If you've been reading along, you know that I've been posting articles about the Old Testament Intro class I took at Westminster. In previous posts, I've tried to answer the questions: “Why study the Old Testament?” and “Why study the geography and history of the OT?”
This post will be about manuscript reliability. The Bible translations we have today- be it NIV, ESV, NLT, etc... are based on manuscripts that were edited 1000s of years ago and then transmitted over time. None of us have the original copies written down by Moses, David, or Jeremiah. And there are known differences and changes that have crept up over time. For example, the Greek translation of the book of Jeremiah is about 15% shorter and has a different chapter sequence. So, it seems like the Greek version was originally based on a different Hebrew text and not the Hebrew text we have today.
Even though the scribes were very careful, they could not avoid making the occasional mistake. Often they were unintentional and due to human error. Physical damage by accident and decay would leave holes in the text or a scribe might leave something out or hear something incorrectly while the text was being dictated.
And yet, our faith hinges on what the Bible says. Without the Bible, we would have no knowledge of God, creation, or His redemptive work that reaches its climax in Christ.
This begs the question: Can we trust the Bible? Or, is the Bible a corrupted version of God's word- maybe only a faint witness to the original, which is now lost? A lot is at stake here. If the Bible is only partially trustworthy, then the foundation of our faith isn't completely reliable. If that's the case, we have no basis for claiming that Yahweh is the only true God and that Christ is the only way to Him. Thus, who can say that Christ is the only path to God when many other faiths proclaim many other ways?
Before we can answer this question, we need to set the boundaries of our discussion. As we examine the history and manuscripts to see if the Bible is trustworthy, we must remember our position of faith: God is active and in control of all things. Roman Catholic teaching says we should look for someone or something (church authority) to tell us the final answer. Skeptics say that we should look to human reason and our own understanding as the final standard. But, the final standard of truth is found in God Himself, and not some standard that is outside of Him. There are difficulties, and we may never find an intellectually satisfying answer to all of them. So, is our trust in our ability to reconstruct the text perfectly or in God?
CAUTIOUS CONSERVATISM
As Christians, we can take a path of cautious conservatism- God's word in its original form exists in the various manuscripts, but we may have to do some work to find it.
As mentioned earlier, a manuscript may have errors, but it is very unlikely for all manuscripts to have the same error. Bible scholars see how the different manuscripts compare/contrast. They decide which is the most reliable one as many of them usually agree while a few have differences. If most manuscripts say one thing, and only a few have a difference, scholars often go with the one with more copies. In other words, majority wins!
The work of researching the different manuscripts to get the original is called “Textual Criticism.” Scholars have been working on Textual Criticism for centuries, so its nothing new. Think of it as a kind of Bible CSI- investigative teams have to sift through the evidence to construct the original story.
The different options for the original text are placed in the footnotes or margins of the Bible if enough manuscripts have that difference. For example, in 2 Samuel 12:21, the ESV says this: "When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry." The context is that David's firstborn son Amnon had just raped his half-sister Tamar. David is upset, but that's about all that David does. There's no mention of any punishment for Amnon. The footnote for this verse says, "Dead Sea Scroll, Septuigent add "But he would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, since he was his firstborn." Interesting. Two other manuscript families give us a little more insight into why David seemed unwilling to do anything after this incident.
So, should we be concerned that there are multiple options? Before we start to panic, realize that the Bible is the most well attested ancient document that exists. Thousands of manuscripts are available to piece together the original text. Only a very small part of the text is in question. And the vast majority of those variations make no difference in how we understand and apply scripture. This means that no major theological point depends on whether or not scholars "got it right." Therefore, passages like Jeremiah 31 that describe and foretell the coming of Christ and the New Covenant are rock-solid:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers.....For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
The prophecies about Christ, the new covenant, and the forgiveness of sins are unmistakably clear and reliable. Here are two quotes from scholars who have spent decades going through the OT in the ancient text:
“Textual criticism has established beyond reasonable doubt that no significant teaching of scripture is called into question” (Silva)
“Even if we adopted every single alternative reading, we'd largely have the same Bible” (Walke)
DEAD SEA SCROLLS
Textual criticism was given a huge boost in the 1940s with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls). The scrolls are dated to around 400 BC and include references to every single book of the OT except for one (Esther). Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest known copies of the OT were from the 10th century A.D. Before this find, it would be impossible to demonstrate that the OT prophecies about Christ as a suffering servant (e.g. Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22) were true, or if they were made up after the fact.
The Dead Sea Scrolls is a huge piece of evidence testifying to the trustworthiness of the OT. If we compare the Dead Sea scrolls with versions from the 10th century AD, they are virtually the same. This means that for over 1000 years, the OT was faithfully transmitted.
WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD
As mentioned earlier, we don't ultimately base our confidence on man's carefulness. Our confidence rests in God, who has spoken and graciously preserved His word for us today. This means that pastors, scholars, and all Christians can trust in God and His Word. Having some awareness of our manuscripts and their reliability helps us appreciate the roots of our faith. We don't need to fear when skeptics question the reliability of the Bible. Rather, we can be prepared to give an answer for the hope that we have.
