible documents that you have never seen (some hypothetical documents), some NT documents that NOBODY has seen for 2,000 years, are completely truthful. Sounds like you are living in fantasyland. Maybe the Mental Health Unit is the place for you.”[54]

How can I possibly state that the original MSS which I have never seen and nobody has EVER seen for about 2,000 years can possibly be true in everything that they affirm?

I trust that the answer to my statements has become clearer. We can reproduce the content of the originals on the basis of excellent MSS evidence. Evidence that is so good that it leaves the other MSS from history for dead. The evidence is outstanding.

Many people have developed arguments against the excellent Bible MSS that they would NOT raise concerning any other document from history.

Surely we are entitled to discuss things that we have never seen first-hand. I have never seen our Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Must I, therefore, assume that Kevin does not exist and that I cannot assess his policies.

I have never seen an atom, or black holes in the universe, or music on a tape, or the wind, or the life principle within me, etc.  I have never seen my own brain or anybody else’s brain.  Does that mean these do not exist?

All we are asking as believers in the Bible, is to use the standard methods for establishing the reality of any MSS from history and then evaluate those MSS. Surely you and I are entitled to evaluate these MSS. That is all I am asking for in evaluating the MSS of the Bible.[55]

Do you realise that even if we did not have such excellent MSS evidence, we could construct

“Almost the entire New Testament from quotations in the church fathers of the second and third centuries. Only eleven verses are missing, mostly from 2 and 3 John. Even if all the copies of the New Testament had been burned at the end of the third century, we could have known virtually all of it by studying these writings” from the early church leaders.[56]

Some believers back off from stating the teaching that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms (inerrancy) because they think it is unprovable when we don’t have the original inspired writings and this doctrine only applies to the original documents.

I enthusiastically support the conclusion of Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks:

“If we can be this certain of the text of the New Testament and have an Old Testament that has not changed in 2,000 years, then we don’t need the originals to know what they said. The text of our modern Bibles is so close to the original text that we can have every confidence that what it teaches is truth.”[57]

Let’s conclude:

  • I have not been able to find any Bible verse that says that we MUST have a pure text of the Bible down through history;
  • There’s a pile of evidence to show that the Bibles we have today, even translations, are “extremely close to the original, inspired manuscripts that the prophets and apostles wrote.”[58] We have excellent evidence to show that the Bibles of today represent the original MSS “with a very high degree of accuracy, like no other book from the ancient world.”[59]
  • “Such reliability helps support [my] claim that the Bible is valuable as a historical account as well as a revelation from God.”[60]
  • We can say with confidence: The Bible is God’s Word;
  • This teaching comes with the authority of Jesus Christ Himself. (I haven’t had the time to expound on that teaching);
  • Jesus confirmed the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament and the promised New Testament.

Of the OT, Jesus said in John 10:35 that it is the “Word of God . . . and Scripture cannot be broken” (ESV). Luke 16:17 (ESV), “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.”

Of the soon to be written NT, Jesus said: John 14:26 (ESV), “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” [See also John 16:13.]

“If Jesus, who is God in the flesh and always spoke the truth, said that the Old Testament was the Word of God and that the New Testament would be written by His apostles and prophets as the sole authorized agents for His message, then our entire Bible is proven to be from God. We have it on the best of authority — Jesus Christ Himself.”[61]

  • Jesus and the apostles gave evidence that the Bible is without error (inerrant) in what it teaches about all matters;
  • This is even “down to the tenses of verbs and the very last letters of words”;[62]
  • The Bible you read in English today is God speaking to you.[63]

According to Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Jesus was very clear:

  • One day you will give an account for your life;
  • On that day, the crucial question will be, “What place did the REAL Jesus have in your life?”
  • If what Jesus said is not true, if 80% of what he said was made up by the early church and didn’t even come from the mouth of Jesus;
  • Then the sooner we conduct the funeral for Christianity the better;
  • Down through the centuries, many have tried to do that and millions would like to do that today;
  • If the words of Jesus are not true, we might as well bring pokies into the church buildings; make our auditoriums into bingo halls;
  • Put the Bible into the museum;
  • Christian workers, pastors, missionaries should STOP wasting their time;

HOWEVER, since Christ’s teaching is the truth, the Bible is reliable and trustworthy Word of God, we must take a very different view.The REAL Jesus, who lives in you and me and in the church, is the one who radically changes lives. He’s the Jesus of history, who is the SAME as the Jesus of faith.

There is a radical answer to those who come to see me who are rebels, destroying themselves and their families;

There’s a profound answer for the sexually abused, the drug addicted and the blasphemers;

There is NEW LIFE in Jesus Christ – radical new life.

We must KNOW and proclaim REAL Christianity and not that of radical, liberal heretics who only want us to believe 18% of what Jesus said.

I have presented what I believe are some solid reasons for accepting the Bible as a thoroughly trustworthy and reliable book from God to us. Some of you might have thought I was too intellectual. But please remember: God does not promise to reveal himself to us to satisfy intellectual curiosity. If you want to justify your unbelief, you will NEVER discover the God who is real, the Bible that is trustworthy, and the Christ of the cross who is the resurrected Lord.[64]

Conclusion

Dr Jim Kennedy tells the story of

  • We should stop the persecution of Christians immediately because this Christianity is a FAKE.

“The man who fell off a cliff, and on his way down, he managed to grab a limb sticking out from the side of the earthen wall. He wasn’t a praying man, but he called out to God anyway and asked for help. Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Just believe — and let go.’ He hesitated for a moment and then said, ‘Uh, is there anybody else up there?’

“The Christian faith doesn’t operate that way. It’s not a matter of looking for a God who requires the least of us or who simply sounds the best of all the choices. Our faith is rational and reasonable. It’s based on well-grounded facts of history. The apostle Peter sums it up by saying, ‘We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty’(2 Peter 1:16).”[65]

Please remember: It is only God by his Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the blind.

An unknown Christian said:

“This Book [the Bible] is the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding; its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable [i.e. unchangeable]. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s character. Here paradise is restored, heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed. Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. Follow its precepts and it will lead you to Calvary, to the empty tomb, to a resurrected life in Christ; yes, to glory itself, for eternity.”

“One measure of your love for God is your love for God’s Word”[66]

Appendix

A criticism that is often made against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles. The charge goes like this: Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and to prove it, they quote a passage from the Bible that says so.

This kind of argumentation is known as begging the question or circular reasoning. Nothing is proved by it. It is based on assuming something is true, but using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption.

But there is no need to do this. Instead of assuming the Bible to be the Word of God, we can begin by:

1. Demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable historical documents.

2. In these documents, Jesus claims to be God in human flesh, and he bases His claim on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. We examine the evidence for the resurrection in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the fact that Christ actually rose from the dead. This demonstrates that He is the unique Son of God, that He claimed to be. If He is God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

4. Since Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17,18; 15:1-4) and the soon-to-be written New Testament.

[Jesus “promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26).” So,

“we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.”[67]]

Note: The above 4 points are an abbreviated version taken from John W. Montgomery’s points for the “crux validation” of the New Testament:

1. On the basis of accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, the Gospel records are found to be trustworthy historical documents — primary source evidence for the life of Christ,

2. In these records, Jesus exercises divine prerogatives and claims to be God in human flesh; and He rests His claims on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. In all four Gospels, Christ’s bodily resurrection is described in minute detail; Christ’s resurrection evidences His deity.

4. The fact of the resurrection cannot be discounted on a priori, philosophical grounds; miracles are impossible only if one so defines them — but such definition rules out proper historical investigation.

5. If Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament and of the soon-to-be-written New Testament.[68]

Notes

[1] Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, pp. 41-42. Now available online at: http://www.blufftonchurch.com/Josh-McDowell-More-Than-A-Carpenter.htm (ch 4, ‘Are the Biblical Records Reliable?’)

[2] The above details are from Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968 [1986], pp 388-391.

[3] Ibid., p. 392.

[4] Millar Burrows, What Mean These Stones. New York: Meridian Books, 1956, p. 52, in Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 42.

[5] William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1955, p. 136, in McDowell, ibid..

[6] William F. Albright, Christianity Today, Vol. 7, January 18, 1963, p. 3, in McDowell, ibid., p. 43.

[7] McDowell, ibid.

[8] Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222, in McDowell, ibid.

[9] McDowell, loc cit.

[10] Paraphrase of John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1976, by McDowell, ibid., 43-44.

[11] Paul L. Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story. New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 122, in McDowell, ibid., p. 45.

[12] John Warwick Montgomery, Human Rights and Human Dignity. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986, p.137, emphasis added. The full details are in Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984. The article, “The Testimony of the Evangelists” by Simon Greenleaf is in Montgomery, The Law Above the Law, Appendix, pp. 91-140. “This article examines the testimony of the evangelists by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice” (Montgomery, The Law…, n1, p. 149). The article is from the Soney & Sage (Newark, N.J.) edition of 1903.

[13] C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History. New York: MacMillan Company, 1952, pp. 143 ff.

[14] The original said “disparate.”

[15] “Is the Bible the Word of God? Appendix A,” Eric V. Snow. Retrieved on June 23, 2002, from: http://www.rae.org/bibref.html

[16] Based on Robert A. Morey, Islam Unveiled. Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars Press, 1991, pp. 126-127.

[17] Most of this information I obtained from, ibid., “A Scientific Understanding of the Quran, p.125ff.

[18] From An Authorized English Version of the Quran, translated from the original by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D. Retrieved on June 29, 2002, from http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm, “The Heifer,” 2:2, “This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous.” All quotations from the Quran will be from this online edition.

[19] [2:89] When this scripture came to them [the Israelites] from GOD, and even though it agrees with, and confirms what they have . . .

[2:91] When they are told, “You shall believe in these revelations of GOD,” [the Quran] they say, “We believe only in what was sent down to us.” Thus, they disbelieve in subsequent revelations, even if it is the truth from their Lord, and even though it confirms what they have! Say, “Why then did you kill GOD’s prophets, if you were believers?”

[20] [2:136] Say, “We believe in GOD, and in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent down to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and all the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them. To Him alone we are submitters.”

[21] Sura 39:23 “GOD has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent . .” Sura 39:28 “An Arabic Quran, without any ambiguity.”

[22] Morey, p. 141.

[23] [53:4] It was divine inspiration. [53:5] Dictated by the Most Powerful. [53:6] Possessor of all authority. From His highest height. [53:7] At the highest horizon. [53:8] He drew nearer by moving down. [53:9] Until He became as close as possible. [53:10] He then revealed to His servant what was to be revealed. [53:11] The mind never made up what it saw.

