What is Relativism?

Relativism (rel-a-tiv-ism) is “a theory…that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them”

Refuting Relativism: Self-Refuting

For someone to say, “All truth is relative,” is the same as someone saying, “I am a liar.”  Why?  Both of these statements are self-contradictory.  In other words, if the statement implies its falsehood then that statement is self-refuting. 

For instance, if I say, “I am a liar,” this statement must be a lie, which means; “I am not a liar.” 

There are many examples of self-refuting statements, such as:

Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)

Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)

I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)

Nobody can know anything for sure (Do you know that for sure?) (From: Thinking Matters)

Getting back to the relativism.

If all truth is relative this statement would be absolutely true.  Consequently, if this statement is true, then not all things are relative and this statement is false.    

This means that people cannot discredit the truth claims of Christianity on their lives by falsely claiming, “All truth is relative,” for the obvious reason, not all truth is relative.

If you have used this position before to avoid the statement that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one can go to heaven accept through Him (John 14.6; Acts 4.12), which was historically validated in space and time with His resurrection from the dead (Acts 17.31; 1 Cor. 15.1-11), then I humbly ask for you to reconsider exploring the claims of Christianity.

Next

What is true for you is not true for me

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Jean-Paul Sartre – a Philosopher – said that the most important question facing humanity is this,

“Why is there something right now rather than nothing?”

Last time I considered this question, I did so from the cosmological argument – the answer from nature.  This time around I would like to consider the answer to this question from a different perspective, namely, the argument from morality.

The Argument from Morality

Have you ever been offended by anything someone said or done to you?  Would it be O.K. if someone lied to you, cheated you, smacked you, stole your belongings, or killed your dog?  Why have people throughout history and around the world always adhered to some sort of morality?  Is the world getting better or worse?  How do we know either way?  What makes something right or wrong, good or bad?

The argument from morality – how right or wrong something is – is as follows:

Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.

There is an objective moral law.

Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

In answering Sartre’s question, the reason that there is something now rather than nothing is because there is no other reason to explain the presence of morality and evil – the deprivation of what is good – other than the existence of an Ultimate Good Standard to compare and contrast it with.

From the Christian perspective, this Ultimate Good Standard is not an abstract force or entity.  This Ultimate Good Standard is the Personal God of the universe.  It is in relationship to Him that everything is measured and deemed right or wrong, good or bad.

This is clearly illustrated by the Psalmist David, who once said,

Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment (Psalms 51.4).

Regardless of the harm our actions may do to others, it is God, not man, our friends, our employers, or even the government that we will have to finally answer to (Gen. 39.9; 2 Sam. 12.13; Matt. 25.31-33; 2 Tim. 4.1; Rev. 20.11-15) (ESV Study Bible, Last Things, 2533).

How do we know what is right or wrong, good or evil?

How do we know what is right or wrong, good or evil?  In answering this question, the authors of the Westminster Shorter Catechism had the following to say:

Sin is disobeying or not conforming to God’s law in any way (Lev. 5.17; James 4.17; 1 John 3.4).

Consequently, anything that we believe (Ezek. 8.6, 13; Matt. 10.15; Luke 12.47-48; John 19.11; Rom. 12.1-2), do (James 2.10; Gal. 3.10), or even desire (Num. 15.30-31; Matt. 5.22, 28) that does not conform to God’s Law is morally wrong and evil in His sight.

So what’s the bid deal if I sin?

Those things deemed wrong and evil (i.e. sinful) by God will be judged by Him (Eccl. 12.14; Matt. 12.36; John 5.27; Acts 17.31; Rom. 1.18; 2.16)

Each and every person, Christian and non-Christian alike, will have the face Him and give an account for their actions.  In the words of the Apostle Paul,

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil (2 Cor. 5.10).

Irrespective of our religious or non-religious beliefs, every man, woman, and child will have to give an account to the One, True, and Living God as He has chosen to objectively reveal Himself in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

In the End

There are many non-Christians that are arguably morally superior to Christians.  Why does this apparent paradox exist?  Simple.

Christianity teaches that mankind has been created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1.27-28).  Being created in God’s likeness mankind was created with an internal moral compass (Rom. 2.12-24).  It is for this reason that Christianity teaches why some form of morality exists throughout the world.

This facet of teaching is best clarified by Tim Keller in his book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism:

Christians believe that all human beings are made in the image of God, capable of goodness and wisdom…Christianity also leads [us] to expect that many will live lives morally superior to [our] own.  Most people in our culture believe that, if there is a God, we can relate to him and go to heaven through leading a good life…Christianity teachers the very opposite…Jesus does not tell us how to live so we can merit salvation.  Rather, he comes to forgive and save us through his life and death in our place.  God’s grace does not come to people who morally outperform others, but to those who admit their failure to perform and who acknowledge their need for a Savior.  Christians, then, should expect to find nonbelievers who are much nicer, kinder, wiser, and better than they are.  Why?  Christian believers are not accepted by God because of their moral performance, wisdom, or virtue, but because of Christ’s work on their behalf (pgs. 18-19)

You see, God not only evaluates our actions – such as refraining from stealing, giving to charity, and treating people nice – He also considers our motives for doing these actions.

It has been said before that “the supreme motive required of everything we do is the love of God.”  Therefore, an action that proceeds from a sinful nature that is alienated from God and a desire to love Him is not deemed good by God in the ultimate sense (R.C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology, 120).

Now what?

Not only has mankind been created with value and worth in the eyes of God, mankind was also created to experience a personal relationship with Him.

After creation, the first people ever created by God – Adam and Eve – chose to rebel against God by going against His will (Gen. 3.1-7).

Since Adam was created as the representative of the entire human race, His rebellious, sinful act had wide and far reaching affects.  His rebellion not only infused him with guilt before God, but his sin and guilt has now permeated the entire human race.  For it is written, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom. 5.12, 18).

Now that Adam’s sin has been imputed – infused into our lives – everyone of us is born alienated (Eph. 2.12; 4.18; Col. 1.21) and guilty before God (Rom. 3.23)

As we just discovered above, our broken relationship and guilt with God is not and cannot be restored and removed by our good deeds (Eph. 2.8-10).  It is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we are redeemed, made right with God, and forgiven of our sins (John 3.16; 14.6;  Titus 2.11-14)

If there was one response that I desired for every non-Christian to come away with, is this,

Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead in the past, so that you may saved.