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
All Men Know God but Supress this Knowledge (Apologetics part 5)
The blog posts the last few months have been about defending the Christian faith, a topic called apologetics. This post will be the longest and final one. It tries to put everything together and show how it could potentially work. The most recent post was about our ultimate source of authority. There are only two choices: God or man. God’s Word doesn’t answer to anyone else because God doesn’t answer to anyone else.
Assuming that Scripture reveals the crucified and risen Savior as the only hope for mankind (see “When Soliders Come in the Night”), we must know what the Scriptures teach about people. The Bible teaches us that all men know God. Like a son who has an indivisible bond to his father, we are creatures who have an indivisible bond to our Creator. We cannot escape it. But since man is in rebellion against God, he uses every bit of his intellect to suppress this knowledge.
The following passage is one of the most critical ones on apologetic method:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20).
In apologetics, we must start with the assumption that man knows God, though he tries to suppress this knowledge.
What does it mean that all men know God?
ALL HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
This is not just some vague concept that “a higher power must exist”. It is personal knowledge of the one true God. God makes His eternal power and divine nature clearly seen through everything He has created. God has pre-programmed each of us with clear and convincing knowledge of the following:
ALL TRY TO SUPPRESS KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
After the fall of mankind (in Genesis 3), man runs away from God rather than towards God. Scripture teaches that, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Rom. 3:10-11). Instead of using his intellect and reason in submission to God, man uses them in rebellion against God.
ALL ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE
Because all men willfully suppress their knowledge of God, they will be held responsible. Therefore, Scripture teaches that all are “without excuse.” This only makes sense if we have a personal knowledge of God. It doesn’t make sense to be held responsible to some entity you don’t know. In those cases, you plead ignorance (e.g. “I didn’t know that the speed limit was 55 mph”). But no one will be able to plead ignorance on the day of judgment.
How does this apply to apologetics?
Man has an innate sense of who God is, yet he chooses to suppress it. But, it can never be suppressed completely. It’s like holding down 3 beach balls under water with only two hands. You can push one or two down, but you can’t get all of them. One task in apologetics is to find out where someone has suppressed that knowledge of God and where he has not been able to suppress knowledge. This means that everyone who rejects God will be living inconsistently at some level.
Inconsistencies in life are seen everywhere. For instance, an animal rights activist who wears leather shoes lives inconsistently. One task in apologetics is to help someone see how their suppression of God leads to inconsistency. Dr. Edgar at Westminster calls this “Disclosure”
DISCLOSURE
Our two hypothetical characters are back. Mr. Believer is now meeting again with Mr. Skeptic. Mr. Skeptic doesn’t believe in God and believes that everything is left up to chance. Rather than being created by God, humans are the product of random mutations that take place in evolution. But Mr. Skeptic also has a sense of justice, what is right and wrong. He believes that this sense of justice is found in every human being. He knows it’s wrong to lie, steal, and kill. He also knows that since he’s only human, he hasn’t followed this perfectly.
After reading how Van Til applied Scripture in apologetics, Mr. Believer uses a different approach. He doesn’t appeal to Mr. Skeptic’s reason because he knows that his intellect will do its best to suppress knowledge of God (see “If you Start with Man, you End with Man”). Mr. Believer tries to disclose Mr. Skeptic’s inconsistency in his beliefs and then appeals to Mr. Skeptic’s innate knowledge of God.
Mr. Believer says, “If everything is left up to chance, then who is to say what is right or wrong? If we are just a bunch of highly-evolved molecules, who can say it’s wrong for someone to kill you, Mr. Skeptic, and take all your money? Evolution teaches survival of the fittest, right?”
Mr. Skeptic says, “I know it’s wrong to steal and kill, but I’ve never thought about it that way before”.
After disclosing this inconsistency, Mr. Believer can ask Mr. Skeptic to consider the Christian faith, which is the only way someone can truly live consistently. Dr. Edgar calls this step “Homecoming”:
HOMECOMING
Mr. Believer continues, “Consider where you get your sense of justice. At its very core, chance can’t produce morals. You have a sense of justice because you are a creature made in God’s image. You have knowledge of who God is. Therefore, you know that God is the ultimate source of justice and a day of judgment is coming. You will be held accountable for you sins just like everyone else, even if you don’t believe that will happen. Ray Comfort uses the following illustration: ‘If you step out onto the freeway and say, ‘I don’t believe in trucks’, your belief will not change reality.’”
Mr. Believer then pleads with Mr. Skeptic to get right with God by sharing the gospel (see “Contending for the Faith”). In a nutshell, Mr. Believer lovingly tells Mr. Skeptic: “Give up your sin and give up living for yourself. Give up any hope of earning God’s favor because you have nothing good to offer God. Throw yourself before your Creator and Judge and plead for his mercy. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”.
This is a simplistic example, but hopefully it shows how it can be applied. Each person is different. Yet, before the gospel can make sense, each person must be gently and humbly reminded that God is Creator and Judge (something they already know).
Assuming that Scripture reveals the crucified and risen Savior as the only hope for mankind (see “When Soliders Come in the Night”), we must know what the Scriptures teach about people. The Bible teaches us that all men know God. Like a son who has an indivisible bond to his father, we are creatures who have an indivisible bond to our Creator. We cannot escape it. But since man is in rebellion against God, he uses every bit of his intellect to suppress this knowledge.
The following passage is one of the most critical ones on apologetic method:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20).