[24] “The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, to assure those who believe, and to provide a beacon and good news for the submitters.”

[25] [15:7] “Why do you not bring down the angels, if you are truthful?”

[26] Sura 2:97: “Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (Quran) into your heart, in accordance with GOD’s will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers.”

[27] [33:36] No believing man or believing woman, if GOD and His messenger issue any command, has any choice regarding that command. Anyone who disobeys GOD and His messenger has gone far astray.

[33:37] Recall that you said to the one who was blessed by GOD, and blessed by you, “Keep your wife and reverence GOD,” and you hid inside yourself what GOD wished to proclaim. Thus, you feared the people, when you were supposed to fear only GOD. When Zeid was completely through with his wife, we had you marry her, in order to establish the precedent that a man may marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. GOD’s commands shall be done.

[33:38] The prophet is not committing an error by doing anything that is made lawful by GOD. Such is GOD’s system since the early generations. GOD’s command is a sacred duty.

[28] See Morey, 143.

[29] Ibid., p. 144.

[30] Ibid.

[31] [3:49] As a messenger to the Children of Israel: “I come to you with a sign from your Lord – I create for you from clay the shape of a bird, then I blow into it, and it becomes a live bird by GOD’s leave. I restore vision to the blind, heal the leprous, and I revive the dead by GOD’s leave. I can tell you what you eat, and what you store in your homes. This should be a proof for you, if you are believers.

[32] Morey, p. 147;

[33] [41:9] Say, “You disbelieve in the One who created the earth in two days, and you set up idols to rank with Him, though He is Lord of the universe.” 41:10] He placed on it stabilizers (mountains), made it productive, and He calculated its provisions in four days, to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants. . . [41:12] Thus, He completed the seven universes in two days, and set up the laws for every universe. And we adorned the lowest universe with lamps, and placed guards around it. Such is the design of the Almighty, the Omniscient. Ibid.

[34] [Sura 7:54] “Your Lord [Allah] is the one GOD, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority.” [10:3] “Your only Lord is GOD; the One who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then assumed all authority.”

[35] [11:42] As it sailed with them in waves like hills, Noah called his son, who was isolated: “O my son, come ride with us; do not be with the disbelievers.” [11:43] He said, “I will take refuge on top of a hill, to protect me from the water.” He said, “Nothing can protect anyone today from GOD’s judgment; only those worthy of His mercy (will be saved).” The waves separated them, and he was among those who drowned.

[36] Morey, p. 135.

[37] [6:74] Recall that Abraham said to his father Azar, “How could you worship statues as gods? I see that you and your people have gone far astray.”

[38] [37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.

[39] Morey, p. 137.

[40] Ibid., p. 139.

[41] [105:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[105:1] Have you noted what your Lord did to the people of the elephant? [My addition: the elephant army of Abrah.]

[105:2] Did He not cause their schemes to backfire?

[105:3] He sent upon them swarms of birds.

[105:4] That showered them with hard stones.

[105:5] He made them like chewed up hay.

[42] Morey, p. 139. His footnote reference is: Alfred Guillaume, Islam. London: Penguin Books, 1954, pp. 21f.

[43] [18:86] When he reached the far west, he found the sun setting in a vast ocean, and found people there. We said, “O Zul-Qarnain, you can rule as you wish; either punish, or be kind to them.”

[44] [5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary. Say, “Who could oppose GOD if He willed to annihilate the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?” To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them. He creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent

[45] [9:30] The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of GOD,” while the Christians said, “Jesus is the son of GOD!” These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.

[46] [4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

[47] [5:75] The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate!

[48] Morey, p. 147.

[49] Based on ibid., p. 153.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Ibid.

[52] John T. McNeill (ed.), Ford Lewis Battles (transl.). Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, Book 3, ch. 2, No. 34 -35, pp. 582-583.

[53] McDowell, More Than a Carpenter, p. 46.

[54]This approach was suggested in Vignette 2, “The Missing Originals,” by Winfried Corduan, Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993, p.183.

[55] This solution is suggested in “Response to Vignette 2,” in ibid., pp. 203-204.

[56] Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1990, p. 160.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid., p. 157.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Ibid., p. 144.

[62] Ibid., p. 161.

[63] These points are based on ibid., pp. 157-161, but mostly pp. 160-161.

[64] Some of these points suggested by David Watson, My God Is Real. Westchester, Illinois: Good News Publishers, 1970, p.9.

[65]D. James Kennedy, Skeptics Answered: Handling Tough Questions About the Christian Faith. Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1997, p. 29.

[66] Our Daily Bread, March 11, 1987, “A Book to Be Loved.”

[67] Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions. San Bernardion, California: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, pp. 147-148.

[68] John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970, n. 58, p. 306. Montgomery writes that this summary is based on his book, Shape of the Past, n. 26, pp. 138-39.

  • As you give reasons for the existence of God; as you show the Bible to be reliable and trustworthy, PRAY, PRAY, PRAY. Pray for God’s Holy Spirit to open the eyes of the spiritually blind person to whom you are witnessing.

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 24 July 2016.

Branch in green color

Branch in green color

Branch in green color

Branch in green color

Branch in green color

Branch in green color

Branch in green color

Easter and the healthy committing suicide

At this Easter season (2009), we are faced with a situation where the eternal consequences of death are ignored and the promotion of suicide is glorified. Those of us who have spent years trying to prevent suicide receive a lethal message from this Swiss lawyer.

Here’s the situation. There should be virtually no restrictions on helping people to commit suicide. These are the comments from human rights lawyer, Ludwig Minelli, from the Dignatas Swiss clinic that offers help to people to kill themselves. That is what Minelli told BBC radio in the UK on 2 April 2009.

This controversial comment has come from the organisation that runs a clinic in Switzerland that has assisted almost 900 people to kill themselves, about 100 of them being British. Fortunately, Swiss psychiatrists are not recommending this clinic.

The British newspaper, The Guardian (4 April), reported that Minelli saw assisted suicide as “a very good possibility to escape a situation you can’t alter.” But he went way beyond this recommendation to cold-heartedly suggest that attempted suicide makes good business sense because of its burden on the costs of health care.

“For 50 suicide attempts you have one suicide and the others are failing with heavy costs on the National Health Service,” he told the BBC. “They are terribly hurt afterwards. Sometimes you have to put them in institutions for 50 years, very costly.”

For those of us who have spent many years counselling those who are troubled by the issues of life and the family, Minelli’s kind of comment is like a kick in the guts. This lawyer is advocating that attempted suicide is such a financial burden on the health system that these people should be done away with.

Ultimately, what’s the difference in consequences between the ethics of Minelli and Hitler?

For my exposition on the deleterious consequences of euthanasia, see: “Voluntary Active Euthanasia – a compassionate solution to those in pain?”

Dignatas and the euthanasia advocates in Holland are demonstrating the slippery slope that happens when those who begin with the desire to assist suicide of the terminally ill, ends up advocating much more.

Herbert Hendin MD, Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College, and medical director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, stated in 1995: “Over the past two decades, the Netherlands has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia for the terminally ill to euthanasia for the chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for psychological distress and from voluntary euthanasia to nonvoluntary and involuntary euthanasia.”

Dr. Hendin advocates against physician-assisted suicide.

At this Easter season we need to consider another dimension. Among the advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia, an important factor seems to be overlooked.

What happens one second after you die? Where will you be? Is death the very end and the body and soul are obliterated? Talk of heaven or hell seems to be missing from this lethal advocacy for assisted suicide.

Worldviews have consequences. Worldviews of death need to be opposed by those who believe in eternal life and eternal punishment. Death does not end it all and Christ’s resurrection demonstrated this: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins” (First Corinthians chapter 15:16-17).

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6
Whytehouse designs

Torn between life and death

Why is it that many of us will do many things to live longer but others want to end life now?

We go on diets to reduce the strain on our hearts and the cholesterol from the fatty foods that we eat.

A recent study in the USA found that if people want to be healthy and live longer, they should consume less red and processed meat.[1]

The research of half a million American middle-aged and elderly people who consumed four ounces of red meat a day (an amount equivalent to a small hamburger), found that there was a 30% higher chance that they would die in the next 10 years.

Most of these would die of heart disease and cancer. The risk was increased through eating sausage, cold meats and other processed meats.

But this desire to try to avoid death, is also seen in some treatments of cancer. In spite of severe side effects of chemotherapy, such as fever, chills & sweats, abnormal bleeding, severe vomiting, constipation, diarrhoea and abdominal pain, patients want to live longer to spend more time with their relatives and friends.

Why is it that we have this love of life and need to prolong the date of death? Could it be connected with our culture’s deep fear of death?

“I want to be with my loved ones who have gone before, but I’m not sure about that,” are among the comments I hear.

For others, life has become a burden and ending life sooner than later sounds like a good release. The euthanasia movement in Australia, Europe and the USA is pushing this line. “To die with dignity” sounds like a reasonable and responsible way of thinking until one sees how euthanasia is happening in countries such as Holland.

The recent series of articles in The Times (UK) demonstrates this continuing push for euthanasia and assisted suicide.[2] The Dutch experience shows that this push will not be limited to the terminally ill. After a three year inquiry, the Dutch Medical Association (as reported in the British Medical Journal) wants more freedom to kill. The report stated that “doctors can help patients who ask for help to die even though they may not be ill but ‘suffering through living.'”[3]

Some experience this ambivalence: Extend life as much as possible but end life if it becomes unbearable.

This is where the Easter message of the resurrected Christ has particular application. We do not have to guess about what happens at death. Here there is an opportunity of knowing why life must end and what lies beyond the grave. The physical resurrection of all human beings after death is firmly grounded in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, which we celebrate on Easter Sunday.

Jesus Christ himself affirms this. After raising a man the dead, he said, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”[4]

He demonstrated the reality of this through his own resurrection from the dead, which was a turning point in human history.

Because of Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead, there is a solid biblical, theological and historical basis for the belief that the souls of both believers and unbelievers survive death andwill be raised again.

There is no reason for the believers in Christ to fear death as they are eternally redeemed. Are those who push for euthanasia certain of the destiny of those for whom they push for “death with dignity”?

Notes:

[1] Rob Stein, The Washington Post, 24 March 2009, “Daily red meat raises chances of dying early,” available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301626.html [4 April 2009].