Let me know if you just made such a decision.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Jean-Paul Sartre – a Philosopher – said that the most important question facing humanity is this, “Why is there something right now rather than nothing?” 

This is a great question and one that begs to be answered.  Throughout history many suggestions have been made.  What will follow over the ensuring weeks will not be an extensive treatise to this question, but rather a concise response.

For starters, let’s consider the answer from nature.   

The Answer from Nature

From the creation of a thought, the birth of children, the growth of vegetation, the development of natural resources into tangible products, and to the existence of the universe itself, all things have a beginning. 

The answer from nature, known otherwise as the cosmological argument, goes as follow:

The universe had a beginning.

Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.

Therefore the universe was caused by something else

So, in answering Sartre’s question, the reason that there is something now rather than nothing is because we and the entire world have been created by something else. 

From the Christian perspective, this something else is not a thing at all.  This something is a Personal God that we’re capable of personally relating with.  This Personal God has personally revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. 

Who is Jesus Christ? 

Jesus is not a storybook figure or a mythical concoction.  Jesus is a man that historically and verifiably lived.  In validating His claims that He was God, He did so by the things He taught and the miracles He did, especially raising Himself from the dead. 

The life of Jesus is best captured in the Bible.  The Bible claims to be the very “vox Dei” (Voice of God).  Although the Bible was written by men, it can be regarded as the True voice of God for a litany of reasons.  So that I can conserve words and space, I refer you to this post for an elaboration of these reasons. 

Final Thoughts

What are the pros and cons to the argument from nature?  Are there strengths?  Weaknesses?  I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

 Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

From Modern Reformation:  “Does God believe in Atheists?” pgs. 22-28

Cwirla-The problem of suffering (theodicy) is really a matter of the clay critiquing the work of the potter. The question lays a moral problem at God’s feet and then questions the existence of God. “Evil” implies “good” and our ability to discern the difference. Without an external objective standard of good and evil, we would have no ability to speak of evil in the world. Therefore, to call the existence of God into question on account of the presence of evil in the world presupposes a higher standard of the good against which to judge what is and isn’t evil.

The question presupposes that God should run the universe according to our set of rules. If we were God, we wouldn’t permit the presence of evil in the world. This is an anthropocentric view of the universe, as though everything that causes us suffering is necessarily evil.

The question fails to take into account the presence of sin and its cosmic effects. The fall of Adam not only plunged humanity into sin, it also disrupted the inherent harmony of the created order (Rom. 8:18-25). Pain and suffering exists because the inherent harmony of creation has been messed up by sin. Even when human beings don’t have a direct hand in the cause of suffering, say an earthquake or a hurricane, it is nevertheless due to the disruption of creation’s order by sin.

So what is God to do? One thing he doesn’t do, at least on a regular basis, is intervene. He doesn’t block bullets from finding their targets; he doesn’t turn hurricanes away from cities; he doesn’t necessarily keep a meteor from plummeting through the roof of your house. Instead, he restores order to the cosmos by reconciling all things to himself in the death of his Son Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-19) and bringing all things together under a new Head of creation (Eph. 1:10). In Christ, the God who suffers, “evil” and pain are ultimately employed for good, trumped by the all-reconciling death of Jesus.

We run into trouble with the question of evil and suffering when we attempt to address it apart from the cross of Jesus Christ. Then the discussion becomes a philosophical abstraction, pitting God’s mercy and love against his omniscience and power. The cross of Jesus silences these speculations. Here the Innocent One suffers on behalf of guilty humanity; here God himself bears the ultimate injustice and evil in his own crucifixion which he makes the reconciliation of all things. Jesus Christ, the second Adam and the new Head of creation, sets the disordered universe back into order by his own dying and rising, gathering all things into his death (John 12:32).

In Christ, there is no problem of evil and suffering, for “in all things God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28). The existence of God is not negated by the presence of evil. Rather, the presence of evil demonstrates the cosmic reality of sin, ultimately reconciled once and for all in the death of Jesus Christ.

Brown-First, we must understand that God did not create the world evil. The Bible reveals to us that God made all things good. He created humans in true righteousness and holiness. He crowned them with glory and honor and gave them dominion over the works of his hands. Violence, sorrow, and death were not part of man’s original experience; he only knew the blessing of life in God’s good earth. It was not until Adam sinned against God and broke the covenant into which he was placed that the horror of evil, pain, and death came to be a regular part of existence in this world. As a result of the fall, God could have judged the world immediately and plunged all of mankind into the eternal punishment we rightly deserve. It is only because of his great grace that he chose to redeem a people out of this fallen and dark world. That is why this age of suffering continues: God is gathering in his elect until the Last Day. We have the confidence that God is in fact doing this because he sent Christ his Son “who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age” (Gal. 1:4a).

Second, we must understand that while this present evil age continues, God oversees all things by his providence, that is, his constant interaction and intervention with the world he has made. He not only preserves his creatures, but is directing everything to its appointed end, “work[ing] all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11b). He even uses the evil acts of men for his own purpose and glory. Yet, he does so while remaining free from and the just judge of evil. It is this understanding of providence that led Joseph to declare to his brothers who sinned against him: “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20a). What this shows us is that God is both good and sovereign. We are comforted to know that he is always in control and that, as the Heidelberg Catechism puts it, “whatever evil he sends upon me in this vale of tears he will turn to my good; for he is able to do, being Almighty God, and willing also, being a faithful Father” (Q. 26).

Finally, we must understand that the story is not over. Just as this world was once free from evil and pain in the beginning, so shall it be again when the King returns. Paradise lost will be paradise restored, only infinitely greater. This universe will be resurrected to fit the glory of the age to come-an age in which God has promised to dwell with his people and forever keep them from pain, suffering, and evil. As we read in the final chapters of the Bible: “He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (Rev. 21:3b-4).