In apologetics, we must start with the assumption that man knows God, though he tries to suppress this knowledge.
What does it mean that all men know God?
ALL HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
This is not just some vague concept that “a higher power must exist”. It is personal knowledge of the one true God. God makes His eternal power and divine nature clearly seen through everything He has created. God has pre-programmed each of us with clear and convincing knowledge of the following:
- God is our Creator – we know that we are creatures made to worship the Creator
- God is our Lawgiver – we know what is right and wrong
- God is our Judge – we know that there will be a day of judgment where good will triumph over evil.
ALL TRY TO SUPPRESS KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
After the fall of mankind (in Genesis 3), man runs away from God rather than towards God. Scripture teaches that, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.” (Rom. 3:10-11). Instead of using his intellect and reason in submission to God, man uses them in rebellion against God.
ALL ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE
Because all men willfully suppress their knowledge of God, they will be held responsible. Therefore, Scripture teaches that all are “without excuse.” This only makes sense if we have a personal knowledge of God. It doesn’t make sense to be held responsible to some entity you don’t know. In those cases, you plead ignorance (e.g. “I didn’t know that the speed limit was 55 mph”). But no one will be able to plead ignorance on the day of judgment.
How does this apply to apologetics?
Man has an innate sense of who God is, yet he chooses to suppress it. But, it can never be suppressed completely. It’s like holding down 3 beach balls under water with only two hands. You can push one or two down, but you can’t get all of them. One task in apologetics is to find out where someone has suppressed that knowledge of God and where he has not been able to suppress knowledge. This means that everyone who rejects God will be living inconsistently at some level.
Inconsistencies in life are seen everywhere. For instance, an animal rights activist who wears leather shoes lives inconsistently. One task in apologetics is to help someone see how their suppression of God leads to inconsistency. Dr. Edgar at Westminster calls this “Disclosure”
DISCLOSURE
Our two hypothetical characters are back. Mr. Believer is now meeting again with Mr. Skeptic. Mr. Skeptic doesn’t believe in God and believes that everything is left up to chance. Rather than being created by God, humans are the product of random mutations that take place in evolution. But Mr. Skeptic also has a sense of justice, what is right and wrong. He believes that this sense of justice is found in every human being. He knows it’s wrong to lie, steal, and kill. He also knows that since he’s only human, he hasn’t followed this perfectly.
After reading how Van Til applied Scripture in apologetics, Mr. Believer uses a different approach. He doesn’t appeal to Mr. Skeptic’s reason because he knows that his intellect will do its best to suppress knowledge of God (see “If you Start with Man, you End with Man”). Mr. Believer tries to disclose Mr. Skeptic’s inconsistency in his beliefs and then appeals to Mr. Skeptic’s innate knowledge of God.
Mr. Believer says, “If everything is left up to chance, then who is to say what is right or wrong? If we are just a bunch of highly-evolved molecules, who can say it’s wrong for someone to kill you, Mr. Skeptic, and take all your money? Evolution teaches survival of the fittest, right?”
Mr. Skeptic says, “I know it’s wrong to steal and kill, but I’ve never thought about it that way before”.
After disclosing this inconsistency, Mr. Believer can ask Mr. Skeptic to consider the Christian faith, which is the only way someone can truly live consistently. Dr. Edgar calls this step “Homecoming”:
HOMECOMING
Mr. Believer continues, “Consider where you get your sense of justice. At its very core, chance can’t produce morals. You have a sense of justice because you are a creature made in God’s image. You have knowledge of who God is. Therefore, you know that God is the ultimate source of justice and a day of judgment is coming. You will be held accountable for you sins just like everyone else, even if you don’t believe that will happen. Ray Comfort uses the following illustration: ‘If you step out onto the freeway and say, ‘I don’t believe in trucks’, your belief will not change reality.’”
Mr. Believer then pleads with Mr. Skeptic to get right with God by sharing the gospel (see “Contending for the Faith”). In a nutshell, Mr. Believer lovingly tells Mr. Skeptic: “Give up your sin and give up living for yourself. Give up any hope of earning God’s favor because you have nothing good to offer God. Throw yourself before your Creator and Judge and plead for his mercy. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”.
This is a simplistic example, but hopefully it shows how it can be applied. Each person is different. Yet, before the gospel can make sense, each person must be gently and humbly reminded that God is Creator and Judge (something they already know).
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
We must start with God to end with God (Apologetics part 4)
In my last post, a hypothetical person (Mr. Believer) tries to reason with another hypothetical person (Mr. Skeptic). He tried to use human logic to prove God's existence, but human logic was turned against him.
Mr. Believer starts reading Van Til and is encouraged that even though he is not as smart as Richard Dawkins, He has something more powerful than human reason. God Himself has revealed His truth. Van Til teaches him that there are only two options: we start with man or we start with God.
STARTING WITH MAN
If you start with human logic, the best you can get is some “god” made up by the human mind. This is idolatry and not the God of the Bible. In the skeptical mind, god is rejected.