[2] A. C. Grayling, The Times (UK), 31 March 2009, “Allowing people to arrange their death is a simple act of kindness”, available from: Timesonline at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6005023.ece [3 April 2009]. See other euthanasia & assisted suicide stories linked to this article.

[3] Tony Sheldon, British Medical Journal News roundup, Extract, 18 January 2005, “Dutch euthanasia law should apply to patients ‘suffering through living’ report says,” available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7482/61 [4 April 2009]. Sheldon’s full article may be viewed at: http://www.lists.opn.org/pipermail/right-to-die_lists.opn.org/2005-January/000555.html [4 April 2009]. I was alerted to this information by Weblog: Christianity Today, “Dutch doctors want to kill the healthy,” 13 March 2006, available from: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/januaryweb-only/51.0.html [4 April 2009].

[4] John 11:25-26.

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6
Whytehouse designs

Does God Exist?[1]

A W Tozer.jpg
A W Tozer (Wikipedia)

A.W. Tozer: “What we believe about God is the most important thing about us.”[2]

Philosopher, Mortimer Adler: “More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question.”[3]

A. Why we must start with the existence of God when witnessing to Aussies who do not believe in God.

1. The direct statement of the Bible:

“Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).

2. The Bible’s example of how to reach non-theists:

At the Areopagus (Mars Hill)–Acts 17:16-34, Paul used three principles for sharing the gospel with agnostics (those who did not know if God existed):

(a) Appeal to general revelation (e.g. creation) [vv. 22-29

  • God is the Creator of the universe (v. 24);
  • God is the Sustainer of life (vv. 25, 28a);
  • God is the Ruler of the nations (vv. 26-27);
  • God is the Father of human beings (vv. 28b-29);

(b) Argue the necessity of judgment [vv. 29-31a]

Judgment is an essential part of the gospel message.

  • It will be universal (will judge the world — v. 31);
  • The standard will be righteous (justice v. 31);
  • It is definite judgment; the day has been set and the Judge has been appointed (v. 31);
  • Christ’s resurrection is proof that He will be both Lord and Judge (v. 31).

(c) Announce the good news [v. 30, 31b]

Summary:

  • There is the God;
  • There is judgment;
  • There is the Saviour.

John Stott wrote:

“Many people are rejecting our gospel today not because they perceive it to be false, but because they perceive it to be trivial. People are looking for an integrated world-view which makes sense of all their experience. We learn from Paul that we cannot preach the gospel of Jesus without the doctrine of God, or the cross without creation, or salvation without judgment. Today’s world needs a bigger gospel, the full gospel of Scripture, what Paul later in Ephesus was to call ‘the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27, NEB, RSV).”[4]

B. What are some of the reasons people give for not believing in God?

  • He’s just a figment of the imagination–he’s an invented fantasy.
  • He’s a crutch.
  • How could you possibly believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God with all the evil, illness and suffering in the world?
  • Surely you can’t discount all the other great religions: Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc.?
  • You can’t trust the Bible.
  • We live in a modern, scientific age when there is no room for this nonsense about a God whom you can’t see. What you see it what you get.
  • Evolution is a natural phenomenon, needing no room for a supreme being.
  • Besides science and the Bible contradict.
  • Jesus is just another guru.
  • There are far too many hypocrites in the church. Why would I want to join them?
  • To believe in God is irrational. I’m a reasonable human being. If you can’t prove it to me, I won’t believe in it. Christianity is unreasonable.
  • Then there’s this gobble-dee-gook about miracles.
  • I want no association with those holy-roller yahoos down the road.
  • God is in the same category as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.
  • I used to believe in those things but now I have grown out of them.

C. What are the practical implications?

1. What difference will it make in life if human beings regard themselves as in charge of their own lives and so in charge of the universe? Or, on the other hand, what if there is a Supreme Being whom we fear, love, is a power to be defied, or is the Lord to be obeyed?

If I am in charge:

  • what happens when a loved one is murdered in cold blood?
  • What about disasters like September 11? What about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean?
  • What can I do about water in drought after the dams, barrages and wells have run dry?
  • What can I do to stop the horrible crimes in my city or elsewhere in the world?
  • Do I have the power to change a sexual abuser (perpetrator) into a law-abiding citizen?
  • Who causes the tides to rise; plants to flower; whales to return to Hervey Bay and turtles to Mon Repos every year?
  • What makes murder, stealing, lying, etc. wrong?

Photo of humpback in profile with most of its body out of the water, with back forming acute angle to water

Humpbacks frequently beach, throwing two-thirds or more of their bodies out of the water and splashing down on their backs (courtesy Wikipedia).

 

 

 

Turtle laying eggs (public domain)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freshly hatched turtles making their way back to the ocean after hatching (public domain)

 

 

 

 

2. If we acknowledge a divine being/thing, does it matter:

  • if the divine is just a concept of God (something in our head that is nothing more than an intellectual idea)?
  • does it matter if the divine is just something for us to speculate or argue about in the smoko room, over a beer at the pub, or in university philosophy classes?
  • does it matter if the divine is the living God whom people worship in all their acts of worship and who is the Creator and Boss of the universe?

D. People who reject God most often fall into two categories:

1. Atheists

Atheists believe that God does not exist.

Observations:

a. It is always more difficult to prove what is not than what is.

“Say, for example, I call downstairs to my wife in the morning telling her that I can’t find my socks. She says,

‘Fuzzy Wuzzy Was A Woman!’

‘They’re in the spare room.’

I look for a few moments then yell downstairs, ‘No they’re not!’

‘Yes they are,’ she replies.

“It’s much easier for her to prove her case. If she comes upstairs and finds them, she was right. Even if she can’t find them straight away, she may still be right if they are found later. To prove my case I have to search every inch of the room, leaving absolutely no space unexplored. She will only have been proved wrong when I have done all this.”[5]

Atheism is like that. It can only be proved true if every single piece of information in the whole universe is uncovered and all of it at the same time (just in case God hides from us in one place while we are looking in another). This is an impossible task.

Only the most arrogant human beings would claim to know everything. Yet without this knowledge, no atheist can say that he/she is absolutely sure that God does not exist.

The atheist can offer no leak-proof argument that God does not exist.

It’s a statement of faith supported by supposed philosophical arguments, personal experience, the informed opinion of experts, but in the end it falls flat because no absolute proof can be found.

So the statement, “There is no God,” has ‘UNPROVED’ written all over it.

b. Could you imagine living every day under the pressure of somebody finding evidence that God does exist and therefore foul up your entire way of living?

It’s a very insecure position. Like the socks, any moment could prove the wife right. I can only be right at the end of a long search.

George Bernard Shaw, an atheist and the mind behind My Fair Lady, illustrates just how insecure this position is:

“The science to which I pinned my faith is bankrupt. I believed it once. In its name I helped destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now they look at me andwitness the tragedy of an atheist who has lost his faith.”[6]

c. Where’s the power?

Since when has atheism changed a drug addict into a decent, law-abiding member of society. How many hospitals, retirement villages, leprosariums, humanitarian projects have been founded and continue, based on atheistic ideals?

Atheism has no moral power to change lives.

2. Agnostics

An agnostic is unsure whether there is a God or not. Maybe, maybe not! Some get quite aggressive about it: “We can’t be certain about anything, so I won’t make a decision either way.” This person is an agnostic who will not budge.

The agnostic sits on the fence.

“Imagine for a moment that you are drowning at sea and two boats arrive to rescue you. they arrive just as you are going down for the third time. You know that one of the boats has a bomb on it and will be blown up within minutes, but you don’t know which boat. Because you know only one of the boats can be trusted, you choose to stay in the ‘safety’ of the water. Sure enough, one of the boats sinks like a stone and the other sails off into the safety of a harbour. You drown! You were so right about only one boat being safe, but so wrong about your decision to stay in the water. Dead wrong! At least on the boat you had a fifty/fifty chance of success.”[7]

The agnostic is like that. He ignores the only two options: there is a God or there is not a God. So he always makes the wrong choice.

For people who want moral help, the atheist can say, “Forget it. Stand on your dig and get on with life.” The Christian says the loving, caring God is available now. But for the agnostic, there is only scepticism, confusion and doubt.

At some point in your looking for answers, not knowing is a reasonable place to be for a short time, but its a nightmare to live in.

E. Some Sign Posts to God’s Existence[8]

There are very few things in life that are as certain as 1+1=2. I know my wife loves me because she says so and does loving things to and with me, but I do not have a fool proof way of knowing she absolutely loves me. But I have the kind of proof needed in court, proof beyond reasonable doubt. That’s the kind of proof we need for life.

That’s all we need to know that God exists. God has left sign posts all over the world.

1. Order & design in the universe

If the earth were closer to the sun we would be fried; if further away we would freeze to death.

Think of life itself. Plants give off oxygen that human beings need. Human beings breathe out carbon dioxide that plants need.

Just think of the wonder of what happens when a woman’s egg (ovum) joins with man’s sperm. From that joining comes legs, hair, skin, blood, brain, heart and other organs of the body. Have you ever thought of the complexity of the human eye?

Chance seems a shoddy way to explain it. God’s designer label is spread out across the universe.

“Sir Isaac Newton, one of the great scientists of the seventeenth century, once built a model of the solar system to help him in his studies. One of his atheistic scientist friends came to see him one day and asked who made the model. ‘Nobody!’ Newton replied. When the scientist accused him of being ridiculous, Newton explained that if no one had a problem in realizing that a model needed a maker, why as it such a problem when confronted with the real universe?”[9]

The total lunar eclipse passed north of the earth’s central shadow on October 8, 2014 (courtesy Wikipedia)

2. Our desires

We get hungry, thirsty and cold. Even a deep search among primitive tribes in the jungle reveals that there is a belief in some kind of God or gods. We have a deep desire for worship.

In spite of Communists banning it, atheists rejecting it, dictators abusing it, intellectuals scoffing at it, and governments suppressing it–it is still there. As maths whiz and philosopher, Pascal, put it back in the 17th century: There’s a God-shaped vacuum in every one of us.

3. We know right from wrong

Don’t we agree that murder, rape, stealing, telling lies, greed, selfishness, and mugging are wrong?

Our daily talk gives it away: “How could he do such a thing to an innocent child?” Why is there such an outcry against juvenile vandalism and graffiti? When teenagers abuse their parents, why the protest?

When a father sexually abuses his 8-year-old, why the fuss if there is no God?