Stellman-One philosopher claimed that there are many arguments against God’s existence, but this is the only good one! There are a couple ways to approach this question. But before I start apologizing on God’s behalf and defending his actions, we must remember who it is we’re talking about here: the all wise, all powerful, good, and loving God.

We need to be reminded of this because our sinful temptation is to think that God has gotten himself stuck in a corner and we need to reason him out of it. But this is the height of arrogance. “Let God be true,” Paul insisted, “and every man a liar.” God doesn’t need us to get him off the hook! This is crucial to remember: There’s no hook on which God can get stuck from which we must rescue him. If there is a hook, it is we who are stuck on it, not God.

C. S. Lewis used to object to God’s existence for this same reason (all the evil in the world). But then he realized something that many today have never wrestled with: How do I know things are evil or bad? His conclusion was that, in order to be able to recognize evil, he must have some standard of “good” against which he measures everything else. To use his illustration, one cannot recognize a crooked line unless he first has some concept of a straight one. But if there is no God, the very objection to evil loses its force, for if the universe is nothing but the result of random chance, then evil could never be recognized as such.

So that leaves us with the uncomfortable conclusion that there is a God, and this God allows (and in some way ordains) that evil things occur. What do we do with this? I think it is at this point that eschatology becomes very practical. The story into which we have been written is not just a tale about a Shepherd whose sheep got lost and remained that way. Rather, the Christian story is about a God who went to such great lengths to redeem his fallen ones that he sent his own Son to live, die, and rise again for them. Though we are still living in a period of delay, the promise remains that this same Lord Jesus will descend from heaven and put all things right. To Adam it seemed as if Paradise was lost. To us, Paradise feels postponed (though we presently experience it in part). But from God’s perspective and according to his testimony, Paradise has been regained, and the day will come when a new heaven and new earth will descend, and the former things-such as evil and pain-will be remembered no more.

So my point is this: the problem of evil cannot be abstracted from the rest of the story God is telling and considered on its own. All good drama needs a point of crisis, for without this the ending doesn’t appear nearly as glorious.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

From Modern Reformation: “Does God believe in Atheists?” Pages 22-28

We know things in a variety of ways. We know things empirically, the way we know a scientific fact. For instance, we know that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen because we can analyze water and literally take it apart. Since God can’t be measured or tested scientifically, we can’t know of God’s existence that way.

I’ve never been terribly impressed by the various “proofs” for the existence of God. All of them seem to lead to so much logical or philosophical arm wrestling, the God of logical necessities. I think these arguments are much more meaningful to believers than they are to skeptics.

We also know things inductively and retroductively, the way we know facts of history or the way a jury is convinced of a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt” by the evidence. The Apostle Paul writes that the pagans, who do not have the revealed Word, can still know something about God. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:19-20). The Divine Suspect left his fingerprints.

Here, science has unwittingly done a decent job dusting for divine fingerprints. The finely-tuned order of the universe in a delicate balance of universal physical constants, the apparent rarity of Earth as a life-sustaining planet, the wonderful complexity of biological systems, and the intricacies of the genetic code all make a strong case for the existence of God. Like any circumstantial evidence case, there are always alternative explanations, so one can never be absolutely certain in knowing God this way, only reasonably certain.

This sort of natural knowledge of God is also quite limited. We can know of his eternal power and deity, namely that God transcends time and space and that he is omnipotent and omniscient and whatever other “omni” you can think of, but we can’t know anything about his character or person. That must ultimately be revealed to us.

To know Jesus Christ is to know God. He is the fullness of the Deity dwelling among us bodily. This kind of knowing is different from knowing facts about God or studying God the way one studies biology or chemistry. This is knowing in the biblical use of that word, as in entering into a relationship with someone. “This is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3).

The Incarnation is the grand revelation of God who’s been at work in, with, and under the created order from the beginning. He shows his face in the face of the Son of the Virgin, the Man of the Cross. If you want to know God, you need to learn from Jesus, the Son of God, the Word made flesh. You can be as certain of the existence of God as you are certain of the existence of the historic figure named Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God, and offered a variety of signs, culminating in his own predicted death and resurrection.

Brown-We know that God exists because he has revealed himself to us. He has done this in two ways: through creation (which we call his general revelation) and Scripture (which we call his special revelation). Many people try to avoid the latter, but no one can escape the former. General revelation is something that all people experience. It is, as Article 2 of The Belgic Confession puts it, “before our eyes as a most beautiful book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many letters leading us to perceive clearly the invisible things of God.” Like a book that tells a story, nature communicates a message-one that is understood by all people irrespective of their location, language, or education. This is precisely what David says in Psalm 19: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Ps. 19:1-4a).

Every day, nature reveals to the world the existence of its Creator. The rising of the sun and the shining of the stars say unequivocally to mankind: You are a creature living in the Creator’s universe. This, as Paul says in Romans 1:19-20, leaves people without excuse: “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.”

Man cannot accuse God of not revealing himself. No one will ever be able to say, You didn’t give me enough evidence, God; I didn’t know that you existed! The fact is that every person knows God exists. Every human being knows something about God’s eternal power and deity by what is clearly perceived in nature. Moreover, as Paul points out in Romans 2:14-15, God has planted in the soul of every human being a basic awareness of God and his law. Calvin called this the sensus divinitatis-an elementary, intuitive perception of God’s existence.

Consequently, before a Christian even opens her mouth to give an argument for the existence of God, the unbeliever already knows that God exists. The unbeliever’s problem is not that he doesn’t know this, but that he hates and suppresses what he already knows to be true. This, according to Paul, is the indictment that God gives to the entire human race when he says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (Rom. 1:18). Thus, “How can I know God exists?” is the wrong question. The question that the unbeliever needs to ask is, “How can I be saved from the wrath of God?”

Stellman-This is such a profound question, but what makes it especially interesting is the fact that the Bible (which is the primary source of our knowledge about God) never actually argues for his existence. Instead,it presupposes it with the opening words of its first book, Genesis: “In the beginning, God… ” To those who doubt his existence, Psalm 14 just responds, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

But when you think about it, it shouldn’t be that surprising that the existence of God is considered to be as central and basic as the Bible implies. After all, we all hold beliefs for which we have no proof and for which we never think to argue (such as the belief that truthfulness is better than lying, or that it is wrong to torture children for fun). Now I’m not saying that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated, it certainly can, but our belief in him is only strengthened by such evidence, it is not founded on it.