The Trinity is an example. Christians believe that God is 3 persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three 3 persons are fully God. What does the unbeliever logically conclude? The answer is that Christians believe in 3 Gods. But, Scripture teaches that there is only One God. If human logic is in the final judge of what is true, then the Trinity must be rejected. Thomas Jefferson said, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra…” (Dawkins, 34)
STARTING WITH GOD
If human logic cannot lead us to God, the right starting point must be the Bible. If God is infinite and beyond our complete understanding, then we only know Him if He reveals Himself to us. Going on human logic is like 5 blind men feeling an elephant and coming up with 5 different conclusions on what it is. One thinks that the elephant is a tail, or a trunk, etc…
In Scripture, God speaks to us with complete truthfulness and authority. We can trust His revelation, even if our finite minds can’t completely understand certain things (e.g. the Trinity, the creation of the universe out of nothing, etc…)
GOD DOES NOT ANSWER TO MAN
Mr. Believer sees that human beings choose to follow one authority over another. The two options are God or man. For the Christian, the Scriptures are the final authority. God’s Word doesn’t answer to human logic, reason, or opinion.
Why must this be the case? Why does Scripture have to be accepted on its own authority?
The other option is to prove the Bible with our limited knowledge. For example, let’s say that I have 5 things that prove that the Bible is true:
These seem to work well. But what happens if archeologists find some counter evidence that destroys two of these? Now, we’re down to 3…does that mean that the Bible is now 60% as reliable as before? Archeology could find some other evidence to bring our total back up to 5, but, the next day, some of it could be rejected. I think you get the point. Human understanding is limited, error-prone, and is corrupted by sin. History and science are constantly being updated.
The best case is that the skeptic accepts all of these pieces of evidence. That doesn’t necessarily lead to believing in the Bible.
Van Til says that even if you prove the existence of the virgin birth, the raising of Lazarus, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that cannot convince skeptics that God exists. The skeptic’s reply is, “So what? You’ve shown us that strange and awesome things can happen in this world. Just because we don’t have an explanation for it doesn’t mean you can say a miracle has happened. That cannot be proven until you have exhausted all other possible explanations” (this is the argument presented by Dr. William Adams in God at Work, New York, 1933).
Van Til also says that even if you prove that God has made you into a different person, that cannot convince skeptics that God exists. Your religious experience could be from God, from drugs, or even something else. The skeptic’s reply is, “I can’t argue with your experience, just like I can’t argue with you if you feel hot or cold. If you are cold, the reason could be that you left your window open. If you say that Jesus has changed your life, you have given me a reason that your life is different. The reason could be right or it could be wrong” (argument presented by James Leuba in God or Man, New York, 1933).
So even in the best case, human understanding cannot be our final authority. God expects us to accept His authority and not our own. He is the Creator and we are the creation.
As we look through the Bible, we see countless reminders of this. "Thus says the Lord" is used 400 times in the Bible. Jesus says, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Peter says that God's Word is more reliable and certain than what can be seen with the eyes and heard with the ears. Peter, James, and John had the opportunity to see the glory of Jesus Christ at the Transfiguration. Peter claims that God's Word is more reliable than what he saw and heard. The reason is that Scripture comes from God, not man.
"And we have something more sure [than what we can see and hear], the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet 1:19-21)
In future posts, I’ll go into detail on what the Bible actually says about unbelief and how to reason with skeptics.
Mr. Believer starts reading Van Til and is encouraged that even though he is not as smart as Richard Dawkins, He has something more powerful than human reason. God Himself has revealed His truth. Van Til teaches him that there are only two options: we start with man or we start with God.
STARTING WITH MAN
If you start with human logic, the best you can get is some “god” made up by the human mind. This is idolatry and not the God of the Bible. In the skeptical mind, god is rejected.
The Trinity is an example. Christians believe that God is 3 persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three 3 persons are fully God. What does the unbeliever logically conclude? The answer is that Christians believe in 3 Gods. But, Scripture teaches that there is only One God. If human logic is in the final judge of what is true, then the Trinity must be rejected. Thomas Jefferson said, “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra…” (Dawkins, 34)
STARTING WITH GOD
If human logic cannot lead us to God, the right starting point must be the Bible. If God is infinite and beyond our complete understanding, then we only know Him if He reveals Himself to us. Going on human logic is like 5 blind men feeling an elephant and coming up with 5 different conclusions on what it is. One thinks that the elephant is a tail, or a trunk, etc…
In Scripture, God speaks to us with complete truthfulness and authority. We can trust His revelation, even if our finite minds can’t completely understand certain things (e.g. the Trinity, the creation of the universe out of nothing, etc…)
GOD DOES NOT ANSWER TO MAN
Mr. Believer sees that human beings choose to follow one authority over another. The two options are God or man. For the Christian, the Scriptures are the final authority. God’s Word doesn’t answer to human logic, reason, or opinion.
Why must this be the case? Why does Scripture have to be accepted on its own authority?
The other option is to prove the Bible with our limited knowledge. For example, let’s say that I have 5 things that prove that the Bible is true:
- The Virgin Birth of Christ.
- The Raising of Lazarus from the dead.
- The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
- The Testimony of the Disciples (11 out of the 12 died as martyrs for their beliefs).
- My own spiritual experience (Jesus has changed my life).
These seem to work well. But what happens if archeologists find some counter evidence that destroys two of these? Now, we’re down to 3…does that mean that the Bible is now 60% as reliable as before? Archeology could find some other evidence to bring our total back up to 5, but, the next day, some of it could be rejected. I think you get the point. Human understanding is limited, error-prone, and is corrupted by sin. History and science are constantly being updated.