If the atheist is correct and there is nobody we are responsible to, why should we care about values? As Russian author, Fyodor Dostoevsky, said: “If God is dead everything is permitted.”[10]

“In other words, if there is no transcendent standard of the good, then there can ultimately be no way to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, and there can be no saints or sinners, no good men or bad men. If God is dead, ethics is impossible.”[11]

Where do these moral values come from?

4. The purpose of life

What are we on earth for? We have deep needs for purpose. If there is no God, the universe is just a huge accident. Our life is a fluke.

The average atheist lives life without an awareness of the awful consequences of atheism. Living life without purpose drives many people to suicide.

I find that this is the fundamental problem for our youth who are committing suicide. Hopelessness is what dominates their lives. Mum and Dad are splitting up. They go to school, TAFE (Technical & Further Education, Australia), university and there still might not be a job for them — on the dole for the rest of their lives. So they get into drugs, sex and thrash music. Nothing worth living for, except this moment. Life is without purpose. Hopeless.

This is the problem in Russia today–hopelessness.

I ask you: What answers can you give that will stop Australia from becoming another Bosnia, Syria or Iraq? What will stop another Hitler from arising on the world stage?

See, ‘Mass slaughter in a Bosnian field knee-deep in blood‘ (The Independent, 21 July 1995) and ‘Adolph Hitler: The Holocaust’.

As Ravi Zacharias puts it: “It is evident that life without God is not working. The question really should be, What is going to keep the whole world from becoming another Bosnia?”[12]

5. Somebody made the universe

Everything that is an effect was caused by something. Nothing just happens. We are forced to ask: who or what started the universe in the beginning? Chance or luck cause nothing. They are just a description when we don’t have any other answer.

The other alternative is that God started it. This world is here because God exists and he made it.

6. Many people have met him

Millions of person have met God and have a personal relationship with Him. They may be doctors or brickies, tribes people from Africa or sophisticated university intellectuals. He has changed crooks into law-abiding citizens. He specialises in taking rebels and making them submit to him. It is very difficult to write all of these people off as fanatics or cranks.

7. Meet Jesus Christ

He said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). God has come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ. He lived among us. We know what God is like by seeing Jesus in action–healing, compassion on the destitute, chastising the religious self-righteous, and offering salvation to all by dying as a common criminal for the sins of the world.

I visited a prison and met a prisoner who had a reputation of being the “religious” one in the group.  He openly quoted Scripture.  When I spoke with him he told me that he had committed his life to Jesus Christ as Lord since he came to prison.  He is openly sharing Christ with all the prisoners he meets.  He told me of how his wicked life was turned around when he met Jesus Christ personally.

Notes


[1] With lots of help from Stephen Gaukroger (1989), especially chapter 1, “Can I really believe in God?”

[2] In Paul Little (1970:25).

[3] Mortimer Adler (in Little 1987: 21).

[4] Stott (1990:290).

[5] Gaukroger (1989:8).

[6] G. B. Shaw (in Gaukroger 1989:9).

[7] Gaukroger (1989:11).

[8] Adapted from Gaukroger (1989:12 ff).

[9] Gaukroger (1989:13).

[10] In The Brothers Karamazov (1880), cited in Sire (1988:118).

[11] Sire (1988:118).

[12] Ravi Zacharias (1994:51).

 

Works consulted

Gaukroger S 1989. It Makes Sense. London: Scripture Union.

Little, P 1970.  Know What You Believe. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books.

Sire, J W 1988. The Universe Next Door. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Stott, J R W 1990. The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks Today). Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press.

Zacharias, R 1994. Can Man Live Without God? Dallas: Word Publishing.

 

Copyright (c) 2014 Spencer D. Gear.  This document is free content.  You can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the OpenContent License (OPL) version 1.0, or (at your option) any later version.  This document last updated at Date:11 October 2014.

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6

Apologetics: A Critical Church Ministry

By Spencer D Gear

A. Introduction

I was talking with a Christian who was devastated by a program he had seen on SBS TV, “Jesus to Christ.”[1]

This show featured some scholars who claimed that the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are essentially myth and could not be trusted as historical documents. My friend was so upset by what he heard that he said to me, “I am shocked. My faith has been shaken to the core. I am numb in disbelief. As a Christian, have I been living a fantasy all this time?”

This TV show featured scholars who were doubters about Bible content. If you read Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography[2] by John Dominic Crossan, you will learn that Luke 2:41-52, the story of Jesus’ youthful wisdom, and Luke 4:1-30, Jesus’ wisdom in finding and interpreting a certain passage from Isaiah, is (wait for it): “Lukan propaganda.”[3] It was propaganda made up by Luke.

Crossan also concludes, as “history’s best guess,” that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, but “was born, possibly . . . to Joseph and Mary at Nazareth. . . . He was born into but not necessarily as the first of a large family and had at least six siblings. The rest is mythology, telling us much about Jesus’ later followers but nothing about Jesus’ earlier origins, telling us how future history might be founded but not at all how past history had happened.”[4]

In other words, the early church created some of this information in the Gospels and the Gospels contains myth. It didn’t happen historically but was invented by the Gospel writers or the early church.

When you read or listen to the mass media at Christmas and Easter times, you generally will hear from those who do not believe the Gospel and do not trust the historical authenticity of the Bible. You’ll hear people like Crossan, John Shelby Spong, and others who doubt the Bible. You might get the occasional orthodox believer.

There is a new breed of Bible bashers in the world today. These scholars have been in the closets of academic institutions. But no more! They are taking their message to the world through the popular mass media – newspapers, magazines, television, radio, writing their own books at a popular level, and the Internet. They could have their message of tearing into the Bible in Time magazine[5], any of the leading Australian newspapers, TV current affairs, radio news and talk-back shows.

In building a case to support Bishop Spong’s opposition to fundamentalism, there was an article in The Canberra Times, titled, “The Gospel Truth?”[6] In my view, the journalist used a number of unfair methods to distort the views of Bible-believing Christians. I was living in Canberra at the time, so I submitted an article as a right of reply and The Canberra Times published it as “Distorting the Gospel Truth.”[7]

Use your favourite search engine on the www and make a search for the teachings of Anglican Primate of Australia, Dr. Peter Carnley, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk and Burton Mack. You might be surprised at what you’ll find that is antagonistic to the Gospels and the reliability of the Bible.

Many of these doubters and destroyers come from within the church. How will your faith deal with their destructive claims about God, Christ and the Bible?

There’s a new kind of missionary group that is very active in the world today. Greg Koukl, a Christian apologist, says that they “practice evangelism in reverse. . . They don’t want you to commit your life to the Christ of the Gospels; they want you to surrender that commitment. And they claim to have history, science and scholarship on their side. They call themselves The Jesus Seminar.”[8] This new group has been active since 1985.[9]

When you see these people in the mass media or hear their teaching in some churches or on the www, how will you respond?

What about our youth who may get this doubt and castigation in high school and university classrooms? Has the church adequately prepared its people for this tirade against God, the Bible and Jesus?

These are some of the newspaper headlines these scholars have grabbed:[10]

  • “Scholars Say Jesus Was Often Misquoted.”[11]
  • “Jesus Didn’t Claim to Be Messiah, Scholars Say.”[12]
  • “Lord’s Prayer Not Jesus’s, Scholars Say.”[13]
  • “Jesus Never Predicted His Return, Scholars Say.”[14]
  • “Jesus Didn’t Promise to Return, Bible Scholars Group Says.”[15]

This is only a sample, but they could be repeated many times over in our mass media.

What will you do, Christian leader, when one of your flock comes to you with questions from these newspaper articles? What answers will you provide? Are you simply going to say, “Go read your Bible” or “Make sure you are at mid-week Bible study and keep up your devotions and praying”?

When I say that “I believe in Jesus Christ and that the Bible is a dependable record,” which TV news reporter will rush for an interview with me? I’m not waiting. What will happen f you claim to be a Bible scholar and make this kind of statement? “I don’t believe in the traditional, historical Jesus Christ; the Gospels cannot be trusted, contain myth, and were made up by Christians long after the events of the Gospels.” Say that and you will have the media pounding on your doorstep. That’s news and it makes sense for the journalists to be interviewing scholars about a story – with a difference.

Then add the September 11 disaster, the cyclone that devastated Burma, the horror of the earthquake in China, the tsunami, and we have lots of questions being thrown at Christian believers: How can you believe in such a God who allows or sends these? He must be a brute!

This is the kind of world we face in the 21st century.

I consider that we are in a crisis in many evangelical churches because we are failing to equip Christians to answer these questions for themselves and to provide answers for questioners. I had a recent example where I was talking to a man who was an abuser of his wife. I asked him: “Where did you learn to abuse your spouse?” He responded: “I read it in the Book, the one with a cross on it. That’s a violent book!”

This leads to the core of this article:

B. Apologetics is a critical church ministry: We need to be answering Aussies questions about God & the world

I am convinced that as a general rule in Australia, many churches are not equipping their people adequately for the critical ministry of apologetics. Ephesians 4:11-15 provides direction for us. Note these fundamentals in this passage:

  • These are the ministry gifts of Christ – apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher. They are for what purpose?
  • They are given “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (v. 12).[16] This includes many ministries but the ministry of apologetics is one of those. This will lead to this outcome:
  • According to v. 14, it means that we will no longer be children in the faith and tossed about by false doctrine and human cunning, craftiness and deceitful schemes.
  • Where does this quipping ministry begin? The responsibility lies at the feet of church leaders who are committed to the scriptural ministry of equipping believers for their work of ministry.

1. What is apologetics?

Woody Allen, the USA actor, director, musician and comedian, asked: “Can we actually ‘know’ the universe? My God, it’s hard enough to find your way around in Chinatown. The point, however, is: Is there anything out there? And why?”[17] Woody retorted: “Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends.”[18]

People are asking these kinds of questions:

  • Is there meaning in life? How can modern human beings find that meaning? I have counselled a number of people on the verge of suicide over the years who are asking that exact question.
  • Can we ever discover truth in a postmodern world?
  • How can you know that Christianity is truth, over against, say, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, paganism or spiritism?
  • How can you know if the Bible is a trustworthy document when compared with any document from history?

Those are the types of questions that the ministry of apologetics seeks to answer.