Though Scripture, as I said, doesn’t furnish us with arguments for God’s existence, it does appeal to his handiwork as a demonstration of his power and wisdom. Speaking of pagan idolaters, Paul insisted that they “knew God” and had witnessed “his eternal power and divine nature” by observing the wonders of creation. Yet because of the darkness of their hearts men refuse to glorify him, and choose rather to serve creatures instead of the Creator. Man’s “atheism,” therefore, is a farce. His “intellectual doubt” is often a moral refusal to admit what his eyes and heart plainly testify-that there is a God to whom he is accountable.

When you look at it this way, I guess you could turn the issue on its head and argue that God doesn’t believe in atheists.

Troxel-Many people in the West respond to the reality of religious pluralism by affirming that all religions are really the same. But one problem with such a viewpoint is that it seeks to domesticate religions by stripping them of all that is unique about them. Certain beliefs must be sacrificed in order to amalgamate religions into parallel or analogous ways to God. The distinctive elements of the various religions are pured into one flavor-and by an “outsider”-who is an expert and, of course, has our best interest in mind. As Steve Turner puts it tongue-in-cheek, “We believe that religions are basically the same. …They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.”

The religion that is least conducive to such reductionism is Christianity, because the person who is least tamable is Christ. You cannot begin to treat Christ as merely a prophet or wise teacher (like Moses, Mohammed, Confucius, or Buddha). Yet in order to assert that the Christian faith is just another brand or label of one all-purpose universal religion, you must essentially gut the Christian faith of all its content, much in the same way that a modern taxidermist removes all of a fish so that hardly anything remains when it is mounted on the wall.

For example, in order to make his point, John Hicks argued in God Has Many Names that Jesus never designated himself as Messiah, never thought of himself as divine, and that the incarnation is a mythical idea applied to Jesus. Jesus gets reduced to being our “saving point of contact” with God. This is a huge distortion of Jesus’ declaration to be “the way, the truth and the life” and that people should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Emphasizing this truth, and the truth of his substitutionary death, resurrection from the dead, and future return is not a static or freeze-dried view of truth. It is the truth that set us free.

In his answer, Dr. Troxel has quoted from Steve Turner, Up To Date (Lion, 1982), p. 138. Dr. Troxel’s citation of John Hicks is taken from John Hick’s God Has Many Names (Westminster, 1982), pp. 73-75.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

Roger, thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to dialogue with me via e-mail. Before getting starting, could you please share a little about yourself and what encouraged you to begin blogging? 

I’m an on-off student at Talbot School of Theology, currently working at a coin shop. I began blogging just over five years ago as a platform to voice my opinions and work out my ideas. I discovered that I think and learn best through writing, so blogging was a natural fit for me. Blogging has opened a number of doors for me, including editing The New Media Frontier for Crossway and God and Governing for Wipf & Stock.

In your personal contributions in The New Media Frontier, you provided some examples of new media evangelism in action (pgs. 157-159).  For those that are interested in beginning their own evangelistic/apologetic blog, what advice would you offer them in getting started? 

Whenever folks ask for advice in new media, regardless of their topic, I start with character. The Internet can easily be a hostile environment where tempers can flare and people attack from behind virtual anonymity. If we’re going to represent Christ in this medium, we must pay careful attention to our attitudes, presentation style, and how we go about criticizing others.

Especially in apologetics, it’s important to know what you’re talking about. With the Internet at our finger tips we have endless resources available to us so we can get our facts straight and back up our arguments with evidence.

Finally, you want your approach to be invitational. By that I mean that you should ask questions of your readers. Make them feel comfortable about joining in the conversation and make it easy for them to do so. People feel respected when you ask for their input, and this is a good way to open doors for sharing the gospel.

Apart from your own blog, are there others you’re willing to recommend as good examples in evangelistic blogging? 

One of the better apologetics blogs out there is Stand to Reason’s blog (http://str.typepad.com/).

On page 159 you said, “Most churches today have static web sites that provide information about the church’s ministries.  The next step is to make the web sites dynamic and interactive through blogs and message boards that foster and encourage more relationships through community.”  Since the publication of this book, are you aware of any churches that have heeded this call and created a more interactive online presence?  Moreover, what have you found to be the biggest obstacle for churches beginning such an endeavor? 

Thankfully, there are churches taking the plunge into online community. One of the primary reasons is that the number of options is growing. My church recently launched an online network through Church Community Builder (http://www.churchcommunitybuilder.com/). Another excellent one is Cobblestone Community Network (http://www.cobblestonecn.com/). These platforms are utilizing the latest new media tools for the benefit of the church by strengthening and expanding their current ministries. While there is still room to grow, especially in using these tools for more evangelistic purposes, much progress has been made.

The biggest obstacle is likely ignorance. Many churches aren’t aware of the opportunities available to them through these platforms, and some of those that are don’t fully understand the benefits.

In beginning an evangelistic blog, have you found certain designs to be better suited than others?  Are there certain features that are non-negotiable in developing an evangelistic blog? 

The most non-negotiable feature is comments. I’ve seen a few attempts at blogging without comments and, frankly, I’m not sure that even qualifies as blogging. If you really want to make a difference in people’s lives, you need to build relationships with them. Obviously online relationships are necessarily limited, but conversations are also obviously better than no personal interaction whatsoever.
I’m not sure if this falls under “design” per se, but I believe group blogs make the best apologetics blogs. None of us can cover every topic well. We either know a little about a lot of things, or a lot about very few things. It’s very helpful to round out an apologetics blog with writers who have different areas of knowledge and strengths.

What have you found to be successful, and not so successful, in writing evangelistic posts?  Have you found that a particular style of writing is better received than others?   What advice would you give a person in writing an evangelist post?