The best case is that the skeptic accepts all of these pieces of evidence. That doesn’t necessarily lead to believing in the Bible.
Van Til says that even if you prove the existence of the virgin birth, the raising of Lazarus, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that cannot convince skeptics that God exists. The skeptic’s reply is, “So what? You’ve shown us that strange and awesome things can happen in this world. Just because we don’t have an explanation for it doesn’t mean you can say a miracle has happened. That cannot be proven until you have exhausted all other possible explanations” (this is the argument presented by Dr. William Adams in God at Work, New York, 1933).
Van Til also says that even if you prove that God has made you into a different person, that cannot convince skeptics that God exists. Your religious experience could be from God, from drugs, or even something else. The skeptic’s reply is, “I can’t argue with your experience, just like I can’t argue with you if you feel hot or cold. If you are cold, the reason could be that you left your window open. If you say that Jesus has changed your life, you have given me a reason that your life is different. The reason could be right or it could be wrong” (argument presented by James Leuba in God or Man, New York, 1933).
So even in the best case, human understanding cannot be our final authority. God expects us to accept His authority and not our own. He is the Creator and we are the creation.
As we look through the Bible, we see countless reminders of this. "Thus says the Lord" is used 400 times in the Bible. Jesus says, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Peter says that God's Word is more reliable and certain than what can be seen with the eyes and heard with the ears. Peter, James, and John had the opportunity to see the glory of Jesus Christ at the Transfiguration. Peter claims that God's Word is more reliable than what he saw and heard. The reason is that Scripture comes from God, not man.
"And we have something more sure [than what we can see and hear], the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet 1:19-21)
In future posts, I’ll go into detail on what the Bible actually says about unbelief and how to reason with skeptics.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
If you Start with Man, You end with Man (Apologetics part 3)
In my last two posts, I’ve tried to describe what we’re learning about apologetics at Westminster.
The first post was about the foundation of our hope: absolute conviction that the death, resurrection, and future return of Jesus Christ is the only hope for mankind.
The second one was about the faith we seek to defend: nothing short of the God of Scripture. Only Christ saves. A general belief in God cannot.
In my last post, I said that most of the popular apologetic methods only lead to Theism, not Christianity. And since Theism ultimately cannot save, we shoot ourselves in the foot by using methods that lead to Theism.
Let me explain with two specific examples.
EVIDENCE FOR GOD IN DESIGN: In this example, both the believer (we’ll call him Mr. Believer) and non-believer (Mr. Skeptic) agree to study creation and then draw some conclusions using human logic. Mr. Believer hopes to convince Mr. Skeptic to believe in God and trust in Christ. Mr. Believer holds up the flagellum of a bacteria and points out all the intricate parts. “Look at the rotor, propeller, and drive shaft. See the numerous protein structures used to make a complex device that works as a motor. You need all of them working simultaneously for a bacteria to propel itself. Natural selection can’t produce a complex system through evolution because too many pieces have to come together all at once. Therefore, there must be a designer of some kind” (see https://sites.google.com/site/evidenceofgod/biology/flagellum)
EVIDENCE FOR GOD IN A FIRST CAUSE: Mr. Believer then turns his attention to the origins of the universe: “Anything with a beginning must have a cause. Makes sense, right?” As a firm believer in the law of cause and effect, Mr. Skeptic nods in agreement. Mr. Believer continues, “We agree that science teaches us that the universe came into existence through a Big Bang billions of years ago. I will show you that the Kalam Cosmological Argument proves God’s existence. It goes like this:
Mr. Skeptic says, “I see the complexity of a bacteria’s flagellum. I see how it looks like it’s designed. But, how do you jump from that and conclude that there is a God or some kind of designer? In fact, Richard Dawkins, the author of God Delusion has a perfectly good explanation, one that I think is even better than yours.
Now Mr. Believer is skeptical…..
Mr. Skeptic continues, “Imagine if you were living in England during the 1700s and someone showed up with a jumbo jet and a computer. They show you these amazing marvels of modern technology that defy all possible explanations. Therefore, you conclude that this man is a god. That sounds ridiculous for us today, but not so ridiculous if you were living in the 1700s.
We’re living in the 21st century. Science has advanced a lot, but it doesn’t have all the answers. I believe that in due time, science will find an explanation for how a bunch of random proteins can come together to form a complex system like a bacteria’s flagellum. Religious people like to take a problem that we can’t solve and then conclude that “God did it”. Science isn’t content to just chalk things up to God, you know what I mean?”
Mr. Believer wasn’t expecting that kind of answer. When he and Mr. Skeptic agreed that they would use human observation and reason as their starting point, he wasn’t expecting it to be turned around on him.
Mr. Skeptic continues, “Religious people like to point to the origin of the universe as proof that God exists. You guys have something I’ll call, “God of the Gaps.” Whenever you see a gap that science can’t explain, your default explanation is to plug in God. I know that I don’t have all the answers. But, at least we’re working on them, and we have the scientific method to help us discover truth.
Religious people believe in God, but don’t realize that they have an even bigger problem to solve. For instance, “Who created God?” Basically, if there is such a being as an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe out of nothing, what’s His story? How did He get here? As rational thinkers, don’t we subscribe to the laws of cause and effect? Or, are you going to grant your God a special exception? If God created the universe, then something would have created Him, and then something else would have created that- on and on we go….