Apologist Winfried Corduan wrote that “the defense of the truth of Christianity is called apologetics. . . . The Greek word apologia (defense) is the word that would be used to defend one’s case in a court of law. Thus the Christian should be able to state what he or she believes, and why. Apologetics helps the Christian mount a credible case for the truth of Christianity.”[19]

The English word, “apology,” has a different meaning to the Greek noun. The Greek noun, apologia (defense) and the verbal form, apologoumai (I make a defense) appear approximately 20 times in the Greek New Testament.[20]

2. I need to apologise for apologetics[21]

Since I have been promoting the need for more apologetic teaching within the church for a number of years, there has been some resistance among Christians. Objections include these: You can’t argue anybody into the kingdom. Apologetics only caters to pride. Conversion is not about the intellect; it is all about the heart. You are only catering to the intellectuals and this is not for everyday people.

Apologetics is a ministry that defends itself. All who argue against the ministry of apologetics end up using their own kind of apologetic argument.

Ravi Zacharias, one of today’s leading apologists, said it well, “The one who says apologetics is a matter of pride ends up proudly defending one’s own impoverishment. The one who says conversion is a matter of the heart and not the intellect ends up presenting intellectual arguments to convince others of this position. So goes the process of self-contradiction.”[22]

What are our reasons for defending the faith?

C. Reasons for Defending the Faith [23]

I am grateful for the excellent work of apologist and theologian, Dr. Norman Geisler.He gives these reasons for defending the faith and I use his outline:

1. God Commands the Use of Reason

The most important reason for doing apologetics is that God told us to do it. Over and over the New Testament exhorts us to defend the Faith. Let’s look briefly at some primary verses in 1 Peter 3:15-16a: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

Note the five straight-forward emphases from these two verses:

a. You are already acknowledging Christ as the Lord in your hearts.

Peter links doing apologetics with Christ’s Lordship in our hearts. Since he is Lord, then we should be obedient to Him as “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:4-5). We should be confronting issues in our own minds and entering into private and public discourse with others who have doubts that are preventing them from knowing God. This is included in the ministry of apologetics.

b. “Always be prepared”

It couldn’t be clearer. All believers must be ready and prepared. This is emphasised with the words, “Everyone who asks.” All believers must be prepared for that person who asks about your faith. Too often we miss the subtle ways that people ask or hint. I recall one who asked me, “Why are so many teenagers depressed?” What an opportunity to discuss meaning in life and the Gospel connection!

You may not come across those who ask the tough questions about our faith all that often, but you should be prepared for when they come. Being ready is not just a matter of having the right information available. It is also an attitude of readiness and eagerness to share with others the truth of what we believe.

What will you say if somebody asks you:

  • “Who made God?” or
  • You have the meanest most obnoxious God! Look what he did in killing all those people in the Chinese earthquake and causing such destruction. Take a read of the Book of Judges in the OT. He must be a monster! How are you prepared right now to answer these questions?
  • Scientific, modern human beings can never believe in miracles. That’s out-of-date stuff. That nonsense is for old-timers.
  • I speak with people who say that Christianity is a myth. Are you prepared to respond?

c. We must be prepared for what? “To give an answer.”

Notice these various Bible translations:

KJV: “and be ready always to give an answer.”

NIV: “always be prepared to give an answer.”

NKJV: “always be ready to give a defense.”

NASB: “always being ready to make a defense.”

ESV: “always being prepared to make a defense.”

NRSV: “always be ready to make your defence.”

Be ready “to give an answer” somewhat disguises the meaning of apologia, which is to give a defense as in a court. The NKJV, NASB, ESV and NRSV provide the more precise translations.

First Peter 3:15 tells us what we are to provide:

d. A defense for the hope you have in Christ;

It is here that we sometimes become stuck. We make assertions like: “I’m a born again Christian” or “my hope for the present and the future is in Christ for eternal life,” but we are not prepared for the resistance:

  • Who would believe that junk?
  • The Bible is just like Greek mythology.
  • As with John D. Crossan, parts of Luke’s Gospel are “Lukan propaganda.”
  • You believe in God; you believe in fantasy;
  • You can’t believe in God and Christ and still believe in science.

e. Do it “with gentleness and respect.”

These kinds of questions can naturally cause us to become defensive, sarcastic and antagonistic in our responses.

There’s no place for self-assured cockiness in apologetics. Putting people down is contrary to the way of Jesus. I’m reminded of Col. 4:5-6 and how we ought to do evangelism, apologetics and many other ministries: “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of your time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person” (ESV).

This word, “answer”, is used only once by Paul in his epistles but 7 times in the NT[24]and is not apologia, but apokrinomai, which means an answer or reply to something or someone when they ask. [25]

Remember God’s emphasis in Isaiah 1:18: “‘Come now, let us reason together,’says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;     though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”

So is the use of reason opposed to the Bible? Hardly!

Paul wrote in Philippians 1:7, speaking of his mission as one of “defense and confirmation of the gospel” (ESV). There’s that word again, “defense” (apologia). He added in Phil. 1:16, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel” (ESV). We are put wherever God has placed us to defend the Gospel as well. We are here to be apologists for the Gospel and that means providing a defense of the faith to those who ask us for reasons to believe in Christ.

You are familiar with Jude 3: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

The people Jude was writing to had been assaulted by false teachers and he needed to encourage them to contend (literally, agonise for) the faith as it had been revealed through Christ. Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude as we do this in verse 22 when he says, “Be merciful to those who doubt.” Apologetics, then, is a form of mercy.

Titus 1:9 makes knowledge of Christian evidences a requirement for church leadership. An elder in the church “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

In 2 Tim. 2:24-25 Paul declares that “the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.”

Anyone attempting to answer the questions of unbelievers will sometimes feel wronged and be tempted to lose patience. Avoid quarreling. Our ultimate goal is that they might come to knowledge of the truth that Jesus has died for their sins.

Indeed, the command to use reason is part of the greatest command. For Jesus said, “`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matt. 22:37-38).

Why engage in the ministry of apologetics? Firstly, God commands the use of reason.

2. Reason Demands It

Take a look at yourself. Do you just buy any old or new car? You have your reasons for purchasing this car instead of that one.

Why have you chosen to worship the Lord of the universe as revealed in the Holy Bible, rather than the God of the Quran, the gods of the Hindus, or choosing not to worship at all? Why?

When God created you in his image, he created you with human reason (Gen. 1:27, cf. Col. 3:10). One of the things that distinguishes us from “brute beasts” or “unreasonable animals” (Jude 10, ESV) is our ability to reason and have a relationship with God.

God calls, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). First John 4:6 affirms that “we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” According to Heb. 5:14, mature believers “have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (ESV).

Are we getting the message? A fundamental principle of human reason is that we should have sufficient grounds for what we believe. An unjustified belief is just that—unjustified.

Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”[26] And an unexamined belief is not worth believing. Therefore, God’s requirement is for all of us “to give a reason for our hope.” I understand that this is part of the great command to love God with all of our minds, as well as our hearts and souls (Matt. 22:36-37).

The third reason for engaging in the ministry of apologetics is:

3. The World Needs It

Many secular people I speak with are not prepared to accept our Jesus and the Bible on our say-so. They want to know why you believe that “nonsense.” God made us as rational, reasonable human beings and he wants us to look and examine before we leap.

Please understand that faith is always needed but God wants us to make a step of faith in the direction of evidence concerning Himself. You need to know that this God is the one who matches reality and is not any kind of God. You wouldn’t get into your car and drive it if there was smoke coming from under the bonnet. You have reasons not to drive that vehicle. Evidence and reason are important to establish whether you should drive that car. Evidence and reason are even more important when making the ultimate decision of your life: Will I believe in God? Which god?

There is a fourth reason for engaging in the ministry of apologetics.

4. Results Confirm It

One of the reasons against apologetics that people sometimes give me is that Paul was a failure on Mars Hill (Acts 17). Norman Geisler has correctly diagnosed this situation:

Opponents argue that Paul was unsuccessful in his attempt to reach the thinkers on Mars Hill (in Acts 17), discarding the method and later telling the Corinthians that he wanted to “know Jesus and Him only” (1 Cor. 2:2). However, this interpretation is based on a serious misunderstanding of the text.

For one thing, Paul did have results on Mars Hill. For some people were saved, including a philosopher. The text says clearly “A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others” (Acts 17:34).

For another thing, nowhere in either Acts or 1 Corinthians does Paul indicate any repentance or even regret over what he did on Mars Hill. This is reading into the text what simply is not there.[27]

There are people throughout history and in our contemporary world who were led to faith in Christ through a defense of the faith?  I’m reminded of a few examples.  Some go way back in the history of the church.

St. Augustine of Hippo[28]

This early church father lived from A.D. 354-430. He “is considered one of the great fathers of the Christian church, and has been of momentous importance in the development of Christian thought.”[29] There were a number of apologetic turning points in his life before he became a Christian.

He was into Manichaean dualism and he was helped out of that cult by a young Christian, Helpidius, who would debate the Manicheans.[30] A defence of the faith helped Augustine out of total skepticism and to see the self-defeating nature of Manichaean religion.

“Dualism claims that there are two essentially different principles of reality. Sometimes these two are represented by pairs of opposites as light/darkness, knowledge/ignorance, spirit/matter (also mind/body), Good/Evil, etc.”[31] But the Manicheans were a major Gnostic religion, started by Mani in 3rd century Persia. They [32]believed in “radical dualism”, that these “two principles are absolutely contrary (neither bipolar nor binary!), i.e. they oppose each other in their very essences and have nothing in common, and they are eternal, non-created and undestroyable.”[33]

Augustine tells that if it were not for his studying Plotinus, “he would not even been able to conceive of a spiritual being, let alone believe in one.”[34] Read of it is Augustine’s autobiography, Confessions.[35]

From the ancient past to the present!

Ravi Zacharias

This contemporary Christian apologist, born in India, now travels the world defending the Christian faith. But it was not always that way. In his teen years he tells of how he would skip school for days on end and turn up for exams and barely scrape through.[36] He wrote: “My relationship with my father left a lot to be desired and my aimless life was a cause of immense frustration to him.”[37]

Ravi’s father found out that he had not been at school one day and Dad’s “torrent of anger” was unleashed on him and the thrashing he received left him “trembling and sobbing.” Had his mother not intervened, he “could have been seriously hurt.”