Posts that think through topics will be better received than posts that simply going about condemning opposing views left and right. It’s easy to write a post citing the very reasons why it’s likely the case that Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of Mormonism, lied about very important events. Such a post will tick of readers who disagree (if they bother reading it) and not likely lead to any fruitful conversations. A better post is one that takes an inconsistency and raises a question- it may even look to possible responses to the question. Given the various conflicting accounts of Smith’s “First Vision,” which one should we believe? Do we have good reason to trust that the canonized version is the most faithful to what actually occurred? This process will invite readers (as I suggested earlier) to think through the issue with you and voice their own opinions.

How can a beginning blogger – like myself – go about connecting with a self-identified non-Christian audience? 

The easiest way is SEO- Search Engine Optimization. Make sure your blog is plugged in to Google Analytics and that you utilize your blogs category, keyword, or tagging options. If you have any readership, SEO will drive at least some traffic to your site with little effort.
 
The more effective way is to go out and make your blog known on self-identified non-Christian sites. Find atheist, Mormon, or pagan blogs and begin to interact with them there. If you do so thoughtfully (and of course linking back to your own material), their readers and writers will want to see what you’re all about. You can write posts in response to their posts and trackback. Don’t beg for visitors, but make what you write interesting enough that readers will want to read more.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post:

From the USA Today’s Columinsts’ Opinion: Tom Krattenmaker on, “And I’d Like to Thank God Almighty”

While reading the column below, Mike Robinson - Apologist and Author - encourages us to observe the following three points: 

1. He presupposes that Christ is not the only way to God as he chastises Christian athletes for affirming and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is the only means to come to the Father and find full forgiveness (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 5:1).

2.  He assumes a priori that all religions provide the means required to lead one to heaven and that this opinion is the truth.

3. He doesn’t biblically or logically demonstrate the validity of his religious pre-commitments. He assumes them. Nevertheless, if he’s incorrect (and yes the Bible declares that he’s wrong) the goal of leading people to Christ to avoid hell is more important than not hurting the feelings of the non-Christians.  Only Christ dies on the cross to furnished an infinite atonement to give His people complete expiation, forgiveness, pardon, justification, and eternal life in heaven. No other religion offers such.

And I’d Like to Thank God Almighty

October is the sports fan’s Promised Land.

America’s pastime (baseball) enters its sprint toward the World Series, and the sport that is America’s pastime in more than just name (football) has fans transfixed from coast to coast.

Anyone who watches pro and college football or follows the drama of the baseball playoffs can’t help but notice something else that often competes for our attention amid the passes, pitches and home runs: religion.

Players point skyward to the Almighty after reaching the end zone or home plate, star athletes voice thanks and praise to their savior after a big win, and sports heroes use their media spotlight to promote the Christian message. (See University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his eye-black, touting Scripture.)These are the outward signs of a faith surge that has made big-time sports one of the most outwardly religious sectors of American culture.

Far less visible, but worth knowing about, are the infrastructure and strategy of the sports-world evangelicalism that powers these pious displays. Athletes’ expressions of Christian faith reflect decades of hard work by evangelical ministries to convert players and “coach” them to use their stature to promote a particular version of conservative Christianity.

Christian chaplains are embedded with all the teams in professional baseball, basketball and football — and many college teams as well — to provide religious counseling, Bible studies and chapel services. Given the misbehavior and self-seeking that plague sports, who could doubt the benefit of bringing moral guidance and a broader perspective to locker rooms and clubhouses?

The good with the bad

But Jesus’ representatives in sports aren’t just practicing faith. They are also leveraging sports’ popularity to promote a message and doctrine that are out of sync with the diverse communities that support franchises, and with the unifying civic role that we expect of our teams. Typifying the exclusive creed taught by many sports-world Christians is the belief statement published by Baseball Chapel, which provides chaplains for all major- and minor-league baseball teams. Non-believers in Jesus, the ministry declares, can look forward to “everlasting punishment separated from God.”

Urban Meyer, Tebow’s coach at Florida, has praised his quarterback’s faith-promoting ways as “good for college football … good for young people … good for everything.” Such is the rhetoric usually heard from those who defend sports-world Christianity as wholesome and harmless.

But should we be pleased that the civic resource known as “our team” — a resource supported by the diverse whole through our ticket-buying, game-watching and tax-paying — is being leveraged by a one-truth evangelical campaign that has little appreciation for the beliefs of the rest of us?

Having researched and thought about Christianity in sports for the better part of a decade, I am impressed by the good that’s done by sports-world Christians. Jesus-professing athletes are among the best citizens in their sector, and they commit good deeds daily in communities across this country.

These sports stars, like all Americans, have a right to express their faith.

Evangelical players and ministry representatives in sports aren’t out to harm anyone, of course. On the contrary, they see themselves as fulfilling the Bible’s Great Commission (”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” Matthew 28:19). In this sense, their mission is pure altruism: They seek to share the gift of eternal life.

But there’s a shadow side to this. If their take on God and truth and life is the only right one — which their creed boldly states — everyone else is wrong.

Not a mere abstraction, this exclusiveness sometimes morphs into a form of chauvinism and mistreatment of non-Christians. Witness the incident with the Washington Nationals baseball team in 2005, when the Christian chaplain was exposed as teaching that Jews go to hell. Then there was the New Mexico state football team, which was the target of a religious discrimination lawsuit in 2006 after two Muslim players reported being labeled “troublemakers” and were kicked off the team by their devoutly Christian coach. The case was settled out of court and the students transferred.

It’s not just non-Christians who might have a thing or two to say about this exclusive theology. According to a December 2008 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, 65% of American Christians believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. Our pluralism is a defining and positive reality of American life — but not one that is much valued by those who define the faith coursing through the veins of sports culture.

One size doesn’t fit all

As anyone who has seen Tebow on television would know, broadcasters cannot find enough superlatives to describe him. What’s not to admire? He plays with a rugged, infectious enthusiasm. He’s a born leader. He’s a Heisman Trophy winner and a two-time national champion. He spends his off time speaking at prisons and doing missionary work in Asia. It’s good to see he has mended from his concussion and returned to action.