As Dawkins says in his book, “Any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in His own right. God presents an infinite regress from which He cannot help us to escape.” (God Delusion, 109).
Mr. Believer then realizes that he got himself into this mess. He initially agreed with Mr. Skeptic that they would use the human laws of logic to discuss the existence of God. He was hoping to win over Mr. Skeptic by validating his way of thinking. He sheepishly tells him, “I’m not sure I have anything better. Dawkins is a pretty smart guy, and I know I’m not as smart as he is. Let me do some more research and get back to you.”
As they leave, Mr. Believer was thinking that he needed some other approach to apologetics. He had heard about a guy named Van Til who taught at Westminster seminary. Van Til did all of his apologetics by starting off with God. He thought to himself, “I’ll need to pick up some of his stuff because the stuff I’ve been using seems to have severe limitations….”
The first post was about the foundation of our hope: absolute conviction that the death, resurrection, and future return of Jesus Christ is the only hope for mankind.
The second one was about the faith we seek to defend: nothing short of the God of Scripture. Only Christ saves. A general belief in God cannot.
In my last post, I said that most of the popular apologetic methods only lead to Theism, not Christianity. And since Theism ultimately cannot save, we shoot ourselves in the foot by using methods that lead to Theism.
Let me explain with two specific examples.
EVIDENCE FOR GOD IN DESIGN: In this example, both the believer (we’ll call him Mr. Believer) and non-believer (Mr. Skeptic) agree to study creation and then draw some conclusions using human logic. Mr. Believer hopes to convince Mr. Skeptic to believe in God and trust in Christ. Mr. Believer holds up the flagellum of a bacteria and points out all the intricate parts. “Look at the rotor, propeller, and drive shaft. See the numerous protein structures used to make a complex device that works as a motor. You need all of them working simultaneously for a bacteria to propel itself. Natural selection can’t produce a complex system through evolution because too many pieces have to come together all at once. Therefore, there must be a designer of some kind” (see https://sites.google.com/site/evidenceofgod/biology/flagellum)
EVIDENCE FOR GOD IN A FIRST CAUSE: Mr. Believer then turns his attention to the origins of the universe: “Anything with a beginning must have a cause. Makes sense, right?” As a firm believer in the law of cause and effect, Mr. Skeptic nods in agreement. Mr. Believer continues, “We agree that science teaches us that the universe came into existence through a Big Bang billions of years ago. I will show you that the Kalam Cosmological Argument proves God’s existence. It goes like this:
- Anything with a beginning must have a cause.
- The universe had a beginning.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Mr. Skeptic says, “I see the complexity of a bacteria’s flagellum. I see how it looks like it’s designed. But, how do you jump from that and conclude that there is a God or some kind of designer? In fact, Richard Dawkins, the author of God Delusion has a perfectly good explanation, one that I think is even better than yours.
Now Mr. Believer is skeptical…..
Mr. Skeptic continues, “Imagine if you were living in England during the 1700s and someone showed up with a jumbo jet and a computer. They show you these amazing marvels of modern technology that defy all possible explanations. Therefore, you conclude that this man is a god. That sounds ridiculous for us today, but not so ridiculous if you were living in the 1700s.
We’re living in the 21st century. Science has advanced a lot, but it doesn’t have all the answers. I believe that in due time, science will find an explanation for how a bunch of random proteins can come together to form a complex system like a bacteria’s flagellum. Religious people like to take a problem that we can’t solve and then conclude that “God did it”. Science isn’t content to just chalk things up to God, you know what I mean?”
Mr. Believer wasn’t expecting that kind of answer. When he and Mr. Skeptic agreed that they would use human observation and reason as their starting point, he wasn’t expecting it to be turned around on him.
Mr. Skeptic continues, “Religious people like to point to the origin of the universe as proof that God exists. You guys have something I’ll call, “God of the Gaps.” Whenever you see a gap that science can’t explain, your default explanation is to plug in God. I know that I don’t have all the answers. But, at least we’re working on them, and we have the scientific method to help us discover truth.
Religious people believe in God, but don’t realize that they have an even bigger problem to solve. For instance, “Who created God?” Basically, if there is such a being as an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe out of nothing, what’s His story? How did He get here? As rational thinkers, don’t we subscribe to the laws of cause and effect? Or, are you going to grant your God a special exception? If God created the universe, then something would have created Him, and then something else would have created that- on and on we go….
As Dawkins says in his book, “Any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in His own right. God presents an infinite regress from which He cannot help us to escape.” (God Delusion, 109).
Mr. Believer then realizes that he got himself into this mess. He initially agreed with Mr. Skeptic that they would use the human laws of logic to discuss the existence of God. He was hoping to win over Mr. Skeptic by validating his way of thinking. He sheepishly tells him, “I’m not sure I have anything better. Dawkins is a pretty smart guy, and I know I’m not as smart as he is. Let me do some more research and get back to you.”
As they leave, Mr. Believer was thinking that he needed some other approach to apologetics. He had heard about a guy named Van Til who taught at Westminster seminary. Van Til did all of his apologetics by starting off with God. He thought to himself, “I’ll need to pick up some of his stuff because the stuff I’ve been using seems to have severe limitations….”