Ravi explains that “no one who knew me would have ever suspected the depth of emptiness within me. I was one of those teenagers who struggled with much on the inside but did not know where to turn for answers. . . Putting it plainly, life to me just did not make sense.”[38]

That night, in his teens, after a trouncing from his father, Ravi says: “The intense soul search that began that night was ultimately to lead me to the person of Jesus Christ. How that happened in a culture that is rigorously pantheistic and (at least on paper) religiously all-encompassing is a miracle in itself.”[39]

You can read of Ravi’s struggle with skepticism, the meaning of life and how Christ saved this man, in his book, Jesus among Other Gods.[40] The struggle for the meaning of life in a pantheistic culture, led him to “firmly believe Jesus Christ to be who He claimed to be—the Son of the living God, the One who came to seek and to save a lost humanity.”[41]

Ravi Zacharias migrated to Canada when he was 20 years old. Today he, as a Christian apologist, has spoken in over fifty countries, including the Middle East, Vietnam and Cambodia (during the military conflict) and in numerous universities worldwide, notably Harvard, Princeton and Oxford Universities. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, the President’s . . . cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow.[42]

But this journey began as a troubled teen in India who was on the verge of committing suicide.

Frank Morrison

This “skeptic set out to disprove Christianity by showing the resurrection never occurred. The quest ended with his conversion and a book titled Who Moved the Stone? in which the first chapter was titled ‘The Book That Refused to be Written'”[43]

Norman Geisler tells this story of the impact of Frank Morrison’s book:

“Let me tell you just one story about an atheist I had the privilege of introducing to Jesus Christ. After reasoning him from atheism to open-minded agnosticism, he agreed to read Frank Morrison’s book. The evidence for Christ’s resurrection convinced him and we had the privilege of leading him to Christ. He has subsequently raised his family for Christ and is a leader in a church south of St. Louis”.[44]

Simon Greenleaf

At the beginning of the 20th century, Simon Greenleaf was the Professor of Law at Harvard University, who wrote a significant book on legal evidence. He was challenged by students to apply the rules of legal evidence to the New Testament to see if its testimony would stand up in court. The result was a book titled The Testimony of the Evangelists in which he reported his own conversion to Christ.[45]

Ravi Zacharias, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig and other apologists report of those who come to Christ as a result of a defence of the faith. Norman Geisler gives another example:

“Following a debate on the rationality of belief in Christianity with the head of the philosophy department at the University of Miami, the Christian student leadership held a follow-up meeting. The atheist professor attended and expressed doubts about his view expressed at the debate. It was reported that some 14 people who had attended the debate made decisions for Christ”.[46]

These are some of the reasons for the need for a ministry of apologetics in the 21st century. This ministry needs to be equipped and promoted by the local church.

D. Conclusion

I have a very personal application that fired me up in the ministry of apologetics. I was sitting in a doctoral class in a certain USA university. In class, I questioned one of the examples of evolution in a text book. I did not mention a word about Christ or creation, but the professor unleashed his bitterness towards my comments: “Your views are blankety blank” and he swore at me. He later apologised to me privately, but not in front of the class where he assailed me.

I felt spiritually naked that day. I did not know how to respond to him. I had 2 diplomas from Bible colleges, a BA in biblical literature and NT Greek, and a master’s degree in pastoral psychology & counselling, but I did not have one course in apologetics to prepare me for that day.

Since 1984, I have made it my business to prepare myself and others in the defense of the glorious Christian faith. I needed to put I Peter 3:15 into practice:

“”But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

Recommended reading

  1. The best introduction to apologetics for the laity that I have read, is by Stephen Gaukroger 2003, It Makes Sense, Scripture Union, London. The latest edition comes with a DVD and study guide. I recommend it highly for study as a group. However, at the time of this update, the book was out of print but the DVD and study guide was still available from the Clarion Trust, England.
  2. Ravi Zacharias & Norman Geisler (gen. eds.) 2003, Who Made God? And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan. There are questions for reflection and discussion at the end of each chapter.
  3. Ravi Zacharias & Norman Geisler (gen. eds.) 2003, Is Your Church Ready? Motivating Leaders to Live an Apologetic Life, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan. At the conclusion of each chapter, this book also has “questions for reflection and discussion.”
  4. Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks 1990, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois.
  5. Winfried Corduan 1993, Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics, Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
  6. Lee Strobel has some good material in his books, The Case for Christ (1998), The Case for the Real Jesus (2007), The Case for a Creator (2005), The Case for Faith (2000), Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  7. If you want something more intellectually challenging, try William Lane Craig 1994, Reasonable Faith, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, or Norman Geisler 1988, Christian Apologetics, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Notes


[1]SBS Television, “Jesus to Christ, 3 January 1999, 8.30pm.

[2] Crossan, J. D. 1994a, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, HarperSanFrancisco, San Francisco.

[3] Ibid., p. 26.

[4] Ibid., emphasis added.

[5]e.g. Richard N. Ostling, “Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple,” Time, 10 January 1994, 38, in Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, Jesus Under Siege. Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1985, 137.

[6] The Canberra Times, August 4, 1991, Robert Macklin.

[7] Rev. Spencer Gear, “Distorting the Gospel Truth,” The Canberra Times, August 11, 1991, p. 10.

[8] Gregory Koukl 1995, “The Jesus Seminar Under Fire,” Stand to Reason, available from: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5380 [7 August 2008].

[9] The home of the Jesus Seminar is the Westar Institute, available from: http://www.westarinstitute.org/ [7 August 2008].

[10]All of these newspaper headlines are from Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996, p. 20.

[11]San Francisco Chronicle, 9 March 1987.

[12]San Francisco Chronicle, 18 October, 1987.

[13]Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 15 October 1988.

[14]Atlanta Constitution, 5 March 1989.

[15]Los Angeles Times, 5 March 1989.

[16] Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture references are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version 2001, Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois.

[17] Woody Allen 1978, “My Philosophy,” available from: http://profron.net/fun/WoodysPhilosophy.html [14 June 2008].

[18] Ibid.

[19] Winfried Corduan 1993, Reasonable Faith: Basic Christian Apologetics, Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee, p. vii.

[20] See Luke 12:11; 21:14; Acts 19:33; 22:1; 24:10; 25:8, 16; 26:1, 2, 24; Rom. 2:15; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; 12:10; Phil. 1:7, 16; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:15.

[21] Suggested Ravi Zacharias in the introduction to Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend, available from Ravi Zacharias International Ministries at: http://www.rzim.org/GlobalElements/GFV/tabid/449/ArticleID/6648/CBModuleId/1303/Default.aspx (RZIM) [19 June 2008].

[22] Ibid.

[23]With help from Dr. Norman Geisler’s homepage, “The Need for Apologetics,” at: http://www.normgeisler.com/ [25 April 2008]. Also in Norman L. Geisler 1999, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 37ff.

[24] William F. Arndt & F. Wilbur Gingrich 1957, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 92.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Apology 38a, available from: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2d.htm [7 August 2008].

[27] Available from Dr. Norman Geisler’s homepage at: http://www.normgeisler.com/ [25 April 2008].

[28] Ibid.

[29] Conservapedia, “St. Augustine,” available from: http://www.conservapedia.com/St._Augustine [26 June 2008].

[30] Read about it in The Confessions, cited in Geisler, ibid.

[31] Manichaeism, available from: http://www.geocities.com/phoenixsparx/index.html [26 June 2008].

[32] Mani lived, A. D. 210–276. See Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeanism [26 June 2008].

[33] Ibid.

[34] The Confessions, in Geisler, ibid.

[35] Saint Augustine 1961, Confessions, Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, Middlesex.

[36] Ravi Zacharias 2000, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, Word Publishing, Nashville, p. 1ff.

[37] Ibid., p. 1.

[38] Ibid., p. 2.

[39] Ibid., p. 3.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid., p. 3.

[42] Available from: http://www.e316.com/authors/profile-Zacharias,_Ravi.asp [26 June 2008].

[43] Geisler, ibid.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid.

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6

Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Spencer D Gear

Part 1 of 4

image

This is the first part of a 4-part series.  See also:

6pointShinny-small Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

6pointShinny-small Can you trust the Bible? Part 3

6pointShinny-small Can you trust the Bible? Part 4

Why is it necessary for us in the 21st century to have to address a topic such as this, “Can You Trust Your Bible?”  We’ve had this New Testament (NT) for close to 2,000 years and the first books of the Old Testament (OT) – Pentateuch: Gen.-Deut. & Job – for about 3,500 years.[1] [Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Malachi, 1 & 2 Chronicles, concluded the OT canon  [400-500BC].  We’ll consider some reasons in a moment.

This series will not deal with:

  1. Which English translation is the best?  That would be an interesting topic.  We’ll be dealing with the trustworthiness of the OT and NT in the original manuscripts.
  2. We will not be discussing, except in passing, how the books came to be selected for the OT and the NT.  That’s the canonicity of the Bible and it will not be our focus.
  3. We also will be learning some general approaches to help with sharing the Gospel — including a defence of the trustworthiness of the Bible.

A. What are some of the reasons why we need to defend the Bible today?

For me, these are prominent reasons, but they are not in order of priority:

1. First, when you turn on the TV or radio, or read the newspaper at Easter and Christmas times particularly (but also at other times), you will be fed loads of doubt about the Bible and its truthfulness.  In fact, much of this doubt is being driven by some from within the church who do not believe what the Bible says — liberal church men and women.  We’ll look at examples as we go along.

2 Second, this mass media message is impacting on regular people in the church and we MUST provide answers.  Shortly, I’ll give an example of a person who came to me very distraught after one of those TV programs.

We live in a mass media culture — and that includes the worldwide web.

Other worldviews can drown us and we MUST provide reasons for the Christian faith, especially for our young people.

It was about 500 years ago that the leader of the Protestant reformation, MARTIN LUTHER, said this:

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every point of the Truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that point attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.  Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is tested.  To be steady in all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if the soldier flinches at that point.”[2]

That’s as relevant as if Luther preached it today.  I’d rather be expounding the Scriptures for the people of God, but the Bible is under attack and we must provide answers for the people of God.  It would be a disgrace if I flinched at this point.

3. There’s a third, and very important reason, why we must address a subject such as, “Can You Trust Your Bible?”  The Bible requires that we provide a defence of the faith in EVERY age of history. We desperately need it today, but we evangelicals have become lazy.  Apologetics is not a prominent theological discipline in the Bible colleges I have attended (3 of them plus 1 seminary). However, this is what the Bible states:

I Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.  Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.  But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV).

That phrase in the NIV, “give an answer” is too weak.  It is better translated as in the ESV, “make a defense.”  Make an “apologia” for the Christian faith.  It’s too bad that our English word “apology,” derived from this word, gives the wrong idea for what this wonderful Greek word means for all believers.  “Give an answer”, means “give a defense” of the Christian faith — all of us need to be prepared to do that.