But there’s more to his story. Tebow does his missionary trips to the Philippines under the auspices of his father’s Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association. The Tebow organization espouses a far-right theology. Its bottom line: Only those who assent to its version of Christianity will avoid eternal punishment. The ministry boldly declares, “We reject the modern ecumenical movement.”

The Tebow organization’s literature estimates that 75% of the Philippines’ inhabitants “have never once heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This in a country where more than 80% of the citizens identify themselves as Roman Catholic.

In making and acting on rigid claims about who is or isn’t in good standing with God, the Bob Tebow organization is working at cross purposes with the majority of Americans — indeed, the majority of American Christians — and their more generous conception of salvation.

Certainly, Tim Tebow must be applauded for the good he does working on his father’s missions, but he should be seen, too, as one who promotes a form of belief that makes unwelcome judgments about everyone else’s religion. Let’s not forget the twinge that is felt by sports-loving Jewish kids and parents, for example, or by champions for interfaith cooperation, when adored sports figures like Tebow use their fame to push a Jesus-or-else message.

Is sports-world evangelicalism really “good for everything”? Certainly a lot, but not everything. Not if you’re Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, non-evangelical Protestant, agnostic or anything else outside the conservative evangelical camp.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post

First off Steve, I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to conduct this interview with me. Before starting, why don’t you share a little about yourself and how you came into blogging at Triablogue.

I’m a native of the Greater Seattle area. I’m a Calvinist. I became a Christian at the age of 16.

A graduate of Westminster in California, whom I knew back when I was John Frame’s TA there, encouraged me to become a blogger.

For those unfamiliar with the blog, could you briefly share its purpose and what your particular role is within it, and how you and team go about fulfilling its purpose.

Because blogging is an interactive medium, the agenda is, to some extent, set by what’s out there. By what we need to respond to. Various challenges to the faith.  As a practical matter, there’s a heavy emphasis on apologetics at Tblog. Defending Christianity in general and Calvinism in particular.

Different team members have different interests and priorities. Most of my blogging is consumed by apologetics, not because that’s how I like to spend my time, but because there’s a need for it.

In my spare time I also write Christian fiction.

Beyond apologetics, I also do some blogging on practical theology–as well as other odds and ends.

When you said, “Because blogging is an interactive medium, the agenda is, to some extent, set by what’s out there.”  What in particular do you and the team members at Tblog look to respond to?

Well, it’s inevitably selective, but it tends to cluster around certain issues like the inerrancy of Scripture, the canon of Scripture, atheism, Darwinism, hell, sola scriptura, the doctrine of God, comparative religion, miracles, the culture wars, the doctrines of grace, the problem of evil, the Resurrection, metaethics, bioethics, sexual ethics, philosophy of science, and counterterrorism.

Are there particular blogs and/or attacks against Christianity that take more precedence than others?
 
i) Blogs which are hostile to Christianity or Calvinism tend to be repetitious. So I deal with their stock objections to the faith, then move on to another blog–if it has something different to say.
 
ii) I tend to ignore what I consider to be lesser issues like one’s view of the millennium.
 
iii) Some other issues, like justification by faith, are quite important in their own right, but I don’t focus on them for a couple of reasons:
 
a) The issue is rather specialized, and there’s already a lot of good literature on the subject. Some issues demand a book-length treatment. Blogging is not the best medium for that level of analysis.
 
b) It’s often bound up with one’s underlying view of authority. Does doctrine come from divine revelation (i.e. the Bible alone), or from the church? It’s more efficient to deal with the underlying issue.

Have you observed particular trends taking place that are of importance to address from an apologetic standpoint?
 
Not really. There are passing fads, like the “new atheism,” but we’re generally dealing with variants of perennial issues.  

Before delving more into the apologetic realm, I found it interesting that you look to defend Calvinism in particular.  What is it about Calvinism that you look to defend and why do you see this as an important issue?
 
At a general level, truth is synonymous with reality. It’s important, both for this life, and for the next, to adapt our beliefs and actions to reality, for reality isn’t going to adapt itself to our misguided beliefs and actions. We don’t define reality: reality defines us. When your beliefs and actions lose touch with reality, you can harm yourself and others. And the harm can either be for time or for eternity.
 
At a specific level, Calvinism is a theology of hope and thanksgiving. We believe that God has a plan for the world. That everything happens according to his plan. Even the evils w e see and experience in this world are there as a means to a greater good. For a Calvinist, the whole world is God’s world. Light and shade.
 
On the one hand, Calvinism is a theology of hope, for we seek, and expect to find, in this life or the next, the evident or hidden good in whatever God has purposed. That’s the forward facet of Calvinism.
 
On the other hand, Calvinism is also a theology of thanksgiving, as we look back over our lives and begin to see and appreciate the wisdom and goodness of God’s providence in the emerging pattern of events. That8 0s the backward facet of Calvinism. They represent two different perspectives on our position in time–past and future.
 
If you can’t trust God with your life, then what can you trust him with? If God is too untrustworthy to compose every day of your life, then why worship and obey him? Why go through the motions? If you can’t trust God with your life, then he’s hardly worthy of your worship or obedience.
 
For a Calvinist, every experience that God sends our way is a way to experience the goodness of God. A way to discover the wisdom of God. The greatness=2 0of God. We need to learn how to find the value each experience that God has given us. For what makes our own life good and meaningful comes from sharing in his goodness.
 
Incidentally, you don’t have to be a Calvinist to blog at Tblog. I’m simply describing my own point of view. 

Now, getting back to apologetics.  What role do you see blogs playing in the field of apologetics?
 
In our day and age, people increasingly get their information from the Internet. It would be good if they read more books, but they don’t, so you have to adapt to the culture, fill the void, and take advantage of that cyberspatial orientation.   
 

What would you consider to be the perceived benefits?
 
i) On the one hand, you have seekers who are open to the Christian faith, but suffer from intellectual impediments of various sorts. They have an inaccurate grasp of Christian theology. Or they are impressed by plausible, but specious objections to the Christian faith. Apologetics can help to clear away those intellectual roadblocks.
 
ii) On the other hand, you have Christians who may suffer from intellectual doubts. Apologetics can help to answer their questions. Give them the reasons they need to achieve a confident faith.
 