Monday, November 8, 2010
Contending for the Faith (Apologetics part 2)
“I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)
The faith that we defend is the faith delivered to us in God’s Word. Christians are not called to defend Theism (the belief that there is a god or some god out there).
I’ll illustrate with an example.
A few years ago a prominent atheist named Andrew Flew changed his mind and decided to become a Theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew). He did this after looking at the evidence for a higher power. Flew died a few years afterwards (still as a theist I believe). The tragedy is that theists and deists die in their sins and suffer eternal punishment just like atheists. If all we can do is lead people to theism (believe in some god out there), we have failed in proclaiming the crucified and risen Christ, the only hope for mankind.
What we aim to defend is nothing short of “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), not the buffet-style faith where you pick and choose your Christian entrees.
What is this whole counsel of God?
I can’t go through everything in detail, but here are a few critical points:
TOTAL POWER AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD: “Our God is in the heavens; He does all that he pleases” (Ps. 115:3). He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11). This means that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and its rightful Lord. “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col 1:16-17). Therefore, we owe Him our worship and obedience (1 Cor 10:31).
TOTAL SINFULNESS OF MAN: As human beings, we have failed to give our Creator the honor that is due Him. “None is righteous…no one understands; no one seeks for God”. (Rom 3:11). “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Is. 64:6, NIV).
TOTAL GUILTINESS OF MAN: “It is appointed for man to die once and after that comes judgment” (Heb 9:27). What will that judgment be like? This Judge considers lust the same as adultery (Matt 5:27) and anger the same as murder (Matt 5:22). Christ says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matt. 12:36). This is a God who will bring every deed into judgment with every secret thing. (Ecc. 12:14). I have heard that 50% of all murderers in the United States are never caught or brought to justice. God will bring all of them to justice. But He will not just punish murderers. He will punish adulterers, thieves, liars, and all other sins. It is a fearful judgment where every thought, word, and deed will be brought before the all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely holy God.
TOTAL GRACIOUSNESS OF GOD: God provided a way for His justice and holiness to be satisfied without destroying all mankind in Hell for eternity. Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, died as a substitute for sinful humanity: “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent His only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:9-10)
There is much more, but in summary, we are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved (Acts 16:31). The reason is that God commands all people everywhere to repent because He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:30-31).
Unfortunately, most apologetic methods do not lead to these points. Most methods go to human reason as the final court of appeal. In the past, I have appealed to a person’s intellect, such as showing them fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, archaeological evidence, or reasons to believe in the resurrection of Christ.
These apologetic tools can be useful, but the problem is that the sinful human mind is a terrible judge of what is ultimately true. Our ultimate trust rests not in ourselves but on God and His Word. The faith that we defend in contained in the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves are the final court of appeal.
In future posts, I'll explain what I believe to be the Scriptural method for defending the God of the Scriptures.
The faith that we defend is the faith delivered to us in God’s Word. Christians are not called to defend Theism (the belief that there is a god or some god out there).
I’ll illustrate with an example.
A few years ago a prominent atheist named Andrew Flew changed his mind and decided to become a Theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew). He did this after looking at the evidence for a higher power. Flew died a few years afterwards (still as a theist I believe). The tragedy is that theists and deists die in their sins and suffer eternal punishment just like atheists. If all we can do is lead people to theism (believe in some god out there), we have failed in proclaiming the crucified and risen Christ, the only hope for mankind.
What we aim to defend is nothing short of “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), not the buffet-style faith where you pick and choose your Christian entrees.
What is this whole counsel of God?
I can’t go through everything in detail, but here are a few critical points:
TOTAL POWER AND SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD: “Our God is in the heavens; He does all that he pleases” (Ps. 115:3). He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Eph 1:11). This means that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and its rightful Lord. “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col 1:16-17). Therefore, we owe Him our worship and obedience (1 Cor 10:31).
TOTAL SINFULNESS OF MAN: As human beings, we have failed to give our Creator the honor that is due Him. “None is righteous…no one understands; no one seeks for God”. (Rom 3:11). “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” (Is. 64:6, NIV).
TOTAL GUILTINESS OF MAN: “It is appointed for man to die once and after that comes judgment” (Heb 9:27). What will that judgment be like? This Judge considers lust the same as adultery (Matt 5:27) and anger the same as murder (Matt 5:22). Christ says, “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matt. 12:36). This is a God who will bring every deed into judgment with every secret thing. (Ecc. 12:14). I have heard that 50% of all murderers in the United States are never caught or brought to justice. God will bring all of them to justice. But He will not just punish murderers. He will punish adulterers, thieves, liars, and all other sins. It is a fearful judgment where every thought, word, and deed will be brought before the all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely holy God.
TOTAL GRACIOUSNESS OF GOD: God provided a way for His justice and holiness to be satisfied without destroying all mankind in Hell for eternity. Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, died as a substitute for sinful humanity: “In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent His only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:9-10)
There is much more, but in summary, we are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved (Acts 16:31). The reason is that God commands all people everywhere to repent because He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:30-31).
Unfortunately, most apologetic methods do not lead to these points. Most methods go to human reason as the final court of appeal. In the past, I have appealed to a person’s intellect, such as showing them fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, archaeological evidence, or reasons to believe in the resurrection of Christ.