This is as Paul did on Mars Hill (the Areopagus), Athens, recorded in Acts 17:22ff.  It was there that he used the Greek’s “unknown god” as a starting point for defending the faith (v. 23).

According to Acts 17:17, before Paul got to the Areopagus, he “reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.”

How we need Christians to be equipped for that today.

You know, “Thou shalt not think,” is NOT one of the 10 commandments.

4. There’s a fourth reason why a subject like this is needed today. I hear Christian parents saying to their teenagers about the Bible: “Accept it by faith.  God requires you to just believe it.  Faith is the answer to your doubt.  Quit asking questions about the Bible. Just accept it.”

It is my prayer that after this 4-part series, you will never say that again. Here’s why:

a. You are probably familiar with what the Bible says about its own inspiration, but let’s look at these verses again:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is inspired by God and [is] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”.  (NASB)  “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” NIV)

Psalm 119:142, 151:

Your righteousness is righteous forever, and your law is true.

But you are near, O Lord, and all your commandments are true.  (ESV)

Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.

You are near, O Lord, and all Your commandments are truth.  (NASB)

b. But take a look at another “scripture” from another religion.

Many of us are not familiar with these words.  They are words from the Muslim’s Koran (Quran):

Sura – 2 The Heifer ( Al-Baqarah)
Order Of Revelation 87, Verses: 286[3]

[2:0] In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[2:1] A.L.M.*

[2:2] This scripture is infallible; a beacon for the righteous;

Three Categories of People
(1) The Righteous

[2:3] who believe in the unseen, observe the Contact Prayers (Salat)*, and from our provisions **to them, they give to charity.

[2:4] And they believe in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed before you*, and with regard to the Hereafter, they are absolutely certain.

[2:5] These are guided by their Lord; these are the winners.

__________________________________________________________________
*2:1 These initials remained a divinely guarded secret for 1400 years.  Now we recognize them as a major component of the Quran’s mathematical miracle (see Appendices 1, 2, 24, and 26).  The meaning of A.L.M. is pointed out in Verse 2: “This scripture is infallible.”  This is incontrovertibly proven by the fact that the frequencies of occurrence of these three initials in this sura are 4502, 3202, and 2195, respectively.  The sum of these numbers is 9899, or 19×521.  Thus, these most frequent letters of the Arabic language are mathematically placed according to a superhuman pattern.  These same initials also prefix Suras 3, 29, 30, 31, and 32, and their frequencies of occurrence add up to multiples of 19 in each one of these suras.

I put it to you, the Bible says “all Scripture is inspired by God.”

The Quran says, “This Scripture is infallible.”

Which one are you to believe? If you accept the Bible and reject the Quran, why do you do that?  Both books say that they are “inspired.”  If you accept both, you are in for massive conflict because the Quran says that:

  • For the Muslim, Allah is the only true God;

  • It is blasphemous to believe in the Trinity;

  • Jesus Christ was a prophet for His people, in His day, but he is not the Son of God or God himself (Sura 4:171);

  • The prophet Muhammed supersedes Jesus Christ;

  • Jesus Christ did not atone for anyone’s sins, although Jesus was sinless;

  • Jesus did not die on the cross;

  • Many Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was taken bodily into heaven without having died (Sura 4:157);

  • The Muslim God is unapproachable by sinful people;

  • Sin and salvation in Islam are associated with works and fate (kismet);

  • Some Shiite Muslims are restoring Holy War (the Jihad) as a condition of faith — it is their sacred duty to murder anyone who will not embrace the one true faith.  (Surely that is what we are seeing with the suicide bombings in the Middle East now).[4]

The Bible says that it is the infallible, God-breathed Word of God.

The Quran says that it is infallible.

How are you going to validate the Bible as a trustworthy word from the Lord Almighty; or the Quran as the infallible Word from Allah?

It will not do to say, “Accept the Bible by faith.”  We need some verification to prove that the Bible is the trustworthy word from the Lord almighty.

Take a read of one of the students on a seminary’s Bulletin Board [no longer available to the general public]:

Dear Jamie,

I agree that they were fallible humans, but can the infallible God speak to us, give us a message to give to others, and still keep that message infallible. The whole question of infallibility of scripture is one of faith.

I won’t speak for anyone but me. If the outcome of eternity is based on the relationship I have with God, requires that God give me the message in a way I can understand, and trust. If you look at other historical writings, and how the OT and NT were written over thousands of years, by so many different writers, God’s hand must have been on it. Greater minds than mine have argued this question, and I have to stand with those who hold to infallibility.

For me, when the church Canonizes the scripture, it wasn’t so we would worship, but so would have a final authority. Something that we could all agree on. As I look on every church body that has pulled away for scripture as final authority, they have fallen away from belief, to the point that some do not believe in God at all (Bishop Pike). The struggle to canonize scripture, was long and hard; yes man did it but I believe God’s hand was there helping. Now can I prove anything I just said. No! But that’s the wonderful thing about faith, I don’t have to. If you don’t hold to scripture as the final authorty, than you have to look to the mind or logic; logic will lead you to humanism or to a God who wants to speak to us. Francis A. Schaeffer’s book, He is there and He is not silent, is a very good book explaining this process.

God Bless

Larry

B. Here’s where I am going in these four messages with you.

I’m grateful for the brief time I studied under one of the world’s leading apologists, Dr John Warwick Montgomery.  I am deeply indebted to his approach to defending the faith and establishing the trustworthiness of the Bible, especially the Gospel records.  He taught me this outline (with some changes) and this is where we are going in these teaching sessions.

A criticism that is often made against the Bible is that Christians argue in circles.  The charge goes like this: Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and to prove it, they quote a passage from the Bible that says so.

This kind of argumentation is known as begging the question or circular reasoning.  Nothing is proved by it.  It is based on assuming something is true, but using that assumption as fact to prove another assumption.

But there is no need to do this.  Instead of assuming the Bible to be the Word of God, we can begin by:

 1. Demonstrating that the Scriptures are reliable historical  documents.

2. In these documents, Jesus claims to be God in human flesh, and he bases His claim on His forthcoming resurrection.

3. We examine the evidence for the resurrection in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the fact that Christ actually rose from the dead.  This demonstrates that He is the unique Son of God that He claimed to be.  If He is God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

4. Since Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-18; 15:1-3) and the soon-to-be written New Testament.

Jesus “promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26).”  So, “we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God’s word.  This is not circular reasoning.  It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts.  The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.”

5. If we have time, I’ll put the Quran to the same tests that we apply to the Bible.

C. By way of explanation, I need to say that I will be using tests to establish the trustworthiness of Scripture from within the Bible and from outside the Bible.

I have known Christians to get a bit upset with me when I say that I will be using tests from outside of the Bible to prove the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible.  It’s necessary to do it this way.

Those who study the original languages of the Bible (Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew) have to do this all the time.  Nowhere in the Bible do you find the rules of grammar for understanding Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  I had to learn my Greek grammar to interpret the Bible, from outside of the Bible.

For example, we know that the Bible says, “God so loved the world” and NOT “the world so loved God” because of Greek grammar that dictates the translation into English.  The Bible in the original language has to be interpreted by learning Greek grammar and syntax from OUTSIDE the Bible.

We have to do the same kind of thing when we set out to prove the trustworthiness of a historical document.

D. Let’s look at some books from history

  • Here’s a biography of John Macarthur (John Macarthur, M. H. Ellis[6]), not the American preacher, but a famous Australian (1767-1834).  MacArthur was the “squire” responsible for bringing “to Australia the first authenticated pure merinos [sheep] and persuaded the British Privy Council that wool would be the basis of future greatness of the colony of New South Wales.”[7]

The author of the biography says, “though the author has worked as far as possible from original documents, he has applied his reference notes wherever it has been feasible to a source more accessible to the ordinary student.”[8] How do I know these original documents by John MacArthur are reliable and trustworthy?

  • Here’s the book, The Five Gospels (Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar[9]) and read p. 5: “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you….  Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.” How do we decide if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are 82% wrong with the words of Jesus OR the 4 Gospels provide an accurate picture of the life and death of Jesus Christ?
  • Here we have The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus[10] He was a wealthy Jew who wrote this history in which he “tried to justify Judaism to the cultured Romans by his writings.”[11] He also mentioned James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. . .”[12] Is Josephus writing reliable history? If so, how do we know?
  • Then I pick up my Bible and read, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).  Also, “All Scripture is God-breathed.. .” (2 Tim. 3:16).

Is God’s Word truth and reliable OR are we dealing with myth-making where 82% of what Jesus said is WRONG? How can be test these documents to see if they are trustworthy? Most of you will never read these books, but the content of them is driving what you are hearing on the mass media today about Jesus.

If I say that I believe the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God, and without error in all that it affirms, no news reporter will show up to interview me.

But the response is totally different if a group of high profile theologians rolls the coloured beads to decide which of the words of Jesus are true.  They come up with only 18% of his words in the Gospels are what he said and the rest are inventions by the early church —  the mass media will be along in droves.  And that’s exactly what is happening.  You watch what happens around Easter and Christmas!

We must have answers.  Our young people must not be allowed to drown in this sea of attack on the word of God at school and university.  We have good answers and we must provide them.

E. Let’s Vote on Jesus

Starting in 1985, a group of Bible scholars got together to decided if the words of Jesus in the Gospels were authentic.  “At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows of the Seminar [that’s what they were called, male & female] voted, using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of Jesus’ words.  Dropping colored beads into a box became the trademark of the [Jesus] Seminar . . .”[13]

This is what they found:

The Jesus Seminar colour code roughly translates to:

Red bead: That’s Jesus!

Pink bead: Sure sounds like Jesus.

Grey bead: Well, maybe.

Black bead: There’s been some mistake.

[Robert W. Funk,  Roy W. Hoover & The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (Macmillan, 1993, p. 37)]

  •  A red slip meant that  “Jesus undoubtedly said this or something like it.”  In brief: “That’s Jesus.”
  • A pink slip indicated that “Jesus probably said something like this.”  In brief: “Sure sounds like Jesus.”
  • Grey: “Jesus did not say this, but the ideas contained in it are close to his own.”  In brief: “Well, maybe.”
  • A black slip meant “Jesus did not say this; it represents the perspective or content of a later or different tradition.”  In brief: “There’s been some mistake.”[14]

After tabulating the results of their voting, the Jesus Seminar asserts, “Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.”[15]

The Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew chs. 5-7] took a hiding in the balloting.