Of course, the better part of wisdom lies in knowing which questions you can live without answering, and which questions you can’t.  Striking the right balance between faith and sight. 

Are there any drawbacks or shortfalls to apologetic blogging that people should keep in mind?
 
In the nature of the case, apologetics is a polemical, combative discipline. It’s also a fairly intellectual endeavor, which appeals to Christian intellectuals. As such, it can tempt an apologist to commit the sin of intellectual pride. There’s a danger of substituting justification by truth for justification by faith. John Newton once said:
 
“Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace…We find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which are at most but of a secondary value.”
 
I don’t quite agree with him about “matters of secondary value.” I think that Christian apologetics deals with matters of primary importance. At least it ought to. But the rest of what he said does draw attention to the spiritual hazards of a polemical orientation.
 
You need to have a life outside of apologetics. Your personal fulfillment must come from other sources and resources. 
 

Personally, I see that the local church – and not just individuals – has been called to go and make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28.18-20).  With this in mind, how could local churches that are not currently leveraging blogs as a facet of ministry could benefit from having such an interactive presence on the web?
 
They can use their church website as an information clearing house by having a blogroll with links to various apologetic ministries.    

What have you found to be successful, and not so successful, in writing apologetic posts?  Have you found that a particular style of writing is better received than others?   What advice would you give a person in writing apologetic posts?
 
i) Blogging is not like speaking before a live audience, where you can gauge the reaction of the audience. I know from the site meter that most of our audience consists of lurkers who rarely comment on a post. But if it gets a lot of traffic, like we do, then it’s clearly reaching many people, who presumably benefit from what we post–otherwise they wouldn’t tune in on a regular basis.  
 
ii) Your style depends, in part, on your personality and literary ability. It’s good to be memorable. To use catchy phrases and striking illustrations.
 
iii) Then there’s the question of how to de al with hostile opponents. I think it’s a mistake to spend a lot of time defending yourself against personal aspersions. You shouldn’t make yourself the center of attention.
 
iii) In general, it might be best to write in a detached, dispassionate, business-like style. That lessens the potential for hurt feelings.
 
On the other hand, many folks don’t hold to false beliefs merely through ignorance of the truth. There’s often a willful, defiant quality to their beliefs. In that case I think it’s appropriate to point out that their belief is irrational or even sinful.
 
People don’t like being told that, but there is a moral dimension to what we believe. We are answerable to God for what we believe about him, and how we live accordingly. What we believe about him should align with what he’s told us about himself. 
 

How do you and the team at Tblog go about connecting with a particular audience?  Do you’ll utilize any form of advertising or do you rely solely upon word-of-mouth or something in between?
 
By word-of-mouth. For better or worse, blogs tend to self-select for a like-minded audience.  
 

In your opinion, do you see any present opportunities in Christian apologetic blogging?
 
It’s a way of reaching the unreached. M aking the Christian faith readily available outside the four walls of the church.  
  

Finally, where do you see apologetic blogging in ten years?
 
There’s a lot of younger talent in the pipeline. Hopefully, apologetic blogging will improve as more professionals take advantage of this medium.  
 

Steve, thanks a lot for taking the time to answer these questions.  I have one last question, “Where can our readers find your work in Christian Fiction and Practical Theology?”   
 
Some of these posts have been labeled, if you click on the “fiction” or “practical theology” link. Unfortunately, not all such posts have been labeled.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.   

Consider sharing this post.

If there is One God, and not many, how do we know that He has and does communicate with us through the Bible?  What evidence is there that the Bible is more trustworthy than other religious writings, such as the Qu’ran or Book of Mormon? 

My Objective with this Post

My object with this post is to unfold that the Bible is a collection of historical documents written by many people in different countries with profound unity and that the fulfillment of prophecy, the confirmation of miracles, and its transformative affect in the lives of people point to the Bible’s divine origin. 

With this, I would like for us to consider — practical reasons and — Biblical reasons why I believe what the Bible says.     

Natural Reasons (Remember this when discussing this with someone else; that if they do not believe in God, in One God, and do not adhere to the Bible as authoritative, then you cannot use the Bible to reason with them why you believe something is true, especially about the Bible itself). 

Manuscript Evidence

The following table – which I believe comes from Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict – is a collection of multiple historical books, the time they were written, the earliest available manuscript, the time difference between the time written and the earliest manuscript, and how many copies are intact today

Author	Written	Earliest Copy	Time Span	Number of Copies
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	A.D. 900	1,000 Years	10
Tacitus	A.D. 100	A.D. 110	1,000 Years	20
Aristotle	384-322 B.C.	A.D. 110	1,400 Years	49
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 Years	643
New Testament	A.D. 50-100	A.D. 125	25 Years	24,000

As you can see, not only do the number of copies of the New Testament far exceed the others, so too does the time span of the earliest copies from the originals.   

In addition to the number of copies of New Testament transcripts exist, there are in existence writings from many ancient authors who quoted extensively from the Bible.   In fact, this collection of ancient sermons, letters, and other writings include so many New Testament citations that even if we were to lose every copy we have of the Bible – including all those ancient manuscripts – scholars could reconstruct the entire New Testament with the exception of eleven verses!   

In a general gist, for us to discredit the historicity of the Bible is to discredit the historocity of history itself.  For me, I learned that we do not have the ability to casually disregard the Bible as an old, antiquated book, for to do so would require us to disregard all other books written as the same.

What’s your thoughts?  I would love to hear how you would answer the following questions:

In view of the above table, what is your reaction to the number of New Testament manuscripts in comparison with the number of other works of ancient history? 

What do you think is the value of having all these citations from the New Testament in nonbiblical sources?

What is the collective effect for you of all this evidence for the reliability of the Bible?