These apologetic tools can be useful, but the problem is that the sinful human mind is a terrible judge of what is ultimately true. Our ultimate trust rests not in ourselves but on God and His Word. The faith that we defend in contained in the Scriptures, and the Scriptures themselves are the final court of appeal.
In future posts, I'll explain what I believe to be the Scriptural method for defending the God of the Scriptures.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
When Soldiers Come in the Night
"Apologetics" is a fancy word that means "defending the faith". I'm taking Apologetics 101 at Westminster, and God has been teaching me a lot. Over the years, my apologetics has been geared at reaching the mind- coming up with good, logical reasons why someone should consider the Christian faith. Some people might even consider me an expert in this, which is not a good thing. What I mean is that all Christians (not just seminary students, pastors, or other experts) are given the joy and responsibility of being ready to give an answer for the hope that we have.
"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15)
The challenge of course, is learning to speak the truth in love by sharing the truth of the gospel with gentleness and respect.
To fully appreciate this verse, our professor did an excellent job of giving us some background info. Peter is writing to a group of Christians who are suffering intense persecution. He reminds the persecuted believers that Heaven, and not earth, is their home. God has caused them to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Christ from the dead (1 Pet 1:3) and given an everlasting inheritance kept in heaven (1 Pet. 1:4). The joys of heaven will sustain them as they are "grieved by various trials" (1 Pet. 1:6). "For this is a gracious thing, when mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly" (1 Pet 2:19).
Church history tells us that Nero was the emperor at the time. He despised Christians and would have his soldiers burn them alive. Simply naming the name of Christ would bring the sentence of death.
When the soldiers would come, the temptation was for a Christian to think that those with the power over life and death (Caesar or his soldiers) were ultimately Lord. If a Christian would give up faith in Christ, he and his family would be spared. If not, they would die. That kind of power is not something we experience in the USA, but it would be fearful. Peter tells them:
"Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy...." (1 Pet 3:14).
Peter reminds them that neither Caesar nor his soldiers run the universe. Christ is still Lord. Christ ultimately has power over life and death. Christ ultimately will raise us from the dead. Unless we're fully convinced of these facts, we're not ready to give an answer for our hope.
How about today? We don't have Roman soldiers coming at night. Yet, how will you and I respond if cancer comes? Loss of a job? Loss of a family member? Loss of health? Are we fully convinced that Christ is Lord over all?
When the soldiers came in the night for Christians, they undoubtedly asked, "Why are you willing to die for your Christ? Give him up and live!"
At that moment, they were "to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15). Who is Christ and why would you die for him? What are you placing your hope in?
Christians have hope beyond this life. A few weeks ago, our professor shared about his mother, who was nearing death. He was calling credit card companies to close accounts. He could always tell who was a Christian on the other end of the phone and who wasn't. Christians could offer words of hope in this trial. Others could not. One who tried to come up with something simply stopped mid-sentence: "I hope...ummm I hope...." There was simply nothing she could offer to someone whose mother was about to die. What a tragedy to go through life without Christ!
The next few posts, I'll go into detail on
"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15)
The challenge of course, is learning to speak the truth in love by sharing the truth of the gospel with gentleness and respect.
To fully appreciate this verse, our professor did an excellent job of giving us some background info. Peter is writing to a group of Christians who are suffering intense persecution. He reminds the persecuted believers that Heaven, and not earth, is their home. God has caused them to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Christ from the dead (1 Pet 1:3) and given an everlasting inheritance kept in heaven (1 Pet. 1:4). The joys of heaven will sustain them as they are "grieved by various trials" (1 Pet. 1:6). "For this is a gracious thing, when mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly" (1 Pet 2:19).
Church history tells us that Nero was the emperor at the time. He despised Christians and would have his soldiers burn them alive. Simply naming the name of Christ would bring the sentence of death.
When the soldiers would come, the temptation was for a Christian to think that those with the power over life and death (Caesar or his soldiers) were ultimately Lord. If a Christian would give up faith in Christ, he and his family would be spared. If not, they would die. That kind of power is not something we experience in the USA, but it would be fearful. Peter tells them:
"Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy...." (1 Pet 3:14).
Peter reminds them that neither Caesar nor his soldiers run the universe. Christ is still Lord. Christ ultimately has power over life and death. Christ ultimately will raise us from the dead. Unless we're fully convinced of these facts, we're not ready to give an answer for our hope.
How about today? We don't have Roman soldiers coming at night. Yet, how will you and I respond if cancer comes? Loss of a job? Loss of a family member? Loss of health? Are we fully convinced that Christ is Lord over all?
When the soldiers came in the night for Christians, they undoubtedly asked, "Why are you willing to die for your Christ? Give him up and live!"
At that moment, they were "to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15). Who is Christ and why would you die for him? What are you placing your hope in?
Christians have hope beyond this life. A few weeks ago, our professor shared about his mother, who was nearing death. He was calling credit card companies to close accounts. He could always tell who was a Christian on the other end of the phone and who wasn't. Christians could offer words of hope in this trial. Others could not. One who tried to come up with something simply stopped mid-sentence: "I hope...ummm I hope...." There was simply nothing she could offer to someone whose mother was about to die. What a tragedy to go through life without Christ!
The next few posts, I'll go into detail on
- What is the faith that we defend?
- What is the method for doing this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