  • “Blessed are the peacemakers” was given a miss.
  •  “Blessed are the meek” received “six timid red and pink votes out of 30 cast.”
  •  Overall, only three out of twelve of the blessings and woes of the Beatitudes from Matthew’s Gospel were accepted as authentic.
  •  We could ignore this as a party game by liberal scholars, but it is an attitude that is often found in evangelical churches and assemblies. We have to battle a tendency to accept the Scriptures on our terms and not on God’s.

If we are to be Christians of substance, I am convinced that we need to accept the Bible in its entirety as the Word of God.  How can we do that?  Listen to some thinking from those associated with the church.

F. What Some Theologians Are Saying

Some theologians are leading the push to make Jesus fit into the trendy modern mold of what our modern secular culture wants.

1. Former Episcopalian (Anglican) Bishop John Spong (USA)

In his book, Born of a Woman [please note, the book is not titled, Born of a Virgin, and that is deliberate.  Spong makes the outlandish suggestion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, conceived Jesus illegitimately.  The early church as a cover-up invented the virgin birth.

In talking about the birth story of Jesus in Luke 2, Spong asks: “Is it true? . .  The answer is, of course, no! . .  There was no biologically literal virgin birth. . .  In all probability Jesus was born in Nazareth in a very normal way either as the child of Mary and Joseph, or else he was an illegitimate child that Joseph validated by acknowledging him as Joseph’s son.  All that can be stated definitely is that the echoes of the status of illegitimacy appear to be far stronger in the text then the suggestion that Jesus was Mary’s child by Joseph.”[16]

2. Barbara Thiering (Australia)

In her book, Jesus: The Man, she claims that Jesus didn’t die on the cross.  He was poisoned and then revived.  He married and raised three children.

3. Roman Catholic biblical scholar, John Dominic Crossan (USA)

In his book, The Historical Jesus (1991), he states that Jesus did not rise from the dead.  Jesus was buried in a shallow grave; the body was dug up and eaten by dogs.[17]

Please understand that when these liberal theologians like Crossan speak of “the historical Jesus,” they are:

  • NOT speaking about Jesus as he lived in history;
  • They are using a technical term, a reconstruction of Jesus;
  • The “historical Jesus” is the one who can be explained in scientific, historical, purely human categories;
  • Anything miraculous is myth because supernatural events defy history and cannot be called history.  They are mythological.
  • So, in reality, their so-called historical Jesus is the unhistorical invention of these critics.  They are creating Jesus in their own image and calling him “the historical Jesus.”18]

I am convinced that Charles Colson is correct when he states that:

“Taken together, books like these can create a widespread climate of opinion that the Bible is simply a collection of myths and errors.  Even evangelical Christians may gradually accept the same principle and begin to separate faith from facts.  The Bible is true in its spiritual message, they say, but full of errors in its history.”[19]

There was an SBS television series here in Australia in 1999.  It was called, “From Jesus to Christ,” and presented the views of people like those from the Jesus Seminar.  After watching one episode of that program, a Christian came to me,  utterly devastated.  She said something like:

  • “Have I been deceived?
  • Have I believed a lie all this time?
  • The biblical scholars on that program said that the words of Jesus couldn’t be trusted as accurate or truthful.
  • In fact, they are saying that about 80% of the words that the NT puts in Jesus’ mouth DID NOT come from him at all.  The early church inserted them in the Bible because the church wanted us to believe that.
  • I need some answers.  Is this true that the early church put words in Jesus’ mouth?  These scholars say it is.”

In the Bible, faith can never be separated from historical facts.  To talk about the “Jesus of faith” vs. “the Jesus of history” is nonsensical.  Remember what Paul said in I Corinthians 15?  “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so it your faith . . .  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (vv. 14, 17).  If Jesus was not raised from the dead–historical fact–your faith is worthless.

Besides, if we accept the premise that the Bible is wrong, we become butchers.  We start the chopping job.  How are we going to decide what is believable and what is to be chucked out?  If we start tampering with the Bible, we will be trying to make Jesus to fit what we want.  Our prejudices will make Jesus into the image we want him to be.[20]

I’d like to introduce you to a rather different approach to judo.

G. The Judo Technique

I learned this when I was studying Jim Kennedy’s gospel presentation in Evangelism Explosion.[21]

Often as you begin presenting the gospel, the person will say something like, “I don’t believe the Bible.  You’ll have to convince me some other way than referring to the Scriptures.”  Many people are devastated by this objection.  What happens to them?  Their attempt to share Christ fizzles.

This need not be the case.  I want to encourage you to use this objection as a springboard into the gospel itself.  The Apostle Paul, when he preached in Greek cities that had no background in the Bible, appealed to the Scriptures even though the people who listened to him did not believe the Bible.

He proclaimed to them and the Holy Spirit used the proclamation to save some who then came to believe the Bible to be true.  When we witness, our primary function is to proclaim the gospel, not defence of the Bible.  BUT when people object to the Bible, we DO NEED good answers to respond.  And there ARE EXCELLENT answers.

The judo technique works like this.  The objection, “I don’t believe the Bible,” is quite an easy one to deal with.  Don’t use the approach of a boxer who meets the blow head on and tries to overwhelm the opponent with counter punches.  Instead use the technique of the judo expert .  The force of the opponent’s blow is used to throw the opponent.

Here’s how it works in presenting the gospel.  The person who objects, “I don’t believe the Bible,” usually has some university education, or has been exposed to some course in the Bible, or biblical criticism or something like that.

There is often some intellectual pride that says or infers something like this: “I used to believe those fairy tales when I was in kindy, but now I am an educated person and am far above believing those things.”  It is this intellectual pride that can be used to turn this objection into an opportunity for presenting the gospel.  I suggest this kind of dialogue with the person who objects.

“You don’t believe the Bible, John?  That’s very interesting and it certainly is your privilege not to believe it, and I would fight for that right on your part.  However, if the Bible is true then obviously you must accept the consequences.

“But I would like to ask you a question.  The main message of the Bible, which has been unquestionably the most important literary work in human history, is how a person may have eternal life.  So what I would like to know is: What do you understand that the Bible teaches about how a person may have eternal life and go to heaven?”

He may say that he does not believe in eternal life.  To this you might say, “I’m not asking you what you believe, but I am asking you what you understand.  It would be a rather unintellectual approach to reject the world’s most important book without understanding even its main message, would it not?  What do you understand that the Bible teaches as to how a person may have eternal life?  What is your understanding about what the Bible teaches on this subject?”

My experience is that over 90% will respond by saying that it is by keeping the Ten Commandments or following the Golden Rule or imitating the example of Christ, doing good, or something like that.

You might respond something like this: “That is just what I was afraid of, John.  You have rejected the Bible without even understanding its main message, for your answer is not only incorrect, but it is diametrically opposite to what the Bible teaches.  Now, don’t you think that the more intellectual approach would be to let me share with you what the Scriptures teach on this subject and then you can make an intelligent decision whether to reject or accept it?”

Now the tables have been completely turned.  Instead of being superior to the Scripture and even above listening to it, he now finds himself ignorant of even its basic message.  Now he must decide whether to listen to the message of the Scriptures or be found to be not only ignorant but also some obscure person who opposes intellectual advancement — and wants to remain in his ignorance.

This is the last thing in the world that his intellectual pride will allow him to be.  So, very often he will give you permission to tell him the gospel.  It is at this point that you pray with vigour that the Holy Spirit will take the gospel, which is the power of God to salvation, and use it to awaken him from the deadness because of sin.

If he persists that he will not discuss anything further with you until you deal with his objection I suggest the following pre-evangelism approach (apologetics):

H. You need to begin with the existence of God

Hebrews 11:6 (NIV) states. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

Will you please think through how you could present a case for the existence of the Almighty God who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ – to somebody who doesn’t know the Lord?

What would be your starting point?

Notes:

[1] See “History of the Old Testament Canon,” in   Norman L. Geisler & William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (rev. & expanded).  Chicago: Moody Press, 1986, pp. 238-239.

[2] In Michael P. Green (Ed.), Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (#1065). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982, p. 285.

[3] Retrieved on May 7, 2002 from http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm The Glorious Quran, An Authorized English Version: Translated from the original by Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D.

[4] Based on Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults.  Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1985, pp. 366-67.

[5] Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions.  San Bernardino, California: Here’s Life Publishers, 1980, pp. 147-148.

Note: The four points in McDowell & Stewart seem to be an abbreviated version, taken from John W. Montgomery’s points for the “crux validation” of the New Testament:

a. On the basis of accepted principles of textual and historical analysis, the Gospel records are found to be trustworthy historical documents — primary source evidence for the life of Christ,

b. In these records, Jesus exercises divine prerogatives and claims to be God in human flesh; and He rests His claims on His forthcoming resurrection.

c. In all four Gospels, Christ’s bodily resurrection is described in minute detail; Christ’s resurrection evidences His deity.

d. The fact of the resurrection cannot be discounted on a priori, philosophical grounds; miracles are impossible only if one so defines them — but such definition rules out proper historical investigation.

e. If Christ is God, then He speaks the truth concerning the absolute divine authority of the Old Testament and of the soon-to-be-written New Testament.  [John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology.  Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1970, n. 58, p. 306. Montgomery wrote that this summary was based on his book, Shape of the Past, n. 26, pp. 138-39.]

[6] London: Angus & Robertson Publishers, 1973 (3rd Ed.).

[7] Ibid., back cover.

[8] Ibid., p. vii.

[9] Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.  New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book).

[10] Josephus: Complete Works (William Whiston, trans.).  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1960.

[11] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981, p. 46.

[12] Josephus, 20.9.1, p. 423.

[13] R. W. Funk, R. W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus.  New York: Macmillan Publishing Company (A Polebridge Press Book), 1993, p. 34.

[14] Ibid., pp. 36-37.

[15] Ibid., p. 5.

[16] John Shelby Spong, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992, pp. 157-158.

[17] Section B is adapted from “Color-Coding the Gospels,” in Charles Colson with Nancy R. Pearcey, A Dangerous Grace: Daily readings.  Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994, 14-15.

[18] George Eldon Ladd in The New Testament and Criticism makes some of these point. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967, p. 195. Ladd was particularly speaking of Rudolf Bultmann, but the application is strong to the Jesus Seminar conclusions.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Based on ibid., pp. 15-16.

[21]Australian Edition published by Evangelism Explosion Ministries Australia, PO Box 1686, Wollongong 2500, 1983, pp. 84-85.

Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 24 July 2016.

Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6Flower6