Unity of the Bible

The Bible is not just one book – it is a collection of 66 individual books.  This is not significant in and of itself, but when we take into the consideration the unity present throughout the entirety of these individual books it is.  Here are some thoughts to consider about the Bible:

1. It was written over a period of fourteen hundred years
2. It was written over a span of forty generations
3. It was written by over forty authors from all walks of life (kings, peasants, philosophers, poets, fisherman, scholars, doctors, businessmen, etc…)
4. It was written on three continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe), in many different places (dungeons, palaces, while traveling, the wilderness, etc…)
5. It was written during a variety of moods (sorrow, joy, anger, excitement, tranquility)
6.  It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)

It is for this reason that Norman Geisler contends, “One supporting line of evidence for the Bible’s divine origin is its unity in great diversity.  Even though composed by many people of diverse backgrounds over many years, Scripture speaks from one mind” (Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, pg. 94). 

He goes on to say,  

[The] sixty-six books unfold one continuous drama of redemption, paradise lost to paradise regained, creation to the consummation of all things.  There is one central theme, the person of Jesus Christ, even by implication in the Old Testament (Luke 24.27).  In the Old Testament Christ is anticipated; in the New Testament he is realized (Matt. 5.17-18).  There is one message: Humankind’s problem is sin, and the solution is salvation through Christ (Mark 10.45; Luke 19.10) (pg. 94).

In light of the great diversity present in the life and times of each author, the unity of the Biblical text cannot be glazed over.  This unity serves as a validation to the Bible’s inspiration by the One True and Living God.  For there is no other explanation that can practically explain how such a unity can be present within such a great diversity. 

So, in light of the Bible’s great diversity, do you see that the unity of the Bible’s message is amazing?  Why or why not?  

Archaeological Confirmation

Even though archaeology cannot prove the divine origin of the Bible, it can confirm its reliability as a historic document.  Let’s consider just two different points from many:

There is a vast collection of non-Christian sources that confirm the reliability of the Bible as a historic document, especially the life of Jesus and the events following His death and resuurection (see Joshua McDowell for a complete source).  From these these non-Christian sources we learn that:

1. Jesus was from Nazareth,
2. He lived a wise and virtuous life
3. He was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Terius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish King
4. He was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later,
5. His enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called “sorcery”
6. His small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome
7. His disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as divine

Even though these documents are not primary sources, they do confirm the reliability of the New Testament message

Moreover, since 1974 seventeen thousand tablets have been unearthed from ancient Ebla (now northern Syria).  These writings corroborate the world of the patriarchs (around 2,000 B.C.).  In his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell states, “The victory of Abraham over Chedolamoer and the Mesopotamian kings has been described as fictitious and the five Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Adamah, Zeboiim, and Zoar) as legendary.  Yet the Ebla archives refer to all five Cities of the Plain and on one tablet the cities are listed in the exact same sequence as Genesis 14.  The milieu of the tablets reflect the culture of the patriarchal period and depict that, before the catastrophe recorded in Genesis 14, the area was a flourishing region experiencing prosperity and success, as recorded in Genesis.” 

In 1961 a tablet was found during a renovation of the amphitheater in Caesarea (on the Mediterranean Sea).  This tablet had the name Pontius Pilate inscribed on it.  Until that time, the name Pilate was found only in the New Testament and in a few other secular historical sources.  The find is just one more validation that the people and events of the bible are real (from Judson Poling, How Reliable is the Bible?)

The archaeological evidence for the Bible is best summed up by Nelson Glueck, who said“no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference.  Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, 31).

In light of these archaeological discoveries, what impact do they have on your trust in the Bible? 

Fulfilled Prophecies

Unlike any other book, the Bible offers specific predictions that were written hundreds of years in advance of their literal fulfillment.

Jesus’ birthplace in Bethlehem (Micah 5.2), his Galilean heritage (Isaiah 9.1-7), and the peculiar circumstances surrounding his burial (Isaiah 53.9) are among many of the prophecies that foretell his coming.  According to Peter Stoner in Science Speaks, the probabilities that any one person fulfilled merely eight of the numerous prophecies prediction the Messiah are 1 in 10 to the 17^th power (100,000,000,000,000,000). 

Other than supernatural involvement, what do you think could explain Jesus’ fulfillment of messianic prophecies?

Confirmed by miracles

The biblical description of miracles uses three main words: power, wonder, and sign.  These words designate the source (God’s power), the nature (wonderful, unusual), and the purpose (to signify something beyond itself).   A miracle is a sign to confirm a sermon; a wonder to verify the prophet’s words; a miracle to help establish a message (Geisler, 488; also see Hebrews 2.3-4). 

Does the historical validity of the Bible further validate the importance of the miraculous events that took place throughout it? 

Transforming Power

Finally, the divine origin of the Bible is confirmed by the transformative effects that it has in people’s lives

One of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting the authenticity of the Bible is the manner in which it impacts the lives of people (Voddie Baucham, Ever Loving Truth, pg. 147)

Change in our lives – as well as in the lives of others – is made possible not through our self-effort, manipulation, or physical force, but rather by God working through His Word.

Just a couple of examples: Romans 10.17 and 2 Thessalonians 2.13-14

Scriptural Reasons

With this preceding evidence in mind, I believe there is only one conclusion that can be made about the Bible - which is what the Bible claims for itself – that it possesses a divine origin and its claims to be the “vox Dei” (voice of God) or the “verbum Dei” ( Word of God) are authentic.  What does the Bible say about itself? 

First, we read that God is the ultimate source of Scripture.  In other words, He is the originator of all that is written (2 Samuel 23.2; Matthew 15.6; Romans 3.2; 2 Timothy 3.16-17; 1 Peter 1.23; and 2 Peter 1.20-21).  We see this best clarified in 2 Peter 1.20-21.

Second, God oversaw the writing of the Bible.  God the Holy Spirit guided the human authors so that their words would be nothing less than the word of God.  How this works, we do not know.   But inspiration DOES NOT mean that God dictated his messages to those who wrote the Bible.  Read 2 Peter 1.20-21 (God supernaturally oversaw the process by which each human wrote, using their own vocabulary and style to record his message)

Since this is the case, this is why the preceding evidence serves as proof that He did.   If One God inspired and oversaw the production of the Bible, what are some things you believe we should look for as proof that He did? 

Conclusion

The Bible is a collection of historical documents written by many people in different countries with profound unity.  The fulfillment of prophecy, the confirmation of miracles, and the Bible’s transformative affect on people point to the Bible’s divine origin.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.